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:
Also, I know that they might want to keep "Star Control" in the name for series recognition, but personally I feel like "The Ghosts of the Precursors" would be just fine as a name by itself, and even if it isn't, it wouldn't be hard for them to create another name.
Ghosts of the Precursors is and has always been its name. Fred and Paul haven't been calling it Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors or anything else with Star Control in the name.
What they have been doing is describing the game as a successor to Star Control II and stating that the game is from the creators of Star Control II (which is absolutely true although I accept they might not be allowed to say that).
Sorry, I felt like that was an important distinction to make. They definitely weren't going as far as calling their game Star Control.
I haven't read the previous posts in-depth, so I apologize if I'm repeating what's already been said.
Anyway, I suspect that the only reason Paul and Fred are making Star Con 3 game is because Stardock is making Origins, and that they would have remained silent if Stardock hadn't ever announced their game. This could have a number of connotations; the best case scenario is that Stardock's announcement of their game inspired Paul and Fred to finally try to make their own into reality. However, in my opinion, it is far more likely that Paul and Fred dislike that someone else wanted to make a game in Star Control, and are sort-of competing with Stardock to release a better game-- and all of the legal dispute about trademarks and ownership, of course. But if Paul and Fred's only motivation to work on Star Con 3 is to compete with Stardock, it means they likely don't have motivation for the game itself and, as such, its quality would have been greatly decreased, as opposed to if Paul and Fred really wanted to work on the game. That could be an arguement in Stardock's favor-- while they honestly do want to work on their game, Paul and Fred are only trying to control what they feel is theirs.
This is just speculation, honestly. But imagining Star Control 3 being a crappy game just because of its creators' jealousy/anger/greediness is not a comforting thought.
Star Control 3 already exists, wasn't made by F&P and wasn't generally well received.
That said, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, their company has been owned by Activision for a long time. It's possible they have been trying to convince Activision to let them make it for years.
Also. Star Control 3 is already out there.
So when they do, this is what happens
Poetic.
So when they do, this is what happens Poetic.
Very well said.
So now, when they finally want to return to their story, they cant really call it Star Control, or sequel to Star Control, while Stardock is producing StarControl game, which ultimately, is a StarControl in "name" only... it is really the most bizzare situation...
and its funny the "law" its supposed to solve the whole dispute now, when its pretty much law, or its deficiencies, which is at fault for the whole mess. How on the earth is it even allowed to separate trademark/name of the game from its content (story, aliens, ships, etc...). when the name without those its meaningless on its own? It is totally against common sense IMO.
Thanks for providing examples of exactly what I said.
They are describing the game as a successor to Star Control 2, not calling the game Star Control. That was the entire point I was making. That middle tweet is from someone else calling it Star Control. The fact that they retweeted it does not mean that they are calling the game that.
Anyway, I suspect that the only reason Paul and Fred are making Star Con 3 game is because Stardock is making Origins, and that they would have remained silent if Stardock hadn't ever announced their game.
I'll nip this one in the bud.
In 2006, Paul and Fred told the fans that they wanted Activision to let them make a new Star Control, but they did not get permission until recently.
In 2011, they gave an interview, in which they said "When we've talked about the next Star Control game - which we promise is coming someday soon..."
So they have wanted to do a sequel for ages. Please folks...give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they're decent people until proven otherwise. This is especially important when you explicitly acknowledge that you haven't read the information that's available.
What is the name of their game? Based solely on what they tweeted.
Regarding the game's name and quoted tweets, I think you're both right, but are making slightly different points.
They are definitely calling it "Star Control" in those tweets. "Describing" the game as Star Control is calling it Star Control.
SCO is not Star Control "in name only", it is Star Control. It's not the story that makes it Star Control, it's the game. It is a very unique game. The elements combine together to arrive a game that is immediately recognizable as "Star Control". The game itself... space exploration as a top down arcade game with top down space combat and planet lander arcade games is a very unique thing because the other game companies never went on a cloning spree imitating it over and over again. So it never became a "genre" like happened with FPS and RTS games, leaving this form of game uniquely "Star Control".
