Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

8-Year Fan-Made Game Project Shut Down By Activision

Posted by Soulskill on from the of-doors-and-ways-out dept.

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."

62 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's good to know who are friends of gamers. Activision clearly isn't among them.

    1. Re:Boo by sopssa · · Score: 4, 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..

    2. Re:Boo by eonlabs · · Score: 4, 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)

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    3. Re:Boo by LBt1st · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Activision will never shape up, mainly because Bobby Kotick is a ruthless, cut-throat bastard who couldn't care less about the gaming community. His disdain for gamers, the very people who provide his meal ticket, has been exhaustively documented. These guys are the worst of the worst, and have long since lost my patronage.

    5. Re:Boo by eonlabs · · Score: 4, 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
      It resolved itself.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    6. Re:Boo by telso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Civ II was MicroProse (ahh, that list takes me back); Activision did Call to Power.

      What I remember Activision for was the original MechWarrior game. 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. 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, /., couldn't you have run this story during the day, when I didn't need to go to sleep? Ah, well, off to DOSBox.

    7. Re:Boo by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Boo by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disney had the same problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner
      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.

    9. Re:Boo by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Activision has always been concerned primarily about money from the beginning, and creativity and quality products second.
      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.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  2. Never build a house on another man's land... by JPLemme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...unless you're willing to use it.

    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.

    1. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're not building on it, they had a license. Activision reneged. This is terrible news, AGD is sure to be next on the chopping block, with their fully licensed remake of Quest for Glory 2.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by eeCyaJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gwah? They picked a fight?

      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 fighting. Maybe they're a little bitter, but 8 years of work being flushed down the tube - whatever the reason - would tend to do that.

    4. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by dgatwood · · Score: 2, 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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by adminstring · · Score: 4, Informative

      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, "escalator," originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company, "thermos," originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH, "yo-yo," originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company, and "zipper," originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich. References and more info are available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark For a legal precedent from the world of real property, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    6. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by sopssa · · Score: 2, 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

      But note that it's not only about trademarks here, it's also about Intellectual Property.

    7. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by Mathinker · · 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.

    8. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by superbus1929 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But was there an actual contract?

      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)

      --
      Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
    9. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by Mathinker · · 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."

    10. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by adminstring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're talking about trademarks in this thread, not patents. There's a different set of laws for those.

      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.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    11. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by sopssa · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 original instead so that you cannot be bound by third-party copyrights and trademarks.

    13. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by u38cg · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they had a contract, it doesn't just magically vanish because they were bought over. The contract still stands. However, if this licence was awarded with no payment (consideration, for the legal types), it almost certainly isn't a valid contract in law and hence it can be altered or withdrawn at will.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    14. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by jonathonjones · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a breach of contract. The agreement that Activision had with the developers specifically allows either party to back out of it at any time.

    15. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by branewalker · · Score: 2

      This is the exact wrong kind of thinking. Yes, Vivendi came up with the idea for King's Quest, and deserves some economic control over the fruits of their labor. They do not, however, own perpetual rights to the culture that such ideas create. And, if those ideas spawn further creativity in the culture at large, GREAT. It is a travesty that we give corporations the right to disallow such spontaneous cultural fruition of their artwork (individuals, it might be noted, though they have the right to do the same, are rarely observed to exercise it) Furthermore, Vivendi, those in control of the original IP (to use a convenient, if somewhat misleading term) ought to be able to allow good-faith usage of their trademarks in perpetuity, notwithstanding the later acquisition of ADDITIONAL permission to use those trademarks and copyrights by a third party. In other words, here's how it ought to work: 1. Creator creates work. Has exclusive right to monetize and reproduce for reasonable period of time. 2. Creator can grant use of trademarks and copyrights to third parties. 3. Third parties can never disallow creator from (2), or nullify any previous agreement in regards to those rights. 4. Fair use ought to cover remix, especially when (1) results in a cultural phenomenon (usually indicative of the creator tapping into something that is not wholly his own, and certainly producing culture that is largely the property of the audience of that work. (4) is a sort of idea about what it mean to be in the Public Domain. Artistic works reach this point significantly before they do so legally. Somewhere about 12 to 17 years seems about right, from personal observation, though certain things hit that point sooner, and many never really make it to cultural significance. The irony, of course, is that the more profitable works are the ones that would be remixed and claimed by popular culture sooner.

    16. Re:Never build a house on another man's land... by Hatta · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Was it in writing? by zalas · · Score: 4, 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?

    1. Re:Was it in writing? by mysidia · · 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

    2. Re:Was it in writing? by davester666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "it's better than anything we can produce"

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  4. if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by Tokerat · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    1. Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by msclrhd · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by sopssa · · Score: 2, 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 laws. Copyright is meant to protect and enable the income of author and everyone involved for a period of time to fuel the innovation and creating something. If you release IP to public domain it does exactly the different - decreases innovation that goes making new IP. Isn't it the usual rant on slashdot anyway that game companies should come up more with new stuff?

    3. Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know what, I actually agree... There should be a limit. This was why the original copyright was for only a few years in the USA. While that original limit might be a little short, for some things I believe that there should be additional limits, especially for things like video games. Unless you are actively selling or have documented intentions (with writers, designers, and coders) actively working on the game, it should be opened up to allow the public to continue. I would say 10 years without being able to purchase or use the game on active consoles/hardware would be sufficient. Just look back on video game history and you would see that is probably a very legitimate timeframe which gives plenty of opportunity for the owners of the IP to keep their IP. The wording might have to be worked on and rules ironed out, because we would not want, say ID releasing "DOOM! Sudoku" to count for the FPS DOOM! franchise. Games that still have a large followings would definitely stay active. You would also see more old games get updated ports to new consoles and systems if/when it makes economic sense. There would be lots more Retro Remixes like "Bionic Commando Rearmed". We would see game franchises like Tie Fighter, Wingcommander, and even Mechwarrior continue (well, in the case of Mechwarrior, looks like its 7 year exile (and more of bastardization) under the hands of Microsoft is near its end).

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    4. Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by sopssa · · Score: 2, 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.

    5. Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by Khyber · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:if Activision isn't actively using the IP... by BenoitRen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

  5. Exposure to the back catalogue? by werdnapk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't some of these fan made games get people interested in some of the originals again? You get enough people into a forgotten series who start asking for more and in turn the rights holder makes a new game of their own in the end with a healthy profit hopefully. Yes, I know... big business doesn't understand this type of thing.

    1. Re:Exposure to the back catalogue? by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  6. The rebels become the oppressors... by nataflux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember a time when Activision made their own games, a personal favorite: Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 was one of them. Is it really inevitable that developers that turn into publishers become malicious to the gamers and to other developers? Hopefully such publishers (and larger developers) will go way of EA, that they deserve, I just hope that all the developers I have come to love don't go down these dark roads. Right now is really bad time for the gaming industry. Almost a dark age if you will.

    1. Re:The rebels become the oppressors... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    2. Re:The rebels become the oppressors... by CompassIIDX · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Tony Hawk Pro Skater games were always developed by Neversoft. Neversoft was acquired by Activision in 1999.

    3. Re:The rebels become the oppressors... by Larryish · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought Neversoft made Viagra.

  7. Fed Up with Bad Behavior by the_bard17 · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Fed Up with Bad Behavior by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ya, no shit. There are plenty of other hobbies to pursue in life. I've already dropped music collecting/purchasing and now perhaps gaming too if this keeps up. I refuse to reward bad behavior.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Fed Up with Bad Behavior by jonwil · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:Fed Up with Bad Behavior by mcgrew · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  8. Incorrect Summary by BinaryOpty · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vivendi acquired Activision, not the other way around.

  9. Easy by Spit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just call it "DERP QUEST" and change the names.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  10. Bad press for Activision by enigmatichmachine · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    -and occasionaly a giant moose.
  11. Vivendi and Activision... by JAlexoi · · Score: 4, Informative

    A) Fix the summary. Because it's Vivendi that acquired Activision, not the other way around.The first sentence should say: "Activision, after being acquired Vivendi,..."(or something similar)
    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.

    1. Re:Vivendi and Activision... by jmauro · · Score: 2, 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.

  12. what a modder thinks by GarretSidzaka · · 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.

  13. How fuckin stupid can one be?? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  14. Taking the good with the bad by WebManWalking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, when you buy another company, you buy its liabilities along with its assets. If Vivendi had an agreement that it must honor, Activision also bought the liability of being bound by that same agreement.

    Tort lawyers prefer to get paid a cut of the judgment, so it doesn't matter how much money the fan-developers have.

    1. Re:Taking the good with the bad by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
  15. Activision did not acquire Vivendi. by Shandalar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Activision did not acquire Vivendi. The merged company retained the ATVI stock listing, and Bobby Kotick is running the company, true; but VU got more board seats than Activision. If anything, VU bought Activision.

  16. WTF by Meneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They worked at it for 8 years, and now they just lay down and quit? Have these people NO self-respect?

  17. Falling down on the job /. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  18. Just change the name so it doesn't violate the IP by elblanco · · 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!

  19. Vaporware by samsmithnz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    8 Years without a final product?? Sounds like Vaporware to me.

  20. Lucas wanting to shut down Star Wars fan pages by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.