Topic: Steven V. Cole's Recent Statement on Star Fleet Battles Software (Read 13902 times)

Mr. Hypergol · « **on:** September 24, 2003, 03:53:51 pm »

I was just surfing through the Amarillo Design Bureau discussion forums and saw this post by Steven V. Cole about the status of Star Fleet Battles software. Other than the SFC series, the future looks grim for any real computerized Star Fleet Battles. Here's the post:

******************
I get asked all the time: "When will you allow SFB software? What is the hold up?"

Sigh. I've only answered this question about once a week for about 20 years.
I've given the same answer every single time. But someone never heard it.
Or didn't believe it. Or thought there was some big dark secret that boiled
down to I was just being an ??????? and didn't want to release it. Or they
just didn't want to believe that it wasn't going to happen anytime soon.
Anyway, this is the official form letter sent out something over 400 times.

Paramount says NO SOFTWARE EVER PERIOD. Not by us or anyone else.
They won't allow their property to be used, and won't allow us to allow others to
use our property. Hence, no software, period. Not sold, not given away,
not made available, not passed around the internet, nothing.
We can do the SFBOL thing as it is server based and not machine resident.

This situation remains this way until Paramount decides otherwise.
Nothing anyone outside of ADB Inc. can do will change what Paramount
says or thinks or does or doesn't do. We continue working through diplomatic
channels to convince them that such software would be beneficial, harmless,
and great. But they do not agree, will not agree, have not agreed. It is possible
that they will NEVER agree, but we will never stop trying. If anything changes,
we will announce the change and do a Request For Proposals for
the official software. We will never allow independent developers to
release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount
will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it.
When the time comes, there will be one and only one such program
authorized, and we literally have two hundred different ones on file.

So, basically, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, but if it someday
does happen, I wouldn't be surprised. Until then, Nobody can release
or publish or give away SFB software without a whole world of lawyers
landing on your head, so I would say to just put it away and forget it
and if it happens you can wait for the RFP and send it to us then.

The only thing you CAN do is use if in your own personal gaming,
in games where you are physically present as a GM or player.

I am considerably more frustrated than you are, and having to repeat
the same answer every week to somebody else who doesn't know,
doesn't believe it, doesn't want it to be the way it is, just makes me
even more frustrated. This isn't my fault, and I cannot change it.

--Steve Cole

*****************************

I don't know about anyone else, but this is just plain depressing to me. What is Paramount soooo afraid of? They allowed the Starfleet Command series to be made, why not the board game itself?

Perhaps it's a money thing...i.e. if Paramount gives ADB permission to do computer software based on Trek for free, then a company like Activision can claim they are being charged too much for the liscense by having to pay out millions for the rights to do Trek computer games. In other words, ADB can't afford what Paramount typically charges for computer liscensing, and Paramount can't give the permissions "free" to ADB and expect a company like Activision to not protest and expect to pay less.

I am also not 100% sure of what Mr. Cole means by "SFB software". Is he talking only play aides, or the full fledged board game, or both?

This quote confuses me: "We will never allow independent developers to release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it." Does this mean that ADB would not allow a company like Taldren to make the software for them? Anyone have a guess on what this means?

Hopefully something can be worked out in the future. There's a lot of people out there that want real computerized SFB with a single player option including AI, not just the restricted, cubersome SFBonline version only.

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2003, 05:41:54 pm »

Quote:

I am also not 100% sure of what Mr. Cole means by "SFB software". Is he talking only play aides, or the full fledged board game, or both?

This quote confuses me: "We will never allow independent developers to release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it." Does this mean that ADB would not allow a company like Taldren to make the software for them? Anyone have a guess on what this means?

SFB software: ANY type of software that uses SFB as the subject that is resident on a individual's personal computer. This is why there are no computerized play aids for SFB (a game that could very much use them). Also why there are no computer SFB type wargames. For instance, F&E is a game that is very much like other board wargames (squad leader, luftwaffe). You don't see any of those either.

The second means that if any such permission were given that Paramount would insist that ADB control the final product by the fact that they would have exclusive rights to release any such software. Since Paramount has ADB by the throat in these matters this means they have de facto control of any such product. Taldren, for instance, could develop such software, but the game would have to be released through ADB. Sort of like a publisher in this case. But also, frankly, I think that the chances of ADB contacting a company like Taldren to do a computer version is somewhat remote, even with permission. The reason is money. ADB is a small gaming company with limited resources. They likely would not have the money needed to get such a project started. Most likely if permission were given the result would be that a open source attempt would begin to develop a useful play aid utility for SFB players. This would then become available through ADB.

Again, remember that Paramount is the goliath and ADB is the David - just David without the slingshot. It's something of a interesting legal question if Paramount even has the rights that it strictly enforces on ADB. However, what cannot be disputed is that ADB doesn't have the resources to find out, thus the current status quo.

RazalYllib · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2003, 06:17:59 pm »

That is the way I understand SVC's dilema.

If they had resources, I am fairley certain, they could convince a judge or jury that the only things in commen
with Paramonts "Star Trek" and ADB's "Star Trek" are contained within the pages of the Original Technical Manual
created by Franz Joseph Designs. ADB purchased the rights to that material to construct a setting for a game that was
independant of subsusquent additions. I do not know the extent of that agreement, but a compelling argument could be
made that Paramount used elements designed by ADB in their version of this work of fiction.

It would be nice if some hotshot idealist of the lawyer persuasion would step up to the plate, pro bono, and settle this
issue of intellectual property once and for all.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:15:45 pm »

You know there's 2 sides to this "intellectual property" thing.

I'm a big SFB fan. I do understand Paramount's position though. It would be foolish to allow someone to market a Trek game for free. (If you or I were shareholders, we'd sue the crap out of Paramount if they did it.

)

The other side of this argument is, "How much money has GM made selling cars with 350 V8s in them because of all the aftermarket add-ons for that engine?"

Take SFC as an example. If you could somehow allow people to make add-ons to the game that required that the original game be purchased in order for them to be used. SFC1 could still be on the shelves in your PC game store or mail order being sold for $49.99 a copy. Taldren could sell updates/patches for the game engine to keep it current. It's called a "franchise".

Now I know that it's not as simple to implement as the 5 sentence statement proceeding this was to write. I'm not totally stupid. (crazy, maybe

, but not stupid.) Still, it never hurt GM or Ford or any other car manufacturer that I know of to allow people to sell custom rims or exhaust systems for their cars. If anything, they've sold a lot of cars because of them.

I'm sure that if the aftermarket car accessory industry was just starting up now though, the "intellectual property" argument is the exact argument that the auto manufacturers would use to stop it. Even though when they've tried to sell aftermarket add-ons for their vehicles, they've failed miserably.

Lepton1 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:18:43 pm »

Why couldn't ADB just release software sans the proprietary materials (feds = united repubilc of systems, photon torpedoes = antimatter torps, whatever, etc)?? Most of SFB is ADB's own creation. Most of the conceptual stuff (warp drive, etc) is publicly used. No reason they could not do that, except for what I would assume would be a legal battle.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:34:34 pm »

As far as changing the names to get around the copyrights goes, Yes, Paramount would most likely drag ADB into court anyway and they (Paramount) would probably win. Thinly veiled attempts to circumvent the law are usually frowned upon. This would also be an admission, on ADB's part, that their license doesn't cover video games simply by releasing something that tries to get around the licensing. The other argument that Paramount could use was that this game, even without the Trek races, is still drawing off of it's Star Trek roots and therefore they are entitled to due compensation. Plus, without Star Trek on the front of the box the sales probably would suffer substantially. They could have released Starfire on PC a long time ago if they thought that the ADB name alone would carry a product. Personally, I would have snatched that game up in a NY minute, but I probably would have been one of the few who did.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:17:42 pm »

I wonder if SVC really gets as many requests for SFB/PC as he says, or if it just seems that way? I also wonder just how hard it really would be to translate the entire SFB rulebook to code and impliment it into a game engine? It'd probably be the 1st DVD release, maybe 2. lol

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:33:26 pm »

"The only thing you CAN do is use it in your own personal gaming,
in games where you are physically present as a GM or player."

Boy, Paramount is generous! They permit me to use software that I wrote myself. Thanks.

I am concerned about the excessive reach of copyrights and intellectual property. A 1960's TV show and SFB have less in common than a crossword puzzle has with Scrabble.

Hopefully, Star Trek wil continue to self-destruct and make licensing affordable for ADB. I'd love to see the best of those 200 SFB programs publically available someday.

Cleaven · « **Reply #8 on:** September 25, 2003, 01:34:50 am »

Maybe Paramount will hire one of the GameSpy reviewers to handle PC games. He will then subsequently write StarTrek and SFB off as not worth the trouble and give away the rights to ADB for half a biscuit and some shiny things.

Azrael · « **Reply #9 on:** September 25, 2003, 07:16:59 am »

Sheesh guys,

Why don't you start a petition stating that:

A) You want to see SFB released as a game.

B) You would pay money for the above.

Talk to the Amarillo people. Maybe something like that has been organised already.

With enough signatures, Paramount will conclude there is a "demand" that would support the undertaking of such a project.

Create a carrot with enough "signatures" to catch the eye of the corporate giant, and you will get even the corporate giant to go where you want it to go.

Azrael

FPF_TraceyG · « **Reply #10 on:** September 25, 2003, 09:55:58 am »

If someone really wanted to, (say a group of aspiring student programmers with more time on their hands than sense), they could develop a complete software package for SFB, and release it anonymously onto the internet. Once its out there, there is absolutely nothing even a million lawyers could do about it.

Kestrel · « **Reply #14 on:** September 25, 2003, 11:53:39 am »

So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying that everyone is thinking about SFB Software the wrong way... We should be treating this as an opportunity to spread an SFB software virus. From my perspective, it would certainly be more destructive to my productivity than your average worm that merely sends out spurious e-mail and corrupt system files.

Voidwar · « **Reply #17 on:** September 25, 2003, 11:59:54 am »

of course doing that screws steve cole harder than it screws Paramount, but then,

screw em both anyway

SVC won't fight for sfb, so why care if we steal it from him. Either that, or he already sold it, in which case it can't be stolen from him. Paramount can only do anything about it IF someone tries to make money from it. Since they aren't why should the "anonymous programmer" ?

David Ferrell · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2003, 04:00:04 pm »

I know the coversation has taken a different turn but:

Saying SFB is based upon Franz Joseph's Techinical Manual is like
making a game with X-Wings and Tie Fighters and saying you licensed
the rights from the Little Golden book "Jar Jar's Tongue Adventures".
The Technical Manual is based upon Star Trek (a license) and so is
SFB. Franz Joseph did not create the Federation, Klingons, Romulans,
Gorn et all, they are part of Star Trek plain and simple. If you insist
otherwise you are only fooling yourself, and maybe a small group
of cohorts, you would never convince a judge or jury of such.

Thanks,

Dave

News:

Topic: Steven V. Cole's Recent Statement on Star Fleet Battles Software (Read 13902 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Mr. Hypergol

The_Infiltrator

RazalYllib

Rod O'neal

Lepton1

Rod O'neal

Rod O'neal

TarMinyatur

Cleaven

Azrael

FPF_TraceyG

Rod O'neal

Dogmatix!

FPF_TraceyG

Kestrel

Dogmatix!

jimmi7769

Voidwar

FPF_TraceyG

David Ferrell

Topic: Steven V. Cole's Recent Statement on Star Fleet Battles Software (Read 13902 times)