Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
M.Andersson(SWE)

BI press release Re: OFP title and development

Recommended Posts

Owning the trademark means owning the rights to slap this name on their products, no? If they own the brand they can make all the sequels they want i guess, they could even make a space rangers VS aliens game and call it OPF: Space invasion... wich is sort of what Ubisoft did to GR (AW).

Going on in circles with the name thing is a no winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say i have mixed feelings about Maruk's letter.

What matters is the game, not the name - absolutely true!

But: why oh why protesting at all? Why not just leave them sell the game and see how it goes? Why do you care?

I think it's a sign of weakness to react in such a way, i mean (i guess) CM can legally do with the name whatever they want. This letter shows you guys think OpF2 could be a threat to your ArmA sales.

The purpose of the letter can't be to 'wake up' some players, and make them switching over to ArmA2, can it?

Cause it shouldn't really matter for us as gamers what we play as long as it's great fun. I played many many other games besides OpF, like BF, BF2, Cod4 etc etc. All good warfare games but still different from OpF/ArmA.

And guess what? If both ArmA2 and OpF2 will be great games, i'll buy them both.

I'd see to it my next game is really kicking *ss than to write letters tbh.

smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]But: why oh why protesting at all? Why not just leave them sell the game and see how it goes? Why do you care?

Because this is now in every gaming news website, making additional free advertisements for both rival games and companies wink_o.gif

In game business, you need to be vocal so everyone know your product exist, so you have more chances to sell to more people biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But a letter isn't the right way to mobilize gamers, an awesome video on YouTube/ a playable demo is. That would make everyone shut up.  biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Owning the trademark means owning the rights to slap this name on their products, no? If they own the brand they can make all the sequels they want i guess, they could even make a space rangers VS aliens game and call it OPF: Space invasion... wich is sort of what Ubisoft did to GR (AW).

Going on in circles with the name thing is a no winner.

Quote[/b] ]“In the license agreement, Bohemia Interactive expressly reserved the exclusive right to develop sequels to the original OFP game,†says Leora Herrmann of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, PL in Miami, attorneys for Bohemia Interactive. “Codemasters also acknowledged that Bohemia owns all the intellectual property in the game – except the words ‘Operation Flashpoint’,†adds Herrmann.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]But: why oh why protesting at all? Why not just leave them sell the game and see how it goes? Why do you care?

Because this is now in every gaming news website, making additional free advertisements for both rival games and companies wink_o.gif

Yeah...that's the first thing, great from the tactical poinf of view.

Secondly, and it's just my personal opinion, CM isn't playing fair, and BIS should have the right to protest!

I mean, who does disagree with the fact that It's the game (engine, music, campaign, artwork etc.) = BIS' work, what won all the prizes titles and popularity. It has nothing to do with CM (now), and they really shouldn't advertise ofp2 that way, because it is the sign of weaknes, moreover, lying to the potential customers in order to sell more copies (oh, it's sequel to ofp, let's buy it cuz the first game rox), and finally messing with the copyrights I think. They own the rights to the title only, right?

Why aren't they saying: "This game's title is taken from an award winning war simulator, done by BIS, and beside that it has nothing to do with that game, everything else is different and we've done it, not them, anyway, buy it, this game will rok, cause...it has the kewl title"

To me it was just a matter of time, and it's not BIS who should be blamed. I agree with them 100% whether marketing or copyrights-wise.

Bravo Marek!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, CM isn't playing fair.

BIS makes a game for them, winning all kinds of awards and all they get for it is percentage from sales.

Few years later CM's statements are full of "our OFP" and some d-bag (hi, Clive) even goes on claiming to be the "original developer".

Some of you might see this as a desperate move, but I believe otherwise.

Lately more and more people dislike big corporations and the little indy developer who is not afraid to stand firm is exactly who they will side with. And they'll tell their friends too!

This is exactly that type of advertisement BIS needs. Makes them look good, attracts attention to the game and is free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubisoft grabbed the Far cry name from Crytech and then advertised Far Cry 2 with:

Quote[/b] ]Far Cry 2 is the next-generation PC first-person shooter from Ubisoft, discover the real sequel to the award winning PC game.

This kind of thing is usual in the gaming industry, and as much of a BI fanboy I am, this sounds more like nonconstructive whining.

But at least it may get the word out there with this name confusion.

Quote[/b] ]

“In the license agreement, Bohemia Interactive expressly reserved the exclusive right to develop sequels to the original OFP game,â€

Go to court if the case is as good as it sounds. But why would CM ask for the rights of the name if they knew they couldn't make any sequels with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. BIS makes a compelling argument, assuming what they say is true / the whole story. Why should someone roll over and take #$@ if they have a legal contract that is being violated?

And the fundamental premise is sound: it is a bit of a lie to bill something as the "next generation of" a game, if you aren't retaining ANYTHING from the old game, except the name.

It isn't against the law to lie though, so it would come down to the contract to see if there is anything legally wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't against the law to lie though, so it would come down to the contract to see if there is anything legally wrong here.

Hi Barron

You are correct it is not illegal to lie.

It is illegal to lie about the contents of a product though. In the UK Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and others, plus various European Laws.

More importantly if you use the defense of "Yes I lied, that is what you do in advertising." As Fox News did in several cases, you are legally open to being called a liar.

Also Fox News had to put it in a public policy doccument to say they intended to lie as part of their Telvision Program Policy on the grounds they were public entertainment and not news.

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question everyone should be asking is this: "Why did Bohemia wait so long to hit them with this potential lawsuit over copyright violation?" The answer: because now it hurts CodeMasters a LOT more than if the issue was resolved before development started on OFP2.

I applaud Bohemia for standing up for their rights, and you know what? Good on ya for giving them a swift kick in the jimmy when they're "near" releasing OFP2. By waiting so long, CodeMasters has very little recourse now. Either they put the production on hold while a court figures everything out (meanwhile, Arma 2 gets released). Or they pay Bohemia an out-of-court settlement to a tune that Bohemia thinks sounds good. They're basically at the mercy of Bohemia right now, and I think that's a vicious and appropriate tactic to use in this circumstance.

Right on, Bohemia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that CM shouldn't tout OFP:DR as the 'return' of the original, since it is an entire reinvention, they do have the right to call it an 'official sequel', since they own the brand.  Of course, if they are getting involved in a legal struggle, due to the adversarial nature of modern law, it's often necessary to take an extreme view to counter the extreme view of the other side.  Then, it's up to the judge to pear down the bullshit to get to what the actual issue is, if it goes to court, or you have some room to manoeuvre if it goes to the negotiating table.

It does make 'good' news, though, and serves the purpose of getting game sites to snatch up the headlines.  If it bleeds it leads, and if it leads then they can get their message out there in the form of a legal contest.  I hope it doesn't blow up in their faces.  Contesting someone's right to develop official sequels to their owned trademark is a bit aggressive.

I think they're doing it now because now they realize the confusion in the game community, as the press release states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xfilesscullymulder.jpg

Nah, sadly CM's not really in a whole lot of trouble really. Worst case scenario they have to rebrand their product, but our esteemed colleague Mr. Kegetys has provided a working tool demonstrating how easy it is to generate new product names. Now if CM happens to use that tool, then that's a commercial usage violation of Finnish copyright statutes, I'm sure that the attorney's representing Rare Exports, LLC would be more than suitable to represent the plaintiff in that potential proceeding.

So once they got a new brand name, they just have some slaves, er I mean artists, drool over it for a couple days, then run it down to kinkos and run off a few dozen copies, and presto, history's rewritten, His Most Glorious and Exalted Emminency Clive of the Lindops (pbuh) has a fine new wardrobe worthy of most magnanimous praise, and we have world peace, end to hunger, disease, and global warming.

inlove.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct it is not illegal to lie.

