PDA

View Full Version : Hex sued by MTG



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

MatWith1T
05-19-2014, 09:52 AM
A jury is composed of 12 people all too dim to get out of jury duty.

My go-to is a heavy bias against police. It's not even false.

Too many people are getting good at getting out of jury duty...

I was in the jury pool for a drug case.
Question 1: Have you ever used drugs? Yes
Question 2: Is any member of your family in law enforcement? Yes
Question 3: Do you believe police always tell the truth? No

I thought I was home free.... nope. Juror #5. I guess my 'wrong' answers cancelled each other out...

Axle
05-19-2014, 09:54 AM
I wasn't trying to be flippant. WotC is claiming that they own the genre, aren't they?

Oh no that wasn't directed at you. That was just myself referencing their self-boasting in the lawsuit declaration they posted on their website.

frychikn
05-19-2014, 09:56 AM
Too many people are getting good at getting out of jury duty...

I was in the jury pool for a drug case.
Question 1: Have you ever used drugs? Yes
Question 2: Is any member of your family in law enforcement? Yes
Question 3: Do you believe police always tell the truth? No

I thought I was home free.... nope. Juror #5. I guess my 'wrong' answers cancelled each other out...

it was your question 3 answer that didnt get you out.

Rtsands45
05-19-2014, 10:33 AM
Of course they own TCGs! They are "the worlds best strategy game" after all, despite yugioh surpassing them in sales ages ago and also surpassing them in tournament event attendance.

Actually, I am pretty sure MTG holds more, larger tournaments yearly than Yugioh. GP Vegas last year had to close its doors to people registering two days prior to the tournament and made a cap of 4500. I personally wouldn't consider anything you can't win actual cash/liquid asset from a tournament worth counting tbh.

MuffLord4
05-19-2014, 10:44 AM
What would happen if users decided to host hex on their own servers if wotc slows crypto down?

I mean u can't sue a single person that doesn't make any profit.

Just to keep the hype going.

Axle
05-19-2014, 10:51 AM
Actually, I am pretty sure MTG holds more, larger tournaments yearly than Yugioh. GP Vegas last year had to close its doors to people registering two days prior to the tournament and made a cap of 4500. I personally wouldn't consider anything you can't win actual cash/liquid asset from a tournament worth counting tbh.

The prizes aren't cash but they are cards that are worth money to sell + game systems/ipads/whatever. That count enough under liquid assets for you? People buy them. Nothing that great as rewards but yet people still come to the events. Anyways I'm pretty sure there was a YGO tourney with JUST more than 4500 which is why they made a big deal out of it. I remember them stating they broke records. Perhaps the MTG event was a bit later and they re-took the record.

Hibbert
05-19-2014, 11:07 AM
What would happen if users decided to host hex on their own servers if wotc slows crypto down?

I mean u can't sue a single person that doesn't make any profit.

Just to keep the hype going.

That would be quite hard. All the card logic is handled by the servers, so creating new homebrew servers would be really programming intensive compared to unofficial MMO servers. It's also very likely that the project to create the new server program would be hit with a legal threat and possible legal action from WotC or CZE(since they still would own the copyrights on the Hex client and general Hex IP).

Continuing in a MWS type setting would be more viable, but many Hex cards range from cumbersome to impossible to use in that program.

MuffLord4
05-19-2014, 11:09 AM
That would be quite hard. All the card logic is handled by the servers, so creating new homebrew servers would be really programming intensive compared to unofficial MMO servers. It's also very likely that the project to create the new server program would be hit with a legal threat and possible legal action from WotC or CZE(since they still would own the copyrights on the Hex client and general Hex IP).

Continuing in a MWS type setting would be more viable, but many Hex cards range from cumbersome to impossible to use in that program.

Edited

Jaunt
05-19-2014, 11:14 AM
ps : not easy for a french man to make a play on words in english ;-)

You did well.

Makizushi
05-19-2014, 11:16 AM
@ Mufflord4: I think it might actually be detrimental to future developments on the lawsuit to have stuff like this on the forums at this point in time.

Many of us are thinking it, but maybe we should keep it to ourselves for now.

MuffLord4
05-19-2014, 11:22 AM
@ Mufflord4: I think it might actually be detrimental to future developments on the lawsuit to have stuff like this on the forums at this point in time.

Many of us are thinking it, but maybe we should keep it to ourselves for now.

As far as I know companies cannot sue private people, at least not in Asia, at least not western companies.
And sorry, I don't think that hasbro's lawyers are watching these forums like a hawk.

I still deleted it.

Inflamable
05-19-2014, 11:25 AM
good riddance! Don't get your hopes up hearing something by this company...

When the wowtcg was dead it also took ages before they responded to anything.

MuffLord4
05-19-2014, 11:32 AM
good riddance! Don't get your hopes up hearing something by this company...

When the wowtcg was dead it also took ages before they responded to anything.

Huh?

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 11:33 AM
good riddance! Don't get your hopes up hearing something by this company...

When the wowtcg was dead it also took ages before they responded to anything.

The Hex team has actually been very good.

Inflamable
05-19-2014, 11:35 AM
The Hex team has actually been very good.

Yeah but it's still Cryptozoic... When they ended the wowtcg they quickly pushed out a new set to make profit. Two weeks after release and quiet time the game was dead. Just like that, this company doesn't value it's market and so on. It just wants your money.

There's people who never even got their prizes from tournaments in the past etc. I am happy to see them in shit once again! Shows that they aren't any better than Upperdeck

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 11:39 AM
Yeah but it's still Cryptozoic... When they ended the wowtcg they quickly pushed out a new set to make profit. Two weeks after release and quiet time the game was dead. Just like that, this company doesn't value it's market and so on. It just wants your money.

There's people who never even got their prizes from tournaments in the past etc. I am happy to see them in shit once again! Shows that they aren't any better than Upperdeck

They had no control over the game ending, that was on Blizzard. As for the final set, I am guessing that was a last push for fans, because they already had the cards made before the contract between them and Blizzard ended - instead of sitting on product, they used the last moments of the licence to push out a final set for the players to enjoy.

Hex is an entirely different creature.

Quasari
05-19-2014, 11:41 AM
Yeah but it's still Cryptozoic... When they ended the wowtcg they quickly pushed out a new set to make profit. Two weeks after release and quiet time the game was dead. Just like that, this company doesn't value it's market and so on. It just wants your money.

There's people who never even got their prizes from tournaments in the past etc. I am happy to see them in shit once again! Shows that they aren't any better than Upperdeck

Or maybe their agreement with blizzard didn't let them support it any more. This surf gets crazy when you are working with someone else's IP.

I'd like more information on not paying out prizes, can you support your claims, do you know if even at today's date the prizes still aren't paid out. Did anyone try to take out legal action?

Being sore doesn't help.

Inflamable
05-19-2014, 11:47 AM
Or maybe their agreement with blizzard didn't let them support it any more. This surf gets crazy when you are working with someone else's IP.

I'd like more information on not paying out prizes, can you support your claims, do you know if even at today's date the prizes still aren't paid out. Did anyone try to take out legal action?

Being sore doesn't help.

I know a few people IRL still w8ing on prizes yes. No point in taking legal action, most of them are Europeans and are just normal working people. How can they sue an American company over some DMF (tournament) prizes?

Next to that CZE always blamed blizz for ending the wowtcg, just like they now will blame hasbro for failing with Hex.

I never understood that people could be so fangirling over this company swallowing every word and so on.

CZE hangs together with lies and other crap. It has always been like that and it won't ever change. But by the looks of it, the end is near.

saffamike
05-19-2014, 11:58 AM
I know a few people IRL still w8ing on prizes yes. No point in taking legal action, most of them are Europeans and are just normal working people. How can they sue an American company over some DMF (tournament) prizes?

Next to that CZE always blamed blizz for ending the wowtcg, just like they now will blame hasbro for failing with Hex.

I never understood that people could be so fangirling over this company swallowing every word and so on.

CZE hangs together with lies and other crap. It has always been like that and it won't ever change. But by the looks of it, the end is near.

There is so much wrong with this. Blizzard owned WowTCG, not CZE. You can't equate WowTCG to Hex.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 11:59 AM
I know a few people IRL still w8ing on prizes yes. No point in taking legal action, most of them are Europeans and are just normal working people. How can they sue an American company over some DMF (tournament) prizes?

Next to that CZE always blamed blizz for ending the wowtcg, just like they now will blame hasbro for failing with Hex.

I never understood that people could be so fangirling over this company swallowing every word and so on.

CZE hangs together with lies and other crap. It has always been like that and it won't ever change. But by the looks of it, the end is near.

There was no 'blame' that I ever heard of. But the timing (WoWTCG ends just before Hearthstone comes out?) I have no recollection of CZE blaming Blizzard, but it is obvious what happened.

And you seem to be upset for no reason. The Hex team (currently working mostly solo, almost like a separate company) - all their communication has been quite open and forthcoming. No lies, no 'other crap'. Just look at their policy on bugged drafts - free draft tickets and you keep anything you got.

They have been a stand up group and you either need to produce something other then hearsay, or just go with the flow.

Inflamable
05-19-2014, 11:59 AM
There is so much wrong with this. Blizzard owned WowTCG, not CZE. You can't equate WowTCG to Hex.

I'm not, I'm just saying they will use the same strategy to just drop it. Because they don't want all those backers angry and stuff.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 12:01 PM
I'm not, I'm just saying they will use the same strategy to just drop it. Because they don't want all those backers angry and stuff.

You are so clueless dude. You have no idea what went on behind the scenes, you just assign blame and then ignore anything anyone else says.

I would not be surprised if Blizzard forced them to stop all advertisement and communication when the licence ended.

Svenn
05-19-2014, 12:04 PM
I'm not, I'm just saying they will use the same strategy to just drop it. Because they don't want all those backers angry and stuff.

You think they are just going to give in and end development on Hex? And you think they will do that "because they don't want all those backers angry"? First of all, that reasoning doesn't even make sense. Second of all, WoW TCG was Blizzard's product that CZE worked on. Blizzard started making their own game, Hearthstone, and then they shut down the WoW TCG... and you want to blame CZE for all of this?

Inflamable
05-19-2014, 12:08 PM
You think they are just going to give in and end development on Hex? And you think they will do that "because they don't want all those backers angry"? First of all, that reasoning doesn't even make sense. Second of all, WoW TCG was Blizzard's product that CZE worked on. Blizzard started making their own game, Hearthstone, and then they shut down the WoW TCG... and you want to blame CZE for all of this?

Say what you want to say mate, but in the end you'll see I'm right. I think somewhere in June it's over with Hex.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 12:16 PM
Say what you want to say mate, but in the end you'll see I'm right. I think somewhere in June it's over with Hex.

Want to put your 'money' where your mouth is? Because I am certain that you are wrong.

But I highly doubt you will do anything of the kind, because it is apparent you are a garden variety troll (also known as an unhappy person lashing out). So what if your TCG died? Blame the people responsible, and don't go around trying to make people upset and afraid.

Saqcat
05-19-2014, 12:16 PM
Say what you want to say mate, but in the end you'll see I'm right. I think somewhere in June it's over with Hex.

Then why have they just anouncent the people who has won a visit at CZE HQ? Why are they giving more betas in another website?

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 12:19 PM
Then why have they just anouncent the people who has won a visit at CZE HQ? Why are they giving more betas in another website?

Hold on, where did they announce the winners of the fan run contest? I know hex_colin, a huge supporter of the game, is flying two people to CZE, but I don't see any twitter, facebook, or HexTCG.com announcements about it.

negativeZer0
05-19-2014, 12:26 PM
Say what you want to say mate, but in the end you'll see I'm right. I think somewhere in June it's over with Hex.

1857

Makizushi
05-19-2014, 12:51 PM
As far as I know companies cannot sue private people, at least not in Asia, at least not western companies.
And sorry, I don't think that hasbro's lawyers are watching these forums like a hawk.

I still deleted it.

Thanks :)

I didn't mean it in relation to anyone suing individuals. I meant it in such a way that, should what you suggested ever happen, then Hasbro could sue again for breaking the injunction if it comes to pass.

MuffLord4
05-19-2014, 01:03 PM
Thanks :)

I didn't mean it in relation to anyone suing individuals. I meant it in such a way that, should what you suggested ever happen, then Hasbro could sue again for breaking the injunction if it comes to pass.

I already aknowledged that sueing individuals is impossible for companies unless I infringe on their rights directly.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 01:08 PM
I already aknowledged that sueing individuals is impossible for companies unless I infringe on their rights directly.

I think what he means is that CZE can get dragged through court again if the source code is ever leaked. And CZE does not need that to happen twice, if it even happens once.

MuffLord4
05-19-2014, 01:11 PM
I think what he means is that CZE can get dragged through court again if the source code is ever leaked. And CZE does not need that to happen twice, if it even happens once.

Since when is somebody stealing source code a legal issue for CZE? Dafuq?

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 01:16 PM
Since when is somebody stealing source code a legal issue for CZE? Dafuq?

The assumption is that the source code is well protected. Otherwise CZE has a whole lot of other issues to deal with.

In court, it comes down to the assumption that CZE is in complete control of the source code, and if it ends up anywhere public, it is the fault of CZE. Yes, the law is that harsh with these sorts of things (to my knowledge at least.)

If the game were to launch, with no injunction, and the source code leaked somehow, that might be a different matter entirely. I know of many games with private servers, but I never heard of that happening to a beta game.

Quasari
05-19-2014, 02:26 PM
That is to imply the people won't emulate the server. That's typically how private servers happen.

mudkip
05-19-2014, 02:54 PM
It's a cute idea, but I doubt it will happen. If the injunction is sustained, that's it.

Black_Omega
05-19-2014, 02:56 PM
I think some people are jumping the gun (now with the source code talk). 100+ pages on this. Geeze.

Let's see what happens next before everyone has some sort of schizoid episode.

Zophie
05-19-2014, 04:46 PM
https://hextcg.com/official-legal-statement/

https://hextcg.com/hex-update-from-cory/

http://media.giphy.com/media/11FiDF2fuOujPG/giphy.gif

larryhl
05-19-2014, 04:59 PM
Looks like Zophie beat me to posting the official statements. Good to see Hex isn't taking going to be taking this abuse lying down. Legal questions now have a direct email address. All in all, everything is going as expected.

Xavon
05-19-2014, 05:14 PM
Quick, move the shards to a separate deck and have one automatically and randomly played each turn. Solves the resource screw issue and takes away one of WotC's bullets at the same time.

Kami
05-19-2014, 05:21 PM
Quick, move the shards to a separate deck and have one automatically and randomly played each turn. Solves the resource screw issue and takes away one of WotC's bullets at the same time.

You're left with curve screw in that case.

Badgered
05-19-2014, 06:01 PM
You're left with curve screw in that case.

Strictly better than resource screw.

Kami
05-19-2014, 06:03 PM
Strictly better than resource screw.

This has been discussed in the past and I don't agree.

This means that if someone specialized in a fast weenie deck with low-cost buffs, they would dominate the field most of the time against players that require building time.

Yoss
05-19-2014, 06:04 PM
Strictly better than resource screw.

Try this idea for something in between that wouldn't require a complete redesign, AND would make yet another digital-only innovation:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=35744&page=6&p=371895&viewfull=1#post371895

Vorpal
05-19-2014, 06:41 PM
This has been discussed in the past and I don't agree.

This means that if someone specialized in a fast weenie deck with low-cost buffs, they would dominate the field most of the time against players that require building time.

Isn't the reverse true?

If everyone started with 5 resources, for example, it wouldn't be low cost weenie decks with guys that cost 1 and 2 that would be advantaged.

zolop
05-19-2014, 06:44 PM
to get this thread back on track, the patient response by cryptozoic was a good one. Affirming that they will fight the false sue against them is good too. Overall a well written and brief response to the community.

Bells
05-19-2014, 06:50 PM
Now that we have a official response to go by, i think the sensible thing is to set a course for the community as well... i would love for people to avoid fueling MTG vs HEX fires if they come to be (outsider opinion is still that Hex is a clone of MTG, based on the original tutorial video on youtube and little else, this is unlikely to change)

EntropyBall
05-19-2014, 08:08 PM
Now that we have a official response to go by, i think the sensible thing is to set a course for the community as well... i would love for people to avoid fueling MTG vs HEX fires if they come to be (outsider opinion is still that Hex is a clone of MTG, based on the original tutorial video on youtube and little else, this is unlikely to change)

I've been a member of Boardgamegeek for a long time, so I've been keeping up with that thread and just trying to correct any misconceptions people have about Hex. Some people have the opinion that Hex is too similar to MTG, and I don't think there is value in arguing their opinion. I just try to be civil, reasonable and informative. The community here is quite good, and we all need to do our best to keep it that way.

Thrawn
05-19-2014, 08:17 PM
I've been a member of Boardgamegeek for a long time, so I've been keeping up with that thread and just trying to correct any misconceptions people have about Hex. Some people have the opinion that Hex is too similar to MTG, and I don't think there is value in arguing their opinion. I just try to be civil, reasonable and informative. The community here is quite good, and we all need to do our best to keep it that way.

The color wheel arguments going on in the BGG thread are so bad now it's almost hard to read.

ossuary
05-19-2014, 08:18 PM
I've been a member of Boardgamegeek for a long time, so I've been keeping up with that thread and just trying to correct any misconceptions people have about Hex. Some people have the opinion that Hex is too similar to MTG, and I don't think there is value in arguing their opinion. I just try to be civil, reasonable and informative. The community here is quite good, and we all need to do our best to keep it that way.

Yeah, I agree with that sentiment. If someone has already made up their mind, whether or not it's based on good evidence doesn't really matter, it won't make us look good by harping on about it to them, it will just convince them even more that we're desperately trying to justify it. Far better to just let those kinds of comments slide (those people may come around in time, once the game is actually out and gaining popularity), and focus only on the blatant misinformation in the nicest way possible.

EntropyBall
05-19-2014, 08:43 PM
The color wheel arguments going on in the BGG thread are so bad now it's almost hard to read.

Amen. Its not like the color wheel is the crux of this issue. I don't understand the obsession over it.

ossuary
05-19-2014, 09:16 PM
Hex should just go ahead and introduce the secret 6th color early to differentiate. Come on, Cory, we all know you're saving it for a few years down the line. Hex? Six? Come on... stop fooling around. :)

Ertzi
05-19-2014, 09:59 PM
Hex should just go ahead and introduce the secret 6th color early to differentiate. Come on, Cory, we all know you're saving it for a few years down the line. Hex? Six? Come on... stop fooling around. :)

It would actually be awesome for HEX to add a new color every two years or something. That faction could then come in as part of some huge event and blow everything wide open :) Nothing would prevent that in an all-digital format. Well... maybe Limited balancing would be a problem, but they could use the new colors only in PvE. I would love that. You would never know what to expect.

