Main Menu

A Petition to Vivendi/Sierra

Started by TheReturnofDMD, August 05, 2005, 04:20:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheReturnofDMD

      Hello,

      I'm not new here, I had about 2 other SNs here, but I had to get rid of them for some reasons. I was wondering if anyone knows how I can directly contact Sierra or Vivendi (not about KQIX). I looked on both sites and the only emails I see available is for like technical things and customer service. The reason I'd want to contact them is to let them have a piece of my mind. My feelings are that the year is 2005, and look at where we stand with King's Quest and other Sierra classics. Sure, we have new projects coming out like this one (which, btw, I'm really excited about--it looks awesome) but what about the old ones?
     As the years go by, the Sierra games are becoming hard to find and increasingly difficult to get to work on newer computers. I'm not asking them for new installments of King's Quest, but that they would rerelease the games and have them updated to be compatible with new PCs, or, if they are so disinterested with the games, release them into public domain so that the fans can release them as they wish and update as is possible, before they disappear from memory and history. People may laugh at this viewpoint and think it melodramatic, but while today there are some ways to find and buy, for example, King's Quest VI, and there are certain means of operating it on new computers, what about in five, ten, or twenty years from now? For I believe that the old series, especially King's Quest, are works of art in their own way, and deserve to be remembered and played by future generations as such.
   Being a longtime fan of these games, and knowing how much I cherish them, I'd hate to see them disappear due to what has become a crippled, selfish and money hungry company's general lack of interest or care with regard to their fans. I realize this is not Ken or Roberta's fault, as they sold the company years ago, nor is it the former employees such as Al Lowe and Jen Jensen's fault, but it is Vivendi and (what remains of) Sierra's fault. I hope that in reading this, it will stir the fans feelings towards petitioning Sierra/Vivendi, in the hope of reissuing the games, or for the release of the games' copyrights into public domain, and I believe that if we work together against Sierra towards this goal, it can be achieved.

Yonkey

Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on August 05, 2005, 04:20:48 PM
      Hello,

      I'm not new here, I had about 2 other SNs here, but I had to get rid of them for some reasons.
Welcome back.  ;D Why did you have to get rid of them?  I believe I merged them together.  If you remember the login and password, you should still be able to use them. :) 


While (as a fan) I agree with most of what you said, I also believe technology will continue to evolve to the point where you won't be able to play games that are 10, 20 or 30 years old.  Yes, there is DosBox right now, but what happens when DosBox won't run on Windows3020?  I guess people will start petitioning them so that they can run old Sierra games.  ::)

Personally, I don't believe in the whole abandonware concept.  If I spent a good deal of time and effort to develop something and priced it accordingly, I would not want people to start distributing it for free when they have no right to do so.  Now, if someone paid me millions of dollars for this software so they could become the official owner, I wouldn't have a problem with it because this would be part of a contract I agreed to, and the product would then become their responsibility. 

If that owner decides to no longer sell or distribute the software because they can't afford to spend money on maintenance or support staff when they're developing thousands of other products, that's their decision.  I no longer have any rights to the product, and therefore would not have a problem with it.  This is probably the reason why Ken & Roberta don't really care about what happens to their old games, even though they devoted 20 years to creating them.  :-\

Something that I should point out is that the current-day Sierra/Vivendi isn't completely heartless.  They've given AGDI official permission to create and continue to distribute KQ1VGA and KQ2VGA under the restriction that they claim no rights to the original KQ series, and that they do not make any income from them.  8)
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

TheReturnofDMD

Quote from: Yonkey on August 05, 2005, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on August 05, 2005, 04:20:48 PM


While (as a fan) I agree with most of what you said, I also believe technology will continue to evolve to the point where you won't be able to play games that are 10, 20 or 30 years old.  Yes, there is DosBox right now, but what happens when DosBox won't run on Windows3020?   ::)

  8)

That's exactly what I was thinking. Btw, what is it that makes vintage Sierra games not compatible with XP? Because my computer that I'm using as I write is a Windows 98 and KQ, SQ, and QFG all work fine (except SQ which has some speed issues).

Yonkey

Well, old games were designed to run on MS-DOS, not even Windows.  Win2000 and up has a MS-DOS emulator called Command Prompt (cmd.exe), but it is not MS-DOS because these operating systems use the NT Architecture instead of a DOS-based one.  Since cmd.exe is an emulator designed to run Win9x programs and not pre-Win9x programs, old games usually won't run.

