Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 20805 times)

Reverend · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2003, 02:10:43 am »

It doesn't cost too much to run a company such as that- you and Mike and Jeff make up some more confining rules, then send it off to the presses- $1200. SFB is excellent an excellent tatical game; but it is just too confining to most people; some people like me find it too confining because it had so little to do with the television series; I love the Gorn, nad all other SFB races; but its just too predictable for most people. You treat SFB like Christianity- it won't ruin the world to deviate... I'm not asking for another Dominion Wars, or Bridge Commander. SFB led us to a place, one needds to know what to do once there. I wouldn't knock my own roots, don't get huffy.... why not ask for more? Everyone else gets it.

Reverend · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2003, 02:12:58 am »

Yes, Firesoul, something like what Active X, and I, and Formo, and many others would be just that! I wouldn't sit here and pull everyone's leg about such a conception... c'mon, SFCOP with a fully interactive, continually contiunous space.

Reverend · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2003, 02:17:48 am »

Kid Carrson, you're on the money about the expansions- those would be fun indeed...

NannerSlug · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2003, 03:29:50 am »

just a few points here guys.. keep in mind that we all have our opinions. we do not know how well sfc3 really did. to think that sfc is the sole reason why activision is suing paramount is beyond arrogant. i think someone put the nail on the head with the synergy thing. no movies = no hype = no cash.

everyone can just agree to disagree about rule sets and leave it at that. there are just about as many opinions on this game as there are people. thats life. what we should be looking positively about is that all the games have inspired enough people to enjoy the game and leave it at that.

let me remind some folk of somthing.. what do you think would have happened if during sfc2 there was no demo and the same type of support we have seen with sfc3? hmm.. i think that is a good reason why if anything, there are issues.. but here is another news flash - sfc3 is still going strong game wise.. sure, not as many on gsa.. but there are no leagues.. most of the folk are on d3.. and even without an official patch, that section has been bumping around 100 folk at 2 am in the morning - and thats on modded servers that require 100s of megs of downloads and installs.

my only point is dont sell sfc3 short like some people have.

when its all said and done these are games. lets just leave it at that.

and yes, sfc1, 2, op and sfc3 are all TREK games first and foremost.. the rule sets are tools used to accomplish an objective.. so no, the "core" crowd is not sfb folk - the "core" are trek fans.. that doesnt take away anything from sfc1/2/op - but that rule set/those who like that rule set do not have ownership on the community. it should be big enough for everyone.

Cleaven · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2003, 05:32:27 am »

I'm amazed to see Reverend say " SFB had its day; lets not stretch it into infinity- all things, especially good things, must end."

It's like saying that we've had chess for a thousand years so it's time to get rid of it because it's past it's use-by date. Don't take people for fools when they can recognise that quality and value for money endures. A quality product will go on and on until it is replaced by something better or the market disappears. SFB and F&E are still in publication when almost all other board games published in that era are gone, so the evidence is that the SFB market is still there.

And to go on and say that "SFB never sold." is even more incredulous. As you can easily see, not only did it sell well, but it has sold well for a long, long time. Of course this is not to imply that SFB is as successful as Monopoly, but it is successful.

And none of this detracts from any success of SFC:TNG and it's off-shoots, but I will happily bet that SFB will still be selling after all the current Star Trek games have given up the ghost.

Reverend · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2003, 08:55:03 am »

good points, Cleaven and Nannerslug... most of all, I just don't want ST random getting the raw end of the deal again. If its going to get split up, I just hope whoever gets the heavy side of the rights does something with it for us, instead of it rotting in pieces.

Sethan · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:03:46 am »

Quote:

It is of astronomically astounding levels of surprise and simultaneous dismay that I see all this worry over ANOTHER SFB game.... didn't we just have three in a row?

We had 3 in a row, and years later, people are still playing them.

Quote:

What made people run from SFC3 wasn't because it had less of the SFB shackles- it was because it wasn't a consistent, continuous space universe... just like Earth and Beyond, just like Eve Genesis, and the other fully interactive space sims that tragically outsell the SFC series.

Um, SFC2 and SFC:OP didn't have a "consistent, continuous space universe" like the other games you describe either - and yet years after their release, people are still playing them.

Methinks the problems with SFC3 lie elsewhere.

Quote:

SFB never sold.

It sold, and continues to sell. That would be why the company is still releasing new products for it.

Quote:

If any mythology deserved such a universe, it would be Star Trek. There was simply not enough put into the game. It is a flop.

Actually, from a naval combat game standpoint, the SFB (Starfleet) Universe is far more detailed than the Star Trek Universe. There was plenty to put into a game - and several successful ones have been made on that basis.

Quote:

You all got your SFB games, why can't you be happy with that?

