Yeah, I think we can all agree that there’s a lot of daylight between the plausible and understandable opinion “I don’t think them asking for money is a good look” and the completely unhinged opinion that F+P are
The former is a thing reasonable people can disagree about.
The latter is not a reasonable opinion in any way.
For the record, before they announced the legal fund, I wrote to F+P on Twitter and asked “Is there some way I can donate to your legal defense?” I’m 100% positive I’m not the only person who did this. So I think the idea that they came up with a brilliant scheme to fleece suckers is completely backwards from reality: more likely, they formed the legal defense fund because people like me were begging them to take our money.
While we still have no way of knowing the motivation behind the campaign, it does seem the legal defense fund it’s always discussed as if it was some highly calculated PR move. Have people considered that when news of this came out that fans reached out to P&F asking how they could help? That outside people not involved in any legal or PR strategy suggested setting up a legal defense fund to them and they figured “why not?” Granted even in that case there were obviously optics to consider that weren’t considered and that’s a mistake on their part.
Hey, quick question out of curiosity - if hypothetically someone was to show up in a thread like this, throw around some strong language, but not mention that they were employed by one of the parties to the lawsuit, would that also be shameful and disgusting? Inquiring minds want to know.
What I assume you’re alluding to is the fact I was previously employed by Stardock.
For the record I haven’t worked there in more than 2 years and didn’t work on Star Control Origins. My expressed opinion of P&F’s decision to ask for money for their legal fees isn’t contingent on my work history.
Edit to add: I left Stardock before the lawsuit was filed and have no knowledge of it.
Given that you are on record stating that taking advantage of the goodwill and nostalgia of people for personal enrichment is disgusting and shameful, how do you feel about Stardock making Star Control: Origins in the first place given it is the very definition of what you decry? Stardock’s CEO is even on record stating he is entitled to the goodwill associated with the original games. Was that also shameful and disgusting? How about when they tried to make money cashing in on the nostalgia for Master of Magic by making what was marketed as a spiritual successor? That was also clearly an attempt to cash in one the goodwill and nostalgia of gamers.
Are there specific scenarios where taking advantage of goodwill and nostalgia for personal enrichment is fine or is it a blanket disgust?
So as long as something involves a trade for goods or services it cannot be considered taking advantage? That seems like a very odd place to draw the line. It seems very strange to see something done on a completely for profit motive basis could be seen as not taking advantage compared to something like a legal defense fund.
Glad to hear I misunderstood the situation. I’ll still suggest that maybe if you looked at the language you used, which in my opinion was way out of bounds, it suggests you might be a little emotionally close to the situation. But then that probably applied to others, too.
I’m sorry, this really is comic. I mean is this really your stance?
Utilizing the goodwill and nostalgia of a name you purchased at a bankruptcy auction to turn a profit: Not taking advantage of goodwill and nostalgia.
Utilizing the goodwill and nostalgia of games you created to help offset the cost of defending against a legal attack on the IP to said game: Totally taking advantage of that goodwill and nostalgia.
I just want to be a voice of someone who knows @Mellified professionally (duh, we worked together at Stardock for a while) and believe that we should all take his words at face value and not some kind of creeping crypto-Stardock fascism or whatever.
Me, I’ve avoided most commenting on this issue for exactly the reasons that just played out. We are all Caesar’s wife in this situation, and I made my peace with that forever ago when I registered under my real name.
Isn’t one of the key differences that in your first example, I get a game out of it and in your second I get…What?
I really don’t understand why it’s so unreasonable to say that buying a product for nostalgic reasons is quite different than supporting a lawsuit for nostalgic reasons. If P&F had made a Kickstarter offering a copy of the game in exchange for money for the lawsuit, I’d be fine with it. Just asking for money as a donation is a pretty distinguishable line to me.
Why does it matter in the slightest what one gets? Perhaps it’s the warm feeling of helping someone they believe in. Heck, evidently for someone in this thread what they “get” from supporting stardock is not a game but a warm feeling that they have contributed to “crushing” Paul and Fred.
In both cases the person voluntarily giving money is “getting” exactly what they expect. There’s no fraud or deception. No broken promise like a kickstarter that never produces. How exactly does getting a tangible product alter what is and what is not “taking advantage”?
While it is different, it’s a little extreme to say one is just fine and the other is “disgusting and shameful”. Why is doing something out of plain and direct profit motive worse than doing something to mitigate the cost of a legal defense?
Offering a copy of their eventual game as part of the legal defense fund is likely not legally possible. If they offered a game as part of it than the legal defense fund itself would likely be something Stardock could try to go after.