DosBox is a program designed for Win2000 and up to run pre-Win9x programs.
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

TheReturnofDMD

Thank you! By the way, would it possible for a post XP computer to use a dos-based architecture for emulator? If they did, then would the games work? Also, I was referring more to KQs V-VII rather than I-IV for the technical issues.

Yonkey

Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on August 06, 2005, 05:27:14 PM
Thank you! By the way, would it possible for a post XP computer to use a dos-based architecture for emulator?
Probably not, since Microsoft stopped using the dos-based architecture in 1998.  Eventually (I'd say 7-10 years from now) you won't be able to run 32-based programs, because the standard will become 64-bit or 128-bit. ::)

But it's not the end of the world.  If you purchase an old 386- or 486- running MS-DOS from a computer shop, you'll be able to run these Sierra games without any problems.
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

Storm

Quote from: Yonkey on August 05, 2005, 04:53:10 PMPersonally, I don't believe in the whole abandonware concept.  If I spent a good deal of time and effort to develop something and priced it accordingly, I would not want people to start distributing it for free when they have no right to do so.

There's a difference between 'abandonware' and common software piracy. Abandonware is software that's no longer available for sale and therefore generates no revenue for the copyright owner. Say you developed something, sold it for some years and made lots and lots of money, and when it became out-dated you stopped selling it and supporting it. What could you possibly lose by letting the few nostalgic fans distribute it for free? :-\


Quote from: Yonkey on August 05, 2005, 04:53:10 PMSomething that I should point out is that the current-day Sierra/Vivendi isn't completely heartless.  They've given AGDI official permission to create and continue to distribute KQ1VGA and KQ2VGA under the restriction that they claim no rights to the original KQ series, and that they do not make any income from them.  8)

I seriously doubt Heart had anything to do with Vivendi's decision ::)
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Yonkey

#7
Quote from: Storm on August 16, 2005, 08:40:55 PM
Say you developed something, sold it for some years and made lots and lots of money, and when it became out-dated you stopped selling it and supporting it. What could you possibly lose by letting the few nostalgic fans distribute it for free? :-\
You can't really look at it like that because while the Williams' made lots of money, I doubt every other person that contributed to any Sierra game made anywhere near as much, or had the luxury of retiring.  Usually when a company is bought, it's because it's doing poorly financially and in most cases people get laid-off. :-\ Anyway, my point is that people put in a lot of time and hard work into developing games, and I'm sure the ones who didn't receive millions would not appreciate people distributing their work for free. 

But besides that, it's also the principle of the thing I don't agree with.  Leonardo DaVinci can't really make any more money from his Mona Lisa painting (since he's dead :P), but still you don't see anyone passing it around for free.  If anything, the original is worth more now than when he was alive.  Same goes for popular merchandise from the past that are no longer available (i.e. collectibles, memorobelia, etc.)  In general, they're worth way more now than they were in the past.  The more mint condition it is, the higher the value.

With software, you can make exact duplicates of originals that will always be in "mint condition".  Also software itself never ages; it's the hardware and operating systems that evolve and render the software buggy or even completely inoperable.  Software is like a car in perfect condition that will never break down, but the gasoline for that car keeps changing every year until eventually the car dies. :P

Quote from: Storm on August 16, 2005, 08:40:55 PM
I seriously doubt Heart had anything to do with Vivendi's decision ::)
lol, I agree. :P

But the point is that they gave them official permission, rather than shutting them down with a C&D letter...  ::)
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

Storm

Quote from: Yonkey on August 17, 2005, 08:22:53 AMYou can't really look at it like that because while the Williams' made lots of money, I doubt every other person that contributed to any Sierra game made anywhere near as much, or had the luxury of retiring... my point is that people put in a lot of time and hard work into developing games, and I'm sure the ones who didn't receive millions would not appreciate people distributing their work for free.

True, but all those people who invested their time & hard work got paid for it. Unless they have serious over-possessiveness issues, they should care even less than the Williams' if the game they made is sold or given away, since they don't make any money off its sales to begin with, much less if it's no longer distributed :-\


Quote from: Yonkey on August 17, 2005, 08:22:53 AMLeonardo DaVinci can't really make any more money from his Mona Lisa painting (since he's dead :P), but still you don't see anyone passing it around for free.  If anything, the original is worth more now than when he was alive.

