I see it a total different ship. As it is an all new build. It just happens to share the similar looks to the Connie. As it come from the same "family tree".
Its more like comparing the old 60s Camero or Mustang to a current Camero or Mustang. Total different builds, just share the looks.
Due to it sharing the same design, this is a good reason why it wouldn't come out. As it would create too much an issue. Shame too, I would fly it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
I see it a total different ship. As it is an all new build. It just happens to share the similar looks to the Connie. As it come from the same "family tree".
Its more like comparing the old 60s Camero or Mustang to a current Camero or Mustang. Total different builds, just share the looks.
Due to it sharing the same design, this is a good reason why it wouldn't come out. As it would create too much an issue. Shame too, I would fly it.
If that is what CBS said, that's fine. I'm completely willing to accept that. I'm just asking if CBS actually said that, or not. If not, then I will keep asking for the ship, just like other people keep asking for various things they would like to have in game.
Before I begin, let me state for the record: I'm ALL in favor of an endgame level Excalibur (preferably with the option of the 2410 black trim on stark white paint scheme). I would skip meals to pay for it, I like the idea that much.
Secondly, on a related tangent, I'd very much prefer if visible ship design and internal game mechanics were separated completely. (I'd rather have a T6-level Cruiser-type with the Excalibur skin, or a T5-level Science-type with a Rhode Island skin.) But, since doing that would effectively nullify PWE's micro-transaction F2P model, I know it's a pipe-dream.
Now... On to the meat of it all: I've skimmed through 10 pages and a number of things have been said that I'd like to mention.
To the guy that thinks that the Avenger-class looks nothing like the USS Vengeance--you need to go see an optometrist.
---> Insert "I am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer here <---
CBS doesn't own Star Trek. Nobody does. CBS owns the trademark for the title "Star Trek" and copyright for all of the episodes ever produced (each with it's own independent copyright). Paramount owns the copyright for all of the movies, each as an independent copyright (licensing the trademarked title from CBS). Cryptic owns the copyright for STO, the game as a whole--not the individual components--licensing the name "Star Trek" from CBS. Trademark protects brand identity, copyright protects "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". It does not protect "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work". (Source: 17 USC 102)
This is how fan made Trek is possible. While New Voyages does violate trademark (and CBS chooses to let it slide since they don't make any money) because they use the phrase "Star Trek" in their title, they all have original stories with brand new copyrights. Another fan production, Starship Farragut, doesn't use the phrase Star Trek, so they're in the clear. They're not violating anything. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that, because copyright doe not extend to ideas, "look and feel" copyright does not exist.
AXANAR is being sued because they were making money off if it, which most (all?) of the other fan productions don't do... Being sued is akin to an accusation. It's not the same as being guilty. A lot of times a copyright lawsuit works, NOT because the accused violated any copyright laws, but simply because the company out-spends them so they can't afford to keep doing whatever perfectly legal thing they were being sued for doing.
Patents, on the other hand, are a different matter. Pre-Viacom Paramount *used to* own the image of the Constitution-refit Enterprise, but that non-renewable patent expired in 1995. There was never a patent filed for TOS Enterprise, and CERTAINLY not for the Cryptic-invented Excalibur-class.
CBS can make certain things a stipulation as a pre-condition of the Star Trek (TM) license, in which case these things would have been spelled out in the licensing agreement... however that have no legal right to say "yes" or "no" to anything that wasn't spelled out in the licensing agreement before-hand. So... to answer OP's original question, in a round-about kind of way: "No, CBS, has not said 'no' to T6 Excalibur, because neither T6 or Excalibur existed before the license was granted, therefore they couldn't have said no to something that hadn't happened yet."
However, if CBS has a "Brand Manager" for Trek like TSR used to have for it's D&D campaign worlds... then Cryptic might have asked the Brand Manager, as a courtesy, who then said no... to which Cryptic complied despite not being legally bound to do so.
I, personally, don't think CBS ever said no. I think Dan Stahl told us that CBS said no to get us to stop asking for one. Since he was the boss at the time, everyone just took his word for it and kept repeating the line. But... I could be wrong. It's been known to happen before.
In any case, I don't want an endgame Connie. I want an Excalibur!
If that is what CBS said, that's fine. I'm completely willing to accept that. I'm just asking if CBS actually said that, or not. If not, then I will keep asking for the ship, just like other people keep asking for various things they would like to have in game.
I agree as well, they said Connie, not the variations. So why not ask about them, until we get a final answer on it.