Axle
05-19-2014, 10:03 PM
6th color introduced at the start of the 2nd block. Yes pls.


Yeah, I agree with that sentiment. If someone has already made up their mind, whether or not it's based on good evidence doesn't really matter, it won't make us look good by harping on about it to them, it will just convince them even more that we're desperately trying to justify it. Far better to just let those kinds of comments slide (those people may come around in time, once the game is actually out and gaining popularity), and focus only on the blatant misinformation in the nicest way possible.


I mean..they're on a site called boardgamegeek. I expect them to be the last people who see the benefits of a digital card game.

a-V-e-n
05-19-2014, 10:45 PM
Quick, move the shards to a separate deck and have one automatically and randomly played each turn. Solves the resource screw issue and takes away one of WotC's bullets at the same time.

Great suggestion.
Not only a major improvement to the game - eliminating the extreme (and unfun) cases of volatilty gone wrong, but also gets rid of more than 1 similarity - deck size would no longer have to be 60, the shards could even not be cards at all).

Cernz
05-19-2014, 11:16 PM
Great suggestion.
Not only a major improvement to the game - eliminating the extreme (and unfun) cases of volatilty gone wrong, but also gets rid of more than 1 similarity - deck size would no longer have to be 60, the shards could even not be cards at all).

that would solve the resource screw problem, but it would lead to a new problem -
you have most time every bomb ready in the shortest time (maybe not fist due to 6
wild shards, but most of the others).

getting screwed or flodded needs to stay a part of the game.

but changing resources + cards in 2 pools might be ok, but choose at random ;) from which pool you draw...

you can show on the players screen 2 seperate decks and on the opponents screen only 1 - that he cant see how many resources you have.

1865

Cacheelma
05-19-2014, 11:29 PM
These improvements are all well and good. The real question though is why didn't they use any of these in the first place? Maybe because it didn't work well enough?

Looking from a different perspective though, their solution shouldn't have been to use whatever works in this other game and run with it.

As for thr color-pie, I haven't read the BBG topic yet. What bugs me about the whole thing though is that the similarities are a little too much. Some properties of certain colors aren't that obvious in MTG to begin with, yet HEX has that properties in that same color as well. This can't be coincidence. Don't you think?

One quick thing that comes to mind is "small creatures in white". Why? Why can't we have red-weenie in hex instead? And why card drawing/being smart is blue? Wouldn't common association be white?

maniza
05-19-2014, 11:44 PM
yea some cards would need rebalancing if you are goin to warrant a resource every turn it would require alot of testing and given they are already in set 3 testing i dont think that it would be an option... plus would make the game feel a bit to much like hearthstone...

hashinshin
05-19-2014, 11:54 PM
yea some cards would need rebalancing if you are goin to warrant a resource every turn it would require alot of testing and given they are already in set 3 testing i dont think that it would be an option... plus would make the game feel a bit to much like hearthstone...
Feel like the most popular TCG on the market that keeps growing in size? How horrible!

SamCube
05-20-2014, 12:40 AM
"If it's not broken, why fix it?" (Cory)
That could be an Epitaph. It almost hurt me as I read it on the WOTC demands.

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 12:55 AM
"If it's not broken, why fix it?" (Cory)
That could be a Rest in Peace kind of sentence. It almost hurt me as I read it on the WOTC demands.

Right? This shouldn't have happened to begin with. Borrow something is fine. Having something similar is ok. Making the whole thing play out nearly the same way down to the small details is just... Weird. This is from player perspective too, not legal perspective.

Aruken
05-20-2014, 01:01 AM
JUST GET RID OF THE RESSOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE ONE ATTACK PHASE WITH ONLY ATTACK/BLOCK.
THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A MTG CLONE AS IS, EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

BRING THE QUESTS RESSOURCE AND THE MULTIPLE COMBAT PHASES FROM WOWTCG, OR SOMETHING ELSE, BUT MOVE AWAY FROM THE 'WE WANT THE MTG AUDIENCE' SO WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE A CLONE OF IT.

All caps because apparently people on this forum are quite blind. Don't thank me.

SamCube
05-20-2014, 01:20 AM
I understand. For me the frustration with magic came with Magic Online, ugly, expensive, not dynamic and not available for Mac. And the Planeswalker games so capped that feel like a broken toy. That's why I wanted HEX to succeed.
Magic Online took 3 years to have a re-design on the client, and the changes where so little, and functionality not so ready to port it on other platforms that was insulting. As an ex-magic player I really feel rip off.
Long life to Hex on whatever way it resurrects after this.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 01:26 AM
Capslock made your argument so much clearer and more persuasive. /s

MuffLord4
05-20-2014, 01:29 AM
JUST GET RID OF THE RESSOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE ONE ATTACK PHASE WITH ONLY ATTACK/BLOCK.
THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A MTG CLONE AS IS, EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

BRING THE QUESTS RESSOURCE AND THE MULTIPLE COMBAT PHASES FROM WOWTCG, OR SOMETHING ELSE, BUT MOVE AWAY FROM THE 'WE WANT THE MTG AUDIENCE' SO WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE A CLONE OF IT.

All caps because apparently people on this forum are quite blind. Don't thank me.

Wait, you're saying that everything that has resource management and one attack phase with attack/block is a MTG clone?

Then you want them to literally clone WoWtcg?

I don't see the logic there.

Aruken
05-20-2014, 01:36 AM
Wait, you're saying that everything that has resource management and one attack phase with attack/block is a MTG clone?

Then you want them to literally clone WoWtcg?

I don't see the logic there.
"OR SOMETHING ELSE". It wasn't big enough apparently...

I find that some of you guys have a hard time admitting Hex is a MTG clone. All crypto have to do is stop being lazy and stop thinking brand new game mechanics will make the mtg audience refuse this game.
Stop hidding behind the 'this is an MMO' bs for a second too.

No way around it.
I'll go as far as to say it is the best think that could happen to Hex and it will be recognized as such in a few months down the line.

MuffLord4
05-20-2014, 01:46 AM
"OR SOMETHING ELSE". It wasn't big enough apparently...

I find that some of you guys have a hard time admitting Hex is a MTG clone. All crypto have to do is stop being lazy and stop thinking brand new game mechanics will make the mtg audience refuse this game.
Stop hidding behind the 'this is an MMO' bs for a second too.

No way around it.
I'll go as far as to say it is the best think that could happen to Hex and it will be recognized as such in a few months down the line.

It's not a clone. If this is a clone then every rethemed shooter is a clone of another one with just a few mechanics tacked on.

Realize what CLONE means.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 01:51 AM
I disagree. Hex isn't a clone, it's a game that is heavily influenced by a previous game. It may not be a game you agree with or want to play, you may want some ridiculous mana system, or some other nonsense. Go make that game. You go take your idea, turn it into a game people enjoy, and let people pay for that. Me? I paid to support this game, I like this game. I think they have fairly good odds to make this game the way they want, and I want them to keep trying to do that. 'Cause that's what I signed up for. That's what you signed up for too if you backed the project.

You can set out triple town and yeti town, or the exact clone of tetris. In both of those cases the games were the exact same with different art assets. That is not the case here. The underlying resource system is entirely different. Their resources don't even stay in play to be manipulated later, they aren't cards that are tapped or exhausted to power effects, they aren't cards at all after they are used. In the set of 300+ cards so what if a small percentage of them have similar stats to magic, heck so what if they use the same name on some of those incredibly generic words and effects. MTG does not own the word murder, or a card that removes another card from the game for 3 cost, in a set shard. They might wish they owned concepts like that. Heck, you might wish they own concepts like that. Luckily, you will neither be a juror nor a judge on this case, and your opinion is as irrelevant as mine.

veeh
05-20-2014, 02:15 AM
From what I have studied at law school I can tell you that the judge looks for elements that are similar in a brand not that are different.

For instance if I would make a company named cawkah kawlah while the words are different to coca cola, the pronounciation is the same thus it infringes on property rights,

From what i seen how ever hex has some if not alot of cards that do the exact same effects as the ones from magic and just have a different name to them, but the mana and the cards effect is exactly the same. This wouldnt look good for them on trial.

MuffLord4
05-20-2014, 02:21 AM
From what i seen how ever hex has some if not alot of cards that do the exact same effects as the ones from magic and just have a different name to them, but the mana and the cards effect is exactly the same. This wouldnt look good for them on trial.

You could argue that magic basically probably covered close to everything in terms of cards for such a game.

Marsden
05-20-2014, 02:38 AM
All caps because apparently people on this forum are quite blind. Don't thank me.

You didn't seem to post anything apart from this?

Grauwart
05-20-2014, 02:55 AM
I am no law expert, but as far as I can see through all of this is:
A game idea is not a brand or anyhow protected, its way (art, style) of doing so might be so.
And this is the reason for me why this suit of wizards reads so out of place. Hex somehow feels similar to MtG, but they cant sue them for that, so they try to bend their argumentation from this to points that are able of suing.

So even when Hex might look similar on the first glance, no one can mistake one for the other, because Hex is purely digital and you need an Account for that, you even cant accidentially buy boosters for it ("ohh thought this was a MtG Expansion.."), because its not available in stores, just digitally through the ingame store. So even if any game would be a perfect clone of whatever, you couldnt mistake it, because you had to create a specific account, passwort and read certain aggreements..

Another point is the story, as far as i understood Wizards is claiming the "2 wizards battling each other" story is unique to them. Whatever, Hex got a whole lot of its own fitting lore and background in which the cards and the setting are fitted.
So you're no wizards battling or summoning, but just some kind of warlord (with magic or not), who battles against an enemy army. So here the different people and their culture are the reasons for their struggle and this magical meteor is the opportunity for each of them to raise in power.

Puhh, to put that in a short sentence:
At a first glance Hex may seem similar for some gameplay elements it shares with Magic, but which are free for everyone to base his/her game upon; And if you get closer and come to those parts worth sueing, the more different it gets and its own lore and ways begin to show.

Ali3nSan
05-20-2014, 03:12 AM
Puhh, to put that in a short sentence:
At a first glance Hex may seem similar for some gameplay elements it shares with Magic, but which are free for everyone to base his/her game upon; And if you get closer and come to those parts worth sueing, the more different it gets and its own lore and ways begin to show.

I think the issue is the patent WoTC have on the gameplay mechanics that are the biggest issue. The patents expire in September then its basically a free for all :)

But based on my arm chair lawyer research, it appears that because Magic was play tested in public prior to getting the patent, it is possible that said patent could be revoked in the court. I also think this is why WoTC have not used it very often. They saw a juicy $2.2 million from Kickstarter and went for it.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 03:16 AM
Also, the patent expires soon... So they're going to lose it anyway, they might as well not offer to license things fairly, and instead push all the way to a court decision, they can afford it even if they lose. It's like playing chicken with a guy that know's he will die tomorrow anyway.

koniu91145
05-20-2014, 05:18 AM
Wow thats a really dick move from Wizards... I hope it won't cause any big troubles to HEX and at least this gives some publicity to HEX :P

flagoon
05-20-2014, 05:32 AM
I think the issue is the patent WoTC have on the gameplay mechanics that are the biggest issue. The patents expire in September then its basically a free for all :)

What gameplay mechanics are we talking about?

I remember first hearing about Hex and I thought "Finally better MtG", but when I start reading about it, it's quite different. I don't hear League of Legends suing Dota2/Dawngate/Strife/other dotalikes for being similar (and some similarities are huge). Total Bisquit made a nice video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UfwySDtG6s

Thrawn
05-20-2014, 05:52 AM
Feel like the most popular TCG on the market that keeps growing in size? How horrible!

If most people here thought Hearthstone was amazing, with a superior resource system, and not boring and unbalanced they would be playing it instead of supporting Hex. Also it's not a TCG or as popular as Magic.

hexnaes
05-20-2014, 06:29 AM
If most people here thought Hearthstone was amazing, with a superior resource system, and not boring, unbalanced crap they would be playing it instead of supporting Hex. Also it's not a TCG or as popular as Magic.

Hearthstone is really, really good. You shouldn't dismiss it so quickly. Hex could learn a lot from Hearthstone's success.

I supported Hex kickstarter before Hearthstone came out. A lot of us did. I play Hearthstone a LOT more than I play Hex, because the tournaments we have in Hex are buggy and not asynchronous.

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 06:51 AM
Let's put everything else aside guys and look at this together for one moment and ponder my questions:

http://imgur.com/a/nHV7g

Just the first pair of cards alone (Atrophy vs. Instill Infection). Why do they have to be SO similar? Why?

1. Instill Infection (MTG)'s mechanic is the way it is because of the theme of the set it is in (Scars of Mirrodin). Development team of MTG added the card drawing ability to it to make the card more worthwhile to play in construct. Why Atrophy (Hex)'s mechanic has to be the EXACT same? There is no rational reason behind putting the first and the second ability together on one card unless you're just copy-n-paste them. The same cost between two cards don't help either, which leads me to...

2. Ignoring the color-pie, there's no need for Atrophy to cost 4 "resource". So why? For MTG, card drawing is not the usual black-aligned ability at common rarity so it's going to be expensive. And this is more or less an instant-speed removal, something that can't be too cheap or it will be first-pick in limited. If Hex has a reason for this, it can't be the same as MTG's, especially NOT because anything color-related (i.e. they can't quite say "oh, card drawing is not black common ability" without sounding like they're copying MTG).

I could be wrong on the reasoning but the point here is THERE ARE REASONS why each card in MTG is the way it is.That leads to...

3. WotC's design and development teams can explain reasoning behind each card's COLOR, COST, RARITY, ABILITY. They do that everyday all year long on www.dailymtg.com. Can Hex's team do the same thing? With so many identical cards, can they explain each one without sounding like they're basically copying MTG?

I am not even talking about this from legal perspective. But as a player (and a backer), the more I look into this, the more disappointed I am. Why copy them? Why make cards so similar? Do you really need to have black -1/-1 giver at instant speed AND cantrip ability in your game? Can't it be -1/-1 and something else? Can't it cost differently?

See the rest of the card pairs for yourself and ponder my questions, objectively. Please. I want to know what you guys think about this as players.

Thrawn
05-20-2014, 06:54 AM
Hearthstone is really, really good. You shouldn't dismiss it so quickly. Hex could learn a lot from Hearthstone's success.

I supported Hex kickstarter before Hearthstone came out. A lot of us did. I play Hearthstone a LOT more than I play Hex, because the tournaments we have in Hex are buggy and not asynchronous.

I'll concede that Hearthstone is really good as a casual game to play on a tablet while you're on toilet or have 10 minutes to kill or an an introduction to card games for someone young and new to gaming. As an attempt at a serious, competitive card game it gets boring after a a week of play.

Fateanomaly
05-20-2014, 06:54 AM
To each its own. I tried hearthstone but it didn't excite me like hex did.

Svenn
05-20-2014, 07:03 AM
Hearthstone is really, really good. You shouldn't dismiss it so quickly. Hex could learn a lot from Hearthstone's success.

I supported Hex kickstarter before Hearthstone came out. A lot of us did. I play Hearthstone a LOT more than I play Hex, because the tournaments we have in Hex are buggy and not asynchronous.
Not to turn this into a Hex vs Hearthstone thing... but I couldn't stand Hearthstone. I played it for a few hours (while Hex was still in Alpha) and immediately went back to Hex. I've put 200ish hours into Hex already. I couldn't stand Hearthstone after about 3-5 hours.

MuffLord4
05-20-2014, 07:07 AM
What gameplay mechanics are we talking about?

I remember first hearing about Hex and I thought "Finally better MtG", but when I start reading about it, it's quite different. I don't hear League of Legends suing Dota2/Dawngate/Strife/other dotalikes for being similar (and some similarities are huge). Total Bisquit made a nice video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UfwySDtG6s

^this

And this question has never been adressed.

BenRGamer
05-20-2014, 07:10 AM
"If it's not broken, why fix it?" (Cory)
That could be an Epitaph. It almost hurt me as I read it on the WOTC demands.

Er, I don't believe that Cory was the one that said that. In fact I think it was whoever wrote the article that said it.

Gattou
05-20-2014, 07:10 AM
Just the first pair of cards alone (Atrophy vs. Instill Infection). Why do they have to be SO similar? Why?

1. Instill Infection (MTG)'s mechanic is the way it is because of the theme of the set it is in (Scars of Mirrodin). Development team of MTG added the card drawing ability to it to make the card more worthwhile to play in construct. Why Atrophy (Hex)'s mechanic has to be the EXACT same? There is no rational reason behind putting the first and the second ability together on one card unless you're just copy-n-paste them. The same cost between two cards don't help either, which leads me to...


Why you guys are so blind ? Cards like Atrophy exist in dozen of CCG / TCG (Duel of champion & co) almost all TCG have "remove a card", "remove a troop", "buff" and "debuff" cards... Just... don't know what to say.
What if the first game played with dices, a board and event cards stopped all other games ? There are a dozen of board games with a prison and cards "go to prison"...

What is this all about ?
IMO, Hex is still small, and that's the right time to kill it, next move ? MtGO launching a legit online extension named Hex with the same content ?

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 07:11 AM
^this

And this question has never been adressed.

Does LoL trademark/patent/whatever anything to have the right to sue any other similar games, though? And they don't sue doesn't mean they can't. WotC decided to sue doesn't make them "wrong".

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 07:13 AM
Why you guys are so blind ? Cards like Atrophy exist in dozen of CCG / TCG (Duel of champion & co) almost all TCG have "remove a card", "remove a troop", "buff" and "debuff" cards... Just... don't know what to say.
What if the first game played with dices, a board and event cards stopped all other games ? There are a dozen of board games with a prison and cards "go to prison"...

What is this all about ?
IMO, Hex is still small, and that's the right time to kill it, next move ? MtGO launching a legit online extension named Hex with the same content ?

Removal on a card is normal. But can't you see they're EXACTLY the same? I dare you to find a card from other TCG that has the exact same TWO abilities on a card like this pair.

DeusPhasmatis
05-20-2014, 07:19 AM
Why do they have to be SO similar? Why?Because balance. And because Magic has been out for 20 years so it would be hard to make hundreds of cards in a similar system without there being similar cards.

hexnaes
05-20-2014, 07:20 AM
I'll concede that Hearthstone is really good as a casual game to play on a tablet while you're on toilet or have 10 minutes to kill or an an introduction to card games for someone young and new to gaming. As an attempt at a serious, competitive card game it gets boring after a a week of play.

I disagree, but to each his own. :)

The Hearthstone competitive meta at high level play is incredibly exciting. It's quite balanced and over the past 6 months I've seen the meta evolve on a weekly basis.

hexnaes
05-20-2014, 07:24 AM
Not to turn this into a Hex vs Hearthstone thing... but I couldn't stand Hearthstone. I played it for a few hours (while Hex was still in Alpha) and immediately went back to Hex. I've put 200ish hours into Hex already. I couldn't stand Hearthstone after about 3-5 hours.

