Slashdot Mirror
Fan-Made 'Metal Gear Solid' Remake Cancelled; Gamers Blame Konami (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Fans of the popular Metal Gear Solid series are ticked off at Konami over the cancellation of an unofficial, fan-built remake of the very first title that shipped for the original PlayStation way back in 1998. The remake's cancellation was announced on the project's Facebook page, which immediately prompted backlash aimed at Konami for presumably having a hand in it. The project, dubbed Shadow Moses, was the brainchild of indie game designer Airam Hernandez. It appears he may have assembled a small team to remake the original Metal Gear Solid using Unreal Engine 4. While it hasn't been confirmed that Konami shut the project down, it wouldn't be surprising to find out that it did. This wouldn't be the first fan project to be cancelled, and it likely won't be the last— Metal Gear Solid is Konami's property, and even Hernandez acknowledged at one point that he would eventually need Konami's permission to publish it.
A bit harder than logging in, which you couldn't even seem to do.
These days basically everyone in the gaming industry agrees that the world would be a better place if Konami finally dies in a fire.
#Fuckonami, started by Jim Sterling (Think Moviebob, but for Games) has gotten trendendous pickup right up to the audience having a solid reason to Boo! Konami at the Game Awards - they legally prevented from Hideo Kojima from recieving his own award (No joke!).
The borderline insane bullshit Konami has done in recent years is bedazzling and let's even non-industry observers wonder why a company is so hell bent on destroying its reputation and ip. Hideo Kojima has since moved on and Konami is shunned as the semi-dangerous nutbag bum in gaming town by just about anybody.
Bottom line:
If you want to mod a commercial game, steer clear of Konami.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The point is its supposed to be a remake sure you could alter the game just enough to not infringe on IP but then its not the same and its not a remake.
This is the problem with things like this, fan's want this content but the rights holders don't want to spend the money to develop it. But they want to keep the option of doing a remake. If the right holders see someone doing something like this and god forbid the inde dev's get any fame or donations then the rights holders are going to throw their toys out of the pram and stomp all over it.
Its not about the game or the story or anything like that for them its about keeping hold of that IP and milking as much money as they can from it.
Now let's all listen to the butthurt gamers...
I blame the media who just needs to have those clicks thus reporting on these projects making them visible to video game publishers and prime targets for cease and desist orders.
Also I blame the developers for advertising their projects before they are done. A completed project that is set free on to the internet is impossible to make disappear with any form of cease and desist.
No one cares, dude.
#MuhVideoGames!
#FucKonami
They make slot machines these days and do the weirdest shit. Publish the game and make the fans happy.
It probably wasn't about making a game to make money or the like. They probably liked the old game and wanted to play it with a modern engine.
How to become an indie game designer in 3 easy steps. Step 1: Think up an original idea (oh shit) Step 2: You really need to complete step 1 before you get here Step 3: You didn't even read step 2 did you?
If you have an idea in the current industry, you have to have something to present as a model of your idea. It's seems that copyright is getting in the way of even getting to that point. The folks that ran this project knew they would have to present it to Konamii eventually. It is a shame that fans won't even have the chance to see this since Konamii seems to want to sue first and ask questions later.
Yeah I get that games are copyrighted and all, but I think there should be an exception for derivatives that meet the following criteria:
1) Don't profit from the game in any way (includes sales, ads, in-game purchases
2) Are suffiently different in a creative way (not just changing sprites or a few animations, but coming up with new characters, maps, plots, etc)
3) Don't pass themselves off as official or endorsed by Konami/Nintendo/Microsoft/etc, and claim the appropriate disclaimers explaining so
4) Are coded from scratch, rather than ROM hacks*
5) Don't give the parent company a bad name by attaching it to something controversial/offensive for the series (think Pokemon with blood and guns or Call of Duty having you join forces with North Korea, etc. )
* actually I'm not too sure about this criterion, as I've seen some quality hacks of GBA games that really added a lot to the final product, fire emblem ROM hacks in particular
I understand the way the system is set up now, this is impossible. But we as gamers should push for the ability to make non-commercial derivates under these restrictions. Not only will they boost popularity of the games, keep people more interested in the series between games, etc., it just seems ridiculous that a creative product like this that in no way hurts sales of the parent franchise should be banned.
Having worked in the industry as a programmer for the better part of 11 years now, all I can do is scoff at this point at the countless aspiring developers who decide that their best bet is to remake an actively-marketed IP held by some other company. Sorry, but I'm innately skeptical of the game design chops of someone for whom designing a game involves going "Let's remake [some existing game]," or perhaps "I'm going to make [game], but with [thing]."
If you're a creative or skilled enough designer, programmer or artist to the point that you could actually do justice to a remake of a classic, well-respected game, then surely you're creative or skilled enough to make your own game, right? If so, why gamble on a project that could be shut down at any time by the actual rights-holders? To me, it seems like a disingenuous and lazy hedge to try to get people to buy into your project by tying it to an IP that people already think of fondly. If you're really skilled enough to stand on your own, prove it.
Lol neither did you
These days basically everyone in the gaming industry agrees that the world would be a better place if Konami finally dies in a fire.
...and then dies again 29 more times.
Just open source the game's code. Then there's really no way to stop its "viral" spread.
And all you'd need to do was change an unused/little used variable, like the text on a sign, and BAM, new compiled file, new file signature, new MD5 sum, so any automated search would fail to find it. As for the source code, that could be passed on discretely through email or even sneakernet.
I don't understand why when faced with a cease and desist, groups don't just switch gears to making a parody.
"!"
I was bummed when Fox did this to the Aliens total conversion for doom2
The total conversion was fun to play and better than crap fox interactive published on their own years later.
This was pure stupidity from start to finish. Putting considerable time and effort into developing a game which you know you do not have the rights to publish is generally not a bad idea. When the game you are developing is a remake of a game which still has considerable commercial value, and which is owned by a company which does not have a long history of encouraging third party modding and development, it is dafter still.
Konami own the rights to Metal Gear Solid. If you want a remake of it, tell them so (letters, e-mails, petitions, questions from the floor at trade-shows - whatever). Companies like making money and if they think there is an audience for a remake of an old game, then they will generally do the remake. If they don't, then... there's not really much you can do.
If you want to make a stealth-action game, then make one. Konami own the rights to Metal Gear Solid, but they do not own the rights to "everything that looks a bit like Metal Gear Solid". There are no shortage of games out there, both AAA and indie, which take a degree of inspiration from Metal Gear Solid. If you have a team with the skills to make a game as ambitious as a full remake of Metal Gear Solid would be, then go that route.
But trying to make a game which you know it is vanishingly unlikely you will be allowed to publish and then whinging when you are not allowed to publish it is just stupid.
And they can still do that if that's what they really cared about. It's not illegal to rip off somebody else's work. It's only illegal to distribute it to others.
Metal Gear Solid was like the 3rd game in the series. The first 2 were 8-bit top down games for the NES.
Except Konami wasn't the first to take down a project based on one of their still-actually-available-for-sale productions, and it won't be the last.
Remake or not, the game is still Konami's property. If you replaced Metal Gear/Konami with Final Fantasy/Square Enix or Mario/Nintendo or any other game/game's owner you get the same response.
The only "borderline insane bullshit" here is from people that think Konami was wrong in this particular case.
And then when they are, distribute it in a way that makes it very difficult to shutdown, from a country that isn't beholden to the copyright cartel.
But no, everyone announces their silly clone project, and then the C&D's come flying. Either commit to the 'outlaw' approach, or don't announce anything until you're secured permission; anything else seems foolish.
They didn't remake MGS before!!!!
They should've remade something more worthwhile,like Snake's Revenge. and maybe there would be an actual shocking surprise if Konami goes after that.
Jeez, once again, here we are with an Internet Outrage![tm] story about IP on Slashdot. And once again, it's some fucking moron who didn't even know better than to not rip off a major corporation's IP. Come on! You think just because you're not making any money they should allow it? By lawyer standards, they're losing money! It doesn't matter what makes sense!
God damn, how hard is it to make something new. Really hard, I guess! All these efforts on remakes and reimaginings and reboots. And supposedly creative people are better because they're constantly creating new ideas. I guess that's another treasured myth we're going to have to get rid of. I mean, seriously, the guy didn't expect that a mega-million dollar company was going to put a stop to his project? It's the most likely outcome.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Why not just call it "Iron Gear Rusted" and make a close clone?
That's not borderline insane: it's perfectly insane. So much history about projects being 'foxed' for obvious reasons, with kid-spurred false hopes by trademark dodging like "if u change a letter they cant get u", etc.
I thought these ambitious fan remake projects would've died out years ago. So much human effort wasted on projects destined to die, which could have been spent on something more original and less obviously derivatively infringing...
Hell, they could just make a game in the same style with a marginally modified story to avoid the copyright lawyers, and then they could actually sell it as being "inspired by" Metal Gear. Sort of like the Mega Man, Castlevania, and Banjo Kazooie developers who are making new games that play just like their old games and could actually be the same thing with a simple re-skin.
The game belongs to the company that made it. It doesn't belong to you. They paid for the development. They took the risks. You bought it and played it, great. But the fact that you bought it and played it doesn't mean you somehow own it now.
If they don't want it remade, then what you want is irrelevant. You're not entitled to anything, snowflakes.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
remake of the very first title that shipped for the original PlayStation way back in 1998.
And here I was thinking that was actually "Battle Arena Toshinden" in '94...
If every gamer was as good at playing a games as they are at bitching and moaning about them, then I wouldn't have to deal with so many shit players in my PUGs.
No one gives a shit, snowflakes. Konami, Valve, Bioware, etc. don't owe you ANYTHING. If you don't like what they're doing, then stop buying their games and move on.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If every gamer was as good at playing a games as they are at bitching and moaning about them, then I wouldn't have to deal with so many shit players in my PUGs.
The irony.
The trend of "____ fan remake built in Unreal Engine 4" has gone on far too long... Sadly it makes great clickbait for game sites which inveitibly hype up something that will most likely never see the light of day.
Hideo Kojima was plenty happy to cash those Konami paychecks all those years. He was well-paid for the work he did and he's free to return all the money they gave him at any time if he hates them so much.
As it is, he needs to STFU and move on. If he knows how to run a game studio so much better than Konami, then let him create his own studio and run it however he likes instead of whining like a little bitch.
Yeah, I'm bitching about bitchers--but only because I'm bitching to the bitchers about their bitching.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If you can get this far into a game's development, please consider creating original content. It has never been easier to fund or publish a game. You can get paid instead of shut down.
Twinstiq, game news
lol, what trend? It's clearly in the summary, updating a game in UE4 was the "brain child" of this guy. No else has ever thought of this before! It's revolutionary!
You cannot copyright or trademark mere ideas... and since the game was titled something different, if he were to use original art, music, and sound effects, then I'm unsure why Konami would have had any legitimate case against him, or he even would have required Konami's permission unless he was also rather flagrantly throwing around the Metal Gear Solid name everywhere in association with the project.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Hell, they could just make a game in the same style with a marginally modified story to avoid the copyright lawyers
Until they end up getting lawyers breathing down their necks anyway on a claim of "nonliteral copying".
The IP holder does not want the content to go out. Why should they not do with what is theirs?
First, why say "intellectual property" instead of "copyright"? The term "intellectual property" lumps together copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity. These areas of law have different origins, different scopes, and different reasons for existing. Conflating them just confuses readers.
Second, Konami's IP is 133.221.216.6. When you abbreviate "intellectual property" to "IP", you're making restrictions associated with copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity sound as natural as the use of Internet Protocol.
Third, what purpose does legal recognition of copyright serve? In the U.S. legal framework, copyright theoretically exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8). I fail to see how dog-in-the-manger tactics promote any progress.
All that just shows how insane the current duration is. Go back to a copyright of 14 years (or less) and this would not even come up.
And the difference between the copyright term and the patent term just shows how insane the term "intellectual property" is. If exclusive rights under one area of law expire 20 years after application, and exclusive rights under another area of law expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, how can "intellectual property" be considered a cohesive field of law?
Ultimately, the rationale for the present copyright term is the life of those heirs who knew the author personally. But the entertainment industry is willing to budge on neither the scope nor the duration.
You probably meant 133.221.26.6, correct?
Wishful thinking. The trademark owner has the exclusive right to the IP. That being said, it would be perfectly legal to create a game in the spirit of Metal Gear without using any trademarks, assets, or source code that played very similarly.
Not really. Game mechanics can't be copyrighted and pretty much nobody actually bothers filing patents for them.
If you design your own characters levels and other assets, write your own story and give it a name that isn't trivially confused with a registered trademark, you're all set.
The down side there is your game will have to stand on it's own merit instead of coasting on the popularity of the game you were inspired by.
Except more difficult if people sign in and then click the post anonymously. But I guess you wouldn't know that if you've never even set up an account? Or logged in for that matter.
See what I did there?
I'm still waiting for someone to make undubbed PS2ISOs of Zone of the Enders.
up up down down left right left right B A
So much human effort wasted on projects destined to die, which could have been spent on something more original and less obviously derivatively infringing...
Maybe, but consider this: why are you holding these unpaid enthusiasts to a far, far higher standard than what you're holding the game companies and Hollywood to?
All I've been seeing out of Hollywood and the game companies for the past decade now (at least) is derivatives. Granted, they're derivatives of stuff they actually own the rights to, but still: Hollywood can't come up with an original movie any more, it's all sequels, prequels, further installations in the same "universe", etc. Game companies are the same, everything they make now is yet another derivative of something that came out in the 1980s. This article is case-in-point: how many derivatives of Metal Gear have there been now? Metal Gear came out sometime around 1985!!! I'm still seeing Metroid games, and that came out even earlier. Didn't they just release a new Metroid?
So if the game companies can't come up with anything original like they did when the NES was brand-new, how do you expect a bunch of unpaid volunteers to do better?
Not because it is a F*&(& thing to do but because his last name is Hernandez. In the USA you are not allowed to apply the same rules and regulations that you throw at white and black people at Latino's. If I were Hernandez, and I wanted to get this shit made, I would definitely throw in the race card. "Why is Konami discriminating against Latino's." Remaking Metal Gear video games has been a proud part of Latino culture ever since Cortez fucked over the indiginous cultures of the Americas as they had never been fuck over since. h
La Raza and Metal Gear Now!
Game mechanics can't be copyrighted
Counterpoint: Tetris v. Xio .
and pretty much nobody actually bothers filing patents for them.
Except Konami, which prevailed in a claim construction hearing in Konami v. Roxor that its patents for Dance Dance Revolution covered a competitor's game. Other games have patents, such as Dr. Mario (US Patent 5,265,888, since expired), the cylinder mode of Pokemon Puzzle League, Crazy Taxi (enforced in Sega v. Fox), and plenty of other rhythm games.
Konami own the rights to Metal Gear Solid, but they do not own the rights to "everything that looks a bit like Metal Gear Solid".
I wouldn't be so sure. Konami once convinced the judge in Konami v. Roxor that its patent on Dance Dance Revolution extends to "everything that looks a bit like Dance Dance Revolution".
So if the game companies can't come up with anything original like they did when the NES was brand-new, how do you expect a bunch of unpaid volunteers to do better?
