• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

Brad Wardell of Stardock is making legal trouble for the original creators of Star Control (settled)

KonradLaw

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,960
This is even more vague and nonsensical than what Brad is saying.

First you say it is a business dispute, now you say Toys for Bob is mad about what Brad is saying and not what he's doing? What, exactly, is Brad saying that is making them mad?

And then you say Toys for Bob is mad about Brad selling Star Con 1 and 2... so now Toys for Bob is mad at Brad for what he is doing.

However, Toys for Bob never said anything about being mad about Brad selling the games.

So what is it?
Ehh..I don't know what you mean by all that? They clearly state they're mad. And they state that Stardock doesn't have the rights to sell Star Control 1-3. I'm asking why haven't they done something about other company selling their stuff for years? What kind of buisness are they running to allow that? It's just weird.
 

Gennady

Banned
Nov 5, 2017
259
Wasn't SC3 the one with the creepy stopmotion Solidwork heads where you had to talk to, and the Mycon having turned into glowing-red vaginas that only speak in haikus?
 

KonradLaw

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,960
Stardock posted longer response and it's pretty curious.
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.
It seems what lawyers from Stardock want is document that makes it clear they have no association or responsibilities related to Ghosts

I wonder if Toys for Bob is preparing Kickstater and Stardocks wants to cover their assess in case they don't deliver and backers might try going for Stardock.
 
Last edited:

crazyfunster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,718
Stardock posted longer response and it's pretty curious.

It seems what lawyers from Stardock want is document that makes it clear they have no association or responsibilities related to Ghosts

I wonder if Toys for Bob is preparing Kickstater and Stardocks wants to cover their assess in case they don't deliver and backers might try going for Stardock.
Being burned from a bad kickstarter has happened to Stardock in the past- Servo was backed by Stardock and the devs wasted the money from the kickstarter and Stardock. In response, Stardock gave Star Control as a makeup to Servo backers and a store voucher for their store.
 

raterpillar

Banned
Nov 12, 2017
1,393
Update on this:
https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come

We've decided to stop selling our old games, because:

  1. We think it's necessary to 'clear the decks' to help resolve our definitely-not-harmonious, until-recently-private, months-long conflict with Brad Wardell and his lawyers at Stardock.
  2. The Ur-Quan Masters HD Project is a free, vastly superior experience. Did we mention it's free? Fans have been dedicated to improving UQM for 15 years and it is awesome! Hopefully Star Control I and III will also become available for free in the near future.
Why was it okay to sell the games on GoG, but not on Steam or elsewhere?

The simple answer is because we have had our own direct distribution agreement with GOG since 2011 and no agreement with Stardock or Steam or anyone else. If you're into details, here goes:

  • In April 2011, we learned that Star Control I, II and III had been re-published on Good Old Games (GOG) — a big surprise since the games hadn’t been sold for years and no one had contacted us for permission to do so.
  • We reached out to GOG who said our games had been offered to them by Atari as part of a large batch of older Atari products. We then contacted Atari to let them know that we were the original authors and owners of the copyright to the games and that we had not given permission for them to republish our work. Atari checked with its lawyers and wrote back confirming our claims, apologizing to everyone for the mistake and informing GOG to remove the games from sale and pay any royalties earned to us.
  • Instead we suggested a way that GOG could continue to sell our games. GOG signed separate, independent contracts with: Atari to license the Star Control trademark, and us to license the rights to the games themselves. GOG has been selling the games and paying us directly ever since.
  • In October of this year, history repeated itself when Stardock began selling our games on Steam and elsewhere (even bundled with theirs), again without getting our permission. This time we couldn't come to an agreement, so we asked that Stardock stop bundling and selling the games. They refused,so we've decided to end our 2011 distribution agreement with GOG as a first step to having the games pulled down.
 

TheMirai

Member
Oct 28, 2017
151
This is really strange.

Like even if Brad is being an asshole -- what a crazy idea, right? -- I don't get why he'd be this much of an asshole and be handling things publicly with a "Gee I don't know officer, those guys sure seem upset though." If Stardock is selling their games without their permission and refusing to cut a deal, and now preventing the release of the game, Brad's denial sounds even more fishy. What a complete dick.

