3 ms·

Stardock rebooted using a different timeline reportedly to leave room for Toys for Bob to expand with their own related eventual sequel. Sounds like a win-win f

Stardock rebooted using a different timeline reportedly to leave room for Toys for Bob to expand with their own related eventual sequel. Sounds like a win-win for gamers to me. (I've also completed the new Star Control reboot and found it hyper-faithful to everything we loved and remember about Star Control II, with similar controls, UX, and even remixed music.)

pavlov 8y ago
Stardock rebooted simply because they didn't have rights to the original Star Control universe, not out of benevolence. It's very much the opposite in fact. Stardock has sued the original creators on frivolous grounds, is trying to prevent them from using the characters they created, and is actively spreading false information about who created the Star Control universe. More information here: https://www.dogarandkazon.com https://www.dogarandkazon.com
setr 8y ago
I think gp is referring to the current lawsuit between stardock and toys for bob, in which stardock is trying to claim total ownership over the star control trademark/universe See: https://www.dogarandkazon.com https://www.dogarandkazon.com Also of note — they’re requesting $2m in gofundme donations to fight it, but have only gotten 40k in 6 months. My hopes of ever seeing a proper sc3 is vanishing. https://www.gofundme.com/help-fred-amp-paul-save-the-universe?member=333940 https://www.gofundme.com/help-fred-amp-paul-save-the-univers...
- withinrafael 8y ago
  Yup, I'm very aware of the ongoing legal battle. I was trying to side-step discussion around it as Paul/Ritchie appear to present a very warped view of history/reality via their blog. (For example, available data suggests P/R didn't actually substantially contribute to SC1/2.) A slightly better armchair take can be found at the UQM wiki [1] with actual lawyer commentary [2] Not taking any real sides here, I feel everyone involved is greater than I regardless of outcome, but do hope folks keep an open mind. [1] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reiche_III_and_Robert_Frederick_Ford http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich... [2] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reiche_III_and_Robert_Frederick_Ford#Commentary_from_Lawyers http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich...
  - setr 8y ago
    I mean, the wiki page itself notes that multiple involved in making it support the idea they were creative leads in section 4.2[0], and they’ve been the front of every interview and on the game’s splash... if they weren’t actually doing much, this would’ve been in a controversy beginning in 1992, not today But I haven’t taken a look at the lawyer commentary. (I don’t know that I care enough to). But outside of the lawyers and stardock’s ceo commentary, I haven’t seem anything to imply they weren’t in charge of the whole thing. But anyways, I didn’t care for the stardock’s game, so it doesn’t matter what the truth is for me. I just want a proper sc3 (though I’m expecting they’ll still try to “modernize” itand toss out all the fun with it, as most decade-apart sequels go; but a man can dream, can’t he?) [0] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reiche_III_and_Robert_Frederick_Ford#Why_does_it_matter_if_Reiche_and_Ford_call_themselves_the_.22creators_of_Star_Control.22.3F http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich...
  - lixue 8y ago
    "For example, available data suggests P/R didn't actually substantially contribute to SC1/2." That's a pretty wild claim to repeat. Not a single person on the original team agrees with it, and they've filed the copyright registration in court[1]. There's basically no evidence at all for that conclusion, except that Stardock made the claim (not supported it, not provided evidence of it, merely made the claim) Even if you do believe it, it's legally irrelevant as the team has signed the copyright over to them[2], and they released The Ur-Quan Masters back in 2003 using that copyright. I was a member of the community back in the lat 90s/early 00s and this was common knowledge even back then. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/71/6/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/71/6/stardock-s... [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/64/5/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/64/5/stardock-s...
    - withinrafael 8y ago
      That sounds like a fair take, IANAL. It's worth noting these registrations are dated 2017/2018, after the mud-flinging began. I wouldn't be shocked to hear they're invalid.
Illniyar 8y ago
Faithful without any of the races, history or story? I mean the mechanics were not really groundbreaking even back then. The game won it's place in history due to it's great characters and wonderful story. You can't be faithful to the game without building on it's story. If nothing of the story is used they could have just made the same game with a different brand and it would be exactly the same. The use of the Star control name is simply a marketing tactic to get people who heard and liked SC to buy a game they would otherwise not - I.E. they wanted to milk the brand.

