Quote:
Originally Posted by After a brisk nap
If you wanted to make the game in the public domain, you shouldn't have used characters, names, etc. that are owned by Vivendi. As long as Vivendi owns SQ, you can't make a SQ sequel and put it in the public domain. I would have thought that was self-evident.
|
You would think so, wouldn't you? But other fangames have already done it. The ones who kept a low profile, released their games with no prior fanfare, and then had the publisher shrug, say "So what?", and ignore it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by After a brisk nap
And I agree it would suck if Vivendi took the finished game, stripped your names from the credits and sold it for profit. But do you actually think that's a real risk? There are all sorts of reasons (which it seems redundant to list) why that wouldn't make sense for them.
|
I have been dealing with Sierra since the 1980s and Vivendi since they assumed the label. (In fact, I worked extensively on a Vivendi game that just came out about a month ago...but I was contracting with the developer, not with the publisher.) I have worked for publishers and developers alike, and one thing I have learned about publishers is never to predict what decisions they will make or the reasoning behind their decisions. Anyone who's worked in the industry for a few years could fill a book with the absolutely stupefying decisions (decisions that seemed nonsensical from within, let alone from the outside looking in) made by major game publishers...decisions made out of fear, decisions made out of political maneuvering, decisions made out of sheer incompetence, decisions made out of poor communication.
The worst thing any developer, or individual employee, can do is underestimate the ability of a publisher to do what it thinks is in its best interests, and to have that decision made in a staggeringly short-sighted way...and, often, by someone who is simply unqualified to be in their position.
--Josh
