You would not win in that case. Nintendo lost because their trademark does not apply to supermarkets. But if you made a game called super Mario, you would definitely lose.
“While Nintendo has trademarked the use of Super Mario worldwide under numerous categories, including video games, clothing and toys, it appears the company did not specifically state anything about the names of supermarkets.”
Admittedly my local is part of a large chain so this may not be typical but even independent supermarkets in my area tend to repackage bulk candies and chocolate under their own label.
I was hoping for this after the Resident Evil bundle from a few months ago.
The way Dino Crisis 2 managed to turn the tankiness of the RE/Dino Crisis gameplay into an action-packed shooter is stunning to me and I love that game dearly. Replayed it last year and it holds up surprisingly well!
Now let’s hope for a Pararisite Eve GOG release! :D
Parasite Eve is a Square Enix IP, so it’s possible it could get a PC port, but I wouldn’t count on it going to GOG. They’re almost as bad as Nintendo when it comes to hoarding their IPs.
I enjoyed the original Dino Crisis, despite the clunky controls, but I never played the second one because I wasn’t in the mood to deal with the same interface.
You’re saying the controls are better? I might have to give this a shot after 25 years!
Anyone know how it runs on the Steamdeck? I’m aware that Heroic launcher exists, but I haven’t looked into it yet.
There’s also a new GOG Dreamlist, where you can vote for your favorite games of yesteryear to get the same treatment. If I might nudge you to the search box and vote for some of the following, you’d have my thanks:
2 was such a blast I probably rented the game from my local movie rental chain enough to actually buy the game.
Especially hot after the newest Ninja Gaiden 2 release. It’s almost a lost art having games with such a pure focus on action. It’s like a Michael Bay movie, you’re not watching/playing for the story, you’re playing for the adrenaline rush.
We had a store just around the corner, where I used to live with a friend, we could rent 2 PS1 games for a month for $30 and since we would burn thru both of the games in a week usually we could return them and get 2 more for what the tax would be. Great times and my last console
It’s not Steam’s decision to make. The statement you’re referring to is just Steam highlighting a decision made by the game publishers. Even if Steam didn’t highlight it, it would still exist, as you would see if you read the games’ license terms before paying.
Ubisoft is a game publisher. They actually make the decision that you don’t own the games you pay for.
Practically all game publishers do. Sadly, it’s the industry standard.
(By the way, you linked Steam’s subscriber agreement, which concerns Steam’s service and client software, not the games bought on Steam. Maybe you meant to link a Valve game license?)
In any case, it doesn’t matter here, because the complaint was about Steam, not Valve.
Mellow_Online1 Officer 20 Sep, 2017 @ 1:55pm Update: Valve has stepped in and keys have been reinstated, previous owners of the game should now have it in their library
Seems like the developer was dumb and steam did everything right…?
What are you talking about? If the developer says XYZ are stolen/bla keys of course steam has to do that? Stop trying to put blame on steam here, they did everything right. First help the developer and then go back once it was clear they were doing bullshit. Not saying steam is a saint, but holy fuck are they the best of all of them by a long shot.
I don’t get the downvotes. You’re right, everything you “own” in steam is through a license. People just don’t like to admit that we’re willing to let that one slide for convenience.
My main arguement though was that it’s not like your steam library is yours without restrictions. You’re agreeing to Steams terms and services and there are lots of ways they can prevent you from playing (most) games you “own”.
I was pretty sure Steam was getting dunked on because you don’t actually own the games according to the contract. I was just pointing out this is also true of any commercial piece of software.
For example, you go to GameStop and buy a physical copy of your favorite game. When you install it the EULA makes it clear you don’t actually own the product, just a license.
fyi, in case someone isn’t clear on the difference:
stakeholder ≠ shareholder
stakeholders are basically all people involved, including staff, and even stuff like landlords, janitors, citizens (sometimes things like parents), etc.
it’s anyone with a stake in an organizations operations!
example: a city decides to create a new bus route. in this case, stakeholders include the local residents, the companies involved in creating the route, the companies supplying the buses, the mechanics needed to keep the fleet running, etc., etc.
there’s a usually a LOT of stakeholders, and typically you don’t always include everyone in every little decision because it quickly becomes unmanageable. so only the most relevant ones are included in most decisions, and who exactly that is depends on the project.
shareholders on the other hand are what everyone is probably thinking of, and that’s the people (“people” being used generously here) only interested in next quarters profits. you know! the parasites!
of course the message is still bullshit and nothing but coded corpo-speech for “shareholders”, but i thought some folks might be interested in knowing the difference anyhow.
even if, in this case, it’s only important to highlight the extra special bullshit they put into the statement…
I think when all these famous studios were interesting, they still by inertia functioned the way people with actual skills founded them. I’m thinking of BioWare, Black Isle, Obsidian, but reading the history of any famous video game studio gives that impression. It was a rather personal business in 90s and early 00s, it seems.
Then the “professionals” came and started “fixing” everything, and something about today’s computing makes me personally deeply disgusted of anything advertised there.
I don’t want a shooter not better than a hundred Q3 clones, but taking 50GB disk space. I don’t even want it with “photorealistic” (no they aren’t) graphics. I don’t want CK3 because it’s slow and has too much bullshit happening, the secret of success is in quality of content more than amount, and more is not always better if a player gets bored with small events. I admit, I haven’t tried Hogwarts Legacy, put from what people say its open world is as useful as Daggerfall’s map the size of England, because most things on that map are all the same, though as a dungeon crawler Daggerfall is still better than typical modern game. And Star Wars - its Expanded Universe mostly came into existence in the 90s, it’s designed the way very convenient for all kinds of video games, or any entertainment and any secondary art at all, and George Lucas approached that theoretically before making the first movie (the “obscenely huge profits” part he may or may not have considered, but it came as a welcome bonus, I suppose), and still every modern time Star Wars game is just not interesting to me ; my favorite one is KotORII, so there is, of course, a gap between me and the majority, but it’s still baffling how didn’t they even try to make an X-Wing remake.
One can go on. People want to play interesting games. Very few people play games because of “more, better, wider” in ad. The whole idea of a game is to be interesting. It’s entertainment. It’s not “I’ve got a new iPhone and you don’t” dick size contest. Some game being very technically cool, but absolutely bullshit in gameplay, writing, UI design, character design, location design etc, - is not entertaining. Some other game being technically a visual novel (not necessarily), but with all those things done well, - it is entertaining.
So, making a good game doesn’t even require a lot of very competent and very stressed CS heroes working since dawn till dusk to the extent of their ability.
I live in the midst of something that can be very carefully called capitalism. It was called socialism once and then the “socialist administrators” did sort of a rebranding.
I think the big “issue” is that there’s a notable lag between loss of goodwill and loss of income/profit/value, and there’s an even bigger lag between trying to fix goodwill and returns on that. It makes it too hard for any profit-first company to get right.
External MBAs taking over running businesses will either result in this or making a billion dollar company through the heavy exploitation of their workers and the consumers. I think the vast majority are the former though.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne