UPDATE: Make sure you read the official statement from Stardock regarding newer events.
Re: November's blog post by Paul and Fred claiming Stardock's objection to their new game being promoted as a "true sequel" constitutes Stardock preventing them from doing a new game.
We are disappointed that Paul and Fred, two people we have a great deal of respect and admiration for, have chosen to imply that we are somehow preventing them from working on their new game.
Stardock has been nothing but supportive of their new project and wish them the best. I personally made the post here on StarControl.com in support of it.
With regards to their contentions:
First, as many people know, the classic Star Control games have been available for sale long before Stardock acquired the rights from Atari four years ago. For the entirety of the time we have held the rights, they have been getting paid for those sales. If they had an objection to the games being sold this is something that could and should have been addressed before we were ever involved.
Second, we have stated, repeatedly and consistently for over four years that we are not using any of the aliens from the classic series. As we have stated, our position is that, to the best of our knowledge, the classic alien IP is owned by them.
We have also discussed, at length, why it wasn't commercially viable for us to attempt to continue or retell the Ur-Quan story. 25 years is just too long of a gap. This is one of the reasons why we have been so excited about Paul and Fred's project. Their game frees us to introduce new characters and a new story into the new Star Control while allowing fans of the classic series a way to continue the classic story. This strikes us as a win-win situation.
Lastly, when we acquired Star Control from Atari in 2013, many assets were transferred to us including the various publishing agreements to the Star Control franchise. The short version is that the classic IP is messy. We understand that this makes them "really really angry" but we weren't a party to that agreement. All we can do is try to put something together that releases them from the restrictions placed on their IP that they agreed to and transfer any and all rights and responsibilities to them. We want them to make Ghosts but we don't want any liability or association with it.
Given the disturbing and unanticipated post by Paul and Fred, we are persuaded more than ever that a clear and irrefutable document that makes it clear that we are not associated or involved with their new game is needed.
We have nothing but respect and admiration for Paul and Fred and wish them well in their new project.
Update 12/4/2017:
Paul and Fred continue to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the DOS-based Star Control games. If they have any documentation to provide evidence to their assertions, we have yet to see them.
Stardock, by contrast, possesses a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licensing and sales agreement that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade that has Paul Reiche's signature along with a signed distribution agreement between Atari and GOG for the DOS Accolade Star Control games.
The tone of their blog posts is similar to the kind of correspondence they had with us since the announcement of their Ur-Quan Masters successor, vague, full of demands and without any documentation.
With all due respect to Paul and Fred, they really should talk to competent legal counsel instead of making blog posts.
Update 12/5/2017:
Dealing with the sales and distribution of 20+ year old DOS games is an unusual way to spend a Tuesday afternoon. Nevertheless...
Atari had transferred to Stardock a signed agreement between Atari's President and GOG that we assumed was the agreement. Paul and Fred claimed they were the ones who had set up the agreement and upon verification with GOG, we instructed them to terminate this agreement which they have which we appreciate.
The games are now correctly transferred to Stardock and we will continue to ensue that Fred and Paul receive royalty payments for the games per the publishing agreement. We apologize if anyone was inconvenienced.
Old IP can be messy to deal with. The best way to deal with that is to have the parties talk to each other (as opposed to making public Internet posts) and work something out. We remain committed to dealing with this situation with as much restraint and gentleness as possible.
Update 2/27/2018
Added link to https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred to address Paul and Fred's latest complaints.
At this stage, the parties are seeking to resolve their disagreements in court. Stardock wishes this could have been resolved otherwise.
For the record, if Paul and Fred had simply announced their game as a sequel to Ur-Quan Masters and requested Stardock to remove the DOS games from distribution, Stardock would have complied out of respect, even if we would have been unhappy that they chose now, after 25 years, to jump back in the middle of Stardock's efforts to bring Star Control back.
However, by promoting their new game as a "direct-sequel" to Star Control (and in other places as the "true" sequel) while using the Star Control box art (which is owned by Stardock) a great deal of consumer confusion has been created requiring Stardock to protect its IP rights.
Other links:
Not interested enough to read the entire thread, but I find it disgusting that this has devolved into a legal battle which potentially will be problematic for both the new games in development.
If I hadn't already founded, I would certainly waited before putting money down at this point.
In their new blog post they are drawing a strawman from the statement that Paul & Fred didn't create the classic games. I am saddened to see lawyers taking over to broadcast official statements for Stardock that totally discredit Paul & Fred.
I always thought Gal Civ came from Micropose Civilization. Just in space and with double production and custom units.
Problematic and costly most definitely. Considering this series was put in limbo for several years, I doubt demand is that high - especially with the younger generation who know nothing about StarControl.
So, potentially lackluster sales + a costly legal battle = not a good time for the series.
I just want to make sure I understand the situation.F&P own everything that was in Star Control 1&2, but not the name "Star Control". Any new game they make can include familiar things like the Spathi, the Ur-Quan, the Precursors, etc. But it cannot include the name "Star Control" on anything, or claim to be an official sequel to "Star Control." Is this correct?Stardock owns the name "Star Control". Any new game they make CANNOT include familiar things like the Spathi, the Ur-Quan, the Precursors, etc. But it will be advertised using the name "Star Control." Is this correct?And there is a publishing dispute over who can sell Star Control 1 & 2 because it uses the name "Star Control" (owned by Stardock), but has the art/story/design content of F&P? Is this correct?
They seem to being claiming to own everything within the game itself. But there’s no evidence to support that and plenty to the contrary. However, Stardock isn’t claiming to own those assets so it’s kind of irrelevant
Stardock can include the SC2 aliens but out of respect for Paul and fred chose not to.
the last part on sale and distribution looks correct to me except, again, Star Control is a trademark, not a trade name. There is a common misconception that trademarks only protect the name of a product.
As a massive Sins fan i feel sad seeing money being poured into pointless legal battles over StarControl, when it could be used to more productive endeavors...like developing next Sins game.
Cant shake the feeling that Sins became sort of red herring stepchild in StarDock´s portfolio - GalCiv gets constantly developed and updated, cause its historically the main title, now Ashes gets the pass, cause its a new thing, technological benchmark, spiritual successor to Total Annihilation and whatnot, everybody is apparently in love with StarControl, so much, that money needs to be lost on laywers over it..., and Sins? 10 years since original release, 6 years since Rebellion, one year since the 1.9 update...and we shall be content with "we´re listening".
As a massive Sins fan i feel sad seeing money being poured into pointless legal battles over StarControl, when it could be used to more productive endeavors...like developing next Sins game.Cant shake the feeling that Sins became sort of red herring stepchild in StarDock´s portfolio - GalCiv gets constantly developed and updated, cause its historically the main title, now Ashes gets the pass, cause its a new thing, technological benchmark, spiritual successor to Total Annihilation and whatnot, everybody is apparently in love with StarControl, so much, that money needs to be lost on laywers over it..., and Sins? 10 years since original release, 6 years since Rebellion, one year since the 1.9 update...and we shall be content with "we´re listening".
We love Sins of a Solar Empire. It's just taken time to get the gang back together. Ironclad was working on Sins of a Dark Age for a long time.
Yeah, I'm wondering if there are refund opportunities if this continues. I'm not necessarily asking for one, but I know others may.
This is especially troubling for me. After reading the language in the Stardock complaint, I'm very hopeful that the 1988 Agreement works in Paul and Fred's favor and allows both games to continue on with development.
It's known that Atari didn't quite understand what they sold in the past and have already remedied that with the GOG mixup a few years ago... also, as someone who knew people who worked for them, I wouldn't be surprised if they fucked something up when they sold all their assets.
I would also be curious if Paul and Fred or someone else involved with them is a founder for this and on the forum reading these things. I would exercise caution.
That said, I'm with the authors of the universe. The gameplay is one thing, but the universe and story of Paul and Fred is what I'm most interested in.
