Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
https://discord.gg/QAPYcpS6Pw
It sure was a lot of incredible work! But I still think there is an IP issue here, it is everything you have been looking for because of the number of things it "more than borrows" from the IP you know, Warhammer tabletop.
Heraldic (icons and everything connecting visually to the same element), names, lexical terms only used there, 90% of mechanics, there are a few simplications here or there but there is a reason a publisher would not have been there, and it's because of editorial knowledge and goals, encouraging instead to push some more original content to refine it.
It's true that GW never granted us a digital game worthy of their miniature battle gameplay, although we all want it. Maybe some projects will push them to do it.
But I really would like players and community to adopt this mindset because this is what protects creators too ; what fights against a mentality that thrived on mobile about transferring licensed content into an unlicensed gme; and what encourages everyone to go further in original content.
I also worked on a miniature digital game on my own ; developing my own lore and factions ; ending up like here with a strategy of removing some rolls and merging some attributes ; but trying to focus on larger troops gameplay (100 men per unit). Yet there always has been the question:
"will it succeed? or will I be a forgotten indie? won't players actually want to find the same factions and lore as WH tabletop instead? and some more of the same rules? but taking the same things would be stealing!! in that case it should be a fan project, with no money made aside from maybe a patreon."
And also, the fact that the more I know about warhammer tabletop, the more I want to do it service by providing a full loyal digital approach. But in that case, no money made, at best I'll look for official approval from GW for a licensed version, and if refused, I don't know what I will do from it.
In this game the F2P approach is good actually, and to applaud, but I am at odds with something about the elements far too aggressive on GW IP.
You don't think GW would have stepped in by now if it was being too aggressive on their IP? It's been out for a year or more
My post was not about them or their reaction. I perfectly know the project may avoid legal course because there are ways to infringe without stepping on the law. (but please note one year is extremely short time to notice an indie, decide for a course, have it acted in case they decide to act instead of "just waiting" (they could be waiting), and have the community see the consequence, etc)
My point was first about what is customary among other publishers regarding "other IPs" . Publishers, in the traditional form, usually don't try to infringe or try to find out how to "legally infringe" on an IP. Mobile publishers have started infringment as a rule for cash grabs but they do not have the best values.
I was a boardgame publisher and when receiving prototypes it is often authors who try to infringe and publishers who try to guide them into settling something more original.
It's just customary ; there are many ways to legally infringe, but that's just not what passionates traditional publishers, or worth the shot. It's what has defined a lot of the tabletop culture, with some very few exceptions we heard of.
Normally, the community reaction is what also makes you settle for something "more of your own".
Unfortunately, there was no such community reaction here after some time so the developer could not decide to settle for more original content. This could or could not end up well, but on the other end this definitely raises my own reserves.
About GW reaction, they may as well not react and also this may just be "a legal infringment" meaning they do not have solutions. they did have rules about imitations ( https://web.archive.org/web/20140702151219/http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Intellectual-Property-Policy )
.. but it needs efforts to settle on their current shape as they change it sometimes.
But no one knows what time is required, what number of sales, and what kind of move; mechanics are never protected either; just like I could release a mobile app named "Ruska" and imitate the rules of Risk at 95% (and things like this definitely happened of course), i's just not customary or good to do so and not something I applaud, and that's about Risk, a rather "poor game", whereas here it's a lot of content and rules.
I don't really focus about GW reaction but I care about helping to guide us creators into a suitable direction and sharing more of the editorial culture. This is what I am trying here. I think the community, by its global will to receive all of WH tabletop content in digital form in the game, is encouraging things into a wrong route in terms of respecting content. I think the best in this specific case would be to receive official licensing. Edit: but that's just my honest feedback.
It is only my opinion here but OPR is Patreon-funded, non-commercial releases of rulesets, by what could be interpreted as authors open-sourcing rulesets with big imitation. They do imitiate or copy 90%, it's true, but the non-commercial use means that it can define some room for total freedom, and reduce chance for any wrong thing to happen. Safe because non-commercial, even if infringing.
Edit: I would hate that to happen with one of my projects, and them to release their full line of miniatures while stealing 90% of the rules, to be honest, and knowing perfectly well they stole the rules.
But if a publisher goes the route of publishing a commercial version, only the level of imitation is what will be important, if present.
I think it's reasons to lose or whiten some hair here, as OPR defines a gray area for fan-projects that, if a publisher go commercial "from the OPR angle", could use it as base, but still knowing full well where some things come from.
Yeah but the units are imaged as nothing like warhammer, just blocks with a stock image on them. I don't think a copyright argument would hold up in court, it's too vague and the ruleset isn't the same
The game is obviously inspired by certain tabletop war games from the nineties. But, I've been careful to avoid using any names or likenesses from that IP, and the rule set is substantially different from anything GW has put out. The core mechanics are probably more similar to modern games like One Page and Kings of War really.