Fate: How can they get away with it?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
etc...)

I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:
> Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
> get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
> it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
> potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
> etc...)
>
> I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

I noticed this too, and it was probably the reason I liked the demo.

As for why Blizzard would allow it, how do you know they didn't work it
out in advance?

If that's not the case, then maybe they are confident that there's
plenty of "prior art" available to cover them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I have no idea what Blizzards involvment (if any) with Fate is. I just
find it amazing that the similarities are so striking. Whats
interesting is, my son and I tried Diablo 2 once and he didnt like it.
He tried Fate and fell in love with it. When I pointed out how similar
they are, he decided he prefers Fate because its a little more
"cartoony". So I guess that aspect helps to differentiate them a bit.

I about fell off my chair laughing the first time I heard that troll
Shaman guy squealing "ha ha ha ha HA ha".....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On what basis would Blizzard sue the maker of Fate? They can't
copyright ideas. Remember that Microsoft won the case where Apple tried
to sue them way back in the 90's for copying the "look and feel" of
Macintosh when they designed Windows. As long as Fate doesn't use any
of the code / art / resources of Diablo, there's no infringement.

BTW if you like Fate, give Dungeon Siege 2 demo a try, it's a more
"meaty" Diablo 2 clone and a well-made one. I can't wait for the full
game because I want to play it multiplayer co-op.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

<tonij67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123511552.925528.260640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
> get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
> it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
> potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
> etc...)
>
> I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

Firstly because Fate wasn't reverse engineered or copied from the source
code of the Diablo games, and secondly, because Blizz haven't patented any
of the mechanics, if indeed they're able to. It's the same reason anyone
can make a spreadsheet application and call the user-editable datafields
'cells', or what have you.

You are right, though - they are very similar in terms of design, and it
clearly wasn't an accident, although Fate does have it's own individual
features that make it stand out from other games of its type.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 8 Aug 2005 07:32:32 -0700, tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:

>Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
>get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
>it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
>potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
>etc...)

Because 90%+ of the things in Diablo are blatently stolen from the
rogue-like games that came before. "They can't steal our ideas - we
stole them first!" rarely works as an argument in a court case.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <1123511552.925528.260640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tonij67@hotmail.com says...

> Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
> get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
> it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
> potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
> etc...)
>
> I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

Copyright protects implementations of ideas, not ideas.

Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.

If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
sue them and would win.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:

>Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
>from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
>
>If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
>sue them and would win.

That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"



--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <ju5hf15eso8qp87icj3cs2kjs58bscs1kf@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
> Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:
>
> >Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
> >from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
> >
> >If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
> >sue them and would win.
>
> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"

There's a bit of that (the issue is slightly fuzzy by nature) but 'look
and feel' is not strong.

The chance that Blizzard could successfully claim it against Fate is
zero.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:

> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"

Not necessary: Some of us are old enough to remember Apple vs.
Microsoft and Lotus vs. Borland: L&F is not protected by copyright.

However, it can possibly be protected by trademark law; I am not sure
what Apple use against the guys who made an Aqua-like shell for X11 or
Windows or whatever it was.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Sam Jones" <sam.j.jones@spamnull.logicacmg.com> writes:

> You are right, though - they are very similar in terms of design, and it
> clearly wasn't an accident, although Fate does have it's own individual
> features that make it stand out from other games of its type.

And "of its type" is a large number. When Blizzard didn't go after Nox
and all the others back then, why should they go after a clone this
late? None of them were better than D2+LoD anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:48:36 +0200, Mean_Chlorine wrote:

> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"

Fate doesn't "look and feel" like Diablo or Diablo 2 to me. I feel much
more reminded of traditional rogue-likes. What does "look and feel" the
same to me are numerous shooters, and I don't see any sueing (suing?) going
on in that genre.

But the discussion is moot. Travis gave Blizzard a few copies of Fate at
the E3, and the Blizzard guys liked the game and didn't have any problems
with it whatoever (they even enjoyed playing it). And seriously, why should
they? Fate doesn't even have multiplayer.

M.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <ju5hf15eso8qp87icj3cs2kjs58bscs1kf@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
>@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
>> Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:
>>
>> >Contrary to claims often made by enemies of IP, it doesn't restrict you
>> >from creating novel works that are similar to copyrighted ones.
>> >
>> >If they had copied sound, graphics, or code from Diablo, Blizzard could
>> >sue them and would win.
>>
>> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
>
>There's a bit of that (the issue is slightly fuzzy by nature) but 'look
>and feel' is not strong.
>
>The chance that Blizzard could successfully claim it against Fate is
>zero.

Look and feel is a trademark issue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
>
>Not necessary: Some of us are old enough to remember Apple vs.
>Microsoft and Lotus vs. Borland: L&F is not protected by copyright.
>
>However, it can possibly be protected by trademark law; I am not sure
>what Apple use against the guys who made an Aqua-like shell for X11 or
>Windows or whatever it was.

What about the guys who made the Dashboard thing that Apple ripped off?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:48:36 +0200, Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>
>> That is not necessarily true. Google copyright + "look and feel"
>
>Fate doesn't "look and feel" like Diablo or Diablo 2 to me. I feel much
>more reminded of traditional rogue-likes. What does "look and feel" the
>same to me are numerous shooters, and I don't see any sueing (suing?) going
>on in that genre.
>
>But the discussion is moot. Travis gave Blizzard a few copies of Fate at
>the E3, and the Blizzard guys liked the game and didn't have any problems
>with it whatoever (they even enjoyed playing it). And seriously, why should
>they? Fate doesn't even have multiplayer.

