|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 03 2013 10:26 dtz wrote:On November 03 2013 10:10 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:01 TheYango wrote:
I'm curious what Valve making a blog post saying "guys we're not doing Diretide this year" would have accomplished other than causing people to have a hissy fit a few weeks earlier.
Because from my perspective, that's all that would have happened. Had Valve mentioned that the annual event would not be occurring, there would have been a difference overall. When you have a large number of people asking for clarification and expecting something to occur, only to have silence, it makes people more upset. Of course had they announced it, people would have been upset. But I do not see how it would have been the same. PR wise, it would have helped Valve at pretty much no expense. I think having the patches occur during that period did not help either. From my perspective, having a company watch as lots of people expect something while knowing all along it was not going to happen is far worse than the event itself being cancelled. But the expectation will be mostly community created and never ending. and I am sure we are familiar with how Reddit works so we can try to simulate what happens if there is a PR guy. 1 : Anticipation of Diretide. People are speculating whether DireTide is coming. Expectation rises. PR guy will have to step in here and say " Sorry guys no diretide this year" 2 : People are disappointed. But then they speculate further. "Hey no diretide might mean Valve is preparing a surprise for us! Perhaps a triple hero patch" Expectation rises, PR guy again has to step here and say " Sorry no triple hero patch" 3 : Well but Valve has to be working on something right, so let me assume the release of documentary! PR guy again has to clarify and probably apologizes. Some people in the community is very perfectly capable to talks itself into expecting. The only thing the PR guy can do is to actually say " No there will be no diretide/triple hero patch/documentary but we are preparing a very big event for Christmas" You see to quell the expectations, they have to promise something definite. And as you all know, promising something is what Valve really dislike to do if you know the way they works. They only like to release things when it's ready regardless of deadline. So like Yango and multiple said, PR blog post is really not gonna make any difference in the long run. What it will end up being is just temporary pandering.
That may be a possibility but one also needs to realize that they are two different entities. Taken to the extreme sure, it would be an issue with having to address each and every single concern. But they just have to do with a good number of other companies to, pick and choose which are actually important.
Take for example your two topics; you have an event and triple hero release. Now, looking at the two, which would be more important to refute? You have the hero release which tend to be varied in timing, type, numbers, etc. with no real pattern. On the other hand, you have an event that occurred last year (yes, only once) but was also proclaimed to be an annual event.
Not sure about you or others but considering the expectation of the event, the number of people awaiting it, I would have mentioned it (and of course, put some PR spin on like they all do). It comes down to cost and benefit and in this case, they chose wrong. It does not have to be the extremes of; no communication at all or communicate on everything.
On November 03 2013 10:33 makmeatt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:24 Nilrem wrote:On November 03 2013 10:16 makmeatt wrote:On November 03 2013 09:29 Nilrem wrote:
But it is naive and unrealistic to believe that a company such as Valve has no obligation to serve us, the customers.
I'm gonna repeat myself: customers!? Semantics but alright, I will explain the point (since you seemed to have ignored the rest of the post). Valve as a company needs us. Without us, the current state of Valve would either change to something different or completely vanish. You treat the people that support you with respect and courtesy so to keep them around. Although good number of people are not, I could consider myself a customer although that is pretty much off topic. Thanks for tolerance. And yes, as someone said before, hats are most likely what pays the bills for them, so they do need us. It's not like we'd stop playing their game because they weren't telling us about their plans for a longer while, however, and the whole point for which I joined the discussion was that it's ultimately outrageous for all the high and mighty kids to assume they have the right to demand action or answer to their overhyped expectations. All I hear is 'yada yada if you told us what you are doing there would be no problem', bullshit, period. There was no necessity for them to tell us anything (although it sure as fuck would help them if they acknowledged the fact that they called their own event 'annual') and assuming otherwise is just plainly silly in perspective.
No problem--that is the point I have been trying to make. Of course people would have still been upset but it is a different type of upset between the two options. Not everything would have been fine and dandy had they mentioned something but would have at least received less flack (although amount of flack that would have occurred is all subjective). For myself, I would have liked Diretide but I have no issues with Valve hold off on it. To me, the issue was based mostly on how the whole thing was treated (well lack of).
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37118 Posts
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it spelled Dota 2 and not DotA 2?
|
On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2?
Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright.
|
On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright.
Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve.
Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients.
|
On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients.
They lost the Copyright to Defense of the Ancients I believe, as in the Dota game. Ancients are a unit of WC3 lore, such as ancients of war, War of the Ancients, etc. and they are definatelly not free to use. You couldn't make the Radiant tower in Dota 2 look like Tree, throw rocks and call it an Ancient, for example. If that goes as far as not allowing you to name the game Defense of the Ancients is hard to tell, but it's not a fight they probally want to take. The Dota 2 lore would have to revolve around Ancients, which could bring other legal issues as well.
Not every name change in Dota 2 was done because they absolutelly had to, but it's better to avoid the fight and to take it for little to no reason. Plus the naming decision was probally done before the DotA dispute settled.
|
On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients.
