AGDInteractive - Sierra Adventure Game Remakes Forum

Sadly, I have to bring you the news that the game project known as King's Quest 2.5 has been abandoned.

This was not an easy discussion, but there are two important reasons. First, several important people who were with KQ2.5 from nearly the beginning, are no longer around to help us. And second, we have considered the possibility of getting a Cease and Desist notice from Vivendi, and decided we did not want to risk that.

But we must say that we've learned a lot from working on it, and we wish to thank you all for your support. But now it is time to turn off the lights and say goodbye to the land of Avali, vizier Aaiden and King Castor.

Yours,
Pieter Simoons, aka Radiant

Sorry to hear that.

Swift wrote:Sorry to hear that.

Indeed; it's a pity.  But hey, you've still got A Tale of Two Kingdoms, after all!

Good luck with whatever's in the future for your group, Radiant.

A pity, but at the same time, but I'm certain your ATOTK will more than compensate for its cancelling. Not only is it legally safer, it's also looking and playing pretty darn good.

Someone was actually working on something like that?

I need to check these forums more often.

Is there a partially-finished version that we can play?

Check his website listed in the gamemaking forum.

No, there isn't. There was a three-room demo last summer, but we no longer host it.

Erpy wrote:Check his website listed in the gamemaking forum.

"Bandwidth limit exceeded."  :\

The KQ2.5 website is no longer available, anyway. What would be the point?

I'm really very sorry to hear that Radiant. That was one of the fan-games I was looking forward to playing.

But KQ3 remake continues right?

Hmmm, I guess that depends on how much the second factor for KQ2.5's cancellation played a role.

I too hope Radiant isn't going to give up on the KQ3 remake.. I've greatly enjoyed testing the betas he's released so far.

Erpy wrote:Hmmm, I guess that depends on how much the second factor for KQ2.5's cancellation played a role.

Considering that AGDI hasn't gotten a C&D, I don't think that that should be an issue.

The AGDs have a license that permits them to make remakes, thus, you can't compare the legal status of AGDI's remakes to that of other remakes of Sierra games.

To quote a recent interview found in a Danish magazine:

Have you heard anything at all from Sierra/Vivendi (positive or negative) regarding your use of their trademarks and concepts?

This may surprise you, but the answer is yes. As stated in the full legal disclaimer on our site, we have received a license to make use of Sierra's/VU's intellectual property for non-profit remaking purposes. While there's a large amount of guidelines, quid pro quo's and other details attached to this license, none of these are to be disclosed in public. We are, however, allowed to confirm that we are legally in the clear.

See this post for the rest of the interview.

Does that license apply to future remakes as well?  If so, could future remakes completed by other teams be transfered to AGDI and be considered AGDI projects, provided that they met AGDI's high quality standards?

I suppose that would work - at least in theory - but because they're not allowed to reveal many things about their license, it's hard to know if the remakes actually live up to those demands.

However, IANAL - besides, there could be a clause in the license prohibiting that.

Besides, AGDI may not be willing to do so even if it is possible. It likely depends on how much work would be required.

EDIT: As to whether or not it applies to future remakes, from the quoted paragraph above:

As stated in the full legal disclaimer on our site, we have received a license to make use of Sierra's/VU's intellectual property for non-profit remaking purposes.

This indicates that the license lets them make remakes of Sierra/VU games ad nauseum. But not having seen the license itself, there could be a clause that says "This license is valid for no more than X remakes." or something like that.

Explaining stuff like this would require us to explain our license in detail, which unfortunately, we're not allowed. This means we're neither supposed to confirm accurate assumptions nor are we able to correct inaccurate ones. The best option is simply not to assume anything, I'm afraid.