This isn't a very good analogy... Leonardo may not be able to make any more money off the Mona Lisa, but he already made all the money he was going to make off it back when he sold it. Since the original Mona Lisa is one of a kind and cannot be duplicated, you can't really compare it to computer software. You might compare the original Mona Lisa to an original copy of the game - it still has value for collectors, even more so if the company stopped selling the game. In Mona Lisa's case, the copyright on the original painting is public domain - anyone can make and even sell reproductions of it, and that doesn't decrease the value of the original.


Quote from: Yonkey on August 17, 2005, 08:22:53 AM...The point is that they gave them official permission, rather than shutting them down with a C&D letter...  ::)

Well, sending a C&D letter would have cost them just as much as sending an official premission letter, so I guess they allowed it only because they didn't want to alienate the fans - people who play adventure games are likely play other games as well... even Vivendi's).
Personally, I was surprised to hear this - I always assumed they would just save the cost of the letter and ignore AGDI indefinitely :P

Say, is there a chance KQ9 would get an official premission? You should try now, while Vivendi's in a good mood ;)
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Yonkey

Quote from: Storm on August 17, 2005, 08:00:58 PM
True, but all those people who invested their time & hard work got paid for it. Unless they have serious over-possessiveness issues, they should care even less than the Williams' if the game they made is sold or given away, since they don't make any money off its sales to begin with, much less if it's no longer distributed :-\
That's true.  I guess what I meant is that they got paid for their work on the game but then got laid off.  Whereas the William's got paid for their work on the games and then quit with enough money to never have to work again.  So while both groups did not receive profits directly (or maybe Ken did? ???), the financial situations are very different.  Also, the Williams' made the choice to quit after selling the company, the others most likely did not have any choice. :-\

Quote from: Storm on August 17, 2005, 08:00:58 PM
This isn't a very good analogy...  You might compare the original Mona Lisa to an original copy of the game - it still has value for collectors, even more so if the company stopped selling the game. In Mona Lisa's case, the copyright on the original painting is public domain - anyone can make and even sell reproductions of it, and that doesn't decrease the value of the original.
Yeah, since I explained how software can be easily duplicated perfectly, I was more comparing it to original boxed sets of the games.  And like collectibles, those original boxed sets are still worth a lot of money. 8)

As for the Mona Lisa, while anyone can make or sell reproductions of the Mona Lisa, they will never be true originals, even if they were taken with the most top-of-the-line digital camera in the world.  Still, if someone were to take such a high quality photo, there'd be no way he'd want to give it to someone for free, nor mass-produce it for millions of others to possibly make profits from.  :P

Quote from: Storm on August 17, 2005, 08:00:58 PM
Say, is there a chance KQ9 would get an official premission? You should try now, while Vivendi's in a good mood ;)
lol, well we don't know what terms they had to agree to in order to get permission (it seems they're not allowed to disclose information about it either).  But, there are some facts: They changed names from Tierra to AGDI, and the disclaimer about non-profits & Sierra copyright ownership are still on their site, so I'm guessing those were part of it.  We've had the disclaimer stuff forever, and we've even changed the name from KQ9 to KQIX as a preventative measure.  However, there are still differences between remakes and sequels, so I'm not sure if we would get official permission or not.  We are planning on contacting them eventually though. 8)
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

Storm

Quote from: Yonkey on August 18, 2005, 10:42:57 AMI guess what I meant is that they got paid for their work on the game but then got laid off.  Whereas the William's got paid for their work on the games and then quit with enough money to never have to work again.  So while both groups did not receive profits directly (or maybe Ken did? ???), the financial situations are very different.  Also, the Williams' made the choice to quit after selling the company, the others most likely did not have any choice. :-\

But all this is irrelevant here - the subject of abandonware isn't limited to Sierra/Vivendi, the same principle applies to every game making company, whether it was sold or not :-\
The point is, that it really doesn't matter if any of them recieved money from games sales or not. The fact is that none of them does so now or will in the future, since the game is no longer being distributed, nor will it ever be. Therefore, none of them should care whether it's being distributed for free.
If what you mean is that the copyrights should revert to the game creators/designers/artists etc., my claim still holds. Even if the company gives them the copyright - something it's not legally obliged to do and therefore probably won't - unless they intend to distribute it themselves (which is highly unlikely), they should have no objection to making it public domain.

Quote from: Yonkey on August 18, 2005, 10:42:57 AMYeah, since I explained how software can be easily duplicated perfectly, I was more comparing it to original boxed sets of the games.  And like collectibles, those original boxed sets are still worth a lot of money. 8)

Exactly, but those collectibles are worth all that money just because they are original. Some vintage baseball cards are very valuable, yet anyone with a print shop can make exact duplicates of them, and you probably wouldn't be able to tell the copy from the original. Still, the copy would be worthless simply because it's not original.
So, even if the holder of the game's copyrights decides to make a mint by selling perfectly identical copies of the game, box & all, they still wouldn't have the same value as the originals. Besides, this entire conjecture contradicts my basic hypothesis that the game is no longer being sold ::)


Quote from: Yonkey on August 18, 2005, 10:42:57 AMThere are still differences between remakes and sequels, so I'm not sure if we would get official permission or not.  We are planning on contacting them eventually though. 8)

Yeah, maybe it's better not to rock the boat. Contact them 3 years after the game is released - that's about the time AGDI got permission from them anyways :P
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

TheReturnofDMD

Yonky,

do you think that by contacting onlyvivtheresmoney (err....I mean Vivendi :P) do you think you guys could persuade them to release KQIX officially? or what do you mean by official permition?

Yonkey

Quote from: Storm on August 18, 2005, 04:53:20 PM
But all this is irrelevant here - the subject of abandonware isn't limited to Sierra/Vivendi, the same principle applies to every game making company, whether it was sold or not :-\
The point is, that it really doesn't matter if any of them recieved money from games sales or not. The fact is that none of them does so now or will in the future, since the game is no longer being distributed, nor will it ever be. Therefore, none of them should care whether it's being distributed for free.
If what you mean is that the copyrights should revert to the game creators/designers/artists etc., my claim still holds. Even if the company gives them the copyright - something it's not legally obliged to do and therefore probably won't - unless they intend to distribute it themselves (which is highly unlikely), they should have no objection to making it public domain.
Ok, let's ignore Sierra, game developers and their compensation and look at the law.  No company (i.e. an organization still in existance that owns full copyrights to a game) promotes abandonware or mass distribution of their games for free.  It violates the product's End User License Agreement and since there is no law stating that "after x years, a game may become public domain", it is illegal for any person to do so... :-X

If people could replicate & distribute other people's work for free, there wouldn't be a need for copyrights or trademarks.  Sure, we'd all be happy campers, but no one would make any money! ;P

Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on August 18, 2005, 09:58:48 PM
Yonky,

do you think that by contacting onlyvivtheresmoney (err....I mean Vivendi :P) do you think you guys could persuade them to release KQIX officially? or what do you mean by official permition?
It's hard to say, because even though we developed the game, there are still costs involved in advertising/marketing and distribution and you can bet that if Vivendi wanted to release the game officially, they'd stick hefty price tag on it to cover these costs and other expenses. ::)

Official permission is a bit different.  Currently, we're developing this game without the express consent of Vivendi, but the game is based on a series they trademarked (King's Quest).  With permission, we would have a "free pass" to go ahead and distribute this game without them wanting us to stop production.  We would still have to ensure no one believes we are Sierra/Vivendi, and we would not be able to receive any income on the game because of the KQ trademarks that they own. 

There is another option but the odds are pretty slim right now.  If another game company decides to publish our game and purchases the KQ trademarks.  In this case, we would become the official 9th game in the series and could even sell the game if we wanted, but of course we would be subject to the publisher's terms and conditions. ::)


The situation #2 is probably what's most likely to happen, though I wouldn't mind situation #3 since I'm not planning on becoming rich from KQIX. :P If anything, I'd like to use this game as a means of getting into the industry. 8)  Also, our next game will be original and we're planning on selling it as well, but having KQIX in our "portfolio" will really pay off. ;D
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

Storm

Quote from: Yonkey on August 18, 2005, 11:26:44 PMOk, let's ignore Sierra, game developers and their compensation and look at the law.  No company (i.e. an organization still in existance that owns full copyrights to a game) promotes abandonware or mass distribution of their games for free.  It violates the product's End User License Agreement and since there is no law stating that "after x years, a game may become public domain", it is illegal for any person to do so... :-X

If people could replicate & distribute other people's work for free, there wouldn't be a need for copyrights or trademarks.  Sure, we'd all be happy campers, but no one would make any money! ;P

Of course it's illegal to distribute any copyrighted software, no matter how old it is or whether it's being sold or not.
But you'll have to agree there is at least a moral difference between making an illegal copy of a game that's still in the stores, and downloading a game that stopped being sold ten years ago. In the first case, you could make the claim that the copyright owner is being damaged by the violation - people who would have otherwise paid for the game get it for free.
Of course, some piracy supporters would say that with software prices being what they are, they wouldn't have gotten the game anyway if they had to pay for it ::)
With abandonware (and by abandonware I mean software that is no longer distributed by the copyright owner, not just 'old software') the possibility of profit loss for the copyright owner is practically non-existant - with the rate the games industry is moving, it's very rare that a game would sell well enough to justify re-distribution after being abandoned.

I'm not saying any company or game creator is obliged to make their games public domain once they're old/abandoned. But I don't see why they shouldn't do so to benefit their prospective customers, once it's obvious they wouldn't make any more money off them 8)


Quote from: Yonkey on August 18, 2005, 11:26:44 PMThere is another option but the odds are pretty slim right now.  If another game company decides to publish our game and purchases the KQ trademarks.  In this case, we would become the official 9th game in the series and could even sell the game if we wanted, but of course we would be subject to the publisher's terms and conditions. ::)

Why not start your own game company and buy the rights? Then you'll be able to sell the game as the Official 9th KQ without a publisher to boss you around! All you need is a rich investor who happens to be a KQ fan ;)
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Yonkey

Quote from: Storm on August 19, 2005, 09:22:16 PM
I'm not saying any company or game creator is obliged to make their games public domain once they're old/abandoned. But I don't see why they shouldn't do so to benefit their prospective customers, once it's obvious they wouldn't make any more money off them 8)
I believe the reason they don't is because they'll actually lose money from them.  If a 30-year-old game does not work on your computer, as a consumer you have the right to complain to the manufacturer and have them fix it.  Companies don't have enough money to continue to pay support/maintenance staff for every product they developed since their existance, especially ones that weren't designed to work on hardware that's 5000% faster.  A company isn't going to ask you to download DOSbox or some emulator, nor provide troubleshooting for every platform that's been developed in the past 30 years either.  A company isn't going to risk liability over a product that wasn't designed for use with modern technology. ::)

One thing that companies can do is release something like the KQ Collection, which features all the old games which you can run on modern technology because they provide the emulator.  This way, the company makes some money from it and the end-user gets a working product. 8)


Quote from: Yonkey on August 18, 2005, 11:26:44 PM
All you need is a rich investor who happens to be a KQ fan ;)
Easier said than done. ;P  But if there is a rich investor out there reading this, e-mail me now! XD
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

TheReturnofDMD

I'm going to put a Reissue KQ Petition on the Sierra community page for King's Quest...Within today and tomorrow I'll begin to put the petition on various adventure game and gaming forums...Can anyone here give me any adventure gaming/gaming forum links so that I have an idea of where to start

Yonkey

"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

Storm

Quote from: Yonkey on August 19, 2005, 10:02:31 PMI believe the reason they don't is because they'll actually lose money from them.  If a 30-year-old game does not work on your computer, as a consumer you have the right to complain to the manufacturer and have them fix it... A company isn't going to risk liability over a product that wasn't designed for use with modern technology. ::)

They won't lose money over it. Once they release the game as public domain with a proper disclaimer, they are no longer obliged to support it, much in the same way that any open-source or freeware developer can distribute software without supporting it. The premise is that if you get it for free, you don't have the right to complain if it's not working.

This goes double for liability - every single software license agreement I took the trouble to read, states that the software company is NOT liable to any damages caused by usage of the software. Just imagine what would happen if they WERE liable... Microsoft might go belly-up if it had to pay for all the damages its programs caused ;)


Quote from: Yonkey on August 19, 2005, 10:02:31 PM
Easier said than done. ;P  But if there is a rich investor out there reading this, e-mail me now! XD

Don't worry, I'm working on it! *Buys a lottery ticket* :P
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Deloria

Doesn't it seem depressing when it's only you two answering to this thread?
 
Holy Roman Empress
Queen of *all* Albion
Précieuse and salonnière! :D
"In cases of doubt about language, it is ordinarily best to consult women."-Vaugelas
Space! :D Extraterrestrium! :D Espace! :D

Warlock

Quote from: Deloria on November 11, 2005, 01:13:03 PM
Doesn't it seem depressing when it's only you two answering to this thread?

Please don't be rude Deloria :)
"Ask not what your forum can do for you, ask what you can do for your forum"