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.
To be fair, Atari didn't buy them out until about 6 months after they acquired it from Perpetual. Well, that's when they announced the purchase anyway (Dec. 2008). That would be neither her nor there though if the contract works as you have surmised -- which sounds quite plausible.
What it comes down to is that none of us knows. We might get the goods on this one day though. Hopefully. I've always been interested in exactly what the arrangement is with Atari.CBS/Cryptic (and indeed other Publisher/developer/IP owner relationships).
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.
It clearly depends on the contract itself, which you can't provide.
There are many limitations that can be placed on licensing an IP. A friend licensed an IP for a product line, and they had stipulations on how he used it, and that was just for hats.
Just look at Lucasarts and $OE. $OE licensed the IP, but there were many controls on it. Sony wasn't contracted to make SWG, they paid for the rights. They clearly have said so MANY times. Do they have absolute control? Hardly. Lucasarts has them controlled.
OF COURSE you have the ability to tell someone who licenses your IP when it has to be released BY. That would be "Before the contract expires". Can they say specifically? Well, that depends on what the contract states.
So if the contract that CBS set up with Perpetual said "This contract ends in 6 years" and Cryptic bought it, they would have until the end of the contract to push the game out unless that was re-negotiated. In that case, I would expect that CBS would want MUCH more money since Trek is hot again.
Typically when you license an IP it is for a set time. It is very possible that window was closing. That Perpetual had 6 years from go, and Cryptic had the time remaining to launch.
But that's just speculation, because there's no contract. Even if you provide press releases, that's still not the contract, because it's only PR spin.
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'.
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'.
To which you are patently wrong. When you license an IP, you license it for a specific amount of time, and when that is over it is over unless re-negotiated.
It happens all the time with movie rights. As I said, Watchmen, Fantastic Four, hell, even Spiderman were all bounced around forever because rights expired before products were produced.
Personally, I don't think it matters if it was or not.
I acknowledge that release dates are important, but it doesn't give a publisher a pass on releasing a product when it's not ready. All the acknowledgement does is provide understanding for making future decisions regarding the company.
Comments
What it comes down to is that none of us knows. We might get the goods on this one day though. Hopefully. I've always been interested in exactly what the arrangement is with Atari.CBS/Cryptic (and indeed other Publisher/developer/IP owner relationships).
It clearly depends on the contract itself, which you can't provide.
There are many limitations that can be placed on licensing an IP. A friend licensed an IP for a product line, and they had stipulations on how he used it, and that was just for hats.
Just look at Lucasarts and $OE. $OE licensed the IP, but there were many controls on it. Sony wasn't contracted to make SWG, they paid for the rights. They clearly have said so MANY times. Do they have absolute control? Hardly. Lucasarts has them controlled.
OF COURSE you have the ability to tell someone who licenses your IP when it has to be released BY. That would be "Before the contract expires". Can they say specifically? Well, that depends on what the contract states.
So if the contract that CBS set up with Perpetual said "This contract ends in 6 years" and Cryptic bought it, they would have until the end of the contract to push the game out unless that was re-negotiated. In that case, I would expect that CBS would want MUCH more money since Trek is hot again.
Typically when you license an IP it is for a set time. It is very possible that window was closing. That Perpetual had 6 years from go, and Cryptic had the time remaining to launch.
But that's just speculation, because there's no contract. Even if you provide press releases, that's still not the contract, because it's only PR spin.
People do, in fact, sign agreements like this.
To which you are patently wrong. When you license an IP, you license it for a specific amount of time, and when that is over it is over unless re-negotiated.
It happens all the time with movie rights. As I said, Watchmen, Fantastic Four, hell, even Spiderman were all bounced around forever because rights expired before products were produced.
You're just guessing. Admit it.
ALL THE TIME.
That's how just about all movie rights and IP rights are sold. For a limited amount of time. That's how you sell "rights" and not the property itself.
I acknowledge that release dates are important, but it doesn't give a publisher a pass on releasing a product when it's not ready. All the acknowledgement does is provide understanding for making future decisions regarding the company.
Yeah... legal reasons... lol