FP : DR - News & Discussion

[boomar. 10]

C

CM have proved nothing more than they can see that there is money to be made from the franchise. They didnt have the vision to start with, as seen above OFP was practically ready to go to press before CM showed up, hell they dont have it now (no aircraft, no editor, no civilians, no wildlife, all sorts of other nonsense). Flashpoint to them is like BF is to EA, a franchise to make money out of. Sure BI is still looking to make money, but not in the same vein. Spending time programming butterfly AI does not seem like milking the cash cow to me...

Erm OFP2 will have an editor thing, civilians dont need to be in the game, anyone living on the island prolly fled to avoid the war and wildlife prolly been eaten by the chinese so no need for them.

OFP2 has helicopters, which is all thats needed.

Im happy OFP2 doesnt have the jets and such, i never thought they belonged anyways.

Its also good for some things to be different from OFP2 and ArmA2. I want to buy both games, i want to experience the military sim genre on both games ofcourse, but i dont want every feature to be the same or whats the point of buying both?

They gota set themselves apart for the good of the genre !!!

[badlymad 0]

Yet all the hands on previews from respectable

places said OFP2 stayed true to the original and might not be the game for the cod4 gung ho type player.

I guess you are just trying to make up reasons now so you all got something to say when OFP2 out sells ArmA2 =D =p

Yes, it may not be COD 4, but that doesn't detract from the feeling that it looks like Battlefield: Bad Company without the humor.

[Baff1 0]

Not some crap idea that "they paid some money so they own it".

I think it would be a whole lot crapper if you bought something and didn't own it. That to me would be the crappest idea of all.

Codemasters aren't using the

IP for the engine, they do NOT own the IP for ANY of the content, they do NOT own the IP on the storyline, the characters, the original soundtrack, the missions, etc etc

so you don't have to worry.

They are using the name. The name they were a part of making, the name they paid for and own.

You may hold an utter contempt for the work of publishers, but I don't. You may think that paying for something to get done that otherwise would not get done is a service of zero importance or value, but I don't.

There are just way too many intresting looking games out there that turn to vapourware mid development because they run out of money and can't find a publisher willing to, or able to, take them seriously.

And yes, once again, I already understand that you feel that they have no legal right to make a sequel.

Once again I'd like to take the courts word for this and not yours as I suspect that legally this is not quite as black and white a case as you would have me believe.

I've studied both contract law and copywright law in the past and nothing you have said has led me to reconsider my opinion.

At this point in the discussion only a statement from Codemasters or a judicial decision is likely to.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1

[Deadfast 43]

...anyone living on the island prolly fled to avoid the war...

"Hey folks, this is general Badass from the USMC. We're gonna attack the island in a few weeks so I think it would be a good idea to catch the nearest flight."

What a silly example, I know, but how else would the entire civilian population of the island managed to evacuate in time?

[echo1 0]

Erm OFP2 will have an editor thing, civilians dont need to be in the game, anyone living on the island prolly fled to avoid the war and wildlife prolly been eaten by the chinese so no need for them.

How very convenient for Codemasters...

I think collateral damage, and civilians getting caught up in war is what sets Modern conflict apart, and simulation of civilians and partisans was one of the things that set OFP apart from other games. Leaving it out of OFP2 is quite a let down. You know that you are dealing with a fanboy when they try and convince you that something that is quite obviously bad is actually good.

Edited April 21, 2009 by echo1

[dm 9]

And yes, once again, I already understand that you feel that they have no legal right to make a sequel.

Feeling has nothing to do with it.

It was clearly stated in a press release (and I'm sure I could get shinraiden to do some of his magical digging to find further evidence) that BI retained the exclusive right to make sequels to OFP. Therefore to keep saying that FP:DR is "the long awaited sequel to OFP" is breaking the contract. Thats why BI made a fuss about it, and thats why BI started some legal proceedings (although we are unlikely to ever know the outcome from this, and rightly so).

