Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

26 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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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
  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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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".
    6. 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.

  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

  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 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"
    3. 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. 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.

  7. Incorrect Summary by BinaryOpty · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vivendi acquired Activision, not the other way around.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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."