Print
Blizzard's generally not so big on the whole talking thing, but the past 24 hours have given everyone an uncommonly good look at the powerhouse developer from all angles. The good news? Diablo III's almost kind of sort of but not quite here. And the bad? Try a no-holds-barred legal cage match with Valve over a name Blizzard's community – and certainly not Blizzard – invented.
So right, good news first. During Activision's Q4 financial call, Diablo III got pegged with a Q2 2012 launch – placing its no-longer-randomized drop date between April 1 and June 30. Blizzard's also expecting one more biggie to make its craterous impact this year, though it hasn't specified whether that means Heart of the Swarm's swarming gamers' hearts or WoW: Mist of Pandaria's doing... panda things.
Now then, onto the ugly business. The short version: Blizzard's suing Valve. Here's why:
“Valve has never used the mark DOTA in connection with any product or service that currently is available to the public,” reads Blizzard's statement on the matter. “By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and in its Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III.”
Blizzard also notes that the whole “Ancients” part of Defense of the Ancients is a reference to Warcraft lore, which – admittedly – gives it something of a strong case. But it'd be silly to not consider the business side to Blizzard's litigation barrage. Valve's team of immortal fun wizards is hard at work on DOTA 2, and Blizzard's got, er, Blizzard DOTA on the way. Regardless, watching excellent developers circle and nip at each others' throats like this is never fun – especially when it threatens to stunt the growth of a young genre that's just now finding its footing.
Comments are closed on this article
Biceps
February 13, 2012 at 1:49pm
The question that needs to be asked is, "Why is Valve calling the game 'DOTA 2'? Answer: to capitalize not only on their own hard work on the sequal, but to capitalize on the name recognition and success of DOTA 1, which Valve had absolutely nothing to do with. Blizzard, on the other hand, created the original game and many of the tools used to create DOTA 1.
I love Valve, but it looks like Blizzard is in the right to me this time.
EthicSlave
February 13, 2012 at 11:55am
the 1st iteration I can think of would have to be hydra or zergling wars on sc1 which is far earlier creations of dota with the same idea in mind
yet clearly if you accept the agreements to use the campaign terrain editor then also clearly you accept that all the rights still belong to... you guessed it blizzard
Penterax
February 12, 2012 at 10:04pm
The point of all this is that Valve is trying to make "DOTA" something they OWN; Blizzard is saying "No one should own DOTA, it's something that was created by users, not any corporation. Blizzard is not claiming it is their own even though the original was about a mod for a Blizzard game. They make no money off of "DOTA", and aren't trying to say they should get any money that comes from it, they are saying it belongs to the gamers themselves and no corporation should try to claim it for their own.
Essentially, Blizzard is spending it's own money to protect YOUR right to use DOTA in any content you decide to create. If Valve is allowed to register "DOTA" as their own, you would legally be barred from publishing anything using "DOTA".
It is Valve that is being thoughtless. It would be like GM trying to claim the rights to "car".
;)
highdef
February 12, 2012 at 10:52pm
I don't care. What I see here is Blizzard preventing Valve to give the community what they deserve. Even if it just a name that's in question, it's a big deal to me.
Valve is the only developer that justifies the original formula from the original game.
Valve FTW!!!!!
ApathyCurve
February 12, 2012 at 8:34am
This is what happens when you have lawyers on staff. They (eventually) tire of browsing porn and three hour lunches, then they start looking around for something to justify their existence. Voila! Frivolous lawsuit.
highdef
February 11, 2012 at 8:33am
Go fuck yourself Blizzard!!!
You didn't do anything relating to Dota. It just got your attention recently because of its boost in popularity. You didn't even get your own take of BlizzardDota right. You've make the game more simpler with your BlizzardDota? That's what you've come up after seven years of developed goodwill in the mark of Dota??? Don't make me laugh.
The community owns Dota, that's right and the community must be treated right. All you've done is bask in your WOW.
