Chain Reaction - Durrell or Elite as publisher?

[Rorthron]

Per this thread, the publisher of Chain Reaction should be Durell, not Elite:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10172

[StooB]

Per this thread, the publisher of Chain Reaction should be Durell, not Elite:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10172

The game is by Durell but the publisher is still Elite Systems.

[Rorthron]

The game is by Durell but the publisher is still Elite Systems.

Under the Durell brand.

US Gold published Martianoids under the Ultimate brand, and that is listed as published by Ultimate.

It seems to me the brand used for publishing is the only practical way to decide on the publisher. Trying to use the ultimate legal owners is beset with difficulties: they are difficult, and even impossible, to identiy; they change over time; etc. Using the name on the box is much more practical: simple, (usually) uncontroversial and, most importantly, leading to results that seem intuitive. It avoids the sort of confusion in the Durell games thread.

[StooB]

Trying to use the ultimate legal owners is beset with difficulties

It may be, but if the legal owner is one that denies distribution like Elite Systems, then these details need to be 100% accurate rather than "intuitive".

[Rorthron]

It may be, but if the legal owner is one that denies distribution like Elite Systems, then these details need to be 100% accurate rather than "intuitive".

Are you willing to undertake the necessary research to amend all the database entries on this basis? How will you handle situations where the ownership changed? Does it really deliver any benefit? Chain Reaction says Durell all over the cover without any mention of Elite. I would guess the vast majority of people would consider it a Durell game.

[StooB]

Are you willing to undertake the necessary research to amend all the database entries on this basis? How will you handle situations where the ownership changed? Does it really deliver any benefit? Chain Reaction says Durell all over the cover without any mention of Elite. I would guess the vast majority of people would consider it a Durell game.

Chain Reaction's cover has Elite's address on it and (C) Elite Systems on it. It wasn't published by Durell Software of Somerset, who continue to exist to his day.

[Rorthron]

Chain Reaction's cover has Elite's address on it and (C) Elite Systems on it. It wasn't published by Durell Software of Somerset, who continue to exist to his day.

Chain Reaction's cover does not, unless I am mistaken, mention Elite at all. It does carry an address, but without naming the company to which it relates. It has three huge Durell logos on it.

The key point, however, is that it is not consistent to describe Martianoids as by Ultimate and Chain Reaction as by Elite. Since I believe the overwhelming majority of entries follow the Martianoids approach, it seems easier to change Elite to Durell. I personally think the other reasons I mentioned also favour such an approach. But if someone wants to revise the database in accordance with your suggestion, go ahead. It would perhaps be best to retain the existing information as Publisher Brand, and add the new as Publisher Legal Entity.

[StooB]

The key point, however, is that it is not consistent to describe Martianoids as by Ultimate and Chain Reaction as by Elite. Since I believe the overwhelming majority of entries follow the Martianoids approach, it seems easier to change Elite to Durell.

It's not consistent because it's a different situation. US Gold took over the running of the Ultimate brand like Ocean bought the Imagine label. Elite did not take over Durell and run it as a label, Durell simply sold the rights to their games to them and Elite published them.

[Rorthron]

It's not consistent because it's a different situation. US Gold took over the running of the Ultimate brand like Ocean bought the Imagine label. Elite did not take over Durell and run it as a label, Durell simply sold the rights to their games to them and Elite published them.

Elite did operate Durell as a brand, as Chain Reaction shows.

Ultimate also simply sold the rights to their games and US Gold published them.

Plus all the other points I made.

[StooB]

Elite did operate Durell as a brand, as Chain Reaction shows.

Putting the logo of the developer on a one-off release does not make it a brand.

Ultimate also simply sold the rights to their games to them and US Gold piblished them.

Incorrect. Ashby Computers & Graphics Ltd owned all of Ultimate's games, they didn't sell the rights to anyone. They maintained a majority stake in Ultimate throughout the US Gold deal.

[Rorthron]

Branding the game Durell throughout (and not Elite) is exactly what a branded release looks like.

As for your claims about legal distictions, do you have any reliable sources to support your assertions?

As far as I understand it, Ultimate sold the rights to their games to US Gold, then reacquired them later.

Also they couldn't hold a majority stake in Ultimate, as Ultimate was a brand, not a company.

[Rorthron]

This whole, increasingly tedious, discussion about legal details we know very little about illustrates precisely why the legal-entity route is just opening a can of worms.

[StooB]

As for your claims about legal distictions, do you have any reliable sources to support your assertions?

As far as I understand it, Ultimate sold the rights to their games to US Gold, then reacquired them later.

Also they couldn't hold a majority stake in Ultimate, as Ultimate was a brand, not a company.

There were major features on Ultimate in CRASH and The Games Machine in 1988, both can be easily accessed from this page.

The fact that your understanding was wrong, based on repeated mis-information that Ultimate "sold the rights to their games", illustrates precisely why we should be using accurate information when we have it.

[Rorthron]

So no evidence, then.

If you do believe you have evidence, please cite it. Vague "I-seem-to-recall-an-article" statements don't cut it. And to link to literally every single Ultimate article, review and advert as a source is - let's keep this polite - a bit off.

For contrary evidence, see this link.

[StooB]

So no evidence, then.

If you do believe you have evidence, please cite it. Vague "I-seem-to-recall-an-article" statements don't cut it. And to link to literally every single Ultimate article, review and advert as a source is - let's keep this polite - a bit off.

I cited exactly where the information is. Trying to claim I didn't is - to use your words - a bit off.

There were major features on Ultimate in CRASH and The Games Machine in 1988.

The CRASH feature quotes: "we're still the majority shareholders in Ultimate", p16.
The Games Machine states they "sold off a minority interest of Ultimate to US Gold" in the very first paragraph.

[R-Tape]

Posts moved from little bugs to their own thread, as the chat went beyond a concise fix.

EDIT - done. Jeez I made a meal of that, and I spelt Durell wrong. Apologies all round.

Let's lay out our points and Einar can decide. It's possible there's already a note relating to this in the DB? Maybe it was changed for a given reason?

[redballoon]

I suppose an equivalent could be Virgin Mastertronic. You've got the likes of Dan Dare 3 and Golden Axe released under the Virgin Games label and, say, Psycho Hopper released under the Mastertronic Plus label. While technically the same, at no point would I expect to see Psycho Hopper listed next to Dan Dare 3 and Golden Axe if I was listing games by Virgin Gsmes...

[StooB]

I suppose an equivalent could be Virgin Mastertronic. You've got the likes of Dan Dare 3 and Golden Axe released under the Virgin Games label and, say, Psycho Hopper released under the Mastertronic Plus label. While technically the same, at no point would I expect to see Psycho Hopper listed next to Dan Dare 3 and Golden Axe if I was listing games by Virgin Games...

It's nowhere near as complicated as the Virgin Mastertronic situation.

In this case, Company A sold an unreleased game to Company B and Company B published it.

Whether the publisher is listed as Durell and/or Elite, it's still going to need an explanatory note to explain why an Durell game has been released in Elite-style packaging with their name and address on.

So you either have:
Publisher: Elite Systems Ltd
Remarks: An unreleased Durell game published by Elite Systems.
(which is factually correct)

or

Publisher: Durell Software Ltd
Remarks: An unreleased Durell game published by Elite Systems.
(which is contradictory)

or use joint publishers as the case of late A'n'F games like Agent Orange where they had Argus Press do their sales and marketing (like Chain Reaction, it has the A'n'F logo but Argus Press's address):

Publisher: Durell Software Ltd / Elite Systems Ltd
Remarks: An unreleased Durell game published by Elite Systems.
(which is not entirely correct, but consistent with similar cases)

[Rorthron]

I cited exactly where the information is. Trying to claim I didn't is - to use your words - a bit off.

You linked to the archive's entire contents for Ultimate. That's not exact. Anyone can click on your link to confirm the veracity of my statement, so I don't see any point in debating this further.

Since you haven't explained which issues you mean, could you give the issue numbers, so that I can read them, please? I have tried searching through the link, but haven't been able to find the articles you mention.

Thanks, though, for quoting the passages. If they are correct, it does seem that US Gold took a stake. However, the references to Ultimate must, strictly, be an error. As I said before, Ultimate wasn't a company (1). They presumably mean ACG, instead. It makes little difference to me, but it does raise the question as to whether in your approach the publisher of the Ultimate games should more correctly be described as Ashby Computers & Graphics, as that is the correct legal entity. To me it seems unnecessary and unhelpful to make such a change, but it would be more "accurate" in your terms.

More importantly it is not clear what difference any of this makes. How do you propose handling the following situations, for example? And can we be confident we can determine accurately which applies in a particular case? And is it worth while, if Jetpac is no longer published by Ultimate?

1. Company A takes majority stake in B and distributes under brand B.
2. Company A takes minority stake in B and distributes under brand B.
3. Company A acquires assets from Company B and distributes under brand B.
4. Company A enters into a distribution and marketing agreement for Conpany B's products under Company B's brand.
5. Company A resells Company B's games under company B's brand.
6. Company A sells Company B's games under brand C.
7. Company A sells its own games under brand B.

(There are certainly many other situations I haven't listed.)

(1) Source: Jetpac inlay. "ULTIMATE PLAY THE GAME. Trade name of Ashby Computers & Graphics Ltd".

[toot_toot]

Like I said in the other thread, it’s a durrell game, given away by the massive durrell logos on the cover!




None of the reviews at the time said it was an Elite game, they all said it was by Durrell.

The Durrell label is owned by Elite, which is stated on the DB when you look up Durrell. Spitfire, another Durrell game, was eventually released on the Encore label, also owned by Elite.

[Rorthron]

Whether the publisher is listed as Durell and/or Elite, it's still going to need an explanatory note to explain why an Durell game has been released in Elite-style packaging with their name and address on.

"Elite-style packaging"? It only mentions "Elite" in small print on the interior, and has Durell plastered all over it. And doesn't it somewhat undermine your arguments to appeal to the packaging style? You've argued against using that as evidence of the publisher.

In this case, Company A sold an unreleased game to Company B and Company B published it.

Again, do you have any evidence for this?

Are you going to be able to prove it for the (probably) thousands of games that need to be changed in the archive?

And does it really matter to users?

[StooB]

You linked to the archive's entire contents for Ultimate. That's not exact. Anyone can click on your link to confirm the veracity of my statement, so I don't see any point in debating this further.

Since you haven't explained which issues you mean, could you give the issue numbers, so that I can read them, please? I have tried searching through the link, but haven't been able to find the articles you mention.

I've told you exactly which issues they are, three times now. There is only one feature on Ultimate in 1988 in each of those magazines. If you can't use this site then that's your problem.

There were major features on Ultimate in CRASH and The Games Machine in 1988, both can be easily accessed from this page.

[StooB]

Like I said in the other thread, it’s a durrell game, given away by the massive durrell logos on the cover!

Yes, it's got more Durell logo's than a Durell-published game - that doesn't mean they published it. Silent Service doesn't have US Gold's name or logo on the cover at all but they still published it.

[Rorthron]

I've told you exactly which issues they are, three times now. There is only one feature on Ultimate in 1988 in each of those magazines. If you can't use this site then that's your problem.

Issue numbers? Dates? This is like getting blood from a stone!

I presume you mean Crash 51 (Apr 88) and Games Machine 4 (Mar 88). I did read that Crash piece, but if that's the one you mean, your quotation is incorrect:

The CRASH feature quotes: "we're still the majority shareholders in Ultimate", p16.

There is no p16 in the feature (p16 is a Match Day II advert.) Did you mean p36?

Since the details did not match up it wasn't clear to me which issue you meant, which is why I asked for better information.

[StooB]

Issue numbers? Dates? This is like getting blood from a stone!

I presume you mean Crash 51 (Apr 88) and Games Machine 4 (Mar 88). I did read that Crash piece, but if that's the one you mean, your quotation is incorrect:


There is no p16 in the feature (p16 is a Match Day II advert.) Did you mean p36?

Obviously.