I could give both parties the benefit of the doubt and assume there's fishy lawyering going on but Brad's history makes me think he's just being a total asshole in public because he knows he can and doesn't care.
 

Wakawun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
173
Well I am absolutely sure now that I'm not going to buy anything related to Stardock.
 

headspawn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,046
I'm so confused.

Is their contention basically that Atari had no right to sell them the trademark for the games and the assets of the other titles?
 

X1 Two

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,023
No, Atari and now Stardock own the rights to the IP, TFB owns the games. TFB wants to use the IP for Ur-Quan HD and obviously needs it to sell their old games on GOG. I think that's the main problem here, on one side they want that income from GOG, on the other they need to work with Stardock to do so, who apparantly thought they owned the games as well as the IP (though that makes you wonder why they didn't go after TFB for selling their games on GOG). I think both sides here are acting very strange.
 

xylo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
73
According to TFB, they owns the copyright and games. Atari sold something to Stardock (it's unclear if this was just a trademark, IP, or ??) Stardock appears to be selling the games on Steam without permission from TFB -- it seems they feel they have to right to do this with whatever Atari sold them. It's interesting that Atari's own lawyers seemed to agree with TFB they didn't have the right to sell the games before -- so it's even more odd to what they sold to Stardock (or told about what they were buying.)

At any rate, *FRUMPLE* at Stardock right now -- no *happy campers* for getting in the way of Paul and Fred.
 

xylo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
73
Okay did some digging. The bankruptcy sale was under docket 13-10176. Specifically, star control is under exhibit 4.
EXHIBIT 4
PROPOSED ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE STAR CONTROL FRANCHISE

ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE STAR CONTROL FRANCHISE AND GRANTING RELATED RELIEF
Upon the Debtors’ motion, dated May 22, 2013 (the “Motion”),(2) pursuant to sections 105, 363, and 365 of title 11 of the United
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) (3) and rules 2002, 6004, 6006, 9008, and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
(the “Bankruptcy Rules”) for, among other things, entry of an order (i) authorizing the sale (the “Sale Transaction ”) of the Star Control Franchise (the “Star Control Assets ”) to Stardock Systems, Inc. (the “Buyer”) free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, except to the extent set forth in that certain Asset Purchase Agreement (the “APA”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, (ii) authorizing the assumption and assignment of certain executory contracts in connection with the Sale Transaction, and (iii) granting certain
related relief, all as more fully described in the Motion; and the Court having entered an order on June 14, 2013 (the “Bid Procedures
Order”) approving, among other things, the (a) proposed procedures for submitting competing bids for the Star Control Assets (the “Bid Procedures”), (b) procedures for the assumption and assignment of certain executory contracts (the “Assumed Contracts”) in connection with the Sale Transaction (the “Assumption and Assignment Procedures”)

[snip]

Exhibit A
Asset Purchase Agreement

Star Control Assets
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
dated as of
July 18, 2013
by and among
ATARI, INC.
ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC.
HUMONGOUS, INC.
CALIFORNIA U.S. HOLDINGS, INC.
as the Sellers

and

STARDOCK SYSTEMS, INC.
as Buyer

[snip]

ARTICLE 2
PURCHASE AND SALE

SECTION 2.01
Purchase and Sale. Except as otherwise provided below, upon the terms and subject to the conditions of this Agreement, Buyer agrees to purchase from the Sellers and each Seller agrees to sell, convey, transfer, assign and deliver, or cause to be sold, conveyed, transferred, assigned and delivered, to Buyer at the Closing, free and clear of all Liens and Claims, other than Assumed Liabilities and Permitted Liens, all of such Seller’s right, title and interest in, to and under the following (the “Purchased Assets”):

(a) the Intellectual Property;
(b) those contracts listed or described on Schedule 2.01(b)
(c) all Causes of Action for past or present infringement or misappropriation of Intellectual Property as of the Closing, including Sellers’ rights of indemnity, warranty rights, rights of contribution, rights to refunds, rights of reimbursement and other rights of recovery, but excluding insurance proceeds (regardless of whether such rights are currently exercisable).

