DescentBB

..to the Sol Contingency project.

https://www.facebook.com/preparefordesc ... n=timeline


I don't think that Interplay is interested in actually growing as a company. What happened to "For Gamers, by Gamers"?? (that's rhetorical)

Interplay wants to protect itself by attacking its fans, who are filling demand left by an inactive misdirected company.

Interplay, if you don't want fans making new versions of old Interplay games, get off you lazy asses and make something. Otherwise, expect to be told to ★■◆● off. We can make whatever we want. Good luck trying to stop us.

Duper wrote:I don't think that Interplay is interested in actually growing as a company.

From the look of their website I get the feeling they are in their death throws. Their Wikipedia page is just endless tales of financial problems and lawsuits and they have done their fair share of encroaching on other people's assets. What a bunch of assholes. Hope they crash and burn trying to relive the Earthworm Jim days.

Oh the drama, Isaac! How is Interplay supposed to know their fans from people looking to capitalize on an established brand?

I hate to say it, but I think what would need to happen to continue would likely be a flight out to Interplay with a full presentation on the project. I'm sure if it's more fan project than commercial and they were convinced of this then they would give it a pass. It depends on who you talk to--"No" is a lot simpler for most people, unless you can give them cause to believe they would actually benefit more than not being harmed in the future. Hunt for Red October: "[If] We meet the right person, [then] this could work..."

Barring that, I hope these folks have the creative depth to pull off a non-descent descent!

News, and possible Kickstarter for complete game.

Linky

I like your idea Thorne, but the problem is it makes sense. I don't think Interplay's capable of making sense.

Could be an argument for that side that argues corporations are people (still ridiculous, corporations are a completely different sort of wild animal) since Interplay's apparently gone senile.

Duper's Linky wrote:...
As consequence of all this, the release of Proving Grounds might not make it in October. We have to rework some assets and redesign others from scratch to separate it from Interplay’s IP. We will have to cut some corners to get the game ready fast and we are at a point where we don’t want fancy visuals to further delay what we already have: a solid 6DoF FPS game. As such, please don’t expect final quality of the new models or textures as they will be placeholders used to get us away from the Descent IP while not losing too much time. For the full game after Proving Grounds, we will make proper quality replacement assets. ...

IMO that's a mistake. First impressions are important. Building to a release only to use unpolished visuals initially? This game should not be released without polished visuals. Much like D3, it wouldn't be the end of the world if some models changed from the beta release, but it would be a serious mistake to breach the dam, so to speak, with something on any level unimpressive. We have waited, and another month or two won't make a difference (probably should be released in advance of Christmas).

Read the letter... it really pissed me off. However, to look at it from Interplay's perspective, SolC was getting ready to release the game without themselves ever concluding talks with the sister company, no? That would be what triggered the "cease and desist"! There's not much more to say other than it was a mistake.

Were they planning on charging for the game?

Not unless we actually worked out a deal with Interplay.
And the solution to the why is not that simple, we considered that explanation but ultimately it didn't make sense either. Max would be in a better position to explain why since he was the one involved in the discussions.

I do know that Proving Grounds was meant to be a step in the discussions and neither side expected those discussions to conclude until after it was released.

Not that it would really matters.... but with a little hope... maybe?
There is a petition out there!
http://www.change.org/p/interplay-enter ... cy-project

I'm not sure why the goal is set to a hundred (am i reading that right?).... seems a little low to sway a decision?

Does seem a little low... but is it the real goal?
When you're trying to get people to cooperate with you sometimes it's good to do that so they don't start thinking "he'll never reach that goal, this is a waste of my time so I won't sign it". Because then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They still had that "By Gamers. For Gamers." in the header for the letter they sent. It kind of felt like a punchline.

all the new articles by gaming websites and publications are catching word.... and drawing some interesting debates.
ive seen no less than 10 different websites throw this article out with varying opinions



also a ton of bashing or taunting.

A bit late but...
Anyone for starting a pool for Max?
With a round trip ticket as the goal?

It would certainly be interesting if Interplay changed their
tune, seeing how much support the project really has!

Just a thought anyway! Cool to read an insightful thread!
All in all, what Interplay has actually done - is given us a
lot more fuel for the fire under this project, so in the end
they have helped in the initial development of the project!

Thanks for helping Interplay!

by Gamers, but then bought out by Lawyers, for Lawyers

Yep.
If Interplay did change their tune... well, I don't think we want to work with them after seeing this. I'm pretty sure it would be a bad decision.

Not to seem like I'm defending Interplay in any way, because honestly they can go screw themselves sideways for all I care, but honestly, developing a for-profit game (or at least that's the impression I get from Sol Contingency) fully based on another company's IP without their permission is just asking for trouble. Now if I'm wrong and SC is strictly not-for-profit, then it really is a total dick move.

