[quote who="GMOrz" reply="636" id="3721779"] Could you point to other examples of the trademark holder being obliged to change their product, without violating the gag order? [/quote] What do you mean? Those two things aren't related.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="4" id="3719151"] Quoting BionicDance, reply 3 Gotcha. ...the X-rated DLC will be the bit you charge for, won't it. [e digicons];)[/e] The Syreen DLC will probably involve a lot of things... [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] &nb
[quote who="Taslios" reply="554" id="3718395"] I keep watching that video and wondering how on earth did did not get stung..... [/quote] The secret there is picking the right bees. [spoiler]Specifically male bees[/spoiler]
[quote who="PRHMro" reply="551" id="3718267"] Quoting Astrobia, reply 550 Frogs are less useful in a fight... Yes yes, there are dart frogs. But venomous minions are still more useful than poisonous ones. With this obsession with fighting, it's easy to see that this is a video gamers' communit
[quote who="Jafo" reply="549" id="3718239"] Quoting Astrobia, reply 548 Frogboy is well known for his bee handling: And frogs....hence his handle [see what I did there?]...[e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] Frogs are less useful in a fight... Yes yes, there are dart frogs. But ven
[quote who="GMOrz" reply="547" id="3718221"] Thanks for the links. It still seems like absent the "evil villain" theory, P&F have no motive to do this because it would reveal them as blatant villains, get them blacklisted from the industry, and they'd get crushed in the legal aftermath. [/quote] Yeah. They want to be very sure of the outcome, because it's not something you want to be throwing out there just to see how the chips will fall. But since they aren't c
[quote who="BionicDance" reply="543" id="3718153"] I think we're all missing the real issue here: who would win in a fist fight, Frogboy or P&F? [/quote] Are P&F allergic to bees?
[quote who="GMOrz" reply="538" id="3718077"] It's genius really. Evil genius. But never the less, genius. When you have to compare your opposition to a cartoon super-villain to justify your narrative, you should really think twice about whether the facts support your narrative. [e digicons]:)[/e] (BTW, It's Xanatos, not Xanadu. Spoiler alert: he ends up being one of the good guys in the end.) [/quote] You are correct about i
[quote who="sareth01" reply="56" id="3718018"] I think Bethesda in particular is getting so big that it wants a piece of the user data game, or at least manipulating their customers to give them really accurate feedback. I could see fallout76/eso6 as the right experiment for this. They know both IP's and how they perform in the market, they have huge established fan bases. I think Fallout 76 is a lucrative diversion that will create nostalgia later on, drivin
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="51" id="3717949"] What will be interesting is to see if we meet our goal for SCO to be a MSORPG (massively single player Online game) in the sense that players who want to solve some of the more challenging missions will likely need to talk to others online. [/quote] In the sense that it's an ARG and it is designed around actually needing missing pieces from other peoples playthroughs? Or in the sense is big and complicated and really requires a l
The people trying to minimise the significance of the DCMA takedown notices clearly haven't been following how abuse of DCMA's has been having an impact in other industries. Their position seems to be P&F simply wouldn't do it if they were wrong to do so. Well, they bloody want to hope so. If the DCMA for SC3 doesn't hold up the potential penalties for that are far from trivial and would certainly work against them in a slander claim. Ironically all the P&F fans claiming SD has c
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="9" id="3717431"] My comment on the single v multiplayer topic would be longer than Astrobia's, which is why I didn't make one;-) [/quote] You insult my honour with your outrageous assertion. You claim the impossible. You would starve to death while constructing such a pillar. :-P
Oh man, this topic... Forget a wall of text I'm going to tower of babel this shit. The thing is for most genres multiplayer can be a good value add. But it all depends how it's implemented. But implemented right it's the easiest way to add the much sort over "replayability" factor. Of course, it's also easy to abuse so it's a mixed back. But it also has a lot of secondary benefits. Take FPS for example. Singleplayer campaigns are becoming rarer and rarer because so little of p
[quote who="barjedzik" reply="455" id="3714703"] However, I still think that the best course of action would be still to bring this to a conclusion that both parties would find agreeable. That is my hope. Quite foolish perhaps but oh well [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Man. You say that like they haven't repeatedly expressed that's what they've been working for since the beginning. Or like they haven't reaffirmed they are still trying to with subsequent updates.
