Remaking a video game: what for?

2026 will no doubt be remembered as the year of the classics’ return. The industry keeps drawing on its own heritage, while commercial labels do not always reflect the extent of the transformations on offer.

On the remaster side, CD Projekt RED released The Witcher 3 Remastered on 29 September, going beyond a mere visual refresh: combat, movement and the skill tree were reworked. Koei Tecmo went further with Dynasty Warriors 3 Complete Edition Remastered, whose officers and battlefields were recreated in Unreal Engine 5. Yet a “remaster” rebuilt on a new engine can come close to what is commonly called a remake, without that criterion alone being enough to tell them apart.

On the remake side, Ubisoft released Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced on 9 July and is preparing Rayman Legends Retold, now expected on 3 December 2026, a 3D reimagining with an all-new story that the publisher wants to serve as the foundation for the future of a franchise dormant for nearly a decade. Nintendo is preparing Ocarina of Time for 5 November on Switch 2, and Capcom has announced Resident Evil Veronica for 2027, the first full remake of a game that had already received an HD version in 2011.

A remake is no guarantee of success, however. Halo: Campaign Evolved, a remake of 2001’s Combat Evolved released on 28 July, received a decent reception from the press but a harsh one from players. Marcus Lehto, the designer of Master Chief, praised some of its improvements while criticising several creative choices. Remade by Halo Studios rather than by Bungie, its creator, the game raises a question that copyright law knows well: what can the original author still say about what is done with their work?

But first we need to agree on the terms, which belong primarily to industry vocabulary and are not legal categories in their own right.

A remaster mainly improves an existing game aesthetically and technically, generally keeping its structure, without ruling out new creative contributions. It is closer to a graphical overhaul.

A remake, for its part, rebuilds the game in depth, often on a new engine, while keeping or reinterpreting its storyline. A reimagining is a remake with greater creative freedom.

A reboot reinvents the franchise’s universe, with a new narrative continuity, while keeping some of its characters, themes or codes.

A port technically adapts an existing game so that it runs on another platform or device, notably by adapting its code; emulation is another technique for running a game in a different environment, and should not be confused with porting.

Finally, a demake consists in recreating a recent video game by applying to it the technical and aesthetic constraints of an earlier generation of consoles or computers. Unlike the remaster, it relies on a deliberate downgrade of graphics, sound or game mechanics, in an artistic approach inspired by retrogaming.

It should also be noted that reimagining and demaking are more marginal practices, which nonetheless show the diversity of creative approaches for revisiting an existing video game work. Despite their differences, all these practices rest on two fundamental pillars: the existence of a pre-existing game or universe, and the will to develop, transform or adapt it, according to the artistic, technical or commercial ambitions of each project.

To make this article easier to read, we will use the terms “remaking” or “remake” to refer to all of these processes.

Why does the industry remake its own games so much? First, because nostalgia is a safe haven, both a source of secure revenue and a lever for reviving franchises (I). Second, because these practices respond to a heritage issue, in a medium whose works are particularly fragile (II). But remaking a game is never a neutral act: it requires holding the necessary rights, and the legal answer depends on the elements reused, the new contributions and the rights of whoever is remaking the game (III).

I. The economic opportunities

In his book Best Before, James Newman points out that the video game industry is structured around a balance between the call for revolution, for innovation in content, and the comfort of continuity in that same content and those same universes. The modernity of the video game industry and its tools today allows for a considerable retrospective: a capacity to copy, retouch and rebuild past productions, sometimes at a lower cost than an entirely new creation. But for studios, it is a matter of adopting a precise strategy, torn between securing funds, commercially targeting audiences and reviving video game universes in the long term. Among the greatest cross-generational franchises, Tomb Raider forms a veritable archaeology (no pun intended) of the technological history of the video game medium. It will serve as the common thread of this first part.

A. Nostalgia, a safe haven

1. Securing investments

Although the phrase “securing investments” might suggest a lighter development process, with no additional creative research phase, remaking an original or dated game still involves significant costs that cannot be taken lightly. First there are production costs, which can reach several tens of millions for AAA projects, to which must be added development time and the modernisation process needed to adapt the game to today’s hardware and consumer expectations. The security sought therefore lies mainly in the preparatory work and pre-production. Publishers can save several million dollars on research, scriptwriting, character design, environment modelling and so on. Moreover, financial risks are reduced thanks to the fame of a franchise and the existence of an audience already attached to its universe, without this guaranteeing the operation’s profitability.

