I guess because Star Insurance Company has the rights to SS2?

A basic summary of that article is that the rights are split. EA only owns the System Shock trademark. Looking Glass (the developer) retained the rights to the game itself, but they went bust and those rights went to an insurance company, who apparently is only interesting in selling them to a developer who is willing to make a new game and share revenue with said insurance company. And that developer would have to get EA on board to publish the new title, and all that would have to be sorted before the old titles would even be looked at.

I don't recall GOG ever saying that EA was holding SS2 back. Only that SS wouldn't be coming with our bactch of EA titles.

Who knows what everyone wants for each piece of intellectual SS property. Maybe Star Insurance would prefer to simply sell the rights entirely than work with a licensing deal.

Ahh, I see the problem, then. It's both that EA doesn't really care about developing a sequel, and that said insurance company isn't likely to give the rights out to anyone but a dev looking to develop a sequel.
Of course, if Star Insurance could somehow be...*ahem*...convinced to license the rights over to GOG, then...

Yeah, after i read the article, i actually became more optimistic about SS appearing here. I tought there were more right holders. Convincing EA wouldnt be that hard i think, since we have a lof of their old games here already. And i think there must be a way somehow to convince that insurance company to license the old games rights to sell it. Why wouldnt they want to make a buck out of old games they simply have no use for? I mean, if people want to play SS2 now, theyll either download a pirated copy or buy it second hand off ebay. Either way they lose, they make nothing out of it.

Why wouldnt Star Insurance want to make some cash for free, witout any risk at all, just by handing over the rights to sell SS1 and 2? This puzzles me. There must be something else involved the article doesnt mention.

47 - we have a new mission for you... ;)

Either that, or GOG is just holding it over our heads for some sinister reason :3.

"System Shock II is coming to GOG!"
"...now with always online DRM"

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Eh?

Every shooter follows one of several basic formulas. This one will be no different, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't be fun. Also lose the nostalgia goggles and enjoy the world and the new things being brought into existence every single day for once. :P...:)

Now hold on a second, before this starts turning ugly.

First, it's very true that there are a lot of people who don't seem to be able to see past the sort of sparkle and shine that games had when they were young. And it's also true that a game's entertainment value should be judged on its own merits and not by its adherence (or lack thereof) to a series' predesignated design. However, in my experience the "nostalgia goggles" accusation is used far more often as an excuse for dismissal of older games (or as an "argument" for the superiority of newer games) than it is used as a fair point. The thing is that nostalgia goggles really only end up being a factor in cases where a person hasn't played a game from their childhood since...well...their childhood. Most reasonable people, when replaying a title from their youth, are perfectly capable of seeing a game for what it is, not what they remember it being.

Also, I think that the real issue people have with remakes such as XCom or Syndicate isn't that they think they won't be fun, its that they hate the blatantly cash-hungry way that these games are being remade. They're being turned into FPSs. FPSs. FPSs that seem to follow the current FPS fads to the T. They couldn't possibly be more obvious unless they subtitled the games something like "We desperately want cash." From an objective point of view, there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with this. Developers need to eat and provide for themselves and their families, the same as the rest of us. But still... the whole thing just doesn't sit right with many of us (myself included).

You know me enough to know I was using the term in the former sense(And that one should be enjoying games based on their own merit), and not the latter(One should only be enjoying newer games/etc.). :)

Which is why i put the smilies at the end there(to keep people from getting the wrong impressionses), ya see? :D

Also just curious...but why must every(or seemingly every) attempt to get the attention of the mainstream be seen as a greedy cash grab by some? It is that way sometimes but not always.....sometimes it's just common business sense. If a small time company or one with low cash flow/income(even a small house within a big one) made a more niche game they could risk losing their business, for example.

I don't think it's ever anything BUT good business sense. Big companies need to make money the same as everyone else. The problem actually lies much deeper than that, and can't really be blamed on anyone in particular as much as it can be blamed on the unprecedented quickness with which videogames grew from a niche passtime into a driving force of mainstream entertainment. But that's a topic for another thread. And yes, I think that too often people go the old "blame everything on big corporations being greedy." But what we have here is precisely what happens when you start mixing commercialization and "good business sense" with art. You start treading on people's toes. When you take something that someone really loves and connects with, and "whore it out," they are understandably going to be pretty angry about it. In this case especially, since most everyone on this site is going to have varying degrees of distaste for modern gaming conventions (which both the remakes in question have embraced with unbridled enthusiasm). So people are seeing a beloved series not only being used as nothing more than a venue for dollars, but also being cut apart and shoved into that most sterile and lukewarm of all molds, the modern FPS. So it's more complex than just "you people don't like new things."

First off, sorry for the bullets...they help me organize my thoughts. :)

1. Thing is, many products/services started in a niche of some sort and grew from there, and as they did many of those who serviced those needs/wants navigated to servicing the mainstream to make money/stay in business. Still, even so niche companies still catered/cater to those who want more "original" forms of said product or service......same here with games. Just because they go more mainstream doesn't mean you can't get games/etc more in line with your tastes from other providers though.

2. The thing is, even art is a product. We hold it on high as a part of our cultural heritage, but it is still a product. And as a product some will buy and sell said products to get ahead or make their way in life, and sometimes they will do so in a way that some may not like. This doesn't make such games/etc less "art" because they are made for such reasons or made in such a way as to promote good business though.

Also why be angry if one company produces something you don't like or continues a series in a direction you don't like? Just move on to a company that produces something you do like(like with other forms of products) and enjoy that instead? One should try not to become so attached to a series of games/products that they start placing unfair demands upon it(mentally/etc....directly or indirectly.) or wanting most likely unrealistic(compared to common sense of what will happen) things to come of it.

(Dunno if I worded this bit right....lemme know if you got the gist of it.)

3. I get that it's a complex issue. I do dislike the ones mentioned before though(Those who don't like or try something just because it's new, or because it changes the direction of their favorite series), but understand the rest for having their own motivations.

This discussion relates a lot to the debate we had awhile back about "cinematic" games (when I was in a significantly worse mood. Did I ever apologize for that?). And in that thread, there was...something... I couldn't quite grasp what the problem was, but there was a sense in which we weren't exactly on the same page about the argument. We were both seeing it as something different. And now I think I understand. You're coming from the point of view of "This is the way things are, and developers shouldn't be blamed for it. They just do what will be most beneficial for them." And I'm coming from the point of view of "The way things are is not preferable to me, and I want to see it changed." And not only are you right, but your point of view is probably the most realistic. After all, there's no chance that the mainstream game industry is ever going to be anything other than mainstream. It's indie developers and small companies that are going to provide unique and experimental experiences. So what good is it to complain?

I've re-written this next bit over and over again, because I can't quite express exactly what I want to. Basically, I understand what you're saying... but I still think that people have the right (and even the duty) to react negatively to things about the industry that anger them. Because it's the sheer illogical temperamental nature of people that keep developers from completely disregarding all creativity and just releasing the exact same sort of game from now until eternity. Would games like STALKER ever have been released it players had been content playing re-skinned versions of Doom over and over? Probably not. Because as logical as it is to just be happy with the way things are, it's only those stubborn cranky guys that complain about everything that keep the industry on its toes.

Umm... ok, I have more to say, but I know I've spent far too long replying, so I'm just going to post this and continue my thoughts in another post. So BEE PAYSHUNT!!!!!
POST CONTINUED:

But, of course, I shouldn't lose sight of what we are talking about. Because this isn't necessarily a discussion about people who complain about the way things are, it's about people who complain that things change. Which seems like it would do the exact opposite of moving the industry forward. On the one hand, yes... but on the other hand, it's important to not only move things forward but to reign things in when they've stopped improving.

I don't know... I'm having a really hard time getting my thoughts in order right now (I'm in the process of switching to a different medication for my Adult ADD, and it hasn't kicked in completely yet). So I think that it'd probably be best if I bowed out of the discussion now and had some time to chew over everything.