Topic: Setting the record straight...

[Katie Venra]

Paramount:

They havent forgotten about trek gaming.  Infact they even seen the petition news that we put on the front of the STGD with regards to www.startrekgames.de ,  they are  listening and they understand the passion of the trek gamers, afterall, the section of Paramount that deals with this are mostly gamers themselves.  

ActiVision:

Officialy they currently support the official star trek gaming forum at www.gaming.startrek.com (when it's actually up) and they also officialy support all the current series of trek games they have produced.  http://www.gaming.startrek.com is usually the haunt of Dan Haggerty, although you will be very lucky to see him in there on a regular basis.  It is also the official Star Trek gaming boards, but since the main site of startrek.com removed the link the forums have been dead, and in dire need of a major overhaul.  No doubt those forums will close eventually.

As for some of the rumours:

1: Eidos are not involved

2: Acclaim are not involved

3: Vic is not Santa Claus

The eidos and accliam rumours is something we have been hearing for a while now, they are NOT TRUE...we finally got confirmation on that.

Any other rumours are probably just that, rumours.  There is a snowballs chance in hell of Armada 3 and Birth of the Federation 2.  As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, we dont have a producer, yet.  If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested.

As Vic keeps saying, things WILL eventually get better.  Hopefully this will kill off some of the rumours we keep getting emailed about and see in here.

Kat Vee
From STGD  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
drop the dead donkey folks, we dont have a producer, yet.

If I were the mean old baXXX that some say I am I would, first, ask you who is we, then, second, tease you to no end by saying how dead wrong you are.

But as both would be cruel beyond any comparison I would never think to do any thing like that.

Have a nice day.

Best,
Jerry  

[Katie Venra]

"we" as in the gamers of Star Trek.

You cant release a new Star Trek game unless you have a producer/publisher.  When Activision leaves and when a new one steps in thats when we can all look onto the future of gaming for Star Trek.  Unless you have heard something different of course  

[Pestalence]

Quote:
As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, we dont have a producer, yet. If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested.

I can see where Toasty is coming from..

this statement quoted above from the original posting infers that you had something to do with the initial production of any of the SFC games, which in fact you have not.

When making statements like this, please word it so that it will not infer that you or your site had a hand in the production of the SFC game series.

SFC, SFC II EAW, SFC II OP are based on SFB ruleset and specific designs in game play are all creations of Taldren, and Published by Interplay. (for those going to argue SFC I being 14 Degrees East made... well that was internal Interplay which broke off to form Taldren.. so still a Taldren product.)

SFC 3 was a collaboration of Activision and Taldren where Activision holds all the rights to what the game contains and the way the game operates. Taldren just codes it to Activision's specifications, when not being rushed to release 6 months early and severely cutting game content to make movie release sales...

If you are meaning "WE" as in the gamers.. it should read

"As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, Taldren doesn't have a producer, yet. If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested."

also this brings me to another point.. no sales results for SFC 3 have been released to anyone except the Elders at Taldren and the CEO's at Activision, so how, prey tell, are you making financial statements on game sales when that information is confidential? Where is your evidence? Your statement implys that SFC 3 sales were high, when no such statement was ever made... the only statement was that sales were ok.. nothing more nothing less... and that is Taldren's concern.

and Finally, i remember back in March 2003, Erik posted that if another SFC is to be done, Taldren is publishing it themselves, not going through a 3rd party just because of what Activision has done... what is needed is the Rights and Liscenses for Trek out in the open and Taldren lease them for the era(s) they want to do...  and even then if Taldren thinks it may be profitable or not to continue the series...

Please, keep things in perspective.. Trek gaming is up in the air.. the liscenses are still held up due to contracts, whether companies state that the liscenses are free, what company is going to be willing to get them until Activision's previous contract has terminated, unless they want to fall into possible litigation against Activision for hijacking contracts.. what is said and what is on paper are 2 separate things.. the paper always wins as spoken is unverifiable or "heresay"...
 

[Katie Venra]

There was a time when i didnt need to watch the way i worded my posts in here.

Fair enough, i worded it wrong.

Bye folks.  

[Pestalence]

It is sort of like me coming on your forum and saying "We are going to revise the looks or the rulse of this Forum."

I don't have any rights there to change anything, so I am not part of the "WE". Just as you don't have input into the development of the SFC game series.

It is not an attack on you, it is putting the proper perspective on situations...

WE don't have a publisher.. Taldren does. and Taldren stated that If SFC 4 was produced, they would publish it themselves.. thus elimination more  of the WE people out of the equasion...

it's in the perspective...

We the Taldren Moderators can go over to your Forum and make statements pertaining to your Forum all day long and use the word WE and Reforming in relation to your site...

what basis would i have for making such statements... I have no access to your FTP, I have no access to your web page software, server, or host. I have no say on what your rules are or what they sould be....  nor does any Taldren Moderator to my understanding

all I can do is make a suggestion.... therefore I am not in a WE position.

however in the light of the community, they read the posting and see WE are making rules changes, they will automatically assume that Taldren has infiltrated your Forum and is now dictating rules on your forum...

is that fair to your community... I think not.

It is a statement that is misleading to the public at large and throws the wrong perspective into the conversation...

I can say anything that I want.. how i word it will either make it a true statement or something that can be misconstrued or misleading to the actual facts of a situation...

that is all I was trying to point out.... a new member comes to this forum, sees "we have no publisher" and then looks at your Bio.. goes to your Forum, and wham.. is faced with the reality that you have nothing to do with the game itself... thus tarnishes your credibility..

I'm trying to avoid situations such as that and keep everything in perspective on everyone's end so that people's credibility will not be in question...

STGD claims to be a ST Gaming News site, however taking partial statements and / or wording things incorreectly can put the wrong spin or impression on to the public. Any reporter knows that.  If I were a reporter and posting information.. how i word things makes all the difference in the world... It's not what you say.. it is how you say it...

Sorry for making you upset, but facts are facts.
 

[The_Pelican]

Quote:
"As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, Taldren doesn't have a producer, yet. If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested."

also this brings me to another point.. no sales results for SFC 3 have been released to anyone except the Elders at Taldren and the CEO's at Activision, so how, prey tell, are you making financial statements on game sales when that information is confidential? Where is your evidence? Your statement implys that SFC 3 sales were high, when no such statement was ever made... the only statement was that sales were ok.. nothing more nothing less... and that is Taldren's concern.
 

No sales results were released, but we have had "hints" dropped concerning the sales, I remember Dave mentioning that a profit was made on SFC3.

[NannerSlug]

 

Quote:
  No sales results were released, but we have had "hints" dropped concerning the sales, I remember Dave mentioning that a profit was made on SFC3.

correct. i think sfc 3 did better in the initial sales then what people think. the problem comes in long term sales.

because of the paramount/atvi  dispute, i doubt you will see atvi produce any more sfc3 product. i say this because it has been months since ive seen sfc3 product at any local (or even on line) game stores. the only way i found an extra copy recently was from somone who has a few "extra" lying around.

anywho.

there will need to be producers (even taldren if they wish to sell sfc and ship it their selves) licensed by paramount. we have seen none of this  yet.

[Magnum357]

I think the odds of a SFC4 right now are extremely slim in my opinion.  Just be the fact that Viacom/Paramont will not allow an SFB style game without them being part of the deal.  Also, all the whinning and bit*hing from Activision has soured relations between Viacom and Activision that I just dont think etheir side will come to a agreement.  I bet that Activision, just too be a sour grape, would not allow Taldren too use their copyrighted source code from SFC3 (I can't imagine Activision NOT having the copyright licence for the SFC3 code) and not allow Taldren too build a SFC4 game based even on SFC3 mechanics.  I bet Taldren would have too start from scratch on a whole new source code.

In my opinion, I hope Taldren negotiates a contract (somehow, if ever) with ADB and Paramount too make another SFB style game again.  But I think the odds in that are pretty slim just by the fact that Paramont might want a TNG game while ADB would strictly be TOS in focus.  

Ugh, I just hope these SFC games will still work with new Hardware and OS's because it could be years before we ever see another type of Star Trek game let alone and good SFB/SFC type game.  

[TheBigCheese]

Hey we got plenty of copies of SFC3 on the shelves in the UK, no one seems to be touching them with a bargepole
Try a reduction in price and budget advertising?
Funny , we have alot of games here that sell well in the U.S. but no one here seems to want???
great games too, the Combat Mission series for one, most Matrix games too.
Bizarre  

[Cleaven]

At least you have them on the shelves. Matrix only has FedEx overnight as an option for overseas sales. $50 for the game and $39 for shipping, in USD. A year ago I lashed out and bought SFC3 direct from the US as soon as it was released, but that was an exception. To pay almost the item price again for shipping is really ugly.  Fortunate thing is a friend sent me Korsun Pocket for Christmas and saved me the grief. At least Battlefront.com only charge $10 for overseas shipping.  

[Raniz Murjuri]

ohhh. so your the 1 that bought matrix..

***edited out opinions of a game****


j/k...


yeah cost of games and shipping is why i'm glad i got an EB games nextdoor.  

[Cleaven]

Ummm, Matrix are selling some quite good product judging by my own playing of Korsun Pocket, Across the Dnepr, and reviews of Highway to the Reich. A bit expensive for overseas mail order, but quite good none the less and opponents are abundant too.  

