User information for The KillSmith

Real Name
The KillSmith
Nickname
The KillSmith
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
Signed On
February 16, 2011
Supporter
-
Total Posts
17 (Suspect)
User ID
56172
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
17 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
1.
 
Re: Artifact in November
Aug 1, 2018, 22:11
1.
Re: Artifact in November Aug 1, 2018, 22:11
Aug 1, 2018, 22:11
 
Half-Life 3.
56.
 
Re: Unreal Turns 20 - Get Unreal Gold for Free
May 23, 2018, 22:27
56.
Re: Unreal Turns 20 - Get Unreal Gold for Free May 23, 2018, 22:27
May 23, 2018, 22:27
 

To me, the best games transcended themselves in their fans’ minds to be an actual world… a place that “exists”, and that you could travel to. What I remember most about Unreal was how Na Pali felt real. The jonesing to hop onto the computer wasn’t to “play a game” and “shoot monsters”, it was to go back and discover more of Na Pali. Even all these years later, I still remember it in a similar fashion.

I recall the fantastic strangeness of a place completely different than anything I had experienced before, and how even though the genre was technically science fiction, almost everything about it felt very ancient and mystical. I recall slowly discovering the tattered vestiges of a veiled monk-like race, their echoed memories coming to me in fragments as chants ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQexC6FMAjg ) I recall it being night, and gazing at strange stars in a cold sky with a howling wind at my back as I floated out of a tunnel to find a hidden village clinging to the side of a valley… and surely that was a damp chill I actually felt on my skin at the time? I recall standing beside a lantern on a castle rampart made of hewn stone, looking far, far off into the distant horizon of a multi-colored sky, and wondering what was out there beyond the mountains that hemmed you in. I recall feeling completely alone, on a distant world, far far away… and I couldn’t think of any other place more entrancing to be. It was MY place that I could go back to time and time again, and even though after a time I knew the maps my heart, it still felt like there was more out there to discover.

It really was magic. It’s hard to encapsulate unless you were of the right age with the right mindset and played it at the right time. And the magic was so powerful as to make it enduring. To this day seeing a screenshot of the Sunspire or hearing a portion of one of those instantly recognizable UMX music tracks will immediately place me back there again.

To me, Na Pali is still out there, somewhere, waiting to be explored again.
47.
 
Re: Half-Life 2: Episode 3 Story Revealed?
Aug 26, 2017, 13:06
47.
Re: Half-Life 2: Episode 3 Story Revealed? Aug 26, 2017, 13:06
Aug 26, 2017, 13:06
 
Wake up and smell the ashes.
21.
 
Re: Erik Wolpaw Leaves Valve
Feb 18, 2017, 10:51
21.
Re: Erik Wolpaw Leaves Valve Feb 18, 2017, 10:51
Feb 18, 2017, 10:51
 
ViRGE wrote on Feb 17, 2017, 20:11:
While I'm happy that Erik is (apparently) getting to do what he wants, it sounds like Valve has an employee retention problem. It's not a good sign when your employees are leaving to be baristas (or for that matter, that they can afford to do so).

Apparently you didn't catch Erik's sense of humor.
36.
 
Re: Op Ed
Apr 27, 2015, 19:50
36.
Re: Op Ed Apr 27, 2015, 19:50
Apr 27, 2015, 19:50
 
Well, it's over. That was quick:

Removing Payment Feature From Skyrim Workshop

I do agree with the general assessments posters have been making about the method in which this was rolled out being too sticky and problematic: into an already established, thriving community that attached itself to the Steam platform's toolsets. Valve saw that as an opportunity to use it as a great testbed and gain tons of data. Gained tons of data they did!

Bethesda should have probably considered a smaller cut as well to start things off.

I'm sure this will be back in another shape or form in the near future though. I really hope it is, because what they are trying to do will benefit gamers, developers, and those in-between in the long run.
34.
 