Once again I'd like to take the courts word for this and not yours as I suspect that legally this is not quite as black and white a case as you would have me believe.

BI retained the exclusive rights to make sequels, CM is branding FP:DR as the sequel to OFP. Whats NOT black and white about that?

[hellasmoke 10]

I think they are both going to play off of each other....One may have something one player likes, while the other has something player 2 likes. I think in the end, they will end up being better for us(the community) due to them having to fight for Market shares in a market dominated by these two games(thats not even speaking of other players who enjoy shooters) simply these two games.

[4 IN 1 0]

We should drop the Codemasters and Bohemia Interactive teams onto a deserted island in the middle of the pacific ocean and not let em off till they are best buddies.

No, we should leave them a box of weapon for each side and see who lives last, but by that time i will have all my money placed on BI for obvious reason

Edited April 21, 2009 by 4 IN 1

[Scrub 0]

Originally Posted by DM

Not some crap idea that "they paid some money so they own it".

Quote Baff1:

I think it would be a whole lot crapper if you bought something and didn't own it. That to me would be the crappest idea of all.

If you buy Arma2 or OFP:DR, you don't own them. Like any software, you have a 'user license' and have purchased the right to use the material and benefit from that use, as stated in all the EULA's that nobody reads and comprehends (me included lol).. Pretty much (at least similar to) the way BIS and CM did business. 'Support us through the build, and sell for your profit, but we own the engine and all sequels' is a paraphrase of what the brief stated.

[.kju 3239]

CM did testing/QA from what I recall. And of course they did have influence on the dev to a degree.

[Placebo 28]

And of course they did have influence on the dev to a degree.

Umm, no.

[.kju 3239]

So CM did not make ANY requirements, milestones, comments, feedback, discussions?

[SaBrE_UK 0]

The devs and mods have been clear on this many times before. CM did not influence development.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Codemasters seem to be having troubles with "Economic Woes" in the current climate. Something I pointed out some time ago. Others hinted they are too big to fail, well we all know what that is code for.

With key staff leaving the company do they have a future?

How bad a sign is dropping titles?

Codemasters drops release windows for Dirt 2, Overlord II, Fuel, others

Codemasters drops release windows for Dirt 2, Overlord II, Fuel, others

Codemasters is avoiding the holiday rush by releasing several of its titles this year during the sleepy summer months (and for this, we thank them). The Overlord sequel, FUEL, and a little game that caught our eye, Jumpgate Evolution, all drop during low-pressure sales months. Codies will releas...

Will Dragon Rising be the next title Codemasters are forced to drop?

Can codemasters make it through the present economic climate or are they a hostile take over target?

Will they be split up?

Quizzicly Walker

[Dwarden 1124]

i guess you not read the article http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/20/codemasters-drops-release-windows-for-dirt-2-overlord-ii-fuel/

cause i think the wording "drop" means just using non standard release times ...

[4 IN 1 0]

And by respectable you mean ... ?

i think he means that game media nowadays are still trustable--I dont' think so--or he might mean that media only report facts--I don't think so.:rolleyes:

[Baff1 0]

Feeling has nothing to do with it.

It was clearly stated in a press release (and I'm sure I could get shinraiden to do some of his magical digging to find further evidence) that BI retained the exclusive right to make sequels to OFP. Therefore to keep saying that FP:DR is "the long awaited sequel to OFP" is breaking the contract. Thats why BI made a fuss about it, and thats why BI started some legal proceedings (although we are unlikely to ever know the outcome from this, and rightly so).

BI retained the exclusive rights to make sequels, CM is branding FP:DR as the sequel to OFP. Whats NOT black and white about that?

Copywright has been known to override contractual obligation in court before.

Usually in favour of the artist, but what cuts one way...

To my mind, the key to this one will be whether or not BIS accepted any money from Codemasters during the development. I can't tell you whether they did or not, sorry.