Correct, sort of. The two companies came to an agreement (although I guess you can say Valve won). Valve gets to hold onto DotA as a commercial trademark whereas Blizzard holds onto it as a noncommercial trademark. So both companies can use it but of course, Blizzard would choose not to (since it would be a bad business decision). That is why they went with Blizzard All-Stars (which later renamed to Heroes of the Storm).
Edit: Oh and side note. With the allowance of Blizzard having noncommercial use of DotA, it allows for the community to still exist in Wc3. So it works out for both communities.
|
It's not even about Diretide anymore it's about Valve completely ignoring the community
|
On November 03 2013 10:47 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients. Correct, sort of. The two companies came to an agreement (although I guess you can say Valve won). Valve gets to hold onto DotA as a commercial trademark whereas Blizzard holds onto it as a non-commercial trademark. So both companies can use it but of course, Blizzard would choose not to (since it would be a bad business decision). That is why they went with Blizzard All-Stars (which later renamed to Heroes of the Storm).
This is what I believe actually happened, I don't think Blizzard would have won their dispute regardless of whether Valve chose to name the game DotA or Defense of the Ancients. Ancients is irrelevant.
If they modeled the thrones/ancients after the World Tree or the Frozen Throne than I think we might have a problem here.
|
On November 03 2013 10:47 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients. Correct, sort of. The two companies came to an agreement (although I guess you can say Valve won). Valve gets to hold onto DotA as a commercial trademark whereas Blizzard holds onto it as a non-commercial trademark. So both companies can use it but of course, Blizzard would choose not to (since it would be a bad business decision). That is why they went with Blizzard All-Stars (which later renamed to Heroes of the Storm).
That was regarding Dota, not Defense of the Ancients though, IIRC. Wasn't Pendragon the one that filled the Copyright for Defense of the Ancients?
On November 03 2013 10:52 Kuroeeah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:47 Nilrem wrote:On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients. Correct, sort of. The two companies came to an agreement (although I guess you can say Valve won). Valve gets to hold onto DotA as a commercial trademark whereas Blizzard holds onto it as a non-commercial trademark. So both companies can use it but of course, Blizzard would choose not to (since it would be a bad business decision). That is why they went with Blizzard All-Stars (which later renamed to Heroes of the Storm). This is what I believe actually happened, I don't think Blizzard would have won their dispute regardless of whether Valve chose to name the game DotA or Defense of the Ancients. Ancients is irrelevant. If they modeled the thrones/ancients after the World Tree or the Frozen Throne than I think we might have a problem here.
Either way Blizzard would definatelly have a better case if Valve were aiming to keep the focus on Ancients.
|
Was Heroes of the Storm named Blizzard Dota or Blizzard DotA? You see how irrelevant this is?
|
On November 03 2013 10:56 Kuroeeah wrote:
Was Heroes of the Storm named Blizzard Dota or Blizzard DotA? You see how irrelevant this is?
It was called Blizzard Dota because it was not called Blizzard Defense of the Ancients, that would be silly, but they could do it if they so desired (at the time). But that was before the settlement, when they were still trying to stop Valve from getting the rights to Dota.
It's really not that crazy that Valve would avoid using Ancients on the title. Look at how many name changes we went through. Anything remotelly connected to Warcraft is avoided, if possible.
|
Without seeing the claim or dispute from the actual records, I cannot speak on the matter of Dota vs. DotA. Perhaps I am mistaken but there was never an actual lawsuit of any kind. Just a dispute which was resolve between the two parties. So record wise, I cannot find the actual language used (if Defense of Ancient, Dota, DotA were used).
|
On November 03 2013 11:05 Nilrem wrote:
Without seeing the claim or dispute from the actual records, I cannot speak on the matter of Dota vs. DotA. Perhaps I am mistaken but there was never an actual lawsuit of any kind. Just a dispute which was resolve between the two parties. So record wise, I cannot find the actual language used (if Defense of Ancient, Dota, DotA were used).
Valve didn't file for the right for Defense of the Ancients, just "DOTA", so its mostly especulation on whether the main reason was that Ancients are a Blizzard copyrighted unit or they just didn't want to call it that way. Which is probally why Pendragon was able to try to get the Defense of the Ancients copyright, but I have no idea how that turned out.
|
On November 03 2013 10:49 yyfpulls wrote:
It's not even about Diretide anymore it's about Valve completely ignoring the community
Valve has never felt any responsibility about telling what they are doing. When they have something ready they'll release it. How can you be upset ?
And twitchchat/reddit/whatever place spoiled kids hangaround isn't community ffs
|
Blizzard attempted to sue Valve because they believed Valve was infringing their copyright. Blizzard's case was that the game was made under their game as well as their toolset (the editor) and specifically made the argument that name doesn't belong to them because it broke their EULA (which is technically true). Whether the game was abbreviated Dota or DotA, Blizzard's argument for the case would have been the same regardless so I really don't see how this would have had any significant impact against Valve.
