Why the Skyrim boycott is a waste of time and missing enjoyment.
- Thread starter Saviordd1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OK, this will be long, so if you want a summary, just go to the end.
1) Notch is very well-off for his work on Minecraft, true. Honestly, I couldn't really remark on whether or not he is financially a match for Zenimax (though it's fair to doubt it). That he is one man with a small team of developers, not a corporation who's just recently bought up a bunch of intellectual property. Coupled with the notion that he's one of those indie heroes who's managed to disintermediate the traditional publishing systems makes him a fair deal more likeable and supportable than, say, a company who's supported somewhat questionable DRM practices and has been making some pretty damned questionable publishing decisions, and it's pretty easy to see why many consider Notch the hero of this.
2) Zenimax has the right to sue in the same sense that I have a right to sue a pill bottle company because after swallowing the whole bottle it didn't kill me like I'd expected. The legal architecture to accomplish such a task is there, but that doesn't make the whole thing any less frivolous. This isn't like trademarking, say, Lego or XBox. This a word that, albeit less useful these days than in days past, is a common word in the English language. It would be no less ludicrous if Microsoft sued Anderson Windows because they claim they make "windows." The only leg to stand on is that it's a software product in a similar category of software. Beyond that, and the name, it's safe to say that it'd be extremely unlikely that one would mistake "The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim" with a game called "Scrolls." In the end, it's safe to say most people are just going to call the former "Skyrim" anyway, so brand recognition isn't undermined here.
3) Admittedly not the most professional way to handle a C&D, but given the frivolity of the lawsuit, it's not entirely difficult to understand WHY Notch did what he did. It seems almost unthinkable that such a large company would be so concerned with what could easily be argued as the most innocuous thing imaginable. Perhaps he had hoped it was just some trigger-happy legal department that did this, and once word got out it would bring about one of the actual development managers to put the lawyers in their place. Again: one man, and not the most professional man, but this response isn't exactly the most out of line thing I've ever seen. Moreover, if you don't want your C&D letters to be posted about, then don't send them. Zenimax fired a shot across the bow: it's not exactly unforseeable that someone wouldn't fire back.
4) This and the whole Quake 3 challenge (while entertaining) are probably the two things that count most against Notch, as it appears now he may be just fucking with them. But still: Scrolls are an integral part of the game, it would appear. The Elder Scrolls isn't even really all that taken with discussing Scrolls. The title conveys what Mojang wanted to convey, and did so using a relatively common word in the realm of fantasy. A suffix of some sort added to the title would differentiate it somewhat. Zenimax seems extremely taken with the premise of their lawsuit, and it wasn't exactly surprising that they would refuse this. Still: Notch feels powerfully about the name, and is therefore unwilling to simply bow out on this without attempting some sort of compromise. No one's really doing this right, but I can at least see both sides here.
Also, personal note: saying "butt-hurt" almost always undercuts your point. You've turned your "reasoning" into pejorative trolling. Just a heads-up.
Conclusion
Overall, the point is this: Zenimax's lawsuit is clearly frivolous to most gamers (since the people playing Mojang games or Elder Scrolls games aren't likely to confuse the two), and exercising what is likely enormous amounts of legal force over such a non-issue means that they could do it again over more frivolous endeavors. Seriously, how far are we until some company trademarks the use of subtitles, or of definite articles? Whether or not one chooses to boycott, a boycott (if effective) sends a clear message:
We, your audience, do not approve of what you are doing. We wish to express that it is in no one's best interests to do this, and choose not to support your company if you continue with this behavior.
Of course, the real question is: How many of you supposed boycotters will, in fact, be true to your word?
1) Notch is very well-off for his work on Minecraft, true. Honestly, I couldn't really remark on whether or not he is financially a match for Zenimax (though it's fair to doubt it). That he is one man with a small team of developers, not a corporation who's just recently bought up a bunch of intellectual property. Coupled with the notion that he's one of those indie heroes who's managed to disintermediate the traditional publishing systems makes him a fair deal more likeable and supportable than, say, a company who's supported somewhat questionable DRM practices and has been making some pretty damned questionable publishing decisions, and it's pretty easy to see why many consider Notch the hero of this.
