Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
rockpapershotgun.com
Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#2We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#3What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#4What most people don't understand is EA can't legally release server code because they probably use libraries that forbid public distribution, physics engine ect ...
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#5We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
We should start by not calling it intellectual property (IP). Clearly this is not servicemark, trademark, etc. Is copyright actually preventing this?
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#6Pretty upsetting, my buddies and me would get together on weekends and play Battlefield 2. Hopefully they find a way to get setup again (torrent client downloads)
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#7We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
We should start by not calling it intellectual property (IP). Clearly this is not servicemark, trademark, etc. Is copyright actually preventing this?
IANAL but as I understand it video games are IP.
What I'm suggesting is that if an IP is abandoned in a meaningful way (such as server support for a multiplayer game) then the IP owner should not be allowed to prevent others from replicating that functionality.
A few details still have to be hashed out though: can people charge for the use of their third party servers? Are new players required to purchase the game from the owner? What rights, if any, does the owner have regarding online configuration and interaction for a game they no longer support? If the owner stops distributing the game do they lose the right to demand payment for each copy distributed by a third party, either for pay or for free? I don't know these answers, but it's a better alternative to our outdated IP system.
"Use It Or Lose It" should be the IP motto in the Information Age.
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#8What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.
Well it's not about server, but about MASTER servers. Those used to discover "players own servers" in the internet.
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#9We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
Re: Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA’s legal warning
#10We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?
That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.
It's more like renting out apartments and then tearing down the building while people are still living in it. There are laws against that.