Sierra refuse to sell unfinished data to Computer Game
Douglas
It is just over a year since Sierra cancelled the B5 Space Combat Simulator.
The developers that were able to, left and tried to ressurect the game with
a different company. This failed and eventually they set up for themselves.
We just learned yesterday that Sierra refuse to sell the unfinished code.
This action and the previous cancellation has earned the emnity of many B5
fans and computer gamers.
If you wish to find out more go to www.firstones.com
What does anyone else think of this. Could JMS intervene. Could there be
help from Warner Brothers.
Or is this another kick in the teeth for B5
Douglas Nicol
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas" <dou...@msdwindows.freeserve.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:39 AM
Subject: Sierra refuse to sell unfinished data to Computer Game
> Hi
>
> It is just over a year since Sierra cancelled the B5 Space Combat
Simulator.
> The developers that were able to, left and tried to ressurect the game
with
> a different company. This failed and eventually they set up for
themselves.
> We just learned yesterday that Sierra refuse to sell the unfinished code.
> This action and the previous cancellation has earned the emnity of many B5
> fans and computer gamers.
Agreed. I haven't bought any Sierra products since the "Into the Fire"
cancellation, and I would have bought a couple titles.
> If you wish to find out more go to www.firstones.com
>
> What does anyone else think of this? Could JMS intervene? Could there be
> help from Warner Brothers?
I put in "?" marks in the above three questions because I can't stand it.
:-)
JMS really has no place in intervening, and besides he's too busy. He has
too much stuff going on to get involved, even if he wanted to, right now.
Since Havas won't sell the game assets, Warner Brothers couldn't use what's
been produced thus far. It appears that Havas is to the game, as TNT is to
Crusade. Also, the more somebody offers for those assets, the more Havas
will hold out. I just don't know what Havas' motivations are. Is it:
1. Hold out for as much money as possible for the game assets, and sell
immediately before the interested party gives up (kind of like a corporate
game of "Chicken.")?
2. Hold onto the game assets, and NEVER sell them, out of SPITE?
3. Make it look like you're holding onto the game assets because you're too
embarassed to admit that you already destroyed them, and wrote off the loss?
4. A conspiricy with TNT to squash all things B5/Crusade?
The only thing Warner Brothers could do, is to start another game based on
B5 and/or Crusade, and view the Havas game assets as being permanently
unavailable. However, if the resulting game is too much like "Into the
Fire", Havas would probably sue Warner Brothers (for plagiarizing something
that Havas owns). For this reason, the original team would probably not be
hired to do the game. This, combined with the fact that Warner Brothers
would have to actually spend money, and show interest in starting a B5 game,
does not bode well for any B5 Combat Flight Sim. EVER being produced in the
future.
> Or is this another kick in the teeth for B5
To use a Kosh-ism, "Yes." It sucks.
Mac
Marc and Chrissy Hudgins
scratch. Most of the team (more like all) have moved on to new jobs and it
seems unlikely that we'll be doing anything soon. WB were as helpful as they
could be, but ultimately the assets belong to Sierra and they refused to
sell them.
Marc Hudgins
ex-Designer/Art Director B5:ITF
www.marchdesign.com
Tippi
"Marc and Chrissy Hudgins" <markc...@home.com> wrote:
> ultimately the assets belong to Sierra and they refused to
> sell them.
did they give you a reason? if not, can you hazard a guess? It's hard
for us outside the industry to imagine the reasons.
--
T.Chai <*> Toronto, Canada
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andrew Swallow
<dou...@msdwindows.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>It is just over a year since Sierra cancelled the B5 Space Combat Simulator.
>The developers that were able to, left and tried to ressurect the game with
>a different company. This failed and eventually they set up for themselves.
>We just learned yesterday that Sierra refuse to sell the unfinished code.
>This action and the previous cancellation has earned the emnity of many B5
>fans and computer gamers.
>
Does anyone know exactly what they own?
The concept?
The film of the people?
The script?
The right to use "Babylon 5" and for how long?
The right to use the characters and for how long?
The scenes?
The game engine?
The artificial intelligence?
The right to make a sequel?
It would be fun for the sequel, using a new script, to be released before the
original.
Andrew Swallow
Marc and Chrissy Hudgins
game-related assets (low-poly models, story, design docs, etc.). Their
license to produce a B5 game lapsed last year. I don't believe that they or
WB would pursue a new license.
Reid Morris
releasing the product in light of the new rash of Star Trek (ala Voyager:
Elite Force,etc.) games hitting the market. They may be looking to compete
with that instead of selling it out just yet. I can't think of any other
reason why they would want to hold onto it.
Reidm
Douglas <dou...@msdwindows.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8riv6l$scc$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi
>
> It is just over a year since Sierra cancelled the B5 Space Combat
Simulator.
> The developers that were able to, left and tried to ressurect the game
with
> a different company. This failed and eventually they set up for
themselves.
> We just learned yesterday that Sierra refuse to sell the unfinished code.
