Vivendi Shuts Down Indie King's Quest Title
edwardmolasses writes "An ambitious King's Quest fan game, in development since 2000 and nearing completion, has been shut down after a cease and desist letter from Vivendi Universal Games (formerly known as Sierra Entertainment). King's Quest IX: "Every Cloak Has A Silver Lining" was to be an alternative ending to the popular King's Quest series. The first chapter was to be released this winter. Some project stats: 40+ volunteer staff spread over five continents, 2000+ page script, 9 chapters, 450 characters, original theme music, and voice acting. Some screenshots can be seen here."
Anyone else remember the original King's Quest? If I remember correcectly, the worked with a palette of 16(?) colors. I believe the authors weree innovative in using pixelation/color combinations to make it look like they had 256 colors to work with. Of course, my memory isn't so great, and my numbers could be off.
It is amazing how much fun I could have with such cheesy graphics, and low memory requirements. Somehow, I think games became less fun when the imaginatino requirement got removed.
Don't get me started on Zork.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
In addition to KQ9, SQ7 may also be next to come under the axe, although they are apparently in talks with VU and Phoenix Online Studios about this new turn of events. All this being said I hope that VU will come up with a slightly better reason than 'because we said so' since it only encourages people to see VU as another namless corporation that is more concerned with grinding out endless titles for the sake of money. At the end of the day however VU is, as VU does, and it seems it will continue to follow the Microsoft creed of 'if its original, buy it up and make more money'.
This may seem a bit overdue, but it seems like there could be a viable defense of "laches." "Laches" is a legal defense whereby the defendant (e.g., the makers of KQ9) states that because the plaintiff (e.g. VU) knew of the ongoing activity and did not take action to stop it, that the plaintiff cannot now claim that there has been violation. Unfortunately, this would probably require that the defendant show that the plaintiff "knew" that the defendant was engaged in some sort of unpermitted activity. "Knew" in this context may be constructive (e.g., through notice) or actual (e.g., actually visiting the webpage for KQ9).
Given that the game has been in development for 5+ years, one could reasonably make the argument that VU was not actively monitoring their copyright in "King's Quest" (assuming that copyright violation is the claim).
I do not know whether the "non-profitness" of the activity matters for copright infringement/violation purposes, but I think the "laches" defense would be a stronger claim. My two cents.