I haven't used that site before, so I'm not sure.

I'm not denying that you could be right, but I got another take on this. This looks to me like (a) WB is now aware that this IP is in significant demand, therefore being potentially very valuable, (b) that they have a significant legal stake in it, and (c) other competing studios have an interest in it as well. The latter point means that WB may feel like they're not in a position to exploit the NOLF license completely on their own (which is what they'd prefer of course) since Activision and 20th Century Fox have a stake in it too.

I remember hearing once on a Jimquisition video that many execs in the industry have an "all-or-nothing" approach to the market -- they'd rather make no money, than some of the money, if they can't have all of the money.

So another possibility is that WB, now knowing that they've got something valuable on their hands from the attention it's gotten from NDS, wants to sit on it. Either because they want to evaluate how they can exploit it on their own (either by getting Monolith to do another game, or make a movie/TV show/etc. on it), or because they simply want no one else making money on something of which they have a controlling stake.

And on top of that, WB is an "old media" company. There's nothing that suggests to me that they have any idea of how the video game industry works, or of how gamers think, and spend their money. They don't understand that there's a revenue stream virtually guaranteed for them by releasing NOLF and NOLF2 (albeit one where they don't get every piece of the pie). And given that NOLF is barely a blip on their media property radar, they likely don't care -- at least, not until Michael Bay comes with a pitch for NOLF: The Movie, with Megan Fox as Cate Archer, Channing Tatum as Dmitrij Volkov, and Seth Rogen as Bruno Lawrie.

Not sure why you think this. Wouldn't them making Mortal Kombat available for digital distribution show that they do know how video game industry works? Not to mention the lego titles, FEAR, or the Batman titles?

Wow, after watching some gameplay videos of this game, I'm really wanting it!

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Sadly its not available for sale digitally anywhere.

Going to search ebay... oh it was also on ps2?
Nice I can just get that. Unless that version is way worse then the pc version. Any input on this?

It seems to be a noticeably worse version, according to Metacritic. In addition, the PS2 version is censored and enemies won't be bleeding when you're shooting them. Compare the version to the [url=http://www.schnittberichte.com//www/SBs/3398/nix1.jpg]PS2 one.

Never mind, I thought you said they are the same as Gearbox.

Yes, 91/100 vs. 67/100 on Metacritic really says it all. If you see a PS2 port of NOLF, run. Very fast. In the opposite direction.

NOLF 1 used Safedisc as copy protection (intentional bad sectors on the disc), I think. No DRM.
NOLF 2 used an early SecuRom version, but again only as copy protection, not DRM as far as I know.

voila ;)

Good point. That would lend some credence to the notion that GOG and WB could have struck a deal to handle NOLF, as potentially unlikely as that might be.

Hmm. Fascinating. Whenever I get around to it, I should see if my OS X ports of NOLF and NOLF2 are copy-protected as well.

AH it was all ready answered. well no harm done :D.
Thanks for answers.

The more I read about the NOLF series the more I want to play it! But I thought the game was lost in legal limbo. Is there really a chance it could make a comeback like System Shock 2?

NEAR Gearbox. I don't think anyone could match the awful of those scumbags.

I'm still rather butthurt over Strife.

Not much of one, at least at the moment and from what we know.

SS2 had an owner that was quite impressively proactive about making SS2 a saleable product, and that despite (or who knows, maybe because of) them being an insurance company rather than a games one. They did the paperwork for transferring the copyright registration to themselves in 2010 (iirc) so well before the re-release, and also for registering the new trademark themselves plus didn't go after/ tacitly approved of whoever did the new dark patches. When it comes right down to it about the only thing they could have done further was self publish rather than use ND as publisher.

In contrast, whoever actually owns NOLF its copyright is still officially claimed by Fox Interactive/ C20 Fox and the attempt by ND to get a trademark got challenged/ blocked by Warner's. It could be resolved, but at the moment there's not much evidence that whoever owns it cares and is actually trying to get it republished.