2) Zenimax has the right to sue in the same sense that I have a right to sue a pill bottle company because after swallowing the whole bottle it didn't kill me like I'd expected. The legal architecture to accomplish such a task is there, but that doesn't make the whole thing any less frivolous. This isn't like trademarking, say, Lego or XBox. This a word that, albeit less useful these days than in days past, is a common word in the English language. It would be no less ludicrous if Microsoft sued Anderson Windows because they claim they make "windows." The only leg to stand on is that it's a software product in a similar category of software. Beyond that, and the name, it's safe to say that it'd be extremely unlikely that one would mistake "The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim" with a game called "Scrolls." In the end, it's safe to say most people are just going to call the former "Skyrim" anyway, so brand recognition isn't undermined here.
3) Admittedly not the most professional way to handle a C&D, but given the frivolity of the lawsuit, it's not entirely difficult to understand WHY Notch did what he did. It seems almost unthinkable that such a large company would be so concerned with what could easily be argued as the most innocuous thing imaginable. Perhaps he had hoped it was just some trigger-happy legal department that did this, and once word got out it would bring about one of the actual development managers to put the lawyers in their place. Again: one man, and not the most professional man, but this response isn't exactly the most out of line thing I've ever seen. Moreover, if you don't want your C&D letters to be posted about, then don't send them. Zenimax fired a shot across the bow: it's not exactly unforseeable that someone wouldn't fire back.
4) This and the whole Quake 3 challenge (while entertaining) are probably the two things that count most against Notch, as it appears now he may be just fucking with them. But still: Scrolls are an integral part of the game, it would appear. The Elder Scrolls isn't even really all that taken with discussing Scrolls. The title conveys what Mojang wanted to convey, and did so using a relatively common word in the realm of fantasy. A suffix of some sort added to the title would differentiate it somewhat. Zenimax seems extremely taken with the premise of their lawsuit, and it wasn't exactly surprising that they would refuse this. Still: Notch feels powerfully about the name, and is therefore unwilling to simply bow out on this without attempting some sort of compromise. No one's really doing this right, but I can at least see both sides here.
Also, personal note: saying "butt-hurt" almost always undercuts your point. You've turned your "reasoning" into pejorative trolling. Just a heads-up.
Conclusion
Overall, the point is this: Zenimax's lawsuit is clearly frivolous to most gamers (since the people playing Mojang games or Elder Scrolls games aren't likely to confuse the two), and exercising what is likely enormous amounts of legal force over such a non-issue means that they could do it again over more frivolous endeavors. Seriously, how far are we until some company trademarks the use of subtitles, or of definite articles? Whether or not one chooses to boycott, a boycott (if effective) sends a clear message:
We, your audience, do not approve of what you are doing. We wish to express that it is in no one's best interests to do this, and choose not to support your company if you continue with this behavior.
Of course, the real question is: How many of you supposed boycotters will, in fact, be true to your word?
Err,I'm not going to boycott a dev team's game because a bunch of trigger happy lawyers are ruining everyone's fun.
Here's what I am going to do:
-Enjoy Minecraft
-Buy Skyrim and enjoy it
-Tell Bethesda softworks they did a good job
-Tell their lawyers to stop being dicks.
Here's what I am going to do:
-Enjoy Minecraft
-Buy Skyrim and enjoy it
-Tell Bethesda softworks they did a good job
-Tell their lawyers to stop being dicks.
Zenimax does not own the word scrolls. The own the group of words "The Elder Scrolls". They are suing a game where you battle cards because it's "too similar" to their first person adventure. This website does not own the word magazine. Mojang do not own the word mine. Youtube does not own the word "you".Saviordd1 said:
The lawsuit is utterly ridiculous and I, as well as others, are going to send Zenimax a message. I don't really care if other people see it as stupid, if Zenimax or Bethesda aren't making much money then they aren't going to let this happen again. I would be equally peeved off if Call Of Duty were sued by the legal owners of "The Call of the Wild", despite the fact that I like The Call of the Wild more than Call of Duty.
I really dont understand why majong cant just change the bloody name. There game isnt even out yet and still in development.
They'd even get alot of points for being the bigger man in the argument than laughing about it on tweets and making 'fight me online' jokes.
Notch needs to grow up. Yes he made a good game but people need to stop acting like he's the second coming of the messigh.
They'd even get alot of points for being the bigger man in the argument than laughing about it on tweets and making 'fight me online' jokes.
Notch needs to grow up. Yes he made a good game but people need to stop acting like he's the second coming of the messigh.