I expect a bunch of unpaid volunteers to alter the script a bit, throw in some costume/name changes, and maybe even just change the tone or setting up a little. It really doesn't take much effort to come up with something "original" enough to get past the copyright lawyers. So, really, I expect unpaid volunteers to put in a little bit of effort putting together their own outfit instead of sitting on someone else's coattails and hoping the nostalgia-trippers are enough to keep them on when the publishers try to shake them loose.
God damn, how hard is it to make something new. Really hard, I guess!
Especially when the developers of The Simpsons: Road Rage got sued by Sega for copying Crazy Taxi.
It's especially rich coming from Square Enix considering that they haven't had an original idea in years and there was a recent scandal about them flat-out ripping off a band's music to use in their MMO.
If you didn't bitch then you wouldn't be my bitch. Bitch bitchers bitching. Apps!!!
First, why say "intellectual property" instead of "copyright"?
Because, as opposed to physical property that can be held in hand, intellectual property is immaterial and is held in the mind. In this case of Konami vs the Shadow Moses team, Konami holds the copyright, the trademark, and the right of publicity, and there is no patent or trade secret. Referring to those combined as intellectual property is more accurate than focusing only on copyright.
Second, When you abbreviate "intellectual property" to "IP", you're making restrictions associated with copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity sound as natural as the use of Internet Protocol.
You are completely mistaken about how abbreviations work. For example, in my workplace we have both an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and Employee Assistance Plan (EAP). We know which is which by the context, not by common use. This applies the same to IP (intellectual property) and IP (internet protocol).
Third, what purpose does legal recognition of copyright serve? In the U.S. legal framework, copyright theoretically exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8). I fail to see how dog-in-the-manger tactics promote any progress.
The ideal of copyright allows the owner to profit from their own work, and said profits were intended to allow the creator to continue being employed as a creator. Starving artists tend not to have too much of an impact until they're dead and no longer able to make more stuff. Well-fed artists can continue building up their legacy long past their prime. That is actually a downside, but society at large tends to frown on encouraging people to kill themselves just to draw a (many times arguably) pretty picture.
All that just shows how insane the current duration is. Go back to a copyright of 14 years (or less) and this would not even come up.
And the difference between the copyright term and the patent term just shows how insane the term "intellectual property" is. If exclusive rights under one area of law expire 20 years after application, and exclusive rights under another area of law expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, how can "intellectual property" be considered a cohesive field of law?
Ultimately, the rationale for the present copyright term is the life of those heirs who knew the author personally. But the entertainment industry is willing to budge on neither the scope nor the duration.
The current copyright provisions are essentially "Disney's Law", and everything since has been company after company abusing and lobbying those laws to make them even more stringent. Copyright should never have been extended. For that matter, patents should never have been allowed to receive extensions. Trademarks are about the only IP that extensions make sense for, and then only if the mark is still in active use. None of that, however, means that copyright by itself is insane. Only the degree to which companies have gone to make it into the current insanity.
Because, as opposed to physical property that can be held in hand, intellectual property is immaterial and is held in the mind.
A lot of things cannot be held in hand, but that doesn't make them "intellectual property".
Referring to those combined as intellectual property is more accurate than focusing only on copyright.
How long does "intellectual property" last? Under intellectual property, what uses are reserved for the copyright owner and what uses are subject to a limitation on exclusive rights (such as fair use or exhaustion after first sale)? The answer is not the same for these disparate areas of law. It's clearer to pick the most pertinent area of law and talk about that. And in the case of fan games, copyright is likely to be the most pertinent.
I fail to see how dog-in-the-manger tactics promote any progress.
The ideal of copyright allows the owner to profit from their own work, and said profits were intended to allow the creator to continue being employed as a creator.
If the owner of copyright in a given work is not selling copies of that work, where exactly does this "profit" come from? I ask in order to open discussion about whether this sort of profit is in society's interest.
For that matter, patents should never have been allowed to receive extensions.
Patent term extensions are very limited in scope, granted only when the patent office or the drug regulator has caused an undue delay in issuing a patent. And they still expire after about a generation. This difference in philosophy is why I take care to separate discussion of copyright from discussion of patent.
None of that, however, means that copyright by itself is insane. Only the degree to which companies have gone to make it into the current insanity.
The insanity of copyright derives ultimately from the insanity of voters' continued tolerance of elected officials who put the interest of entertainment industry PACs over those of their constituents outside the industry. How can that be fixed?
A few examples (google "fan game remake shut down":
Streets of Rage Remake, Resident Evil 2, Chrono Trigger, Legend of Zelda (Link to the Past, typically). Even the Mario 64 tech demo in Unreal 3 got shut down, it wasn't even released or any levels created.
I'm sure there are others, but the only instances that come to mind where they publisher didn't go ape on the little guy was Duke 3D remake in Unreal Engine, and The Dark Mod (basically Thief remade in the Doom3 engine).
Shutting down a fanmade game is one thing, but look at what became of Silent Hills. Then they went as far as insisting that the demo of it be remotely removed from people's consoles. I'm so done with console gaming. It's over.
Back in those days a controller didn't cost fucking $49.99 or howmanyever it is now. Sure an analog joystick allows many things but the cost is passed on to the customers and it's a new failure mode for the controller (joystick too imprecise or dead zone too big).
Also I'm pissed that the TV themselves have mandatory 16:9 aspect ratio. Now we are forced to get movie aspect ratio for everything, whereas good old 4:3 was better for showing two to three people interacting and so on. Hint : when I look with my own eyes I can see the ground and ceiling. There is stuff on the side but it's out of focus.
Instead of getting more picture, they now even zoom in so that you get close-ups all the time, on the giant TV. Tits, asses and even bulging cocks all the time! I guess that you get something back from that waste of time at least.
But fuck it. Remember the first Castlevania? Now that's a game that hands your ass over. I downloaded and played it with new college kids and I couldn't get past the 2nd level, the other guys wouldn't even reach the second set of stairs. Now that's a game. "Indies" are great and all maybe but why not have professional games with a low budget, no story or unobtrusive story and that are hard to play? We got that all the time in the 90s, and the games were in physical stores!
Many games were the work of a small team or a single person, but went through a publishing house (e.g., Prince of Persia). Surely that'd be possible. Imagine that : you buy a game with cash, don't give it internet access and don't tie it to Valve's spyware and your identity. Hell books go through an editor and physical sales, even though the budget for writing it is rather low (such as, survival means for the author)
Well ... that last one is a bit different though. Nintendo is already remaking the first Mario game on an annual basis.
They'd certainly have cause to argue if someone else tried to do it... that's *THEIR* cash cow.
SQuenix has gone so far off the reservation with the FF series that a remake of #1 would be completely unrecognizable to them.
This wasn't a cute fan-remake. The ambition was to publish it.
What happened to the girls? If they could not locate my girlfriend herself, they did find a very sisterly sister lookalike for their character. This is so full of cross references it is a knot, and a personal puzzle.
Who actually gave those companies to those owners? They should understand the value of having quality teams popping out of nowhere with (almost finished) products (in a franchise) without having spent a single dime, generating additional business at the cost of maybe some consultancy, by the company, and leveraging on the company s marketing infrastructure. I think some companies do take the advantage, no examples at hand right now but then in those cases the difference between spontaneous teams and established company is erased. Videogames is not like making shoes, (exactly), they are still the most complex documents ever created and a matter of Art.
"Man gets dissuaded from burglary due to load alarm".. Burglar complains..
No, almost all the posters have it wrong - a carefully done re-implementation can be legit. You can't use the exact same potentially trade-marked names. You can't re-distribute the original art work. But, you can do things like create a new engine and anyone who owns the original game can then re-use the content in the new engine. See the article on Game Engine Recreation or the OpenMW project that's creating a version of the Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind game in a new engine.
That said, I don't know if this Metal Gear Solid remake wasn't careful to follow the rules or if maybe they did, but Konami gave them enough grief to make them stop anyway.