IIRC CBS didn't give the license to Cryptic. Cryptic purchased it from Perpetual. That doesn't mean that CBS didn't have to approve (that would depend on the contract) nor does it mean that Cryptic didn't have to abide by whatever termination date agreement might have been in the contract - few licenses are perpetual any more.
Absolutely correct. Here's how it went down
The Star Trek property broke loose from a game developer that had locked up the rights. Perpetual Entertainment, a startup in San Francisco with funding from Francisco Partners, had been working on a Star Trek online game under license from Paramount Pictures for years. But it failed to make enough progress and had to shut down after a series of layoffs in late 2007 and early 2008. Emmert said his people had been friendly to the Perpetual team and Francisco Partners. It started talking to them about taking over Star Trek Online.
trek-4Cryptic put five people to work on a prototype for the game, and they had working code five weeks later which they showed to Paramount. They secured the license in January, 2008. Cryptic made some offers to some of Perpetuals people, but none of them wanted to leave San Francisco for the suburbs of Los Gatos.
I read somewhere today that Cryptic was forced to release the game on the day they did because they would have been in nasty trouble with CBS otherwise. Is this true and provable?
It's essentially true and easily provable. I post the evidence every time someone questions this. Cryptic essentially had no flexibility on the release date.
I read somewhere today that Cryptic was forced to release the game on the day they did because they would have been in nasty trouble with CBS otherwise. Is this true and provable?
It's essentially true and easily provable. I post the evidence every time someone questions this. Cryptic essentially had no flexibility on the release date.
Post please?
Or are you playing the "I know everything and anything but I won't show you" game?
It's essentially true and easily provable. I post the evidence every time someone questions this. Cryptic essentially had no flexibility on the release date.
Post it again then please because anyone suggesting that CBS told Cryptic when to release, hell, even that Atari told them when to release ( given the shareholders of Atari were told April 2010 was the date ) is confused or lying.
Cryptic have their 2 year golden rule. 2 years was up and out the door it went, with its pants down.
Why would CBS care when or even if the game is ever released? They sold a license. That's the end of their involvement beyond clarification of the terms of that license.
This is the simplest thing. I'm amazed it causes so much confusion.
Marketshare and visibility partly. With this sort of thing, they may have looked at Warcraft and said, "We need a persistent source of visibility online for our brand." Also, having a contract like that allows you to sell the rights multiple times in a developer fails to produce.
This is very common in movies. For instance, Marvel comics movie options typically revert back sooner if the studio with the license doesn't release a movie within a certain timeframe, assuring Marvel either the visibility of the movie release (which helps their other products) OR the property reverts back and Marvel can sell it again.
I could definitely see where managing a brand like Trek, you might say, "We need more internet presence and regular reminders of our brand to stay relevant. The website isn't doing that. What can we license out to enhance our brand and keep it being talked about?"
Marketshare and visibility partly. With this sort of thing, they may have looked at Warcraft and said, "We need a persistent source of visibility online for our brand." Also, having a contract like that allows you to sell the rights multiple times in a developer fails to produce.
This is very common in movies. For instance, Marvel comics movie options typically revert back sooner if the studio with the license doesn't release a movie within a certain timeframe, assuring Marvel either the visibility of the movie release (which helps their other products) OR the property reverts back and Marvel can sell it again.
I could definitely see where managing a brand like Trek, you might say, "We need more internet presence and regular reminders of our brand to stay relevant. The website isn't doing that. What can we license out to enhance our brand and keep it being talked about?"
CBS care about exposure from a tiny ( and at that time very insecure ) software company at the same time that the property was getting a major reboot from one of the biggest grossing films of the year?
It's a rights license. I'm done arguing with people who clearly do not know and are unwilling to accept what that means.
When an entity licenses an IP, there are certain controls to that IP in the contract, and that includes provisions on ownership changes and the like. CBS had to approve what was done in the end as far as their IP was concerned.
So they were very much in the loop. They wanted to work well with Cryptic and had to put some faith in Cryptic's abilities. If they didn't have faith in them, they could have fought to get their IP back.
Once you license an IP it isn't theirs to do with as they wish. Well, that is unless your lawyers are mouth-breathing morons.
