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:
We are simply missing the right person to step in and go speak to both parties kindly and sincerely, face to face to get them all to meet and sit down around the table. (And i do mean this literally)
i would ask both parties to think about this:
The benefits clearly and i will repeat CLEARLY outweighs anything that would want to come in between this Wonderous magical recipe that would re-revolutionize gaming if these two companies work with each other rather than against ! CLEARLY.
The thing they don't see now, and i say this with utmost respect as i am a mere humble soul seeing brilliant talent and infinate possibilities right in front of my eyes (the talent of both these companies)
I see something here that in NO way should be any other way, something that is meant to be, that should they work together, If they would and the time comes, and come it will, i will bet my house and life insurance on it blindfolded and hands down, the sheer success they will have working together rather than against each other, will outshine anything in gaming history. And THAT is a fact i can guarentee.
Just think about it, imagine where Westwood would've been today.
If EA kept them alive as either a seperate entity or by merging Westwood as is into EA.
Don't wait 2 decades and realise this only then.
(i'm not making a company comparison just want to make that clear, i see both companies as "Westwood" type companies) They should just work together or simply support each other 100%
From what I have seen of all this, it seems like Stardock went into it with exactly the vision you are describing. Stardock even mentioned that they would be open to allowing Paul & Fred to use their new Nitrous engine. That's actually a really big deal, since one of the main reasons for Stardock to make their own engine is so that their games can have unique qualities that games made in other engines don't have. It seems too me that what you are describing is how Stardock had been hoping things would work.
So if i understand this correct atari sold everything, but the code for star control 1, and 2. Paul, and fred changed their minds, and wanted the code for star control 3. Star control 1, and 2 were under gnu, so technically no one owns it. Stardock said no, since they own it, and all. Brad read this, and decided to talk to paul.
I know about sins of a solar empire this is a project where ironclad, and stardock worked together to produce a game. We know stardock works with other game companies to produce games. Instead brad got a response from pauls lawer telling him he doesnt own anything, and paul, and fred owns everything.
Stardock owns the star control name, and star control three. Stardock have every legal right to star control three, and the name. If they dont then they can sue atari. This is the first game i ever heard of where who you work for doesnt keep the rights to the game. Brad just wants to talk. How is he the bad guy.
This is all part of the contract governing the development of the game. Back in the 90's, it was very difficult to self-publish a game. If someone came to a publisher with an idea, part of the money discussion normally included a discussion over the rights. Game developers who wrote their own engines would often try to retain rights of the engines for instance.
While there's a lot we don't know, from the stuff we do know it's pretty safe to say that's not correct.
Apparently, what F&P are saying that that Atari didn't own the copyrights to any of the games, just the trademark (name etc.). The reason Atari didn't own these things to be able to sell them to Stardock is that apparently the original contract with Accolade contained clauses that made the rights revert to F&P.
Whether that's true or not remains to be proven in court I suppose, but that seems to be the basis of the disagreement. On the other side, Stardock seems to be trying to claim that F&P didn't create Star Control (my guess is so they can't market their game as being "from the creators of Star Control", which seems a bit petty as they most certainly are the creators).
Seriously death threats? That's outrageous. While I'm a die-hard Star Control fan and love the game furiously (including the employees who created it), everything I've seen suggests Stardock and Brad have done everything correctly. I think unfortunately this all falls into the realm of legal battles because everything rests on that 1988 contract and what it does and doesn't stipulate are the rights that P&F had vs what Accolade retained. Everyone should hope that Stardock wins this btw. Why? Because then both games get made (unless P&F ragequit game making). If P&F wins, then Stardock loses a lot of money they invested into this game and we all lose out in that. SC: Origins may not even come out as a result.
My distinct hope is that Stardock did all the appropriate due diligence when purchasing these rights from Atari (which it sounds like they did) and weren't scammed into buying something that Atari didn't have the rights to (which is the heart of this legal battle). While everyone agrees it's sad to see this all going on, from a business perspective, it's important for Stardock to protect what they purchased. For anyone that's overly upset out there, please stop trashing Brad. Everything I've seen him write about P&F and this whole situation has always been professional and balanced. I only wish P&F were the same with their commentary regarding their view of the situation.
The definition of "creator" is being misinterpreted here. Were they involved in the creation of the game? Yes. However, technically, when you work for a company and create something, they own the IP. In every company I've worked for, if you actually read the employment contract you sign, it will have a stipulation around any invention you create while at the company is owned by the company. Therefore, the company is technically the "creator" and that's what Stardock means. Why is that important? If the company is the creator, they thus retained the rights and those rights were transferred to Atari and then subsequently sold to Stardock. This is the very heart of the legal battle going on. Are the lawyers going to imply that P&F didn't actually create any of the assets (i.e. they were the designers and directed others to create the assets) and therefore weren't that involved to bolster their case? Sure. That's how you fight legal battles unfortunately.
