Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Orogogus

Real Name Orogogus   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 22, 2003, 03:15
Total Comments 838 (Graduate)
User ID 16241
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ] Older >


News Comments > Steam Top 10
24. Re: Steam Top 10 Apr 16, 2012, 00:53 Orogogus
 
ASeven wrote on Apr 15, 2012, 15:45:
I haven't felt addicted to a game as much as to Grimrock in a long, long while. Forgot how sweet the DM-type of gameplay is.

Can't wait for user content to start flooding. If they can recreate the Wizardrys, DM and the 3 EotBs then there will be enough gaming material here to last for several months.

The Wizardry games aren't the same thing. The levels weren't designed to give any room for dancing around, and shrinking down the monster groups to fit into an EotB style game would make it not really the same game at all; there are spells to hit one enemy group and other spells to hit all the groups you're fighting. Also, given the limitations of the technology they didn't have any secret doors where you pushed a button, either. The whole series seems like it would be a rather awkward fit.

Eye of the Beholder III was the same kind of game, but it was kind of garbage. Worst entry in the genre, as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't enjoy Stonekeep much, either, but it's another one in the same mold. The Lands of Lore games were better, but my favorite is still Eye of the Beholder 2.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA Explains Warhammer 40K Tank Issue
20. Re: EA Explains Warhammer 40K Tank Issue Apr 14, 2012, 16:03 Orogogus
 
People might not be able to quote the C&D letters, but they should still generate talk. If Warseer went down it would be pretty hard for GW to cover up their involvement.

Like, BGG:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/4271330#4271330

Apparently GW had specifically named 4 items, and asked BGG to also check their other stuff and remove anything that was infringing. BGG took down all the GW files hosted on their site at that time (although their policy must have changed since then, since there are GW-related files up again; probably they just have someone checking them now).

WarhammerAlliance.com changed their domain to WHAlliance.com, and is still around.

The dakkadakka post lists 8 links in the OP, 6 of which are still up either with new domain names... or with the original domain unchanged. It looks like Bloodbowl.net may have become www.thenaf.net, but I'm not really sure. Posts elsewhere on the Internet suggest that the 8th site, Port Maw, vanished after it got hacked, not after the C&D.

Regarding eBay, your link suggests that they go after storefronts on eBay, not individuals selling their minis. An eBay search for Space Marine gets nearly 13K results.

Supposedly they do go after online retailers, but it's not clear how that works, as there are a few right on Amazon. GW does direct online sales, and has their own storefronts, which is guaranteed, in any industry, to generate conflict with the 3rd party distributors who got you to that point. But that's kind of separate from suing fans.

To be clear, I did try to do my own research. It just doesn't seem to turn up a pattern of suing fans and being unwilling to reach any accommodation whatsoever. If there were, whitewashed wikis aside, it shouldn't be this hard to find.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA Explains Warhammer 40K Tank Issue
18. Re: EA Explains Warhammer 40K Tank Issue Apr 14, 2012, 12:31 Orogogus
 
NKD wrote on Apr 14, 2012, 11:39:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 14, 2012, 09:01:
What a ridiculous statement. Companies have the right to protect their intellectual property from copyright infringement. It's funny how you're trying to make Games Workshop look like the bad guys here when in fact it was EA ripping off their designs.

Games Workshop has a long history of being bad guys. They legally go after their own fans. You really need to familiarize yourself with Games Workshop's litigious history.

What is the history? I went through this with Dev yesterday, and suffice to say I still think his examples were kind of, well, batshit stupid. There are a hell of a lot of fansites out there, so who's been shut down before? A Google search shows at least two that actually went to court: the Warhammer Alliance thing (where as far as I can tell they changed their domain name and are still up), and some company called Chapterhouse making knockoff miniatures (still in court). If there is a longreaching history, is anyone keeping track of it all?

There are more cease and desists in addition to the above, but even then I don't see much evidence of people actually shutting down a site because of one. Genuinely curious, as a lot of people repeat the fact of GW's litigiousness, but evidence is somewhat scarce.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Valve Confirms Hardware Plans
40. Re: Valve Confirms Hardware Plans Apr 13, 2012, 13:45 Orogogus
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 13, 2012, 13:29:
All of that totally aside from the very likely legal action that Valve would face from Microsoft or that Valve might have to take against Microsoft to make that Valve PC become a reality. Or legal action from publishers who might be OK with their game on Steam in a free PC market but don't want their game on a Steambox PC. Remember that Valve does not own the games they sell.