I understand it's not for everyone, but did you get past the intro and play against other players? Or try the arena?

For me I was turned off by the looks and "simplicity" of it when I started. It wasn't until after unlocking all the class cards and started crafting decks and trying to climb the competitive ladder that I saw how in depth the game is.

Not really trying to say one is better than the other, but Hearthstone does have a lot to offer, and I wouldn't mind seeing some of the better aspects influence Hex (mostly asynchronous drafting).

DeusPhasmatis
05-20-2014, 07:24 AM
Removal on a card is normal. But can't you see they're EXACTLY the same? I dare you to find a card from other TCG that has the exact same TWO abilities on a card like this pair.

Yu-Gi-Oh Pot of Greed (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Pot_of_Greed)
Pokemon TCG Bill (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bill_%28Base_Set_91%29)

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 07:31 AM
Because balance. And because Magic has been out for 20 years so it would be hard to make hundreds of cards in a similar system without there being similar cards.

As far as I know, MTG doesn't look at balance beyond "standard" these days. They set a powerlevel for cards and make sure cards don't exceed said powerlevel. Instill Infection is the way it is because it is at the same powerlevel as other cards in the "current standard" the set is in. But that's beside the point.

If you look at MTG, even MTG itself rarely create two cards with identical mechanic (leave alone TWO mechanics) between each set. And they make more than 600 new cards per year. Surely HEX could come up with something that is not IDENTICAL to MTG cards.

Again, in the case of Atrophy/Instill Infection, there's no reason why Atrophy needs to have two exact same abilities as Instill Infection. And then they also cost the same. Be in the same color. Be the same type of cards (with different name).

It could be -2/-2 + Draw and cost 5. It could be -1/-0 + Draw and cost 3, or 4. It don't even need to exist.

So why?

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 07:32 AM
Yu-Gi-Oh Pot of Greed (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Pot_of_Greed)
Pokemon TCG Bill (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bill_%28Base_Set_91%29)

I guess you misunderstood me.

Where's the -1/-1 counter giving ability in pot of greed and bill?

Axle
05-20-2014, 07:39 AM
I guess you misunderstood me.

Where's the -1/-1 counter giving ability in pot of greed and bill?

Cards that reduce attack and defense? =l

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 07:39 AM
As far as I know, MTG doesn't look at balance beyond "standard" these days. They set a powerlevel for cards and make sure cards don't exceed said powerlevel. Instill Infection is the way it is because it is at the same powerlevel as other cards in the "current standard" the set is in. But that's beside the point.

If you look at MTG, even MTG itself rarely create two cards with identical mechanic (leave alone TWO mechanics) between each set. And they make more than 600 new cards per year. Surely HEX could come up with something that is not IDENTICAL to MTG cards.

Again, in the case of Atrophy/Instill Infection, there's no reason why Atrophy needs to have two exact same abilities as Instill Infection. And then they also cost the same. Be in the same color. Be the same type of cards (with different name).

It could be -2/-2 + Draw and cost 5. It could be -1/-0 + Draw and cost 3, or 4. It don't even need to exist.

So why?

No two magic and hex cards are identical, though. If nothing else, there's the difference between the threshold system and the mana system.

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 07:41 AM
Cards that reduce attack and defense? =l

Sigh..

I am daring you to find A CARD that has both abilities. Two abilities. On one card. The same way Atrophy/Instill Infection do.

My point is if it weren't an act of copying, I fail to see the reasons why these two cards share the exact same TWO abilities.

Gattou
05-20-2014, 07:45 AM
I guess you misunderstood me.

Where's the -1/-1 counter giving ability in pot of greed and bill?
-2/-2 is taken by DoC
you're not against the effect but by the values ? I saw people complaining about a lots of cards being the same but when you read them sometimes you don't draw or sometimes you don't have buff to other "colored" creatures.
I think JRR Tolkien should have made IP about all his research, so all the fantasy worlds made will be in deap s***... Even MtG.

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 07:47 AM
No two magic and hex cards are identical, though. If nothing else, there's the difference between the threshold system and the mana system.

The threshold system is an improvement of MTG's land/mana system in that you won't get "color-screw" that easily in Hex. But that's all there is to it. Without the threshold system in Hex, you won't be able to even differentiate cards into these different shards because when you play a card, you don't spend color "resource".

The keyword here is "improvement". You still need to draw resource card. You are allowed to play one each turn. You may not get to play one because you don't have one in your hand. These are exactly the same as MTG, though.

Let's get real here: When you guys build a deck and you make sure 40% of your deck is resource cards, you don't feel like you're making MTG deck? It is the same thing there too.

Axle
05-20-2014, 07:50 AM
Draw cards that don't have costs are very limited in YGO because the game has no resource system. If the game has too many cheap draw cards then first turn kill decks are developed. You won't find similar cards very often outside of the most basic because the game isn't allowed to have "draw 5" cards or anything on the high end scale and sometimes even on the simple end scale. With the exception of a couple banned cards that should have never been printed. Yes YGO is a prime example of one of the most unique TCGs from Magic (and they still tried to sue them :L).

Which means if anything you'll find it on monsters. LIKEEEE
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061027031939/yugioh/images/f/fb/AlienGrey-POTD-EN-C-1E.jpg

maniza
05-20-2014, 07:51 AM
Does LoL trademark/patent/whatever anything to have the right to sue any other similar games, though? And they don't sue doesn't mean they can't. WotC decided to sue doesn't make them "wrong".

they can sue but it does not make it less of a dick move on their side. to sue over a 20 year old patent that expires in a month in an atempt to bleed out a small company because they dont want to compete with an oviously better product is a dick move. it realy saddens me to se a company that owns one of my favorite games of all time do this.

Kami
05-20-2014, 07:51 AM
It could be -2/-2 + Draw and cost 5. It could be -1/-0 + Draw and cost 3, or 4. It don't even need to exist.

So why?

I think you're stepping in the territory of the what if, could've, maybe area of things.

Let's say they did make cards as you gave examples for.

1. Would it be balanced?
2. Are we changing cards just for the sake of changing cards to be different? (In other words, unnecessary, superficial changes.)
3. What's to prevent a person so ingrained with MTG to just say: "Oh, they stole it from here and just changed a few things."

I mean, there's already evidence that HEX is differentiating itself from Magic and you're looking at an incomplete game with ~1 year public history versus Magic which has developed thousands upon thousands of cards over 2 decades.

I understand where you're coming from but I feel that there are many who are blinded by their familiarity with MTG.

Many are doing card versus card comparisons but what should actually be done is set by set comparisons. When you're developing well over six hundred cards (yes, HEX still has a few hundred cards that have not been revealed at the very least), I'd wager that with the system they chose to utilize, you cannot make these grand sweeping changes without affecting the entire game - even moreso if it's just for the sake of being 'different'. That's like telling everyone to switch from QWERTY to DVORAK. While yes, it is different (and in some cases better), it does not make sense to do it.

As for the colour wheel that keeps getting brought up, in another forum, someone mentioned that Magic essentially ripped it from Chinese five elements mythology or something. It's just more proof that there is a huge blinder on many Magic fans that they cannot accept that Magic did not lift/copy/tweak from other sources.

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 07:56 AM
The threshold system is an improvement of MTG's land/mana system in that you won't get "color-screw" that easily in Hex. But that's all there is to it. Without the threshold system in Hex, you won't be able to even differentiate cards into these different shards because when you play a card, you don't spend color "resource".

The keyword here is "improvement". You still need to draw resource card. You are allowed to play one each turn. You may not get to play one because you don't have one in your hand. These are exactly the same as MTG, though.

Let's get real here: When you guys build a deck and you make sure 40% of your deck is resource cards, you don't feel like you're making MTG deck? It is the same thing there too.

Well, yes, it's an improvement. That's kinda the thing. That matters.

We've been over this before -- WotC's claim isn't completely frivolous because the games are similar. But it should still lose because the parts of Hex that are the same aren't copyrightable (and shouldn't be patentable!) and the parts that are copyrightable or patentable are all substantially different.


It's just more proof that there is a huge blinder on many Magic fans that they cannot accept that Magic did not lift/copy/tweak from other sources.

Yeah, you can see this most clearly in the card vs. card comparisons that don't discuss the difference between threshold and mana. Yes, the cards have similar symbols, but the symbols mean different things.

Cacheelma
05-20-2014, 08:01 AM
I think you're stepping in the territory of the what if, could've, maybe area of things.

Let's say they did make cards as you gave examples for.

1. Would it be balanced?
2. Are we changing cards just for the sake of changing cards to be different? (In other words, unnecessary, superficial changes.)
3. What's to prevent a person so ingrained with MTG to just say: "Oh, they stole it from here and just changed a few things."

I mean, there's already evidence that HEX is differentiating itself from Magic and you're looking at an incomplete game with ~1 year public history versus Magic which has developed thousands upon thousands of cards over 2 decades.

I understand where you're coming from but I feel that there are many who are blinded by their familiarity with MTG.

Many are doing card versus card comparisons but what should actually be done is set by set comparisons. When you're developing well over six hundred cards (yes, HEX still has a few hundred cards that have not been revealed at the very least), I'd wager that with the system they chose to utilize, you cannot make these grand sweeping changes without affecting the entire game - even moreso if it's just for the sake of being 'different'. That's like telling everyone to switch from QWERTY to DVORAK. While yes, it is different (and in some cases better), it does not make sense to do it.

As for the colour wheel that keeps getting brought up, in another forum, someone mentioned that Magic essentially ripped it from Chinese five elements mythology or something. It's just more proof that there is a huge blinder on many Magic fans that they cannot accept that Magic did not lift/copy/tweak from other sources.

When you bring up balance issues and how changes to rules (that are similar to MTG) would affect other parts of the game, it all comes down to...:

Why made them similar in the first place, though? If you try to make them different (i.e. to put it cruelly, by NOT copying it and do something different like other TCGs do), you won't have this kind of problems whatsoever. You would design things differently, balance things differently, and so and so on.

I'm not asking Hex to change for the sake of changing. I'm wondering why they chose to make Hex so closely similar (and for some cards, identical) to MTG? As a backer and as a player of Hex, I find this to be disappointing. The game I backed is at risk because of... what, the dev team couldn't find a way to make their game not-so-similar? I admit pages ago that it's my own fault for not looking at the video during KS campaign to see all these similarities. But even if I have, I'd still back Hex for PvE.

But then where is PvE?

maniza
05-20-2014, 08:04 AM
As far as I know, MTG doesn't look at balance beyond "standard" these days. They set a powerlevel for cards and make sure cards don't exceed said powerlevel. Instill Infection is the way it is because it is at the same powerlevel as other cards in the "current standard" the set is in. But that's beside the point.

If you look at MTG, even MTG itself rarely create two cards with identical mechanic (leave alone TWO mechanics) between each set. And they make more than 600 new cards per year. Surely HEX could come up with something that is not IDENTICAL to MTG cards.

Again, in the case of Atrophy/Instill Infection, there's no reason why Atrophy needs to have two exact same abilities as Instill Infection. And then they also cost the same. Be in the same color. Be the same type of cards (with different name).

It could be -2/-2 + Draw and cost 5. It could be -1/-0 + Draw and cost 3, or 4. It don't even need to exist.

So why?

im shure some of the guys at rd in hex would be able to answer better but if you play hex draft for a while it becomes clear that this is not just a bunch of mtg cards put together. this is the first set of a game it has to hold up for 2 years. it also needs to have many staple cards like murder that sadly look similar to some mtg cards. plus there are so many cards in magic that you are bound to come up with some that are similar to the 300 that hex has. specialy since a first set is suposed to be basic to begin with.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 08:07 AM
Because they felt their set needed a cheap card in blood that did a minor debuff and a cantrip? Why make them different? Magic cannot own or control the idea of a card that does a cheap minor debuff and a cantrip.

Honestly I think your argument would be much better off with the comparison to the wrath of zakiir. Simply because it is not such a generic staple card. you're saying why does this card have -1/-1 and draw a card. Both of those are extremely generic actions. There was nothing inspirational in their creation from either team. They serve a purpose in balancing the set. That's all.

DeusPhasmatis
05-20-2014, 08:18 AM
As far as I know, MTG doesn't look at balance beyond "standard" these days. They set a powerlevel for cards and make sure cards don't exceed said powerlevel. Instill Infection is the way it is because it is at the same powerlevel as other cards in the "current standard" the set is in. But that's beside the point.It's not beside the point. Atrophy is balanced for the power level of Hex's set 1. That is an important consideration for CZE.


If you look at MTG, even MTG itself rarely create two cards with identical mechanic (leave alone TWO mechanics) between each set. And they make more than 600 new cards per year. Surely HEX could come up with something that is not IDENTICAL to MTG cards.Yes (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=2550), Magic (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=1516) rarely (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=6613) creates (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=174935) two (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=10505) cards (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=129586) with (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=221893) the cost for the same game effect.


Again, in the case of Atrophy/Instill Infection, there's no reason why Atrophy needs to have two exact same abilities as Instill Infection. And then they also cost the same. Be in the same color. Be the same type of cards (with different name).

It could be -2/-2 + Draw and cost 5. It could be -1/-0 + Draw and cost 3, or 4. It don't even need to exist.There's no reason it needs to be different, either. Nor do you seem to care that Hex's permanent attack/defense reduction is different from Magic's power/toughness reduction counters (which is significant when dealing with Xentoth's Inquisitor (http://hextcg.gamepedia.com/Xentoth%27s_Inquisitor), for example).

At -2/-2, it'd need to cost 6 or 7, and has substantially different timing (not good as a response to Xentoth's Inquisitor or Flock of Seagulls). At -1/0, it'd have to cost 1 or 2, and isn't removal at all. Yes, minuscule changes like that do require that much of a cost change. Small differences have significant impact on the balance of a card.


So why?
Because no sane designer has "search the entire catalog of Magic: the Gathering cards and ensure that this card is substantially different from everything in Magic" as part of their process.

Kami
05-20-2014, 08:22 AM
When you bring up balance issues and how changes to rules (that are similar to MTG) would affect other parts of the game, it all comes down to...:

Why made them similar in the first place, though? If you try to make them different (i.e. to put it cruelly, by NOT copying it and do something different like other TCGs do), you won't have this kind of problems whatsoever. You would design things differently, balance things differently, and so and so on.

I'm not asking Hex to change for the sake of changing. I'm wondering why they chose to make Hex so closely similar (and for some cards, identical) to MTG? As a backer and as a player of Hex, I find this to be disappointing. The game I backed is at risk because of... what, the dev team couldn't find a way to make their game not-so-similar? I admit pages ago that it's my own fault for not looking at the video during KS campaign to see all these similarities. But even if I have, I'd still back Hex for PvE.

But then where is PvE?

I honestly don't have the information to answer these questions. Perhaps they settled on using this system (system, not Magic - Magic uses this system) because it was conducive to the game they wanted to make. For card similarities, perhaps it made sense as well - I don't know what CZE's R&D process entailed, I barely even know the effort required to design a TCG.

If Magic is the only game that is allowed to use this system, where would we be for all other genres of games?

As for PvE, it's already been stated that Cory has completed at least one dungeon (played through via the client). It's coming. There is still a great deal of things that has not been revealed to the public. Many comparisons are being drawn from a very incomplete game at its very basic levels.

If HEX was being sold as is, market as is, as done. Yes, WotC would definitely have a solid case. The problem is that this is similar to getting on someone's case because they drew a triangle as a WIP and someone else created the triangle.

Additionally, Magic is a completed game. All they do now is create new cards, sometimes some minor novelty mechanics, and copy/paste those to their MTGO and DOTP games. They've not actually developed anything new in the digital space because they are limited by paper rules. That in itself is a subtle but massive difference. The resource system is a subtle but massive difference too.

Must changes be extremely different for it to be considered innovative or different? If HEX had changed nothing, added nothing, pulled this all together as hack job, I'd agree there's a problem.

This is a grey area, imo. For me, a clone would be a game that literally stole everything and added nothing significant. You could argue that HEX built upon Magic but I don't think that's the case. Magic uses this TCG system, HEX uses this TCG system but as stated frequently - you cannot copyright game mechanics.

Would anyone mistake Magic for HEX or vice-versa? In my opinion, no. Was there anything that was lifted art-wise, story-wise, lore-wise directly from Magic (I think it's required that it match 1:1 in legal cases?)? Not that I'm aware of.

So the only thing that WotC/Hasbro has left is an old patent that is far too broad that could apply to any/all TCGs regardless of similarity to Magic.

DeusPhasmatis
05-20-2014, 08:25 AM
Yeah, you can see this most clearly in the card vs. card comparisons that don't discuss the difference between threshold and mana. Yes, the cards have similar symbols, but the symbols mean different things.

Oh man, it's worse than that. They're basically saying that Murder (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=MURDER) and Dark Banishing (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=197023) are the same card.

Xenavire
05-20-2014, 08:57 AM
Oh man, it's worse than that. They're basically saying that Murder (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=MURDER) and Dark Banishing (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=197023) are the same card.

Irrelevant, we don't have black creatures, we have troops. Plus ours states 'Non-artifact troop.'

They like to see a similarity and then start making wild leaps.

Kami
05-20-2014, 09:07 AM
Irrelevant, we don't have black creatures, we have troops. Plus ours states 'Non-artifact troop.'
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/clear.gif Reply With Quote (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=372462)
They like to see a similarity and then start making wild leaps.

I think his point was that Magic itself was creating cards that are essentially identical in their own game, heh.

Xenavire
05-20-2014, 09:15 AM
Oh, d'oh, didn't even bother to check the link! But thats a nice dose of irony. :p

HeXBazou
05-20-2014, 09:16 AM
In my opinion the update from corry explains nicely the difference between Hex and Mtg, many people need to read again (virtual's mechanic, hero, ressources's systeme...). For the similarity, you know that 2 similare card in 2 diferent games, with different metagame / card's pool, it's similar just on a screenshot in the gameplay it's incomparable.

How many time i can see : "i don't understand, i play 24 shards for 60 cards, i don't draw my shard", It's not magic we don't have tharmogoyf / stoneforge /other 2 drop very strong for hold the board and tempo other shard, often we need a highest % without a miss of ressource. i think the building of Hex Deck is specific.

I think hex's player need exploit Hex and don't search similarity, we must allow this to hasbro. And stop play to "if .... then i can play this card in an other game", it's ridiculous (ex : if i pay 1 mana for 1 star i can play my yugiho card in magic :))

Yoss
05-20-2014, 09:50 AM
Quick, move the shards to a separate deck and have one automatically and randomly played each turn. Solves the resource screw issue and takes away one of WotC's bullets at the same time.