SECTION 2.02
Excluded Assets.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, Buyer expressly understands and agrees that any assets and properties of the Sellers not set forth in Section 2.01 (the “Excluded Assets”) shall be excluded from the Purchased Assets.
So Stardock bought the "IP" and whatever was listed in Schedule 2.01(b). According to that schedule

Schedule B.22 - Patents, copyrights and other intellecual property

Star Control Trademark - Registered
Star Control 3 Copyrights PA 799-000
Star Control Game Title


Executory Contracts and Expired Leases
Schedule G

Gog Limited (Good Old Games) Digital Distribution
3 Griva Digeni Street
Patsalos House 2nd Floor, Office 202
6030 Larnaca, Cyprus
So it looks like they bought the trademark, copyright to SC3, and the mark for the game title, and the distribution deal with GOG. I don't see any reference to the code/games/etc? Is there an EraLaw that can help translate legalise to English to see if this is right?
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,571
Madrid
So the Ur-Quan are in Star Control. They say they make a sequel to The Ur-Quan Masters (just another name for Star Control 2). How can they pretend that their new game doesn't share the same universe?
You got that backwards, they're saying Stardock's game doesn't share the same universe as Star Control I and II because all they got rights to is the name Star Control and stuff like the space cows from III.
 

Cosmonaut X

Member
Oct 26, 2017
838
Okay did some digging. The bankruptcy sale was under docket 13-10176. Specifically, star control is under exhibit 4.


So Stardock bought the "IP" and whatever was listed in Schedule 2.01(b). According to that schedule



So it looks like they bought the trademark, copyright to SC3, and the mark for the game title, and the distribution deal with GOG. I don't see any reference to the code/games/etc? Is there an EraLaw that can help translate legalise to English to see if this is right?
It looks like Stardock got the registered Star Control trademark and copyrights to SC3 - which would make sense, as I believe Accolade specifically hired Legend to develop SC3 so "Star Control 3 copyrights" would likely therefore include the code etc., and when Accolade were absorbed by Infogrames all of those assets would have passed to Infogrames (which then later became Atari when they changed/revived that company name). The "game title" would, I assume, be the stylised SC mark, though I could be wrong.

It certainly seems as though the rights are split in an awkward way here, with the rights to SC and SCII (the games/code themselves) held by TfB (possibly through whatever original publishing agreement they came to with Accolade?) but the rights to the name, mark and SC3 held by Stardock (the rights to the "IP" aren't clear from this - who owns stuff like "Ur-Quan" or other in-game names etc.?).

So, Stardock seem to have reasonable grounds to sell SC3 and to continue using the SC mark and (I think) developing new SC titles, but they don't have the right to sell SC or SCII without the agreement of TfB as - while they own the name and "IP" - they don't own the game code etc. for those titles. On the other side, TfB seem to have the right to sell SC and SCII but only if Stardock agree with them using the SC name.

It's interesting that Star Control: Origins (is it still coming out?) was supposed to take place in an "alternate universe" but uses the SC name while Ghosts of the Precursors is apparently planned to feature "familiar aliens, ships and characters" and is being talked about as a "true sequel" to SCII. It strongly suggests that Stardock were aware they were on shaky ground with any claim to the setting and story elements of SC when they announced SC:O, or that the situation was unclear enough that they steered clear of it and simply used the name which they were sure they owned. Stardock's move to start selling the original games now feels a bit like a power play to force the situation - "we're selling them - what are you going to do?" - and draw TfB out.
 

raterpillar

Banned
Nov 12, 2017
1,393
It certainly seems as though the rights are split in an awkward way here, with the rights to SC and SCII (the games/code themselves) held by TfB (possibly through whatever original publishing agreement they came to with Accolade?) but the rights to the name, mark and SC3 held by Stardock (the rights to the "IP" aren't clear from this - who owns stuff like "Ur-Quan" or other in-game names etc.?).
They all seem to be in agreement that TfB owns the rights to the aliens from SC1 & 2. No way Stardock would refrain from using them in Origins if they thought they did. Stardock have tried to make out like they aren't ,out of the goodness of their hearts - so TfB could use them for their game - but I'm certain that's absolute baloney.
 

