Well, both Eaglemoss and Wizkids' model lines comfortably include both varieties...
Yeah... and the Eaglemoss figs having the movie figures at twice the size (and cost) pretty much SCREAMS concessions to a second licensor . Good on them they were able to swing a parallel deal and put it all under a shared banner. For whatever reason, Cryptic clearly hasn't reached a similar understanding with Paramount.
Though it's be funny as all heck if the JJ Enterprise appeared in game at twice the scale of any other ship and for $50 . Just to carry the same obvious split in licensing terms forward to it's logical conclusion.
- heck, Wizkid's boxed game was noted as one of the *very* few times that the movie-era Enterprise is seen in action alongside the Galaxy class - so even if you're right, it clearly doesn't affect sublicensors.
On the contrary - it absolutely is affecting sub-licensors. Two kids each own part of the pie and you DO NOT TOUCH the other kid's part of the pie without permission. Some of the subcontractors are approaching both kids, and some aren't. The article about the TV series lays it out pretty plain - the two kids can be civil in public, but they're not friends.
The real reason, IMO, is that circular saucers are reflective of older designs (ENT through movie era) whereas oval designs are associated with newer ones. That was established in the series, Cryptic has just gone with it.
Could be, but I think the approvals process Cryptic has to jump through is significantly more nuanced than that .
Well at least we went most of 12 pages before people started flipping tables and going emo batsh!t over this.
Have all the people screaming "ITS A CONNIE" actually looked up the Excalibur? The U.S.S. Excalibur is the lead vessel of the Excalibur-class cruiser. The Excalibur was launched from Utopia Planitia in 2391. The Excalibur was in service to Starfleet in 2409. The Excalibur class is well-suited for cargo or transport missions. Its expansive cargo holds make it indispensable to Starfleet as a vessel used to resupply planets, space stations, and other starships. The power systems make it possible to run industrial replicators indefinitely, making this class the ideal choice for evacuation and mercy missions.
The "Flagship" of the line is only 19yrs old and utilizes the standard "saucer, engineering hull, and nacelle" configuration utilized in the design of most Starfleet vessels. Nowhere in the GAME'S OWN FICTION does it even reference the Constitution Class. Same for the Vesper Class.
Well at least we went most of 12 pages before people started flipping tables and going emo batsh!t over this.
Have all the people screaming "ITS A CONNIE" actually looked up the Excalibur? The U.S.S. Excalibur is the lead vessel of the Excalibur-class cruiser. The Excalibur was launched from Utopia Planitia in 2391. The Excalibur was in service to Starfleet in 2409. The Excalibur class is well-suited for cargo or transport missions. Its expansive cargo holds make it indispensable to Starfleet as a vessel used to resupply planets, space stations, and other starships. The power systems make it possible to run industrial replicators indefinitely, making this class the ideal choice for evacuation and mercy missions.
The "Flagship" of the line is only 19yrs old and utilizes the standard "saucer, engineering hull, and nacelle" configuration utilized in the design of most Starfleet vessels. Nowhere in the GAME'S OWN FICTION does it even reference the Constitution Class.
Yes, that point has already been argued in this thread. And even as the one who posted this thread, I have to admit that that lore doesn't change the fact that the T2 Excalibur is effectively the same as the connie as far as gameplay mechanics are concerned. I understand at admit that simple issue. But the point is, I'm asking for a change. I'm asking to separate the 2 ships and make the Excalibur an end game ship. I know it probably won't happen, but I'm still asking for it. I'm also asking them to clarify if CBS actually said they couldn't do what I am specifically asking for.
Point is nagus. even the game's own lore tells the whiners it is not a connie... now the Exeter DOES directly state its a modern Constitution Class, sadly. The people flippin tables need to stop, and take a breath. Yes it was given a slot the same as the Connie. BUT are we going to argue that the Trident class is the exact same thing as the Destiny Class or Nimbus Class(retired)?? They share a tier, and Cryptic allows for kitbashing. But they are clearly NOT the same ship.
Play a Romulan Republic character, kitbashing isn't a guaranteed right in STO, and the game functions w/o the ability to do it. My Mogai shares a tier with a D'deridex but again, NOT THE SAME SHIP. It's really a simple(ish) matter to give the Excalibur/Vesta its own catagory for a Tier6 redux
And is again a canon design appearing in TV episodes like the Ambassador.
Maybe I'm not being clear. I am talking about Cryptic-created designs. The kind subject to approvals. The kind that they very likely have to run past both CBS & Paramount. Not special licensing from Paramount (Excelsior). Not ships from the the TV show. New hulls unique to STO.
They seem incredibly leery of introducing circular primary hulls. More than just "in-setting modern ships are all ovals or wedges". More like they irritated Paramount with the whole Connie/Excalibur thing at game launch and now Cryptic gives the whole concept a wide berth.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,449Community Moderator
They seem incredibly leery of introducing circular primary hulls
I don't they they are "leery", I think it is an intentional design "evolution" on Cryptic's part. The canon ships of Trek moved away from the circular saucer, so I think Cryptic is just continuing that trend. If there were actually some "ban", the Geneva would never have been approved.
Cryptic doesn't have an agreement with Paramount. Paramount is not involved whatsoever with STO.
Uh huh. Sure. Because CBS and Paramount don't have discussions between them all the time that the sub-licensors then have to tow the line on. Paramount just bullied CBS out of launching its new Trek TV show during the 50th anniversary so that their movie wouldn't have any sort of confusion in the market. You think they wouldn't stomp the life out of some piddling game studio for drifting too close to their visual motifs?
Make no mistake, the contract may be with CBS, but Paramount definitely has a compelling say regarding imagery they feel infringes their segment of the brand.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,449Community Moderator
Uh huh. Sure. Because CBS and Paramount don't have discussions between them all the time that the sub-licensors then have to tow the line on. Paramount just bullied CBS out of launching its new Trek TV show during the 50th anniversary so that their movie wouldn't have any sort of confusion in the market. You think they wouldn't stomp the life out of some piddling game studio for drifting too close to their visual motifs?
Make no mistake, the contract may be with CBS, but Paramount definitely has a compelling say regarding imagery they feel infringes their segment of the brand.
The ONLY thing involving Paramount would be any content from the reboot movies, which Cryptic cannot touch. CBS holds the license on everything else, from Nemesis and Enterprise back to TOS.
And before you point out the Red Matter Capacitor and Tal Shiar Adapted ships, those showed up in prequel comics which I believe were covered by CBS.
These are all in-house Cryptic designed ships of that profile that were released after STO's launch. And that's excluding canon ships released after launch Cryptic designed ships that were released with the initial launch, although I don't understand why aren't we counting those, but whatever - for the sake of discussion let's consider it that way.
Now, one may say that some of those are not perfect circles and that's true, but I'm not talking perfect circles here - I'm talking design lineages. And the way I observe Starfleet designs, they can be divided into four groups: circular/oval, spoonhead, chevron/spearhead & unique (such as the Defiant or Saber for ex.). The oval/circular main hulls obviously belong to the same school of design, best seen through the Galaxy Class which doesn't have a perfect circle for main hull as the Constitution and yet it's widely considered to be a part of the same lineage ever since the release of TNG.
There's also no such thing as Paramount having the right to "these" type of designs and CBS having the right to "those" type of designs. It hasn't been mentioned anywhere ever since the IP was split between the two, and out of the new Cryptic made ships I listed above at least 5 have perfect circles as as saucer/main hull.
The point I'm trying to make is that you've mistaken the lesser number of circular/oval main hulss in STO in comparison with spoonhead or chevron/spearhead as something that has been regulated from above (CBS), when in fact the reality is that Cryptic ship designers lean more towards the stream of spoonhead and chevron designs which are viewed (to be fair - not only by them, but by a large portion of the playerbase as well) as more modern, cooler and part of some natural evolution. The fact that there's still a solid number of circular/oval ones shows that they haven't been prohibited or anything, it's just the way the cookie crumbles.
