Champions Online: The No-NDA Merged Edition

[Trippy]

Anyway, the copyright thing is a complete non-issue.  Marvel and Cryptic quietly dropped all pretense at such things once they realized it would harm them more than help them.

Sure, Marvel could have got CoH to change the outfit of anyone resembling a Marvel property.  This would have been immediately followed by Marvel going broke licensing one of the other 5 quadrillion costumes that Cryptic has covered whenever they wanted to change a look or create a new hero/villian.

NCsoft *does* change your costume and/or name if it resembles existing Marvel properties. Trademark/copyright infringement is still trademark/copyright infringement. What the lawsuit was about was trying to make Cryptic/NCsoft a reponsible party as well since they make available the tools that makes this possible (i.e. there's no point going after the "little guy" aka the players for infringement, better to go after the deep pockets). That never happened.

[Ghambit]

Anyway, the copyright thing is a complete non-issue.  Marvel and Cryptic quietly dropped all pretense at such things once they realized it would harm them more than help them.

Sure, Marvel could have got CoH to change the outfit of anyone resembling a Marvel property.  This would have been immediately followed by Marvel going broke licensing one of the other 5 quadrillion costumes that Cryptic has covered whenever they wanted to change a look or create a new hero/villian.

NCsoft *does* change your costume and/or name if it resembles existing Marvel properties. Trademark/copyright infringement is still trademark/copyright infringement. What the lawsuit was about was trying to make Cryptic/NCsoft a reponsible party as well since they make available the tools that makes this possible (i.e. there's no point going after the "little guy" aka the players for infringement, better to go after the deep pockets). That never happened.

I repeat my prior question.  If Cryptic doesnt claim "ownership" of a player's in-game assets, namely custom characters, then would Marvel even have a case?  (I know this is a moot issue; but it's a hypothetical that keeps creeping up over and over again on the news)
Really, if they just made our creations our own then this wouldnt be an issue.
Lucasarts cant sue little Johnny for making a Millenium Falcon out of generic Legos.  Nor can they sue Lego.   However, when Lego sells those Star Wars Lego sets... then they have to pay a licensing fee to Lucas or get sued.

Personally, I dont blame Marvel for wanting a lawsuit for such things, because in the end it all boils down to asset ownership.  MMO players have always wanted more control over their own assets, so one of the few things in their corner are suits like Marvel vs. NcSoft.  If a player makes a likeness of a Marvel character and NCSoft is making money from it while claiming ownership of that character from the player, then that's wrong and Marvel has a legitimate beef. 

[Trippy]

Lucasarts cant sue little Johnny for making a Millenium Falcon out of generic Legos.

Yes they can as it's an unauthorized derivative work. They just don't bother cause it's not worth their time and money.

Edit: unauthorized

[Ghambit]

Lucasarts cant sue little Johnny for making a Millenium Falcon out of generic Legos.

Yes they can as it's an unauthorized derivative work. They just don't bother cause it's not worth their time and money.

Edit: unauthorized

What if the Falcon was named "Space Nipple" and just LOOKED like the Falcon?   

[Trippy]

Trademarks and copyrights are different. The name "Millennium Falcon" would be a trademark (though it looks like that trademark has been expired/cancelled) while the design falls under copyright.

[Malakili]

Do what I do: Claim that everything is parody.  That always works.

[Trippy]

Do what I do: Claim that everything is parody.  That always works.

Unless you are playing in somebody else's sandbox where they restrict that (the NCsoft CoH EULA forbids parodies).

[Sky]

To be honest, it really pissed me off when they deleted my Man of Iron character. He was a cool energy blaster, and it was enjoyable to play him. Gave the game something beyond 'dude in tights' for the imagination to latch onto. Now it's Iron Man fighting in repetitive locations!

I'll totally give them the deletion of Captain A-Hole, though. Even if he was the best Captain America analogue in CoH. I thought it was pretty funny, though. (and that answers your parody issue, anyway)

[eldaec]

I repeat my prior question.  If Cryptic doesnt claim "ownership" of a player's in-game assets, namely custom characters, then would Marvel even have a case?  (I know this is a moot issue; but it's a hypothetical that keeps creeping up over and over again on the news)

Marvel doesn't have a case full stop.

