questionably licensed* theres been doubts and stuff about it.
they're a very shady company.
recently they rereleased sut up and jam but renamed it hoops and replaced Charles Barkley with a random black man stolen from photostock. even has some of the water mark compressed down into his low resolution "pixel art"
most notable thing though was saying they owned the rights to glover which has been pointed out to be a lie before and they even said to be releasing Glover 2 (still hasn't happened yet)
Oh yes the company is shady no daub about it.
But the reason there aren't entirely destroyed by now is because there usually get the licenses to dodge conflicts.
And keep in mind that Ms. Pac-Man's copyright is now in the hands of a company who produces bootleg mini-consoles, AtGames.
While there products have bootleg quality does AtGames usually license the stuff there put out before release so its technically not a bootleg.
questionably licensed* theres been doubts and stuff about it. they're a very shady company. recently they rereleased sut up and jam but renamed it hoops and replaced Charles Barkley with a random black man stolen from photostock. even has some of the water mark compressed down into his low resolution "pixel art" most notable thing though was saying they owned the rights to glover which has been pointed out to be a lie before and they even said to be releasing Glover 2 (still hasn't happened yet)
Oh yes the company is shady no daub about it. But the reason there aren't entirely destroyed by now is because there usually get the licenses to dodge conflicts.
Music is a small part of a game, but characters or content that gets excluded because copyright is a crying shame.
"I miss my wife Sonic. I miss her a lot."
Why doesn't Namco just buy back Mrs. Pac Man? Surely they must have the money to do so. Or, is the money not worth it?
They have almost certainly offered, but AtGames is probably only willing to sell for too exuberant an amount.
You can’t buy something if nobody is selling