Scott Stilphen Posted August 27, 2001 Share Posted August 27, 2001 Just found that there's a picture of a prototype Locomotion box for the 5200 at the Atari HQ site. How is it that both Atari and Mattel were working on versions? If one of them got the console rights to do it, wouldn't that cover both the 2600 and 5200? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted August 27, 2001 Share Posted August 27, 2001 It could be that Mattel allowed Atari to have the rights to the 5200 version since they had no plans to venture into the 5200 market. Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted August 28, 2001 Share Posted August 28, 2001 Sometimes NOBODY gets exclusive rights, and ANYONE can license the game...this may be the case here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted August 29, 2001 Share Posted August 29, 2001 I don't think it's very unusual for different companies to get the rights to produce the same game on different systems. While less common back in the days of the 2600 and 5200, it's much more common these days. But it did happen even back then. Some examples: - Miner 2049er (2600 - Tigervision, 5200 - Big Five) - Commando (2600 - Activision, 7800 - Atari) - Summer Games (2600 - Epyx, 7800 - Atari) There are also lots of examples of games being released by one manufacturer and later released by another. The Coleco titles later licensed by Atari for the 2600 come to mind. Telegames has also done quite a bit of this. ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Stilphen Posted August 29, 2001 Author Share Posted August 29, 2001 Right, but it was unusual to see that happen with arcade games. I think back then, there were seperate agreements for the type of media (cartridge/tape/disk). If a company got the cartridge rights for a game, that covered cartridge versions for all systems. Isn't that how Starpath was able to get around Parker Brothers agreement and make their version of Frogger (on tape)? It probably was as Tempest stated- Mattel(M-Network) had no interest in making 5200 games, and worked out an agreement for Atari to do it, otherwise I'm sure Atari would most definitely had planned to do a 2600 version. If so, that's just very unorthodox to see (back then), especially from one of Atari's main competitors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Stilphen Posted August 30, 2001 Author Share Posted August 30, 2001 You're right - rights for consoles and computers were seperate. But with Locomotion, there were 2 consoles involved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Scott Stilphen: You're right - rights for consoles and computers were seperate. But with Locomotion, there were 2 consoles involved... It really depends on how the licensing arrangements are worked out (and they can be pretty complex). If a company that produces computer titles has no desire to produce console versions of those titles then they may license all the console rights exclusively to another company. Likewise if a company that produces titles for one console has no expertise in another, they might license the rights for that one console to another company. Just because most games were licensed to companies for consoles or computers, that doesn't mean that everyone had to license the games in that fashion. So there are bound to be some exceptions. It is unusual that Locomotion was being developed by Atari for the 5200, but to Mattel it would be a means of making money on a 5200 version of a game they'd likely never produce themselves. So they probably granted Atari a very narrow license giving them the rights to produce Locomotion for the 5200 (and only the 5200). ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhindle The Red Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Scott Stilphen: I think back then, there were seperate agreements for the type of media (cartridge/tape/disk). If a company got the cartridge rights for a game, that covered cartridge versions for all systems. Isn't that how Starpath was able to get around Parker Brothers agreement and make their version of Frogger (on tape)? The licenses were very specific, so there wouldn't be blanket 'cartridge rights.' There would be cartridge rights that would cover all video games, but not computers (as in the case of Donkey Kong which came out on cartridges for video game systems from Coleco and cartridges for computers from Atari). Essentially, licenses covered whatever the company seeking the license thought to cover. Starpath got Frogger because no one at Parker Bros. would have even thought of magnetic tape rights for the Atari 2600, so would never have bothered pursuing them. The big question is, why didn't Starpath do that with more games? They could have done better with a whole line of arcade translations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.