4 ms·

I don't understand why this kind of support of long-obsolete (and officially unavailable) multiplayer games is met with negative reaction by the copyright holde

by apk-d 7y ago

I don't understand why this kind of support of long-obsolete (and officially unavailable) multiplayer games is met with negative reaction by the copyright holders. These might be some of the most loyal fans of your game that you've ever had. How is this a danger and not an opportunity?

cupofjoakim 7y ago
I'm with you here. Seems really counter-productive to stop a community from going at it. Opens the door for future products and/or sequels. I guess it could lead to bad marketing for the studio or original publisher if the game itself is filled with bugs that you won't fix.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  It's because in theory the IP could be revived with a new title, and you don't want the new title to have to compete with the historical version. I'm not sure that's super likely with COH, but history is full of revivals of IP that looked long dead at some point.
  - slfnflctd 7y ago
    > you don't want the new title to have to compete with the historical version This is so ass backwards it boggles the mind. If you want people to buy your new game, make it better and/or different than the old one! Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. Making inferior new products and complaining when they can't compete against superior older ones is more than a little boneheaded. If your new stuff isn't good enough, go back to the drawing board! Anything else is parasitic rent-seeking that should be viewed by all with disdain. When you're running a franchise properly, the success of a product should only help your bottom line in the long run. If you're looking at it as a threat to new business, you made a wrong turn somewhere and you need to figure out where it was so you don't do it again.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      But this is the fun of owning complete control of both products - you don't need to justify this new game as being better than the old one as the old one no longer exists! It's an amazing way to remove choice and spend less. Can you imagine if car companies could do that? What really chokes me about CoH is there was no franchise - the world has been dead since the game shut down, expect for the cruel necromancy of Statesman in MXM.
teddyh 7y ago
Because the copyright holders have new games that they would rather you gave them money for, instead of you playing old games without paying them.
- holtalanm 7y ago
  well that's where things get a little wonky though, right? CoH was a subscription-based game, so technically these extremely loyal fans would, theoretically, still be paying the company. The fact that companies shut down popular games due to their profit simply not being as high as projected is just stupid. (note I said profit, not income. In the case of CoH, the game was 100% making profit still when it was shut down).
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    COH was free to play by the end of it's life. And I'm sure people would still be playing.
  - analognoise 7y ago
    It's about the time value of money. If you give me 100, and I make a profit for you of $0.50 a year on it, it's profit right? But this other investment, investment B, makes $5/year. Which one are you going to put your money in? Investment B every time. The companies don't want profit, they want the MOST profit - especially because if they don't choose wisely, they'll find it difficult or impossible to seek extra financing.
nullsmack 7y ago
This is kinda why I hate copyright law the way it exists right now. Companies shouldn't be allowed to sit on and kill IP that they're not using. Especially when it's part of millions of people's culture now. Copyright law is meant to spur new development and add to the public space. Not give an iron grip for 200 years and the ability to totally destroy the things they create.

by apk-d 7y ago

cupofjoakim 7y ago

I'm with you here. Seems really counter-productive to stop a community from going at it. Opens the door for future products and/or sequels. I guess it could lead to bad marketing for the studio or original publisher if the game itself is filled with bugs that you won't fix.

Mindwipe 7y ago
It's because in theory the IP could be revived with a new title, and you don't want the new title to have to compete with the historical version. I'm not sure that's super likely with COH, but history is full of revivals of IP that looked long dead at some point.
- slfnflctd 7y ago
  > you don't want the new title to have to compete with the historical version This is so ass backwards it boggles the mind. If you want people to buy your new game, make it better and/or different than the old one! Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. Making inferior new products and complaining when they can't compete against superior older ones is more than a little boneheaded. If your new stuff isn't good enough, go back to the drawing board! Anything else is parasitic rent-seeking that should be viewed by all with disdain. When you're running a franchise properly, the success of a product should only help your bottom line in the long run. If you're looking at it as a threat to new business, you made a wrong turn somewhere and you need to figure out where it was so you don't do it again.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    But this is the fun of owning complete control of both products - you don't need to justify this new game as being better than the old one as the old one no longer exists! It's an amazing way to remove choice and spend less. Can you imagine if car companies could do that? What really chokes me about CoH is there was no franchise - the world has been dead since the game shut down, expect for the cruel necromancy of Statesman in MXM.

teddyh 7y ago

Because the copyright holders have new games that they would rather you gave them money for, instead of you playing old games without paying them.

holtalanm 7y ago
well that's where things get a little wonky though, right? CoH was a subscription-based game, so technically these extremely loyal fans would, theoretically, still be paying the company. The fact that companies shut down popular games due to their profit simply not being as high as projected is just stupid. (note I said profit, not income. In the case of CoH, the game was 100% making profit still when it was shut down).
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  COH was free to play by the end of it's life. And I'm sure people would still be playing.
- analognoise 7y ago
  It's about the time value of money. If you give me 100, and I make a profit for you of $0.50 a year on it, it's profit right? But this other investment, investment B, makes $5/year. Which one are you going to put your money in? Investment B every time. The companies don't want profit, they want the MOST profit - especially because if they don't choose wisely, they'll find it difficult or impossible to seek extra financing.

nullsmack 7y ago

This is kinda why I hate copyright law the way it exists right now. Companies shouldn't be allowed to sit on and kill IP that they're not using. Especially when it's part of millions of people's culture now. Copyright law is meant to spur new development and add to the public space. Not give an iron grip for 200 years and the ability to totally destroy the things they create.