Jump to content

Photo

Coleco strong-arming homebrew publishers and fan sites


2014 replies to this topic

#376 Flojomojo ONLINE  

Flojomojo

    Up! Down! Up! Down!

  • 9,055 posts
  • Chu! Chu! Chu!

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 3:27 PM

 

 

 

I always enjoyed the Crazy Eddie commercials. Eddie himself died last year. I love this NYT obituary headline, calling him a "retailer and felon."



#377 ValkerieSilk OFFLINE  

ValkerieSilk

    Stargunner

  • 1,225 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 3:59 PM

 

Juice and Cardillo, eh?

Birds of a feather, fock together.

 

so true



#378 128Kgames OFFLINE  

128Kgames

    Dragonstomper

  • 726 posts
  • Victory is mine! I am the Worrior!
  • Location:The Dungeons of Wor

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 4:00 PM

 

I always enjoyed the Crazy Eddie commercials. Eddie himself died last year. I love this NYT obituary headline, calling him a "retailer and felon."

 

He was never a retailer in the sense that their stores were just fronts to scam banks out of money and eventually investors out of millions.  There is a great article or it might have been from a book that explains his whole scam, how they manipulated their store stock, and even the stuff they invented (scams).  I have to find the link to the story, it basically blew my mind as I used to practically live there as a kid, always looking at the new games, systems, computers etc.  Never had any idea what was really going on behind the scenes.  



#379 Northcoastgamer OFFLINE  

Northcoastgamer

    Dragonstomper

  • 875 posts
  • So many games, so little time!
  • Location:The Boro Ohio

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 4:44 PM

Yes, Eddie was quite the operator. I lived in NY for 15 years,through the 80's into the 90's. Him and Morton Downey Jr. were something to behold back in those days. Great TV. Part of my reasoning for posting that was to show that there have been other shady operators through the years, along with the false prophet and his minions that are being discussed here in this fascinating thread. This deceptive practice is nothing new, it's been going on for years and will continue to go on. It' just unfortunate that it has happened on the Colecovision scene, very depressing. But I take solace in the fact that this Forum has been quite busy past few days. Very good to see the passion of most folks, most notably  Robb along with Duggers potty mouth, Love it! I will continue to support the the homebrew community. "It's a never ending battle against the forces of evil".



#380 DuggerVideoGames OFFLINE  

DuggerVideoGames

    Moonsweeper

  • 408 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 6:18 PM

Yes, Eddie was quite the operator. I lived in NY for 15 years,through the 80's into the 90's. Him and Morton Downey Jr. were something to behold back in those days. Great TV. Part of my reasoning for posting that was to show that there have been other shady operators through the years, along with the false prophet and his minions that are being discussed here in this fascinating thread. This deceptive practice is nothing new, it's been going on for years and will continue to go on. It' just unfortunate that it has happened on the Colecovision scene, very depressing. But I take solace in the fact that this Forum has been quite busy past few days. Very good to see the passion of most folks, most notably  Robb along with Duggers potty mouth, Love it! I will continue to support the the homebrew community. "It's a never ending battle against the forces of evil".

I would trust Joe Isuzu before I ever trust Cardillo.



#381 mr_me OFFLINE  

mr_me

    Stargunner

  • 1,668 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 6:37 PM


...
(fun fact?)
I remember John Dondzila in the year 2000 told me that DACMAN wasn't my game and I shouldn't put a copyrights symbol on it. At first, I was angry because I felt being told that my codes are not mine. But, that's why the fixed version ( DACMAN v1.3 ) do not have the copyrights symbol.

...

Do you know John's reasoning in saying that. I would think that the code you wrote is copyright to you; unless it was Namco's code "ported", translated, or converted. If someone knows otherwise please advise. However, the graphics, music and sounds is copyright to Namco and that has to be respected. And your code is copyright to you with or without the copyright symbol.



#382 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • 10,195 posts
  • TI-99/4A Fanatic
  • Location:In the den playing with my FinalGROM 99!

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 7:05 PM

I would trust Joe Isuzu before I ever trust Cardillo.

 

Hey, I forgot about that dude.  He was a great (off the wall) pitchman.  Took the bad rep of car salesmen and turned it on it's head.



#383 Kosmic Stardust OFFLINE  

Kosmic Stardust

    Princess Rescuer

  • 14,860 posts
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 8:11 PM

Damn right.  They burned their bridges.

What bridge? There was never a bridge to begin with, as that would suggest there was some past friendship. Screw bridges! I say we build a wall and make them pay for it! :grin:



#384 cardo1 OFFLINE  

cardo1

    Star Raider

  • 50 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 8:33 PM

What are your thoughts?  
 
I believe that the following concept was posed by a few members:  The suggestion was that Coleco should publish a sort of ‘style guide.’  
 
I am sure that most people understand that no company can provide a 'universal open license.'  A style guide seems like a wonderful idea and compromise.  This is our thoughts on that.  Perhaps the community agrees.  
 
The purpose of the guide book would be to give suggestions and give general rules for the use of the ColecoVision marks.  The guidebook would make copy suggestions for home brew developers who do not seek to use the Coleco marks.  Essentially: This is Suggested, This is acceptable, This is prohibited.   The book would also lay out the process for those who wish to use the ColecoVision marks.  
 
Please note that despite public opinion, it is our goal to have as many games ‘officially licensed’ by Coleco as possible.  The guide would provide the do’s and don’ts of the game prior to requesting use of the mark.  For instance, we could lay out some of the hard and fast rules to what would not be approved.  For instance, games of third party IP would NOT be acceptable.   (Perhaps members of the community would like to be the reviewers).  
 
As a developer we understand that you may see the words ‘Licensed’ as ‘pay me’ , but we are more concerned with content of the games.  Chances are that if you are simply developing a game for the use on the ol’ system, then we would not request much more than the ‘ability to buy the game from you at cost,’ or ‘ability to produce the same games.’  Regardless, what we are really asking for is something formally written between Coleco and the developer that states, (in pretty simple language), we allow you to use the mark for the said game.   
 
Let’s look at the added benefits here
In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  
We will assist in generally promoting these games.  
We can cross market your games to other fans. 
 
Yes Yes we know that TPR is a master marketer.  I totally respect him for that.  Salute to him.  So he’s got you covered on that end.   
 
However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 
 
 
Additionally, we will be looking for developers to make games for larger scale future projects.  Currently we are working on two games.  On the first game, three of your own (who wish to remain out of this) programmed the game.  On another game, we are in talks with one of your own to place their game on a mini.  In each of these cases, the members have been provided agreements which provide fair market royalties.  
 
Working with the community was an intentional endeavor.   There are many development companies out there.  We chose to keep it in the family (before we were the wicked step child so to speak).
 
That being said, I am hoping that this post will generate constructive response in a positive direction.  Naturally, I will have to talk this over with the company.  Maybe members of the community will be willing to help construct such a guide this way, we are all on the same page.   
 
(PS I can guarantee you that there are misspellings in this post as well as grammatical errors- I concede that point off the bat).     


#385 opcode OFFLINE  

opcode

    River Patroller

  • 4,021 posts
  • Bringing new life to your ColecoVision!
  • Location:MA, USA

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:15 PM

 

Let’s look at the added benefits here
In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  
 

 

I should leave this alone but I can't go to sleep without asking...

Actually we have one "folk" pirating our games, you know his name because he has being helping you to make a case against Robb. So you will be protecting us from that individual now? Really? The same guy you could not agree in suspending further dealings with when I requested you to do so last year (during, you know, that project)? And now you are saying that you will be protecting us from him? Now that is interesting. Is he aware of that?

 

 

We will assist in generally promoting these games.  

We can cross market your games to other fans. 
 

 

 

However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 

 

!



#386 Bmack36 OFFLINE  

Bmack36

    Moonsweeper

  • 278 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:28 PM

Thanks for the response. I have highlighted a few point below.

 

The guidebook would make copy suggestions for home brew developers who do not seek to use the Coleco marks.  
I would concede that there will be games that do not seek the Coleco mark and those games will take whatever form or content the developer wishes. If the author is not seeking the Coleco mark, then Coleco would not have any control over the content.
 