Cosmonaut X

Member
Oct 26, 2017
838
They all seem to be in agreement that TfB owns the rights to the aliens from SC1 & 2. No way Stardock would refrain from using them in Origins if they thought they did. Stardock have tried to make out like they aren't ,out of the goodness of their hearts - so TfB could use them for their game - but I'm certain that's absolute baloney.
That'd certainly be my read - which makes the subsequent sale of SC games on Steam feel even more like a power play, daring TfB to produce something that proves ownership (or perhaps rather to dare them to go the full legal route, which I'd assume Stardock are better-equipped, in terms of funding and resources, to fight).
 

daegan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
807
Every time I drive by their offices, it pisses me off that the one developer in the area is owned by this scumbag. I hope the TfB guys get whatever they want and then some.
 

Shaneus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,255
It might be important to differentiate between SC2 and UQM here. I think TfB want to (technically) make a sequel to UQM, *not* SC2 (because no rights), even though they're the same game, for all intents and purposes.
 

s_mirage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,136
Birmingham, UK
I thought that Stardock's statements some months ago didn't jibe with TFB's position on the rights that they have stated since forever. I won't be touching any Stardock products in the future.
 

BourbonJungle

Member
Nov 1, 2017
474
Star Control II on 3DO is one of my favorite gaming experiences of all time. Good luck to TfB. Hope this backfires on SD.
Agreed, I have this set up on a big Ol’ CRT in my office, but goddamn, I would still kill for this to come out on Switch. Hope the toys for bob guys get to put out an amazing sequel.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,695
I'm a bit confused. Is Toys for Bob an Activision company, or did they just contract out the work to them for Skylanders?
 

KonradLaw

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,960
I'm a bit confused. Is Toys for Bob an Activision company, or did they just contract out the work to them for Skylanders?
Owned by Activision. Which makes the whole thing curious. I think the part of SC rights they have is actually owned by the creators themselves as individuals, not by their studio (which would mean they are owned by Activision). And I'm not sure if the game will be made inside Toys for Bob or as a side project of it's founders.

It's interesting that Star Control: Origins (is it still coming out?).
It's coming out. They are selling it already in sort of early-access model with beta already avaible. Full version is expected to drop next year.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,695
Owned by Activision. Which makes the whole thing curious. I think the part of SC rights they have is actually owned by the creators themselves as individuals, not by their studio (which would mean they are owned by Activision). And I'm not sure if the game will be made inside Toys for Bob or as a side project of it's founders.
Yeah, I was wondering why Activision hasn't gotten involved in this... but I guess if it's just two employees doing their own side project it's fine?
(Why would they let them do that though, considering what happened with Infinity Ward :p)
 

raterpillar

Banned
Nov 12, 2017
1,393
Yeah, I was wondering why Activision hasn't gotten involved in this... but I guess if it's just two employees doing their own side project it's fine?
(Why would they let them do that though, considering what happened with Infinity Ward :p)
I think it makes sense for Skylanders to take a break for a while until they can figure out some way to rejuvenate it, and this is their just reward for making absolutely assloads of money for Activision.
 

Adree

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,076
Update: Stardock files complaint that Reiche and Ford didn't actually create Star Control

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/star-control-countersuit-aims-to-invalidate-stardocks-trademarks/
However, Reiche or Ford’s advertising that they are the “Creators of Star Control” is false. As Reiche and Ford know, it was Accolade, not them that created Star Control I and Star Control II. Upon information and belief, any authorship that Reiche and Ford may have contributed to the Classic Star Control Games was limited, and it was instead a team of many other authors, including numerous artists, animators, musicians, designers and writers, among others, that collaborated together to develop creatives used in Star Control I and II.
Upon information and belief, and contrary to the common public understanding and what they have portrayed to the public, Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II.

Reiche and Ford’s advertising themselves as being the “creators” of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark to which they have never had rights.
And I would have figured being a transphobe again on twitter would be the most dickish thing Wardell would do all week.
 

s_mirage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,136
Birmingham, UK
Stardock can go fuck themselves; this has to be one of the scummiest moves I've heard of a publisher trying to pull. Even the title screen, legal blurb on the box, etc of SC1 states that the copyright belongs to Reiche and Ford.
 

Hieroph

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,649

Shaneus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,255
Reiche and Ford’s advertising themselves as being the “creators” of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark to which they have never had rights.
Um, there was no goodwill or reputation associated with any Star Control title that didn't have Reiche and Ford at the helm.

I really don't know what the fuck Wardell's trying to do, he got the name and is doing a prequel just like he wants. What a fucking baby.

Stardock can go fuck themselves; this has to be one of the scummiest moves I've heard of a publisher trying to pull. Even the title screen, legal blurb on the box, etc of SC1 states that the copyright belongs to Reiche and Ford.
Exactly.
 

DarkConfidant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,354
Detroit, MI
I live pretty close to their offices and always forgot that they're a thing, until some bad news like this comes up. :\

Used to want to work there too.
 

Cosmonaut X

Member
Oct 26, 2017
838
IIRC, "upon information and belief" is basically saying the claim is secondhand information and is protection against claims of making false statements, perjury etc.

Also: Starcock.
 

Shaneus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,255
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/star-control-countersuit-aims-to-invalidate-stardocks-trademarks/
The biggest thing Ford and Reiche are driving toward is the invalidation of Stardock's "Star Control" trademark. Ford and Reiche's contention here is that nothing Stardock purchased from Atari is actually valid—not the "Star Control" trademark, and not the Star Control 3 copyright. Ford and Reiche state that although Atari did indeed purport to sell those things to Stardock, those things weren't actually listed as assets in Atari's bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore, even though Atari went through the motions of the sale, nothing was actually sold. Ford and Reiche maintain that the 1988 agreement's dissolution gives them everything. They want Stardock's "Star Control" trademark canceled because they claim it was fraudulently registered.
Oh god, I hope Reiche/Ford get the whole fucking thing.
 

Shaneus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,255
I was just browsing through the history (via archive.org) of the starcontrol.com domain, just for curiosity's sake. Turns out it was a parked domain linking to porn sites until 2011ish!

But anyway, some very interesting stuff there, particularly in this interview, posted July 2013:
1) What exactly did you purchase? The trademarked name? In other words, can you elaborate on "Star Control Franchise Assets" in the auction?

Quote:

Atari claims the trademark, "franchise rights" (which I don't know what the legal ramifications of that means) and copyrights over Star Control 3.

MY personal, non-lawyer, view is that the game universe, which includes the aliens, are property of Paul and Fred. Or more to the point, I wouldn't want us to use them without their blessing and in fact I would like to see them get a royalty off any new games that make use of them.

5) If Atari is going away, who will be the publisher that "sells" the game on GOG.com? Or, will Stardock sell the original Star Control games?

Quote:

There is an agreement in place between Atari and Paul right now with GOG. Stardock would take over Atari's role. We wouldn't make any changes though.
This is another interesting read, too.
 

xylo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
73
Amazing. So basically everything I dug up above is what they are stating -- Stardock didn't buy SCI/II and in fact the Atari sale may have been fraudulent if the Accolade agreement is accurate.

I honestly hope they win simply because the claim from Stardock that they didn't create the game is beyond ludicrous.

And just like the readme from SC2 stated, here's to hoping that the scope and story of the SC game Paul/Fred are making once again expands like a blow-fish with water retention. Maybe they should hire Pinkertons again to track down the rights.
 

Barahir_mjh

Member
Feb 18, 2018
79
So here is Stardock's official response. What's interesting to me is how much they already seem to implicitly concede - they're no longer saying they have an unlimited license to do whatever they want with SC1+2.
https://forums.stardock.net/487690/page/1/#3705082

As someone who signed up for the Origins founder program at the last minute (at $35 cheaper tier) and wanted to like Stardock and even defended them in various places before this controversy blew up, I have felt stupid for trusting them since late last year.

Their argument that Fred and Paul did not create Star Control is of course absurd - like who told Brad that pushing this was a good idea? Other people helped, but it is very obviously Fred and Paul's game.

Stardock can cry about "they forced us to do this!" but if SD hadn't tried to sell F&P's games, use their aliens, and make ridiculous claims about having an exclusive license, this controversy never would have happened.
 
Last edited:

ForgeForsaken

Member
Oct 27, 2017
968
It wouldn’t surprise me if Stardock is off trying to hire some random person from the credits so they can claim they have the original creator on staff.
 

mclem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,044
Amazing. So basically everything I dug up above is what they are stating -- Stardock didn't buy SCI/II and in fact the Atari sale may have been fraudulent if the Accolade agreement is accurate.

I honestly hope they win simply because the claim from Stardock that they didn't create the game is beyond ludicrous.
The thing that strikes me as interesting is that it might be ludicrous, but I *think* I can see the legal angle behind it (lawyers can probably help out if I'm right or wrong on this):

The laws around copyright on games have often frustrated me, in that the actual game - that is, the rules that fundamentally underpin how a game is played - can't be copyrighted; instead, it's the representation of those rules that are protected. Which is what's making this paragraph ring alarm bells:

Upon information and belief, and contrary to the common public understanding and what they have portrayed to the public, Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II.
It does seem to be focussing on the idea that because the two designers didn't actually produce the directly-protected aspects of the game, they don't have rights to it; instead, they produced the gameplay, which isn't protected.

I don't think that's a valid argument personally, but I do acknowledge that it's an aspect of copyright law that bothers me, and I could imagine it being convoluted into that interpretation.
 

flyinj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,850
The craziest thing about all this is that Wardell is creating a new game in a franchise betting on the fanbase of the original two games being a large audience for it.

So what does he do? He basically shits all over the creators of the original games. The original creators of the game that he is making a new entry in, the reason anyone would care about his game in the first place.

This is a mind-numbingly dumb PR move. But it makes sense if you're an empathy-lacking libertarian. He probably sees it as "necessay business" and he's doing his duty to enforce the laws of the free market as he interprets it.
 

flyinj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,850
The thing that strikes me as interesting is that it might be ludicrous, but I *think* I can see the legal angle behind it (lawyers can probably help out if I'm right or wrong on this):

The laws around copyright on games have often frustrated me, in that the actual game - that is, the rules that fundamentally underpin how a game is played - can't be copyrighted; instead, it's the representation of those rules that are protected. Which is what's making this paragraph ring alarm bells:



It does seem to be focussing on the idea that because the two designers didn't actually produce the directly-protected aspects of the game, they don't have rights to it; instead, they produced the gameplay, which isn't protected.

I don't think that's a valid argument personally, but I do acknowledge that it's an aspect of copyright law that bothers me, and I could imagine it being convoluted into that interpretation.
If this argument wins in court, the precedent it will set will make me and a huge number of people in the game industry the owners of a lot of incredibly valuable assets.
 

deltatheta

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19
The craziest thing about all this is that Wardell is creating a new game in a franchise betting on the fanbase of the original two games being a large audience for it.

So what does he do? He basically shits all over the creators of the original games. The original creators of the game that he is making a new entry in, the reason anyone would care about his game in the first place.

This is a mind-numbingly dumb PR move. But it makes sense if you're an empathy-lacking libertarian. He probably sees it as "necessay business" and he's doing his duty to enforce the laws of the free market as he interprets it.
Yeah this doesn't make any sense at all. If he wins, he just gets a chance to make a game that no one will buy because fans of the series will hate his guts. Even the most rabid libertarian would have to be able to see that this is a no win situation. Honestly the only explanation is he's just a spiteful person who just wants to be "right" no matter what the ultimate outcome is.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,571
Madrid
I live pretty close to their offices and always forgot that they're a thing, until some bad news like this comes up. :\

Used to want to work there too.
Can I lend you a can of gasoline and a lighter?
This is irony, which should be obvious but one can never be too safe with the amount of actual threats today. :P

That would be great indeed. There are not enough fuck yous for Stardock.

The craziest thing about all this is that Wardell is creating a new game in a franchise betting on the fanbase of the original two games being a large audience for it.

So what does he do? He basically shits all over the creators of the original games. The original creators of the game that he is making a new entry in, the reason anyone would care about his game in the first place.

This is a mind-numbingly dumb PR move. But it makes sense if you're an empathy-lacking libertarian. He probably sees it as "necessay business" and he's doing his duty to enforce the laws of the free market as he interprets it.
I have to agree. I may have ignorantly bought his game if none of this had gone down. By bringing so much attention to his scummy shenanigans he's ensuring no SC fan with an internet connection is going to give a shit about it.

You could even unironically say that Stardock just shot themselves in the foot. :D
 

Wakawun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
173
Fuck Stardock. To be honest I'm not sure if Reich and Ford can pull off a remake that lives up to the expectations of SC2, but I'm gonna buy the shit out of it to support them in their legal and PR battle. Creators need to be rightfully acknowledged. No scummy post-truth thief should touch the legend that is Star Control.