Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Silas Vitalia]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/11/24/vampire-the-masquerade-bloodlines-remake-cancelled/

[Louella Dougans]

Well, that's a bit disheartening.

[Mizhara]

I don't see the problem. This wasn't a mod. It was a full game remake in a new engine, with proprietary content. There's not a company in the world that wouldn't send a CnD on that. If you're going to do something like this, you do it the War For The Overworld way where they contacted those holding the rights to Dungeon Keeper and said "Yeah, we're basically copypasting everything but the engine and art here. We cool?" and got the blessings to do everything but actually using the name and Horned Reaper.

WotO is going to be Dungeon Keeper 3, everyone knows that. They're even using the same voice actor for the narrator etc, and they got permission to do so because they carefully avoided using proprietary content and got permission. Remaking an entire game with the proprietary content? That's not crossing the line, that's having forgot what the line looked like when you launched past it in an ICBM.

[Silas Vitalia]

Not for profit though?

Plenty of publishers look the other way for this kind of thing, it's the small dedicated fans that keep any of that stuff going anyway.   Goliath stepping on them poisons the well for them cheerleading new content for that IP.

If they were going to sell the mod for even .1 isk I think there's a good case but it just seems mean currently to do that.

[Lyn Farel]

Poor guys.

[Mizhara]

From a moral and ethical standpoint, I would agree. The problem is, there are significant legal ramifications. If they allow this use of their proprietary content without any licensing agreements or other arrangements, this opens a floodgate and becomes a legal nightmare. (Note, I am no lawyer, this is just based on what I've garnered from discussions on such things in the past). This is no trademark contesting, but there are still complications.

Basically, this is the only option CCP had. It's one thing to create mods or rebuild the existing thing. It's another entirely to completely remake a game with a whole new engine etc, without doing so in cooperation with the IP owners. Look at Black Mesa. They went ahead and created a free recreation of Half Life, in the HL2 engine and they got Valve's cooperation and blessing, partly because it was a mod and partly because they approached Valve as soon as it became apparent what they were actually going to do.

In this business, it's not easier to be forgiven than get permission. Permission must come first, or you leave the IP owners no choice.

[Lyn Farel]

huh ?

[Lunarisse Aspenstar]

From a moral and ethical standpoint, I would agree. The problem is, there are significant legal ramifications. If they allow this use of their proprietary content without any licensing agreements or other arrangements, this opens a floodgate and becomes a legal nightmare. (Note, I am no lawyer, this is just based on what I've garnered from discussions on such things in the past). This is no trademark contesting, but there are still complications.

Basically, this is the only option CCP had. It's one thing to create mods or rebuild the existing thing. It's another entirely to completely remake a game with a whole new engine etc, without doing so in cooperation with the IP owners. Look at Black Mesa. They went ahead and created a free recreation of Half Life, in the HL2 engine and they got Valve's cooperation and blessing, partly because it was a mod and partly because they approached Valve as soon as it became apparent what they were actually going to do.

In this business, it's not easier to be forgiven than get permission. Permission must come first, or you leave the IP owners no choice.

Miz is correct. 

Lyn, in case this is all confusing to you, here is a helpful - but extremely general - overview from a US law perspective of IP and gaming:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131951/hey_thats_my_game_intellectual_.php?print=1

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I dunno, somehow Bethesda managed to allow those people redoing Morrowind as well...
A simple CnD is really a reaction that is quite disheartening, especially given that CCP could as well offer them other resolutions, like offering a licensing agreement or other somesuch arrangement.

Also, it's not like the people recreating hadn't sought permission by CCP. They contacted someone within CCP and got the info that they only had to ask Activison. Apparently that was wrong, but they did try to go that way.

So, next to handing out a CnD, CCP could have offered that they are open to some sort of licensing agreement. So, CCP had other options than simply shutting them down. I'm sceptical that CCP will be handing out any licensing, though, without expecting to monetize that.

[Saede Riordan]

I don't see the problem. This wasn't a mod. It was a full game remake in a new engine, with proprietary content. There's not a company in the world that wouldn't send a CnD on that.

Have you not heard of Black Mesa?

[Morwen Lagann]

I was under the impression Black Mesa had actually been given a green-light from Valve at one point? Could be wrong. vOv

Slightly off-topic: Black Mesa was incredibly well done when it was finished - at least the first half that's been released so far. They're still working on Xen and the Deathmatch stuff afaik, and there some members of the community who have made patches/mods to Black Mesa that re-introduce some parts of the original Half-Life that were removed in BMS (like the really long railway section, which was pretty heavily reduced in length for Black Mesa).

[Mizhara]

If you read what I've written, I mentioned Black Mesa. They went ahead and got the go-ahead from Valve, who benefited from it. You also have to remember, you need a Source Engine game to play Black Mesa as it's technically a mod and not a self-contained game. It's got its own launcher etc, but you need to install the dependencies from another Source game as well.

I kind of doubt you'd have to buy Eve or the original Bloodlines to play this thing.

[Silas Vitalia]

CCP is not nor will ever be Valve.  In attitude or disposition to others.

Read how valve treats their employees. Compare to CCP.

[Jace]

I see nothing wrong with dropping a CnD on them over this. To the point that I'm baffled people have a problem with them doing so. Valuable proprietary content that can be monetized in the future either by selling the rights to others that will actually put the correct resources into the project or by doing it themselves ten years from now when Dust and Valkyrie are dead. Either way, it would be silly to let someone do this.

[Lyn Farel]

From a moral and ethical standpoint, I would agree. The problem is, there are significant legal ramifications. If they allow this use of their proprietary content without any licensing agreements or other arrangements, this opens a floodgate and becomes a legal nightmare. (Note, I am no lawyer, this is just based on what I've garnered from discussions on such things in the past). This is no trademark contesting, but there are still complications.

Basically, this is the only option CCP had. It's one thing to create mods or rebuild the existing thing. It's another entirely to completely remake a game with a whole new engine etc, without doing so in cooperation with the IP owners. Look at Black Mesa. They went ahead and created a free recreation of Half Life, in the HL2 engine and they got Valve's cooperation and blessing, partly because it was a mod and partly because they approached Valve as soon as it became apparent what they were actually going to do.

In this business, it's not easier to be forgiven than get permission. Permission must come first, or you leave the IP owners no choice.

Miz is correct. 

Lyn, in case this is all confusing to you, here is a helpful - but extremely general - overview from a US law perspective of IP and gaming:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131951/hey_thats_my_game_intellectual_.php?print=1

Sorry I should have been more explicit, I was refering to the second part of the quote... I don't doubt they are in their right and all.

Anyway Nico answered for me.