Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Brother None]

US trademark law is a bitch. You have to defend a mark or risk losing it through inaction. Is that news to anyone here?

I don't know why people apparently think Wasteland is different in this. How do you think Fallout Kings would've done? Battlefield Kings? Halo Kings? Do you think US trademark law works different if you're a smaller company?

Beta was indeed not planned for October 1st.

 

[Blaine]

"October" doesn't mean October 1st.

I realize that, but generally if a concrete date is imminent, the developer or publisher at least makes a peep about it a few weeks in advance.

 

[tuluse]

The way trademarks work in the US you have to actively defend them or you lose them. So if Fargo let this go, and then someone made Wasteland: Snake's Revenge or whatever, they could point to Nuclear Wasteland and say "he didn't defend his tm" and they would be right and Fargo would lose.

 

[Infinitron]

"October" doesn't mean October 1st.

I realize that, but generally if a concrete date is imminent, the developer or publisher makes at least peep about it a few weeks in advance.

I'm sure that peep will be here any day now.

 

[Blaine]

We'll see. It won't bother me if the date is pushed back—I just suspect that it will be.

 

[Oesophagus]

That sounds so ironically hilarious for some reason.

The irony exists only if you presume to be honest, and not a hypocrite.

Which I don't

So when Bioware or Bethesda does that - screw them, they're the priests of decline. When Fargo does it, it's for the glorious purposes of incline.

 

[Brother None]

So when Bioware or Bethesda does that - screw them, they're the priests of decline. When Fargo does it, it's for the glorious purposes of incline.

I think most of us understand why Bethesda went after Scrolls, once the whole case was explained. I think the how is markedly different, though.

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

 

[Oesophagus]

So when Bioware or Bethesda does that - screw them, they're the priests of decline. When Fargo does it, it's for the glorious purposes of incline.

I think most of us understand why Bethesda went after Scrolls, once the whole case was explained. I think the how is markedly different, though.

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

So, what, assuming W2 is a financial success, then could say Beth make a game called Wasteland: Washington, where you lead a team of desert rangers troopers? I mean I get the fact that a title can be confusing, but then there's also IP, which is a different story

 

[cherry blossom]

US trademark law is a bitch. You have to defend a mark or risk losing it through inaction. Is that news to anyone here?

I don't know why people apparently think Wasteland is different in this. How do you think Fallout Kings would've done? Battlefield Kings? Halo Kings? Do you think US trademark law works different if you're a smaller company?

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

Losing a mark due to inaction is, while theoretically correct, is not that simple actually. It would depend on if the other game with Battlefield/Halo/Fallout in its title was sufficiently (an arbitrary measure to be decided by legal authorities, of course) distinct game with a similarly distinct full title, deemed sufficient to avoid consumer confusion. If there was enough "space" for over ten games with "Doom" in their titles to have come out alright between 2009 (ZeniMax's acquisition of ID Software) and today (so that ZeniMax didn't sue all those people out of existence), then there is certainly some space for a game with the title Wasteland Kings, especially for a game with such distinctiveness as this one, compared to WL2:




THIS here is the game that can cause confusion? Give me a fucking break.

Makes me wonder if InXile will have the balls to do the same if Activision decides to do an American Wasteland 2 ie. a fucking skating game, at some point.

Perhaps Brian is being a little overprotective of the name for having been deprived of an opportunity to develop WL2 for so long.

The way trademarks work in the US you have to actively defend them or you lose them. So if Fargo let this go, and then someone made Wasteland: Snake's Revenge or whatever, they could point to Nuclear Wasteland and say "he didn't defend his tm" and they would be right and Fargo would lose.

Theoretically but it's not that simple, actually.

 

[DeepOcean]

So when Bioware or Bethesda does that - screw them, they're the priests of decline. When Fargo does it, it's for the glorious purposes of incline.

I think most of us understand why Bethesda went after Scrolls, once the whole case was explained. I think the how is markedly different, though.

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

So, what, assuming W2 is a financial success, then could say Beth make a game called Wasteland: Washington, where you lead a team of desert rangers troopers? I mean I get the fact that a title can be confusing, but then there's also IP, which is a different story

If you don't defend your trademark, you can expose yourself to trademark trolling lawsuits down the road, that could cost alot in lawyers to inXile. If inXile let this goes, the thing can end on a vicious battle to see who can and can't use the trademark later and even if inXile eventually wins,they would have wasted alot of time and money with lawyers. There are no end to the line o crazy people that think they can get easy money from others using the tribunals. It is better to be safe than sorry.

 

[tuluse]

Speaking of which, THIS here is the game that can cause confusion?
Give me a fucking break.

Remember, most judges are old and don't understand video games or technology.

I could see a lawyer convincing one that this is a post-apocolyptic rpg using the Wasteland name and thus invalidates the Wasteland tm.

