Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Wasteland Inxile forces One-Man Studio to Change the Name of their game

Self-Ejected

Excidium II

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,866,227
Location
Third World
Yes, you are right. I don't see anything wrong with this. They have a legitimate claim. And all edginess aside, I'm not against this particular dev, or any other. But it's bothersome, from someone from a westenrn country that believes in Capitalism, that things like ownership rights are so casually dismissed. Someone worked really hard to establish Wasteland and took a ton of risk. Someone also was able to trademark the name in a video game. That is a positive thing. We shouldn't let people infringe on that just because some one man studio does it 20+ years later.

As to why they don't pick on Ubisoft? Obviously, because they don't have the resources. That's business. I don't feel bad about that either. And I'm pretty sure if you could quantify the value of an IP into something physical, you'd probably see Wasteland's value chipped away a bit by Ubisoft's infringement. I honestly believe that.
But that shit only makes sense if it's intended to mislead the consumer like all those candy crush synonyms on app store. What InXile does is just bullying because they can.

Also Fargo's passive aggressive tweet to Bethesda was p. pathetic. :lol:
 

Kem0sabe

Arcane
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
13,107
Location
Azores Islands
I'm gonna make a game called Angry Pepsi-Cola's new Barbie adventure.

If I get shut down someone ELSE is being a dick!

Amirite guise?

Apart from Angry, none of these are commonly used words you twat.
Wasteland is, always has been and we've in a fucking post-apocalyptic zombie craze wave for a couple years...Pushing "wasteland", especially in this context, is just a fucking dick move, allowed by a fucking retarded justice system. Period.

Don't blame the player blame the game. You guys are getting way too invested over some clickbait indie dev.

Learn 2 business or gtfo. You guys are just excusong his lazines for not doing a quick trademark search online. It takes literally 5 minutes.

Then why doesnt inxile go after american wasteland or wasteland workshop or anything else that uses the word? because they know that they will be eaten up in court, they are acting like cunts going after those that have less means than themselves, trying to bully them without going to court.

Yes, you are right. I don't see anything wrong with this. They have a legitimate claim. And all edginess aside, I'm not against this particular dev, or any other. But it's bothersome, from someone from a westenrn country that believes in Capitalism, that things like ownership rights are so casually dismissed. Someone worked really hard to establish Wasteland and took a ton of risk. Someone also was able to trademark the name in a video game. That is a positive thing. We shouldn't let people infringe on that just because some one man studio does it 20+ years later.

As to why they don't pick on Ubisoft? Obviously, because they don't have the resources. That's business. I don't feel bad about that either. And I'm pretty sure if you could quantify the value of an IP into something physical, you'd probably see Wasteland's value chipped away a bit by Ubisoft's infringement. I honestly believe that.

Trademarking unique created words, terms or word play, that are not common use is acceptable, like coca-cola, Pepsi, burger king... trademarking something like "Wasteland" "Saga" "Candy" "scrolls" "Rebellion" is ridiculous and stifles the industry... because the cost defense is huge.

Fargo isnt doing this to defend a ridiculously niche IP, with insignificant sales.
 

Kaivokz

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,505
Fuckin' lame, inXile. Just fuckin' lame. You aren't unique geniuses for using the word wasteland to... describe a fucking wasteland.
 

Lucky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
672
It's like I'm surrounded by people who know nothing of philosophy of law and are just spouting gibberish.

Yes, you are right. I don't see anything wrong with this. They have a legitimate claim. And all edginess aside, I'm not against this particular dev, or any other. But it's bothersome, from someone from a westenrn country that believes in Capitalism, that things like ownership rights are so casually dismissed. Someone worked really hard to establish Wasteland and took a ton of risk. Someone also was able to trademark the name in a video game. That is a positive thing. We shouldn't let people infringe on that just because some one man studio does it 20+ years later.

As to why they don't pick on Ubisoft? Obviously, because they don't have the resources. That's business. I don't feel bad about that either. And I'm pretty sure if you could quantify the value of an IP into something physical, you'd probably see Wasteland's value chipped away a bit by Ubisoft's infringement. I honestly believe that.

