Kermamorjens

[quote who="Guph" reply="74" id="3739566"] Stardock was nothing but cool while P&F where being vague little b****, working to undermine and steal their thunder the whole time. They where leaching off of the money spent by Stardock to rebuild the Star Control franchise that they let die. [/quote] "Reviving the Star Control franchise" is not a task someone gave Stardock to do. Stardock simply decided to take it on themselves. According to P&F, P&F were planning to

[quote who="Xan" reply="68" id="3739439"] Change Stardock to Disney and Star Control to Star Wars to understand how crazy your argument is. [/quote] Because changing the context entirely, to something completely irrelevant and incomparable, makes perfect sense and is not a crazy argument at all. I guess?

[quote who="Bufohominum" reply="52" id="3737629"] So what I don't understand is why when you only have the rights to the name Star Control, you all but remade SC2? If this hadn't become so acrimonious I imagine they wouldn't have decided to exercise (what they believe to be) their rights. [/quote] It gets more stupid than that. Stardock probably could have "all but remade SC2" and P&F wouldn't have cared too much, but then Stardock decided to get their panties i

[quote who="lord999" reply="41" id="3737483"] How many of you enjoy Stardew Valley? [/quote] [quote who="Hollow Man" reply="43" id="3737547"] Star Control 1 and 2 could be held liable for stealing its look and feel from Spacewar![/quote] [quote who="Hollow Man" reply="43" id="3737547"] No one is claiming that Stardock hasn't made a game is that is very much like Star Control . But many of are

You're arguing details, semantics and legalities, while it's completely clear that lots of content in SC:O is derived (or just straight-up copied) from SC2. Which you shouldn't do if you don't have rights to the IP nor the original creators' blessing. I've no idea how it will be settled in courts, or whether Stardock manages to evade consequences or not, but the basic principle seems perfectly clear in this case. Splitting the hyperspace example into details until the

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.

[quote who="Nahtegood11" reply="202" id="3705966"] Anyway, I suspect that the only reason Paul and Fred are making Star Con 3 game is because Stardock is making Origins, [/quote] I don’t. Producing games like this takes [b]years[/b] for a team of developers. Its not something you cough up as an angry reaction to something. Also. Star Control 3 is already out there.

[quote who="SirPrimalform" reply="169" id="3705629"] Did you see the emails that F&P posted on their blog today? I don't understand how Atari could concede they didn't have publishing rights and then for you to apparently buy publishing rights from them a couple of years later. Given that they overestimated their rights initially with GOG (and had apparently already done so with Steam), is it possible they "forgot" again by the time you bought the properties?[/quote]

[quote who="bleybourne" reply="151" id="3705458"] I mean, Fred says right there that they have no legal basis to make another Star Control game at all because they sold all their rights to Accolade and that Accolade could stop them doing it if they wanted to. Aren't those the same rights that Stardock bought from Accolade? [/quote] I remember reading somewhere that the rights revert pack to Paul and Fred under certain conditions, one being that Accolade stops existing, which

[quote who="Starkillr" reply="52" id="3697553"] I respect what Paul and Fred did, but just reading what's been written, it sounds like they are acting like 5-year olds and getting upset over irrelevant issues. I am not sure what they thought they would accomplish by making this all public and being pissy about it[/quote] P&F say the conflict has been going on behind the scenes for months. I have no idea on the details, but the duration probably means it's not minor or irrelev