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.
and Warner brothers have come into the fray how? Again. What does it matter with reference to your original claims?
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.
And when they expect others to take their word as fact while they, at the same time, complain about others saying things as fact.
I dont see why you guys are arguing so vehetemly with each other. nothing is going to change the fact that this game is half finished at best and a total rip off at worse.
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".
Ok, lets back up. Where is this 6 year figure from?
Of course licenses expire. They all do. Atari's D&D license currently under dispute was a 10 year one. But that's still does not mean that a property rights holder, granting a rights license over 10 years is saying, "you put it out by 10 years or we take it back" What it actually means is "you put out all that you like and as long as you don't breach out terms then it's fine, when the 10 years is up you renegotiate the deal or you stop making products under license".
CBS don't set a timeline for product. They set a period within which you may make product using their property and at the end of that period you re-negotiate.
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?
What it means can be MANY things, and honestly unless you provide a copy of the contract, YOU are only guessing at what it says.
When Mike Judge sold the rights to the characters of Beavis and Butthead to MTV, it meant MTV had the right to make billions without giving Mike much at all.
When George Lucas sells the rights to their IP, $OE had to meet specific deadlines, had to clear IP issues, had to meet certain expectations, and if you believe $OE, add Jedi for everyone and Push the nge. They had a TON of control.
Even in the most basic licensing situations, if you own the IP, you have some say in what happens to the contract if there is a bankruptcy or ownership change. That's standard, and completely necessary with important IPs like Trek.
So stop claiming CBS has no say in any of it. It's patently false.
And when they expect others to take their word as fact while they, at the same time, complain about others saying things as fact.
hey I've previously given links and direct quotes to all the details that i claim which are not my own opinion.
I don't say something if I don't believe it to be true.
Ok, lets back up. Where is this 6 year figure from?
Of course licenses expire. They all do. Atari's D&D license currently under dispute was a 10 year one. But that's still does not mean that a property rights holder, granting a rights license over 10 years is saying, "you put it out by 10 years or we take it back" What it actually means is "you put out all that you like and as long as you don't breach out terms then it's fine, when the 10 years is up you renegotiate the deal or you stop making products under license".
CBS don't set a timeline for product. They set a period within which you may make product using their property and at the end of that period you re-negotiate.
Ah, so since you're the expert of CBS's agreement with Cryptic/Atari now... what's your source for that claim?
Fact is you don't know the conditions any better than anyone else here. You're arguing something you can't prove just as much as anyone else. And frankly... before you entered the thread I thought it was pretty darn clear that people were just expressing opinions and not "facts". You're the one who started to challenge opinions.
What it means can be MANY things, and honestly unless you provide a copy of the contract, YOU are only guessing at what it says.
When Mike Judge sold the rights to the characters of Beavis and Butthead to MTV, it meant MTV had the right to make billions without giving Mike much at all.
When George Lucas sells the rights to their IP, $OE had to meet specific deadlines, had to clear IP issues, had to meet certain expectations, and if you believe $OE, add Jedi for everyone and Push the nge. They had a TON of control.
Even in the most basic licensing situations, if you own the IP, you have some say in what happens to the contract if there is a bankruptcy or ownership change. That's standard, and completely necessary with important IPs like Trek.
So stop claiming CBS has no say in any of it. It's patently false.
Again. What does any of that have to do with STO?
I have never said CBS had no 'say in it' But that their say is limited to what is allowable with their product. My argument is simply against those who seem to think that CBS somehow had the game made and then that they had any say in the decision making process that determined the release.
Again. What does any of that have to do with STO?
I have never said CBS had no 'say in it' But that their say is limited to what is allowable with their product. My argument is simply against those who seem to think that CBS somehow had the game made and then that they had any say in the decision making process that determined the release.
Prove they didn't. What are your sources for that?
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.
Why do you not know how to hold a civil conversation? If you took a second to read you would see that I started off pretty much saying that I heard this rumor. The link I provided was in response to someone asking me to post where I heard it. From the get go, you have been taking this relatively simple question as some sort of personal slight. Calm down and accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.
Prove they didn't. What are your sources for that?
you don't need sources to understand a simple rights license. If it were any different then there would be a different kind of agreement in place.
Star Trek Online is a licensed product from CBS Consumer Products. That's it, that's all it is.
You only have to read the paperwork from the Atari cryptic buyout and see no mention anywhere in the agreements to know that CBS are not involved outside of hocking their wares to anyone who has the money and an idea.
Look, if you don't comprehend what it means then fine, but it's tiresome to be attacked by the same people over again for just repeating what is basic fact and public domain knowledge.
And as for attacks I can pretty much assume that's what Heliotrope is doing above but as I've had him on ignore for days that certainly is not fact because I can't see his posts.
But i'm done, because you'd rather bait me than discuss.
Why do you not know how to hold a civil conversation? If you took a second to read you would see that I started off pretty much saying that I heard this rumor. The link I provided was in response to someone asking me to post where I heard it. From the get go, you have been taking this relatively simple question as some sort of personal slight. Calm down and accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.
I'm sorry? How am i supposed to look civil. Do I offer to pet you first?
I use English to hold my conversations and I did not know I was supposed to make someone comfortable before asking them questions.
For the record, I'm NOT saying that CBS said, "You have to release this by March of 2010."
I'm saying it's quite probable that there was a deadline on the original contract to release a product because, as part of their brand strategy, CBS wanted an MMO live or the option to charge a new license fee to Cryptic or a new licensee.
Cryptic was likely better able to afford buying out the remaining term of Perpetual's license. They may not have had the cash for a fresh license or a guarantee that it would be granted.
Therefore, to stay under the existing license and not have to negotiate a new one (which would be triggered by a reversion clause), they had a deadline to release a product under the license that they had.
It is common for licenses to IP to have a set deadline by which a product has to be released because the owner of said IP wants its licensees to actually generate a product. This is particularly likely here as we know CBS gets a cut of the monthly fee.
What I am saying is that Cryptic's $13 million budget was likely made possible by buying the remainder of Perpetual's term on their license and that a full 6 year license might have cost considerably more than Cryptic was able to pay for the remainder of Perpetual's license. This license likely had a stipulation that the rights would revert to CBS if a product was not released by a certain date. In which case, Cryptic would have to negotiate a new agreement, which was not guaranteed.
This is speculation but I don't think there's anything unreasonable about it as licensees frequently have arrangements where they lose a license if they don't release a product in a timely fashion and we do know that Cryptic bought Perpetual's license (yes, with CBS' blessing) rather than negotiating a new license with CBS (which would likely not be possible on their budget).
you don't need sources to understand a simple rights license. If it were any different then there would be a different kind of agreement in place.
And how do you know there isn't? How do you know anything about the specific agreement or agreements between CBS, Atari, and Cryptic?
Star Trek Online is a licensed product from CBS Consumer Products. That's it, that's all it is.
Prove it.
You only have to read the paperwork from the Atari cryptic buyout and see no mention anywhere in the agreements to know that CBS are not involved outside of hocking their wares to anyone who has the money and an idea.
Your proof is the lack of text in that? Are you simply assuming there's been no other contracts/agreements made? We're not privy to everything that takes place, you know.
Look, if you don't comprehend what it means then fine, but it's tiresome to be attacked by the same people over again for just repeating what is basic fact and public domain knowledge.
Public domain aside, common sense dictates there might be agreements between parties we're not privy to. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact to speak in your own absolutes.
Again. What does any of that have to do with STO?
I have never said CBS had no 'say in it' But that their say is limited to what is allowable with their product. My argument is simply against those who seem to think that CBS somehow had the game made and then that they had any say in the decision making process that determined the release.
But you don't know that. You have no contract to provide proof.
It could have VERY EASILY said Perpetual had 6 years to release the MMO in the original contract, and since Cryptic bought the contract, as you assert, then the window won't change unless it is re-negotiated.
Which you can't prove it got re-negotiated. You can't prove it didn't. You can't prove that the contract said it, or didn't.
Your position is only a guess at best. There are plenty of examples of where the IP rights expired before a product was released. Watchmen, Fantastic Four, many other IPs that have had the rights bounce all over the place because products weren't released in a timely manner.
And how do you know there isn't? How do you know anything about the specific agreement or agreements between CBS, Atari, and Cryptic?
Prove it.
Your proof is the lack of text in that? Are you simply assuming there's been no other contracts/agreements made? We're not privy to everything that takes place, you know.
Public domain aside, common sense dictates there might be agreements between parties we're not privy to. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact to speak in your own absolutes.
We don't know.
I don't know.
You don't know.
Get over yourself.
At this point I am guessing his behavior is more about being afraid that he may lose the target he wants to blame if he admits that it may not have been all Cryptic's decision.
At this point I am guessing his behavior is more about being afraid that he may lose the target he wants to blame if he admits that it may not have been all Cryptic's decision.
As a developer, myself, I know that more time is always desired. Not only from those who program but those who do art, run the projects, run the timelines, run the servers, etc. Unless Cryptic is secretly facing bankruptcy there'd be little motive for them to push the game out prematurely.
I suspect they were being pressured by CBS and Atari both, to varying degrees.
But you don't know that. You have no contract to provide proof.
It could have VERY EASILY said Perpetual had 6 years to release the MMO in the original contract, and since Cryptic bought the contract, as you assert, then the window won't change unless it is re-negotiated.
Which you can't prove it got re-negotiated. You can't prove it didn't. You can't prove that the contract said it, or didn't.
Your position is only a guess at best. There are plenty of examples of where the IP rights expired before a product was released. Watchmen, Fantastic Four, many other IPs that have had the rights bounce all over the place because products weren't released in a timely manner.
No because then that would be a different contract. That would be a contract to produce a product on behalf of CBS. Which it is not. It is a license to use the brand and regardless of the length of the license CBS don't own anything of the game in that case. All they can say should the license near expiry is "hey, you wanna renew this or are you done with it?"
CBS products website and press releases site is down now or I'd try an explain it with their press releases.
I just don't see what the argument is. A license to use IP is nothing like a contract to produce. When you sell someone the right to use your intellectual property you don't get the right to tell them when they must do things by, only what they are able or more importantly, unable, to do with it within the duration of the license.
As a developer, myself, I know that more time is always desired. Not only from those who program but those who do art, run the projects, run the timelines, run the servers, etc. Unless Cryptic is secretly facing bankruptcy there'd be little motive for them to push the game out prematurely.
I suspect they were being pressured by CBS and Atari both, to varying degrees.
Right. Although I'm not saying that CBS said, "Release the game by X date." But rather, "We'll reclaim the rights if you don't release by X date; you can do it or not. We'd rather you do it. But if you want a new contract after you miss the deadline, call us. It'll only cost you 10 million."
I'm sorry? How am i supposed to look civil. Do I offer to pet you first?
I use English to hold my conversations and I did not know I was supposed to make someone comfortable before asking them questions.
How many times are you going to say you are done?
I could care less how you look. I don't need you to make me feel comfortable. But you bust out of the gate where ppl are tossing around an idea as though you are some sort of authority on the matter and to hell will anyone who doesn't buy your explanation. And then you accuse everyone else of ignorance.
No because then that would be a different contract. That would be a contract to produce a product on behalf of CBS. Which it is not. It is a license to use the brand and regardless of the length of the license CBS don't own anything of the game in that case. All they can say should the license near expiry is "hey, you wanna renew this or are you done with it?"
CBS products website and press releases site is down now or I'd try an explain it with their press releases.
I just don't see what the argument is. A license to use IP is nothing like a contract to produce.
IP licenses in entertainment are frequently issued by companies who want the licensee to produce or at least want the option to charge for a new license.
It is a staple arrangement of film rights. Produce by Date X or lose the rights.
Right. Although I'm not saying that CBS said, "Release the game by X date." But rather, "We'll reclaim the rights if you don't release by X date; you can do it or not. We'd rather you do it. But if you want a new contract after you miss the deadline, call us. It'll only cost you 10 million."
This is what I'm trying to explain. You can't do that with a rights license. Nobody would sign it. All you say is "you have the right to make product under license for the period of the license"
To have the level of control that you suggest would mean that you have contracted the company to produce. Which is not the case because the game is Atari's not CBS'.
I could care less how you look. I don't need you to make me feel comfortable. But you bust out of the gate where ppl are tossing around an idea as though you are some sort of authority on the matter and to hell will anyone who doesn't buy your explanation. And then you accuse everyone else of ignorance.
Yeah you are right. I'm done now.
As for ignorance? Like I said. I tell it as I see it.
This is what I'm trying to explain. You can't do that with a rights license. Nobody would sign it. All you say is "you have the right to make product under license for the period of the license"
To have the level of control that you suggest would mean that you have contracted the company to produce. Which is not the case because the game is Atari's not CBS'.
You.
Don't.
Know.
What.
The.
Contracts.
Included.
Read that three times, slowly, fitting the words together a little more each time so they make sense.
If you still don't get it then there's really no hope for you.
For clarity, "nobody would sign it" is an assumption. You're assuming. Which means you don't actually know. Because you can't know. You're also assuming that was the only contract at play. You can't know that either.
Comments
and Warner brothers have come into the fray how? Again. What does it matter with reference to your original claims?
And when they expect others to take their word as fact while they, at the same time, complain about others saying things as fact.
Not only that, CBS(Paramount) are notoriously picky about usage of the ST IP.
Ok, lets back up. Where is this 6 year figure from?
Of course licenses expire. They all do. Atari's D&D license currently under dispute was a 10 year one. But that's still does not mean that a property rights holder, granting a rights license over 10 years is saying, "you put it out by 10 years or we take it back" What it actually means is "you put out all that you like and as long as you don't breach out terms then it's fine, when the 10 years is up you renegotiate the deal or you stop making products under license".
CBS don't set a timeline for product. They set a period within which you may make product using their property and at the end of that period you re-negotiate.
I demand Tort Reform and Congressional Term Limits!!
Wait...What?
(This thread is turning EPIC.)
What it means can be MANY things, and honestly unless you provide a copy of the contract, YOU are only guessing at what it says.
When Mike Judge sold the rights to the characters of Beavis and Butthead to MTV, it meant MTV had the right to make billions without giving Mike much at all.
When George Lucas sells the rights to their IP, $OE had to meet specific deadlines, had to clear IP issues, had to meet certain expectations, and if you believe $OE, add Jedi for everyone and Push the nge. They had a TON of control.
Even in the most basic licensing situations, if you own the IP, you have some say in what happens to the contract if there is a bankruptcy or ownership change. That's standard, and completely necessary with important IPs like Trek.
So stop claiming CBS has no say in any of it. It's patently false.
hey I've previously given links and direct quotes to all the details that i claim which are not my own opinion.
I don't say something if I don't believe it to be true.
Ah, so since you're the expert of CBS's agreement with Cryptic/Atari now... what's your source for that claim?
Fact is you don't know the conditions any better than anyone else here. You're arguing something you can't prove just as much as anyone else. And frankly... before you entered the thread I thought it was pretty darn clear that people were just expressing opinions and not "facts". You're the one who started to challenge opinions.
Again. What does any of that have to do with STO?
I have never said CBS had no 'say in it' But that their say is limited to what is allowable with their product. My argument is simply against those who seem to think that CBS somehow had the game made and then that they had any say in the decision making process that determined the release.
Prove they didn't. What are your sources for that?
Why do you not know how to hold a civil conversation? If you took a second to read you would see that I started off pretty much saying that I heard this rumor. The link I provided was in response to someone asking me to post where I heard it. From the get go, you have been taking this relatively simple question as some sort of personal slight. Calm down and accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.
you don't need sources to understand a simple rights license. If it were any different then there would be a different kind of agreement in place.
Star Trek Online is a licensed product from CBS Consumer Products. That's it, that's all it is.
You only have to read the paperwork from the Atari cryptic buyout and see no mention anywhere in the agreements to know that CBS are not involved outside of hocking their wares to anyone who has the money and an idea.
Look, if you don't comprehend what it means then fine, but it's tiresome to be attacked by the same people over again for just repeating what is basic fact and public domain knowledge.
And as for attacks I can pretty much assume that's what Heliotrope is doing above but as I've had him on ignore for days that certainly is not fact because I can't see his posts.
But i'm done, because you'd rather bait me than discuss.
I'm sorry? How am i supposed to look civil. Do I offer to pet you first?
I use English to hold my conversations and I did not know I was supposed to make someone comfortable before asking them questions.
I'm saying it's quite probable that there was a deadline on the original contract to release a product because, as part of their brand strategy, CBS wanted an MMO live or the option to charge a new license fee to Cryptic or a new licensee.
Cryptic was likely better able to afford buying out the remaining term of Perpetual's license. They may not have had the cash for a fresh license or a guarantee that it would be granted.
Therefore, to stay under the existing license and not have to negotiate a new one (which would be triggered by a reversion clause), they had a deadline to release a product under the license that they had.
It is common for licenses to IP to have a set deadline by which a product has to be released because the owner of said IP wants its licensees to actually generate a product. This is particularly likely here as we know CBS gets a cut of the monthly fee.
What I am saying is that Cryptic's $13 million budget was likely made possible by buying the remainder of Perpetual's term on their license and that a full 6 year license might have cost considerably more than Cryptic was able to pay for the remainder of Perpetual's license. This license likely had a stipulation that the rights would revert to CBS if a product was not released by a certain date. In which case, Cryptic would have to negotiate a new agreement, which was not guaranteed.
This is speculation but I don't think there's anything unreasonable about it as licensees frequently have arrangements where they lose a license if they don't release a product in a timely fashion and we do know that Cryptic bought Perpetual's license (yes, with CBS' blessing) rather than negotiating a new license with CBS (which would likely not be possible on their budget).
And how do you know there isn't? How do you know anything about the specific agreement or agreements between CBS, Atari, and Cryptic?
Prove it.
Your proof is the lack of text in that? Are you simply assuming there's been no other contracts/agreements made? We're not privy to everything that takes place, you know.
Public domain aside, common sense dictates there might be agreements between parties we're not privy to. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact to speak in your own absolutes.
We don't know.
I don't know.
You don't know.
Get over yourself.
Are you pretending here are are you really that blind to how you are coming off in this thread?
Your'e speaking to people who were initially civil with you as if they were children.
Man, I guess some people just can't feel whole unless they bend everyone around them to their will.
But you don't know that. You have no contract to provide proof.
It could have VERY EASILY said Perpetual had 6 years to release the MMO in the original contract, and since Cryptic bought the contract, as you assert, then the window won't change unless it is re-negotiated.
Which you can't prove it got re-negotiated. You can't prove it didn't. You can't prove that the contract said it, or didn't.
Your position is only a guess at best. There are plenty of examples of where the IP rights expired before a product was released. Watchmen, Fantastic Four, many other IPs that have had the rights bounce all over the place because products weren't released in a timely manner.
The comment I made about the possible comparison to Superman sequel.
As a developer, myself, I know that more time is always desired. Not only from those who program but those who do art, run the projects, run the timelines, run the servers, etc. Unless Cryptic is secretly facing bankruptcy there'd be little motive for them to push the game out prematurely.
I suspect they were being pressured by CBS and Atari both, to varying degrees.
No because then that would be a different contract. That would be a contract to produce a product on behalf of CBS. Which it is not. It is a license to use the brand and regardless of the length of the license CBS don't own anything of the game in that case. All they can say should the license near expiry is "hey, you wanna renew this or are you done with it?"
CBS products website and press releases site is down now or I'd try an explain it with their press releases.
I just don't see what the argument is. A license to use IP is nothing like a contract to produce. When you sell someone the right to use your intellectual property you don't get the right to tell them when they must do things by, only what they are able or more importantly, unable, to do with it within the duration of the license.
Right. Although I'm not saying that CBS said, "Release the game by X date." But rather, "We'll reclaim the rights if you don't release by X date; you can do it or not. We'd rather you do it. But if you want a new contract after you miss the deadline, call us. It'll only cost you 10 million."
How many times are you going to say you are done?
I could care less how you look. I don't need you to make me feel comfortable. But you bust out of the gate where ppl are tossing around an idea as though you are some sort of authority on the matter and to hell will anyone who doesn't buy your explanation. And then you accuse everyone else of ignorance.
IP licenses in entertainment are frequently issued by companies who want the licensee to produce or at least want the option to charge for a new license.
It is a staple arrangement of film rights. Produce by Date X or lose the rights.
This is what I'm trying to explain. You can't do that with a rights license. Nobody would sign it. All you say is "you have the right to make product under license for the period of the license"
To have the level of control that you suggest would mean that you have contracted the company to produce. Which is not the case because the game is Atari's not CBS'.
Yeah you are right. I'm done now.
As for ignorance? Like I said. I tell it as I see it.
You.
Don't.
Know.
What.
The.
Contracts.
Included.
Read that three times, slowly, fitting the words together a little more each time so they make sense.
If you still don't get it then there's really no hope for you.
For clarity, "nobody would sign it" is an assumption. You're assuming. Which means you don't actually know. Because you can't know. You're also assuming that was the only contract at play. You can't know that either.