Jump to content

gone fishin'

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,726 profile views
  1. Except you jumped to conclusions that Paul Andrews actions were wrong and even when his statement was released, stating that his stipulation to continue using “Horace” was OK, as long as a charitable donation was made and the sexualisation of the character was dropped (which he has the complete rights to say) both of which were refused, you’ve continued to attack him? You’ve even mentioned this in The C64 thread, which if anything does a million times more for the retro gaming community than any YouTuber that’s generating nearly $2k a month through Patreon backers, but has the option of using the character of Horace but refuses to donate money to charity???
  2. If Paul Andrews statement is true, then what we’re talking about is someone refusing to give a donation to charity in return for using a character - not just in their videos but also selling as soft toys. I guess then it’s Ok for Disney to sell Peter Pan toys without giving money to Great Ormond Street? Thats the real rub in this. He wasn’t asking for all the revenue. He wasn’t asking her to remove the videos, stop using the character or stop selling the soft toys. He asked for a charitable donation in return for using the character and (yes, according to Paul Andrews) she refused to do it. When her videos get removed and she was hit by copyright strikes, she has to make a tearful video saying her livelihood has been taken away which in turn caused a mob like response from people without even having heard the other side of the story (threats of physical violence, wtf?? )
  3. The statement from Paul Andrews seems fair and, judging by his background against RCL, legitimate. He’s also saying they’re allowing the license to be used with new Horace games, in return for a percentage being donated to charity. It it sounds like the issue specifically has come the soft toys and not willing to donate a share to charity. Again, fair enough. If you’re making money from old game characters and the license holder asks for their license percentage to be donated to charity then if that person refuses, then I totally understand having an issue with that. It’s certainly a lot better than some of the gaming IP trolls out there (is this the Head Over Heels thread???) Maybe he’s actually going to pay Jon Ritman for Match Day... Also the thing of getting WoS to takedown Automata games likely comes from the guy who is now running WoS being allegedly part of the smear campaign against Andrews during the whole Vega+ saga.
  4. I've not seen any of her videos, so I can't really comment on what the original Horace videos in question where, but I can sort of see Paul Andrew's point. If he's planning on doing something with the Horace IP like a new game, then if there are videos where Horace has, I dunno, a knob drawn on him that are being actively promoted by YouTube's recommended algorithm (because they're monetised), then I can see why he'd want those videos taken down. From watching that video it sounds like he had a conversation with her asking her to remove them and she only de-monetised them, which I'm presuming then caused him to contact YouTube directly for a takedown. It does seem a bit harsh going straight to that, but I don't know what the conversation was leading up to it from his side. Disney would do the same thing with someone doing video featuring Micky Mouse with a knob drawn on it, yet the guy who invented him died years ago. Like I said, I've never watched any of her videos before, what exactly was the sexualised nature of Horace? Had the Horace image been changed?
  5. I'll hold out jumping to conclusions until there's more info from the "other side", because I'm really not sure a) using old video games is copyright infringement and b) that some of the games are owned by Subvert (their website doesn't say it owns games by Online PLC - which is the CRL group of games, which owns Soft and Cuddly as well as 3D Monster Maze which looks like it's owned by Titus - who also owns Mastertronic and Virgin). So I'm not sure why they've asked for a copyright take down, unless she made a video criticising The 64 and it's a bit of spiteful revenge? The other thing is that when it was announced Paul Andrews had got the Manic Miner/Jet Set Willy name rights (although Matthew Smith confirmed he now owns the copyright of the original games), then that was seen as a "good thing" because it stopped Steve Wilcox of Elite selling Manic Miner themed cards, because he was seen as exploiting an old IP he owned (which it turned out he didn't). Here's a list from her Twitter feed.
  6. The other thing from the licensed IP list is that they’re all pretty much Spectrum games. It also says they own the IP “shape designs” for hardware. So does that maybe mean a Spectrum version of The 64, but they’ve decided to try and own more of the licences themselves? I guess how they handle owning the licenses will be how they endear themselves to the retro community.
