Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Elimination deathmatch has been around for as long as I remember. What PUBG brings is a giant map, weapon scavenge, parachute drop in, and ballistic physics.
Elimination deathmatch has been around for as long as I remember. What PUBG brings is a giant map, weapon scavenge, parachute drop in, and ballistic physics.
Parachute drop in and ballistic physics have been around since BF1942, at least 16 years (if not before). I'm having a real hard time finding anything inside the game that hasn't been done elsewhere. There's nothing really novel about this game. There's a bunch of interconnected systems that are done intelligently in a unique presentation, but as others have pointed out this isn't even the first kind of its genre.
There could be legal action taken over the potential conflict of interest for sure. Epic is in a unique position here where they would have access to information due to their position as a partner. Copying the game mode is secondary to the fact that they were a partner who copied the game mode.
If Bluehole can show in any way that Epic used their position as a partner to give them a competitive edge here then Epic can get into some shit. Not to mention it looks REALLY bad on Epic to do something like this and is the kind of thing that can give future partners pause when considering using their engine.
If BlueHole wants to claim that Epic abused their position as a partner to either sabotage engine development or they took proprietary information obtained in their agreement and used it to optimize their new game mode - yeah that's a problem. But that wasn't the claim that was made. They haven't claimed breach of contract and instead made the claim that Epic copied their idea for a game mode which they can't legally own.
The possibility of impropriety does not guarantee that impropriety took place.
I mean, this isn't really new ground. Epic has been licensing the Unreal engine for almost 2 decades now. They've made a bunch of shooters in that time even while their partners have made similar games! Typically, with the way these agreements are structured, there's a lot of leeway given for Epic to improve and reuse code and optimizations that were specifically developed to help with the operation of other games.
Elimination deathmatch has been around for as long as I remember. What PUBG brings is a giant map, weapon scavenge, parachute drop in, and ballistic physics.
Parachute drop in and ballistic physics have been around since BF1942, at least 16 years (if not before). I'm having a real hard time finding anything inside the game that hasn't been done elsewhere. There's nothing really novel about this game. There's a bunch of interconnected systems that are done intelligently in a unique presentation, but as others have pointed out this isn't even the first kind of its genre.
There could be legal action taken over the potential conflict of interest for sure. Epic is in a unique position here where they would have access to information due to their position as a partner. Copying the game mode is secondary to the fact that they were a partner who copied the game mode.
If Bluehole can show in any way that Epic used their position as a partner to give them a competitive edge here then Epic can get into some shit. Not to mention it looks REALLY bad on Epic to do something like this and is the kind of thing that can give future partners pause when considering using their engine.
If BlueHole wants to claim that Epic abused their position as a partner to either sabotage engine development or they took proprietary information obtained in their agreement and used it to optimize their new game mode - yeah that's a problem. But that wasn't the claim that was made. They haven't claimed breach of contract and instead made the claim that Epic copied their idea for a game mode which they can't legally own.
The possibility of impropriety does not guarantee that impropriety took place.
I mean, this isn't really new ground. Epic has been licensing the Unreal engine for almost 2 decades now. They've made a bunch of shooters in that time even while their partners have made similar games! Typically, with the way these agreements are structured, there's a lot of leeway given for Epic to improve and reuse code and optimizations that were specifically developed to help with the operation of other games.
No way. If the code is something that's specific to a licensed partner it is not being reused for other titles or the engine itself. I've literally looked at the licensing contract for the Unreal Engine for a client in a past job and there's none of that in there. While there may be limited legal recourse for Bluehole, from a business perspective this looks really shitty on Epic if any shadyness is revealed.
Granted when I looked at these contracts it was years ago but I can't imagine someone signing an agreement that steals away their intellectual property rights.
It's pretty clear they made Fortnite have a pubg mode because of PUBG's massive success and Fortnite hasn't been blasting off shelves. They mention it in the press, it's incredibly similar, etc. "Parachute drop" has been in other games, but the specific way the stuff is portrayed it's absolutely modeled directly off of Pubg. The map and even the logo look similar. It definitely feels shady, even if it isn't legally actionable. And they're giving that mode away for free (fortnite going f2p next year with this mode going f2p earlier) to advertise for the main game too.
Can a game mode truly not be legally owned? I can't think of any examples so I guess?
It's pretty clear they made Fortnite have a pubg mode because of PUBG's massive success and Fortnite hasn't been blasting off shelves. They mention it in the press, it's incredibly similar, etc. "Parachute drop" has been in other games, but the specific way the stuff is portrayed it's absolutely modeled directly off of Pubg. The map and even the logo look similar. It definitely feels shady, even if it isn't legally actionable. And they're giving that mode away for free (fortnite going f2p next year with this mode going f2p earlier) to advertise for the main game too.
