Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series?

[Tulwar]

As far as I know ADB and Taldren work quite closely together.  The problem is, Viacom has armies of lawyers to make sure that no one makes a dime off ST without paying them handsomly.  I agree that Viacom only tolerates SFB, because ADB behaves itself.  The fact they bought the rights to material in ST is only a trivial matter.

Activision on the other hand, they bought high and are selling low.  As long as any ST program is in production, they don't have a leg to stand on in court.  Even if there wasn't, Activision would be in a difficult legal position.  I hope Viacom eats them for breakfast!  They deserve it.  

[David Ferrell]

SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.

Thanks,

Dave  

[Aversham]

Quote:
SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.

Thanks,

Dave  

Nope, just disappointed customers.

Sorry Dave, nothing personal, but a lot of us bought that game on the assumption it would still be SFB based; we felt betrayed. (Though our faith in Taldren has been shaken, we still hold out hope...)  

[Reverend]

No, better yet, a lot more of us were expecting it to not just turn in one diection and stop, but have a consistent universe attached to it. Thanks for the one line reply, Dave!! Why don't you speculate on this further, instead of just being flippant. Tell us to shut- up, give an opionion, or state a fact with numbers...  don't hold out on us.  

[NannerSlug]

if you bought sfc3 and felt like it was going to be another incarnation - then you might not have done the proper research. it was well known for a very, very long time that they were going away from the sfb rule set for sfc3.

that said, there are many folks who like (some even love) sfc3, and whos only dissappointment was the lack of an official patch (or how long it took to get the beta patch out due to red tape) to fix simple issues like the anticloak cheat/follow bug.. there are a few that will be nice when they get squashed (like the out of sync/loading bug) or leaving a mission and for what ever reason not getting your full prestiege.

that doesnt make the game perfect. far from it. there could be much more detail put into the game - ranging from specific hard point mass restrictions to the ability to manage power more to more ships.. (oh yeah - tbombs. heh) however, it doesnt mean its a POS like a few people think it is (simply because it doesnt use the sfb rule set).

so to say there are disappointed customers isnt exactly telling the whole story. there might be some - but to group all those people into a single group is wrong. also, judging by the number of people playing on d3 at 2 am in the morning (especially when more than half are on servers that require hundreds of megs of downloads), people are enjoying the game. again, that doesnt make the game perfect, but i do not believe you are painting an altogether accurate.

on a seperate note...

sfc3 did not have disappointing sales? that sounds great! thanks for the info.. just wish we could find out some more info.

this is good news (for all)!

 

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
No, better yet, a lot more of us were expecting it to not just turn in one diection and stop, but have a consistent universe attached to it. Thanks for the one line reply, Dave!! Why don't you speculate on this further, instead of just being flippant. Tell us to shut- up, give an opionion, or state a fact with numbers...  don't hold out on us.  

i dont think dave can comment on exact numbers unless he wants to be slapped with a lawsuit from ativi/ get fired. it was nice to get that morsel, though.

[Sethan]

Quote:
SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.

Thanks,

Dave  

Never said it did.

The true measure of a game is not how well it sells, but how many people it sold to are still playing it years afterwards.

High sales is great in the short term - but if most of those people play the game for a week or a month and then never touch it again, that doesn't bode well for sequels.

SFC2 has maintained a strong following despite its having been out for several years.  I don't think that's happening with SFC3.

In SFC2's case the reason is twofold:

1) A highly complex fun game that is accessible to new players but takes work to master.

2) A tremendous level of support from the developer.

In SFC3's case, it was designed to have a broader appeal and so initial sales were higher - but the complexity is lacking, reducing replay value.

The amount of support Taldren has been able to give SFC3 has also been more limited than for the SFC2 series, due to Activision's 'one patch' policy, and the absence of a Khoromag-type situation for SFC3.

 

[NannerSlug]

has it sethan? i challenge both statments.

sfc3 has already recieved several mods and is growing.. that ability to adapt and grow and add in much of the detail which was not in the inital release will help it sustain growth.  the base sfc3 game has recieved a fraction of the support from its publisher (no demo, no official patch yet) yet is doing quite well. could you say that for sfc2? hard to say, but given the adverse conditions '3 has gone through, i think its done quite well.

in short, lets talk a year or even 18 months after its release and we will see.  

