Xot Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Wow, that retro panic artwork, especially the one with Hulk Hogan in the TV, is by far the coolest thing I've seen this year. If only I had room for more posters! I might have to snag those boxes, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff20 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 As I wrote in post 12, this case seems to not demonstrate resistance by Taito; evidence seems to point to Rick Maurer, the 2600 Space Invaders programmer. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzep Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I think that I'm surprised that he'd have any say. Wasn't he contracted to make a game for Atari back in the '80s? And he was paid for it? Unless there's some amazing contract that Atari signed that stated that he owned the rights to that game I can't believe that he's legally in any position to tell Atari anything, no moreso than any other Atari programmer. I mean, certainly the Activision guys could have stopped Atari from distributing or selling any games they worked on, right? Especially back in the day when they left on not great terms I would think that that's one thing they could get if Maurer could get it after, when Atari would have been far more wary of programmers demanding things. I mean, the Activision guys mostly just wanted personal recognition (their names on the games). And to get paid, of course. But how could a guy who was presumably paid to supply a game and supplied that game expect anything more? Can I demand royalties for every effect I worked on in every movie I did special effects in? I don't think so. If Maurer has that kind of pull then he must be a hero amongst classic Atari programmers/employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff20 Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 I think that I'm surprised that he'd have any say. Wasn't he contracted to make a game for Atari back in the '80s? And he was paid for it? Unless there's some amazing contract that Atari signed that stated that he owned the rights to that game I can't believe that he's legally in any position to tell Atari anything, no moreso than any other Atari programmer. I mean, certainly the Activision guys could have stopped Atari from distributing or selling any games they worked on, right? Especially back in the day when they left on not great terms I would think that that's one thing they could get if Maurer could get it after, when Atari would have been far more wary of programmers demanding things. I mean, the Activision guys mostly just wanted personal recognition (their names on the games). And to get paid, of course. But how could a guy who was presumably paid to supply a game and supplied that game expect anything more? Can I demand royalties for every effect I worked on in every movie I did special effects in? I don't think so. If Maurer has that kind of pull then he must be a hero amongst classic Atari programmers/employees. The basic story I found online is: Maurer was paid $11k. The game earned over 100 million. He never made another game for Atari. This made me think there could have been some contention like a lawsuit following Space Invaders. My theory could be debunked by the fact that he programmed Maze Craze prior. I believe Maze Craze appears on all remakes. It was just an idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhd Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 There are no reported (i.e. formally published in the law reports) decisions involving Maurer and Atari, but that is not determinative as it may have settled or simpy not formally reported. Only a small fraction of final decisions ever get into the law reports; usually only from appellate courts. As Ledzep correctly noted, unless there is a specific contract term that provides otherwise, work created "for hire" belongs to the employer. Given the state of the video game industry in the early-1980s, it is very unlikely that Maurer's contract would have provided for any ownership in anything that he created while working for Atari. (Modern employment agreements may be different; I do not work in the industry, so I cannot comment on this point.) An illustrative example is what happened to Gorf for the Jaguar: (as I understand it), the original programmer of the arcade game gave permission for the remake. That person had no ownership of the rights to the game, so they could not give permission/license those non-existent rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+bcombee Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think it's just Taito wanting the best representation of Space Invaders out there. If some kid picks up a Flashback 4 or 5 without knowing anything about Atari history, she'll see a more modern implementation of SI and think it's an awesome game. Since Space Invaders is still being marketed and licensed out as part of popular culture, having something that looks like all those stickers and t-shirts is a plus for Konami. Having the original Atari version where the invaders looked different and didn't act just like their arcade version isn't a benefit to Taito and dilutes the value of their IP. I'd prefer the 2600 implementation, but don't see having a modern version as a negative... it's just incongruous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LS650 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 It would have been nice if Taito had agreed to have the best of both worlds - and had allowed both the arcade-clone and the 2600 version to be