I like this way better:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=35744&page=6&p=371895&viewfull=1#post371895

Yoss
05-20-2014, 09:53 AM
3. WotC's design and development teams can explain reasoning behind each card's COLOR, COST, RARITY, ABILITY. They do that everyday all year long on www.dailymtg.com. Can Hex's team do the same thing? With so many identical cards, can they explain each one without sounding like they're basically copying MTG?
Having personally sat beside Dan and Ben as they worked on Set 2 together, I can say that they will almost certainly be able to explain their design process and show that it was independent. From what I could tell, they hand crafted each card from scratch, using their TCG background as experience to build on. That experience includes MTG, among other things, so it should not surprise us that certain aspects of MTG balance are at play in Hex.

I'm an engineer working for a technology company. If someone here leaves to go to a competitor, they will take the knowledge with them. They are bound legally to not steal any IP, yet their basic knowledge of the technology will still go with them and be used in their new place. The old place might sue, but will not win unless they can show wholesale copying.

Could they (Hex team) have made different design choices? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps they will argue that the cards that look like copies are actually necessary to the independently developed design.

Furthermore, individual card designs are not patented. That means they have to go under copyright. Copyright does not cover mechanics, only expression. Hex clearly did not copy the art and lore of MTG, so the copyright claims will fail. The only things that might hold up in court are the patentable claims, and that only if the patent is actually enforceable. Not to mention that it expires soon. While it is not a slam-dunk case, the more I read and think about it, the more I'm inclined towards Hex "winning" if this goes through to full trial. ("Winning" in quotes because no one wins in cases like this except for the lawyers.)

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 11:38 AM
I'm an engineer working for a technology company. If someone here leaves to go to a competitor, they will take the knowledge with them. They are bound legally to not steal any IP, yet their basic knowledge of the technology will still go with them and be used in their new place. The old place might sue, but will not win unless they can show wholesale copying.

There are literally entire areas of the law designed to prevent exactly that, and none of them have to do with "wholesale copying." You just happen to live in the one state where these laws don't apply to non-equity stake holders, so non-lawyers don't know about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

In any event, your point is actually wrong, and what you are arguing for actually benefits WotC. Prior access to the material is a relevant showing in a copyright claim that will lower the Plaintiff's burden of proving infringement. If you can show the Defendant had prior access and experience with the the copyrighted material, it weighs against the defense of independent development. The more access they can show, the less substantial similarity needs to be shown.

Prior experience of CZE employees with MTG is a hindrance to CZE, not a help.

I don't know where people got this idea that WotC needs to show "wholesale copying," but it was probably from the circle jerk of people with no legal experience reading one article and suddenly thinking they knew what they were talking about.

Substantial similarity =/= wholesale copying.
Substantial similarity =/= cloning.

bootlace
05-20-2014, 11:48 AM
Everyone keeps going on and on about trade dress issues so I thought it might be useful to reiterate some aspects of trade dress:

Trade dress law does not exist to reward innovation or creativity. Rather, its purpose starts and ends in the connection of a product with a single source.

To prevail on a trade dress claim, courts have consistently required plaintiffs to prove all the three following elements:

(1) that it owns a protectable trade dress in a clearly articulated design or combination of elements that is either inherently distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning;
(2) defendant's trade dress creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as to source, or as to sponsorship, affiliation or connection; and
(3) the plaintiff's trade dress is ‘non-functional’. The person asserting protection of non-registered trade dress has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

Specifically for point number 2:

The Ninth Circuit have developed eight factors (so-called Sleekcraft factors), to guide the determination of a likelihood of confusion, which are:

(1) the similarity of the conflicting designations;
(2) relatedness or proximity of the two companies' products or services;
(3) strength of trade dress;
(4) marketing channels used;
(5) degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers in selecting goods;
(6) defendant’s intent in selecting its designation;
(7) evidence of actual confusion;
(8) likelihood of expansion in product lines.


Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2372899

So perhaps instead of arguing over things like how similar Blood Gems are to Swamp mana, we can focus the conversation on whether the similar aspects that Hex implemented are A) functional and B) create confusion for would be customers of MTG.

Svenn
05-20-2014, 11:49 AM
I understand it's not for everyone, but did you get past the intro and play against other players? Or try the arena?

For me I was turned off by the looks and "simplicity" of it when I started. It wasn't until after unlocking all the class cards and started crafting decks and trying to climb the competitive ladder that I saw how in depth the game is.

Not really trying to say one is better than the other, but Hearthstone does have a lot to offer, and I wouldn't mind seeing some of the better aspects influence Hex (mostly asynchronous drafting).
Yes, I earned quite a few cards and built my own mage deck. I played several matches against players over the span of a couple hours, of which I think I lost one match.

I don't like the resource system. I don't like the lack of being able to choose defenders. I don't like permanent damage (troops are gone within 2 turns pretty much always). I don't like not being able to respond to anything.

Svenn
05-20-2014, 11:56 AM
Er, I don't believe that Cory was the one that said that. In fact I think it was whoever wrote the article that said it.

https://hextcg.com/tell-all-your-friends/

It's from here. They also left out the context.

The FULL paragraph that was taken from is this:
"HEX shares some similarities with other popular TCGs, but that isn’t a bad thing. Have you ever heard the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” Well, that’s what HEX has done. You draw seven cards to begin the game and an additional one with each turn, but that’s really where the similarities end."

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 11:59 AM
I don't know where people got this idea that WotC needs to show "wholesale copying," but it was probably from the circle jerk of people with no legal experience reading one article and suddenly thinking they knew what they were talking about.

Substantial similarity =/= wholesale copying.
Substantial similarity =/= cloning.

Since we're basically all discussing just the Yeti Town case, here's the actual opinion:

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=historical

Going over it, the main thing that hasn't really been discussed lately is that the judge didn't actually find that the games were "substantially similar." He just found that there was enough there that he couldn't dismiss the case on a 12(b)(6) motion because the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged substantial similarity.

That's both good and bad for Hex. It's good in that this isn't authority indicating a court would actually find copyright infringement here. It's bad in that it indicates the court would be far less likely to dismiss this case early on than it might otherwise in a different district: if all WotC has to do is make a superficially plausible allegation, that's a fairly easy hurdle to clear.

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 12:01 PM
https://hextcg.com/tell-all-your-friends/

It's from here. They also left out the context.

The FULL paragraph that was taken from is this:
"HEX shares some similarities with other popular TCGs, but that isn’t a bad thing. Have you ever heard the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” Well, that’s what HEX has done. You draw seven cards to begin the game and an additional one with each turn, but that’s really where the similarities end."

Which was posted on the Hex homepage as an article, which WotC will no doubt argue constitutes a party admission as an adoption of the truth of the matter. If Cory said it directly, it would be much worse, but it isn't good in any event.

Thraeg
05-20-2014, 12:01 PM
Exactly, and that article is specifically from the perspective of an experienced TCG player invited to come take a look at the in-development version, NOT from anyone who was involved in the design process. It's framed as an outsider view.

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 12:03 PM
Which was posted on the Hex homepage as an article, which WotC will no doubt argue constitutes a party admission as an adoption of the truth of the matter. If Cory said it directly, it would be much worse, but it isn't good in any event.

I think that's the sort of quote you could easily spin either way. From WotC's viewpoint that's an adopted admission. From Hex's viewpoint, it's an independent expert stating clearly that the game has no substantial similarity apart from scenes a faire such as having a deck of cards or drawing a hand of cards. (If that's infringement, so is seven-card stud).

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 12:10 PM
Since we're basically all discussing just the Yeti Town case, here's the actual opinion:

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=historical

Going over it, the main thing that hasn't really been discussed lately is that the judge didn't actually find that the games were "substantially similar." He just found that there was enough there that he couldn't dismiss the case on a 12(b)(6) motion because the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged substantial similarity.

That's both good and bad for Hex. It's good in that this isn't authority indicating a court would actually find copyright infringement here. It's bad in that it indicates the court would be far less likely to dismiss this case early on than it might otherwise in a different district: if all WotC has to do is make a superficially plausible allegation, that's a fairly easy hurdle to clear.

We're not all basically discussing the Yeti Town case. The Yeti Town case is a district case that frankly isn't worth two shits as far as precedent goes--it's not even binding on the same district court. They can choose to ignore it if they want. Hell, I had a hearing in federal court this past week where the judge basically ruled that another district decision was bullshit and he just wasn't going to follow it. They have that right.

You're analyzing a case that (1) does not have to be followed, (2) on a completely minor point. There are dozens of appellate level cases that are binding on the district--including ones that distinguish the DataEast case that people keeping pointing to.

All Yeti Town says is that WotC is likely to survive a motion to dismiss. That's all.

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 12:14 PM
We're not all basically discussing the Yeti Town case.

Why don't you link them then? What is the actual binding definition of substantial similarity in the relevant jurisdiction?

Don't just wave your lawyer hat around,* make your argument and cite the precedents with direct quotes. I've been reading all along in this thread and haven't seen you do that yet.


*(It probably isn't a good idea to do that anyway, just for fear of accidentally being construed as giving legal advice. This post not intended as legal advice!)

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 12:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_East_USA,_Inc._v._Epyx,_Inc.
Is the case that I think has the most similarities to hex v WOTC. Basically the appellate court ruled that the portions that were claimed to be covered by copyright where present in all similar titles.

What are some examples of distinguished cases that ignored that ruling in this district? Why do you think this case is unique enough to stand apart from that precedent?

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 12:26 PM
Why don't you link them then? What is the actual binding definition of substantial similarity in the relevant jurisdiction?

Don't just wave your lawyer hat around, make your argument and cite the precedents with direct quotes.

Oh, that's rich. If you're not a lawyer, you can just bullshit about whatever the fuck and it must be right, but if someone tells you it isn't, well, we want citations. Enjoy then.

Shaw v. Lindheim, 908 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1990)
Kroft, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977)
Range Road Music, Inc. v. East Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2012)

There are more, but you can start with the seminal cases.

Kami
05-20-2014, 12:31 PM
Can we please try to keep this civil (again) and cut out the unnecessary cussing?

Everyone is passionate but it's really unneeded.

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 12:32 PM
Oh, that's rich. If you're not a lawyer, you can just bullshit about whatever the fuck and it must be right, but if someone tells you it isn't, well, we want citations. Enjoy then.

Shaw v. Lindheim, 908 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1990)
Kroft, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977)
Range Road Music, Inc. v. East Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2012)

There are more, but you can start with the seminal cases.

Well . . .yes? I mean, like I said, I think announcing yourself as an attorney on an internet forum isn't a wise move either way (either you actually are one and suddenly you're arguably giving legal advice to a few thousand internet forum browsers, or you aren't, and you're at least arguably practicing without a license) but either way, yeah, if you're going to invoke personal authority . . . then you kinda have to expect to get called on that authority.

I mean, I'd like to see relevant caselaw regardless of who posts the links, but if you present yourself as someone who can post the links, then you probably should go ahead and post them, if only to prove us all wrong after all?

That said, thanks for the links! I will read them and hopefully have something intelligent to say afterwards.

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 12:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_East_USA,_Inc._v._Epyx,_Inc.
Is the case that I think has the most similarities to hex v WOTC. Basically the appellate court ruled that the portions that were claimed to be covered by copyright where present in all similar titles.

What are some examples of distinguished cases that ignored that ruling in this district? Why do you think this case is unique enough to stand apart from that precedent?

This is from Shaw:


By creating a discrete set of standards for determining the objective similarity of literary works, the law of this circuit has implicitly recognized the distinction between situations in which idea and expression merge in representational objects and those in which the idea is distinct from the written expression of a concept by a poet, a playwright, or a writer. A high degree of similarity is "inevitable from the use of [the] jewel-encrusted bee forms" at issue in Kalpakian, 446 F.2d at 742, or the stuffed dinosaur forms at issue in Aliotti, or the karate video games in Data East. As a result, the scope of the copyright protection afforded such works is necessarily narrow. See id. ("A jeweled bee pin is ... an 'idea' that defendants were free to copy."). In contrast, there is an infinite variety of novel or creative expression available to the author of a book, script, play, or motion picture based on a preexisting idea.

Keep in mind, Data East was about a video game form 1988. The more and more expressive video games get, the less and less there is going to be a merger of idea and expression. That case is now 26 years old. The video game industry is now huge and games are far more expressive. They are much closer to the infinite level of expression the court saw in a motion picture than they are to what it saw as a "generic karate game."

Similarly, there is no merger of expression and idea in Hex and MtG. They are both card games, but card game are not so highly similar that you can say, "well, they must all have to be the same." There's no need to rehash the dozens of ways Hex and Magic are similar that don't have to be that way (and I am not talking about game mechanics).

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 12:42 PM
Thank you Gatticus, that was a well reasoned and intriguing post. I will ponder on it for a while.

do you think there's an argument to be made for the primary keywords/focus of each faction as being game mechanics? Ie for proper development of a well balanced game, each faction should have major and minor themes that it shares with another color. In regards to the color pie, or in your view is that entirely for story purposes?

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 12:44 PM
Well . . .yes? I mean, like I said, I think announcing yourself as an attorney on an internet forum isn't a wise move either way (either you actually are one and suddenly you're arguably giving legal advice to a few thousand internet forum browsers, or you aren't, and you're at least arguably practicing without a license) but either way, yeah, if you're going to invoke personal authority . . . then you kinda have to expect to get called on that authority.

I mean, I'd like to see relevant caselaw regardless of who posts the links, but if you present yourself as someone who can post the links, then you probably should go ahead and post them, if only to prove us all wrong after all?

That said, thanks for the links! I will read them and hopefully have something intelligent to say afterwards.

None of you have any idea what "giving legal advice" is. If you think talking about the law on the internet is giving legal advice, then everyone in this thread who is not a lawyer is practicing law without a license, which is absurd. No one in this thread is a party to the lawsuit, which makes it awful hard for me to give them advice on how to handle the lawsuit, since they have no role in it.

Unless I call up CZE and tell them to take some certain action, and they rely on that and actually do it, I haven't given anyone any "advice." No one on here is practicing law for the same reason. So, we can skip the ad hominem attacks on the messenger about giving out legal advice.

Hieronymous
05-20-2014, 01:09 PM
No one in this thread is a party to the lawsuit, which makes it awful hard for me to give them advice on how to handle the lawsuit, since they have no role in it..

. . . we're all considering buying more Hex cards, though, and the legal validity of WotC's claim has a direct bearing on the wisdom of that decision . . .

Look, I'm not giving you (or anyone else!) legal advice either, and I'm not making any personal attacks on you or anyone else. I'm just saying loudly declaring yourself a real internet lawyer probably isn't a good idea. If nothing else, it doesn't convince anybody of anything - I've known plenty of honest to god licensed attorneys who couldn't find their "behind" with a map and a tour guide. What will convince people is well-reasoned arguments with citations to caselaw, so I was saying whether you are an attorney or not (it doesn't really matter), go ahead and link the cases so we can discuss the merits rather than wrangling around about who is or isn't a real internet lawyer.

That said looking over the links I think the takeaway is that WotC has a decent chance of surviving a 12(b)(6), but past that, it just seems to be a total mess. I think the DataEast case is a pretty strong precedent in Hex's favor, mostly because it's about video games while the other cases you're listing aren't. I think I agree with you that Shaw cuts the other way but the standards in Shaw seem to be little better than "I know it when I see it." The last two cases of the three you linked don't really seem relevant (Nobody's alleging Hex is a direct copy).

Unfortunately though all it may take to crush Hex is for the claim to survive the 12(b)(6) motion, just due to costs. Ultimately it looks like the law here is tangled enough and the parties unequal enough that this is going to be decided by pocketbooks, not by judges.

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 01:36 PM
Thank you Gatticus, that was a well reasoned and intriguing post. I will ponder on it for a while.

do you think there's an argument to be made for the primary keywords/focus of each faction as being game mechanics? Ie for proper development of a well balanced game, each faction should have major and minor themes that it shares with another color. In regards to the color pie, or in your view is that entirely for story purposes?

First off, I think people do not really understand the difference between a design decision and a game mechanic. Only allowing a troop to attack once per turn is a game mechanic; showing to the player that a troop cannot attack with a card again that turn by rotating it 90 degrees to the right is a design decision. Organizing cards into different groupings is a game mechanic; having those groupings differentiated by certain colors is a design decision. People have generally been inflating what is a game mechanic to encompass things that in my opinion are actually creative design.

So, as to the "keywords," for example, having a card that can only block is probably a game mechanic. Labeling it as "Defender" or "Defensive" are design choices. All that means is that the labelled terms could be afforded copyright protection, it doesn't necessarily mean it is infringing. It just means that the inquiry doesn't end and you then have to look at substantial similarity.

In a certain sense, those terms are tropeish, but when you tie the identical (albeit uncopyrightable) mechanic together with a nearly identical copyrightable term, there could be problems. Add that together with Swiftstrike and Firststrike, Flight and Flying, etc., and I could see a judge or jury struggling with those issues. Keep in mind, these aren't going to be looked at in a vacuum. They aren't going to separate this out into a million different mini-trials, and look only at "Defender" and "Defensive," and then decide and move onto the next element. They are going to look at the whole picture before deciding. People are spending too much time parsing out individual chunks and trying to distinguish them, when we are really looking at the whole picture.

I see the color wheel as pure design and I think this is going to be Hex's biggest problem on the copyright issue. No doubt, they will claim the colors are tropes--angels are white, vampires are black, fire is red, etc. The problem is there are so many cards in those same colors as Magic that are way too similar. Designating things with primary colors is certainly not protectable by copyright, but when you look at the totality of the color card pools, it is hard not to see the similarities in the design choices.

For example, blue is the color of time? That's a little far away from angels are white as far as tropes are concerned. Cards that do not require a specific color combination are probably a game mechanic, but why are they both called artifacts? Then you start looking into specific examples--the effect of counter magic is a game mechanic, the fact that it is part of the blue color is a design, and it is in both of them. Sure, angels are white, but why do we have a card that seems so similar to Serra Angel? Those are going to be the rebuttal arguments to the claim that colors are just tropeish.

cavench
05-20-2014, 01:45 PM
@ GatticusFinch, if similarity in design is brought up in court, can Hex Entertainment argue that these design decisions are just placeholders during beta testing and is subject to change when product is finalized? (ie artifacts becomes mechanicals, blue cards becomes cyan cards, etc.)

SamCube
05-20-2014, 01:46 PM
This may sound stupid, but could we not tick on a box when log in to the HEX client that said: "Ok, I know this is not Magic the Gathering owned by WOTC, I play it because it's better and shinny and I agree and enjoy any aspect of the game similar or not to other TCG."

"Thanks for playing."

"Have a nice day"

Just joking to break a little the ice and the too much tension in this room.

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 02:04 PM
. . . we're all considering buying more Hex cards, though, and the legal validity of WotC's claim has a direct bearing on the wisdom of that decision . . .

Except you're not my client, I'm not getting paid or retained, and you have no formal stake in the outcome different than any other user of the product. We are all here commenting on a newsworthy event. I just happen to have a more in-depth knowledge of that event. You ever read an article or see a news report where they have some uninvolved attorney comment on the situation? That's not legal advice, even if someone else were to act on it. If Cory came on here and said "GatticusFinch, what should I do," and I responded to him with what to do, then I would be giving advice.