[EmeraldEdge]

Quote:
if you bought sfc3 and felt like it was going to be another incarnation - then you might not have done the proper research. it was well known for a very, very long time that they were going away from the sfb rule set for sfc3.

It has been widely proffessed that the vast majority of gamers do, not only, not come to these forums but don't browse the internet for game information, etc.  This has been the main vocal support for the "most gamers don't want SFB" crowd, since most the people here want it.  So, if it is in fact true that most do not use the internet for their gaming information or even if they only occassionally, then it is highly likely that they did not get this information.  I don't believe it's printed on the box, is it?  No big sign at the software store at the SFC3 display?

edit:  Question.  Which is better.  A buggy demo that plays very similar to the game that came before, making people wince at the bugs in even the demo and the thought of what the actual game might be like, or no demo at all?  Major advertised feature missing with many missed promises of release and eventual buggy release (not to mention massively buggy game release in general) and some patches stretched out over years, or a release with a few bugs no missing features, and a beta patch?

[NannerSlug]

the door swings both ways, EE.. again, looking at who the "core" audience is.. (trek fans) it could go either way. it simply is an unknown. to lump everyone into the "its not sfb so im mad" crowd is wrong and presupposing that is the only reason why sfc did well in the first place. (which i believe is false)

but you know what - neither side can prove its case, so it probably should be left alone.. my main point was that it is wrong to lump everyone into the same group.

[EmeraldEdge]

What does that have to do with telling a guy he's disappointed because he didn't do his research?  

[Tumulorum Fossor]

Dave Ferrell said:
"SFC3 did not have disappointing sales."


I stand corrected, and am sincerely glad that SFC3 did NOT have disappointing sales and that I was incorrect in making that statement.  I do not have any privileged information in that regard and that statement was my impression just based on the general buzz of SFC3 relative to SFC and SFC2, and is HARDLY scientific.

I did not mean to offend.

But I cannot help but get the feel that even at this point, SFC2's following, despite its age, is currently comparable to SFC3's following, and that SFC3 support within the gaming community is decaying at a more rapid rate than SFC2 support.  That, coupled with Activision's remarkable complaint to Viacom implies that Activision was disappointed with the sales of Star Trek software (Armada, Elite Force, SFC3, Bridge Commander, Armada 2, Elite Force 2, Away Team).  Of those seven titles, 4 were games that did well enough that they either got a sequel or were a sequel themselves while under Activision, leaving 3 titles holding-the-bag so to speak: Bridge Commander, Away Team, and SFC3.  Of the 3, clearly Away Team was the big loser, but just as clearly, Activision could not have been overwhelmed with sales of the other remaining titles either.  Activision's apparent lack of support of Taldren in trying to get a patch going (and that's just hearsay I my part: I have no concrete info on it), furthers suspicion.  But once again, it's all conjecture.

Also, it's just an educated guess here, but I would think the target sales for SFC3 would be significantly higher than for SFC2: bigger budget(?), more complete license, and more EXPENSIVE license agreement.  But to the casual observer, at least at this point in time, SFC3's following seems to be comparable and not clearly larger than SFC.  And, as I already said, I suspect SFC3's interest-decay to be much more rapid than SFC2's.  But, obviously, I could be wrong.

Now don't get me wrong: as an SFC/Taldren fan, even an SFB-oriented one, for SFC3 to be considered within the industry as a success is A Very Good Thing.  It dramatically increases the likelihood that SFC will eventually continue hand-in-hand with the Star Trek license even across a THIRD publisher (to continue across 2 publishers is impressive enough in this business, by the way).  Personally, however, I hope that SFC2's long-term interest will serve as the catalyst for an SFC4 rather than SFC3's short-term(?) sales figures.  Why?  Because if the impetus for SFC4 is perceived as being due to SFC3's commercial success, it will likely migrate further from my beloved SFB mechanics in the hopes of broadening the market for the initial sales spike.  Whereas if SFC2's slavish following is perceived as the impetus for SFC4, then I would expect SFC4 to be MORE SFBish in rules.

