It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Agreed
Agreed too.
But we are fans, and we see things differently from businesses. Businesses aren’t fans, they are businesses. They see things differently.
We think “we’ll if it’s not hurting anybody, why should it be shut down?”
But businesses tend to think, “it’s our legal intellectual property, we paid a lot of money for it, and so our permission needs to be asked prior to the start of any project that uses that intellectual property, and if they haven’t asked us then we have a duty to shut them down, because otherwise it sends a message that we are happy with people using our intellectual property without our permission and without paying us for the property that we paid good money for, and we don’t want to send people that message, so we have no other choice”
That’s how businesses tend to think
Yeah it does, because they're not taking legal action. The very opposite of litigious, in fact.
Indecent? Yeah, okaaaay...
It's also how their licensees, who have paid lots of money to the licence owner to use their brand, will think too.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2173680125
I’m not sure in what world a lawyer issuing a cease and desist order isn’t a form of legal action, but okay.
And yes, treating your fans this way is indecent.
Yes, Yannick did music for both.
In the way the word 'litigious' literally refers to court action and lawsuits, of which nothing of the kind is happening here. Calling them litigious is 100% incorrect.
They were 'kindly asked' not to continue.
Mad.
What are you actually talking about, out of interest? What would be the decent way to act? What would you think the decent way to act would be if you were one of their licensees who had paid an awful lot of money to use the brand?
These are brilliant fun :)
I think if I played it again it would need to be on that controller though! I'm sure there are probbaly modern replicas.
What would be quite good would be one of those sort of novelty things where you buy a retro controller and the game and hardware is actually contained within the controller and you just plug it into your TV to play- have they managed an N64 version of that yet? Maybe they'll do that at some point if they haven't yet.
Yes - I use the Brawler64 controller on my N64, which is the best N64 controller I've ever across. It's both way more modern but faithful to how N64 gameplay should be.
And EON has been super protective of their properties since Day 1.
Issuing a cease and desist is threatening to sue someone if they don’t stop doing what they’re currently doing. So threatening to sue someone if they don’t do what you want is somehow not litigious?
Licensees in the past had to pay to use the Bond brand because they were producing games for profit. If you’re going to make money off of Bond of course you’ll pay a license fee. The decent way for a company to behave in this situation would be to allow a harmless, non-profit fan project to continue; the way good companies like SEGA and Valve do. They’ve even gone so far as to work with fans on their game projects. There’s a different, better, way for companies to behave that has been set forth SEGA, Valve, and a few others. Just because it’s not a model that most companies follow doesn’t mean that they can’t follow it. They choose not to, and they should be held to account for their anti-consumer behavior.
They haven't sued them. Litigation is defined as the 'the act of bringing a process in a court of law'. You're wrong. Move on.
There are many licensees beyond games manufacturers.
It's also to do with managing the brand. They choose what it's aligned with and how: that's how you control a brand. This is a very professional-looking product and could create confusion. It's entirely up to them how they control their own property. It's not decided by fans whining because they want something nice.
Okay, well feel free to boycott all of their movies in future. That'll show them for not letting you have something they never agreed you could have in the first place.
Or we could all just be grown-ups about it.
Yeah I wanted to like that, but once you've removed all of the memorable production design and replaced the actors' likenesses with bland computer characters you've made it no longer based on Bond films any more and created something much blander.
Is that one that Craig himself didn't do?
Yeah the only positive I can give that game are the characters they recreated from the films with the right likenesses. And yes, Craig didn't voice Bond in it. Though I think he did voice Bond in the Skyfall DLC but I can't remember.
Why would EON, who we BTW know to almost exclusively licence products that comes at a premium (Orlebar Brown for example), want a free to play game with their property used, to be created? At some point we might see a Goldeneye remake, or not. But EON sure won't want a free alternative out there.
Litigious is defined as “unreasonably prone to go to law to settle disputes” which would encompass both the act of suing, and threatening to sue. Quibbling over the difference between suing, and making it known that you will sue if the cease and desist order isn’t followed, is purely pedantic as both are anti-consumer practices.
All those other licensees are also for profit, and therefore can be reasonably expected to pay a fee to make money off of Bond. This was a harmless non-profit project.
And yes, it is about managing a brand, something that SEGA, Valve, and others do in a much more consumer friendly way. I’ve never said that this wasn’t in MGM’s rights to do. And I’ve never called for a boycott. It certainly is their right. It would also be their right to go on this site, on YouTube, and on other sites and copyright strike every bit of fan art, every fan script, every Bond compilation video and anything else that they could argue doesn’t fall under “fair use.” They don’t because they are at least that consumer friendly, which I applaud them for. But if they did, would we sit by and defend their right to do that, or would we call it an indecent way to treat your fans? MGM has been rather consumer friendly in many ways, but I contend that they could learn for other, more consumer friendly companies.
Activision be like:
Would they even notice? Their coffers must be overflowing thanks to COD.
They can save the money they burn using this fake cover I made 8 years ago as the official cover. :))
That's actually a good cover, too good for Activision.
I still haven't played 007 Legends. One of these days I should pick a copy up and try it for myself.