 

[Infinitron]

Nuclear Throne is a much cooler name anyway

 

[Oesophagus]

Nuclear Throne is a much cooler name anyway

If its an Indie then the name shouldn't matter to them that much anyway. Still...
It has some decent music though

 

[cherry blossom]

Nuclear Throne is a much cooler name anyway

Now that is true. "Wasteland Kings" was such a shitty name. Those guys should be glad InXile's pursuit led to a name change, principles notwithstanding.

So when Bioware or Bethesda does that - screw them, they're the priests of decline. When Fargo does it, it's for the glorious purposes of incline.

I think most of us understand why Bethesda went after Scrolls, once the whole case was explained. I think the how is markedly different, though.

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

So, what, assuming W2 is a financial success, then could say Beth make a game called Wasteland: Washington, where you lead a team of desert rangers troopers? I mean I get the fact that a title can be confusing, but then there's also IP, which is a different story

If you don't defend your trademark, you can expose yourself to trademark trolling lawsuits down the road, that could cost alot in lawyers to inXile. If inXile let this goes, the thing can end on a vicious battle to see who can and can't use the trademark later and even if inXile eventually wins,they would have wasted alot of time and money with lawyers. There are no end to the line o crazy people that think they can get easy money from others using the tribunals. It is better to be safe than sorry.

There is a point to that.

Speaking of which, THIS here is the game that can cause confusion?
Give me a fucking break.

Remember, most judges are old and don't understand video games or technology.

I could see a lawyer convincing one that this is a post-apocolyptic rpg using the Wasteland name and thus invalidates the Wasteland tm.

And this too.

 

[Brother None]

Wasteland Kings was also a post-apocalyptic top-down title. I'm not sure how many judges are savvy enough to really know the difference.

Regardless, is it really worth the risk, when you can just reach out amiably? I just chatted about this with Rami on Skype for, what, 20-30 minutes and it was pretty much resolved, and I too think they ended up with a better title. Plus a lot of PR for them. It's kind of win-win-win.

 

[tuluse]

It's kind of win-win-win.

 

[Brother None]

It's kind of win-win-win.

Don't you see, the Synergy.

 

[Lhynn]

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

Wasteland Angel

 

[Infinitron]

Look, let me put it simply, if you allow these cases to pass freely, then later after Wasteland 2 is out someone makes Wasteland Enhanced, a post-apocalyptic RPG, you have less of a leg to stand on in court, because you failed to defend earlier. "But your honor, we are nice guys and don't want to bother other indies" is, oddly enough, not a valid legal defense.

Wasteland Angel

Release Date: 1 Sep 2011

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

Nuclear Throne is a much cooler name anyway

They should rename it to Nuclear Blast. That wouldn't give them any legal problems

 

[cherry blossom]

Regardless, is it really worth the risk, when you can just reach out amiably? I just chatted about this with Rami on Skype for, what, 20-30 minutes and it was pretty much resolved, and I too think they ended up with a better title. Plus a lot of PR for them. It's kind of win-win-win.

I'm all for amiable resolutions. Doesn't mean I won't bitch if I can.

 

[Lhynn]

Release Date: 1 Sep 2011

so? inxile has had the rights since 2003

 

[Infinitron]

Release Date: 1 Sep 2011

so? inxile has had the rights since 2003

Sure, but there's no point in defending a trademark for vaporware.

Now THAT would be a dick move.

 

[Lhynn]

Release Date: 1 Sep 2011

so? inxile has had the rights since 2003

Sure, but there's no point in defending a trademark for vaporware.

Now THAT would be a dick move.

Well, even if it is vaporware, you cant get more ripoffy (?) than putting the whole name of a franchise along with the theme and a setting so similar i wouldnt blame you if you thought it was a spin off.
Plus its not like the dudes brainstormed that name
Wouldnt have seen it as a dick move if inxile did pursue that, at least changing it to "Angels of the wasteland" would have been sufficient.

Anyway, i was just looking that this week it had a 75% off when i read this thread, so kinda funny.

 

[cherry blossom]

Release Date: 1 Sep 2011

so? inxile has had the rights since 2003

Sure, but there's no point in defending a trademark for vaporware.

Now THAT would be a dick move.

Well, even if it is vaporware, you cant get more ripoffy (?) than putting the whole name of a franchise along with the theme and a setting so similar

Interplay invented neither the word nor the setting and if you are using the word, it is almost certain that you have a wasteland theme and setting in mind and there is nothing wrong with that. That would be like saying that any number of films with the word Murder in their titles are ripoffy of numerous other previous films also with the word Murder in their titles where both films would have MURDER as a central theme (shocked!). And somehow, that is almost never a problem in the film industry. Eg. a most recent example with simple single word titles: Avatar; the animated series, Cameron's giant hippie smurfs film and the live action adaptation of the animated series.

And yet when it comes to games... It's like "how do magnets work?" all over again. It is a horrendously stupid, underdeveloped and regressive industry and one of the reasons that it will stay that way for a long while is because mark holders keep acting like insecure dickheads based on irrational fears and insecurities.