What does this even mean? Some weird secular sermon? You're advocating for a bizarre and extreme interpretation of IP rights while at the same rendering them completely pointless.
 

Mustawd

Guest
You're advocating for a bizarre and extreme interpretation of IP rights while at the same rendering them completely pointless.

The law says you can protect your IP rights. If inXile wants to fall on their sword and in the process go bankrupt to do that it's their prerogative to do so. If they do not want to it is also their prerogative. It's on them to sue and protect their property. There are a million similar situations NOT related to IP rights. And if/when a large company loses a suit to a smaller company, they usually get hit hard with punitive damages. So it's at least viable long term (theoretically) if inXile wants to fight that fight.


What's the alternative? The target of a suit must provide resources to be sued? Give me a break. It's an imperfect world. You can't craft a perfect system.
 

Mustawd

Guest
But that shit only makes sense if it's intended to mislead the consumer like all those candy crush synonyms on app store. What InXile does is just bullying because they can.

Also Fargo's passive aggressive tweet to Bethesda was p. pathetic. :lol:

Well, that's one example, and I agree that it's pretty egregious. But having ownership to IP to me means you not only have the right not to be ripped off, but the right to shape and mold and market your IP how you want to. Having other people mess with it defeats the whole purpose of owning it in the first place.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Trademarking unique created words, terms or word play, that are not common use is acceptable, like coca-cola, Pepsi, burger king... trademarking something like "Wasteland" "Saga" "Candy" "scrolls" "Rebellion" is ridiculous and stifles the industry... because the cost defense is huge.


Hasn't Wasteland been trademarked before? Since the very first game? Didn't what come out of that become a whole new IP called Fallout?

And arguing that not being able to copy previous IPs is stifling creativity is laughable. The industry is already suffering from an influx of derivative shovelware from both mobile games as well as indie PC devs.
 

Lucky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
672
The law says you can protect your IP rights. If inXile wants to fall on their sword and in the process go bankrupt to do that it's their prerogative to do so. If they do not want to it is also their prerogative. It's on them to sue and protect their property. There are a million similar situations NOT related to IP rights. And if/when a large company loses a suit to a smaller company, they usually get hit hard with punitive damages. So it's at least viable long term (theoretically) if inXile wants to fight that fight.


What's the alternative? The target of a suit must provide resources to be sued? Give me a break. It's an imperfect world. You can't craft a perfect system.

It's really not that simple, not in the least because of what those rights are in the first place, where they apply and what the nature and purpose of property in the intellectual sense even is. The laws in question; the precedents and where they apply; the agreements; the compromises and how this all factors into the internet as still relatively uncharted legally speaking. What you're stating is removed to a degree from how all the different systems work that there really isn't much to comment on beyond going into extensive detail or a simple no.

Speaking without the details available to me, I'd not even consider it unlikely if inXile would get smashed if someone were to call their bluff and this case was properly be taken to court. Their trademark is ridiculously flimsy to begin with and they'd have to hope that the judge gets bamboozled into solely accepting their interpretation of the class of the right and would not take into account that the word wasteland was never exclusive to begin with. Realistically, inXile is only in a position to pick on weak little companies that either can't afford to take them on or don't know any better.

As for a better system, that's way to broad a question. There's extensive debate solely on how to replace aspects of the American IP system, let alone the whole of it. Alternatives are an even bigger can of worms.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
2,071
Location
Siberia
Reminds me of bethesda suing some small TCG game devs because it was called Scrolls.

Fargo's whining about fallout 4 workshop makes it even funnier, what a cunt.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
2,071
Location
Siberia
Reminds me of bethesda suing some small TCG game devs because it was called Scrolls.

Fargo's whining about fallout 4 workshop makes it even funnier, what a cunt.
The "small TCG game dev" was the developer of Minecraft :M

There were like two people working on it, That Scrolls game never had any exposure to begin with, I learnt about after the whole suing business. AFAIK it had steady online of 500 people and either died or on it's way out.