included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_mike Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) One word: money. It's not money. If it were about money, rights holders would want their products released everywhere they could to reap every penny they could. sow. If it was about money, Disney wouldn't sell DVD's of their movies only in certain "windows" of time to create artificial demand and hype for their products. They'd sell them all the time to get every dollar they could. Disney is deliberately forgoing guaranteed income to exert some more power and control over the market. It's about power and control. They want the power to determine who and how "their" products get used, and they want to control what the user experiences and how they get to experience "their" product. The can establish and control "their" territory and exert dominance over their territory in "their" way. That way they can protect "their" property and brand from being somehow "damaged" by being used in an "unauthorized" way that might diminish its value over time. Now, how much value, really does a 35 year old port of Space Invaders really have? Not much, if any, but that's being rational and logical. Taito is probably thinking of the Space Invaders brand as a whole, which makes them little money, but does give them some prestige value, I guess. Still, it's ridiculous. The Atari port of Space Invaders is in many ways better than the arcade version. Maybe they don't want to be upstaged. I don't know. It's a bunch of BS, really... but, that's the dominant paradigm in the intellectual property world--power and control. Otherwise, how can they extort license fees if they don't act like jerks about it? I've dealt with that world a lot over the years. It's extremely annoying. Lots or rights holders will deliberately forgo income in order to maintain or exert power and control over their "property" or brand. Edited January 9, 2015 by lord_mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff20 Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 This is all making sense to me now. It would have been nice if Taito had agreed to have the best of both worlds - and had allowed both the arcade-clone and the 2600 version to be included. I completely agree! It could have been renamed or hidden. And the arcade port would still be in the spotlight. They should have known the consumer for this product and how IP might actually suffer because this is not te Space Invaders I remember. It doesn't trigger find memories that would solidify brand loyalty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 The fact that the arcade version of Space Invaders (and not the 2600 version) on a console that is allegedly an Atari 2600 "flashback" is a glaring incongruity. It reminds you that (UNLIKE THE "Curt" Flashback 2) you're NOT playing a 2600 at all, and just some generic emulator system. Well, in that case, the sky's the limit, and let's have a some sort of MAME-type emulator system, ***OR*** let's have an actual Atari 2600 system, but not some seemingly-random bastard child of the both of them. What's the point? When are the MAME flashbacks coming, if they're going to be doing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAA177 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Please forgive me, I did not read through this entire thread. But I read the first few posts, and I would like to offer my theory as to why things like Superman 2600, and something like licensed NES games (Ghostbusters, as an example) don't appear on Virtual Console or the Flashback. This may have already been stated, sorry if it has (and if it has, please let me know, I just didn't have the inclination this evening to read every word of the thread; I will try to do so at another time). I've thought about this again and again because I would love to play something like "The Blues Brothers" for NES on Virtual Console. Here's the issue, I think. The rights-holders are big companies (usually); and even if they aren't, the following comes into play: they want a huge advance to license the game. Why? Two reasons: First, a huge advance would represent a big investment on the part of the licensees. That way, the licensees will work hard to get sales and hopefully, for the licensors, they will start to earn money beyond the advance. Second, if say Nintendo just listed the entire NES catalog on the Virtual Console and only paid a royalty against a small advance (or no advance), then the licensor would feel taken. The risk shifts from Nintendo to the licensor (what the perceived risk would be I don't know, brand dilution?). Nintendo gets the value of presenting a large selection to the gamer while the licensee gets a small stream of royalties (or zero if the game does not do well). How to solve this? Don't know, except to say, in the case of Ghostbusters, maybe Nintendo or Flashback could promote the fact that the game is on there for free on their websites, and in other media, as a way of stoking interest in current Ghostbusters merchandise and the upcoming reboot. It could sell the placement of the game as essentially free promotion, a marketing technique. And of course there would be royalties. Perhaps Disney could allow placement of the Parker Bros. Star Wars title on an upcoming Flashback for the promo value (I assume Lucasfilm owns the rights to the source code? How does that angle of this discussion work? Is it Parker Bros.?). Interestingly, on the Virtual Console you do see Super Star Wars for SNES and Indiana Jones' Greatest Hits. I think that explanation is, if I