More importantly, did I say somewhere that WotC was going to win? I find it interesting that in all these posts attacking my recitation of the legal standards, no one bothered to actually ask me who was going to win, they just assumed I was somehow on WotC's side.

Fyren
05-20-2014, 02:06 PM
More importantly, did I say somewhere that WotC was going to win? I find it interesting that in all these posts attacking my recitation of the legal standards, no one bothered to actually ask me who was going to win, they just assumed I was somehow on WotC's side.

So who do you think is going to win? :3

Banquetto
05-20-2014, 02:20 PM
More importantly, did I say somewhere that WotC was going to win? I find it interesting that in all these posts attacking my recitation of the legal standards, no one bothered to actually ask me who was going to win, they just assumed I was somehow on WotC's side.

There's definitely a whiff of "if you don't think this suit is hilariously meritless, and will be instantly dismissed, then you're on their side" going around the thread.

Then again, with 114 pages so far, there are a lot of whiffs going around.

GatticusFinch
05-20-2014, 02:33 PM
There's definitely a whiff of "if you don't think this suit is hilariously meritless, and will be instantly dismissed, then you're on their side" going around the thread.

Completely, and people were getting insane about it to the point that any hint otherwise was resulting in being attacked. Good thing these people don't read the boardgamegeek forums, because they might have to burn that place to the ground with all the CZE bashing going on over there.

I was just sick of seeing people reciting the same incorrect legal standards over and over and conflating the copyright, patent, and trade mark issues all as the same thing. I was foolishly thinking they would want to know what would actually be looked at, which soon turned into a bunch of shoot-the-messenger posts and then illegal practice of law threats.

In fact, the only opinion on the actual legal suit I expressed was that the suit wasn't frivolous, as did the other lawyers buried back in the last 114 pages. Filing a lawsuit that has absolutely zero legal merit as to be frivolous is damn near impossible.

Tinuvas
05-20-2014, 02:44 PM
Odd thought. I wonder if there is anywhere that Wizards has talked about it's impact on common culture with Magic. Could the argument be made that Magic's impressive resume and influence on society as a whole and especially on gamers and game design in particular has created cultural norms? Could time be related to the color 'blue' because it's been imprinted on our collective minds by Magic? Would that transcend copyright issues purely because Magic is SO big?

I know that we currently we associate 'white' coloring with heavenly/angelic beings, but I know of cultures where black was the color associated with 'holy'. What changed? Someone somewhere made the call and spread the idea. At what point does your influence rise above your franchise and become a cultural thing?

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 02:52 PM
If those were digs at me, I am on the BGG site, and participating in that discussion. Furthermore I never said the suit was frivolous. I said that I do not expect the trade dress claims specifically to stick. Which was the major disagreement we had, since you fell on the opposite side of that opinion. However, I think anyone coming to these forums and having the gall to flat out say Hex is a direct clone and illegal, should be blasted off the forum, just as much as someone going over to wotc forum and saying their lawsuit is completely bogus. There should be a bias on each respective forum, if there is not then something is incredibly wrong.

bootlace
05-20-2014, 03:02 PM
MTG are going to have a hard time winning the color wheel argument when it has its roots in the most ancient of cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing


Modern popular culture, especially in these fantasy type settings, often use this method of dividing up clans or whatnot and it can be seen in games/anime/movies etc over and over again. I was watching an anime called Naruto the other day and they pretty much have the same setup of the 4 classic elements + 1 which apply to both clans (http://naruto-fans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/worldmap.jpg) and the chakra or spell types (http://narutofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Chakra_Natures).

Hex have created their own version of these classical elements through Gems/Shards as has many games, series, cartoons before it.
These shards are actually the cornerstone of the entirely new lore and IP the game is bringing to the table - the game is called SHARDS of fate after all and there is even some further complexity to it in that 3 of them are named after gems but 2 are not. There is clearly some thought behind these choices.

The fact that these shard/gem types happen to overlap with some aspects of MTG's colors are entirely normal since both take their cue from the classical elements that our ancestors have lived by for thousands of years. Yes Fire or Red or Ruby is going to mean burn. Once you really have to go into super specifics to try to prove Hex copied MTG ("oh but why is the gem type Sapphire able to bounce creatures") I would think that point would tend to fizzle out in front of a jury in the face of all the actual innovations Hex is bringing to the table.

Arbiter
05-20-2014, 03:20 PM
Because milling, bouncing cards, time manipulation and discarding have been around since ancient times?

bootlace
05-20-2014, 03:34 PM
Because milling, bouncing cards, time manipulation and discarding have been around since ancient times?

No, where did I say that?

"Milling, bouncing cards, time manipulation and discarding" haven't been around since ancient times but they should be in any battle TCG worth their salt. The only issue then is which race/tribe/color/gem/element they belong in. It would make sense alot of these TCG abilities can be tied to the same fundamental core element. For example Sapphire is known as the stone of wisdom, so Sapphire powered spells being able to do TCG things related to wisdom makes sense.

Yoss
05-20-2014, 05:29 PM
There are literally entire areas of the law designed to prevent exactly that, and none of them have to do with "wholesale copying." You just happen to live in the one state where these laws don't apply to non-equity stake holders, so non-lawyers don't know about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

In any event, your point is actually wrong, and what you are arguing for actually benefits WotC. Prior access to the material is a relevant showing in a copyright claim that will lower the Plaintiff's burden of proving infringement. If you can show the Defendant had prior access and experience with the the copyrighted material, it weighs against the defense of independent development. The more access they can show, the less substantial similarity needs to be shown.

Prior experience of CZE employees with MTG is a hindrance to CZE, not a help.

I don't know where people got this idea that WotC needs to show "wholesale copying," but it was probably from the circle jerk of people with no legal experience reading one article and suddenly thinking they knew what they were talking about.

Substantial similarity =/= wholesale copying.
Substantial similarity =/= cloning.

I highly doubt that any CZE employee is under an NDC contract with WOTC. As for access to the MTG material, CZE will obviously not deny it; we all have access in great detail. It will all boil down to "substantial similarity", on which cases have generally been very lenient to the defendants when it comes to video games.

Copyright:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/562/1157/293262/

"¶22
The test for infringement therefore has been given a new dimension. There must be ownership of the copyright and access to the copyrighted work. But there also must be substantial similarity not only of the general ideas but of the expressions of those ideas as well. Thus two steps in the analytic process are implied by the requirement of substantial similarity."

The similarity of general idea could be simple (both are TCGs) or more complex (one is a TCG, one is a video game representation thereof; or even more granular down to specific rules and forms) or more specific (paper TCG dual of wizards across planes, video game of champions doing battle on a shattered world) or something else entirely. Depending on what specific "general ideas" are accepted by the court as applicable to each separate game, it could lead to either passing or failing this similarity test. The nice thing about this test is that it is analytical and factual; one can list out the ideas and check them against each other.

The similarity of expression contains much uncertainty for outsiders to divine the result, because it relies mostly on the fictitious "ordinary reasonable person" and how he or she would think about the two works. Considering the vagueness of this test, it could go either way. CZE (and at least some number of others) would argue that Hex and MTG are not similar in expression. WOTC (and at least some number of others) would argue the opposite.


Trade Dress: Covers "mistaken identity" as you might call it. No reasonable person is going to accidentally buy Hex when they were trying to buy MTG.


Patent: Covers game mechanics. This is, IMO, the main place where Hex might have trouble. There are multiple mitigating factors, like the fact that the patent expires this year, the patent is untested, the patent is overly broad, and so on.


I sill maintain that the patents are the only real threat here, but you never know what crazy stuff will come out of our legal system, especially considering that the copyright criteria includes the opinion of an "ordinary reasonable person" (a rather weakly defined term and thus criteria).

IANAL

Arbiter
05-20-2014, 05:39 PM
Where is the wisdom in bouncing something away, and having to deal with it later? MtG even have articles relating to abilities such as bounce that thematically belong in other colours, yet balance and gameplay wise need to be in the colour they are in. Discard from library - blue, discard from hand - black is another example. Water and air are in blue, yet lightning is red. Mental and arcane damage were in blue, and thematically belong there but have been, for the most part, removed for game balance.

You cannot relate all abilities back to that, because they don't fit. For some of them the only answer to the question "Why is that there?", is "because that is where MtG puts it." People expect to see it there because it is there in MtG, and can see no other place for it in HEX because HEX is built upon MtG.

Thraeg
05-20-2014, 06:00 PM
Where is the wisdom in bouncing something away, and having to deal with it later?

I see it as very thematic with water and air. It's a judo approach to battle -- not smashing the enemy directly, but flowing around them or misdirecting them so they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.


MtG even have articles relating to abilities such as bounce that thematically belong in other colours, yet balance and gameplay wise need to be in the colour they are in. Discard from library - blue, discard from hand - black is another example. Water and air are in blue, yet lightning is red. Mental and arcane damage were in blue, and thematically belong there but have been, for the most part, removed for game balance.

You cannot relate all abilities back to that, because they don't fit. For some of them the only answer to the question "Why is that there?", is "because that is where MtG puts it." People expect to see it there because it is there in MtG, and can see no other place for it in HEX because HEX is built upon MtG.

You're contradicting yourself there. If there are strong balance and gameplay reasons to put effects in certain colors, then the reason they are in those colors in Hex is likely because of those underlying balance and gameplay reasons, not because they are in those colors in Magic.

bootlace
05-20-2014, 06:53 PM
Where is the wisdom in bouncing something away, and having to deal with it later? MtG even have articles relating to abilities such as bounce that thematically belong in other colours, yet balance and gameplay wise need to be in the colour they are in. Discard from library - blue, discard from hand - black is another example. Water and air are in blue, yet lightning is red. Mental and arcane damage were in blue, and thematically belong there but have been, for the most part, removed for game balance.

You cannot relate all abilities back to that, because they don't fit. For some of them the only answer to the question "Why is that there?", is "because that is where MtG puts it." People expect to see it there because it is there in MtG, and can see no other place for it in HEX because HEX is built upon MtG.

You're really nit-picking here. The majority of mechanic distribution make logical sense and others that don't, as you admitted, will be done for functional reasons. Hex should certainly have the playtesting trail to back up their decisions. Is Set 1 balanced in your opinion? I think its really well balanced, and that just shows that their decisions were on point. Remember functionality is a key point in deciding what can or can't be borrowed from.

At the end of the day for me it boils down to one simple question:

Should MTG have a monopoly on a "reactive battle TCG where players gain their power from different elements" ?

(reactive refers to there being need of phases/steps, battle refers to two sides fighting it out to the death, TCG refers to buying and building decks, elements refers to stuff like fire/water/earth/air type of powers practically all RPGs make use of - Hex doesn't even lazy out here and just use those generic terms as would have been within their rights.).

For me this is pretty much a genre of card games at this point. So as long as a company has their own creative implementation of a "reactive battle TCG where players gain their power from different elements" then its fine with me. Hex certainly fits that definition.

Arbiter
05-20-2014, 08:00 PM
You're contradicting yourself there. If there are strong balance and gameplay reasons to put effects in certain colors, then the reason they are in those colors in Hex is likely because of those underlying balance and gameplay reasons, not because they are in those colors in Magic.

That isn't a contradiction at all. The reasons why there are compelling game reasons in both HEX and MtG is that HEX uses the MtG rule system. That is not in conjecture, it is undeniable fact. There have likely been hundreds of card games over the last 20 years, with different rules and systems to MtG, that have housed effects in different places.

QuantumZeruul
05-20-2014, 08:04 PM
Setting aside the conflict of "yes, it infringes" and "no, it does not" for a little while, which will ultimately be decided by settlement or in a court of law, let me ask this question.

Assuming it finally does go to court, what do you think the overall precedents would be set should either side win their argument? I have a gut feeling that these kinds of decisions could potentially affect the gaming (or at least ccg/tcg) industry as much as Oracle v Google could affect the software development industry.

Hibbert
05-20-2014, 08:40 PM
That isn't a contradiction at all. The reasons why there are compelling game reasons in both HEX and MtG is that HEX uses the MtG rule system. That is not in conjecture, it is undeniable fact. There have likely been hundreds of card games over the last 20 years, with different rules and systems to MtG, that have housed effects in different places.

If you have the indisputable evidence that shows the Hex designers taking the MtG color pie, slapping different names on it, and calling it a day, I'm sure the WotC lawyers would be very interested in it. Otherwise, it IS just conjecture.

To pick a random example of color to effect mapping, it's not like Hex and Magic are the only games in existence where drawing cards is a blue(or blue colored gem) ability:
http://i.imgur.com/qIseSI9.gif
Watch out Mattel, you might be next! :)

hexnaes
05-20-2014, 08:57 PM
If you have the indisputable evidence that shows the Hex designers taking the MtG color pie, slapping different names on it, and calling it a day, I'm sure the WotC lawyers would be very interested in it. Otherwise, it IS just conjecture.

To pick a random example of color to effect mapping, it's not like Hex and Magic are the only games in existence where drawing cards is a blue(or blue colored gem) ability:
http://i.imgur.com/qIseSI9.gif
Watch out Mattel, you might be next! :)

The arguments in this thread are getting worse and worse.

/facepalm

Hibbert
05-20-2014, 09:20 PM
The arguments in this thread are getting worse and worse.

/facepalm

That was a joke, not an argument. I guess not a very obvious one, or good one.

Or else you fell victim to Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). Given the amount of extremism in this thread(on both sides), it's very possible.

hexnaes
05-20-2014, 09:23 PM
That was a joke, not an argument. I guess not a very obvious one, or good one.

Or else you fell victim to Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). Given the amount of extremism in this thread(on both sides), it's very possible.

Whew, thanks for clearing that up. This thread is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why I keep coming back to it. :)

Arbiter
05-20-2014, 09:59 PM
If you have the indisputable evidence that shows the Hex designers taking the MtG color pie, slapping different names on it, and calling it a day, I'm sure the WotC lawyers would be very interested in it. Otherwise, it IS just conjecture.

A group of MtG players could get together and produce a game that uses, for the most part the same rule system with the same start and end (victory) states and the same distribution and costing system as MtG. The chance that they independently came up with the same system that they have played for 20 years would require that HEX had been developed on the "Heart of Gold" with its drive turned up to the max.

Now they may have done years of research to determine that MtG was the best vehicle to deliver their story and game, but it doesn't change the fact that MtG was the start state for their game and they developed from there.

You have to realise that there have been hundreds of card games with various levels of success over the last 20 years, and none that I know of have come this close. Rules, colour breakdowns, combat, even the clunky priority system. There have even been multiple digital card games released recently, some of which had Richard Garfield on the credits, and none of which felt that there was a need to use the Magic rules in order to make a digital card game.

Now discussions on whether a digital game should be able to iterate from an existing source; WotC's patent and what it means and whether WotC should stop a competitor from entering a space that they seem to have no creative interest in; those are all relevant and to some extent useful. Assertions that MtG could have been independently replicated through research by MtG players is a waste of time and an insult to the collective intelligence of the forum.

FeelNFine
05-20-2014, 10:08 PM
So... New topic, did they really call Hasbro a bully in their official statement? How does that get argued in court? And they also called it frivolous, does that mean they intend to counter sue because the original complaint was frivolous?

I don't know much about law, but doesn't that make things harder for them/

Xexist
05-20-2014, 11:51 PM
So... New topic, did they really call Hasbro a bully in their official statement? How does that get argued in court? And they also called it frivolous, does that mean they intend to counter sue because the original complaint was frivolous?

I don't know much about law, but doesn't that make things harder for them/

Noone like a bully. Hopefully not even judges and jurors.

frychikn
05-21-2014, 12:05 AM
A group of MtG players could get together and produce a game that uses, for the most part the same rule system with the same start and end (victory) states and the same distribution and costing system as MtG. The chance that they independently came up with the same system that they have played for 20 years would require that HEX had been developed on the "Heart of Gold" with its drive turned up to the max.

Now they may have done years of research to determine that MtG was the best vehicle to deliver their story and game, but it doesn't change the fact that MtG was the start state for their game and they developed from there.

You have to realise that there have been hundreds of card games with various levels of success over the last 20 years, and none that I know of have come this close. Rules, colour breakdowns, combat, even the clunky priority system. There have even been multiple digital card games released recently, some of which had Richard Garfield on the credits, and none of which felt that there was a need to use the Magic rules in order to make a digital card game.

Now discussions on whether a digital game should be able to iterate from an existing source; WotC's patent and what it means and whether WotC should stop a competitor from entering a space that they seem to have no creative interest in; those are all relevant and to some extent useful. Assertions that MtG could have been independently replicated through research by MtG players is a waste of time and an insult to the collective intelligence of the forum.

this x20202034

MuffLord4
05-21-2014, 12:44 AM
It still hasn't been adressed, if WOTC is in the right, why can CoD not sue Medal of Honor?

MoH is even closer to a trade dress infringement than hex is to wotc.

bootlace
05-21-2014, 02:01 AM
A group of MtG players could get together and produce a game that uses, for the most part the same rule system with the same start and end (victory) states and the same distribution and costing system as MtG. The chance that they independently came up with the same system that they have played for 20 years would require that HEX had been developed on the "Heart of Gold" with its drive turned up to the max.

Now they may have done years of research to determine that MtG was the best vehicle to deliver their story and game, but it doesn't change the fact that MtG was the start state for their game and they developed from there.

You have to realise that there have been hundreds of card games with various levels of success over the last 20 years, and none that I know of have come this close. Rules, colour breakdowns, combat, even the clunky priority system. There have even been multiple digital card games released recently, some of which had Richard Garfield on the credits, and none of which felt that there was a need to use the Magic rules in order to make a digital card game.

Now discussions on whether a digital game should be able to iterate from an existing source; WotC's patent and what it means and whether WotC should stop a competitor from entering a space that they seem to have no creative interest in; those are all relevant and to some extent useful. Assertions that MtG could have been independently replicated through research by MtG players is a waste of time and an insult to the collective intelligence of the forum.

What you're saying doesn't matter in the face of the law. Copyright or trade dress isn't there to protect innovation. The important thing is Hex's decisions don't exist to confuse players or make a cheap buck off someone else's name - they are there to make a good game. Hundreds of games are made every year in which everything from the rules to win conditions to how the game is played is near identical. Have a quick look at another pretty niche gaming genre: http://www.games.com/match-3-games


Dont know why TCGs are the only genre where developers apparently have to reinvent the wheel in every facet of the game every time they make a game. Hex is already making a whole new genre (!) and completely fresh new IP that apparently already has 7+ years of story planned out but I guess they should have arbitrarily multiplied every number in their game by 100 and maybe dumbed down the game in some areas just to be completely different from a game that came out over 20 years ago.

