Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

Mythic Sues Microsoft Over Mythica MMORPG 362

Posted by simoniker from the absolutely-lindowsiculous dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mythic Entertainment, developers of PC MMO videogame Dark Age of Camelot, has filed suit against Microsoft, arguing that Microsoft's upcoming MMORPG Mythica is too similar in name and content (it 'also employs Norse images and mythology') to its own name and flagship title. Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mythic Sues Microsoft Over Mythica MMORPG More

Mythic Sues Microsoft Over Mythica MMORPG

Comments Filter:

  • God Darnit! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mfivis ( 592345 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:44PM (#7790057) Homepage
    Now I know why my Elven Archer was set back to level zero and an 'a' was added to the splash screen.

  • Fantasy (Score:5, Funny)

    by truth_revealed ( 593493 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:45PM (#7790061)
    Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted...

    How about this exciting new genre: plumbers, drywallers and electricians duke it out for world supremecy!

  • Lindows reference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeathPenguin ( 449875 ) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:45PM (#7790063)
    I couldn't help but to grin at this:

    "We would expect Microsoft to react no differently if someone launched an operating system called Microsofta just as Microsoft did when confronted with an operating system called Lindows," Mythic President and Chief Executive Mark Jacobs said."

    While I got a kick out of it at first, it sort of seems to validate Microsoft's lawsuit. It certainly is an amusing twist of irony, though.

    • Re:Lindows reference (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stubear ( 130454 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:53PM (#7790154)
      Not really,

      Lindows is to Windows as OS is to OS.
      Mythic it to Mythica as Company is to game?

      Wait a second, something's not quite like the other here.

      • I agree. I don't really see any harm in calling the game Mythica. It's not like they're calling it Dark Ages of Camelota. As far as similar content goes, take a look for yourself: Mythica [mythica.com] and DAOC [darkageofcamelot.com]

        Interestingly, if you go here [mythica.com] ,the name of one "plane of existance" is called Midgard, as is the name of one of three realms in DAOC. Same legends aside, after visiting Mythica's page, I get visions of a 3D diablo 2 with a cracked out battle.net riding shotgun, not really DAOC. No mention of massive PVP, which

    • Re:Lindows reference (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cgranade ( 702534 ) <cgranade&gmail,com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:56PM (#7790179) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that there is a huge difference between Microsofta and Lindows. Microsoft is not a generic term, whereas Windows is a generic term and is not even trademarked (the trademark is Microsoft Windows). In this case, Mystic is a generic term, so I would support MS in this case (ugh). I support Mystic suing, however, as it further forces the courts to clarify this issue, something that will help everyone, IMHO.
      • Actually, you're incorrect on one point - Microsoft has indeed trademarked the single word "Windows", in addition to the combination "Microsoft Windows".

        This is the crux of Lindows.com's defense: that that trademark should never have been granted.

      • Get your facts straight (Score:4, Funny)

        by nniillss ( 577580 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @06:38PM (#7790511)
        How can you judge on these terms without reading them? The company's name ist not Mystic. Look again.

        By the way, I just happen to have mod points. Found a comment more constructive, though.

      • Re:Lindows reference (Score:3, Insightful)

        by meatspray ( 59961 ) *
        It's not completely over the name. The real problem is that both games have some thick roots in norse mythology.

        It doesn't help that M$ created a fantasy game, called the norseland midgard, included Frost Giants, beserkers and volcanic zones then named it Mythica. (DAoC already has all of these covered)

        Truely, they're not stealing ideas from Mythic, they're just not being very creative with the given material. (*pictures the dilbert like product naming meeting that came up with mythica*) They're just re

    • Re:Lindows reference (Score:5, Interesting)

      by One Louder ( 595430 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @06:13PM (#7790323)
      Mythic has a much better case than Microsoft has against Lindows.com.

      "Window" is a generic term used in the field of computer science to describe an artifact commonly found in graphical user interfaces.

      In this case, however, the term "mythic" is fanciful (though Microsoft may argue it's descriptive) in regards to a game, and Microsoft's usage includes the *entire* trademark.

    • Or if Microsoft's lawsuit is already popularly considered valid then lawsuits like this one bring a big bright smile to my face.

      Its nice to see what comes around goes around.

    • Re:Lindows reference (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KefabiMe ( 730997 )

      What if instead of "Lindows" it was called "X-Lindows"? X-Lindows could show its roots from the x-windowing system. Would that "X" in front of Lindows protect them from Microsoft?

