KirbyWorshipper2465
Smash Legend
Ms. Pac-Man just got a new line of cabinets announced by Arcade1UP.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
From a copyright standpoint, the fact that Ms. Pac-Man is seeing a rerelease is fantastic news and the fact that it's on a non-AtGames console is even better. I don't know if it's completely damning evidence that Ms. Pac-Man's copyright lawsuits have finally been finalized after nearly four decades now but this might just be the end of this long journey.Ms. Pac-Man just got a new line of cabinets announced by Arcade1UP.
The terms are confidential, but AtGames was able to release their Arcade Blast product, and I speculate that Ms. Pac-Man will be useless to AtGames for the foreseeable future.AtGames Press Release said:LOS ANGELES, November 4, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -AtGames is pleased to announce the upcoming return of the popular Bandai Namco Arcade Blast! This innovative product (WD3305/WD3305S) packs 10 classic arcade games, including Dig Dug, Galaga, Galaxian, Mappy, New Rally-X, Pac-Man, Pac-Mania, Sky Kid, Tower of Druaga, and Xevious, into one patented HDMI-based micro-console, and is paired with a high-performance wireless gamepad. Like other Blast!-series products, the Bandai Namco Arcade Blast! also works via APL™ (Arcade Play Link) on the full-size Legends Ultimate home arcade series, making direct use of their arcade-quality controls and high definition display.
This announcement comes after a U.S. federal court dismissed Bandai Namco’s lawsuit against AtGames over IP rights in Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man games last week (Order of Dismissal by the Honorable Vince Chhabria of US District Court for the Northern District of California dated October 27, 2020, Case No. 19-cv-05898-VC).
Yep, and Pac-Man's fighter spirit is his Sonic Dash render.I never knew this but apparently a couple years ago both Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man were added to Sonic Dash as part of a promotional crossover.
Oh, and Sonic was in Pac Man Heroes in return.
Double posts are fine as long as their 24 hours apart.Apologies for the double post.
I really, really hope that a Ms. Pac-Man theme is eventually included alongside the Dig Dug, Galaga, and Xevious ones.Well, guess what was just announced a few moments ago...
I swear if the Ms. doesn't show up in this game at some point, then I'll start to get really worried.
As long as there are those legal issues with the actual creators of Ms. Pac-Man, we'll probably never see her in an actual new game ever again, sadly.I really, really hope that a Ms. Pac-Man theme is eventually included alongside the Dig Dug, Galaga, and Xevious ones.
Honestly, we should consider asking the official Pac-Man twitter for a Ms. Pac-Man theme. If enough people ask, maybe they'd consider it?
Well, the AtGames issue was settled out of court. And while we don't know what the terms of that agreement were, we do know that there's at least been that Ms. Pac-Man cabinet through Arcade1UP. Optimistically, I would guess that Bandai Namco offered to drop the lawsuit in exchange for AtGames' selling the Ms. Pac-Man royalty rights to Bandai Namco. We know that they've wanted to have absolute control of the property for ages now, but I suspect that they really want to get those rights by the time Ms. Pac-Man's 40th anniversary comes around. (Which is either late 2021 or early 2022, depending on who you ask.)As long as there are those legal issues with the actual creators of Ms. Pac-Man, we'll probably never see her in an actual new game ever again, sadly.
There's also the suspected possibility that Bamco just wants the rights so they can finally bury all of GCC/Midway's additions to the franchise. Bamco still holds the rights to the character, so their current strategy of burying the Midway characters is counterproductive; the only explanation is that Bamco wants to conform to Iwatani's original wishes of the Pac-Man "franchise" only consisting of the original and similar permutations.Well, the AtGames issue was settled out of court. And while we don't know what the terms of that agreement were, we do know that there's at least been that Ms. Pac-Man cabinet through Arcade1UP. Optimistically, I would guess that Bandai Namco offered to drop the lawsuit in exchange for AtGames' selling the Ms. Pac-Man royalty rights to Bandai Namco. We know that they've wanted to have absolute control of the property for ages now, but I suspect that they really want to get those rights by the time Ms. Pac-Man's 40th anniversary comes around. (Which is either late 2021 or early 2022, depending on who you ask.)
I think the more reasonable interpretation of their actions is that they haven't been using the characters because they would have to pay royalties. Bandai Namco is a company, and companies are meant to make money. Ms. Pac-Man is - as described by Bandai Namco themselves in their AtGames lawsuit - a profitable franchise with a ton of name recognition. There's no reason to suspect that they wouldn't produce more merchandise than they already do if they could.There's also the suspected possibility that Bamco just wants the rights so they can finally bury all of GCC/Midway's additions to the franchise. Bamco still holds the rights to the character, so their current strategy of burying the Midway characters is counterproductive; the only explanation is that Bamco wants to conform to Iwatani's original wishes of the Pac-Man "franchise" only consisting of the original and similar permutations.
They don't have to pay royalties for using the character though, just for selling the original game. Bandai Namco is seemingly trying to bury Ms. Pac-Man to devalue the character so no one will check out her original game. It's a strange strategy.I think the more reasonable interpretation of their actions is that they haven't been using the characters because they would have to pay royalties. Bandai Namco is a company, and companies are meant to make money. Ms. Pac-Man is - as described by Bandai Namco themselves in their AtGames lawsuit - a profitable franchise with a ton of name recognition. There's no reason to suspect that they wouldn't produce more merchandise than they already do if they could.
My understanding is that the royalties do/did affect any use of the character in merchandising, as well as rereleases of the original game and its code. At the very least, the original agreement between GCC and Midway specified both that they receive royalties for the game and also for any merchandise sales. (That was the reasoning behind the original GCC v Midway lawsuit; GCC saw how much merchandise was being made and how often the character was being used in things like the Hanna Barbara show and wanted a cut. For a long time, Namco stopped following the terms of this agreement because they didn't know it existed, up until about 2008, when a new agreement was made between GCC and Bandai Namco.)They don't have to pay royalties for using the character though, just for selling the original game. Bandai Namco is seemingly trying to bury Ms. Pac-Man to devalue the character so no one will check out her original game. It's a strange strategy.
No, you're right. I'm only going off of Wikipedia, but yes, it seems that GCC did want a cut of the merch after the game became as successful as it did. I was under the impression from the Jonii video that GCC had to be paid for nearly every sale of the original game. According to Wikipedia though, some royalty rights remain unresolved, so depending on what that means, the settlement between AtGames and Namco can go either way.My understanding is that the royalties do/did affect any use of the character in merchandising, as well as rereleases of the original game and its code. At the very least, the original agreement between GCC and Midway specified both that they receive royalties for the game and also for any merchandise sales. (That was the reasoning behind the original GCC v Midway lawsuit; GCC saw how much merchandise was being made and how often the character was being used in things like the Hanna Barbara show and wanted a cut. For a long time, Namco stopped following the terms of this agreement because they didn't know it existed, up until about 2008, when a new agreement was made between GCC and Bandai Namco.)
Do you have a source that clarifies that the royalties were only for the original game? I ask because I have researched this extensively, and my understanding was the opposite.
I actually wrote that section you linked from the Wikipedia page.No, you're right. I'm only going off of Wikipedia, but yes, it seems that GCC did want a cut of the merch after the game became as successful as it did. I was under the impression from the Jonii video that GCC had to be paid for nearly every sale of the original game. According to Wikipedia though, some royalty rights remain unresolved, so depending on what that means, the settlement between AtGames and Namco can go either way.
That said, I don't doubt that Pac-Man 99 was probably being developed before the settlement, so there's probably no hope for Ms. Pac-Man at launch. But if the stars align, the Midway cast could make their return to the franchise. Again, it could go either way.
Yep, I even found this article that confirms what you said about the agreement and the time when GCC took Midway to court over not getting royalties from Ms. Pac-Man merch (you might wanna add that as a source to Wikipedia, since I had to find a source for that lawsuit).I actually wrote that section you linked from the Wikipedia page.
The line that "some royalty rights remain unresolved" is taken directly from this article, and it's intentionally vague because the public was never made privy to the exact terms of the agreement between GCC and Bandai Namco. That said, it's probably nearly identical to the original agreement made between Midway and GCC regarding merchandising and the original game's code.
Based on what we've been told by previous members of GCC, GCC and Namco entered into an agreement October 14, 1983, seven days after October 5, 1983, when they entered into an agreement with Midway following arbitration. Midway and Namco terminated their relationship in 1984 (though it took until 1987 for Midway to stop production of Ms. Pac-Man machines for some reason.)
Things got weird because Namco probably assumed that its obligations to GCC didn't exist anymore, as the agreement made Midway responsible for paying royalties to GCC for Ms. Pac-Man. This means that Ms. Pac-Man's appearances in Pac-Man 2: The New Adventures, Pac-Man World, Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness, Pac-Man: Adventures in Time, Ms. Pac-Man: Quest for the Golden Maze, Pac-Man All Stars, Pac-Man Fever, Pac-Man World 2, Pac 'n Roll, Pac-Man World 3, and Pac-Man World Rally may all have been without GCC's knowledge.
GCC approached Namco in 2002 after one of their members saw the Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga 20th Anniversary arcade machine. (Which is coincidentally also when the only person at Namco with knowledge of the original Ms. Pac-Man's development, Namco President Masaya Nakamura, resigned.) Those negotiations lasted until an agreement was reached in 2006, at which point we stop seeing Ms. Pac-Man appear in games, and we only rarely see merchandise and rereleases of the game.
If I had to guess, GCC insisted on similar terms to what they had before, which is why things got so difficult for Namco.
That article is cited in the Wikipedia article already, though I should cite it there. Thanks.Yep, I even found this article that confirms what you said about the agreement and the time when GCC took Midway to court over not getting royalties from Ms. Pac-Man merch (you might wanna add that as a source to Wikipedia, since I had to find a source for that lawsuit).
I would be surprised if Namco wasn't aware that Ms. Pac-Man was made by non-Namco staff, as that and following games like Mr. & Mrs. Pac-Man, Baby Pac-Man, and Professor Pac-Man were the reason they ended their relationship with Midway.I'd still say that part of the issue is Namco's pride. As this part of Jonii's Ms. Pac-Man video shows, like you said, Namco at the time simply wasn't aware of the royalty agreement with GCC. Now that they're well aware once more of GCC's role as the "real daddy" of Ms. Pac-Man and arguably the franchise as a whole, they disdain the idea of an outside team being responsible for one of their most popular characters, which has caused Bandai Namco to first create the Ghostly Adventures reboot, then phase the Midway characters out of the main maze games.
Strangely, Ms. Pac-Man did appear as recently as 2018 as a limited-time collaboration with Sonic Dash. I wonder what kind of agreements with GCC had to be reached to even achieve that, if at all.
I agree with all of this for her "unique" Bonus Fruits.So, I've been thinking about fruit recently. I've always imagined that the Missus would play identically to Pac-Man with the exception of her fruit, but I've had a hard time deciding what each fruit should actually do.
I think the most likely possibility for the first three fruit (cherry, strawberry, and orange) would be for them to act exactly like Pac-Man's. It would be interesting if they were different, but the first few fruit have pretty standard uses and the orange especially is a critical part of Pac-Man's moveset that I would hate to go without.
I like the idea of making the pretzel do loops in front of Ms. Pac-Man, and not moving very quickly, acting mainly to secure space for a time. Sort of like a defensive Galaxian rather than an offensive one.
I guess the apple could be similar to Pac's, but maybe having different properties since it comes later in the charge. Maybe it could take shorter bounces and travel less far, but kill earlier.
Where I'm really stuck is the pear and the banana. It doesn't seem right to make them act like Pac-Man's final two fruit, but I'm not sure what exactly they should do either. Being the final two fruit, they should be worth charging up to.
My best idea for the pear is making it fly similarly to the bell, but either burying opponents or doing a lot of shield damage. I'm not sure which works more, but the pear looks really bottom-heavy, so it seems right for it to do something like that.
The banana seems a natural fit for making the opponent trip, but that's such an underwhelming power for the final fruit. I don't know if it makes sense for it to act like the key, either. It would also be nice for her final fruit to be strong enough to launch her hydrant, assuming she has one. Clearly it should be pretty damaging, but what can it do that would be interesting?
Maybe it could spike? that would be a really unique attribute for an item, but I worry that it would be hard to balance. Maybe it doesn't go as far in return?
What would y'all do differently? I'm curious to hear other ideas.
Enjoyed this a lot, thanks for sharingMs. Pac Man Medley.
It was specifically designed to be a fanmade counterpart to the Pac Man retro medley we have in Smash already, just for Ms. Pac-Man instead.Enjoyed this a lot, thanks for sharing
Its a dangerous prediction but I keep feeling that there should be like 3 last minute DLC characters echos with 3 returning stages it would be the best way to end off smash ultimate DLC. Like they could just easily bring characters such as Ms. Pac-man, Protoman, Mega Charizard X and Metal Mario all of them wouldn’t even require voice actor. And there is enough space for 4 more characters and 3 stages on smash ultimate after fighter pack 2 is doneSo, I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but...
Imagine if this was a bonus of, like, 3 echo fighters or something. I know it's not gonna happen, but I want to believe.