The gameplay of SC1 and SC2 are ok... but what really made it stand out was the story. As a die hard fan of Douglas Adams, Fred and Paul rank up there with their sci-fi narrative and execution. I didn't really play much SC3 because the story was whatever... it missed all the marks that made SC2 great.
I will gladly play the final SCO game, but the expansion on the Ur-Quan/Precursor story is what gets me excited. I could care less what the game is called.
I always thought of Gal Civ more as the true Master of Orion III.
You're hurting my heart. MOO was a contemporary of GalCiv but GalCiv came out in beta before MOO was announced.
I had no idea the original Gal Civ was that old. I played Gal Civ II. It was the first game that I waited until about two years after it was released so I could play it "after it was finished" with all of it's patches and expansions. Gal Giv II was my the "main game" I played for about two years after that. Ever since then, I wait on strategy games and don't bother playing them until they are 2-3 years old and are "finished". There came a time when I began to think of playing any "big strategy game" right when it came out as being a waste of time, and I started waiting for them to be "finished" with patches and DLC before I played them. Ever since Gal Civ II paying off so well for having done that, I always wait to get big strategy games now.
Which reminds me... Civlization VI should be about ready for me now;-)
I'm Greg Johnson. I was there through the entire development of StarControl 1 and 2. I don't want to comment on ownership or trademarks. I've been a game developer for 34 years and questions of ownership and legalities of rights are not always clear, or for that matter fair. Disputes like this are really best settled in friendly ways where everyone can win, since legal battles just suck money and time and create stress and bad feelings. Life is too short for that. What I can and will say is that Paul and Fred created both of those games. It was really the two of them, and others like me and Erol and whomever just contracted and did bits and pieces under Paul's direction. This Universe, Story, Characters and Gameplay all come from the amazing mind of Paul. It's pointless for people on a board to guess what's really going on behind the scenes or to judge who is right or wrong. I wish Paul and Fred and Brad and Stardock a friendly and mutually beneficial, mutually respectful resolution to this. And I'm sorry it's been so stressful for all of you. It's easy to get dug in. Good luck in finding a solution. And to all the fans - best to just hang in there and wait. And don't judge people harshly when you don't really know what's up. Lets all cross our fingers that they will find answers.
I learned long ago that, unless you are on the inside of a situation, you almost certainly gravely misunderstand the true nature of it. And the more that you assume that you do understand about it, the further from the truth you will bring yourself.
No need to apologize, it was an honest mistake.
And yes, that article was exactly why I brought this topic back from the dead.
What I find painful is that Stardock does not seem to understand that if both these projects supported each other, they would potentially double (if not more) the marketing for Star Control, and they would both benefit from it.
Would "Ghosts of the Precursors" benefit from the marketing done for "Star Control: Origins"? Yes, of course they would! But Stardock would also benefit massively from having another Star Control game being made by the creators of the series.
This just seems like a dumb move where no one really wins, especially the fans.
Thanks for the kinds words and information. I will pass that on too.
I'm curious though. Why don't they claim to be the creators of Skylanders? I was always under the impression that that was also their baby.
What I find painful is that Stardock does not seem to understand that if both these projects supported each other, they would potentially double (if not more) the marketing for Star Control, and they would both benefit from it.Would "Ghosts of the Precursors" benefit from the marketing done for "Star Control: Origins"? Yes, of course they would! But Stardock would also benefit massively from having another Star Control game being made by the creators of the series.This just seems like a dumb move where no one really wins, especially the fans.
That was our hope as well. My email, which is Exhibit E in the Stardock complaint, explicitly outlines that if they ever wanted to make a new game in the Ur-Quan continuity, we would be willing to help promote it even if they didn't want to develop it with us. That was in 2013. But that is by no means an invitation to start trying to advertise ones game as a Star Control game. Imagine if they tried to make a "true sequel" to Skylanders and see what would happen.
Even then, we didn't act until they made the DMCA requests even on Star Control 3 which we literally hold the copyright for (even if you grant them every claim they make as true, they do not hold a copyright on Star Control 3 in any way shape or form thus making a DMCA claim very troubling) we felt we had no choice but to act to protect our rights.
