It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionDo you think GOG will ever get Raven Games?(28 posts)(28 posts)
(28 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 27, 2015
avatar
tfishell: I mean theoretically GOG LA could smooth-talk CBS into re-releasing the Star Trek games in prep for the new Star Trek movie, similar to the Star Wars games happening now. Soldier of Fortune seems like an unfortunate case unfortunately, otherwise we probably would have seen it by now, back when Activision released games here.
avatar
yyahoo: ...
Oh there's certainly a chance it will never happen. And there's always the chance that all publishers will pull out of GOG and only release games on Steam, leaving GOG a hollow shell of nothingness and telling everyone DRM-free was a failure. Then Steam will rule the galaxy but everyone will actually be reasonably okay with it like they were before GOG became popular. And Marcin will shed a tear.

In any case, thanks for the info.
Posted January 27, 2015
avatar
JKHSawyer: All of Raven's non-SW games are all scattered in terms of ownership. Don't take this as fact, this is just what I could dig up a while ago. It could be wrong.

CyClones - Published by SSI - Ubisoft?
Heretic - Sold on Steam under id Software (Zenimax)
Heretic 2 - Published by Activision - May still own the rights?
Hexen + Mission pack - Sold on Steam under id Software (Zenimax)
Hexen 2 - Sold on Steam under id Software (Zenimax)
Hexen 2 Expansion pack - Published by Activision - May still own rights?
MageSlayer - Published by GT Interactive - Atari?
Necrodome - Published by SSI - Ubisoft?
ShadowCaster - Published by Origin - EA?
Singularity - Sold on Steam under Activision
Take No Prisoners - Published by Red Orb - Possibly Ubisoft?
Wolfenstein '09 - Published by Activision - Taken off Steam years ago for unknown reasons

They also have some licensed games that will (probably) have serious trouble being sold again.

Soldier of Fortune 1 & 2, as well as Star Trek Elite Force, all under Activision.

Soldier of Fortune 3 was taken off Steam a while ago, so that probably means their deal is up.
does that soldier of fortune magazine still exist? I'd say releasing the games wouldnt be too difficult.
Posted January 27, 2015
avatar
goggergames: does that soldier of fortune magazine still exist? I'd say releasing the games wouldnt be too difficult.
It still exists.
Posted January 28, 2015
I also want to see Battlefront 1 here as well. unless GOG decided they don't need it.
Posted January 28, 2015
For me it will always be Raven Software = Soldier of Fortune.
And since those were revolutionary at their time (first FPS where it really mattered where you shoot your target) they surely deserve to be part of GOG.com catalog.
Posted January 28, 2015
avatar
hyperagathon: I understand EF, but SoF? What property would that be? There's a magazine, but I don't remember it having much to do with it. No mention of it in the Wikipedia article either. I remember Mullins, but he was a consultant, it seems unlikely to me that he would get any say in the matter.
avatar
yyahoo: Soldier of Fortune was indeed a magazine that was licensed for that game. Regardless of how important it actually was to the game, it's still a license that would have to be straightened out before it could be sold again.
See *I* thought I'd heard that it WASN'T licensed from the magazine but the magazine had (finally) noticed that there was a game with the same name a threatened legal action, or Activision were afraid they were going to or something!
This might all just be some stuff that some bloke with a beard was reckoning one time though...
Posted January 28, 2015
The gba one?!

http://www.amazon.com/Thats-So-Raven-Game-Boy-Advance/dp/B00024ALEO

No... no señor, no. :P
Posted January 28, 2015
avatar
yyahoo: Soldier of Fortune was indeed a magazine that was licensed for that game. Regardless of how important it actually was to the game, it's still a license that would have to be straightened out before it could be sold again.
avatar
Fever_Discordia: See *I* thought I'd heard that it WASN'T licensed from the magazine but the magazine had (finally) noticed that there was a game with the same name a threatened legal action, or Activision were afraid they were going to or something!
This might all just be some stuff that some bloke with a beard was reckoning one time though...
I thought I remembered there was talk of it being licensed before the game released, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. I'll dig up some of my old game magazines and see if I can find any mention of it.

I did find box art that specifically mentions Soldier of Fortune being a registered trademark of Omega Group Ltd (the owners of the magazine).

http://www.mobygames.com/game/soldier-of-fortune/cover-art/gameCoverId,64421/

Look in the bottom left hand corner of the back of the box.

Regardless of the timing, I'm pretty sure that the reason we don't and won't have SoF here or on Steam is because the magazine has its copyright/trademark hooks dug into the game...

Edit: Originally stated bottom right side of the game box, but it's actually bottom left.
Post edited January 28, 2015 by yyahoo
Posted January 28, 2015
avatar
Fever_Discordia: See *I* thought I'd heard that it WASN'T licensed from the magazine but the magazine had (finally) noticed that there was a game with the same name a threatened legal action, or Activision were afraid they were going to or something!
This might all just be some stuff that some bloke with a beard was reckoning one time though...
avatar
yyahoo: I thought I remembered there was talk of it being licensed before the game released, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. I'll dig up some of my old game magazines and see if I can find any mention of it.

I did find box art that specifically mentions Soldier of Fortune being a registered trademark of Omega Group Ltd (the owners of the magazine).

http://www.mobygames.com/game/soldier-of-fortune/cover-art/gameCoverId,64421/

Look in the bottom right hand corner of the back of the box.

Regardless of the timing, I'm pretty sure that the reason we don't and won't have SoF here or on Steam is because the magazine has its copyright/trademark hooks dug into the game...
Ah - cool, good to finally get a definitive answer on that!
Posted January 28, 2015
avatar
yyahoo: Soldier of Fortune was indeed a magazine that was licensed for that game. Regardless of how important it actually was to the game, it's still a license that would have to be straightened out before it could be sold again.
avatar
Fever_Discordia: See *I* thought I'd heard that it WASN'T licensed from the magazine but the magazine had (finally) noticed that there was a game with the same name a threatened legal action, or Activision were afraid they were going to or something!
This might all just be some stuff that some bloke with a beard was reckoning one time though...
I found a SoF postmortem on Gamasutra by Beissman and Johnson, who were, according to Mobygames, Project Coordinator and Programming Director, respectively.

I'll quote the entire first paragraph for context, but the last sentence is the relevant bit:

The development of Soldier of Fortune was rife with questions and uncertainties right from the very beginning. Fresh from finishing up Portal of Praevus, the Hexen 2 mission pack, Raven was ready to dig in to a full-fledged stand-alone product. Unfortunately, no one at Raven had a solid idea for our next project and we found ourselves floating in a sea of ideas without a solid direction. With a full team ready and willing to go, we needed a project and we needed one fast. It was then that Activision handed us the Soldier of Fortune license.
So indeed, it was licensed. Thanks for nothing, Activision. For those who still remember the game, it had *nothing* to do with the magazine. I think there was a parody of it in the game - surely not something that required a license.

So why did they license it? I think the answer lies in the third paragraph:

While the license name itself was met with mixed reactions from the SoF team, at its core was everything that we wanted from the game. Action, intrigue, political turmoil, and firepower were key elements of the design from the very beginning. Now we needed to find a story that would complement the license and turn it into a great game.
Specifically the phrase "license name". Name. They wanted the goddamn name. None of this other stuff is exactly unique to some kooky "mercenary" magazine. I'd say this was quite a failure on the part of Activision's lawyers, seeing as how the expression "soldier of fortune" predates the magazine by, oh, a mere few hundred years. Or if they wanted to play the "intellectual properties named this" game, there was a 1955 film and a 1974 song (Deep Purple), while the magazine was first published in 1975.
Posted January 28, 2015
avatar
Fever_Discordia: See *I* thought I'd heard that it WASN'T licensed from the magazine but the magazine had (finally) noticed that there was a game with the same name a threatened legal action, or Activision were afraid they were going to or something!
This might all just be some stuff that some bloke with a beard was reckoning one time though...
avatar
hyperagathon: I found a SoF postmortem on Gamasutra by Beissman and Johnson, who were, according to Mobygames, Project Coordinator and Programming Director, respectively.

I'll quote the entire first paragraph for context, but the last sentence is the relevant bit:

The development of Soldier of Fortune was rife with questions and uncertainties right from the very beginning. Fresh from finishing up Portal of Praevus, the Hexen 2 mission pack, Raven was ready to dig in to a full-fledged stand-alone product. Unfortunately, no one at Raven had a solid idea for our next project and we found ourselves floating in a sea of ideas without a solid direction. With a full team ready and willing to go, we needed a project and we needed one fast. It was then that Activision handed us the Soldier of Fortune license.
avatar
hyperagathon: So indeed, it was licensed. Thanks for nothing, Activision. For those who still remember the game, it had *nothing* to do with the magazine. I think there was a parody of it in the game - surely not something that required a license.

So why did they license it? I think the answer lies in the third paragraph:

While the license name itself was met with mixed reactions from the SoF team, at its core was everything that we wanted from the game. Action, intrigue, political turmoil, and firepower were key elements of the design from the very beginning. Now we needed to find a story that would complement the license and turn it into a great game.
avatar
hyperagathon: Specifically the phrase "license name". Name. They wanted the goddamn name. None of this other stuff is exactly unique to some kooky "mercenary" magazine. I'd say this was quite a failure on the part of Activision's lawyers, seeing as how the expression "soldier of fortune" predates the magazine by, oh, a mere few hundred years. Or if they wanted to play the "intellectual properties named this" game, there was a 1955 film and a 1974 song (Deep Purple), while the magazine was first published in 1975.
Plus I don't think anyone paid Omega anything for THIS either:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/soldier-of-fortune_
(although things were pretty fast and loose back then RE: licensing)
Posted January 28, 2015
avatar
hyperagathon: snip
Nice find, that is how I remembered it.

I think we have to remember that back at that point in time, digital distribution wasn't even really considered a viable option. They made these games to sell once, not over an extended period of time, ad infinitum, through places like Steam and GOG. If the licensing price was reasonable, why not do it?

The same type of thing has happened with TV shows through the years with music licensing. They licensed the use of songs without considering the fact that 20-30 years later there would be an opportunity and demand to sell/stream the shows.
Posted January 28, 2015
Time for a spiritual successor! *jazz hands*
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionDo you think GOG will ever get Raven Games?(28 posts)(28 posts)
(28 posts)