My only doubt is cause they share the Connie selection, so that could cause issues.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
If that is what CBS said, that's fine. I'm completely willing to accept that. I'm just asking if CBS actually said that, or not. If not, then I will keep asking for the ship, just like other people keep asking for various things they would like to have in game.
I agree as well, they said Connie, not the variations. So why not ask about them, until we get a final answer on it.
My only doubt is cause they share the Connie selection, so that could cause issues.
That would only be an issue of the devs did not control how their own game functions(bugs, aside). But since they do control how their own game functions, then they have the ability to disconnect any ship parts from any other ship parts. Or, in the case of a high end Excalibur, to simply not allow the connie parts to even be in the pool of available parts.
They did the same with the galaxy. Theres 3 skins(envoy, clestral and another) that cant be used on t5 or t6 ships.
It's actually only the two you mentioned, Celestial and Envoy. The reason for that is that those two aren't compatible with the saucer separation mechanics and were generally cosnidered of low quality. I am sure they'd like to scrap those two completely, but people would rage if that happened.
'
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
people rage about every little thing REGARDLESS; if they're that low quality and they can't be made compatible with saucer separation, just get rid of them
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
people rage about every little thing REGARDLESS; if they're that low quality and they can't be made compatible with saucer separation, just get rid of them
They probably -could- be made compatable, though they might have to make the neck and saucer combination inseparable (ie can't have one without the other) during customization idk. The main thing is they aren't very popular (especially the Envoy, good God that thing's ugly), so it's not worth the time and effort it would take to get them ready
The envoy - in theory - looks like the Excaliburized Galaxy.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
They did the same with the galaxy. Theres 3 skins(envoy, clestral and another) that cant be used on t5 or t6 ships.
It's actually only the two you mentioned, Celestial and Envoy. The reason for that is that those two aren't compatible with the saucer separation mechanics and were generally cosnidered of low quality. I am sure they'd like to scrap those two completely, but people would rage if that happened.
'
You forgot the Monarch, the armored-looking version of the Galaxy. Actually, the Envoy looks armored too. A personal theory is that the Envoy was built as a pure Galaxy-derived warship, but the shipyard that was building them was destroyed by the Klingons.
You forgot the Monarch, the armored-looking version of the Galaxy. Actually, the Envoy looks armored too. A personal theory is that the Envoy was built as a pure Galaxy-derived warship, but the shipyard that was building them was destroyed by the Klingons.
The Monarch-variant is available for the T5 and T6 versions. @kekvin mentioned three skins that can't be used at endgame but it's only the two they mentioned.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
After a few weeks, 10 pages, and an amazing 6.8k views, I am going to offer a few guesses as to why there has been no official response to this issue:
1) CBS has *NOT* actually said they can't make an end game Excalibur. Note that I used the words "end game", not a specific tier, like T6. The reason I did that is because "end game" constantly changes, and T6 would not have existed a few years ago when they may have had conversations with CBS on this issue. So if CBS told them they couldn't make an "end game" Excalibur, then that would apply to whatever the current end game was, at any given time.
That said, if CBS had actually told them that, then they would have no apparent reason to not simply say so. They already told us CBS said they couldn't make an end game connie, so they apparently have no reservation in telling us when CBS says they can't do something. That being the case, one possible reason they have no responded to this thread is because CBS has *NOT* actually said they couldn't make an end game Excalibur.
2) They are actually working on something like this for the 50 anniversary. Whether it is an actual Excalibur class(which is what I am requesting) or some other variant inspired by the classic connie, it is possible that they are in fact developing a ship for the anniversary, and want to keep it secret until they are ready to make the big announcement. While that would be awesome(and I will probably buy it), I am still requesting an actual Excalibur class.
3) They simply don't want to respond. There is no rule that requires devs to reply to specific threads; it is completely up to them. So it is possible that they simply don't want to respond to this issue, and I'm *not* saying there is anything "wrong" with that. However, I do *hope* that if they did have an actual answer(and they weren't simply waiting to reveal a ship), that they would simply provide that answer to their community who is passionate about their game.
There are probably other reasons, or variations of these reasons, but I think these are probably the main and most likely explanations at this point.
@thegrandnagus1 I'd think it's option three. At least since PWE took over the devs never actually commented on any forum inquiry. Sometimes you get the artists or borticus comment on current stuff, but never, ever on future stuff. I suppose they simply aren't allowed to do so and probably aren't allowed to comment on this CBS stuff either, if it exists.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
@thegrandnagus1 I'd think it's option three. At least since PWE took over the devs never actually commented on any forum inquiry. Sometimes you get the artists or borticus comment on current stuff, but never, ever on future stuff. I suppose they simply aren't allowed to do so and probably aren't allowed to comment on this CBS stuff either, if it exists.
I have noticed far less dev posting in the past year or so, but they don't seem to have any issue making those kind of statements on podcasts. So, I don't know if there are different "rules" regarding forums vs podcasts, but even on podcasts their exact words are often quoted here on the forums.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their (GameStops) box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive, wasn't validated and approved. (turns out that he was a Huge TOS Fan)
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
So CBS (the lawyer) acquiesced.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl), to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
BTW: Does anybody know yet what the "secret" project is that Stahl is supposedly working on for Cryptic/PWE?
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
Q: DecadeComplete How's the T5 Constitution Refit-Refit that was in a recent engineering report doing? Will there ever be a way to purchase "Ship Slots" and "Costume Slots" in game with say 1Mil EC or so?
A: We are working to add more variations to existing ships for both factions and one of the ships they are working on is an additional Constitution refit; however there has been no confirmation that this is a top tier ship. Geko can add more details as we get closer to Season 4 release, but for now, I can only say that we are working with CBS on an alternative refit design. As far as making ship and costume slots available for in game currency, we are considering finding a way we could offer them for in game currency, or in the case of ship slots, have the ships come with slots as part of the purchase price.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
I can see the link if the final terms required Cryptic to also not produce more powerful versions of the Constitution or any similar variation on its design.
However, with JJ gone, a new show coming, and the anniversary fast approaching, I'd say the possibility may have opened up some, but it's impossible for us to know without official word. The fact that no one from cryptic has dropped a no in this thread -might- indicate that it is a possibility now, but it could just as easily mean nothing. If the answer is yes it's coming, we won't know until it's almost upon us, cause that would be a HUGE announcement.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
Fur Sure... but I thought it might help to alleviate the endless bickering over the topic at hand and also give new light to the possibility of something happening for the 50th Anniversary in this area.
As that particular lawyer is no longer the "Answer Guy" at CBS Licensing, it could possibly be that you and I may both get our wish.
Post edited by daveyny on
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
I can see the link if the final terms required Cryptic to also not produce more powerful versions of the Constitution or any similar variation on its design.
And if that is indeed the case, I'm completely willing to accept it. But that has not been said, to date. They have *only* told us that CBS said no to the actual connie. They have never told us CBS said they could not make an end game version of the Excalibur, or any other variant.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
Fur Sure... but I thought it might help to alleviate the endless bickering over the topic at hand and also give new light to the possibility of something happening for the 50th Anniversary in this area.
As that particular lawyer is no longer the "Answer Guy" at CBS Licensing, it could possibly be that you and I may both get our wish.
BTW, where did you get that backstory to the connie issue you posted earlier? As someone who has been on these forums since beta, I have never read that. A link would be great, thanks.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
Fur Sure... but I thought it might help to alleviate the endless bickering over the topic at hand and also give new light to the possibility of something happening for the 50th Anniversary in this area.
As that particular lawyer is no longer the "Answer Guy" at CBS Licensing, it could possibly be that you and I may both get our wish.
BTW, where did you get that backstory to the Connie issue you posted earlier? As someone who has been on these forums since beta, I have never read that. A link would be great, thanks.
Unfortunately, a direct link to most of the info no longer exists.
But it's all mingled together from various discussions we had back then in the old Cryptic forums and from my memory of those times.
Dan himself, posted about the trouble with getting the Connie in the game at all, back in the original hey-day of this discussion.
The GameStop connection is from an interview with McCurry that I read. (back in 2011)
The Lawyer in charge of the licensing at the time, became a thread all his own when another poster managed to find out who it was.
And the part about the licensing flap is pulled from internet articles posted at the time of the 2009 movie.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
Fur Sure... but I thought it might help to alleviate the endless bickering over the topic at hand and also give new light to the possibility of something happening for the 50th Anniversary in this area.
As that particular lawyer is no longer the "Answer Guy" at CBS Licensing, it could possibly be that you and I may both get our wish.
BTW, where did you get that backstory to the Connie issue you posted earlier? As someone who has been on these forums since beta, I have never read that. A link would be great, thanks.
Unfortunately, a direct link to most of the info no longer exists.