Point is, it had nothing to do with TES and wasn't even competing with it for the same market and yet..
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
Doesn't matter, Fargo and inxile by association are cunts for picking on smaller developers and trying to bully them into changing the name of their games while leaving bigger studios alone because they have the money to defend themselves more effectively.

Well sure but Fargo is a greedy suit, has been that during most of his involvement with the gaming industry. He's just behaving like one on the level that he can.
 

valcik

Arcane
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,864,690
Location
SVK
Mr. Fargo should explain this, instead of suing poor fuckers:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/scavengers-of-the-mutant-world
The game includes character generation and modification of skills and attributes (plus the character's face). It features party management, simple top-down turn-based combat style and randomly made map every time the player launches the game.
1qzbF.png

This game was released in the same year as Wasteland, both looks surprisingly similar to me.
 

Mustawd

Guest
It's really not that simple, not in the least because of what those rights are in the first place, where they apply and what the nature and purpose of property in the intellectual sense even is. The laws in question; the precedents and where they apply; the agreements; the compromises and how this all factors into the internet as still relatively uncharted legally speaking. What you're stating is removed to a degree from how all the different systems work that there really isn't much to comment on beyond going into extensive detail or a simple no.

Speaking without the details available to me, I'd not even consider it unlikely if inXile would get smashed if someone were to call their bluff and this case was properly be taken to court. Their trademark is ridiculously flimsy to begin with and they'd have to hope that the judge gets bamboozled into solely accepting their interpretation of the class of the right and would not take into account that the word wasteland was never exclusive to begin with. Realistically, inXile is only in a position to pick on weak little companies that either can't afford to take them on or don't know any better.

As for a better system, that's way to broad a question. There's extensive debate solely on how to replace aspects of the American IP system, let alone the whole of it. Alternatives are an even bigger can of worms.

It's not just this particular company. By leaning on the dev to change his name it sends a message to other devs who might go much farther than the dev in question.


And as far as the "bullying" goes? I just don't buy it. When you go into business you enter in a world of competition, limited resources, and a field of competitors that knows more about the business, laws, and regulatory requirements than you do. Are they supposed to not be able to compete with you effectively through price wars? Are they not allowed to use their influence to get better deals with suppliers than you, as a sole business owner, can get? Are they not allowed to offer exorbitant salaries to potential employees to gather the top talent? Are these tactics bullying? To others, maybe. Not to me. If I had to make the decision if I was inXile, I would do it. Yeah, send them a C&D. F' him. He decided not to do it himself, so I'll try and force him to. If the community balks, probably try and minimize it and leave other devs alone, and hope this one is a deterrent. If the community doesn't care as a whole, then keep doing it as long as I feel it is truly necessary.

When you run a business your success is not just profits. It affects the ability to engage in other projects, to hire more people, to pay employees well, etc. etc. As long as it's within the law, I say it's fair game to at least do it. If it's an ethical gray area, proceed with caution, but it does not automatically mean do nothing. And in my opinion, they are well within their rights, and IMO well within ethical standards. So yah, it doesn't really bother me.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Mr. Fargo should explain this, instead of suing poor fuckers:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/scavengers-of-the-mutant-world
The game includes character generation and modification of skills and attributes (plus the character's face). It features party management, simple top-down turn-based combat style and randomly made map every time the player launches the game.
1qzbF.png

This game was released in the same year as Wasteland, both looks surprisingly similar to me.


In b4 3 more C&Ds are sent out. It's like we're the paralegals of video game companies.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
It's not just this particular company. By leaning on the dev to change his name it sends a message to other devs who might go much farther than the dev in question.


