file What if VTES was rebooted into an incompatible 2.0 version?

05 Apr 2016 07:16 #76250 by Ashur

Yeah, this is along the lines Hearthstone has. Also I would be grateful if anybody could offer a brief rebuttal, as making Hearthstone-like VTES was surely was discussed before ;)

First: I am not against a online VTES version, even though that version would most likely be like playing the Silence of Death format.

Second: Are you seriously comparing VTES with Hearthstone? I think that is like comparing Diplomacy to Pokemon. It´s an entirely different type of game. VTES is more of a strategy boardgame that happen to be based on cards, than a "normal CCG".

Also: I am pretty sure that WWP understand that a CCG is not where they are going to make shitloads of money, so a "normal CCG" business model is not necessarily high priority. They are going to make their money on computer games (MMORPG:s, Bloodlines-continuance, grand strategy, etc) set in the WoD - other stuff (LARPS, tablerpgs, boardgames, cardgames) will most likely more be like "merchandise" for those other, more lucurative venues. Do you understand?

"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2016 07:31 #76251 by Ashur

So Ashur, You recognise there is a risk, a non-zero risk, of Hasbro getting their law department out and suing a publisher out of existence.

Well, I do not see the Hasbro law department suing anyone out of existence because of VTES, no. I have no idea why you use this kind of words. Why not try to be more optimistic? IF Hasbro has any problems with VTES continuing, couldn´t these differencies be solved?

Compare with the "Hex: Shards of Fate" incident. Hex made a extremelly blatant infringement, but it was solved outside of court within a year (if I understand correctly). The infringement that might be relevant in the case of VTES is nowhere near as serious, so why not estimate it could be solved rather easly?

The 'tap mechanic' may not be the only IP. The rulebook itself might be covered IP. IP doesn't restrict itself to patentable material. The Coca Cola brand is not patentable (any longer, if ever) but is IP. So bringing up the death of the "Deckmaster Patent" is basically a strawman in this overall situation. But you also confirmed, you have no idea if the Discipline Icons, Action/Action Modifier/Political Action/Etc Icons, the Burn Icon, the Pool Icon, the (D) action icon... these could all fall under possible IP not owned by WWP/Paradox.

Again: The WotC game mechanic patent expired 2015, and WWP has stated they own ALL IP:s relevant for VTES. Why do you not believe in this, until someone shows some actual proof of it being otherwise?

VTES 2.0 has none of that risk or baggage. So, unless a Hasbro IP deal is signed relatively quickly... WWP/Paradox would be unlikely to try release a VTES Reprint or a VTES 1.5 with their oWoD reboot. It seems like the easiest and most elegant solution for WWP/Paradox is to build VTES 2.0 from the beginning, rather than backing a project that is highly uncertain and comes with it the chance of blowing all of your development work.

I have to point out that I am not negative to a VTES 2.0, but I know that designing and playtesting of such a venture would take dedicated persons _years_. I suggest the VEKN continue to pursue a continued VTES 1.0 meanwhile - I do not want to see a "gap" in production and tournaments, that would destroy playgroups.

"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2016 08:30 #76253 by GreyB
Isn't the whole discussion about IP rights moot? If Paradox thinks the risks are too high to continue VTES 1.0, thats the end of it and we might see a VTES 2.0 (which isn't a certainty at this point either). If they can continue on VTES 1.0 and will, cool, no certainty on that either. Not much the community can add to that discussion...

:garg: :VIS: :POT: :FOR: :flight: -1 Strength
The following user(s) said Thank You: Juggernaut1981

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2016 10:34 #76254 by elotar

If you tell somebody that there are over 3000 possible library cards to play with, they will pack up and head for another game.


Magic's standard format has currently 1448 cards to play with, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

(total number of cards is 13651 )


+1 to Ankha. I even would say that MTG is much more complicated then VtES in deckbuilding for beginners stage.

Showing to the new players all the cards at once is just a bad way of promoting the game.
The are really very few basic parts of the game which must be taught to start gaming - +bleed, stealth, intersept, bounce, KRC, blood management and combat.

It's really not so important, that there are like 100+ +bleed cards, mostly they are doing the same thing.

ICLee Idea "6 blood dolls + 6 conditionings + 6 wakes + 6 deflections + whenever" as a template for a beginners deck looks kind of good for me.

And possibility of meeting some weird effects is one of the feachures of VtES. Which is fine, cause all of them will be generallt weaker, than basic GtA+conditioning combo.

:splat: NC Russia
:DEM::san::nec::cap4:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2016 10:53 #76255 by Juggernaut1981

So Ashur, You recognise there is a risk, a non-zero risk, of Hasbro getting their law department out and suing a publisher out of existence.

Well, I do not see the Hasbro law department suing anyone out of existence because of VTES, no. I have no idea why you use this kind of words. Why not try to be more optimistic? IF Hasbro has any problems with VTES continuing, couldn´t these differencies be solved?

Compare with the "Hex: Shards of Fate" incident. Hex made a extremelly blatant infringement, but it was solved outside of court within a year (if I understand correctly). The infringement that might be relevant in the case of VTES is nowhere near as serious, so why not estimate it could be solved rather easly?

Why do I use these kinds of words? Because when you are mitigating risks, you hope for the best and plan for the worst. And in this case, the worst is to assume that Hasbro will take someone to the cleaners.
Why assume they couldn't be solved? Because those that have spent years trying to solve them, weren't able to solve them. The WWP products that the OneBookshelf guys could get published were the ones with no Hasbro material in them. It seems like Hasbro aren't interested in VTES being published.

The 'tap mechanic' may not be the only IP. The rulebook itself might be covered IP. IP doesn't restrict itself to patentable material. The Coca Cola brand is not patentable (any longer, if ever) but is IP. So bringing up the death of the "Deckmaster Patent" is basically a strawman in this overall situation. But you also confirmed, you have no idea if the Discipline Icons, Action/Action Modifier/Political Action/Etc Icons, the Burn Icon, the Pool Icon, the (D) action icon... these could all fall under possible IP not owned by WWP/Paradox.

Again: The WotC game mechanic patent expired 2015, and WWP has stated they own ALL IP:s relevant for VTES. Why do you not believe in this, until someone shows some actual proof of it being otherwise?

The patent doesn't cover this stuff. It covers making a generic CCG using the "Tap mechanic". It doesn't cover the turn order, it doesn't cover the rule book, it doesn't cover the card art, it doesn't cover the icons, etc, etc, etc.
The patent NEVER covered those things. The things I listed are NON-PATENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

They said they had all the rights they needed to REPRINT VTES or just to make a VTES Game? Because you only need the oWoD stuff to make VTES 2.0. They've got all of that. But Hasbro clearly has something that stopped a reprint.

VTES 2.0 has none of that risk or baggage. So, unless a Hasbro IP deal is signed relatively quickly... WWP/Paradox would be unlikely to try release a VTES Reprint or a VTES 1.5 with their oWoD reboot. It seems like the easiest and most elegant solution for WWP/Paradox is to build VTES 2.0 from the beginning, rather than backing a project that is highly uncertain and comes with it the chance of blowing all of your development work.

I have to point out that I am not negative to a VTES 2.0, but I know that designing and playtesting of such a venture would take dedicated persons _years_. I suggest the VEKN continue to pursue a continued VTES 1.0 meanwhile - I do not want to see a "gap" in production and tournaments, that would destroy playgroups.

We are already in a 'gap' in production.

:bruj::CEL::POT::PRE::tha: Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2016 13:16 #76256 by Brum

The patent doesn't cover this stuff. It covers making a generic CCG using the "Tap mechanic". It doesn't cover the turn order, it doesn't cover the rule book, it doesn't cover the card art, it doesn't cover the icons, etc, etc, etc.
The patent NEVER covered those things. The things I listed are NON-PATENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.


Actually I read the Patent while working in European Patent Office (2005 / 6) and it was almost literally the rule book of Jyhad, with specific icons in the cards, where they go, etc..
Later things changed (round was turn and turn was round, layout of the cards changed the disciplines from the right to the left, new disciplines created, imbued, etc.) but all of that was done with Wizards agreement to add upon "their" property.

Since I was not involved in Org Play and we had the support of a company, with new cards coming out, etc., I didn't keep the PDF... :(

One can still get it online, I think.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.110 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum