Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 23831 times)

Mr. Hypergol · « **on:** July 12, 2003, 01:37:07 pm »

The following speculation assumes that eventually another SFC game is made:

I'm beginning to wonder if the "all eras" SFC game idea is even a possibility anymore now that Activision has dumped their Trek liscense.

Since Activision owned all the Trek eras they were in the unique position of being able to do an "all eras" game. They apparently paid 20 million or so for those rights....that's lots of bucks.

As it turns out Activision seem to be having a hard time getting enough profit for a return on their 20 million investment. So since they now see it was a bad idea from the start they are trying to weasel their money back from Paramount using the court system.

My thoughts are this:

1) Will a single publisher ever again want to buy all the Trek era liscenses considering what it costs for them all?

2) Or, will the liscenses end up getting split up again?

I'm betting that the liscense will be split up again because no new publisher will want to pay the huge cost of the entire liscense as opposed to a cheaper portion of the liscense.

Does this means that the SFC liscense would also have to split?

Perhaps whoever picks up the TOS liscense could eventually make a Galaxies at War "SFC Classic" based on SFB and whoever gets the TNG liscense could expand on SFC3 if they preferred. I wonder what would happen? Does the SFC liscense have to go one way or another? TOS or TNG? Or can it split into two product lines? Would one leg have to give up the name SFC?

Anyone care to speculate what their thoughts are?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2003, 02:29:54 pm »

I believe the answer is yes. One leg would have to give up the name. I seem to remember back in the day that ATVI purchased the SFC franchise name from IPlay. That, among other things, leads me to believe that if the Trek licenses were once again split between companies, that only one could use the name.

My personal preference would be to have the name go with the product that would follow the SFC1/2/OP series. The reasoning behind this is not just because I have such a vast preference for those games over the other, but that there were more of them, and an unfinished storyline.

I would think that if someone does one day return to SFC they would probably (if they are wise) take a look at how many people are still playing each of the versions (possibly taking age of product into account as well as other factors) and go with a continuation of that line (assuming they don't want to spring out in yet another arm of SFC, ugh!)

Dash Jones · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2003, 09:03:11 pm »

SFC DS9 Baby!

Just had to pull ya strings!

Mr. Hypergol · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2003, 09:45:30 am »

These are further thoughts I had on this subject from another thread that belong here too:

It's in Paramount's interest to just drop the deal with Activision and make a new deal with someone else as soon as possible. If Paramount goes years without Trek games being made it's just money lost for everyone involved. It's also not worth the legal costs to fight Activision while Paramount is losing money because no Trek games are being made. I'm sure this is what Activision is betting on.

I think the liscense will be split up after what just happened to Activision. Activision just bit off more than they could chew. The same would be true of any other company.

I think Activision and Paramount will settle out of court very quickly. Paramount will want to distribute the liscensing to other companies as quickly as possible. Activision want's their money back so they can move on too.

I guess it is possible that after they settle Activision still gets a piece of the pie for a lower price. I can see them getting the TNG liscense again. I seriously doubt Activision would want the TOS liscense.

As far as SFC is concerned, if Activision get's the TNG liscense again you can just about bet they won't make a sequel to SFC3. The best hope for more TNG SFC is if another company gets TNG Liscense and takes a stab at SFC4. Still I think this is unlikely based on the sales performance of SFC3 and what the TNG liscense would cost.

The big question for the entire SFC line is whether the SFC product line would split with the Trek liscense. If Activision gets the TNG liscense "only" does this mean they retain the rights to all future uses of the SFC name? If they do, Activision could kill the SFC line off completely with no hope of even another TOS based game....i.e. SFC: Galaxies at War, even if some other company owned the TOS liscense. Or perhaps a simple renaming of the game would solve this technicality? Hell it might be better to dump the name "Starfleet Command" anyway, because it's kind of been tarnished by SFC3's sales performance. Forget "Star Trek SFC Galaxies at War"....just call it "Star Trek Galaxies at War".

Now what about the TOS liscense? Let's just assume that the SFC line can split with the Trek liscense. Are you guys ready for some "wild" speculation? Here goes.......If Trek is in general decline you can bet that TOS is the "most declined"....for this reason I bet it's a lot cheaper than the other parts of the Trek liscense making it in a price range that smaller publishers might be able to afford. I wonder if Taldren could afford something like that? If Black 9 is a big hit they might be able to have enough money to afford TOS liscensing. What would this mean....I wonder? Could Taldren afford to self publish another SFB based SFC using an enhanced OP engine......perhaps maybe a subscription service? Could they make an SFC that adds a strategic layer based on F&E? I wonder what it would take to create a senario like this?