Let’s look at the added benefits here
In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  
It would be nice to have a way to prevent this, BUT the people who are pirating them (including someone you are allegedly working with) do not care about any IP. There is nothing stopping them from the continued pirating of games with or without an official Trademark involved. So I don't think there is any added benefit here.
 
 
That being said, I am hoping that this post will generate constructive response in a positive direction.  Naturally, I will have to talk this over with the company.  Maybe members of the community will be willing to help construct such a guide this way, we are all on the same page.   
I think the only thing that could really move in a positive direction would be to rescind the trademark violations reported against the fan page. It should be clear now that the fan page is the wrong target of any of the allegations. Unless this is done, I highly doubt you will see any positive feedback from any interactions here.
 


#387 DuggerVideoGames OFFLINE  

DuggerVideoGames

    Moonsweeper

  • 408 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:33 PM

 

What are your thoughts?  
 
I believe that the following concept was posed by a few members:  The suggestion was that Coleco should publish a sort of ‘style guide.’  
 
I am sure that most people understand that no company can provide a 'universal open license.'  A style guide seems like a wonderful idea and compromise.  This is our thoughts on that.  Perhaps the community agrees.  
 
The purpose of the guide book would be to give suggestions and give general rules for the use of the ColecoVision marks.  The guidebook would make copy suggestions for home brew developers who do not seek to use the Coleco marks.  Essentially: This is Suggested, This is acceptable, This is prohibited.   The book would also lay out the process for those who wish to use the ColecoVision marks.  
 
Please note that despite public opinion, it is our goal to have as many games ‘officially licensed’ by Coleco as possible.  The guide would provide the do’s and don’ts of the game prior to requesting use of the mark.  For instance, we could lay out some of the hard and fast rules to what would not be approved.  For instance, games of third party IP would NOT be acceptable.   (Perhaps members of the community would like to be the reviewers).  
 
As a developer we understand that you may see the words ‘Licensed’ as ‘pay me’ , but we are more concerned with content of the games.  Chances are that if you are simply developing a game for the use on the ol’ system, then we would not request much more than the ‘ability to buy the game from you at cost,’ or ‘ability to produce the same games.’  Regardless, what we are really asking for is something formally written between Coleco and the developer that states, (in pretty simple language), we allow you to use the mark for the said game.   
 
Let’s look at the added benefits here
In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  
We will assist in generally promoting these games.  
We can cross market your games to other fans. 
 
Yes Yes we know that TPR is a master marketer.  I totally respect him for that.  Salute to him.  So he’s got you covered on that end.   
 
However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 
 
 
Additionally, we will be looking for developers to make games for larger scale future projects.  Currently we are working on two games.  On the first game, three of your own (who wish to remain out of this) programmed the game.  On another game, we are in talks with one of your own to place their game on a mini.  In each of these cases, the members have been provided agreements which provide fair market royalties.  
 
Working with the community was an intentional endeavor.   There are many development companies out there.  We chose to keep it in the family (before we were the wicked step child so to speak).
 
That being said, I am hoping that this post will generate constructive response in a positive direction.  Naturally, I will have to talk this over with the company.  Maybe members of the community will be willing to help construct such a guide this way, we are all on the same page.   
 
(PS I can guarantee you that there are misspellings in this post as well as grammatical errors- I concede that point off the bat).     

 

Go to hell.  The community has done everything they could to reach out and have a discussion; you're the ones that keep adding fuel to the fire with more dishonesty.



#388 opcode OFFLINE  

opcode

    River Patroller

  • 4,021 posts
  • Bringing new life to your ColecoVision!
  • Location:MA, USA

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:35 PM

Coleco, someone is saying he was pirating our games with your blessing, the same person that provided you evidence against Robb:

 

Image70.png

 

This is posted in your FB page. Can you please clarify?



#389 enoofu OFFLINE  

enoofu

    Dragonstomper

  • 753 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:37 PM

 

 

However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 

 

Even the major companies such as Sony Microsoft and Nintendo have trouble talking to licensing for old IP's especially if they from bankrupt companies



#390 Northcoastgamer OFFLINE  

Northcoastgamer

    Dragonstomper

  • 875 posts
  • So many games, so little time!
  • Location:The Boro Ohio

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:38 PM

 

What are your thoughts?  
 
