-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Activision kills fan-made Kings Quest sequel
- Thread starter mattiewheels
- Start date
firehawk12
Subete no aware
FUCK FUCK FUUUUUCK.
They already HAD a letter of understanding with Vivendi. Why the fuck do they need to do this?
And Kotick doesn't want people to hate Activision? God damn it.
They already HAD a letter of understanding with Vivendi. Why the fuck do they need to do this?
And Kotick doesn't want people to hate Activision? God damn it.
I don't think it matters what kind of project it is; if it's going to take 8 (6) years to release anything with a "licensed" IP the project is too ambitious (or poorly managed, but I don't know anything about how this project was run). It may turn out to be a decent game, but they were clearly biting off way more than they could chew.Sloane said:
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
confused said:
The thing is, unlike Zelda or Halo, King's Quest is a dead IP. There hasn't been a new game in the series for 12 years and it doesn't seem like Activision is interested in making one. I understand that legally Activision has every right to shut the project down, but it really wouldn't have hurt anyone and Vivendi already gave it the go-ahead.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Remfin said:
Very few of these projects even come close to fruition though - because it's people working on it in their free time.
The fact that they can't raise any capital for a fan project means they don't even have the opportunities that other indie developers have.
Edit: Of course, with TSL specifically, they've had to stop for a long period to resolve the first C&D from Vivendi. They probably halted development once Activision got in touch with them as well.
Castor Krieg
Banned
Htown said:
confused said:
Except if you two took some time and researched the subject you would learn (crazy, I know!) that in Japan (which is not so lawsuit-obsessed country as the U.S.) companies often allow individuals to use their IP to create doujins in form of manga,anime, or even other games. Comiket is one big doujin festival, wonderful stuff comes out of it.
There is no harm done, the fanbase is happy and they support the company and their products. Which is something that the U.S. companies can't see to grasp.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Castor Krieg said:
Not to fork the discussion, but this is what I don't understand about Square's decision to kill any Chrono Trigger related projects... especially when I'm 99% certain that there is Chrono Trigger fan porn produced in Japan every year.
Castor Krieg said:
Has no merit in ths discussion as Activision is not a Japanese company, nor does it adhere to Japan IP leniency.
At the end of the day it still comes down to a unofficial third party using copyrighted IP's to try and make a game, whether commercial or not, without consent of the current owner of the IP. The owner of the IP stopped the development, that is their right.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
confused said:
I don't think anyone is debating the legality. It's just a dick move.
If you want an American example - George Lucas basically judges Star Wars fan films. He could sue everyone who has put on a Storm Tropper uniform in front of a video camera but, maybe because he's old school, he's cool with people doing whatever they want. Christ, someone made a parody film called George Lucas in Love.
Also, CBS Paramount has turned a blind eye to Star Trek fan films - even though they are much more horrible. They have implicit agreements with most producers that state clear ownership of the IP and whatnot and everyone is happy. The fans get to pretend to be Kirk and Paramount gets to own Star Trek without worrying about losing it due to not protecting it.
Castor Krieg
Banned
confused said:
First of all it does have a merit in the discussion. Both of your statements were general in nature, not limited to US company. I pointed out that in other countries the customs are different so it's not like every company is out for blood.
Secondly, we don't know the details of the case, but I would like to point out the game makers had an agreement with Vivendi. That agreement was likely not invalidated by Activision buying Vivendi, as all the legal obligation of Vivendi are still in force. This is most likely the case of Activision saying "we had a deal, whatever, we don't like it, cease development or we sue you", which is nothing else than BULLYING. I guess the developers had a solid case but honestly, can you survive legal fight with the company the size of Activision?
Activision decides it doesn't want to hold up on their deal of the bargain (which they inherited when they bought Vivendi). Not that any fan has the means to fight Activision, even if they're completely in the right.
Another question is - Will this decision affect the King's Quest remakes? (Which are already completed and out there.)
Another question is - Will this decision affect the King's Quest remakes? (Which are already completed and out there.)
There is no way in hell Activision would do anything with King's Quest now unless they successfully found a way to milk it to death with plastic peripherals (or a Collector's Edition with a replica cat cookie to feed Manannan that costs £20 more than it should) so taking action on stuff like this is sickening, especially when the previous license holders - eventually - said it was okay.
Fuck you Activision.
Fuck you Activision.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Tempy said:
I hope not. But they've basically used the fame they got from doing it to make their own game, so I imagine if push came to shove, they'd just take off the Sierra remakes and push it out of the way.
What makes it sad of course is that they actually got in touch with the original designers of QfG2 to do the remake (using their "secret" character import/export feature so that it would be compatible with QfG1 and the sequels).
Castor Krieg
Banned
Althoran said:
I think it was pretty much a given to everyone that Blizard doesn't give a damn what Activision does (rumored D3 pricing, Starcraft 2 split into three games). As long as they can make their games they don't seem to bother what their bigger parent is doing. Activision being smart and knowing they have a golden goose allows Blizzard to do as they please.
:Motorbass
Member
& made Kings Quest sequelMcBacon said:
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
I see that every time.McBacon said:
"Activision kills fan: Made King's Quest sequel"
jon_irenicus
Member
confused said:
I found A Tale of Two Kingdoms to be a pretty slick adventure inspired by the KQ series.
I don't understand why companies do this kind of stuff. Legality aside (and so long as they're not selling it, I'm not convinced it's any less legal than fanart or fanfic), all it's going to do is piss off their biggest fans. I can see companies wanting them to state clearly that it's a fan work and not officially affiliated with the license so that, if it sucks, you won't have people playing it and getting a negative impression of the license. But as long as that's there, what harm could it possibly do?
It's just bizarre to me that so many companies seem to have such a hugely anti-fan mentality.
It's just bizarre to me that so many companies seem to have such a hugely anti-fan mentality.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
hyperbole aside, this is absolutely correct. king's quest, space quest, quest for glory...........these series were dead and buried a long time ago. that's why it's ridiculous when activision can't think of a more gracious way of handling this fan-made game.SovanJedi said:
confused keeps mentioning that defending their IP is the name of the game, but these sierra IP's are a very special case. this isn't a current active series like Zelda, dude, it's a series that got stranded in the nether regions for eternity, only to be summoned up in memory when Activision needs to squash unauthorized projects and then it's quickly forgotten again. I think it's the definition of a company holding an IP hostage.
I AM JOHN!
Banned
I don't understand your point. These people were making this game in their spare time because they were really dedicated to it and it didn't hurt Vivendi in the least because they did nothing to support it aside giving them the OK so long as it was freeware, but it should've been killed because it was taking so long? How is this supposed to make sense?Remfin said:
Seriously, do you not understand how these hobby projects work? Cave Story took five years.
Teeeechnically the fact that they've been rereleasing these games (those packs i retail and more recently on GOG.com) is reason enough to counter your "dead" argument.mattiewheels said:
If The Silver Lining is shit (and I personally have no reason to believe it isn't (or to believe it is, for that matter)), it could hurt sales of those rereleases.
It's stupid bullshit on Activision's part but yeah.
charlequin
Banned
SapientWolf said:
Yes, a fact that's so little-known that it's not actually true. :lol
Copyright requires no protection under the law. In fact, a copyright holder is explicitly allowed to be as inconsistent as they want in protecting or licensing their content to others -- they can ignore it for years, then later come back and file suit; they can let one infringer get away with it while chasing after another; they can grant usage licenses to anyone who asks for years, then stop suddenly and adopt a restrictive stance. The only factors that affect your ability to defend against copyright infringement are registration of the copyrighted material and proof of the date the work was created.
Trademarks do require active policing in order to maintain, but that wouldn't be particularly relevant in a case like this.
confused said:
It's obviously their right. That is, in fact, so completely obvious that it's completely pointless to even bring it up.
What people in this thread are discussing is whether doing so is right from a moral standpoint and/or wise from a business standpoint. There's definitely support for both sides on both issues, but just pointing out "yes, it was in fact legal to do this" doesn't really contribute much.
oracrest said:
Part of the trouble here is that actually doing this requires you to have an active, invested development structure, where the people making business decisions in your organization are closely related to the ones making content decisions and the creative side is driving your business. Valve is dramatically better positioned to take effective advantage of fan projects because of their structure, whereas Activision is both incapable of tapping into the creativity of fans and external developers and incapable of actually making money off of 90% of their IPs due to their structure.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
What's interesting is that Vivendi lawyers came up with a unique fan license to allow this to happen. Even one of the original developer of Space Quest had his fan game C&D'ed by Vivendi back in the day, so I imagine the TSL people impressed Vivendi enough for them to find a way to work around the problem.
But yeah... imagine if Valve decided to kill Black Mesa for no reason other than to be giant dicks about it (and maybe force people to buy their 2 dollar copies of HL1).
But yeah... imagine if Valve decided to kill Black Mesa for no reason other than to be giant dicks about it (and maybe force people to buy their 2 dollar copies of HL1).
I AM JOHN! said:
- Don't run across the street without looking
- Don't eat undercooked food
- Don't take 8 years to release a product based on someone else's IP
And he came up with his own IP instead of leeching off the largess of someone else. I'm not arguing at all that a hobbyist can't take as long as he wants to finish a game. I'm pointing out it's dumb to do it with someone else's IP.
The view from publishers/developers about this incident is, "these people had 6 years to get their shit together, including an unprecedented outreach from the IP owner, and they squandered it. And at the end of the day, the reward we got for spending the time and money to reach out to them just resulted in even more bad press than killing the project in the first place." Lesson learned: kill all hobbyist projects on sight.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
udivision said:
And a good time packaged to suit my needs. My needs that I like.
Dance In My Blood said:
A technicality.
My point was, look at what can happen when a dev like Valve (who gives their engine out for the mod community to play/experiment with) approaches their fan community with open arms, verses the kinds of legal threats and C&D orders that Activision hands out.
In a different scenario, Valve could just as easily have shut down Counter-Strike for illegal use of their game engine, rather than turning it into a profit for them, and giving jobs to the original creators.
Unknown One
Member
Activision is baaad, mkay.soldat7 said:
Damn, I'm sick of gamers being so enamored with game companies that they are not only willing to take in the ass, but love for them to do it. They had a non-commercial agreement to release the game, they didn't just blindly work for the last 5 years knowing it would never see the light of day. I haven't heard of many companies backing out of that, regardless if it has changed hands. There is simply no good reason or justification for it on Activision part. The only thing they stand to lose or gain is goodwill, and in this case they lose some.
I am writing a letter that will probably not do any good, but it was effective last time, and I still give half a shit, which is enough for me to spare 5 minutes of not being a lazy ass.
I am writing a letter that will probably not do any good, but it was effective last time, and I still give half a shit, which is enough for me to spare 5 minutes of not being a lazy ass.