I don't have much to add except to say that I think this is a stand-out example of how companies and preservationists should work together and not against each other. The childish folks who are upset about this aren't familiar with the realties of either open source games perseveration nor the realities of being an IP holder. This is as close as we have gotten to the Good Place. I wish Atari luck on the re-release and I hope that anyone who's upset about it reflects on why they are upset.
This is about as much as you can hope for tbh. More than a fair compromise.
Society has become quite 'entitled' to 'free' things. As popular as they are, torrents and free streams and emulation and clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something. I know thats an unpopular thing to say but it a fact.
Now, those rights violations viewed in a larger context may change one's opinion on the whole, and I'm not jumping into that debate today.
Atari did a cool thing. That's rare in the corporate world today. Give praise where it's deserved.
> Society has become quite 'entitled' to 'free' things. As popular as they are, torrents and free streams and emulation and clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something. I know thats an unpopular thing to say but it a fact.
Emulators and game engine clones may encourage "stealing", but they are also unique creations. The people who develop said software are typically careful about keeping their software separate from copyrighted materials. In the case of OpenTTD, they did so by creating their own graphics and sound assets to accompany the game engine.
If you are claiming that creating an independent clone of the game engine is stealing, you are entitled to your own opinion. But do understand that it is an opinion and not a fact.
I would also ask you to consider the consequences if that opinion were codified into law. It would make all forms of progress (e.g. literary and technical) nearly impossible since nearly all ideas are derivative. To give an example: the computing landscape would be very different. IBM compatibles would not have been a thing, leaving the market either fragmented or consolidated in the hands of a single company. Oh sure, there were companies that did steal by producing verbatim copies of the IBM PC ROM or the mainboard layout ... but we are talking about a reimplementation in the case of IBM compatibles and OpenTTD, not copies.
Come to think of it, the entire computer industry would have been set back by decades with an excessively strong IP regime. No one seriously classifies the ABC as the first computer, yet the courts used it to strike down patents on early computers. In the early days, IBM played games with IP licensing to try to restrict their competition, something the courts shot down. AT&T didn't give away Unix, nor did they license patents on transistors out of the goodness of their heart. They did so because regulators and the courts recognized that IP could be used to stifle competition (and, by extension, it would have inhibited progress). So I doubt that the courts would agree on emulation or game engine clones being stealing either.
Ehh, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. And in the case of openttd, it's not the engine that has the legal problem, it's the graphics and the sound. Openttd is an engine to play transport tycoon content. If openttd distributes transport tycoon's graphics and sound, (which they were) they are infringing on the owners right to distribute.
Update, I got openTTD confused with openRCT, It looks like openttd did redo the graphics and sound, so I think the parent post is correct and atari has little to no legal ground to stand on, the only thing they could reasonably claim is trademark, that is, it is them using the name transport tycoon that is the problem. And that is still not theft, it is trademark infringement.
At this point I would like to plug Simutrans a transport tycoon clone that actually took the effort to make their own graphics and sound. But really, as much as I enjoy simutrans any normal transport tycoon connoisseur will hate it, a bit too different and clunky for them.
2) Simutrans it's half propietary and a good atempt of SPAM, dear friend.
3) Ok, fair, you corrected yourself. But on OpenTTD the OpenSFX and the rest are actually a way to create both compatible graphics and sounds with the existing MODs and stand out as themselves, kinda like FreeDoom: it's obviously made to be compatible with the Doom assets for walls and the like, but the artwork it's closer to a modern HL than Doom. FreeDoom needs to be like a weird Doom in a parallel universe for floors, walls and the like because PWADs demand it so the art looks like compatible (texturing, tiling, lightning) while not being an obvious Doom rip off. And yet it does, I played lots of classic Doom2 compatible PWADs and TC's and the FreeDoom assets perfectly blend ingame. Strain.wad looks even greater.
Are they really stealing it though? They only brought the IP 30 years later they didnt make it or put any work towards it. The openTTD community has easily done 100x the work to extend the game.
This makes me wonder why squatter's rights are not a thing here...but I don't know much about the current and previous legal status of the open genres like OpenTTD.
> clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something
It's not illegal to create a compatible game engine. The functional ideas inside the games are not protected by copyright. So long as games are clean room reverse engineered there should be no problem.
Actually, even if the reverse engineering was not clean room, it might not be a problem.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.
> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.
> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.
That's a narrow fair use exception. Many of these open game engines are effectively 1:1 decompilations of the original games, and it would be shocking if they were not effectively copyrighted the same as the original.
I don't think this has been tested in court, but the recent flood of Nintendo game decompilations is likely to change that.
Pre BSD's (386BSD) where in the same case with AT&T Unix and after a few years of rewritting code under BSD licenses they were perfectly ok to ship, from NetBSD 0.9 to FreeBSD, OpenBSD was a NetBSD fork.
Current OpenTTD has no former TTD code since decades ago. I remember Solene@ from OpenBSD (now ex-user) playing OpenTTD for MacPPC (PowerPC G4) a few years ago as she had in issue with mouse input.
First, I agree it's cool that Atari, with all its ability to completely screw small projects over, didn't do that in this case.
But, at the same time, I find it interesting that "emulations and clones" are considered entitlement (in a derogatory sense), but copyright protection is not. Before 1976 in the US, the _maximum_ copyright term was 56 years, and that would require filing for an extension from the default of _only 28 years_.
I think it's easy to forget that copyright as we know it is not set in stone. Historically, after 28 years, most works became public domain and that meant you could do literally whatever you want with it and it would not be legally stealing at all. I think we as a society have forgotten what it means to have a public domain.
There is in fact legal precedent showing that it is not entitlement.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
These corporations have actually gone to court over this and lost. It's just that they technically won by bankrupting their opponents via legal costs.
Stealing what? I own my legal copy of Ars Fatalis which came as a free with a PC gaming magazine from Spain. Now I just use the game data with Arx Libertatis. No one was ripped.
If Ars Libertatis was complete they should have to create their own complete underground story replacing every asset and lore by hand, kinda like FreeDoom/Blasphemer and so on.
An actual libre engine reusing propietary data in a illegal way would be uMario, as it has literal ripped off BMP images pixel per pixel depicting SMB for the NES. And yet the game engine being GPL or MIT would be legal but the bundled game data is not; the creator would just have to use (and state the clear CC licenses) the copyleft artwork from Secret Maryo Chronicles or whatever it's being called today and everything would work as is.
Instead of Mario you would reuse SMC sprites being adapted for the contraints (pixel perfect for feet for instance)
and so and the only issue would be that the levels themselves would be copyrighted.
A single level as Supertux2 does is not a copyright issue because well, it's just a single one and a clear homage to the first level of SMB and even the level is named like that. It might fall under fair use, if I were Nintendo I woudn't sue them because unlike uMario, Supertux2 did things in a respectful manner.
Bear in mind that OpenTTD never did what uMario it's doing. When it had no open content you had to point to the copyrighted data yourself, be from the demo, be from the full game. Later OpenGFX and OpenSFX were created to replace every commercial asset and now OpenTTD has a downloader to get all the CC assets yourself without needing no commercial data at all.
The open content doesn't even have the original levels from TTD as uMario does.
Atari could have done nothing but re-release transport tycoon and have it stand on its own merits. This is more like they’re leeching off of an IP they’ve more or less not paid any attention to for 20 years.
Completely agree. They didn't go after the developers. They didn't shut people down. They didn't threaten legal action. Looks like they just reached out to the people involved in the project and peacefully worked with them instead, even helped with the server costs. Looks like everybody is winning here. Everything is at peace.
I've gained huge respect for Atari. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of EA, Nintendo, Square Enix.
I think it's interesting to look at your opinion (not you particularly, but everyone) and see if it would have been different if instead of "Atari" it was "Chris Sawyer".
If it would have been, then there's probably an inconsistency somewhere.
I don't think it's inconsistent to think that a person's right to their IP is worthy of respect but a faceless corporation's isn't. you can disagree, but it's not an inconsistency.
What a weird bootlicking POV. Atari has no real standing to even ask for this to happen and I suspect if they hadn't agreed to donate to OpenTTD, the OpenTTD folks would be singing a different tune.
As a sidenote, this whole situation implies just how important platforms are.
Nothing about OpenTTD has changed. You can literally just go download it off their website for free - same as it was 20 years ago. And you can add it to your Steam library just fine. It's only been on the Steam store for 5 of those years.
But the open internet is dead now and just being "de-merchandised" from a platform feels like being relegated to the dark web (maybe something the open source community doesn't quite fully appreciate).
>Additionally, as part of the discussions we held, Atari agreed to make a contribution towards the running costs of our server infrastructure. We are also extremely grateful for the many donations that have come in over the past few days from users - your support will help keep our services going, and it is deeply appreciated.
I'm glad that Atari was willing to compromise at all. I'm happy with the updated response, and hope that it helps others understand the nuance of the situation. Anyone can still go download the main release from the official site.
I'm sure I'm missing some context but what is Atari's role here exactly? Isn't OpenTTD an independent and fully legal project? What is Atari's basis for asking for a "compromise"?
Or is it just the case that the project maintainers got paid off?
The initial post has omitted any reason for the change. Of course people would speculate, including in the HN comments.
What seemed majority at the time was the idea of some collaboration/partnership and monetary exchange.
I think its a good lesson in communication, especially when you have a dedicated community. Transparency is welcome.
Regarding Atari and "their rights", there hasn't been an Atari for way too long and the IP was passed between companies left and right without additive value to users. I expect transport tycoon to be another cash grab, but happy to be surprised for the better.
In situations like this it's odd to me that the rightsholder wouldn't just sell an official build of the FOSS reimplementation with the assets (legally) included. If some of the proceeds end up going toward the FOSS reimplementation's donations then it seems like an easy win-win.
I am very happy that this long stand grey area licensing situation around something I enjoy deeply has been resolved in what seems like the most perfect way possible
So they were not "pressured" but Atari contacted them and they proceeded to make this decision based because they "needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests".
That sound indistinguishable from being pressured.
After installing TTD from GOG I panicked a bit, not seeing any DOSBox or DOS files. For a moment I thought it was files from an old Windows 95 version only, but there was (also) a DOS installer (INSTALL.EXE). I ran that, went through all the usual steps (select Sound Blaster IRQs and so on) and now I can run it from my virtual (git-managed) DOS disk install directory where I install all my DOS games and applications. Next to the original TT that I installed a few months ago from an old CD-ROM. For completeness.
> we have not been “pressured” by Atari to make these changes.
> Atari approached us to explain their plans for the Transport Tycoon Deluxe re-release, and what it might mean for OpenTTD.
> we understood that a compromise would be needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests […] against the availability of a free, well-developed evolution of the game.
Sounds to me like you were pressured by Atari to make these changes.
This looks like one of the rare instances where a company tried to balance their commercial interests with the interest of the fans of their products. I don't see why people would be complaining?
I wonder how many players won't be affected by its Steam disappearance.
Similar issue with other heavy modded games, such as Kerbal Space Program. The best way to handle multiple saves with different modpacks is multiple game installations, which is against the grain for the Steam version.
> Some have suggested that we should have chosen to remove OpenTTD from Steam and GOG entirely, but that would have caused unnecessary disruption to the many thousands of people currently enjoying the game on these platforms, and would have potentially prevented new players from discovering the game in future.
Is there no way either platform can simply stop selling the game and de-list it from the store yet people who purchased it can continue to play uninterrupted?
Seems reasonable to me. Back when I started playing OpenTTD, about 20 years ago, you had to provide your own data files from your ostensibly legal copy of TTD. They changed that after they started distributing free alternative graphics, but to be frank the strict legal status of both OpenTTD and OpenRCT2 has always seemed mildly dubious to me, on account of both projects being based off disassembled code. Atari is being fairly reasonable and gentlemenly about this.
This feels like absolute best-case scenario for an open-source clone interacting with a rights holder looking to re-release the original. Really glad to see their willingness to work together, instead of just torpedoing the open-source project
you know, given that i've often said "if youre getting it for free, your the product" i am ok with this
its not really possible for the rights holder to compete with a free product, since they arent harvesting data or oxploiting the userbase, so they need to charge. and openTTD getting a cut of the money really does show that this is fully collaborative
Now with AI I wonder if it’s possible to just let agents build a perfect emulation of the game. It reminds me of fuzzers. You let the agent go loose on the game and it brute forces every possible state. Then recreates the code. It’s very inefficient- but it probably works.
251 comments
Society has become quite 'entitled' to 'free' things. As popular as they are, torrents and free streams and emulation and clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something. I know thats an unpopular thing to say but it a fact.
Now, those rights violations viewed in a larger context may change one's opinion on the whole, and I'm not jumping into that debate today.
Atari did a cool thing. That's rare in the corporate world today. Give praise where it's deserved.
> Society has become quite 'entitled' to 'free' things. As popular as they are, torrents and free streams and emulation and clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something. I know thats an unpopular thing to say but it a fact.
Emulators and game engine clones may encourage "stealing", but they are also unique creations. The people who develop said software are typically careful about keeping their software separate from copyrighted materials. In the case of OpenTTD, they did so by creating their own graphics and sound assets to accompany the game engine.
If you are claiming that creating an independent clone of the game engine is stealing, you are entitled to your own opinion. But do understand that it is an opinion and not a fact.
I would also ask you to consider the consequences if that opinion were codified into law. It would make all forms of progress (e.g. literary and technical) nearly impossible since nearly all ideas are derivative. To give an example: the computing landscape would be very different. IBM compatibles would not have been a thing, leaving the market either fragmented or consolidated in the hands of a single company. Oh sure, there were companies that did steal by producing verbatim copies of the IBM PC ROM or the mainboard layout ... but we are talking about a reimplementation in the case of IBM compatibles and OpenTTD, not copies.
Come to think of it, the entire computer industry would have been set back by decades with an excessively strong IP regime. No one seriously classifies the ABC as the first computer, yet the courts used it to strike down patents on early computers. In the early days, IBM played games with IP licensing to try to restrict their competition, something the courts shot down. AT&T didn't give away Unix, nor did they license patents on transistors out of the goodness of their heart. They did so because regulators and the courts recognized that IP could be used to stifle competition (and, by extension, it would have inhibited progress). So I doubt that the courts would agree on emulation or game engine clones being stealing either.
Update, I got openTTD confused with openRCT, It looks like openttd did redo the graphics and sound, so I think the parent post is correct and atari has little to no legal ground to stand on, the only thing they could reasonably claim is trademark, that is, it is them using the name transport tycoon that is the problem. And that is still not theft, it is trademark infringement.
At this point I would like to plug Simutrans a transport tycoon clone that actually took the effort to make their own graphics and sound. But really, as much as I enjoy simutrans any normal transport tycoon connoisseur will hate it, a bit too different and clunky for them.
https://www.simutrans.com but steam is probably the easiest way to play.
>which they were)
1) No, is not the case, stop the FUD.
2) Simutrans it's half propietary and a good atempt of SPAM, dear friend.
3) Ok, fair, you corrected yourself. But on OpenTTD the OpenSFX and the rest are actually a way to create both compatible graphics and sounds with the existing MODs and stand out as themselves, kinda like FreeDoom: it's obviously made to be compatible with the Doom assets for walls and the like, but the artwork it's closer to a modern HL than Doom. FreeDoom needs to be like a weird Doom in a parallel universe for floors, walls and the like because PWADs demand it so the art looks like compatible (texturing, tiling, lightning) while not being an obvious Doom rip off. And yet it does, I played lots of classic Doom2 compatible PWADs and TC's and the FreeDoom assets perfectly blend ingame. Strain.wad looks even greater.
Look: https://freedoom.github.io/
> clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something
It's not illegal to create a compatible game engine. The functional ideas inside the games are not protected by copyright. So long as games are clean room reverse engineered there should be no problem.
Actually, even if the reverse engineering was not clean room, it might not be a problem.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.
> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.
> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.
I don't think this has been tested in court, but the recent flood of Nintendo game decompilations is likely to change that.
Current OpenTTD has no former TTD code since decades ago. I remember Solene@ from OpenBSD (now ex-user) playing OpenTTD for MacPPC (PowerPC G4) a few years ago as she had in issue with mouse input.
Good luck running decompiled X86 code as is.
But, at the same time, I find it interesting that "emulations and clones" are considered entitlement (in a derogatory sense), but copyright protection is not. Before 1976 in the US, the _maximum_ copyright term was 56 years, and that would require filing for an extension from the default of _only 28 years_.
I think it's easy to forget that copyright as we know it is not set in stone. Historically, after 28 years, most works became public domain and that meant you could do literally whatever you want with it and it would not be legally stealing at all. I think we as a society have forgotten what it means to have a public domain.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
These corporations have actually gone to court over this and lost. It's just that they technically won by bankrupting their opponents via legal costs.
> Historically, after 28 years, most works became public domain and that meant you could do literally whatever you want with it
Historically, all works were public domain at all times.
> clones of games in an open source lib are all stealing something
If you're going that far, aren't proprietary games and software "stealing" open source libs too? I think your definition is a bit wonky.
If Ars Libertatis was complete they should have to create their own complete underground story replacing every asset and lore by hand, kinda like FreeDoom/Blasphemer and so on.
An actual libre engine reusing propietary data in a illegal way would be uMario, as it has literal ripped off BMP images pixel per pixel depicting SMB for the NES. And yet the game engine being GPL or MIT would be legal but the bundled game data is not; the creator would just have to use (and state the clear CC licenses) the copyleft artwork from Secret Maryo Chronicles or whatever it's being called today and everything would work as is.
Instead of Mario you would reuse SMC sprites being adapted for the contraints (pixel perfect for feet for instance) and so and the only issue would be that the levels themselves would be copyrighted.
A single level as Supertux2 does is not a copyright issue because well, it's just a single one and a clear homage to the first level of SMB and even the level is named like that. It might fall under fair use, if I were Nintendo I woudn't sue them because unlike uMario, Supertux2 did things in a respectful manner.
Bear in mind that OpenTTD never did what uMario it's doing. When it had no open content you had to point to the copyrighted data yourself, be from the demo, be from the full game. Later OpenGFX and OpenSFX were created to replace every commercial asset and now OpenTTD has a downloader to get all the CC assets yourself without needing no commercial data at all.
The open content doesn't even have the original levels from TTD as uMario does.
> ...all stealing something. I know thats an unpopular thing to say but it a fact.
This is an unpopular opinion because it is not, in fact, a fact.
I've gained huge respect for Atari. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of EA, Nintendo, Square Enix.
If it would have been, then there's probably an inconsistency somewhere.
Nothing about OpenTTD has changed. You can literally just go download it off their website for free - same as it was 20 years ago. And you can add it to your Steam library just fine. It's only been on the Steam store for 5 of those years.
But the open internet is dead now and just being "de-merchandised" from a platform feels like being relegated to the dark web (maybe something the open source community doesn't quite fully appreciate).
You can still download it for free outside of Steam.
If I make a Sonic fan game and Sega is like, you can keep it online, but just not on Steam, that’s nice.
In this situation you still have the option of playing it on Steam for a modest price
The alternative is the Nintendo route…
>Additionally, as part of the discussions we held, Atari agreed to make a contribution towards the running costs of our server infrastructure. We are also extremely grateful for the many donations that have come in over the past few days from users - your support will help keep our services going, and it is deeply appreciated.
That's pretty cool of them.
Or is it just the case that the project maintainers got paid off?
What seemed majority at the time was the idea of some collaboration/partnership and monetary exchange.
I think its a good lesson in communication, especially when you have a dedicated community. Transparency is welcome.
Regarding Atari and "their rights", there hasn't been an Atari for way too long and the IP was passed between companies left and right without additive value to users. I expect transport tycoon to be another cash grab, but happy to be surprised for the better.
That sound indistinguishable from being pressured.
> we have not been “pressured” by Atari to make these changes.
> Atari approached us to explain their plans for the Transport Tycoon Deluxe re-release, and what it might mean for OpenTTD.
> we understood that a compromise would be needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests […] against the availability of a free, well-developed evolution of the game.
Sounds to me like you were pressured by Atari to make these changes.
Changes to OpenTTD Distribution on Steam - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47381746 - March 2026 (131 comments)
I wonder how many players won't be affected by its Steam disappearance.
Similar issue with other heavy modded games, such as Kerbal Space Program. The best way to handle multiple saves with different modpacks is multiple game installations, which is against the grain for the Steam version.
> Some have suggested that we should have chosen to remove OpenTTD from Steam and GOG entirely, but that would have caused unnecessary disruption to the many thousands of people currently enjoying the game on these platforms, and would have potentially prevented new players from discovering the game in future.
Is there no way either platform can simply stop selling the game and de-list it from the store yet people who purchased it can continue to play uninterrupted?
Some games have a good replayfactor. Transport Tycoon Deluxe was nice in this regard; the spirit should be retained so younger folks can play it.
its not really possible for the rights holder to compete with a free product, since they arent harvesting data or oxploiting the userbase, so they need to charge. and openTTD getting a cut of the money really does show that this is fully collaborative
> a compromise would be needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests (which of course they are entitled to pursue as the rights holder)
No, fuck 'em. They had nothing to do with developing the game, and in a sane copyright structure a thirty-year-old work would be public domain by now.
> please be nice to Atari
You're not my mom...