
A dead PC game that can't come back - smacktoward
https://kotaku.com/the-sad-story-behind-a-dead-pc-game-that-cant-come-back-1688358811
======
a_t48
My favorite game of all time, Oni, is also stuck in purgatory for similar
reasons. It was the last game Bungie put out before being bought out by
Microsoft. In theory Take-Two Interactive owns the rights to the IP, but it's
really fuzzy and they aren't very interested in finding out if they actually
own it for purposes of selling or licensing the IP. Distribution rights are
also theoretically owned by 2K (Gathering of Developers [PC distro] and
Rockstar Games [PS2distro]) are both now owned by Take-Two. (Source:
[https://wiki.oni2.net/Rights](https://wiki.oni2.net/Rights))

I've heard rumor that the person at Take-Two is fairly tight-fisted with old
IP and not interested in anyone outside the company getting access to it, but
that might be unfounded.

(If you work at Take-Two/2K Games publishing and are interested in licensing
the distribution rights, shoot me a message. From what I know of the source,
it should be an easy port to modern systems, and you'd make a lot of people
very happy. It _should_ be profitable to do so. I'd be opening to setting up a
small studio to do so. I have the time and the cash right now.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Isn't the primary reason why games don't get release to avoid them competing
with modern games for gamers focus. Like if I spend time playing older games
then I'm not going to spend as much time on newer games so I don't need to
spend as much money per hour of game time.

This is a proof that copyright terms are too long IMO.

Unless someone is actively selling a work, ie you can buy it, then the work
should lapse in to the public domain. The appropriate IP office could issue a
decision, on request and payment of a fee, saying who the current seller is or
that no seller was found and so the work is PD. Indications could then be
presented in the relevant countries IP journals saying "work X" will fall into
PD on $DATE which would allow interested parties to intervene before the
certificate was issued (ie saving their copyright) by saying where the work
was available. Test purchases could be carried out to ensure companies don't
hide their saleable works.

~~~
a_t48
> Isn't the primary reason why games don't get release to avoid them competing
> with modern games for gamers focus. Like if I spend time playing older games
> then I'm not going to spend as much time on newer games so I don't need to
> spend as much money per hour of game time.

This is the first time I've heard this theory. In general I don't think this
is the case - game development is risky and expensive. Economically it makes
sense to milk every old game for all it is worth, if people will still buy it
and there aren't any ongoing costs (servers, etc). Porting a game to a new
platform is usually much cheaper. You don't need a full art and engineering
team, nor do you need much in the way of design (some might be needed in cases
of a UI refresh or additions to gameplay).

See: Nintendo. The original Super Mario Bros has been ported to nearly every
system they've put out. And people keep paying for it. Other publishers will
do this, too. There's [https://www.gog.com/](https://www.gog.com/) which is
pretty much dedicated to republishing old games.

~~~
ouid
Milking old games doesn't make sense at all. Most old games are not on a
subscription model.

~~~
a_t48
It's still cheaper than making a new game.

------
RealStickman
"...resort to illegally torrenting them."

I'd argue that pirating games that aren't available anywhere should not be
illegal. I had the same problem with the original Metro Exodus. I couldn't
find it anywhere, only the Redux version. It's sad to see older games
neglected.

~~~
TylerE
On what basis?

Do you think a creator has no right to control their work?

~~~
enneff
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Surely a creator has the right to sell
something, and then refuse to sell any further copies.

~~~
lostcolony
...no, I don't think they do.

Copyright exists for the sole reason of -promoting- the creation of works (by
allowing the creator to have a monopoly on it long enough to extract profit).

If a creator no longer wishes to sell those copies...the copyright's very
purpose is undermined. Obviously the law as written allows them to do so, but
the law as explicitly intended should not do so.

Certainly, outside of the particulars of the law they have no such right. It's
not a 'god given' one, or any such thing; preventing people from making copies
of something is in fact extremely unnatural and goes against what has allowed
our species' cultures to flourish.

~~~
chrismcb
No it isn't... The fact that I no longer wasnt to distribute my work didn't
mean you get to take that right from me. I created the work for the sole
purpose of making a limited edition. It incentivized me to create it, and
because it was a limited edition I may have made more money... But now you say
you get to copy it because you want to? What is the point of giving control to
the creator, if you are just going to take that control away, if you don't
like how they are distributing it? I don't believe the law gives any intention
on distribution.

~~~
lostcolony
And if I have a copy of your work already, and I want to distribute it myself,
what is to stop me?

For hundreds of thousands of years of human history, nothing. Copyright is a
fairly new invention. It doesn't take a law to allow me to distribute works I
have a copy of that are not my creation; it takes a law to stop me.

The law was created to stop me so that you, the creator, -could- control how
it was distributed, for your profit. For a limited time. Those are the key
bits; it was to allow you to profit from it, and it was to be a limited time.
Mickey Mouse lawyers and "forever minus a day" notwithstanding, that was the
goal.

If a work is no longer sold not because the original creator(s) decided it
should be 'limited', but because the original creator is no longer
determinable, i.e., an orphaned work, it's perfectly reasonable to put it into
the public domain, as quite clearly, the goal of allowing the creator to make
money from it no longer applies. It's also why extending copyright makes no
sense.

But that's neither here nor there; my point was simply that copyright is an
unnatural thing, one created by society with the idea that it better society,
and in instances like this that breaks down.

------
compuguy
FYI, this article is from 2015. It was previously discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710973)

------
zozbot234
I would think Night Dive could force the issue in some way - perhaps sue the
main publishers for a declaratory judgment that their releasing the game would
not be copyright infringement. This would force some kind of definitive
outcome as to who really owns the rights to the game, after which negotiations
could start for the actual release.

~~~
bexsella
I think the issue there would be money. Night Dive aren't a big studio, and
there is no guarantee of a 'win' here. A win outcome here could well be Warner
Bros. producing a contract and still saying no to a re-release. Also, Stephen
Kick has said on twitter in the past week that he's still not given up on the
IP, so there's still an ember here.

------
moomin
Not only a great game series, but also damn good case for a movie franchise.

------
saberience
This is the same with the Myth series by Bungie. Take2 owns the IP and various
fan/dev groups ([http://projectmagma.net/](http://projectmagma.net/)) have
tried negotiating with them to get the rights so they can update it for modern
systems and re-release on Steam. However Take2 either refuses to sell the
rights or only offers to sell for a ridiculous sum (for such an old and
abandoned title). The community has been unofficially patching and supporting
the game since about 2005 for modern PC and Mac systems but we would love to
see a proper Steam release and build the community up again.

To any Myth 2 fans by the way, there is still a small and loyal community who
play online together. (see:
[http://gateofstorms.net/](http://gateofstorms.net/))

------
ksbakan
It can come back in 2095 if disney doesn't pay off politicians to male
copyright last even longer.

------
shmerl
Nightdive are great. They even make their restored games work on Linux
natively, like Noctropolis.

I'm personally waiting for GOG to sort out the situation with The Neverhood,
so it could be re-released. It works in ScummVM.

And it's typical for those greedy publishers to refuse to deal with such
cases. They think that spending any effort on it would cost them more than
potential benefits from re-releases. So they prefer to let them be pirated
instead.

------
franzb
Not sure if this was already posted here, but the source code of No One Lives
Forever is available:

[https://github.com/osgcc/no-one-lives-forever](https://github.com/osgcc/no-
one-lives-forever)

------
ChuckMcM
This sort of thing perplexes me. Why can't they just release the game (they
have the technology) wait for someone to sue them, and then force that person
(or persons) to prove they own the copyright. If they can't prove it then the
copyright is forfeit.

~~~
Asooka
Because those persons will sue them, assert their copyright, then receive
damages and remove the product from being sold. This isn't like a compulsory
licensing fee where you pay to record a cover of a song and nobody can stop
you, the rightsholders have said they're not interested in the remake
existing, therefore we can assume they'll just kill any remake that gets made.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In
order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the
legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove
they are the rights holder.

I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the
plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive. (say
$50K - $100K in legal fees). Seems like one way to clear up the rights issue.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is
> the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to
> prove they are the rights holder.

No that's not what standing is. They have to establish a legally cognizable
claim to harm to establish standing; actual harm is what an actual trial
exists to establish. A dispute of fact over who holds rights at issue would be
a perfectly normal issue for trial.

> I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the
> plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive

A defense motion to dismiss necessarily must state that the plaintiff has no
legally cognizable claim as a matter of law; if there is anything relevant
that might potentially be proven, it is automatically viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. You can't make a motion to dismiss unless the
plaintiff proves something, the very idea of that acknowledges that there is a
disputes issue of fact necessary to resolve the case, calling for a trial.

------
wayneftw
Battlefield Heroes was a favorite of mine that I can’t play anymore because EA
took down the servers.

There is a guy running a pirate server but hardly anybody plays on it.

------
mrkeen
A similar fate for the Battle for Middle Earth series.

~~~
Godel_unicode
At least with BfME, if you already own it you can still play it, even
multiplayer.