If for example Magic had flopped several year into its game and pretty much ceased to exist, it would still be within their right according to you that in the year 2087 they can prevent another game developer from making a battle TCG that borrows from some their core mechanics. That is simply ridiculous.

Arbiter
05-21-2014, 03:31 AM
What you're saying doesn't matter in the face of the law. Copyright or trade dress isn't there to protect innovation.
I agree with you here. I'm just trying to point out that the argument some seem to favour (that HEX R&D reinvented MtG, rather than used it as a base) won't wash. The arguments were getting tiresome.


The important thing is Hex's decisions don't exist to confuse players or make a cheap buck off someone else's name - they are there to make a good game.

I agree and disagree here. I think HEX are out to make a good game. I don't think MtG was chosen as a base by accident though. I think it was chosen in order to increase profit, and game longevity. A new system would be a gamble, and plenty of superior systems have failed over the years. MtG is a known quantity.


Hundreds of games are made every year in which everything from the rules to win conditions to how the game is played is near identical. Have a quick look at another pretty niche gaming genre: http://www.games.com/match-3-games

Those games are a lot simpler than a TCG. Please name a CCG or TCG that is closer to MtG than HEX is that is currently around. There are many, many card games out there that did not fall prey to WotC. In the last year we have had Solforge, Card Hunter, Scrolls and Hearthstone, that all manage to be far more different to MtG than HEX. In the paper space, Paizo managed to produce a card game (Pathfinder Card Game) featuring characters that levelled up and geared their deck up through adventures, in an LCG that has almost finished its first year and module. Dominion came in and shook things up a few years ago (and was cloned a lot).


Dont know why TCGs are the only genre where developers apparently have to reinvent the wheel in every facet of the game every time they make a game. Hex is already making a whole new genre (!) and completely fresh new IP that apparently already has 7+ years of story planned out but I guess they should have arbitrarily multiplied every number in their game by 100 and maybe dumbed down the game in some areas just to be completely different from a game that came out over 20 years ago.

Be thankful it isn't music. In the early eighties, Men At Work had a massive hit with Down Under. It contained a 10 note riff from a kid's nursery rhyme (Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree). Nothing sinister, a bit of fun and the early eighties weren't big on lawsuits (in Australia, anyway). This century, someone bought the rights to that nursery rhyme (I think from a deceased estate) and successfully sued the band for a portion of all royalties received from the songs debut.

TCGs, CCGs and LCGs don't need to reinvent the wheel, but how much should you be allowed to copy? Yes, Wizard's patent is too generic. Do you regard that as an excuse for HEX To take there system, make a few changes and present it as there own system? Hearthstone, Solforge, Card Hunter and Pathfinder aren't being sued. Two of these games had the designer of MtG as a consultant and managed to stay well away from Magic's rules. Multiplying by 100 wouldn't help, and every small change affects game balance so has a time and cost effect on the game.

The sad thing is that MtGs rules really aren't well-suited for online play anyway. The game flow is so much better in real life as opposed to online. There was opportunity for reinvention of rules to suit the online space as well as cards (I'm sure you don't need to simplify play as much as Hearthstone to have a flowing online game) but they elected not to,


If for example Magic had flopped several year into its game and pretty much ceased to exist, it would still be within their right according to you that in the year 2087 they can prevent another game developer from making a battle TCG that borrows from some their core mechanics. That is simply ridiculous.

Again, HEX did not borrow some of their mechanics. HEX took MtG's rulebook and went from there. The legal system may still rule that perfectly legal, but don't say they borrowed a few things. And, yes, there are games that people love from the 70s and 80s that are no longer in production that other companies cannot bring out because the company that owns the game still has the rights to it. Plenty of second hand, out of print board games sell for large amounts because no one could reprint them even if they want to.

The whole case is interesting because it is a digital only game that has taken a rule set and design from an existing card game. I'm actually interested to see what the rulings are for this. I don't think either side is going into court wearing a white hat, though. CZE could have avoided all of this by designing their own system rather than using one of the most popular card games on the planet. They get benefits from it (in terms of an instant audience, wider appeal, and 20 years worth of theory crafting and development) and avoid the risks of a system that may not be popular. In return, they run the risk of legal action from WotC, which they are now under.

Warrender
05-21-2014, 04:22 AM
I can't wait until this all blows over and we can go back to hating on lawyers.

FeelNFine
05-21-2014, 04:28 AM
Hey now, A lot of lawyers love card games, as this thread has evidenced :P

escapeRoute
05-21-2014, 04:42 AM
that doesnt change the fact that lawyers are really the worst... i mean.. i've never seen an IT technician saying to somebody "u are not my client and are not paying me, screw u i wont give u an advice for free", or a carpenter, or a chef, or a taxi driver.... lawyers regularly do it :P

Kami
05-21-2014, 04:47 AM
i've never seen an IT technician saying to somebody "u are not my client and are not paying me, screw u i wont give u an advice for free"

This is one example I can guarantee has happened. There are just some clients that are... 'insane'. ^^;

FeelNFine
05-21-2014, 05:12 AM
Have you ever had asked an IT guy if he'll set up a network in your house for free? Have you tried being friends with the lawyers?

Leingod
05-21-2014, 05:15 AM
It still hasn't been adressed, if WOTC is in the right, why can CoD not sue Medal of Honor?

MoH is even closer to a trade dress infringement than hex is to wotc.

Mostly because they didn't think of it so it is too late. WOTC has been vigilant in threatening to sue any paper card game with any semblance of success if the tales about how many people have had to license or settle stuff with them. But it is too late in the case of CoD and such since so many knockoffs already exist. If Capcom and ID had been smarter, assuming this lawsuit holds, they could have easily prevented just about any other fps or 2d fighter from existing without getting money from them. I don't know offhand if Riot for example could rush to patent an overly broad definition of mobas that encompasses any possible variation in order to sue things like DawnGate that pop up afterwards, but I doubt it given all the DotA clones around already.

Gattou
05-21-2014, 05:36 AM
How long is it gonna take now that the response has been made ?
Someone know the procedure ?

Xenavire
05-21-2014, 05:38 AM
How long is it gonna take now that the response has been made ?

A statement isn't the same as a legal filing. Unless I missed something, CZE still has to file their counter-whatever, and if that is meant to be a public file like the WotC/Hasbro one, when we see that, things will be starting shortly afterwards.

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 06:17 AM
Mostly because they didn't think of it so it is too late. WOTC has been vigilant in threatening to sue any paper card game with any semblance of success if the tales about how many people have had to license or settle stuff with them. But it is too late in the case of CoD and such since so many knockoffs already exist. If Capcom and ID had been smarter, assuming this lawsuit holds, they could have easily prevented just about any other fps or 2d fighter from existing without getting money from them. I don't know offhand if Riot for example could rush to patent an overly broad definition of mobas that encompasses any possible variation in order to sue things like DawnGate that pop up afterwards, but I doubt it given all the DotA clones around already.

Going by discussion earlier in the thread, I think it's more that cases like that Dataeast case cited above about karate fighting games have generally been seen as a bar to that kind of lawsuit because all games of a certain genre share certain characteristics -- an fps is going to have guns in it, just like a karate game is going to have punching in it (and presumably like a fantasy tcg is going to have a card that kills other cards in it).

I think if Hex loses the suit it could undo a lot of that precedent and open up the industry to a lot more suits like that. CoD may go back and sue Medal of Honor.

Struyk
05-21-2014, 06:24 AM
This is so stupid from both sides of the party...

You DO NOT copy cards like that ggg! It's not hard to design your own UNIQUE gameplay when it comes to tcg's. Even I'm making one right now in unity and it's nothing like you've ever seen.

But then what's even worse... This Hasbro... MTGO is already dieing and instead of teaming up with companies like GGG to make a new and better game ( with pve / ah for example ) they sue the shit out of them because they lose like $500 from the people that went over to play Hex, a better game in every aspect? Get real...

dnu
05-21-2014, 06:32 AM
a collaboration would have been the solution , but not sure any of the companies wanted that.

Xenavire
05-21-2014, 06:41 AM
a collaboration would have been the solution , but not sure any of the companies wanted that.

Actually, a collaboration would have been the worst situation for both companies. Hasbro wants to have the biggest piece of the pie, or get royalties for doing nothing. And CZE wants to complete control, or give to up a tiny bit of profit rather than suffer an injunction.

If they got together, it would be worse for them, and ultimately worse for the fans.

Kami
05-21-2014, 06:44 AM
a collaboration would have been the solution , but not sure any of the companies wanted that.

I'd have to disagree with the collaboration bit. It would've been as much collaboration as Dr. Dre and Monster for the Beats (a.k.a. garbage) line of audio equipment.

If you've ever read the story, it was essentially a large organization using a smaller company to do all the legwork and give them pennies. I could almost guarantee you that if CZE and WotC had collaborated, CZE would be left in the dust and HEX would likely be just another sub-par Magic spin-off.

Look at what WotC did with DotP. It's a shallow imitation of the expanse that is Magic.

I'd like to also add that WotC/Hasbro is basically Research in Motion (RIM) at this point. They've sat on their laurels for so long that now that there is a strong competitor, they are worried it will (and should) cannibalize their market. That is what competition is.

Competition is not making sure you are the only company to do a certain thing so you have a monopoly and thus not have to do any work.

To add more: If CZE wins this lawsuit (and subsequent appeals?), I'm positive that WotC will have to step up their game. How is that in any way bad for Magic players? Especially when the majority of them say stuff like: Their online client sucks, their new sets suck, etc. -- but it's the only game like it at the moment.

In other words, you're settling for mediocrity because you have no choice.

Xenavire
05-21-2014, 06:49 AM
I'd have to disagree with the collaboration bit. It would've been as much collaboration as Dr. Dre and Monster for the Beats (a.k.a. garbage) line of audio equipment.

If you've ever read the story, it was essentially a large organization using a smaller company to do all the legwork and give them pennies. I could almost guarantee you that if CZE and WotC had collaborated, CZE would be left in the dust and HEX would likely be just another sub-par Magic spin-off.

Look at what WotC did with DotP. It's a shallow imitation of the expanse that is Magic.

*Shudder* This is an understatement. It is slow, clunky, and is basically featureless. It isn't even passable compared to Hex, and even when modded it falls far short.

Basically, it is only good if you mod it for nostalgia reasons, and even then expect disappointment.

Gattou
05-21-2014, 06:55 AM
If they got together, it would be worse for them, and ultimately worse for the fans.
Agree with that.
And it's very strange to sue a closed beta game that is not even released or finished... rules can be changed and the patent expire in september if i'm right.

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 06:56 AM
*Shudder* This is an understatement. It is slow, clunky, and is basically featureless. It isn't even passable compared to Hex, and even when modded it falls far short.

Basically, it is only good if you mod it for nostalgia reasons, and even then expect disappointment.

The best analogy here isn't actually call of duty/medal of honor.

It's Games Workshop and Blizzard with the original Warcraft.

Blizzard went to Games Workshop before making Warcraft and said "hey, we would like to make a video game out of Warhammer." Battletech refused because they didn't want to hurt sales of their physical figurines. So Blizzard made a game that was basically warhammer, the video game, but with different lore and so forth so it wasn't a direct infringement, and with rules and interactions adapted for a video game (i.e., real-time, no turns).

The situation's basically the same here. WotC is more interested in preserving their physical card sales than anything else; they did make a video game, but it's really bad, and it doesn't take any advantage of digital space because it isn't interested in the digital space -- it's just an advertisement for physical cards. So Hex has come along and made a blockbuster-quality video game based on a lot of the same basic concepts, but fully adapted for the digital space.

If it succeeds it could end up doing for physical TCG's what Warcraft did for tabletop wargaming.

dnu
05-21-2014, 07:03 AM
then you cant really blame WotC for trying to be conservative about their game and tradition :p

Xenavire
05-21-2014, 07:04 AM
The best analogy here isn't actually call of duty/medal of honor.

It's Games Workshop and Blizzard with the original Warcraft.

Blizzard went to Games Workshop before making Warcraft and said "hey, we would like to make a video game out of Warhammer." Battletech refused because they didn't want to hurt sales of their physical figurines. So Blizzard made a game that was basically warhammer, the video game, but with different lore and so forth so it wasn't a direct infringement, and with rules and interactions adapted for a video game (i.e., real-time, no turns).

The situation's basically the same here. WotC is more interested in preserving their physical card sales than anything else; they did make a video game, but it's really bad, and it doesn't take any advantage of digital space because it isn't interested in the digital space -- it's just an advertisement for physical cards. So Hex has come along and made a blockbuster-quality video game based on a lot of the same basic concepts, but fully adapted for the digital space.

If it succeeds it could end up doing for physical TCG's what Warcraft did for tabletop wargaming.

I agree, but the point is that they missed the boat with DotP. They could have made a full featured game, and still made it more compelling to play MTGO or physical MTG. They instead went full-out cash cow, and are regretting it completely now.

Fact is, they should have had some old core sets and a few old blocks, and slowly released expansion sets. They should have allowed proper deckbuilding from the start. They should have included earning fake currency by winning versus the AI, and using that currency to buy in-game boosters.

They failed to do all of this, and as a result the game is very stale, mere hours from the time you buy it.

Tinuvas
05-21-2014, 07:42 AM
Whew, thanks for clearing that up. This thread is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why I keep coming back to it. :)

We are all feeling a wee bit threatened and helpless by this lawsuit, and need a place to emotionally vent I think. The number of times the same argument has been hashed out in this thread seems to defy common sense, but I think it's healthy. It's better than the low class "How do we kill Hasbro" ideas floating around. I'm glad that CZE has given us room to vent. I appreciate it. We're all in this together, for better or for worse. If the community needs it, may this thread make 4000 posts.

GatticusFinch
05-21-2014, 09:48 AM
So who do you think is going to win? :3

Impossible to know. I could see it going either way, which is probably why it is in the court system instead of being resolved already.

I would prefer that WotC lose. The patent is finally going to expire anyway, which is a good thing, but MTG:O has been complete garbage forever and I think the patent has given them license to not innovate in the digital space. They could have released a quality client that would have beat Hex to market many years ago, but never did. Whether the patent itself will stand up in court, I have no idea, but either way the patent is dying in a few months, so that can't be the grounds for stopping all development of Hex, just past damages, perhaps.

The trade dress and copyright claims are a complete crapshoot. Unfortunately, there appears to be enough for WotC to get past a motion to dismiss and at that point you could get a jury to believe Hex and Magic are substantially similar or confusing, or they could say they are not. The old video game case law is so old as to be worthless: games now rival films in terms of expression, and films have usually been seen as having "limitless" expression, which might suggest broader copyright protection for games, and the more recent decisions seem to be adopting that. Yeti Town is a confusing decision, but it is only a district level decision, which has no precedential authority.

In any event, someone needed to play devil's advocate in this thread because people were misleading themselves and each other on what the law was, throwing out things like "frivolous" and "video games can't be copyrighted" and "every FPS game can sue each other" and so on. They just assumed that because I said they were wrong on what the law is, that I somehow thought or wanted WotC to win, which makes no sense at all given the amount of time and money I have invested in the game.

ossuary
05-21-2014, 10:06 AM
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Gatticus. We appreciate it.

So if this goes all the way to trial without settling, what are your thoughts on the longterm ramifications for gaming if either party wins? Does it set bad precedent for other small companies if WOTC's claims are upheld? Does it make it even easier for companies to attempt to borrow/copy parts of another company's product or ideas if CZE wins outright?

The whole thing is fascinating to me, but the potential landfall of any court decision seems terrifying, on one level or another. Maybe it would almost be better for the industry as a whole if it just settled out of court?

mach
05-21-2014, 10:53 AM
I agree, but the point is that they missed the boat with DotP. They could have made a full featured game, and still made it more compelling to play MTGO or physical MTG. They instead went full-out cash cow, and are regretting it completely now.

As I understand it, DoTP is considered a success. It's not meant to be a full-featured game. It's meant to be a way to get people into the game, and apparently does this very well.


Whether the patent itself will stand up in court, I have no idea, but either way the patent is dying in a few months, so that can't be the grounds for stopping all development of Hex, just past damages, perhaps.


But that might be enough, right? CZE can't be in too great financial shape because Hex is so behind schedule. Legal fees and damages from the patent claim could easily be enough to bankrupt them.



So if this goes all the way to trial without settling, what are your thoughts on the longterm ramifications for gaming if either party wins? Does it set bad precedent for other small companies if WOTC's claims are upheld? Does it make it even easier for companies to attempt to borrow/copy parts of another company's product or ideas if CZE wins outright?

The whole thing is fascinating to me, but the potential landfall of any court decision seems terrifying, on one level or another. Maybe it would almost be better for the industry as a whole if it just settled out of court?


It's not just who wins, it's what the details of the decision are. I could see a win for either side setting good precedent, bad precedent, or no precendent at all, depending on the details of the outcome.

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 11:13 AM
A
But that might be enough, right? CZE can't be in too great financial shape because Hex is so behind schedule. Legal fees and damages from the patent claim could easily be enough to bankrupt them..

It's hard to really know. It depends on what WotC is asking for and what CZE is willing to give. Now that card rewards have been handed out, CZE can't change a lot of design features without potentially damaging card values and hurting customers. A lot of cosmetic things could still be changed around -- greying-out cards instead of turning them sideways, etc. -- but that may not be enough for Wizards. If Wizards wants an ownership stake they'll just use that to kill the company because they aren't interested in digital competition for their main product.

Maybe they could work out something around a licensing fee of some kind? hard to guess.

Kilo24
05-21-2014, 11:14 AM
Let me also thank you for the analysis, Gatticus.


The whole thing is fascinating to me, but the potential landfall of any court decision seems terrifying, on one level or another. Maybe it would almost be better for the industry as a whole if it just settled out of court?
That certainly would have less impact on the industry. There's a number of similar precedents for it, at least.

The big issue here is that game patents are untested in court. Right now, the cost of acquiring and defending a patent makes it not viable to gamble on it for anything but the largest of companies. If this emerges as a victory for WotC, that may make game patents much more reliable and therefore encourage smaller companies to also get patents. We'd get a lot more of these kinds of cases in court, and games would have to differentiate themselves from eachother more.

That may not be a bad thing for the industry as a whole (especially looking at, say, the mobile gaming industry or Zynga). Keep in mind that the patent system was originally intended to protect and not stifle innovation; it may end up that as broken as the patent system is it might actually work for once. I personally believe that if Hex had to differentiate itself from MTG more from the word go, we'd end up with a better game at the end (albeit one with a less profitable Kickstarter) - and that is precisely what patents are intended to do.

It will still almost certainly be the case that big companies who can afford to pay lawyers will profit significantly more from patents than smaller companies, though. It would require a lot of legal system reform for that to change.

If Cryptozoic defends itself well, I don't think that much will change in the industry. Sure, WotC will likely be left with a patent without teeth and legal defenses for similar games will weaken, but frankly they're already pretty weak. We still would be nowhere close to, say, China's lack of IP protection, though.

