Topic: Steven V. Cole's Recent Statement on Star Fleet Battles Software

[Mr. Hypergol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
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.  

lol, I like it!  

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
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.  

You're such a subversive!  


I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.  It is, of course, unlikely it ever will, but it's fun to dream.

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:
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.  

You're such a subversive!  


I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.  It is, of course, unlikely it ever will, but it's fun to dream.  

Nature abhores a vacuum...

[Kestrel]

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.

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
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.  

I'd probably fall into the same category...heheh.


 

[jimmi7769]

Quote:

Quote:
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.  

I'd probably fall into the same category...heheh.


 

AyeFirmative

[Voidwar]

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" ?

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
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" ?  

Money is irrelevant on this issue, only the corporate paradigm suffers from this stumbling block.

[David Ferrell]

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

[Dogmatix!]

I'd agree with that, Dave.  At the very least, arguing otherwise isn't likely to impress a judge (as you've said).

[Strafer]

Quote:
...from the Little Golden book "Jar Jar's Tongue Adventures".  

PLLLLLLLEASE say you made that title up! I implore you!  

[Dogmatix!]

heheheh...now that's a thoguth that hadn't occured to me, Strafer!  I join you in your plea!  

[FPF_TraceyG]

I dont think the intent is actually to 'screw' anyone over, nor is it to break the law, or justify doing so with some ridiculous diatribe.
Simply put, there is a demand for a product which does not exist. Regardless of legal issues and irrespective of financial considerations, given enough time, that demand will eventually be met, and that demand is completely independant of said financial considerations.
Paramount can either choose to continue in their one and only pursuit, namely making profit, and license the software out to be developed... or eventually someone else will do it for free purely to fill that vacuum. Whilst I am not a big fan of capitalism, clearly even here, we can see which is the better business decision to make.

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:
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  

My original question at the top has more to do with how extensive the licence that ADB holds is. They're licenced to create the game that they have. Does that also mean that they have the ability to create items that assist in the play of said game? Something of an interesting question. Practically, the answer is a simple no, as they can't afford to get into a legal battle with Paramount. The situation is eerily similar to the one that FASA has (actually had since they're gone now) with Harmony Gold with reference to the lost 21. The reality of the licence as written may be different. I honestly can't say, since I am not a lawyer, have not read the agreement, and doubt I could if I did. However, common sense says that ADB should have the ability to create things that advance their licenced property. They do have a licence. I'm guessing the problem is that if the agreement were read, it would not state anything about the subject at all, since I doubt that in the 70's when it was created that computers would reach the level of capability where such a thing would be possible was even forseen.

Then again, this is speculation on my part. What is not speculation is that it fustrates fans of SFB to no end, since SFB is a game with many rules that some level of automation could assist greatly. You'll note that SFB online contains little of this and this may not be conicidental.  

[Lepton1]

Quote:
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  

Dave,

No doubt Paramount owns rights to Feds, Roms, Klinks, Gorn, but that is a mere 50% on the SFC Races and does not even comprise a majority of the races ADB has created for SFB.  While phasers, photons, etc may be Trek and could be owned by Paramount, the concepts aren't as phasers are just souped up lasers, and the concept of torpedo of any type is naval in origin.  Plenty of sci fi examples of energy based beam weapons or torpedoes exist, shields, faster than light drives, etc. These ideas are now part of our common cultural dialect.  None of that could possibly be proprietary,  At best Paramount owns the names and  maybe the ship designs.  That's it.  90% of SFB is the intellectual property of ADB.  Did Trek ever even call plasma torpedoes plasma torpedoes??? There is actually very little Trek is SFB if you think about it.  Drones??  ESGs??? etc  No trek there.    

You ask me.  They change a few names, change some art and it's all there's to do with what they like.  What they created was a gaming system that coud have any names attached to it. Did it start with trek?  Yes.  Is it mostly trek now?  No and probably hasn't been since the days of the Pocket Game.

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
I dont think the intent is actually to 'screw' anyone over, nor is it to break the law, or justify doing so with some ridiculous diatribe.
Simply put, there is a demand for a product which does not exist. Regardless of legal issues and irrespective of financial considerations, given enough time, that demand will eventually be met, and that demand is completely independant of said financial considerations.
Paramount can either choose to continue in their one and only pursuit, namely making profit, and license the software out to be developed... or eventually someone else will do it for free purely to fill that vacuum. Whilst I am not a big fan of capitalism, clearly even here, we can see which is the better business decision to make.  

If ADB/SVC were ever going to put out a pc version for sale, then this would be screwing them. I don't ever see this happening though. (Evidently, from reading Steve's comment, he doesn't either.)

As far as screwing Paramount? They're screwing themselves, IMO, by making the licensing fee out of line with the profit potential. If Activision was taking a bath, why would anyone else think that they could make it fly?

If ADB and Paramount would come to an agreement that they both could use each others "intellectual properties" then the fans could cross over between them. Trek is loosing it's ass right now, the best that I can tell. I'd be a lot more interested in watching a Trek episode if after the show I could go online and DL the scenario script and play it out on my PC. While this would be a relatively small addition to the audience by itself, it would add viewers. Diversify, and take these sort of things in enough directions, and you could effectively increase the viewership. It would be work though. It would take ideas and *entrepeneurism (*Is that a real word? ). They just want to charge developers for "hot air" though. Their attitude is, "Just give us a lot of money 'cuz it's Trek. Don't expect us to give you anything in return though."    

[David Ferrell]

Without Trek SFB is a non starter for me.  I couldn't care less about Jindarians
Seletronians et. all.

Thanks,

Dave  

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
Without Trek SFB is a non starter for me.  I couldn't care less about Jindarians
Seletronians et. all.

Thanks,

Dave    

I wouldn't go as far as saying that I couldn't care less, but I do basically agree with you.

To the uninitiated, not you Dave , most SFB'rs play the Trek races, just like everyone else. If you didn't have Feds, Klingons, etc. not only wouldn't Trek'rs buy it, but a lot of SFB players would be very disappointed as well. That's too big a slice of the pie to alienate.

We just need Paramount to get the price inline with the profit enough for SVC to swallow his principles and be willing to pay for something that he's claimed for so long was already in his licensing rights.    

[Jim]

Quote:
. 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.    

Starfire for the PC basically already exists... it is called Space Empires IV Gold.  Play it... it is very similiar to Starfire.

Jim

ps.  I think if ADB released a game based solely on SFB and left out all the copyright material it would sell very well.  The race /weapons could be called something else and stored in an easily modifiable external text file (so that purists could rename everything themselves on their own systems).  

I am not sure how returning to a turn-based game would fly, though.  I actually prefer SFC (which, although very similiar to SFB, does have quite a few major differences).  I think if SFC had been written so that users could add new races and weapons at will, as well tinker with the basic 'rule' set... someone would have already added in the remaining races, weapons (plasma bolts, etc.) and we would have probably had the entire SFB rule set added in already.  SFC is *soooo* close... which is why it seems so frustrating at times... and why we drove Dave and the rest of Taldren nuts trying to add in "just one more SFB feature" over and over.  Ah well...

Just my .02 worth...    

[FPF_TraceyG]

Back in the 70s I think it was, during the lull between the end of the original series and the first movie, Paramount paid very little attention to Star Trek at all. If anyone has ever read up on the history of the original USS Enterprise model used in the series, Paramount would have been happy to part with it for next to nothing and reclaim some warehouse space. The model, which is displayed at the Smithsonian Institute today, is now worth millions. During that period, Amarillo Design Bureau created Star Fleet Battles and acquired the copyright to the board game and the trademark "Starfleet Universe". This has been a thorn in the side of Paramount ever since and Paramount went to great lengths during the 90s in legal action to try to change this. ADB actually went out of business for awhile and the rights to the game were acquired by someone else for a short time, but were later bought back at personal expense by those who once made up ADB and the company was reborn.
Paramount dont like ADB, they would like nothing more than to see it disappear and rue the day ADB ever got a foothold in the Star Trek market. ADB on the other hand, hold nothing more than the rights to the board game based on Star Trek, Paramount has ensured that all rights to everything else including computer games are held by them. ADB would never be in a position to cough up the license for the computer game, nor would they relinquish right to the board game to Paramount. Paramount currently have a policy of no longer supporting anything related the Original Series anyway, it is likely were the latter to happen that the entire SFB universe as we know it would be shelved permanently.
And just like any divorce dispute where the children are always the victims, here, it is the fams who pay the price for corporate politics. I dont see this situation changing soon, it has prevailed for over 20 years now, so the likelihood of an 'official' SFB computer game is practically zero.

[Lepton1]

Quote:
Without Trek SFB is a non starter for me.  I couldn't care less about Jindarians
Seletronians et. all.

Thanks,

Dave    

I think you miss my point.  UFP becomes Union of United Worlds.  Photon torpedoes become anti-matter torpedoes. All that matters stays the same.  Only the names change.  And if the names of things were moddable in the game, everything could be switched back by the consumer if they wanted.  Also remember 90% of SFB has nothing to do with the TOS Trek world.   The game is an implementation of a battle system with various names attached most of the ideas in which are not derived from any Trek content, only the names given to them.  If you think SFB is trek, you're taking things a bit too far.

BTW, let's also recognize that Taldren can't have it both ways.  They can't simultaneously insist that they won't do anymore SFB games while insisting others can't when they in fact are the exception to their own rules that says that ADB can't do a SFB computer game.  If SFC isn't a rendering of SFB as licensed through ADB and Paramount, then what is???  So obviously it is possible to do an SFB game if the proper channels are opened for it.

In fact I would say that it is an infringement on their own intellectual property rights for them not to be to be able to produce their own  computer game.

[FormerDM]

Quote:
I think you miss my point.  UFP becomes Union of United Worlds.  Photon torpedoes become anti-matter torpedoes. All that matters stays the same.  Only the names change.  And if the names of things were moddable in the game, everything could be switched back by the consumer if they wanted.  Also remember 90% of SFB has nothing to do with the TOS Trek world. \

Won't work and doesn't matter.
Paramount (the same company that campaigned against fan www Trek sites) will not allow it.

There was an old Mac freeware game called Rescue that tried what you suggest. Paramount rattled their sabre, the author changed all the names, Paramount rattled again, game withdrawn.  

[The_Infiltrator]

Basically, if Paramount isn't making money from it, and doesn't control it directly, the answer is no. This is why SFB and ADB are such persona non-grata, since they don't and they don't, and can't change it.

As I said before, the situation is eerily similar to FASA's problems with Harmony Gold, except that in this case Paramount is far larger than Harmony Gold, with much more resources. So the chances of a resolution in favor of the small gaming company are even more remote.  

[Sartonius]

Everybody tends to think too linearly, even when being devious.   :P

 Dave Farrell is right in that you can't expect to suddenly sell the game with no Trek in it.  But that doesn't mean you couldn't make an amazing simulation with the same talent that went into the SFB and SFC games.

One of the appeals behind SFB has always been that it has rules that allow it to operate.  Starfleets have fixed assets, limited resources, and ship classes that evolve, etc., and you can play out a great sci fi battle in great detail.  That's a paradigm.  It's the evolutionary step from Matt Jeffries licence plate number being on the Enterprise (NCC 1701) to having the numbers make sense (and notice that on the official programs the numbers didn't actually make any sense, they were just there.)

We have a set of rules (e.g. I fire a directed energy weapon from my vessel at yours, at a certain range, and it does X amount of damage.  If your vessel's shielding cannot block the energy of the weapon, then it will damage the components of your ship based on the following criteria...).  

Nothing is stopping anyone from creating an entirely new set of interesting, galactic spacefaring empires built around the "policy" that all of the most important details need to be filled in AT THE START.  Those empires could then engage in battles using science fiction weapons in outer space, all of which simply follow a set of strict rules of operation, analagous to the SFB rules and concepts.

The guys that made Dungeons and Dragons haven't gone out into the world trying to sue everyone that used the concepts of "hit points" and "mana points" in their fantasy computer games.  Why, then, would there be a problem with assigning numerical values to energy beams and missiles and armour plating?  Lucasfilm doesn't try to sue anyone that has a sci fi movie or game with laser guns or "armoured soldiers" with helmets etc., in them.    And I've been seeing games with guys that had laser swords that had nothing to do with Star Wars for years.

How do you sell this to the public?

You produce your computer game and beta test it and play test it until it confesses.  The same patience, sense of fairness, and tenacity that went into SFB and its balanced rule set are not proprietary works; they're the combined efforts of a bunch of talented and dedicated people.  You would take those talented people and have them polish your game design for you until it's fairly rock solid.  Then you pull out all of the stops and try to get people in the mainstream to play this game and say, "this is the coolest game of strategy I've ever seen."

Oh and one more thing:  There's absolutely no rule that says that a game has to be a 3D shoot-em-up extravaganza.  Log onto any gaming service at any time and the most number of players are doing what?  Playing freebie internet java games like card games or chess, or playing redone "old" video games from days gone by.  If you got $5 from each of those people, you'd be very wealthy indeed.  

That's not to say there couldn't be nice looking artwork or something, even sounds, etc.

Imagine a fusion between a "board game" or a "pen and paper" RPG/strategy sim, an old-school computer game, Adobe eBooks, and DRM.  You could sell a game that was both complicated and fun but left certain things to your imagination.  It's not as if reading fantasy novels has gone out of style.  Maybe even get some creative people in there and write accompanying stories and add new material.   And it would all be distributed on the internet for a very low cost per user computer.

Hmmmmn.....
   

[Cleaven]

Sounds like it could be an ad for Black 9.  

As for the number plate thing, that's not how Matt Jefferies tells it.

[Mr. Hypergol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
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.  

lol, I like it!  

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
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.  

You're such a subversive!  


I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.  It is, of course, unlikely it ever will, but it's fun to dream.

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:
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.  

You're such a subversive!  


I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.  It is, of course, unlikely it ever will, but it's fun to dream.  

Nature abhores a vacuum...

[Kestrel]

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.

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
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.  

I'd probably fall into the same category...heheh.


 

[jimmi7769]

Quote:

Quote:
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.  

I'd probably fall into the same category...heheh.


 

AyeFirmative

[Voidwar]

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" ?

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
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" ?  

Money is irrelevant on this issue, only the corporate paradigm suffers from this stumbling block.

[David Ferrell]

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

[Dogmatix!]

I'd agree with that, Dave.  At the very least, arguing otherwise isn't likely to impress a judge (as you've said).

[Strafer]

Quote:
...from the Little Golden book "Jar Jar's Tongue Adventures".  

PLLLLLLLEASE say you made that title up! I implore you!  

[Dogmatix!]

heheheh...now that's a thoguth that hadn't occured to me, Strafer!  I join you in your plea!  

[FPF_TraceyG]

I dont think the intent is actually to 'screw' anyone over, nor is it to break the law, or justify doing so with some ridiculous diatribe.
Simply put, there is a demand for a product which does not exist. Regardless of legal issues and irrespective of financial considerations, given enough time, that demand will eventually be met, and that demand is completely independant of said financial considerations.
Paramount can either choose to continue in their one and only pursuit, namely making profit, and license the software out to be developed... or eventually someone else will do it for free purely to fill that vacuum. Whilst I am not a big fan of capitalism, clearly even here, we can see which is the better business decision to make.

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:
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  

My original question at the top has more to do with how extensive the licence that ADB holds is. They're licenced to create the game that they have. Does that also mean that they have the ability to create items that assist in the play of said game? Something of an interesting question. Practically, the answer is a simple no, as they can't afford to get into a legal battle with Paramount. The situation is eerily similar to the one that FASA has (actually had since they're gone now) with Harmony Gold with reference to the lost 21. The reality of the licence as written may be different. I honestly can't say, since I am not a lawyer, have not read the agreement, and doubt I could if I did. However, common sense says that ADB should have the ability to create things that advance their licenced property. They do have a licence. I'm guessing the problem is that if the agreement were read, it would not state anything about the subject at all, since I doubt that in the 70's when it was created that computers would reach the level of capability where such a thing would be possible was even forseen.

Then again, this is speculation on my part. What is not speculation is that it fustrates fans of SFB to no end, since SFB is a game with many rules that some level of automation could assist greatly. You'll note that SFB online contains little of this and this may not be conicidental.  

[Lepton1]

Quote:
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  

Dave,

No doubt Paramount owns rights to Feds, Roms, Klinks, Gorn, but that is a mere 50% on the SFC Races and does not even comprise a majority of the races ADB has created for SFB.  While phasers, photons, etc may be Trek and could be owned by Paramount, the concepts aren't as phasers are just souped up lasers, and the concept of torpedo of any type is naval in origin.  Plenty of sci fi examples of energy based beam weapons or torpedoes exist, shields, faster than light drives, etc. These ideas are now part of our common cultural dialect.  None of that could possibly be proprietary,  At best Paramount owns the names and  maybe the ship designs.  That's it.  90% of SFB is the intellectual property of ADB.  Did Trek ever even call plasma torpedoes plasma torpedoes??? There is actually very little Trek is SFB if you think about it.  Drones??  ESGs??? etc  No trek there.    

You ask me.  They change a few names, change some art and it's all there's to do with what they like.  What they created was a gaming system that coud have any names attached to it. Did it start with trek?  Yes.  Is it mostly trek now?  No and probably hasn't been since the days of the Pocket Game.

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
I dont think the intent is actually to 'screw' anyone over, nor is it to break the law, or justify doing so with some ridiculous diatribe.
Simply put, there is a demand for a product which does not exist. Regardless of legal issues and irrespective of financial considerations, given enough time, that demand will eventually be met, and that demand is completely independant of said financial considerations.
Paramount can either choose to continue in their one and only pursuit, namely making profit, and license the software out to be developed... or eventually someone else will do it for free purely to fill that vacuum. Whilst I am not a big fan of capitalism, clearly even here, we can see which is the better business decision to make.  

If ADB/SVC were ever going to put out a pc version for sale, then this would be screwing them. I don't ever see this happening though. (Evidently, from reading Steve's comment, he doesn't either.)

As far as screwing Paramount? They're screwing themselves, IMO, by making the licensing fee out of line with the profit potential. If Activision was taking a bath, why would anyone else think that they could make it fly?

If ADB and Paramount would come to an agreement that they both could use each others "intellectual properties" then the fans could cross over between them. Trek is loosing it's ass right now, the best that I can tell. I'd be a lot more interested in watching a Trek episode if after the show I could go online and DL the scenario script and play it out on my PC. While this would be a relatively small addition to the audience by itself, it would add viewers. Diversify, and take these sort of things in enough directions, and you could effectively increase the viewership. It would be work though. It would take ideas and *entrepeneurism (*Is that a real word? ). They just want to charge developers for "hot air" though. Their attitude is, "Just give us a lot of money 'cuz it's Trek. Don't expect us to give you anything in return though."    

[David Ferrell]

Without Trek SFB is a non starter for me.  I couldn't care less about Jindarians
Seletronians et. all.

Thanks,

Dave  

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
Without Trek SFB is a non starter for me.  I couldn't care less about Jindarians
Seletronians et. all.

Thanks,

Dave    

I wouldn't go as far as saying that I couldn't care less, but I do basically agree with you.

To the uninitiated, not you Dave , most SFB'rs play the Trek races, just like everyone else. If you didn't have Feds, Klingons, etc. not only wouldn't Trek'rs buy it, but a lot of SFB players would be very disappointed as well. That's too big a slice of the pie to alienate.