      Microsoft is a made-up word. Windows is a generic term that has been in computer techie use since before Microsoft Windows was ever a product.

      Microsoft can trademark "Microsoft". They never should have been able to trademark "Windows" in a computing context.

      • Re:Lindows reference (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @07:08PM (#7790760)
        They never should have been able to trademark "Windows" in a computing context.

        They're really good at trademarking generics, though. Microsoft Word, Microsoft Paint...
        It's even better in the fileformat realm: Doc (Document), Bmp (Bitmap)...

        Windows is a generic term that has been in computer techie use since before Microsoft Windows was ever a product.

        But when Lindows choose its name, they weren't refering to "windows" as elements of a GUI interface. They were clearly referencing Microsoft's Windows, and suggesting that their product is a replacement for it.

        "Windows", after all, would be a fairly silly thing to put in the name of a new operating system, since that GUI feature is such a minor feature. Microsoft calls their system that for historical reasons (because their OS grew out of what was originally a GUI addon to another OS). But Lindows doesn't have that excuse; they are clearly attempting to benefit by similarity to another's trademark.

  • That would be nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:46PM (#7790068) Journal
    "Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted..."
    Come on now, you know that would require creativity and a capacity for originality! Two things that do not exist in the MMORPG world!

    • Let's see, you have two choices, fantasy and reality. Since (most of us) live in reality, why would we make games based on that (even though we do, Sims Online, anyone?)

      Which pretty much leaves fantasy. Of course there are many different types of fantasy. The ever-popular "medieval" fantasy involving elves, trolls, dragons, knights, etc. Covered. (UO, EQ, DAoC, etc) There's also, science fiction fantasy. Covered. (SW, etc)

      Umm, what exactly are you looking for? A Steam Punk MMO game involving cross-
    • "Come on now, you know that would require creativity and a capacity for originality! Two things that do not exist in the MMORPG world!"

      Come on mods.. this isn't necessarily a troll. MMORPG makers almost HAVE to stick to the formula that works. Why risk coming up with a new idea when you generally know what people like.
    • Come on now, you know that would require creativity and a capacity for originality!

      And even when they dream up a non-wizards-and-dragons genre, they end up being unoriginal.

      For example: Anarchy Online and Star Wars Galaxies. Same game mechanics, different window dressing.

  • heh (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:46PM (#7790070)
    You meant to say Microsoft is suing Mythica, right?

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TimTurnip ( 560651 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:48PM (#7790096) Homepage
    ...direct descendants of King Arthur are suing Mythic for unauthorized use of the his namesake.

  • Go MS! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Saville ( 734690 )
    I hope Microsoft wins this lawsuit.

    This is stupid. No other company can make a RPG that features Norse gods?? Its not like they were invented by that company.
    • "This is stupid. No other company can make a RPG that features Norse gods?? Its not like they were invented by that company" No, the main issue is that M$'s new online game is almost identical to the name of one of the established companies in this field. The fact M$'s new game will also follow the same folk-lore as 1/3 of Mythic's current main product makes things worse, but the main issue is the almost identical name.

      • Re:Go MS! (Score:3, Funny)

        by Himos ( 734880 )
        I've noticed your use of the $ sign as a subtle commentary on Microsoft.

        My hat goes off to you dear sir. Your subtle linguisitcs have taken me aback.

    • Re:Go MS! (Score:5, Funny)

      by SoSueMe ( 263478 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:59PM (#7790200)
      A.P news has a qoute fron Odin: "I'm pretty thor over all of this".
    • I agree.
      Norse mythology is in the public domain - anyone can make a RPG about it if they want to.

      Who would have thought I would ever be on Microsoft's side in any lawsuit?!

    • Man are you guys idiots (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Microsoft is not being sued because it's making a norse gods game. It's being sued because it made a norse god game that's called MYTHICA. Y'see, to establish trademark violation, you have to establish TWO THINGS. First, you have to establish that the trademark is sufficiently similar. Second, you have to establish that the two names in question are for products which are in the same market and could confuse customers. If Microsoft named renamed Microsoft Word to Microsoft Mythica, it'd be fine. But i
    • This has *nothing* to do with restricting a company from making a game based on Norse mythology. RTFA. The issue is that Mythica will be going into direct compatition with Mythic's game in the same genre(MMORPG). The name is the heart of the issue, not public domain mythology.

  • A genre other than fantasy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:48PM (#7790104)
    Do you realize how silly I'd look with my new "hobbit" foot and ear implants if fantasy becomes passe?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I can see the point with the name... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <slashdot&liselle,net> on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:49PM (#7790118) Journal
    ... because when I first heard of it, I was immediately confused, because I didn't remember Mythic making any any MMO of the sort (I play DAoC).

    But as far as the content, best of luck to them. DAoC was brilliant in that it didn't rely on some license for the core game (like Star Wars), but they also didn't just make something up out of the blue. Mythic took heavily from already-existing Norse mythology, Arthurian legends, Camelot, etc, and put it all together in a surprisingly good story. If somebody else does the same thing, what sort of legal leg do they have to stand on?
    • That's exactly why the suit has no merit. How can MS be gaining any advantage from Mythic's name if nobody even really knows their name?

      Most game players think the publisher wrote the game anyway.

      And anyone who would know the Mythic name would already know the difference between DAoC and Mythica.
    • Bull shit!

      I was a subscriber for 7 months to DAOC and not ONCE did I EVER feel Norse, Celtic, Druidic, or Athurian mythology. I felt trapped in a computer-spawned land of worthless badger slaying, griefing, and fort tug-of-war.

      DAOC was everquest without the interesting locations. Please don't say it "took heavily" from such great legends you know it didn't have jack shit to do with.

      A NPC named Lancalot sits in the middle of his castle and gives you quests to steal daggers from trolls. Oh yeah, I'm enthra
      • You would have enjoyed the RP servers, and paying close attention to some of the out of the way quests. The epic quests were really interesting if you did them all. Look at what they recently did with the new Trials of Atlantis expansion! It's not the fault of Mythic if someone chooses to spend their time ignoring the content, and smashes bunnies for another carrot instead. "The grind is in your mind."

  • a new genre? (Score:4, Funny)

    by happystink ( 204158 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:51PM (#7790134)
    Umm, maybe when someone invents a new genre that still gives me a reason to airbrush naked chicks on unicorns onto my van, THEN I will give up on fantasy. Until then, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  • 'Norse' refers to a tribe of Scandinavian origin, while Camelot was purported to be in England. Also, the popular mythology of Arthur puts the time period around 1200AD. I will let some other wise-guy post a wikipedia link correcting my dates and stuff.

    • Re:tribal confusion (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Haeleth ( 414428 )
      The mythology of Arthur puts the time period way before 1200 AD. The pre-romantic story, derived from Celtic mythology, via Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, and Layamon, and appearing in the second book of Malory (in the form of a rip-off of a C14th epic poem, the so-called Alliterative Morte Arthur), tells of the Roman emperor Lucius, who demanded tribute from the Britons; Arthur refused to pay, and invaded Rome instead. But at the moment of his victory he was suddenly called home, his throne having been usur

      • Re:tribal confusion (Score:3, Informative)

        by Evil Pete ( 73279 )

        Um. Not an expert in this stuff but awhile back I read an interesting book on the history of dark age England and they mentioned that the Venerable Bede (8th century) and the earlier Gildas (6th century) who lived shortly after the events described how Vortigern allowed the Germanic Englisci into Britain as mercenaries and how a war then ensued between them and the Britons. The writers state that the Britons (really the Romanised inhabitants left high and dry after Rome fell) were pushed back but that a lea

        • Re:tribal confusion (Score:3, Informative)

          by kalidasa ( 577403 ) *
          Geoffrey's dates for Arthur have him dying in AD 542. More likely, the events Geoffrey is adapting took place in the AD 470s, though. Badon Hill might be 542, though; I seem to remember that some authorities think it was, others that it wasn't, related to "Arthur." Really complex problem. See the Penguin edition of Geoffrey of Monmouth, *The History of the Kings of Britain*
    • 'King' Arthur was a Romanized, Christian Celt and a damned traitor to his people and his culture.
  • They're right that MS's game shouldn't be called "Mythica", but they should be hit with rotten eggs for taking a shot at the Lindows name. And the fact that it centers on Norse mythology is irrelevant. It should simply be a suit about the name, Mythica. Of course, as devil's advocate, I'd suggest most people know the name Dark Age of Camelot, but they don't even remember "Mythic"...
  • Granted I don't agree with all of Mythic's practices on DAoC, I think they're giving Microsoft a taste of their own medicine here. Maybe when I play DAoC tonight, I'll have extra fun knowing that I'm helping to fund a legal campaign against Microsoft.

  • What new genre would that be? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NitroWolf ( 72977 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:53PM (#7790160)
    I've given that quite a bit of thought... but realistically, what new genre could you devise that would be fun to play?

    A Sci-Fi setting is about as close as you can get for that sort of gameplay... and that's stretching it. It's Fantasy-Sci-Fi at that point. As AO amply demonstrated, the whole Sci-Fi themed RPG on a computer doesn't work out so well, and ends up being pretty silly.

    Fantasy is really the only theme you can have and be "believable," as far as believability in that sort of setting goes.

    Once you move up technologically/time period wise, you have something completely different. Why, you ask? Simply because combat becomes something less personal (which personal is the whole focus of MMORPGs) and more destructive.

    Any time period set in current day and the future has the potential to have weapons of mass destruction, making game play decidedly un-fun when a nuke comes in and wipes out your whole city without you being able to do anything about it. The fact is, medieval/fantasy is about the only realm you can safely have interactive person-to-person RPGs (note I said RPG, not FPS) and have them remain fun. That's simply because it's more of a drawn out conflict between people, whereas anything set in modern day or the future is a conflict between equipment and wars of attrition, not skill.

    I dislike fantasy books, but love SF books. I would love to see a game based on SF... but the more I've thought about it, there's not one single SF themed multiplayer game that I think would be fun without borrowing heavily from fantasy. It's all about personal combat, in the end, and nothing caters to that like fantasy.

    • I would love to see a game based on SF... but the more I've thought about it, there's not one single SF themed multiplayer game that I think would be fun without borrowing heavily from fantasy.
      Well, there is Fallout. That was a rather popular sci-fi RPG. Besides, why do massively multiplayer games all have to be role playing? Planetside is a pretty great game.
    • It shouldn't really be that hard to do more than fantasy, but you do make a good point about keeping it person to person. I can imagine at least a few genres possible, though, that would/could still revolve around 'man-to-man' fighting and similar interactions:
      • post-apocalyptic/dark future sci-fi (Road Warrior or Gammaworld)
      • superheroes (isn't there something like this coming?)
      • adventure a la Indiana Jones/Alan Quartermain
      • swashbuckling/pirate style adventures

      I'm not sure how many people would want to

      • Or even swashbuckkling/pirate style in a postapocolyptic dark scifi universe, focusing on ship combat and boarding. Say that most projectile weapons in the person-to-person combat are infeasible because of the likelyhood to pierce the hull of the ship the battle is taking place in. Ship-to-ship combat may be equipment based (and to some extent, player skill based), but boarding would involve player-skill melee combat. Or maybe I'm just being a moron, I really don't know. It seemed a good idea at the time.

    • Fantasy is the the most flexible genre because it can encompass Norse stuff and Star Wars. But settling for a sub-genre seems a bit limiting. If you look at the amount of effort required to create a new sub-genre then it is very daunting. Tolkien practically created modern fantasy by doing all the legwork of language, myths etc. Someone needs to go back to scratch and do something similar. Ug. What comes to mind is the frightening amount of work that, for example, the people doing Orion's Arm [orionsarm.com] have put into

  • Myth(ica) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CottonEyedJoe ( 177704 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @05:56PM (#7790183) Journal
    ....Or perhaps Microsoft took the name from another fantasy game, Myth. Developed by wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft, Bungie, and also employing elements of norse mythology.

    • Not much to add here, except that Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LenE ( 29922 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @06:09PM (#7790291) Homepage
      doesn't own Myth anymore.

      I thought exactly the same as you when I read this at first, except that Bungie divested itself of the Myth "franchise", a less than brilliant move that seemed to be part of the acquisition deal when they were kidnapped by Microsoft.

      Actually, I remember vividly that all copies of Myth II for all platforms were recalled by Microsoft within hours of the acquisition. It took several months to locate a store that still had the Loki published Linux version of Myth II, and to this day, you can still no longer purchase a Windows or Mac version of Myth II. Myth III was released by someone else.

      Bungie is not referred to on that page about Mythica, so it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

      -- Len
  • "Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted..."

    I think it's time they revive "Gammaworld" or "Boot Hill". I would enjoy a SciFi based RPG, and maybe a creative soul could make a good western!

    But don't knock fantasy. I don't think I'll ever get tired of level-development-based party quests. However, I never thought I'd say this, but I AM getting tired of D&D themes. I started playing D&D in the 70's, Wizardry in the 1980's, and have p
  • How can we expect to profit from ancient religions if we do not first extend copyright retroactively backwards 10,000 years? These myths would all be dead were it not for the incentive business has to keep them alive. What better way to guarantee a quality product than by quashing all competition and guaranteeing a monopoly for one company? If we let other companies tell us who the ancient gods were, there might be an upheaval of religious dissent, and that could lead to terrorism and wars. We must hav
  • Although it would never happen, Microsoft really should be made to choose one, here.

    On one hand, they are fighting tooth and nail against Lindows, arguing that changing a single character constitutes trademark violation, and on the other, they are fighting Mythic(a), to argue that changing a single character doesn't violate trademark.

    Of course, Windows is M$'s reason for existence, so if it came to that, they'd change they name of "Mythica" to "Mythologica" or something like that...

    But, wouldn't it be tr
  • Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted...

    We wish, but it's not so. For every non-fantasy genre that game developers dream up, some other me-too company will crank out a copycat version of that genre.

    Like with movies: Die Hard was a big success, so there's a rash of ripoffs -- "Die Hard in a Hockey Arena", "Die Hard on a Battleship", etc.

    -kgj
  • And didn't Microsoft buy Bungie? Seems Mythic doesn't have a tripod to stand on. Maybe Robert Graves, Edith Hamilton, and a few other authors should sue all us fantasy gamers for stealing their thunderbolts. Anyone remember when you had to name your game X&X (ala D&D) to sell your game at all (oh I guess that would be Dungeon or Adventure to the early video game crowd).
  • "The suit asks for damages as well as an injunction against Microsoft and other penalties."

    Whilst I may agree with the basis of their lawsuit granted I have never heard of them as a non PC gamer, I disagree with their request. Since this is an upcoming game, why not just ask for injunction against Microsoft to change the name, What damages are they asking for? It's funny how they go to quote Microsoft against Lindows, Microsoft was asking for change of name, which I disagree with, Microsoft was not asking

  • EverQuest community watches on.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <[ajs] [at] [ajs.com]> on Monday December 22, 2003 @06:20PM (#7790377) Homepage Journal
    We're always amused as The Next Big Game looms on the horizon.... Did you know that DAoC was going to kill EverQuest's role as the #1 MMORPG? No? Perhaps that's because you were waiting for Neverwinter Nights? Star Wars Galaxies? PlanetSide? Anarchy Online?

    Perhaps you have not learned your lesson and are waiting for WoW?

    It amazes me that each new game comes out and again misses the point. It's not the graphics (most long-term EQ players turn off all the bells and whistles they can); it's not the storyline (the EQ storyline reads like Christopher Tolkein on quayludes); it's not the marketing (when is the last time you saw an add for SWG, NWN or DAoc? Now what about EQ? I think EQ gets less press than the Slash engine ;-)

    So what is it? It's the fact that the game is large enough and growing to absorb enough user-base that there is a community that has real staying power... somehow, THAT is what another game needs to replicate, and it emphasizes all of the things that most game companies do not want to spend money on... Perhaps Sigil will get it right. they did once before....
    • Man, the acronyms! The Acronyms!

      DAoC, MMORPG, WoW, EQ, SWG, NWN.

      I know 2 out of 6.

      Make it Stop!

    • EverCrack is popular because of its mindlessly addictive level-up nature (honed by psychologists remember?) combined with the amount of content and size of community.

      The MMORPG to grow more popular than EverCrack (or Lineage [lineage-us.com]) will be the kind that is open to user modification and governance so it can take on a life of its own. Depending on a central crackdaddy for content can't compete with the promise of a dynamic Metaverse.

      The games that currently come closest to this ideal game world are A Tale in th [atitd.com]

    • Nitpick: NWN is not an MMORPG, and despite people making "persistant worlds" it was never intended to be so. It isn't really "competition" of EQ.

      At the heart of the argument, EQ simply has an entrenched userbase that does not want to let go of their characters. Having played both EQ and DOAC for a while, I think DOAC is a better (more fun) game. However, it isn't so much better that most EQ players would give up EQ to play it.

      Eventually an MMORPG will be made that is so much better that EQ players will

  • Dark Age of Camelot is STUNNINGLY UNORIGINAL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @06:20PM (#7790387) Homepage

    I used to play DAOC. I used to love DAOC. But a creator of new ideas DAOC is not.

    Dark Age uses the most widespread, obvious and well-known cultural and mythological references for its game world.

    We must remember that Mythic's case against Microsoft constitutes a claim of ownership over these themes.

    For once Microsoft is right.

    Mythic: you should have been more original if you wanted something protectable.

    Verdict goes to the defendant.

    • We must remember that Mythic's case against Microsoft constitutes a claim of ownership over these themes.

      Try again. It represents a trademark of a particular word within a particular context.
      For a trademark to hold any validity it must be defended against dilution. Mythic's claim is that the use of Mythica in the context that Microsoft is using it is confusingly similar to the Mythic trademark.

      Originality of content and the theme / basis of the content is not what's being questioned in the lawsuit. Wh

    • We must remember that Mythic's case against Microsoft constitutes a claim of ownership over these themes.

      No it doesn't. It constitues a claim of ownership over their company's name.

      They're not suing because Microsoft is making a medieval fantasy MMOG. They're suing because Microsoft is naming it confusingly similar to their company's name -- and since their company also makes a medieval fantasy MMOG, it could be confusing to the market.
  • Microsoft already did a pretty decent MMORPG ala "Asherons Call" (ok Turbine did it and Microsoft assimilated it into their collective). However IMHO Asherons call is a halfway decent MMORPG. Though now that MS has sold Asherons call back to Turbine, now I see why exactly.

    MS should be worried about this lawsuit from a competitive standpoint. If too much hack and slash is done to their new MMORPG that leaves them with nothing in the MMORPG world (though maybe this isn't a bad thing...).

    Or maybe MS
  • roll a 20 sided die to decide this?

    ->Jeff
  • Seems like a total non-starter to me.

    Until reading the post I had no clue what company created DAOC. And give it a day or so, and I'll likely forget it too.
  • Well, it's beyond hope now... but it was good to begin with. It had the potential to be a new genre, but it really just extended the current Fantasy-RPG style of gameplay to space (rpg-in-space) sure, there's a bit of trade element and experience based upon your exploration of the known universe (very cool, not too difficult to imagine but the first time I've seen it in a graphical mud.)

    Really I'm tired (as well as many others I suppose) of the hack+slash forever pointlessness. Not to mention the horribl

  • Scandinavia (Score:4, Funny)

    by StarTux ( 230379 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @06:59PM (#7790705) Journal
    Scandinavian countries should combine and sue Mythic and Microsoft over use of their Mythology!

    This is obviously getting out of hand...

  • I made an RPG in 91 titled it, but never published.

    2003, a german game company makes a title with that name.

    I email them, tell them I sort of had rights, ask for a tour of the company.

    They email back, and said Lucas Arts threatened to sue

  • Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted...

    Amen to that! Ever since game developers stopped creating games outside of the fantasy genre, the video game industry has been stagnant. I mean, let's look at a list of a few recent fantasy games. They all look the same to me:

    • Grand Theft Auto
    • Call of Duty
    • Command and Conquer: Generals
    • Planetside
    • Project Gotham Racing

    </sarcasm>

    And never mind the imbecilic "logic" of the quote above,

  • total BS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nuintari ( 47926 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:22PM (#7792184) Homepage
    Oh no, they are using norse and Arthurian legend in a game? heaven forbid their be more than one game of that out there, next you'll be telling me that some company that puts out a world war 2 fps is gonna sue all the other companies that put out a ww2 fps.

    jesus christ people, you didn't invent the legends, you based a game on them. Microsoft decided to do the same, for once in my life I am siding with microsoft.

    That is it, from this day forth, let it be known that I created egyption history. My first order of business will be to sue the Toledo Museam of Art because they have an Egyption section featuring a MUMMY, and we all know that I thought of mummification first damnit!

    Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits, I f'ing swear. Companies don't make money by producing anything anymore, they just sue each other all day long. First we kill all the lawyers, then all the lawsuit happy morons in this god forsakken country, then we kill ALL CEO's and anyone who still works at SCO.

    I would like to mention, my fever is at 103....

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close