I’m pretty sure it takes a whole team of people to perform this task. Three people, minimum. I buy lots of games on Steam, so I know this.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to look at sales indicators for SCO and tell anyone relying on DLC sales for their livelihood to get cranking on the ol’ resumé.
Maybe, but Stardock was probably also aiming to port SCO to consoles, which could hypothetically amount to a fresh new market for the game and some non-negligible revenue.
I would love for Brad to throw money down the console hole on a mediocre game but I think the lawsuit has taken all the “console” money.
I would love for the team’s hard work to be rewarded, for some segment of gamers to find something they enjoy playing, and for people to not lose their jobs. And for Fred and Paul to go on and make the game they want to make without disruption.
What’s a rocket surgeon?
I think this type of gane would actually work well on the switch.
There’s no assumption in what I wrote that anyone who disagrees hates Brad.
There’s even a key word for you in my post : “certain”
If we want to play the assumptions accusations game then perhaps your own assumptions about what I wrote need some scrutiny?!
I’d rather not, as it’s pointless endeavour at the he best of times, and I am not here to defend Mr Wardell.
I simply stated certain people will be happy he’s gone from here.
I don’t see how that can be concretely disproved (or proved to be fair!)
He, and this saga, has been very controversial and has stirred up lots of emotions.
Based on his exit from here and from what I understand of the latest ruling (I’m not a lawyer) it appears he has infact lost this particular battle.
Add to that various controversies in the past (proved or dismissed, the taint still sticks) and you get a picture of a not very nice person.
Accurate or not, it’s enough that some here will be glad to see the back of him.
The DMCA takedown would be the last straw for me. Legally permissable, but screws over any and all fans. Even if they do win, I would think the IP will be dead for another decade at least.
Any fans should already own it and aren’t really impacted except future dlc is less likely at this point.
^this
This is a good point about the law. The good faith article provides them almost absolute immunity given Brad’s prior statements. I wonder if this is one of the reasons Brad decided to shut up shop at Qt3 because the statements he made here and elsewhere have strengthened P&Fs case.
And with the exception of any possible DLC I do not think this hurts fans or even Stardock much. The game’s review score has been steadily declining (the last time I checked it was below 70% which gives it the dreaded “Mixed” rating. Perhaps it might be a success on another platform but the buzz has died down on this considerably. If it is taken off forever it means that this was found to be infringing and thus should have never been released. If it is temporary then this gives Brad an opportunity to “re-launch” the game with a patch and is a slight hiccup in the grand scheme of things.
Nobody believes that Brad believes that. I believe that he’s just trolling them, while sticking to a narrative that’s part of his lawsuit claims.
He didn’t announce layoffs. He opined on what would happen due to lack of sales.
Agreed. Fair points.
Yup. And I said on Twitter yesterday, the Safe Harbor protections would be lost if Valve and GoG didn’t take steps as per this latest DMCA because they already knew and had a previous DMCA filed to them. That would leave both Valve and GoG at great liability down the road.
Funny thing, I had a similar sentiment in my Twitter coverage of this yesterday when someone was implying that P&F would get into trouble if they filed a false DMCA.
I agree with this because myself personally have been subject to that. It’s not something that’s unique. It happens to many people who are either combative, expressive, controversial etc. In any online community, unless it’s a hug box, you can always find people who aren’t very popular because of their opinions and/or actions. So it stands to reason that when they do leave, the opposition and quite possibly even those who don’t give a damn either way, would be glad that they left.
I have known Brad personally for decades; and while we’ve publicly butted heads on a myriad of things - going all the way to Usenet - he really gets a bum rap. And like myself and others, it’s about how people come across online. Which is precisely why people who know me personally, tend to have a head scratching moment when they read some things from people who think they know me. Thing is, online, we can be whoever we want to be, especially if we can do it anon. But some of us who stand by our opinions, tend to not hide behind anonymity. Of course it has its ups and downs; but then again, you reap what you sow and it’s your responsibility to refrain from saying anything online that’s going to come back to bite you.
I am saddened by the fact that the game (FYI I have yet to play it) flopped, and that people are likely to lose their jobs (which is always a bad thing) over this (not to mention the legal situation which has to be costing him a pretty Penny); but that’s why I had suggested that he settle the matter and move on. But then we saw what he presented as a settlement offer, and most of us were taken aback by it because it simply didn’t appear to be a good faith effort (assuming that he was actually serious).
It’s just a sad situation all around, and nobody but the attorneys win. As always.
It isn’t actually a false DMCA, though. The issue is that DMCA notices only need to say that there is a copyright holder who hasn’t authorized that use of the work; it doesn’t need to certify that the work in question is actually legally infringing the copyright in question.
I suspect that loophole was inserted into the law as the result of some clever work by the RIAA/MPAA, because it makes it a lot easier for them to make mass automated DMCA bots, without risking a legal counterattack. And I won’t be too heartbroken if Congress closes it (although I wouldn’t bet on that happening anytime soon). But for now, that’s the law, and it looks like P&F complied with it - hence SC:O gets taken down.
I’d have more sympathy for Stardock if they hadn’t already deployed their own aggressive legal tactics such as the SC2 race trademarks grab, and setting up for an injunction against UQM.
Given the whole Arilou thing I think you would have a hard time arguing it was false even without the loophole.