[Victor1st]

Yup, your right bigcheese, there are lots of copies still on the shelfs, but those will probably start shifting when the price drops down in feb/march 2004  

[Katie Venra]

Paramount:

They havent forgotten about trek gaming.  Infact they even seen the petition news that we put on the front of the STGD with regards to www.startrekgames.de ,  they are  listening and they understand the passion of the trek gamers, afterall, the section of Paramount that deals with this are mostly gamers themselves.  

ActiVision:

Officialy they currently support the official star trek gaming forum at www.gaming.startrek.com (when it's actually up) and they also officialy support all the current series of trek games they have produced.  http://www.gaming.startrek.com is usually the haunt of Dan Haggerty, although you will be very lucky to see him in there on a regular basis.  It is also the official Star Trek gaming boards, but since the main site of startrek.com removed the link the forums have been dead, and in dire need of a major overhaul.  No doubt those forums will close eventually.

As for some of the rumours:

1: Eidos are not involved

2: Acclaim are not involved

3: Vic is not Santa Claus

The eidos and accliam rumours is something we have been hearing for a while now, they are NOT TRUE...we finally got confirmation on that.

Any other rumours are probably just that, rumours.  There is a snowballs chance in hell of Armada 3 and Birth of the Federation 2.  As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, we dont have a producer, yet.  If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested.

As Vic keeps saying, things WILL eventually get better.  Hopefully this will kill off some of the rumours we keep getting emailed about and see in here.

Kat Vee
From STGD  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
drop the dead donkey folks, we dont have a producer, yet.

If I were the mean old baXXX that some say I am I would, first, ask you who is we, then, second, tease you to no end by saying how dead wrong you are.

But as both would be cruel beyond any comparison I would never think to do any thing like that.

Have a nice day.

Best,
Jerry  

[Katie Venra]

"we" as in the gamers of Star Trek.

You cant release a new Star Trek game unless you have a producer/publisher.  When Activision leaves and when a new one steps in thats when we can all look onto the future of gaming for Star Trek.  Unless you have heard something different of course  

[Pestalence]

Quote:
As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, we dont have a producer, yet. If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested.

I can see where Toasty is coming from..

this statement quoted above from the original posting infers that you had something to do with the initial production of any of the SFC games, which in fact you have not.

When making statements like this, please word it so that it will not infer that you or your site had a hand in the production of the SFC game series.

SFC, SFC II EAW, SFC II OP are based on SFB ruleset and specific designs in game play are all creations of Taldren, and Published by Interplay. (for those going to argue SFC I being 14 Degrees East made... well that was internal Interplay which broke off to form Taldren.. so still a Taldren product.)

SFC 3 was a collaboration of Activision and Taldren where Activision holds all the rights to what the game contains and the way the game operates. Taldren just codes it to Activision's specifications, when not being rushed to release 6 months early and severely cutting game content to make movie release sales...

If you are meaning "WE" as in the gamers.. it should read

"As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, Taldren doesn't have a producer, yet. If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested."

also this brings me to another point.. no sales results for SFC 3 have been released to anyone except the Elders at Taldren and the CEO's at Activision, so how, prey tell, are you making financial statements on game sales when that information is confidential? Where is your evidence? Your statement implys that SFC 3 sales were high, when no such statement was ever made... the only statement was that sales were ok.. nothing more nothing less... and that is Taldren's concern.

and Finally, i remember back in March 2003, Erik posted that if another SFC is to be done, Taldren is publishing it themselves, not going through a 3rd party just because of what Activision has done... what is needed is the Rights and Liscenses for Trek out in the open and Taldren lease them for the era(s) they want to do...  and even then if Taldren thinks it may be profitable or not to continue the series...

Please, keep things in perspective.. Trek gaming is up in the air.. the liscenses are still held up due to contracts, whether companies state that the liscenses are free, what company is going to be willing to get them until Activision's previous contract has terminated, unless they want to fall into possible litigation against Activision for hijacking contracts.. what is said and what is on paper are 2 separate things.. the paper always wins as spoken is unverifiable or "heresay"...
 

[Katie Venra]

There was a time when i didnt need to watch the way i worded my posts in here.

Fair enough, i worded it wrong.

Bye folks.  

[Pestalence]

It is sort of like me coming on your forum and saying "We are going to revise the looks or the rulse of this Forum."

I don't have any rights there to change anything, so I am not part of the "WE". Just as you don't have input into the development of the SFC game series.

It is not an attack on you, it is putting the proper perspective on situations...

WE don't have a publisher.. Taldren does. and Taldren stated that If SFC 4 was produced, they would publish it themselves.. thus elimination more  of the WE people out of the equasion...

it's in the perspective...

We the Taldren Moderators can go over to your Forum and make statements pertaining to your Forum all day long and use the word WE and Reforming in relation to your site...

what basis would i have for making such statements... I have no access to your FTP, I have no access to your web page software, server, or host. I have no say on what your rules are or what they sould be....  nor does any Taldren Moderator to my understanding

all I can do is make a suggestion.... therefore I am not in a WE position.

however in the light of the community, they read the posting and see WE are making rules changes, they will automatically assume that Taldren has infiltrated your Forum and is now dictating rules on your forum...

is that fair to your community... I think not.

