This seems to have been a co-project and publishing together rather than selling the rights. Most likely it seems that Blizzard wasn't able to develop console games and was a strictly PC, so that's why they needed a partner.
I used this to show that wc2 or wc3 is not = the Warcraft IP. If they make a deal regarding only wc3 then it will not involve WoW or Hearthstone.
Yes, it's very unlikely that they will sell the rights.
You're likely very, very wrong - I'm 99,9% sure that we'll see a new Starcraft game announced within the next 3-5 years, but... it's probably not going to be an RTS.
I don't think it's that simple. Characters and whatnot are shared between these games so intellectual property clashes could/would still occur.
Yeah, or how they collaborated with Sierra to release the Diablo Hellfire expansion that never remained cannon but Diablo II took lots of gameplay inspiration from it.
Yeah, maybe something like Call of Duty since that sells like fast food.
Cheaper to remaster older RTS games, which means it's a less riskier business.
By just basically improving graphics and gameplay dynamics, not really adding anything new to the table.
Hopefully it's not "maybe they don't want to add more features". And this is not on the programmers but on the company.
Yeah, you're mostly right......But than comes a philosophical question. Will StarCraft III really be a StarCraft III if it's not an RTS, at least at it's core? I mean sure it could have shooter, racing or whatever part, but at least in it's core it "has to" be an RTS to be StarCraft III.
If they do Starcraft III, it will be an RTS (perhaps with some elements of another genre), but a Starcraft game doesn't have to be called "Starcraft III". They can do another "Starcraft: Ghost" or whatever they want. My point is - Starcraft IP is too big to just let it sit and collect dust, sooner or later they will do something with it.
Quake 2 shares characters, maps, and lore with Quake Champions but it doesn't cause any clashes. This also applies to the Gears of War franchise as it shares many assets and concepts with Unreal Tournament III.
Yeah. At least that way the community could aid them...
Epic sold GoW to Microsoft for less than 100 million USD.
Being open source means having access to the programming part, not everything, from what I know.
Then you have your answer. It's sold intellectual property, wholly. Also, Gears of War is not based on the Unreal Tournament universe, but only its engine, from what I know.
UT3 has a lot of stuff from GoW such as character concepts.
Then how did Nvidia make Quake RTX? They had access to assets other than the code ofc
That's like saying StarCraft has a lot of inspiration from Alien, Warhammer, Star Wars...
I see. Well, in that case, they cannot go beyond what Quake II is which means they cannot use anything in Quake II to make a new Quake game without legal rights.
There is a huge difference between inspiration and reusing modified 3d art assets.
There are concepts shared between Q2 and Quake Champions but it doesn't cause any clashes.
Do you know they were made by Epic Games and not sold to Microsoft?
The whole GoW IP was sold to Microsoft, this [IP] includes character concepts. Still, this allows Epic to sell UT3 and Microsoft to sell GoW games, no clashes take place.
So, you are accusing Epic of asset flipping?
My dude. Is Epic Games allowed to make any other Gears of War games? I doubt the contract allows them to. Otherwise, it's something rather sophisticated and usually people don't want things to be too gray to avoid any legal issues.
Is that question just so you could prolong this off-topic discussion?
Only if Microsoft gives them permission. Still, it doesn't cause clashes with UT3.
Using models from Unreal Engine Marketplace is asset flipping.
Yes, they cant sell as they aren't selling GoW games on the Epic Games Store. Also, I don't remember any GoW references in Fortnite.
That is hypocritical as you said that before:
for sure!
Their wrongdoing is the instability of the game and its missing features as well as the promised stuff. They lost time and resources on an unnecessary graphics overhaul. That or the higher ups were not sober and decided premature release.
I don't think behaving like a surly farm animal is the way you want to present yourself-- that gives them even more of an excuse to not listen to you.
Wasnt trying to be hostile or anything, just peeved with all of the constant controversy being brought up over and over, not saying it isnt justified, just saying it essentially drains any sort of passion or excitement of continuing my map development.
The problem is that, unfortunately, there's not much to talk about except the controversy. There's little if anything about Reforged that's good, and Acitivison isn't really doing anything that significantly improves the problems. What am I supposed to say about "The score screen for campaign missions now accurately displays time elapsed during that mission"? Who the fuck cares about the time elapsed on a score screen when the game disconnects every five minutes?
false, turning speed isnt declared