Yes Cryptics hands where 'forced' to reward new players 90 days free play time. And to ignore those who stuck with the game through the server crashes and headache of a launch
CBS care about exposure from a tiny ( and at that time very insecure ) software company at the same time that the property was getting a major reboot from one of the biggest grossing films of the year?
It's a rights license. I'm done arguing with people who clearly do not know and are unwilling to accept what that means.
CBS did the deal with Perpetual, not Cryptic. Consider the timing of that. The franchise was considerably less healthy and WoW was at peak numbers. That would have been before Abrams even pitched ST XI.
CBS did the deal with Perpetual, not Cryptic. Consider the timing of that. The franchise was considerably less healthy and WoW was at peak numbers. That would have been before Abrams even pitched ST XI.
yes, and when Perpetual could no longer pay their staff Emmert said "hey, Why don't we take that off your hands?" and after putting together a show for Paramount to OK it then Cryptic got the license transferred. Are you not reading the thread?
It's not a franchise. Once again it is a license to use the Intellectual Property of CBS/Paramount in a video game. That's it.
edit:// and again, what does any of that have to do with CBS being involved with Cryptic's game outside of their license agreement? As long as Cryptic kept to the parameters of the agreement then CBS would have had no input apart from when Cryptic said "we wanna do this but it's not canon, what can we get away with?" as per all rights management meetings.
CBS did not make this game. They did not contract for the game to be made. They probably don't care if the game exists or not outside of they have been paid and their brand is not damaged.
When an entity licenses an IP, there are certain controls to that IP in the contract, and that includes provisions on ownership changes and the like. CBS had to approve what was done in the end as far as their IP was concerned.
So they were very much in the loop. They wanted to work well with Cryptic and had to put some faith in Cryptic's abilities. If they didn't have faith in them, they could have fought to get their IP back.
Once you license an IP it isn't theirs to do with as they wish. Well, that is unless your lawyers are mouth-breathing morons.
I'm not saying they weren't in the loop. I'm saying that they were likely eager to see Star Trek getting some exposure when they made the Perpetual deal and the Cryptic buyout was a transfer of the Perpetual arrangement.
Star Trek was pretty much thought of as dead when the Perpetual deal happened and Warcraft was strong. I'm sure it was in CBS' interests to see something keep the IP alive.
I'm not saying they weren't in the loop. I'm saying that they were likely eager to see Star Trek getting some exposure when they made the Perpetual deal and the Cryptic buyout was a transfer of the Perpetual arrangement.
Star Trek was pretty much thought of as dead when the Perpetual deal happened and Warcraft was strong. I'm sure it was in CBS' interests to see something keep the IP alive.
how was the IP not alive? CBS own the IP. The IP remains whatever anyone else does.
I love it when forum jockeys and armchair experts bandy about terms that they clearly have no true concept of.
yes, and when Perpetual could no longer pay their staff Emmert said "hey, Why don't we take that off your hands?" and after putting together a show for Paramount to OK it then Cryptic got the license transferred. Are you not reading the thread?
It's not a franchise. Once again it is a license to use the Intellectual Property of CBS/Paramount in a video game. That's it.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING.
When I say FRANCHISE, I'm referring to the Star Trek brand.
Star Trek in all forms was a dead franchise and it was in the IP owners' interest to have licensees like Perpetual keep the Star Trek franchise visible.
I'm not talking about a franchise like a McDonald's franchise. I'm talking about Star Trek. The franchise. The property.
Is English your first language? I'm not talking about dead as the opposite of alive. I'm talking dead. Moot. Inconsequential.
And again. How was the IP any of those terms you so eloquently chose? Do you know what an IP is? It's an intellectual property. As in a property of CBS/paramount that is not tangible but is recognisable. It remains theirs.
Nobody else has owned it apart from the silly paramount CBS wars when it changed hands a few times.
It was never in danger of dying with anyone. Perpetual never owned it or any part of it. Cryptic don't own it or any part of it.
There is am agreement with cryptic to produce a game under license which has nothing to do with IP.
If Cryptic go bankrupt and close the servers tomorrow it does not affect the IP which remains with it's respective owners and as healthy as it's always been.
