Heart, passion and vision. IMHO, all the things that people have listed so far are extensions of these truths. Some games you can just tell are a labor of love and they nail all of the little things . Things like fantastic story, memorable characters, vast and interesting open world, exploration, etc.? They're the...outgrowths...if you will of the underlying truths that great games - not merely good ones but TRULY G
That last post jogged my memory of something I'd been meaning to ask about from a legal standpoint. A couple of times both here and on the UQM forums I'd seen posts by Brad of pictures of the same alien race but in several different games over time as an example of how you can change a race's look and therefore have enough substantial dissimilarity to be able to use them and pass legal muster. A thought I've had both times but had been to absorbed in the present conversation t
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="28" id="3712419"] It may also be unlikely if Paul, and Fred hold the copy right to star control 1 and 2. You know if you had star control 3 you could try and fix it. [/quote] I've mostly been lurking and watching the conversation since I had nothing useful to contribute to the back-and-forth legalese but on this point I think I can chime in. I am fonder of SC3 than most. I personally found most of the new alien ra
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="367" id="3709744"] Quoting Talonious, reply 366 Oh yeah. I agree completely that P&F have no right to use a trademark that someone else owns (and to my knowledge nobody is disputing that Stardock owns the "Star Control" trademark), regardless of how the trademark got it's value. I'm not
To the first part of your post: No worries Eride. Forums can move quickly and posts can sometimes jumble together a bit. I appreciate it nonetheless. To the meatier part: Oh yeah. I agree completely that P&F have no right to use a trademark that someone else owns (and to my knowledge nobody is disputing that Stardock owns the "Star Control" trademark), regardless of how the trademark got it's value. I'm not disputing that. I just question how deliberate and/or malicio
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="358" id="3709734"] BTW, Talonious, it's been super enjoyable talking to you. [/quote] Likewise. I know it's a bad subject but the conversation has still been good.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="356" id="3709732"] Quoting Talonious, reply 354 The popularity of "Star Control" the brand is directly related to SC1 and SC2. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be so protective of it. But do you really think that someone who values the brand "Star Control" is going to be fooled if a game comes out cal
[quote who="JerkClock" reply="355" id="3709731"] @Talonius - It looks like we are not going to agree. You have some valid points, but I just think the benefit of the consumer is more important. I will say that if Capcom acted like Reich and that other douchebag, Megaman Unlimited wouldn't be a thing, nor would Rock Force, or Evolution, or Mega Maker. That alone tells me we have more upside. [/quote] I've got no problem with doing that. Cheers ma
If I could attempt to summarize, just for convenience's sake since the posts are getting very long at this point... I don't think P&F are attempting to launch a game that is a sequel to yours. They're attempting to launch a game that is a sequel to "Star Control 2" but without the "Star Control" in the name since you own that. But they do not consider you to own anything else about SC2 but the name of it, so they do not consider their game to be a sequel to anything
As a personal side note, as someone who was disappointed to learn that all of my favorite alien races from SC1-SC3 aren't going to be in Origins, the thought of them being back again in a future game IS very exciting on a personal level. But I can also completely understand that if P&F, rightly or wrongly, think they own the rights to them all, openly claiming those rights was bound to not go over well.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="350" id="3709725"] Quoting Talonious, reply 347 1. Yes, the games had been on GoG for years, but as I mentioned previously, with their permission. This is the part that I'm a bit lost on. Their contention (right or wrong) is that they own the rights to those games and therefore they cannot be so
[quote who="JerkClock" reply="348" id="3709721"] Quoting Talonious, reply 345 But on the general principle of copyright protection that "if you don't use it, then you lose it"? That I'd have to regretfully and
Ah thank you for the correction on the games not being on Steam anymore. I had not looked in a few days. I appreciate the correction. I also agree that P&F were in the wrong using the name Star Control without your permission and that the timing definitely does look suspicious. Where I part ways with your thinking is in two places: 1. Yes, the games had been on GoG for years, but as I mentioned previously, <span style="text-