Warcraft = Dune 2.
Blackthorne = Flashback.
Diablo = Rogue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...

> Diablo = Rogue.

Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
really no comparison.

Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.

Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.

Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
that hurts anyone's feelings.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:
> Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
> get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
> it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
> potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
> etc...)
>
> I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

Someone (?) recently ran an interview with Travis Baldree (sp?) while
he was at E3. He mentioned meeting several Blizzard
representatives.... and from what I remember they got along great -- at
least there was no mention of them suing him

He even asked them how Diablo III was coming (they remained silent on
the matter). I don't think Blizzard could sue Travis/WildTangent for
anything... especially when you consider that Diablo ripped-off many
elements of other games.

-V

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

> Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
> that hurts anyone's feelings.

Well, in that case, FATE introduces significant innovations over
Diablo (e.g. hi-res 3D graphics instead of isometric sprites at
640x400 or 800x600), so the argument that Blizzard should go after
them is moot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 8 Aug 2005 07:32:32 -0700, tonij67@hotmail.com wrotCRIVE_E

>Fate is not a bad little game, but I can't help but wonder; How do they
>get away with not being sued by BLizzard? It's not only "like" Diablo,
>it's darn near identical, right down to socketed items, same names for
>potions and even the same naming conventions for items (Superior,
>etc...)
>
>I am more than a little puzzled by this...anyone else?

You can't copyright a concept, only the code used to implement it.
Assuming "Fate" uses no Diablo code (and it's highly doubtful they
do), then, there's really nothing Blizzard can do. The only other
thing would be trademark infringement, and I doubt Fate uses any
Blizzard trademarks.

It's worth noting that similair interface designs were protected in a
court decision from the late 1980s, involving Lotus-123 and a
competitor. (Name fades, sorry). Likewise, it was determined that
programming languages cannot be copyrighted (This was a dBase case).
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
>Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
>
>> Diablo = Rogue.
>
>Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
>far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
>really no comparison.

"in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?

>Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.

Not all of them.

>Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.

Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
not available for sale.

>Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
>that hurts anyone's feelings.

Like what?
Hell I don't think I was suggesting that my feelings were hurt in my
original post. But it's sure obvious that yours are. Fanboy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> writes:

> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>
> Not all of them.
>
> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>
> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
> not available for sale.

For an example of a real-time multiplayer roguelike, see Crossfire.

http://crossfire.real-time.com/

Remember to download both the server and client.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <ull38fsjw.fsf@hotmail.com>, jadedgamer@hotmail.com says...
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:
>
> > Diablo and its sequel introduced significant innovations. Too bad if
> > that hurts anyone's feelings.
>
> Well, in that case, FATE introduces significant innovations over
> Diablo (e.g. hi-res 3D graphics instead of isometric sprites at
> 640x400 or 800x600), so the argument that Blizzard should go after
> them is moot.

That's not a real difference - the graphics in both are fairly similar.
In practice it is simply a reflection of the advancement of graphic
cards, which in recent years have eliminated the advantages of pre-
calculated isometric graphics. The next Diablo won't use them either -
very few games will.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <q0dpf156dumci84lkv88bgcjerevh60ahu@4ax.com>,
Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
> >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
> >
> >> Diablo = Rogue.
> >
> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
> >really no comparison.
>
> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?

What's your point here?

> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>
> Not all of them.

It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
based roguelike as roguelike at all.

> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>
> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
> not available for sale.

They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> writes:
>
>> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>>
>> Not all of them.
>>
>> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>>
>> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
>> not available for sale.
>
>For an example of a real-time multiplayer roguelike, see Crossfire.
>
>http://crossfire.real-time.com/
>
>Remember to download both the server and client.

I used to play ToMENet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <q0dpf156dumci84lkv88bgcjerevh60ahu@4ax.com>,
>Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
>> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>> >In article <csgkf1tp43odcr5lcmakh8aerfsoor0stg@4ax.com>,
>> >Gamera@work.stomping.aza says...
>> >
>> >> Diablo = Rogue.
>> >
>> >Some people like to claim that, but in point of fact Diablo wen t so
>> >far beyond the roguelike genre in terms of graphics that there is
>> >really no comparison.
>>
>> "in terms of graphics" is the punchline right?
>
>What's your point here?

Cloning a game and giving it pretty graphics is not going "so far beyond
the genre that there is no comparison." It's not going anywhere.
I suppose you'd agree that all the new Pac Man clones with 3d graphics
would be so genre busting that they couldn't even be compared to Pac Man
any more right?

>> >Also, Diablo is real-time whereas roguelikes are turn-based.
>>
>> Not all of them.
>
>It's a genre standard - many people will refuse to consider a non-turn-
>based roguelike as roguelike at all.

Until they're presented with one.

>> >Roguelikes have never succeeded in multiplayer versions.
>>
>> Sure they have. They just didn't sell millions of copies because they're
>> not available for sale.
>
>They aren't played in millions either, because they don't work.

No roguelikes are played in millions, because they're ugly.