The Enhanced Edition for the viking expansion for Mount and Blade Warband is finally out .
Last edited:
The Enhanced Edition for the viking expansion for Mount and Blade Warband is finally out .
IP = Intellectual Property and it's a legal term the predates the internet by about 100 years. "gaming settings" my ass.Seriously though, let's use term IP for Internet Protocol addresses, and not for gaming settings.
So what any property aspect has to do with what you are trying to convey? You are talking about creative process, making a new world, which is called settings as a technical term when you refer to creating characters and so on. That's what creators are busy with. "Property" is what lawyers worry about. That's why I see this term as very awkward in such context. Imagine a phrase like "the author is creating a new intellectual property for his book" instead of "the author is creating a new world for his book". Here it's clear that it's weird. But for games its somehow commonly overlooked.
And for the sake of argument, imagine an author creating something in the public domain. I.e. there is no IP there at all, yet the author is creating a new world, artistic setting and so on. It would highlight even more how inadequate "intellectual property" is as term for such context. I think its usage is an artifact of big publishers pushing a mentality that every creative work must be owned by someone by default.
Last edited:
Legally speaking, a new video-game franchise is Intellectual Property. Take it up with the lawyers!
Not to mention, that's what the creative director of Paradox Interactive called it in his forum post, so.........
Last edited:
@Phinnway: See my update / edit above where I clarify what I was talking about. I know that it's used in such context by some, I just find it to be skewed by publishers whose mind is indeed more busy with property than with art and creative issues, and Paradox probably fits as a publisher. So when their director speaks, property is what's in the focus. But we as players are interested in art after all, and not in how publisher wants to commercialize it
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but saying Johan Andersson's mind is more conerned with property than creative issues is like saying Sid Meier is more conerned with property than with art and creative issues. The man has literally conducted interviews wearing sweat-pants --F!@#ING SWEAT PANTS!!!-- because that's just what he happened to wear to work that day (can't really blame him, sweat-pants are comfortable.) He's been with Paradox Interactive since their first game and has worked on every entry in their main franchises since.
Paradox Interactive is a small-time publisher. And even though they are greedy, I don't think what you're saying really applies here. There's also a distinction between Paradox Interactive (publisher) and Paradox Development Studio, which is akin to CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED. And Johan is part of PDS.
Paradox Interactive is a small-time publisher. And even though they are greedy, I don't think what you're saying really applies here. There's also a distinction between Paradox Interactive (publisher) and Paradox Development Studio, which is akin to CD Projekt and CD Projekt RED. And Johan is part of PDS.
Well, good for him (I'm not familiar with Paradox as a company). He could use more proper terms however
I know in the past Paradox were reluctant to release their games through GOG for instance, but recently they started doing it at least for some of their games.That's a significant distinction, since actual studios are thinking about creative process indeed. In case of CDP / CDPR this difference is less pronounced since they don't fund other studios as far as I know.
Last edited:
@Gilrond-i-Virdan like I said, Paradox (the publisher) is pretty greedy. I think they're reluctant to put games on GOG because they want to eventually have their own online shop, sorta like Origin.
I also find terms like "DLC", "AAA" and "IP" a little annoying. We can all agree they are foreign to games, and have slowly appeared into the gamer's vocabulary even though there are much better choices. These things are so generic they're probably only useful to company executives and sales people. "DLC" is stuff you download, it says nothing about the content or length or value. "IP" is stuff you own (like Gilrond said) and refers to legal rights, not to the fantasy universe or game series. And so on.
In the old days we had expansions, patches, game "settings" (yep) like the Forgotten Realms and game series or sagas like Baldur's Gate, and things were much clearer. Using corporate terminology only shows how corporate the gaming scene has become.
In the old days we had expansions, patches, game "settings" (yep) like the Forgotten Realms and game series or sagas like Baldur's Gate, and things were much clearer. Using corporate terminology only shows how corporate the gaming scene has become.
Last edited:
Here is my counter-argument for that. The part of the game that's "property" isn't just the setting, it's also the mechanics. Calling it a new "setting" works fine for RPGs, but not so much for other genres like strategy or an FPS.
I'll use Paradox Interactive's games as an example again. Paradox has four flagship IPs. Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Victoria, and Crusader Kings. Each one of these games has the same foundational concept --an ultra detailed history game that focuses on a specific period of history and takes an extremely long time to play. But they all have different settings and radically different mechanics to match their respective period of history. There are very few transferarable mechanics between each series. Another good example is Vavle's FPS games. Counter-Strike, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, and Half-Life are all FPS games but each has radically different gameplay.
The problem with calling it "a new setting" is Paradox has made spin-off games set in other periods of history that weren't very big (sort of like Beyond Earth for Civ V.) The problem with calling it a "franchise" is that by defintion a franchise requires more than one game in a series. And Paradox takes a very, very long time to make sequels. Calling it a "new IP" announces their intentions of making a new game with new mechanics designed from the ground-up for that particular period in history.
Not to nit-pick, but I thought the terms "DLC" and "AAA" originated in the games industry?
You can't own mechanics really. It's an abstract idea, and it's neither copyrightable, nor patentable and can't be owned. IP covers implementation and expression of ideas, but not ideas themselves. If that was not true, we'd have something like this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2761
As above, mechanics can't be owned. Only their implementation. So saying that they create new IP while meaning mechanics is incorrect. Mechanics are first created as an idea, and only later actually implemented as a copyrightable tangible product.
Seems so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry)
Last edited:
For those who use Steam this can be relevant. A critical security breach was found: http://masterherald.com/steam-hit-by-major-security-breach-many-accounts-hacked/23239/
Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord is going to show off gameplay at Gamescom next week. It's about damn time!
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/mount...uel-to-be-publicly-revealed-at-gamescom-2015/
Also, the series reached 6 million lifetime sales. Hurrah for Taleworlds!
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/mount...uel-to-be-publicly-revealed-at-gamescom-2015/
Also, the series reached 6 million lifetime sales. Hurrah for Taleworlds!
I meant foreign to games, no the game industry, as in "they tell us nothing about the game elements" and probably arose from the business related positions in video game companies. Sometime, some PR person must have said "DLC" and "IP" and people adopted it.
But I do see your point about a game being characterized by its locale and gameplay elements. However, like Gilrond said, you can't patent ideas and so these elements can't really be owned. Can't we just refer to the different game elements separately? Gameplay mechanics, fictional setting, and so on.
That's...simply......genius :surprised:
I just now read this, I'm dying! :rofl:
Here's an enemy that's going to be a pain in the ass to fight!
http://www.vermintide.com/dev-blog-18-the-skaven-rat-ogre/
---------- Updated at 06:00 PM ----------
Here's some more stuff on Vermintide and TW:Warhammer:
[video=youtube;M-DjhFI7xIU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-DjhFI7xIU&index=1&list=LLfVJgQH8-iCexdWASJIqrlw[/video]
I'm more interested in Vermintide than Total War though.
http://www.vermintide.com/dev-blog-18-the-skaven-rat-ogre/
---------- Updated at 06:00 PM ----------
Here's some more stuff on Vermintide and TW:Warhammer:
[video=youtube;M-DjhFI7xIU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-DjhFI7xIU&index=1&list=LLfVJgQH8-iCexdWASJIqrlw[/video]
I'm more interested in Vermintide than Total War though.
Just started Mount and Blade in Wine - the very first one. I had it on GOG for a while from some sale, together with Warband and With Fire and Sword, but never played it so far. It's quite fun.
In Wine it needs d3dx9_36 native override to work, but other than that Wine didn't cause any issues. Mount & Blade Warband has native Linux release, but I decided to try the first one before.
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken, they're not that different at all. Warband being more an iteratively improved game, not a successor. It's essentially the same game with a couple of new features, visual improvements and a multiplayer mode.
Just skip the original and natively play Warband.