Can a game mode truly not be legally owned? I can't think of any examples so I guess?
Game modes cannot be copywritten, hands down there you go.
You can patent a set of rules or game mechanics, as long as they are novel, in which case it depends on how the patent is written whether you can get around it or not. However, since these ideas are no longer novel, patenting them would be pretty tricky.
It's pretty clear they made Fortnite have a pubg mode because of PUBG's massive success and Fortnite hasn't been blasting off shelves. They mention it in the press, it's incredibly similar, etc. "Parachute drop" has been in other games, but the specific way the stuff is portrayed it's absolutely modeled directly off of Pubg. The map and even the logo look similar. It definitely feels shady, even if it isn't legally actionable. And they're giving that mode away for free (fortnite going f2p next year with this mode going f2p earlier) to advertise for the main game too.
Can a game mode truly not be legally owned? I can't think of any examples so I guess?
Game modes cannot be copywritten, hands down there you go.
You can patent a set of rules or game mechanics, as long as they are novel, in which case it depends on how the patent is written whether you can get around it or not. However, since these ideas are no longer novel, patenting them would be pretty tricky.
It would be incredibly easy to show prior art.
There's nothing novel about a finite island map, first person/third person shooter gameplay, parachuting, weapon upgrades, or a battle zone that shrinks over time.
You could argue that in summation they equate to something totally new, but even that doesn't really stand up.
Elimination deathmatch has been around for as long as I remember. What PUBG brings is a giant map, weapon scavenge, parachute drop in, and ballistic physics.
Parachute drop in and ballistic physics have been around since BF1942, at least 16 years (if not before). I'm having a real hard time finding anything inside the game that hasn't been done elsewhere. There's nothing really novel about this game. There's a bunch of interconnected systems that are done intelligently in a unique presentation, but as others have pointed out this isn't even the first kind of its genre.
There could be legal action taken over the potential conflict of interest for sure. Epic is in a unique position here where they would have access to information due to their position as a partner. Copying the game mode is secondary to the fact that they were a partner who copied the game mode.
If Bluehole can show in any way that Epic used their position as a partner to give them a competitive edge here then Epic can get into some shit. Not to mention it looks REALLY bad on Epic to do something like this and is the kind of thing that can give future partners pause when considering using their engine.
If BlueHole wants to claim that Epic abused their position as a partner to either sabotage engine development or they took proprietary information obtained in their agreement and used it to optimize their new game mode - yeah that's a problem. But that wasn't the claim that was made. They haven't claimed breach of contract and instead made the claim that Epic copied their idea for a game mode which they can't legally own.
The possibility of impropriety does not guarantee that impropriety took place.
I mean, this isn't really new ground. Epic has been licensing the Unreal engine for almost 2 decades now. They've made a bunch of shooters in that time even while their partners have made similar games! Typically, with the way these agreements are structured, there's a lot of leeway given for Epic to improve and reuse code and optimizations that were specifically developed to help with the operation of other games.
No way. If the code is something that's specific to a licensed partner it is not being reused for other titles or the engine itself. I've literally looked at the licensing contract for the Unreal Engine for a client in a past job and there's none of that in there. While there may be limited legal recourse for Bluehole, from a business perspective this looks really shitty on Epic if any shadyness is revealed.
Granted when I looked at these contracts it was years ago but I can't imagine someone signing an agreement that steals away their intellectual property rights.
To be clear - I'm talking specifically about optimizations that Epic makes to the underlying engine. Code they have written themselves. Not anything done in conjunction with the game maker or code owned by another party.
Elimination deathmatch has been around for as long as I remember. What PUBG brings is a giant map, weapon scavenge, parachute drop in, and ballistic physics.
Parachute drop in and ballistic physics have been around since BF1942, at least 16 years (if not before). I'm having a real hard time finding anything inside the game that hasn't been done elsewhere. There's nothing really novel about this game. There's a bunch of interconnected systems that are done intelligently in a unique presentation, but as others have pointed out this isn't even the first kind of its genre.
There could be legal action taken over the potential conflict of interest for sure. Epic is in a unique position here where they would have access to information due to their position as a partner. Copying the game mode is secondary to the fact that they were a partner who copied the game mode.
If Bluehole can show in any way that Epic used their position as a partner to give them a competitive edge here then Epic can get into some shit. Not to mention it looks REALLY bad on Epic to do something like this and is the kind of thing that can give future partners pause when considering using their engine.
If BlueHole wants to claim that Epic abused their position as a partner to either sabotage engine development or they took proprietary information obtained in their agreement and used it to optimize their new game mode - yeah that's a problem. But that wasn't the claim that was made. They haven't claimed breach of contract and instead made the claim that Epic copied their idea for a game mode which they can't legally own.
The possibility of impropriety does not guarantee that impropriety took place.
I mean, this isn't really new ground. Epic has been licensing the Unreal engine for almost 2 decades now. They've made a bunch of shooters in that time even while their partners have made similar games! Typically, with the way these agreements are structured, there's a lot of leeway given for Epic to improve and reuse code and optimizations that were specifically developed to help with the operation of other games.
No way. If the code is something that's specific to a licensed partner it is not being reused for other titles or the engine itself. I've literally looked at the licensing contract for the Unreal Engine for a client in a past job and there's none of that in there. While there may be limited legal recourse for Bluehole, from a business perspective this looks really shitty on Epic if any shadyness is revealed.
Granted when I looked at these contracts it was years ago but I can't imagine someone signing an agreement that steals away their intellectual property rights.
To be clear - I'm talking specifically about optimizations that Epic makes to the underlying engine. Code they have written themselves. Not anything done in conjunction with the game maker or code owned by another party.
Yeah, if PUBG is going to Epic and saying "Hey we're noticing really bad issues in Client/Server responses here, and here" and Epic patches the engine to fix it, Blue Hole doesn't get to claim those fixes as their property.
Blue Hole can bitch all they want, but pretty much none of the features are unique to their game, so Epic taking them and sticking them in a scenario where they add another new mechanic (base building and fully destructible terrain/cover) is called iterating, not copying. You work in a creative medium, it happens. Get used to it.
It's pretty clear they made Fortnite have a pubg mode because of PUBG's massive success and Fortnite hasn't been blasting off shelves. They mention it in the press, it's incredibly similar, etc. "Parachute drop" has been in other games, but the specific way the stuff is portrayed it's absolutely modeled directly off of Pubg. The map and even the logo look similar. It definitely feels shady, even if it isn't legally actionable. And they're giving that mode away for free (fortnite going f2p next year with this mode going f2p earlier) to advertise for the main game too.
Can a game mode truly not be legally owned? I can't think of any examples so I guess?
Game modes cannot be copywritten, hands down there you go.
You can patent a set of rules or game mechanics, as long as they are novel, in which case it depends on how the patent is written whether you can get around it or not. However, since these ideas are no longer novel, patenting them would be pretty tricky.
It would be incredibly easy to show prior art.
There's nothing novel about a finite island map, first person/third person shooter gameplay, parachuting, weapon upgrades, or a battle zone that shrinks over time.
You could argue that in summation they equate to something totally new, but even that doesn't really stand up.
That's about the long and short of it, yeah. Though, that being said, the patent office is not always great about not giving patents when they shouldn't. If they managed to get a patent for their rules and someone took them to court over it then it would probably be overturned though.
And again, important to note, none of this is subject to copyright. All of this is patent stuff only, so unless blue tries to take out a patent on the game mode, then the answer is no, nobody owns the battle royale game mode.
I get where they're coming from but I still think it's a bit silly. But I also think video games should be art first and business second. I am not naive enough to think that's reality though, and Bluehole's goal as stated on their webpage is even "The most important factor after making profits is promoting our values of ‘Vision, Dream, and Challenge’." (https://www.bluehole.net/en/bluehole/about) Emphasis mine.
Any ways, my point is only that in a perfect world I'd love to see this just be a case of "Hey we really like your game, so we made what amounts to a free mod for ours," with a response of "Oh wow we're honored, looks fun! Interesting take on it." But again obviously these are businesses and they've got interests to protect yada yada. So I personally just don't care =P
I get where they're coming from but I still think it's a bit silly. But I also think video games should be art first and business second. I am not naive enough to think that's reality though, and Bluehole's goal as stated on their webpage is even "The most important factor after making profits is promoting our values of ‘Vision, Dream, and Challenge’." (https://www.bluehole.net/en/bluehole/about) Emphasis mine.
Any ways, my point is only that in a perfect world I'd love to see this just be a case of "Hey we really like your game, so we made what amounts to a free mod for ours," with a response of "Oh wow we're honored, looks fun! Interesting take on it." But again obviously these are businesses and they've got interests to protect yada yada. So I personally just don't care =P
From that article, I find it, let's say, highly unlikely they made any serious effort to reach out to Epic. Considering I'm a nobody that has only done a few of their Game Jams and I have their community director on Skype and still occasionally just chat and say hi and see how things are going. I'm pretty sure Epic would have answered an official communication from their most successful indie developer (well at least would have if they had tried contacting them before crying to the press).
