Silicon Knights on Eternal Darkness IP ownership, sequel, says Nintendo is their silent partner
Posted on March 27, 2012 by Brian(@NE_Brian) in General Nintendo, News
Update: Despite the upload date on DailyMotion, it turns out that the interview is several years old. Having said that, there’s still a good amount of hope for Eternal Darkness 2…
No one knows what Silicon Knights is working on currently – other than the folks inside the studio of course.
Eternal Darkness is arguably the company’s most-successful title (at least in terms of its critical reception), so fans have been hoping that they may return to the IP one day. Nintendo renewed the Eternal Darkness trademark a couple years back, and Silicon Knights head Denis Dyack did recently say that a sequel isn’t too much to ask for.
So can we expect Eternal Darkness II then? Well, that’s still not clear, nor is the status of the IP’s ownership.
When asked about the ownership of the Eternal Darkness franchise (Nintendo or Silicon Knights), Dyack wouldn’t reveal the answer. He was also unwilling to talk about a sequel. Apparently some people have interpreted some of his previous quotes as a confirmation that Eternal Darkness 2 is in the works, but that was never the case.
Dyack did say something very interesting about Silicon Knights’ relationship with Nintendo, though. He stated, “Nintendo is still our silent partner – a lot of people don’t know that.”
“That’s a question we’ve never answered. And at the end of the day, it’s not time to even talk about those kind of things for various different reasons. Nintendo is still our silent partner – a lot of people don’t know that. We have a great relationship with those guys and it’s not time to talk about Eternal Darkness 2. I’ve had so many questions and it’s been interpreted a couple of times where I said, ‘Yes, we’re working on Eternal Darkness 2.’ We’ve never said that. So, sorry. That’s the best I can give you.”
Dyack was later pushed about the IP’s ownership again, but still wouldn’t provide an answer:
“It’s a complicated question with a complicated answer and we’re not answering the question.”
Thanks to unithack for the tip!
