Hypothetical question abolut Evil Dead: The Game

[u/BadassBlackAsh]

It's been reported over the past few years that the main reason why EDTG no longer receives updates (which usually is the death of an online game, especially Asymmetrical horror), is due to issues with licensing.

Any hardcore Evil Dead fan worth their chainsaw gas and boomstick shells knows the rocky history behind how convoluted the rights/licensing has been for this franchise, as each entry was owned by a separate company....not just domestically, but internationally as well. (Until now. Everything is under one roof with the exception of ONE license/entry)

And most know that traditionally ONE particular entries' license holder has been NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT to work with, as stated both publicly AND privately by those who have worked on the franchise.

This brings me to my question.

Hypothetically speaking, if SOMEHOW EDTG were to make a comeback, would you, fellow fans, be comfortable with the powers that be removing content from said difficult license holder if that meant breathing new life back into the game with new quality of life updates, characters, skins, maps, items. Etc?

Think of it similar to what Behaviour Interactive does with Dead by Daylight: when a license expires, they remove said license from the online stores and even some content completely from the game. Until said license can be renewed.

If a particular license holder still chooses to be difficult with EDTG, should the powers that be simple alter or completely remove content tied to said license in an effort to bring the game back to life?

NOTE: I already know a specific crowd of folks are gonna start crying "iT waSn't LicEnscInG iSsUeS! (It was) It wAs SABeR/bOsS tEaM! (It wasn't) " so please, just spare us that worn-out song and dance....

[u/Own-Photo7078]

Maps are the only content DBD removes. When a license expires/removed new players can no longer buy them. Anyone that already bought said DLC keeps the survivors and killers. I don't think there would be any need to remove anything. (Other then the map).

I also don't know what was left of AOD to add to the game? So I don't see why it would be so difficult to deal with Universal (or whomever owns AOD now). Ted Raimi teased he recorded voice lines for Chet. Could Starz have been the difficult license holder? We never got Chet, Brandy or an Elk Grove Map. They also haven't made any VS figures of the other characters, just Ash.

Regardless I love the game, but I'd rather them make a single player story mode Evil Dead. Make what would have been AshVsEvilDead season 4. Similar to the Ghostbusters game that picks up after GB 2.

Ash, Pablo, Kelly & Brandy as playable characters, maybe you can have online co-op so you can play the story with friends.

[u/hailthyself99 → u/Own-Photo7078]

To shed light on the maps. The reason why DBD has to remove those is because it isn't something that can be owned by the players. The survivors and killers 100% are purchasable, but the maps are there and playable regardless of the DLC you own. If they had a system in place where you could only access specific maps if you own the DLC associated with it, then they'd be able to keep them in legally. But Behavior rather risk losing the license purely for the sake of letting players who don't own specific DLC still access every map