- Kirby's Epic Yarn
- Super Meat Boy
- Rayman Origins
CupOfDoom's forum posts
There is alot going on in you post. The most confusing part being this idea of a "license" being tied to a person.
H1Z1 licensed the BR idea from Greene for their use and utilized him in the development of H1Z1, which is completely fine, and completely different than Fortnite ripping off PUBG without licensure and using PUBGs name without consent to try and push their own game.
As for Daybreak, they licensed the concept from Greene, hired him as a consultant for a set period of time to help develop H1Z1, and everyone amicably parted ways when his time as a consultant was over. At that point, the guy was 100% free to do what he wanted, and Bluehole scooped him up to make PUBG. I haven't seen anything suggesting Daybreak is "pissed"; they got what they wanted from Greene and essentially admitted that the concept is his by licensing it and bringing him in as a consultant in the first place.
As far as I know, and I am not a lawyer, Daybreak didn't "license" anything from Brenden Greene. They hired him as a consultant. All that means is that work that he did for Daybreak during his time there is theirs and, he retains no other rights over the work. The only way to license an idea is if you have a patent on it. To my knowledge there is no patent on Battle Royale or, any other game modes.
The other point that you keep mentioning is that Fortnite used the PUBG in the marketing. The only time this happened was in a press release for the game mode where they say "Yeah, we made a PVP mode for Fortnite. We love Battle Royale games like PUBG and thought that Fortnite would make a great foundation for our own version". That is it.
There is also this quote where you get mad at capitalism:
It would be competition if they priced it alongside or even near PUBG, or if they hadn't made certain to beat PUBG to the console market. Except they had zero interest in trying to take on PUBG straight-up because they knew they'd come up woefully short. So instead, they undercut PUBG in price and put Fortnite on consoles before PUBG.
That is literally how capitalism and competition work. Undercutting someone else on price or releasing your product to a wider market are the core tenants of the system.
And finally, to you point about anarchy and consequences of this suit:
If PUBG wins this, all it will have established is that Fortnite ripped off PUBG, so let's stop acting like legal anarchy will ensue. Anyone trying to make a "similar gameplay mechanics" suit will still have to find a valid basis for such, and will likely not have anywhere near as good of an argument as PUBG does here. That said, PUBG's best legal argument here probably isn't simply that the gameplay mechanics are similar, it's that the PUBG name was used in Fortnite's marketing without PUBG's blessing. This erases any doubt as to their intentional theft of concept, establishes that Fortnite specifically tried to prop up their game on the merits of PUBG, and that Fortnite did so against the wishes of PUBG to create a very real grievance to be potentially rectified here with the suit.
Fortnite and PUBG have some key differences that anyone who has played both could tell you instantly. PUBG is a very tactical game with real world weapons, bullet drop, attachments for various types recoil compensation, and a commitment to realism. Fortnite is an arcadey game about building, everything is very colorful with silly names, weapons have rarity and pop out of a person like confetti when they die, you can break down every structure on the map with your pickax, and there is a commitment to being silly over any kind of realism.
If you say that all of those differences don't matter then, you are opening Pandora's box leading to a bunch of ridiculous lawsuits. For example, Riot could then sue Valve over DOTA 2. Valve could sue Activision over the "Search and Destroy" mode in COD, a direct rip off of Counter Strikes main mode. All of the survival games on Steam could be sued by Mojang, they all have many mechanics similar to Minecraft. It would all be anarchy.
I don't think Roseanne could continue without Roseanne. Not say the other performers are bad or that John Goodman couldn't carry a show on his own. Just, that her name is on the show and, that a drastic change in dynamic would probably kill the show. Other shows that changed lead characters did not last long after. The same thing with House of Cards. The entire show is based around Kevin Spacey's character. If you get rid of his character then what is the point of the show?
The only time a show could away with it is if its animated. In which case they could change actors and keep the character. Even a show like Game of Thrones might not be able to recover if they were forced to fire an actress like Emila Clarke as, it would take all the wind out the sails for climax the show has spent many seasons building to.
@notnert427: crazy to me that you're legitimately ok with a legal precedent being set that it's not okay to copy game mechanics. PUBG itself copied other games. Who fucking cares if Fortnite was failing before adding a battle royale mode? PUBG doesn't have a monopoly on battle royale, and it would be ridiculous if they legally did.
I'm far more concerned with a precedent being set by Fortnite's success that it is okay to blatantly copy other games. The games PUBG supposedly "copied" are either Greene's own work in the genre (which dates back a long-ass time) or non-starters like The Culling that, if anything, served as evidence that the market didn't want a BR game until PUBG got it right and proved that it did, at which point Fortnite shows up and happily bandwagons literally on PUBGs name to prop up their shitty game.
A couple of points here. One is that, as you recognize, there were other games in the genre before PUBG. H1Z1 was successful until PUBG "blatantly copied" their game. If anything, Daybreak would have more of a case against Bluehole, because they literally hired the same designer to make their game. The other point is that Fortnite is not the first example of games becoming successful by "blatantly copying" another game. That precedent was set many years ago. Minecraft for example, was another take on the same kind of game as Infiniminer. Notch even cited that game directly as his inspiration. Does that mean that Mojang owes another company a bunch of money because Minecraft was more successful?
Its going to be Fallout 4 on the Switch. They already released ports of DOOM and Skyrim for the console so it makes sense that they would port more games. Also, its an announcement that wouldn't be exciting enough for their stage show. A spin off announcement would be an E3 thing.
One way I could see PUBG having a claim is if EPIC used code specific to PUBG and not previously in Unreal. That or, maybe a breach of contract thing where EPIC promised to provide some specific support to PUBG that was not followed through on when Fortnite became popular. I seriously doubt that a case based on pure copying would be successful because of how different the two games are.
The other point in PUBG's favor is that the case was filled in South Korea, where they are based, which probably gives them a slight edge.
I want to preface this by saying that I hope it releases and is amazing. It would be extremely heartbreaking if this whole thing turned out to be a scam. I am however skeptical that the game ever releases in a state that will live up to the expectations. Those being the ability to do anything and everything you could ever imagine in a space sim. The subreddit for this game is full of people posting about how when the game releases they will be space traders, or pirates, or captains of an army. All that on top of the fact that the game has been in development for ~6 years and only has a tiny fraction of the feature set promised.
It is also extremely concerning that with very little game to show people are still buying into the game. There funding page shows that they still manage to pull in over $2million a month.
On both this weeks Bombcast and Monday's Waypoint Radio, the hosts were getting excited about all of the possible things people could make with the in-depth tool set, and Media Molecule was apparently saying things like "we want people to be able to make games in Dreams". I just don't get. Both who is this for and, why anyone is excited about it?
If the tools are good enough then they just made a version of Unity where the creations are locked inside a console game. I just don't see why anyone would want to spend the time making an entire game in Dreams when the tools and distribution are already simple on PC.