Re: Forbes's Article Is An Intellectual Disaster
Apr 27, 2015, 19:14
34.
Re: Forbes's Article Is An Intellectual Disaster Apr 27, 2015, 19:14
Apr 27, 2015, 19:14
 
Suppa7 wrote on Apr 27, 2015, 15:52:
The KillSmith wrote on Apr 27, 2015, 09:30:
Valve is trying to blur the lines between what we currently know as standard roles like the community (players or content creators), developers, publishers, etc. They want to create an ecosystem where middlemen are dissolved or have low impact and anyone that adds perceived value can be immediately compensated for it and perhaps make a living out of it without jumping through hoops created by a massively broken publisher driven system that, in the end, all revolves around investment money and guys that don't give two $h!75 about games.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. We had for profit driven companies on the stock market that released better product 10+ years ago during the 90's. Interplay released all sorts of cool and interesting games without any online DRM crapware. Gabe helped massively to normalize always online DRM. He and the entire game industry is corrupt.

Developers are partly to blame for being unable or unwilling to work together to roll their own publishing business. The reality is game many developers don't want the risk of being independent which is why they sell out.

Remember microsoft's management was jealous of gabe's "Software as a service" that he saw the videogame industry getting away with on app stores and in the mmo space.

Other companies inspired by software/digital drm

Most of the content in your post has nothing to do with the subject matter you quoted from mine. So that's somewhat confusing. But I'll roll with it to an extent:

I'm not quite sure how to take your various blanket statements about corruption and what devs do and do not want. "Unwilling to work together to roll their own publishing business"? Why, because the issue with a coder or artist becoming a CFO or logistics manager has solely to do with his unwilling attitude? Just stop a second and look at what you typed.

A lot has happened in the gaming industry's long and complicated history over the past couple of decades, and at one point publishers were needed to get product out there more so than financing the actual team during development. But times have changed drastically, and along with them many details about everything from the market to the size and cost of development to the platforms to the distribution. If you've been around and a student of these areas long enough you'll realize how ridiculous that statement was. Now, if I just take it at face value... then I'd venture to say that Valve was finally the developer to answer the call! However, that probably goes against your point now doesn't it? I can't be held accountable for other people's paradoxical logic.
25.
 
Forbes's Article Is An Intellectual Disaster
Apr 27, 2015, 09:30
25.
Forbes's Article Is An Intellectual Disaster Apr 27, 2015, 09:30
Apr 27, 2015, 09:30
 
I remember when Steam was first released, and everyone screamed "spyware" and "bloatware"! Now at the time, it probably had more annoyances than value. But the real issue with all the editorials and forum posts at the time was that almost NOBODY GOT IT.

Looking at the details everyone seems to be focused on, this feels like more of the same.

Many seem to be missing the point.

Valve is trying to blur the lines between what we currently know as standard roles like the community (players or content creators), developers, publishers, etc. They want to create an ecosystem where middlemen are dissolved or have low impact and anyone that adds perceived value can be immediately compensated for it and perhaps make a living out of it without jumping through hoops created by a massively broken publisher driven system that, in the end, all revolves around investment money and guys that don't give two $h!75 about games.

They are trying to breed good behavior and think the community is better at sorting out the value than publishers or even they are (which is why they are also letting the community curate that content).

So on the content side, they need a hierarchical system of sorts because of IP/ownership. This is the beginning of that. But it has to start with the most basic of steps: allow people who create content (that may not be standalone content) to make some money. It's hilarious to me that everyone immediately looks at %s and starts screaming "unfair". What's unfair is the state of things for the last 15 years. What's unfair is that if I learn how to use a game's tool set and create a massively awesome piece of work, that I can't be compensated in some fashion because it's tied to an IP or an engine license. So how am I supposed to find a way to devote any significant amount of time to it at all? Not only are there a ton of legalities involved that block my way towards any fiscal benefit, but it's not like someone has paved the way with an infrastructure that makes it easy to distribute/collect. My only option right now seems to be donations. Ask modders or other content creators how that's working out for them.

You know what that means for us in the community? There's a TON of talent out there among us that never flourishes because the gap between our current state of potential and the concept of being able to spend a decent amount of bandwidth to do something with it and not starve to death is too large. So besides a concept like Kickstarter, who else has tackled this very large structural problem?

