I can only assume they will be recording a christmas single that will rocket to number one in the charts like that Bob Geldof fella did.
Splodge's forum posts
I felt bad about the rhinos in the beginning, but then I was minding my own business parked up admiring a nice view while lighting a cigarette, and a fucking rhino charged out of the brush and dlipped my jeep end over end of a cliff. I promptly exploded.
It's on now. They started it.
Also, he is not "Selling his stuff on the front page." That's disingenuous. It's his twitter feed that is linked to the site, which is a feature put there by the folks who made it. He is not responsible for that.
It's his personal twitter feed, and he can do what he wants with it. It's linked on the site, sure, but that does not equate to the site endorsing his personal ventures. If it bothers you, you should make note of it, message Rorie or someone on the staff, and then move on.
He is great. My one and only concern with the podcast is that Dan is still finding his groove, and Drew is not the type to jump in on every conversation, so sometimes it feels like the Brad and Jeff show. It's not a huge deal, and hopefully it will naturally improve.
What should he be doing? Calling paramedics? Defibrilating himself? Of course they will be similar.
It's a petty complaint. I've been playing the game in a mate's house and it is fantastic. There is a ton of new content on top of what is already a fantastic base. Just enjoy it and stop picking it apart!
Edit: @patrickklepek might still find all this interesting. Personally, I would love to know what the real reasoning is behind Rebellion's behavior. A spurious copyright claim is usually something expected from copyright trolls and con-artists.
It seems like the typical PR defense of this vile shit is "well, we have to protect our brand, or else then anyone could use our name for whatever they want" which, in addition to being a BS "slippery slope" fallacy, just seems logically wrong. Even if all of that is true, what is stopping Rebellion games from approaching Ironclad and saying "We need to protect our brand, but we'll be happy to license our brand to you for the grand total of one dollar"?
That way, everything is nice and legal, and the big company doesn't risk setting any precedent of not protecting their brand. This sort of "we have to destroy you to protect ourselves" logic is absurd, and seems to be completely unnecessary.
It's predatory litigation. I would not be surprised if they were looking for another revenue stream and their lawyers came up with it. They could have seen what happened with EA and Mojang, and figured they could get a settlement. Any company that engages in this kind of behaviour is not beyond those kind of tactics.
If that is the case, ironically, all they have managed to do is set precedent for any future claims of this kind of nonsense.
Let's maybe not jump to "fuck Rebellion," as the article states that it's a company of 250 people.
I think it's a safe assumption that not all 250 people wanted to sue in this case. In fact, I'd say it was most likely a few rude higher ups.
Either way though, fuck Rebellion games, as god damn they are so bad. And all 250 people had a hand in em.
I don't think anyone is saying "fuck the rank and file programmers at rebellion". It's pretty clear these decisions are made by management and legal counsel.