6 ms·

A dead PC game that can't come back

47 points by smacktoward 7y ago

mrkeen 7y ago
A similar fate for the Battle for Middle Earth series.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  At least with BfME, if you already own it you can still play it, even multiplayer.
ksbakan 7y ago
It can come back in 2095 if disney doesn't pay off politicians to male copyright last even longer.
moomin 7y ago
Not only a great game series, but also damn good case for a movie franchise.
compuguy 7y ago
FYI, this article is from 2015. It was previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710973
zozbot234 7y ago
I would think Night Dive could force the issue in some way - perhaps sue the main publishers for a declaratory judgment that their releasing the game would not be copyright infringement. This would force some kind of definitive outcome as to who really owns the rights to the game, after which negotiations could start for the actual release.
- bexsella 7y ago
  I think the issue there would be money. Night Dive aren't a big studio, and there is no guarantee of a 'win' here. A win outcome here could well be Warner Bros. producing a contract and still saying no to a re-release. Also, Stephen Kick has said on twitter in the past week that he's still not given up on the IP, so there's still an ember here.
a_t48 7y ago
My favorite game of all time, Oni, is also stuck in purgatory for similar reasons. It was the last game Bungie put out before being bought out by Microsoft. In theory Take-Two Interactive owns the rights to the IP, but it's really fuzzy and they aren't very interested in finding out if they actually own it for purposes of selling or licensing the IP. Distribution rights are also theoretically owned by 2K (Gathering of Developers [PC distro] and Rockstar Games [PS2distro]) are both now owned by Take-Two. (Source: https://wiki.oni2.net/Rights https://wiki.oni2.net/Rights) I've heard rumor that the person at Take-Two is fairly tight-fisted with old IP and not interested in anyone outside the company getting access to it, but that might be unfounded. (If you work at Take-Two/2K Games publishing and are interested in licensing the distribution rights, shoot me a message. From what I know of the source, it should be an easy port to modern systems, and you'd make a lot of people very happy. It _should_ be profitable to do so. I'd be opening to setting up a small studio to do so. I have the time and the cash right now.)
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Isn't the primary reason why games don't get release to avoid them competing with modern games for gamers focus. Like if I spend time playing older games then I'm not going to spend as much time on newer games so I don't need to spend as much money per hour of game time. This is a proof that copyright terms are too long IMO. Unless someone is actively selling a work, ie you can buy it, then the work should lapse in to the public domain. The appropriate IP office could issue a decision, on request and payment of a fee, saying who the current seller is or that no seller was found and so the work is PD. Indications could then be presented in the relevant countries IP journals saying "work X" will fall into PD on $DATE which would allow interested parties to intervene before the certificate was issued (ie saving their copyright) by saying where the work was available. Test purchases could be carried out to ensure companies don't hide their saleable works.
  - a_t48 7y ago
    > Isn't the primary reason why games don't get release to avoid them competing with modern games for gamers focus. Like if I spend time playing older games then I'm not going to spend as much time on newer games so I don't need to spend as much money per hour of game time. This is the first time I've heard this theory. In general I don't think this is the case - game development is risky and expensive. Economically it makes sense to milk every old game for all it is worth, if people will still buy it and there aren't any ongoing costs (servers, etc). Porting a game to a new platform is usually much cheaper. You don't need a full art and engineering team, nor do you need much in the way of design (some might be needed in cases of a UI refresh or additions to gameplay). See: Nintendo. The original Super Mario Bros has been ported to nearly every system they've put out. And people keep paying for it. Other publishers will do this, too. There's https://www.gog.com/ https://www.gog.com/ which is pretty much dedicated to republishing old games.
mike50 7y ago
Kotaku = not worth reading.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  Remember when they essentially killed Battlefront II by basing their review on pay-to-win mechanics that weren't in the public release of the game, then angrily refused to update it to reflect reality? Totally ignoring reality so they could pander to Reddit, good times.
  - jrimbault 7y ago
    https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-games-1828165483 https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-game... https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964 https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964 https://kotaku.com/inside-the-ghosting-racism-and-exploitation-at-game-p-1838068522 https://kotaku.com/inside-the-ghosting-racism-and-exploitati... https://kotaku.com/the-human-cost-of-call-of-duty-black-ops-4-1835859016 https://kotaku.com/the-human-cost-of-call-of-duty-black-ops-... https://kotaku.com/how-blizzard-saved-diablo-iii-from-disaster-1797427650 https://kotaku.com/how-blizzard-saved-diablo-iii-from-disast... https://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such-insane-hours-1704744577 https://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such... https://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218 https://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt... And so many others : https://kotaku.com/tag/kotaku-longreads https://kotaku.com/tag/kotaku-longreads Kotaku might be the only gaming news outlet putting out that kind of journalistic work. Instead of paroting the publishers' marketing.
    - lostcolony 7y ago
      Thank you. I hear my gamer friends give Kotaku so much grief over what strikes me as comparatively minor things (such as the OP's, over a game review, when there are so many others doing that)...but I've often noticed that they report on things I legitimately was unaware of, or perspectives I never had before, within gaming, that no one else is covering. I don't get the antipathy.
RealStickman 7y ago
"...resort to illegally torrenting them." I'd argue that pirating games that aren't available anywhere should not be illegal. I had the same problem with the original Metro Exodus. I couldn't find it anywhere, only the Redux version. It's sad to see older games neglected.
- TylerE 7y ago
  On what basis? Do you think a creator has no right to control their work?
  - enneff 7y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. Surely a creator has the right to sell something, and then refuse to sell any further copies.
    - erik_seaberg 7y ago
      We should have a good reason for restricting what third parties may do with copies of the work. If nobody benefits (e.g., more sales) it's purely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss.
      - enneff 7y ago
        Not everything need be evaluated through the lens of free market economics.
    - lostcolony 7y ago
      ...no, I don't think they do. Copyright exists for the sole reason of -promoting- the creation of works (by allowing the creator to have a monopoly on it long enough to extract profit). If a creator no longer wishes to sell those copies...the copyright's very purpose is undermined. Obviously the law as written allows them to do so, but the law as explicitly intended should not do so. Certainly, outside of the particulars of the law they have no such right. It's not a 'god given' one, or any such thing; preventing people from making copies of something is in fact extremely unnatural and goes against what has allowed our species' cultures to flourish.
shmerl 7y ago
Nightdive are great. They even make their restored games work on Linux natively, like Noctropolis. I'm personally waiting for GOG to sort out the situation with The Neverhood, so it could be re-released. It works in ScummVM. And it's typical for those greedy publishers to refuse to deal with such cases. They think that spending any effort on it would cost them more than potential benefits from re-releases. So they prefer to let them be pirated instead.
saberience 7y ago
This is the same with the Myth series by Bungie. Take2 owns the IP and various fan/dev groups (http://projectmagma.net/ http://projectmagma.net/) have tried negotiating with them to get the rights so they can update it for modern systems and re-release on Steam. However Take2 either refuses to sell the rights or only offers to sell for a ridiculous sum (for such an old and abandoned title). The community has been unofficially patching and supporting the game since about 2005 for modern PC and Mac systems but we would love to see a proper Steam release and build the community up again. To any Myth 2 fans by the way, there is still a small and loyal community who play online together. (see: http://gateofstorms.net/ http://gateofstorms.net/)
wayneftw 7y ago
Battlefield Heroes was a favorite of mine that I can’t play anymore because EA took down the servers. There is a guy running a pirate server but hardly anybody plays on it.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
This sort of thing perplexes me. Why can't they just release the game (they have the technology) wait for someone to sue them, and then force that person (or persons) to prove they own the copyright. If they can't prove it then the copyright is forfeit.
- Asooka 7y ago
  Because those persons will sue them, assert their copyright, then receive damages and remove the product from being sold. This isn't like a compulsory licensing fee where you pay to record a cover of a song and nobody can stop you, the rightsholders have said they're not interested in the remake existing, therefore we can assume they'll just kill any remake that gets made.
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive. (say $50K - $100K in legal fees). Seems like one way to clear up the rights issue.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. No that's not what standing is. They have to establish a legally cognizable claim to harm to establish standing; actual harm is what an actual trial exists to establish. A dispute of fact over who holds rights at issue would be a perfectly normal issue for trial. > I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive A defense motion to dismiss necessarily must state that the plaintiff has no legally cognizable claim as a matter of law; if there is anything relevant that might potentially be proven, it is automatically viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. You can't make a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff proves something, the very idea of that acknowledges that there is a disputes issue of fact necessary to resolve the case, calling for a trial.
franzb 7y ago
Not sure if this was already posted here, but the source code of No One Lives Forever is available: https://github.com/osgcc/no-one-lives-forever https://github.com/osgcc/no-one-lives-forever

47 points by smacktoward 7y ago

mrkeen 7y ago

A similar fate for the Battle for Middle Earth series.

Godel_unicode 7y ago
At least with BfME, if you already own it you can still play it, even multiplayer.

ksbakan 7y ago

It can come back in 2095 if disney doesn't pay off politicians to male copyright last even longer.

moomin 7y ago

Not only a great game series, but also damn good case for a movie franchise.

compuguy 7y ago

FYI, this article is from 2015. It was previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710973

zozbot234 7y ago

I would think Night Dive could force the issue in some way - perhaps sue the main publishers for a declaratory judgment that their releasing the game would not be copyright infringement. This would force some kind of definitive outcome as to who really owns the rights to the game, after which negotiations could start for the actual release.

bexsella 7y ago
I think the issue there would be money. Night Dive aren't a big studio, and there is no guarantee of a 'win' here. A win outcome here could well be Warner Bros. producing a contract and still saying no to a re-release. Also, Stephen Kick has said on twitter in the past week that he's still not given up on the IP, so there's still an ember here.

a_t48 7y ago

My favorite game of all time, Oni, is also stuck in purgatory for similar reasons. It was the last game Bungie put out before being bought out by Microsoft. In theory Take-Two Interactive owns the rights to the IP, but it's really fuzzy and they aren't very interested in finding out if they actually own it for purposes of selling or licensing the IP. Distribution rights are also theoretically owned by 2K (Gathering of Developers [PC distro] and Rockstar Games [PS2distro]) are both now owned by Take-Two. (Source: https://wiki.oni2.net/Rights https://wiki.oni2.net/Rights) I've heard rumor that the person at Take-Two is fairly tight-fisted with old IP and not interested in anyone outside the company getting access to it, but that might be unfounded. (If you work at Take-Two/2K Games publishing and are interested in licensing the distribution rights, shoot me a message. From what I know of the source, it should be an easy port to modern systems, and you'd make a lot of people very happy. It _should_ be profitable to do so. I'd be opening to setting up a small studio to do so. I have the time and the cash right now.)

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Isn't the primary reason why games don't get release to avoid them competing with modern games for gamers focus. Like if I spend time playing older games then I'm not going to spend as much time on newer games so I don't need to spend as much money per hour of game time. This is a proof that copyright terms are too long IMO. Unless someone is actively selling a work, ie you can buy it, then the work should lapse in to the public domain. The appropriate IP office could issue a decision, on request and payment of a fee, saying who the current seller is or that no seller was found and so the work is PD. Indications could then be presented in the relevant countries IP journals saying "work X" will fall into PD on $DATE which would allow interested parties to intervene before the certificate was issued (ie saving their copyright) by saying where the work was available. Test purchases could be carried out to ensure companies don't hide their saleable works.
- a_t48 7y ago
  > Isn't the primary reason why games don't get release to avoid them competing with modern games for gamers focus. Like if I spend time playing older games then I'm not going to spend as much time on newer games so I don't need to spend as much money per hour of game time. This is the first time I've heard this theory. In general I don't think this is the case - game development is risky and expensive. Economically it makes sense to milk every old game for all it is worth, if people will still buy it and there aren't any ongoing costs (servers, etc). Porting a game to a new platform is usually much cheaper. You don't need a full art and engineering team, nor do you need much in the way of design (some might be needed in cases of a UI refresh or additions to gameplay). See: Nintendo. The original Super Mario Bros has been ported to nearly every system they've put out. And people keep paying for it. Other publishers will do this, too. There's https://www.gog.com/ https://www.gog.com/ which is pretty much dedicated to republishing old games.

mike50 7y ago

Kotaku = not worth reading.

Godel_unicode 7y ago
Remember when they essentially killed Battlefront II by basing their review on pay-to-win mechanics that weren't in the public release of the game, then angrily refused to update it to reflect reality? Totally ignoring reality so they could pander to Reddit, good times.
- jrimbault 7y ago
  https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-games-1828165483 https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-game... https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964 https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964 https://kotaku.com/inside-the-ghosting-racism-and-exploitation-at-game-p-1838068522 https://kotaku.com/inside-the-ghosting-racism-and-exploitati... https://kotaku.com/the-human-cost-of-call-of-duty-black-ops-4-1835859016 https://kotaku.com/the-human-cost-of-call-of-duty-black-ops-... https://kotaku.com/how-blizzard-saved-diablo-iii-from-disaster-1797427650 https://kotaku.com/how-blizzard-saved-diablo-iii-from-disast... https://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such-insane-hours-1704744577 https://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such... https://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218 https://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt... And so many others : https://kotaku.com/tag/kotaku-longreads https://kotaku.com/tag/kotaku-longreads Kotaku might be the only gaming news outlet putting out that kind of journalistic work. Instead of paroting the publishers' marketing.
  - lostcolony 7y ago
    Thank you. I hear my gamer friends give Kotaku so much grief over what strikes me as comparatively minor things (such as the OP's, over a game review, when there are so many others doing that)...but I've often noticed that they report on things I legitimately was unaware of, or perspectives I never had before, within gaming, that no one else is covering. I don't get the antipathy.

RealStickman 7y ago

"...resort to illegally torrenting them." I'd argue that pirating games that aren't available anywhere should not be illegal. I had the same problem with the original Metro Exodus. I couldn't find it anywhere, only the Redux version. It's sad to see older games neglected.

TylerE 7y ago
On what basis? Do you think a creator has no right to control their work?
- enneff 7y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. Surely a creator has the right to sell something, and then refuse to sell any further copies.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    We should have a good reason for restricting what third parties may do with copies of the work. If nobody benefits (e.g., more sales) it's purely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss.
    - enneff 7y ago
      Not everything need be evaluated through the lens of free market economics.
  - lostcolony 7y ago
    ...no, I don't think they do. Copyright exists for the sole reason of -promoting- the creation of works (by allowing the creator to have a monopoly on it long enough to extract profit). If a creator no longer wishes to sell those copies...the copyright's very purpose is undermined. Obviously the law as written allows them to do so, but the law as explicitly intended should not do so. Certainly, outside of the particulars of the law they have no such right. It's not a 'god given' one, or any such thing; preventing people from making copies of something is in fact extremely unnatural and goes against what has allowed our species' cultures to flourish.

shmerl 7y ago

Nightdive are great. They even make their restored games work on Linux natively, like Noctropolis. I'm personally waiting for GOG to sort out the situation with The Neverhood, so it could be re-released. It works in ScummVM. And it's typical for those greedy publishers to refuse to deal with such cases. They think that spending any effort on it would cost them more than potential benefits from re-releases. So they prefer to let them be pirated instead.

saberience 7y ago

This is the same with the Myth series by Bungie. Take2 owns the IP and various fan/dev groups (http://projectmagma.net/ http://projectmagma.net/) have tried negotiating with them to get the rights so they can update it for modern systems and re-release on Steam. However Take2 either refuses to sell the rights or only offers to sell for a ridiculous sum (for such an old and abandoned title). The community has been unofficially patching and supporting the game since about 2005 for modern PC and Mac systems but we would love to see a proper Steam release and build the community up again. To any Myth 2 fans by the way, there is still a small and loyal community who play online together. (see: http://gateofstorms.net/ http://gateofstorms.net/)

wayneftw 7y ago

Battlefield Heroes was a favorite of mine that I can’t play anymore because EA took down the servers. There is a guy running a pirate server but hardly anybody plays on it.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

This sort of thing perplexes me. Why can't they just release the game (they have the technology) wait for someone to sue them, and then force that person (or persons) to prove they own the copyright. If they can't prove it then the copyright is forfeit.

Asooka 7y ago
Because those persons will sue them, assert their copyright, then receive damages and remove the product from being sold. This isn't like a compulsory licensing fee where you pay to record a cover of a song and nobody can stop you, the rightsholders have said they're not interested in the remake existing, therefore we can assume they'll just kill any remake that gets made.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive. (say $50K - $100K in legal fees). Seems like one way to clear up the rights issue.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. No that's not what standing is. They have to establish a legally cognizable claim to harm to establish standing; actual harm is what an actual trial exists to establish. A dispute of fact over who holds rights at issue would be a perfectly normal issue for trial. > I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive A defense motion to dismiss necessarily must state that the plaintiff has no legally cognizable claim as a matter of law; if there is anything relevant that might potentially be proven, it is automatically viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. You can't make a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff proves something, the very idea of that acknowledges that there is a disputes issue of fact necessary to resolve the case, calling for a trial.

franzb 7y ago

Not sure if this was already posted here, but the source code of No One Lives Forever is available: https://github.com/osgcc/no-one-lives-forever https://github.com/osgcc/no-one-lives-forever