What publishers would that even be? There are, I think, two Microsoft games on Steam (Fable 3 and Microsoft Flight). Who else would be all, "Oh no, please, please don't sell our game to people who want to give us money?" And even if it came up, why would it go to legal action? Why wouldn't Valve honor the publishers' requests?

I think the threat of legal action from Microsoft is farfetched, too. What legal leg would they have to stand on to not allow someone to sell PCs with Windows? Do they want to get a DoJ investigation for abuse of monopoly powers?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Valve Confirms Hardware Plans
24. Re: Valve Confirms Hardware Plans Apr 13, 2012, 12:30 Orogogus
 
Narf2029 wrote on Apr 13, 2012, 10:11:
Kind of worrisome. Having a console directly associated with Steam creates pressure toward making games that run on its hardware, however old or underpowered/"affordable" it may be. Why would a publisher want to put a game on Steam if all the console-only users could not run it?

1. That's hardly different from the current situation with the 360 and PS3.

2. They have to make games towards some kind of target. Even for PC games you lose more potential customers as your system requirements go up.

3. I think there's definitely room in the market for something in between ridiculously overpriced Alienware monstrosities and Dell machines with Intel onboard graphics. People are always, always harping about how easy it is to build your own $500 gaming desktop that plays everything at high settings, but that's neither Alienware nor Dell, and to be honest it took just one bad part and 9 hours of troubleshooting for me to never want to build another computer ever again. Valve at least has incentive for more people to own gaming computers beyond making money off the hardware.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
64. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 13, 2012, 02:23 Orogogus
 
Final Liberation wasn't a 1:1 translation of the rules for Epic 40K (which was never nearly as popular as 40K). It only had, I think, 3 incomplete armies. Its terrain was kind of anemic. Plus it was pretty clunky watching your little guys move around and fire. And you couldn't paint or customize your units. So there was a lot going against it.

I'm just inclined to think that an actual 1:1 tabletop simulation would do for their bread-and-butter tabletop game what the Internet has done for newspapers. Good for consumers, but kind of hard to spin into something that's in their best interest, even as price gougy as they are.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
62. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 23:26 Orogogus
 
Drezden wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 21:28:
I'd love a full on tabletop simulation. Turn basted Strategy based on 40K. But it'll never happen. I think I'm in the minority.
Everyone wants that except Games Workshop. Playing with minis is kind of a big, big hassle. But to be fair, it's hard to imagine it turning out well for them. I'm kind of surprised none of their also-ran competitors have tried it, though.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Legend of Grimrock
115. Re: Ships Ahoy - Legend of Grimrock Apr 12, 2012, 16:17 Orogogus
 
everyone wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 15:03:
Orogogus wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 12:16:
There have been a fair number of recent turn-based crawlers (albeit mostly on consoles and handhelds) while the last real-time one was...
Arx Fatalis?

Well, maybe. It wasn't grid based, and I tend to think of it and Ultima Underworld as different beasts from Dungeon Master/EotB/Stonekeep. The line between action RPGs and fantasy shooters starts to blur. But there's an argument to be made for at least some of them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
45. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 15:01 Orogogus
 
Ozmodan wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 14:58:
Orogogus wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 14:52:
Ozmodan wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 14:47:
A tank is a tank is a tank. GamesWorkshop is run by a bunch of idiots to start with.

Secondly the designs are not even close to similar. Someone has gotten a bit too high.

I feel the second tank is the one that should really be in Blue's original post, as it's horrifically damning.

Link from rockpapershotgun
Sorry but I have to disagree with you, it looks like any tank and they are NOT similar, they have significant differences.

Seriously?? Is that first image loading for you? Dual turreted guns with the same nozzle end, with a grille in the middle of the turret and another in the front-center of the main body, the same armor plating on the sides and a spiked steamroller? I really can't fathom not finding them similar.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
43. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 14:52 Orogogus
 
Ozmodan wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 14:47:
A tank is a tank is a tank. GamesWorkshop is run by a bunch of idiots to start with.

Secondly the designs are not even close to similar. Someone has gotten a bit too high.

I feel the second tank is the one that should really be in Blue's original post, as it's horrifically damning.

Link from rockpapershotgun
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
40. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 14:47 Orogogus
 
I've played Space Hulk. Like, a lot of it, starting from 1st ed. Much of it without the minis, because we messed them up pretty badly learning how to paint. 40K is hard to play without minis because there are 20+ units per side and facing and line of sight are important. At some point you tend to forget what's standing in for what. The only thing you have to worry about in Space Hulk is equipment -- and most of the units are either stock 'Stealers or SB/PF Terminators -- and 90 degree facing, which is easy enough to fudge by drawing on cardboard.

