Timeslip on 14/2/2013 at 13:02
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Are they claiming it as their own? Or are they just trying to give people the best gaming experience they can get from it?
Yes, they claimed it as their own. Here's the relevant quote from yesterdays interview:
Quote:
Kick: Night Dive Studios secured the license to distribute the game, and made the initial modifications to allow the game to run on most current operating systems.
Rambourg: There are some user-made mods out there which do phenomenal work on the game's stability, but none of them were quite perfect
Make of that what you will. But the game works, and its for sale legally. Pretty sure no-one could want any more.
icemann on 14/2/2013 at 13:03
Quote Posted by heywood
The big reveal is one thing that Bioshock did better than SS2.
Purely since SS2 was way ahead of its time. By the time of Bioshock the world was a very different place.
Muzman on 14/2/2013 at 13:03
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Are they claiming it as their own? Or are they just trying to give people the best gaming experience they can get from it?
Even if they're not claiming it as their own, it seems like they can't credit people for it (since it prompts awkward questions like "uh, how did you do this again? Oh with stuff you're not really supposed to be using like this")
I'm not cross either way, it just seems ..curiously awkward, potentially.
Muzman on 14/2/2013 at 13:08
Incidentally, since it's at least the second time someone said this...
Quote Posted by heywood
I agree the SS2 story was good for the time but nothing special by today's standards.
What's all this "by today's standards" stuff people are saying? Where's all this devastating storytelling I'm missing exactly?
faetal on 14/2/2013 at 13:21
It's not that all new stories are amazing, it is more that over time, the number of well-told stories in existence increases so expectations trend up accordingly. When SS2 came out, it didn't have a large number of game stories to compete with to appear exceptional. Bioshock arguably took the same formula and repeated it with refinements. For me, it was just spoiled as the setting was a little too cheesy.
[EDIT] And don't get me started on the awful OIRISH accent in the voice-over.
Infinitron on 14/2/2013 at 13:23
I have a question for you guys: Is it at all possible that Night Dive Studios are in fact the same guys who made Newdark?
EvaUnit02 on 14/2/2013 at 13:51
Quote Posted by Muzman
Even if they're not claiming it as their own, it seems like they can't credit people for it (since it prompts awkward questions like "uh, how did you do this again? Oh with stuff you're not really supposed to be using like this")
I'm not cross either way, it just seems ..curiously awkward, potentially.
Has Square Enix made any attempts to get the Thief versions of NewDark pulled? Obviously these days EA trying to get SS-related stuff "Fox'ed" is irrelevant since they don't own the trademarks any more.
I recall Eidos Montreal were entirely okay with people "obtaining" the leaked DX:HR press preview build and treating it like a glorified demo.
It's all obviously grey area, but an easy way to build brand awareness and a fanbase is by having existing instalments of the franchise readily available on (digital) store shelves and working on as many PCs as possible. More people playing it usually means more people discussing it. Eg The likes of the GOG/Steam releases of Thief being packaged with DDfix are a necessary evil.
Compatibility fan patches can probably be considered as mods? A lot of games which have mod tools publicly distributed have the legal stipulation that any and all content created is automatically property of the games' rights holders.
If it was some minor/miscellaneous release yes, but news as big as this deserves its own thread.
Muzman on 14/2/2013 at 14:06
I don't think anyone is selling any NewDarked version of Thief are they? (yet)
I'm all for people chilling out about this stuff. And the NewDark team probably are just happy people are playing it, rather than wanting to be paid.
I can easily envisage a situation where a company incorporates some modder's work and then prosecutes them for doing it in the first place using assets or tech they weren't legally allowed to, even though it seems counter productive.
The ultimate happy ending is they get to step from the shadows and get credit. GoG says have some money and thanks! EA and Eidos/Square just wipe a tear from their eye and say we just love that people love the games we published/bought from the people who published *sniff* and cake and pie for all.
What are the odds, I wonder.
EvaUnit02 on 14/2/2013 at 14:20
^
They were working from an utterly unauthorised, leaked version of the Dark Engine source code that had not been cleared by any publisher's/rights holder's legal teams. No Dark Engine game source code has seen released publicly under likes of a limited open license or similar, like we have with Carmack's old engines. They have no real ground to stand on.
Again I ask the question, has Square made any moves to halt distribution of the Thief versions of NewDark from major sites? How about these Meadowbank and Star Insurance entities who own SS? Just be thankful that they're all turning a blind eye to all of this.