I also personally think that you're vastly overestimating the role of CBS in approving things for STO, especially when it comes to in house designs of pretty much anything including Cryptic made ships. Otherwise I don't thing we'd have the Imperial and Envoy in the game unless the person(s) which approved them were stoned as hell during the process.
Now I apologize for this 'sliding tackle' to the main discussion, you may proceed on the topic of the Excalibur.
There's also no such thing as Paramount having the right to "these" type of designs and CBS having the right to "those" type of designs.
You are right (in a way). CBS is the sole owner of the Star Trek Copyright/Franchise. Paramount pays a portion of the home release and TV distribution revenue to CBS (I think direct theater release is more theirs). All the spin off products (toys, books, etc) is CBS. If we wanted a JJverse ship in STO, it's CBS that says yes or no.
And is again a canon design appearing in TV episodes like the Ambassador.
Maybe I'm not being clear. I am talking about Cryptic-created designs. The kind subject to approvals. The kind that they very likely have to run past both CBS & Paramount. Not special licensing from Paramount (Excelsior). Not ships from the the TV show. New hulls unique to STO.
They seem incredibly leery of introducing circular primary hulls. More than just "in-setting modern ships are all ovals or wedges". More like they irritated Paramount with the whole Connie/Excalibur thing at game launch and now Cryptic gives the whole concept a wide berth.
Excelsior is covered under CBS's rights, it appears in multiple episodes from season 1 TNG onward, and had a major presence during the Dominion War.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: individual components of protected works are not protected by the copyright held by the completed work. Only "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to 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." It does not protect the parts that make up the original work. It does not protect the entire franchise carte blanche. It only protects complete works. Each and every episode, each and every movie, each and every book, they all have their own completely separate, unique, and distinct copyrights. This includes different episodes from within the same series. The copyright from one does not apply to another.
STAR TREK is a trademark of CBS. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" is copyright by Paramount. Excelsior is not protected by either Trademark or Copyright.
Now... with that said, there is a third category of IP law: patents. Paramount Television (pre-split) did own a design patent for the Excalibur, in 1987. That (non-renewable) patent expired in 2001. The patent covered the design & general appearance of the Excelsior, but not the name. If the patent had continued past 2005, since it belonged to Paramount Television instead of Paramount Pictures, it would have gone with the rest of the television properties to CBS--not Paramount. However, since the patent has expired, the appearance of the U.S.S. Excelsior is not protected and belongs to nobody.
On the CBS vs. Paramount, Who has the final say? debate: While Paramount owns the copyright (and thus, distribution rights) to the Star Trek movies, they still have to license the Star Trek trademark from CBS for every new production. If you pick up any of the movie DVDs from the store (any DVD that was packaged after the 2005 split, that is), you'll read: "(c) 20XX Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved." Because of this, CBS wins the debate: what CBS says trumps what Paramount says.
You should re-direct this to nikeix as he was the one attempting to argue various ship designs being CBS property due to showing up in episodes, and claiming the Excelsior was only present in the game due to "a special license with Paramount". I simply used his "reasoning" against him.
And thanks for that info . But all it actually adds to the conversation is further evidence Cryptic DOESN'T have a strong working relationship with Paramount.
The point put as succinctly as possible is "Why is Cryptic avoiding releasing certain ships and possibly whole classes of ship? Specifically ships that might be seen as resembling the NEW JJ Enterprise" and I think the answer "To not antagonize Paramount who are extraordinarily aggressive about protecting the brand they've created through the reboot." is a plausible explanation for observed behavior. And I think it's incredibly wise of them not to pick that fight, because regardless of the related Trademark and IP law, getting Paramount's lawyers wedged up your exhaust chute is an experience the will annihilate a company the size of Cryptic long before any actually ruling is rendered.
regardless of the ... law, getting ... lawyers wedged up your exhaust chute is an experience the will annihilate a company ... long before any actually ruling is rendered.
This is precisely why most people tend to believe that IP laws covers and protects more than it actually does. As written, IP law actually protects very little. This is confirmed by the few court cases that actually make it to judgment (the vast majority of IP lawsuits settle out-of-court long before a judge says anything).
As an aside: What we call IP law... doesn't exist. There is copyright, trademark, and patents, but the idea of "Intellectual Property" is a relatively new concept that doesn't appear anywhere in the US Code. "IP" is a lazy layman's term for "trademarks, copyrights, and patents" with no legal definition in and of itself. But enough of my anal-retentive nuance nit-picking, let's get back on topic.
I was just trying to point out that the constitution was a pre order bonus / tier 1 ship while the refit, vesper, excaliber and exeter are in tier 2 and do not share the same stats as the t1 constitution. Ive allways thought that the no endgame connie referanced the t1 constitution and not the t2. So i share the op request / view on claification on the t2 varients since these do not have access to the constitution class parts.
now for my tinfoil hat moment.... maybe because they ARE doing something excalibur-like for the 50th
Here's to hoping!
Shouldn't you be tweeting autistic responses to a certain god on twitter?
Yeah, now that Cryptic has apparently beaten him, I've been rubbing his nose in it since his last 2 "threat predictions" never happened. But what does that off topic comment have to do with the subject of this thread? Oh wait, I just answered my own question. Nothing
You should re-direct this to nikeix as he was the one attempting to argue various ship designs being CBS property due to showing up in episodes, and claiming the Excelsior was only present in the game due to "a special license with Paramount". I simply used his "reasoning" against him.
And thanks for that info . But all it actually adds to the conversation is further evidence Cryptic DOESN'T have a strong working relationship with Paramount.
The point put as succinctly as possible is "Why is Cryptic avoiding releasing certain ships and possibly whole classes of ship? Specifically ships that might be seen as resembling the NEW JJ Enterprise" and I think the answer "To not antagonize Paramount who are extraordinarily aggressive about protecting the brand they've created through the reboot." is a plausible explanation for observed behavior. And I think it's incredibly wise of them not to pick that fight, because regardless of the related Trademark and IP law, getting Paramount's lawyers wedged up your exhaust chute is an experience the will annihilate a company the size of Cryptic long before any actually ruling is rendered.
If that were true, I don't think we'd have this:
So no, I don't think it's a matter of some grey area left open to Cryptic's interpretation. I think there are clear rules for what they can or can't do, set down by CBS. And the question I am posing in this thread is whether one of those rules is in fact that they cannot make an end game Excalibur.
Sure, you could say that the fact that we don't have one implies that is the case, but I'm not asking about implication. I am actually asking if CBS has actually said that, or not. And if they have, fine. I'll accept it. But I would still like to actually *confirm* that, not just "assume".
Sure, you could say that the fact that we don't have one implies that is the case, but I'm not asking about implication. I am actually asking if CBS has actually said that, or not. And if they have, fine. I'll accept it. But I would still like to actually *confirm* that, not just "assume".
Nagus, I feel like, by now and after all these years, considering that this is the generally heard explanation and that we've yet to see any kind of headway made into an endgame Light Cruiser, it's more than likely super safe to assume that that's what went down.
I know it'd be nice to hear it officially from someone in that capacity, in a big huge forum statement or something, but honestly? We're not owed that.
This is just something you, I, and others with the same desire as us, are just going to have to accept. If we eventually see/hear otherwise, great. But until then, if ever? That's just the way it is.
Like, I know that's not what you want to hear, but you're probably not gonna hear what you want on this for a while, if ever. And starting these kinds of threads, and going back and forth about it for pages and pages, does nothing but stir up some sore spots for folks, yourself included.
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 know it'd be nice to hear it officially from someone in that capacity, in a big huge forum statement or something, but honestly? We're not owed that.
