You mean Space Empires IV, right?  I played that a ton many years ago.  The game wasn't flashy, but it had a lot of detail.  I looked into Space Empires V, but I heard it was filled with bugs.

Sword of the Stars just takes so long to play....I really like it too, but I don't dare start a game...I would lose my whole day.

If a corp (like in the case of Atari's Moo series) simply STOPS producing versions of a specific game (which may or not have some relative market potential)) they really_very_absolutely must transfer license rights & development of IT to whomever is willing to offer good & fair money.

If SD made such an offer and they wanted to keep that franchise (in a pretty much continual idle state as it seems) - well, i'm sorry to insist, ATARI is crap & as a result, does create huge negative impacts to the gaming industry as a whole.

We'll sure get plenty of *NEW* stuff from anybody, that's a given. But if the lesson of Moo3 "failure" wasn't enough, then a vast majority of gamers CANNOT buy what isn't on store shelves or otherwise available.

More so when one thinks about the EA's Spore adventure in copy slap protection schemes & what else.

Heck, you might even try convincing Meier/Firaxis to transfer THEIR sooooo precious rights to Civ-5 & beyond... but, get ready to plunge waaayyy inside your deep pockets.

See?

Where the lines are drawn?

1-Game Title (any)...

2-Players (many)...

3-Production (costly)...

4-Market Distribution (gambly)...

=

Profit or Loss.

In fact, f**k those who stand in the way of Liberty Of Expression waving the risk banner with costs written up in bold gold to protect investors' gaining money from it all.

Nobody is a fool - but, IF there is a feasible market for innovation (or expanding on the many instances of genre & gameplay categories) & development by active corps... we should all sing in tandem like Fogerty (CCR); Leave the sinking ships behind.

Please, Stardock, about the BGII thing... Give us a new Darklands.