We just need Paramount to get the price inline with the profit enough for SVC to swallow his principles and be willing to pay for something that he's claimed for so long was already in his licensing rights.    

[Jim]

Quote:
. 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.    

Starfire for the PC basically already exists... it is called Space Empires IV Gold.  Play it... it is very similiar to Starfire.

Jim

ps.  I think if ADB released a game based solely on SFB and left out all the copyright material it would sell very well.  The race /weapons could be called something else and stored in an easily modifiable external text file (so that purists could rename everything themselves on their own systems).  

I am not sure how returning to a turn-based game would fly, though.  I actually prefer SFC (which, although very similiar to SFB, does have quite a few major differences).  I think if SFC had been written so that users could add new races and weapons at will, as well tinker with the basic 'rule' set... someone would have already added in the remaining races, weapons (plasma bolts, etc.) and we would have probably had the entire SFB rule set added in already.  SFC is *soooo* close... which is why it seems so frustrating at times... and why we drove Dave and the rest of Taldren nuts trying to add in "just one more SFB feature" over and over.  Ah well...

Just my .02 worth...    

[FPF_TraceyG]

Back in the 70s I think it was, during the lull between the end of the original series and the first movie, Paramount paid very little attention to Star Trek at all. If anyone has ever read up on the history of the original USS Enterprise model used in the series, Paramount would have been happy to part with it for next to nothing and reclaim some warehouse space. The model, which is displayed at the Smithsonian Institute today, is now worth millions. During that period, Amarillo Design Bureau created Star Fleet Battles and acquired the copyright to the board game and the trademark "Starfleet Universe". This has been a thorn in the side of Paramount ever since and Paramount went to great lengths during the 90s in legal action to try to change this. ADB actually went out of business for awhile and the rights to the game were acquired by someone else for a short time, but were later bought back at personal expense by those who once made up ADB and the company was reborn.
Paramount dont like ADB, they would like nothing more than to see it disappear and rue the day ADB ever got a foothold in the Star Trek market. ADB on the other hand, hold nothing more than the rights to the board game based on Star Trek, Paramount has ensured that all rights to everything else including computer games are held by them. ADB would never be in a position to cough up the license for the computer game, nor would they relinquish right to the board game to Paramount. Paramount currently have a policy of no longer supporting anything related the Original Series anyway, it is likely were the latter to happen that the entire SFB universe as we know it would be shelved permanently.
And just like any divorce dispute where the children are always the victims, here, it is the fams who pay the price for corporate politics. I dont see this situation changing soon, it has prevailed for over 20 years now, so the likelihood of an 'official' SFB computer game is practically zero.

[Lepton1]

Quote:
Without Trek SFB is a non starter for me.  I couldn't care less about Jindarians
Seletronians et. all.

Thanks,

Dave    

I think you miss my point.  UFP becomes Union of United Worlds.  Photon torpedoes become anti-matter torpedoes. All that matters stays the same.  Only the names change.  And if the names of things were moddable in the game, everything could be switched back by the consumer if they wanted.  Also remember 90% of SFB has nothing to do with the TOS Trek world.   The game is an implementation of a battle system with various names attached most of the ideas in which are not derived from any Trek content, only the names given to them.  If you think SFB is trek, you're taking things a bit too far.

BTW, let's also recognize that Taldren can't have it both ways.  They can't simultaneously insist that they won't do anymore SFB games while insisting others can't when they in fact are the exception to their own rules that says that ADB can't do a SFB computer game.  If SFC isn't a rendering of SFB as licensed through ADB and Paramount, then what is???  So obviously it is possible to do an SFB game if the proper channels are opened for it.

In fact I would say that it is an infringement on their own intellectual property rights for them not to be to be able to produce their own  computer game.

[FormerDM]

Quote:
I think you miss my point.  UFP becomes Union of United Worlds.  Photon torpedoes become anti-matter torpedoes. All that matters stays the same.  Only the names change.  And if the names of things were moddable in the game, everything could be switched back by the consumer if they wanted.  Also remember 90% of SFB has nothing to do with the TOS Trek world. \

Won't work and doesn't matter.
Paramount (the same company that campaigned against fan www Trek sites) will not allow it.

There was an old Mac freeware game called Rescue that tried what you suggest. Paramount rattled their sabre, the author changed all the names, Paramount rattled again, game withdrawn.  

[The_Infiltrator]

Basically, if Paramount isn't making money from it, and doesn't control it directly, the answer is no. This is why SFB and ADB are such persona non-grata, since they don't and they don't, and can't change it.

As I said before, the situation is eerily similar to FASA's problems with Harmony Gold, except that in this case Paramount is far larger than Harmony Gold, with much more resources. So the chances of a resolution in favor of the small gaming company are even more remote.  

[Sartonius]

Everybody tends to think too linearly, even when being devious.   :P

 Dave Farrell is right in that you can't expect to suddenly sell the game with no Trek in it.  But that doesn't mean you couldn't make an amazing simulation with the same talent that went into the SFB and SFC games.

One of the appeals behind SFB has always been that it has rules that allow it to operate.  Starfleets have fixed assets, limited resources, and ship classes that evolve, etc., and you can play out a great sci fi battle in great detail.  That's a paradigm.  It's the evolutionary step from Matt Jeffries licence plate number being on the Enterprise (NCC 1701) to having the numbers make sense (and notice that on the official programs the numbers didn't actually make any sense, they were just there.)

We have a set of rules (e.g. I fire a directed energy weapon from my vessel at yours, at a certain range, and it does X amount of damage.  If your vessel's shielding cannot block the energy of the weapon, then it will damage the components of your ship based on the following criteria...).  

Nothing is stopping anyone from creating an entirely new set of interesting, galactic spacefaring empires built around the "policy" that all of the most important details need to be filled in AT THE START.  Those empires could then engage in battles using science fiction weapons in outer space, all of which simply follow a set of strict rules of operation, analagous to the SFB rules and concepts.

The guys that made Dungeons and Dragons haven't gone out into the world trying to sue everyone that used the concepts of "hit points" and "mana points" in their fantasy computer games.  Why, then, would there be a problem with assigning numerical values to energy beams and missiles and armour plating?  Lucasfilm doesn't try to sue anyone that has a sci fi movie or game with laser guns or "armoured soldiers" with helmets etc., in them.    And I've been seeing games with guys that had laser swords that had nothing to do with Star Wars for years.

How do you sell this to the public?

You produce your computer game and beta test it and play test it until it confesses.  The same patience, sense of fairness, and tenacity that went into SFB and its balanced rule set are not proprietary works; they're the combined efforts of a bunch of talented and dedicated people.  You would take those talented people and have them polish your game design for you until it's fairly rock solid.  Then you pull out all of the stops and try to get people in the mainstream to play this game and say, "this is the coolest game of strategy I've ever seen."

Oh and one more thing:  There's absolutely no rule that says that a game has to be a 3D shoot-em-up extravaganza.  Log onto any gaming service at any time and the most number of players are doing what?  Playing freebie internet java games like card games or chess, or playing redone "old" video games from days gone by.  If you got $5 from each of those people, you'd be very wealthy indeed.  

That's not to say there couldn't be nice looking artwork or something, even sounds, etc.

Imagine a fusion between a "board game" or a "pen and paper" RPG/strategy sim, an old-school computer game, Adobe eBooks, and DRM.  You could sell a game that was both complicated and fun but left certain things to your imagination.  It's not as if reading fantasy novels has gone out of style.  Maybe even get some creative people in there and write accompanying stories and add new material.   And it would all be distributed on the internet for a very low cost per user computer.

Hmmmmn.....
   

[Cleaven]

Sounds like it could be an ad for Black 9.  

As for the number plate thing, that's not how Matt Jefferies tells it.