But the telling part is these two bits:
So, there's another issue. We're going to get some technical support [from Epic], and we're going to work with them to make sure Unreal Engine better supports battle royale gameplay which requires 100 people in one session, and now we're starting to have concerns that they're going to develop new features or improve something in the engine to support that battle royale gameplay, and then use it for their own game mode.
We could be afraid when we make new features in the engine by modifying it internally, that is not already available and public, that feature could be leaked, or other things could happen.
They basically don't want any Engine improvements trickling back down to the main engine builds. Except Epic has a vested interest in building their network support, not just for Fortnight, but for the engine in general. 100 players isn't some fucking magical Battle Royale number. Fuck, old Battlefield 2142 servers used to run 128 players with bullet physics. This is bullshit on their end, they don't want their tech support calls to actually go towards bettering the engine. To which I say, tough luck, get bent.
You wouldn't have accomplished shit without UE4 and Epic's support, if you find things for them to fix, and then they help you fix them, and then they improve the base engine off it, too bad. It's their damn engine and they are a big part of the reason you are as successful as you are. Epic is not going to freaking leak your code, they aren't going to lift it wholesale. They've been making games and engines since before half your dev team was probably out of middle school.
I know Bluehole has done other shit in the past with MMO's but they really feel like a studio that accidentally built their first game.
I disagree. Epic is a big company. Bluehole is not.
While there may not be anything improper going on here, the potential that there could be is definitely present. I still think this looks really bad on Epic from a business perspective. I'm actually surprised that so many people are siding with Epic here.
Again, it's not about trying to copyright a game mode. It's about the potential conflict of interest going on here. I think BH's last post did a good job articulating that POV.
Bluehole's comments on this whole thing reeks of amateur hour
honestly this seems like it's been the case with how they've dealt with absolutely everything
they seem like a company who would benefit greatly from hiring a PR firm and then speaking exclusively through them from this point on.
In Blue's defense, it is in fact a conflict of interest for them to be providing technical support to a direct competitor. And they are definitely within reasonable to be concerned about that. They might be lashing out in a way that seems childish but Epic is maybe the one company that really SHOULDN'T be trying to compete with PUBG right now.
In Blue's defense, it is in fact a conflict of interest for them to be providing technical support to a direct competitor. And they are definitely within reasonable to be concerned about that. They might be lashing out in a way that seems childish but Epic is maybe the one company that really SHOULDN'T be trying to compete with PUBG right now.
Why though? Again, PUBG isn't original in basically anything it has done, and Fortnight is different enough in terms of gameplay that there really isn't a whole lot of direct competition. I'm interested in checking out Fortnight because of the base building aspects. PUBG is a way tenser and more visceral shooter. If Epic isn't allowed to make games kinda like other popular games built on UE, then Epic will never be able make another game, which is dumb bullshit. As long as Epic isn't doing anything to actively sabotage PUBG or delivering less than honest support they haven't done anything wrong.
But here's what you don't do if you're worried that Epic is going to screw you over: Don't fucking snipe at them in public before talking to them in private. Because if Epic was as corrupt or malicious as Bluehole/others are implying, the next time they come across a big bug they can't figure out and need to call in support they would just laugh at them and leave them hanging. But from my own personal experiences with Epic, I'm pretty sure the chance of that happening are less than 5%. Those guys really do love gaming and seeing games succeed.
In Blue's defense, it is in fact a conflict of interest for them to be providing technical support to a direct competitor. And they are definitely within reasonable to be concerned about that. They might be lashing out in a way that seems childish but Epic is maybe the one company that really SHOULDN'T be trying to compete with PUBG right now.
Why though? Again, PUBG isn't original in basically anything it has done, and Fortnight is different enough in terms of gameplay that there really isn't a whole lot of direct competition. I'm interested in checking out Fortnight because of the base building aspects. PUBG is a way tenser and more visceral shooter. If Epic isn't allowed to make games kinda like other popular games built on UE, then Epic will never be able make another game, which is dumb bullshit. As long as Epic isn't doing anything to actively sabotage PUBG or delivering less than honest support they haven't done anything wrong.
But here's what you don't do if you're worried that Epic is going to screw you over: Don't fucking snipe at them in public before talking to them in private. Because if Epic was as corrupt or malicious as Bluehole/others are implying, the next time they come across a big bug they can't figure out and need to call in support they would just laugh at them and leave them hanging. But from my own personal experiences with Epic, I'm pretty sure the chance of that happening are less than 5%. Those guys really do love gaming and seeing games succeed.
Again, I'm not speaking at all toward Blue's behavior or pr. That's a separate issue here for sure.
But providing technical support to a direct competitor is clearly and obviously a conflict of interest. It would be like DotA asking RIOT to host their servers. They have incentive to give their competitor worse service in order to make themselves better.
Conflicts of interest are not ethical. If epic wants to create a game which is obviously a direct competitor to a client they work closely with, then what they should do is split their company into their engine company and their development company, and have each of them work independently. That's generally a key way in which corporations limit their liability and allow themselves to avoid conflicts of interest.
PUBG is not original, but it is certainly the only big player on the block these days, and it's fairly clear that epic is trying to capitalize on PUBG's audience with this.
I think using you customer's product to advertise your own product that you clearly made because of the success of your customer's product is absolutely actively sabotage of your competitor. "You like that thing? Well you'll love our thing! And our thing is FREE!"
Wether they're legally liable for infringing or not, it's pretty silly. PUBG isn't the first game to do that mode but it is certainly the most popular and mainstream one to ever exist. It has systems and designs that are present in other games, but as one cohesive package it is notably different from those. But fortnite copies all of it. Even the logo on the map in game looks like pubg's logo. It doesn't feel like their own take, it feels like them trying to recreate it in their own game. I don't think people rubbed their hands together and cackled, but Fortnite as a whole feels like a cash grab and this certainly doesn't help.
I disagree. Epic is a big company. Bluehole is not.
While there may not be anything improper going on here, the potential that there could be is definitely present. I still think this looks really bad on Epic from a business perspective. I'm actually surprised that so many people are siding with Epic here.
Again, it's not about trying to copyright a game mode. It's about the potential conflict of interest going on here. I think BH's last post did a good job articulating that POV.
Bluehole isn't some tiny company. They made Tera which is pretty successful, and PUBG is one of the most successful games ever on steam.
Bluehole just has shit PR, so it's difficult to side with a company that has been insanely profitable and also has terrible public relations. You also don't generally gain sympathy by moaning when you've literally got everything. Especially when that everything was largely gained off the engine created by the company you're then moaning about.
If it's a competitor, why is it free? It feels more like a gimmick to drum up interest in their base game.
If they were using it this way, they would add in hooks to pull you to the main game. They could very, very easily have the Battle Royale section give you the lowest level llama (loot box that they give out like candy), or even low level weapons to get people to try out the main game. They could even go a step further and reward currency, exp, or daily quests to pull back to the main game, even though this would upset some people and "force" them to play the Battle Royale mode.
I mean, they have to have a plan to make money on this, but I have a feeling it is going to be focused on real money cosmetics and not trying to pull people back to the main version of Fortnite.
If it's a competitor, why is it free? It feels more like a gimmick to drum up interest in their base game.
What do you mean "if it's a competitor why is it free"? If a customer is likely to only play one of the two games (PUBG or Fortnite BR) and not the other, then they're competing. It doesn't matter what the price point is. And if they're competing for customers, it gives incentive to epic to sabotage their competition. That's a conflict of interest. This is, like, a textbook conflict of interest. If Epic were to bungle some technical support for PUBG which caused extreme lag for a couple days before blue could put out a patch, and then a bunch of players became frustrated and switched games, they will have acted in their own personal best interests over the interest of their customer.
Would they do that? Not necessarily. Is that how it would end up? Not necessarily. But it's a really goddamned bad idea to be in a position where a situation like that is possible.
If it's a competitor, why is it free? It feels more like a gimmick to drum up interest in their base game.
What do you mean "if it's a competitor why is it free"? If a customer is likely to only play one of the two games (PUBG or Fortnite BR) and not the other, then they're competing. It doesn't matter what the price point is. And if they're competing for customers, it gives incentive to epic to sabotage their competition. That's a conflict of interest. This is, like, a textbook conflict of interest. If Epic were to bungle some technical support for PUBG which caused extreme lag for a couple days before blue could put out a patch, and then a bunch of players became frustrated and switched games, they will have acted in their own personal best interests over the interest of their customer.
Would they do that? Not necessarily. Is that how it would end up? Not necessarily. But it's a really goddamned bad idea to be in a position where a situation like that is possible.
(edited to just simplify)
I barely consider it competing when it's not a shared goal, by which I mean I don't believe Fortnite's intention is to take over the battle royale scene.
Epic isn't going to do something that'll cause no one to want to license their engine again. They also aren't going to sabotage their current best client to do so. There's also as much argument to be made that a free version of BR is going to draw as many people or more interested in Fortnite itself to PUBG as PUBG will bleed new players to Fortnite. The majority of PUBG sales have likely been made, they aren't going to lose much by their playerbase trying another game, the product is sold. It's also much more likely that any improvements to the engine made by Epic to improve their own game, in turn get passed on to the clients rather than the opposite.
Ash of Yew on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Well there's a limit on how long it wait to put together a game
Does make it easier though
I disagree. Epic is a big company. Bluehole is not.
While there may not be anything improper going on here, the potential that there could be is definitely present. I still think this looks really bad on Epic from a business perspective. I'm actually surprised that so many people are siding with Epic here.
Again, it's not about trying to copyright a game mode. It's about the potential conflict of interest going on here. I think BH's last post did a good job articulating that POV.
Bluehole isn't some tiny company. They made Tera which is pretty successful, and PUBG is one of the most successful games ever on steam.
Bluehole just has shit PR, so it's difficult to side with a company that has been insanely profitable and also has terrible public relations. You also don't generally gain sympathy by moaning when you've literally got everything. Especially when that everything was largely gained off the engine created by the company you're then moaning about.
Bluehole is an independent developer. Epic is a huge developer that also licenses one of the most popular game engines in the industry. Oh, and they're also partially owned by Tencent - one of the world's largest entertainment companies. Just because Bluehole has one of the most successful games in recent history doesn't make them not an independent studio.
If it's a competitor, why is it free? It feels more like a gimmick to drum up interest in their base game.
If they were using it this way, they would add in hooks to pull you to the main game. They could very, very easily have the Battle Royale section give you the lowest level llama (loot box that they give out like candy), or even low level weapons to get people to try out the main game. They could even go a step further and reward currency, exp, or daily quests to pull back to the main game, even though this would upset some people and "force" them to play the Battle Royale mode.
I mean, they have to have a plan to make money on this, but I have a feeling it is going to be focused on real money cosmetics and not trying to pull people back to the main version of Fortnite.
I believe it does give you rewards for playing it, but I don't know if they transfer to the main game. It'd be weird if they don't though! edit: Looks like they mostly don't. But it's still a way to pull you to the main game. "oh that was fun, let's check out the rest of this." It is a form of advertising.
It's super important to remember that just because we, as outsiders, aren't sure if it would be a good idea for Epic to sabotage Blue, that doesn't make it no longer a conflict of interest.
There is a really good reason that businesses usually take significant steps to avoid the Appearance of Impropriety.
I disagree. Epic is a big company. Bluehole is not.
While there may not be anything improper going on here, the potential that there could be is definitely present. I still think this looks really bad on Epic from a business perspective. I'm actually surprised that so many people are siding with Epic here.
Again, it's not about trying to copyright a game mode. It's about the potential conflict of interest going on here. I think BH's last post did a good job articulating that POV.
Bluehole isn't some tiny company. They made Tera which is pretty successful, and PUBG is one of the most successful games ever on steam.
Bluehole just has shit PR, so it's difficult to side with a company that has been insanely profitable and also has terrible public relations. You also don't generally gain sympathy by moaning when you've literally got everything. Especially when that everything was largely gained off the engine created by the company you're then moaning about.
Bluehole is an independent developer. Epic is a huge developer that also licenses one of the most popular game engines in the industry. Oh, and they're also partially owned by Tencent - one of the world's largest entertainment companies. Just because Bluehole has one of the most successful games in recent history doesn't make them not an independent studio.
I didn't say they weren't but that just doesn't mean a lot in this day and age. Independent developers are making many of the most successful games any more and blowing up big. These companies have power in the industry, especially when they're in the spot light.
And here's another prime time patch. Just perfect.
Posts
If BlueHole wants to claim that Epic abused their position as a partner to either sabotage engine development or they took proprietary information obtained in their agreement and used it to optimize their new game mode - yeah that's a problem. But that wasn't the claim that was made. They haven't claimed breach of contract and instead made the claim that Epic copied their idea for a game mode which they can't legally own.
The possibility of impropriety does not guarantee that impropriety took place.
I mean, this isn't really new ground. Epic has been licensing the Unreal engine for almost 2 decades now. They've made a bunch of shooters in that time even while their partners have made similar games! Typically, with the way these agreements are structured, there's a lot of leeway given for Epic to improve and reuse code and optimizations that were specifically developed to help with the operation of other games.
No way. If the code is something that's specific to a licensed partner it is not being reused for other titles or the engine itself. I've literally looked at the licensing contract for the Unreal Engine for a client in a past job and there's none of that in there. While there may be limited legal recourse for Bluehole, from a business perspective this looks really shitty on Epic if any shadyness is revealed.
Granted when I looked at these contracts it was years ago but I can't imagine someone signing an agreement that steals away their intellectual property rights.
Can a game mode truly not be legally owned? I can't think of any examples so I guess?
Game modes cannot be copywritten, hands down there you go.
You can patent a set of rules or game mechanics, as long as they are novel, in which case it depends on how the patent is written whether you can get around it or not. However, since these ideas are no longer novel, patenting them would be pretty tricky.
It would be incredibly easy to show prior art.
There's nothing novel about a finite island map, first person/third person shooter gameplay, parachuting, weapon upgrades, or a battle zone that shrinks over time.
You could argue that in summation they equate to something totally new, but even that doesn't really stand up.
To be clear - I'm talking specifically about optimizations that Epic makes to the underlying engine. Code they have written themselves. Not anything done in conjunction with the game maker or code owned by another party.
Yeah, if PUBG is going to Epic and saying "Hey we're noticing really bad issues in Client/Server responses here, and here" and Epic patches the engine to fix it, Blue Hole doesn't get to claim those fixes as their property.
Blue Hole can bitch all they want, but pretty much none of the features are unique to their game, so Epic taking them and sticking them in a scenario where they add another new mechanic (base building and fully destructible terrain/cover) is called iterating, not copying. You work in a creative medium, it happens. Get used to it.
That's about the long and short of it, yeah. Though, that being said, the patent office is not always great about not giving patents when they shouldn't. If they managed to get a patent for their rules and someone took them to court over it then it would probably be overturned though.
And again, important to note, none of this is subject to copyright. All of this is patent stuff only, so unless blue tries to take out a patent on the game mode, then the answer is no, nobody owns the battle royale game mode.
I get where they're coming from but I still think it's a bit silly. But I also think video games should be art first and business second. I am not naive enough to think that's reality though, and Bluehole's goal as stated on their webpage is even "The most important factor after making profits is promoting our values of ‘Vision, Dream, and Challenge’." (https://www.bluehole.net/en/bluehole/about) Emphasis mine.
Any ways, my point is only that in a perfect world I'd love to see this just be a case of "Hey we really like your game, so we made what amounts to a free mod for ours," with a response of "Oh wow we're honored, looks fun! Interesting take on it." But again obviously these are businesses and they've got interests to protect yada yada. So I personally just don't care =P
From that article, I find it, let's say, highly unlikely they made any serious effort to reach out to Epic. Considering I'm a nobody that has only done a few of their Game Jams and I have their community director on Skype and still occasionally just chat and say hi and see how things are going. I'm pretty sure Epic would have answered an official communication from their most successful indie developer (well at least would have if they had tried contacting them before crying to the press).
But the telling part is these two bits:
They basically don't want any Engine improvements trickling back down to the main engine builds. Except Epic has a vested interest in building their network support, not just for Fortnight, but for the engine in general. 100 players isn't some fucking magical Battle Royale number. Fuck, old Battlefield 2142 servers used to run 128 players with bullet physics. This is bullshit on their end, they don't want their tech support calls to actually go towards bettering the engine. To which I say, tough luck, get bent.
You wouldn't have accomplished shit without UE4 and Epic's support, if you find things for them to fix, and then they help you fix them, and then they improve the base engine off it, too bad. It's their damn engine and they are a big part of the reason you are as successful as you are. Epic is not going to freaking leak your code, they aren't going to lift it wholesale. They've been making games and engines since before half your dev team was probably out of middle school.
I know Bluehole has done other shit in the past with MMO's but they really feel like a studio that accidentally built their first game.
every time this dev opens their mouth I want this game a little bit less
Shogun Streams Vidya
While there may not be anything improper going on here, the potential that there could be is definitely present. I still think this looks really bad on Epic from a business perspective. I'm actually surprised that so many people are siding with Epic here.
Again, it's not about trying to copyright a game mode. It's about the potential conflict of interest going on here. I think BH's last post did a good job articulating that POV.
honestly this seems like it's been the case with how they've dealt with absolutely everything
they seem like a company who would benefit greatly from hiring a PR firm and then speaking exclusively through them from this point on.
Why though? Again, PUBG isn't original in basically anything it has done, and Fortnight is different enough in terms of gameplay that there really isn't a whole lot of direct competition. I'm interested in checking out Fortnight because of the base building aspects. PUBG is a way tenser and more visceral shooter. If Epic isn't allowed to make games kinda like other popular games built on UE, then Epic will never be able make another game, which is dumb bullshit. As long as Epic isn't doing anything to actively sabotage PUBG or delivering less than honest support they haven't done anything wrong.
But here's what you don't do if you're worried that Epic is going to screw you over: Don't fucking snipe at them in public before talking to them in private. Because if Epic was as corrupt or malicious as Bluehole/others are implying, the next time they come across a big bug they can't figure out and need to call in support they would just laugh at them and leave them hanging. But from my own personal experiences with Epic, I'm pretty sure the chance of that happening are less than 5%. Those guys really do love gaming and seeing games succeed.
Again, I'm not speaking at all toward Blue's behavior or pr. That's a separate issue here for sure.
But providing technical support to a direct competitor is clearly and obviously a conflict of interest. It would be like DotA asking RIOT to host their servers. They have incentive to give their competitor worse service in order to make themselves better.
Conflicts of interest are not ethical. If epic wants to create a game which is obviously a direct competitor to a client they work closely with, then what they should do is split their company into their engine company and their development company, and have each of them work independently. That's generally a key way in which corporations limit their liability and allow themselves to avoid conflicts of interest.
PUBG is not original, but it is certainly the only big player on the block these days, and it's fairly clear that epic is trying to capitalize on PUBG's audience with this.
https://clips.twitch.tv/PeacefulBombasticEmuHeyGirl
I love it when the Doc and Break duo
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Wether they're legally liable for infringing or not, it's pretty silly. PUBG isn't the first game to do that mode but it is certainly the most popular and mainstream one to ever exist. It has systems and designs that are present in other games, but as one cohesive package it is notably different from those. But fortnite copies all of it. Even the logo on the map in game looks like pubg's logo. It doesn't feel like their own take, it feels like them trying to recreate it in their own game. I don't think people rubbed their hands together and cackled, but Fortnite as a whole feels like a cash grab and this certainly doesn't help.
Bluehole isn't some tiny company. They made Tera which is pretty successful, and PUBG is one of the most successful games ever on steam.
Bluehole just has shit PR, so it's difficult to side with a company that has been insanely profitable and also has terrible public relations. You also don't generally gain sympathy by moaning when you've literally got everything. Especially when that everything was largely gained off the engine created by the company you're then moaning about.
If they were using it this way, they would add in hooks to pull you to the main game. They could very, very easily have the Battle Royale section give you the lowest level llama (loot box that they give out like candy), or even low level weapons to get people to try out the main game. They could even go a step further and reward currency, exp, or daily quests to pull back to the main game, even though this would upset some people and "force" them to play the Battle Royale mode.
I mean, they have to have a plan to make money on this, but I have a feeling it is going to be focused on real money cosmetics and not trying to pull people back to the main version of Fortnite.
What do you mean "if it's a competitor why is it free"? If a customer is likely to only play one of the two games (PUBG or Fortnite BR) and not the other, then they're competing. It doesn't matter what the price point is. And if they're competing for customers, it gives incentive to epic to sabotage their competition. That's a conflict of interest. This is, like, a textbook conflict of interest. If Epic were to bungle some technical support for PUBG which caused extreme lag for a couple days before blue could put out a patch, and then a bunch of players became frustrated and switched games, they will have acted in their own personal best interests over the interest of their customer.
Would they do that? Not necessarily. Is that how it would end up? Not necessarily. But it's a really goddamned bad idea to be in a position where a situation like that is possible.
(edited to just simplify)
I barely consider it competing when it's not a shared goal, by which I mean I don't believe Fortnite's intention is to take over the battle royale scene.
Epic isn't going to do something that'll cause no one to want to license their engine again. They also aren't going to sabotage their current best client to do so. There's also as much argument to be made that a free version of BR is going to draw as many people or more interested in Fortnite itself to PUBG as PUBG will bleed new players to Fortnite. The majority of PUBG sales have likely been made, they aren't going to lose much by their playerbase trying another game, the product is sold. It's also much more likely that any improvements to the engine made by Epic to improve their own game, in turn get passed on to the clients rather than the opposite.
Does make it easier though
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Maybe the servers were going down?
Duo FP queue in OC for the middle of the day.
Duo 3rd person filled up normally.
Why does no one want to play FP with me?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
How did the game play out? I see your screenshot is on Military, did everyone just drop there and get it done quick?
Yeah, once the first squad dropped, everybody else did and followed them in.
Whole fight took place in the military compound. At least everybody had the same idea, playing through the entire map would have been a slog.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Bluehole is an independent developer. Epic is a huge developer that also licenses one of the most popular game engines in the industry. Oh, and they're also partially owned by Tencent - one of the world's largest entertainment companies. Just because Bluehole has one of the most successful games in recent history doesn't make them not an independent studio.
I believe it does give you rewards for playing it, but I don't know if they transfer to the main game. It'd be weird if they don't though! edit: Looks like they mostly don't. But it's still a way to pull you to the main game. "oh that was fun, let's check out the rest of this." It is a form of advertising.
There is a really good reason that businesses usually take significant steps to avoid the Appearance of Impropriety.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I didn't say they weren't but that just doesn't mean a lot in this day and age. Independent developers are making many of the most successful games any more and blowing up big. These companies have power in the industry, especially when they're in the spot light.
And here's another prime time patch. Just perfect.
It's very addictive. I've killed two people by throwing grenades and then those people walking towards the grenades to investigate.