If Valve opted to change the abbreviation from Dota2 to DotA2, do you honestly believe Blizzard will step in now?
|
On November 03 2013 11:18 Kuroeeah wrote:
Blizzard attempted to sue Valve because they believed Valve was infringing their copyright. Blizzard's case was that the game was made under their game as well as their toolset (the editor) and specifically made the argument that name doesn't belong to them because it broke their EULA (which is technically true). Whether the game was abbreviated Dota or DotA, Blizzard's argument for the case would have been the same regardless so I really don't see how this would have had any significant impact against Valve.
If Valve opted to change the abbreviation from Dota2 to DotA2, do you honestly believe Blizzard will step in now?
It's not about adding a capital letter, it's about changing the name from Dota 2 to Defense of the Ancients 2. DOTA 2 isn't an abbreviation. I don't know if Blizzard would ask them to not use that name, but I definatelly suspect Valve's lawyers would advise them not to use it if they could.
|
On November 03 2013 10:47 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients. Correct, sort of. The two companies came to an agreement (although I guess you can say Valve won). Valve gets to hold onto DotA as a commercial trademark whereas Blizzard holds onto it as a noncommercial trademark. So both companies can use it but of course, Blizzard would choose not to (since it would be a bad business decision). That is why they went with Blizzard All-Stars (which later renamed to Heroes of the Storm). Edit: Oh and side note. With the allowance of Blizzard having noncommercial use of DotA, it allows for the community to still exist in Wc3. So it works out for both communities.
This is a REALLY funny interview in retrospect.
|
On November 03 2013 11:18 Kuroeeah wrote:
Blizzard attempted to sue Valve because they believed Valve was infringing their copyright. Blizzard's case was that the game was made under their game as well as their toolset (the editor) and specifically made the argument that name doesn't belong to them because it broke their EULA (which is technically true). Whether the game was abbreviated Dota or DotA, Blizzard's argument for the case would have been the same regardless so I really don't see how this would have had any significant impact against Valve.
If Valve opted to change the abbreviation from Dota2 to DotA2, do you honestly believe Blizzard will step in now?
Blizzard did not attempt 'sue' valve. Blizzard had filed a 'complaint' to the United States Patent Office with regards to DOTA. This is Blizzard's challenge to the trademark.
+ Show Spoiler +1. By this Opposition, Blizzard seeks to prevent registration by its competitor Valve Corporation ("Valve") of a trademark, DOTA, that for more than seven years has been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community, under license from Blizzard. By virtue of that use, the DOTA mark has become firmly associated in the mind of consumers with Blizzard, including to signify a highly popular scenario or variant of one of Blizzard's best-selling computer games, Warcraft III. Over the past seven years, the mark DOTA has been used exclusively in connection with Blizzard and its products, namely Warcraft III. Most notably, DOTA has been used as the popular name of a Warcraft III software "mod" file that has been distributed, marketed, and promoted by Blizzard and its fans (under license from Blizzard); that utilizes and is built upon the Warcraft III game engine, interface, and gameplay mechanics; that is comprised of Warcraft III characters, items, spells, artwork, textures, and color palates; that can be played only using Warcraft III software and via Blizzard's online service Battle.net ; and whose name (DOTA, an acronym for "Defense of the Ancients") is a reference to Warcraft III characters known as the "Ancients."
2. In contrast to Blizzard, Applicant Valve Corporation ("Valve") has never used the mark DOTA in connection with any product or service that currently is available to the public. By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and in its Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III. Valve has no right to the registration it seeks. If such registration is issued, it not only will damage Blizzard, but also the legions of Blizzard fans that have worked for years with Blizzard and its products, including by causing consumers to falsely believe that Valve's products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard and are related or connected to Warcraft III.
U.S. Patent Office Complaint
|
United Kingdom24425 Posts
On November 03 2013 11:23 Kuroeeah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:47 Nilrem wrote:On November 03 2013 10:43 Kuroeeah wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 SKC wrote:On November 03 2013 10:38 Seeker wrote:
I have a question:
Since the original name was spelled Defense of the Ancients, why is it called Dota 2 and not DotA 2? Because it's simply Dota, not Defense of the Ancients now. Dota is a single word. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright. Ancients is a Blizzard copyright? What? Blizzard lost this dispute a long time ago, I don't think they hold the copyright given the concluding trial favored Valve. Why does it matter anyway though? I'm sure Dota as an abbreviated title is familiar to more people across the globe than Defense of the Ancients. Correct, sort of. The two companies came to an agreement (although I guess you can say Valve won). Valve gets to hold onto DotA as a commercial trademark whereas Blizzard holds onto it as a noncommercial trademark. So both companies can use it but of course, Blizzard would choose not to (since it would be a bad business decision). That is why they went with Blizzard All-Stars (which later renamed to Heroes of the Storm). Edit: Oh and side note. With the allowance of Blizzard having noncommercial use of DotA, it allows for the community to still exist in Wc3. So it works out for both communities. This is a REALLY funny interview in retrospect. It's also a bullshit article.
If anyone has a right to claim the name "DotA", it seems like it would be these guys If anyone? How about the guy who made the name, who works for Valve. And the person who at that time had control of the game, who works for Valve. And that's why Blizzard would never get anywhere in that case, because of Eul.
|
Is Eul actually employed by Valve?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