[quote who="GMOrz" reply="450" id="3714653"]Wanting to understand other people is disingenious? Really?[/quote] I want to believe that was the result of a genuine comprehension problem otherwise you are really doubling down on the disingenuousness. But on the of chance, you did indeed misread what I wrote just this once I will reiterate. It is disingenuous to FEIGN an interest in another's side for the expressed purpose of drawing out the argument and
[quote who="Elestan" reply="431" id="3714481"]I think it's pretty clear that I don't want UQM shut down...but what I would like is to have some clarity about Stardock's interpretation of trademark law from a source not affiliated with Stardock. If you were to post the case law that you think is most relevant, that could do the trick. [/quote] I think this pretty much sums up why I can't take you seriously Elestan. This short paragraph is wholly revealing as to your intent a
[quote who="GMOrz" reply="324" id="3713914"] The DMCA is not "nuclear" - it's a very common legal procedure. [/quote] You're just debating adjectives there. Sure, offshore nuclear testing in international waters isn't the same thing as a full-fledged global nuclear purge strike, but it is neither the less crossing the line into participating in a nuclear arms race. But ignoring the colourful analogy we basically agree they crossed the line from p
[quote who="GMOrz" reply="303" id="3713860"] 1: Assuming Stardock wins, it seems incredibly unlikely that the original Ur-Quan plotline will get continued by it's original authors. That makes me sad, because that's the story I want to see. That is, of course, Stardock's right, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy with it. 2: Stardock went back on it's word. They said they wouldn't use the classic races, and that P&F were welcome to use those races, but now they'r
[quote who="zwabbit" reply="269" id="3713620"] Unless his interpretation is you trademark "only" a word or symbol, which is emphatically not the case. Trademarks have always involved more than just a singular word or symbol, they encompass the entire network of ideas and concepts that is built up around the word/symbol. There are limits, yes, but they are not so narrow as to be just the word or symbol. [/quote] Actually, that's covered by the "symbol" aspect.
[quote who="Jafo" reply="251" id="3712932"] Astrobia ....why am I being quoted? I'm the last person who sees any logic in any of this armchair lawyering/discussion. There are people on various forum threads who clearly suffer from ADHD and/or OCD and are analyzing everything to death. [/quote] I know. That is why you are being quoted. I'm agreeing with you. Man... What does it say about this thread that
[quote who="Jafo" reply="242" id="3712772"]So much effort to [attempt to] rewrite reality....if it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's probably.....a duck...[e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] I can't get over how dedicated some people are to debating the legalities despite not being lawyers. While actual lawyers might speculate, they aren't going to argue because they know that is exactly what is going to be done and ultimately concluded in court anyway. I
[quote who="SWVRoma" reply="223" id="3712226"] There was a man who claimed for decades to the Emperor of the United States out in San Fransisco. They even printed money for him. That doesn't mean he was, in fact, Emperor of the United States. [/quote] To be fair, he was only slightly more crazy than the current Emperor. So I can see why people would find his claim believable. I agree the legalese of the "creator" debate is nonsensical
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="60" id="3706599"] From a lay person point of view, I have for years considered them the creators of the game. But when push comes to shove and you're trying to use that in commerce in a hostile way, then the lawyers are going to point out that, yea, no legally Accolade created it. You guys were the ones contracted to produce content to be licensed back and put in. In short: If a journalist (or me or Greg or you) wants to call
Out of curiosity since this sort of thing isn't new by any stretch. When you see a publisher or a Kickstarter announce that their team includes "ex-members of Mythic Entertainment" are people still gullible enough to believe that this is the next game from the creators of Dark Age of Camelot? I mean that's certainly what the marketing implies and I must have seen headlines that say as much after such announcements some 50+ times and probably all for different projects. Seriously it feels
I have to admit, knowing Stardock owned the trademark I was under the impression that Ghost of the Precursors was being done under Stardock and have even gone as far to say to other people that Stardock was developing 2 Star Control games, one sequel based on the old ones and one unrelated 'possibly prequel' set in a new universe. Which was the interpretation I had gleaned from conflicting articles which didn't make it clear and lead me to a conclusion that was clearly wrong...