We did indeed get 3 SFB based games - and we like them. We want more. You got your Trek based games - dozens of them (mostly bad). Why can't you be happy with that?

Quote:

If you want Eras at War, then mod it- many of our finer modders/moddellers have done so for you already; stop praying for more Nitpicking of the Nth Degree.

To some extent this has been done - but there are limits beyond which the current game engine will not allow the modelers and scripters to go. There is much that could be done with a new game engine - including adding some of the features of SFC3.

Quote:

Let the rest of us have our online consistent universe we have been seeking... that which would feel like you are flying a massive starship thorugh a gargantuan galaxy; not where you feel like you're moving a damned bitmapped pwter model on a online board (bored) game.

Mod it.

You can't? Gee - too bad. Now you know what we feel like when we can't mod something into the game that WE want.

You have your "online consistent universe" in other games - leave ours alone. Go mod the other games if you want a Trek flavor to your online consistent universe.

Quote:

If one were to make another Star Trek game, it would need to be of drastic differences than is previously granted. Yes, the SFC(3)-style of combat is pretty much flawless. Easy to learn, hard to master. THIS will draw consumers, not another re-hash of another game.

Different != Success. SFC3 was different.

Reverend · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:04:40 am »

typo!-
I meant Star Trek fandom... in general...

Reverend · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:31:28 am »

My, what a great gnashing of teeth is see. Your capablility to be very exquisite in your point-counter-pointing quote manipulation is to be honored, greatly honored. You have mastered ForumSpeak. If you're intending to make me look like a dummy because my opinion differs from yours, its not going to work. Take it apart to its very molecular coponenets, pour your little heart into, by George; but you takethe point apart. Okay, I was wrong, people do by SFB board games still. Probrobly someone here went and bought one just to make a point. Regardless, if there is another game built, I'll eat my hat if its some moron Star Trek game like all the others, or another rehash of SFB; that should have been patched with OP, which I merrily play to this day. SFC2OP is ANOTHER unfinished product. I so hooped that SFC3 was going to give us best of both worlds. Sure would be nice to have to turn off point defense before skipping across the sector. So... what can you wrench out of this so far? The same thing you are feeling, I'd just bet it is; stop being too proud to admit it, especially someone so gentle as Sethan... I might as well be sitting here saying anything past Luke is blasphemy, and all Baptism is shat (crosses self a few times)... I'd be getting the same response.
Why can't you have the best of both worlds? I don't think its too much to ask. Sethan wrote much material on the Rhiannasu- I wish there was a place where we all log on to, physically meet right in front of Rhiannasu (Romulus- whichever, sorry for the wrong words), and chat through ship channels or duke it out SFC-style, either way. Is that to much to ask for?
That wouldn't be a flavor, it'd be a little of both. Then if we got done talking, we could warp out and go about our business- fight something, scan something, rescue someone, whatever. Doing that, at your own discretion, would be against SFB rules... you'd have to disengage, and fall off the hex map... not to mention a couple of other grumbles. If I made you (bigger) SFB fans mad, I'm sorry, I was just hoping that we could see it as SFB giving us a great backbone, but we needing to take it and run, to build a body from it and expand out; SFB made ships, maybe a ocean could be built around it. Is this any better?

Mr. Hypergol · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:52:49 am »

I'm going to cry...........<sniffle>...............WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I want is for them to find a way to finish the EAW storyline and add the remaining major races Andros and Tholians.

WWWWAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Reverand says we need to move on.........the problem is they didn't finish what they started!!!!!

WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

I don't hate SFC3...hell I bought several copies of the damn game!!!!!!

WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

I just want them to finish what they started somehow.....then I'll be out of everyone's hair......

WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

If they would just program WEB.......we'd have Tholians......we've got Brez's models.......

If they would just program the andro displacement, PA panels, and TR beams, the fans could make the models and shiplists!!

WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Anybody got a hanky...........

It just that they are SOOOOO CLOSE to finishing what they started.........

<sniffle>

Lepton1 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2003, 11:50:32 am »

It is an interesting perspective to say that we have had 3 SFB-based SFC titles in the past two years. My view is more like we have had .9 or 1.2 depending on how critical one wants to be. Essentially, OP is the fullfilment of the Taldren promise to give us a full product. You could either view it as EAW2.0 or GAW0.8. But to suggest that any of these are really disparate separate titles does not recognize the fact that most of the elements and a good deal of the code is the same. It was just repackaged and sold to us again. It's really just as reprehensible as EA Sports releasing new version of their most popular titles every year or so. Bought it once, buy it again. I have probably spent in total 140 bucks on the SFC series. I think that is enough to assure me a full product of which OP is just that short of being it.

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2003, 12:54:55 pm »

Well,

Think about how the other software makers do it:

They let you try it for 2 weeks free.