I wonder if, 12 months from now, the guy who has been spending his days working as a cashier and his nights slaving away at that new map in his mom's basement will see it that way. I wonder if, 12 months from now, when a casual gamer who never saw this creator's work before at insertmodsitehere.com downloads a new, fully fledged version of that map for 99 cents that was only possible because the cashier quit his stupid cashier job to devote more time to his creative craft will see it that way.

But perhaps the biggest missed point of them all:

If developers can realize financial benefits by CATERING to this new model by ensuring the creative scene is supported by having the right tool sets and an open model (as well as an open mind with their own IPs), do you think they will? Shifting dev time and resources towards this common goal will be more than compensated by the outcome if executed well. So if I'm a sweet dev team but totally reliant on big brother Publisher to remain in existence, I can look over at this whole PC platform thing and start toying around with a future that doesn't involve big brother anymore. I've finally got another option. Maybe we CAN leave EA and survive. Maybe we can leave Activision and survive. Maybe we don't have to be Xbox One exclusive anymore. Maybe we don't NEED these guys anymore, and can rely on a new structure that connects us and our community and we can all help each other survive. This snowballs and the revolution begins.

This isn't creating a new closed system where the Microsofts squeeze everything out of everyone and each subsequent CEO makes bad decisions that impact fans and artists around the world. This is about creating an OPEN system and rewarding behavior on both sides that work towards that co-supportive goal that isn't reliant on a man in a suit.

This isn't just about crowd-sourcing content creation and making money off the blood, sweat, and tears of others. It's about creating new opportunities that have never existed before and rewarding the parts of the emerging model that work... a partially self correcting system that succeeds and becomes a new norm.

Like every new direction Valve takes, the entire system will prove it needs some major polish. They don't seem to be shy about completely changing or even shutting down ideas that don't work well though, whether you look at their game development or their platform development. I surmise that in a few years though, everyone will be looking back on this and realizing just how wrong they were, and how happy they are to have been so.

This comment was edited on Apr 27, 2015, 09:56.
18.
 
Re: Blizzard's Overwatch Hits TM Snag
Jan 12, 2015, 18:42
18.
Re: Blizzard's Overwatch Hits TM Snag Jan 12, 2015, 18:42
Jan 12, 2015, 18:42
 
Wallshadows wrote on Jan 12, 2015, 11:56:
Either way, Blizzard has enough money to make a conflicting TM go away if that's what it'll take the secure the title. This is just karma for them going after New Line for for having a movie called Diablo.

It's also ironic because they tried to go after Valve for DotA2.
27.
 
Re: DOTA Trademark Settled
May 13, 2012, 13:10
27.
Re: DOTA Trademark Settled May 13, 2012, 13:10
May 13, 2012, 13:10
 
How exactly did Blizzard "stand up for gamers"?

Big corporations shouldn't get to decide the fate of someone else's creative works (even the name), especially when they toiled at it for years with no pay. The original DotA map and name was Eul's, and as I understand it he works at Valve. Also, the dev who continued the development for the longest and most recent period time was Icefrog, who also works at Valve. Blizzard's only claim was to the "Allstars LLC", which is not the same as an intellectual property nor a trademarked name of a product. That claim was all from a deal with Pendragon, who was really just the webmaster of the dota-allstars website, which declined in relevance once Icefrog's playdota.com became the pillar.

I like the development portion of Blizzard, but I hate the lawyer/publishing part of Activision-Blizzard. In the end, this turned out exactly as it should have: with the rights in the creators' hands. Valve's dev support also worked out the best for the community, who wouldn't have gotten this superb sequel otherwise (since Blizzard originally turned down helping Icefrog). "Blizzard never tried to capitalize on it" is a twist on the real situation, which is that they turned down the chance to bring on the devs and give them the pay and staff they needed to work on their ideas and turn them into even better products for the community, despite what kind of monetization may or may not have been involved.

I'm proud of Blizzard for letting this go, and I'm proud of Valve for doing what they've always done: given really great community members the chance to create their dreams and the rest of us the chance to play in them. It's funny because a handful of the gaming community sees Valve's motives like a Publishers and assume they try to "steal" others' ideas and profit from them. Those who think that should go to the modders and indie devs who actually created those ideas and ask them what THEY think. You can actually find those perspectives in interviews all over the web, and you'll see a much different story.

