I wasn't making the argument that you actually think you know more about the subject than Brad but that is what your posts implicitly suggest. It looked to me you were claiming, through multiple posts, that you don't believe that the mark itself was worth what Stardock paid if it was solely for the "brand" name. Brad gave multiple explanations and analogies, none of which persuaded you from your "gut" feeling.
I don't know how much it costs to create a brand from nothing (but Brad does!), but I imagine it is quite a bit. Stardock paid $300,000 and as a result didn't have to create a brand from scratch that potential customers associate with the type of game he is making. Brad is telling you that the cost of creating a new brand would exceed the cost of buying the mark, alone. You either think you know better than him, or you are implying he is being untruthful.
OK, i did not mean to come across as offended or anything. I am not trying to argue about this just for the sake of arguing, i am trying to get things explained to me.
You say i am basing my beliefs on "gut feelings", but what else have been Brad´s vague "explanations" and analogies? Should i believe that sequel to 20 years old niche game is gonna sell like hot cakes, because of the soda analogy?
And if i am said that cost of creating a new brand from scratch is more than buying existing mark, OK then, but to accept that claim, specifically in Star Control´s case (or computer games in general), i would really like to know, what exactly you dont to have to do now, when you have the mark, as opposed if you did not have it - from marketing POV? I assume you still need the trailer and all kind of advertising and promotion anyway, regardless of the name of the game, so where are the increased costs in the process of creating a new brand go into?
This is what interests me, and i dont think it was explained to me, at least no to the extent, which would make me satisfied.