Jump to content
IGNORED

AtGames and Ms. Pac-Man Rights


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

It's weird how some people are turning this into reasons to personally hate a toy company. 

Literally why would I not hate them. Like the Ms. Pac buyout is one thing, but i’ve also had to deal with:

  • Falsely advertised Flashback Blast with NES games instead of arcade
  • Sega Genesis systems with sound playing in minor key
  • handheld Atari Flashback with the most uncomfortable joystick known to man
  • Bad clones of games (frogger and space invaders) instead of the real versions
  • Awful generic games included to inflate the game count in the menu
  • Games REPEATED to inflate the menu, NES bootleg-style
  • Consoles that wouldn’t play any sound on my TV

AtGames isn’t someone I trust. At all. Stretching the potential “good side” of AtGames means nothing to me; in my eyes, there isn’t one.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the guy isn't supposed to be representing the company as a whole but considering his immature responses and behavior, He kind of deserves flack. Moreso because other places he has been actively defending AtGames in general. I am honestly terrified for the future of the Pac-Man franchise in general moving forward. 

fuckyoutoomate.png

Quote

It's weird how some people are turning this into reasons to personally hate a toy company. 

There's still plenty of Nintendo fans who absolutely loathe Microsoft for what they did to Banjo Kazooie, man....

Edited by Mario123311
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've noticed that a number of new user accounts appear to have been created specifically for the purpose of writing abusive posts and threads about AtGames.  The posts in question have been removed, and the users blocked from the threads, and the same will be done in response to any further abusive behavior.  Nobody is trying to "defend" AtGames or to "protect" it from legitimate criticisms, but trolling by new users who are here solely for that reason is not acceptable.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, my reading of the Bandai Namco document suggests that they have the rights to Ms. Pac-Man and had to pay GCC royalties on rereleases. Bandai Namco was negotiating resolving the royalty structure entirely with the GCC successors when this happened, so I'm really wary of Atgames actually owning the rights to Ms. Pac-Man. It doesn't sound like those were GCC's to sell.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

I downloaded BNEA's legal complaint. The ownership is far from clear. I hope that this action will clarify things for the future. Here's the document. Bandai Namco complaint against AtGames Sept 2019.pdf

 

Been slogging through this and, yeah, while Namco is asserting ownership of Ms. Pac-Man in the complaint, I'm not finding much that details why they make that claim.  There is a statement to the effect of, 'we won it in a 1987 court case with Bally/Midway', but even then there's not much in there to substantiate that.  I'm guessing that the relevant documents would be entered into evidence.

 

What is interesting, however, is on page 2 of the complaint.  The words, "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED" appear in bold type.  To me, this smacks of Namco asking for a jury trial as a fail-safe: if the jury doesn't fully-grasp the development, licensing, and legal background surrounding the game, they may find in Namco's favour on the basis that Namco made Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man sure looks like Pac-Man, so Ms. Pac-Man must be Namco's property.

 

I'd really like to know the extent of the Bally/Midway / Namco legal settlement over the Pac-Man titles.  A good chunk of the titles released to the arcade between 1980 and 1987 weren't developed by Namco - Ms. Pac-Man, Pac-Man Plus, Baby Pac-Man, Professor Pac-Man, and Jr. Pac-Man (which I believe was also developed by GCC, but may not be remembering correctly) would all fall into this category.  It makes for some potentially-interesting questions regarding their current ownership.

Edited by x=usr(1536)
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

 

Been slogging through this and, yeah, while Namco is asserting ownership of Ms. Pac-Man in the complaint, I'm not finding much that details why they make that claim.  There is a statement to the effect of, 'we won it in a 1987 court case with Bally/Midway', but even then there's not much in there to substantiate that.  I'm guessing that the relevant documents would be entered into evidence.

 

What is interesting, however, is on page 2 of the complaint.  The words, "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED" appear in bold type.  To me, this smacks of Namco asking for a jury trial as a fail-safe: if the jury doesn't fully-grasp the development, licensing, and legal background surrounding the game, they may find in Namco's favour on the basis that Namco made Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man sure looks like Pac-Man, so Ms. Pac-Man must be Namco's property.

 

I'd really like to know the extent of the Bally/Midway / Namco legal settlement over the Pac-Man titles.  A good chunk of the titles released to the arcade between 1980 and 1987 weren't developed by Namco - Ms. Pac-Man, Pac-Man Plus, Baby Pac-Man, Professor Pac-Man, and Jr. Pac-Man (which I believe was also developed by GCC, but may not be remembering correctly) would all fall into this category.  It makes for some potentially-interesting questions regarding their current ownership.

It wasn't a court case - they made an agreement with Midway/GCC about Ms. Pac-Man in 1983, which was amended in 2008. In 1987 under that agreement Namco gained full ownership over Ms. Pac-Man (and I presume but can't confirm all the other Pac-Man games Midway made or published with their license). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, forgotusername said:

Literally why would I not hate them. Like the Ms. Pac buyout is one thing, but i’ve also had to deal with:

  • Falsely advertised Flashback Blast with NES games instead of arcade
  • Sega Genesis systems with sound playing in minor key
  • handheld Atari Flashback with the most uncomfortable joystick known to man
  • Bad clones of games (frogger and space invaders) instead of the real versions
  • Awful generic games included to inflate the game count in the menu
  • Games REPEATED to inflate the menu, NES bootleg-style
  • Consoles that wouldn’t play any sound on my TV

AtGames isn’t someone I trust. At all. Stretching the potential “good side” of AtGames means nothing to me; in my eyes, there isn’t one.

And yet, you kept buying their stuff.

flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1.j

FWIW, this is contract dispute. Even if all the armchair quarterbacks here had access to all the relevant documents, I bet most would have no experience in analyzing, let alone interpreting them correctly. That's beside the point as well, because attorneys will hash it out, and if that fails, a judge will rule on it. Nerds getting worked up on the internet really don't figure into it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Usotsuki said:

I was under the impression that GCC had given the rights to Midway as it was done under hire, and Namco pumped the rights out of Midway because it was a violation of their rights on the original game, meaning the rights should have been 100% with Namco. :o

GCC created the ms pacman hack before contacting Midway.  At the time it was known as Crazy Otto and did not infringe any of Namco copyrights.  After GCC contacted Midway, Namco got involved and they renamed it ms pacman and designed the new graphics that GCC implemented.  So GCC retained copyright on their portion of the code, Namco has copyrights on their portion of the code and the graphics, any new music and sound effects might have belonged to GCC.  My understanding is that in 1981 GCC and Namco got paid royalties by Midway and in Japan Namco paid royalties to GCC.  There were disputes, lawsuits, and another agreement in 1983.  Today, there is probably disagreement between GCC and Namco on who owns copyright on the GCC portion of ms pacman. 

 

Edit:

Even if there is no disagreement and Atgames bought GCC's ms pacman copyrights, Atgames still can't make a ms pacman without Namco's permission.

 

Having a quick look at the Namco claim, I'm not sure how much damages can result from Atgames making one prototype.  If there is a disagreement on GCC portion of copyright, this case might settle it.  Is Namco actually claiming to own copyrights of the original GCC portion?

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ubersaurus said:

Yeah, my reading of the Bandai Namco document suggests that they have the rights to Ms. Pac-Man and had to pay GCC royalties on rereleases. Bandai Namco was negotiating resolving the royalty structure entirely with the GCC successors when this happened, so I'm really wary of Atgames actually owning the rights to Ms. Pac-Man. It doesn't sound like those were GCC's to sell.

 

I have a hard time believing AtGames didn't know what they were buying. The press release is carefully phrased: "has acquired all the rights of General Computer Corporation (GCC) with respect to Ms. PAC-MAN". It doesn't say the rights to Ms. Pac Man. It says GCC's rights to Ms. Pac Man without clarifying what that means.

 

@Flojomojo personally I'm not picking sides in this fight but I'm really puzzled what AtGames' play is here. They have to know what they did and didn't buy and what they can and can't do with it. And it really looks they can't do much without Namco on board. You have to believe even if it had been GCC shopping around a prototype and talking like AGames did, Namco would be on their ass just as fast.

 

But people do have a point that the whole Blast bait and switch fiasco last year being a good enough reason to sue all by itself. I doubt there'd be many people giving AtGames the benefit of the doubt on that one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mr_me said:

If Namco owns all copyrights to ms pacman why did they make a new royalty agreement with GCC in 2008?

There's the brand and then there's the code which is the specific rendering of it. Probably Namco owns the brand (name, pics, etc.) but GCC owns the code. Like how Campbell's Soup owns the copyright to their can but Andy Warhol owns the right to his painting of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms pacman is an addon to a standard pacman game.  So Namco definitely owns part of the code copyright.  They also own copyright on the ms pacman graphics.  Not sure about the sound effects.  This is important because any versions created for other systems would not necessarily make use of GCC code and properties.  For example the nes version was likely free of any GCC royalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JaqenHghar said:

There's the brand and then there's the code which is the specific rendering of it. Probably Namco owns the brand (name, pics, etc.) but GCC owns the code. Like how Campbell's Soup owns the copyright to their can but Andy Warhol owns the right to his painting of it.

Would it basically not be more like the Ikegami Tsushinki/Nintendo/Donkey Kong thing?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JaqenHghar said:

 

Yeah Namco thought they had a lock on buying out GCC and they got sniped. They're sore. I think they're laying it on a bit thick as one tends to do in the opening volley of a lawsuit but two things do make me question AtGames judgment. 

 

First AtGames had a licensing deal with Namco already. Those things carry NDAs maybe non-competes so there's probably some provision in that license about not using privileged info to muscle in on their business. Swooping in and sniping a deal they probably knew was in progress probably counts as leveraging privileged info. Though to be fair if that were the case I would've expected the suit to say so.

 

Second, to be practical, it doesn't seem smart to be making a move that pisses off your new partner-in-ownership that you need to make any money off the thing you just bought.

 

So in both cases running afoul of Namco won't do AtGames any favors. Namco can just render their license worthless out of spite by vetoing every possible use. So ... what was AtGames thinking? Were they just hoping Namco would see the dollar signs from their backroom labors and deception and all would be forgiven?

 

Edit: mulling it some more, though, I could see a twisted logic to AtGame's move. If they've been told since 2012 "we can't give you Ms. Pac Man. The deal with GCC makes it complicated" AtGames might just say to themselves "well we'll buy out GCC and remove that obstacle." They probably see themselves as heros. Not realizing they just torpedoed Namco's own attempt to fix the problem.

I agree with most of what you said about AtGames pissing off a partner etc. but its my understanding the deal GCC had was for royalties only, which in no way includes rights to Ms Pac-Man, the game, IP, licensing etc.  

 

It strictly entitled GCC to receive royalties from Ms Pac-Man products, the extent of which I did not read into.  

 

So if AtGames had gotten a license from Bandai Namco to produce a Ms Pac-Man product, then Bandai Namco would have to pay AtGames their share of the royalties, or whatever the GCC agreement was. 

 

Still seems like a dick move either way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...