🕹️ New release: Lunar Lander Beyond

Forums > Game Forums > Below the Root > Who is the publisher

user avatar

BostonGeorge (751) on 2/13/2009 2:22 PM · Permalink · Report

Hi,

I found a C64 Disk from this game on ebay. On this Disk
is the Electronic Arts Logo so I guess they published it.
But on the Rap Sheet here Electronic Arts isn't even mentioned.
So...anybody an idea??

user avatar

Foxhack (32100) on 2/13/2009 11:44 PM · Permalink · Report

You could have a later EA release. Something we haven't heard about until now. :)

user avatar

BostonGeorge (751) on 2/16/2009 3:23 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

I haven't bought it but I was just curios about that fact. EA buys really everything what will make money ;D When it'll ever get in my collection I will scan and add it here... but thanks!

here is the link for it:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Commodore-64-128-Below-the-Root-Disk_W0QQitemZ110347453207QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Software#ebayphotohosting

user avatar

vedder (70822) on 2/16/2009 4:49 PM · Permalink · Report

It also gives copyright to Quest Software in the bottom left, to make things more complicated.

user avatar

Terok Nor (42013) on 2/16/2009 5:21 PM · Permalink · Report

Speculation:

Developed by Quest Software, originally published by Windham. Later then licensed from Windham to Electronic Arts, who published this release.

user avatar

BostonGeorge (751) on 2/17/2009 3:48 PM · Permalink · Report

hmm... all I found out during the last hours:

The company "Quest Software Inc." appears 1987 for the first time with Legacy of the Ancients, not earlier.

The company "Dale Disharoon, Inc." developed Alice in Wonderland 1985, which is very similar to "Below the Root" and also published by Windham Classics.

Windham Classics published the Apple/II-Release for BtR 1984 and were at that time a part of Spinnaker_Software. There is nothing to read about anything they sold (or were sold) to EA.

I think Windham Classics was the Publisher for BtR in 1984 and maybe the developer was "Dale Disharoon, Inc." but I am not quite sure about that last fact.

In 1987 it could what Terok Nor said that EA bought the license and maybe Quest Software re-coded the game for EA for the Commodore (thats what the disk on ebay is for).

Thats just also a speculation. I was 6 years old at this time :D

user avatar

Terok Nor (42013) on 2/17/2009 8:57 PM · Permalink · Report

Does anyone see a "129202" in the upper right corner of the disk? Because that would be really strange. Could this be a Photoshop op? But why?

user avatar

vedder (70822) on 2/17/2009 9:21 PM · Permalink · Report

could be 262 or 282, can't tell really.

user avatar

formercontrib (157510) on 2/17/2009 10:04 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Here stood bullshit ;)

user avatar

BostonGeorge (751) on 2/18/2009 8:30 AM · Permalink · Report

I see 129202 but what does this mean? Why is it so strange?? I don't get it, I just got up....

user avatar

Terok Nor (42013) on 2/18/2009 8:26 AM · Permalink · Report

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this is a fake.

Every EA C64 disk I've seen (we have quite a few on file actually) has loading instructions in the lower right. This one doesn't. "Windham Classics" is written in a weird way - too small, (again, compare to others). Quest Software on this title doesn't make any sense - Quest was the Dougherty brothers and they just made RPGs.

I say it's a recolored and brushed version of the Legacy of the Ancients disk - product code, disk side labels, copyright, platform are all exactly the same (if I'm correct with the code). But again, why would someone want to do that?

user avatar

BostonGeorge (751) on 2/18/2009 8:39 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Terok Nor wrote--]The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this is a fake. ... But again, why would someone want to do that? [/Q --end Terok Nor wrote--]

Yeah that was my apprehension too, and the cause for not buying it. But maybe the seller got punked from someone before and because of the lack of a functional floppy drive he wasn't able to test it and now he is sure that he has a treasure here. ;D

user avatar

St. Martyne (3648) on 2/18/2009 9:12 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start stvedder wrote--]could be 262 or 282, can't tell really. [/Q --end stvedder wrote--]

Looking at this I'd say its rather unlikely. Notice that nearly all indexes include a 02 at the end of the sequence.

user avatar

vedder (70822) on 2/18/2009 12:52 PM · Permalink · Report

In that case it's most likely a fraud.

user avatar

BostonGeorge (751) on 2/18/2009 1:10 PM · Permalink · Report

ARRRGH!! And we are breaking brains here...