The Tomb Raider brand keeps revisiting its own universe, even today. On 14 February 2024, the original trilogy, made hard to play by technological progress, received a major overhaul with Tomb Raider I-III Remastered, produced by the studio Aspyr in partnership with Crystal Dynamics. Accompanied by the expansions of the three games, the remastered trilogy puts the emphasis above all on faithfulness to the Lara Croft of 1996. The developers worked from the existing source code, so that every jump, secret, enemy and puzzle is kept as the original team designed it. The overhaul therefore concerns everything else: new models and environments, real-time lighting, a new Lara Croft model, a choice between the original controls and modernised ones, and above all a setting that lets players switch at any moment, mid-game, between the remastered graphics and the original ones.

2. Reviving a franchise

In some cases, remaking games also serves to gradually relaunch franchises and win back the core audience. The technological, logistical and graphical developments of the 2020s have reshaped the creative perception of video games: productions that are sometimes more detailed, between realism and high-definition aesthetics, ageing gameplay that has been renovated, shorter loading times and renewed narrative means. This state of innovation is a lever for many studios wishing to continue developing their existing franchises. Whatever the formula envisaged, another question arises here: how faithful to the original work should one be, all the more so when a franchise is at risk of having no sequel?

The Tomb Raider brand is a perfect example. After years of annual instalments developed by Core Design, the disastrous reception of Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness in 2003 led the publisher Eidos, which held the rights, to hand the franchise’s development to the American studio Crystal Dynamics. The audience saw this handover as a second chance. Crystal Dynamics first relaunched the series with Tomb Raider: Legend (2006), then Tomb Raider: Anniversary (2007), the first official remake of the 1996 game, and Tomb Raider: Underworld (2008). But the real break came in 2013 with Tomb Raider, which we will call Tomb Raider 2013. Its intentions were clear: in step with the times, it offered an approach more focused on survival, with many action and shooting sequences. This instalment thus earned the status of reboot, including a new narrative origin for Lara Croft, a new character model and now central use of motion capture.

The reception of Tomb Raider 2013 was undeniably successful: acclaimed by critics, it stood out among the landmark productions of a year dominated by The Last of Us and BioShock Infinite. Its success was such that the game was re-released as early as January 2014 in a Definitive Edition on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, enriched with its additional content: a remaster barely a year after the original’s release. The return of the British heroine was thus confirmed, and a so-called “Survivor” trilogy was subsequently built with Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015) and Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018), two sequels to the reboot that explored ever further the technological state of the art of video games.

B. Accessibility: making something new out of something old

Remaking also means shifting the accessibility of games. Beyond making projects ever more creative and ambitious, the aim is also to make them playable by everyone, on every device, and to keep pace with the new consumption habits and uses of communities, buyers and amateur creators alike.

1. Reaching a new audience: a dual marketing target

The first question is the extent to which the original work is adapted to meet the expectations of a modern and often younger audience who did not have access to the original work when it came out. In the latest Tomb Raider news, the next title has been announced: Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis, a reimagining of the 1996 Tomb Raider and the game’s second official remake after Anniversary. Developed by Crystal Dynamics and Flying Wild Hog in Unreal Engine 5 and published by Amazon Games, it is expected on 12 February 2027. As proof of this lineage, Lara Croft returns to the landscapes of her first adventures and once again faces the prehistoric creatures of the original game. We can relate these elements to the Elemental Tetrad framework, which links a game’s mechanics, story, aesthetics and technology. First, we see the implementation of new action mechanics, such as the grappling hook. Then, the story is reinvented and offers a creative vision enriched by cutscenes and QTE sequences. Finally, the aesthetics go beyond mere remastering: the technology used transforms the landscapes imagined by Core Design. Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis thus illustrates the will to reinterpret an old work with the means of the present, addressing both the players of 1996 and those who never knew the original Lara Croft.