Then they sell you version 2.0 for 50 bucks. If you want to download it you can, or you can have them send you a disc. If you want them to send you printed instructions (as opposed to a printable .pdf), that's another 30 bucks. Over the next year or so, they come out with 2.1, 2.2, 2.4. 2.5 and 2.6, all freely downloadable to anyone who bought 2.0.

Then they come out with 3.0, for 55 bucks, or only maybe 20 bucks if you bought 2.0. Over the next year, you get 3. 1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.

So, the loyal patrons get a year's worth of new stuff for 20 bucks, they get all their friends to try it, the company stays in business, and everyone gets most of the new features they want (eventually.)

One trick would be to allow someone with 2.0 to continue playing on the dynaverse with people who bought 3.0, only they don't get to use the new goodies that 3.0 added. (That model works for features, but I don't know how it would work with bug fixes, maybe you would want to seperate bug fix downloads, that would continue to be free for everyone, from new feature downloads, that people would pay for, if that makes sense.) Too complicated? Well come on, if we weren't all brains to begin with, we wouldn't be playing this game. ;^)

Now, onto licensing... Interplay had to license both Star Trek TOS & TMP from Paramount, as well as SFB from ADB? Is that a correct understanding? I always understood that Paramount refused to admit that ADB's 'license', (which they actually sub-licensed from Lou Zocci, for the Starfleet Technical Manual, or some such, before the advent of the computer game and before Paramount really woke up to the licensing monster that is Trek...) ever included the right to make SFB into a computer game. In fact, for a while, they were denying that ADB's license was valid enough to cover SFB in the first place, though they seem to have eventually backed off that...

So now, Paramount HAS granted the right to make Trek computer games to other companies, and you have to have THAT license, from Paramount, PLUS the license from ADB... And Taldren purchased the ADB license to make OP, right? But they (or who ever they contract out to,) still need the Paramount Trek License to legaly make GAW...

Does anyone out there have a firm grasp of copyright law? Anyone who knows the actual legal ins and outs of this situation? We need a detailed description from someone who really knows...

Hey, Reverend, have you tried BattleCruiser 3000? Just asking...

Chaos

Reverend · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2003, 03:51:19 pm »

I sympathize with you Hypergol.... wish we could have 1,2, and OP finished like you say- heck, I'd play it easily. Tholians are weird and neat!
Chaos, I haven't seen Battlecruiiser 3000.... what does it have that SFC doesn't, no offense?
Hope I haven't made Sethan too mad, though he was pretty harsh on me- sokay, I'm adamant about my wishes too.
Where can we go from here? Petition the next licensee? Make us a real game this time- GAW, EAW, whatever, just make us a finished game for Pete's sake.

Reverend · « **Reply #33 on:** July 15, 2003, 03:54:03 pm »

Capt Chaos- everyone- I believe you have a good point. Lets all call attorneys in our area about copyright law concerning such. Maybe lines can be drawn beforehand- that could intone progress, yes? No?

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2003, 08:22:51 pm »

Bringing back the thread at this point to something RESEMBLING the original topic:

The Star Trek licensing debacle will take a long time to sort out. A LONG time. The ripple effects abound. For the most part, the curse of the Star Trek games continue because, IMHO, the programming budgets and the licensing budgets don't have enough room to accommodate one another. In other words, in order for ANY software publisher to get the rights to the collective ST universe, they have to sink in mega $. These mega $ get yanked from the programming budget. Furthermore, there immediately is placed on the programmers a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure to make a game that will generate rapid and large sales. Why? Because so much money was sunk into the license that a game without broad-based appeal is (perceived as) a lost cause: the publishers will NEVER realize their initial investment. SFC3 is a perfect example of this: Activision secures the rights to ST, and wants a winner. They get Taldren for SFC, given that SFC2 was such a success, but they tell Taldren to 'de-geek' it.

Make it more palatable to the general public.

Taldren protests, but, hey, who's paying the bills? Activision. The suits say it needs to be dumbed down, so Taldren does what it can to still leave some appeal to the SFBer, but for the most part, hope that the loyalties to SFC outweigh the loyalties to SFB for the hardcore old school SFC2ers. And gamble that the software sales by John Q. Public will totally overwhelm the lost sales from the old-schoolers who are not hip to SFC3. That's the hand they got dealt and they played it the only way they could play it, frankly.

But SFC3s disappointing sales will serve unfortunately as ammo for the naysayers in ANY software publishing house. They will say that a hardcore gamers game in a Star Trek universe won't sell. They'll have this position despite the fact that, IMHO, SFC3 tanked precisely because it ALIENATED the hardcore gamers in the first place in the hopes of getting wider appeal. I do not have faith in neither Activision nor Paramount to have the insight to realize that the Star Trek license just can't carry a poorly balanced game. Never has, never will.

On the other hand, a well-balanced game without the license CAN hold its own. Not a MEGA success, but possibly hold its own. But it is a risk.

The sure-fire success, IMHO, is the synergy realized when the ST license happens to be on a well-balanced game.

But like I said, the suits will NOT see it that way.

So, IMHO, the best we can hope for is either:

Long-term Scenario 1: Orion PIrates gets old, but ages tremendously gracesfully due to the staunch support of the hardcore gamers who don't get a comparable product for the foreseeable future. Eventually, either OP goes open source or someone on their own figures out enough to effectively unlock it for heavy modding, and all kinds of stuff happens. This is like the 5 year plan. 10 years down the road, some gaming company realizes that this fricking game is STILL around after all these years and decides to update it to 2014 standards. By then, the Trek licensing snafus have run their course and publishers are more willing to take "chances" on 'niche' games that trade style for substance. Fun, fun fun.

Long-term Scenario 2: Taldren, or some other company, gets in bed with ADB which licenses out SFB but removes all Trek references. They listen to the customers and leave the graphics/UI code moddable enough that pesky members of the gaming community Star-Trekkify the game on their own, without Paramount's official blessing. Working against this: ADB inherently has an incentive to NOT allow a game to be TOO moddable and eat into their boardgame sales. Also Paramount might be total douchebags and intervene on third party modders of the StarTrekless SFC. But I see that as rather difficult to control.

Anyhow, that's how I see it.

Note there is no "Short-term Scenario." Because simply speaking I don't see anything remarkable happening in the short-term (except for FireSoul's tremendous support for OP, and the release of the highly-anticipated OP Dynaverse stability patch!).

Thanks,

TF

Magnum357 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:42:37 pm »

Ok, hold on people... let me get this straight. After reading all this thread-fighting for about a half an hour, Scipio_66 informs us that the reason why ADB never have built a Computer board game of SFB is because Paramount comes in and says "that their copy right protection of SFB doens't protect you if make it for the computer"? Am I right on this understanding? Well, all I can say is Paramount has been using smoke and mirrors to scare ADB into thinking this. I'm pretty sure that Paramount would never win a court case if ADB actually made their own computer game. For what basis could Paramount sue ADB for violating the Star Trek Licence? Trust me guys, this is all just scare tactics on Paramonts part. Just got to this website for copyright laws and you will understand what I mean....

http://www.copyright.gov/

Now, back to what Tumulorum Fossor was talking about. I completely agree with his theories about all this crap happening. That is why I suggested that Taldren just work a deal with ADB and forget a deal with Paramont. As I have stated above, I find it unlikely that Paramont would win this legal battle under copyright laws so Taldren and ADB really should not worry about this. I'm also certain that ADB would make for a much more afordable contract negotiation then Paramounts Multi-million dollar Trek License. I think both ADB and Taldren could benefit from this deal greatly.

As for Activision, hey what can I see, it just shows you how greedy that corperation really is. They made this deal with Taldren because they thought they could make money hand over fist! They deserved what they got in my opinion. I hope Taldren considers my theory and just let Activision and Paramont duke it out while they try to make a good SFB based game.

Now Reverend, I can understand why you think SFB is out of style. It is a rather old game and was made not too long after I was born, but it has a proven Navel Combat system and a very loyal set of fans (myself included). I like SFC3 too, but so far from what I have seen of this Activision/Viacom situation, I think another SFC TNG title is slim to none. But as I stated before, a lot of SFC3 elements could be added to a SFC GAW. Hidden Cloaks, Warping (a 1 minute delay as stated in SFB rules), and making weapons modable could be a few of many features that could make GAW not only a SFB game but a TNG game if someone wanted too.

Reverend · « **Reply #37 on:** July 15, 2003, 11:24:41 pm »

Well, thats all I really was hopping about anyhow... persistent universe (in Sethan's more articulate terms) would be pretty snazzy also... I have had my dues paid with SFB; I still have my pewter ships even (at $10+ apiece). If SFC2OP could be modded with SFC3 movemet characteristics, it'd make things a lot more easier to handle...
with the copyright laws as they stand, I don't see much more changing in the future either. All we can do I suppose is hope some company realizes the small but trusty market we as ST/SFB fans provide, and attempt to cash in on it again. Wish w could organize some sort of polite protest and get some work done... I suspect it wouldn't be exactly what any of us hoped for, but some work is better than none.

News:

Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 20805 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Reverend

Reverend

Reverend

NannerSlug

Cleaven

Reverend

Sethan

Reverend

Reverend

Mr. Hypergol

Lepton1

Cpt. Chaos

Reverend

Reverend

Sethan

Tumulorum Fossor

Magnum357

Reverend

Rod O'neal

Mr. Hypergol

Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 20805 times)