People are boycotting Skyrim because they see the lawsuit to just be frivilous. There is no infringment. There is no confusion between Scrolls and The Elder Scrolls. Its Bethesda's business department saying "Well, our office money swimming pool isn't quite as big as we'd like. OOOH I HAVE A BRILLIANT IDEA ON HOW TO GET MORE!!!".
And that's not cool. I get it, its not some small guy getting prosecuted. Its a guy who has made fistfulls of cash for selling digital legos on crack. People are upset that they're doing this as
A. An attempted money grab
B. Publicity stunt
C. The potential to pave a dangerous road in terms of copyright laws.
Boycotting one of the blockbusters of the season is the communities way of saying "What your doing is wrong, and we don't agree. We're speaking with our dollars." If a large enough section of the community said "This is wrong, Im not purchasing the game", they would definately rethink this frivilous lawsuit.
Its stupid. I have no problem voting with my dollars, and thats why I'm witholding from Skyrim. The reprecusions of a company successfully suing another for simply mentioning a word that appears in another could pave the way for dangerous legislation and future suits. Imagine if Square Enix sued any game that had the words Final, Fantasy, Kingdom, Hearts, or numbers 1-14 in their name. Now imagine if a legal system was set up so they would win? Ridiculous, isn't it?
Its an obvious cashgrab. And I refuse to give my money away to a company that has no respect for the dollar, and just expects money to come to them because "they want it". This is exactly the case. No person, and I literally mean NO PERSON, on the planet, will buy Notches Scrolls off of his website, and think they are getting The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.
IF, BY ANY CHANCE, I AM WRONG, that person is an idiot. Consumer ineducation is not the producers fault. If you see Scrolls and automatically think its Skyrim, and buy it thinking it is Skyrim, you probably need to learn more before you spend your money ever again.
And that's not cool. I get it, its not some small guy getting prosecuted. Its a guy who has made fistfulls of cash for selling digital legos on crack. People are upset that they're doing this as
A. An attempted money grab
B. Publicity stunt
C. The potential to pave a dangerous road in terms of copyright laws.
Boycotting one of the blockbusters of the season is the communities way of saying "What your doing is wrong, and we don't agree. We're speaking with our dollars." If a large enough section of the community said "This is wrong, Im not purchasing the game", they would definately rethink this frivilous lawsuit.
Its stupid. I have no problem voting with my dollars, and thats why I'm witholding from Skyrim. The reprecusions of a company successfully suing another for simply mentioning a word that appears in another could pave the way for dangerous legislation and future suits. Imagine if Square Enix sued any game that had the words Final, Fantasy, Kingdom, Hearts, or numbers 1-14 in their name. Now imagine if a legal system was set up so they would win? Ridiculous, isn't it?
Its an obvious cashgrab. And I refuse to give my money away to a company that has no respect for the dollar, and just expects money to come to them because "they want it". This is exactly the case. No person, and I literally mean NO PERSON, on the planet, will buy Notches Scrolls off of his website, and think they are getting The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.
IF, BY ANY CHANCE, I AM WRONG, that person is an idiot. Consumer ineducation is not the producers fault. If you see Scrolls and automatically think its Skyrim, and buy it thinking it is Skyrim, you probably need to learn more before you spend your money ever again.
Like some guy whose nick I can't remember now said, they're doing it to Notch now because if they don't, some other people are gonna come up and make a game called "The Elder Parchments" or something and THEN Zenimax won't be able to sue them because they let it pass for Notch so they have to let it pass for these guys too and that's gonna make Zenimax look like push-overs.
Notch only posts details about it on his Twitter and etc because he isn't really the head of some big company or something. No. He's one guy who made one very good indie-game along with about 3 or 4 more people(Jeb, C418, Kristoffer Zetterstrand, maybe more). He's not Todd Howard, he hasn't directed 3 GOTY games. So he posts things like those on his Twitter, and frankly if I almost singlehandedly developed one of the best indie games ever and then I was getting sued by the guys at Beth I would probably post it on my Twitter.
But the "oh I can add a subtitle" move from Notch just seems weird. Sure, I guess it could help distinguish Skyrim from Scrolls a little more (THE WHOLE THING HE'S BEING SUED FOR BUT REALLY? CONFUSE SKYRIM WITH SCROLLS?!), but COME ON.
Now...boycotting Skyrim...how can you put those 2 words close to each other like that?!Skyrim is gonna be awesome!
Notch only posts details about it on his Twitter and etc because he isn't really the head of some big company or something. No. He's one guy who made one very good indie-game along with about 3 or 4 more people(Jeb, C418, Kristoffer Zetterstrand, maybe more). He's not Todd Howard, he hasn't directed 3 GOTY games. So he posts things like those on his Twitter, and frankly if I almost singlehandedly developed one of the best indie games ever and then I was getting sued by the guys at Beth I would probably post it on my Twitter.
But the "oh I can add a subtitle" move from Notch just seems weird. Sure, I guess it could help distinguish Skyrim from Scrolls a little more (THE WHOLE THING HE'S BEING SUED FOR BUT REALLY? CONFUSE SKYRIM WITH SCROLLS?!), but COME ON.
Now...boycotting Skyrim...how can you put those 2 words close to each other like that?!Skyrim is gonna be awesome!
I did.Xanthious said:
I'm renting it.
Not because of the Scrolls thing (though I think it is pants on head retarded to think that you can own a name like Scrolls; I guess Nintendo owns the name Super - publishers better stop using that word.I don't want to buy Skyrim because I've played too many Bethesda games that just didn't work at launch. New Vegas (which Behtesda published and patched) didn't work for a good 6 months after launch and many would argue that it still doesn't work a year later.
As a ps3 owner, I feel that Bethesda has shown little care for my $60 so I don't care to give them $60.
I'm a huge Fallout 3 fan too but I just don't have confidence in their ability to make a working product.
So I guess I'm not a real boycotter but I do support anyone who wants to boycott any product for whatever reason. If you're a civilized consumer, that's how you should show your displeasure.
Or we could all go find Todd Howard and beat the ever living crap out of him but that's uncivilized, illegal, and probably wont lead to any improvements to the consumer experience. If we refuse to give them money for their (broken) products, they will try and improve things for us or go out of business.
If only that was how corporations operated. 95% of them, when faced with declining profits, will just cut corners even more aggressively. I think you can look back at the number of corporations who said "We're losing money, we'd better put out a better product!" on the fingers of one badly maimed hand.GonzoGamer said:
i wouldn't boycott purchasing skyrim if it was made by child molesting satan worshippers, who ground hundreds of orphans into a fine paste with which to print the manual. well, maybe i wouldn't purchase any DLC. that'd show 'em. also, fuck the word scrolls, they can have it. i mean, i hardly ever use it in day to day life let's be honest.
there's a skyrim boycott? huh, imagine that.
now i am informed about this!
^why this thread is stupid.
now i am informed about this!
^why this thread is stupid.
You're right, that's how a great many corporations do work, especially when they have several different lines. However video games are still a product type business and for most Publishers, that's the only product they make. So for them, sales mean a hell of a lot more than it does for a company like GE or Virgin.BloatedGuppy said:
Regardless; if a game sells well, they aren't going to bother to improve the product, they've been proving that this whole generation. If the product does not sell well, they will be curious as to why.
Look at how much they all ***** and whine about used sales; sales figures are important to them.
Please stop calling my clever observations stupid. It makes you look stupid.TheKasp said:
"he never told the whole truth about the application."
He did not withhold any critical detail.
And whose fault is THAT? That Zenimax isn't giving their side? Notch can't force them to tell their side, why would Notch tell a blatant lie that:
-he offered to drop the trademark claim, and
-zenimax refused that offer
That's bold faced, Zenimax could easilly call him out on that and I thing the reason they haven't is because Notch is telling the truth. It's easy to accuse people of lies without any reason for suspicion. Frankly your approach "we only know what notch tells us, he could be manipulating us" is the thought process of a conspiracy theorists.
I suppose you are safe with your tin-foil hat and amazing powers of spamming "No, it is still fuckin stupid" to anyone who challenges your thought process
That's the OP's straw-man argument, there is no major boycott. Even Notch is opposing a boycott and WILL be buying Skyrim.Divine Miss Bee said:
The thing is it's an effective ad hominem attack to make out those who oppose the Zenimax lawsuit as feckless hypocrites, rather than addressing the actual weight or the argument itself.
well, that too. but my point was, if you oppose an action of any kind, don't give it more publicity. don't reinforce the bad behavior with attention.Treblaine said: