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.
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.
That's a completely valid opinion, it really is. And if a dev cares to confirm that, that's fine. But TBH, I'm not asking you. I'm asking Cryptic. And what I'm asking for is an end game Excalibur with *no* connie parts.
2) 5+ years of silence is itself a message. And that message is WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
That's possible. But it's also possible something may change. It may never happen, and that's fine. But in the mean time, I'm just a guy asking for something I would like on a video game message board. If you don't like that, that's also fine. No one is forcing you to keep following this thread.
That's a completely valid opinion, it really is. And if a dev cares to confirm that, that's fine. But TBH, I'm not asking you. I'm asking Cryptic. And what I'm asking for is an end game Excalibur with *no* connie parts.
weren't you the person that was on twitter egging on neverwinter god to hack the servers and call it out? I think someone called that being heavily autistic on that post also
That's a completely valid opinion, it really is. And if a dev cares to confirm that, that's fine. But TBH, I'm not asking you. I'm asking Cryptic. And what I'm asking for is an end game Excalibur with *no* connie parts.
weren't you the person that was on twitter egging on neverwinter god to hack the servers and call it out? I think someone called that being heavily autistic on that post also
No, I was the guy making fun of him for having his e-peen cut off by Cryptic. His last 2 'threats' never materialized, so they apparently scared him into submission. But guess what? You already made that same post earlier on this SAME page, and I already replied to it:
That's a completely valid opinion, it really is. And if a dev cares to confirm that, that's fine. But TBH, I'm not asking you. I'm asking Cryptic. And what I'm asking for is an end game Excalibur with *no* connie parts.
weren't you the person that was on twitter egging on neverwinter god to hack the servers and call it out? I think someone called that being heavily autistic on that post also
No, I was the guy making fun of him for having his e-peen cut off by Cryptic. His last 2 'threats' never materialized, so they apparently scared him into submission. But guess what? You already made that same post earlier on this SAME page, and I already replied to it:
You either have bad eyesight, or a really bad memory. Either way, your off topic comment has nothing to do with this thread. But thanks for the bump!
I have followed your posts a little while and find your contributions to be very positive Grandnagus. I enjoy your writing very much, keep it up. I don't understand why CBS singled out the constitution class starship and yet literally dozens of canon ships are fully allowed in game.... It only JUST dawned on me that the reason CBS did this is probably because, from their perspective, the constitution class starship is an icon directly linked to the new J.J. Abrams reboot franchise. Think about it.... CBS is doing nothing with any of the other Star Trek series, or movies, it's specifically focused on the new reboot where the original starship enterprise and its crew are centre stage! So they didn't want Star Trek online to end up stealing any of their thunder or mimicking their current franchise. Having said that; I have actually purchased ships that are obsolete now. I find this unfair and unethical. I want the dev team to allow all ships to be able to make it to tier six. If a player LOVES their vesta, or Connie variants or Oberth class, heck even the NX01, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to upgrade them. With the CBS clause in place I agree the Connie may need restrictions and so we should see only Excalibur and other Connie variants. I whole-heartedly agree with you nagus. I love this ship and wish I had it at endgame. I currently use an excelsior and ambassador just to keep with my 23rd century nostalgia in game. I even use the tos phasers :P
I don't understand why CBS singled out the constitution class starship and yet literally dozens of canon ships are fully allowed in game....
The reason is because it's Kirk's iconic ship and the flagship of the Star Trek brand in general. CBS doesn't want it 'diluted' by allowing every single captain to fly it at T6. There is no other reason.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
The reason is because it's Kirk's iconic ship and the flagship of the Star Trek brand in general. CBS doesn't want it 'diluted' by allowing every single captain to fly it at T6. There is no other reason.
But that doesn't make sense to me. Why then allow even a T1 version to exist? Can't a ton of players pick one up and fly it left and right throughout the entire game just because? Can't a big group of players organize and do just that on purpose out of spite? Can't RyanSTO take one and ace STFs with the aid of his teammates? Can't a ton og people pick it up and use it everywhere for doffing or easier foundry content? Wouldn't that 'dilute' the icon even more since it's a T1 joke ship and theoretically it can still be everywhere in the game? Why then allow the release of the TOS Enterprise interior to be availible to use on any ship in the game? I mean, most of the stuff happened inside, isn't it as much as iconic to "protect" as the exterior? Why did they allow the Constitution Class in many other Star Trek licensed games then?
I feel like we're either being lied to about something, or someone higher up at CBS is being a man-child and throwing a hissy fit over some emotional drama going on in their head. I've been around for 5+ years and I'm yet to hear any real and relevant reason to prohibit the ship from this game.
I still support the Vesper/Excalibur/Exeter classes making tier 6. Why? Because while CBS might own the Rights to the Constitution and they say no tired 6 variants, PWE/CRYPTIC own the rights to the other 3 since PWE/CRYPTIC created said 3 variants.
So the crowd screaming "no tier 6 connie" is correct about said ship. About the other 3 variants, you all don't have a leg to stand on.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
I don't understand why CBS singled out the constitution class starship and yet literally dozens of canon ships are fully allowed in game....
The reason is because it's Kirk's iconic ship and the flagship of the Star Trek brand in general. CBS doesn't want it 'diluted' by allowing every single captain to fly it at T6. There is no other reason.
Your argument MIGHT have some logical basis to it if we couldn't fly the connie AT ALL. But we can. Every single person can fly the connie at T1 or T2 if they want to. Heck, they can even keep flying it if they want to. So your argument about "diluting" the ship makes no sense.
The only argument that has any logical basis is the ship's age in the time period STO is set in. And yes, there are plenty of contradictions to that logic as well. T6 Ambassador is a great example. But at least the connie's age "argument" has some logic to it, whereas the point I just mentioned above does not for the reasons stated.
All of that said, I have to repeat the main point: I'm NOT asking for the connie. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur with NO connie parts. And the Excalibur is a modern ship in STO's time period, so even the "age" issue does not apply to it.
I still support the Vesper/Excalibur/Exeter classes making tier 6. Why? Because while CBS might own the Rights to the Constitution and they say no tired 6 variants, PWE/CRYPTIC own the rights to the other 3 since PWE/CRYPTIC created said 3 variants.
So the crowd screaming "no tier 6 connie" is correct about said ship. About the other 3 variants, you all don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm not sure that you're quite right on that one since I'm not familiar with the licensing contract between CBS and Cryptic. But unless a dev. chips in and illuminates that part of the things, I'm not sure whether Cryptic owns the rights to those ships unquestionably or CBS retains the rights to everything in STO as a part of the global licencing contract.
That said, I would very much like an end-game Exeter. I kinda' like it, it's my type of ship.
I still support the Vesper/Excalibur/Exeter classes making tier 6. Why? Because while CBS might own the Rights to the Constitution and they say no tired 6 variants, PWE/CRYPTIC own the rights to the other 3 since PWE/CRYPTIC created said 3 variants.
So the crowd screaming "no tier 6 connie" is correct about said ship. About the other 3 variants, you all don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm not sure that you're quite right on that one since I'm not familiar with the licensing contract between CBS and Cryptic. But unless a dev. chips in and illuminates that part of the things, I'm not sure whether Cryptic owns the rights to those ships unquestionably or CBS retains the rights to everything in STO as a part of the global licencing contract.
That said, I would very much like an end-game Exeter. I kinda' like it, it's my type of ship.
Regardless of which company hypothetically "owns" what ship, I think CBS still has the authority to approve/deny anything in the game. So even if Cryptic owns the ship, CBS could still say "no", in theory.
We so need a clarfication on this. Since there was a connie at the end off 11.5 trailer n we r screaming t6 connie. Id rather have the exeter / exclabier at t6 tbh
Comments
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.
That's a completely valid opinion, it really is. And if a dev cares to confirm that, that's fine. But TBH, I'm not asking you. I'm asking Cryptic. And what I'm asking for is an end game Excalibur with *no* connie parts.
That's possible. But it's also possible something may change. It may never happen, and that's fine. But in the mean time, I'm just a guy asking for something I would like on a video game message board. If you don't like that, that's also fine. No one is forcing you to keep following this thread.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
weren't you the person that was on twitter egging on neverwinter god to hack the servers and call it out? I think someone called that being heavily autistic on that post also
No, I was the guy making fun of him for having his e-peen cut off by Cryptic. His last 2 'threats' never materialized, so they apparently scared him into submission. But guess what? You already made that same post earlier on this SAME page, and I already replied to it:
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12876077/#Comment_12876077
You either have bad eyesight, or a really bad memory. Either way, your off topic comment has nothing to do with this thread. But thanks for the bump!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I have followed your posts a little while and find your contributions to be very positive Grandnagus. I enjoy your writing very much, keep it up. I don't understand why CBS singled out the constitution class starship and yet literally dozens of canon ships are fully allowed in game.... It only JUST dawned on me that the reason CBS did this is probably because, from their perspective, the constitution class starship is an icon directly linked to the new J.J. Abrams reboot franchise. Think about it.... CBS is doing nothing with any of the other Star Trek series, or movies, it's specifically focused on the new reboot where the original starship enterprise and its crew are centre stage! So they didn't want Star Trek online to end up stealing any of their thunder or mimicking their current franchise. Having said that; I have actually purchased ships that are obsolete now. I find this unfair and unethical. I want the dev team to allow all ships to be able to make it to tier six. If a player LOVES their vesta, or Connie variants or Oberth class, heck even the NX01, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to upgrade them. With the CBS clause in place I agree the Connie may need restrictions and so we should see only Excalibur and other Connie variants. I whole-heartedly agree with you nagus. I love this ship and wish I had it at endgame. I currently use an excelsior and ambassador just to keep with my 23rd century nostalgia in game. I even use the tos phasers :P
The reason is because it's Kirk's iconic ship and the flagship of the Star Trek brand in general. CBS doesn't want it 'diluted' by allowing every single captain to fly it at T6. There is no other reason.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But that doesn't make sense to me. Why then allow even a T1 version to exist? Can't a ton of players pick one up and fly it left and right throughout the entire game just because? Can't a big group of players organize and do just that on purpose out of spite? Can't RyanSTO take one and ace STFs with the aid of his teammates? Can't a ton og people pick it up and use it everywhere for doffing or easier foundry content? Wouldn't that 'dilute' the icon even more since it's a T1 joke ship and theoretically it can still be everywhere in the game? Why then allow the release of the TOS Enterprise interior to be availible to use on any ship in the game? I mean, most of the stuff happened inside, isn't it as much as iconic to "protect" as the exterior? Why did they allow the Constitution Class in many other Star Trek licensed games then?
I feel like we're either being lied to about something, or someone higher up at CBS is being a man-child and throwing a hissy fit over some emotional drama going on in their head. I've been around for 5+ years and I'm yet to hear any real and relevant reason to prohibit the ship from this game.
So the crowd screaming "no tier 6 connie" is correct about said ship. About the other 3 variants, you all don't have a leg to stand on.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Your argument MIGHT have some logical basis to it if we couldn't fly the connie AT ALL. But we can. Every single person can fly the connie at T1 or T2 if they want to. Heck, they can even keep flying it if they want to. So your argument about "diluting" the ship makes no sense.
The only argument that has any logical basis is the ship's age in the time period STO is set in. And yes, there are plenty of contradictions to that logic as well. T6 Ambassador is a great example. But at least the connie's age "argument" has some logic to it, whereas the point I just mentioned above does not for the reasons stated.
All of that said, I have to repeat the main point: I'm NOT asking for the connie. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur with NO connie parts. And the Excalibur is a modern ship in STO's time period, so even the "age" issue does not apply to it.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm not sure that you're quite right on that one since I'm not familiar with the licensing contract between CBS and Cryptic. But unless a dev. chips in and illuminates that part of the things, I'm not sure whether Cryptic owns the rights to those ships unquestionably or CBS retains the rights to everything in STO as a part of the global licencing contract.
That said, I would very much like an end-game Exeter. I kinda' like it, it's my type of ship.
Regardless of which company hypothetically "owns" what ship, I think CBS still has the authority to approve/deny anything in the game. So even if Cryptic owns the ship, CBS could still say "no", in theory.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008