pavlov 8y ago

Stardock rebooted simply because they didn't have rights to the original Star Control universe, not out of benevolence. It's very much the opposite in fact. Stardock has sued the original creators on frivolous grounds, is trying to prevent them from using the characters they created, and is actively spreading false information about who created the Star Control universe. More information here: https://www.dogarandkazon.com https://www.dogarandkazon.com

setr 8y ago

I think gp is referring to the current lawsuit between stardock and toys for bob, in which stardock is trying to claim total ownership over the star control trademark/universe See: https://www.dogarandkazon.com https://www.dogarandkazon.com Also of note — they’re requesting $2m in gofundme donations to fight it, but have only gotten 40k in 6 months. My hopes of ever seeing a proper sc3 is vanishing. https://www.gofundme.com/help-fred-amp-paul-save-the-universe?member=333940 https://www.gofundme.com/help-fred-amp-paul-save-the-univers...

withinrafael 8y ago
Yup, I'm very aware of the ongoing legal battle. I was trying to side-step discussion around it as Paul/Ritchie appear to present a very warped view of history/reality via their blog. (For example, available data suggests P/R didn't actually substantially contribute to SC1/2.) A slightly better armchair take can be found at the UQM wiki [1] with actual lawyer commentary [2] Not taking any real sides here, I feel everyone involved is greater than I regardless of outcome, but do hope folks keep an open mind. [1] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reiche_III_and_Robert_Frederick_Ford http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich... [2] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reiche_III_and_Robert_Frederick_Ford#Commentary_from_Lawyers http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich...
- setr 8y ago
  I mean, the wiki page itself notes that multiple involved in making it support the idea they were creative leads in section 4.2[0], and they’ve been the front of every interview and on the game’s splash... if they weren’t actually doing much, this would’ve been in a controversy beginning in 1992, not today But I haven’t taken a look at the lawyer commentary. (I don’t know that I care enough to). But outside of the lawyers and stardock’s ceo commentary, I haven’t seem anything to imply they weren’t in charge of the whole thing. But anyways, I didn’t care for the stardock’s game, so it doesn’t matter what the truth is for me. I just want a proper sc3 (though I’m expecting they’ll still try to “modernize” itand toss out all the fun with it, as most decade-apart sequels go; but a man can dream, can’t he?) [0] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reiche_III_and_Robert_Frederick_Ford#Why_does_it_matter_if_Reiche_and_Ford_call_themselves_the_.22creators_of_Star_Control.22.3F http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich...
- lixue 8y ago
  "For example, available data suggests P/R didn't actually substantially contribute to SC1/2." That's a pretty wild claim to repeat. Not a single person on the original team agrees with it, and they've filed the copyright registration in court[1]. There's basically no evidence at all for that conclusion, except that Stardock made the claim (not supported it, not provided evidence of it, merely made the claim) Even if you do believe it, it's legally irrelevant as the team has signed the copyright over to them[2], and they released The Ur-Quan Masters back in 2003 using that copyright. I was a member of the community back in the lat 90s/early 00s and this was common knowledge even back then. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/71/6/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/71/6/stardock-s... [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/64/5/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/64/5/stardock-s...
  - withinrafael 8y ago
    That sounds like a fair take, IANAL. It's worth noting these registrations are dated 2017/2018, after the mud-flinging began. I wouldn't be shocked to hear they're invalid.

Illniyar 8y ago

Faithful without any of the races, history or story? I mean the mechanics were not really groundbreaking even back then. The game won it's place in history due to it's great characters and wonderful story. You can't be faithful to the game without building on it's story. If nothing of the story is used they could have just made the same game with a different brand and it would be exactly the same. The use of the Star control name is simply a marketing tactic to get people who heard and liked SC to buy a game they would otherwise not - I.E. they wanted to milk the brand.