  7. Their IP also includes a load of Ocean games via Infogrames (ie Atari), but judging by the shitshow that’s the VCS, I’d be really surprised that Infogrames still have signed contracts from 30+ years ago for the likes of Cosmic Wartoad or Matchday.
  8. Nah, for over £200 when you include shipping, I’ll stick with my GBA micro and I’ll get a screen mod for my GBC. I can use my DS to emulate other handhelds too.
  9. Haha, yes I know! Very true, it was a fascinating read and as you said having a sole 17 year old be responsible for what was going the biggest game of 1987, especially when even US Gold made Gremlin responsible for the port of previous "biggest game ever" Gauntlet. But I still stand by my view that Outrun on the C64 was utter shite and should never have been released! I remember being so disappointed by it, despite it coming with an extra audio tape so you could listen to the music. Maybe that was to make up for how shite it was. Especially when the often forgotten sequel, Turbo Outrun, was made by Probe who did the other computer conversions and it was really good on the C64.
  10. Sounds good, let’s hope it’s not something silly like £200+ though....
  11. I’m sure Ghost Corps is the official company that manages the Ghostbusters IP (Ivan Reitman has something to do with it as well). Well, someone dressed as a Ghostbuster at the 35th anniversary screening said something like that.
  12. King of Comedy. Underrated Martin Scorcese/Robert De Niro flick (although nowhere near as underrated as New York, New York). Still "stands up" well today, De Niro gives a brilliant performance of someone who on the surface seems like a lightweight Travis Bickle, but underneath is definitely more of a psychopath. However, Sandra Bernhard really gives a standout performance. It's a shame her talent was only used in Hudson Hawk. I'll give it 5 bags of popcorn out of 5, plus a little moustache that Robert De Niro has.
  13. It's a kind of magic... Which brings us nicely back to Outrun on the C64. It's a really interesting story, although I'd read the father's side in Chris Wilkin's book about the C64, but the thing about the story is that: a) the games were utter shite, especially Outrun on the C64. It didn't even review particularly well at the time (despite being massively hyped). People were truly pissed off when they bought it. Roadblasters is even worse. b) Teenagers developing games was fairly normal in the 8-bit days. The Darling brothers had been churning out games for Mastertronic having made something like £200k by the time they were 16 and 17 enabling them to set up Codemasters. The Oliver twins were again something like 16 when they were making games for Codemasters. Matthew Smith was either 16 or 17 when he made Manic Miner. I mean, maybe it's strange that US Gold gave such a prestigious game to a 17 year old to develop, but maybe the article shows just how little regard US Gold still had for their games by reskinning an old racing game into Out Run (kind of like when they infamously took an old Arctic World Cup game and released it as World Cup Carnival), but the article itself doesn't really have much justification if it's trying to highlight how teenagers made games (and a lot of money) in the 80s because there's much more interesting stories they could cover.
  14. Ha, I loved this on the Spectrum. I'm not sure why as it's pretty boring, but I bought the budget re-release for £1.99 and it gave a bit of enjoyment (plus it's fairly easy to complete). Apparently there was an "update" for it on the PC and Atari Jaguar CD. It looks absolutely fucking awful, despite having Christopher Lee in it.
  15. Rasterscan for the Spectrum. I mean, the cover doesn't look particularly interesting, but the screens looked quite colourful for a game for the old rubber beermat. But what really got my interest me was the blurb on the back cover. "Born from the tortured mind of @JPickford of BINARY DESIGN". What sort of insanity could come from the tortured mind of the guy behind classics such as Feud, Glider Rider and Ziggurat? This surely has to be the greatest game ever made???? I handed over my paper round money and cycled home with the game, desperate to find out, finally waiting for the game to load while keeping my fingers crossed I didn't see the dreaded "R: Tape loading error". It turned out John Pickford's tortured mind consisted of a ball rolling around digitised spanners and pointing fingers. (It wasn't a bad game, I was just disappointed it wasn't more like the infamous Spectrum nasty Go To Hell or something)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.