Hello.
First, allow me to start off by laughing at some of the posts in the first link. The idea of calling Outpost 2 another "version" of the original Outpost game as if it were a revision (to me) demonstrates a person who has not actually played either game for more than a few minutes. Additionally, the thought of the original being better with it's many game-crashing bugs gives opportunity for a face palm.
As to the critical review, I am wondering if the "bugginess" part was meant for the first game. What killed Outpost 2's potential was the fact that people saw the title, thought of the first game riddled with all kinds of bugs and rather dry game play, and decided not to give it a chance. It is a case of a game that is a sequel in title and more of a "well, here's what we should have done" in execution.
On to the actual question, though. Yes, it was published by Sierra Online as it was known back then. As Activision has bought out the company, they most likely hold the trademarks and associated legal rights to the game. As a community that has continued to play a game from 1997, we have had to make our own tweaks here and there to make sure the game runs, but I know personally that the original CD version runs fine on windows 7.
Personally, if the game were re-released, I would like to see some of the features we were promised but didn't make it into the game integrated (one such feature was a built in map/scenario editor, but a member of the community managed to make a very nice map editor himself). Overall, this game is a great example of the idea that the gameplay is one of the most important aspects of the game and a re-release would give new players a chance to experience it.
