Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’

[jerseystyle]

I’m both disappointed and amused that out of this train wreck Shark! Shark! Is still standing.

[Flojomojo]

7 hours ago, jerseystyle said:

I’m both disappointed and amused that out of this train wreck Shark! Shark! Is still standing.

Are there any Intellivision titles or properties that are sufficiently original to make you excited for a remake? There was a time they wouldn’t say no to anything as a possibility, but this is all they could eke out. 

 

Personally, I’m ready to let go of my fondness of the brand since it’s been poisoned. 

[jerseystyle]

43 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

Are there any Intellivision titles or properties that are sufficiently original to make you excited for a remake? There was a time they wouldn’t say no to anything as a possibility, but this is all they could eke out. 

 

Personally, I’m ready to let go of my fondness of the brand since it’s been poisoned. 

I’ve actually never played an Intellivision. I was a 2600 kid growing up, but I vividly remember being in Toys R Us and looking fondly at the Intellivision games (remember when they were printed on cards there and you brought it up the locked room to grab the game?). I was really impressed by the graphics on stuff like Beauty and the Beast, Dracula, the D and D games, etc. 

 

Of the new titles, I thought skiing looked good, Cornhole till they ruined it, and Night Stalker/Cloudy Mountain. The best of the bunch was Breakout, imo. Thing is though, I wouldn’t pay more than 5-10 bucks for any of those so I’m not sure how BGG is gonna make any money. Even in Slope’s review he kept stressing that Shark! Shark! made a great pack-in game. I’m pretty sure his opinion would change if he had to pay $20 for it. But less than that how do they make money? If they sell (huge over estimation) 50k copies at 5 each, that’s still only 250k… how does that help with anything?

 

Unless, as I suspect, this is all an elaborate money laundering or debt avoidance scheme since these 2 companies are connected (like Atari and Key Games were…)

[number6]

7 minutes ago, jerseystyle said:

 But less than that how do they make money? If they sell (huge over estimation) 50k copies at 5 each, that’s still only 250k… how does that help with anything?

I suspect from reading the "list" that more will appear in time. And obviously their operating expenses don't include offices all over the world, so...

 

#6

[number6]

I don't know this company BBG, so I'm just looking at little things that strike me as different.

How many times did people in this thread and the old entirely deleted forum post.  trying to speculate of what IE actually had trademark, copyright, distribution rights, etc. for? IE's answer at the time of "wouldn't  it be something" didn't exactly make this all clear.

 

Now look at BBG. Is it a short list? Yes, granted. But on their about page they are telling you specifically what they 

(1)have registered trademark for

(2)are in process of registration for (the TM referred to)

(3)copyright

(4)all rights reserved

 

And these entries apply to actual product you can buy, is shortly to be released, or in the case of Astrosmash/Shark! Shark! is extremely likely to be released due to being in almost finished state.

 

I have no idea whether they noted the confusion in how IE referred to things and decided to be "clear" in contrast to how IE did this. Nevertheless, this is what they have done. Like I said...it's a little thing.

 

#6

[MrBeefy]

I think BBG at least wants to make games and likes the old IPs. Now the quality and such I will leave that up to debate. I know their older Dynablast game didn't really impress me.  But I've never been a die hard Bomberman fan anyways.

 

This reads that Intellivision now only owns the rights to the two Amico games if/when they come out for their platform. If you want original Astrosmash and original Shark Shark to appear in an Intellivision compilation you will have to talk to BBG.

https://www.gamespress.com/BBG-UNVEILS-LEGENDARY-CLASSICS-FOR-MODERN-CONSOLES-IN-REIMAGINED-SUMME

 

[number6]

1 hour ago, MrBeefy said:

I think BBG at least wants to make games and likes the old IPs. Now the quality and such I will leave that up to debate. I know their older Dynablast game didn't really impress me.  But I've never been a die hard Bomberman fan anyways.

 

This reads that Intellivision now only owns the rights to the two Amico games if/when they come out for their platform. If you want original Astrosmash and original Shark Shark to appear in an Intellivision compilation you will have to talk to BBG.

https://www.gamespress.com/BBG-UNVEILS-LEGENDARY-CLASSICS-FOR-MODERN-CONSOLES-IN-REIMAGINED-SUMME

 

Correct me if I am wrong please. I saw a question about former IE reimagined titles and recall a response that you would have to pay for them in full again if released by someone else. In other words, no credit for the purchase of the "physical products" if the same title is offered by someone else.

