Chain Reaction - Durrell or Elite as publisher?

[Rorthron]

Obviously.

I personally do not consider it obvious, when:

1. Your link leads to dozens of entries.
2. You don't specify an issue number.
3. The only numbered reference you give is incorrect.

But whatever the different opinions, the "your-problem" approach to the issue isn't exactly constructive. It was quite clear I couldn't find the issue, and even if it were down to my failings, it would have been easier for both of us if you had just referred to the specific article.

[Rorthron]

Let's lay out our points and Einar can decide.

Good idea. Here’s how I see the debate.

At issue is whether “Publisher” should refer to (1) the brand a game is published under (the “name on the box”) or (2) the ultimate parent legal entity responsible for publishing the game. I think (1); StooB seems to suggest (2).

I see a contradiction between listing Elite as the publisher of Critical Mass and, for example, Ultimate as the publisher of Martianoids. This is because in my opinion the former uses basis (2) and the latter basis (1).

There are four potential solutions:

(1) Change Elite to Durell for Critical Mass.
(2) Change Ultimate to ACG (?) for Martianoids.
(3) Record both brand and legal entity publishers in two separate fields for both
(4) Draw a significant distinction between Critical Mass' and Martianoids' publication arrangements.

I would argue for (1), as:

(A) It involves a lot less work. Adopting (2) would also require changing thousands of other entries in the database.
(B) It is more intuitive. Most of us know publishers by the name on the box.
(C) It’s simple to determine without having to research legal structures and agreements.
(D) It’s knowable. Many of the legal arrangements for publishing games cannot be determined. (It's not even clear that ACG is the ultimate parent in Martianoids' case.)
(E) It’s unambiguous. Legal arrangements can exist in countless forms and there can be endless debate as to what the definition of publisher is in each case.
(F) It avoids arbitrary and debatable distinctions between different legal structures, which is especially a problem for (4).
(G) It is no less "accurate". It simply uses a different definition. (Indeed, you could argue it is more accurate, because of (C)-(F).)

Hopefully I can now go and do more useful things!

[StooB]

"Elite-style packaging"? It only mentions "Elite" in small print on the interior, and has Durell plastered all over it.

Compare with Durell's last published game:

Covers:


Tapes:


Barcodes:
(Saboteur II / Thundercats / Chain Reaction )

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

There aren't thousands of games that need changing.

[toot_toot]

Here’s another one to think about

Revolution

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/4 ... Revolution

It’s listed as being originally published by US Gold.

But the cover definitely looks like a Vortex published game.



However, it says it is “Manufactured and Distributed by US Gold”.

The advert does have the US Gold logo on it (along with the Vortex one), but again it says Manufactured and Distributed by US Gold.



The reviews of the time (like Chain Reaction) list it as being published by Vortex, or well maybe it’s on the Vortex label. The in-game references, like Chain Reaction, are all to Vortex. US Gold isn’t mentioned.

So who was the original publisher? Vortex or US Gold?

[AndyC]

I'd say it was published by Vortex. Only the manufacture and distribution was sub-contracted out to US Gold.

Which is the problem with trying to represent the legal basis behind things in this field, it gets very messy very quickly. Sticking to the brand name it was published under is probably more useful for users who are trying to find things, IMHO.

[toot_toot]

And back to the Durrell question.

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/page.ph ... 3&page=156

It was reported in Crash News in this page that

Elite went and snaflied both Durell's new games: Chain Reaction and Spitfire. Elite doesn't know when or how it's going to release them

So you would say, yes Chain Reaction is an Elite game. But when it was eventually released, it was clearly under the Durrell label which Elite now owned.

Taking that view in mind, does that mean that all Electric Dreams games should be listed as published by Activision? Activision owned the Electric Dreams label, so why not have all Electric Dreams games as being listed as originally published by Activision?

Similarly, why not have all Imagine games after 1984 originally published by Ocean? They had practically the same packaging, they even used the same artist for most games and had the same physical street address.

Should Movie be listed in the DB as published by Imagine or Ocean? Compare it to Nightmare Rally by Ocean, they’re practically identical in packaging apart from the logos.






Using the argument of “it is in an Elite style packaging, despite having a Durrell logo” means you’d have to change Electric Dreams and Imagine (and no doubt many others) in the DB.

Yet, when people think of the likes of Hyper Sports, they don’t think of it being published by Ocean. And surely that’s the point of the DB, to make it easier for people to search and find games. If I wanted to look up Chain Reaction, and I had a physical copy of it, I wouldn’t think it was an Elite game and the resulting search results would be confusing (and wrong in the users eyes)

[StooB]

Here’s another one to think about

Revolution

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/4 ... Revolution

It’s listed as being originally published by US Gold.

But the cover definitely looks like a Vortex published game.

That entry is completely consistent with Chain Reaction. If you're going to change the guidelines to list the logo on the front cover as the publisher then half of US Gold games will need changing.

[toot_toot]

Sticking to the brand name it was published under is probably more useful for users who are trying to find things, IMHO.

Exactly, the point of a search function is for people to look up a game. Like I said in my previous post, if I owned a copy of Revolution, Chain Reaction or Movie, I would expect them to be listed as originally published by Vortex, Durrell and Imagine based on the cover of the games and the “publishing” label used on them.

But, what we currently have is Revolution is originally published by US Gold, Chain Reaction originally published by Durrell and Movie (correctly) published by Imagine.

[StooB]

If I wanted to look up Chain Reaction, and I had a physical copy of it, I wouldn’t think it was an Elite game and the resulting search results would be confusing (and wrong in the users eyes)

All the more reason to have the correct publisher listed with an note explaining why it's the correct publisher, rather than listing the wrong publisher and having a note explaining why it's not actually the correct publisher.

[toot_toot]

That entry is completely consistent with Chain Reaction. If you're going to change the guidelines to list the logo on the front cover as the publisher then half of US Gold games will need changing.

You know what, the true answer to that should be yes, they should be changed to whatever label US Gold was using for the games.

It also ties into US Gold’s original business strategy, importing existing C64 or Atari games from the US and doing the manufacturing and distribution in the UK. Part of the deal was doing Spectrum conversions, but if you’re to search Lemon 64 for Bounty Bob Strikes back, you don’t get the original publisher as US Gold, it’s Big Five. Likewise, Impossible Mission was Epyx. I’d imagine it was part of the UK distribution deal they had with the US companies, that in some cases they had to use the original US publisher label.

Similarly, why is Go! a separate listing from US Gold, it was another label used by US Gold, so surely all the Go! games should be “original publisher = US Gold”.

[StooB]

when it was eventually released, it was clearly under the Durrell label which Elite now owned.

Taking that view in mind, does that mean that all Electric Dreams games should be listed as published by Activision? Activision owned the Electric Dreams label, so why not have all Electric Dreams games as being listed as originally published by Activision?

Similarly, why not have all Imagine games after 1984 originally published by Ocean? They had practically the same packaging, they even used the same artist for most games and had the same physical street address.

Elite didn't buy the Durell label, just the games. Elite cannot release games as Durell Software Ltd because Durell Software Ltd still exists and is still publishing software.

Electric Dreams and Imagine are not the same. They are publishing labels.

[Rorthron]

That entry is completely consistent with Chain Reaction. If you're going to change the guidelines to list the logo on the front cover as the publisher then half of US Gold games will need changing.

If you look at the full covers of these games, they all carry US Gold logos. The logos have been cropped off in the images above.

[StooB]

You know what, the true answer to that should be yes, they should be changed to whatever label US Gold was using for the games.

and if you do that, how do you differentiate the US Gold Silent Service from the version MicroProse later published themselves?

[toot_toot]

Microprose is a good example of US Gold’s business model. US Gold had the rights to “Manufacture in the UK under licence from Microprose”, yet all the adverts and packaging are designed as a Microprose published game.



The relationship between Microprose and US Gold went sour, so Microprose went alone and set up their own UK distribution arm.

However, again from a user point of view, if I owned Silent Service on the Spectrum, I’d expect it to give the result of the original publisher being Microprose. Not US Gold. If I own a UK c64 copy and search for Silent Service on Lemon64, the original publisher is Microprose, not US Gold, who just did the manufacturing and distribution in the UK.

And to make it even more obvious, US Gold didn’t even have an in-house conversion team for the Spectrum conversions, it was all outsourced. Yet we doggedly have the original publisher for Silent Service as US Gold because of “some reason”.

[Rorthron]

Elite didn't buy the Durell label, just the games. Elite cannot release games as Durell Software Ltd because Durell Software Ltd still exists and is still publishing software.

But Elite did release Critical Mass under the Durell label. They would need to have had some legal basis for using the Durell name and logo on the packaging. That does not need to be ownership of the label. It could be some sort of licensing or distribution agreement, the terms of which are unknown.

[StooB]

However, again from a user point of view, if I owned Silent Service on the Spectrum, I’d expect it to give the result of the original publisher being Microprose. Not US Gold.

So you're saying US Gold only published these two Spectrum games? They're the only ones without a licensor/developer logo on.

[StooB]

But Elite did release Critical Mass under the Durell label. They would need to have had some legal basis for using the Durell name and logo on the packaging. That does not need to be ownership of the label. It could be some sort of licensing or distribution agreement, the terms of which are unknown.

Putting the developer's logo on the cover does not make it a label.

[Rorthron]

Putting the developer's logo on the cover does not make it a label.

But it does require a legal arrangement. Do you know the terms of that agreement? And if not, how can you determine what it might or might not constitute?

[StooB]

But it does require a legal arrangement. Do you know the terms of that agreement? And if not, how can you determine what it might or might not constitute?

No, and neither do you. But I'm not the one claiming Elite Systems are running Durell as a publishing label.

[AndyC]

No, and neither do you. But I'm not the one claiming Elite Systems are running Durell as a publishing label.

No, but you are claiming the exact opposite despite there being little evidence of it. For all we know the legal agreement between the two allowed or even required Elite to publish it under the Durell brand. After all there's no Elite logo on the packaging, which is odd. Could be that some of the marketing materials and packaging were already produced and thus Durell temporarily treated as a publishing brand in order to avoid reusing materials. Or it could be that developers contracts would've been negated if they tried to publish under he Elite brand.

And this is the problem with focusing on the "legal entity" rather than just "what it appears like based on packaging". The former is very much unknown in almost every case, the latter is pretty straightforward most of the time. Also the latter is far less likely to be "wrong", even if it doesn't convey the full nuance of every scenario.

[Rorthron]

No, and neither do you. But I'm not the one claiming Elite Systems are running Durell as a publishing label.

But you are making claims as to the nature of the relationship between Durell and Elite, when you don't know what it is. I am not making any such claims. Part of the point of the approach I am suggesting is that it does not need to address this question. I am just going by the name on the box, which is Durell:

[Stefan]

I am just going by the name on the box, which is Durell:

But based on the address, Durell were based in Taunton, not Lichfield - that's where Elite is based.

[StooB]

Part of the point of the approach I am suggesting is that it does not need to address this question. I am just going by the name on the box, which is Durell:

As I've already mentioned, if you go down the route of simply using the name on the box you'll have to change thousands of entries and end up with only two games published by US Gold.

[Rorthron]

But based on the address, Durell were based in Taunton, not Lichfield - that's where Elite is based.

But the name "Elite" appears nowhere on the cover. Without a detailed knowledge of software-house addresses a reader would from the cover have no idea of any Elite involvement.

Also the address does not explain what Elite's relationship to the game is. Publisher? Distributor? Customer service agent? Etc.

[Rorthron]

As I've already mentioned, if you go down the route of simply using the name on the box you'll have to change thousands of entries and end up with only two games published by US Gold.

I've already explained that view is wrong:

If you look at the full covers of these games, they all carry US Gold logos. The logos have been cropped off in the images above.