Plus, you can buy the minis separately (especially if you're already playing 40K), and GW still wants to sell that $60 box set.

"No, its NOT the kinda picture one could replicate the tiles from."
Well, no. They took those down, right? I feel like we're talking about something different.

From the link I posted: "There are an awesome number of files on the 1st edition space hulk page. Everything from rule and scenario books, to files containing blips and board sections". This is what I remember, as there were rules and scenarios up before the takedown, and it's not okay.

"Nowhere did I see anyone make the abandonware argument"
- Practically every single entry in that link you provided was the guy saying something to the effect of "This isn't even in print any more, so I don't know why GW is angry." Examples:

"A big shout out to the fans who supported this game all the years that GW ignored it."
"Can anyone actually play these games with just a rules summary? Actually, does anyone actually play a game like this anymore at all?"
"Another game long, long out of print. Why bother having the file removed?"
"The sad thing is, if some of these games had been supported by the company instead of being abandoned they would have made money out of them."
"This one goes back to 1980. I fail to see how I could be affecting the company with a rules summary for it."
"There goes all the Battlecars stuff. My rework of this game took a long, long time to do and it's a shame I can't share it with anyone anymore. Or maybe GW is planning a re-release of this 1983 game? Yeah, right."
"All my work for Man O' War is gone. In addition to the summary, I'd redone all the ship cards to a standard size and format - thanks for all your help Scott (manowarplayer), we worked hard on that project didn't we?"
"Yet another long-defunct game - I spent many hours doing new reference cards for all the units for this one."

And so on.

"There were certainly a few infringing items, but rather than target those specific ones in the C&D, they just basically told them to take down everything."

They didn't, as I recall. I can't find the letter, but what I recollect is that there was a generic notice, and BGG opted to take down everything because of safe harbor, as you said. They could have used their own judgment to keep more files up, but it would have been a greater risk. GW certainly didn't tell them to take down everything, as there are in fact some files still up. They could have shut down the site entirely, but evidently didn't feel it was warranted.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
35. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 14:20 Orogogus
 
Well, we're talking about Space Hulk specifically, which doesn't really need minis to play. There were definitely rules summaries up and map tiles, which is basically the whole game. ASeven agrees that there were some infringing files, and it's agreed that GW gave a broad notice and BGG did a wide takedown. What part is in contention, exactly?

EDIT: A lot of those player aids in your link were basically up with the abandonware argument, that GW isn't doing anything with those games or had posted them online themselves so anything goes. And there's one guy in the Space Hulk entry who outright says that he put together a copy from the player aids (and other people noting that that's not really helping).

EDIT 2: I mean, seriously: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/46348/space-hulk-a-diy-geeklist

That's like a how-to guide on how to get a c-and-d.

This comment was edited on Apr 12, 2012, 14:26.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
31. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 14:00 Orogogus
 
From what I call of the BGG furor, they were hosting a lot of files, which put together as a whole pretty much obviated the need for ever buying the game if you had a printer. GW sent a notice that BGG was in violation, without specifying what exactly was in violation of what, and in response BGG nuked everything. Fandom went apeshit, life went on.

I don't know anything about WHAlliance (a fansite for Warhammer Online, not 40K), but... well, they obviously weren't sued into oblivion and there are people posting today. The thread kind of trails off so I don't know how that ended, but I doubt they went the "millions of dollars on lawyers" route so probably they came to an agreement?

The army tool thing is pretty shitty, but GW has been selling army tools for a long while. I think they should have made them free years ago, but if they're not going to discontinue them then obviously they're going to crush their competitors.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
28. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 13:20 Orogogus
 
There is such a thing as selective context.

We are encountering people who counterfeit our miniatures and products more and more frequently. Counterfeiting is a crime in most countries worldwide. In addition to the other penalties, you can go to prison for counterfeiting. The same is true of peer-to-peer file sharing - if you have not paid for the material and you download it using peer-to-peer software, you are engaging in illegal activity. The same is true even if you already own a copy of the relevant Codex or Army Book. Please remember that Games Workshop does not produce its rule books or codices in electronic format - if you ever see any such material in electronic format, it is likely to be the product of criminal or infringing activity.

BE AWARE that we will happily spend money bringing counterfeiters and other infringers to justice, regardless of the cost. Such activities kill the hobby for everyone.

