Activision Law Suit

[Darrik 0]

Since I'm so lazy, I'm copying this from Bob Greenberger's blog.

 

For the last few years, several mainstream media publications, including Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide, have run pieces trying to dissect what is wrong with the Star Trek franchise. Many of their theories overlapped, several of which I agreed with and several I felt were missing the point.

 

What was clear, though, was that Paramount's franchise was in trouble as ratings dipped, first on Voyager and then on Enterprise, coupled with the disastrous box office results of Nemesis.

 

The one developing story that I really wanted to see play out, though, just got settled out of court. Two years ago, Activision filed suit against Paramount, accusing them of ruining the franchise and therefore hurting Activision's ability to profit from games based on Nemesis.

 

In memory, this was the first time a licensee sued the licensor for harming the property. Had this gone to court, the arguments on both sides would have been, ahem, fascinating to observe.

 

Instead, the entire matter was avoided with a settlement that left the terms undisclosed.

 

Acitvision will go on making their games and Paramount has recently annoucned plans for an eleventh feature film, yet another look backwards to the origins of the Federation and Starfleet.

 

and from Allyn Gibson

 

I, too, was interested in this suit, largely because of the industry in which I work. Even now I get people asking, "What Star Trek games do you have?" To think, there was a time when we merchandised a special Star Trek section in our stores. Not now--there's nothing to stock.

 

Activision is something like the sixth or eighth largest video game publisher in the world. Activision got there through its movie licenses. Spider-Man 1 and 2. Shrek 2. Activision doesn't have a lot of original properties to exploit--the World War II shooter Call of Duty, Doom III, a few others--so they rely on IP licenses to move their games.

 

And that means striking while the iron is hot. And by that I mean, synergy. Simultaneous release of movie and game. Spider-Man. Shrek.

 

Other companies do it, too. Vivendi released the craptacular Van Helsing game simultaneous with the film. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King launched prior to the film's release, and was one of the most critically acclaimed games of 2003. Enter the Matrix launched alongside The Matrix Reloaded and, despite sucky gameplay, went on to be one of the best-selling games of 2003.

 

And then there's the synergy between the Star Wars films and their games. Republic Commando, in stores now, is billed as the prequal to Episode III, while there will be a rash of Episode III games in the next three months (including Lego Star Wars, the one I'm anticipating the most).

 

The games are, essentially, a coat-tail product, and the companies making them know that.

 

My understanding is that Activision's main complaint was that Paramount thwarted their plans to make a Nemesis game for simultaneous release with the film in 2002, leaving them with a sticker on the front of Starfleet Command III calling out Nemesis as coming soon to theaters which really helped no one cross-promote and cross-pollinate their products. I'm genuinely curious what kind of game Activision might have made to ride on the film's coat-tails. We'll never know.

 

Ultimately, Activision made a bad deal. They paid too much money for a franchise that, despite the best possible brand name recognition, wasn't exploitable in the gaming market in the same way that other licenses--Star Wars, Spider-Man, even the excretable Van Helsing--were. That's really what the lawsuit came down to. It wasn't so much about the franchise being broken, though that's the way it was reported in the media. It was about how the franchise was marketed.

[WxMurray 0]

I believe that Activision and Paramount have finally settled the suits. Yahoo News Article

[Vex Xiang 0]

I think Activision needs to stop the blame game (no pun intended) and look at their own developments. They come out with games like Starfleet Command that are so complex it takes a week to learn how to play it, with horribly slow gameplay...everything is about shooting and blowing up stuff. Its not that Paramount ruined the franchise, Activision hasnt developed games that appeal to Star Trek fans. Armada was a good game but again the only plot was to blow up the enemy.

[Ki'rok 0]

yeah...Armada was not very complex.......but it WAS fun.....

[Kansas_Jones 0]

The only Activision PC game (Trek) I have ever played is Elite Force 2. I am playing around with the idea of tracking down a PC copy of Star Fleet Command 3, but that may or may not happen.

 

As for Acitivision and Paramount? I wonder with the "ceasing of hostilities" if Paramount would be willing, as well as Activision, for Activision to take up the Trek game banner once again, despite it all.

 

<_< Gotta love franchise politics. Don't think too hard about it. It's safer. ;)

Edited March 22, 2005 by Kansas_Jones

[Vex Xiang 0]

I personally preferred the direction Interplay was going with its Trek games. Activision is just all about fast paced arcade...why cant anyone come up with a game where the primary goal isnt always just to destroy everything in your path? Even Elite Force was just Doom III with Star Trek graphics, and a bunch of cut scenes to resemble a plot. Ive never played BotF but then again I dont like turn-based games.

 

It would be nice to see an Armada type game where you actually have to build alliances and make peaceful treaties to build an empire, not just build quickly enough to kill the enemy on the other side of the map.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

In general, I think Activision created some very good games within the Star Trek market. I never caught on to the Starfleet Command genre, though I did purchase the original when it came out.

 

For me, I like games that are slightly more complex. The problem I had with the productions was the lack of depth. The article above mentions Star Wars. Well, those games actually have a certain depth to them and expandability Trek's creations just hasn't have.

 

As far as Interplay goes, I lost all respect for them a long time ago. When they cancelled, midway thru production Star Trek: The Secrets of Vulcan Forge (or something similiar in title) I was glad to see them lose the contract. To this day, there is sitting several hours worth of recorded audio by all of the original series actors (including Kelly, though he wasn't available for second round of recording) on some shelf no one has ever seen. The game had the potential to be an honest pure TOS game. Even now, some people (even a few folks from Activision in years gone by) questioned why the "product" was never sold because enough material existed to at least make a third person or first person game out of it.

 

As much as it pains me, I think the only hope Star Trek has is the under development massive multiplayer game. However, even here, there's already some serious questions being raised as to what depth it will offer people participating.

[Darrik 0]

It would be nice to see an Armada type game where you actually have to build alliances and make peaceful treaties to build an empire, not just build quickly enough to kill the enemy on the other side of the map.

that's why we have you. <_<

[Kansas_Jones 0]

As far as Interplay goes, I lost all respect for them a long time ago. When they cancelled, midway thru production Star Trek: The Secrets of Vulcan Forge (or something similiar in title) I was glad to see them lose the contract. To this day, there is sitting several hours worth of recorded audio by all of the original series actors (including Kelly, though he wasn't available for second round of recording) on some shelf no one has ever seen. The game had the potential to be an honest pure TOS game. Even now, some people (even a few folks from Activision in years gone by) questioned why the "product" was never sold because enough material existed to at least make a third person or first person game out of it.

 

That seems like such a waste. I remember being x cited regarding "Secret of Vulcans Fury", although at the time I didn't yet have a PC.

 

It's a shame some developer doesn't take "Secret of Vulcans Fury" and remake it again - already has the audio.

 

But then again, what are ya gonna do? Oh yeah - we're going to wait for Star Trek OnLine. <_<

[Vex Xiang 0]

I really think online gaming is the future...not necessarily in MMPORG (maybe because Ive never played one) but definately in internet-group play.

 

Well...until programmers come up with a human-like AI <_<

Edited March 23, 2005 by Vex Xiang

[Brian Graham 0]

That was one thing that dissappointed me in Bridge Commander, that even that game focused too much on conflict for my taste. That and how the members of the bridge crew would suggest the course of action to take instead of letting me tell them.

 

But, I guess it's kind of difficult to make the Star Trek game that I would like, where you actually get to scan and interact with instruments and figure out things with the plot instead of just being led along by the storyline that's been programmed into it.

[Connor 0]

I have to disagree with the assesment of Activision's games. Away Team didn't suck THAT much. THe rest is crap.