Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
But since I am a friendly person I will try to answer your question.
There were 2 or 3 more X-Com like games in development, sadly the development of the last of them stopped ~1.5 years ago. Xenonauts and the new UFO EU are the 2 that were finished.
Copyrights have a timestamp, when it runs out for a game it is no longer under copyright.
Not only that, Xenonauts started development before the XCOM remakes were announced; at the time, the last 'true' XCOM game was created in 1997.
Think of it as more of a tribute, because that's essentially what it is.
Everyone seems quick to use the word troll when they find themselves on the defensive over anything. :/
Anyways, not sure what you mean when you say "2 or 3 more xcom like games" were in development. Development by whom? Someone who owns the copyright?
Also, copyrights are renewable. You're confusing works entering the public domain with copyright expiration. They aren't the same thing because the public domain limit is a dead set time that cannot be overcome without an act of Congress. Copyrights are renewable by the author at any time before that limit.
So the question is, since Firaxis owns the copyright over the xcom franchise, how is this game's development continuing without a suit?
Do these devs have a license or do they (lol) differentiate this game from xcom to the degree where they can claim it isn't the same or extremely similar game?
A tribute that the devs are selling to make money, using an IP developed by someone else. I understand that they aren't using the logo or the same graphics... but surely the entire setup of the game is little different.
I'm sure there is a valid explanation - some law or concept I'm unaware of... either that or this is very dubious.
People wanted a XCOM game, but Goldhawk didn't have access to the license. So they created their own plot and differences and implementation of many concepts popular to the XCOM name without infringing on copyright.
Technically, I'm sure Take Two could have pushed some sort of defense to have Xenonauts pulled down for being so much similar, but strangely, copyright stops being an issue when you get clapped on the back and congratulated by the license holder that you're imitating.
Being congratulated by the original IP's developers is their right to waive.
However, haven't they copied more than the game mechanic? Alien invasion, multinational earth defense force, etc...? That's the main story line too..
Ultimately it's up to the original developer though. If they're happy, then all's well.
It's a combination - gameplay + story/premise is what defines any game. UFO Defense was not copying gameplay.
See the relatively recent Threes and 1024 debacle.
No, you wouldn't be in the clear. While the notion that gameplay is not copyrightable is generally correct, your example of copying all the binary (?) and slapping on a new label is not correct. That violates the very basic protection of copyright - protecting IP from commercial exploitation so that developers have an incentive to create and publish their products. That incentive would go away if others could just copy everything and label it something else, thereby destroying the law... and the Constitutional guarantee that exists at least in the U.S.
As an example of what kind of gameplay is not copyrightable - think FPS shooters. Lots of games have guns and the gameplay involving "shooting" is not copyrightable. However, if someone just took the code for counter strike or halo and simply changed the name - that is not allowed because the game's physical emulation algorithm is unique, developed by programmers. The physics itself is not copyrightable because that is just part of life - but the emulation in the unique way done by each game, is copyrightable. It's intellectual property, dreamt up by the programmer.
It's not using the XCOM IP.
Legally speaking, they've not used ANY copyrighted materials. EVERYTHING in Xenonauts files is copyrighted to Goldhawk given they are the legal creators of said materials. The only thing that has been used is a concept; it happens all the time.
I mean, look at Battlefield, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor... Well, look at nearly all war games -- same premise! Doesn't mean they're breaching copyright.
In any case, I'm not arguing the semantics or spirit of copyright law or intellectual property law. Take Two Interactive either did not see the opportunity to, or did not feel the need to, take down the Xenonauts project while it was being kickstartered or developed even while it was being mentioned frequently alongside the new Xcom.
So to answer your opening thread, "They just weren't, I guess."
Karlos, see post 10. It explains the difference between what gameplay is and is not copyrightable.
Hmm... I guess they're waiving their right. Shaky ground to be on as a new developer, though. I hope they have a formal agreement or something.
In any case, this game looks interesting. I loved Xcom Apocalypse and am thinking of buying this game. Nothing wrong with consumers buying stuff that's on dubious grounds! :P
The xenonauts developers created everything themselves. They did not take or use any assets created by the XCOM developers. They uniquely coded everything themselves; the programming languages are even different.
The ONLY thing that has been used is the concept. That's all.