Valve remake the original game into HD; retaining the original gameplay, items, heroes etc. with added online features. That's what the community needs.
aferrara50
February 11, 2012 at 10:12pm
I really don't think activision/blizzard cares. All they want is $, like any company. They're obviously doing something right tho with a $1billion profit this year
An9eL
February 10, 2012 at 3:34pm
All I can say is that after 10 years of development Diablo III Beta looked and felt quite antiquated, and disappointing. With Blizzards money and resources I really thought they were going to hit it out of the ballpark. A good example is Bioware, they did an excellent job in only a few years with Star Wars the Old Republic. I just hope Blizzard learns that after 10 years in the making the phrase "It's ready when is ready" is not really a good thing to say.
Frencho
February 10, 2012 at 9:57am
Each day I hate blizzard more & more, it's crap since WoW came out and they cartooned everything and wrecked Warcraft lore. Plus diablo 3 looks childish cartoon/epic/puber teenage wet dream not even close to the creepy/grim/serious atmosphere of diablo 1 & 2, why don't they just add zombie pandaren while they are at it, cuz diablo 3 looks like WoW to me...
First, DOTA is property of Icefrog, not Blizzard, whom sold the rights to valve. Valve owns the license and filed the trademark, why shouldn't it own the acronym??!!
Second, blizzard DOTA doesn't even looks as interesting & good as valve's one.
Third, there is no such thing as a 100% original game, they all borrow gameplay/presentation/story concepts from each other. So even if the 2 dota's share the same acronym and are similar, they are not the same game.
Fourth, Valve's got the best thing ever to come to PC gaming = Steam, and it's self published, not mingled with that evil Activision... I loved blizzard back in the 90's and early 2000's, but now it's a disappointment. So, go Valve, U deserve the DOTA acronym, blizzard can suck it this time!
Digital-Storm
February 10, 2012 at 12:53pm
Icefrog owns nothing. All maps and content created for Warcraft III and Starcraft 2 are property of Blizzard Entertainment. If you don't believe me, read the terms of service agreement when you launch the map editors.
Frencho
February 10, 2012 at 1:13pm
It's a judicial mess, leave the lawyers & judges sort that out. There is no clear owner, cuz it's a mod, and was created by the community. Still Blizzard, valve or Icefrog/guinsoo can all claim ownership. I vouch for the community as owners. It all depends how the judge interprets this case.
these articles, might help:
http://www.allyourlawarebelongtous.com/who-owns-the-dota-trademark/http://tk-nation.com/articles/161/who-owns-dota--the-story-so-far-
bling581
February 10, 2012 at 10:44am
"it's crap since WoW came out and they cartooned everything"
Since when was Warcraft realistic looking?
Frencho
February 10, 2012 at 12:56pm
WC 3 was released back in 2002, there were huge graphical limitations back then. But my rant is about turning the diablo franchise into a nickelodeon game, just like bioware did it with dragon age 2, just look how well that went, origins fans hated it. So there is no excuse to make diablo 3, a 2012 game made by the top PC developer with almost unlimited money, look so cartoony, cuz it just does not fit with the diablo vibe, it screams wow. They could have pulled off a much better engine.
vrmlbasic
February 10, 2012 at 1:35pm
Honestly I thought the WarCraft 3 graphics were already "Nickelodeon style" as they were all cheesy caricatures. Warcraft 2 had similarly childishly-styled graphics, but they were so abhorrent that it was hard to tell. "Graphical limitations" only go so far in explaining the cheesy and humorous monsters in the WC universe; both System Shocks had to do more with greater limitations and they produced more of a genuine feel of dread and a non-childish atmosphere. The comical proportionality of every 3d object in the game was also intentional (as I cannot abide by an assertion that graphical limitations mandated it), and IMO off-putting.
Corroborating that cheesiness was the intent of Blizzard for WC, just listen to the homages, "anachronisms", and tongue-in-cheek lines in WC3 when you repeatedly click on characters.
I agree that they could have done much better with Diablo 3, but I don't really care about the Diablo franchise. Even if I did, the always-online-to-play BS drm would keep me from playing it.
Also, Steam is NOT the best thing to ever come to PC gaming. It would be closer if it vetted games more thouroughly before retailing them and if it cut out all other similar services in games (EA accounts, GFWL), and the egregious DRM, but it refuses to and remains a half-baked service. Humorously we could turn your "Once the company released its cash cow product it became crap" argument against Valve. After Valve released Steam, they went downhill and all but stopped producing their original properties. Portal was assimilated from indie developers as was TF.
bling581
February 13, 2012 at 11:12am
"Honestly I thought the WarCraft 3 graphics were already "Nickelodeon style" as they were all cheesy caricatures."
Yeah, that's exactly my point, but he didn't get it. They purposely designed it too look that way, including WoW.
Why does every game have to be realistic looking to be fun? I can name a lot of games I enjoy that are "cartoonish".
cownaetion
February 10, 2012 at 5:30pm
If there was one wish I could make in the PC gaming world, it would be the extermination of Valve. Steam is by far one of the worse services I have ever used and Valve has not made one good game ever (in my opinion, of course). Burn in hell Valve.
B_H
February 10, 2012 at 7:48am
But... but... I like both these companies. For whom will I wield my pitchfork and crazed fanboyism?!?
aferrara50
February 11, 2012 at 10:09pm
definitely valve for me since I have hundreds of games on steam and only a handful on battle.net
vrmlbasic
February 10, 2012 at 2:00pm
Being such a pessimist would be too tiring for me ;)
Though here I must confess that I agree; both Valve and Blizzard are worthy of bearing the full brunt of nerdrage for absurd delays and screwing us all over with wonky DRM.
Blizzard has let all of its properties sit idle for so long and let DOTA go for so long that IMO they've lost the right to complain like this.
Captain_Steve
February 10, 2012 at 6:42am
Litigious bullshit is important. I wouldn't want the fantasy world of one game I'm playing to be a rip-off of another.
Of course, If Tolkien was still alive, he could problably sue every single fantasy game involving elves.
Hey.That_Dude
February 10, 2012 at 9:23am
elves were in lore long before Tolkien... since it's been around for centuries there is NO way he could seek any type of legal protection except for copy right on HIS work (i.e. his books and his work on them).
Jox
February 10, 2012 at 12:40pm
"elves were in lore long before Tolkien..."
This is *technically* true, but pre-Tolkien elves were more like faeries; spirits of the forest would be a better description of the term. The concept of warrior-elves as described in LotR and the Silmarillion, and later used in Dungeons & Dragons and countless other games & movies can all trace their origin to Tolkien.
Tolkien himself was likely influenced by medieval folklore tales of the woodwose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_man).
-Jox
Hey.That_Dude
February 11, 2012 at 2:35pm
You can't protect ideas. It's just not possible under the rules we have today.
He couldn't Trademark "Elves" since the phrase/word was already used to describe something similar (i.e. a fairy tale creature).
He Copyrighted his work but that only involves exact quotations and the work as an entirety, not individual words from the book.
Patents don't even apply... there is no schematic for building an elf (although that would be cool... then I'd just have to transfer my mind into a sexy Elf body and live forever & be sexy.)
^(>.<)^ <(woot!)
and it's not a trade secret... everyone knows about it.Therefore, so forth, etc. there is no IP law currently in effect that would give Tolkien rights to sue anyone
aferrara50
February 10, 2012 at 7:17am
that's only if he sought a copyright for the "elves" idea, otherwise he would be out of luck. We're pretty much free to copy concepts, patterns, non-physical products of others if they do not have a CR. A CR also ends 70 years after the death of the creator, but can be renewed in extreme situations (disney)
Peanut Fox
February 10, 2012 at 9:09am
70 years is far too long. How you can stifle anyone from using a concept for over 100 years easy is beyond me.
aferrara50
February 11, 2012 at 8:28am
the reasoning is that it doesn't hinder technological innovation since copyrights are only granted for "things" artistic in nature which do not "advance" society, but are merely for enjoyment. Patents are given for technologically related "things" and there is a 20 year limit on that which is mostly in place because of drug companies since 10 out of the 20 years which a company has a patent for a drug is used up in testing (usually) so the other 10 the company gets to reap the benefits of the drug. Trademarks on the other hand can last until the end of the country it is granted in unless the company name (usually) becomes a common work like "kleenex" being substituted for tissue and "bandaid" for bandage
Hey.That_Dude
February 11, 2012 at 2:38pm
It is possible to patent something for 21 years via the use of a 1 year provisional patent, which allows you to use the phrase ""patent pending." But yeah, that's generally correct.