2. Modding, a community extension of the work

Modding, the practice of modifying a game through software created by players, is increasingly discussed as a space for community creativity, often free but governed by terms of use. Without being regarded as hackers, player-creators form a massive workforce actively contributing to the survival of an IP over time. Many examples demonstrate the value of community participation as another creative lever for content, inherited from the forerunner DOOM (1993). To benefit from this unique audience, some studios provide a free, supervised version of their tools. The Witcher 3 offers this to communities through REDkit, an adaptation of the studio’s in-house tools, launched free of charge on 21 May 2024 for owners of the game on PC. It is a development kit (SDK) dedicated to creating mods and amateur content, such as A Witcher Can Hide Another, winner of the REDkit competition organised by CD Projekt RED. This all-new quest, fully voiced and featuring a new playable character, offers added value of near-professional quality. The control the studio exercises over these tools is not only technical, moreover: it is also legal, as we will see (III).

Beyond their commercial value, however, these remakes serve another function, less visible but just as essential: they allow works to survive.

II. Preserving video game heritage

A. An inherently fragile heritage

As with other works that depend on a playback device, but with a particular complexity, physically keeping a copy of a video game does not guarantee that it can still be used a few decades later. A video game is inseparable from the technical environment that allows it to run: storage medium, console or computer, operating system, peripherals, and also, for more recent productions, updates, DRM, user accounts and remote servers.

The French National Library (BnF), responsible for the legal deposit of video games since 1992, faces this difficulty directly. It points out that cartridges, magnetic tapes and optical discs age, as do the machines needed to read them. Digital distribution has not made the problem disappear: it has partly shifted it. Many games today need a connection to infrastructure owned by their publisher in order to be installed, authenticated, updated or simply used. The shutdown of a server or service can thus make software unusable even though its files are still present.

This dependence on private infrastructure is also causing growing discontent among players when server shutdowns permanently doom a title. The case of The Crew has become emblematic: Ubisoft shut down its servers on 31 March 2024, making the game inaccessible on all platforms, including for those who had bought it. The publisher cited, among other things, constraints linked to server infrastructure and licences. Its disappearance sparked major protests and gave rise to the Stop Killing Games movement, helping to turn the end of life of video games into a genuine consumer protection and preservation issue. The European citizens’ initiative that grew out of it gathered 1,294,188 validated signatures. In its response of 16 June 2026, the European Commission acknowledged that a game dependent on servers could become partially or totally unusable when its support ends, but considered that it could not, at this stage, impose a legal obligation to keep games playable. It cited copyright in particular and instead intends to launch discussions, by the end of 2026, with a view to drawing up a code of conduct on the “end of life” of games with the industry and consumer associations.

Video games therefore present a particular heritage fragility, since keeping the object is not always enough to preserve the work, and preserving the work is not necessarily enough to preserve the experience that gave it meaning. It is precisely in this space that ports, remasters and remakes can be useful, by adapting an old work to a contemporary technical environment to extend its accessibility. This return to circulation must still be distinguished from preserving the original version, since a remake can alter the graphics, rules or staging that made the game unique. It then passes on an interpretation of the work, without replacing the preservation of its original state.

B. Keeping works and franchises in the collective memory

Ports, remasters, remakes and reboots also make it possible to keep certain works in the collective memory. A game may have deeply marked its era while gradually becoming hard to access for following generations, simply because it remains tied to a console twenty or thirty years old and therefore belongs to retrogaming. Re-releasing it then brings these titles back into the spotlight and gives them a new entry point for today’s audience.

The upcoming remake of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a good illustration. Originally released in 1998 on Nintendo 64, the game is to be “reborn” on Switch 2 nearly thirty years later, in Nintendo’s own words, as part of the celebrations for the saga’s 40th anniversary. The aim is obviously not to save the Zelda franchise, which is still extremely active, but to keep one particular work from its history culturally visible. The logic is similar with Metroid Prime Remastered, which in 2023 brought back into circulation a 2002 GameCube game by modernising its rendering and controls.

But these operations can also concern the franchise itself when it has disappeared from release schedules for several years. Crash Bandicoot is a good example: when N.Sane Trilogy came out in 2017, Activision stressed the opportunity for former players to rediscover the series and for new ones to discover it.

A remake or remaster can also serve as a gateway for reactivating a dormant franchise. Capcom gradually brought Onimusha back into circulation with the remasters of Warlords and Onimusha 2, before launching on 4 September 2026 an all-new instalment, Way of the Sword, nearly twenty years after the series’ last entry. Spyro Reignited Trilogy played a similar role in 2018: on 7 June 2026, Toys for Bob, the studio behind these remakes, announced Spyro: A Realm Beyond, the series’ first original instalment in nearly twenty years, expected in spring 2027 and designed to welcome a new generation of players while offering something new to long-time fans.

The strategy is even clearer with Silent Hill. After several years without a major new instalment, Konami presented in 2022 the remake of Silent Hill 2, entrusted to the Polish studio Bloober Team and released in 2024, as the first of a series of projects intended to keep the franchise alive “for years to come”, alongside new games and a film adaptation. In these situations, the remake no longer merely passes on an old game: it reinstates an intellectual property in the video game news and can recreate a point of contact with an audience that never knew it at its peak.

Ports, remasters and remakes thus contribute to a form of cultural transmission on two levels: they keep certain important works accessible, but they can also prevent entire franchises from gradually fading from players’ memories. This transmission does however have a prerequisite, which the European Commission itself recalled by citing copyright: remaking a game requires, in principle, holding the necessary rights or obtaining authorisation from their owners, subject to the exceptions provided for by law.

III. The legal framework

A. The video game, a complex work

The ruling of the plenary assembly of the French Court of Cassation of 7 March 1986 (Atari v. Valadon, No. 84-93.509) is a milestone in the recognition of copyright protection for video games, without reducing them to their technical aspects alone. In a ruling of 25 June 2009 (Cass. 1re civ., Cryo, No. 07-20.387), the Court of Cassation specified that a video game could not be confined to its software dimension. Made up of artistic, intellectual and technological elements, it is a complex work in which each component is subject to its own regime: the code falls under the software regime, while graphics, narrative and music fall under ordinary copyright law, provided they are original. The analysis below is mainly based on French law, informed by European Union law; the foreign examples illustrate industry practice, without prejudging the law applicable to their contracts.

Copyright includes two sets of prerogatives, whose ownership must be distinguished. Economic rights make it possible, in particular, to control the performance and reproduction of the work (Article L.122-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, CPI), as well as its translation, adaptation, transformation or arrangement (Article L.122-4). A reinterpretation that reuses original elements of the game may therefore require authorisation, even when it does not reproduce the code identically. For software, Article L.122-6, 2° specifically covers “the translation, adaptation, arrangement or any other modification”. Moral rights remain attached to the author and include, in particular, the rights of disclosure, attribution, integrity and, under statutory conditions, reconsideration or withdrawal. The right to respect for one’s name, authorship and work is perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible (Article L.121-1). Restrictions do however apply to software: unless a more favourable provision is agreed, the author cannot object to its modification by the authorised assignee where this harms neither their honour nor their reputation, and cannot exercise their right of reconsideration or withdrawal (Article L.121-7).

B. Who is remaking the game? Classification and regime

1. The new version is made by the original studio or authors

When a studio takes up one of its games to offer a new version, continuity of development is not enough to determine its legal classification. A new version only enjoys copyright protection for its own contributions if they are original, that is, if they reflect free and creative choices. It follows that a mere automatic improvement of graphical resolution is not, on its own, enough to constitute a new protectable creation. The commercial boundary between remaster and remake therefore does not necessarily coincide with a legal boundary, since the originality of the transformations has to be assessed case by case (CJEU, 12 September 2019, Cofemel, C-683/17, paragraphs 29 to 31).

Article L.113-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code defines a composite work as a new work incorporating a pre-existing work without the collaboration of the latter’s author. The classification thus depends on the elements reused and the actual participation of the authors concerned, not merely on the identity of the studio. A new version may also be a work of collaboration where several natural persons contribute to its creation, or a collective work where the statutory conditions are met, notably the initiative, direction and disclosure under the name of one person, together with the merging of individual contributions so that no separate right in the whole can be attributed to each contributor. These classifications cannot be inferred automatically from the fact that the same company is involved, and a composite work may itself include contributions made in collaboration.

On the economic side, the rights holder can authorise the adaptation or transformation of the game within the limits of the rights it actually holds. In assignments granted by authors, each of the rights transferred must, within the scope of Article L.131-3, be mentioned separately, and the scope of its exploitation must be defined in terms of extent, purpose, place and duration. Where an assignment covers a form of exploitation that was unforeseeable or not provided for at the date of the contract, Article L.131-6 requires an express provision and a corresponding share in the profits from exploitation. A mere change of platform therefore does not mean that the new exploitation is necessarily covered by the original authorisations, nor that it is systematically excluded from them.

For software and its documentation created by employees in the course of their duties or following their employer’s instructions, economic rights in principle vest in the employer, unless statutory provisions or contractual terms provide otherwise (Article L.113-9). This rule does not, however, automatically extend to all components of the game. The Court of Cassation has thus recalled that a video game is a complex work, each component of which is subject to the regime applicable to it according to its nature (Cass. 1re civ., 25 June 2009, No. 07-20.387).

It is therefore necessary to check the rights in the music, artwork or actors’ performances reused, particularly where the original authorisations are limited in time or to certain types of exploitation. The fixation, reproduction and communication to the public of performers’ performances notably require their written authorisation, under Article L.212-3. Being the originator of the game therefore does not exempt the studio from checking the rights needed for its new exploitation.

2. The new version is made by an assignee or an authorised studio

When a publisher assigns its rights, or when control of a company changes hands through an acquisition, a new version may be entrusted to another team. If it constitutes a new work incorporating protected elements of a pre-existing work without the collaboration of its author, it may qualify as a composite work, subject to the rights attached to the original work. A change of studio or owner is therefore not, on its own, enough to establish this classification (Articles L.113-2 and L.113-4).

Tomb Raider I-III Remastered, developed by Aspyr, illustrates the possibility of keeping the original source code and engine while introducing new models and graphical elements. Technical continuity can thus coexist with contributions that may be protected, provided they are original. Likewise, Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis, developed jointly by Crystal Dynamics and Flying Wild Hog and published by Amazon Game Studios, and Halo: Campaign Evolved, developed by Halo Studios, show that a franchise can be reinterpreted by teams other than those of its early days.

The lawfulness of these exploitations requires that the necessary rights have actually been acquired or licensed. The extent of the rights transferred remains determined by the contract, since the assignment of the reproduction right does not entail that of the performance right, and vice versa (Article L.122-7). It is also important to distinguish the acquisition of a company’s shares from that of its intellectual property assets. In the first case, the company in principle retains its legal personality and the rights in its assets; in the second, the rights actually transferred must be identified. A change of shareholder therefore does not, in itself, remove the contractual restrictions affecting the works being exploited (French Civil Code, Article 1842).

A licence differs from an assignment in that it authorises exploitation within a defined scope without transferring ownership of the rights concerned. An authorisation limited to porting therefore does not necessarily cover the making of a remake, whose transformations may go beyond what was agreed. Where development is entrusted to a contractor studio, the contracts must also organise the rights in the new contributions, since merely commissioning a work does not, as a rule, automatically entail an assignment of copyright, subject to the special regimes that apply (Articles L.111-1 and L.131-3).

Then there are moral rights, which are not transferred with economic rights. Under French law, authors retain in particular the right to respect for their name, their authorship and their work (Article L.121-1). This principle is however restricted for software: unless a more favourable provision applies, the author cannot object to a modification by the assignee of the adaptation rights where it harms neither their honour nor their reputation (Article L.121-7). An economic authorisation to adapt the game therefore does not exempt one from examining the moral rights attached to its various contributions, without treating every artistic disagreement as a legally established infringement.

3. The new version comes from an amateur, between authorisation and infringement

Transformations made by amateurs also raise difficulties when they reuse protected elements without their owners’ authorisation. The unauthorised reproduction, adaptation or transformation of a work may constitute infringement, unless an exception applies (Article L.122-4). The fact that a project is free or made out of passion therefore does not amount to authorisation, even though the analysis must distinguish creations that transform the game from tools that allow it to run.

a) Modding and fan creations

Modding consists, for player-creators, in modifying or enriching an existing video game, notably by adding content, features or graphical elements through software. Where a mod incorporates protected elements of the original game and includes original contributions, it may in particular constitute a composite work. This classification does not, however, apply indiscriminately to all mods, some of which merely adjust technical settings, while others rely on additional software or on standalone content (Articles L.113-2 and L.113-4).