> This action and the previous cancellation has earned the emnity of many B5
> fans and computer gamers.
>
> If you wish to find out more go to www.firstones.com
>
> What does anyone else think of this. Could JMS intervene. Could there be
> help from Warner Brothers.
>
> Or is this another kick in the teeth for B5
>
> Douglas Nicol
>
>
>
JMarien3
>
>We've pretty much exhausted all avenues short of starting the game over from
>scratch. Most of the team (more like all) have moved on to new jobs and it
>seems unlikely that we'll be doing anything soon. WB were as helpful as they
>sell them.
>
I'm not really into these types of games myself, so likely would not have
bought it if finished (sorry, guys).
But Sierra's decision is unfortuante and a seemingly senseless business
decision. Better to get something for footage/assets than nothing. The money's
been spent for those assets, so some income from it is better than none. I'm
not one into conspiracy theories. So perhaps this is because they think they
can hold out for a better offer. Or perhaps it's just corporate policy not to
resell assets like this, otherwise they could open the floodgates to offers
from everyone for everything, and they don't have the infrastructure and staff
to deal with that.
In any event, best of luck to you in future ventures.
ReverendVader
>could be, but ultimately the assets belong to Sierra and they refused to
>sell them.
What? "Scorched earth" policy is it?
"We're not going to make the game and we aren't going to sell what we do have
even if it means making ALL our money back because we don't want anyone else to
have success with it."
How STUPID is that? Can someone please explain th me the logic behind this?
Or do we have a severe case of TNTitis going around?
Jason
Phoebe O'Hare
> My guess is that Sierra/Havas is toying with the idea of actually
> releasing the product in light of the new rash of Star Trek (ala Voyager:
> Elite Force,etc.) games hitting the market. They may be looking to compete
> with that instead of selling it out just yet. I can't think of any other
> reason why they would want to hold onto it.
Of course they might be thinking of recycling the code, removing the obvious B5
elements, and releasing it as a more general space combat game. They'd lose the
B5 name but wouldn't have to pay out for the WB license. Seems that was the
deal breaker in the first place.
Mac Breck
news:jOvD5.13170$Jf1....@news4.atl...
> My guess is that Sierra/Havas is toying with the idea of actually
> releasing the product in light of the new rash of Star Trek (ala Voyager:
> Elite Force,etc.) games hitting the market. They may be looking to compete
> with that instead of selling it out just yet. I can't think of any other
> reason why they would want to hold onto it.
Spite/Corporate Stupidity is always a possibility.
Mac
Marc and Chrissy Hudgins
unlikely that another license would be pursued or granted (then again, money
makes strange bedfellows). Additionally, the game was complex enough in
conception and execution, that it would be prohibitively time consuming to
get a new group to unravel the code, let alone understand the intent of the
design. Remember, they didn't only axe the game, but canned the whole team
as well.
If you want a good reason to not sell it, think about this. What good does
it really do anyone at Sierra should another group pick up the game and have
even modest success with the title?
Sierra is really better off burying it. The expenses have been written off,
the losses absorbed.
Marc Hudgins
Ex-Designer/Art Director B5:ITF
www.marchdesign.com
Marc and Chrissy Hudgins
selling the assets, yet balked when a decent offer was on the table. I
don't think they really want to sell it. One reason may be that the game
engine is still a valuable asset and they may want to see what they can do
with it on another title. I wish them luck with that task given the code was
undocumented and the team was fired.
JMarien3
That's indeed stupid ...
... if that's the correct motivation.
But you're only assuming. The decision not to sell the assets---at the offered
price---is most likely a business decision. Because if the decision on what to
do with the assets is NOT motivated by business practice and/or a desire to
maximize profit ... then THAT is stupid.
The answer lies in the business world, not in the conspiracy world.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phoebe O'Hare" <rutho...@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Sierra refuse to sell unfinished data to Computer Game
> Reid Morris wrote:
>
> > My guess is that Sierra/Havas is toying with the idea of actually
> > releasing the product in light of the new rash of Star Trek (ala
Voyager:
> > Elite Force,etc.) games hitting the market. They may be looking to
compete
> > with that instead of selling it out just yet. I can't think of any
other
> > reason why they would want to hold onto it.
>
> Of course they might be thinking of recycling the code, removing the
obvious B5
> elements, and releasing it as a more general space combat game. They'd
lose the
> B5 name but wouldn't have to pay out for the WB license. Seems that was
the
> deal breaker in the first place.
How so? They'd already paid for the license. As long as they released it
before the license expired (which they didn't), why would they have to pay
WB more money?
Perhaps, you meant it was a deal breaker *after* the license expired, and
then they'd have to pay WB for an extension?
Mac
Phoebe O'Hare
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phoebe O'Hare" <rutho...@prodigy.net>
>
> > Reid Morris wrote:
> >
> > > My guess is that Sierra/Havas is toying with the idea of actually
> > > releasing the product in light of the new rash of Star Trek (ala
> Voyager:
> > > Elite Force,etc.) games hitting the market. They may be looking to
> compete
> > > with that instead of selling it out just yet. I can't think of any
> other
> > > reason why they would want to hold onto it.
> >
> > Of course they might be thinking of recycling the code, removing the
> obvious B5
> > elements, and releasing it as a more general space combat game. They'd
> lose the
> > B5 name but wouldn't have to pay out for the WB license. Seems that was
> the
> > deal breaker in the first place.
>
> How so? They'd already paid for the license. As long as they released it
> before the license expired (which they didn't), why would they have to pay
> WB more money?
>
> Perhaps, you meant it was a deal breaker *after* the license expired, and
> then they'd have to pay WB for an extension?
That was what I was thinking.
Jon Niehof
> offered price---is most likely a business decision. Because if the
> decision on what to do with the assets is NOT motivated by business
> practice and/or a desire to maximize profit ... then THAT is stupid.
the conditions. They brought a sizeable offer to the table. Sierra didn't
sell.
Bear in mind that Sierra forced all of these guys to move across the
country just a few months before axing the game and firing the team. My
personalthought is that Sierra simply does not want this to succeed--if S14
pulled it off, it would be a big David-and-Goliath story and would give
Sierra a very big PR black eye--"Big company says game won't work and
screws over developers; developers do it themselves." Our job at this
point, for those who want to see the game, is to make it very apparent that
this sort of behaviour will give them an even *bigger* black eye, by simply
spreading the news.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
We're all in for it together.
JMarien3
... None of what you say invalidates what I said.
If there was preceived (and that's the key word here) profit in going forward
with the game, they'd have done it. So, why not sell off the assets? The
supposition that "if S14
pulled it off, it would be a big David-and-Goliath story and would give
Sierra a very big PR black eye" is grounded in a BUSINESS DECISION. There are
likely other business factors involved as well.
And whether you can make a black eye blacker ... well, feel free to try. But
don't overestimate the reach of posting on internet newsgroups.
Sorry, but that's the reality of it.
Jon Niehof
> forward with the game, they'd have done it. So, why not sell off the
> assets? The supposition that "if S14 pulled it off, it would be a big
> David-and-Goliath story and would give Sierra a very big PR black eye"
> is grounded in a BUSINESS DECISION. There are likely other business
> factors involved as well.
(hmmm, why was I separating out PR from business...)
> And whether you can make a black eye blacker ... well, feel free to
> try. But don't overestimate the reach of posting on internet
> newsgroups.
Yep; I really don't think much is going to change at this point. However,
this isn't something that has to reach the whole world, just the gaming
community. And it's getting out there, and Sierra's getting some response
(including from Half-Life fans, for instance). So, hey, the whole thing's
been a long shot, but then and again, so was B5.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
Pithy saying is on vacation. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Pelzo63
>in a BUSINESS DECISION. There are
>likely other business factors involved as well.
my sense is that they fell into a position where if they sell, then they have a
hard time selling other things because people would say, "hey, why buy it now
at 25% off? it'll be 75% off in another month!" working in retail, i see this
attitude a ton, and this is one of the reasons many large department stores
throw out items instead of giving them to employees or something similar, who's
going to pay full price when you can get it for much much less?
>And whether you can make a black eye blacker ... >well, feel free to try.
>But
>don't overestimate the reach of posting on internet >newsgroups.
in most cases(such as the save crusade thing), i'd agree that "the internet"
isn't enough to spread the word, but in this case, i'd say otherwise. the
difference being, internet users make up only a small percentage of Tv
watchers, but, internet users, i would imagine, make up a large percentage of
"high-end gamers". many of whom probably spend some time playng net-games
against each other. and since the B5 game's specs(as well as most similar
games) required an older high-end machine, or a newer mid-range machine. and
with the start of sega.net for net gameplay, the #'s of gamers who would see
this are even higher. not to mention all of the print gaming-mags out there,
many of whom have been supportive of B5:ITF.(i believe firstones.com has a list
of all the positive reactions form magazines)
as for myself, i don't plan on buying anything from sierra, of course, i never
bought anything from sierra before either.
...Chris
http://pelzo63.terrashare.com
ReverendVader
>never
>bought anything from sierra before either.
I was a pretty die hard Sierra fan up until around the time they changed
Presidents, I think. I've always been a pretty big fan of "adventure" games --
thus the Quest for Glory series, Space Quest series, King's Quest series,
Torrin's Passage, Lighthouse, Shivers, etc. games were a lot of fun for my wife
and me. (Sorry Larry...)
I've never been very big on strategy or combat sims, but I would have bought
B5:ItF for two reasons: B5 and Sierra.
With the present exception of the most recent King's Quest and Quest for Glory
games, Sierra hasn't put anything out recently that I really wanted to get.
And I guess those games came out about two years ago if I'm not mistaken.
I think I'll write them a letter and tell them that B5:ItF would have been the
first Sierra game I would have bought in a few years, and now, I will not
likely ever buy another Sierra game.
Would this approach have any substantial effect on Sierra?
Just asking.
Jason