The requisite IANAL goes here.

bojanglesz
05-21-2014, 11:15 AM
Who cares what an actual lawyer thinks, what are Gwaer's thoughts!?

GatticusFinch
05-21-2014, 11:21 AM
Depends on how they win. Keep in mind, at the trial court level, no decision is precedent. Only if the case reaches the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would the decision be binding on the rest of the 9th Circuit, and wouldn't be binding on everyone in the U.S. unless it reached the Supreme Court of the United States. People will look to the district case as being persuasive, perhaps, but it won't technically change anything or force certain things to happen. The law generally moves very slowly because of this, and it is rare you get any wholesale change out of anything short of a SCOTUS case. They are just little tweaks here and there to the law that add up over time. Nothing in this case, for example, would say "game mechanics are now copyrightable" and mean anything unless it moved a few courts up.

I see very few long term ramifications for the patent issue. There are so few video game patents (relatively speaking, there are actually more than you would think: http://www.patentarcade.com/ ) that this is basically a one-off event and the specific patent is going to expire anyway. If WotC loses on the patent, that doesn't hurt so bad because the patent was going to expire anyway. If Hex loses on the patent, it will hurt if damages are awarded, but the game will still live on once the patent expires (which will occur during the litigation anyway).

Copyright and trade dress are fact intensive cases. What one Tetris knock off case or Yeti Town case decides ultimately has no real bearing on future cases because they are all going to need to look at the two products at issue, and that will be done by different judges and different juries so it is hard to extrapolate any meaning out of them. When you are asking judges and juries to make subjective and fact intensive judgment calls, they don't really create anything precedent. One of the things you try to do as a lawyer is find cases that are factually similar to the one you are handling, and then argue to the court that it should be decided the same way. Of course, the other lawyer is going to pick that apart and say that the two fact patterns are distinguishable, and therefore there is no need to follow it. So, at most, what it would create is future arguments saying "this case is just like the Hex and Magic litigation," and someone else would say "no, it isn't," and at the end of the day someone is still going to look at the two individual products.

That said, if WotC were to win on a copyright claim, it would confirm that we are starting to see an expansion of those areas of the law in the video game space. Frankly, I think we need to see some expansion to prevent the myriad knockoffs in the mobile space where outright theft of a game, wholesale, is rampant: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-22-vlambeer-cloned-againa-with-shameless-luftrausers-rip-off Gaming companies need some protection for these ideas. In the case of vlambeer, the knockoffs of their games were actually beating them to market! I think the Tetris clone case and Yeti Town are moving toward that protection, but neither really reached what I am expecting to see a case say someday--that video games are so expressive and capable of almost infinite variation that the old DataEast case, which held the Street Fighter clone was a "merger of expression and idea," is a case from a different time that has no application today (I don't think it does at this time anyway, but we'll see if anyone cites in in this litigation).

Now, I don't think Hex and Magic is the type of expansion we need. That's going too far, IMO. There are spaces between a complete ripoff (Tetris clone), a reskin and tweak (Yeti Town), a build off and improvement upon older ideas (Hex), and a mostly original creation (Magic). I think those first two should be given less protection. There are far too many reskin and tweak games and it hurts true game developers, just like the vlambeer situation linked above. I don't think, however, that those protections should extend to Hex. I think Hex is truly transformative in the digital card game space and while it no doubt borrows up old mechanics from Magic, I don't think copyright law should expand enough to prevent use of non-patented mechanics by others (which Yeti Town seems to imply the opposite, and that mechanics are afforded some protection).

I think that stifles innovation. Some balance needs to be struck between protecting original creators so they can profit off of their own creations, and incentivize development, and allowing others to advance creation by working off of those ideas. That is what copyright law and patent law exist for. CZE may be getting sued by WotC today, but CZE could have to defend its original creations by going after someone else in the future.

I think Hex is closer to the "no, this is the type of advancement that does not infringe" side of the equation. If it ultimately reaches the point where the court says WotC had a particular copyright interest at issue, I think CZE can show Hex is transformative enough to avoid infringement.

The trade dress, which I argued is not as clear cut as people were saying, is still a very weak claim. It's just not as open and shut as people see it simply because you could get a jury full of your grandma looking at a screen of Duels and a screen of Hex and saying it is confusing. I don't think there are enough non-functional elements that would cause confusion when taken as a whole, but admittedly there are some.

At the end of the day, there is good evidence and bad evidence for both sides and it is an almost exclusively factual issue. That doesn't lend itself to predicting the outcome.

ossuary
05-21-2014, 11:36 AM
Very interesting. It seems, then, that at the very least, there is little risk to disruption of the industry at large, like some people were panicking about. Even if CZE loses (and god, I hope they don't), we won't suddenly see a situation where every FPS maker is suing every other FPS maker for having a minimap in the upper left corner. ;)

I know that the trade dress issue is not completely cut and dry, but hopefully the fact that we're comparing a physical piece of cardboard to a very different looking digital representation of a piece of cardboard (that glows!) will go a long way to having any jury agree that they're not confusable. Especially in a post-Wii world, where even my grandma plays the newest Mario and thinks Sonic is played out. ;)

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 11:39 AM
One question I haven't seen the answer to: is the relevant standard for the ordinary observer an ordinary man in the street, or an ordinary purchaser of a TCG? Because I think to an ordinary man in the street who has no conception of TCG's, yeah, the two games look fairly similar, but to an ordinary player of TCG's, the two games look markedly different ("What's swiftstrike? Where are my land cards? What are gems?"

Said another way, if you've played Magic before, you will instantly realize Hex is a different game. If you haven't and are looking at the two in complete ignorance, they might look pretty similar (but so might any two online card games).

GatticusFinch
05-21-2014, 11:48 AM
One question I haven't seen the answer to: is the relevant standard for the ordinary observer an ordinary man in the street, or an ordinary purchaser of a TCG? Because I think to an ordinary man in the street who has no conception of TCG's, yeah, the two games look fairly similar, but to an ordinary player of TCG's, the two games look markedly different ("What's swiftstrike? Where are my land cards? What are gems?"

Said another way, if you've played Magic before, you will instantly realize Hex is a different game. If you haven't and are looking at the two in complete ignorance, they might look pretty similar (but so might any two online card games).

Depends on what jurisdiction you are in. Some have something like the common man test, some have experts, some have a blending of both.

The 9th Circuit has a blending of both. Its test for substantial similarity is a "total concept and feel" test, but it has two separate parts, one of which involves expert analysis, and one of which involves ordinary users. There is a case that is almost directly on this issue, Brown Bad Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F. 2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992).

Gwaer
05-21-2014, 11:56 AM
Gwaer thinks that last post by Gatticus agrees with everything I've been saying this whole time, and is a more elegant post to boot. I welcome him to the cause of rational discussion, and hope we can both stay in that realm for at least a 24 hour period.

Great synopsis gatticusfinch.

Thanks for asking bojanglez.

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 12:14 PM
Depends on how they win. Keep in mind, at the trial court level, no decision is precedent. Only if the case reaches the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would the decision be binding on the rest of the 9th Circuit, and wouldn't be binding on everyone in the U.S. unless it reached the Supreme Court of the United States. People will look to the district case as being persuasive, perhaps, but it won't technically change anything or force certain things to happen. The law generally moves very slowly because of this, and it is rare you get any wholesale change out of anything short of a SCOTUS case.

I think there's a real danger of a chilling effect to game development though if even just the preliminary motions go against Hex. Right now, one of the biggest sources for independent game development is Kickstarter. There have been hundreds of new games coming out in the past couple years that have sought Kickstarter backing, and many of them are building on prior games (see everything from Project Eternity and Torment: Numenaria (Planescape:Torment) to Star Citizen (wing Commander) to Stonehearth (Dwarf Fortress) and so on down the line). That's how Kickstarter basically works -- you need to be building on something people recognize in order to generate enough buzz to finance a new game. Out of all of those gaming kickstarters, Hex was one of the most successful.

If Wizard's tactics here work, and they successfully bully Hex out of the market, it could have a big impact on small developers who don't have deep pockets to fight potential lawsuits. Sure, if you're Blizzard, you don't have to worry too much about this decision either way, because you can afford to bankroll litigation. But if you're a small indy developer looking to make an "inspired by" game, something doesn't have to be controlling precedent in your jurisdiction to be cause for major worry, because your game can be derailed by a mere threat of litigation, and anything that gives that threat more credence is bad.

I see what you're saying about mobile games and the dangers of pure re-skins. But I also think the gaming industry is experiencing a flowering of independent developers right now and a rise in litigation costs could be very damaging to that. A bad decision here could really damage the whole kickstarter model for game development. It doesn't have to be controlling precedent -- all it has to do is be an opinion that turns what previously would've been a frivolous lawsuit into a non-frivolous one, because suddenly a corporate attorney with deep pockets can say "hey, this district court agrees with me on this, I'm not spouting complete bullshit."

Now of course that might not happen. But it's cause for rational concern.

hexnaes
05-21-2014, 12:22 PM
One question I haven't seen the answer to: is the relevant standard for the ordinary observer an ordinary man in the street, or an ordinary purchaser of a TCG? Because I think to an ordinary man in the street who has no conception of TCG's, yeah, the two games look fairly similar, but to an ordinary player of TCG's, the two games look markedly different ("What's swiftstrike? Where are my land cards? What are gems?"

Said another way, if you've played Magic before, you will instantly realize Hex is a different game. If you haven't and are looking at the two in complete ignorance, they might look pretty similar (but so might any two online card games).

I come from strong MTG roots, and when I saw Hex for the first time, I immediately thought it looked exactly like Magic. When I dug deeper I thought "So, MTG but with a couple tweaks."

I was so interested in it because I like Magic, but MTGO did a lot of things wrong. Also, the PVE was interesting.

I know I'll probably get yelled at by the majority of 1k+ posters in this forum, but I'm being realistic and honest with my interpretation of Hex.

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 12:32 PM
I come from strong MTG roots, and when I saw Hex for the first time, I immediately thought it looked exactly like Magic. When I dug deeper I thought "So, MTG but with a couple tweaks."

I was so interested in it because I like Magic, but MTGO did a lot of things wrong. Also, the PVE was interesting.

I know I'll probably get yelled at by the majority of 1k+ posters in this forum, but I'm being realistic and honest with my interpretation of Hex.

Yeah, but you also recognized it was a separate game; you weren't confused into purchasing it because you thought you were buying Magic cards or anything. When you see something and think "wow, that orange looks a lot like an apple" you're also recognizing that it's not an apple.

The games are similar. I think part of the issue here is that the more you play Hex the more you realize how different the games are. The similarities are overt and the differences are fundamental but subtle.

maniza
05-21-2014, 12:50 PM
I think there's a real danger of a chilling effect to game development though if even just the preliminary motions go against Hex. Right now, one of the biggest sources for independent game development is Kickstarter. There have been hundreds of new games coming out in the past couple years that have sought Kickstarter backing, and many of them are building on prior games (see everything from Project Eternity and Torment: Numenaria (Planescape:Torment) to Star Citizen (wing Commander) to Stonehearth (Dwarf Fortress) and so on down the line). That's how Kickstarter basically works -- you need to be building on something people recognize in order to generate enough buzz to finance a new game. Out of all of those gaming kickstarters, Hex was one of the most successful.

If Wizard's tactics here work, and they successfully bully Hex out of the market, it could have a big impact on small developers who don't have deep pockets to fight potential lawsuits. Sure, if you're Blizzard, you don't have to worry too much about this decision either way, because you can afford to bankroll litigation. But if you're a small indy developer looking to make an "inspired by" game, something doesn't have to be controlling precedent in your jurisdiction to be cause for major worry, because your game can be derailed by a mere threat of litigation, and anything that gives that threat more credence is bad.

I see what you're saying about mobile games and the dangers of pure re-skins. But I also think the gaming industry is experiencing a flowering of independent developers right now and a rise in litigation costs could be very damaging to that. A bad decision here could really damage the whole kickstarter model for game development. It doesn't have to be controlling precedent -- all it has to do is be an opinion that turns what previously would've been a frivolous lawsuit into a non-frivolous one, because suddenly a corporate attorney with deep pockets can say "hey, this district court agrees with me on this, I'm not spouting complete bullshit."

Now of course that might not happen. But it's cause for rational concern.

there is a line you cant cross when defining a clone. if they set that line at what hex is it could create a snowball efect. that would in the long term create more variation but less quality, because lets face it, what the folks at hex did was go with a rock solid tested core instead of tryng to reinvent the weel. if you cant do that or at least people know they can sue other people for doin that and win, it could in the long term damage more than help the gaming industry.

Kilo24
05-21-2014, 12:56 PM
The games are similar. I think part of the issue here is that the more you play Hex the more you realize how different the games are. The similarities are overt and the differences are fundamental but subtle.
How different two games feel is significantly influenced by your depth of understanding of them. What were considered minor differences frequently start to be considered major differences when you start to realize everything that they affect. That makes it very hard to definitively measure similarity between two games.

Pretty much everyone here is on the pro-Hex side of that source of bias, of considering the impact that Hex's differences make on to be significant. A player new to both MTG and Hex is going to consider the games to be much more similar, as will a man off the street who doesn't play any games (and may be serving on the jury). That makes the answer to the question, "How similar are the games?" a very subjective matter (as opposed to the simple question "What are the differences between the games?").

MuffLord4
05-21-2014, 01:30 PM
Yeah, but you also recognized it was a separate game; you weren't confused into purchasing it because you thought you were buying Magic cards or anything. When you see something and think "wow, that orange looks a lot like an apple" you're also recognizing that it's not an apple.

The games are similar. I think part of the issue here is that the more you play Hex the more you realize how different the games are. The similarities are overt and the differences are fundamental but subtle.

Actually his post would help with trade-dress claims since he said he thought it was magic.

Hieronymous
05-21-2014, 01:32 PM
Actually his post would help with trade-dress claims since he said he thought it was magic.

He said it was like Magic. The point I'm making is that the "like" is important. He didn't think he was buying digital M:TG cards, the thought he was buying a separate game that functioned a lot like M:TG.

MuffLord4
05-21-2014, 01:40 PM
He said it was like Magic. The point I'm making is that the "like" is important. He didn't think he was buying digital M:TG cards, the thought he was buying a separate game that functioned a lot like M:TG.

I quote: I thought it looked exactly like magic.

Xenavire
05-21-2014, 01:44 PM
I quote: I thought it looked exactly like magic.

That is different from saying "I bought these cards because I thought it was a new MTG set." There was no way to actually confuse the two products - he knew before proceeding that they were different entities.

This isn't like Candy crush and it's clones, or Flappy Bird and all the clones - you can't easily confuse MTG and Hex.

BenRGamer
05-21-2014, 02:05 PM
Quick Penny Arcade article about the lawsuit,

http://penny-arcade.com/news/post/2014/05/21/portrait-of-the-artist

larryhl
05-21-2014, 02:14 PM
Quick Penny Arcade article about the lawsuit,

http://penny-arcade.com/news/post/2014/05/21/portrait-of-the-artist

People keep beating me to the punch with these things. Sigh.

Xexist
05-21-2014, 02:25 PM
I quote: I thought it looked exactly like magic.

Exactly. NOT "I thought it was magic". Troll.

hexnaes
05-21-2014, 02:57 PM
Exactly. NOT "I thought it was magic". Troll.

To put the name-calling aside and end this argument over what I said. I did not think the game was MTG (DOTP or MTGO).

I meant it in the sense of "this game plays exactly like MTG." Then after digging deeper into the game, I realized the differences that made it (IMO) better than what MTG was currently offering in the digital arena.

I still think it plays pretty much exactly like MTG, but there are differences in Hex that I do appreciate.

Xexist
05-21-2014, 03:21 PM
To put the name-calling aside and end this argument over what I said. I did not think the game was MTG (DOTP or MTGO).

I meant it in the sense of "this game plays exactly like MTG." Then after digging deeper into the game, I realized the differences that made it (IMO) better than what MTG was currently offering in the digital arena.

I still think it plays pretty much exactly like MTG, but there are differences in Hex that I do appreciate.

Sorry if I bothered you with it, I just found his constant trolling annoying.

Kami
05-21-2014, 03:26 PM
Why is it that every few posts, someone is 'attacking' another user?

Seriously, keep your arguments limited to the arguments themselves, not the users behind them. This is not a hard concept.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

MuffLord4
05-21-2014, 03:45 PM
I wasn't trolling, I was saying that it sounded to me that he thought it was MTGO

hexnaes
05-21-2014, 04:09 PM
I wasn't trolling, I was saying that it sounded to me that he thought it was MTGO

Given what I said, I can totally understand how you would think that. Which is why I wanted to clear things up. :)

Gwaer
05-21-2014, 05:34 PM
Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

I've found a fundamental disagreement between us Kami.

Ertzi
05-21-2014, 09:32 PM
Why is it that every few posts, someone is 'attacking' another user?

Seriously, keep your arguments limited to the arguments themselves, not the users behind them. This is not a hard concept.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

A-MEN, brutha. I can't stand rudeness and I am constantly baffled how almost every thread devolves into hostile sniping. I don't mind being wrong or argued out of the water, but the tone is important.

Ertzi
05-21-2014, 09:42 PM
Back to the point though. When I discovered HEX, I though it was extremely similar to Magic at its core. However, I backed because of all the reasons HEX is NOT Magic. It will be beyond. I wanted MtG to become this game for years, but it never happened. They had their chance, but remained stagnant.

I will argue that if HEX had appeared on KS as being a straight-up clone of MtG, it would have gotten maybe $28 000 and would have been laughed out of KS. 99 % of backers recognized the amazing potential of digital space and the hybrid genre and voted with their wallets. No one will compare this game to Magic in a few years. But I bet many games will be compared to HEX. At least 'HEX lite' :D

Gwaer
05-21-2014, 10:16 PM
I have discovered absolute incontrovertible proof that hex is not magic. I just won a draft with a 5 color deck.

Quasari
05-21-2014, 10:18 PM
I have discovered absolute incontrovertible proof that hex is not magic. I just won a draft with a 5 color deck.

WAHH

You know I passed 3 Midnight Shepards in a row in a draft. Was curious if I could pull it off, but wasn't going to take him>.<

Gwaer
05-21-2014, 10:35 PM
I first picked lixil, çause she's a pretty decent diamond troop with some color fixing as a perk, but then some jerk passed me a midnight shepherd, and I decided that fate decreed that I would be running 5 color that game. Tournament 13185 will go down in the history books as potentially the first 5 shard draft win of all time!

Feegert
05-21-2014, 11:34 PM
Don't worry everyone. As you are reading this, the required legal documents are being processed to stop WOTC in it's tracks.

I am patenting the act of taking someone to court, legally or otherwise (driving someone to court by any means of transportation including yourself or an animal, even if your or the animal are employed by said court). I paid extra for speedy processing so I should be able to stop WOTC before they can do any damage.