But once again, I did not mean to offend with my [mis]characterization of SFC3 sales as disappointing.  Furthermore, I'm grateful for the SFC:OP support!  Thanks, David Ferrell (and everyone else so involved)!

I DO think it would be an interesting question to ask everyone in this thread:
 "If SFC4 ever materializes, will it be because of the success/persistence of SFC3 OR the success/persistence of SFC2[OP/EAW]?

Just curious to hear what other people think.

Thanks!

-TF

P.S.:  While trying to get an idea about the market demand for SFC3 by perusing ebay listings, I couldn't fight the temptation: I went ahead an just PURCHASED a copy of SFC3, because even though it leaves most of my beloved SFB rulebook bleeding and dying at the side of the road, it just LOOKS so darned cool!  UI looks good, good price [now], and the beta patch available for download.  Besides, I already have SFC, EAW, and OP.  Might as well give 3 a shot.  But damned if I'll get used to only 4 shields !

[Reverend]

I for one did not buy SFC2 or OP because it was SFB-related. After getting the spec files while chooseing a ship, it became obvious enough, but I did not choose to buy it for or because it was SFB-related. Me, like many more others than you'd think, bought it because it was the only decent Trek game released thus far... I bought Dominion Wars becuae I heard it wasn't SFB-related, and found out it didnt have much time put into it, and was too story-based. Many of us had to buy SFC+ because it was the only real ST game out, NOT becasue it was SFB-ralted. Its like moving into a town that has all Satanic Churchs, and one Jehovah's Witness Hall.... I am not a Jehovah's Witness,no offense to them, but its better than what is out there.
SFC3 took what it needed from SFB and dropped the ''unrealistic'' aspects from it... like a set impusle speed limit, the inability to go in reverse, and in-system or in-battle warp. We also lost many logical and crucial systems, like autopilot (point defense), and so on.
If SFC3 didn't have the SFC title, it might have sold even more. It just feels to me and many others with a SFB-heavy game, is that you're driving a Ferrari Testarossa without a reverese gear and won't go above 2nd gear, and no headlights. Seems to hamper it some; I am flying a bitmapped game piece on  board- like I've said before. Sorry if am giving SFB fans a hard time, I was just hoping that they take SFC3 and push it to anotehr level, leaving the modablity capacity strong. Keep the same aspects from SFB we had, but keep the rules reduction in there.
I know, its like asking for cake and getting a slice with no fork, but it drew this many newcomers, and I bet thsoe newcomers have tried SFC2 and are enjoying it as well.
Thanks for the space, and for reading it....
Dave, give us some more input, you know we all appreciate it when you speak.  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Then again, if SFC TNG didnt have the "SFC" title, it might have sold alot WORSE.

HAND!
 

[David Ferrell]

No offense taken TF.  The sales of SFC3 are often thought to be low, but they are not.

At the moment, we are in the dark as far as the license goes.  We will continue to work
on a patch for SFC3 and hope it is released eventually.

TF, I hope you enjoy at least the single player campaign(s) for SFC3.  I think I did a lot of good
work in there and I think they are enjoyable.  Please get the Beta patch, it will increase
your enjoyment of the game.

Thanks,

Dave

 

[Tulwar]

Folks, since we've turned this thread into aa SFC2 vs. SFC3 flame war, so let me point out the obvious problems that many of us have with SFC3.

1.)  It has deprived us of the logical sequel to SFC2.

2.)  It lacks enough material to be considdered on par with SFC2.

3.)  It has split the SFC community.

These are significant wrongs. If SFC TNG were released after SFC GAW, and I saw a flame war, I would tell the GAW crowd to grow up.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  To add insult to injury, SFC3 lacks the content of SFC2:  8 races vs. 4, 6 shields vs 4, ect.  Because so many of us feel deprived, yet other like the new game better, these bloody flame wars go on under any general topic.

I would pobably buy a SFC title based on an improved version of SFC3, but not until SFC GAW is on my HD.

Now, will someone get us back on topic?  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 Now, will someone get us back on topic?  

Yeah....back on topic.

My original thoughts at the beginning of this thread kind of revolved around the possibility that having the Trek liscense split might be good for all of us...sfc2 and sfc3 fans alike.

Like Tul said, most of the SFC2 fans probably would have had no problem with SFC TNG if it had been SFC4 instead.

The best solution to this rift  in the future would be to make two lines of SFC, but as long as a single publisher, Activision, controls everything, a product line split would have been 100%  impossible.  With multiple publishers a product split might not be AS impossible and perhaps other creative liscensing deals could be worked out.

And yes, thanks David for commenting.

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
I for one did not buy SFC2 or OP because it was SFB-related. <snip>  Me, like many more others than you'd think, bought it because it was the only decent Trek game released thus far...

Really?  And what, pray tell, made it the only decent Trek game released thus far?  I think you like it for what it is.  And what it is, of course, is SFB.  If you bought it and played it for a day before shelving it, then you may have purchased it because it was a Trek game and stopped because you didn't like its rule set.  If you kept playing it then you did so because you enjoyed the SFB rule set.

This is why I think it is silly for Nanner to say that the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 are not SFB fans.  The core audience of a game is comprised of the people who like that game.  SFC is SFB.  Really, it is.  The (handful of) differences between the two are no more significant than the SFB house rules I've found in various gaming clubs across the country.  I've seen seeking weapons move various speeds, and I've played with miniatures using turn gauges -- rather than hexes -- and quarter-turn advance plotting -- surpisingly close to "real time".  Thus, the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 were SFB players whether they knew this about themselves or not.

Some purchasers may not enjoy the process of setting up a board game on their tabletop and pushing carefully painted miniatures towards one another.  No worries, and with SFC there is now no need.  But if you still play SFC1 and SFC2 then you must like SFC1 and 2.  And if you like them, you like SFB.

Of course this all changed with SFC3 (sic).

-S'Cipio  

[David Ferrell]

You must remember nothing happens in a vacuum (except for boiling water at really low temps).

There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.

If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.

Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".

Thanks,

Dave  

[NannerSlug]

first off, tulwar, you have some valid points in that i think sfc3 could have been more detailed and more content ala tnz.. (the popularity of the tnz and dominion war mod proves this out - and it proves how it could sell well).. but depriving someone of the logical conclusion of sfc2 and splitting the community? HA! most folks who play sfc3 are rather open to sfc2 (because it is another trek game).. they enjoy sfc3 better in most cases.. but most of the community splitting is done by those folk who are simply hard core sfb folk.. and that is their perogative.. no one can force you to like sfc3 - just as many folk who think that sfc2 isnt for them (and there are many out there - you should read some of the other trek forums.. i have read quite a few. its funny when you move beyond this forum some comments) play other games..

also, not true scippy!  there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.. it is true that sfc1/2 and parts of op use sfb as a basis - but there are so many differences that you cannot claim that (even in fundamental elements like speed of weapons). sfc2 is not perfect - just as sfc3 is not perfect. however, the core audience ARE trek fans who are willing to play/try trek combat sims.. they are not set on a rule set persae - just as long as it works. that is the category i fall under.. we are gamers.. people who are looking for a good time and are willing to play/spend time and enjoy various games - and try things.. sfc has been an excellent series because of the many design decisions made by taldren and yes, the producers - whether interplay or activision. most of us are very open minded.. (dont believe me - check out the number of folk downloading the mods for sfc3 which are in the hundreds of megs)

also, much of why people play a game over and over again is because of the community, clan or fleet and personal experiences. that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game. it is true that it was a good basis - a good start, but it is not the end all to be all. there were many, many design decisions which made sfc a different animal.. check your marketing research and see who people would like to see in a trek combat game.. now if i have 5 million to invest in a game, where am i going to spend it?

ill be repetitve and say people should just let things go and enjoy what they enjoy instead of constantly harrassing the other side.. its tough enough for those who are not getting support from activision - but to add insult to injury is worse.

hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek.  thats not to say 3 is perfect, but to say that many of us are open and simply want a fun and enjoyable space combat sim.. sfc3 gives us that.. just wish it had more detail.