This has been beaten to death in any number of court cases, not least of which was Marvel vs Cryptic round one, and the settled view of common law, is that Cryptic are fine so long as they offer a reasonable way for copyright holders or others to report infringement, and then remove the material that is reported.

[Ghambit]

I repeat my prior question.  If Cryptic doesnt claim "ownership" of a player's in-game assets, namely custom characters, then would Marvel even have a case?  (I know this is a moot issue; but it's a hypothetical that keeps creeping up over and over again on the news)

Marvel doesn't have a case full stop.

This has been beaten to death in any number of court cases, not least of which was Marvel vs Cryptic round one, and the settled view of common law, is that Cryptic are fine so long as they offer a reasonable way for copyright holders or others to report infringement, and then remove the material that is reported.

Then that means Marvel DOES have a case, they just dont get paid money.  They get "paid" by the fact that they (Marvel) can take a character like "Sky's" Man of Iron and force Cryptic to have him deleted.
And with Marvel wanting its own MMO, I foresee them chomping at the bit with this down the road.  It aint so bad NOW, but when millions are on the line with a competing game then dont doubt the hammer will fall on CoX and ChampO.

So, do I need to repeat my questions again?  I'm trying to get at the simple fact that Marvel SHOULDN'T have access to the characters we make (as long as they're ours), and the more we fold and compromise with this the worse it gets in the future due to precedent.

Basically, what's gonna happen is Marvel can force asset-removal from a competitors' game so the end-users are compelled to play/use Marvel's products only:  "we dont want you making sandbox Supermen (even if just a likeness),  you gotta pay us to play with him in OUR sandbox."

In the end everyone loses.  No one will use Marvel's product due to their BS and Marvel wont let anyone use anyone elses.
And the simple solution is still the same:  let the players own their own shyt.

[UnSub]

And the simple solution is still the same:  let the players own their own shyt.

Problem: players aren't playing their own shit. They are playing Marvel's shit.

In the first Marvel vs. NCsoft / Cryptic (according to Lum, NCsoft ponied up for the legal bills) Marvel tried to claim that Cryptic / NCsoft wasn't a service provider. If they'd proved that, Cryptic / NCsoft would have been directly responsible for every single IP violation Marvel could find and that would have been that for CoH. The judge threw that claim out and also threw out a whole heap of other claims due to the fact that Marvel lawyers were the ones creating cloned characters that they used in the lawsuit.

Marvel and Cryptic settled. Cryptic was a bit more stringent on IP violation issues as a result.

Here's the thing: no-one wants to be the defendant in a lawsuit just so Jonny ADHD can play as Wolf-O-Rine, the Toronto native with an unbreakable titanium skeleton. Easier to just generic the name of the character and avoid the potential legal costs (and some of CoH's official lore changed because of the suit: Bastion changed his name to Citadel because Marvel has a character called Bastion).

[eldaec]

Basically, what's gonna happen is Marvel can force asset-removal from a competitors' game so the end-users are compelled to play/use Marvel's products only:  "we dont want you making sandbox Supermen (even if just a likeness),  you gotta pay us to play with him in OUR sandbox."

In the end everyone loses.  No one will use Marvel's product due to their BS and Marvel wont let anyone use anyone elses.
And the simple solution is still the same:  let the players own their own shyt.

1) I don't see how it makes any difference who owns the shyt.

2) As has been demonstrated over and over, there is plenty of room in 'superheroes' without making every third character 'W01v3rinez_111'.

3) Bullshit claims like Statesman = Captain America consistently get thrown out of court as laughable.


The sky is not falling on this issue. Most IP law is stupid and designed purely as a form of corporate welfare, but the courts have dealt with this particular problem, and found sensible answers simply by asking themselves 'what is the only approach to this problem that is not fucking stupid'.

[Kovacs]

And the simple solution is still the same:  let the players own their own shyt.

This seem a case of the cure being worse than the disease.  Yes, it sucks when a copywright/trademark holder enforces his rights over something you'd rather infringe upon but allowing players ownership of NC Soft's IP, that is the character's they play, opens up a can of worms the industry appears to be trying their damndest to keep well closed. 

Wouldn't this, off the top of my head, make RMT issues less murky, and not in the way I'd want them too?  Wouldn't taxing in game activities become more 'real' as the player owns more of his virtual world?  I'm not talking about just the realized gains from RMT but the potential taxation of a supposed increase in value of your virtual property.  Hacking wouldn't be hacking if it allows access to your own property would it?  How many issues would suddenly become unclear if that was my property being stored on your servers?  What sort of access rights can the owner of virtual goods assert?

For a guy who doens't even play a lawyer on the internet this seems a fairly predictable recipe for disaster.

[eldaec]

And the simple solution is still the same:  let the players own their own shyt.

This seem a case of the cure being worse than the disease.  Yes, it sucks when a copywright/trademark holder enforces his rights over something you'd rather infringe upon but allowing players ownership of NC Soft's IP, that is the character's they play, opens up a can of worms the industry appears to be trying their damndest to keep well closed. 

And players owning it wouldn't make Cryptic any more or less responsible for what they store on their servers, or for what they serve up to other players.

Plus, even if it did, do you really think that Marvel going after random_idiot_001 who created 'Man of Iron' in game would have a better outcome for limiting intellectual property overreach?

[Numtini]

Wouldn't this, off the top of my head, make RMT issues less murky, and not in the way I'd want them too?

Owning the items in game as if they were tangible objects is completely different from owning the IP to the designs you create within a game. Second Life has its problems, but it got this one right. If you upload a piece of IP to their servers you give them an unlimited license to use it in their game, but you retain the IP rights to your design.

[Sky]

random_idiot_001 who created 'Man of Iron'

HEY!

[Ghambit]

Wouldn't this, off the top of my head, make RMT issues less murky, and not in the way I'd want them too?

Owning the items in game as if they were tangible objects is completely different from owning the IP to the designs you create within a game. Second Life has its problems, but it got this one right. If you upload a piece of IP to their servers you give them an unlimited license to use it in their game, but you retain the IP rights to your design.

THIS.

Basically, if NCSoft or Cryptic did the same thing with their sandboxes they'd be limiting their exposure and we wouldnt be having these stupid ass lawsuits that cost everyone money no one has.  btw, did MMOs suddenly become lucrative enough for these lawsuits??  uhh no  (aside from Blizz)

Look, this is the way these CEOs think:

Scenario 1)  Cryptic owns all, including all their players' creations.  So, since they're making beaucoup dollars doing-so and I'm Marvel, I'll sue and take a bit off the top of that since half of those players are making supers with my IPs likenesses.  And hey, even if it just gets settled for legal fees.  We get our counselors' retainers renewed for free!  Even better, maybe they'll kick us back after the settlements with cash or a lower legal fee. win win win.
Scenario 2)  Player owns his/her own characters as IP or otherwise.  So, since the player isnt making any money doing-so, and I'm Marvel, why the phuck would I bother suing "Sky" for his Ironman?  Aint no money there.  Maybe I'll just send him a stern email.  Besides, his copyright infringement actually generates free advert. for our next Marvel movie.  woot! 
Scenario 2b)  Players own their own shyt.  So, since the player isnt making any money doing-so, and I'm Uncle Sam, why the phuck would I bother taxing "Sky" for his Ironman?  Aint no money there.

I work with these people all the time (y'know, the ones who ruined our country presently).  I know how they think. They dont give 2 rat's asses if you play with their stuff in a sandbox, they only care (i.e. get jealous) if you're making money from it and/or stealing money directly from their coffers.  It almost doesnt even matter if they make any money in the lawsuit or not; it's basically a rich man's pissing contest.  CoX only was threatened after the initial success of their title.  Now that it's "nothing" basically, it's not worth the effort.

ChampO (if they design it the way they should) will be the greatest supers toolkit ever made, only Cryptic wants all teh phat lootz from it including all their endusers' IPs (your characters, arch-villains, and missions).  Thinking that Marvel/DC wont file lawsuits after it releases is naive.  They will... especially if it becomes popular.  And the more popular and successful it gets, the more lawsuits ensue - taking money from Cryptic's bottom-line... which in turn gives us, the end-user, a shittier product since they cant invest in their own service whilst in the throws of legal suits.

(sigh)  I'm ranting, again.  Anyways, I just think this game is gonna be rife with folly legally if it becomes successful on PC and Console (especially).  It's the same clusterscrew the pnp games had to deal with, only multiplied by infinity.

[eldaec]

Cryptic would still be liable in option 2.

Or at least they would be, if this exact problem hadn't already been solved in CoX.

[WayAbvPar]

Rumor has it that more invites went out in time for a stress test tonight...how many people are in beta now (roughly)?

[eldaec]

1562

[UnSub]

So ChampO will have flight, superspeed, teleport, superleaping and ... swinging.

(Pretty sure all of these have been formally announced.)

EDIT: Also: burrowing.

[Dtrain]

So ChampO will have ... swinging.

Do I want to click that link? 

[UnSub]

So ChampO will have ... swinging.

Do I want to click that link? 

Would it help if I said it involves rope?

[Signe]

That was cool.  I want to do that!  Even though they all have the look, that trailer was the most CoH looking that I've seen yet. 

[Koyasha]

I don't know why, but swinging bugs me more than it probably should.  Especially how in the trailer it was blatantly obvious that you weren't actually swinging from anything, you were just shooting ropes UP into empty sky.  I know, it's a superhero game, and that's beside the point but still...it just bugs me.

[Triforcer]

Wow.  I didn't watch the trailer (at work) but assumed you have to actually swing from buildings.  That is a bit lame. 

[Margalis]

Requiring swinging to be off buildings would either greatly constrict the level designs or make the power useless in many areas.

[UnSub]

Requiring swinging to be off buildings would either greatly constrict the level designs or make the power useless in many areas.

This.

It works for Spider-Man because generally we don't care where he anchors his line. If a player has to anchor every line and couldn't use the power outside of cities, it would be a worthless power to take.

[Tannhauser]

I am buying this game for one simple reason.  They have sharks.  with.  lasers.

[Venkman]

Hey, he probably ran out and bought that new Queen song in 1997 

Wow.  I didn't watch the trailer (at work) but assumed you have to actually swing from buildings.  That is a bit lame. 

Watch the whole video. Your question (and others) is answered there. Which is good because I'm biting my tongue 

[Kovacs]

Requiring swinging to be off buildings would either greatly constrict the level designs or make the power useless in many areas.

A Champions game with power limitations .

[Cadaverine]

Now to combine the swinging with powers emanating from specific areas of the body, and we have a whole new level of disturbing.

[Tannhauser]

I am buying this game for one simple reason.  They have sharks.  with.  lasers.

You're buying a game because of a joke from 1997?

Really?

stupid beer

[Ghambit]

Requiring swinging to be off buildings would either greatly constrict the level designs or make the power useless in many areas.

If you've played any lower level CoX, you know how hard it is to get around town quickly.  Personally, I'd take the skill in a hot minute if it was cheap enough... rather than wasting tons of stats to fly or run fast.  Remember, leveling quickly requires speed.
Also, there's conceivably many creative ways to implement this "swinging" that'd make gameply pretty interesting.  Useless, I think not.

Are we to assume climbing on walls is useless because there wont always be walls?  Or psychokinesis is useless because there might not be shyt lying around to throw?

In order for there to be an appropriate "synergy" with supers gaming, players HAVE to be useless in many areas... or else it'll suck

I'd go as far as saying the grittier this thing is the better it'll be.

[misrossk]

Would anyone else happen to have a buddy key they don't mind sharing? :D, I really want to try out and test stuff in Champions. Im majoring in Game Design at my private college AIA, and would really like a chance at this. So pleease, if anyone has another key, please allow me to use it :)