So again, how was the IP becoming moot (which means debatable seeing as you question my language skills but seem to not care so much for your own.) or inconsequential?
yes, and when Perpetual could no longer pay their staff Emmert said "hey, Why don't we take that off your hands?" and after putting together a show for Paramount to OK it then Cryptic got the license transferred. Are you not reading the thread?
It's not a franchise. Once again it is a license to use the Intellectual Property of CBS/Paramount in a video game. That's it.
edit:// and again, what does any of that have to do with CBS being involved with Cryptic's game outside of their license agreement? As long as Cryptic kept to the parameters of the agreement then CBS would have had no input apart from when Cryptic said "we wanna do this but it's not canon, what can we get away with?" as per all rights management meetings.
CBS did not make this game. They did not contract for the game to be made. They probably don't care if the game exists or not outside of they have been paid and their brand is not damaged.
You understand stocks but I don't think you have a grasp of entertainment.
Marvel comics licenses out Spider-man to greeting card companies and stationary companies and toy companies. They do this because companies pay them. But there's a set of IP management considerations for the Spider-man franchise (and I'm not talking about somebody franchising Spider-man). They aren't necessarily going to license out Spider-man to appear on condoms.
And sometimes, a company like Marvel actively looks for paper plate manufacturers and party favor companies who will pay to license Spider-man NOT JUST because it generates money but because it enhances the value of Spider-man by generating public exposure in more places, up to a point.
Star Trek is worthless to CBS without regular content appearing to remind people that Star Trek exists, content which CBS gets a licensing cut of. They actively pursue arrangements with licensees who will give their brand the kind of exposure they want. The licensees may approach them or they may approach licensees. The relevant part is that they aren't interested in licensing Star Trek to companies without the Star Trek branded products actually getting released into the market on a certain timeframe because CBS needs Star Trek to be a visible property.
And wouldn't this be like Warner Bros. throwing a fit and saying that another Superman movie has to be done by the end of the year or they lose the rights. Could this be a situation?
When I say FRANCHISE, I'm referring to the Star Trek brand.
Star Trek in all forms was a dead franchise and it was in the IP owners' interest to have licensees like Perpetual keep the Star Trek franchise visible.
I'm not talking about a franchise like a McDonald's franchise. I'm talking about Star Trek. The franchise. The property.
Franchise is a different thing altogether and requires CBS to create a product then grant a license to others to sell that product. Nothing like a rights license.
But keep going.
And wouldn't this be like Warner Bros. throwing a fit and saying that another Superman movie has to be done by the end of the year or they lose the rights. Could this be a situation?
Your argument is to link to some random stranger on a comments page?
That's just defending your hearsay with more hearsay.
I've quite simply explained how these things work. If you choose to believe rumor then good for you. It's getting awfully dull repeating myself.
And again. How was the IP any of those terms you so eloquently chose? Do you know what an IP is? It's an intellectual property. As in a property of CBS/paramount that is not tangible but is recognisable. It remains theirs.
Nobody else has owned it apart from the silly paramount CBS wars when it changed hands a few times.
It was never in danger of dying with anyone. Perpetual never owned it or any part of it. Cryptic don't own it or any part of it.
There is am agreement with cryptic to produce a game under license which has nothing to do with IP.
If Cryptic go bankrupt and close the servers tomorrow it does not affect the IP which remains with it's respective owners and as healthy as it's always been.
So again, how was the IP becoming moot (which means debatable seeing as you question my language skills but seem to not care so much for your own.) or inconsequential?
If you own an IP, it is not in your interest to license it to people who won't exploit that arrangement and release it into public view. An IP that has less public exposure and recognizability is worth less. It's the difference between Star Trek as a brand representing nostalgia or an active line of new content.
You, sir, are arguing with points I'm not making and explaining things back to me that I've already said.
Didn't the same thing happen with Champions Online?
Cryptic can never get a break with these timelines!
you do know that Champions was Marvel online, but the Marvel license got pulled, so instead of wasting the code, they just reskined, and removed everything marvel, and made CO. so CO was made in more then just two years.
So again, how was the IP becoming moot (which means debatable seeing as you question my language skills but seem to not care so much for your own.) or inconsequential?
You're arguing semantics.
"Dead" "Moot" how about "Priactically worthless" or "irrelevant" or "Couldn't make much money from"
Face it, until JJ took Trek the way he did, you couldn't get any Star Trek anything to make any real money. Nobody cared anymore but the hardcore fans, and those were small enough in number to not support much.
