Legal Conjecture on Atari Flashback IP rights

[jeff20]

I would like to know if anyone has information or theories on why Atari Flashback 5 has the arcade version of Space Invaders but not the original 2600 conversion of it. The back of the box shows a 2600 Space Invaders box design. I would like to know what narratives one with law experience might have to explain these choices.

 

Other interesting observations:

I think the box for Basketball never existed as depicted on the back of the box.

There are also strange choices with the box depiction of Frontline.

I think the box also shows several Sears designs (Pong included, oddly). Did they need Sears approval?

 

[+bcombee]

Space Invaders was licensed from Taito and they wanted their ARM port of the game on the console instead of the Atari version. That Taito license also allowed the inclusion of Jungle Hunt and Frontline. That non-2600 version of Space Invaders was also included in the Flashback 4.

 

The menu issues just seem to be sloppiness on the part of AtGames.

 

Bill Longudise has answered a bunch of questions like this on the Flashback 5 thread at http://atariage.com/forums/topic/221409-atari-flashback-5-new-features-dream-list.

[jeff20]

Thanks for the link! I went back and read that thread. I guess my only question is why would Taito insist on an arcade port when the 2600 version was so successful?

 

There are many ports that a far from the arcade (Gameboy and such). If the 2600 packaging was allowed without damage to the IP, it seems the successful port would be too considering it is largely the reason the 2600 was successful in the first place.

[ledzep]

I really wish someone could explain this fantasy of "damage" with IP rights when dealing with old games like these. Specifically, how allowing a re-release of an old Atari 2600 version of a known game for a Flashback console could in any way affect the profits or sales of the company that currently holds the rights.

 

For example, the old Superman game. I don't care for it, I remember hating it as a kid. So what, it would be cool for a Flashback to have that (completists rejoice). But DC Comics would never, right? Why? What would happen? Would current existing or planned PC or console games based on the Superman franchise be affected in any way? No. There is no way that someone who was interested in buying a PlayStation 4 Superman game would now not buy it or like it less simply because some blocky, slow Atari 2600 game that already existed would be available new, again, on a console that he had no intention of purchasing (because he isn't into retro consoles) and probably wasn't even aware was for sale. Or, worse, that person would abandon his PlayStation in order to buy a Flashback 6 with the Superman game on it. DC Comics could simply say go ahead, release it again, just pay us what you would pay any other rights holder (or negotiate something lower if possible). What would DC Comics care? "Shit, we want to release our new Batman vs. Superman movie, but, but, the old Atari 2600 Superman game is available at Walmart! How could we have been so stupid and short-sighted?! Now our box-office take will plummet!!" They wouldn't have to spend dime one on packaging or advertising.

 

Same for a game like Indy 500. Again, the game already exists, was already sold back in the day. Who cares if the game was re-released again, in the same form that wasn't an issue before, on a new retro console? I can understand if the rights holders to the Indy name considered the original 2600 game an abomination that had to be physically stomped out of existence. But they don't care who acquires a copy of the game from eBay and plays it on his original 2600 console so why care if the game is being played on a Flashback? Sure, pay them some license fee per Flashback but otherwise, why this convoluted legal maze to navigate over shit that already exists? Who cares? I mean who is saying "Oh no, that game could be sold again!"? Who? I have never understood that and nobody, no body, has ever been able to explain the negative impact of such a move. Meaning "Well, if that game appears on the Flashback then [fill in catastrophe] will occur and they really wouldn't like that and Atari couldn't afford to fix that." Why resist or deny allowing a game that was already for sale back in the day to be included in something like a Flashback retro console? For some fair cut of the profits? Nothing over the top, just some modern update to whatever the licensing at the time probably was. Back then both sides thought it was a decent result, right? Pole Position, Crazy Climber, E.T., who cares? Pay the license fee, everybody wins.

 

I can understand if Activision, against all reason, still holds some rivalry hatred for Atari and won't allow their games to appear on the Flashbacks unless they're paid 100x what the licensing is worth because fuck you Atari. Childish, but ok. Otherwise, why not accept some zero-effort free profit from allowing ancient ROMs to be included on the Flashbacks for a reasonable cut? Would they rather have 100% of nothing in terms of new Atari Flashback sales or 4% (or whatever) of new Atari Flashback sales? All with no effort, they need to do nothing but approve. Can't the rights for games from Imagic or whoever is completely out of business revert to public domain? Ever? Or can't there be some legal decision to what would be a fair, industry-standard licensing fee and put that in Escrow from each Flashback sale for whoever might win the copyright cage match to ultimately be declared new/current holder of ancient Imagic or Apollo or Data Age games rights? Here's you cut? I mean those companies (whichever ones did) went out of business for a reason.

