BI press release Re: OFP title and development

[max power 21]

I think that definition of sequel isn't all there is to be said about sequels. We're not really talking about what a sequel is, either, but what CM has a legal right to do. They can release a Bejewelled like game under the OFP name because they own the copyright. In fact, if they were to do that, I doubt BIS would have an issue.

[Maddmatt 1]

From what I understand is that the mere usage of the name "Operation Flashpoint" is not the problem. The problem is that they market it as the successor to the Operation Flashpoint that BIS created and contantly refer to BIS's work in their marketing, which creates a false impression for the customers and may end up being classified as false advertising.

If the agreement between BIS and Codemasters was that only BIS would be allowed to make a sequel, then it becomes more serious.

So I guess owning the name gives them the right to use it, but not the right to call it a sequel/successor. It is after all an entirely new and unrelated product.

I'm not an expert here, I have only briefly covered this kind stuff in school and university so my knowledge about it is far from perfect.

[mr.g-c 6]

I'm not an expert here, I have only briefly covered this kind stuff in school and university so my knowledge about it is far from perfect.

And also keep in mind, Laws are very different in each country on the planet. We are not yet living in the entirely united "brave new world (order)".  

But you are right though....

[max power 21]

So I guess owning the name gives them the right to use it, but not the right to call it a sequel/successor. It is after all an entirely new and unrelated product.

Right. I see what you're saying... and after rereading the article I see that you are correct.

That's a weird situation, isn't it?

BIS can't make a sequel, because they can't use the name, and CM can't make a sequel, because they are restricted by contracts.

On an unrelated note, the article says that BI has always 'owned the game 100%'. This isn't strictly true, either. CM owns some performances in there or something. It is a trifling matter but something about their letter that may be contested.

[Blackhawk 0]

This is getting serious - BIS sent a letter to Codemasters, Codemasters haven't replied yet.

What's going to happen, if they take CM to court they are going to need strong evidence.

I'm right behind you BI though, Codemasters have gone to far calling OPF2 the official sequel.

[shinRaiden 0]

@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)

Adumb loves you long time too.

I'm as much a lawyer of interwebs as Oh (Fishysticks): Dead Rats is a sequel without equal.

[maruk 80]

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.

Well, interesting comparison but I suggest to do some research first:

Ubisoft-Acquires-Far-Cry-Intellectual-Property-Perpetual-License-of-CryEngine/.

Because of major difference between situation of Far Cry and OFP, no, I don't believe this is "nonconstructive whining".

But yes, I also agree that after all what really matters is the game and not name (or "whining") so anyway this news has no relation to the quality of either game under development.

[max power 21]

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.

If you think that breaching contracts and violating rights isn't a big deal, you should come work for me. I have some contracts here you should sign!

[JeRK 0]

Lately I've been seeing many people on forums and such that thought that OFP2 was made by the same people as 1 due to this false advertising. Pisses me right off.

I'm with you too, BIS.

(god dammit that sounds corny)

[gonk 0]

I hope it all works out ok.... good luck bis.

[Pennywise 0]

Again, I'm not sure I'd sweat to much over it.  I don't think Codemasters will succeed to produce anything worth while.  However, it actually might make for good publicity before the release

Regarding the fundamental rights to ownership and trademarks.  BIS is right in defending it's position in the market. However, I would hate to see BIS get into a lengthy battle over property rights with Codemasters.  BIS, you guys already have enough on your hands as it is. If you just hold steady and complete your tasks at hand, I think ArmA II will speak for itself.  You guys have already hurdled the most difficult part, separating from Codemasters and rebuilding your game engine.  Now it's time for you guys to succeed Haven't you ever scene Dances with Wolves? "If you build it, they will come?" :P

Chances are, the economy is going to hit Codemasters any day. There's no doubt they are going to have to cut some fat in the next few weeks. I bet, taking some of workforce behind building OFP2. They probably aren't even close to release this summer.

[-Snafu- 78]

So when CM say they are/were a "family" business, it was more in Mafia terms than in functional and caring terms.

That was brilliant!

[desertjedi 3]

How the hell did these companies end up in such a bizarre situation where one owns the IP and one owns the name but not the right to produce sequels??? I don't know the history.

Me thinks this needs to be settled in court once and for all. Either CM can make a game using the OFP name or they can't. BI needs to press this - I can easily see a court deciding that this trademark infringement is causing monetary loss to BI.

And if CM only owns the name, what are the odds of them making a game so good and so similar to OFP that much of the community switches to their "sequel"? It would seem doubtful.

My worry is that both OFP 2 and ArmA 2 will be based on the same gameplay and things will get ugly.

Quote[/b] ]However, it actually might make for good publicity before the release

I can see it now - "WOOT! OFP2 is finally here! Oh, btw, you have to buy ArmA 2 to play it, not OFP 2."  

[jojimbo 0]

yeah,the farcry2 thing,i actually bought it and played it,it was a very good game,but rarely do you see a community like the one we have here,some of us have been here on and off for like 6 - 7 years,it's this that makes and breaks a game.

I am sure OFP2 will also be a good game,I'll definately buy it,play it and enjoy it,but i think it'll be a farycry2 thing and not stand the test of time.but hey,reflective water would be a start.

arma is ofp,cm can call their game whatever they want,but is will never be operation flashpoint

[Major Eyeswater 0]

I can see this press release being used as a very good publicity tool for BIS, I mean look at the way arma2 is shaping up, its shaping up brilliantly.