The player-creator can only claim copyright in their contributions if they are original, without acquiring any additional rights in the pre-existing elements. The originality of a mod is therefore not enough to make its exploitation lawful where that exploitation involves unauthorised reproductions or transformations (Articles L.113-4 and L.122-4).

In practice, end-user licence agreements (EULAs), the terms of official tools and specific authorisations play a central role, although they cannot override the exceptions from which the law prohibits any derogation, notably those set out in paragraphs II, III and IV of Article L.122-6-1. With REDkit, CD Projekt RED and Yigsoft thus provide a tool for customising and enriching The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, within a framework whose terms must be respected.

Standalone fangames and amateur remakes call for the same examination of the elements reused. The takedown requests targeting AM2R, an amateur remake of Metroid II, illustrate the risks to which an unauthorised initiative is exposed, without amounting to a French infringement ruling. Conversely, Black Mesa, a community reinterpretation of Half-Life sold under a licensing arrangement with Valve, shows that a community project can fit into authorised exploitation. Neither being free nor being amateur alone determines the lawfulness of a creation, which depends on the elements used and on the applicable authorisations or exceptions.

b) Porting and emulation by player-creators, practices whose lawfulness remains debated

Porting and emulation make it possible to run a game on a platform other than the one it was designed for, but they rely on different processes and principles.

Porting consists in adapting or rewriting a program’s source code so that it can run on another platform, an operation generally carried out by the rights holders or with their authorisation. Where it is limited to technical adaptations reflecting no creative choice, it does not, for those changes alone, give rise to a new protected work; any original contributions must nevertheless be examined case by case, in line with the criterion recalled in Cofemel.

Emulation, particularly when developed by player-creators, consists in reproducing the operation of a computing environment without necessarily modifying the game’s program itself. It is not unlawful by nature, since the functionality of a computer program, its programming language and the format of its data files are not protected, as such, as forms of expression of the program. This distinction does not, however, permit the reproduction of its code or other protected expression (CJEU, 2 May 2012, SAS Institute, C-406/10).

Under French law, Article L.122-6-1, III and IV allows a person entitled to use a program to observe, study or test its functioning or security while performing acts they are entitled to perform. It also allows certain acts of reproducing the code or translating its form where these are indispensable to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program. This exception requires, in particular, that the information is not already readily and quickly accessible and that the acts are confined to the necessary parts. The information obtained may not be used for other purposes or to develop a program whose expression is substantially similar. It is therefore not a general authorisation to copy the program studied.

The emulator must also be distinguished from copies of games, BIOS, firmware and any keys needed for it to work, whose acquisition and use raise questions of their own. A ROM or ISO is not infringing simply because of its format, but its reproduction or distribution must be based on an authorisation or an applicable exception. Owning an original copy does not confer a general right to download a copy put online by a third party. For software, a backup copy is allowed where it is necessary to preserve its use, which does not amount to a right of distribution (Articles L.122-4 and L.122-6-1, II).

Circumventing technological protection measures calls for a separate analysis. In Nintendo v. PC Box of 23 January 2014, the CJEU recalled that their protection must respect the principle of proportionality, taking into account in particular the lawful uses of the devices concerned. This ruling neither establishes a general ban on circumvention tools nor a freedom to systematically neutralise protections. The shutdown of a project is therefore not enough to establish a general ban on emulation under French law (CJEU, C-355/12).

Finally, video game preservation is not legally reserved to rights holders alone. Certain publicly accessible libraries, museums and archives benefit from an exception allowing acts of preservation and certain on-site consultations, subject to statutory conditions and to the absence of any economic or commercial advantage. The software regime expressly refers to this exception (Articles L.122-5, 8° and L.122-6-1, V). These provisions do not, however, give player-creators or the institutions concerned a general right to make games freely available on the internet. The heritage paradox thus lies in the gap between what can be preserved, what can technically be made to run and what can legally be made accessible.

4. Trademark law, a reason to remake video games

A trademark protects a sign as an indicator of commercial origin, not the work itself. A title, a logo or the depiction of a character may thus be protected on this basis, subject to the conditions of validity of the trademark, notably its distinctiveness; not every element of a game is therefore automatically a trademark (Articles L.711-1 and L.711-2 of the CPI). Its registration is renewable for ten-year periods, and its owner is not necessarily the owner of the copyright.

An owner who, without proper reasons, has not made genuine use of it for an uninterrupted period of five years is liable to revocation for the goods or services concerned; revocation must be ordered and does not result automatically from the expiry of the period (Articles L.712-1, L.714-4 and L.714-5; Articles 18 and 58 of Regulation 2017/1001 for the European Union trade mark).

Remasters, remakes and reboots may then constitute acts of genuine use of the trademark, provided there is actual exploitation for the goods or services concerned. The Onimusha remasters thus preceded the series’ return, while Rayman Legends Retold is part of a strategy to relaunch the franchise. A mere announcement does not, however, automatically amount to genuine use, and the absence of a new instalment does not mean the trademark has ceased to be used, since older games may still be on sale. Modernising a logo may also count as use of the registered trademark, provided it does not alter its distinctive character (Article L.714-5, 3°).

For ports and remasters, one must check the goods and services covered by the registration, the territories protected and the scope of the licences. A change of platform does not, in itself, require a new filing, as long as the intended exploitation remains covered. For third-party trademarks included in the game, the check also covers the duration of the authorisations, their territories and the permitted uses, and is not limited to whether they have expired (Article L.714-1). A reboot, for its part, can reuse a trademark while moving far away from the original work; Prey (2017), whose universe differs from that of Prey (2006), illustrates this separation between continuity of name and creative continuity.

The distinction between the different players applies here too. The original creator does not necessarily own the trademark when it belongs to the company, and cannot then freely reuse it to commercially identify a spiritual successor. The assignment of a French trademark must be recorded in writing, failing which it is void (Article L.714-1), and its entry in the French National Register of Trademarks in principle makes it enforceable against third parties (Article L.714-7). For amateurs, the analysis differs from that under copyright, since trademark infringement requires in particular use in the course of trade. Donations or advertising may help establish an economic context, without automatically being enough to establish infringement.

The actual use of the sign must also be examined. Article L.713-2 covers in particular the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, as well as situations of identity or similarity giving rise to a likelihood of confusion. Trademarks with a reputation also enjoy protection against certain uses that take unfair advantage of, or are detrimental to, their reputation, including for different goods or services (Article L.713-3). Conversely, fair reference to a trademark to designate the owner’s products may be allowed under the conditions of Article L.713-6; mentioning the game a mod is intended for is therefore not necessarily the same as using its trademark as a sign of the project’s origin.

Conclusion

Remasters, remakes, ports and fan creations show the ability of video games to span generations, but these labels do not, on their own, determine their legal regime. The analysis depends on the elements actually reused, the originality of the new contributions, the identity of the authors and the extent of the rights acquired. A new version may thus be original without being authorised, while an authorised adaptation may contain no new protectable contribution, in line with the distinction between originality and respect for the rights in the pre-existing work (Cofemel; Articles L.113-4 and L.122-4).

For professionals and player-creators alike, the difficulty therefore lies in reconciling the rights in the code, graphics, music, performances and distinctive signs. Whether an authorisation exists must be assessed in light of the exploitations it covers, while the exceptions, notably those relating to interoperability and preservation, are subject to their own conditions (Articles L.131-3, L.122-6-1 and L.713-6).

Beyond technology and nostalgia, these practices thus raise the question of how video game heritage is passed on. Preserving a game, making it run and making it accessible are three related but legally distinct objectives. The challenge is therefore to support continued access while taking into account the rights that still exist in the works, rather than treating their age or commercial unavailability alone as permission to reproduce them freely.

Sources

French legislation

• French Intellectual Property Code, Articles L.111-1, L.113-2, L.113-4 and L.113-9, on ownership and classification of works.

• French Intellectual Property Code, Articles L.121-1, L.121-7, L.122-4, L.122-5, L.122-6-1 and L.122-7, on moral and economic rights and exceptions.

• French Intellectual Property Code, Articles L.131-3, L.131-6 and L.212-3, on assignments of rights and performers’ rights.

• French Intellectual Property Code, Articles L.711-1, L.711-2, L.712-1, L.713-2, L.713-3, L.713-6, L.714-1, L.714-4, L.714-5 and L.714-7, on trademark law.

• French Civil Code, Article 1842, on the legal personality of companies.

French and European case law

• French Court of Cassation, 1st civil chamber, 25 June 2009, No. 07-20.387, on the classification of video games as complex works and the regimes applicable to their components.

• CJEU, 12 November 2002, Arsenal Football Club, C-206/01, on use of a trademark in the course of trade.

• CJEU, 2 May 2012, SAS Institute, C-406/10, on the distinction between the functionality of a computer program and its protected expression.

• CJEU, 23 January 2014, Nintendo v. PC Box, C-355/12, on the protection of technological measures and the principle of proportionality.

• CJEU, 12 September 2019, Cofemel, C-683/17, on the concept of originality and free and creative choices.

Books and academic work

• NEWMAN, James. Best Before: Videogames, Supersession and Obsolescence. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012, 192 p., notably p. 52.

• CAMPAGNE, Benjamin. Remakes, Remasters & Reboots : récits et enjeux de marque au sein des « pratiques du refaire » dans le jeu vidéo. Information and communication sciences, 2023, DUMAS, identifier dumas-04350808.

Scientific articles and book chapters

• DEA PRATAMA, Galih; DWI NOVIKA, Andien; ASH SHIDDIQI, Hafizh; RYAN ARDIYANTO, Elshad; SAVERO HERMAWAN, Eric. “Utilization of Elemental Tetrad in Comparative Analysis on Original and Remake of Resident Evil 4”. Journal of Games, Game Art and Gamification, 2024, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 22-29.

• WALK, Wolfgang; GÖRLICH, Daniel; BARRETT, Mark. “Design, Dynamics, Experience (DDE): An Advancement of the MDA Framework for Game Design”. In Game Dynamics: Best Practices in Procedural and Dynamic Game Content Generation. Cham: Springer, 2017, p. 27-45.

• WORRALL, Kyle. “Final Fantasy VII Remake: Music Redesign for Evolved Expectations Across Console Generations”. Journal of Sound and Music in Games, October 2024, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 34-57.

Press articles and online publications

• BATCHELOR, James. “Embracer acquires Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal and Square Enix Montreal for $300m”. GamesIndustry.biz, 2 May 2022. Accessed 24 September 2026.

• BASHAAR, Chris. “Tomb Raider I-III Remastered PS4 & PS5 features detailed, new key art revealed”. PlayStation Blog, 16 January 2024.

• MUTINOUS CORE. “Introducing Halo: Campaign Evolved”. Halo Waypoint, publication date not confirmed.

• DOCTORM64. “No future for AM2R”. Project AM2R, 2 September 2016.

• « Une résurrection du nom de Crystal Dynamics ». In Tomb Raider : un regard sur un mythe. Jeuxvideo.com, author and publication date not confirmed.

Digital sources and official documentation

• BENOIST, David. « La mémoire des jeux vidéo ». Chroniques, No. 97, Bibliothèque nationale de France, April-July 2023.

• Ubisoft, with contributions from the Ubisoft Ivory Tower team. “An Update on The Crew”. Ubisoft, 14 December 2023.

• European Commission. “14th valid initiative ‘Stop Destroying Videogames’ submitted to the Commission for examination”. European Citizens’ Initiative, 26 January 2026.

• Jeuxvideo.com. « On a vu TOMB RAIDER Legacy of Atlantis : Oubliez le simple remake, c’est une tuerie ! 🟢 PREVIEW ». YouTube, publication date not confirmed. Accessed 26 September 2026.

• Amazon Game Studios. Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis, official presentation, undated.

• CD Projekt RED. The Witcher 3 REDkit, official documentation, undated.

• Crowbar Collective. “Frequently Asked Questions (Updated)”. Steam Community, undated.

• Crowbar Collective. Black Mesa End User License Agreement. Steam, undated.

Grégory CAMPISTRONModder, director of Project Conquerors VSF, co-director of FrogbitFaris MELAHILawyer in intellectual property and audiovisual law, certified DPOMoez RAISCo-founder, publication director and lawyer in intellectual property and digital law

https://lexludica.com/en/articles/remaking-a-video-game