It was a Non-Profit project, just from the community, for the community. They (the developers) even rejected donations, Kickstarter offers and everything money related.
It was rather the userbase that insisted on funding the project in some way, but Max (the developer) always rejected the idea to (precisely) prevent any issues with Interplay.

However, almost everyone everywhere is assuming it was a for profit project.
I see those kind of comments on the PC Gamer article, assuming the Sol C developers made all this scandal to have publicity to increase their 'sales' and for 'marketing'.
There was no 'Sales' nor 'Marketing', as in the original idea it was going to be a free fanmade project.

But now, if they get rid of all Descent-based assets and transform it into a new game, they may get the chance to accept the donations and funding that we the users were suggesting since some time ago for the sake of quality.

Yep!
That's for sure!
Most people think
the worst first!

I don't frequently the Sol site, but I knew about the project from the start and even I knew it was a "non profit" project!

:/

Yeah! Sometimes reading between
the lines isn't a requirement at all!☺

And still others just can't believe a high
quality project such as this can't be free
& has to be making money in some way,
but what they don't understand - is it was
conceived from a love of the game and of
support from it's community of gamers!

So, why in the world would Interplay
want to bite the hand that feeds it!

They were probably listening to too much Nine Inch Nails.
...
"Just how deep do you believe?
Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you get up off your knees?
etc"

& @utopl@y

Why do you talk in
Those incredibly short lines
Well, what's up with that

???

I haven't been on these boards in an age, but on hearing the news about Interplay I had to pop my head in.

Anyone got the inside skinny on where things currently lie with this? I worked as the SVP of Licensing for an entertainment IP licensing firm for six years, and the letter Interplay sent smells a bit fishy to me. I highly doubt that they still have those trademarks registered and if the did, given interplay's financial woes I'd be amazed if the rights are registered internationally through the Madrid protocol or other similar IP registration framework.

Interplay may still have some IP rights, but they do *not* necessarily have the right to stop this game going ahead. I am highly suspicious of Interplay;s behaviors and motivations here and I think their might be a way around all this mess.

I've had it up to here with aborted / half-finished / poorly supported 6DOF games - I'm not an IP lawyer, but I'm far from a mug punter on the subject too, and I want to help.

I know that several programmers / developers on this board have looked into all this previously - is anyone better informed on the Descent franchise rights than I willing to give me a quick update on where things lie?

If you can find out we'd certainly appreciate it.
Right now we're working on differentiating our game sufficiently from Descent that it can be our own IP... but if it does turn out Interplay couldn't legally use that C&D (and if we can prove it, that's probably important ) it wouldn't be very much work to put the Descent assets back in the game, revert the story and etc.
Whatever happens, we are going to finish this game. The most Interplay can do is stop us from using Descent's world as the setting, with all the stuff that entails. They can't stop us from making a game.

Alter-Fox wrote:If you can find out we'd certainly appreciate it.
Right now we're working on differentiating our game sufficiently from Descent that it can be our own IP... but if it does turn out Interplay couldn't legally use that C&D (and if we can prove it, that's probably important ) it wouldn't be very much work to put the Descent assets back in the game, revert the story and etc.
Whatever happens, we are going to finish this game. The most Interplay can do is stop us from using Descent's world as the setting, with all the stuff that entails. They can't stop us from making a game.

I put a massive post on the SC website - I'll repost it here to save you having to looking it up.

PM me if you want to know more, or need more tips on how to approach things...




Gekko71 commented:
17/10/2014, 03:01 UTC



WHOA WHOA WHOA – MAX – HOLD THE PHONE!! You’re based in Germany! I didn’t know that, that is very important information!!



Max – I am not a lawyer, but I really WAS the SVP of licensing of an Entertainment IP licensing firm for 6 years. I left the firm in 2013, I’ve successfully negotiated licensing deals for entertainment IP across multiple territories, I still work in the field and I really do know a fair amount about this subject. That being said – what I am about to tell you is general information only and you should consult a dedicated IP legal firm in your home country to check the veracity of everything I’m about to say.



MAX – Assuming that Germany is the home base for your operation, unless Interplay have registered their Descent trademarks in your home territory of Germany – **there’s not a damn thing they can do to stop you!!**



Interplay is a US company, but you are not bound by US law, unless you live in the US or a US territory, or are visiting one. For Interplay’s trademarks to be binding on you and your activities, those trademarks have to be registered in the same country you do business in. If Interplay registered their trademarks in the US, but did not submit their trademarks for international registration through the Madrid protocol (or any other similar international IP registration framework), then you’re not covered by Interplay’s trademarks. It’s an empty threat!