Come ON.. the Trek Experience in Vegas CLOSED. it CLOSED man. Trek was in the decline until Abrhams saved it. Which is why CBS would license the IP to a wee little game company with zero street cred. They were the only ones asking.
Thankfully they went belly up and Cryptic took over.
If you own an IP, it is not in your interest to license it to people who won't exploit that arrangement and release it into public view. An IP that has less public exposure and recognizability is worth less. It's the difference between Star Trek as a brand representing nostalgia or an active line of new content.
You, sir, are arguing with points I'm not making and explaining things back to me that I've already said.
I disagree. I simply told you that CBS have no vested interest in STO other than brand protection and you start telling me all about how their 'IP' was dead, insulting my English whilst at the same time misusing words, and returning to quote your assumptions at me as though they are fact.
I'm all for a good argument. I prefer it to have some basis in the real world first. It gives you half a chance of not looking a jack-TRIBBLE at the other end.
Your argument is to link to some random stranger on a comments page?
That's just defending your hearsay with more hearsay.
I've quite simply explained how these things work. If you choose to believe rumor then good for you. It's getting awfully dull repeating myself.
Warner Bros. was given a deadline by a judge to finish the Superman film before the current rights arrangement terminates.
Nobody here is talking about finances. We're talking about entertainment rights promotion and management. And you seem to drag this stock market and business expertise of yours out in every thread, even when it has no relevance to the discussion.
I suggest you seek out a diagnosis for Asperger's Syndrome. Nobody is talking about or interested in Infogrames' financial portfolio or the financial components or the arrangement in this thread as near as I can tell and yet you keep bludgeoning everyone with that special interest area of yours when what everyone else is talking about are the promotional considerations of IP management that frequently go into license agreements as a means of the IP holder building up the value of their franchise by exerting controls over licensees.
IIRC CBS didn't give the license to Cryptic. Cryptic purchased it from Perpetual. That doesn't mean that CBS didn't have to approve (that would depend on the contract) nor does it mean that Cryptic didn't have to abide by whatever termination date agreement might have been in the contract - few licenses are perpetual any more.
As he said, if Cryptic picked up the license and there was a 6-year product release clause on its availability, then Cryptic would have had a 2-year time limit to get the game out. That would have been CBS's timeline.
So... you just agreed with what you've often disputed in this thread.
To add my own opinion, I agree that's completely possible and even likely. Licenses aren't available indefinitely. The Paramound/CBS execs probably thought 6 years would be sufficient time to get a game out (at which time the license would be extended or some-such) and so Cryptic/Atari fell under the gun to get it out quickly.
The alternative would likely have been that the execs would just give up. They were probably ready to give up until Cryptic offered them a "good deal".
Your argument is to link to some random stranger on a comments page?
That's just defending your hearsay with more hearsay.
I've quite simply explained how these things work. If you choose to believe rumor then good for you. It's getting awfully dull repeating myself.
Then stop, or are you incapable?
The world will still turn without you educating the unwashed masses about the finer points of IP licensing.
Gotta love it when people get frustrated and puff-chested about things they choose to do out of their own volition.
"Dead" "Moot" how about "Priactically worthless" or "irrelevant" or "Couldn't make much money from"
Face it, until JJ took Trek the way he did, you couldn't get any Star Trek anything to make any real money. Nobody cared anymore but the hardcore fans, and those were small enough in number to not support much.
Come ON.. the Trek Experience in Vegas CLOSED. it CLOSED man. Trek was in the decline until Abrhams saved it. Which is why CBS would license the IP to a wee little game company with zero street cred. They were the only ones asking.
Thankfully they went belly up and Cryptic took over.
Again. What does any of that have to do with the fact that CBS sold a rights license to Perpetual and since then nobody here seems to have a ****ing clue what that actually means but are damned sure they are going to shout all day what they mistake it to mean?
Comments
Absolutely correct. Here's how it went down
nevermind...
Post please?
Or are you playing the "I know everything and anything but I won't show you" game?
Post it again then please because anyone suggesting that CBS told Cryptic when to release, hell, even that Atari told them when to release ( given the shareholders of Atari were told April 2010 was the date ) is confused or lying.
Cryptic have their 2 year golden rule. 2 years was up and out the door it went, with its pants down.
Marketshare and visibility partly. With this sort of thing, they may have looked at Warcraft and said, "We need a persistent source of visibility online for our brand." Also, having a contract like that allows you to sell the rights multiple times in a developer fails to produce.
This is very common in movies. For instance, Marvel comics movie options typically revert back sooner if the studio with the license doesn't release a movie within a certain timeframe, assuring Marvel either the visibility of the movie release (which helps their other products) OR the property reverts back and Marvel can sell it again.
I could definitely see where managing a brand like Trek, you might say, "We need more internet presence and regular reminders of our brand to stay relevant. The website isn't doing that. What can we license out to enhance our brand and keep it being talked about?"
CBS care about exposure from a tiny ( and at that time very insecure ) software company at the same time that the property was getting a major reboot from one of the biggest grossing films of the year?
It's a rights license. I'm done arguing with people who clearly do not know and are unwilling to accept what that means.
So they were very much in the loop. They wanted to work well with Cryptic and had to put some faith in Cryptic's abilities. If they didn't have faith in them, they could have fought to get their IP back.
Once you license an IP it isn't theirs to do with as they wish. Well, that is unless your lawyers are mouth-breathing morons.
CBS did the deal with Perpetual, not Cryptic. Consider the timing of that. The franchise was considerably less healthy and WoW was at peak numbers. That would have been before Abrams even pitched ST XI.
yes, and when Perpetual could no longer pay their staff Emmert said "hey, Why don't we take that off your hands?" and after putting together a show for Paramount to OK it then Cryptic got the license transferred. Are you not reading the thread?
It's not a franchise. Once again it is a license to use the Intellectual Property of CBS/Paramount in a video game. That's it.
edit:// and again, what does any of that have to do with CBS being involved with Cryptic's game outside of their license agreement? As long as Cryptic kept to the parameters of the agreement then CBS would have had no input apart from when Cryptic said "we wanna do this but it's not canon, what can we get away with?" as per all rights management meetings.
CBS did not make this game. They did not contract for the game to be made. They probably don't care if the game exists or not outside of they have been paid and their brand is not damaged.
I'm not saying they weren't in the loop. I'm saying that they were likely eager to see Star Trek getting some exposure when they made the Perpetual deal and the Cryptic buyout was a transfer of the Perpetual arrangement.
Star Trek was pretty much thought of as dead when the Perpetual deal happened and Warcraft was strong. I'm sure it was in CBS' interests to see something keep the IP alive.
how was the IP not alive? CBS own the IP. The IP remains whatever anyone else does.
I love it when forum jockeys and armchair experts bandy about terms that they clearly have no true concept of.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING.
When I say FRANCHISE, I'm referring to the Star Trek brand.
Star Trek in all forms was a dead franchise and it was in the IP owners' interest to have licensees like Perpetual keep the Star Trek franchise visible.
I'm not talking about a franchise like a McDonald's franchise. I'm talking about Star Trek. The franchise. The property.
Is English your first language? I'm not talking about dead as the opposite of alive. I'm talking dead. Moot. Inconsequential.
And again. How was the IP any of those terms you so eloquently chose? Do you know what an IP is? It's an intellectual property. As in a property of CBS/paramount that is not tangible but is recognisable. It remains theirs.
Nobody else has owned it apart from the silly paramount CBS wars when it changed hands a few times.
It was never in danger of dying with anyone. Perpetual never owned it or any part of it. Cryptic don't own it or any part of it.
There is am agreement with cryptic to produce a game under license which has nothing to do with IP.
If Cryptic go bankrupt and close the servers tomorrow it does not affect the IP which remains with it's respective owners and as healthy as it's always been.
So again, how was the IP becoming moot (which means debatable seeing as you question my language skills but seem to not care so much for your own.) or inconsequential?
You understand stocks but I don't think you have a grasp of entertainment.
Marvel comics licenses out Spider-man to greeting card companies and stationary companies and toy companies. They do this because companies pay them. But there's a set of IP management considerations for the Spider-man franchise (and I'm not talking about somebody franchising Spider-man). They aren't necessarily going to license out Spider-man to appear on condoms.