Now if fans of ofp2 are contributing to the ofp2 forums not fully knowing the past behind the ofp scene such as where the original was developed as the development teams have traded hands then if they look at this press release and see this random game they have never seen or heard before they will get searching into it.

With that they can see what a great game it will come to be and how much it relates to the true roots of the original ofp (ofcourse! ) from which they can see which game is truely the sequel.

Im sure you people are aware of the call of duty debate about which developers developed which version of call of duty.

Call of duty 3 was made by Treyarch which was known to be the "not-so-good" call of duty in the whole series, so when call of duty 5 came on the scene people were skeptical about how good this version is going to be when call of duty 4 made by infinity ward (same devs as cod1 and 2) was a smash hit.

It even made customers not purchase cod5 due to it being a  developed by a "less successful developer" without even playing the game!

Its all about reputation, the more publicity where BIS can state ofp2 is not made by the original crew of ofp1 then the worse reputation codemasters will get from which BIS can gain from and promote the true sequel!

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Glad you liked it, Snafu

I also agree that sometimes even bad publicity is good publicity.

[kegetys 2]

I updated my signature to help CM with a new name (If you hit the one-in-a-10-million chance of it saying 'Operation Flashpoint', ignore it )

[Heatseeker 0]

I think CM stoped refering to the original OPF a while ago...

They sure made huge claims back in 2007.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=171996

I'll quote a very sad part of it..

Quote[/b] ]

"When we made the first Flashpoint, people asked us if we were glorifying war, and we said, 'No - if you play this game you will not want to go to war," says Andrew Wafer..

But that was back then, i think they are going after a larger target group now anyway.

I dont think the name will be a decisive success factor for neither game, really.

[TWCRASH 0]

Well I don't think it will help BI one way or the other. I mean they branched away from OFP using the Armed Assault name right? So why would you now, after all this time wanna protest them saying they are the sequel to OFP? As long as one of em makes a good game that will get my vote. Its like trying to compare GR with GRAW 2 totally different games and that is what OFP and ARMA are. TOTALLY different. So like i said i don't see a reason to protest now unless it's to try and keep them from releasing before ArmA 2,delaying OFP2 or just out of spite. In my opinion if you make a decent product people will stand behind it. Wait, maybe BI is worried it can't compete with OFP2?

[Scrub 0]

@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)

Adumb loves you long time too.

I'm as much a lawyer of interwebs as Oh (Fishysticks): Dead Rats is a sequel without equal.

Yarrrgg.  Sorry ShinRaiden..  I was in a fury of posting, and to be honest, you and Walker often have a similar tone...  Minus the 'Kind regards, Walker' thingy.  Hmmm, seperated at birth??  

**OOOoo just read Maruk's tactical strike in the legal standing of the Ubisoft/Far Cry situation. He's on top of things..**

[max power 21]

Well I don't think it will help BI one way or the other. I mean they branched away from OFP using the Armed Assault name right? So why would you now, after all this time wanna protest them saying they are the sequel to OFP? As long as one of em makes a good game that will get my vote. Its like trying to compare GR with GRAW 2 totally different games and that is what OFP and ARMA are. TOTALLY different. So like i said i don't see a reason to protest now unless it's to try and keep them from releasing before ArmA 2,delaying OFP2 or just out of spite. In my opinion if you make a decent product people will stand behind it. Wait, maybe BI is worried it can't compete with OFP2?

Wow.  That's the most ignorant thing I've heard in a while.

The situation is this, my (young?) friend.

BIS had an agreement with CM for CM to publish OFP back in the day.  That agreement turned out to be no longer beneficial to either party or both parties, so they went separate ways.  With CM went the rights to the OFP name, and with BIS went everything else, including the exclusive rights to make a sequel.

Now, BIS had 'game 2' on the broiler, and while they couldn't reach, or were uninterested in reaching, another agreement with CM, they COULD use all of the technology.  So, they made a new brand called ArmA.  

So, you see, CM are violating an agreement that they signed by their own volition. I.e., they are going back on their agreement with BIS and violating their rights- rights which they agreed to in the first place.  It's like me hiring you and agreeing to pay you, then deciding not to... or signing a pre-nuptual which has clauses about infidelity, and then going out whoring with your buddies right in front of your wife's face.

Moreover, OFP2 is ArmA2's chief competitor, and will cut into ArmA2's market share (conceivably).  So, they are not only violating BIS's right, but apparently they are using that violation to compromise BIS's financial future.  If it was me, I would be so livid that I'd probably wait until a negotiation, then leap over the table and stab the project leader of OFP2 in the eye with a pen.

Stay tuned for Dragon Rising: An Operation Flashpoint Game.

[NeMeSiS 11]

So basically they have to stop saying 'from the guys who made OFP1' and instead they have to say 'From the guys who own the name and voices of OFP1'. Well, that's how it should be IMO, after all, legal or not, its just not nice (Understatement) of them to claim that they made OFP1 when they didnt. And this gives ArmA2 a big (And positive, after all, everyone liked OFP1) publicity boost so its a win-situation for BI in any case.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

I'm getting a weird feeling toward OFP2........IF I purchased it, will it wind up a coaster as so many other games I have?

I can see the "FallOut 3" why the hell did I buy this, coming.

Long Live BI (Best Intelligence)

[hoot 0]

Gamestar.de published it on the newspage as well.

[mr.g-c 6]

Gamestar.de published it on the newspage as well.

Yes and judging by the comments, the vast majority is "on BIS side" with this.

People are even saying that Codemasters lost the true old OFP Fanbase (the ones that didn't bought Arma1) with these actions.

Sadly, PCGames have not yet mentioned it....sae goes for Golem and Heise....