Chain Reaction - Durrell or Elite as publisher?

[StooB]

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.

The name "Elite Systems" is on both the cover and the cassette.

Isn't the whole point of ZXDB to provide the detailed information that a casual reader wouldn't necessarily know?

I've already explained that view is wrong:

Tell me where the US Gold logo is:

[Rorthron]

The name "Elite Systems" is on both the cover and the cassette.

It is not on the cover at all, and the mention of Elite on the cassette is dwarfed by the Durell logos.

Isn't the whole point of ZXDB to provide the detailed information that a casual reader wouldn't necessarily know?

No. It's there to provide whatever users want of it. If they want to search and play games they know, the name-on-the-box approach would seem to be the best.

Regarding US Gold, let’s start with the first example you cited, Bounty Bob Strikes Back. You showed this cover:

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.

However, that image crops off this:



And this:



Incidentally look also at the loading screen:



A similar situation is true for all the other five games you listed in that post.

Tell me where the US Gold logo is:

Nowhere. The publisher brand should be MicroProse.

Note there will always be edge cases with any policy. However, the name-on-the-box approach has far fewer than your alternative.

[toot_toot]

Getting back to the original Chain Reaction “issue” and the reason why this is so important.

Elite systems games are not allowed for distribution on this site, which from memory was down to issues with Steve Wilcox and there was a general consensus not to have Elite games available. Which is fine, except we now have Chain Reaction as “Distribution Denied”, because it’s listed as an Elite published game.

But here’s the thing. When Durrell sold the games to Elite in 1987, did that include the earlier titles? Encore, Elite’s budget label, re-released Saboteur, Saboteur II, Deep Strike, Sigma 7 and other later Durrell titles. Durrell is listed as being owned by Elite on this very site https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/list?label_id=4059

Encore also released Spitfire as an original release, which for some reason isn’t distribution denied.

Yet the original Durrell games are all still available on here. Does that mean we need to remove those games? Or if we change the publisher of Chain Reaction to Durrell, does it mean that it’s now available on this site? I’d imagine the distribution denied has come from a mass blocking of games originally published by Elite, yet here we have a game that is distribution denied down to that IMHO incorrect listing as the original publisher.

[Rorthron]

Elite systems games are not allowed for distribution on this site, which from memory was down to issues with Steve Wilcox and there was a general consensus not to have Elite games available. Which is fine, except we now have Chain Reaction as “Distribution Denied”, because it’s listed as an Elite published game.

But here’s the thing. When Durrell sold the games to Elite in 1987, did that include the earlier titles? Encore, Elite’s budget label, re-released Saboteur, Saboteur II, Deep Strike, Sigma 7 and other later Durrell titles. Durrell is listed as being owned by Elite on this very site https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/list?label_id=4059

This is an argument for having the legal-entity approach. This sort of thing cannot be settled by looking at logos.

[AndyC]

This an argument for having the legal-entity approach. This sort of thing cannot be settled by looking at logos.

Although it doesn't really solve that, since the "original publisher" could be Durell still, where Elite now owns the rights and wants them Distribution Denied. Or Elite might not have picked up all the old Durell games, we just don't know.

[Rorthron]

Although it doesn't really solve that, since the "original publisher" could be Durell still, where Elite now owns the rights and wants them Distribution Denied. Or Elite might not have picked up all the old Durell games, we just don't know.

Yes, you're right.

[toot_toot]

This is an argument for having the legal-entity approach. This sort of thing cannot be settled by looking at logos.

Absolutely, but currently Chain Reaction is listed as originally published by Elite, meaning it’s been distribution denied which I’d presume was a mass update on the originally published by field.

It also doesn’t take into account Spitfire, which for some reason is distribution allowed. Probably because it was a new title on what was primarily a re-release label from multiple publishers.

That to me says that Chain Reaction should be listed as a Durrell published game, it should be updated in the DB and distribution should be reinstated.

[StooB]

Nowhere. The publisher should be MicroProse.

Both Bounty Bob and Silent Service state that they are manufactured under licence by US Gold somewhere in the packaging. But you're saying Bounty Bob is published by US Gold because their logo, name and address are on the the back of the cover (despite the massive Big Five logo on the front), but Chain Reaction is NOT published by Elite because they only have have their name and address on the back?

[Rorthron]

Both Bounty Bob and Silent Service state that they are manufactured under licence by US Gold somewhere in the packaging. But you're saying Bounty Bob is published by US Gold because their logo, name and address are on the the back of the cover (despite the massive Big Five logo on the front), but Chain Reaction is NOT published by Elite because they only have have their name and address on the back?

Once again, Elite's name is not on the back, but otherwise yes. The Bounty Bob box clearly carries the US Gold logo and clearly marks it out as distributor and Big Five as licensor.

There will always be debatable edge cases, but the situation is far clearer with the name on the box than researching inaccessible legal contracts.

To repeat, the name-on-the-box approach has multiple benefits over your alternative:

(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).)

Now I really am going to do something more productive!

[StooB]

Once again, Elite's name is not on the back.

Yes it is!

[StooB]

To repeat, the name-on-the-box approach has multiple benefits over your alternative:

No, I don't have an alternative, I'm advocating keeping what we currently have. Your "multiple benefits" require changing the entries for numerous MicroProse, US Gold and Vortex games.

[toot_toot]

Here’s another one to throw in the mix

Martech v Electronic Arts

In 1987 Martech announced EA were going to take over manufacturing distribution rights for Martech games as in this news piece in YS https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/page.ph ... 247&page=7

So when The Fury was released in 1988, Yet take a look at the cover



Or how about Rex



A distributed by Electronic Arts label. In fact, it’s even bigger than the Elite text mention on the Chain Reaction cover. But they’re both listed as originally published by Martech in the DB. If we’re going with the same rules as Chain Reaction, then does that not mean The Fury and Rex should be down as Originally Published by Electronic Arts. Or how about the US Gold games that clearly state, in text only, that they’re “manufactured and distributed by US Gold”, but with other publisher logos?

Revolution, the early Microprose games all fall under the same banner as Rex or The Fury - manufactured and/or distributed by someone else - yet in the DB they have a different rule applied to them.

And again I’ll bring it to the user experience. What does the User expect to see when searching the DB? That Rex and The Fury are published by Electronic Arts or by Martech? Likewise, when the user searches for Revoluiion or Silent Service, what do they expect to see as the original publisher? Vortex, Microprose or US Gold?

[StooB]

A distributed by Electronic Arts label. In fact, it’s even bigger than the Elite text mention on the Chain Reaction cover. But they’re both listed as originally published by Martech in the DB. If we’re going with the same rules as Chain Reaction, then does that not mean The Fury and Rex should be down as Originally Published by Electronic Arts.

No, because Martech's name, address and copyright statement are on the back of the cover. Unlike Chain Reaction, where it is Elite's name, address and copyright statement that are on the back.

[toot_toot]

No, because Martech's name, address and copyright statement are on the back of the cover. Unlike Chain Reaction, where it is Elite's name, address and copyright statement that are on the back.

So you’re basing it on an address from the 1980s, not 2023 user experience? So what should Revolution and Silent Service be based on?

[AndyC]

That to me says that Chain Reaction should be listed as a Durrell published game, it should be updated in the DB and distribution should be reinstated.

But we know Elite bought the rights to Chain Reaction and we know Elite owned titles should be distribution denied. So why should that change unless there is new information to the contrary?

You can't base DD status on the original publisher. It can only ever depend on who currently has rights (and that's a complex beast in and of itself).

[AndyC]

In 1987 Martech announced EA were going to take over manufacturing distribution rights for Martech games as in this news piece in YS https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/page.ph ... 247&page=7

Manufacturing and distribution rights is not necessarily the same thing as publishing. Mostly it is, but not necessarily since publishing extends beyond just those roles (marketing, approval, funding etc).

[Einar Saukas]

It wouldn't be accurate to have Durell as publisher, since it was actually published by Elite, despite being advertised as Durell.

However it's weird to list Elite as publisher when all reviews and adverts mention Durell only.

IMHO the best solution is to list both (indicating it was published by "Durell / Elite") with this note: "Published by Elite but advertised as Durell".

[Rorthron]

Yes it is!

Fair enough. It's microscopic and buried away, but it is there. It doesn't alter the analysis, though (I already acknowledged an equally microscopic note on the tape).

Your "multiple benefits" require changing the entries for numerous MicroProse, US Gold and Vortex games.

That’s demonstrably not true. The only games that have been identified as requiring changes are Chain Reaction, Revolution and Silent Service.
On the other hand, your approach has been identified as requiring changes to:

Rex, The Fury: Martech>US Gold
All the Ultimate titles: Ultimate>ACG (?)
All of the later Imagine games: Imagine>Ocean (?)
Etc

It wouldn't be accurate to have Durell as publisher, since it was actually published by Elite, despite being advertised as Durell.

However it's weird to list Elite as publisher when all reviews and adverts mention Durell only.

IMHO the best solution is to list both (indicating it was published by "Durell / Elite") with this note: "Published by Elite but advertised as Durell".

Adding yet more notes seems to me suboptimal. Two fields would seem more useful than that. Listing Elite as the publisher also requires a lot of other changes to the database (see above for examples).

[StooB]

So you’re basing it on an address from the 1980s

Yes. It's not unreasonable to assume that a company that puts it's address on a product is the publisher of that product.

[8BitSC]

Surely "Manufactured and Distributed" just means the tapes were duplicated, assembled into cases with their inlays and packaged up in bulk to be sent out to retail. It wouldn't mean EA had any creative input. The label is just EA putting their mark on the packaging to make it known they were part of the process involved in getting the games into the stores; not as part of the creative or publishing process?

[StooB]

On the other hand, your approach has been identified as requiring changes to:

Rex, The Fury: Martech>US Gold
All the Ultimate titles: Ultimate>ACG (?)
All of the later Imagine games: Imagine>Ocean (?)
Etc

You identified these changes using flawed logic that says all these situations are the same when they're clearly not.

[Rorthron]

You identified these changes using flawed logic that says all these situations are the same when they're clearly not.

Well, for one thing, I didn't identify them all! But if the logic is flawed, please explain why, citing sources to support your claims.

[StooB]

But if the logic is flawed, please explain why, citing sources to support your claims.

I don't need to explain or cite sources - I'm not the one calling for the current publishers to be changed!

[toot_toot]

Here’s a question, who’s actually responsible for deciding the DB Structure and the individual entries?!?!?

[PeterJ]

Here’s a question, who’s actually responsible for deciding the DB Structure and the individual entries?!?!?

@Einar Saukas created it, so it's him. However the database is open source, so if someone felt strongly enough they could always fork it. Hopefully that wouldn't happen though

https://github.com/zxdb/ZXDB

I'm not following this thread in detail, but I would have thought the focus should be around what 'joe public' would search for. If it's got Durrell on the cover, then I would have publisher as Durrell. If you want extra fields around legal entities, and someone is willing to keep the data current, then they should put their thoughts to Einar. You then have the issues of legal entities changing over time and it potentially gets very confusing and hard to track.

I appreciate I'm simplifying things, so will butt out now.