The State of SMAC 2

[ete]

I imagine the legal fees of arranging the transfer of such widely distributed rights would be a discouragement, but perhaps something like the above is not entirely impossible. Still, it should be possible to make a SMAC successor, but it needs extreme attention to detail and a lot of key features which make SMAC great in order to be accepted by the community as a true successor. We'll be more than happy to provide you with featurelists and playtest (you may even get a good deal of programming help if you're willing to make parts of it opensource, perhaps AI only or something like that).

It is worth noting that if Dale makes a game which is similar to SMAC in concept/implelentation but has none of the copyrighted/protected parts and has plenty of modification options (unit, facility, terraforming, faction, technology, etc data stored in text files somewhat human readably) and has all the hostile planet features in place, it would be very simple for a group of SMAC fans who have absolutely no connection to Dale and nothing to gain financially to offer a modpack which turns Dale's game into a true SMAC2 (switch <other hostile planet> to Planetmind, add SMAC factions as custom/extra factions, include the map of planet and other landmarks we know, edit a few minor flavor things (since hopefully the tech tree/facilities/units/etc will be well done anyway. A carbon copy style modpack would also be possible, but there are many minor improvements to be made, and we've got plenty of new possible future science ideas in the last decade and a half.) and whatever else they'd like to change), and that group of SMAC fans may well be able to claim fair use. Plus Dale and his company would have absolutely nothing to do with it, so could not be accused of foul play.

That group gets SMAC 2, Dale gets a sales boost (and maybe some programming help if he's willing to partially opensource it), the rights owners are not gaining anything by us not having a sequel and I bet some of them would be pretty happy to play it, and hopefully can fair use enough to cover their backs. Worst case, the group working on it gets a cease and desist from one of the three (if they care enough about a 14 year old game they have 1/3 of the rights they need to do anything with) and have to stop openly linking to the download/work on somewhere else less overly (there are plenty of ways for fanprojects to be impossible shut down or even legally threaten in a meaningful way, just very few seem to have been adequately prepared).

This sounds pretty great tbh. Though Dale should probably not reply to this publicly to avoid association.

[Dale]

If there is some way to rejoin all the rights together, and the cost is not prohibitive, then it also eliminates the 2K-EA stalemate.  As I understand it, a lot of the rights standoff right now is due to the two publishers not wishing to give the other ground.

I'm still dubious as to whether there would be enough sales to cover the license purchase costs, production costs, distribution costs, etc etc, and still leave me with enough to fund the next game after any SMAC2.

Probably the best situation you could wish for, is a game that plays like SMAC, but has totally different names for everything.  Same game play, just different labels on everything.

EDIT: Anyways, just to actually "do" something, to see what is feasible, I've emailed EA legal department.

[Yitzi]

It is worth noting that if Dale makes a game which is similar to SMAC in concept/implelentation but has none of the copyrighted/protected parts and has plenty of modification options (unit, facility, terraforming, faction, technology, etc data stored in text files somewhat human readably) and has all the hostile planet features in place, it would be very simple for a group of SMAC fans who have absolutely no connection to Dale and nothing to gain financially to offer a modpack which turns Dale's game into a true SMAC2 (switch <other hostile planet> to Planetmind, add SMAC factions as custom/extra factions, include the map of planet and other landmarks we know, edit a few minor flavor things (since hopefully the tech tree/facilities/units/etc will be well done anyway. A carbon copy style modpack would also be possible, but there are many minor improvements to be made, and we've got plenty of new possible future science ideas in the last decade and a half.) and whatever else they'd like to change), and that group of SMAC fans may well be able to claim fair use. Plus Dale and his company would have absolutely nothing to do with it, so could not be accused of foul play.

There's an idea.  Of course, that assumes that there's some way to implement the mechanics of the whole "hostile but befriendable planet" thing without running into problems with rights.  Because when you get right down to it, that's what really makes SMAC unique in terms of mechanics.

[ete]

"hostile but befriendable planet" must be far too general a concept to be covered by the rights. I would imagine that if it came down to a legal battle, even "semi-sentient awakening global fungal neural network" may be quite acceptable for Dale to use, so long as there were no units called mind worms and spore launchers crawling out of it.

[Petek]

It'll be interesting to hear what, if anything, Dale hears from EA. What is the basis for believing that Firaxis and Brian Reynold own any rights to SMACX? According to the Firaxis FAQ

Question :
I really loved Alpha Centauri! Are you planning to make Alpha Centauri 2?

Answer:
We’re all big fans of Alpha Centauri as well. However, the rights to that game are owned by Electronic Arts (we were making games for them at the time) so any decision to make a sequel is up to them.

On the other hand, Brian Reynolds may be looking for a new project.

[Dale]

It'll be interesting to hear what, if anything, Dale hears from EA. What is the basis for believing that Firaxis and Brian Reynold own any rights to SMACX? According to the Firaxis FAQ

Question :
I really loved Alpha Centauri! Are you planning to make Alpha Centauri 2?

Answer:
We’re all big fans of Alpha Centauri as well. However, the rights to that game are owned by Electronic Arts (we were making games for them at the time) so any decision to make a sequel is up to them.

On the other hand, Brian Reynolds may be looking for a new project.

I discussed this directly with 2K-Firaxis a couple years ago.  They were quite explicit that all three parties hold some rights, but got very grey when trying to address what rights each of them have.   

[Earthmichael]

I definitely would not be out to recreate SMAC in a modern engine.  Like you say, dangerous ground.  But there is nothing EA, Firaxis or Brian (the three license holders of SMAC) can do if I make a game similar to SMAC, to different enough to not be SMAC.  All companies do this, including EA and Firaxis.

I would also be treating this as a commercial project.  It must make money.  Fan projects usually fall down because they have no money, so use the existing graphics and directly copy the concepts of the game (even the name).  So many issues with that.

If it's different enough to avoid legal problems, then it won't really be SMAC 2 (a lot of the appeal of SMAC comes from the story, which would definitely need permission to replicate.)  It might still be worthwhile in its own right, though.

Look I'm sorry but you guys need to be realistic here. A remake of SMAC is not going to happen. I discussed this with Firaxis/2K years ago for scient and the license is too split to consider it. EA owns the publication rights, Firaxis the development rights and Brian Reynolds the creative rights. Even if Firaxis made SMAC2 they can't distribute it. Buying all the rights would cost way too much and at the end of the day I don't think even the three parties themselves really know what exact rights they own.

Your only hope is something almost but not quite SMAC.

The creation of a TBS game based on the colonisation of another planet with a hostile environment is the easy part. Names must change but the concepts aren't unique. The story is what MUST go. You are dead in the water if you rip the story. But there is nothing to say the story can't be different but still lead to a similar situation.

Dale, I am right with you here.  I want the CONCEPTS of SMAC preserved, but I don't care that much about the science fiction format.  As I said earlier, I don't care if you make it stone age or medieval or whatever you think will sell, as long as we finally get some new 4x game that has certain key feature (apologizing for the redundancy here with my earlier post).

SMAC introduced many concepts that the later Civ and other 4x games still have not matched:

1. A versatile terraformer, with the 20 or terraforming options in SMAC, including raising land from the sea (or lowering it into the sea), some altitude based enhancement, multiple classes of terrain enhancement on the same space, etc.

2. The equivalent of a supply crawler.

3. Lots of good multiplying structures that can be built in the cities with maintenance costs. This solves the ICS problem.

4. A technology that allows units to be built without long term support costs, at the cost of higher initial construction costs. (equivalent of clean reactors)

5. A way to build global enhancements that benefit all bases a small amount up to their population (like sats).

6. A variety of tech based roles for citizens other than just working a particular square (like specialists).

I am sure that there are a few key features I have missed, but this is what I believe is lacking the the 4x games that followed SMAC.

Note that I did not say that the spiritual successor has to be Science Fiction. As far as I am concerned, if it has the features I listed, the game can be fantasy, or stone age, or whatever, and I would consider it a worthy successor to SMAC.

[Yitzi]

Dale, I am right with you here.  I want the CONCEPTS of SMAC preserved, but I don't care that much about the science fiction format.  As I said earlier, I don't care if you make it stone age or medieval or whatever you think will sell, as long as we finally get some new 4x game that has certain key feature (apologizing for the redundancy here with my earlier post).

SMAC introduced many concepts that the later Civ and other 4x games still have not matched:

1. A versatile terraformer, with the 20 or terraforming options in SMAC, including raising land from the sea (or lowering it into the sea), some altitude based enhancement, multiple classes of terrain enhancement on the same space, etc.

2. The equivalent of a supply crawler.

3. Lots of good multiplying structures that can be built in the cities with maintenance costs. This solves the ICS problem.

4. A technology that allows units to be built without long term support costs, at the cost of higher initial construction costs. (equivalent of clean reactors)

5. A way to build global enhancements that benefit all bases a small amount up to their population (like sats).

6. A variety of tech based roles for citizens other than just working a particular square (like specialists).

I am sure that there are a few key features I have missed, but this is what I believe is lacking the the 4x games that followed SMAC.

Note that I did not say that the spiritual successor has to be Science Fiction. As far as I am concerned, if it has the features I listed, the game can be fantasy, or stone age, or whatever, and I would consider it a worthy successor to SMAC.

Those are all gameplay/mechanical aspects; IMO, the gameplay and mechanics are only part of what makes SMAC so great.

[Earthmichael]

Those are all gameplay/mechanical aspects; IMO, the gameplay and mechanics are only part of what makes SMAC so great.

But they are gameplay mechanics that create a very rich strategy for the game.  They are also mechanics that did not make the transition to Civ 3, or any of the later 4x games, which seem to be made with ever stupider audiences in mind.  If someone does not produce a game to reintroduce these mechanics, and hopefully generate follow-on games that reuse these mechanics, these mechanics, and the rich strategies they permit, will be lost forever.

And then the best 4x game that any new player will be aware of is some dumbed down game like Civ 5.

[BFG]

This whole discussion makes me wonder what GOG.com did to secure rights to retrofit and distribute SMAC/SMAX - particularly, which group(s) it talked to.
Heck, they might even be willing to partially fund this venture.  After all, they do sell recent games too.  And I've found them surprisingly amicable towards any ideas I send them.

[testdummy653]

This whole discussion makes me wonder what GOG.com did to secure rights to retrofit and distribute SMAC/SMAX - particularly, which group(s) it talked to.
Heck, they might even be willing to partially fund this venture.  After all, they do sell recent games too.  And I've found them surprisingly amicable towards any ideas I send them.

Most likely GOG have a contract with EA for distribution rights for SMAC for X amount of years  with cut backs going to EA (Think Netflix's business model). They might be interest in funding or putting an ad on this site, but they can't support SMAC 2 since they/we don't own the rights to the game.

Sorry, my contacts are out, and I can't see worth a 

[Yitzi]

But they are gameplay mechanics that create a very rich strategy for the game.

Definitely (and you forgot to mention modular units and the Social Engineering system).  But even with all those, SMAC would only be a great game, not "arguably the best game I've ever encountered" as it actually is.

If someone does not produce a game to reintroduce these mechanics, and hopefully generate follow-on games that reuse these mechanics, these mechanics, and the rich strategies they permit, will be lost forever.

And then the best 4x game that any new player will be aware of is some dumbed down game like Civ 5.

An empire builder RTS that plays like SMAC seems it would be a feasible forum project or cross-forum project.

[Dale]

I agree that game play concepts are only one part of what makes SMAC.  The story is the main part.  I have very serious doubts that any rights to the story would be able to be snared.

But like I said above, there is nothing to stop someone coming up with a similar story that produces the same game impacts.  At the end of the day, the story of SMAC is a rip off of a number of other science fiction themes, including Herbert's books, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, and also Dune.  It seriously wouldn't be hard to do the same sort of thing and come up with a different story that conveys the same meaning and impacts.

This whole discussion makes me wonder what GOG.com did to secure rights to retrofit and distribute SMAC/SMAX - particularly, which group(s) it talked to.
Heck, they might even be willing to partially fund this venture.  After all, they do sell recent games too.  And I've found them surprisingly amicable towards any ideas I send them.

GOG is just a retailer.  That is all.  Removing CD checks and DRM is pretty simple stuff really, and doesn't require any access to the original code base.

[Green1]

I think the "hostile world" deal is one of the main kickers of SMAC and why people still talk about this game even a decade later. The world feels like an enemy in it's own right.

The diplomacy I will put up against even Civ V, though it could benefit from adding some Civ V options.

The terraforming with the raising and lowering of terrain and all those options makes the world feel even more alive. Most of the reallt cool world in video games are known for having rich, highly interactable environents.

FOR DALE ----

Oh... and Dale. Sometimes my comments come off as cynical. Was not meaning to give you too hard a time. I tend to get to be a bittervet when it comes to expecting updates of a classic. I have seen so many of these indy developers when it comes to making 4x games make Advance Wars and Evony clones out there to where I get automatically negative sounding when I should not be. Not to say something like Advance Wars or Evony would not have some merit. I just like rich strategy in these type games.

I wrote a long winded editiorial which I never did finish. I talked about a "world", a construction set where the people could build anything whether it was Napoleanic wars, sword and laser type high fantasy ala 1980s cartoons, or Hieinlinesque hard sci fi inspired by SMAC.

We have not seen a construction set since the days of the Commodore 64. Even then, it had problems with dependency on an obscure engine, and you were very limited in what you could do. If you could come up with a versitlile world builder that is always being developed and never finished, I think you might have something as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel. Yes, some games are more moddable than others, but you still are very limited as to what you can actually do.

What are you thoughts on a "construction set" once you have working world building tools that can model elevation and multiple improvements?

[Dale]

Green1 its good to be suspicious. As for me and my philosophy on strategy games I will point to my past. I'm of the table top wargame generation. World in Flames is a good example of how deep I like my strategy games.

When it comes to computer games, I matured on Civ1/2, Colonization, Imperialism I/II, Panzer General and of course SMAC. I love 90's strategy games and loath the direction strategy games have taken since 2000. IMO the only company still making decent strategy games is Paradox Interactive. This is what got me into modding, adding strategic depth back to modern strategy games. Whether it was the SAP for CtP2, Age of Discovery and Desert War for Civ4, Road to War and Dales Combat Mod for BtS, or Age of Discovery II for Civ4Col the goal was always the same: return 90's style strategy to crappy strategy game. And please do not mention Civ5 and strategy in the same breath. Civ5 is a semi-casual game directed to the masses. I helped Firaxis with development of Civ4/5, CivCity Rome and Civ4Col. I got kicked out by 2K because of my opinion of the state of Civ5 and CivWorld. One day I could log in to the secret Firaxis dev forum, the next I couldn't. No explanation till I pushed Firaxis and was told.

I've long planned to make my own games and then seemed the perfect time. So I did. The game I currently have in production is a turn based historical strategy game based on the period 1500 - 1950. The ages of discovery and imperialism. The game gets its heart from Imperialism II, but also the best features of Colonisation, Europa Universalis II and other great strategy games. Civ actually features little since I have always believed its long timeline washes out the best strategic elements from more defined timeline games. I've also included a number of my own ideas to provide what I believe is "the best of 90's strategy". And we all know that was the heyday of TRUE strategy games.

My ultimate goal is to provide a range of strategic time periods in a common planetary environment: Age of Discovery, Medieval, Roman, Atomic, Future, Fantasy. Whatever.

In terms of the world and its construction, the engine that will run my games simulates a TRUE 3D global planet. Using modern techniques such as procedural chunked LOD quadtrees a resolution of 1 metre at Earth's scale is achievable. This provides enormous flexibility in how the planet is constructed, and since its procedural terrain alterations are visible immediately. No tiles, no flat maps. True planetary strategy in a world that operates like our own.

Does that answer your questions?

* apologies for spelling etc. Posting this from my phone.