This comment was edited on May 13, 2012, 13:25.
59.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 12, 2012, 10:04
59.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 12, 2012, 10:04
Feb 12, 2012, 10:04
 
^Drag0n^ wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 02:46:
I think you kinda missed my point. No one can trademark something that has "prior art" in the public domain, or published under another creator's name. I wasn't saying that Blizzard had any claim to the title-- quite the contrary-- I fully expect that a judge, when presented with the evidence, will deem the title the property of NEITHER party involved.

^D^

The problem is that technically, in the legal world, public domain only applies to intellectual property... and to actually be IP in the first place then at one time it would have needed "rights" (like a trademark) that expired or were basically given up by the owner. In this case, the trademark for the name "DotA" was never started by Eul (the creator), hence he could have decided to apply for it at any point. Valve, and Eul who is a part of Valve, eventually did. So I don't think that argument works.
55.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 11, 2012, 14:45
55.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 14:45
Feb 11, 2012, 14:45
 
Prez wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 14:27:
It's a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo bullshit that means nothing to anyone not a wannabe paralegal. All I know is that it's all noise and bullshit involving scumbag lawyers and scumbag corporate shenanigans.

Well, perhaps the larger point should mean something to you if you care about gaming and the future of developers who make them. News sites post this as a Activison-Blizzard vs Valve thing in their titles because that's what it is on the surface... but in essence this as a large publishing corporation vs developers and their original ideas. Others should see through the veil of carefully crafted PR statements and lawyer documents. I agree... this is a bunch of BS involving scumbag lawyers and corporate execs. Who would want to defend them? I look forward to a day where most of the middlemen in this industry are long gone. Digital distribution and the possibility of fan funded projects is the answer. It's no suprise then that Valve is implimenting that exact plan. Publishers know this and they are afraid, because they will become largely a moot point if that structure takes over. Fans should be cheering it on because we'll get better, more creative games for less money.

This comment was edited on Feb 11, 2012, 16:18.
51.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 11, 2012, 12:40
51.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 12:40
Feb 11, 2012, 12:40
 
nin wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 12:33:
You're welcome.

I didn't bother. I'm just saying when you start a post as "none of you know what you're talking about, here's a cut and paste I did from elsewhere" you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make a great impression.

1) You misquoted me, that's not what I said. You're paraphrasing with a slant to the negative. But the truth remains: a lot of posters don't understand what's going on. That's not a slight to their person as it's hard to understand if you haven't followed it.
2) I know full well why you made that snide comment. I was being facitious in my response.
3) If you don't want to read it, don't read it. No skin off my back. The post was meant for those who are interested, not trolls.
49.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 11, 2012, 12:27
49.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 12:27
Feb 11, 2012, 12:27
 
nin wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 12:16:
Oh boy!!!!!!!!!!!

You're welcome.
47.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 11, 2012, 12:06
47.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 12:06
Feb 11, 2012, 12:06
 
Wow, I can tell a lot of posters here don't understand what's going on, so I'm going to copy a post I made on another forum about this to give some insight that will hopefully keep the uninformed comments to a minimum and lessen the confusion of readers:


As far as the Allstars LLC claim Blizzard has: An LLC is not the same as an intellectual property nor a trademarked name of a product. The LLC was basically nothing (owned no trademarks that I know of, otherwise this would be a shut case already) - the majority of the LLC's claim was basically just the dota-allstars website (created by Pendragon aka Mescon the glorified webmaster of a glorified DotA clan) which really had been replaced by the developer Icefrog's playdota.com, since Icefrog was the one who continued the development after others had gone on to other things and the dota-allstars domain declined. Also don't forget that this all revolved around the dota allstars variant, the starting of which was Feak's main contribution... NOT the original DotA creation which was Eul's. How is it that one of the many offshoot developers that came and went in the organic creation of a mod-based sub-genre gets sole ownership of the IP and it's name? That's not how intellectual property works in almost any country, and especially not the United States.

