Ryan Silberman (WISHLIST WINNIE-THE-POOH)
@ryansilberman.bsky.social
29 | He/Him | Cishet | Local Pac-Man encyclopedia. Artist. Writer. Gamer. Currently working on Winnie-the-Pooh Hops for Honey.
https://linktr.ee/ryansilberman
I also contributed to the lovely book, Pac-Man: Birth of an Icon
#indiegame #indiedev #art
https://linktr.ee/ryansilberman
I also contributed to the lovely book, Pac-Man: Birth of an Icon
#indiegame #indiedev #art
Picked up Antonblast today!
November 8, 2025 at 5:15 AM
Picked up Antonblast today!
Sick room!
November 7, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Sick room!
HAHA YUP
November 4, 2025 at 5:54 AM
HAHA YUP
As someone that's been feeling a bit down on the original these recent years, the Re-Pac makes me SO happy it's a thing.
Genuine highlight of the year for me.
Genuine highlight of the year for me.
November 3, 2025 at 2:16 AM
As someone that's been feeling a bit down on the original these recent years, the Re-Pac makes me SO happy it's a thing.
Genuine highlight of the year for me.
Genuine highlight of the year for me.
Nobody really knows for sure, but entertaining that runs a risk of possibility of breaching the legal paperwork. So they don't do it at all.
But if they were to do it at AtGames takes action, it only really means Bamco gets less revenue to themselves than they would've wanted from the Pac-Man game.
But if they were to do it at AtGames takes action, it only really means Bamco gets less revenue to themselves than they would've wanted from the Pac-Man game.
October 31, 2025 at 2:31 AM
It's all business business business and numbers
Bamco don't wanna earn less money from Pac-Man because of some outside party being entitled to royalties for a particular piece of Pac-Man. It's easier on their bank to avoid the problem rather than tackle it
Otherwise, they could end this overnight
Bamco don't wanna earn less money from Pac-Man because of some outside party being entitled to royalties for a particular piece of Pac-Man. It's easier on their bank to avoid the problem rather than tackle it
Otherwise, they could end this overnight
October 31, 2025 at 2:21 AM
It's all business business business and numbers
Bamco don't wanna earn less money from Pac-Man because of some outside party being entitled to royalties for a particular piece of Pac-Man. It's easier on their bank to avoid the problem rather than tackle it
Otherwise, they could end this overnight
Bamco don't wanna earn less money from Pac-Man because of some outside party being entitled to royalties for a particular piece of Pac-Man. It's easier on their bank to avoid the problem rather than tackle it
Otherwise, they could end this overnight
Nobody really knows for sure, but entertaining that runs a risk of possibility of breaching the legal paperwork. So they don't do it at all.
But if they were to do it at AtGames takes action, it only really means Bamco gets less revenue to themselves than they would've wanted from the Pac-Man game.
But if they were to do it at AtGames takes action, it only really means Bamco gets less revenue to themselves than they would've wanted from the Pac-Man game.
October 31, 2025 at 2:13 AM
Nobody really knows for sure, but entertaining that runs a risk of possibility of breaching the legal paperwork. So they don't do it at all.
But if they were to do it at AtGames takes action, it only really means Bamco gets less revenue to themselves than they would've wanted from the Pac-Man game.
But if they were to do it at AtGames takes action, it only really means Bamco gets less revenue to themselves than they would've wanted from the Pac-Man game.
AtGames owns nothing Ms. Pac-Man.
Entitlement to a royalty share is not owning the product outright. Otherwise, they would have no problem releasing Ms. Pac-Man stuff on their own without Bamco's approval.
Entitlement to a royalty share is not owning the product outright. Otherwise, they would have no problem releasing Ms. Pac-Man stuff on their own without Bamco's approval.
October 31, 2025 at 2:09 AM
AtGames owns nothing Ms. Pac-Man.
Entitlement to a royalty share is not owning the product outright. Otherwise, they would have no problem releasing Ms. Pac-Man stuff on their own without Bamco's approval.
Entitlement to a royalty share is not owning the product outright. Otherwise, they would have no problem releasing Ms. Pac-Man stuff on their own without Bamco's approval.
Bamco do not need permission to use Ms. Pac-Man.
But they also do not want to be legally obligated to pay money to any outside party that would've otherwise been their profit. Especially when the product is, by and large, a Pac-Man one.
That said, the ball has always, ALWAYS been in their court.
But they also do not want to be legally obligated to pay money to any outside party that would've otherwise been their profit. Especially when the product is, by and large, a Pac-Man one.
That said, the ball has always, ALWAYS been in their court.
October 31, 2025 at 2:06 AM
Bamco do not need permission to use Ms. Pac-Man.
But they also do not want to be legally obligated to pay money to any outside party that would've otherwise been their profit. Especially when the product is, by and large, a Pac-Man one.
That said, the ball has always, ALWAYS been in their court.
But they also do not want to be legally obligated to pay money to any outside party that would've otherwise been their profit. Especially when the product is, by and large, a Pac-Man one.
That said, the ball has always, ALWAYS been in their court.
HUGE CONGRATS
October 20, 2025 at 2:21 AM
HUGE CONGRATS
O h
October 20, 2025 at 12:32 AM
O h