For those of us who long for SFC Galaxies at War based on the original SFC games, we can only hope that whoever gets the TOS liscensing got it cheap and it's worth their while to fund the completion of the SFB based game storyline. And we have to hope that the SFC line can also be split so Activision or whoever gets the TNG liscense can't kill the line off for good. It would be nice to know what the possibilites were, however remote.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2003, 10:25:42 am »

The best, although not the most likely scenario, would be if the licensing for the TOS was affordable enough for ADB to pick it up and for them to hire Taldren to do the games. IMO
I really doubt that Activision could lay claim on the title SFC. Seeing as how there were 3 SFC titles before the Activision one.
I, for one, would be willing to buy expansions/updates for SFC if it was the only way economically for Taldren to be able to do it. A weapons pack that say adds multiple drone types, variable photon OL, plasma shotguns, more SP and SS targeting options, Orion option mts. etc... Maybe a power management pack that allows full use of reserve power, quick arming of single turn weapons, more flexible Orion engine doubling... If that could turn a profit then maybe GAW could grow out of that.

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2003, 05:48:45 pm »

Quote:

The best, although not the most likely scenario, would be if the licensing for the TOS was affordable enough for ADB to pick it up and for them to hire Taldren to do the games. IMO

Ahhh, Sweet Bliss!!!

But do you think ADB could really afford to hire Taldren?, especially after paying Paramount's blood money?

Chaos

Magnum357 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2003, 08:28:08 pm »

In my opinion, I think the best hope for SFC is for Taldern to forget the Paramount licencing attogether and try to negotiate a deal with ADB. I bet the cost would be considerably cheaper compared to paramonts and it would be based on SFB universe. That way, a SFC:GAW would actually be a reality. And instead of ADB fighting with Taldren all the time about copying their rule system, they should help them out because if they work togetheir, they can benefit each other. Their are some things in SFB that SFC can recreate so their will always be a need for people to by the board game.

As for SFC TNG, I think their is a slim chance it will ever be a reality, just by the fact that the show Enterprise and Nemisis have completely destroyed the entire franchise. Even if Paramont dishes out the licence to other people, it just will never have the same type of financial firepower as it once did. Don't get me wrong, I like SFC3, I just don't think another version is going to be a reality.

I say talk to ADB and work up a deal. They might be willing to listen.

Kid Carrson · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2003, 08:40:41 pm »

Rod:

I think you're exactly correct. Taldren needs to radically rethink how they deal with the SFC series. They will have a hard time getting many hundreds of thousands of buyers for a game, but they have an extremely loyal core of devoted followers who will pay dearly for the right type of product. Their model has already been laid out for them by ADB. Take ADB's concept of expansion modules and packages and instead sell upgrade/modifications to SFC OP. Here's how I think they should do it.

1. Fine tune a list of realistic "wants" from the community that people are seriously willing to pay for. Ask for suggestions, then trim it down to five or so.

2. Have One person in Taldren sheppard the expansion patch to fruition, and allow some within the community to help.

3. Demand that the community "pay with their wallets" prior to beginning work. How? Set up a paypal / credit card online arrangement, require the community to pony up a certain amount of money for an expansion pack that can be done by X date. Taldren would determine that they would need revenue of at least $30,000 for expansion patch 1, $50,000 for expansion patch 2, etc. Let the community decide what gets done first by voting with their wallets.

4. When paying for the expansion patch, I would suggest a two or three tier pay arrangement, as follows (remember economics 101 guys and gals, price discrimination can maximize profits when applied intelligently). Level 1 - pay $20, get the expansion patch when completed. Level 2 - pay $50 - start from the beta, have some input in catching bugs, etc. Level 3- $100 or more - be involved in the design of the expansion patch, involved in the Beta, etc. I'd suggest the Level 3 have a limited number of slots be available and have community members bid (like EBAY) for them.

5. Each patch should be able to work from the existing SFC OP, and preferably would allow a number of the expansion patches to work well together when bought.

6. If the dedicated and rabid community can make some money for Taldren from intelligent expansion patches, then at some point we the community can rightly suggest "let's make a Galaxies at War" expansion or new game, again with the community making a dollar committment prior to creation.

7. Just a few ideas for expansions:
a. A weapons expansion pack with variations of existing weapons and others near and far.
b. An expansion that allows all races to have PF's, or all Fighters, or both.
c. An expansion that creates an F & E type of deeper level overplay strategic structure (or even a simpler version that allows a true strategic level)
d. An expansion that allows for FMSE for SFC OP.
e. An expansion that allows multiplayers to capture ships.
f. An expansion that allows single player skirmish to select any and all terrains.

Hey Taldren, please think about it. I think that you can do this with just one or two employees working part time on various aspects, and using the community for the rest. And if the community is too cheap to commit to the level needed to make an expansion, then enough is said from all parties. And I personally think you guys could do this right and really make some decent money from expansion patches.

Kid Carrson

Storvick · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2003, 08:55:30 pm »

all I can say is if they make another SFC game but with only SFB stuff then they just lost one customer that has been buying SFC stuff since they first came out. I did not buy SFC for the SFB stuff. I bought SFC since it has been the best Star Trek ship command game that is out there.