Of course not; and I never suggested we *were* "owed" anything. I am simply a person asking a question on a video game message board. I am not standing outside Cryptic's office protesting, or threatening to quit if I don't get an answer, so don't blow the situation out of proportion.
Nagus, I feel like, by now and after all these years, considering that this is the generally heard explanation and that we've yet to see any kind of headway made into an endgame Light Cruiser, it's more than likely super safe to assume that that's what went down.
I don't care "what went down" as far as any drama that may have happened between Cryptic or CBS. All I am asking is the answer to one specific question:
Did CBS tell Cryptic they cannot make an end game Excalibur? Or, alternatively:
Did CBS tell Cryptic they cannot make an end game version of *any* connie variant?
To date, the only answers that any actual DEV have given regarding the CBS 'ruling' have *only* mentioned the actual constitution class itself. They have *never* told us CBS said they couldn't make the other variant ships, so that is simply what I am asking.
Finally, if any person doesn't like me or this thread, that's completely fine. All that person has to do is use their free will and choose not to click on it. The same goes for any thread, not just this one.
Huh? No, really: Huh? That doesn't look a #*&)ing thing like the JJ Enterprise.
Ok, THIS is what the danger zone looks like.
This is what I can make in-game with a combination of parts available for the t2 Cruiser skeleton.
Is it exact? No. Is the Excalibur the riskiest of the parts in that particular toolbox? No.
Is there enough potential to get in a tussle there to give Cryptic a good reason to downplay & ignore the entire situation? Hell yes.
Sure, you could say that the fact that we don't have one implies that is the case, but I'm not asking about implication. I am actually asking if CBS has actually said that, or not. And if they have, fine. I'll accept it. But I would still like to actually *confirm* that, not just "assume".
I advise you to get used to a universe that has rules but doesn't care to explain itself. The entire point of backroom deals is to not have to share the specifics. There's probably less than 20 people who will EVER know for sure.
This is what I can make in-game with a combination of parts available for the t2 Cruiser skeleton.
That's great, but it has nothing to do with the Excalibur. Again, I'm asking for an end game Excalibur with *NO* connie parts. That being the case, posting a picture *WITH* connie parts has nothing to do with my request.
I advise you to get used to a universe that has rules but doesn't care to explain itself. The entire point of backroom deals is to not have to share the specifics. There's probably less than 20 people who will EVER know for sure.
Here is the part you seem to be ignoring: they *TOLD* us what CBS said. They *TOLD* us CBS said no end game connie. They aren't hiding the fact that CBS said that. I'm simply asking if CBS *also* said they couldn't make an end game Excalibur. If they hadn't already admitted that the CBS 'ruling' took place, you might have a small argument to make about the 'backroom deal' issue. But since they did tell us, then that argument doesn't work.
According to Memory Beta wasn't the Excalibur designed as a DUM, DUM, DUM.... Science Ship. Confab it, people ain't gonna cotton to no more of that Sciency stuff. We just got ourselves a whole heap of them last week. True 'mericans need to blow stuff up real good and not blind them with Science don't you know.
True murricans blow stuff up real good.. With SCIENCE.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Two things you're going to have to grasp if you ever want any closure on this subject.
1) The Excalibur does not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of a SET of ship pieces, inextricably connected to the other pieces in that set. Parts of that set are radioactive and that makes the ENTIRE set out-of bounds.
2) 5+ years of silence is itself a message. And that message is WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
Comments
Yeah... and the Eaglemoss figs having the movie figures at twice the size (and cost) pretty much SCREAMS concessions to a second licensor
Though it's be funny as all heck if the JJ Enterprise appeared in game at twice the scale of any other ship and for $50
On the contrary - it absolutely is affecting sub-licensors. Two kids each own part of the pie and you DO NOT TOUCH the other kid's part of the pie without permission. Some of the subcontractors are approaching both kids, and some aren't. The article about the TV series lays it out pretty plain - the two kids can be civil in public, but they're not friends.
