• Sources: Valve Buys Firewatch Developer Campo Santo
    80 replies, posted
I'm just hoping it wont be another VR title (sorry)
it actually makes some sense. Valve's flat management structure means they are dogshit at building games but if they buy a bunch of studios they can become a proper publisher without the evil management structure of EA that leads to all of its problems
Wait, how was it bad? I thought it was a pretty solid story/exploration game.
Every game is dogshit if you ask the right person. I just come to accept that no matter how good a game is, it can't please everyone.
Let's not forget that this is the same people who threatened to send takedown notice to pewdiepie due to him saying n-word.
They didn't just threaten. They actually did it even after he willingly unlisted the video.
Could they even legally stop him from making videos of their games? I don't think there's any legal precedent for that, and any videos he makes would just fall under Fair Use.
So dose this mean, that Firewatch is Valve's first Nintendo Switch game?
from what i remember multiple lawyers said it was legally sound, if unethical. Technically they can revoke permission to make videos of their game at any time, even if it's over usage of a slur. if Pewdiepie wanted to he could probably take it to court but considering the circumstances of the revocation it probably wouldn't end up in his favor
They specically provided permission. You can't retroactively revoke shit like that.
they also literally say one line down from where they provide permission: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/57926/c0781777-95e5-4260-91fa-e24b6917daa9/image.png so yes, they can. Earlier this week, video game attorney Ryan Morrison clarified that the statement is a license, which is automatically revocable under the law unless it explicitly states otherwise. Morrison went deeper on his own podcast, Robot Congress, saying that, "there's no dispute here, the law is the law on this, there's no grey area to even talk about... The easy answer here is, yes, they are allowed to DMCA PewDiePie's video." "That license...since it's just two lines written on a page, defaults to revocable," Morrison said, adding, "that means [Campo Santo] can revoke it at any point, and for any reason, including somebody saying the n-word." Morrison added: "The law is not written for this stuff. The law isn't written around a Let's Play video on YouTube. The second they revoke that license, technically he's infringing from that point forward that the video remains up. Can they go back and sue him for the year that it's been up under that license? Absolutely not, but they can stop him from using it that second, and they can stop him through a DMCA... That's how this law works." Morrison also dealt with the Fair Use argument, which was forwarded by PewDiePie on the grounds that his videos alter the content sufficiently to be protected. However, while a precedent may be set by a court case in the future, he said that, despite Kjellberg's commentary, his videos would still be considered “derivative” works under the current law. “It's all infringing right now under the law,” he explained. “Is there an argument for Fair Use on a Let's Play video that's maybe educational or maybe being watched for the personality? For sure, and I would love to argue it, and I think we will argue it one day.” An argument in favour of Fair Use, he said, is that people watch the video not for the game, but for the personality and what they bring to it. That could potentially be argued in PewDiePie's case but, as Morrison pointed out, the “transformative” nature of the video is “one of four factors” considered in assessing Fair Use. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-09-15-campo-santos-dmca-strike-against-pewdiepie-accepted-by-youtube i dont think they should have been allowed to put a dmca up for that still, it's pretty petty
It can be summarized as this: A beautiful yet empty world with the most boring terrain obstacles hinder you so you don't blow through a tremendously boring and non-mysterious mystery as fast as it's worth. This quote from the store page: "A tailor-made story: the choices you make shape the narrative and build relationships." Is a refund-tier lie, and the dialogue choices have more limitations than Fallout 4.  If you're ever given three choices it's: A)Continue Plot B)Continue Plot Sarcastically C)... and mostly it's  A)Continue Plot B)... And finally, the apparent consensus from my understanding is if you ~artsy~ up your game enough, people will flock to justify an intentionally disappointing ending like it's some poignant, "mature" concept, and not bad writing. And second finally- the lead behind it has been proven to be a massive cunt, so it makes hating on this game much easier. I completely loathe the success and reception of this game as someone who loves artsy bullshit walking-simulator type games. I hope fledgling fan-developers takeaway the great visuals and atmosphere from Firewatch as inspiration, and discard everything else.
Have you played it?
they updated it to that after the pewdiepie incident, this is what it looked like in its original form https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/130/0e1d93b0-a449-46b1-86e8-3ae1c6940f84/chrome_2018-04-23_00-44-09.png Wayback Machine link > Campo Santo
So this is what Valve meant when they said they were going to start making games again. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/079/173/ed2.png
like i said, i don't support it and that's even more questionable now that i know that. that said, the only way they could be successfully challenged is if pdp himself were to do it and i dont see that happening
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.