Tulwar · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2003, 10:32:41 pm »

I doubt Viacom will compromise, unless they see themselves losing in court. Activision is just one of a great many companies they have licensing agreements with. If Activision can weasle out of a contract, then anybody can. To Activision, this is about millions of dollars. To Viacom, this is about hundreds of millions of dollars. ST is not Viacom's only asset. The loss in revenue of the ST games is peanuts compared to chaos they may suffer should they give in to Activision, as other companies that have nothing to do with ST will try to renegociate contracts.

This articles I've read say this lawsuit is almost completely unprecidented. To me, it sounds desparate. Seeing how Activison jumped into the SFC franchise without any considderation of Tadren's existing customers, it would seem that Activision is prone to aggressive and reckless buisness practices.

Since ST is one of Activision's main product lines, this will be a major loss of revenue. For Viacom, the precident of allowing companies to renegotciate this kind of contract is disasterous. Both companies will fight this for as long as they can. Viacom, being the larger company, with so many other assets, can afford to fight this much longer.

That may be the reason that this sort of case is so rare. Even if you are right, you can still lose. Court battles often turn into wars of attrition. There are so many layers of over-worked courts, that one may die of old-age before recieving satisfaction.

Activision has to have a rock solid case if they are to win this fight. Viacom will not settle until they know that they are going to lose repeatedly in court. From what I've read, Viacom feels themselves on solid ground. I see Activision as the one to act in the more risky fashion.

The best case for SFC is if Activision loses quickly and loses big, especially if Activision ends up having to sell the rights to ST in bankruptcy court.

One thing I would dearly love to know: How many people did SFC3 attract compared to the number it alienated? That is, minus the people screaming for their money back.

BTW, another SFB based game will be created. The question is, will it be the beautiful work of Taldren in the next couple of years, or somebody else's in the twenty?

Cleaven · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2003, 11:25:12 pm »

It's not the product, it's the licensing. You can't sell a frisbee with some sticks glued to it without a star trek license, and it goes on down the line. You can have the best starship game ever, but if it's costs more for a StarTrek logo than (thinks up a large number eg the Californian public debt) then there is no point.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2003, 12:17:50 am »

Hey Storvick, I definitly won't argue with you about your opinion. I like SFC3 too, but from every which way I look at this Activision/Viacom situation, I just think another TNG SFC title has a slim chance of being made. Althought SFB universe is not exactly like Star Trek, at least it is better then nothing and as long as the game is modable, it would still be useful for TNG fans.

Besides, another title based on SFB rules could still use many concepts from SFC3. Like did you know that in SFB rules, their is an option for Cloak ships to actually have hidden cloaked ships like in SFC3? Or that their is actually warping in SFB rules, its called "Disenganging by exceleration" which really meant warping off the board map. And other concepts from SFC3 could be implemented in a SFC:GAW game like adding more weapon systesm based on SFC3. Just because the game is based on SFB rules doesn't mean it wouldn't be totally useless for you.

Reverend · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2003, 01:39:21 am »

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? 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. SFB never sold.

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. You all got your SFB games, why can't you be happy with that? 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. 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.
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.
This is not a flame, I personally like many of you- just plea for consideration- such a change/addition wouldn't lose any of the elements we all enjoy... I just would like to see a little more "playable realism". I have a ship- give me an ocean on which to sail.

Reverend · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2003, 01:59:20 am »

Oh, and thank you Rod O'neal. SFB had its day; lets not stretch it into infinity- all things, especially good things, must end. This is progress, my friends. If such a game I (and many, many others) proposed came into being, you'd play it, and I bet you'd have a blast alongside me.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2003, 02:00:32 am »

Reverend, I like you too.

So you want this giant expanse to realistically sail your starship on?

Picard: Data set course for Alpha-yadi-yadi-yada.
Data: Course set. At our current speed we should be there in 3days, 14hrs, 22min.
Picard: Make it so. I'm going to be in my ready room. Inform me if something, anything happens.

Do you really want reality?

FireSoul · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2003, 02:04:12 am »

*sigh* Here we go again.

I bought and play this game (SFC:OP) because it's SFB-based. I did not buy SFC3. I will not buy a Trek game that's not SFB-based unless it is a SPECTACULARLY OVERWHELMINGLY WONDERFUL game.

oh.. and I didn't buy another game since SFC:OP except for an updated version of UO.

-- Luc

PS. Someone once posted to me "who do you think you are, the savior of OP?"
Updated answer: No, but you should see the stuff I'm doing for it.

News:

Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 23831 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Mr. Hypergol

EmeraldEdge

Dash Jones

Mr. Hypergol

Rod O'neal

Cpt. Chaos

Magnum357

Kid Carrson

Storvick

Tulwar

Tulwar

Cleaven

Rod O'neal

Magnum357

Scipio_66

Reverend

Scipio_66

Reverend

Rod O'neal

FireSoul

Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 23831 times)