This is not exactly the same thing as saying they'll sue you, personally, for posting a picture of your painted minis, or making a fansite. They clearly want to come to an accommodation with the people generating good buzz for them with mods, fansites, etc., but not counterfeiters or file sharers. I mean, you make them sound like blithering idiots, but the history I can find on Google and their stated policies seem fairly reasonable.

And also, I really have to stress that while the tank posted in Blue's post is questionable, the second one, linked in this thread, is utterly indefensible. If they can't get sued for that then no one can get sued for anything.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
25. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 12:56 Orogogus
 
Dev wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 12:49:
Ok if you say so. They've shut down online stores selling their product before since they took photos of the models to show what you were buying.

Feel free to do some research, GW is crazy nutty about anything relating to this. Think of the worst company you can imagine in terms of going after fans for doing anything, and GW is worse. They are notorious enough that Blue mentions it in the blurb.

Well, cite? It seems kind of odd to me that they would shut down distributors, since those are their customers. But the two examples you mentioned before hardly sound evil.

As far as the worst, I think that would be Fox, who Blue regularly uses in the verb form for cease-and-desists, and who shut down the Aliens TC for DOOM and other mods way back in the day, and TSR, who did cease-and-desist their own fansites when user sites on the Internet were still kind of a new thing.

EDIT: " They talk on their homepage how they are "HAPPY to spend money" going after you."

Again, cite? At the top of this page they say "Unlike many companies, here at Games Workshop we usually only stop people from using our intellectual property if we must do so in order to protect it (provided that use is by and for hobbyists). For example, the law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways - and if we do not - we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and table top hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on!", which is kind of different from saying how much they love to sue you, the customer.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
22. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 12:46 Orogogus
 
While it's easy to see where it's been copied, the question would be whether the changes are different enough. It might be. I think that's a pretty gray area in video games, but wherever the line is drawn, that second tank is clearly way the hell over it.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
19. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 12:30 Orogogus
 
Dev wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 12:22:
GW is crazy nutty about anything like this. Some gems: they forbid you to get any GW related tattoos and they forbid you to post pics of paint jobs without saying you did it without their permission.

That seems pretty innocuous and hardly worse than EA or Fox. As a company, they would clearly view tattoos the same as, say, a T-shirt with their IP on it. I would bet money they're trying to discourage tattooists from profiting from their IP rather than having anything against people sporting such tattoos.

The second sounds entirely harmless. It's not as if you're turning over rights to your work.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Legend of Grimrock
93. Re: Ships Ahoy - Legend of Grimrock Apr 12, 2012, 12:16 Orogogus
 
There was some minor complaining here and elsewhere from people who were apparently expecting and hoping for a Wizardry/Bard's Tale/Might & Magic turn-based crawler, which I think is a little silly. There have been a fair number of recent turn-based crawlers (albeit mostly on consoles and handhelds) while the last real-time one was... Stonekeep? I can't think of newer one. And I didn't even like Stonekeep (although EotB 1 & 2 were aces).

Also, I'm not a fan of the magic system. Yes, it's the same as Dungeon Master. It's still bad. I don't know why anyone would make players find recipes and then not randomize them. The game is downloadable, so it's not like they haven't heard of the Internet.

Also, the game sure lets you put points into skills (e.g., bows) that you're not going to get to use for a fairly long time. The system seems a little more vulnerable to min-maxing than most.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration?
12. Re: EA: Tanks for the Warhammer 40K Inspiration? Apr 12, 2012, 12:02 Orogogus
 
TychoCelchuuu wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 11:52:
If you think that's bad, check out this other tank they copied identically.

There's some room to quibble about the Imperial tank, but this one is pretty damn bad and impossible to argue.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
5. Re: etc. Apr 5, 2012, 11:14 Orogogus
 
You can play games on par or superior to the classics for free on the PC or on your phone. As I said, I think the kind of arcade that you guys are suggesting, basically recreating your youth from the 80s, would do nothing but lose money. The implication that they could generate a healthy profit from that model is ludicrous.

Putting a bunch of fighting games in a Dave and Busters would be a grim case of demographic mismatch. The only genres that are remotely sustainable in a modern arcade are fighting games, driving games and dance/rhythm games. In the case of fighting games, there's actually a community still extant, but I really doubt that most of those community members wish that they could get a dish of chicken cacciatore in the middle of their tournament. Dave and Busters isn't an ideal hangout for that crowd.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
838 Comments. 42 pages. Viewing page 29.
< Newer [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo