4 ms·

I'd also add with respect to the importance of the merger: this merger has signaled that Activision's board are looking for an exit. Activision's own long, weir

I'd also add with respect to the importance of the merger: this merger has signaled that Activision's board are looking for an exit. Activision's own long, weird, sloppy history is being the company a lot of other companies exited into. Activision owns an absurd amount of the cultural past of videogames because of its fast and loose mergers and acquisitions game. In turn Activision have seemed to be dreadful archivists and gatekeepers of the massive amount of industry history that they own. There are Infocom and Sierra and Davidson and Knowledge Associates classics that are still locked in their vaults that can't be legally purchased today. (GOG has done a lot to change that, but there's always still more in the Activision vaults.) Among other things, they've "lost" entire 1990s/2000s franchises that all signs point to them having the legal rights but they have no clue what happened to them ("No One Lives Forever" is a favorite example of some, and the easiest example to mind, but isn't the only example). There's an importance to them signaling their own interest in exiting here because of that history of exits that Activision already oversaw. Whoever buys Activision next may have an easy bar to clear on being better than Activision was at owning such a large part of the past of videogames. But we don't want to underestimate how much of a gatekeeper versus archivist dynamic is in play of whoever buys Activision or whichever way Activision exits. (If Activision were instead to exit via vultures in one way or another, who knows what will happen to the past of videogames if the raw pieces are all put up for the highest bidder and scattered to the winds. That may be a good thing, or it could mean that even the piecemeal access on GOG to Activision's back catalog is at risk. We wouldn't know until the dust clears and by then it may be too late.)

bluescrn 3y ago
Preserving digital culture is a legit issue. But it's about copyright laws, not about corporate mergers. Apple have wiped vast numbers of early iPhone games from existence by having their walled garden and limited backward compatibility. Most early iPhone games, from the 32-bit pre-F2P era will never be played again. But nobody really cares about those. Much bigger games have been lost too. Many MMOs, in particular, as nobody ever had access to the server-side code. And most modern console games have online components and risk becoming unplayable when the servers are turned off. Classics from Infocom and Sierra can at least be preserved by enthusiasts, as physical copies still exist and individual fans can ignore the copyright question. The digital preservation issue extends beyond games, too. We may be entering a future were even books, in their digital form, are frequently updated to fit present-day cultural sensitivities. And without physical copies, it may become impossible to reference the original text, or even know whether edits have occurred.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  > But it's about copyright laws, not about corporate mergers. It's definitely both. I don't disagree with anything you've added. I'd also add that if we are wishing for copyright law reform ponies, I believe copyright terms are far too long and maybe IP like Infocom's should be public domain already under a far shorter copyright term. (The original US copyright full term was 14 years. That term length would make a lot of interesting videogames public domain today for culture to enhance/expand upon/remix/rebuild/reuse.) That said, under current copyright law and current copyright terms, the publisher has an extremely heavy influence on what remains in print, so being concerned about corporate mergers is a necessary plight under the current copyright regime. We can wish for better copyright laws and still decry the publishers gatekeeping IP under the existing copyright regime.

bluescrn 3y ago

Preserving digital culture is a legit issue. But it's about copyright laws, not about corporate mergers. Apple have wiped vast numbers of early iPhone games from existence by having their walled garden and limited backward compatibility. Most early iPhone games, from the 32-bit pre-F2P era will never be played again. But nobody really cares about those. Much bigger games have been lost too. Many MMOs, in particular, as nobody ever had access to the server-side code. And most modern console games have online components and risk becoming unplayable when the servers are turned off. Classics from Infocom and Sierra can at least be preserved by enthusiasts, as physical copies still exist and individual fans can ignore the copyright question. The digital preservation issue extends beyond games, too. We may be entering a future were even books, in their digital form, are frequently updated to fit present-day cultural sensitivities. And without physical copies, it may become impossible to reference the original text, or even know whether edits have occurred.

WorldMaker 3y ago
> But it's about copyright laws, not about corporate mergers. It's definitely both. I don't disagree with anything you've added. I'd also add that if we are wishing for copyright law reform ponies, I believe copyright terms are far too long and maybe IP like Infocom's should be public domain already under a far shorter copyright term. (The original US copyright full term was 14 years. That term length would make a lot of interesting videogames public domain today for culture to enhance/expand upon/remix/rebuild/reuse.) That said, under current copyright law and current copyright terms, the publisher has an extremely heavy influence on what remains in print, so being concerned about corporate mergers is a necessary plight under the current copyright regime. We can wish for better copyright laws and still decry the publishers gatekeeping IP under the existing copyright regime.