66 replies to this topic

[Mole]

DaZur, on 28 October 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

It's like folks are more concerned with making sure they've gotten a kick in on PGIs nuts than actually giving a rats arse over the fallout of this development.

I do enjoy kicking PGI in the nuts... Gotta hand you that...

[LordNothing]

the fastest way to to get me to exit out of a you tube video is to be immediately greeted by some guy talking. i know for a fact that it is going to be this for the next 30 minutes to an hour. if i want that i will just read the forum.

"look at me! i need to voice my opinion! and im doing it in the least efficient way possible! im also a narcissist!"

Edited by LordNothing, 28 October 2016 - 12:18 PM.

[DaZur]

TKSax, on 28 October 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

So I belive PGI did not do it out of malice. I feel bad for the guys in my Unit who are losing the logo's and the other units that are.

However, PGI Could have avoided this by not being so short sighted and actually communicating their intentions. Yet PGI continues to repeat a pattern of short-sightedness and lack of clear communication. So are we just supposed to keep giving them a pass? Pat them on the back and send them on the way with a ," we understand I am sure you will do better next time " over and over and over again? PGI's lack of clear communication and short-sightedness is why I have no intention of spending any more money on this game. I keep hoping they will change... maybe someday they will figure it out.

Oh, no-doubt... Like I said, they have to own this screw up no doubt and there is no room to give a pass on this fiasco.

That said, and I said this in another thread... "Small moral victory".

Yup, PGI got called on the carpet for their absolute failure of due diligence on this one. But at the end of the day... They as a company will ride out the storm and it will simply go down as another instance of PGI being PGI...

But the fallout is greater to you, your team and the opportunities potentially afforded. Which in my mind is a bigger deal than the small moral victory of catching PGI being stupid and rubbing their nose in it.

Edited by DaZur, 28 October 2016 - 12:22 PM.

[Mole]

DaZur, on 28 October 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

catching PGI being stupid and rubbing their nose in it.

This is how I taught my dog not to pee on the carpet. Maybe if we do it to PGI they will show me that they can be just as smart as my dog.

[TKSax]

DaZur, on 28 October 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

But the fallout is greater to you, your team and the opportunities potentially afforded. Which in my mind is a bigger deal than the small moral victory of catching PGI being stupid and rubbing their nose in it.

Well, I was not on the team the got the decal so it really does not harm me, and no one on my Team who was on the WC Team raised a Stink about it. However Besides them having the Decal in the game, and see other people buy it as a medallion the cockpit I am not sure what opportunities they are missing out on. In fact, my team leader is trying to work with PGI to see if it is possible to get the Team Decals back in the game, as those were really separate from selling medallions with team's artwork on them. I don't see how having a discussion about PGI mistakes is "rubbing" their nose in it.

[DaZur]

Mole, on 28 October 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

This is how I taught my dog not to pee on the carpet. Maybe if we do it to PGI they will show me that they can be just as smart as my dog.

Oh, I'm sure your dog won't pee on your carpet anymore...

But I bet your dog drags it's arse across you pillowcase every day when your not home.

[Summon3r]

TKSax, on 28 October 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

So I belive PGI did not do it out of malice. I feel bad for the guys in my Unit who are losing the logo's and the other units that are.

However, PGI Could have avoided this by not being so short sighted and actually communicating their intentions. Yet PGI continues to repeat a pattern of short-sightedness and lack of clear communication. So are we just supposed to keep giving them a pass? Pat them on the back and send them on the way with a ," we understand I am sure you will do better next time " over and over and over again? PGI's lack of clear communication and short-sightedness is why I have no intention of spending any more money on this game. I keep hoping they will change... maybe someday they will figure it out.

very well said

[DaZur]

TKSax, on 28 October 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Well, I was not on the team the got the decal so it really does not harm me, and no one on my Team who was on the WC Team raised a Stink about it. However Besides them having the Decal in the game, and see other people buy it as a medallion the cockpit I am not sure what opportunities they are missing out on. In fact, my team leader is trying to work with PGI to see if it is possible to get the Team Decals back in the game, as those were really separate from selling medallions with team's artwork on them. I don't see how having a discussion about PGI mistakes is "rubbing" their nose in it.

There should be discussions on both aspects... PGI culpability and the ramifications of the fallout.

As for having earnest discussion about PGIs mistakes? There's a clear difference between having a frank discussion and the derision being enjoyed.

Yeah, I know... It's PGI and it's the internet. What was I truly expecting?

[TKSax]

DaZur, on 28 October 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

There should be discussions on both aspects... PGI culpability and the ramifications of the fallout.

As for having earnest discussion about PGIs mistakes? There's a clear difference between having a frank discussion and the derision being enjoyed.

Yeah, I know... It's PGI and it's the internet. What was I truly expecting?

They only fall out I see is the removal of Decals and the Supporter Packs, if PGI cannot figure how to handle getting units customer decals in games (like many other games) do that is on them. I know people are thinking this mean PGI is not going to accept and player generated content, I would remind everyone that PGI has always said they would never accept any player generated content for the game. The only exception that has ever been mentioned was custom Unit Decals.

Personally (And I know you were being general) I take no joy in talking about PGI mistakes, I wish they would stop doing it, and there might be times I sounds joyful, bitter or salty talking about PGI mistakes, but I hate that continue to make them and the get talked about over and over. If I sound any of the above its because the core of this game is soo good, it is the best mechwarrior pvp experience I have ever had, and to see it wasted by short-sightedness and lack of focus cause's me to laugh, be better and even sometimes rage insted of being level headed (all though that as not happened in a long time I generally try to be level headed and fair.). There is just so much potential that is being wasted.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Mole, on 28 October 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

This is how I taught my dog not to pee on the carpet. Maybe if we do it to PGI they will show me that they can be just as smart as my dog.

This communities way of rubbing PGIs nose in their mistakes is buying mech packs. The community is to blame for the state of the game. They continue to support by buying redundant mechs yet the game doesn't progress in any way. It is really insane.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Dear PGI,

Please hire some sort of in house legal counsel.
Please do not hire said legal counsel based on their robot drawing skills.

Even some 24 year old that dropped out law school after only attending a single semester would have been able to spot the problems with this debacle.

[Bud Crue]

Boogie138, on 28 October 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

Dear PGI,

Please hire some sort of in house legal counsel.
Please do not hire said legal counsel based on their robot drawing skills.

Even some 24 year old that dropped out law school after only attending a single semester would have been able to spot the problems with this debacle.

Consider all of the posts and discussions over the years regarding PGI's having to license the BattleTech and Mechwarrior intellectual property. The whole kerfuffle back in the day with Harmony Gold?
Point being, that PGI is undoubtedly aware of IP licensing issues and the consequences of failing to vet those issues properly. No, this was not a legal issue as much as it was/is an arrogance issue. Certain parties fully expected the tournament participants to be delighted by having PGI honor them with the presence of their logos in the game. It never crossed their mind that mere players would expect direct compensation for use of their art.

Based on what I have read I think PGI could have gotten away with doing what they did (spilt proceeds etc.) as there is an argument to be made under the TOS that submissions by players are automatically licensed to PGI royalty free. Legalities be damned this is a PR nightmare from any angle you look at it. It all comes down to another instance where certain parties thought they "knew better" and just didn't think they need to bother getting anyone else's input.
Huh. Now where have I heard that before...?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bud Crue, on 28 October 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Based on what I have read I think PGI could have gotten away with doing what they did (spilt proceeds etc.) as there is an argument to be made under the TOS that submissions by players are automatically licensed to PGI royalty free.

thelegaldept (the player, not anything else) looked into it and the TOS were perhaps broad enough that they could've gotten away with it if they wanted to, but that would've created more bad blood between comp teams and PGI and there is already plenty there.

Still the typical thing among other e-sport oriented games is to give those teams a small cut of the profit, definitely not to give it to other teams (which is what essentially was happening by giving it to the prize pool after all regionals had already been finished) or keep it all to themselves.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 October 2016 - 02:07 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 October 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

Still the typical thing among other e-sport oriented games is to give those teams a small cut of the profit, definitely not to give it to other teams (which is what essentially was happening by giving it to the prize pool after all regionals had already been finished) or keep it all to themselves.

But giving the team a cut of the sales was not even an option for the logo that was at the center of the $hitstorm because it was a blatant rip-off of a trademarked and copywrited image. In fact, that could very well have been what started the whole mess. When the person who took it upon himself the plagiarize it and submitted that logo as an original unit logo realized that PGI intended to sell the logos he may have suddenly realized that he could be held liable If anyone decided to pursue the infringement. That makes his righteous indignation about the teams being taken advantage of become more of a "covering his own a$$" maneuver.

The whole thing was handled badly by many individuals and PGI.

[Aiden Skye]

Otto Cannon, on 28 October 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

lol best meme ever

[Bud Crue]

Rampage, on 28 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

But giving the team a cut of the sales was not even an option for the logo that was at the center of the $hitstorm because it was a blatant rip-off of a trademarked and copywrited image. In fact, that could very well have been what started the whole mess. When the person who took it upon himself the plagiarize it and submitted that logo as an original unit logo realized that PGI intended to sell the logos he may have suddenly realized that he could be held liable If anyone decided to pursue the infringement. That makes his righteous indignation about the teams being taken advantage of become more of a "covering his own a$$" maneuver.

The whole thing was handled badly by many individuals and PGI.

First paragraph...whu? You must have information about something more.. What is this trademarked image you speak of? The alleged plagiarism? No idea what you are talking about but would like to.

Second paragraph. Yes.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rampage, on 28 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

But giving the team a cut of the sales was not even an option for the logo that was at the center of the $hitstorm because it was a blatant rip-off of a trademarked and copywrited image.

There are 3 actually, EmP (Aston Martin rip-off), HoL (Harvard rip-off), and COMA (unsure, just what I heard). That said, if it had been communicated before hand that these were intended to sell, that could have been avoided by having them submit an original logo.

Rampage, on 28 October 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

In fact, that could very well have been what started the whole mess. When the person who took it upon himself the plagiarize it and submitted that logo as an original unit logo realized that PGI intended to sell the logos he may have suddenly realized that he could be held liable If anyone decided to pursue the infringement.

I don't think he would've been liable since he was not the one selling it nor did PGI ever give that inclination, plus if the ToS is correct they would actually "own" the rights to that logo absolving that player of any guilt (I could be pulling that out of my butt, but from what I understood the concern was never for teams that submitted, but for PGI unless teams were receiving a cut that is, which was never on the table).

Did Peef handle it wrong, sure; he is the one that got this story to the "esports journalism." Does that mean that PGI and Peef are equal in guilt, definitely not, PGI has handled this wrong since they asked for submissions.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 October 2016 - 03:01 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Bud Crue, on 28 October 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

First paragraph...whu? You must have information about something more.. What is this trademarked image you speak of? The alleged plagiarism? No idea what you are talking about but would like to.

Second paragraph. Yes.

Quicksilver already covered that in the post below yours.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 October 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

There are 3 actually, EmP (Aston Martin rip-off), HoL (Harvard rip-off), and COMA (unsure, just what I heard). That said, if it had been communicated before hand that these were intended to sell, that could have been avoided by having them submit an original logo.


I don't think he would've been liable since he was not the one selling it nor did PGI ever give that inclination, plus if the ToS is correct they would actually "own" the rights to that logo absolving that player of any guilt (I could be pulling that out of my butt, but from what I understood the concern was never for teams that submitted, but for PGI unless teams were receiving a cut that is, which was never on the table).

Did Peef handle it wrong, sure; he is the one that got this story to the "esports journalism." Does that mean that PGI and Peef are equal in guilt, definitely not, PGI has handled this wrong since they asked for submissions.

I wondered whether the EmP was too similar to Aston Martin's logo. I am a big car buff and thought about that while showering last night but forgot to compare the logos today.

The reddit poster that said he is a lawyer examined the TOS and other stuff and I believe that is where I read that PGI would be held without blame if material submitted to it would found to be an infringement of rights in some manner and that the submitter would be liable in those cases. Whether the TOS would stand up in a court of law is anyone's guess.

True, them receiving a cut was never on the table in this case but both of the online psuedo-journalist hacks suggested that it was the proper resolution. My point was it was never an option and could not legally have been an option in this case under the circumstances.

I am not trying to divvy out the blame or say anyone is blameless. In this mess, there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone.

Edited by Rampage, 28 October 2016 - 03:39 PM.

[AEgg]

...I'll never understand some people. You make a logo specifically to represent your group in a game, and then you get upset when it actually gets added to said game?

The only ones at fault here are those that reused logos from other IP, but unless it's literally identical that pretty much universally falls under fair use anyway, it's just dumb since either anyone who sees it sees the similarity and thus knows you aren't affiliated, or they don't recognize it at all, in which case, what's the point?

The only mistake on PGI's part would be dropping the decals altogether rather than leaving them.

[Deathlike]

AEgg, on 28 October 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

...I'll never understand some people. You make a logo specifically to represent your group in a game, and then you get upset when it actually gets added to said game?

You can't add it to the game under the terms PGI laid out to the units... that's the problem. PGI would be making money off the logos, they didn't do it properly (based on their own terms) and thus the problem at hand.

When you do anything like this, you need to make sure all your legal ducks are in a row, or bad things happen.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 October 2016 - 04:03 PM.