8-Year Fan-Made Game Project Shut Down By Activision 265
An anonymous reader writes "Activision, after acquiring Vivendi, became the new copyright holder of the classic King's Quest series of adventure game. They have now issued a cease and desist order to a team which has worked for eight years on a fan-made project initially dubbed a sequel to the last official installment, King's Quest 8. This stands against the fact that Vivendi granted a non-commercial license to the team, subject to Vivendi's approval of the game after submission. After the acquisition, key team members had indicated on the game's forums (now stripped of their original content by order of Activision) that Activision had given the indication that it intended to keep its current fan-game licenses, but was not interested in issuing new ones."
Boo (Score:5, Insightful)
It's good to know who are friends of gamers. Activision clearly isn't among them.
Re:Boo (Score:5, Insightful)
It's good to know who are friends of gamers. Activision clearly isn't among them.
With Ubisoft pushing its always-online DRM and Activision doing this and releasing just something along the lines of Guitar Hero 28 and new WoW expansions, it's really surprising EA has become the good and innovative guy. They've dropped DRM in many games too and are developing innovative and new IP games like Mirrors Edge, Mass Effect, Dragon Age..
Re:Boo (Score:5, Insightful)
They got the slap on the wrist good and early. They're turning it around. Wonder how much noise it will take to get Activision back into shape.
Last games by Activision I really enjoyed were Earthworm Jim, Civilization II, and Tony Hawk II (stopped playing the series after that).
Heck, gotten more use out of a free bottle opener from them than any of these games combined.
Wonder if they'd be up to push trademarks on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(interactive_novel) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Boo (Score:4, Insightful)
I think MechWarrior 2 was the last thing Activision ever did that I cared about. I certainly won't be buying anything from them anytime soon.
And they'll be crying when this fan made game leaks out accidentally onto the internet and is enjoyed by all and they get absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought MW2:Mercenaries was more fun than MW2, although MW2 had the Glide patch so it took advantage of the VooDoo card. In multiplayer both had the problem that each round was 15 minutes of customising your mech, followed by 5-10 minutes of gameplay.
MW3 was a lot of fun too. I remember creating a light mech with just an ER Large Laser, not heatsinks, no armour, and a massively over-spec'd reactor (with jump jets). It could cover the entire map in about 10 seconds and a head shot from it could take
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Boo (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Boo (Score:5, Insightful)
If the issue really is with one dude, you never know, splinters have a way of getting squeezed out.
Disney had the same problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner [wikipedia.org]
It resolved itself.
Re:Boo (Score:4, Insightful)
Disney had the same problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner [wikipedia.org]
It resolved itself.
That won't be clear until 2023. If Disney has turned itself around after having lost Eisner, it won't have bought another copyright term extension from the U.S. Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Boo (Score:4, Interesting)
What I remember Activision for was the original MechWarrior game [wikipedia.org]. I had to underclock my 486DX2-66 (still in my (mom's) basement (no, I don't live down there...yet)) to 10 MHz so the "robots" moved at a reasonable speed [abandonia.com]. Of course, when starting at opposite ends of the battlefield, it was much quicker to hit the turbo button and jump back up to 66 MHz till they started firing on you and then slow down again. One run in which the button didn't uncatch, leading to many frantic pushes, resulted in having to sell two Battlemechs just to cover repair costs.
Gosh,
Re:Boo (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that you have "friends" in the corporate world, you are quite naive. The only friends that corporate executives have, go by names like "Dollar", "Yen", and "Euro".
The previous owners thought that their "generous" licensing to fan groups might net some money in the long run, the current owners feel that locking things up will make more money. There's the story in a single sentence.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's pretty apparent they could give less of a shit about any of their customers.
In fact, Activision is only CALLED Activision because they wanted to supercede ATARI on all of the alphabetical listings to drive up sales.
Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really familiar with this project, but couldn't they just call Princess Rosella like "Princess Rosetta" and so on? It's not like Activision can lay claim to the entire swords and sorcery genre.
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like open-and-shut breach of contract, and Activision will get their asses handed to them if this fan site can find a good lawyer.
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not a rhetorical question. I'm actually wondering if there was, and what it was. This might be rendered null and void due to ownership transferral (as in, Activision owns Vivendi, and now has full, autonomous say over their IPs)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Note, I'm not sure how things were set up in this case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Activision will get their asses handed to them if this fan site can find a good lawyer.
You meant: "Activision may get their asses handed to them if this fan site can find a good lawyer who will agree to work for a contingency fee."
Re: (Score:2)
They will? From the summary:
"This stands against the fact that Vivendi granted a non-commercial license to the team, subject to Vivendi's approval of the game after submission."
Sounds me like Activision is simply exercising their right under the license to not approve.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The central problem is that under the negotiated terms Activision has an unconditional termination right. There's a lesson here: don't put serious amounts of time and effort in something when a third party can simply nix it at will, no matter how friendly that third party appears today.
Either get your paperwork sorted out in advance, so that you have a contract that clearly states the terms of publication and doesn't contain termination clauses like this, or don't make a fan game, but come up with something
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Insightful)
No doubt. And if you don't actively attempt to defend your trademarks... you can lose them.
So basically these fan devs picked a fight with Activision and put Activision's back up against a wall.
Very, very stupid on the developers part. I can't blame Activision at all.
I may be putting too much faith in the summary but it specifically says they were licensed by Vivendi.You can't lose your trademarks by giving specific groups permission to use them. Quite the opposite, this demonstrates control over the mark. In any event, it's hard to see how getting permission from Vivendi, and then discussing with Activision once they'd taken over Vivendi, represents picking a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
no, but if that's the case, maybe it's time they did pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
If Vivendi already gave them permission then what right does Activision have, as acquisitional inheritor of their obligations, to renege on that?
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even simpler than that. The common mis-belief, and in the summary again, is that Activision bought Vivendi. It's the other way around, Vivendi bought Activision and now Vivendi owns Activision Blizzard. I don't see where their old licensing would had moved.
Re: (Score:2)
The options of a company whose trademark is "endangered" by 3rd party works are
- litigate (cease & desist)
- legalize (license & support).
Vivendi's trademark of Kings Quest was never in danger because the fan-made sequel was officially licensed and endorsed by the company. It wasn't unattended infringement which endangers a trademark, it was a child project.
Activision's move here is totally unreasonable and without a bit of common sense (the new game could only draw more attention and purchases to th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From TFA: "Recently, however, ownership of the Sierra IP changed hands and became the property of Activision. After talks and negotiations in the last few months between ourselves and Activision, they have reached the decision that they are not interested in granting a non-commercial license to The Silver Lining, and have asked that we cease production and take down all related materials on our website."
Sounds more organised than some businesses I could name. Doesn't sound like f
Re: (Score:2)
It may be more complicated because this is a fan project, and hence was going to be free, and expense is hard to calculate... but in general, if you are left in a lurch because the other party reneges on an agreement that you BOTH reached and which Y
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Insightful)
> ... you're in a pretty favorable legal position.
Except when the other party has lots of money and you don't. Welcome to the realities of our legal system.
Taking the good with the bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Tort lawyers prefer to get paid a cut of the judgment, so it doesn't matter how much money the fan-developers have.
Re:Taking the good with the bad (Score:5, Informative)
I think the problem is, per the original agreement, the game was always subject to the Vivendi's approval before release. Now that the IP belongs to Activision, the game is theoretically subject to their approval. All Activision needs to do to kill the project dead is to refuse to approve anything.
It's a crying shame, because the TSL guys were cooperative and accommodating every step of the way. They sought out a license in the first place, and complied with every change requested of them without complaint (they dropped the "King's Quest" name from the project a few years back because Vivendi/Sierra weren't willing to grant a fan license on the trademark, for instance). But I suppose, in the long run, it's not unexpected.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you specifically grant a license to 3M because you don't mind them using the name, you protect your right to sue the corner pharmacy, if you so choose. That was the case here -- there was an agreement in place for this specific use, so there was no risk of genericide, because the term was still protected from general use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks which have lost their legal protection in the US due to a lack of zealous lawyering include "aspirin," originally a trademark of Bayer AG [snip]
References and more info are available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark [wikipedia.org]
The Aspirin case at least has nothing to do with genericised trademarks, but with victor's justice in the First World War. From Wikipedia's article on Aspirin:
As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with Heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name and can be spelled in lower case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trademarks which have lost their legal protection in the US due to a lack of zealous lawyering include...
And we're all better off for it too.
Re:Never build a house on another man's land... (Score:4, Insightful)
Zipper was a trademark which wasn't enforced, and thus it became genericized. If it had been enforced, we'd have to call zippers "sliding fasteners" or something equally awkward. The physical design to which the trademark refers could or could not be patented, that's a completely different issue from whether or not the brand name that refers to the design is trademarked.
You could trademark a non-patented design, or patent a design and not trademark a name for it. Patents and trademarks are apples and oranges.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't lose the rights to an another party, but you will be unable to protect them in the future again because you didn't do so earlier either. If a company gets knowledge that their trademarks are used without their permission, they have to defend them.
Wikipedia explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights [wikipedia.org]
But note that it's not only about trademarks here, it's also about Intellectual Property.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone cite a case of this actually happening?
Aspirin
Kleenex
Zipper
All trademarks, once upon a time. All genericized now. Satisfied? You don't keep a trademark by filling for it and forgetting about it - and thank god for that, since we have enough trouble with patent trolls doing more or less exactly that. Trademarks need to be actively defended, lest they fall into public domain.
Doesn't make what Activision did right especially since, as noted above, the trademarks were in fact approved by Vivendi, and should have been transferable as such without
Re: (Score:2)
You can't "lose the rights to another party." You just lose your exclusive right to that trademark. If I was to release a portable music player called the "iPod," Apple chose not to sue me into the next century, and the courts found that they had neglected to enforce their trademark on the name, that doesn't mean that I'd now be able to sue anyone using the name. It just means that anyone who wanted to could chose to name their media player "iPod" and Apple couldn't do a thing about it. It happens quite a b
Re: (Score:2)
You can't allow your trademarked names float freely around the market unattended. You can't just say "let it be, let them use that name, we don't care".
You must seek, acknowledge and then decide: Is it harmful or is it positive to our company?
In the first case, you request cease&desist, and on failure to do so, you litigate.
In the other case, you grant a license to use the trademark, officially endorsing the activity.
Failure to pick either of the two routes endangers your trademark. But blindly followin
Was it in writing? (Score:5, Insightful)
This stands against the fact that Vivendi granted a non-commercial license to the team, subject to Vivendi's approval of the game after submission.
So, did they actually get this in writing, with a contract signed by both sides? Would such a contract survive an acquisition?
Re:Was it in writing? (Score:4, Informative)
That last bit about "Subject to approval" is a loophole... all Activision has to do is reject the final product, always find something wrong with it to deny approval.
Sort of like gets done with iPhn Appstor
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"it's better than anything we can produce"
Re: (Score:2)
if Activision isn't actively using the IP... (Score:5, Insightful)
...they should lose it. Are they still actively marketing this game? Do they still sell it? Is there a new version in the works? IP really needs to have a "use-it-or-lose-it" clause.
Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... (Score:5, Interesting)
Set a limit of 10 years or similar, after which if there are no new games (and even films) then the universe/characters enter into the public domain like is done for copyright.
This gives enough time for a company to continue a series, and allows fans of franchises that have not seen activity by a company free reign.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's kind of a good idea, but 10 years is too short time, especially now that we've starting to see a lot more re-releases and ports to current generation PC's and consoles of old games. Copyrights last a lot longer too. Losing control over IP is even more serious than over copyright of a single product. Losing the whole IP to the public domain means some idiots can seriously ruin the image of it.
Also, the idea of limiting control over IP goes directly against the reason why we actually have copyright law
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To give an example for ruining the image and name - Do you really want 100 crappy games with Civilization or Baldur's Gate name slapped on it which have nothing to do with the original games or authors? Everyone would just try to cash in with the past good name and flood the market with shit games and decrease the general image of whole series, original games too.
Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... (Score:4, Insightful)
10 years is actually a long time in gaming. That's two generations.
Yes, we're seeing lots of re-releases and ports. Do you really want to pay for the same game over and over? I still own the cartridges to many older video games. It doesn't make sense to me to have to buy them again to be able to play them legally on, say, my Wii.
Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
10 years after the last official title came out? Sure, why not! We have customer reviews to filter out crap. And it's not like IP owners themselves don't produce any crap. I mean, how this:
Duke Nukem Rides With Ponies
is fundamentally different from "Duke Caribbean: Life's a Beach", or "Duke: Nuclear Winter"? I mean, consider the story line for the last one (in WP wording):
"In the storyline, Santa Claus is being mind-controlled by aliens into causing trouble on Earth. Several of the levels take place near the North Pole."
Right. I'll ta
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, opening up unused IP to development independent of the original owner would bring more benefit than keeping it "protected". It's generally not that hard to tell when a piece of software is some cheap crap, and it would be just as easy to avoid it with a well-known series name tacked on.
Independent groups have a history of making some awe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Got news for you - Doom had one of the most flexible engines for its time. Couple that with external WAD support and you had HUNDREDS of Doom clones. Aliens TC is one that comes to mind.
That game HAS hundreds of clones.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... Isn't there a clause of "loss due to lack of use" on trademarks?
Same as "loss due to lack of protection", I'm pretty sure a trademark can be lost due to lack of release of any actual product covered under it.
(of course if Activision still sells original Kings' Quest, as some collector's edition or such, this is no-case, but if the product line is shut down for more than a few years, I'm pretty sure the trademark is lost... there is no such thing as "domain-squatting" for trademarks. I'm just not sur
Re: (Score:2)
Further reason why I think companies should have to pay property tax on their IP. When someone tries to buy the IP, companies should either be forced to sell, or increase the value, and 10% of that value should be going to the USPTO every year on tax day. I think this would work if IP was not allowed to decline in value, and if the upkeep was not paid, then the IP becomes unregulated by the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
King's Quest got released on gog.com recently, so it is still being sold (or rather, again being sold).
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/king [gog.com]'s_quest_4_5_6
IMHO this is good news, even though it kills the "if they don't use it" argument dead. I have left quite a bit of money at gog.com (no DRM on any of their games, compatibility fixes, decent support, etc.) and was quite surprised that Activision would open their back catalogue to them at all.
Exposure to the back catalogue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Exposure to the back catalogue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Activision may be worried about cannibalizing their anticipated back catalog sales with the recently announced GOG.com deal. The Kings Quest games are in the process of being re-released on GOG.com. Kings Quest 4+5+6 went up for sale less than a week ago. http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/king’s_quest_4_5_6
Re: (Score:2)
Well shit, just buy the fan made sequel for pennies and roll it into the "ultimate Kings Quest Pack -- now with free, updated content!". Good will towards the community, plus a lot more (good) press in general for the pack.
The rebels become the oppressors... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember a time when Activision made their own games, a personal favorite: Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 was one of them.
Huh? I was playing Kaboom, Pitfall! and Laser Blast just yesterday and was going to check out Chopper Command tomorrow ... where did that game suddenly pop up from?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The rebels become the oppressors... (Score:4, Funny)
I thought Neversoft made Viagra.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually now is really good time for gaming industry. There has been a lot more innovation and new kind of games and polishing than ever before. Portal, Internet co-op games like Left4Dead and Borderlands, the rise of roleplaying games again like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout 3.. The upcoming Civilization V game will also change to hexes the first time in the series. Multiplayer shooter games like MW2 and Bad Company 2 have roleplaying, levels and class building elements in them. The popularity of Intern
Re: (Score:2)
There really wasn't anything like Portal before (expect for the students prototype game, but they were hired to do Portal so I don't think that counts). An year before Prey had fixed portal like things, but it wasn't the actual gameplay.
Even if everything isn't completely new, current generation of games have done and combined those things extremely well. There's really only so far original ideas you can have and many of them have been done already. It's combining them and using them in great ways that coun
Fed Up with Bad Behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
One more gaming company to avoid. EA sucks because of the way they treat their programmers, not to mention milking every last drop out of each year's sports games. Ubisoft just announced draconian DRM. Now Activision is acting like a spoiled kid. They keep this up, and they can cry all they want to about pirates, lost sales, and stolen IP.
They still won't be getting any of my money.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is funny since your homepage link goes to Microsoft's homepage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've already dropped music collecting/purchasing
The RIAA has got you to stop buying ALL music? Then they won, because they're not concerned with your copying their work, their concern is keeping music they don't control out of your ears.
I buy a lot of music, just not from the major labels.
Re: (Score:2)
Add Atari (if they still exist) to the list, they have done some scummy things too.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean actual Atari? Or Infogrames after they bought up the trademark?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean the current owner of the Atari name.
The #1 reason I HATE Atari right now is the crap they pulled when they took the new Ghostbusters game and sold the rights for Europe/Australia to Sony and the game became limited-time-PlayStation-exclusive. Its that reason I refuse to buy any product that says Atari on it. I also refuse to buy any games or gaming hardware that says Sony on it for this and other reasons.
Incorrect Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Just call it "DERP QUEST" and change the names.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad press for Activision (Score:3)
This is going to generate a lot of bad press for Activision. More than just gamers deciding not to buy their games, Game developers aren't going to want to do business with a company that pulls the rug out from under people. It's a small world out there.
Vivendi and Activision... (Score:5, Informative)
B) With KQ in mind, what the summary should say, is "Activision, having become a parent company of Sierra,..."
C) Since Vivendi is still the owner of Activision (Vivendi owns ActivisionBizzard and ActivisionBlizzard owns Activision) there should not be any talks about changes of ownership. They may shuffle around their IP, but it's still owned by Vivendi.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if Activision was bought by Vivendi it's which leadership is in charge after the merger. In this case Vivendi games leadership was replaced by Activisions so even though it was "bought", Activision effectively "took over" Vivendi's gaming division. It happens quite often really when the parent conglomerate likes how the bought company does business more than the already aquired company does business.
what a modder thinks (Score:2, Insightful)
this is serious bullshit. ive been a modder for years now and i know about fair use. the companies that hold the rights of the games i work on LOVE modding as it increases sales and replay value. Activision you are showing your corporate decay.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a mod, though. By changing an existing product, modders typically don't distribute material that infringes upon existing intellectual property (theoretically, at least: I know this isn't always true in practice).
TSL was an entirely new project, built using a new engine, and prominently featuring Sierra IP. In order to release it, the team would have had to release offending IP by definition, and so it's a different kettle of fish. However, given that the team already had a non-commercial license
How fuckin stupid can one be?? (Score:4, Insightful)
They could have simply paid the team a bit of money to get it finished, and then offer them to do the distribution. Something like that.
Which would basically resulted in free money from the work of others (for the service of distribution).
But nooo...
Idiots.
Activision did not acquire Vivendi. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but as I understand it there's not much difference between a merger and an acquisition. Properly speaking, a merger happens when when company acquires another. There's a commonly accepted practical difference that has to do with what the company looks like after the acquisition, but that's all.
When a publisher purchases a studio and keeps it more or less intact and removed, that's considered an acquisition. Similarly so when a company is purchased and essentially broken down for spare parts/intellect
WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Falling down on the job /. (Score:3, Funny)
"Set a limit of 10 years or similar, after which if there are no new games (and even films) then the universe/characters enter into the public domain like is done for copyright.
This gives enough time for a company to continue a series, and allows fans of franchises that have not seen activity by a company free reign."
Come on, somebody make a Duke Nukem joke.
Just change the name so it doesn't violate the IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Would that really be that much work? Call it's "Royal Adventure" or some such....change the character names, and be done with it. There's nothing that prevents them from making a Sierra "like" adventure game. I've always been mystified when some fan group works for years to build a game and gives up over a C&D because they are obviously violating the IP of the holder. Don't drop the project! Just change the particulars!
I'm disappointed in you, Internet! (Score:2)
A quick search for a torrent (http://www.google.com/search?q=King's+Quest+Silver+Lining+filetype:torrent [google.com]) yields nothing! All of the official KQ games are out there, but not this one. How can I independently evaluate the quality of the game, and thus the depth of Activision's transgression, if I can't find a torrent?
Vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
Lucas wanting to shut down Star Wars fan pages (Score:4, Insightful)
I recall mid 90's when Fox was trying to shut down every X-Files fan page, and Lucas wanted to shut down every Star Wars fan page. They felt they were copyright infringement. What they didn't realize is that fan hype is free marketing. It only increases the value of your intellectual property.
An IP owner needs to protect their trademark, but they can issue a fan license to cover that.
This isn't just mean, it is bad business sense.
And while we're talking about old game properties that should be resurrected with a fan game, Commander Keen anyone?
Been pissed at Activision for years. (Score:2)
I'll never forgive them for what they did to the Interstate '76 franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)