King's Quest IX shuts down

[Alistair]

Hey, that's a REALLY good point, DrJ!! Marten's comments could definitely be used as an argument against Vivendi and the company that made MCL.

- Alistair

[Tom]

Well, that's a poor example, Tom. Hopefully you obey the speed limit because it's dangerous not to, not because it's a law!

Actually, this is an EXCELLENT example...had you been aware of our local street system.  Safety has nothing to do with it.  A major highway runs through our town (US 41), and the speed limit drops from 65 to 25 mph.  It's absolutely ridiculous, since it's non-residential.  You rarely see people driving 25, but you also see cops handing out a lot of tickets.  It's what we call, a speed trap.  There's lots of situations like this in small towns; it's just another of the ways local governments are able to enhance revenue.

Here in the U.S., most major highways and expressways were designed and built to support traffic driving at 80 mph.  We reduced the speed limit to 55 mph back in the 1970's (thanks to Jimmy Carter) in an effort to help save energy.  Later, it was raised back up to 65, and now, many areas are going to 75...which used to be the norm before Carter.  It wasn't lowered for "safety" reasons...since as you know, most accidents happen at much lower speeds.

[Alistair]

Ah, thankfully there's no 25 mph (or equiv. in KM/h) zones here. I'd definitely call that 'revenue-raising', as the popular term is in Australia for bad road policy.

Still, I definitely believe lower speed zones are preferable to higher ones, especially with regards to fatality- are you quoting from your experience, or US stats, or what?

I was at a Labor Party meeting and community forum the other day and we had people from the Automobile Association, Crash Research groups and the RAA (Royal Auto Association I think) and the summaries of all their arguments all said speed reductions were the best ways of reducing accidents. Which is fairly intuitive..

- Alistair

[Marten]

The best way to reduce accidents is to automate driving and remove the human factor

But back to the topic of KQ9... actually, this is something that occurred to me many months ago, I really wonder why fan projects aren't trying to get AGDI to sponsor them so they can get in under the wing, so to speak.

[Alistair]

I'd say it's friggin' obvious, Marten. Reason I don't want to talk to Vivendi.

Number one, we don't want our creative works to be 'stolen'. Number two, we don't want Vivendi to profit from our work. Number three, we don't want Vivendi to decide to shut us down at some arbitrary point. Number four, most fangames don't have the skills or the courage to negotiate (AGDI didn't, remember) with Vivendi.

I'm sure there's a lot more reasons than that, but that's straight off the top of my head.

KQ9 annoys me in a lot of ways. The culture of the fangame was all wrong. Which says to me why they've taken the ludicrous decision of shutting it down. Or maybe it will resurface..

- Alistair

[Ari]

I'd say it's friggin' obvious, Marten. Reason I don't want to talk to Vivendi.

Number one, we don't want our creative works to be 'stolen'. Number two, we don't want Vivendi to profit from our work. Number three, we don't want Vivendi to decide to shut us down at some arbitrary point. Number four, most fangames don't have the skills or the courage to negotiate (AGDI didn't, remember) with Vivendi.

Ah, but VU can do all those things anyway - especially if you're under no agreement whatsoever with them that might limit their ability to do the things you mentioned, since it's their property.

[Alistair]

Ah, but VU can do all those things anyway - especially if you're under no agreement whatsoever with them that might limit their ability to do the things you mentioned, since it's their property.

I'm just dispelling Marten's myth that we (Sierra sites and fan projects) should all 'go under Vivendi's wing'. What nonsense.

Sure, Ari. VU could take my or others work. To what end? Vivendi obiously has no desire to work with Sierra people, and has no Sierra knowledge, as it were. So I don't think it's a big issue. Only projects with commercial value, like Tierra's remakes of KQ1/2, have really caught attention. (And I definitely believe KQ9 will get under the radar eventually).

I also disagree that having an agreement will somehow 'limit' anything to do with Vivendi. Having an agreement, such as AGDi and QS's with Vivendi ,as far as I understand anyway, is simply a 'forfeit all rights' agreement to avoid litigation, which I don't see as worthwhile.

I even dispute in some senses that Vivendi does in fact have property in a CD I make. But I've already been over that.

- Alistair

[DrJ]

I also disagree that having an agreement will somehow 'limit' anything to do with Vivendi. Having an agreement, such as AGDi and QS's with Vivendi ,as far as I understand anyway, is simply a 'forfeit all rights' agreement to avoid litigation, which I don't see as worthwhile.

I actually think Ari meant that you basically let AGDI 'back' the claim that it's a good fan-based oriented game. That way, the people who made the game could be 'part of the AGDI family' (Dynamix flash-back ) and release the game to the general public that way. That way Vivendi has to trust AGDI's claim about the game, but it could be a good thing for the general public.

OR.... it could all have to do with the buzz I've been hearing about Sierra Online re-releasing the quest series.. This is what I picked up from the Sierra Vintage forum:

If you go to amazon.com and search Space Quest you will find a new product available.

Kings Quest
Space Quest
Leisure Suit Larry
Police Quest

All of them redone in XP!

Now I dont know if this is some sort of prank since there are no pics yet and Vevendi has not posted anything yet.

But Who knows!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000AYIP8A/qid=1127144369/sr=8-4/ref=pd_bbs_4/002-2084663-9384000?v=glance&s=videogames&n=507846

Who knows, maybe Sierra is testing the water to see how many of these they will sell and see about a new release in one of the quest series? That could mean a 'real' KQ9 would be possible..

[Alistair]

I actually think Ari meant that you basically let AGDI 'back' the claim that it's a good fan-based oriented game. That way, the people who made the game could be 'part of the AGDI family' (Dynamix flash-back ) and release the game to the general public that way. That way Vivendi has to trust AGDI's claim about the game, but it could be a good thing for the general public.

That's definitely NOT what Ari meant, he obviously knows what's going on, whereas you seem not to.

OR.... it could all have to do with the buzz I've been hearing about Sierra Online re-releasing the quest series.. This is what I picked up from the Sierra Vintage forum:
Quote:

If you go to amazon.com and search Space Quest you will find a new product available.

Kings Quest
Space Quest
Leisure Suit Larry
Police Quest

All of them redone in XP!

Now I dont know if this is some sort of prank since there are no pics yet and Vevendi has not posted anything yet.

But Who knows!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000AYIP8A/qid=1127144369/sr=8-4/ref=pd_bbs_4/002-2084663-9384000?v=glance&s=videogames&n=507846
 


Who knows, maybe Sierra is testing the water to see how many of these they will sell and see about a new release in one of the quest series? That could mean a 'real' KQ9 would be possible..

Firstly, I wouldn't go to Vintage-Sierra to find out the latest Sierra information, and the quote speaks for itself. However that said it seems likely Vivendi are going ahead with this farcical 'rerelease' idea.

Secondly, 'Sierra' doesn't exist, DrJ.

Thirdly- like hell there's an idea for a KQ9. What are they going to do after KQ8? That had Roberta. Can't imagine what knowledge they'd use, or what interest they'd have, at Vivendi, for making such a sequel. But no doubt time will reveal all

Forgive me for being bitter. You just don't seem to know much about what's been going on lately, and Vivendi have really got me down this week, and this year in general, even.

Regards,
- Alistair

[Ari]

Sure, Ari. VU could take my or others work. To what end? Vivendi obiously has no desire to work with Sierra people, and has no Sierra knowledge, as it were. So I don't think it's a big issue. Only projects with commercial value, like Tierra's remakes of KQ1/2, have really caught attention. (And I definitely believe KQ9 will get under the radar eventually).

I also disagree that having an agreement will somehow 'limit' anything to do with Vivendi. Having an agreement, such as AGDi and QS's with Vivendi ,as far as I understand anyway, is simply a 'forfeit all rights' agreement to avoid litigation, which I don't see as worthwhile.

Have you seen the contract between VU and AGDi or talked to AGDis about this, or is this pure speculation?

[DrJ]

But Who knows!

Firstly, I wouldn't go to Vintage-Sierra to find out the latest Sierra information, and the quote speaks for itself. However that said it seems likely Vivendi are going ahead with this farcical 'rerelease' idea.

Secondly, 'Sierra' doesn't exist, DrJ.

Forgive me for being bitter. You just don't seem to know much about what's been going on lately, and Vivendi have really got me down this week, and this year in general, even.

Wow you ARE bitter Like I said above... I'm just speculating.. Who knows if Vivendi is going to re release the quest series.. who knows what their 'big' plan is (hence the who knows bit). Just thought it could be an interesting coincidence.

And in regards to your second point, my bad for not being 100% punctual

[Alistair]

Ari: Yes, that is my understanding, and yes, it's based on knowledge of mine, not pure speculation. Does this mean you're not familiar with the contract that you're working with?

Wow you ARE bitter Like I said above... I'm just speculating.. Who knows if Vivendi is going to re release the quest series.. who knows what their 'big' plan is (hence the who knows bit). Just thought it could be an interesting coincidence.

And in regards to your second point, my bad for not being 100% punctual

I am, and I apologise for that.

I don't think there's anything interesting about it. I think it's heinous to shutdown a fangame project on the offchance they might make a release in the future.

Vivendi just said their folks only just found out about the project, and that's why they've taken so long to shut it down. Interesting.. Farcical, but interesting nonetheless.


And I don't think 'punctuality' has much to do with it! If you cared about Sierra, you'd definitely have caught wind of Vivendi's dealings. If you still think Sierra is run by Ken Williams or that it exists as a meaningful entity, well, you haven't been around for like 3 years.  

- Alistair

[Tom]

Why all the hostility?

Vivendi's known about KQ9 for quite some time; at least a year.

Other than me, Ari knows more than anyone else here about what the QS and AGDI contracts with Vivendi spell out.   QS is under the same contract as AGDI.  I've shared some bits and pieces of it with others, but not much.

most fangames don't have the skills or the courage to negotiate (AGDI didn't, remember) with Vivendi.

We didn't?  I was sure that we did have the skill and courage, which is why Dianne and I did negotiate with Vivendi, representing AGDI and Quest Studios.  But the ONLY things there were to negotiate between Vivendi and QS/AGDI was (we originally thought), whether we'll be sued for using Vivendi's copyrighted material without permission, and if not, whether the project could go ahead.  Turns out that Vivendi liked what we were doing...and the rest is history.

[NewRisingSUn]

Why all the hostility?

I personally think Vivendi deserves any amount of hostility one can muster, but that's just my opinion.

I was sure that we did have the skill and courage, which is why Dianne and I did negotiate with Vivendi, representing AGDI and Quest Studios.

I think the thought Alistair somehow tried to articulate is that you don't have as much skill and courage, or more likely, the financial backing not to get pulled over the table. In this thread, you have repeatedly exhibited the kind of deferential attitude that puts you in a disadvantaged position when engaging in negotiations, and as far as I see it, pulled over the the table is what you got.

On the other hand, you have described that you like it that way, and if that is so, I'm happy for you.

[Great Hierophant]

In this thread, you have repeatedly exhibited the kind of deferential attitude that puts you in a disadvantaged position when engaging in negotiations, and as far as I see it, pulled over the the table is what you got.

The attitidue is deferential because the maker of the fan-based game has so little leverage over Vivendi or another company.  When you start in the position that you have infringed their copyrights or trademarks and therefore are civilly liable, then you are in a very disadvantageous position.  You will probably be pulled over the table in any event, acting like an a**hole will only do it sooner.  

On the subject of the quest series re-releases, I have no intention of buying them over the earlier, out-of-print collection series unless they can be run in DOS/Windows 3.1 in addition to XP.  I have a strong feeling that any XP ports would be half-assed, losing true support for Roland modules among other things.  I hope they would lower the prices of the collection CDs a bit.

[NewRisingSUn]

The attitidue is deferential because the maker of the fan-based game has so little leverage over Vivendi or another company.

It's one thing to strategically act deferential in court, for example; it's another thing to actually adopt such a submissive attitude and believing in it.

You will probably be pulled over the table in any event, acting like an a**hole will only do it sooner.

Doing what's right, instead of pandering to bullies, it not "acting like an asshole".
There are ways to create fangames without getting pulled over the table. Not letting people know your real identity, by not buying a real domain for starters but just using free webspace, is part of that strategy. Not announcing your project before release is another. But I'm repeating myself here.

[Ari]

Yes, you are repeating yourself, and it's too late for these options anyway.
That's why I suggest trying to reach an agreement with VU, and if you can, back yourself with signatures of fans thereby creating leverage over VU.

[NewRisingSUn]

True enough. Just consider it advice for the future. For example, I see that the SpaceQuest.net forum pranksters at http://www.vohaulstrikesback.com are there with full name, place and birth date. It should be interesting to watch what happens there, Vivendi-wise... :twisted:

[Great Hierophant]

In short, you either buy a license, beg for permission or risk suit and suppression.  

If they released the game without VU's permission, VU could sue them for every penny they collectively own.  Even assuming we ae dealing with poor fans, VU will go sue anyone who hosts the game as a contributory infringer and ensure the game is suppressed.  The game therefore will be banished to IRC, P2P and Usenet binaries.  So few will be able to play it that it wouldn't have been worth it to release the game.

I give little credit to fan-based projects that seek to remake a game or continue a game series.  The rare end result is outdated, unprofessional and shows a clear lack of original thought.  I much more prefer new games that take inspiration from the classics than those that ape the classics for their own aggrandizement.  Now, while these people don't charge for their work, they do get recognition, even if they must enjoy it anonymously.

[NewRisingSUn]

VU will go sue anyone who hosts the game as a contributory infringer and ensure the game is suppressed.

No, they will not. They haven't done so in the past. There are so many Sierra fan games out there, good and bad, which have been on the internet for years, undisturbed. You need to make a distinction between what's theoretically possible and what's likely.

Considering the amount of potentially "infringing" material out there, Vivendi has been so extremely tame it's almost ridiculous. Brian Provinciano even appeared on TV plugging his SCI Studio program (which, unlike GBAGI, does contain copyrighted material), and nothing happened. It rather seems that they only go after those high-profile projects that announce themselves months, or years, in advance; their websites are basically like huge "sue me" signs.