It is illegal to lie on your resume, though, at least around here. I don't know if claiming you worked somewhere constitutes a resume, but he did *actually* lie on his resume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I noticed a while back is codemasters makes a lot of claims to having their own game engine.   Initially they refered to it as the "same engine used by DIRT".  Then they started calling it the Neon engine and later renamed it to EGO.  It turns out, they didn't even really write their on game engine.  They took Sony's PhyreEngine Cross-Platform graphics engine and modified it for all their racing games, including DIRT and soon OFP II.  Not that wikipedia is an ultimate source, but it explicitly states the engine is a derivative of the PHyreEngine, yet CM provides no credits for doing such.  The PhyreEngine is slated to be released to the public soon so they claim on their website.  I'm not certain much of what Codemasters says or claims is true.  I don't expect much from OFP II either as they have nothing but CGI and some shady advertising to show for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when CM say they are/were a "family" business, it was more in Mafia terms than in functional and caring terms. No doubt they built on the engine somewhat, but does Sony not mind the lack of recognition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why aren't they saying: "This game's title is taken from an award winning war simulator, done by BIS, and beside that it has nothing to do with that game, everything else is different and we've done it, not them, anyway, buy it, this game will rok, cause...it has the kewl title"

To me it was just a matter of time, and it's not BIS who should be blamed. I agree with them 100% whether marketing or copyrights-wise.

Bravo Marek!

Wow, Funnyguy1, you taking lessons from Plaintiff1? That's a truly facinating way to look at this. Truth being the most important...

@Walker: LOL, love the 'Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch'! I hope this does become such a tool for BIS. Kinda slimy of CM to scrape off the toejam from the OFP series and try to grow their own from it. (name and bare essentials.. that's all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]... they do have the right to call it an 'official sequel', since they own the brand...

I read that and thought "hmmm - what exactly is a sequel?" So I consulted the ol' Cambridge Dictionary and was given the following definition:

Quote[/b] ]1 a book, film or play which continues the story of a previous book etc:

I'm reading the sequel to 'Gone with the Wind'.

2 an event which happens after and is the result of an earlier event:

There was a dramatic sequel to last Thursday's scandalous revelations when the minister for trade suddenly announced his resignation.

Now I confess I've been too busy coding OFPEC lately to take much notice of OFP2 - or ArmAII for that matter - but from what knowledge I do have I think I'm right in saying that in terms of #1 above, the hype for Dragon Rising has yet to make mention of any of the original characters or storylines from CWC or Resistance.

In terms of #2 above, Codemasters' justification for calling Dragon Rising a sequel is pretty tenuous. It's a new product. ArmA is a 'result' of OFP, as one could probably trace the development of the software and techniques from one title to the next. All Codemasters have to work with is a genre which is the 'result' of the release of the original OFP.

All this is very easy to say, picking apart a definition for the word 'sequel' from a single source, and at the end of the day the legalities of this issue - if it ever gets that far - are beyond the scope of this thread and forum, unless there are any barristers present. Either way, there are two points I'd like to contribute to the conversation:

Given the size of BI as a business entity, it has a lot more to lose in terms of its employees' livelihoods. For that reason alone I think putting the record straight on all counts is only reasonable behaviour. Hype-tactics aside, I think it's right to call Codemasters on this issue, and any others which appear fallacious.

On the other hand, anyone who is going to read a review which says Dragon Rising is the sequel to the original Cold War Crisis, and from that infer that Dragon Rising is worth buying because of their positive past experience of CWC/Res, is probably already a member of the Community or at least knows where to look for the real story. I don't think BI has anything to worry about on that front.

The real battle will be fought in the pockets of the buying public, and all either company can do is ensure they release as good a product as they are capable of producing, and be open and honest about it. In that respect, BI currently leads the game by a few points. Whether that continues to be the case, only time (and in-game vids) will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! Wrong thread.. that will teach me to have multiple windows up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×