this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
358 points (97.4% liked)

Games

32315 readers
1725 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Link: https://nitter.net/TeamFortressS2/status/1745157814295617767

Valve is generally supportive of mods (hell, a Portal 2 mod was just released a few days ago) but it seems like recreating Team Fortress 2 was pushing it... Really sad, honestly. I really hope Valve would just strike a deal with these devs and make it official rather than throw away the insane amount of effort they put into re-building TF2.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 133 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Valve are well within their rights here. This isn't new content or transformative. It's literally trying to remake the same game using the same engine. These devs knew they were playing with fire. Never come between GabeN and his hats.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 68 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

My thinking is that it was hot garbage that was trying to milk the TF2 name to grow their own fanbase. And valve didn't want to be associated with that.

My guess is that Black Mesa looks great, had passionate people who were really communicating and engaging with Valve/community, didn't infringe on the Half-Life trademark and it felt like a step forward, which is why it was allowed to continue AND even be brought to market.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

Makes me wonder where their line is between this and Black Mesa, though.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 9 months ago

Black Mesa is a remake of a single player game that Valve wasn't planning on remaking any time soon, more profitable to make it official and take a cut

TF2 actively still makes them sht tons of money, no profit in splitting the fan base

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Imo, Trademark. Black Mesa is a concept from Half-Life, but "Black Mesa" to the best of my knowledge wasn't a registered trademark. "Team Fortress/Team Fortress 2" are registered trademarks however, and that significantly changes the value and functionality of the specific terms.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That would only allow them the name, not the content. They always had to get Valve's permission.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but it's easier to give permission to use concepts that don't infringe on trademark than it is to give permission on something that could be argued in court as muddying a trademark.

I know they require permission either way, but what permission they're actually asking for changes based on what terminology they use

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Well my point is that since the content is directly related, it actually doesn't matter what they called it. It would've been exactly the same amount of infringement if they called it, "happy fun times at the science lab".

The only differnce is it would've been less obvious to identify.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I get your point, my point is the infringement would be less egregious without trademark and thus easier for Valve to turn a blind eye to, or even potentially officially endorse via some potential deal à la Black Mesa.

But hey, I am fully willing to concede that I am just a layman with enormous distance from this topic and no specific expertise or insider knowledge, so the possibility of me being wrong is high

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

But we just got Portal Revolution some days ago, on steam.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 1 points 9 months ago

I'd guess the fine line is "Valve intend to earn money from something official in the future"

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

We need to change IP and copyright law to add a "use it or lose it" clause for games that have been left to languish for eternity.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

just result in companies releasing even shittier games just to protect their IPs.

[–] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Not eternity 95 years.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee -5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunately it's not just well within their rights, it's their legal obligation. The stupid situation that is America means that for them to be able to maintain their claim of ownership on the IP trademark, they have to both actively use the trademark and actively police unauthorized use of the trademark by others. If they don't, they risk losing the right to claim the trademark, which wouldn't just mean independents running servers for the game, but also would mean unscrupulous entities could produce and sell merchandise featuring the trademark en masse without having to seek permission from or pay any commissions to Valve.

It's shitty, but it's more shitty because of the stupid system we've built than because of any intentional malevolence on Valve's part, imo.

Important caveat: I am not a legal professional and it is entirely possible my understanding of trademark law is flawed, but this is my earnest understanding of the situation.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

DMCA has nothing to do with trademarks

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Well then I got nothin' 🤷‍♂️

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

No, it isn't.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

It is hardly incumbent on copyright owners, however, to challenge each and every actionable infringement. And there is nothing untoward about waiting to see whether an infringer’s exploitation undercuts the value of the copyrighted work, has no effect on the original work, or even complements it. Fan sites prompted by a book or film, for example, may benefit the copyright owner. See Wu, Tolerated Use, 31 Colum. J. L. & Arts 617, 619–620 (2008).