I believe that the following concept was posed by a few members:  The suggestion was that Coleco should publish a sort of ‘style guide.’  
 
I am sure that most people understand that no company can provide a 'universal open license.'  A style guide seems like a wonderful idea and compromise.  This is our thoughts on that.  Perhaps the community agrees.  
 
The purpose of the guide book would be to give suggestions and give general rules for the use of the ColecoVision marks.  The guidebook would make copy suggestions for home brew developers who do not seek to use the Coleco marks.  Essentially: This is Suggested, This is acceptable, This is prohibited.   The book would also lay out the process for those who wish to use the ColecoVision marks.  
 
Please note that despite public opinion, it is our goal to have as many games ‘officially licensed’ by Coleco as possible.  The guide would provide the do’s and don’ts of the game prior to requesting use of the mark.  For instance, we could lay out some of the hard and fast rules to what would not be approved.  For instance, games of third party IP would NOT be acceptable.   (Perhaps members of the community would like to be the reviewers).  
 
As a developer we understand that you may see the words ‘Licensed’ as ‘pay me’ , but we are more concerned with content of the games.  Chances are that if you are simply developing a game for the use on the ol’ system, then we would not request much more than the ‘ability to buy the game from you at cost,’ or ‘ability to produce the same games.’  Regardless, what we are really asking for is something formally written between Coleco and the developer that states, (in pretty simple language), we allow you to use the mark for the said game.   
 
Let’s look at the added benefits here
In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  
We will assist in generally promoting these games.  
We can cross market your games to other fans. 
 
Yes Yes we know that TPR is a master marketer.  I totally respect him for that.  Salute to him.  So he’s got you covered on that end.   
 
However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 
 
 
Additionally, we will be looking for developers to make games for larger scale future projects.  Currently we are working on two games.  On the first game, three of your own (who wish to remain out of this) programmed the game.  On another game, we are in talks with one of your own to place their game on a mini.  In each of these cases, the members have been provided agreements which provide fair market royalties.  
 
Working with the community was an intentional endeavor.   There are many development companies out there.  We chose to keep it in the family (before we were the wicked step child so to speak).
 
That being said, I am hoping that this post will generate constructive response in a positive direction.  Naturally, I will have to talk this over with the company.  Maybe members of the community will be willing to help construct such a guide this way, we are all on the same page.   
 
(PS I can guarantee you that there are misspellings in this post as well as grammatical errors- I concede that point off the bat).     

 

    What a piece of work you are. Can't start off by apologizing to TPR, Instead you spew more venomous propaganda BS. Now you want to go in a "positive direction" after you began in a negative one. You want to "be on the same page". What a joke. You should be ashamed. You are not Coleco, you are not Colecovision, never will be and you certainly did not originate the Cabbage Patch Kids! I along with numerous others here won't buy anything that has anything to do with Coleco Holdings. I never thought I'd see the day when I would come across a bigger BSer than my brother.



#391 DuggerVideoGames OFFLINE  

DuggerVideoGames

    Moonsweeper

  • 408 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:39 PM

Coleco, someone is saying he was pirating our games with your blessing, the same person that provided you evidence against Robb:

 

attachicon.gifImage70.png

 

This is posted in your FB page. Can you please clarify?

This ought to be good.  Can't wait to see what B.S. Coleco slings next...



#392 NIAD OFFLINE  

NIAD

    Quadrunner

  • 5,730 posts
  • Location:Chicago Suburb

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:41 PM

 

What are your thoughts?  
 
I believe that the following concept was posed by a few members:  The suggestion was that Coleco should publish a sort of ‘style guide.’  
 
I am sure that most people understand that no company can provide a 'universal open license.'  A style guide seems like a wonderful idea and compromise.  This is our thoughts on that.  Perhaps the community agrees.  
 
The purpose of the guide book would be to give suggestions and give general rules for the use of the ColecoVision marks.  The guidebook would make copy suggestions for home brew developers who do not seek to use the Coleco marks.  Essentially: This is Suggested, This is acceptable, This is prohibited.   The book would also lay out the process for those who wish to use the ColecoVision marks.  
 
Please note that despite public opinion, it is our goal to have as many games ‘officially licensed’ by Coleco as possible.  The guide would provide the do’s and don’ts of the game prior to requesting use of the mark.  For instance, we could lay out some of the hard and fast rules to what would not be approved.  For instance, games of third party IP would NOT be acceptable.   (Perhaps members of the community would like to be the reviewers).  
 
As a developer we understand that you may see the words ‘Licensed’ as ‘pay me’ , but we are more concerned with content of the games.  Chances are that if you are simply developing a game for the use on the ol’ system, then we would not request much more than the ‘ability to buy the game from you at cost,’ or ‘ability to produce the same games.’  Regardless, what we are really asking for is something formally written between Coleco and the developer that states, (in pretty simple language), we allow you to use the mark for the said game.   
 
Let’s look at the added benefits here
In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  
We will assist in generally promoting these games.  
We can cross market your games to other fans. 
 
Yes Yes we know that TPR is a master marketer.  I totally respect him for that.  Salute to him.  So he’s got you covered on that end.   
 
However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 
 
 
Additionally, we will be looking for developers to make games for larger scale future projects.  Currently we are working on two games.  On the first game, three of your own (who wish to remain out of this) programmed the game.  On another game, we are in talks with one of your own to place their game on a mini.  In each of these cases, the members have been provided agreements which provide fair market royalties.  
 
Working with the community was an intentional endeavor.   There are many development companies out there.  We chose to keep it in the family (before we were the wicked step child so to speak).
 
That being said, I am hoping that this post will generate constructive response in a positive direction.  Naturally, I will have to talk this over with the company.  Maybe members of the community will be willing to help construct such a guide this way, we are all on the same page.   
 
(PS I can guarantee you that there are misspellings in this post as well as grammatical errors- I concede that point off the bat).     

 

If you would have CUT AND PASTED the retraction letter that TPR wrote for you and sent it to Facebook like you obviously cut and pasted this message from your word processor.... a lot of this BS could have been squashed.

 

It's too late now, you have shown your true colors.



#393 TPR OFFLINE  

TPR

    Stargunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 1,545 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:42 PM

This is a completely rational and respectable post. It's a shame this way of thinking wasn't presented days ago to avoid all of what has transpired since.

That being said I'm still waiting for the email that would retract the claims on my page that were wrongly targeted at me.

Wouldn't it be nice for me to be able to report that Coleco worked toward resolving that issue?

That is all I have asked for this entire time. Nothing else.

Your move.


What are your thoughts?  

 

I believe that the following concept was posed by a few members:  The suggestion was that Coleco should publish a sort of style guide.  

 

I am sure that most people understand that no company can provide a 'universal open license.'  A style guide seems like a wonderful idea and compromise.  This is our thoughts on that.  Perhaps the community agrees.  

 

The purpose of the guide book would be to give suggestions and give general rules for the use of the ColecoVision marks.  The guidebook would make copy suggestions for home brew developers who do not seek to use the Coleco marks.  Essentially: This is Suggested, This is acceptable, This is prohibited.   The book would also lay out the process for those who wish to use the ColecoVision marks.  

 

Please note that despite public opinion, it is our goal to have as many games officially licensed by Coleco as possible.  The guide would provide the dos and donts of the game prior to requesting use of the mark.  For instance, we could lay out some of the hard and fast rules to what would not be approved.  For instance, games of third party IP would NOT be acceptable.   (Perhaps members of the community would like to be the reviewers).  

 

As a developer we understand that you may see the words Licensed as pay me , but we are more concerned with content of the games.  Chances are that if you are simply developing a game for the use on the ol system, then we would not request much more than the ability to buy the game from you at cost, or ability to produce the same games.  Regardless, what we are really asking for is something formally written between Coleco and the developer that states, (in pretty simple language), we allow you to use the mark for the said game.   

 

Lets look at the added benefits here

In the absence of this organization, we have folks making games and other folks pirating them.  Such a process would prevent that from occurring.  

We will assist in generally promoting these games.  

We can cross market your games to other fans. 

 

Yes Yes we know that TPR is a master marketer.  I totally respect him for that.  Salute to him.  So hes got you covered on that end.   

 

However,  we have relationships with many other companies and may be able to connect your games with other projects that those companies are working on.  In one of the posts along the way JF mentions how difficult it is to get ahold of the companies in order to talk licensing.  We do not have this problem. 

 

 

Additionally, we will be looking for developers to make games for larger scale future projects.  Currently we are working on two games.  On the first game, three of your own (who wish to remain out of this) programmed the game.  On another game, we are in talks with one of your own to place their game on a mini.  In each of these cases, the members have been provided agreements which provide fair market royalties.  

 

Working with the community was an intentional endeavor.   There are many development companies out there.  We chose to keep it in the family (before we were the wicked step child so to speak).

 

That being said, I am hoping that this post will generate constructive response in a positive direction.  Naturally, I will have to talk this over with the company.  Maybe members of the community will be willing to help construct such a guide this way, we are all on the same page.   

 

(PS I can guarantee you that there are misspellings in this post as well as grammatical errors- I concede that point off the bat).     



#394 enoofu OFFLINE  

enoofu

    Dragonstomper

  • 753 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:47 PM

 Chinese Proverb: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.



#395 DuggerVideoGames OFFLINE  

DuggerVideoGames

    Moonsweeper

  • 408 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:48 PM

The so-called "Coleco" people are not very bright.  As I said before:  if you have a PR team at all, your entire team should be fired (starting with yourselves).  You went the extra mile in not only alienating the community, but your entire potential market (which is the aforementioned community).  You were pigheaded throughout the entire process and only pretend to care about peace now that you realize you're up shit creek in regards to image and damage control.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; that's a maxim you apparently are not familiar with.  Enjoy the damage you've created to your "brand".



#396 TPR OFFLINE  

TPR

    Stargunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 1,545 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:50 PM

If you would have CUT AND PASTED the retraction letter that TPR wrote for you and sent it to Facebook like you obviously cut and pasted this message from your word processor.... a lot of this BS could have been squashed.
 
It's too late now, you have shown your true colors.


What can I say? I made it so easy for them. They could have avoided all of this in seconds with a few keystrokes and clicks and this thread wouldn't have even existed. But in a way, I'm glad it did. As you said "true colors."

I do not feel bad about what has transpired.

#397 NIAD OFFLINE  

NIAD

    Quadrunner

  • 5,730 posts
  • Location:Chicago Suburb

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 9:50 PM

Heh, we are only 2050 topics and 83,001 posts behind the Intellivision Forum. Me thinks these threads dealing with all this should help close the gap rather quickly.

 

Look out Rev!!!



#398 DuggerVideoGames OFFLINE  

DuggerVideoGames

    Moonsweeper

  • 408 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 10:00 PM

In response to Coleco's long-winded emptiness:

1.  Those not seeking to use the Coleco marks don't need to adhere to any guidelines; the developers can create whatever content they wish to create.  Either you're just clueless morons or you're trying to scare them into thinking you can control them.

2.  You can cross-market their games to OTHER FANS?  SCREW YOU.  Why would they want your so-called "help" with anything after seeing the way you botched interactions with the community?  These developers and the community have way more followers than YOU have!  I'd say they're doing quite fine without your "help".



#399 Northcoastgamer OFFLINE  

Northcoastgamer

    Dragonstomper

  • 875 posts
  • So many games, so little time!
  • Location:The Boro Ohio

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 10:08 PM

I find it utterly absurd that he couldn't man up and post a public apology to Robb to start off with. Instead he posts and acts like we're all good friends, hes part of the community and nothing happened! Mind blowing to say the least. I agree with Opcode, it's time for something new.



#400 cardo1 OFFLINE  

cardo1

    Star Raider

  • 50 posts

Posted Tue May 23, 2017 10:09 PM

Do the violation affect the Facebook page?  It seems as though the page is up and thriving (as many of you pointed out).    






2 user(s) are browsing this forum

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users