And as far as the "bullying" goes? I just don't buy it. When you go into business you enter in a world of competition, limited resources, and a field of competitors that knows more about the business, laws, and regulatory requirements than you do. Are they supposed to not be able to compete with you effectively through price wars? Are they not allowed to use their influence to get better deals with suppliers than you, as a sole business owner, can get? Are they not allowed to offer exorbitant salaries to potential employees to gather the top talent? Are these tactics bullying? To others, maybe. Not to me. If I had to make the decision if I was inXile, I would do it. Yeah, send them a C&D. F' him. He decided not to do it himself, so I'll try and force him to. If the community balks, probably try and minimize it and leave other devs alone, and hope this one is a deterrent. If the community doesn't care as a whole, then keep doing it as long as I feel it is truly necessary.

When you run a business your success is not just profits. It affects the ability to engage in other projects, to hire more people, to pay employees well, etc. etc. As long as it's within the law, I say it's fair game to at least do it. If it's an ethical gray area, proceed with caution, but it does not automatically mean do nothing. And in my opinion, they are well within their rights, and IMO well within ethical standards. So yah, it doesn't really bother me.

Problem is that in this case it's a company largely dependent on crowdfunding, which in turn is very dependent on the image of fight the power/sticking it to the man, bringing the old times back when it was more about making great games than profit etc. It's a question of whether Fargo can afford to come off as a greedy businessman, is it worth it to potentially damage your image on an off chance someone decides to rip off Wasteland and profit off it in the future.

Opting out of the prevalent publisher-developer model in the industry and relying on crowdfunding comes with many advantages but you also have to thread more carefully in some areas.
 

Kem0sabe

Arcane
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
13,107
Location
Azores Islands
It's not just this particular company. By leaning on the dev to change his name it sends a message to other devs who might go much farther than the dev in question.


And as far as the "bullying" goes? I just don't buy it. When you go into business you enter in a world of competition, limited resources, and a field of competitors that knows more about the business, laws, and regulatory requirements than you do. Are they supposed to not be able to compete with you effectively through price wars? Are they not allowed to use their influence to get better deals with suppliers than you, as a sole business owner, can get? Are they not allowed to offer exorbitant salaries to potential employees to gather the top talent? Are these tactics bullying? To others, maybe. Not to me. If I had to make the decision if I was inXile, I would do it. Yeah, send them a C&D. F' him. He decided not to do it himself, so I'll try and force him to. If the community balks, probably try and minimize it and leave other devs alone, and hope this one is a deterrent. If the community doesn't care as a whole, then keep doing it as long as I feel it is truly necessary.

When you run a business your success is not just profits. It affects the ability to engage in other projects, to hire more people, to pay employees well, etc. etc. As long as it's within the law, I say it's fair game to at least do it. If it's an ethical gray area, proceed with caution, but it does not automatically mean do nothing. And in my opinion, they are well within their rights, and IMO well within ethical standards. So yah, it doesn't really bother me.
Fargo doesn't run a business, he runs his company only by the goodwill of the community of backers that gave him money to make wasteland 2, torment and bards tale...

This fucker, with all the backer money in his pocket that allowed him to make wasteland 2, decided it was good business to go after a small dev because it had wasteland in the title of his game, not that it was called simply wasteland, or was an rpg.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Problem is that in this case it's a company largely dependent on crowdfunding, which in turn is very dependent on the image of fight the power/sticking it to the man, bringing the old times back when it was more about making great games than profit etc. It's a question of whether Fargo can afford to come off as a greedy businessman, is it worth it to potentially damage your image on an off chance someone decides to rip off Wasteland and profit off it in the future.

Fargo doesn't run a business, he runs his company only by the goodwill of the community of backers that gave him money to make wasteland 2, torment and bards tale...

This fucker, with all the backer money in his pocket that allowed him to make wasteland 2, decided it was good business to go after a small dev because it had wasteland in the title of his game, not that it was called simply wasteland, or was an rpg.


Totally agree with you guys. I personally don';t give a crap. But it's a calculated risk to do this if it bothers people. Look, I'm not saying you all should not care. I'm just explaining why I don't.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
4,253
But it's a calculated risk to do this if it bothers people. Look, I'm not saying you all should not care. I'm just explaining why I don't.

Mugging people on the street is also a calculated risk. Either you get caught or run away with money.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom