PDA

View Full Version : Lawsuit Update: WotC's Amended Complaint



Pages : [1] 2

mach
08-03-2014, 04:49 AM
Available here (free registration required): https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/wawdce-200735

This is clearly a response to CZE's motion to dismiss. It includes a more than 100 page attachment with a listing of lots of Hex cards and the Magic cards they're similar to, along with the copyright registration numbers. The amended complaint itself contains lots of juicy information. Want to know Cory's history with Magic organized play? Want to know the MTGO usernames of the CZE staff, along with the number of times they've logged in/played in tournaments/traded? It's all there.

Saqcat
08-03-2014, 05:04 AM
For some reason i cant registrate in that page, could you uplade that document somewhere?

Slish
08-03-2014, 05:06 AM
Gosh, WotC are such dicks..

Vengus
08-03-2014, 05:13 AM
WotC is really trying everything they can to completely destroy this game. The amount of effort they are putting into it is scary.

havocattack
08-03-2014, 05:32 AM
WotC is really trying everything they can to completely destroy this game. The amount of effort they are putting into it is scary.

:mad:

Souleater
08-03-2014, 05:34 AM
WotC will fail!

kingzzk
08-03-2014, 05:44 AM
anyone downloaded the file and can provide a alt link to it?

bootlace
08-03-2014, 05:47 AM
Quickly skimmed through it, the whole thing is still a joke:

-They mention Cory used to go to MTG tournament (which we all know) - so what?
-They mention many in the CZE team play MTGO (I would hope a developer making a game in a specific genre has played/checked out all the games in that genre in depth to get ideas/inspiration/lessons etc) - again, so what?
-They try to use the above two facts to try to paint this illegitimate access to the copyrighted material (all the cards are available/spoiled online weeks before they hit MTGO, so I don't see any point to this).
-They refer to Spectral Lotus as Spiritual Lotus (if you're going to try to shut down a game, at least get the name of the cards right you think is abusing your legal rights. That card, btw, is one of the prime examples of how different the games are but alas it's just a bunch of men in suits paid to kill something, so this is their spray and pray tactic.)
-They keep talking about paper Hex cards - sorry unless they're talking about promotional rewards handed out at conventions and stuff (which 99.9% of players have never seen), this seems just a blatant lie to try to show their paper card game is also being infringed upon - which we all know it's not.
-They mention repeatedly that players are confused by the similarity of the two games, but even their hand picked anonymous quotes from online forums never state anything about confusion - everyone quoted knows very well they're two different games. I suggest the Hasbro legal team look up the word 'confusion'.
-They mention a few comments in a thread (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=24596)on this forum saying Hex is a clone of MTG and despite many disagreeing the legal statement tries to extrapolate a few users remarks by saying "The rest of the forum resonated with similar remarks".
-They still have blatant errors like trying to compare bushido to rage and the other crap we all pointed out in response to the last filing (apparently Hasbro legal team failed to see these corrections made on these forums despite obviously spending a lot of time on these forums looking for any possible thing to strengthen their case).

TLDR: Nothing to see here folks, move along.

wurtil
08-03-2014, 05:58 AM
WotC should know I saw a couple people tweet they were pretty happy with PTQ changes and making all Pro Tours standard. The rest of twitter resonated with similar remarks.

Makizushi
08-03-2014, 06:03 AM
-They keep talking about paper Hex cards - sorry unless they're talking about promotional rewards handed out at conventions and stuff (which 99.9% of players have never seen), this seems just a blatant lie to try to show their paper card game is also being infringed upon - which we all know it's not.
It is "common" knowledge that HEX is playtested on physical cards at Hex Entertainment HQ. There are a number of reports online, among others from the Threshold Podcast guys, about playing through a dungeon with set 1 cards at HE-HQ. The game is played with an intern taking the role of the computer, doing all the stuff with decks and card generation/modification. So yes, there -are- physical Hex cards, just only for internal use.


WotC is really trying everything they can to completely destroy this game. The amount of effort they are putting into it is scary.

There is nothing odd or scary about it, it's business as usual. As a company you have to protect your copyrights, trademarks, etc. It's only logical they're trying this.


anyone downloaded the file and can provide a alt link to it?

Unless those documents are public domain, this would actually be copyright infringement.

bootlace
08-03-2014, 06:15 AM
It is "common" knowledge that HEX is playtested on physical cards at Hex Entertainment HQ. There are a number of reports online, among others from the Threshold Podcast guys, about playing through a dungeon with set 1 cards at HE-HQ. The game is played with an intern taking the role of the computer, doing all the stuff with decks and card generation/modification. So yes, there -are- physical Hex cards, just only for internal use.

Are you serious? Paper cards used for internal testing are not relevant to this case.

The parts I'm referring to:


This action arises out of Cryptozoic’s development of both electronic and printed
cards which in game play willfully infringes upon the world-famous game Magic and its iconic
selection and presentation of information. Through both of a Kickstarter™ funding campaign
where the similarity to Magic is made evident to likely purchasers of the opportunity to play the
game and through the distribution of printed cards which infringe the copyright, Cryptozoic has
Case 2:14-cv-00719-JLR Document 13 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 35



Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants
Cryptozoic because they regularly transact business within the Western District of Washington,
has contracted to sell the opportunity to play Hex and distributed printed Hex playing cards to
citizens of Washington residing within the Western District, and has distributed, offered for sale,
sold and advertised Hex throughout the United States, including Washington and this judicial
district.



By their willfull actions, Crytozoic, has infringed and will continue to infringe
Wizards copyrights in the Magic game by, inter alia, copying, publiclay displaying, and distributing
the Hex game and any printed playing cards associated therewith, which are substantially similar to
and derived from Magic, without any authorization or permission from Wizards

YourOpponent
08-03-2014, 06:21 AM
I'm sure they would just love it if we started collecting posts and comments from MtG players that talk about how awesome Hex is. Also the "spiritual lotus" part is so hilarious about how crappy of a job they're doing!

Diesbudt
08-03-2014, 06:22 AM
I'm sure they would just love it if we started collecting posts and comments from MtG players that talk about how awesome Hex is.

Honestly I dont think they would care. What they would "love" is if someone consolidated all the posts about the differences and how there really is no confusion between the 2.

fido_one
08-03-2014, 06:26 AM
Honestly I dont think they would care. What they would "love" is if someone consolidated all the posts about the differences and how there really is no confusion between the 2.

I don't try to really understand this crap; I mean it's so nuanced... But that being said I can't imagine a world where earmarking forum posts helps your case. I just can't. I mean it doesn't take much for a judge to go to the plaintiffs and say 'errr, who says you aren't the author of one of those posts?'

The whole system seems stupid. That just seems stupid-stupid.

Aradon
08-03-2014, 06:32 AM
I don't try to really understand this crap; I mean it's so nuanced... But that being said I can't imagine a world where earmarking forum posts helps your case. I just can't. I mean it doesn't take much for a judge to go to the plaintiffs and say 'errr, who says you aren't the author of one of those posts?'

The whole system seems stupid. That just seems stupid-stupid.

There's a broad rule in court called Hearsay. I'm not a lawyer, but when I participated in mock trial, the quick and dirty summary was that if the speaker of the statement was not testifying in court (and subject to cross-examination), the statement itself was not admissable in court. This means that, unless the speaker can be asked about a statement specifically, it's not permissable.

Basically, the judge won't ever have to ask the plaintiff if they may have made the post, because unless the poster can be positively identified AND brought into the courtroom, the statements are not permissable in court. Forum posts are by and large irrelevant to this case.

fido_one
08-03-2014, 06:39 AM
Basically, the judge won't ever have to ask the plaintiff if they may have made the post, because unless the poster can be positively identified AND brought into the courtroom, the statements are not permissable in court. Forum posts are by and large irrelevant to this case.

Agreed; Aradon, do you see any angle on why include them in the complaint then? Is there any way it can improve their case? I would think it would hinder it. I do know that throwing the kitchen sink at this stuff generally doesn't hurt, that throwing in all sorts of injustices that aren't totally relevant could net a small percentage of helping you land something, but this forum post angle I would think that anyone reading it (judge) would say to himself/herself "they are wasting my time with this bit."

That and CZE has already made some pains to use the forum post citations to discredit the logic of the complaint in their motion to dismiss (though again, that just seems a wrote requirement in these matters).

Aradon
08-03-2014, 06:46 AM
Yeah, I'm definitely not the person to ask about that. Speaking completely as a layman, perhaps it decreases their chances of having the case dismissed before it goes to court. Even if it can't be used during the trial itself, it at least demonstrates in a broad sense that their point has some validity to be looked into seriously.

Bullus
08-03-2014, 06:56 AM
also i find the kickstarter as advanced sales bit a stretch, kickstater and paypal in wider reference to all crowdfunding goes to great pains to make it legally clear that all crowdfunding is not sales but a donation for investment in the development of a product, and as most pve would say, if they didn't back hex on KS they sure as hell would never have spent a cent of that money on any Wizard product. and also i was never confused about any similarities, had played magic for total of about 2hrs over 10 years ago with a friends cards at his house and i disliked the game, had spent hundreds of dollars on my own starter decks and booster packs for Yu-gi-oh TCG and many hours playing it and had enjoyed it throughly, I invested my money in Hex because i believed a combination of a good tcg and the multitude of digital advantages and the promises of PVE, single player and RPG elements could lead to a digitial product i could throughly enjoy

signed Bullus ( happy for hex ent to fly me from Australia to testify under oath to my above statements if needed ;) )

bootlace
08-03-2014, 07:05 AM
The infringing cards list they attached (107 pages worth) reminds me of the South Park episode "Simpons Already Did It". 2/2 troop? Magic did it! 2/3 troop? Magic did it! Angel of Dawn? Magic didn't do it but still claim they did it with Serra Angel (http://archive.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/features/27a_serraAngel_uxq95.jpg).

I'm sure Hasbro could make a similar list for most of the cards in Hearthstone. Eg: Baby Yeti infringes upon Raging Goblin apparently - how about Hearthstone's Stonetusk Boar (http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Stonetusk_Boar)?

If someone has a lot of times on their hands, it could be useful to take all the cards in Hearthstone and find similar MTG versions of them as well...don't know how much it will help in court, but at least it will dispell the notion that Hex is the only game borrowing ideas from MTG. In fact, it's pretty much impossible making an in-depth card game of this nature without similar cards to MTG's pool of 12000+ cards. The irony here is that actually all the cards are different - even comparing a 2/2 in MTG to a 2/2 in Hex because the casting/resource requirements are all different due to Hex's shard system.

Mathaw
08-03-2014, 07:09 AM
There is nothing odd or scary about it, it's business as usual. As a company you have to protect your copyrights, trademarks, etc. It's only logical they're trying this.

This is a common misconception, one that lawyers love.

They're under an obligation to manage the use of their trademarks, taking legal action is absolutely not a requirement for that. They could just as easily grant Hex permission, offer licensing deals, all manor of things. Although that has nothing to do with patents :)

They're suing them because they want to eradicate them, because that's much easier than competing with them. If you've seen their pathetic excuse of a client (a new one might I add!), you'll know what I mean. I don't wear blinkers so I'm aware that hex is obviously very closely mimicking MTGO, pretending that isn't true doesn't do anyone any favours, it's silly. But that doesn't mean that MTGOs untested (?) patents will hold any ground anyway. This is to me like the makers of Doom suing Battlefield. It's absurd and sad and embarrassing for wizards, whatever the outcome. The spirit of the patent system is absolutely NOT to prevent competition in the marketplace, even if that is what a bunch of lawyers have slowly shifted it toward.

I really hope that wizards get shot down before they manage to drain too many of Hex's resources in legal processes, especially knowing that the money wizards spent on lawyers could have been better spent on improving their own product.

deathandtexas
08-03-2014, 08:42 AM
Everyone is a lawyer. Okay, go!

IndigoShade
08-03-2014, 08:58 AM
Everyone is a lawyer. Okay, go!

Payment up front.

Aradon
08-03-2014, 09:24 AM
Everyone is a lawyer. Okay, go!

This will simultaneously shut down Wizards' lawyering rights AND set court precedent for patent and copyright law in seventy-three districts!

Mathaw
08-03-2014, 09:29 AM
Everyone is a lawyer. Okay, go!

Not a lawyer, but know a fair bit about trademark and patent law :) A patent lawyer would be a good candidate for a blood card.

Xenavire
08-03-2014, 09:34 AM
Not a lawyer, but know a fair bit about trademark and patent law :) A patent lawyer would be a good candidate for a blood card.

We already have a card like that. Gas Troll.

Aruken
08-04-2014, 12:54 AM
Obviously WotC strongly believe they have something onto Crypto else they would not even try. I don't remember them suing for the wowtcg for exemple.

Maybe it is for the best if it forces Crypto to change some of the designs to less boring ones, so Hex looks like less of a clone than it is now.

Xenith
08-04-2014, 01:33 AM
Aruken, WotC have alleged that around 1/3 of HEXs card pool infringes their copyrights with examples ranging from a 1/1 Flying troop to PVE only cards that havent even been released yet. They allege they have the rights to both flavor and mechanics so you can't make burn spells or "deal damage to target troop" because MTG did it first. The allegations are so broad to be utterly ridiculous. You can pluck cards from Solforge or Hearthstone that "infringe" in the same way HEX does.

WoTC is also outright lying by saying HEX sells printed cards and makes the ridiculous argument that playing MTG Online is evidence of copying their trade secrets. It'd be like McDonalds suing the people who made the Big Boy (a Big Mac knockoff) because they ate a lot of Big Macs in their testing. Just as you are allowed to taste the competition in the restaurant business you are allowed to do your own take on things others do in the gaming industry.

Aruken
08-04-2014, 01:58 AM
They allege they have the rights to both flavor and mechanics so you can't make burn spells or "deal damage to target troop"

source?

djlowballer
08-04-2014, 02:05 AM
Its not surprising that WotC took its ball and ran home: MTGO is like 40-50% of all WotC revenue. WotC doesn't want hex to succeed because they risk losing a large portion of their business they thought untouchable.

Xenith
08-04-2014, 02:26 AM
They have a huge list of cards attached to their document that HEX infringes upon. For example Burn infringes Shock, Magma Spray, and Pillar of Flame. They don't have a fire inspired card that does 2 damage (and nothing else) so they show cards that are a fire card as well as one that only does 2 damage.

You can see the list here: https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/wawdce-200735 (you will have to register)

RanaDunes
08-04-2014, 02:57 AM
What I despise about these big corporations (and hence why I always try to avoid buying their products) is that they destroy the industry they're fishing in. They're not making games, they're just scrapping for every penny possible.

Instead of creating a better MTGO version or a new Online TCG; they just sue CZE. You retarded monkeys in suits; if you'd hire someone like Cory, instead of dozens of lawyers, then you'd make a new game that would give you (probably) a lot more money than IF you win the case against CZE.

Do you know how you look like right now (I'm addressing the assholes in Hasbro/WotC or whoever gave the order to sue CZE). You look like that "meme jerk"; a kid who wants to spoil the fun of everyone else just because you think "it's myyyyy ideaaa waa". We, as gamers, would boycott your products and CAN bring your name down just like we did with EA.

Richard Garfield was a genius and he gave you a goose that laid gold eggs for twenty fucking years. What you've done with it? Nothing; you just kept milking it for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. You gave us nothing else except buying D&D rights and ruined it for everyone (and thank god for Paizo for Pathfinder RPG).

Those men-in-suits who has NOTHING TO DO with the industry they're in except that they're "professional business men" will ALWAYS ruin the industry and bring NOTHING to the table except new ways on how to maximize profit. Dead dead dead industry, boring and unimpressive.

I'm sick of corporations and how they've ALWAYS been interfering with my life to ruin EVERYTHING good about it. MMORPGs, TCGs, Cars, Music, Food, Art, Books, Movies...etc. F you.

Unhurtable
08-04-2014, 03:00 AM
Obviously WotC strongly believe they have something onto Crypto else they would not even try. I don't remember them suing for the wowtcg for exemple.

Maybe it is for the best if it forces Crypto to change some of the designs to less boring ones, so Hex looks like less of a clone than it is now.

Well they could be doing this in an attempt to simply force CZE to use resources on it and create doubt in the product.

I mean, if someone told me "hey this game is really fun if you invest money into it, but the creators are currently being sued in an american court for copyright infringement" I would be very skeptical.

Makizushi
08-04-2014, 04:03 AM
We, as gamers, would boycott your products and CAN bring your name down just like we did with EA.

Oh my, they must be trembling. How's EA doing these days? Not too bad, right? :)

Turtlewing
08-04-2014, 08:29 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about copyright claims.

Copyright is meant to work on a level much larger than a TCG card. It'll be hard to get anything to stick unless there's actual plagiarized art or text.

The card I'd most expect to fall into the "infringing" category would be Spectral Lotus/Black Tiger, which is clearly a rip-off of Black Lotus. Except that it's arguably a parody (they took the most famous overpowered card card from Magic and made a more powerful version of it a daily consumable drop) and parodies are protected fair use.

ossuary
08-04-2014, 08:52 AM
It's actually an amalgam / parody / homage to two of the most famous (and powerful/rare/valuable/cool) cards from both Magic and WoW TCG combined into a single card (kinda). Spectral Tiger + Black Lotus = Spectral Lotus and Black Tiger.

It's not intended to be a blatant ripoff. The guys from CZE love TCGs, and it seems like they were trying to show that love and respect with some nostalgic homage-type cards. It's a shame Hasbro is using those specific cards to scream infringement... I bet the CZE guys wouldn't have bothered to do any of those cards if they had known Hasbro was going to get all sue-happy bully beatdown about having a little modern day competition. It's not like any of those cards were NECESSARY to make Hex work. :p

Aradon
08-04-2014, 08:53 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about copyright claims.

Copyright is meant to work on a level much larger than a TCG card. It'll be hard to get anything to stick unless there's actual plagiarized art or text.

The card I'd most expect to fall into the "infringing" category would be Spectral Lotus/Black Tiger, which is clearly a rip-off of Black Lotus. Except that it's arguably a parody (they took the most famous overpowered card card from Magic and made a more powerful version of it a daily consumable drop) and parodies are protected fair use.

Don't forget the Spectral Tiger, a notoriously expensive mount that dropped as a code in the WowTCG :D CZE took two ridiculous rare/powerful cards and combined them together. That's where the other halves of the names come from!

edit: ninja'd
I have to laugh that Spectral Lotus is even more powerful than Black Lotus, and I'd wager more expensive than Spectral Tiger.

Zyion
08-04-2014, 09:21 AM
Obviously WotC strongly believe they have something onto Crypto else they would not even try. I don't remember them suing for the wowtcg for exemple.

Maybe it is for the best if it forces Crypto to change some of the designs to less boring ones, so Hex looks like less of a clone than it is now.

Well, there two things to keep in mind here. One is that Cryptozoic doesn't have millions available in resources to fight this lawsuit that Blizzard does. Two, the game is still in development. It would probably be allot easier to crush HEX if they can take it out before Cryptozoic can finish the features that would separate it from MTGO.

I don't think it is as much of them believing that they have a good case as it is that HEX is just an easier target. And of course, there is always the whole having to defend their patent or they loose it.

Aradon
08-04-2014, 09:37 AM
I don't think it is as much of them believing that they have a good case as it is that HEX is just an easier target. And of course, there is always the whole having to defend their patent or they loose it.

That patent's expired already, I believe. But I think the 'defend or lose' scenario applies to trademarks, of which Hex does not violate any.

cferejohn
08-04-2014, 10:33 AM
Sorry, but the idea that WotC has done "nothing" with Magic in 20 years is patently (no pun intended) absurd. Magic is a dramatically different game now than it was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. Massive amounts of design and development go into it every year and at this point they release like half a dozen new sets a year, they never miss a deadline, and the online client, which until very recently had no say in how cards were designed (meaning that if a card was very very expensive to implement online, sucks for them), implemented 99.9% of these cards perfectly, and again never missed a deadline.

I think the lawsuit is pretty bogus too, but imagining that WotC/Hasbro has just been printing the same cards for 20 years and sitting on gold like a dragon on treasure is just wildly inaccurate.

Yoss
08-04-2014, 11:07 AM
Unless those documents are public domain, this would actually be copyright infringement.
Aren't all court documents public domain? (I could most definitely be wrong.) If so, I'll reiterate the request that someone repost them somewhere public. I'd certainly like to read them.


If someone has a lot of times on their hands, it could be useful to take all the cards in Hearthstone and find similar MTG versions of them as well...don't know how much it will help in court, but at least it will dispell the notion that Hex is the only game borrowing ideas from MTG.
If it's something the Hex legal team would want to do anyway and the community provides it for free, then that's directly saving Hex money for their defense fund. Having not played HS, I have no idea how useful such a list would be or even if there would be good comparisons to make.


Everyone is a lawyer. Okay, go!
Anyone ever seen a non-negative post out of this guy? Just curious. Looking at his most recent 10 posts shows all negatives.

Xenavire
08-04-2014, 11:26 AM
Anyone ever seen a non-negative post out of this guy? Just curious. Looking at his most recent 10 posts shows all negatives.

Can't say I have, and I have seen a fair share out of him. I'd be wrong if I said he seemed excited for the game in any way. I can't even figure out why he bothers posting.

Aradon
08-04-2014, 11:34 AM
You know what bothers me more than people making posts that are critical of the game? When people try to call others out on trolling or not being constructive, or some other thing. He has every right to post his opinion, and doesn't deserve this harrassment. Let people post in peace. If you think someone's a troll, report it to a moderator and let them deal with it. All you're doing posting this in a public place is being incredibly rude, and shoving people out of a community for having an opinion that you disagree with.

Hieronymous
08-04-2014, 11:39 AM
A
Anyone ever seen a non-negative post out of this guy? Just curious. Looking at his most recent 10 posts shows all negatives.

I thought that "everyone is a lawyer, ok go!" post was hilarious. It didn't seem negative but maybe that was just me.

Xenavire
08-04-2014, 11:40 AM
You know what bothers me more than people making posts that are critical of the game? When people try to call others out on trolling or not being constructive, or some other thing. He has every right to post his opinion, and doesn't deserve this harrassment. Let people post in peace. If you think someone's a troll, report it to a moderator and let them deal with it. All you're doing posting this in a public place is being incredibly rude, and shoving people out of a community for having an opinion that you disagree with.

Except it is very difficult to report to any moderators - the easiest thing we can do is report people to the modbots, who then have to contact people with authority who may or may not ban the person. If we could actually report posts for being spam/trolling, we could have the problem cases reviewed a lot easier.

As it is, that poster has seemingly never made a constructive post, has made attempts to disrupt multiple threads over the course of his time on the forums, and doesn't even seem to want the game to improve. Now, if I am incorrect he can actually respond to me with a constructive post, but I think we both know that won't happen. I really think the benefit of the doubt only goes so far, and that particular poster has not been dealt with so far, despite being one of the worst offenders for being blatantly negative with nothing constructive to add.


I thought that "everyone is a lawyer, ok go!" post was hilarious. It didn't seem negative but maybe that was just me.

I actually thought it was mildly amusing this time around, but it still added nothing to the conversation - if he wasn't so negative all the time he would actually be entertaining.

Aradon
08-04-2014, 11:48 AM
I also found it amusing, and was disappointed only one other person commented on it. Moreover, I felt like it was more on-topic than Yoss and yours' comments about his posts. Should I construe that as an attempt to derail this thread?

And yeah, his track record's pretty negative. Maybe you're right, and he is actively trolling. Maybe he's just venting his own frustration at a lack of PvE. Is anyone here in a position of authority to make that decision? That's up to the mods, I would say. Even if they're rare, we all know where to find Kami and Stok3d. My point is, when members of the community publicly denounce other posts, it makes us look less welcoming. What if a new poster sees you guys talking about it, and feel like they could be attacked if they post the 'wrong thing?' It makes it look like people who don't agree with you aren't welcome on the forums. And if he ISN'T a troll, he certainly doesn't feel welcome here. And it's a shame, in my opinion.

Anyways, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm hypocritical for telling you what I think you should and should not post, instead of leaving it to the mods. But I've said my peace now :)

ossuary
08-04-2014, 11:58 AM
Anyways, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm hypocritical for telling you what I think you should and should not post, instead of leaving it to the mods. But I've said my peace now :)

Piece.

Sorry, couldn't resist given the subject matter. ;)

I appreciate the symmetry of me telling you you posted something wrong, while you were telling them they posted something wrong, for telling someone else not to post what they were posting. :)

Seriously though, I didn't take his comment as trolling, I thought he was just trying to make a joke on the whole "IANAL but here's my opinion anyway" thing. He's certainly been pretty negative for the majority of his posts, but everyone is entitled to their opinions and mannerisms, even if you don't personally share or agree with them.

If someone's style bothers you that much, rather than calling them out publicly on it and openly calling for the mods to interfere, why not just put them on ignore? That's what it's there for. I agree it would be nice to have a proper report function, but since we don't have that, anything that is not blatantly abusive or offensive would be better ignored than called out. If he were trolling, that kind of response would just encourage further outbursts. Silence is gold. :p

Aradon
08-04-2014, 12:06 PM
Piece.

Sorry, couldn't resist given the subject matter. ;)

Gah, thanks. I think I did have 'piece' originally, but then thought about it and changed it. Now I know \o/

Yoss
08-04-2014, 12:50 PM
You know what bothers me more than people making posts that are critical of the game? When people try to call others out on trolling or not being constructive, or some other thing. He has every right to post his opinion, and doesn't deserve this harrassment. Let people post in peace. If you think someone's a troll, report it to a moderator and let them deal with it. All you're doing posting this in a public place is being incredibly rude, and shoving people out of a community for having an opinion that you disagree with.

Did I call him a troll? No.
Do I call people out for calling people trolls? Yes.

That said, I like calling for good behavior, from everyone. People can absolutely post negative opinions and we should receive them fairly as much as possible. However, we also want to have a positive environment in which to argue our displeasures with particular aspects of the game. Negative one liners at every opportunity is not good behavior, and will not win any favor with Hex towards actually fixing anything. When you want authority figures to do something nice for you (like making mercs not bind, one of my peeves), you generally will have best success by complimenting them, not aggravating them.


I thought that "everyone is a lawyer, ok go!" post was hilarious. It didn't seem negative but maybe that was just me.

In a vacuum, I actually agree it was humorous and quite appropriate for the thread. Given the posting history though...

Maybe this was the first positive post? He should get an award! ;)


I felt like it was more on-topic than Yoss and yours' comments about his posts.
Post 40 (mine) contained 3 things, two of which were on topic, one of which was the item we're currently discussing. So 67% of mine was on topic and his was 100% a joke about the topic. I guess I'll let the reader decide who was "more on-topic" (not that it matters).

Werlix
08-04-2014, 12:57 PM
There's a difference between being constructively critical, and being antagonistically negative. I don't think there's anything wrong with calling people out on the latter. In fact I think it'd be strange and disappointing for those people to post away happily without forum posters calling them out on their behaviour.

Werlix
08-04-2014, 12:58 PM
Don't forget the Spectral Tiger, a notoriously expensive mount that dropped as a code in the WowTCG :D CZE took two ridiculous rare/powerful cards and combined them together. That's where the other halves of the names come from!

edit: ninja'd
I have to laugh that Spectral Lotus is even more powerful than Black Lotus, and I'd wager more expensive than Spectral Tiger.

More expensive? I sold a Spectral Tiger for $1000 USD, I'd be pretty suprised to see it more than that :)

Makizushi
08-04-2014, 01:12 PM
Yoink! A whole page about whether or not we should call someone a troll, whether he is one and what to do. But not about WotC and their lawsuit.

nicosharp
08-04-2014, 01:19 PM
Yoink! A whole page about whether or not we should call someone a troll, whether he is one and what to do. But not about WotC and their lawsuit.
You can't stop the trollernet.

I read the documents, but am in no position to add anything meaningful to the conversation as well.

Galvayra
08-04-2014, 01:25 PM
If it's something the Hex legal team would want to do anyway and the community provides it for free, then that's directly saving Hex money for their defense fund. Having not played HS, I have no idea how useful such a list would be or even if there would be good comparisons to make.

Not a lawyer but i don't think you can show up in court with "Your honor, these other guys did it and got away with it, so we figured we take a swing at it too"

Saeijou
08-04-2014, 01:27 PM
Not a lawyer but i don't think you can show up in court with "Your honor, these other guys did it and got away with it, so we figured we take a swing at it too"

In general this is how it works! Have you never seen "Good Will Hunting"? :D

Zurai
08-04-2014, 01:52 PM
Actually that can be a defense. Trademarks can become "genericised" if it can be shown that the holder of the trademark has not defended it. This has happened quite a few times; Aspirin, escalator, kerosene, phillips-head screws, pogo sticks, thermos, yo-yos, and zippers all used to be trademarked brand names that lost their legal protection because they were not defended and became generic terms.

Note that this only applies to trademark, not copyright or patent. However, WotC's patent has expired and copyright doesn't really cover their complaints very well.

Turtlewing
08-04-2014, 02:02 PM
It's actually an amalgam / parody / homage to two of the most famous (and powerful/rare/valuable/cool) cards from both Magic and WoW TCG combined into a single card (kinda). Spectral Tiger + Black Lotus = Spectral Lotus and Black Tiger.

It's not intended to be a blatant ripoff. The guys from CZE love TCGs, and it seems like they were trying to show that love and respect with some nostalgic homage-type cards. It's a shame Hasbro is using those specific cards to scream infringement... I bet the CZE guys wouldn't have bothered to do any of those cards if they had known Hasbro was going to get all sue-happy bully beatdown about having a little modern day competition. It's not like any of those cards were NECESSARY to make Hex work. :p

Looks like you missed the point of my post.

The point I was making was that Spectral Lotus is about the only Hex card that's close enough to potentially infringe on any Magic card I'm aware of. But even it can probably get off the hook on the basis of being a parody.

I didn't think the Spectral Tiger reference needed to be spelled out, nor was it particularly relavent; WoTC not being the IP holder for Spectral Tiger and all.

Aruken
08-04-2014, 02:15 PM
If someone has a lot of times on their hands, it could be useful to take all the cards in Hearthstone and find similar MTG versions of them as well...don't know how much it will help in court, but at least it will dispell the notion that Hex is the only game borrowing ideas from MTG. In fact, it's pretty much impossible making an in-depth card game of this nature without similar cards to MTG's pool of 12000+ cards. The irony here is that actually all the cards are different - even comparing a 2/2 in MTG to a 2/2 in Hex because the casting/resource requirements are all different due to Hex's shard system.
Hearthstone is obviously quite different from MtG. There are no instant cast cards is HS for exemple, the combat is also very different with many combat phases and damage remaining from one turn to the other.

Hex on the other hand shares 95% of its genome with MtG. This is very obvious.

nicosharp
08-04-2014, 02:35 PM
Hex on the other hand shares 95% of its genome with MtG. This is very obvious.
If I had to make up numbers. I'd say it's closer to 75% based on the current beta content available. Over-time that number will stretch closer to 33% - once PvE, and other content is available.

They are starting with a known baseline, and evolving it every day.

Turtlewing
08-04-2014, 02:35 PM
Hearthstone is obviously quite different from MtG. There are no instant cast cards is HS for exemple, the combat is also very different with many combat phases and damage remaining from one turn to the other.

Hex on the other hand shares 95% of its genome with MtG. This is very obvious.

And also completely irrelevant to a copyright suit (copyright doesn't cover mechanics).

schild
08-04-2014, 02:37 PM
Hex on the other hand shares 95% of its genome with MtG. This is very obvious.

This sentence bothers me. As I play more Hex (100+ drafts in), the differences are pretty stark. I can't think about Hex the exact same way I think about MTG. Of course, Hex couldn't exist without MTG, but there's room for more than one type of hamburger in the world.

That a game like Hex didn't come out in the last 20 years is alarming and Hasbro should feel lucky to have sucked that monopolistic teet for as long as it has.

Also, Hearthstone is just Magic with less types of cards, a horrible combat system, too many random effects, and a mana system that makes people who don't understand RNG complain less. It could NOT exist without Magic existing.

Aradon
08-04-2014, 02:41 PM
Edit: Nevermind.

Yoss
08-04-2014, 02:42 PM
Not a lawyer but i don't think you can show up in court with "Your honor, these other guys did it and got away with it, so we figured we take a swing at it too"

That's not the purpose at all. The purpose is to show that the design is driven by mechanics, which are not covered by Copyright. It forces segregation of mechanics to be debated only in regards to the now-expired-never-upheld-in-court patent. Once you've divorced the mechanics out, all that's left is the "expression of the idea" and Hex should be totally in the clear on that front. They've done all their own software code, all their own art, all their own story, all their own plot, all their own theme, all their own music, and so on.

Lafoote
08-04-2014, 02:46 PM
Obviously WotC strongly believe they have something onto Crypto else they would not even try. I don't remember them suing for the wowtcg for exemple.

Maybe it is for the best if it forces Crypto to change some of the designs to less boring ones, so Hex looks like less of a clone than it is now.

The fact CZE made WoWtcg, and it was not sued bolsters CZE's case to me. "Look, we did all this before. This game is based more on that game than on M:tg."

To me, this seems like an attempt to bankrupt CZE rather than a legitimate complaint.

nicosharp
08-04-2014, 02:52 PM
To me, this seems like an attempt to bankrupt CZE rather than a legitimate complaint.

Obviously. why compete in the digital space with a real product(not a 20 year old atari game/MUD of a product), when you can just force other products out of business?

The lawsuit is just another sign of how greedy WotC is as a company, and how unwilling they are to adapt to a modern platform, and attract modern gamers.

It's like my grandpa's old Italian only club. You are born into it, or you are never in it, and nothing changes for many years, until the members die off, and the club closes. Change never happens, and old minds fail to reinvent. Sad signs of a bad business model.

deathandtexas
08-04-2014, 03:13 PM
I'm not a troll. I'm just someone who backed and is upset that the progress of the game is so slow. So sue me. *drum roll* ;) I'm not going to applaud something that is a year behind schedule with no finish line in sight.

Zurai
08-04-2014, 03:35 PM
I'm not going to applaud something that is a year behind schedule

It isn't. No date was ever set for open beta or general release. The date in Kickstarter was for alpha/beta access and was met.

Yoss
08-04-2014, 03:38 PM
I'm not a troll. I'm just someone who backed and is upset that the progress of the game is so slow. So sue me. *drum roll* ;) I'm not going to applaud something that is a year behind schedule with no finish line in sight.

The feeling is reasonable. Totally reasonable. Hex has obviously missed the projections rather badly and it sucks. Horribly. I bought Slacker for my brother for Christmas 2013 so that we could be doing F2P over the break or at least by Spring. Didn't happen. Serious bummer. I get it.

I've been more annoyed with your "tone" (if such a thing exists in text). When I am on a project at work that's behind schedule, I find that the program managers that just scream and yell all the time do not get the best results. Rather, you just have to deal with reality as best you can, dismal as it may be. Unless you've got rock-solid proof that a team member is slacking off, you don't berate them for being late, you do what you can to facilitate them moving forward as fast as possible because they're the ones that actually know how to do the job. You can't afford to alienate them. In the case of us with Hex, I'm sure they're well aware that they're late. They really don't need us to remind them of it in negative ways.

ShockWithLands
08-04-2014, 03:44 PM
I do see similarities in some of the cards
such as extinction and damnation
Prairie Scout and Infantry Veteran
Holy Inspiration and Righteousness
Solitary Exile and Oblivion Ring

while that is similar is still not exactly the same, hex seems to build off of MTG if anything rather than copying it

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 04:20 PM
The feeling is reasonable. Totally reasonable. Hex has obviously missed the projections rather badly and it sucks. Horribly. I bought Slacker for my brother for Christmas 2013 so that we could be doing F2P over the break or at least by Spring. Didn't happen. Serious bummer. I get it.

I've been more annoyed with your "tone" (if such a thing exists in text). When I am on a project at work that's behind schedule, I find that the program managers that just scream and yell all the time do not get the best results. Rather, you just have to deal with reality as best you can, dismal as it may be. Unless you've got rock-solid proof that a team member is slacking off, you don't berate them for being late, you do what you can to facilitate them moving forward as fast as possible because they're the ones that actually know how to do the job. You can't afford to alienate them. In the case of us with Hex, I'm sure they're well aware that they're late. They really don't need us to remind them of it in negative ways.

That's what project managers do, not customers. He has every right to be sour on the forums. Customers reminding them that they're late is a good thing, imo.

Edit: Even in negative ways. CZE needs to see the frustration that some customers are experiencing. It shouldn't be shielded from the forum. They are big boys, they can handle it.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 04:25 PM
It isn't. No date was ever set for open beta or general release. The date in Kickstarter was for alpha/beta access and was met.

Sept 2013 was the date for Closed Beta access. It was not met. At least to my understanding.

Zurai
08-04-2014, 04:31 PM
Sept 2013 was the date for Closed Beta access. It was not met. At least to my understanding.

Backers were given access to the game in the first couple weeks of October, 2013. 1-2 week miss isn't worth counting IMO.

Lafoote
08-04-2014, 04:35 PM
Backers were given access to the game in the first couple weeks of October, 2013. 1-2 week miss isn't worth counting IMO.

This is veering completely off topic, yet bears rebuttal. This is referred to as beta, but it's woefully incomplete. If this was a grilled cheese beta, we'd still be waiting for bread. Without the PvE, we're still not truly in Beta.

sukebe
08-04-2014, 04:36 PM
Sept 2013 was the date for Closed Beta access. It was not met. At least to my understanding.

correct, it was a bit late. It still wasn't a year late so his post was still incorrect/hyperbole. People are free to complain but they should at least do 2 things before hand:

1: get their facts strait. most of the incorrect statements made on these forums could have been avoided with some simple searches.
2: word their complaints constructively so they useful to the community and HexEnt instead of just being whining for the sake of whining.

These 2 things are easy to do and would make a world of difference in how people react to the post.

schild
08-04-2014, 04:37 PM
This is veering completely off topic, yet bears rebuttal. This is referred to as beta, but it's woefully incomplete. If this was a grilled cheese beta, we'd still be waiting for bread. Without the PvE, we're still not truly in Beta.

Speak for yourself, care bear. Not having PvE is like not having the salt on the (optional) chips.

legendlore
08-04-2014, 04:38 PM
So what is HEX entertainment's next move legally speaking?

schild
08-04-2014, 04:39 PM
So what is HEX entertainment's next move legally speaking?

Send a graded (with a red pen) copy of the revised complaint back to Wizards, giving them an F, and having them try again.

Or wait for a judge to pass judgment on jurisdiction, etc.

I like the first one more considering it reads like it was written by a crack team of ESL Law Students at a third rate college in North Dakota.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 04:39 PM
Backers were given access to the game in the first couple weeks of October, 2013. 1-2 week miss isn't worth counting IMO.

Not going to split hairs, but the kickstarter didn't say "you'll only be able to get some rewards." Alpha was a consolation to try and give the backers something (which was very nice of CZE to try and give us something).

But there are a lot of rewards that have still not been given out to backers. The original date for delivery of the rewards was Sept 2013.

They gave a very limited amount of rewards (the alpha client, but beta was promised by that date) but didn't deliver any real bulk of rewards until closed beta (packs/draft a week, etc).

You can't say they met their timeline, when a lot of the rewards are still not delivered and there's not timeline for the delivery.

Xtopher
08-04-2014, 04:41 PM
It's not hyperbole at all. Hexnaes specified "closed beta", not alpha.

I was going to complain about the idiocy of non-lawyers arguing with each other over blind guesses about how the law works, but calling other people trolls or implying they're trolls when they don't share your view is much more irritating to me.

schild
08-04-2014, 04:43 PM
but calling other people trolls or implying they're trolls when they don't share your view is much more irritating to me.

This board doesn't even have trolls. The definition of troll has been completely lost on the members here (and many, MANY other communities around the web). Trolling is an art form. One in which most are completely unskilled and possess no latent talent.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 04:45 PM
Speak for yourself, care bear. Not having PvE is like not having the salt on the (optional) chips.

Why so condescending? You do releaize that there were a lot more $250 tiers than the Pro Player. PVE is a huge part of this game that was promised, I don't consider my kickstarter backing to be anywhere near fulfilled until the PVE promises are met.

If I had it "my way" I would have liked to see the PVE implemented before any type of PVP was implemented. And please don't start with the "they had to lay the groundwork for PVE" argument either, because that's completely not true. They could have laid the groundwork with the PVE experience, and then worked on a PVP play experience.

schild
08-04-2014, 04:49 PM
Why so condescending? You do releaize that there were a lot more $250 tiers than the Pro Player. PVE is a huge part of this game that was promised, I don't consider my kickstarter backing to be anywhere near fulfilled until the PVE promises are met.


Except no one was buying them until GK and Pro were sold out AND they added a year draft to the other levels. Your argument seems to pop up every few weeks and it isn't really in the scope of "things that are correct."

Also, care bear is a joke about PvE vs PvP.

If they had implemented PvE before PvP they wouldn't have made any money.

Lafoote
08-04-2014, 04:54 PM
Speak for yourself, care bear. Not having PvE is like not having the salt on the (optional) chips.

It's definitely not an opinion that half or more of the game content is yet to be implemented. Your lack of enthusiasm for said content has no bearing on fact.

schild
08-04-2014, 04:57 PM
It's definitely not an opinion that half or more of the game content is yet to be implemented. Your lack of enthusiasm for said content has no bearing on fact.

Agreed. But in the wake of a lawsuit and given how unbelievably balanced the first set was (in terms of draft environments), and how pretty flawlessly it was executed knowing how hard it is to make such a game - I'm willing to let their delays ride as they are pretty clearly intent on delivering all of the content we expect them to deliver.

Bitching about PvE not being around isn't going to make it appear any faster, and NOBODY wants a sub-par experience from any aspect of the game.

Compound that with the problem I expect no one on this board to know how hard a card game is to make. Tools don't exist for this stuff. It's a living nightmare and kudos to Hex for even attempting to tackle it (and succeed for the most part). The folks at Hex are perfectly aware that many people want PvE. Threads that touch on that subject help exactly this much: 0. Source: I did the math.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 05:14 PM
Except no one was buying them until GK and Pro were sold out AND they added a year draft to the other levels. Your argument seems to pop up every few weeks and it isn't really in the scope of "things that are correct."

Also, care bear is a joke about PvE vs PvP.

If they had implemented PvE before PvP they wouldn't have made any money.

I disagree. They wouldn't be making money in the short term like they are now, but if they had invested in PVE they would have a lot more customers. Then they could implement PVE and convert a larger F2P player base into income.

Doing it PVP-PVE is backwards in the F2P model.

wolzarg
08-04-2014, 05:29 PM
Seems like a lot of people make good points then lump in a lot of own opinions. I definitely don't think making sure the pvp is solid before getting the pve in is doing F2P backwards. I say this as someone who wouldn't have touched this game if it wasn't for the pve featues mind you. The fact is that the PVP is the main game and then PVE is some really awesome stuff that will for sure entertain a lot of people even more than the PVP and that is fine. But the game it self is the PVP part and that is what will not only bring in the real money but also get people really excited in the long run.

Rendakor
08-04-2014, 05:37 PM
I disagree. They wouldn't be making money in the short term like they are now, but if they had invested in PVE they would have a lot more customers. Then they could implement PVE and convert a larger F2P player base into income.

Doing it PVP-PVE is backwards in the F2P model.
First, put in the thing that actually makes money. Then, put in the thing that draws in the unwashed masses and watch as some of them actually spend money. Wait, no, that makes no sense; let's do it your way.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 05:42 PM
The reason I say it's backwards is because we're in closed beta, and set 2 is on the way.

When the F2P part of this game comes out, the game won't feel "new" to those that are coming in. This means they're already put off by not being on the ground floor, and would be harder to capture these people.

Instead of having an army of F2P players out there, and then hyping up the first set of PVP. They now have to convince F2P players to spend even more money to "catch up" to those who have been in closed beta for a long time.

Just my thought on the subject, I know CZE took a different approach. I think it could have been handled differently and could have possibly been more lucrative for them long run. We'll see in the next few years what happens, and if their decision to focus on PVP first will pay off for them. It's an interesting topic nonetheless.

Malakili
08-04-2014, 05:53 PM
Getting in on the ground floor means a lot less when the format is going to be rotating and a major appeal is draft which is the same no matter how much money you've spent in the past or how long you've played.

Werlix
08-04-2014, 05:57 PM
Why so condescending? You do releaize that there were a lot more $250 tiers than the Pro Player. PVE is a huge part of this game that was promised, I don't consider my kickstarter backing to be anywhere near fulfilled until the PVE promises are met.

If I had it "my way" I would have liked to see the PVE implemented before any type of PVP was implemented. And please don't start with the "they had to lay the groundwork for PVE" argument either, because that's completely not true. They could have laid the groundwork with the PVE experience, and then worked on a PVP play experience.

PvP was implemented first because the mechanics of PvE rely on PvP mechanics (game phases, drawing cards, playing cards, attacking etc). There are very few PvP-specific mechanics (tournaments maybe, but even then they might be used in PvE in some way) but many, many PvE specific mechanics. Doing PvE first doesn't even make sense.

Lawlschool
08-04-2014, 05:59 PM
When the F2P part of this game comes out, the game won't feel "new" to those that are coming in. This means they're already put off by not being on the ground floor, and would be harder to capture these people.

Except the F2P aspect is the PvE aspect, which will be completely new when it launches.

Where are you getting the idea that F2P players won't want to play a game simply because it's been around for a bit? I would assume that most f2p games don't get all of their players right at launch, and rather accumulate a playerbase over time. The fact that PvP has been around for a couple sets shouldn't deter f2p players, as PvP isn't meant to be played for free (thought it will be theoretically possible).

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 06:08 PM
Getting in on the ground floor means a lot less when the format is going to be rotating and a major appeal is draft which is the same no matter how much money you've spent in the past or how long you've played.

Not a bad point, but I disagree when it comes to digital games. Having a strong opening is important. If players are turned off because they have 2 sets to catch up to other players, it might be bad news for Hex.

On the other hand, it might work out for Hex. I just know if I wasn't on the ground floor, and I'm a set behind, I wouldn't give the game any time. I've tried other digital card games that have been out for a little while and felt this way.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 06:12 PM
PvP was implemented first because the mechanics of PvE rely on PvP mechanics (game phases, drawing cards, playing cards, attacking etc). There are very few PvP-specific mechanics (tournaments maybe, but even then they might be used in PvE in some way) but many, many PvE specific mechanics. Doing PvE first doesn't even make sense.

You understand that you can flip PVE and PVP in your post, and it makes the same sense.

From your argument, it would make more sense to develop the game mechanics using PVE base, and then implement tournaments. The base game is the base game. They could have developed the base game, and worked on dungeons instead of tournaments. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Werlix
08-04-2014, 06:20 PM
You understand that you can flip PVE and PVP in your post, and it makes the same sense.

From your argument, it would make more sense to develop the game mechanics using PVE base, and then implement tournaments. The base game is the base game. They could have developed the base game, and worked on dungeons instead of tournaments. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The "base game" is pretty much PvP. If you can bulid a deck, start a match, draw cards, play cards, use champion powers, attack, block, deal damage, win/lose the game - then you can play PvP! But can you play PvE? No...

I see your point about tournaments, but from what we can tell, implementing tournament functionality is a fraction of implementing a whole PvE system. The art/sound side alone makes the scale of PvE immense.

This is perhaps a semantics argument. I think when HexEnt have said they're implementing PvP first because PvE relies on it, when they say "PvP" they really mean the "base game" - as that's all that is required to play PvP.

QUOTE=hexnaes;398154]They could have developed the base game, and worked on dungeons instead of tournaments.[/QUOTE]

EDIT: Actually, I think this is exactly what they did do. They developed the base game, then the PvP team worked on tournaments/AH etc, and the PvE team worked on dungeons.

Rendakor
08-04-2014, 06:21 PM
Except if the base game was just "Play against bad AI" instead of "Play against bad other players" no one would still be playing it.

hexnaes
08-04-2014, 06:39 PM
EDIT: Actually, I think this is exactly what they did do. They developed the base game, then the PvP team worked on tournaments/AH etc, and the PvE team worked on dungeons.

It is semantics. PVE or PVP isn't dependent upon one or the other. They're both dependent on the "base game" which functions the same. If PvE just takes long to develop than PvP then so be it.

However, we've yet to see any PVE gameplay. If they've been working on PVE (development wise, not design wise) since the same time they started working on tournaments, then they are an extremely slow team. My guess is that a lot of the design decisions that needed to go into PVE weren't done at the time of the kickstarter. The interns creating equipment is proof of this. They've probably just started to wrap up the final design decisions in the past few months and started on creating a playable PVE experience.

Werlix
08-04-2014, 07:11 PM
It is semantics. PVE or PVP isn't dependent upon one or the other. They're both dependent on the "base game" which functions the same. If PvE just takes long to develop than PvP then so be it.

However, we've yet to see any PVE gameplay. If they've been working on PVE (development wise, not design wise) since the same time they started working on tournaments, then they are an extremely slow team. My guess is that a lot of the design decisions that needed to go into PVE weren't done at the time of the kickstarter. The interns creating equipment is proof of this. They've probably just started to wrap up the final design decisions in the past few months and started on creating a playable PVE experience.

Cory stated around 3 months ago that he's played a dungeon in the game client itself:

http://coryhudsonjones.tumblr.com/post/83645967847/hex-beta-is-almost-here



I have played in a dungeon IN GAME, not just with paper proxies

mach
08-04-2014, 07:16 PM
It is semantics. PVE or PVP isn't dependent upon one or the other. They're both dependent on the "base game" which functions the same. If PvE just takes long to develop than PvP then so be it.

However, we've yet to see any PVE gameplay.

Exactly. But there is a big difference in how they're handling PvE and PvP. PvP was available to backers at the beginning of Alpha. Assuming that PvE is on approximately the schedule they've led us to believe, we're not going to see it until it's at the late beta or even release stage of development.

If they had made PvE available from the Alpha stage of development like they did with PvP, it would seem more like they're coequal parts of the game and PvE is just taking a bit longer to finish.

Back on topic: There's a thread on reddit discussing this which includes direct links (no registration required) to the documents:

http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2cl9vh/wizards_has_provided_107_examples_of_copyright/

Vorpal
08-04-2014, 07:40 PM
I don't think there's any point in trying to guess whether more people are here for the pvp or pve based on KS tiers.

I backed primarily for the pve but would absolutely have snapped up a pro player tier if one had been available.

It's pointless trying to argue whether pvp or pve players are more important, etc etc. Pve is coming after pvp, not because pve players are less important or CZE cares less about them or expects there to be fewer of them, but because by design, pve is the F2P aspect and PvP is the monetized aspect, and CZE needs to keep the lights on at HQ.

Ideally, people will get hooked on f2p pve and migrate over to being paying pvp customers. win/win.

Malakili
08-04-2014, 07:42 PM
It is semantics. PVE or PVP isn't dependent upon one or the other. They're both dependent on the "base game" which functions the same.

The "base game" is effectively PvP. The things that make it PvE - specially designed encounters and AI to pilot them - are needed in addition that way. PvP doesn't need anything else, it just needs the ability for a human to sit there to play each side.

Vorpal
08-04-2014, 07:43 PM
I would have to agree the 'base game' for a tcg is two players playing each other with constructed decks. So for hex, I guess, it's the proving grounds.

regomar
08-04-2014, 08:49 PM
Why so condescending? You do releaize that there were a lot more $250 tiers than the Pro Player. PVE is a huge part of this game that was promised, I don't consider my kickstarter backing to be anywhere near fulfilled until the PVE promises are met.

If I had it "my way" I would have liked to see the PVE implemented before any type of PVP was implemented. And please don't start with the "they had to lay the groundwork for PVE" argument either, because that's completely not true. They could have laid the groundwork with the PVE experience, and then worked on a PVP play experience.

Agreed completely. It's sad to see the stereotypical MMO PvP elitists shitting all over PvE players and calling them 'carebears' even here, in a game that was sold to us as unique almost entirely based on the PvE aspects. This game wouldn't have gotten a third of its funding without the offer of PvE. Without PvE it's just another card game in a haystack of cardgames. You PvP players better remember that you are not some kind of majority. PvE is essential to a hell of a lot of people here and it's FAR from the 'salt on optional chips', it's the goddamn meal while PvP is an optional desert in my opinion and a hell of a lot of other backers.

regomar
08-04-2014, 08:53 PM
Except if the base game was just "Play against bad AI" instead of "Play against bad other players" no one would still be playing it.

I'd be playing it. I'm not now. You speak for nobody but yourself.

ossuary
08-04-2014, 08:57 PM
Agreed completely. It's sad to see the stereotypical MMO PvP elitists shitting all over PvE players and calling them 'carebears' even here, in a game that was sold to us as unique almost entirely based on the PvE aspects. This game wouldn't have gotten a third of its funding without the offer of PvE. Without PvE it's just another card game in a haystack of cardgames. You PvP players better remember that you are not some kind of majority. PvE is essential to a hell of a lot of people here and it's FAR from the 'salt on optional chips', it's the goddamn meal while PvP is an optional desert in my opinion and a hell of a lot of other backers.

schild does not speak for all of us. He's the only one tossing around insults like "carebear." Don't lump us all together please. :p

Rendakor
08-04-2014, 09:13 PM
This game wouldn't have gotten a third of its funding without the offer of PvE.So did you get divorced from reality or is this just a trial separation?

schild
08-04-2014, 09:27 PM
Agreed completely. It's sad to see the stereotypical MMO PvP elitists shitting all over PvE players and calling them 'carebears' even here, in a game that was sold to us as unique almost entirely based on the PvE aspects. This game wouldn't have gotten a third of its funding without the offer of PvE. Without PvE it's just another card game in a haystack of cardgames. You PvP players better remember that you are not some kind of majority. PvE is essential to a hell of a lot of people here and it's FAR from the 'salt on optional chips', it's the goddamn meal while PvP is an optional desert in my opinion and a hell of a lot of other backers.

Care bear isn't an insult. It's a designation. But by all means, carry on with yo bad selves.

Edit: Also, your post is silly. Super dee duper silly.

Derringer
08-04-2014, 10:07 PM
Time for unpopular opinions!
I dunno. As features started rolling out more slowly a few months ago, I started playing magic again (I hadn't played for 2 or 3 years before backing) and I've gotta say: adding some "digital only" effects and slightly reworking (read: simplifying) the resource system doesn't give me the impression that I'm not playing a slightly different version of magic. After all, we're all here because we like(d) magic--that's how this game got funded. It's hard not to describe this game as anything but digital magic, largely born from bad experiences modo.

Point being, the way that I think and talk about and describe this game (and the way I think others do too), seems to point at the fact that is anchored in the fact that it is hecka similar to magic. If that is true, the lawsuit has so much more weight.

And if that's all been said before on the forums, great; I'm not about to go and check.

Edit: Also, it seems inevitable that there's going to be damning overlaps in this 1-1 card comparison. Even if we hand wave away things like that, originally, inner conflict was essentially a sorcery for the same cost as pacifism, I don't really know how much "umph" there is that argument (that the digital space makes it totally different); it just feels like a transition of magic to the digital space, and its perhaps this transitioning that is so... worthy of a lawsuit.

However the infringing of certain cards is distinct from the larger claim, which is that the game is blatantly copied.

RanaDunes
08-05-2014, 12:01 AM
The people working on PvP/Balance are different than the people working on PvE Content.
PvE takes longer time to create and requires the game core to be functional (Game core happens to be PvP).

It's retarded to complain that PvP is implemented before PvE because PvP is easier to deliver AND PvE requires the game engine to be functional (which is the PvP game). In other words; PvE is PvP+AI+Content. Again, to further simplify it... in order to have PvE in a TCG you need to have PvP functional beforehand... and if you have PvP functional it's retarded to prevent us from playing the PvP portion.

meowstef
08-05-2014, 01:00 AM
Back on topic: There's a thread on reddit discussing this which includes direct links (no registration required) to the documents:

http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2cl9vh/wizards_has_provided_107_examples_of_copyright/
thanks a lot for that link

did anyone else find the blacker lotus funny?

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 01:20 AM
I was impressed that the tone of that subreddit in that case had shifted so much to not everyone constantly condemning hex. That's probably a good sign.

Aruken
08-05-2014, 01:35 AM
Back on topic: There's a thread on reddit discussing this which includes direct links (no registration required) to the documents:

http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2cl9vh/wizards_has_provided_107_examples_of_copyright/

It is funny how Hex copied up to the mana cost of the MtG cards! They were not even trying to hide it, no shame.

Like Technical Genius and Etherium Sculptor, both blue 1/2 for 2 with effect -1 cost on artifacts. Seriously?
Please don't come to me and say it is not cloning because the art is different or some excuse like that.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 01:46 AM
It's funny how people think that a 1/2 for 2 with -1 cost for artifacts is somehow copyright able. Clearly it is a function of mechanics that you have a low cost easily removed troop that synergizes with artifacts. Since they use largely the base system of mtg, which is totally within anyone's right to do, many cards will be functionally similar as a matter of balance, and allowing archetypes to exist. Starting from the point of the base mtg system, if mtg had never printed Etherium sculptor it is the height of ignorance to say that technical genius could not be independently created. Not that that is even necessary.

I guess what I am saying is 'so what'?

mach
08-05-2014, 01:55 AM
I was impressed that the tone of that subreddit in that case had shifted so much to not everyone constantly condemning hex. That's probably a good sign.

That's not the impression I got. There's still widespread condemnation of Hex there. It's just divided between those who think what they've done is illegal and those who think it's bad but not illegal.

LNQ
08-05-2014, 02:02 AM
MTG has been running for decades, and as of April 2014 they have made 13920 different cards.

If your game has a base system that resembles MTG in any way, you have 0 chance of creating a TCG that doesn't have cards that are identical to some MTG cards. The fact that some cards are similar is completely irrelevant, as it is clear that the art and names are not blatantly copied. Some names will have overlaps as well since you have 13920 names to try to avoid.

Because of this, the focus shouldn't be on single cards but the games as a whole.

Verdant
08-05-2014, 02:03 AM
That's not the impression I got. There's still widespread condemnation of Hex there. It's just divided between those who think what they've done is illegal and those who think it's bad but not illegal.
Gwaer is absolutely right. In previous threads on the matter there were only a handful of redditors trying to defend HEX, and they all have been immediately downvoted. This one actually has people getting positive responses after raising questions about lawsuit's success. The mood is visibly different.

nicosharp
08-05-2014, 02:14 AM
It's funny how people think that a 1/2 for 2 with -1 cost for artifacts is somehow copyright able. Clearly it is a function of mechanics that you have a low cost easily removed troop that synergizes with artifacts. Since they use largely the base system of mtg, which is totally within anyone's right to do, many cards will be functionally similar as a matter of balance, and allowing archetypes to exist. Starting from the point of the base mtg system, if mtg had never printed Etherium sculptor it is the height of ignorance to say that technical genius could not be independently created. Not that that is even necessary.

I guess what I am saying is 'so what'?
Not to mention - the original variation of Technical Genius was Journeyman Technician and was a 1 drop with the same effect.

The funny thing is, through balance testing, some cards that were not copies of MTG cards, ended up becoming MTG cards. Wow, who would of thought that a game that tries to keep a similar resource system has to balance cards accordingly to have a balanced game that is enjoyable to play?

The argument could be that, WotC wants to force people to design other cards and games in a space that they have already 'perfectly balanced' and squeezed every inch of creativity out of. Hex is already disproving that in the digital space, however, are making sure their game maintains balance, which in turn, leads to a lot of cards that ultimately can be compared as knock-offs to 1 of magic the gatherings 15,000 plus unique cards.

Aruken
08-05-2014, 03:38 AM
It's funny how people think that a 1/2 for 2 with -1 cost for artifacts is somehow copyright able. Clearly it is a function of mechanics that you have a low cost easily removed troop that synergizes with artifacts. Since they use largely the base system of mtg, which is totally within anyone's right to do, many cards will be functionally similar as a matter of balance, and allowing archetypes to exist. Starting from the point of the base mtg system, if mtg had never printed Etherium sculptor it is the height of ignorance to say that technical genius could not be independently created. Not that that is even necessary.

I guess what I am saying is 'so what'?
So what you are arguing is that it is fine Hex copy-pasted cards because Crypto would have invented them anyway if MtG did not, since they use the same 5 color ressources and combat rules as MtG? Is this some kind of clever bait or trolling? You realise this is not a valid argument right?

And saying they have to copy thoses cards for balance sake is as much as ridicule. Are they even trying?
No one forces them to introduce a 3 black mana instant troop removal. No wonder the two games are so similar if they keep introducing such meta defining cards.

And being within the boundaries of the law would not make this less unethical to my eyes.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 03:42 AM
I'm saying that some cards being similar, does not mean copy paste at all, but is instead a function of the design around the mechanics themselves. That card as nicosharp pointed out, didn't start out as it is, it was actually nerfed to the point it is now, for balance.

luckily for everyone, it doesn't really matter what is ethical or not in your eyes. If the gaming industry was held to your standards of ethics we'd all still be playing pong37, or mspacmanjr5:The Revengening.

Roy_G
08-05-2014, 04:04 AM
This seems abusrd.Owning the patent to the words murder and removing card is abusrd.Than zombies and 2/2 which WOTC seems to think no one else can use.They also claiming patent to 1/3,3/2.Also the total meltdown is absurd as well.

And than there's their inaccuarte things they compare there.

The one with chronic madness is seriously idiotic.They are are claiming patent to milling cards and it's also got an escaltion mechnic.

Things in TCG with similiar resource systems have the same functionality.People who play magic should worry that the money goes to lawyers instead of making a better product.

Aruken
08-05-2014, 04:08 AM
luckily for everyone, it doesn't really matter what is ethical or not in your eyes. If the gaming industry was held to your standards of ethics we'd all still be playing pong37, or mspacmanjr5:The Revengening.

See, I knew you'd use that to try to make a point, but the truth is copying someone else's work is unethical no matter what my opinion is.
And spending time on a design just to end up with the same results and understanding you can't bend it more than the people working on it before you does not allow you to use their work as yours.
The game being in need of a 3 black troop removal for the sake of balance because it already copied the whole ressource system should not come as a surprise. This is the same with this lawsuit.

They should really try to make their own tcg, not such a MtG ripoff in my opinion.

mach
08-05-2014, 04:15 AM
I'm saying that some cards being similar, does not mean copy paste at all, but is instead a function of the design around the mechanics themselves. That card as nicosharp pointed out, didn't start out as it is, it was actually nerfed to the point it is now, for balance.


The mechanics only necessitate so much. Sure, they may mean that a 1-drop with the -1 to cost of artifacts effects is too powerful, but a 1/2 for 1U is not the only balanced possibility. Essentially, the mechanics are like an equation with multiple solutions. The mechanics necessitate you choose one of the solutions, but which one you choose is a creative choice.

Of course, it could just be a coincidence that the CZE people made the same creative choice as the WoTC people. That's why they have so many examples: each additional example makes the coincidence theory less and less probable. That's also why they made an effort to point out just how intimately familiar the CZE team is with Magic.



luckily for everyone, it doesn't really matter what is ethical or not in your eyes.

Not in his eyes specifically, but whether potential customers in general view it as ethical is significant. Even if Hex wins the lawsuit, if it develops a reputation as a MTG knockoff/clone it's unlikely to succeed to the extent Cory desires.

Roy_G
08-05-2014, 04:16 AM
It's not the same resource system.MTG didn't invent the connotations of the five colors and it's different in hex.According to the same logic if someone had patented cars all the other cars would have to put triangles or octagons and not wheels.If WOTC win they can go and sue and win every other card game that has 2/2,milling,card removal or damage card or any sort of creatures and they also should sue every computer game that uses zombies and fire and lighting bolts.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 04:17 AM
If iterating on the works of people that came before is absolutely unethical. We wouldn't have Charles dickens novels, Disney movies, any story you have likely ever read in your entire life is based on stories that came before. Virtually every game is based on games that came before. Every movie is based on stories and movies that came before. The public domain was the status quo and only option for the vast majority of human history. This hyper protectionist IP BS that you're throwing out is paper thin if you have any historical knowledge at all.

@mach technical genius doesn't cost 1u, it costs 2, threshold isn't part of a cost in hex, it doesn't go down when you use it. It is in fact a threshold.

As others have mentioned before there are 10s of thousands of magic cards, if magic printing a card with 1/2 -1 to artifacts stopped every game from ever printing that card that would be ridiculous. There would be a nuclear war of games trying to release as many mechanics of as varied costs as possible as quickly as possible, just to try to cordon off that game-space for future use. There are over 300 cards in set 1, of those 300 magic has through the broadest lens possible flagged a third of them as "infringing", and if you actually look at most of those examples they're nowhere near copies. It's completely unworkable for games to be developed in an environment like that.

And finally, if Hex succeeds in not being a clone by law, it is much less unlikely to get branded as a clone in the sense that most people use when they say it here. The fact that it is heavily influenced by magic, but yet in many ways streamlined from magic, and quite frankly better balanced than any magic set I've ever played will do it a great deal of credit. As long as they can keep up the quality to be on par with set 1.

mach
08-05-2014, 04:54 AM
@mach technical genius doesn't cost 1u, it costs 2, threshold isn't part of a cost in hex, it doesn't go down when you use it. It is in fact a threshold.


It's the equivalent cost. It doesn't always work exactly the same way, but it generally does. You need to spend 2 resources and you need to have played a blue one.



As others have mentioned before there are 10s of thousands of magic cards, if magic printing a card with 1/2 -1 to artifacts stopped every game from ever printing that card that would be ridiculous. There would be a nuclear war of games trying to release as many mechanics of as varied costs as possible as quickly as possible, just to try to cordon off that game-space for future use. There are over 300 cards in set 1, of those 300 magic has through the broadest lense possible flagged a third of them as "infringing", and if you actually look at most of those examples they're nowhere near copies. It's completely unworkable for games to be developed in an environment like that.


Correct. However, it's just as true that if you could take someone else's game (which they spent lots of time/money to develop), change the creative elements and make a few tweaks, and then sell it as your own at a lower cost (since you didn't have to spend that money on R&D), that would also be a completely unworkable environment.

Both cases together are why IP protections exist but are not absolute.



And finally, if Hex succeeds in not being a clone by law, it is much less unlikely to get branded as a clone in the sense that most people use when they say it here. The fact that it is heavily influenced by magic, but yet in many ways streamlines from magic, and quite frankly better balanced than any magic set I've ever played will do it a great deal of credit.

Yes, it's less likely. But it's still possible. The Court of Public Opinion is not required to respect the decisions of the Washington Western District Court. Or even the Supreme Court, for that matter.

And, of course, it doesn't even need to wait for the actual-court case to end.

ossuary
08-05-2014, 04:59 AM
Correct. However, it's just as true that if you could take someone else's game (which they spent lots of time/money to develop), change the creative elements and make a few tweaks, and then sell it as your own at a lower cost (since you didn't have to spend that money on R&D), that would also be a completely unworkable environment.

Oh, you mean like how there's still a Call of Duty franchise even though Infinity Ward doesn't make it any more?

Yeah... this kind of stuff NEVER happens in the gaming industry. :rolleyes:

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 05:06 AM
As scrabulous proved, we already live in a world where you can copy all of the rules of a game and release it on your own. The game industry is actually stronger for that, just like the fashion industry. Mechanics being ineligible for copyright is one of reasons why the gaming industry is as creative as it is. Quite frankly, a units power toughness and cost are all mechanics questions. You say there are other options for technical genius, but there are no other options that would balance it exactly the same way and wouldn't have required them to rework their entire set just because their original card was a bit too strong and needed to be nerfed so that it resembled the mechanical description of a magic card.

Hex has done an incredible amount of research, and balancing, the fact that they are accused of copying cards in so many disparate sets is proof enough that they didn't actually copy any of the balancing work of MTG, and instead designed their own.

DocX
08-05-2014, 05:22 AM
There's a difference between being constructively critical, and being antagonistically negative. I don't think there's anything wrong with calling people out on the latter. In fact I think it'd be strange and disappointing for those people to post away happily without forum posters calling them out on their behaviour.

+1 to Werlix (and I'll even ignore his weird spelling of behavior :-)

mach
08-05-2014, 05:30 AM
As scrabulous proved, we already live in a world where you can copy all of the rules of a game and release it on your own. The game industry is actually stronger for that, just like the fashion industry. Mechanics being ineligible for copyright is one of reasons why the gaming industry is as creative as it is.


Sure. That's what I mean by IP protections existing but not being absolute. They're strong enough that it makes financial sense to invest money in game development, but not so strong as to kill creativity.



Quite frankly, a units power toughness and cost are all mechanics questions. You say there are other options for technical genius, but there are no other options that would balance it exactly the same way and wouldn't have required them to rework their entire set just because their original card was a bit too strong and needed to be nerfed so that it resembled the mechanical description of a magic card.


Why does it need to be balanced exactly the same way? It just needs to be balanced. Even excluding flavor, game design is partially a technical endeavor (protected by patent law) and partially a creative endeavor (protected by copyright law). That's why when WoTC makes Magic sets they separate the process into Design (the creative part) and Development (the technical part).

Xenavire
08-05-2014, 05:42 AM
+1 to Werlix (and I'll even ignore his weird spelling of behavior :-)

You mean the correct spelling? :p

But I went through that list of cards, and I have to say, most are stretching it, a handful are legitimately close, and about 10 could be considered clones based on the stats only (almost all of those were vanilla creatures/troops).

I mean, Damnation and extinction are very close, but Hex doesn't even have regenerate. That does change the dynamic of the card if we ever have regenerating troops (and we already have Bone warrior, who does not 'die' to extinction). Eye of creation isn't optional, Genesis wave is. Etherium sculptor is an artifact - it benefits other copies of itself, and changes the dynamic of the card in many other ways.

90% of their examples are easily as different to each of the supposed clones as most 'duplicate' magic cards are to each other. Look at terrible transfer vs tendrils of corruption and corrupt - terrible transfer is as different from the other two as those other two are different from each other. I mean, I would love to be able to target players with terrible transfer, or have it cost 1 less.

This is basically WotC saying 'we got here first so we must be right' even though most of their examples are complete crap. I have seen yugioh cards, hearthstone cards, even pokemon cards, that have similar effects to some of the 'infringing' cards. I don't see them making stretches to prove those cards are copies.

I wonder why... /Sarcasm

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 05:43 AM
Sorry Mach, you've devolved into not actually saying anything or adding to this conversation. Everything you've pointed at as being a problem isn't covered by any current existing patents or copyright. 1/2 for 2 -1 to cost of artifacts isn't copyrightable, it isn't patented. There's no IP protections for it, you're trying to create one.

There's no reason for anyone to have to redesign a portion of their set to settle on a non-optimal balance solution just because MTG has printed a card that's 1/2 for 2. or 2/2 for 2 zombie... Or anything else.

mach
08-05-2014, 05:51 AM
Sorry Mach, you've devolved into not actually saying anything or adding to this conversation. Everything you've pointed at as being a problem isn't covered by any current existing patents or copyright. 1/2 for 2 -1 to cost of artifacts isn't copyrightable, it isn't patented. There's no IP protections for it, you're trying to create one.


First, the patent was valid when the alleged infringing activity happened. You don't get off the hook if a patent expires while in the middle of the legal process.

Second, WoTC is not suing over Technical Genius violating copyright, asking for an injunction against sales of Technical Geniuses, and requesting damages for Technical Genius sales. They are saying that the game as a whole violates their copyrights, and are showing how each game's components are similar in order to support their case.

Ghost
08-05-2014, 05:53 AM
If iterating on the works of people that came before
WoWTCG was iterating on the work that came before. It's a game with cards, and spells and creatures with attack value and life total. Kind of like Magic has. But the combat is different, the resource system works different (quests!), there are hero cards, there are weapons and armor cards that the heroes can use, etc, etc. Iterative, but clearly a much different game.

Hex is literally Magic with different art. It's a copy, not an iteration.

Malakili
08-05-2014, 05:58 AM
As near as I can tell nothing Hex is doing is remotely infringing on copyright. The patent bit is the only remotely interesting thing and it isn't clear that the patents they have will actually stand up, particularly given that the digital implementation of those mechanics is involved and a recent Supreme Court cased ruled that "implement digitally" isn't a valid patent step.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 06:12 AM
WoWTCG was iterating on the work that came before. It's a game with cards, and spells and creatures with attack value and life total. Kind of like Magic has. But the combat is different, the resource system works different (quests!), there are hero cards, there are weapons and armor cards that the heroes can use, etc, etc. Iterative, but clearly a much different game.

Hex is literally Magic with different art. It's a copy, not an iteration.

It's quite literally not literally magic with different art. If it were bouncing cards would reset them, you could respond to non-targeted triggers on the chain, you would need 5 ruby resources to cast 5 burns, instead of 1 ruby resource and 4 any other resources, you would be able to point to a single set that mtg balanced that this game was copied off of, you could point to more than 10 cards that are actually similar enough to not incite gaffaws from anyone with any knowledge of card games from the 300 cards in the first set...

praxy
08-05-2014, 06:34 AM
As much as I dislike companies that get all "sue happy", I tend to agree with WotC in this case.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 06:36 AM
It's quite literally not literally magic with different art. If it were bouncing cards would reset them, you could respond to non-targeted triggers on the chain, you would need 5 ruby resources to cast 5 burns, instead of 1 ruby resource and 4 any other resources, you would be able to point to a single set that mtg balanced that this game was copied off of, you could point to more than 10 cards that are actually similar enough to not incite gaffaws from anyone with any knowledge of card games from the 300 cards in the first set...


Another point that doesn't get made often enough is that the overall "game" plays differently because there are so many different cards.

Saying "Hex is a copy of Magic" because they have some similar cards is like arguing that one english-language book is a copy of another english-language book because they contain a few similar words and follow similar (but not identical) grammar.

Individual words by themselves aren't a book; similarly, individual cards aren't the game. The interaction of cards with other cards is the game, and Hex has lots and lots and lots of unique cards, which combine into a substantively different overall gameplay experience from MTG.

praxy
08-05-2014, 06:39 AM
Another point that doesn't get made often enough is that the overall "game" plays differently because there are so many different cards.

Saying "Hex is a copy of Magic" because they have some similar cards is like arguing that one english-language book is a copy of another english-language book because they contain similar words and follow similar (but not identical) grammar. Individual cards aren't the game; the interaction of cards with other cards is the game, and Hex has lots and lots and lots of unique cards, which combine into a substantively different overall gameplay experience from MTG.


Unless... the entire purpose of including "similar" cards was to make the play style similar enough to magic that it would attract people who play magic. The entire argument of WotC rests on their opinion that, on the surface, the two games are too similar which could cause people to mistake Hex for Magic. On the surface... you CAN make that argument. And if proven to be true, would result in copyright infringement.

Svenn
08-05-2014, 06:45 AM
Unless... the entire purpose of including "similar" cards was to make the play style similar enough to magic that it would attract people who play magic. The entire argument of WotC rests on their opinion that, on the surface, the two games are too similar which could cause people to mistake Hex for Magic. On the surface... you CAN make that argument. And if proven to be true, would result in copyright infringement.
That MIGHT be true if Hex was a physical card game and you could mistakenly pick up some Hex cards in a store and confuse them with MTG cards. Not only do the cards look different, but they are digital only and ONLY available through the Hex client. No one is going to the Hex website, downloading the client, purchasing cards, and going "Hmm, I thought this was MTG... but this is some other game?!"

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 06:49 AM
Unless... the entire purpose of including "similar" cards was to make the play style similar enough to magic that it would attract people who play magic. The entire argument of WotC rests on their opinion that, on the surface, the two games are too similar which could cause people to mistake Hex for Magic. On the surface... you CAN make that argument. And if proven to be true, would result in copyright infringement.

Eh, not really, you're mixing and matching a bunch of different arguments. The argument about confusion is "trade dress" not copyright; I don't think it really has any merit, because I have yet to see anyone Hex player actually so confused they think they're buying Magic. The products are different enough that everyone knows what they're getting, and that's all that's required.

Past that, "play style" isn't copyrightable. People are allowed to make similar competing products. GoBots didn't get to copyright the idea of transforming toys and block Transformers from being made, and Games Workshop didn't get to shut down Blizzard from making WarCraft. That's what the free market is all about -- competition and destructive innovation. One company doesn't get to own a particular concept just because they were first.

Here's a good breakdown of the basic issues to get you up to speed on this stuff with the rest of the forum (I notice these are your first posts): http://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/05/understanding-the-wizards-v-hex-lawsuit-in-plain-english/

praxy
08-05-2014, 06:54 AM
That MIGHT be true if Hex was a physical card game and you could mistakenly pick up some Hex cards in a store and confuse them with MTG cards. Not only do the cards look different, but they are digital only and ONLY available through the Hex client. No one is going to the Hex website, downloading the client, purchasing cards, and going "Hmm, I thought this was MTG... but this is some other game?!"

Seeing that MTGO has a digital market as well, it is relevant.

Another thing... alot of people cite the "resource" system of hex as proof that it is a different game, thought that couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact its possible (and people even do it in casual groups) to implement the hex resource system into magic. If you do... the "differences" begin to evaporate.

Additionally, the idea that having a "shard" of one color unlocks that color, is a concept taken from multiple TCG's including WotC own Kajudo. It is not original. Pair that with the obvious "inspiration" and you tread on dangerous territory.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 07:05 AM
Another thing... alot of people cite the "resource" system of hex as proof that it is a different game, thought that couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact its possible (and people even do it in casual groups) to implement the hex resource system into magic. If you do... the "differences" begin to evaporate.


This seems like pretty weird reasoning. Whatever else people's random home-brew rules might be, they aren't anything WotC has a copyright in.

praxy
08-05-2014, 07:07 AM
This seems like pretty weird reasoning. Whatever else people's random home-brew rules might be, they aren't anything WotC has a copyright in.


Fair. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but what I've seen of hex... it feels more like a MTGO MOD (same shell, different underlying rules) than an actually original game. The question becomes... does that violate copyright?

Svenn
08-05-2014, 07:08 AM
Additionally, the idea that having a "shard" of one color unlocks that color, is a concept taken from multiple TCG's including WotC own Kajudo. It is not original. Pair that with the obvious "inspiration" and you tread on dangerous territory.
If it's a concept taken from multiple TCGs then it's not a direct copy of MTG... negating that whole argument.

The resource system is just one of the differences (and is a pretty big one, actually). House rules are not official rules so citing similar house rules means nothing. Other differences include champion charge powers, permanent modifications, and not being able to respond to non-targeted triggers just to name a few. And even with all of that aside... game rules can not be copyrighted so it wouldn't even matter if the rules WERE the same. The appearance, story, etc are not copies of MTG.

Svenn
08-05-2014, 07:10 AM
Fair. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but what I've seen of hex... it feels more like a MTGO MOD (same shell, different underlying rules) than an actually original game. The question becomes... does that violate copyright?
No. Copyright does not cover game rules/mechanics.

praxy
08-05-2014, 07:13 AM
If it's a concept taken from multiple TCGs then it's not a direct copy of MTG... negating that whole argument.

The resource system is just one of the differences (and is a pretty big one, actually). House rules are not official rules so citing similar house rules means nothing. Other differences include champion charge powers, permanent modifications, and not being able to respond to non-targeted triggers just to name a few. And even with all of that aside... game rules can not be copyrighted so it wouldn't even matter if the rules WERE the same. The appearance, story, etc are not copies of MTG.

So the theatrical elements of game-play are not copyrighted?

Also the resource difference is not that large of a difference. You are correct in saying that home-rules don't count, but Wizard has other games that also use a very similar resource mechanic.


I'm pretty sure you can't have game elements that directly reference an external game... unless you do so in a way that it would fit into the "fair-use" clause.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 07:18 AM
Fair. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but what I've seen of hex... it feels more like a MTGO MOD (same shell, different underlying rules) than an actually original game. The question becomes... does that violate copyright?

The more you play Hex the more you realize how different it is from MTG. There are a lot of surface similarities but once you get your teeth into it it ends up playing very different in a lot of ways.

I think people who have a lot of experience with MTG tend to react harshly to Hex because they see the similarities right off, but haven't played Hex enough to understand how critical the differences are.

The biggest single difference is that because Hex cards are digital, they can be tracked and generated and altered without the direct knowledge of either player. This means that (for example) buffs and debuffs can be permanent even when a card gets shuffled into a separate pile or leaves play or goes back to your hand; it means that you can have deck-stacking effects like "insert four copies of this card into your deck"; so forth.

Magic's ultimately stuck with physical cards; they're a physical card game with, at best, a digital interface. Hex is full digital and that matters.

I see this as ultimately a similar situation to Games Workshop vs. Blizzard. Just like GW, WotC is married to its physical collectible sales and thus refuses to really innovate in the digital space. Hex is the digital competitor coming in and taking that opportunity.

Another way of saying this is that the two games have different definitions of what a "card" is. In Magic, a "card" is a physical two sided paper object or a digital representation of such an object, and the cards themselves aren't written on in the course of play (other cards or counters may rest on and alter them, but the cards themselves aren't written to). In Hex, the "cards" are three-sided virtual digital objects which have no physical reference and that can be written to and altered during play.

The more you think about it, the more you realize what a fundamental difference that is. The games do have similarities, but it's hard to argue that one "trading card game" is a clone of another when they use two significantly different definitions of "card." Tennis and squash may be similar but nobody thinks a tennis ball is a squash ball.

praxy
08-05-2014, 07:27 AM
The more you play Hex the more you realize how different it is from MTG. There are a lot of surface similarities but once you get your teeth into it it ends up playing very different in a lot of ways.

I think people who have a lot of experience with MTG tend to react harshly to Hex because they see the similarities right off, but haven't played Hex enough to understand how critical the differences are.

The biggest single difference is that because Hex cards are digital, they can be tracked and generated and altered without the direct knowledge of either player. This means that (for example) buffs and debuffs can be permanent even when a card gets shuffled into a separate pile or leaves play or goes back to your hand; it means that you can have deck-stacking effects like "insert four copies of this card into your deck"; so forth.

Magic's ultimately stuck with physical cards; they're a physical card game with, at best, a digital interface. Hex is full digital and that matters.

I see this as ultimately a similar situation to Games Workshop vs. Blizzard. Just like GW, WotC is married to its physical collectible sales and thus refuses to really innovate in the digital space. Hex is the digital competitor coming in and taking that opportunity.

Another way of saying this is that the two games have different definitions of what a "card" is. In Magic, a "card" is a physical two sided paper object or a digital representation of such an object, and the cards themselves aren't written on in the course of play (other cards or counters may rest on and alter them, but the cards themselves aren't written to). In Hex, the "cards" are three-sided virtual digital objects that can be written to and altered during play.

I understand this. The underlining rules and in-dept digital nature of Hex does make it a very different game than MTG (at least conceptually). Yet this does not change the fact that, on the surface, Hex bowers heavy theatrical game-play elements from Magic.

I understand that many individuals say "game-play" is not copyrighted. And you are correct. But does that also include theatrical elements of game play?

Aradon
08-05-2014, 07:28 AM
I did check out most of Wizards' list, and was amused that, with a large set of ~300 cards (they included several cards that are not in-client yet, as they are PvE related), they couldn't find matches for about 200 of Hex's cards among their 10,000+ collection. Personally, I found that pretty impressive. Even more so when you realize that about half their 'copied mechanics' weren't very close mimics at all (Chronic Madness is the same as Tome Scour? Mimic the same as Clone? Please.). What I'd like to see, for the lulz, is a similar list that compares their latest M15 set with cards they've released in the past. Out of necessity, they'll have a ton of reprints and similar designs, for the obvious reasons: format structure, balance issues, and conservation of design space. They choose to reprint many cards, for real reasons, because it's a very logical thing to do. They're allowed to reprint their own cards, of course, but it demonstrates very well how certain cards can be important to an environment, and that their inclusion is warranted, even though the card's been made already. Expecting Hex not to make cards just because MtG's already made similar cards is foolish. There are legitimate reasons for having specific cards in a set, and Magic doesn't mind reprinting (or reprinting with a different name) a card for the sake of having that card in the set, so I don't think Hex should avoid it. Magic doesn't have exclusive rights to a black kill spell or black board sweeper, or library manipulation (peek). Those are general concepts. Any further similarities are due to balancing those cards appropriately.

On a mild tangent, I don't actually think there are too many ways you can tweak Technical Genius/Etherium Sculptor. Obviously it was found too strong at 1 cost, but if it's any higher than 2, it starts drastically losing effectiveness. Sure, it could be a balanced 2/3 for 3, but then it's not fulfilling its true role as well.

Svenn
08-05-2014, 07:31 AM
I understand this. The underlining rules and in-dept digital nature of Hex does make it a very different game than MTG (at least conceptually). Yet this does not change the fact that, on the surface, Hex bowers heavy theatrical game-play elements from Magic.

I understand that many individuals say "game-play" is not copyrighted. And you are correct. But does that also include theatrical elements of game play?
You keep saying it... but what do you mean by "theatrical elements of game play" exactly? Things that can be copyright are things like stories and art. Hex has it's own unique story, it's own unique artwork, etc. The only similarities are in some of the underlying rules... which is not against any copyright. And as you even said so yourself, it borrows from elements of multiple games, not just MTG, therefore it cannot be a "clone" since it's not identical.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 07:40 AM
I understand this. The underlining rules and in-dept digital nature of Hex does make it a very different game than MTG (at least conceptually). Yet this does not change the fact that, on the surface, Hex bowers heavy theatrical game-play elements from Magic.

I understand that many individuals say "game-play" is not copyrighted. And you are correct. But does that also include theatrical elements of game play?

Yeah, I'm gonna play dumb at this point and ask what you mean by "theatrical elements of game play" -- that's remarkably technical and specific language and I have to ask where you're getting it.

Copyright can extend to named and defined individual characters but it doesn't cover archetypes. The Hex story and lore is unique and original and so, no, WotC doesn't really have a valid claim there. One of the more ludicrous things about the WotC lawsuit is that they appear to be trying to claim you can copyright the concept of wizards dueling, for example (maybe the Tolkien estate needs to be joined as a party!) Their best argument might be the color wheel but the problem with that is that there's a few thousand years of prior art there, from the I Ching on down, and Hex can just say they're drawing on the same source materials that MTG did.

praxy
08-05-2014, 07:41 AM
You keep saying it... but what do you mean by "theatrical elements of game play" exactly? Things that can be copyright are things like stories and art. Hex has it's own unique story, it's own unique artwork, etc. The only similarities are in some of the underlying rules... which is not against any copyright. And as you even said so yourself, it borrows from elements of multiple games, not just MTG, therefore it cannot be a "clone" since it's not identical.

Life - Magic has 20, Hex has 20
Hand - 7 all around (average)
Factions - Magic has 5, Hex has 5 (and they very closely mirror Magic's)
Resources - Magic has land cards, Hex has a mechanic that is functionally almost identical to land cards. + Kajudo Elements
Combat - Magic and Hex have identical combat systems.
Card Types - Magic and Hex have identical card types

The theatrical elements of game-play is how you get from point A to point C and in the end win the game.
Individual game-play elements might not be copyrightable... but how you get to the end of the game most certainty is.

Case in point... Bungie couldn't sue for someone making a first person shooter. But if that game required you to go through similar "hoops" to win the game, they would have a case.

Lafoote
08-05-2014, 07:45 AM
As much as I dislike companies that get all "sue happy", I tend to agree with WotC in this case.

You can't copyright 2/2 any more than you can copyright rolling a dice. I'm not going to rule out the possibility of WotC having a few valid arguments, but this is mostly shooting blindly hoping to get lucky.

What does worry me to some degree is that sometimes juries do absurd things with lawsuits like awarding smokers damages or ruling Tony the Tiger infringes on Exxon. There is no accounting for stupid.

Svenn
08-05-2014, 07:48 AM
Life - Magic has 20, Hex has 20
Hand - 7 all around (average)
Factions - Magic has 5, Hex has 5 (and they very closely mirror Magic's)
Resources - Magic has land cards, Hex has a mechanic that is functionally almost identical to land cards. + Kajudo Elements
Combat - Magic and Hex have identical combat systems.
Card Types - Magic and Hex have identical card types

The theatrical elements of game-play is how you get from point A to point C and in the end win the game.
Individual game-play elements might not be copyrightable... but how you get to the end of the game most certainty is.

Case in point... Bungie couldn't sue for someone making a first person shooter. But if that game required you to go through similar "hoops" to win the game, they would have a case.
Those are game rules. You can't copyright them. You can't say "Well, your game has 20 life and 7 card hands and so does ours... so you are copying us!"

Tons of games use similar rules. 7 card hands in a card game? Not that uncommon. 5 "factions"? That color wheel was not invented by MTG. Resources/Lands aren't the same thing so that doesn't even matter.

In your video game example... look at MOBAs. LoL/Dota/HoN/whatever. Same map layout, same number of abilities per character, same sort of item system, etc. They are all essentially re-skins with some tweaks. Note that all of them are allowed to exist. Different "stories", different art, different characters, same gameplay.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 07:59 AM
Life - Magic has 20, Hex has 20
Hand - 7 all around (average)
Factions - Magic has 5, Hex has 5 (and they very closely mirror Magic's)
Resources - Magic has land cards, Hex has a mechanic that is functionally almost identical to land cards. + Kajudo Elements
Combat - Magic and Hex have identical combat systems.
Card Types - Magic and Hex have identical card types

The theatrical elements of game-play is how you get from point A to point C and in the end win the game.
Individual game-play elements might not be copyrightable... but how you get to the end of the game most certainty is.

Case in point... Bungie couldn't sue for someone making a first person shooter. But if that game required you to go through similar "hoops" to win the game, they would have a case.

If WotC is relying on seven cards in hand being copyrightable, then there's prior art, it's called Stud Poker. Also, for that matter, Settlers of Catan. 60-card deck, a standard playing card deck has 52 cards. For five types of magic there are a hundred different sources (Captain Planet, Chinese mythology, etc.) So on, so forth. There's a decent video breakdown of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd6_5TcqjWA

More to the point, though, game rules as such aren't copyrightable. It honestly seems like you're just quoting Wizard's initial filing at this point.

praxy
08-05-2014, 07:59 AM
Those are game rules. You can't copyright them. You can't say "Well, your game has 20 life and 7 card hands and so does ours... so you are copying us!"

Tons of games use similar rules. 7 card hands in a card game? Not that uncommon. 5 "factions"? That color wheel was not invented by MTG. Resources/Lands aren't the same thing so that doesn't even matter.

In your video game example... look at MOBAs. LoL/Dota/HoN/whatever. Same map layout, same number of abilities per character, same sort of item system, etc. They are all essentially re-skins with some tweaks. Note that all of them are allowed to exist. Different "stories", different art, different characters, same gameplay.

MOBAs are a pretty awful example of why Hex is in the right. MOBAs were originally developed through open source. The first MOBA was actually generated through World of Warcraft III's map maker/editor. Of course all of those games are similar. That's because they all came from the same source (world of Warcraft III).

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 08:01 AM
Of course all of those games are similar. That's because they all came from the same source (world of Warcraft III).

Why is that relevant to your argument? Prior art is prior art? They seem like a great example of why game rules aren't copyrightable to me.

The different MOBA games are competing honestly in the free market and not trying to patent-troll their competitors out of existence. WotC is . .taking a different approach. Ultimately that's what this case is about.

Svenn
08-05-2014, 08:12 AM
MOBAs are a pretty awful example of why Hex is in the right. MOBAs were originally developed through open source. The first MOBA was actually generated through World of Warcraft III's map maker/editor. Of course all of those games are similar. That's because they all came from the same source (world of Warcraft III).

I am very aware of where MOBAs came from, and it wasn't open source. Blizzard's EULA stated that they owned everything done in their editor. Tower Defense also came from there, same thing... tons of similar games with the same ruleset. Also, Blizzard sued Valve over Dota2... What did that accomplish? A name change. That was the infringing part, the use of the name, not anything related to game mechanics.

Outside of that, Call of Duty/Battlefield, Diablo/Dungeon Siege/Path of Exile/every other Diablo clone, The Realm/Ultima Online/Everquest/WoW/most MMOs, Theme Park/Roller Coaster Tycoon...

Games copy from each other and innovate on their predecessors all the time. This isn't a new thing. If you start claiming that you can't make a game with similar rules you are really going to stifle creativity in game development. That's exactly why you can't copyright game rules.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 08:16 AM
I am very aware of where MOBAs came from. Tower Defense also came from there, same thing... tons of similar games with the same ruleset. Outside of that, Call of Duty/Battlefield, Diablo/Dungeon Siege/Path of Exile/every other Diablo clone, The Realm/Ultima Online/Everquest/WoW/most MMOs, Theme Park/Roller Coaster Tycoon...

Games copy from each other and innovate on their predecessors all the time. This isn't a new thing. If you start claiming that you can't make a game with similar rules you are really going to stifle creativity in game development. That's exactly why you can't copyright game rules.

Hell, Diablo is just a Roguelike with fancy graphics.

ossuary
08-05-2014, 08:19 AM
I would like to play this World of Warcraft III you speak of, considering we haven't even gotten WOW 2 yet in our reality. What horrible dystopian future have you come to us from, where "Simpsons did it!" is a silver bullet legal argument, and tired MMORPGs from 15 years ago can be remade 3 times over without changing their business model, oh great time traveler Praxy? :p

BlackRoger
08-05-2014, 08:26 AM
Sorry for going back to the subject at hand, but I was wondering if there was any word in the amended complaint on CZE's point that Wotc's copyright on MTG has expired.
I'm pretty sure CZE did mention that in their motion to dismiss.

mach
08-05-2014, 08:31 AM
The different MOBA games are competing honestly in the free market and not trying to patent-troll their competitors out of existence. WotC is . .taking a different approach. Ultimately that's what this case is about.

Be fair here. WoTC is not trying to sue their competitors out of existence. There are many TCGs on the market these days, physical and digital, from companies big and small. Only CZE is being sued.


I would like to play this World of Warcraft III you speak of, considering we haven't even gotten WOW 2 yet in our reality. What horrible dystopian future have you come to us from, where "Simpsons did it!" is a silver bullet legal argument, and tired MMORPGs from 15 years ago can be remade 3 times over without changing their business model, oh great time traveler Praxy? :p

It's common knowledge that the only way to defeat "Simpsons did it!" is the Chewbacca Defense.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 08:38 AM
Be fair here. WoTC is not trying to sue their competitors out of existence. There are many TCGs on the market these days, physical and digital, from companies big and small. Only CZE is being sued.
.

No, this isn't the first time WotC has done this; see, e.g., the Wizkids/WotC lawsuit. Wizkids actually filed the lawsuit there but it was in response to a patent filing & legal threat from WotC. Interestingly, Wizkid's lawyer then is Hex's lawyer now.

More to the point though Hex has the potential to be a bigger threat to WotC than most other TCG's; as a purely digital game with big publicity it can potentially out-compete their physical product in a way other TCG's aren't likely to. Plus, the expiration of WotC's patent makes this a good time to file a suit against somebody, as there's less downside if they lose -- they no longer have to worry about their patent being ruled invalid, which has always been pretty likely to happen if it ever actually went to a court.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 08:44 AM
That's why I'm almost positive this won't settle.Wotc has nothing to lose.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 08:51 AM
That's why I'm almost positive this won't settle.Wotc has nothing to lose.

Well, a lot less to lose. They still face legal costs which are non-trivial, but yeah, they're looking at two potential downside risks here:

1) they lose a patent that's expired anyway , and/or

2) a highly-publicized competitor keeps selling a better product than theirs.

It's not hard to see what their goal is. The purpose of this litigation is to shut Hex down, whether via judicial ruling or just from the costs of litigation. Their risk relatively speaking is minimal.

Hell, even if Hex survives the litigation and ultimately wins, at worst MTG burns some legal fees they can well afford, loses a patent that's expired anyway, and in the process does a hell of a lot of damage to a direct competitor, keeps MTG players from trying "that copycat game", etc. If nothing else the lawsuit is probably keeping a lot of people from investing in Hex card collections. They may feel it's worth the cost just for that.

mach
08-05-2014, 08:55 AM
No, this isn't the first time WotC has done this; see, e.g., the Wizkids/WotC lawsuit. Wizkids actually filed the lawsuit there but it was in response to a patent filing & legal threat from WotC. Interestingly, Wizkid's lawyer then is Hex's lawyer now.


I'm not saying this is their first lawsuit, just that they aren't adopting "sue our competitors out of business" as their business strategy. Rather, they take legal action on the rare occasion they have a good-faith belief that their IP has been infringed upon. The facts that your example is 10 years old and was regarding a completely different patent reinforces this point. And while the terms of that settlement are not public, the fact that it ended with Wizkids getting a license suggests that the case had at least some merit.


More to the point though Hex has the potential to be a bigger threat to WotC than most other TCG's; as a purely digital game with big publicity it can potentially out-compete their physical product in a way other TCG's aren't likely to. Plus, the expiration of WotC's patent makes this a good time to file a suit against somebody, as there's less downside if they lose -- they no longer have to worry about their patent being ruled invalid, which has always been pretty likely to happen if it ever actually went to a court.

From our point of view, sure. From theirs, I doubt it. There are many new ventures with the potential (and dreams) to be a huge threat to them, but few actually materialize as one. Hex hasn't started to take off yet (and won't, until PvE/Open Beta). I'm sure that Hearthstone is the big competitor WoTC is worrying about right now.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 09:06 AM
I'm not saying this is their first lawsuit, just that they aren't adopting "sue our competitors out of business" as their business strategy. Rather, they take legal action on the rare occasion they have a good-faith belief that their IP has been infringed upon.

I think the timing of the lawsuit indicates otherwise; it's just too convenient that they filed it essentially the month before their patent was set to expire, against a not-yet-released game.

That said yeah it's certainly possible that some WotC people have a good faith belief that Hex is infringing (for that matter, a number of WotC employees revealed themselves as Hex kickstarter backers). I don't think that the presence or absence of such good faith belief was determinative in filing this lawsuit, though. I think rather WotC's attorneys spotted an opportunity to file a non-frivolous (I'll admit that much) claim against a vulnerable competitor and took it.

They probably do view Hearthstone as the more dangerous competitor but Blizzard has much deeper pockets and is better able to defend themselves, and I'm sure that entered into the calculation.

I mean, I get what you're saying in that WotC isn't being a pure IP troll here -- they aren't adopting patent lawsuits wholesale as their primary business model (though if this lawsuit succeeds they probably could). But I do think the decision to file this suit was ultimately a business decision more than a moral one.

mach
08-05-2014, 09:32 AM
I think the timing of the lawsuit indicates otherwise; it's just too convenient that they filed it essentially the month before their patent was set to expire, against a not-yet-released game.


But it was also shortly after Hex launched Closed Beta and started monetizing. That could just as easily be the reason for the timing.



That said yeah it's certainly possible that some WotC people have a good faith belief that Hex is infringing (for that matter, a number of WotC employees revealed themselves as Hex kickstarter backers). I don't think that the presence or absence of such good faith belief was determinative in filing this lawsuit, though. I think rather WotC's attorneys spotted an opportunity to file a non-frivolous (I'll admit that much) claim against a vulnerable competitor and took it.

They probably do view Hearthstone as the more dangerous competitor but Blizzard has much deeper pockets and is better able to defend themselves, and I'm sure that entered into the calculation.

I mean, I get what you're saying in that WotC isn't being a pure IP troll here -- they aren't adopting patent lawsuits wholesale as their primary business model (though if this lawsuit succeeds they probably could). But I do think the decision to file this suit was ultimately a business decision more than a moral one.

I think it was both a business decision and a moral one. And I also think they would have gone after a big company like Blizzard if they were the ones making Hex.

I'm guessing it was somewhat of a difficult decision. Suing a competitor obviously risks a backlash. On the other hand, there were people urging them to take action (source (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/64280924612/who-should-we-contact-if-were-afraid-that-another-game)) so they may have felt they were acting according to the will of their community.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 09:43 AM
But it was also shortly after Hex launched Closed Beta and started monetizing. That could just as easily be the reason for the timing.



I think it was both a business decision and a moral one. And I also think they would have gone after a big company like Blizzard if they were the ones making Hex.

I'm guessing it was somewhat of a difficult decision. Suing a competitor obviously risks a backlash. On the other hand, there were people urging them to take action (source (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/64280924612/who-should-we-contact-if-were-afraid-that-another-game)) so they may have felt they were acting according to the will of their community.


Well, the main difference between Hex and Hearthstone is the same as the main difference between MtG and Hearthstone: Hearthstone goes after a much more casual, "mainstream' market than either Hex or MTG. It's a simpler game aimed at a wider and more casual demographic. The real issue between Hex and MTG is that they target the exact same demographic -- dedicated non-casual TCG players ready to drop huge amounts of money on a collectible card game with complex mechanics. Hex is a direct competitor in a way that Hearthstone isnt'.

Would WotC be suing Blizzard if Blizzard were selling Hex? Maybe. They might feel the need to. I think they'd be less likely to sue and a lot more likely to settle if they did, though.

I'm also not really sure how much WotC worries about backlash. Lord knows they make plenty of unpopular decisions. When you're the biggest fish in a small pond you don't worry about making waves.

praxy
08-05-2014, 09:48 AM
Well, the main difference between Hex and Hearthstone is the same as the main difference between MtG and Hearthstone: Hearthstone goes after a much more casual, "mainstream' market than either Hex or MTG. It's a simpler game aimed at a wider and more casual demographic. The real issue between Hex and MTG is that they target the exact same demographic -- dedicated non-casual TCG players ready to drop huge amounts of money on a collectible card game with complex mechanics. Hex is a direct competitor in a way that Hearthstone isnt'.

Would WotC be suing Blizzard if Blizzard were selling Hex? Maybe. They might feel the need to. I think they'd be less likely to sue and a lot more likely to settle if they did, though.


Have you played hearthstone? The main difference between hearthstone and MTG is not simply their audience.
Game play differs substantially.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 09:51 AM
Have you played hearthstone? The main difference between hearthstone and MTG is not simply their audience.
Game play differs substantially.

Yeah, I was speaking from a business perspective there, not a gaming one. From the perspective of a corporate executive in a firm the size of Hasbro, what matters for a game isn't the particulars of the rules, it's the market that buys it.

mach
08-05-2014, 09:55 AM
Well, the main difference between Hex and Hearthstone is the same as the main difference between MtG and Hearthstone: Hearthstone goes after a much more casual, "mainstream' market than either Hex or MTG. It's a simpler game aimed at a wider and more casual demographic. The real issue between Hex and MTG is that they target the exact same demographic -- dedicated non-casual TCG players ready to drop huge amounts of money on a collectible card game with complex mechanics. Hex is a direct competitor in a way that Hearthstone isnt'.


You underestimate Blizzard.

They've gotten very good at making their games attractive to both the most casual and hardcore of players. Just take a look at all the different level of endgame content in WoW these days.

Yes, the initial release of HS was aimed at a more casual audience. But since then they've shown signs they they plan to go after the serious players in a big way, but without leaving the casuals behind. The big prize pool for this year's championship is a big clue.



I'm also not really sure how much WotC worries about backlash. Lord knows they make plenty of unpopular decisions. When you're the biggest fish in a small pond you don't worry about making waves.

They worry. Sometimes you just have to make unpopular decisions for the long-term good of the game, despite the backlash.

I've disagreed with many of their unpopular decisions, but generally I can understand why they're doing it. (Except for MTGO...that's just a mess.)

praxy
08-05-2014, 09:56 AM
Yeah, I was speaking from a business perspective there, not a gaming one. From the perspective of a corporate executive in a firm the size of Hasbro, what matters for a game isn't the particulars of the rules, it's the market that buys it.

True. but from a lawsuit perspective, you are not going to go after a game for copyright infringement if it has specific stylistic differences.

The question isn't whether or not Hex is a blatant rip-off of MTG (it is). The question becomes is that illegal? And does borrowing exact game play elements (to a T) violate copy right law?

That is the argument to be made.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 10:05 AM
A, it's no more a blatant rip off than strife was of doom.
B, it's not illegal, nor has it ever been to make use of game mechanics from previous games.
C, When this game play elements are functional mechanics it does not violate copyright law.
D, why do you keep saying the same things, when they're obviously not true?

praxy
08-05-2014, 10:06 AM
A, it's no more a blatant rip off than strife was of doom.
B, it's not illegal, nor has it ever been to make use of game mechanics from previous games.
C, When this game play elements are functional mechanics it does not violate copyright law.
D, why do you keep saying the same things, when they're obviously not true?

So... if WotC wins the lawsuit... am I still wrong? 0_o

dogmod
08-05-2014, 10:09 AM
So... if WotC wins the lawsuit... am I still wrong? 0_o

Praxy = wotc proxy?

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 10:13 AM
Yes, no matter how many times you say it you will still be wrong, even if WOTC wins it won't be on the grounds that they copied their game mechanics. It will be from copying stylistic elements, ie the things that actually have no bearing on gameplay whatsoever. That's what they're trying to allege when they say their card has 'a wizened old man with dark trappings" or whatever when describing murder and one of their cards they say is too similar.

praxy
08-05-2014, 10:14 AM
A, it's no more a blatant rip off than strife was of doom.
B, it's not illegal, nor has it ever been to make use of game mechanics from previous games.
C, When this game play elements are functional mechanics it does not violate copyright law.
D, why do you keep saying the same things, when they're obviously not true?

A) Strife began as a game developed for the same company as doom.
B) No. but it is illegal to copy the game code for code (or word for word) even if you change the characters/pieces.
C) The only one who can say whether my comments are true or not is the ruling. If it rules in WotC favor, then I am right. If it doesn't, I am wrong. That's the purpose of a lawsuit afterall, to find out who is right.

EDIT: It is stylistically similar. I never said that they would be at fault for copying the game mechanics. But rather the style in which those game mechanics are executed.

DOUBLE EDIT: That's why I've always said "theatrical game play elements".
Using MTG cards (which are copyrighted) for their own game which perform nearly identical functions.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 10:24 AM
So you're saying hex copies the code from dotp? Or from paper magic matrix style? What's your point of B?
the method those game mechanics are executed are still game mechanics... They can copy 100% game mechanics without issue from a copyright case.

The copyright complaint is only about things that are not important to the game at all, ie not mechanics.

Aruken
08-05-2014, 10:29 AM
Some of you guys are acting like there are a ton of TCGs out there copying MtG to the same extent Hex does.
There are not.

praxy
08-05-2014, 10:30 AM
So you're saying hex copies the code from dotp? Or from paper magic matrix style? What's your point of B?
the method those game mechanics are executed are still game mechanics... They can copy 100% game mechanics without issue from a copyright case.

The copyright complaint is only about things that are not important to the game at all, ie not mechanics.

Some of the cards of Hex copy word-for-word the rules text and functionality (both in game and theatrically) of MTG cards.

MTG cards are copyrighted. My argument is that implementing MTG based cards into Hex (in a majority of the cases including the same name, rules text, and even casting cost) is similar to "stealing code"

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 10:47 AM
Copyright doesn't cover card functionality. That is explicitly what they can use if they want. Functionality is mechanics. Can you show me one of the cards that copies magic text word for word? Is it a necessary description of an effect that wouldn't be covered by copyright either? I'm not sure whichever ones copy text verbatim though, I can't think of any?

certain in text/words/code would be exempt from copyright as well, ie text that is entirely mechanical in nature.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 10:52 AM
Some of the cards of Hex copy word-for-word the rules text and functionality (both in game and theatrically) of MTG cards. "

Y'know, whatever other merit your arguments may have, this isn't true and we've been over why (among other things, resources aren't mana; no Hex card has the same "casting cost" as MTG cards because of the difference in the two systems).




C) The only one who can say whether my comments are true or not is the ruling. If it rules in WotC favor, then I am right. If it doesn't, I am wrong. That's the purpose of a lawsuit afterall, to find out who is right.


Oh, this is so sweetly innocent it's almost endearing.

Lawsuits don't establish objective truth, they just establish what the judge thinks the truth is. Ain't the same thing. WotC might win the case, sure -- but if they do, they'll do a lot of harm to the entire game industry in the process, because they'll have shifted existing law and dramatically decreased the permissible range of creative development.

praxy
08-05-2014, 11:58 AM
Y'know, whatever other merit your arguments may have, this isn't true and we've been over why (among other things, resources aren't mana; no Hex card has the same "casting cost" as MTG cards because of the difference in the two systems).





Oh, this is so sweetly innocent it's almost endearing.

Lawsuits don't establish objective truth, they just establish what the judge thinks the truth is. Ain't the same thing. WotC might win the case, sure -- but if they do, they'll do a lot of harm to the entire game industry in the process, because they'll have shifted existing law and dramatically decreased the permissible range of creative development.

Basically, the argument you are making is because the underlying rules are different, its ok if the text/design of specific cards is identical.

2158
2159

Yes. The card's use different "terminology" but that "terminology" refers to an identical product.

dogmod
08-05-2014, 12:02 PM
Basically, the argument you are making is because the underlying rules are different, its ok if the text/design of specific cards is identical.

2158
2159

Yes. The card's use different "terminology" but that "terminology" refers to an identical product.

LOL THEY ARE THE SAME.. EXCEPT WHERE THEY AREN'T THE SAME.. BUT IS STILL THE SAME BECAUSE OF "GENERIC TERM" WITHOUT MEANING

A lot of logical fallacies being bandied about and a significant misunderstanding of the difference between copyright, patent, and trademarks and how they will be applied in this case.

Strong trolling though.

praxy
08-05-2014, 12:07 PM
Y'know, whatever other merit your arguments may have, this isn't true and we've been over why (among other things, resources aren't mana; no Hex card has the same "casting cost" as MTG cards because of the difference in the two systems).





Oh, this is so sweetly innocent it's almost endearing.

Lawsuits don't establish objective truth, they just establish what the judge thinks the truth is. Ain't the same thing. WotC might win the case, sure -- but if they do, they'll do a lot of harm to the entire game industry in the process, because they'll have shifted existing law and dramatically decreased the permissible range of creative development.


LOL THEY ARE THE SAME.. EXCEPT WHERE THEY AREN'T THE SAME.. BUT IS STILL THE SAME BECAUSE OF "GENERIC TERM" WITHOUT MEANING

A lot of logical fallacies being bandied about and a significant misunderstanding of the difference between copyright, patent, and trademarks and how they will be applied in this case.

Strong trolling though.

The argument that I was presenting is they are made to look different to bybass copy-right laws, but the card fundamentally is not different.

An argument can (and WILL) be made that the card's are identical.

Prior you cited how there are several MOBAs that all share similarities (number of abilities per class, items, etc.) but do any of those games have an ability that is identical (on the surface, name, text, etc.) across the board?

ErwinVonRommel
08-05-2014, 12:11 PM
/eating popcorn

dogmod
08-05-2014, 12:13 PM
The argument that I was presenting is they are made to look different to bybass copy-right laws, but the card fundamentally is not different.

An argument can (and WILL) be made that the card's are identical.

Prior you cited how there are several MOBAs that all share similarities (number of abilities per class, items, etc.) but do any of those games have an ability that is identical (on the surface, name, text, etc.) across the board?

Here is what wikipedia says about copyright: Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.

So you have already agreed that they are different looking. The underlying game mechanic is very similar (not the same) but the manner in which it is expressed is different. Thus ends the copyright discussion.

Would you like to make an argument based on trade dress or patent?

MatWith1T
08-05-2014, 12:13 PM
I feel like you're operating under a different understanding of what the word 'identical' means.

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 12:13 PM
Basically, the argument you are making is because the underlying rules are different, its ok if the text/design of specific cards is identical.

2158
2159

Yes. The card's use different "terminology" but that "terminology" refers to an identical product.

Uh, yeah, that's a great example of non-infringing use to my eyes.

The word "murder" and the use of "murder" to refer to the killing of a monster -- yeaaaah, if that's copyrightable then so is the concept of "mystery novel" or the concept of "monster."

What you don't seem to be getting is that game rules by themselves are not copyrightable. That's established, settled law. Other things that aren't copyrightable are concepts in general use -- i.e., the word "Murder."

If your interpretation of things were valid it would basically shut down the game industry. New military shooters couldn't be made because Modern Warfare already exists.

Like I said before --- compare with Games Workshop and Warcraft. There's nothing that Hex has done here that's even as close a copy of MTG as Warcraft was of Warhammer. The difference is that it's a digital version with unique lore and art, and that's enough difference for it to be in the clear.

praxy
08-05-2014, 12:15 PM
Here is what wikipedia says about copyright: Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.

So you have already agreed that they are different looking. The underlying game mechanic is very similar (not the same) but the manner in which it is expressed is different. Thus ends the copyright discussion.

Would you like to make an argument based on trade dress or patent?

I never said they looked different. You did. Your response to my post was, due to the underlying rules of the game, the card plays differently.

My argument is the underlying game mechanics are DIFFERENT but the manner in which it is expressed is the same. Which IS copyright infringement.

praxy
08-05-2014, 12:18 PM
I'm not going to go through each and every card, but there are SEVERAL hex cards that express themselves in design nearly identical to pre-exsisting MTG cards.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2042983/wawdce-200735-1.pdf

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 12:19 PM
My argument is the underlying game mechanics are DIFFERENT but the manner in which it is expressed is the same. Which IS copyright infringement.

There are lots of different exceptions to copyright law. That one falls under concept in general use (I'm speaking a bit loosely here because I'm not an expert in copyright law) -- basically, you can't copyright the concept of "Murder," it's too generic.

Where copyright would apply would be something with a specific name like "Serra Angel". You can't copyright "Angel" but you can copyright a named angel. Which is why "Angel of Dawn" doesn't violate copyright, even though it's mechanically similar to Serra Angel.

If Wizards could go around slapping a copyright on every card that had the word "angel" or "dragon" on it then nobody else would be able to make a fantasy-themed game.

Which is basically what WotC is, in effect, trying to do with this lawsuit. Because of the broadness of their claims, if they actually won in full, they'd essentially be laying claim to the entire fantasy genre in card game form. If they won, it would establish a chilling effect on all other future card games.

I mean, christ. The first card they start that big long hundred-page document with is "Murder". They're literally trying to establish copyright on use of the word "Murder." That's their strong starting argument. I think Agatha Christie might want a word.

dogmod
08-05-2014, 12:20 PM
I never said they looked different. You did. Your response to my post was, due to the underlying rules of the game, the card plays differently.

My argument is the underlying game mechanics are DIFFERENT but the manner in which it is expressed is the same. Which IS copyright infringement.

You stated: "The argument that I was presenting is they are made to look different to bybass copy-right laws" So you are saying that they were made to look different but they failed in making them look different? Sorry that I used a bit of extrapolation on your statement. There is an implication that if someone states "they are made to look different" that they are implying that they do look different unless they explicitly state otherwise. And the fact that you keep conflating game mechanics with looks makes it hard to have a coherent argument about copyright vs mechanics vs patent vs trade dress.

And looking at your last sentence... you are saying that they have a different idea and expressed it in a similar way. That is also not a copyright infringement because a copyright is protecting the way a SINGULAR idea is expressed in a SINGULAR way. Just like if I copyright a book I would not get to sue someone else for making another BOOK but with a different idea. (Or perhaps I should say should not)

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 12:25 PM
Rotfl, I actually laughed out loud. You're saying now, that since the underlying rules are slightly different, this card that is clearly not an exact copy, is an exact copy in effect, since it provides the same functionality as the other in that set of rules.

I admit, I thought you were someone that was just confused. It's clear that no one can help you at this point.

praxy
08-05-2014, 12:27 PM
You stated: "The argument that I was presenting is they are made to look different to bybass copy-right laws" So you are saying that they were made to look different but they failed in making them look different? Sorry that I used a bit of extrapolation on your statement. There is an implication that if someone states "they are made to look different" that they are implying that they do look different unless they explicitly state otherwise. And the fact that you keep conflating game mechanics with looks makes it hard to have a coherent argument about copyright vs mechanics vs patent vs trade dress.

And looking at your last sentence... you are saying that they have a different idea and expressed it in a similar way. That is also not a copyright infringement because a copyright is protecting the way a SINGULAR idea is expressed in a SINGULAR way. Just like if I copyright a book I would not get to sue someone else for making another BOOK but with a different idea. (Or perhaps I should say should not)

I was saying using terms like "troop" instead of creature was an attempt to make it different, but its not different.
The true question: is reskinning a game legal? Because a vast majority of Hex cards are indeed identical to MTG. +

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 12:29 PM
I was saying using terms like "troop" instead of creature was an attempt to make it different, but its not different.
The true question: is reskinning a game legal? Because a vast majority of Hex cards are indeed identical to MTG. +

Do you actually think Hex is a "reskin" of MTG? Because unless you do, that's not the question, no.

And hell, even WotC's own complaint doesn't allege that "the vast majority" of Hex cards are "identical" -- it alleges that at most 100 or so cards have similarities to some of the 10,000 odd MTG cards published to date.

Maybe you just don't know much about Hex?

praxy
08-05-2014, 12:29 PM
Rotfl, I actually laughed out loud. You're saying now, that since the underlying rules are slightly different, this card that is clearly not an exact copy, is an exact copy in effect, since it provides the same functionality as the other in that set of rules.

I admit, I thought you were someone that was just confused. It's clear that no one can help you at this point.



Question: if you create a wizard that ends up falling into an alternate demention to fight a beast, defeats that beast, and is brought back to life... but called him Henry, would Tolkien beable to sue? xD

schild
08-05-2014, 12:32 PM
The true question: is reskinning a game legal?
Actually, that's not the question.

But keep posting gibberish for 4 more years and you still won't be a lawyer.

dogmod
08-05-2014, 12:33 PM
I was saying using terms like "troop" instead of creature was an attempt to make it different, but its not different.
The true question: is reskinning a game legal? Because a vast majority of Hex cards are indeed identical to MTG. +

Except if you are arguing its not "different" because the game mechanic is similar there is no issue because game mechanics are not copyrightable.

If you arguing they are the same idea and look the same then you can start talking about copyright but the problem is if you go through your PDF none of those cards are COPYs. There are similarities in over all design and theme. But that is not copyrightable either.

If you want to say that the overall appearance is similar then maybe you can start talking about trade dress but I don't think you have coherently made that argument.

Unless you specifically state the exact way that Hex infringes upon MtG and in which way/law it violates their legal rights I don't think I can continue discussing this with you as you will just continue to conflate, evade, and talk in circles without a productive discussion occurring.

Gwaer
08-05-2014, 12:34 PM
Nope, because Tolkien doesn't own the concept of wizards, resurrection, beasts, or people named Henry, also in many countries you can straight up use gandalf, or bilbo baggins, because the hobbit is in the public domain.

the question is entirely moot though, since books are subject to copyright, where game mechanics are not. Game mechanics include troops of any strength, with any toughness, with any effect that provides a gameplay element.

ErwinVonRommel
08-05-2014, 12:49 PM
Nope, because Tolkien doesn't own the concept of wizards, resurrection, beasts, or people named Henry, also in many countries you can straight up use gandalf, or bilbo baggins, because the hobbit is in the public domain.

the question is entirely moot though, since books are subject to copyright, where game mechanics are not. Game mechanics include troops of any strength, with any toughness, with any effect that provides a gameplay element.

slowclap.

Zurai
08-05-2014, 01:03 PM
The true question: is reskinning a game legal?

To the degree that Hex is a reskin of Magic? Absolutely yes. If the games were literally interchangeable with nothing but nonfunctional text/art/template alterations, it would be illegal. That isn't even close to true. The resource system is functionally different, there are 200+ cards (2/3 the initial set) which even WotC didn't have the guts to claim were infringing, etc etc ad nauseam. If you bothered to actually do a little research of American game clone copyright law you'd know this. The only cases where game clones have been found guilty of copyright infringement is when they are 100% functional carbon copies with marginally different UI/graphics.

Puritas
08-05-2014, 01:15 PM
So there's a couple new documents posted yesterday.
Some gems:


Cryptozoic employees repeatedly logged into Wizards’ servers to play and to copy the
Magic game. The servers, owned by the Renton-based plaintiff, Wizards of the Coast are located
within the Western District of Washington. By these repeated log-ins, Cryptozoic’s employees
used Cryptozoic’s computers to review and to copy the Magic Online game; the employees were
moving intellectual property from servers residing within the forum district, transmitting it down
to Cryptozoic’s headquarters in central California. With each log in, Cryptozoic built the
connections to the Western District, built those connections in over 765 such log-ins.


In truth, Cryptozoic has so pervasively copied the Magic game in publishing Hex, that the number of instances of infringement is monumental. In fact, the Hex cards so completely mimic the Magic cards that they could be interspersed into a deck of Magic cards without notice by players when engaged in game play. So identical are the Hex cards to the official Magic playing cards, both in their printed and electronic states, that reviewers have stated that “Hex is not like Magic, Hex is Magic”.


and my personal favorite

In contracting to sell the Hex game back into the district, as doing
so is necessary to allow forum residents to play, Cryptozoic has set up a virtual railroad for
hauling intellectual property up and down the coast.

I wonder if this lawyer also writes MtG's flavor text

bootlace
08-05-2014, 01:31 PM
This thread seems like a dejavu from the last 100+ page thread except with some fresh WotC peons that again ignore established laws, throw around the word 'copy' in an incorrect way, overlook key details/differences, exaggerate, and make up stupid examples hoping something sticks. The whole case is WotC taking a bunch of things that are not illegal and combining them in a manipulative way to hope to paint a picture of something illegal going on.

The example I keep bringing up is match 3 games - how many freaking versions are there with nearly the same identical rules? Probably over a hundred. If you WotC fanboys want to condemn Hex for anything, first tell me why those games are allowed to exist.

Here's a list of offenses that would/could get Hex shut down:

-Copying MTG art
-Copying thematic elements like lore/fantasy names etc
-Copying MTGO programming code
-Stealing R&D secrets and creating cards based on such files
-Tricking consumers that they're affiliated/are part of the MTG brand.

Hex has done none of those. They borrowed a bunch of really great functional rules/elements and made their own IP on top of it. Functional elements can be copied, I repeat: FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF A GAME CAN BE COPIED.

Daer
08-05-2014, 01:36 PM
The most hilarious thing about the latest documents is looking at magic sites and the sheer number of people outraged at Spectral Lotus who apparently missed the entire point of the card.

Werlix
08-05-2014, 01:55 PM
I like how WotC try to twist people talking about Hex's similarities to MtG as "confusion" to push the Trade Dress infringement angle.

Page 22: "Other users in the gaming community were confused...'However, Iíve never seen a CCG that is as similar to another as Hex is to Magic'"

Seems pretty desperate

bootlace
08-05-2014, 02:04 PM
Trying to understand this latest filing. So they're claiming that this case needs to be in Washington because a) Hex employees downloaded the MTGO client (from servers which happened to be in Washington) and b) because there might have been some Washington residents that participated in the Kickstarter?



By these repeated log-ins, Cryptozoic’s employees
used Cryptozoic’s computers to review and to copy the Magic Online game; the employees were
moving intellectual property from servers residing within the forum district, transmitting it down
to Cryptozoic’s headquarters in central California



In essence, the Cryptozoic defendants assert they
cannot be tried at the “scene of the crime.

So it's a crime to download the MTGO client??

Aruken
08-05-2014, 02:04 PM
Uh, yeah, that's a great example of non-infringing use to my eyes.

The word "murder" and the use of "murder" to refer to the killing of a monster -- yeaaaah, if that's copyrightable then so is the concept of "mystery novel" or the concept of "monster."

What you don't seem to be getting is that game rules by themselves are not copyrightable. That's established, settled law. Other things that aren't copyrightable are concepts in general use -- i.e., the word "Murder."

If your interpretation of things were valid it would basically shut down the game industry. New military shooters couldn't be made because Modern Warfare already exists.

Like I said before --- compare with Games Workshop and Warcraft. There's nothing that Hex has done here that's even as close a copy of MTG as Warcraft was of Warhammer. The difference is that it's a digital version with unique lore and art, and that's enough difference for it to be in the clear.

Great job not addressing the fact both cards are identical, up to the color and the cost.

Vengus
08-05-2014, 02:05 PM
I like how WotC try to twist people talking about Hex's similarities to MtG as "confusion" to push the Trade Dress infringement angle.

Page 22: "Other users in the gaming community were confused...'However, Iíve never seen a CCG that is as similar to another as Hex is to Magic'"

Seems pretty desperate
And is totally useless in court. I don't know why the WotC lawyers are trying these things. I believe this is their response to the motion to dismiss, but with those hearsay arguments the judge is just more likely to dismiss the case. The judge can't do anything with those arguments. CZE could just aswell claim that the gaming community believes MTG and HEX are totally different, and in the end they both right since the gaming community is not one entity; it's a large group of people each with their own opinions.

Aruken
08-05-2014, 02:07 PM
Rotfl, I actually laughed out loud. You're saying now, that since the underlying rules are slightly different, this card that is clearly not an exact copy, is an exact copy in effect, since it provides the same functionality as the other in that set of rules.

I admit, I thought you were someone that was just confused. It's clear that no one can help you at this point.

The irony is pretty strong here. Just to be sure, you are arguing that the Murder cards from Hex and MtG are different?

O_o

Hieronymous
08-05-2014, 02:09 PM
Great job not addressing the fact both cards are identical, up to the color and the cost.

I'd already addressed those above? The colors are different (blood vs black) and the cost is wildly different; the MTG card requires two swamp mana and one colorless mana, while the Hex card requires a single blood threshold and three colorless resources. (In both cases the total required is 3, yeah, but that's not identical).

Basically they're different cards that function differently. They do have some similarity but only in ways that aren't copyrightable. Some kinds of copying are allowable under copyright law.


And is totally useless in court. I don't know why the WotC lawyers are trying these things. I believe this is their response to the motion to dismiss, but with those hearsay arguments the judge is just more likely to dismiss the case. The judge can't do anything with those arguments. CZE could just aswell claim that the gaming community believes MTG and HEX are totally different, and in the end they both right since the gaming community is not one entity; it's a large group of people each with their own opinions.

They're trying to throw enough chaff into the air to confuse the issue so that the court will think there's a violation here. It's not a bad strategy given the court's likely near-total unfamiliarity with TCG's.

Werlix
08-05-2014, 02:10 PM
The irony is pretty strong here. Just to be sure, you are arguing that the Murder cards from Hex and MtG are different?

O_o

Uh, well technically they are different. MtG Murder requires you to tap 2 black lands and 1 other land, Hex requires you to have 1 blood threshold and spend 3 resources. Hex Murder can't target artifacts.

So even if you could copyright mechanics (which you can't) these two cards aren't mechanically the same anyway.

So is the point they're almost the same, pretty close, nearly not different? Sounds legit.

I'm not happy about some of the lack of originality on Hex's part, but I don't think WotC have a legal leg to stand on here.

Turtlewing
08-05-2014, 02:14 PM
Question: if you create a wizard that ends up falling into an alternate demention to fight a beast, defeats that beast, and is brought back to life... but called him Henry, would Tolkien beable to sue? xD

The Tolkien estate could sue, however they'd lose as nothing in that description is adequate to prove infringement.

As evidenced by that being approximately the plot to the Dresden Files novel "Ghost Story" which you'd have to do some real mental gymnastics to call a "reskin" of Lord of the Rings.

Vengus
08-05-2014, 02:16 PM
I'd already addressed those above? The colors are different (blood vs black) and the cost is wildly different; the MTG card requires two swamp mana and one colorless mana, while the Hex card requires a single blood threshold and three colorless resources. (In both cases the total required is 3, yeah, but that's not identical).

Basically they're different cards that function differently. They do have some similarity but only in ways that aren't copyrightable. Some kinds of copying are allowable under copyright law.



They're trying to throw enough chaff into the air to confuse the issue so that the court will think there's a violation here. It's not a bad strategy given the court's likely near-total unfamiliarity with TCG's.
Don't forget the MTG Murder kills any creature while the HEX murder doesn't kill Artifact troops.

Aruken
08-05-2014, 02:17 PM
Trying to understand this latest filing. So they're claiming that this case needs to be in Washington because a) Hex employees downloaded the MTGO client (from servers which happened to be in Washington) and b) because there might have been some Washington residents that participated in the Kickstarter?






So it's a crime to download the MTGO client??

The real question should be "So they are admitting downloading all card data from MtG servers?"

Aruken
08-05-2014, 02:20 PM
I'm not happy about some of the lack of originality on Hex's part, but I don't think WotC have a legal leg to stand on here.
Even they don't it feel pretty bad to have Hex copy cards to such an extent.

Vengus
08-05-2014, 02:24 PM
Even they don't it feel pretty bad to have Hex copy cards to such an extent.
They are pretty basic cards you'll find in any TCG, not just MTG and HEX. The only thing CZE should have done different is the naming of the cards.

bootlace
08-05-2014, 02:27 PM
The real question should be "So they are admitting downloading all card data from MtG servers?"

Companies are not allowed to download/play the games made by their competitors?

TJTaylor
08-05-2014, 02:34 PM
The real question should be "So they are admitting downloading all card data from MtG servers?"

Admitting What? That they play Magic online?

Employees of a TCG gaming company who enjoy playing TCGs played the granddaddy of all TCGs online. News at 11.

bootlace
08-05-2014, 02:45 PM
They are pretty basic cards you'll find in any TCG, not just MTG. The only thing CZE should have done different is the naming of the cards.

Yea they should have named it Assassinate...oh wait no, MTG did it.

Abolish?

Sorry MTG did it.

Annihilate?

Nope MTG did it.

Crush?

No way, MTG did it.

Decimate?

You kidding or what, MTG did it.

Execute?

Hah nice try, MTG did it.

Slaughter?

Nah dude, MTG did it.

Slay?

Zzzz, MTG did it.

Terminate?

You suck, MTG did it.

Devastate/Detonate/Disembowel/Kill Destroy/Lay Waste/Mortify/Obliterate/Perish/Putrefy/Rout/Smite/Smother/Vanquish ??

No No No No No No No No No No No No No. MTG DID IT!!

Ass Whuppin'???

Oka...Hah NOPE, MTG did it.

OH COME ON!!

BTW, we copyrighted a card called "Hex" - your name is ours.

FUUUU

saffamike
08-05-2014, 02:50 PM
Eviscerate? Lol - you've made your point!

ossuary
08-05-2014, 03:19 PM
So it's a crime to download the MTGO client??

No, but it's a crime to subject yourself to its contents. Hiyo!

Aruken
08-05-2014, 03:25 PM
Yea they should have named it Assassinate...oh wait no, MTG did it.

Abolish?

Sorry MTG did it.

Annihilate?

Nope MTG did it.

Crush?

No way, MTG did it.

Decimate?

You kidding or what, MTG did it.

Execute?

Hah nice try, MTG did it.

Slaughter?

Nah dude, MTG did it.

Slay?

Zzzz, MTG did it.

Terminate?

You suck, MTG did it.

Devastate/Detonate/Disembowel/Kill Destroy/Lay Waste/Mortify/Obliterate/Perish/Putrefy/Rout/Smite/Smother/Vanquish ??

No No No No No No No No No No No No No. MTG DID IT!!

Ass Whuppin'???

Oka...Hah NOPE, MTG did it.

OH COME ON!!

BTW, we copyrighted a card called "Hex" - your name is ours.

FUUUU
The name alone never was the problem.

Vengus
08-05-2014, 03:32 PM
The effect isn't the problem either because it is a pretty basic one you'll find in pretty much every TCG. The only reason I brought up the name is because giving it a different name, even one that is used by MTG aswell, might have resulted in WotC overlooking it. (Remember at once point Murder did destroy every type of troop and had a double treshold, but that was during the alpha and the card was still being worked on).

saffamike
08-05-2014, 03:32 PM
The name alone never was the problem.

Well there is no problem.

bootlace
08-05-2014, 03:33 PM
The name alone never was the problem.

Was it the purple color? The different card border? The different place where the casting cost is placed? The different requirement in order to cast it? The different art? Maybe it was how MTG center aligns their text vertically and horizontally while Hex has it left aligned? Or was it the bottom of the card where Hex has a link to what will be the double-back? Perhaps it was the fact that they don't even do the exact same thing? As you can see, nothing is a copy except the name in this case.

So... are you really sure "the name was never the problem"?

Arbiter
08-05-2014, 04:46 PM
I think the timing of the lawsuit indicates otherwise; it's just too convenient that they filed it essentially the month before their patent was set to expire, against a not-yet-released game.

That said yeah it's certainly possible that some WotC people have a good faith belief that Hex is infringing (for that matter, a number of WotC employees revealed themselves as Hex kickstarter backers). I don't think that the presence or absence of such good faith belief was determinative in filing this lawsuit, though. I think rather WotC's attorneys spotted an opportunity to file a non-frivolous (I'll admit that much) claim against a vulnerable competitor and took it.

They probably do view Hearthstone as the more dangerous competitor but Blizzard has much deeper pockets and is better able to defend themselves, and I'm sure that entered into the calculation.

I mean, I get what you're saying in that WotC isn't being a pure IP troll here -- they aren't adopting patent lawsuits wholesale as their primary business model (though if this lawsuit succeeds they probably could). But I do think the decision to file this suit was ultimately a business decision more than a moral one.

Hearthstone does not use the same turn sequence as MtG. It does not have a resource system remotely close to MtG. It doesn't even have the same distribution system for cards. Hex is close to identical to MtG in all these aspects.

dogmod
08-05-2014, 04:56 PM
Hearthstone does not use the same turn sequence as MtG. It does not have a resource system remotely close to MtG. It doesn't even have the same distribution system for cards. Hex is close to identical to MtG in all these aspects.

All of which are game mechanics... and as such are protected under which law again?

Arbiter
08-05-2014, 05:18 PM
All of which are game mechanics... and as such are protected under which law again?

Trade dress. Playing Hex feels like playing a fan mod version of MtG. Draft the same way, build decks the same way, it just feels the same. It feels this way because all of those mechanics were copied. I find it most amusing that some of the same people who were here from the start and talking about how they signed on because it was MtG and they wanted to play because Hex was cheaper/not a WotC product/ they could get in at the beginning are now saying how different it is.

Court will decide and that's fine. And there are definitely some silly elements to the WotC case. But I have no problem with them taking it to court. Hex did, after all, use there game as a basis for their design.

Xenavire
08-05-2014, 05:37 PM
Yea they should have named it Assassinate...oh wait no, MTG did it.

Abolish?

Sorry MTG did it.

Annihilate?

Nope MTG did it.

Crush?

No way, MTG did it.

Decimate?

You kidding or what, MTG did it.

Execute?

Hah nice try, MTG did it.

Slaughter?

Nah dude, MTG did it.

Slay?

Zzzz, MTG did it.

Terminate?

You suck, MTG did it.

Devastate/Detonate/Disembowel/Kill Destroy/Lay Waste/Mortify/Obliterate/Perish/Putrefy/Rout/Smite/Smother/Vanquish ??

No No No No No No No No No No No No No. MTG DID IT!!

Ass Whuppin'???

Oka...Hah NOPE, MTG did it.

OH COME ON!!

BTW, we copyrighted a card called "Hex" - your name is ours.

FUUUU

Did they use 'Kill'? I mean, really, I just want to see a link to 'Kill', because that would make my day. :D

dogmod
08-05-2014, 05:40 PM
Trade dress. Playing Hex feels like playing a fan mod version of MtG. Draft the same way, build decks the same way, it just feels the same. It feels this way because all of those mechanics were copied. I find it most amusing that some of the same people who were here from the start and talking about how they signed on because it was MtG and they wanted to play because Hex was cheaper/not a WotC product/ they could get in at the beginning are now saying how different it is.

Court will decide and that's fine. And there are definitely some silly elements to the WotC case. But I have no problem with them taking it to court. Hex did, after all, use there game as a basis for their design.

So when you are playing Hex sometimes you get confused and think you are playing Magic? You feel that the PACKAGING of hex is so similar to magic that you could be confused and accidently buy Hex instead of magic? Do you go to the store to buy Magic and have a difficult time with discerning between Magic and Hex? Do you google for magic and due to similarities in their names or presentation Hex comes up as a google hit while searching for magic? When you are on the app store do you feel that there is a significant chance that you would accidently buy Hex instead of magic?

Trade dress is solely and significantly about outward packaging and presentation in the sense that if the packaging of product would mislead a consumer into buying one product when they had in their mind intended to buy a different product. Saying that it feels like magic in terms of game mechanics after you have already bought the product is irrelevant.

Krond
08-05-2014, 05:40 PM
There was an Unhinged card called "Kill! Destroy!". It was playing on the fact that no matter what the actual card name is, people will often just say, "Kill your guy," or, "Destroy that creature."

Lawlschool
08-05-2014, 05:48 PM
Trade dress. Playing Hex feels like playing a fan mod version of MtG. Draft the same way, build decks the same way, it just feels the same. It feels this way because all of those mechanics were copied.

Thing is though, Trade Dress doesn't really cover the mechanics of things, and generally under trademark law functional elements aren't protected. Plus, the fact that WoTC had a patent on MtG's gameplay will really hamper any trade dress claim from them.


This is a really good brief overview of Trade Dress. (http://www.gsjw.com/catalogs/catalog110/section173/file49.pdf)

Krond
08-05-2014, 05:51 PM
If they tried to sell you packs of HEX cards by wrapping them in foily packs that said "Majick: The Gathers" and that pack had a picture of Jace, the Mindsculptor on the front, then maybe they'd have a trade dress case.

Werlix
08-05-2014, 05:59 PM
Trade dress. Playing Hex feels like playing a fan mod version of MtG. Draft the same way, build decks the same way, it just feels the same. It feels this way because all of those mechanics were copied. I find it most amusing that some of the same people who were here from the start and talking about how they signed on because it was MtG and they wanted to play because Hex was cheaper/not a WotC product/ they could get in at the beginning are now saying how different it is.

Court will decide and that's fine. And there are definitely some silly elements to the WotC case. But I have no problem with them taking it to court. Hex did, after all, use there game as a basis for their design.


"For trade dress to be protected, however, it must be both non-functional and distinctive."

Try again.

sukebe
08-05-2014, 06:59 PM
Great job not addressing the fact both cards are identical, up to the color and the cost.

Identical cost? First, we have already said many many times that the resource systems are different, so there can never really be identical costs between these 2 games. Not to mention, even if you use the flawed argument of threshold being transfered to colored mana in the cost, The hex murder has only a single blood in the cost while the mtg murder has 2 black mana in the cost. Even by the flawed definition of "clone" and "copy" being used by some people on this topic [cough] I am pretty sure 1 does not = 2.

DeusPhasmatis
08-05-2014, 07:52 PM
Trade dress. Playing Hex feels like playing a fan mod version of MtG. Draft the same way, build decks the same way, it just feels the same.That's not trade dress. Using non-name brand laundry detergent "feels" the same as using Tide brand laundry detergent, but that's not what trade dress covers. Trade dress specifically refers to customer-facing (i.e. product packaging) non-functional components that could arguably cause a person to mistakenly purchase one product thinking it was the other. The orange color of the Tide detergent bottle, for example, is part of their trade dress, because it is not functionally related to the product, and it's clearly visible in the store. The color of the liquid inside the bottle is not, for example, because the bottles are opaque; the color of the liquid cannot confuse a customer at the point of purchase.

Game mechanics are not trade dress. Card layouts are not trade dress. Story elements are not trade dress. Booster packaging is trade dress. Box packaging is trade dress. The Magic: the Gathering logo is trade dress. Hex does not copy the trade dress of Magic: the Gathering.

S117
08-05-2014, 08:05 PM
/eating popcorn

Gimmesommadat...

But really...13000+ cards in MtG's library and they can only come up with 100/300 or so "infringing"?
A card called 'Murder' that...wait for it...murders someone? Shenanigans! Shenanigans I say!

EDIT: 100 posts...booyah bitches I'm a Devoted Emissary now...watchout Gwaer I'm gunnin' for ya!

Gorgol
08-05-2014, 08:07 PM
I wasn't aware people were purchasing things in Hex or playing Hex thinking it was Magic

Jeevus
08-05-2014, 08:08 PM
If they tried to sell you packs of HEX cards by wrapping them in foily packs that said "Majick: The Gathers" and that pack had a picture of Jace, the Mindsculptor on the front, then maybe they'd have a trade dress case.

Thats probably the best explanation you can get regarding most (not saying all) WoTC claims.


And regarding the resource system: The seemingly little change with Thresholds opposed to the MtG system makes a huge impact on the whole game. That may be not that apparent in Set1, but surely will be in the future.

Gorgol
08-05-2014, 08:10 PM
Thats probably the best explanation you can get regarding most (not saying all) WoTC claims.


And regarding the resource system: The seemingly little change with Thresholds opposed to the MtG system makes a huge impact on the whole game. That may be not that apparent in Set1, but surely will be in the future.

But it already IS apparent in set 1. Take the Gorefeast deck that is Ruby/Sapphire. Turn 1 play a Ruby turn 2 play a Sapphire. Now you can play 2 Ruby 1 cost troops. In Magic you would need 2 Mountains to play 2 1 Red mana cost Red troops in 1 turn.

S117
08-05-2014, 08:11 PM
Thats probably the best explanation you can get regarding most (not saying all) WoTC claims.


And regarding the resource system: The seemingly little change with Thresholds opposed to the MtG system makes a huge impact on the whole game. That may be not that apparent in Set1, but surely will be in the future.

See THIS (http://hextcg.gamepedia.com/Starving_Lich). So yeah how can you do that in MtG again?

Gorgol
08-05-2014, 08:13 PM
See THIS (http://hextcg.gamepedia.com/Starving_Lich). So yeah how can you do that in MtG again?

So, you're telling me, in Hex I can play 4 of those bad boys in 1 turn if I have the 4 Blood Threshold requirement? And if somehow MtG made a card like this it would take 4 turns to play 4 of those cards.

S117
08-05-2014, 08:20 PM
Ooooh...I like them comparing Demolition to Molten Rain...so when do you start taking 2 damage when I blow up your Shards of Fate?

Fateanomaly
08-05-2014, 08:23 PM
If mtg were to make the card, it have to be changed to a 1 colorless card that also say that it can only be played if you controlled 4 swamps.

Zurai
08-05-2014, 08:27 PM
If mtg were to make the card, it have to be changed to a 1 colorless card that also say that it can only be played if you controlled 4 swamps.

Except that thresholds are not the same thing as lands in M:tG. You can generate thresholds through cards which do not grant permanent resources (example: Crimson Clarity, Spectral Lotus). You could, once PvE and set 2 cards are live, turn 1 play a blood shard, a Spectral Lotus, sac the Lotus for blood threshold, then play the Lich. Then you could play another Lich on your next turn because you still have 4 blood threshold even though you only have 1 permanent resource.

S117
08-05-2014, 08:39 PM
And I'm not claiming it would be impossible for MtG to replicate Straving Lich in their ruleset but that the resource systems are, in fact, different enough functionally to preclude an IP claim...at least on the resource identity front...

I am not totally without sympathy for WotC beef with Hex...Did CZE HAVE to use just 5 shards? Did they HAVE to make them so disturbingly similar to magic's color pie? Couldn't we have had 6? Maybe even 7? Maybe more than just 20 life and have cards balanced around the different number?

Fateanomaly
08-05-2014, 08:45 PM
I know they are different. I am just saying if mtg wants to replicate it then thats what it needs to be done on the card.

S117
08-05-2014, 08:48 PM
Well that's kind of my point too. Yes MtG could make a Starving Lich but there is enough difference in the resources systems of the two games that MtG's version would be clunky and confusing to implement.

Jeevus
08-05-2014, 08:59 PM
See THIS (http://hextcg.gamepedia.com/Starving_Lich). So yeah how can you do that in MtG again?


I don't see your point. Thats exactly what i was saying. Threshold system is NOT the same as playing mana and tap it to gain its resource.

wolzarg
08-05-2014, 09:40 PM
And I'm not claiming it would be impossible for MtG to replicate Straving Lich in their ruleset but that the resource systems are, in fact, different enough functionally to preclude an IP claim...at least on the resource identity front...

I am not totally without sympathy for WotC beef with Hex...Did CZE HAVE to use just 5 shards? Did they HAVE to make them so disturbingly similar to magic's color pie? Couldn't we have had 6? Maybe even 7? Maybe more than just 20 life and have cards balanced around the different number?
The thing is based on most games i played 60 cards is the right number, if you have resource cards 7 is about the perfect start. Five different elements is perfect to keep it warried and open but still not overbearing to balance and fill out each element. So they didn't "have to" but its probably the correct move and I'm sure they could actually attest to having considered options and settled on them for a reason.


Maybe I'm just foolish but i don't think they looked at magic said that looks good and used it flat out as a massive frame for the whole thing.