Registering a trademark via Madrid take two years, and the trademark can be challenged numerous times over that time which can drag out proceedings even more. It’s along, arduous, expensive process and if the rumors about Interplay’s financial position that are posted around the internet are true then I highly doubt they went to the trouble and expense for what is effectively a dead title and abandoned IP (more on that later).



Granted, they can still try to take legal action against you in Germany but they won’t get very far unless they can prove you have broken German law, and that their existing copyrights (which they failed to demonstrate any chain of title over in their letter) are applicable in your home country. Besides which – taking legal action over alleged breeches of IP rights in foreign territories is both extremely expensive and difficult to do.



Please note your game is quite definitely a derivative work of Interplay’s original “Descent” game in the eyes of the law, and if you were sued you could not successfully argue that your work was an original piece. But it’s still up to Interplay to prove that they own all the trademarks and copyrights in question in every territory that you wish to distribute your game into, and that if you made your game that there would be sufficient confusion between their product(s) and your version to mislead consumers as to your product’s origin – good luck with that one Interplay!



As for their claims of copyright over the Descent “story” that’s total baloney! You can’t copyright a story or an idea – it’s impossible! You can only copyright an expression of an idea which has been made concrete in some manner.



Plus their whole “commercial protection” argument is pretty thin in my opinion. There are numerous existing derivative versions of Descent in existence that are free to download and use. These other descent versions have existed for over a decade (Eg: DXX, D2X-XL, Core Decision and so on). Interplay has knows about these free products existence for over ten years – there’s plenty of Descent-game developers out there who can vouch for that one – and Interplay has not attempted to close down any of these other versions down whatsoever. They are therefore unfairly singling you out. Any competent IP lawyer could make a very strong argument for abandonment of the IP by Interplay, in any court or jurisdiction you care to mention.



Plus as I said earlier, Interplay released a lot of the original Descent source code into the public domain years ago. The extent to which any existing, provable copyright or other IP (that Interplay still has indisputable chain of title over) could be separated from that source code is far from clear. Your game is clearly a derivative version of public domain artworks in my view so the issues are not so clear cut.



It is my own personal opinion that the only reason you got a letter alleging breech of trademarks is because your FREE product has a good chance of widespread success… and the only reason Interplay are now not responding to your letters is that you went public with their little “IP bluff” and as you’re not a US citizen, and their trademarks have effectively been abandoned they probably don’t have a leg to stand on.



My personal advice is you send Interplay a letter in reply insisting that they demonstrate a clear and unequivocal chain over title over the Descent copyrights they mention – and that they also provide you with documented evidence supporting their claims of trademark infringement in your particular territory and category. If they can provide this information to a legal certainty then of course you should discontinue development of those elements of your game immediately.



Once again I must remind you that I am not an IP lawyer and I cannot accurately tell you what the IP laws are in your particular territory. You must view my opinions as general advice only and you should consult with a specialist IP lawyer before you take any action whatsoever.



Please feel free to email me if you want further information on either IP registration or entertainment licensing.



Good luck!!



Gekko71 commented:
17/10/2014, 03:04 UTC

Errata:

When I said “Core Decision” above, I really meant to say “Into Cerebron”

Core Decision is a totally separate game – it has elements in common with Descent, but it is not a Descent clone.

Sorry for the confusion.

Check your email Alter-Fox - some interesting findings await you...

Cheers Gekko.!

Duper wrote:Cheers Gekko.!

My pleasure Duper. Seriously!

BTW if there are any developers floating about the boards still that have contributed in any way whatsoever to any of the previous Descent clones out there in the past (such as Dxx, D2X etc can you please give me a PM here on the .net boards? (don't visit the .com boards much any more).

These guys have got a bloody good chance of beating this one IMO, and I want to help them out as much as I can.

Please spread the word folks... The more the merrier!!!

Alter-Fox wrote:& @utopl@y

Why do you talk in
Those incredibly short lines
Well, what's up with that???

Why ask why! You want to know why!
Here are some possible answers why:

Not really sure exactly, but it might be
from the bit of ADHD I've been said to
have - I guess it's just the way I think!!

I always thought it was because most
forum post editors never have a justify
button, and I like my posts to look neat

Quite possibly to an extreme though!
But it certainly keeps me thinking twice
& outside the box on how to make it fit!
It always seemed good for grey matter!

I always heard that neatness counts,
and usually have pretty good spacial
relationship skills, so that's probably
a large part of it - what do you think?
Doctor Who ain't got nothin on Fox


@Gekko71
Wow dude! It looks as if there's hope
for our Descent remake after all!!
Free at last! Free at last! Free2Play!☺

@uToPL@y wrote: @Gekko71
Wow dude! It looks as if there's hope
for our Descent remake after all!!
Free at last! Free at last! Free2Play!☺

Yay! That's what I want to see!!

I made another epic post on SC - reproduced here to ensure that the right people see it.





Gekko71 commented:
17/10/2014, 09:17 UTC


One final comment Max – While Interplay most likely cannot stop you making your game in Germany (assuming they have no registered in that territory) they *could* potentially stop you from distributing your game in the US if doing so would breach their trademarks – though even this is far from clear.



I recommend you get in touch with them and ask them for documentary evidence of exactly what trademarks they have, in which territories, and in what categories. You should also ask them when these trademarks are due to expire (cause they may kick the bucket tomorrow… who knows??)



Plus you also should ask them to supply documentary evidence that Interplay has an unbroken chain of title over all Descent related copyrights dating from the original production of the game back in the early 1990s, all the way through to today.



I would also remind you that copyright can only be assigned by the original author, and the assignment must be in writing – and that letter of rights assignment must feature either the author’s signature, a company seal or other legally binding verifying marks (these rules change from territory to territory, so please check first)



Also tell Interplay in your letter that you are TEMPORARILY halting production of the game while they collate these materials for your lawyers to inspect.



If they can produce these materials for every single territory you intend to distribute your free game into (and again – I think it must be a free game to be safe, so forget about the Kickstarter) then in my opinion their rights to the title are iron clad and you should change your game to remove their IP immediately



I would strongly advise you to have an IP lawyer draft your letters, and to advise you on the accuracy of all my advice. They need to do a search for you of the Federal US trademark registries and locate all of Interplay’s trademarks over Descent-related IP. They then need to do the same for any possible pending trademarks through Madrid (more information on the Madrid system can be found here: http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/).



If there’s no US trademarks registered and nothing turning up through Madrid searches, then the only other possibility is that they have filed individual applications in separate countries. This is the most far-fetched of all the possible ways that Interplay may have registered their trademarks, but it’s still technically possible… but then again so is Santa Claus.



If however Interplay cannot produce these materials to your lawyers satisfaction within a reasonable length of time, and they continue to fail to respond to your written communications (use registered mail!!) for a period of several months then it is my personal opinion you should then tell Interplay to go jump (…very politely of course – being rude in letters to lawyers is never a good move) and continue to make your game just the way you want. At the end of the day Interplay has repeatedly failed to shut down other free-to-use Descent clones for more than a decade – kind of hard for them to start picking on you now, if your product is ALSO free.



Remember – none of this is legal advice, only general advice. I strongly urge you to speak to an IP lawyer before making any decisions whatsoever!!


Once again, good luck!!

Alter-Fox... you have got to get Max to contact me ASAP!

I did some more sniffing around, and I think I can solve these problems for you - for good!

Seriously - have the guy email me!!!

Gekko - You should also post on the SC forums... not in the feedback/ comment section for the news.

Aus-RED-5 wrote:Gekko - You should also post on the SC forums... not in the feedback/ comment section for the news.

Good tip - didn't notice that there was a forum.

Cheers!

@uToPL@y wrote: I always thought it was because most
forum post editors never have a justify
button, and I like my posts to look neat

I'm not sure this is an accident. The page width is not guaranteed to be the same for all viewers (for instance, with my current browser window size, the lines of text in your post use up only about one-fifth of the available space). If justification is applied, it makes most sense to do it at the CSS layer after the post is already written - otherwise, you have to assume a certain column width which is very unlikely to be correct in most cases.

On the IP side of things: I am not, personally, sure whether it is worth going down this path. It isn't exactly in good faith, and you're going to risk Interplay filing for an injunction in the US at a bare minimum, which will adversely affect a huge part of the intended audience. It's unlikely their trademarks have expired, and I know for a fact that the copyrights haven't... and US law seems to have a really broad definition of derivative works. You definitely couldn't use their IP for commercial purposes in the US; non-commercial I don't really know.
And what you gain out of it... you get to use a Pyro and to call the game Descent? Meh...

All right, Gekko! Kick some ass!

I would donate money for consultation with an IP lawyer.

I sort of have suggested the same thing, but got a negative...

http://forum.preparefordescent.com/view ... t=40#p8098

I'd worry if we did go ahead with that and Interplay found some way to weasel out of it, then they might try to accuse us of accepting money for the project with their usual logic. And even if that wouldn't hold in a court, it would still mean more delay, and that would give them time to come up with something else to delay us more...
...
And if they didn't weasel out of it, I'd worry about them finding some other way to interfere with the game's development.

Easy. Recommend an out-of-court settlement for 100% of your profits. ;P