It is a statement that is misleading to the public at large and throws the wrong perspective into the conversation...

I can say anything that I want.. how i word it will either make it a true statement or something that can be misconstrued or misleading to the actual facts of a situation...

that is all I was trying to point out.... a new member comes to this forum, sees "we have no publisher" and then looks at your Bio.. goes to your Forum, and wham.. is faced with the reality that you have nothing to do with the game itself... thus tarnishes your credibility..

I'm trying to avoid situations such as that and keep everything in perspective on everyone's end so that people's credibility will not be in question...

STGD claims to be a ST Gaming News site, however taking partial statements and / or wording things incorreectly can put the wrong spin or impression on to the public. Any reporter knows that.  If I were a reporter and posting information.. how i word things makes all the difference in the world... It's not what you say.. it is how you say it...

Sorry for making you upset, but facts are facts.
 

[The_Pelican]

Quote:
"As for SFC 4, sheesh...drop the dead donkey folks, Taldren doesn't have a producer, yet. If it goes by sales and a new producer steps in and looks at the sales of SFC 3 they might posibbly be interested."

also this brings me to another point.. no sales results for SFC 3 have been released to anyone except the Elders at Taldren and the CEO's at Activision, so how, prey tell, are you making financial statements on game sales when that information is confidential? Where is your evidence? Your statement implys that SFC 3 sales were high, when no such statement was ever made... the only statement was that sales were ok.. nothing more nothing less... and that is Taldren's concern.
 

No sales results were released, but we have had "hints" dropped concerning the sales, I remember Dave mentioning that a profit was made on SFC3.

[NannerSlug]

 

Quote:
  No sales results were released, but we have had "hints" dropped concerning the sales, I remember Dave mentioning that a profit was made on SFC3.

correct. i think sfc 3 did better in the initial sales then what people think. the problem comes in long term sales.

because of the paramount/atvi  dispute, i doubt you will see atvi produce any more sfc3 product. i say this because it has been months since ive seen sfc3 product at any local (or even on line) game stores. the only way i found an extra copy recently was from somone who has a few "extra" lying around.

anywho.

there will need to be producers (even taldren if they wish to sell sfc and ship it their selves) licensed by paramount. we have seen none of this  yet.

[Magnum357]

I think the odds of a SFC4 right now are extremely slim in my opinion.  Just be the fact that Viacom/Paramont will not allow an SFB style game without them being part of the deal.  Also, all the whinning and bit*hing from Activision has soured relations between Viacom and Activision that I just dont think etheir side will come to a agreement.  I bet that Activision, just too be a sour grape, would not allow Taldren too use their copyrighted source code from SFC3 (I can't imagine Activision NOT having the copyright licence for the SFC3 code) and not allow Taldren too build a SFC4 game based even on SFC3 mechanics.  I bet Taldren would have too start from scratch on a whole new source code.

In my opinion, I hope Taldren negotiates a contract (somehow, if ever) with ADB and Paramount too make another SFB style game again.  But I think the odds in that are pretty slim just by the fact that Paramont might want a TNG game while ADB would strictly be TOS in focus.  

Ugh, I just hope these SFC games will still work with new Hardware and OS's because it could be years before we ever see another type of Star Trek game let alone and good SFB/SFC type game.  

[TheBigCheese]

Hey we got plenty of copies of SFC3 on the shelves in the UK, no one seems to be touching them with a bargepole
Try a reduction in price and budget advertising?
Funny , we have alot of games here that sell well in the U.S. but no one here seems to want???
great games too, the Combat Mission series for one, most Matrix games too.
Bizarre  

[Cleaven]

At least you have them on the shelves. Matrix only has FedEx overnight as an option for overseas sales. $50 for the game and $39 for shipping, in USD. A year ago I lashed out and bought SFC3 direct from the US as soon as it was released, but that was an exception. To pay almost the item price again for shipping is really ugly.  Fortunate thing is a friend sent me Korsun Pocket for Christmas and saved me the grief. At least Battlefront.com only charge $10 for overseas shipping.  

[Raniz Murjuri]

ohhh. so your the 1 that bought matrix..

***edited out opinions of a game****


j/k...


yeah cost of games and shipping is why i'm glad i got an EB games nextdoor.  

[Cleaven]

Ummm, Matrix are selling some quite good product judging by my own playing of Korsun Pocket, Across the Dnepr, and reviews of Highway to the Reich. A bit expensive for overseas mail order, but quite good none the less and opponents are abundant too.  

[Victor1st]

Yup, your right bigcheese, there are lots of copies still on the shelfs, but those will probably start shifting when the price drops down in feb/march 2004