Could be, but I think the approvals process Cryptic has to jump through is significantly more nuanced than that
Have all the people screaming "ITS A CONNIE" actually looked up the Excalibur?
The U.S.S. Excalibur is the lead vessel of the Excalibur-class cruiser. The Excalibur was launched from Utopia Planitia in 2391. The Excalibur was in service to Starfleet in 2409. The Excalibur class is well-suited for cargo or transport missions. Its expansive cargo holds make it indispensable to Starfleet as a vessel used to resupply planets, space stations, and other starships. The power systems make it possible to run industrial replicators indefinitely, making this class the ideal choice for evacuation and mercy missions.
The "Flagship" of the line is only 19yrs old and utilizes the standard "saucer, engineering hull, and nacelle" configuration utilized in the design of most Starfleet vessels. Nowhere in the GAME'S OWN FICTION does it even reference the Constitution Class. Same for the Vesper Class.
Yes, that point has already been argued in this thread. And even as the one who posted this thread, I have to admit that that lore doesn't change the fact that the T2 Excalibur is effectively the same as the connie as far as gameplay mechanics are concerned. I understand at admit that simple issue. But the point is, I'm asking for a change. I'm asking to separate the 2 ships and make the Excalibur an end game ship. I know it probably won't happen, but I'm still asking for it. I'm also asking them to clarify if CBS actually said they couldn't do what I am specifically asking for.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Play a Romulan Republic character, kitbashing isn't a guaranteed right in STO, and the game functions w/o the ability to do it. My Mogai shares a tier with a D'deridex but again, NOT THE SAME SHIP. It's really a simple(ish) matter to give the Excalibur/Vesta its own catagory for a Tier6 redux
I know. See my above post. But you are just repeating the same thing as in your last post, not advancing a new point in the discussion.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Keep reading, we've already had this conversation
Maybe I'm not being clear. I am talking about Cryptic-created designs. The kind subject to approvals. The kind that they very likely have to run past both CBS & Paramount. Not special licensing from Paramount (Excelsior). Not ships from the the TV show. New hulls unique to STO.
They seem incredibly leery of introducing circular primary hulls. More than just "in-setting modern ships are all ovals or wedges". More like they irritated Paramount with the whole Connie/Excalibur thing at game launch and now Cryptic gives the whole concept a wide berth.
Cryptic doesn't have an agreement with Paramount. Paramount is not involved whatsoever with STO.
I don't they they are "leery", I think it is an intentional design "evolution" on Cryptic's part. The canon ships of Trek moved away from the circular saucer, so I think Cryptic is just continuing that trend. If there were actually some "ban", the Geneva would never have been approved.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Uh huh. Sure. Because CBS and Paramount don't have discussions between them all the time that the sub-licensors then have to tow the line on. Paramount just bullied CBS out of launching its new Trek TV show during the 50th anniversary so that their movie wouldn't have any sort of confusion in the market. You think they wouldn't stomp the life out of some piddling game studio for drifting too close to their visual motifs?
Make no mistake, the contract may be with CBS, but Paramount definitely has a compelling say regarding imagery they feel infringes their segment of the brand.
The ONLY thing involving Paramount would be any content from the reboot movies, which Cryptic cannot touch. CBS holds the license on everything else, from Nemesis and Enterprise back to TOS.
And before you point out the Red Matter Capacitor and Tal Shiar Adapted ships, those showed up in prequel comics which I believe were covered by CBS.
now for my tinfoil hat moment.... maybe because they ARE doing something excalibur-like for the 50th
Here's to hoping!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Armitage, Zephyr, Polaris, Andromeda, Celestial, Guardian, Geneva, Concorde, Sojourner, Scryer, Chimera, Regent, Tempest, Venture, Exeter...
These are all in-house Cryptic designed ships of that profile that were released after STO's launch. And that's excluding canon ships released after launch Cryptic designed ships that were released with the initial launch, although I don't understand why aren't we counting those, but whatever - for the sake of discussion let's consider it that way.
Now, one may say that some of those are not perfect circles and that's true, but I'm not talking perfect circles here - I'm talking design lineages. And the way I observe Starfleet designs, they can be divided into four groups: circular/oval, spoonhead, chevron/spearhead & unique (such as the Defiant or Saber for ex.). The oval/circular main hulls obviously belong to the same school of design, best seen through the Galaxy Class which doesn't have a perfect circle for main hull as the Constitution and yet it's widely considered to be a part of the same lineage ever since the release of TNG.
There's also no such thing as Paramount having the right to "these" type of designs and CBS having the right to "those" type of designs. It hasn't been mentioned anywhere ever since the IP was split between the two, and out of the new Cryptic made ships I listed above at least 5 have perfect circles as as saucer/main hull.
The point I'm trying to make is that you've mistaken the lesser number of circular/oval main hulss in STO in comparison with spoonhead or chevron/spearhead as something that has been regulated from above (CBS), when in fact the reality is that Cryptic ship designers lean more towards the stream of spoonhead and chevron designs which are viewed (to be fair - not only by them, but by a large portion of the playerbase as well) as more modern, cooler and part of some natural evolution. The fact that there's still a solid number of circular/oval ones shows that they haven't been prohibited or anything, it's just the way the cookie crumbles.
I also personally think that you're vastly overestimating the role of CBS in approving things for STO, especially when it comes to in house designs of pretty much anything including Cryptic made ships. Otherwise I don't thing we'd have the Imperial and Envoy in the game unless the person(s) which approved them were stoned as hell during the process.
Now I apologize for this 'sliding tackle' to the main discussion, you may proceed on the topic of the Excalibur.
You are right (in a way). CBS is the sole owner of the Star Trek Copyright/Franchise. Paramount pays a portion of the home release and TV distribution revenue to CBS (I think direct theater release is more theirs). All the spin off products (toys, books, etc) is CBS. If we wanted a JJverse ship in STO, it's CBS that says yes or no.
Also sorry for a "off topic post" in this thread.
STAR TREK is a trademark of CBS. "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" is copyright by Paramount. Excelsior is not protected by either Trademark or Copyright.
Now... with that said, there is a third category of IP law: patents. Paramount Television (pre-split) did own a design patent for the Excalibur, in 1987. That (non-renewable) patent expired in 2001. The patent covered the design & general appearance of the Excelsior, but not the name. If the patent had continued past 2005, since it belonged to Paramount Television instead of Paramount Pictures, it would have gone with the rest of the television properties to CBS--not Paramount. However, since the patent has expired, the appearance of the U.S.S. Excelsior is not protected and belongs to nobody.
On the CBS vs. Paramount, Who has the final say? debate: While Paramount owns the copyright (and thus, distribution rights) to the Star Trek movies, they still have to license the Star Trek trademark from CBS for every new production. If you pick up any of the movie DVDs from the store (any DVD that was packaged after the 2005 split, that is), you'll read: "(c) 20XX Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved." Because of this, CBS wins the debate: what CBS says trumps what Paramount says.
Shouldn't you be tweeting autistic responses to a certain god on twitter?
And thanks for that info
The point put as succinctly as possible is "Why is Cryptic avoiding releasing certain ships and possibly whole classes of ship? Specifically ships that might be seen as resembling the NEW JJ Enterprise" and I think the answer "To not antagonize Paramount who are extraordinarily aggressive about protecting the brand they've created through the reboot." is a plausible explanation for observed behavior. And I think it's incredibly wise of them not to pick that fight, because regardless of the related Trademark and IP law, getting Paramount's lawyers wedged up your exhaust chute is an experience the will annihilate a company the size of Cryptic long before any actually ruling is rendered.
As an aside: What we call IP law... doesn't exist. There is copyright, trademark, and patents, but the idea of "Intellectual Property" is a relatively new concept that doesn't appear anywhere in the US Code. "IP" is a lazy layman's term for "trademarks, copyrights, and patents" with no legal definition in and of itself. But enough of my anal-retentive nuance nit-picking, let's get back on topic.
Yeah, now that Cryptic has apparently beaten him, I've been rubbing his nose in it since his last 2 "threat predictions" never happened. But what does that off topic comment have to do with the subject of this thread? Oh wait, I just answered my own question. Nothing
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If that were true, I don't think we'd have this:
So no, I don't think it's a matter of some grey area left open to Cryptic's interpretation. I think there are clear rules for what they can or can't do, set down by CBS. And the question I am posing in this thread is whether one of those rules is in fact that they cannot make an end game Excalibur.
Sure, you could say that the fact that we don't have one implies that is the case, but I'm not asking about implication. I am actually asking if CBS has actually said that, or not. And if they have, fine. I'll accept it. But I would still like to actually *confirm* that, not just "assume".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Nagus, I feel like, by now and after all these years, considering that this is the generally heard explanation and that we've yet to see any kind of headway made into an endgame Light Cruiser, it's more than likely super safe to assume that that's what went down.
I know it'd be nice to hear it officially from someone in that capacity, in a big huge forum statement or something, but honestly? We're not owed that.
This is just something you, I, and others with the same desire as us, are just going to have to accept. If we eventually see/hear otherwise, great. But until then, if ever? That's just the way it is.
Like, I know that's not what you want to hear, but you're probably not gonna hear what you want on this for a while, if ever. And starting these kinds of threads, and going back and forth about it for pages and pages, does nothing but stir up some sore spots for folks, yourself included.
(though I'm not holding my breath)
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
Of course not; and I never suggested we *were* "owed" anything. I am simply a person asking a question on a video game message board. I am not standing outside Cryptic's office protesting, or threatening to quit if I don't get an answer, so don't blow the situation out of proportion.
I don't care "what went down" as far as any drama that may have happened between Cryptic or CBS. All I am asking is the answer to one specific question:
Did CBS tell Cryptic they cannot make an end game Excalibur? Or, alternatively:
Did CBS tell Cryptic they cannot make an end game version of *any* connie variant?
To date, the only answers that any actual DEV have given regarding the CBS 'ruling' have *only* mentioned the actual constitution class itself. They have *never* told us CBS said they couldn't make the other variant ships, so that is simply what I am asking.
Finally, if any person doesn't like me or this thread, that's completely fine. All that person has to do is use their free will and choose not to click on it. The same goes for any thread, not just this one.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Huh? No, really: Huh? That doesn't look a #*&)ing thing like the JJ Enterprise.
Ok, THIS is what the danger zone looks like.
This is what I can make in-game with a combination of parts available for the t2 Cruiser skeleton.
Is it exact? No. Is the Excalibur the riskiest of the parts in that particular toolbox? No.
Is there enough potential to get in a tussle there to give Cryptic a good reason to downplay & ignore the entire situation? Hell yes.
I advise you to get used to a universe that has rules but doesn't care to explain itself. The entire point of backroom deals is to not have to share the specifics. There's probably less than 20 people who will EVER know for sure.
That's great, but it has nothing to do with the Excalibur. Again, I'm asking for an end game Excalibur with *NO* connie parts. That being the case, posting a picture *WITH* connie parts has nothing to do with my request.
Here is the part you seem to be ignoring: they *TOLD* us what CBS said. They *TOLD* us CBS said no end game connie. They aren't hiding the fact that CBS said that. I'm simply asking if CBS *also* said they couldn't make an end game Excalibur. If they hadn't already admitted that the CBS 'ruling' took place, you might have a small argument to make about the 'backroom deal' issue. But since they did tell us, then that argument doesn't work.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
True murricans blow stuff up real good.. With SCIENCE.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
1) The Excalibur does not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of a SET of ship pieces, inextricably connected to the other pieces in that set. Parts of that set are radioactive and that makes the ENTIRE set out-of bounds.
2) 5+ years of silence is itself a message. And that message is WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.