Prince of Persia restored on GOG after Ubisoft remake cancellation

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

The strongest case for this action rests on the principle that cultural works deserve preservation. The original game is 23 years old; Ubisoft cancelled its remake and has effectively abandoned the title, no longer selling or supporting it on modern platforms. Reverse-engineering for interoperability—enabling legitimate owners to use software on new hardware—is often recognised as fair use under copyright law. Waiting for corporate permission would mean the game remains unplayable, serving no one's interests, whereas restoration serves millions of players whilst harming no one: GOG isn't profiting at the game's expense, and players who want the original experience finally have access to it.

The case against

The strongest case against this action emphasises respect for intellectual property rights. GOG reverse-engineered Ubisoft's proprietary Scimitar engine without authorisation, which violates the spirit—if not always the letter—of copyright law across most jurisdictions. Accepting unauthorised reverse-engineering sets a troubling precedent: if companies know their old software will be reverse-engineered anyway, the incentive to preserve or re-release titles properly diminishes. The correct approach would have been GOG securing licensing from Ubisoft, respecting the company's ownership of its engine and creative work. Normalising this practice could encourage increasingly aggressive reverse-engineering of proprietary commercial software, undermining the legal protections that enable creative investment.