recall correctly, Nintendo actually owned the publishing rights to those titles. I don't really know, though. By the way, I would love to play Superman on the 2600 again. Game was great. I wish I hadn't sold that cartridge years ago. I can't find a new copy of it. Edited January 10, 2015 by AAA177 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAA177 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 One quick thing to add to what I wrote: in the case of something like Ghostbusters, it probably would be a nightmare since there must be a lot of individuals who participate in the merchandise royalty stream, thus making an advance that much larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff20 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Please forgive me, I did not read through this entire thread. But I read the first few posts, and I would like to offer my theory as to why things like Superman 2600,... It seems like you may have just skimmed that word. Why is everyone discussing Superman? We all understand the absence of an IP (especially that one). The point of inquiry is the use of the arcade Space Invaders over the 2600 port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAA177 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Please forgive me, it's sometimes hard to tell in forums, but assuming you're not being humorous, the reason I brought up Superman is it was being used as an example about IP licensing issues. It seemed to be mentioned several times. I read your initial post -- I guess the thread evolved a bit. Is there any way to contact the programmer to ask, by the way, your question, or did you already try that (and I missed you mentioning it)? Funny, I never was a big "Space Invaders" fan. It was "Asteroids" at the arcade that started my interest in video games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulBlazer Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It seems like you may have just skimmed that word. Why is everyone discussing Superman? We all understand the absence of an IP (especially that one). The point of inquiry is the use of the arcade Space Invaders over the 2600 port. It's not just Space Invaders, it's the same thing with Jungle Hunt and....oh crap, there's another Taito game on there, a war game, whose name is escaping me right now. All three play like the arcade versions -- the term used actually is 'reprogramed'. I haven't heard either way, but I'd bet my paycheck on the fact that Taito didn't want the 2600 versions used for some reason so they went with the reprogramed ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Usotsuki Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Could be a side effect of being owned by Squeenix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Of 2600 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Damn, you guys are very knowledgeable and are having some excellent back and forth dialogue. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff20 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Please forgive me, it's sometimes hard to tell in forums, but assuming you're not being humorous, the reason I brought up Superman is it was being used as an example about IP licensing issues. It seemed to be mentioned several times. I read your initial post -- I guess the thread evolved a bit. Is there any way to contact the programmer to ask, by the way, your question, or did you already try that (and I missed you mentioning it)? Funny, I never was a big "Space Invaders" fan. It was "Asteroids" at the arcade that started my interest in video games. Hey, sorry about my brevity; I really didn't mean that to sound unfriendly. I just thought that the word Superman would probably stand out to nerds like us. haha. I found the revision of Space Invaders to be more odd than the omission of other IPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) By the way, I would love to play Superman on the 2600 again. Game was great. I wish I hadn't sold that cartridge years ago. I can't find a new copy of it. YES. I hear so many negative comments about this game, I often feel as though I'm the only one who enjoys it. Side note, I know almost NOTHING about Superman, except for his super powers which I always looked down upon. He just seems TOO perfect. He has like EVERY superpower and then some of most superhero TEAMS combined into himself. Unless the bad guys wear kryptonite suits of armor, wielding kryptonite weapons, and shooting kryptonite ballistics... why even bother trying??? However, I caught the second half of Superman III on TV the other day, I tuned to it during the scene where Superman is getting drunk in the bar smashing bottles with Peanuts and I must say I liked what I saw, I think its stupid they were trying to hit Superman with missiles because, as stated about his powers, he can basically stand at ground zero of an atomic blast and walk away unscathed... but still it seemed like a fun flick and I wish I'd have seen the whole thing from the start, I think I'm gonna watch the classic Superman movies soon, I may have been missing out all these years. Now... this thread was about IP rights or something I think... Edited January 11, 2015 by Torr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LS650 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I think that Superman 2600 has a lot of fans - I know I really enjoy it. They should include it on the 2600 Flashback and just rename it 'Hyper Powers Guy' so they don't get sued by DC Comics or whomever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.