 

I've never seen a graph or chart where someone could say "And right here, that's when that old 8-bit version of Defender was available again and it caused sales of the XBox version of Defender to lose 30% of its profit generation until the rights holders successfully got the courts to stop them from selling any more copies. See? Right here, where the profits rise again? That same week." It doesn't exist. Neither is there any evidence for a dip in popularity for a modern version of a game due to it's primitive ancestor being part of a Flashback or limited run release. I wonder how sales of the Atari 5200 version of Tempest (with Trak-Ball support, no less!!) through AtariAge has hurt sales of any more modern Tempest 2000/3000/Xtreme versions. I will guess that it hasn't done shit to any sales of any newer versions since it wasn't possible for it to be a direct competitor to any of those versions since it's only available on the 5200 and those others are not. Otherwise, it would be expected that someone at one of the companies selling the newer versions would have known - "Hey, what the fuck? How come our sales of Tempest Ultimate 3D+ are lagging? It's been our best seller for 6 months now, yet... oh shit, oh no no no. Check the forums! I think someone might have started selling a homebrew of the original Tempest on an old system that isn't available new and doesn't compete with us in any way! We're doomed if we don't stop him right now!! If he manages to sell more than 30 CIB versions... oh my god, what will I tell my children? How will they live with no food?! Lord, not again, I'm gonna be sick... This is just like what happened to our run of Photoreal Pac-Man Empire games."

 

And yet everyone just kind of accepts that, you know, of course this game or that game can't be included because IP. I mean, the IP would, um, it would, there's just too much, the uh, right? It's too bad, really.

Edited December 31, 2014 by ledzep

[Andromeda Stardust]

I really wish someone could explain this fantasy of "damage" with IP rights when dealing with old games like these. Specifically, how allowing a re-release of an old Atari 2600 version of a known game for a Flashback console could in any way affect the profits or sales of the company that currently holds the rights.

 

For example, the old Superman game. I don't care for it, I remember hating it as a kid. So what, it would be cool for a Flashback to have that (completists rejoice). But DC Comics would never, right? Why? What would happen? Would current existing or planned PC or console games based on the Superman franchise be affected in any way? No. There is no way that someone who was interested in buying a PlayStation 4 Superman game would now not buy it or like it less simply because some blocky, slow Atari 2600 game that already existed would be available new, again, on a console that he had no intention of purchasing (because he isn't into retro consoles) and probably wasn't even aware was for sale. Or, worse, that person would abandon his PlayStation in order to buy a Flashback 6 with the Superman game on it. DC Comics could simply say go ahead, release it again, just pay us what you would pay any other rights holder (or negotiate something lower if possible). What would DC Comics care? "Shit, we want to release our new Batman vs. Superman movie, but, but, the old Atari 2600 Superman game is available at Walmart! How could we have been so stupid and short-sighted?! Now our box-office take will plummet!!" They wouldn't have to spend dime one on packaging or advertising.

 

Same for a game like Indy 500. Again, the game already exists, was already sold back in the day. Who cares if the game was re-released again, in the same form that wasn't an issue before, on a new retro console? I can understand if the rights holders to the Indy name considered the original 2600 game an abomination that had to be physically stomped out of existence. But they don't care who acquires a copy of the game from eBay and plays it on his original 2600 console so why care if the game is being played on a Flashback? Sure, pay them some license fee per Flashback but otherwise, why this convoluted legal maze to navigate over shit that already exists? Who cares? I mean who is saying "Oh no, that game could be sold again!"? Who? I have never understood that and nobody, no body, has ever been able to explain the negative impact of such a move. Meaning "Well, if that game appears on the Flashback then [fill in catastrophe] will occur and they really wouldn't like that and Atari couldn't afford to fix that." Why resist or deny allowing a game that was already for sale back in the day to be included in something like a Flashback retro console? For some fair cut of the profits? Nothing over the top, just some modern update to whatever the licensing at the time probably was. Back then both sides thought it was a decent result, right? Pole Position, Crazy Climber, E.T., who cares? Pay the license fee, everybody wins.

 

I can understand if Activision, against all reason, still holds some rivalry hatred for Atari and won't allow their games to appear on the Flashbacks unless they're paid 100x what the licensing is worth because fuck you Atari. Childish, but ok. Otherwise, why not accept some zero-effort free profit from allowing ancient ROMs to be included on the Flashbacks for a reasonable cut? Would they rather have 100% of nothing in terms of new Atari Flashback sales or 4% (or whatever) of new Atari Flashback sales? All with no effort, they need to do nothing but approve. Can't the rights for games from Imagic or whoever is completely out of business revert to public domain? Ever? Or can't there be some legal decision to what would be a fair, industry-standard licensing fee and put that in Escrow from each Flashback sale for whoever might win the copyright cage match to ultimately be declared new/current holder of ancient Imagic or Apollo or Data Age games rights? Here's you cut? I mean those companies (whichever ones did) went out of business for a reason.

 

I've never seen a graph or chart where someone could say "And right here, that's when that old 8-bit version of Defender was available again and it caused sales of the XBox version of Defender to lose 30% of its profit generation until the rights holders successfully got the courts to stop them from selling any more copies. See? Right here, where the profits rise again? That same week." It doesn't exist. Neither is there any evidence for a dip in popularity for a modern version of a game due to it's primitive ancestor being part of a Flashback or limited run release. I wonder how sales of the Atari 5200 version of Tempest (with Trak-Ball support, no less!!) through AtariAge has hurt sales of any more modern Tempest 2000/3000/Xtreme versions. I will guess that it hasn't done shit to any sales of any newer versions since it wasn't possible for it to be a direct competitor to any of those versions since it's only available on the 5200 and those others are not. Otherwise, it would be expected that someone at one of the companies selling the newer versions would have known - "Hey, what the fuck? How come our sales of Tempest Ultimate 3D+ are lagging? It's been our best seller for 6 months now, yet... oh shit, oh no no no. Check the forums! I think someone might have started selling a homebrew of the original Tempest on an old system that isn't available new and doesn't compete with us in any way! We're doomed if we don't stop him right now!! If he manages to sell more than 30 CIB versions... oh my god, what will I tell my children? How will they live with no food?! Lord, not again, I'm gonna be sick... This is just like what happened to our run of Photoreal Pac-Man Empire games."

 

And yet everyone just kind of accepts that, you know, of course this game or that game can't be included because IP. I mean, the IP would, um, it would, there's just too much, the uh, right? It's too bad, really.

The glass is always half full with devs; half empty with execs. Corporate greed only gives a schitz about money. "Nothing to lose" can also be interpreted as "nothing to gain." Think some corporation like Sony, MS, Marvel, CD, Capcom gives a flying flip about some $1000 commission when they've invested millions in their latest game or movie? Hell no. The time it takes the excecutive and lawyers to review and sign off the paperwork would result in lost productivity that could be devoted to other tasks.

 

And your little "let's pay the royalties into escrow so the dogs can fight over it" is basically spinning the rouelette wheel. The winning copyright bidder could issue a C&D on production of Flashbacks bearing their game, or demand tenfold the royalties if they want. Atgames ould get sued into oblivion that way with their "act now, ask questions later" approach. Homebrewers only get away with it by flying under the radar. It would cost the rightholders more to thwart misuse of properties in the form of homebrew or fanart, than to just ignore it and let te little fanboys "have their cake and eat it too."

 

Edited December 31, 2014 by stardust4ever

[jhd]

In Canada, such a mechanism does exist to deal with the situation when the copyright holder is unknown/unlocatable. The person wishing to use the material can apply to the Copyright Board of Canada, which will determine the fee and grant a license. The money is then held for several years, should the true owner of the copyright surface.

 

As far as I know, it has never been applied to video games. I suppose that someone could try...

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/index-e.html

[ledzep]

The glass is always half full with devs; half empty with execs. Corporate greed only gives a schitz about money. "Nothing to lose" can also be interpreted as "nothing to gain." Think some corporation like Sony, MS, Marvel, CD, Capcom gives a flying flip about some $1000 commission when they've invested millions in their latest game or movie? Hell no. The time it takes the excecutive and lawyers to review and sign off the paperwork would result in lost productivity that could be devoted to other tasks.

 

And your little "let's pay the royalties into escrow so the dogs can fight over it" is basically spinning the rouelette wheel. The winning copyright bidder could issue a C&D on production of Flashbacks bearing their game, or demand tenfold the royalties if they want. Atgames ould get sued into oblivion that way with their "act now, ask questions later" approach. Homebrewers only get away with it by flying under the radar. It would cost the rightholders more to thwart misuse of properties in the form of homebrew or fanart, than to just ignore it and let te little fanboys "have their cake and eat it too."

 

 

"If they want". Yes, which is why I asked about there being any legal policy in place for such a possibility. If the rights were so damn valuable then how could the original rights holders go out of business in the first place? Certainly they could continue to sell the games in new ways, on new platforms, etc. But they didn't. Because they suck or their games aren't valuable enough. And, again, all over a few thousands or tens of thousands of dollars from the royalties of Flashback sales in which they wouldn't have to do shit beyond simply allowing their games to be sold again since they allowed those same games to be sold in the past. As for non-existent rights holders, they should acquire the rights now in order to "cash in" on this imagined gold mine, right? Yet nobody does. Why? Because it's not a gold mine. If it's not a gold mine worth acquiring now it cannot be argued that it is a gold mine later when the rights are acquired after the games are included in a Flashback console or greatest hits game CD. But then I'm expecting logic in business. There should be an industry standard for what the licensing for such a move would be and that should be carved out of the Flashback sales and held for a period of time for any potential new rights holders and if nobody steps up then Atari keeps the money. But not the rights. Problem solved. Similar (but obviously not the same as) to how eminent domain works with land. The government can't just take it for free, it has to pay a fair price (even if taking it isn't considered fair by some people, specifically the land owners themselves). I'm not advocating that action, just saying that the action includes paying a fair (in theory) market value to the land owners. Ok, releasing old 3rd-party Atari 2600 games on the Flashback, when Atari isn't the rights holder, should require Atari to "pay" the fair average licensing fees to an account. If a new rights holder appears, here's your money. If nobody shows up, nobody wants to make the effort, fine, Atari keeps the money. But not the rights. Buying the rights up is a separate move. And, seriously, why doesn't Atari buy up the rights to those out-of-business 3rd party titles? Or Activision? I mean Chrysler bought Jeep, right? Now Jeeps are considered Mopar. Didn't Turner buy up MGM cartoons? And now Warner Brothers owns them? Tom & Jerry were never WB cartoons yet now they have the distribution rights. What's stopping Atari?

 

Of course the bigger question of how IP is "damaged" still hasn't been answered because in cases like this there is no actual damage, only lawyer fever-dream imagined damage. They "might" damage something blah blah IP so we must stop them at all costs, no we have no proof. I'm not talking about Atari releasing Activision games onto new platforms without permission, I'm simply talking about including those old Activision games on the Flashback and paying Activision what they're owed. How is that a problem? It's just ROMs, no new boxes or carts or advertising. Nothing physical is needed, just space on the Flashback's memory. How does that damage Activision's IP? It doesn't. How does that damage DC Comics' Superman IP? It doesn't.

Edited December 31, 2014 by ledzep

[ledzep]

In Canada, such a mechanism does exist to deal with the situation when the copyright holder is unknown/unlocatable. The person wishing to use the material can apply to the Copyright Board of Canada, which will determine the fee and grant a license. The money is then held for several years, should the true owner of the copyright surface.

 

As far as I know, it has never been applied to video games. I suppose that someone could try...

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/index-e.html

 

There you go, sanity in copyrights. Leave it to the Canadians to figure this out, as they have figured out so many other things. Of course they're not perfect, Justin Bieber is the lesbian anti-Christ that must be destroyed and Canada must be punished for that. But still. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we don't have a similar mechanism for such an eventuality because regulations = anti-freedom or whatever around here.

[jeff20]

Ok, I think I could imagine an explanation for, let's say, Superman IP issues. A developer for a PS4 Superman game might want exclusive rights to all videogame uses during a launch otherwise a Google search or YouTube search may be competing with another contemporary game release.

 

For Space Invaders, it's a little more confusing for me. The IP is allowed on the flashback but not the original 2600 port.

[ledzep]

Ok, I think I could imagine an explanation for, let's say, Superman IP issues. A developer for a PS4 Superman game might want exclusive rights to all videogame uses during a launch otherwise a Google search or YouTube search may be competing with another contemporary game release.

 

For Space Invaders, it's a little more confusing for me. The IP is allowed on the flashback but not the original 2600 port.

 

That's understandable. But if there isn't a new Superman game launch? Has the game been launching for the entire time that the Flashback 4 and Flashback 5 have been selling? And what idiot would be confused by a Flashback Superman game vs. a new PlayStation/XBox/Wii game? I mean how is that competing? It can equally be argued that someone searching for the old Superman game on Google would get loads of hits for the new Superman game launch, meaning the Flashback release would actually generate free advertising for the new version. So, still doesn't add up. And why wouldn't the new game include some easter egg "classic" 2600 mode while also having the Flashback version mention that in the packaging ("You can play the classic 2600 version of Superman in the new Superman Redundant Movie Reboot game available now on the PlayStation 4!") or some other cross-marketing tie-in? How hard could it possibly be? I cannot stand bean-counters and their lack of imagination.

 

Here's how I'd approach this if I were in charge of DC Comics video games. First, I'd allow the original 2600 Superman game to be included in the Flashback for a reasonable fee. Or maybe no fee, who cares. But I'd say that Atari or AtGames or whatever would have to include some bit of mention of our new game coming out that's tied into the new Batman vs. Superman movie or whatever the next Superman movie is. Next, I'd arrange for a few of my programmers who were new or were bored (in between assignments) or were enthusiastic or whatever to code a new Superman 2 game for the 2600 to be included in the Flashback because I'm sure a few of my programmers are retro fans and this would be a geek wet dream for them and it would be better than giving them raises ("Ya, I was part of the team that made that new 2600 Superman game that's actually more fun than our new movie-tie-in game, I'm kind of a big deal."). Ok, so the new retro game would get made (based on the old Superman 2 movie with Zod or something). This game I would require a larger licensing cut from the Flashback. Nothing massive, just more than the first game. Then I would arrange for a limited edition release of this Superman 2 game on cartridges, boxed, for the 2600. If I could arrange it with Sears I would include a Tele-Games version of it, too. They wouldn't be cheap but they'd be available for a limited time online (not in stores, that would be a waste of resources). Also, for even more money, customers could also purchase a reproduction of the 1st Superman 2600 game (Tele-Games as well) also for a limited time. Maybe kryptonite green instead of blue. These games would include personal codes for our new PlayStation/XBox Superman game that would unlock hidden features exclusive to a special, more expensive, exclusive-boxed version of the new Playstation/XBox game that was only available online (so the code would be useless to people who bought the common version of the game). I would then sit back and watch some Superman/video game dorks savage themselves and their best friends in order to be one of the few who would end up owning this trifecta of Supergeek Coolness. The scramble to get this exclusive version along with people talking about the insanity of releasing a new cart for a dead retro system would be so much free advertising that it would pay for itself. I'd also get some retro cred for doing this so I'd personally be happy about the move.

 

Ya, the Space Invaders thing totally negates any "damage" argument. How does the original 2600 port on a Flashback console affect the IP? Who cares? Nobody. It might actually stop a few Flashback fans from buying the Flashback 5 (and denying the rights holder from an additional royalty sale) because the collector is a purist and only wants the 2600 versions on his Flashback, dammit. So maybe he gets a Flashback 4 instead? Who knows. But this is quibbling over a few dozen sales of an IP that nobody but retro fans give a damn about. And, again, no explanation of how swapping versions of the Space Invaders game would or could possibly "damage" the IP ("See, by substituting the arcade version, damage is reduced by 8%!"). Because there is no explanation in this case.

[Zonie]

I'm guessing that "they" didn't notice the early FB consoles, and then the greedy prick lawyers got involved and wanted some love from a market that is minuscule and has zilch for margins...

[jeff20]

I don't think the original Space Invaders has appeared on any "remake console" including the joystick plug-n-play and the flashback series. There's something unique about the exclusion of that title. Maybe something specific to the designer, Rick Maurer?

 

The programmer was reported to have received only 11 thousand dollars for a game that made over 100 million for the company. Perhaps a lawsuit followed in the years after that. He may have some legal rights over the code now. Still it would only benefit him to cooperate with remakes if this scenario were true.

 

This theory may also work to explain the omission of Space Invaders in Atari Anthologies for the PS2 and other systems of that generation. I can't find any evidence of the code being used anywhere else after the 2600! Maybe Taito wants to cooperate and profit on the IP and the problem is actually the programmer of the original code, Rick!

Edited January 1, 2015 by jeff20

[Greg2600]

All of these IP's can be had for a price, a price too high for AtGames.

[+LS650]

For example, the old Superman game. I don't care for it, I remember hating it as a kid.

Damn, bro - I really like that game...

[Andromeda Stardust]

With regards to Superman and other IPs, I have seen it happen before where a company buys the rights to a particular IP, and all existing games from the former company utilizing the IP get pulled from the digital marketplace. This happened with Ninja Turtles a few years ago. The original Konami Turtles was available on Wii Virtual for a number of years. As well, several HD remakes of other classic TMNT titles existed on PSN and XBLA.

 

I think Nikelodian bought the rights to the Turtles IP and sublicensed the rights to produce TMNT video games to a new publisher.

 

Instantly, all existing remakes of the classic Konami TMNT titles were pulled off all digital marketplaces. TMNT was removed from Wii VC, and TMNT Arcade HD remake was simultaneously pulled from PSN and XBLA. I booted my TMNT demo on PS3 and clicked the "buy now" button within the software. It redirected to the PSN store with a generic page not found error.

 

Worst part is, deals like this happen all the time, and oftentimes stuff disappear in the night without warning. People with the game on their wishlist will now never be able to play it. As retro collectors, we often feel that we are entitled to play these games on whatever platform we choose, but we aren't. Used games are like windows back to a time when the market conditions and IP ownerships favored it's existence.

 

And if we own a copy in it's original format, we are entitled to it. We aren't entitled to any modern remakes or ports, including Atgames consoles, if IP laws or budget constraints no longer favor their existence.

 

Homebrewers often skirt this legal quandry with little consequence, but any corporation manufacturing consumer products cannot. It sucks, but 'tis what it is. We as fans are mostly powerless against the corporate machine.

[+Random Terrain]

Why can't people be nice and do good things and stuff?

[The Usotsuki]

Also, Squeenix has owned Taito for a while.

[ledzep]

With regards to Superman and other IPs, I have seen it happen before where a company buys the rights to a particular IP, and all existing games from the former company utilizing the IP get pulled from the digital marketplace. This happened with Ninja Turtles a few years ago. The original Konami Turtles was available on Wii Virtual for a number of years. As well, several HD remakes of other classic TMNT titles existed on PSN and XBLA.

 

I think Nikelodian bought the rights to the Turtles IP and sublicensed the rights to produce TMNT video games to a new publisher.

 

Instantly, all existing remakes of the classic Konami TMNT titles were pulled off all digital marketplaces. TMNT was removed from Wii VC, and TMNT Arcade HD remake was simultaneously pulled from PSN and XBLA. I booted my TMNT demo on PS3 and clicked the "buy now" button within the software. It redirected to the PSN store with a generic page not found error.

 

Worst part is, deals like this happen all the time, and oftentimes stuff disappear in the night without warning. People with the game on their wishlist will now never be able to play it. As retro collectors, we often feel that we are entitled to play these games on whatever platform we choose, but we aren't. Used games are like windows back to a time when the market conditions and IP ownerships favored it's existence.

 

And if we own a copy in it's original format, we are entitled to it. We aren't entitled to any modern remakes or ports, including Atgames consoles, if IP laws or budget constraints no longer favor their existence.

 

Homebrewers often skirt this legal quandry with little consequence, but any corporation manufacturing consumer products cannot. It sucks, but 'tis what it is. We as fans are mostly powerless against the corporate machine.

 

I'm not denying that it happens because obviously it happens a lot. What I'm asking for is a justification, a reasonable explanation for doing that stupid take my ball and go home bullshit. Nobody can explain how the new rights owners are "damaged" by allowing previous versions to continue to exist. Either they get the royalties for the old games because they bought the rights or they get profits from new games from the IP because they own the rights. No one, ever, has been able to explain how re-releasing a, for example, old version of 2600 Superman or a complete version of Gorf impacts, in any way, current or future IP or profits from that IP. They're selfish idiots. They believe that an old version will affect their new version but that's not true and they have no proof. Nobody gives a fuck. Not one fuck. Yet they operate like being legal dicks is the only option in order to guarantee their software sales. It's idiotic and insulting. If I was a Superman fan wouldn't I buy every version of available Superman games? If I loved Space Invaders wouldn't I want to buy every version available for whatever consoles I owned? Why restrict sales? Even if the new company doesn't get profits from sales on other, older consoles? So what! If a person is determined to play games only for the old 2600 or Colecovision or whatever there's nothing the current rights holders can do to force those fanatics to purchase the modern versions for mobile devices or PCs or consoles. Let. It. Go. And, again, we're talking about retro fanatics who love the old systems that are dead. How many sales could there possibly be there? Not enough to give even a single shit. The IP isn't "damaged", ever, in those old console cases. Releasing an old game on a new modern system, ok, that might confuse people or cause a few lost sales. But a Flashback is an extended old system. Nobody cares.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

Why can't people be nice and do good things and stuff?

 

One word: money.

[LS_Dracon]

I aways think these C&D are from a lawyer who nobody care, that just want to show off and have some recognition in the company he works for.

Edited January 1, 2015 by LS_Dracon

[fujidude]

I really wish someone could explain this fantasy of "damage" with IP rights when dealing with old games like these. Specifically, how allowing a re-release of an old Atari 2600 version of a known game for a Flashback console could in any way affect the profits or sales of the company that currently holds the rights.

 

For example, the old Superman game. I don't care for it, I remember hating it as a kid. So what, it would be cool for a Flashback to have that (completists rejoice). But DC Comics would never, right? Why? What would happen? Would current existing or planned PC or console games based on the Superman franchise be affected in any way? No. There is no way that someone who was interested in buying a PlayStation 4 Superman game would now not buy it or like it less simply because some blocky, slow Atari 2600 game that already existed would be available new, again, on a console that he had no intention of purchasing (because he isn't into retro consoles) and probably wasn't even aware was for sale.

 

 

While I understand where you're coming from and even tend to agree with your assesments here, neither your OPINION or mine regarding this equates to fact. You do not know that people exposed in some way, be it 1st hand, through a friend, a blog, a short news mention, or even advertizing, to the old blocky and dorky retro versions of these games wouldn't somehow be less inclined to be swept up in the current fantasy and marketing.

 

In business, as with a lot of things in general, much comes down to cost-benefit and risk-potential. Let's say company executives believe there are likely to be very little anticipated revenue from allowing the old stuff to be re-released like that, but have concerns and worries about dampening the "magic" of current releases... then it is a real easy decision for them. Don't do it.

 

Now personally, I tend to agree with your way of thinking. I think that the oldies would not likely dampen enthusiasm for the new stuff in any way. In fact, I think it may even slightly increase interest in the new offerings. I think that because of the principle of increased exposure is generally good for sales, and because some people might be enthused about how cool of a game they could play now on their modern system that is made to take advantage of it. But that's just me. I'm no marketing expert. I'm just a guy with an opinion; just like you.

Edited January 1, 2015 by fujidude

[ledzep]

 

While I understand where you're coming from and even tend to agree with your assesments here, neither your OPINION or mine regarding this equates to fact. You do not know that people exposed in some way, be it 1st hand, through a friend, a blog, a short news mention, or even advertizing, to the old blocky and dorky retro versions of these games wouldn't somehow be less inclined to be swept up in the current fantasy and marketing.

 

In business, as with a lot of things in general, much comes down to cost-benefit and risk-potential. Let's say company executives believe there are likely to be very little anticipated revenue from allowing the old stuff to be re-released like that, but have concerns and worries about dampening the "magic" of current releases... then it is a real easy decision for them. Don't do it.

 

Now personally, I tend to agree with your way of thinking. I think that the oldies would not likely dampen enthusiasm for the new stuff in any way. In fact, I think it may even slightly increase interest in the new offerings. I think that because of the principle of increased exposure is generally good for sales, and because some people might be enthused about how cool of a game they could play now on their modern system that is made to take advantage of it. But that's just me. I'm no marketing expert. I'm just a guy with an opinion; just like you.

 

I agree. I'd just like to hear it from someone in the industry who had actual proof, repeatable, that such a danger exists and that their standard way of handling it that we've all seen happen is a solid solution. Not a belief, as you say, but actual data that here's what happened to us when an old version of a known title appeared and negatively affected our new title (financially and popularity-wise) until we got rid of the offending old title that was on an old, dead system that modern gamers gave not one shit about. I've never seen that, never even heard of that. All there is is, like you say, some legal jackasses believing that something like that could happen. Not anywhere near the same thing. So, actual evidence of cost-benefit and risk-potential, not guesses. Cease & desist orders, lawsuits have happened so often in the gaming world that you'd think that there would be some track record of proof by now. Yet there isn't.

[fujidude]

 

All there is is, like you say, some legal jackasses believing that something like that could happen. Not anywhere near the same thing. So, actual evidence of cost-benefit and risk-potential, not guesses. Cease & desist orders, lawsuits have happened so often in the gaming world that you'd think that there would be some track record of proof by now. Yet there isn't.

 

Cost benefit, risk and potential data requires marketing research. Marketing research costs money. If even just the cost of the research is likely to be more than the royalties off of a retro re-release, then again it is an easy decision for them. Again we're back to "don't do it."

 

So assuming that their fears are misplaced, as you, I, and some others here believe, it unfortunately takes money for them to get the data they need to be convinced. Guys like us are convinced enough just based on our personal experiences and intuitions. But then that's easy for us. We're arm chairing the whole thing and don't have any skin in the game we could lose.

 

It's frustrating isn't it?

[ledzep]

It's not always the actual software companies, though. From time to time you read articles by some 3rd-party group that decided to research something. Either with new tests or simply by gathering and interpreting existing data on sales or something. We see this from time to time with computer operating system claims, right? There are other groups out there that seem to care about data and trends in general. You'd think that by now one of them would have gone over this subject and revealed any trends or tendencies in the industry.

 

And, in the case(s) I'm talking about here, it doesn't really take any money for them to get an idea. It just takes a bit of history about prior examples that they didn't C & D or didn't stop immediately. Or the same data from a competitor. What happened financially and in terms of popularity when that company allowed (or simply didn't immediately stop) a classic version of one of their current IPs from being released on an old system? Was the new title affected? Did anybody even notice?

 

I do understand the concept of "If we let these guys get away with this now, everyone will think we're weak and that they can just take our shit and sell it anywhere, anytime!" The solution to that is, of course, case-by-case along with letting homebrew programmers of retro consoles or companies like AtGames that create new versions of retro consoles know that the current rights-holding software company is receptive to cool ideas that might please a few dozen or hundred retro fans while also paying the rights holders a tiny bit of money out of fairness. Case-by-case meaning that they would stop a version of Donkey Kong appearing that would have the gorilla raping the girl because that's not cool but wouldn't stop a 2600 version of Halo or Grand Theft Auto from being sold on carts to a few fans because that's kind of funny and cool and it would generate positive press about the modern versions. Most people aren't stupid, they can figure out when something is an actual threat to an IP and when something isn't. If I ran Sega, for example, I'd actually encourage someone to create ports of our old vector arcade games for the Vectrex. I'd have final approval, of course, but the buzz would get people talking about Sega even more. I might even have that programmer help out with creating new versions of Star Trek: SOS and Space Fury and whatever for modern platforms. In this specific fantasy case I'd do what I could to get that unreleased(?) game Battlestar finally out there, either on large boards that could be swapped into the few existing Sega cabinets that still exist or onto some consoles. Why not? How does that affect Sonic or other newer titles? It. Does. Not.

 

As an example of a company burning a little bit of money for some retro coolness that isn't part of their actual profit-generating plan, I refer to Panic Software and their cooler-than-ice goof on old Atari 2600 games.

 

http://www.panic.com/blog/panic-retro-art/

 

That is so cool that I actually paid real money to a software company that I have no interest in (don't own Apple hardware) to buy those 4 boxes and the posters of the box art. Cool as hell. Now, can anyone show that this little art department goof ruined Panic Software (needless expense)? Cost Atari money or possible sales (possible to trick people into thinking those games really exist)? Harmed the already out of business Electronic Games magazine or its former rights-holders (fake ad)? Damaged the reputation of the artist who made those 4 fake game box art paintings? Harmed any of the artists of real Atari box art paintings (similar style)? Here is a perfect example of how to do it right and also how doing it at all doesn't affect shit in terms of the actual company doing it or any of the companies referenced. Nobody cares in terms of damage. Only some retro fans like myself care in terms of buying that stuff or at least appreciating it. This is proof that allowing the original 2600 port of Space Invaders, for example, to be included in the new Flashback instead of the arcade port won't affect the IP in the least.

 

But, ya, it's frustrating as hell having short-sighted, dumb, greedy non-game-fans in charge of those decisions. Especially when they cannot in any way actually justify their stupid ass no-to-everything decisions.

[Andromeda Stardust]

@ledzep: LOL on the "Gorilla raping the girl" bit. I must confess I've seen far worse in Flash games featured on Newgrounds...

 

As far as actual damage to existing IP, this is very difficult to proove, and legally isn't even necessary. In fact sometimes the infringing content serves only to raise awareness (ie free advertising) of the parent company. It is why many companies tolerate fanart to the extent that it isn't obscene.

 

Regardless, A C&D order is more than enough to stop infringement from any person, company, or entity who can't afford the costs to hire lawyers to back themselves (which more often than not would lose the case anyway). It worked to get Princess Rescue pulled from the AA store after Nintendo got wind of a couple of "Super Mario 2600" reviews on sites like IGN or Katoku...