It is very difficult to amicably work something out with someone who is making public insults and libelous charges against you.
It has been really eye-opening for me, personally, to see people outraged about lawyer-speak on the word "creator" while they have made a public press release labeling me, by name, a non-party to the lawsuit, a thief resulting in an endless torrent of abuse and attacks and a couple of death threats.
I understand your point here, but for the most part (and I may be dead wrong) this seems more like a communication problem than anything else.
These were very early days and no product was being marketed. I am sure you guys could have reached an agreement.
You have every right to defend your trademark, but what I cannot understand (maybe because I'm European) is this very American mentality of: "you hit me with a lawsuit, I'm going to hit you back with a bigger one".
It just perpetuates the cycle of hate and the only real winners are the lawyers.
I understand, but you can choose to be the better man, and work towards a peaceful solution.
To be completely honest, I understand this new dispute is more of a legal strategy, but disputing that Paul and Fred were the creators of Star Control is just downright daft and it's not going to gain you any points with the community.
If it weren't for them, we would not be having this discussion. Just accept that and drop these charges...
Sit down at a table with them (and your army of expensive lawyers) and talk like men.
We all love Star Control, and we all would be worst if any of these projects were canned due to this daft dispute.
Regardless of the semantics of creator vs. designer you cannot simply allow someone to use your IP without your license or it stops being your IP. We aren't the ones who hired a PR firm to write a press release to accuse others of criminal activity.
It takes two parties to have a conversation.
Perhaps you should be talking to them.
Just going to post Exhibit E here.
Just to clearify that I understand this. As statet numerous places the last couple of days, stardock has claimed that paul and fred was not even the designers of the game, but, stardock aka Brad Wardel was quoted in 2013 : We won't be making any changes to the existing Star Control games. And Atari doesn't actually own the copyright on Star Control 1/2 so it's not like one could make a Star Control 2 HD or what have you without a license from Paul Reiche. And even if we did have rights to SC 1/2 I wouldn't touch them without his blessing.
the full artikle can be read here: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/
so to me it looks that paul is the owner and the designer of starcontrol 1 and 2'
correct me if i am wrong.
You should probably read this: https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred
I think an issue that is confusing a lot of people is how "ownership" of a story/game/book/movie generally works. People tend to think in terms of examples like Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas. They owned their "universe" because they did it the hard way. They found a way to fund their thing and owned the company that produced it. So Gene and George wound up owning their work product. Brad is an example of this same situation in the world of gaming. He built his own company from the ground up, he owns it, and he owns all aspects of everything that comes out of it.
It all creative endeavors this same situation exists. If you want to own your own story/creation (or "work product") then you need to own the company. If you don't own the company, and you have no special arrangement in place, the standard practice is that the company owns your "work product" that you produce for that company. If you are working for a company and you write the next Star Trek or Star Wars, the company will own that, not you. Unless some type of pre-establish special arrangement was in place that says otherwise.
I don't think Paul & Fred owned the company that made the original Star Control games so, most likely, they don't "own" anything that has to do with those games. They were employees, and the company owns their "work product" that they were paid to produce for that company. This is a more detailed explanation of the point that Brad keeps making that "they don't own Skylanders, either".
So, by my admittedly layman's understanding of this, and not knowing what the situation actually is... If Paul & Fred did not own the company that made Star Control, then they probably don't own any aspect of Star Control and never did. "Owning your own story" is a rare exception too the rule, not the rule.
Well according to the copyright notices on the discs etc., they did own it. I don't believe they were employees of Accolade, but developers in their own right who simply had a contract with Accolade and according to them the contract had specific terms that caused all remaining rights to revert to them (i.e. the bits of SC3 that they didn't already own and the publishing rights). My understanding is that the only thing not included in that reversion was the trademark (i.e. the name).
The thing that F&P seem to be contending is that Stardock does not have the rights to sell the old games. We'll have to wait to see how things pan out, but presumably their lawyer has read the entire contract and believes they have a case. It may be that Atari are the real bad guys here, selling something they didn't actually have any more, knowing they were going under anyway.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