But it's all mingled together from various discussions we had back then in the old Cryptic forums and from my memory of those times.
Dan himself, posted about the trouble with getting the Connie in the game at all, back in the original hey-day of this discussion.
The GameStop connection is from an interview with McCurry that I read. (back in 2011)
The Lawyer in charge of the licensing at the time, became a thread all his own when another poster managed to find out who it was.
And the part about the licensing flap is pulled from internet articles posted at the time.
I see. So it sounds like a lot of different sources, which would explain why I didn't read that here on the forums. Thanks for the explanation.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
I can see the link if the final terms required Cryptic to also not produce more powerful versions of the Constitution or any similar variation on its design.
However, with JJ gone, a new show coming, and the anniversary fast approaching, I'd say the possibility may have opened up some, but it's impossible for us to know without official word. The fact that no one from cryptic has dropped a no in this thread -might- indicate that it is a possibility now, but it could just as easily mean nothing. If the answer is yes it's coming, we won't know until it's almost upon us, cause that would be a HUGE announcement.
Umm, JJ is not gone, the next film, Star Trek Beyond, is still a Bad Robot production, JJ is still Executive Producer. Before filming began on Beyond Paramount and Bad Robot re-signed the cast to new contracts including the option for a fourth film. Not sure where you would get the idea that JJ is gone, cause it isn't from any facts.
By gone, I meant he vacated the big chair and is no longer directing.
I think the original "NO" quote has been a bit distorted over time.
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive wasn't validated and approved.
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl) to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
Fur Sure... but I thought it might help to alleviate the endless bickering over the topic at hand and also give new light to the possibility of something happening for the 50th Anniversary in this area.
As that particular lawyer is no longer the "Answer Guy" at CBS Licensing, it could possibly be that you and I may both get our wish.
BTW, where did you get that backstory to the Connie issue you posted earlier? As someone who has been on these forums since beta, I have never read that. A link would be great, thanks.
Unfortunately, a direct link to most of the info no longer exists.
But it's all mingled together from various discussions we had back then in the old Cryptic forums and from my memory of those times.
Dan himself, posted about the trouble with getting the Connie in the game at all, back in the original hey-day of this discussion.
The GameStop connection is from an interview with McCurry that I read. (back in 2011)
The Lawyer in charge of the licensing at the time, became a thread all his own when another poster managed to find out who it was.
And the part about the licensing flap is pulled from internet articles posted at the time of the 2009 movie.
The guy who was, and I think still is, in charge of the licencing is John Van Citters since 2005. Unless something has changed, but I haven't heard that it has.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
Its more like comparing the old 60s Camero or Mustang to a current Camero or Mustang. Total different builds, just share the looks.
Due to it sharing the same design, this is a good reason why it wouldn't come out. As it would create too much an issue. Shame too, I would fly it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
If that is what CBS said, that's fine. I'm completely willing to accept that. I'm just asking if CBS actually said that, or not. If not, then I will keep asking for the ship, just like other people keep asking for various things they would like to have in game.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Secondly, on a related tangent, I'd very much prefer if visible ship design and internal game mechanics were separated completely. (I'd rather have a T6-level Cruiser-type with the Excalibur skin, or a T5-level Science-type with a Rhode Island skin.) But, since doing that would effectively nullify PWE's micro-transaction F2P model, I know it's a pipe-dream.
Now... On to the meat of it all: I've skimmed through 10 pages and a number of things have been said that I'd like to mention.
To the guy that thinks that the Avenger-class looks nothing like the USS Vengeance--you need to go see an optometrist.
---> Insert "I am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer here <---
CBS doesn't own Star Trek. Nobody does. CBS owns the trademark for the title "Star Trek" and copyright for all of the episodes ever produced (each with it's own independent copyright). Paramount owns the copyright for all of the movies, each as an independent copyright (licensing the trademarked title from CBS). Cryptic owns the copyright for STO, the game as a whole--not the individual components--licensing the name "Star Trek" from CBS. Trademark protects brand identity, copyright protects "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". It does not protect "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work". (Source: 17 USC 102)
This is how fan made Trek is possible. While New Voyages does violate trademark (and CBS chooses to let it slide since they don't make any money) because they use the phrase "Star Trek" in their title, they all have original stories with brand new copyrights. Another fan production, Starship Farragut, doesn't use the phrase Star Trek, so they're in the clear. They're not violating anything. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that, because copyright doe not extend to ideas, "look and feel" copyright does not exist.