True/false?

 

#6

[Rev]

6 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

Are there any Intellivision titles or properties that are sufficiently original to make you excited for a remake? There was a time they wouldn’t say no to anything as a possibility, but this is all they could eke out. 

 

Personally, I’m ready to let go of my fondness of the brand since it’s been poisoned. 

I was excited for a new Night Stalker and Cloudy Mountain.   Maybe someone will finish those and get Limited Run to release on Switch. 

[Rev]

Where does the Amico NFTs fit in with all this?  😀

[Rev]

14 hours ago, jerseystyle said:

I’m both disappointed and amused that out of this train wreck Shark! Shark! Is still standing.

Maybe the sequel can get a big name license for it!

 

Baby Shark Shark! 
 

Wouldnt that be something?  tm

 

 

[Cebus Capucinis]

I was excited for..... PLAYMOBIL. 

[MrBeefy]

5 hours ago, number6 said:

Correct me if I am wrong please. I saw a question about former IE reimagined titles and recall a response that you would have to pay for them in full again if released by someone else. In other words, no credit for the purchase of the "physical products" if the same title is offered by someone else.

True/false?

 

#6

Yeah that's only logical. You can't use your Ridged Force Redux IE code in a box to get the Switch version.

 

They better honor them with their Amico Home app or they are lower than dirt. So they will probably not honor them for the app.  In fact they need money so they will do everything they can to milk the turnips who have continued to go for the ride.

 

It's like me buying Jackbox 7 on steam and then buying again on my Switch. They don't transfer between consoles/platforms.

 

2 hours ago, Rev said:

I was excited for a new Night Stalker and Cloudy Mountain.   Maybe someone will finish those and get Limited Run to release on Switch. 

Iirc they said one was basically finished and the other most of the way or something. Digital Eclipse is the dev right? They should be decent. 

 

You going to buy Night Stalker to play on your phone? Or are you done and will only buy if on a real console from a real company?

[number6]

27 minutes ago, MrBeefy said:

Yeah that's only logical. You can't use your Ridged Force Redux IE code in a box to get the Switch version.

 

They better honor them with their Amico Home app or they are lower than dirt. So they will probably not honor them for the app.  In fact they need money so they will do everything they can to milk the turnips who have continued to go for the ride.

 

It's like me buying Jackbox 7 on steam and then buying again on my Switch. They don't transfer between consoles/platforms.

I understand the logic. I just thought we should answer that -here- because:

(1)official channels are not likely to respond and 

(2)asking likely results in a permaban (evil grin)

 

#6

[MrBeefy]

7 minutes ago, number6 said:

I understand the logic. I just thought we should answer that -here- because:

(1)official channels are not likely to respond and 

(2)asking likely results in a permaban (evil grin)

 

#6

Ha yeah they aren't fans. They are PR and won't really do anything beyond push the company.

 

There are only 5 employees left right? Phil, Nick, John, Mullis and DJC. That's 5 and the marketing has officially started. 🤣

[number6]

20 minutes ago, MrBeefy said:

Ha yeah they aren't fans. They are PR and won't really do anything beyond push the company.

 

There are only 5 employees left right? Phil, Nick, John, Mullis and DJC. That's 5 and the marketing has officially started. 🤣

Jason's name was on a somewhat recent filing, so he's possibly one.

See "Signatory" towards bottom

 

#6

Edited May 28, 2023 by number6
Added reference

[MrBeefy]

9 minutes ago, number6 said:

Jason's name was on a somewhat recent filing, so he's possibly one.

 

#6

Well if DJC and Mike aren't getting paid they are really dumb to be doing marketing work for free. We do know that DJC is an investor and breaks FTC regulations everything he makes an Amico video. 😁

[Cebus Capucinis]

25 minutes ago, MrBeefy said:

We do know that DJC is an investor and breaks FTC regulations everything he makes an Amico video

I can't remember, but how is this violating securities regulations?

[number6]

31 minutes ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

I can't remember, but how is this violating securities regulations?

While you're here...

Have you read the entire text of the lawsuit?

I don't recall anyone mentioning the John Does and the connections they "say" they are looking into.

My first thought is that this mention exists in order to scare other principals and therefore reach settlement faster as opposed to actually attempting this task.

 

Any thoughts?

 

#6

Edited May 28, 2023 by number6
clarification

[Cebus Capucinis]

Is it because he's failing to disclose he's an investor in his videos? If so, I'm not completely sure that violates applicable law, but would have to research it further and have neither the time nor inclination to do so. LOL

 

Suffice it to say the disclosure requirements are actually more narrow than just "if you have a stake you have to say so."

[Cebus Capucinis]

22 minutes ago, number6 said:

While you're here...

Have you read the entire text of the lawsuit?

I don't recall anyone mentioning the John Does and the connections they "say" they are looking into.

My first thought is that this mention exists in order to scare other principals and therefore reach settlement faster as opposed to actually attempting this task.

 

Any thoughts?

 

#6

That's generally to be able to keep claims open against new defendants as the facts are developed and investigated. Per civil procedure, you can only join certain parties up until a certain stage of the suit generally, but if you name Does from the beginning (1) it becomes administratively easy to add them later, and (2) it operates as a placeholder to move the goalposts for adding people back a bit, though I can't remember how long.

 

Certainty you're right re: tactics - if there's sufficient proof to add Does, doing so many scare the opposition a bit. The #1 rule to remember in litigation is that in civil cases, absent a few principled weirdos, everyone prefers a settlement over uncertainty of fees.

[number6]

30 minutes ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

That's generally to be able to keep claims open against new defendants as the facts are developed and investigated. Per civil procedure, you can only join certain parties up until a certain stage of the suit generally, but if you name Does from the beginning (1) it becomes administratively easy to add them later, and (2) it operates as a placeholder to move the goalposts for adding people back a bit, though I can't remember how long.

 

Certainty you're right re: tactics - if there's sufficient proof to add Does, doing so many scare the opposition a bit. The #1 rule to remember in litigation is that in civil cases, absent a few principled weirdos, everyone prefers a settlement over uncertainty of fees.

It is fairly extensive at top under complaint.

Sections 2-4

 

4 struck me as humorous since they currently have a refused trademark filing based on failure to supply a valid address for their business.

 

#6

[Rev]

3 hours ago, MrBeefy said:

Yeah that's only logical. You can't use your Ridged Force Redux IE code in a box to get the Switch version.

 

They better honor them with their Amico Home app or they are lower than dirt. So they will probably not honor them for the app.  In fact they need money so they will do everything they can to milk the turnips who have continued to go for the ride.

 

It's like me buying Jackbox 7 on steam and then buying again on my Switch. They don't transfer between consoles/platforms.

 

Iirc they said one was basically finished and the other most of the way or something. Digital Eclipse is the dev right? They should be decent. 

 

You going to buy Night Stalker to play on your phone? Or are you done and will only buy if on a real console from a real company?

No. Not buying a mobile game. What a waste.  Unless its a .99 cent game and no in-game purchases. 

[MrBeefy]

1 hour ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

Is it because he's failing to disclose he's an investor in his videos? If so, I'm not completely sure that violates applicable law, but would have to research it further and have neither the time nor inclination to do so. LOL

 

Suffice it to say the disclosure requirements are actually more narrow than just "if you have a stake you have to say so."

Basically and he's told others to buy/invest. If I'm being honest it is a little silly. I mean if someone was dumb enough to listen to him to invest, then I don't know what to tell them. I'm pretty sure he is frequently cagey and blocks all questions asking him about it.

 

If he actually had influence I think it would actually matter in the big picture. Thankfully he doesn't and most of his actual fans are deluded enough they probably did invest without him saying so.

10 minutes ago, Rev said:

No. Not buying a mobile game. What a waste.  Unless its a .99 cent game and no in-game purchases. 

They will most likely have an ad to go to a GoFundMe for someone to go to Backgammon tournaments, or to purchase a new world record for most money burned in not producing a generic Android box.

[MrTrust]

On 5/27/2023 at 10:35 AM, Flojomojo said:

4 years calendar time. I seriously doubt there are more than a few months of effort on this fishy game. It would be nice to know more, but I understand why the developers/IP owners would like to keep that private. 

 

Hell, even within those few months, I'm not sure there's an excuse.  Tommy spent about two weeks in the summer of '21 arguing with me on these very forums.  He could have coded an extra set of levels himself in that time.  Stack Overflow, bro.

 

Inb4 anyone takes this to literally, point is they had time to dick around on forums and Twitter, make bogus unboxing videos and host all these pointless events where they're showing placeholder Star Fox 64 text in their games, and do 20,000 interviews with YouTubers that nobody watches.  If a fraction of that effort was out into making these games any good, they might not have come off like such shysters.

 

Might buy Astrosmash though, if I'm honest.

 

11 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

Are there any Intellivision titles or properties that are sufficiently original to make you excited for a remake? There was a time they wouldn’t say no to anything as a possibility, but this is all they could eke out.

 

I would say that, at this point, everyone should know better than to get excited about any old properties or titles for the most part.  A lot of mediocrity gets put out under fondly remembered names.  I'd say the smart play is to find out who the team is doing it, but we've seen a lot of get-the-band-back-together games that were botched pretty badly, too.

 

An interesting case is Wonder Boy III remake and Monster Boy.  Both were handled by new teams, and one was sort of a mercenary sequel.  Both knocked it right out of the park, though.  Very much lightning striking twice having that combination of passion and chops land on the same series in rapid succession like that.  

 

That's really what I look for if I'm going to get "excited" about a game: does anyone on the team display full-on Asperger's obsessive passion?  That's usually the best indication that it will be good.  I knew, for instance, Cuphead was going to be great after the first second of video I saw from it.  You're hand painting 1,000's of sprites in the exact style of the old Fleischer cartoons, complete with even the 3D setback technique to make a late 80's style boss rush game?  There's a 3-hour, 13-piece big band soundtrack?  That's 1% of the 1% behavior.  Only a genius in the classical sense of the word would even attempt that.  I'm not surprised to learn those guys mortgaged their own homes to get it done.  Even if the thing ends up a failure, it's still going to be more worth your while than a good-but-good's-about-it efforts.

 

Now, I actually enjoyed Tommy's antics for the most part.  I very much long for the days of the American eccentric self promoter.  Tom Carvel, Colonel Sanders, Crazy Eddie, 80s-era Trump, Richard Simmons, Dave Thomas, Ron Popiel, Vince McMahon... Yeah, they're weird.  Yes, they're somewhat shady and even downright crooks in some cases, but America is a huckster culture, and we love lunatic monomaniacal passion.  We really don't have any good hucksters left, so Tommy could have been a welcome throwback.

 

Where I went sour on the whole thing is when he was on here saying anyone who thinks these things look like cheap, kickoff mobile games just doesn't get what's going on.  So, fine, I asked him how are they different.  Fine, Skiing looks like a bargain bin Wii game from '09; I'm willing to look past that if you can tell me what is actually great about this game.  What makes it distinct from the things everyone's comparing it to?  Why should I want to play this thing and not those other platforms?  All he had for an answer is the console is FOCUSED on those kinds of games.

 

That's it?  That's all ya' got?  Then he just taps out with "it's not for you".  He had nothing to say about how awesome his games were, what made them awesome, and why they were so much fun.  I did not at all he the impression that he actually thought they were awesome.  Now, when I picked his idiotic 80 million bajillion squintillion gamers worldwide bubble, the dude like I said spent two weeks arguing with me about these stats.  He_just_would_not_budge an inch on this pitch, and he had the stamina to argue it, man, even with some no name on the internet.  That was his real passion: just lying and filling people full of bullshit.  Can anyone recall him ever acting like he genuinely even liked what he was putting out?  I can't, and I think that shows in the output we're seeing now, and that's why I don't credit them with honest good-faith failure.

[number6]

22 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Now, I actually enjoyed Tommy's antics for the most part.  I very much long for the days of the American eccentric self promoter.  Tom Carvel, Colonel Sanders, Crazy Eddie, 80s-era Trump, Richard Simmons, Dave Thomas, Ron Popiel, Vince McMahon... Yeah, they're weird.  Yes, they're somewhat shady and even downright crooks in some cases, but America is a huckster culture, and we love lunatic monomaniacal passion.  We really don't have any good hucksters left, so Tommy could have been a welcome throwback.

The difference between your examples and Tommy was that your examples actually had a finished product available to "huck". Oh, and I must add Billy Mays to your group. heh.

 

#6