I don't have a legal team like WOTC, but my patent is so vaguely written it will practically defend itself.

This will also prevent all of the MOBA games from suing each other to hell and back since they are all the same game on a mechanical level.

Ali3nSan
05-22-2014, 12:05 AM
So I went to a games night at the local boardgame store last night and played a MTG draft.

It's just not Hex there was something missing. Hex may have a few mechanical similarities but it's so much more. I just needed to check the other side out myself and Hex has a spark if innovation that is lacking from MTG and even when I was picking cards I had to adjust my view to find the nb things.

For example

Attack and defence are squeezed in a corner.

I'm going to say Hex is as similar to MTG as Mac OS is to windows

I can get the idea quickly and can figure out most things easily but I can feel the difference between the two when using them.

Alequel
05-22-2014, 01:21 AM
"I'm going to say Hex is as similar to MTG as Mac OS is to windows.

I can get the idea quickly and can figure out most things easily but I can feel the difference between the two when using them."

QFT. And I think CZE can use it up on court at some point, nice one.

Xenavire
05-22-2014, 03:28 AM
I think my comparison would be Internet Explorer vs Chrome/Firefox - IE is the basic package, but everyone wants chrome/firefox because they both built on the same ideas of browsing the internet. All the new features set them apart and make them more desirable.

Kangsta
05-22-2014, 03:39 AM
I first picked lixil, çause she's a pretty decent diamond troop with some color fixing as a perk, but then some jerk passed me a midnight shepherd, and I decided that fate decreed that I would be running 5 color that game. Tournament 13185 will go down in the history books as potentially the first 5 shard draft win of all time!

Would love to get some details on what you drafted ^^ Sounds like a cool/crazy idea to draft a 5 color deck ^^

ossuary
05-22-2014, 04:56 AM
The nice thing about a 5 color deck is that, assuming you get enough color fixing, ANY low-threshold bomb other people pass up on because it doesn't fit with what they're doing magically becomes a free awesome late-draft card for you. Your deck becomes a black hole of badassery, sucking in all the great cards that other people can't use.

I tried a deck like this during alpha (had 3 adaptable infusion, 2 shards of fate, 1 lixil, and 3 shepherds), but got unlucky on the draws and never pulled 2 of my shard types both games. It's SLIGHTLY harder to play 5 shards since they fixed the "choose a shard" cards to no longer show you the rest of the shards of your deck in order (more guessing), but still doable I think. And fun, when it works. :)

AstaSyneri
05-22-2014, 05:22 AM
I haven't seen this link here before:

http://howell.seattle.wa.us/games/MtG/patent.html

It's an unofficial "translation" of what the MtG patent actually includes. The nice thing is that it's quite brief :D.

And more:

http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml

It explains a bit of the background on how it came to the patent, plus some interesting passages:


Thus Wizards of the Coast learned a hard lesson, of relevance to any publisher. Whether your lawyers say you're in the right or not on a legal issue, the other side will often have lawyers offering the exact opposite opinion, and the result will usually be a lawsuit that will be won by whoever has the most money (and thus, in an industry our size, will be lost by everyone).


Magic was demoed in July 1993 at Origins '93, then the 2.6 million alpha card print run was released on August 5, 1993.

Hieronymous
05-22-2014, 06:22 AM
I haven't seen this link here before:

http://howell.seattle.wa.us/games/MtG/patent.html

It's an unofficial "translation" of what the MtG patent actually includes. The nice thing is that it's quite brief :D.

And more:

http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml

It explains a bit of the background on how it came to the patent, plus some interesting passages:


Y'know, I haven't read the whole patent yet, but I don't see the words "digital" or "online" anywhere in it. Is there a second patent somewhere for online / digital card game play?

MuffLord4
05-22-2014, 06:31 AM
The patent basically covers every TCG ever or am I wrong?

1. A game involving two or more players, with drawing, playing, and discarding cards, and extra cards to trade, where playing the game is like this:

each player making decks from the big pile of cards;
each player drawing their hand; and
each player taking turns until the game ends. A turn comprises:
(a) playing cards from your hand onto the table; and
(b) using cards on the table by:
(i) picking some; and
(ii) showing that you picked them by turning them.

This sounds like every TCG where you can trade cards is affected by this patent.

Rehab
05-22-2014, 07:11 AM
The patent basically covers every TCG ever or am I wrong?

1. A game involving two or more players, with drawing, playing, and discarding cards, and extra cards to trade, where playing the game is like this:

each player making decks from the big pile of cards;
each player drawing their hand; and
each player taking turns until the game ends. A turn comprises:
(a) playing cards from your hand onto the table; and
(b) using cards on the table by:
(i) picking some; and
(ii) showing that you picked them by turning them.

This sounds like every TCG where you can trade cards is affected by this patent.

I think their patent includes the specific turn order too,

Upkeep(untap phase)
Draw
Main part(play cards)
Combat(assign attackers/blockers)
a second main(play cards again)
end(discard)

This is the part of the patent that I am personally thinking they will have a tough time with

MuffLord4
05-22-2014, 07:40 AM
What if Crypto didn't start the monetized closed beta? Wouldn't that weaken the case? I mean Kickstarter investments can't be seen as sales since people are basically investing at that point and not receiving anything similar to investor-companies.

Kami
05-22-2014, 07:54 AM
What if Crypto didn't start the monetized closed beta? Wouldn't that weaken the case? I mean Kickstarter investments can't be seen as sales since people are basically investing at that point and not receiving anything similar to investor-companies.

It wouldn't matter in my opinion. The fact that WotC/Hasbro is targeting the Kickstarter/PayPal backer funds should be proof of that.

To clarify, it seems WotC/Hasbro are trying to play the 'perceived losses' card. Their current claim is that all that KS/PP money is theirs because all the backers would've spent it on Magic otherwise - at least, that's how it reads to me.

MuffLord4
05-22-2014, 07:57 AM
It wouldn't matter in my opinion. The fact that WotC/Hasbro is targeting the Kickstarter/PayPal backer funds should be proof of that.

To clarify, it seems WotC/Hasbro are trying to play the 'perceived losses' card. Their current claim is that all that KS/PP money is theirs because all the backers would've spent it on Magic otherwise - at least, that's how it reads to me.

Well, but if they didn't have a case on the kickstarter claims, now they have a case on the beta-monetization.

Kami
05-22-2014, 08:02 AM
Well, but if they didn't have a case on the kickstarter claims, now they have a case on the beta-monetization.

The argument I'd make in that case would be that this is closed beta. Primarily only people that had backed via KS/PP have access. Even with all the beta keys that have gone out lately, we're still around ~45k users (by my estimate) and the majority of which are unlikely spending money.

This would be on par with targeting KS/PP funds and claiming money spent here would've gone to Magic.

Blowfeld
05-22-2014, 08:04 AM
I would not have spend a dime into MTG, so they can count my collector's account out of their demands ;)

Xenavire
05-22-2014, 08:07 AM
I think their patent includes the specific turn order too,

Upkeep(untap phase)
Draw
Main part(play cards)
Combat(assign attackers/blockers)
a second main(play cards again)
end(discard)

This is the part of the patent that I am personally thinking they will have a tough time with

Yugioh has an identical turn order though, and exists regardless. I think the whole package that Hex has, might make it seem like it is the only one lifting exact mechanics, but it isn't.

For every TCG that came before, the case against Hex is weaker. And the turn order is one of the weakest.

nicosharp
05-22-2014, 09:38 AM
What if Crypto didn't start the monetized closed beta? Wouldn't that weaken the case? I mean Kickstarter investments can't be seen as sales since people are basically investing at that point and not receiving anything similar to investor-companies.
It's no coincidence that the lawsuit posted after the monetized beta started.

Yoss
05-22-2014, 10:44 AM
What if Crypto didn't start the monetized closed beta? Wouldn't that weaken the case? I mean Kickstarter investments can't be seen as sales since people are basically investing at that point and not receiving anything similar to investor-companies.

The amount of profit or loss or investement in CZE is not relevant, at least, not directly. What is relevant is the "damages" to WOTC due to CZE making and advertising Hex. What is relevant is only how much less MTG product was sold due to Hex existing in the awareness of potential MTG customers. As such, the KS and the monetized beta are only relevant as backdoor means to attempt to measure the amount by which MTG sales dropped due to Hex. Obviously not 100% of the KS/Beta funds would have been damages to MTG, but maybe they could claim 10% or something as an approximation (a claim of ~$250k). Their official claim is $500k, which is roughly 20% of the HEX KS+Beta funds. It is not at all clear to me that that is a reasonable approximation, but I would say they can rightfully claim something greater than 0%, the question is just how much. How do you accurately assess how much product you DIDN'T sell?

And the damages are irrelevant until they win the case. If MTG fails the suit, then no damages will be awarded.

IANAL

Daer
05-22-2014, 11:31 AM
Wizards aren't asking for 500k.

They are saying that wizards damages for the copyright and tradedress are 'exceeding $500,000' each and for the patent infringement that CZE has gained profits and advantages 'exceeding $500,000'. They are claiming the entire 2.2 million of kickstarter funds as losses against them.

What wizards wants is to shut Hex down, all damages against them (they actually want triple damages), all of the profits off of Hex, and attourney's fees.

Axle
05-22-2014, 12:10 PM
edit: Redacted because I found something interesting I'll post on later.

Arbiter
05-22-2014, 03:43 PM
Yugioh has an identical turn order though, and exists regardless. I think the whole package that Hex has, might make it seem like it is the only one lifting exact mechanics, but it isn't.

For every TCG that came before, the case against Hex is weaker. And the turn order is one of the weakest.

I actually think the reverse, mostly because it seems to be argued that it was OK to copy because they needed some base for their TCG. For every TCG or CCG that has come along since Magic was invented with different rules and digital card game that has been produced without Magic's system, the statement that HEX had no choice but to base heavily on MtG becomes more ridiculous.

MuffLord4
05-22-2014, 03:47 PM
I actually think the reverse, mostly because it seems to be argued that it was OK to copy because they needed some base for their TCG. For every TCG or CCG that has come along since Magic was invented with different rules and digital card game that has been produced without Magic's system, the statement that HEX had no choice but to base heavily on MtG becomes more ridiculous.

The problem tho is, that wizard have covered close to every possible mechanic that also happens to exist in digital RPG games in their whateverthousand cards, human fantasy only goes so far, of course hex could try to come up with a different way to play a cardgame but magic basically covered advanced techniques with their turn based system, it's the best so far thus showing that the turns they use would've probably been used by other companies to make their games less shallow if they would've dared.

Magic basically invented the "Wheel" for TCGs, sure we could use balls for tires but why not use the best thing available and expand on it? U guys don't cry about that when it comes to stuff like cars and other things that you need in everyday life.

I always hear stuff like the debate on why hexcards are 1/1 1 dmg etc.

Because it's easiest, sure you wouldn't NECCESARILY have to do that on PC as the PC calculates for u right?

wrong, the hex-board can get very very messy with many troops, have fun calculating when everything is multiplied by 100 and the numbers become supersupersupersmall.

Arbiter
05-22-2014, 04:05 PM
The problem tho is, that wizard have covered close to every possible mechanic that also happens to exist in digital RPG games in their whateverthousand cards, human fantasy only goes so far, of course hex could try to come up with a different way to play a cardgame but magic basically covered advanced techniques with their turn based system, it's the best so far thus showing that the turns they use would've probably been used by other companies to make their games less shallow if they would've dared.

Magic basically invented the "Wheel" for TCGs, sure we could use balls for tires but why not use the best thing available and expand on it? U guys don't cry about that when it comes to stuff like cars and other things that you need in everyday life.

I always hear stuff like the debate on why hexcards are 1/1 1 dmg etc.

Because it's easiest, sure you wouldn't NECCESARILY have to do that on PC as the PC calculates for u right?

wrong, the hex-board can get very very messy with many troops, have fun calculating when everything is multiplied by 100 and the numbers become supersupersupersmall.
They have not, however, gone for every game under the sun. So many card games came out last year and none have been targeted. Only HEX, the one that uses Magic as the starting point. This patent has been in place for years, and there have been plenty of innovative developments that have occurred despite it being there.

I'm comfortable with a WotC taking HEX to court. It doesn't mean I liked the patent, but I honestly feel that HEX took too much from MtG - and that is hardly good for innovation. I just don't see the battle as good vs bad, both sides have their faults.

GatticusFinch
05-22-2014, 04:08 PM
Magic basically invented the "Wheel" for TCGs, sure we could use balls for tires but why not use the best thing available and expand on it? U guys don't cry about that when it comes to stuff like cars and other things that you need in everyday life.

Because when you use something that is patented, you have to get permission from the person holding the patent (which usually means $$$) or risk getting sued, especially if it is the best available. That's the entire point of patent law--to protect and incentivize invention.

This is not a good argument to support Hex's position.

Bloodiron
05-22-2014, 04:19 PM
I think this is appropriate now

http://tinyurl.com/q85a9zg

MuffLord4
05-22-2014, 05:03 PM
Because when you use something that is patented, you have to get permission from the person holding the patent (which usually means $$$) or risk getting sued, especially if it is the best available. That's the entire point of patent law--to protect and incentivize invention.

This is not a good argument to support Hex's position.

I don't see how the US can talk about Patent laws btw, remember the disease in..what was it? 1950...1960? The germans made a vaccine and instead of buying it off the US just stole it and called it a neccesary act just because of national safety or sth, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Axle
05-22-2014, 05:18 PM
They have not, however, gone for every game under the sun. So many card games came out last year and none have been targeted. Only HEX, the one that uses Magic as the starting point. This patent has been in place for years, and there have been plenty of innovative developments that have occurred despite it being there.

I'm comfortable with a WotC taking HEX to court. It doesn't mean I liked the patent, but I honestly feel that HEX took too much from MtG - and that is hardly good for innovation. I just don't see the battle as good vs bad, both sides have their faults.

I can understand you wanting Wizards to get a piece of the pie but if you mean shut HEX down, I dunno. Morals ignored, as said a billion times, HEX is a strictly better game than MTG due to the digital competitive advantage. If it overshadows MTG (unlikely due to how powerful a force brand loyalty is, but you never know) then Wizards would have to improve their card video games to compete. HEX can only mean good things for innovation by existing. If future card games try to compete by just making a similar to MTG game too, then whether or not the consumers want that will be voted by the wallet. If people buy into those games then there is no problem. If they want it to stop at HEX then those games will fail.

Example: Shadow of Mordor. A Lord of the Rings game that does look very much like a recoated Assassin's Creed. Whether people want more Assassin's Creed like games or just want entirely new rules of stealth will be decided by the sales of the game (assuming it's not a bad buggy game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-earth:_Shadow_of_Mordor
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/23/shadow-of-mordor-accused-of-using-assassins-creed-ii-code

Thrawn
05-22-2014, 07:06 PM
I think this is appropriate now

http://tinyurl.com/q85a9zg

It's been appropriate for about 100 pages.

Axle
05-22-2014, 07:07 PM
New people join the thread with their opinion without reading the previous posts (don't expect them too either) and the new people get responded to using those arguments. It's productive in that sense. More people seeings all sides of the coin.

Thrawn
05-22-2014, 08:09 PM
New people join the thread with their opinion without reading the previous posts (don't expect them too either) and the new people get responded to using those arguments. It's productive in that sense. More people seeings all sides of the coin.

That would only apply if people brought new ideas and opinions to the thread, it's all just the same over and over.

Axle
05-22-2014, 09:00 PM
Nah. More people who see the full picture instead of posting with ignorance the better.

Ertzi
05-22-2014, 10:03 PM
Manaclash would have been a way cooler name for MtG (I am referring to the rpg.net article)! I always thought Magic: The Gathering was super clunky. Very not-catchy. *steps over the dead horse without poking it*

register50
05-23-2014, 12:53 AM
WOTC & Hasbro 1907!

AstaSyneri
05-23-2014, 12:57 AM
New people join the thread with their opinion without reading the previous posts (don't expect them too either) and the new people get responded to using those arguments. It's productive in that sense. More people seeings all sides of the coin.

This. There are lots of Hex players out there who are frustrated and shaken up by the lawsuit. This thread gives them a place to vent and to get some somewhat more substantial information.

osea101
05-25-2014, 06:38 PM
Hello, I just graduated from law school so I thought you guys might be interested in my fresh perspective on this law suit.

While I'm no seasoned copyright attorney, I have taken copyright law. I'm not going to evaluate the merits of the case, because it honestly could go either way. It will all depend on the jury instruction and the persuasion of the opposing counsel.

So while we all feel the law suit is bogus, a lay jury might not think so.

So let me just start by saying MTGO is a terrible, neglected, and shameful cash grab. The client is and has been neglected for years. There are numerous bugs and the overall interface is just drab. You can tell there's never been any serious investment or attempts to listen to the fans to make it better. Given the high cost of the cards, it's possible for WOTC to remain profitable despite no growth and influx of new players.

Some general things about this lawsuit:

1. As many of you have correctly stated: this is a battle of Goliath and David. If this doesn't settle, Hasbro has the potential to run the opponent out of business.

2. In the same vein, this will likely reach a settlement before it goes to trial. Hex's attorney will most likely push for it given the scarce resources to battle a big corporation. I think Hasbro is planning on reaching some kind of monetary settlement. Perhaps for half of the requested amount. I honestly think Hasbro is aware that the case is weak but they have more resources to drive a lengthy lawsuit and they are planning on profiting from a settlement.

3. Also these complex cases take time. It could take anywhere between 2-3 years before an actual verdict is finalized. This is because of the appeals process.

4. I wouldn't invest serious cash in the game for now. As many have noted, if Hasbro succeeds the injuction would permanently force Hex to close its servers. You would lose all your money, you can't get it back. Even if there is a settlement, it could be so damaging that Hex would still be forced to cease work on the game.

Again this process takes years. Your accounts are fine for now but I strongly advice you not to pour more money than you are comfortable with potentially losing 2-3 years from now.

Edit: I just wanted to say that a settlement is probably in their best interest. Assume they settle for half which is 250,000. It would still be cheaper than losing 500,000 in a court and being forced to close down the servers. If they settle, Hasbro will profit and Hex will be able to continue building the game. It's a win-win situation.

Axle
05-25-2014, 06:44 PM
4. I wouldn't invest serious cash in the game for now. As many have noted, if Hasbro succeeds the injuction would permanently force Hex to close its servers. You would lose all your money, you can't get it back. Even if there is a settlement, it could be so damaging that Hex would still be forced to cease work on the game.

Again this process takes years. Your accounts are fine for now but I strongly advice you not to pour more money than you are comfortable with potentially losing 2-3 years from now.

:l

osea101
05-25-2014, 06:50 PM
:l

Lol did you spend a lot of money? A settlement could be ruinous, it all depends on the state of their finances.