Only one position has any legal merit and the other has none.
When Sins of a Solar Empire was being made, it would have been great if we could have marketed it as the direct sequel to Homeworld. However, doing so would have resulted in a swift trademark lawsuit.
SirPrimal seems to be implying that he would see no problem if Ghosts of the Precursors could even have on it "The Direct Sequel to Star Control" right on the box and claim that it is ok. It is simply describing itself as the direct sequel. Except... of course you can't do that. That creates a world of consumer confusion.
We all want to see Paul and Fred's next story but we don't want to be associated with it nor for them to unfairly compete with us by claiming to be the true sequel.
I agree, but my sense is that SirPrimalform is trying to make a pedantic point, not a legal one. At least, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that until he says otherwise.
In your careful selection they do not mention the name of the game at all. But please, show me a tweet where they do refer to their game as Star Control: GotP.
Ok, now I feel like you're being willfully obtuse.
I was clearly addressing a misapprehension that another poster had that F&P had actually named their game Star Control. I even accepted that mentioning SC might not be acceptable, I just wanted to make the distinction being naming the game SC and simply using the name SC as a descriptor. Both might be trademark infringement but there's at least a moral distinction in terms of intent.
Thank you Elestan for at least trying to understand my point. A poster on the previous page was under the impression F&P were trying to include Star Control in the name of the game. I just wanted to correct that, but Brad seems to have repeatedly misunderstood my original post.
Yeah, their game's title never included the Star Control trademark, which is what SirPrimalform is talking about.
They did call it a direct sequel to Star Control, they did say it's from the creators of Star Control, but the game never had Star Control in the title in their announcement. Other sites may have wrongfully used it as part of the title.
Ok, now I feel like you're being willfully obtuse. I was clearly addressing a misapprehension that another poster had that F&P had actually named their game Star Control. I even accepted that mentioning SC might not be acceptable, I just wanted to make the distinction being naming the game SC and simply using the name SC as a descriptor. Both might be trademark infringement but there's at least a moral distinction in terms of intent.Thank you Elestan for at least trying to understand my point. A poster on the previous page was under the impression F&P were trying to include Star Control in the name of the game. I just wanted to correct that, but Brad seems to have repeatedly misunderstood my original post.
I'm not obtuse, I'm an engineer.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding. I've seen several of P&F's fans claim there's some sort of "fair use" here when, obviously, no, that's not what fair use is.
I'm pretty sure P&F themselves conceded that it wasn't fair use when they edited their original post and added recognition of Stardock's trademark ownership...
Don't tell me what I can or can't role-play online!! Today, I'm an internet lawyer!
Bring the witness in!
So what's in the picture above is a retweet of Kotaku and Pcgamer headlines, not their own words. If this is a too complex distinction to make, I can't even begin to imagine the swamp you're going to be in with copyrights and lawsuits.
Only time will tell.
That said, my limited sophistication does allow me to know the difference between a retweet and a link to an article with ones own claims.
That's true, but those articles were based on P&F's October 9 blog entry, where they said "...we are now working on a direct sequel to Star Control II® -- The Ur-Quan Masters, called Ghosts of the Precursors™", and made no mention of Stardock.
Between October 20 and December 1, they edited this sentence to read "...we are now working on a direct sequel to The Ur-Quan Masters, called Ghosts of the Precursors™, and added an acknowledgement that "Star Control is a registered trademark of Stardock Systems, Inc.".
So IMHO, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, either in their exuberance at being able to announce the sequel that they'd been wanting to make for so long, or in an assumption that the particular way they phrased it made it okay, P&F made a statement that arguably infringed Stardock's trademark. They later realized that they had stepped over the line, and corrected the error.
Just like stock brokers, whenever they become involved the lawyers are the only people who can't lose.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
