I felt a great disturbance in the Force...

edited November 2007 in General Chat
... as if millions of voices suddenly cried out "aw, crap!" and were suddenly silenced.


  • edited October 2007
    Somehow, "aw, crap!" doesn't do this justice. However, I'll refrain from adding any spicier words. I don't want to give Doug a heart attack. Anyway, I haven't felt this bad since March 3rd, 2004. There isn't a fan game out there that I was looking forward to more than SQ7.
  • edited October 2007
    They can name it something else than Space Quest 7 and should be out of trouble. something like "The quest on the 7th space" ^^ and avoid the logos used in the SQ games but do something that mocks them... (as if SQ wasn’t a mock of star trek anyway and got away with it.)

    I do think that people should do more original stuff and try not to look into properties owned by money driven "corporations"
  • edited October 2007
    If you read the post completely, you'll notice that Colin Davis said
    We can’t simply change the name of the character to “Bob Wingbat”, and release while avoiding their trademarks.
    Space Quest 7 is heavily woven around the planets and existing characters that make the series so enthralling- We’ve build our game to extend the legacy, and trying to untangle that now wouldn’t be fair to the game, or the people who would play it.
    Secondly, this wouldn’t help our legal situation.
    In the recent discussions involving the book “Peter and the Starcatchers”, which is an unofficial sequel to Peter Pan, it was argued that even though the names and places were changed, it was it’s intent to be a sequel, and so it fell under the legal code as a “derived work”.
    So, no. Changing the title won't change the legality of things.
  • edited October 2007
    i just can't understand this "we keep the license, but we won't do anything with it"-attitude. .
  • edited October 2007
    wisp wrote: »
    i just can't understand this "we keep the license, but we won't do anything with it"-attitude. .

    It's so they can sell box sets at nauseum... If they feel like it...
  • edited October 2007
    right, but it should be possible to issue a license to another company for the production of another game without selling the complete francise, right?
    that way they could still sell their old stuff and yet make some extra cash with the francise...
  • edited October 2007
    Well, it's like this.
    Imagine a corporation as that three-year-old kid who bites.
    Yeah, THAT one. And whenever someone touches their property, "NO! MINE!" and a bite on the arm or face or whatever is closest is inevitable.
  • jmmjmm
    edited November 2007
    And like three-year-olds, a bit of chocolate (aka: bribe) can do wonders...

    Seriously, if they have a frozen asset and you offer them enough dough, they will sell it. The problem is that there is a lot of talk from the wrong kind of people (customers)
    that have too little money individually to be considered seriously.

    Now, if you managed to get a few hundred thousands at your disposal and you wish to invest (or realistically speaking: waste) you also have to convince them that you are not a direct threat to their business and that is a very hard thing to do (Meaning: you'll end with the means to produce games an we will compete in the same market)

    I know a lot of people gathered around campaings, that will not work since:
    a) There is no serious attempt to get around the legalities (Signees are from different countries/states for instance)
    b) There is no visible head/organization to make business with
    c) Owning something does not mean something (good) will come out of it
    d) People are cheap and do not have the commitment to make it work.

    Even if there is success buying a license, you just can't approach a developer and give them the license and even if you did, you need money to produce it.

    So... if you have around $500,000+ floating around...
Sign in to comment in this discussion.