AXANAR is being sued because they were making money off if it, which most (all?) of the other fan productions don't do... Being sued is akin to an accusation. It's not the same as being guilty. A lot of times a copyright lawsuit works, NOT because the accused violated any copyright laws, but simply because the company out-spends them so they can't afford to keep doing whatever perfectly legal thing they were being sued for doing.
Patents, on the other hand, are a different matter. Pre-Viacom Paramount *used to* own the image of the Constitution-refit Enterprise, but that non-renewable patent expired in 1995. There was never a patent filed for TOS Enterprise, and CERTAINLY not for the Cryptic-invented Excalibur-class.
CBS can make certain things a stipulation as a pre-condition of the Star Trek (TM) license, in which case these things would have been spelled out in the licensing agreement... however that have no legal right to say "yes" or "no" to anything that wasn't spelled out in the licensing agreement before-hand. So... to answer OP's original question, in a round-about kind of way: "No, CBS, has not said 'no' to T6 Excalibur, because neither T6 or Excalibur existed before the license was granted, therefore they couldn't have said no to something that hadn't happened yet."
However, if CBS has a "Brand Manager" for Trek like TSR used to have for it's D&D campaign worlds... then Cryptic might have asked the Brand Manager, as a courtesy, who then said no... to which Cryptic complied despite not being legally bound to do so.
I, personally, don't think CBS ever said no. I think Dan Stahl told us that CBS said no to get us to stop asking for one. Since he was the boss at the time, everyone just took his word for it and kept repeating the line. But... I could be wrong. It's been known to happen before.
In any case, I don't want an endgame Connie. I want an Excalibur!
I agree as well, they said Connie, not the variations. So why not ask about them, until we get a final answer on it.
My only doubt is cause they share the Connie selection, so that could cause issues.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
T5 T'Liss/T6 Malem warbirds were divorced from the T1 TOS warbird skin, so its not impossible for them to remove the connie parts from selection.
That would only be an issue of the devs did not control how their own game functions(bugs, aside). But since they do control how their own game functions, then they have the ability to disconnect any ship parts from any other ship parts. Or, in the case of a high end Excalibur, to simply not allow the connie parts to even be in the pool of available parts.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It's actually only the two you mentioned, Celestial and Envoy. The reason for that is that those two aren't compatible with the saucer separation mechanics and were generally cosnidered of low quality. I am sure they'd like to scrap those two completely, but people would rage if that happened.
'
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
They probably -could- be made compatable, though they might have to make the neck and saucer combination inseparable (ie can't have one without the other) during customization idk. The main thing is they aren't very popular (especially the Envoy, good God that thing's ugly), so it's not worth the time and effort it would take to get them ready
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You forgot the Monarch, the armored-looking version of the Galaxy. Actually, the Envoy looks armored too. A personal theory is that the Envoy was built as a pure Galaxy-derived warship, but the shipyard that was building them was destroyed by the Klingons.
The Monarch-variant is available for the T5 and T6 versions. @kekvin mentioned three skins that can't be used at endgame but it's only the two they mentioned.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
1) CBS has *NOT* actually said they can't make an end game Excalibur. Note that I used the words "end game", not a specific tier, like T6. The reason I did that is because "end game" constantly changes, and T6 would not have existed a few years ago when they may have had conversations with CBS on this issue. So if CBS told them they couldn't make an "end game" Excalibur, then that would apply to whatever the current end game was, at any given time.
That said, if CBS had actually told them that, then they would have no apparent reason to not simply say so. They already told us CBS said they couldn't make an end game connie, so they apparently have no reservation in telling us when CBS says they can't do something. That being the case, one possible reason they have no responded to this thread is because CBS has *NOT* actually said they couldn't make an end game Excalibur.
2) They are actually working on something like this for the 50 anniversary. Whether it is an actual Excalibur class(which is what I am requesting) or some other variant inspired by the classic connie, it is possible that they are in fact developing a ship for the anniversary, and want to keep it secret until they are ready to make the big announcement. While that would be awesome(and I will probably buy it), I am still requesting an actual Excalibur class.
3) They simply don't want to respond. There is no rule that requires devs to reply to specific threads; it is completely up to them. So it is possible that they simply don't want to respond to this issue, and I'm *not* saying there is anything "wrong" with that. However, I do *hope* that if they did have an actual answer(and they weren't simply waiting to reveal a ship), that they would simply provide that answer to their community who is passionate about their game.
There are probably other reasons, or variations of these reasons, but I think these are probably the main and most likely explanations at this point.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I have noticed far less dev posting in the past year or so, but they don't seem to have any issue making those kind of statements on podcasts. So, I don't know if there are different "rules" regarding forums vs podcasts, but even on podcasts their exact words are often quoted here on the forums.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1211583/daily-foundry-mission-investigate-officer-reports
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
When Cryptic/ATARI picked up the IP from Perpetual way-back-when (2008), it was assumed that all the ship assets (TV and Movie) would be readily available for use in the game.
Unfortunately, the CBS Licensing Lawyer at the time (who's name I can't remember at the moment) was also in the middle of the dispute with JJ (Bad Robot) and Paramount over the pulling of all previous CBS TOS licensed products off the market in order to more fully push the Nu-Trek movie products to market.
It was this person who in his not-so-divine wisdom, decided that the TOS Connie would not be allowed in the game in any fashion, in order to appease and hopefully adjudicate the ongoing dispute with Bad Robot.
In the mean time, somebody at Cryptic had already designed and fully developed the TOS Connie as a playable asset for the game.
The story goes on that Cryptic, had also made a deal with the founder of GameStop (James McCurry) to release the Connie as an exclusive for their (GameStops) box version of the game during this same time.
When it was discovered that the CBS Licensing Lawyer was not going to let the Connie asset be used in the game, it became a bit of a problem...
McCurry threatened to pull the game from his stores shelves if his agreement with Cryptic for the Connie Exclusive, wasn't validated and approved. (turns out that he was a Huge TOS Fan)
At the time, that would have been a very big deal as GameStop was one of the largest PC game sellers in the USA.
So CBS (the lawyer) acquiesced.
Anyway, this became the raison d'être for Cryptic (Dan Stahl), to suggest (say NO) in the forums back then that the Connie would not be enabled as an 'end game' playable ship.
<shrug>
BTW: Does anybody know yet what the "secret" project is that Stahl is supposedly working on for Cryptic/PWE?
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
That's interesting, although it doesn't really change anything as far as I can see. Regardless of the backstory, CBS said they can't make an end game connie. That's that. But no dev has ever told us CBS will not allow them to make an end game Excalibur, and that is the question this thread is asking.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/1059490-ask-cryptic_-april-2011
Now, this obviously has not happened(yet). But they were(possibly still are?) "working with CBS on an alternative refit design".
***edit***
On reflection, this probably wound up being the Exeter class, and therefore has no real bearing on this discussion about an end game Excalibur.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I can see the link if the final terms required Cryptic to also not produce more powerful versions of the Constitution or any similar variation on its design.
However, with JJ gone, a new show coming, and the anniversary fast approaching, I'd say the possibility may have opened up some, but it's impossible for us to know without official word. The fact that no one from cryptic has dropped a no in this thread -might- indicate that it is a possibility now, but it could just as easily mean nothing. If the answer is yes it's coming, we won't know until it's almost upon us, cause that would be a HUGE announcement.
Fur Sure... but I thought it might help to alleviate the endless bickering over the topic at hand and also give new light to the possibility of something happening for the 50th Anniversary in this area.
As that particular lawyer is no longer the "Answer Guy" at CBS Licensing, it could possibly be that you and I may both get our wish.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
And if that is indeed the case, I'm completely willing to accept it. But that has not been said, to date. They have *only* told us that CBS said no to the actual connie. They have never told us CBS said they could not make an end game version of the Excalibur, or any other variant.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
BTW, where did you get that backstory to the connie issue you posted earlier? As someone who has been on these forums since beta, I have never read that. A link would be great, thanks.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Unfortunately, a direct link to most of the info no longer exists.
But it's all mingled together from various discussions we had back then in the old Cryptic forums and from my memory of those times.
Dan himself, posted about the trouble with getting the Connie in the game at all, back in the original hey-day of this discussion.
The GameStop connection is from an interview with McCurry that I read. (back in 2011)
The Lawyer in charge of the licensing at the time, became a thread all his own when another poster managed to find out who it was.
And the part about the licensing flap is pulled from internet articles posted at the time of the 2009 movie.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I see. So it sounds like a lot of different sources, which would explain why I didn't read that here on the forums. Thanks for the explanation.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
By gone, I meant he vacated the big chair and is no longer directing.
The guy who was, and I think still is, in charge of the licencing is John Van Citters since 2005. Unless something has changed, but I haven't heard that it has.