Simply put, some of your rights can't be signed away.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1

[Baff1 0]

If you buy Arma2 or OFP:DR, you don't own them. Like any software, you have a 'user license' and have purchased the right to use the material and benefit from that use, as stated in all the EULA's that nobody reads and comprehends (me included lol).. Pretty much (at least similar to) the way BIS and CM did business. 'Support us through the build, and sell for your profit, but we own the engine and all sequels' is a paraphrase of what the brief stated.

No mate, if you buy it, you own it.

A lisence is something completely different and involves you making and accepting an agreement with the other party and them making and accepting an agreement with you.

Under contract law "a shrinkwrap EULA" does not meet the qualifications required to form a binding contract. You are not in direct communication with the company issuing the lisence and they have not personally accepted any agreement you have made to their proposed terms when you "clicked" I Accept under the duress of trying to get the game you already own to work.

Buying a software in a shop is not lisencing a software, it is buying it. You are still protected by regular consumer rights and retail laws. (At least in the EU and U.S. you are). Any contractual obligations you enter into are covered by retail law and between you and the shop owner only.

No precedent has been set on this subject in any federal court to date, however district courts in America have on a number of occaisons ruled in favour or against the validity of a shrinkwrap EULA.

But publishers should be aware that the ratio is something like 7:1 against the validity of this sort of lisence agreement. No publisher has yet to dare to refer this issue to high/federal court to set a legal precedent and no ammendments to either U.S. EU or my national laws are being tabled to address this.

Lisencing a software to the end user is a somewhat more expensive thing to do than selling it retail as it requires personal contact between a representative of the company and the end user.

Usually a commission based sales team.

Expensive softwares like Sage, and 3D Studio Max can afford to lisence their products instead of selling them.

For a software such as a game or an individual copy of Windows, this really isn't a financially viable prospect. The added overhead prices you out of the market.

VBS is probably sold under lisence, while the lisence agreement for ArmA is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

Copywright is unaffected by lisencing agreement or retail contract. You may own your copy, you could for example resell it or install it on multiple computers etc for example, but any attempt to distribute that copy, or rent it out, is illegal without the consent of the copywright holder.

Sorry for Off topic, Please PM me if you wish to discuss this further.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

Try telling some of that stuff to Microsoft...

If you own software, how come the publisher doesn't let you modify it for personal use?

[.kju 3239]

The devs and mods have been clear on this many times before. CM did not influence development.

Yes, yes. There are always two sides on a coin.

Edited April 21, 2009 by kju

[echo1 0]

Yes, yes. There are always to sides on a coin.

Well, do you have anything to back up what you are saying?

[Baff1 0]

Try telling some of that stuff to Microsoft...

If you own software, how come the publisher doesn't let you modify it for personal use?

BIS does. Loads of publishers actively encourage you to.

The publisher doesn't actually have any say in how you use your (retail) software.

This is not just the legal position it is a common sense answer. You know full well the publisher has no idea about what you have done at home on your own PC and no method of controlling you. They aren't in a position to "allow you" to do anything. Some of them use encryption and stuff to make it harder I suppose.

Copywright law even allows you to reverse engineer your software and change it for system compatability (or even just for education purposes).

Publishers don't have to like it if they don't want to. In the end they all like money more than they like control I suppose.

Microsoft already knows that stuff, that's why they make their lisencing agreements with their retailers.

So that their lisenced agents agree to only sell them with a new PC etc.

They can make cost effective and binding lisence agreements with retailers, where to do so with individual end users is cost prohibitive.

You won't see a lot of Microsofts stuff available on the shop shelf, and that which is sold as direct retail, they charge more for.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

Not the actual source code of the software itself.

[Placebo 28]

Yes, yes. There are always to sides on a coin.

If you want your username changing to Clive then please visit the thread in my signature ;)

[froggyluv 2130]

Dropping civilians, jets, wildlife, console-editor, and 3rd person view is not something that can be in any way construed as 'good' imho. To state that the absence of civilians is some how tied into the story-line is a total cop-out. Sounds like a ghost town shooter to me...