tf2godz said:
Fox12 said:
Edit: The worst part is they've won. They aren't going bankrupt. They aren't digging a hole. Their making a massive profit with marginal investments. And they're going to horde their IP's until the end of days. You won't get any new games. But it's much worse. You probably won't get your hands on their old games either. Which means that new generations won't have access to Silent Hill 2, or any of their old masterpieces in the future. And there's nothing you can do about it.
I may not completely understand copyright law but I think they have to make a game of a property or they risk losing the license to it unless pachinko machines count. I'm not completely sure about that but I know that apply to some things like watchmen(that's the reason the prequels happened or the series never been out of print) or a lot of comic book movies(like the fantastic four) but those might be different cases
No, no, no no. Nope!
I wish, but you're getting confused here.
Let's look at an example, and show you why.
J. K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter.
As it's author, she owns the IP outright, and under current rules that means it will belong tonher family for about 70 years after she dies, after which it becomes public domain. (meaning literally anyone can use it for anything)
Warner Brothers created the films. Technically, they own the rights to those films. But since J. K. Rowling still owns Harry Potter itself, to make those films and sell them, they need permission from her to do so.
Most of the time, such exclusive licensing deals have a condition which either states you get exclusive film/game/whatever rights to a property for X years, or, alternatively you might have exclusive rights to a property as long as you make something with it at least once every X years.
But, if J. K Rowling herself didn't ever write any more books, it wouldn't change a thing. She would retain copyright regardless.
On the other hand, trademarks do lapse if not used.
A while back, someone claimed to have a trademark on the name 'edge' in association with games.
But this was overturned because they couldn't prove they'd done anything with the name in 20 years or so.
Unfortunately, that only applies to the name, not the content.
Konami owns both silent hills and castlevania and such, both as trademarks, and copyrights. The trademark might lapse if they don't use it. (someone would then legally be able to call a game 'silent hill' for instance), but the actual IP is theirs, and will be for a very long time yet.
If Konami want to be jerks about it, they can, unfortunately. And short of changing copyright laws entirely, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
For decades Konami has had executives with affinity for videogames and love(or atleast appreciation) for its craftmanship, its just that now they have this fucking parasite behind the wheel that is running the company's entire creative history into the ground. Shareholders are indifferent to this as long as there is an increase in stock price. Chances are that if MGS5 sells really well(which it probably will) and Konami's other endeavours start to stagnate or decline(which they might very well be in such oversaturated markets like slotmachines and smartphone shovelware) that the decision to abandon high-quality game development might be 're-evaluated' by either future management or shareholder pressure. Unfortunately, ofcourse you're talking years down the line here.