[quote who="JerkClock" reply="344" id="3709706"] Quoting Talonious, reply 336 What people should be allowed to do and what they are legally allowed to do is not necessarily the same thing. I agree, but it is important to
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="342" id="3709702"] This issue is not about who owns star control 1 and 2, but who owns the name star control. Brad has said he doesnt care about 25 year old dos based games . He is planning on giving star control 3 to gnu. He cares about the name. [/quote] I would think that if that were true, the games would not still be for sale on Steam wouldn't you think? He wouldn't be wanting to bundle them with Origin. He
[quote who="eride" reply="340" id="3709698"] As an actual attorney (transactional, corporate law), I do want to point out that you should be extremely wary of any individual interpreting the law and applying it to the facts of this dispute (e.g. Elestan, Talonious), and stating their opinion of which party is in the wrong on any given issue. There is an awful lot of armchair lawyering going on in the forums. IP law is notoriously one of the most difficult area
[quote who="tingkagol" reply="338" id="3709688"] For now, I have no reason to believe the exhibits presented in both parties' claims aren't genuine. (However, their interpretation of the exhibits is certainly an entirely different thing.) But particularly speaking about the GoG-Atari email thread with P&F, allegations this was faked is far-fetched unless P&F are willing to risk their entire case on a simple phone call by the opposing party to GoG or Atari (or what remains of it t
Re: The GoG/Atari Copyright Emails There's some goal post moving going on here I think. I stated that P&F learned that SC1 and SC2 were being sold on GoG without their permission and without their receiving royalties for the sales, that they contacted GoG about it, who reached out to Atari and then both Atari and GoG's lawyers agreed with P&F's legal position. GoG and P&F then worked out an agreement wherein the games could continue to be sold on GoG but P&F wo
[quote who="JerkClock" reply="325" id="3709552"] And speaking of the UQM forums, I did used to post there. There was constant anticipation and interviews with Reich and that other guy, and guess what? No announcements ever came. The community leaned on them constantly, and has done so for over 10 years (and I would know because I was on those forums that long ago), and they never
[quote who="eride" reply="319" id="3709403"] Quoting Talonious, reply 314 The people who have heard of Paul and Fred have a pretty huge overlap with who is excited about a new Star Control game. They're the people like me who have waited 25 years for a ne
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="305" id="3709217"] Quoting Talonious, reply 272 There's a very real possibility that Stardock could "win" in court and lose outside of it if something like half of the Star Control fanbase basically declares that Star Control Origins is not a "real" Star Control game. (And future ones aren't
[quote who="pchernik" reply="275" id="3709026"] >> However, unless an amicable agreement is reached, you're risking basically breaking the Star Control base. Hey Talonious. First off, I do wish that things didn't get to where they are now, and instead (in a perfect world scenario) both parties were working, maybe even in cooperation, on new game(s). But, with that said... How and
[quote who="DeepSpaceNine" reply="273" id="3709020"] Talonius, I'm no lawyer either.. but in the broadest terms: they have since announced a game that claims to be a sequel to our trademarked IP, gone on a public offensive against us and our motives for months, and interfered with our ability to market the new game and creating confusion. After that, there's no real way to go back in time and pretend that no harm has been done. All that said, we absolu
Sure, if you don't care about damaging that trademark I guess going scorched earth is one approach. However, unless an amicable agreement is reached, you're risking basically breaking the Star Control base. The most loyal Stardock fans are the ones here on this forum right now and they're convinced that Stardock is completely in the right. I understand that. However, they may not necessarily represent the prevailing statement outside of the forum. There's a very real possibili
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="263" id="3708561"] At this stage, we have reached peak drama. I think it best to let the courts resolve it. And no, their settlement offer is not what we had proposed. I said their Summary was similar. Case in point: I think it's pretty clear that they want to kill Star Control: Origins. Star Control: Origins is a Star Control game and plays as such. The music composer from Star Control II is
Stardock.net Forums