That's a very weak argument and also one that I believe to be dishonest. We know what creator means. It's not what you're saying it means. Hideo Kojima is the creator of Metal Gear. Nobody thinks this means that Kojima is whatever you claim a creator to technically be. People know there's a whole company behind the franchise, yet he's still commonly labelled as its creator.
Similarly, Kojima can't make a Metal Gear now, although he's its creator.
Regardless, I find it hard to believe F&P's allegations are correct because that would actually be insane - Stardock paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Atari for virtually nothing. Weird and interesting case.
Creator, Designer, Writer... they are all just titles. When you are being paid for your time to create something for the company you work for, that "work product" belongs to the company, not you. It is possible to have a special agreement stating otherwise, but the standard thing is that the "work product" you produce as an employee belongs to the company that paid you to create it for them. Situations like Gene Roddenberry owning Star Trek or George Lucas owning Star Wars are rare exceptions too the rule. That is not normal and is actually pretty rare.
This is why there is no "Battlestar Galactica Universe" like there is with Star Wars and Star Trek. Glenn A Larson never "owned" BSG, he just made it for the TV network. They owned it. Had Larson owned BSG, there would have been more BSG. He would have made his living on BSG just like Roddenberry and Lucas did with their "universes". There was no BSG "universe" lasting for Glenn Larson's lifetime because he didn't own it, so he couldn't do anything with it. The network just saw it as one of many canceled TV shows they owned, not their life's work to continue as Larson probably would have done.
I don't know what P&F's deal might have been, only that this is the normal thing and most likely the situation P&F were in when they made the original SC games. It would be very unusual if they actually owned the games or the story, since they didn't own the company that produced them.
I've been following the P&F's blog. They are in no position to complain about being insulted. Stardock has handled their rantings with a delicate touch and in response been slapped in the face.
In the world of law, you're wrong, sorry. In the world of normal people, I agree with you that commonly and naturally we associate the creators of a game to be the ones that actually created the IP/built the game. Don't tell me that's dishonest or that it's an argument, it's simply a fact of law. I didn't make the law up. Just stating what the facts are. I am the same as you and would still label Kojima as the creator of Metal Gear as he fundamentally is the one that created it. However the law recognizes Konami as the "creator" as a technical matter.
Nobody disputes that. But Creator isn't just a title - it holds a specific meaning. The claim that Fred & Paul aren't the creators of Star Control would be like Konami claiming that Kojima isn't the creator of Metal Gear, except here it's worse because Stardock wasn't involved in any way in the creation of Star Control. That's why a lot of fans are angry.
Pretty sure that when we're talking about fans' reactions to the allegations, we're within the realms of normal people...
This is not new or a unique situation to Star Control. As a "creator" myself I certainly think of my own story/universe as being "mine". But, in the end, the only way it would be "mine" in the end is if I managed to find a way to fund my own company to actually produce it. If not, it wouldn't wind up being "mine" in the end.
Kojima might have been the "creator" of Metal Gear, but my guess is that Konami owns it. Just like the network owns Battlestar Galactica, not Glenn Larson. To wind up owning your own story in the end, that generally means you have to find a way to fund it yourself, so that you can own it yourself. This is just the way that this has always worked, and few "creators" of entertainment actually own what they created.
And, generally, the stories that are owned by their creators usually wind up being the best ones. Like Star Trek and Star Wars. Because the people who own it care about it and continue it. Unlike BSG, which the network only saw as "just another canceled TV show that we own". It's better when the creator is also the owner, but that is also a pretty rare thing.
I think some people should probably not read legal filings if they're going to get upset. Lawyers use the terms with legal precision.
It's sort of like when people argue the 2nd amendment and don't understand what was meant by "well regulated".
Translating legal definition into layman's terms is perilous.
Hi there... this is Greg Johnson again. I shared an office with Paul up until the time they started on Star Control and then was across the hall from Paul and Fred as they built both games - helping out from time to time, just as Paul assisted me on my Starflight games. I've known those guys for 35 years now - ever since I started in the games industry, and I still run a games studio as an independent game developer so I know how all of this stuff works. I don't really want to step into the middle of an unpleasant legal battle but I see some misguided fan comments (albeit perhaps well-intentioned) here and I believe I can bring a little clarity. I will just stick to facts since these things can be emotional and I am friends with Paul and Fred. Still I prefer to be respectful and give people the benefit of the doubt and as I said my hope is that everyone can come to some mutually acceptable resolution and stop wasting money and energy on law suits.
OK so first, Paul and Fred were not employees of Accolade. They were what's called 3rd party developers (there is internal, 1st party, 2nd party, and 3rd party). Just because Accolade funded the development doesn't mean that Fred and Paul can't or don't own the IP. That will be spelled out in their contract with Accolade and it's pointless to guess or surmise. What I can say is that it's not at all unreasonable - I co-own the IP to Toejam and Earl even though it was funded by Sega, and Rod McConnell, the head of our 3rd party dev group Binary Systems, that made Starflight, owns the IP to Starflight. 30 years ago it was much more common for developers to have contracts that let them own the IP. I can also say that Paul and Fred have always believed they own the IP and I have believed they do too, but I haven't seen their contract with Accolade. What they didn't believe they owned was the trademark to the name "Star Control".
I can also tell you that Paul and Fred were just two guys in an office back in the garage shop days of game development, and they made those games with occasional help from a few others like me and Erol and Leonard. Toys For Bob on the other hand, is owned by Activision so in this type of case it is almost certain that Activision will own that IP. Further TFB is a very large game company unlike the 2 guys in an office in the old days.
Next - just for people's edification, in a 3rd party deal, the terms creator always refers to the individuals or entities actually making "creating" the game, and "publisher" refers to the publisher who funds and markets the game. Those terms don't have anything to do with what the IP ownership arrangement is. And IP ownership can be complicated - sometimes it is even held by the publisher only to revert to the developer after some period of time or under certain conditions. So... stop guessing. It is whatever it says in their contract with Accolade.
Next in regards to suit - it looks to me that Stardock sued Paul and Fred to stop them from using the IP. Paul and Fred have counter sued. Correct me if that's wrong but I think that's what's happened. I know that Paul and Fred don't want to be spending their time and money in a legal battle - and I hope the same is true for Brad and Stardock. As to whether Brad's assertion that Paul and Fred saying their new game is a sequel to Star Control 2 will damage sales of Stardock's game - who knows. Somebody asked "why didn't Paul and Fred object sooner?" Well it's because they didn't see a problem in Stardock making the game, and they didn't believe it would limit them from building theirs. Take a look at which direction the law suits are flowing.
Why didn't they make the sequel sooner? Their company was owned by Activision. I don't know the details of their contracts but I'd guess they were bound contractually and now they are probably not.
As to what Stardock actually purchased and for what amount from Accolade - well again who knows. And was there a mistake or misunderstanding here in what got purchased? Again only the court can decide and it's silly for people to guess. I certainly don't know and don't want to guess.
OK, well last word from me... I think this is most likely a misunderstanding that has blown out of control, with emotions taking the lead. I would tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I believe there is probably still a path to both parties letting each other make their games - Star Control offers a big rich Universe. I hope all parties will decide to drop the lawsuits - though since the suit originated with Stardock I think it will probably need to begin here. And Brad, I understand why you're upset too - you've sunk a lot of work and money already, as have members of your team and I feel for them too... and comments have been heated which is hard on both sides - still generosity requires tremendous courage. I truly wish you well, and Paul and Fred too. Good luck in resolving this. I hope you all can adopt a live and let live attitude so the fans can enjoy your awesome games. Here's hoping.
Oh and Brad - I congratulate you on hosting this open discussion on your site for the fans and allowing me to participate.
Thanks, Greg.
It is an honor to have you participating.
Well said Greg... well said!
This is like mommy and daddy both getting lawyers, no matter what happens, it's not really good for us kids.
The way I see the situation (w/o trying to fit it in the legal framework):
1) Stardock already invested a lot of resources (both tangible and intangible) in SCO. Stardock decided not to use or reboot the SC2 universe (and they could have done so). Besides making a great game Stardock is afraid that their sales (profits) might go down if players come to a conclusion that the true game is only the one made by F&P, that it is not Star Control if it has no Suppox and etc. and/or if F&P fail and their (F&P) game ultimately sucks (which may or may not be the case) it will be bad for SCO .
2) It seems to me that F&P simply want to make THEIR own sequel with any aliens from the universe that they (together with other people or alone) had created. They do not care (I might be wrong here) about making buck that much but rather about making the game the way they see it w/o asking for any permissions from anyone as they consider the universe their own.
Ok, is there an option like providing F&P access to the engine for free and keeping 0,01% royalty (or no royalty at all) from sales of their mod (that will be based in original SC2 universe) and signing non-involvement agreement so that they can create whatever they want? Will they agree to something like this? This will boost Stardock sales too, as people who want @only Star Control made by F&P@ will have to buy SCO anyways? + I think that all those who are @newcomers@ will look at SCO as their primary game anyways?
I do want F&P to do their sequel .It might be great and it might suck. Who knows. We know nothing about it atm btw.
I do want Stardock to create and develop SCO too as its potential is just limitless and the quality of the product seems to be great even in its current form. The only thing I like about SC2 more than about SCO is graphics as I am a fan of pixels and backgrounds during star systems exploration section of the SC2 just kick ass, as well as aliens communication screens. Do I miss not having Utwigs or VUX in SCO - yes, but I might be captivated by SCO aliens even more - who knows again.
I want both games, I am willing to pay for both games (even though I am a lifetime backer), I will pay for both games (as well as many other players around the world) and I want all to be focused on development and creation. I hope and believe that there is still some room for a beneficial fruitful mutual cooperation between Stardock and F&P. Guys, we will support you both when it comes to the development of your games. You might make a joint mod together and laugh about this whole situation in future.
Greg, can you invite F&P to this thread? Let them read it at least.
From Russia with love.
Regards
Oh wow, so Greg Johnson is one of the guys that made Starflight? I just want to say thanks Greg!!! Starflight was the very first space exploration type of game I ever played. I absolutely LOVED that game. I'm pretty sure it is still my favorite space game of all time, and will probably always remain in my Top 10 Games of all Time list. The game play and story of Starflight was awesome. What you guys accomplished with the technology available at the time was amazing.
As for the rest of this thread, I wish everybody luck in sorting out your legal messes.
With what's at stake here. Working Together will take you forward in ways not possibly imaginable, if i lived close by, i would've taken the time to seperately go and speak to Brad and P&F personally for as long as it takes because i know the potential that wil arise from them working together will be astronomical.
Take a look at my response (reply24) when i first heard about the two companies that will now be working together, this i can promise you was not only my response, but all the fans felt exacly like this in their own personal unique way ! ! !
https://forums.stardock.com/485378/page/1/#3695744
I again urge these two brilliant companies to please reconsider and think about this very, very, very long and hard, because us fans and the millions out there that will hear about this game, the word of mouth spreading like wildfire and this unique genre that was hidden for so long, skyrocketing up to the very top, will make you both share in endless successes in the short and long term not to mention proud beyond imagination.
That's quite debatable. Having read both complaints and the original contract, Fred and Paul's contention that the Accolade license is long-expired and Stardock has no rights to SC1/2 or anything within them is pretty strong.
I don't think Fred and Paul are interested at all in using Stardock's engine. They want to make the game on their own terms and not have others own a piece of it, which is totally understandable. Besides, we don't even really know what they have planned gameplay-wise for Ghosts. For all we know there could be some substantial new features in mind that Stardock's engine wouldn't support without heavy modification.
Might be - might be. Anyways, it would be good for F&P to read this thread and give some of their comments here. I am trying to understand one thing - is the main reason behind the whole mess money? Pride/creator entitlement (it might be not the best words that define the idea) - this is my universe and I am not gonna ask anyone for any permissions type of thing? Because if guys (both Stardock and F&P) understand their main point(s) of disagreement - something can be done about it. Like do whatever you want but do not call it Star Control or sequel to Star Control. Or - do whatever you want by we charge you XX for every box you sell and let`s agree on the number and etc. Brad what is your opinion about all this?
+ It might be that F&P aim for a real time strategy or jrpg in a SC2 universe and this will in no way trespass on SCO idea and universe so why bother that much? So it would be good to get some ideas re Ghosts too.
+ why not make the game quality be the main driver? I am sure that most gamers will buy both games. All are perfectly aware of the situation now and some might tend to like SCO more or Ghosts... SCO is in a better position because it is @almost ready@ and it seems to be perfectly moddable. So if F&P ideas/and or implementation suck then there will be some hardcore modder who will make a relevant mod for SCO called Ghosts remake mod or something. Unless F&P take him to court and ask for an injunction .
Anyways, i still believe that dialog is a way out. Let`s find what you disagree about and let`s agree on something and then take it from there. We do understand that this is between Stardock and F&P but the whole community is here to help you guys find a compromise. Just tell us how to help. After all you are making your games not only for yourselves but for us too and (fortunately or not) we will be your main source of income .
Yes... Thank you for Starflight, Gregg. I never actually played Starflight. But I was a big fan of Dr. Trevor Sorensen and "my version" of Starflight was his Star Fleet II: Krellen Commander, which of course never would have existed without Starflight to inspire it. So thank you for inspiring Dr. Sorensen to create one of my favorite games of all time!
Hi Greg Johnson,
Hmm, so Rod McConnell still owns the rights and IP to Starflight, you say..?
What are the chances, do you think, that you and he will ever get the band back together and finally give us a Starflight 3? As I said to you recently, I'm a StarCon fan from way back, but Starflight will always be the space adventure that most defines my early space gaming psyche.
Seriously, I would do almost anything for a Starflight 3...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