And sometimes, a company like Marvel actively looks for paper plate manufacturers and party favor companies who will pay to license Spider-man NOT JUST because it generates money but because it enhances the value of Spider-man by generating public exposure in more places, up to a point.
Star Trek is worthless to CBS without regular content appearing to remind people that Star Trek exists, content which CBS gets a licensing cut of. They actively pursue arrangements with licensees who will give their brand the kind of exposure they want. The licensees may approach them or they may approach licensees. The relevant part is that they aren't interested in licensing Star Trek to companies without the Star Trek branded products actually getting released into the market on a certain timeframe because CBS needs Star Trek to be a visible property.
http://kotaku.com/comment/19880294/
And wouldn't this be like Warner Bros. throwing a fit and saying that another Superman movie has to be done by the end of the year or they lose the rights. Could this be a situation?
Franchise is a different thing altogether and requires CBS to create a product then grant a license to others to sell that product. Nothing like a rights license.
But keep going.
Cryptic can never get a break with these timelines!
Your argument is to link to some random stranger on a comments page?
That's just defending your hearsay with more hearsay.
I've quite simply explained how these things work. If you choose to believe rumor then good for you. It's getting awfully dull repeating myself.
If you own an IP, it is not in your interest to license it to people who won't exploit that arrangement and release it into public view. An IP that has less public exposure and recognizability is worth less. It's the difference between Star Trek as a brand representing nostalgia or an active line of new content.
You, sir, are arguing with points I'm not making and explaining things back to me that I've already said.
you do know that Champions was Marvel online, but the Marvel license got pulled, so instead of wasting the code, they just reskined, and removed everything marvel, and made CO. so CO was made in more then just two years.
You're arguing semantics.
"Dead" "Moot" how about "Priactically worthless" or "irrelevant" or "Couldn't make much money from"
Face it, until JJ took Trek the way he did, you couldn't get any Star Trek anything to make any real money. Nobody cared anymore but the hardcore fans, and those were small enough in number to not support much.
Come ON.. the Trek Experience in Vegas CLOSED. it CLOSED man. Trek was in the decline until Abrhams saved it. Which is why CBS would license the IP to a wee little game company with zero street cred. They were the only ones asking.
Thankfully they went belly up and Cryptic took over.
I disagree. I simply told you that CBS have no vested interest in STO other than brand protection and you start telling me all about how their 'IP' was dead, insulting my English whilst at the same time misusing words, and returning to quote your assumptions at me as though they are fact.
I'm all for a good argument. I prefer it to have some basis in the real world first. It gives you half a chance of not looking a jack-TRIBBLE at the other end.
Warner Bros. was given a deadline by a judge to finish the Superman film before the current rights arrangement terminates.
Nobody here is talking about finances. We're talking about entertainment rights promotion and management. And you seem to drag this stock market and business expertise of yours out in every thread, even when it has no relevance to the discussion.
I suggest you seek out a diagnosis for Asperger's Syndrome. Nobody is talking about or interested in Infogrames' financial portfolio or the financial components or the arrangement in this thread as near as I can tell and yet you keep bludgeoning everyone with that special interest area of yours when what everyone else is talking about are the promotional considerations of IP management that frequently go into license agreements as a means of the IP holder building up the value of their franchise by exerting controls over licensees.
Heh, just to remind you what you just affirmed:
As he said, if Cryptic picked up the license and there was a 6-year product release clause on its availability, then Cryptic would have had a 2-year time limit to get the game out. That would have been CBS's timeline.
So... you just agreed with what you've often disputed in this thread.
To add my own opinion, I agree that's completely possible and even likely. Licenses aren't available indefinitely. The Paramound/CBS execs probably thought 6 years would be sufficient time to get a game out (at which time the license would be extended or some-such) and so Cryptic/Atari fell under the gun to get it out quickly.
The alternative would likely have been that the execs would just give up. They were probably ready to give up until Cryptic offered them a "good deal".
The world will still turn without you educating the unwashed masses about the finer points of IP licensing.
Gotta love it when people get frustrated and puff-chested about things they choose to do out of their own volition.
Again. What does any of that have to do with the fact that CBS sold a rights license to Perpetual and since then nobody here seems to have a ****ing clue what that actually means but are damned sure they are going to shout all day what they mistake it to mean?