There's just no getting around this. The DotA concept and name was Eul's, and it CERTAINLY was never Blizzard's. I'm not even certain why Mescon went to trademark the full "Defense of the Ancients" title back when this all started... when did HE become a major developement contributor in the history of all this? Even now, working for Riot Games, he's not a developer. He's just the "Director of Community Relations". Where is his stake in all this exactly?

The thing that really ticks me off in all this is that each party making a grab for a piece in this pie all claim to be doing it for the "DotA community and fans". Let me pose this question: what does the majority of the DotA community that's been around throughout the years to see this unfold think about all this? If someone would ask them, they may find the time to answer in between beta matches as they anxiously await DotA2.

This isn't so much a Blizzard bashing as it is a developer defending. Big corporations shouldn't get to decide the fate of someone else's creative works, especially when they toiled at it for years with no pay. Try to see this from Eul's shoes (who now works at Valve along with IceFrog).

Valve has been semi-gracious in that they've basically taken the genre's acronym-become-term as the title rather than the original full title of the mod (or "map", depending on your subjective terminology choice here). Valve (including Gabe) has openly admitted to being huge fans of Blizzard and wanting to work with them on multiple fronts before this, during this, and even after... but Blizzard has remained exclusive, totalitarian, and integrated, even more so after the Activision merger since they are now beholden to stockholders. While an amazing artistic team, their new business direction is something akin to the Apple of PC gaming devs, and this whole DotA thing is just embarrassing. I wish they would just stick to making games, and I wish the dev portions of Blizzard would have chosen artistic freedom rather than more cash. Then again, maybe it wasn't their decision.

That being said: I'm still looking forward to Diablo 3

This comment was edited on Feb 11, 2012, 14:41.
40.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 11, 2012, 00:02
40.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 00:02
Feb 11, 2012, 00:02
 
Yifes wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 14:25:
It's a nice rant, but you missed the part about how Icefrog didn't create DotA and has no right to sell it to Valve

I didn't miss anything.

A) He didn't "sell" it to Valve because it wasn't something he could sell. No one had claimed rights to the name yet. This wasn't some established IP with rights.

B) Eul, the original creator, also works at Valve. I only referenced Icefrog (who in the end has done more for DotA than anyone) because he was the one who originally went to Blizzard and was turned down, and then was mainly responsible for the decision to move development to Valve and the Source engine. In context, he was the fulcrum of the opportunity Blizzard lost, which was half the point of my post.

Always helps to read up before you post.
28.
 
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
Feb 10, 2012, 13:07
28.
Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 10, 2012, 13:07
Feb 10, 2012, 13:07
 
Valve isn't pulling the dick move, Blizzard is. Blizzard is just butthurt they didn't jump at the opportunity to utilize their community by bringing certain mod members on board WHEN THEY WERE APPROACH BY THOSE MEMBERS! Yes, in case some of you were not aware, Blizzard originally turned down helping certain key DotA mod members. Icefrog went to Valve and they were behind him. This has happened before with other mod teams that start on one engine, and then go commercial with their own intellectual property on another. In this case, rather than just the engine, they also used Valve's development team support by simply becoming members of Valve. If I had my own idea for a game and was able to flush that out as a mod, when I want to go commercial I should be able to take my ideas and name with me anywhere I want. Law protects this right so that other people can't steal what's mine, and now Blizzard is trying to say law gives them the right to do that. What a bunch of pompous pricks.

Tough crap Blizzard. You missed your chance. That's what happens when you get too big and start merging with Publishers. Now they're just money grubbers. What a bunch of sellouts.
16.
 
Re: Gabe Newell Interview Part 2
Feb 16, 2011, 14:15
16.
Re: Gabe Newell Interview Part 2 Feb 16, 2011, 14:15
Feb 16, 2011, 14:15
 
Kastagir wrote on Feb 15, 2011, 15:03:
Silence doesn't make you look cool, or busy, or calculated. It only makes you look foolish and helpless.

You say that as if looking cool, busy, or calculated is the actual reason they are remaining silent in the first place. I imagine those things have nothing to do with it, and that once it IS revealed and they say WHY they had been silent all that time, you'll nod your head and say "Ohhhh".
17 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older