• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Blizzard Legally Opposes Valve Trademark Over DOTA Name [Up: Trial Schedule]

Complistic

Complistic

Member
JaseC said:
MsTcd.jpg
Click to expand...

lol this is the proper response to this.
 
G

GregLombardi

Member
Striek said:
Read the filing and the answer, Blizzard makes a decent argument that deserves to be heard, let the courts decide.
Click to expand...

There is literally no decent argument here. This is a giant corporation obsessing over a game and its corresponding "revenue streams" that they themselves not only admitted they didn't take advantage of or trademark, but that they also ignored for years and years while the community built an entire genre around it.

Then they turn around and sue over their own mistake? After releasing a battle.net for Starcraft 2 that is worse than the original battle.net in terms of customization, AND after releasing a horrific attempt at Blizzard Dota?

Just because something is "reasonable" legally, doesn't make it "reasonable" otherwise. As a player of DOTA games for years (and of Blizzard games too!), I'm fully happy to avoid Blizzard games until they drop this suit.
 
Interfectum

Interfectum

Member
I like Blizzard but this is a dick move. Valve has every right to trademark Dota2 and they are just bitter they missed the boat (hence their obsession with Blizzard DOTA now).

Gabe will win this.
 
I

injurai

Banned
It depends if Blizzard had anything in their EULA for WC3 that made them entitled to all mods made for the game. Otherwise I would say that Valve has the right to trademark the name. People now refer to the genre as MOBAs not longer DOTA clones, so having it be franchised wouldn't hurt anything. Not to mention Icefrog is behind it. It is pretty much his to work on at this point.

If anything its held in the public domain, to be used by Icefrog as he sees fit.
 
M

massoluk

Banned
Zen said:
Blizzard isn't trying to obtain the rights to Dota, they're trying to protect it from being commercialized when Valve has little right to title their MOBA game 'Dota 2'. They aren't sueing Valve, they're attempting to block the trademarking, and good for them.

Dota should be public domain, period. To many individuals have participated in its success and iterated it in various seperate directions for any one company or individual to be able to claim ownership. That's why Pendragon and Guinsoo called their stand alone product League of Legends instead of calling it something like 'Dota AllStars 2'.
Click to expand...

Bull shit, Eul has every right to it. As far as I see it, this is just a case of Kleenex, Band Aid, Jacuzzi and Xerox. Pendragon and Guisoo didn't call their stand alone product because they didn't coin it. Eul did.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
Here's the bit I object to:
8. Use of the World Editor (and Warcraft III) is subject to the terms of an
End User License Agreement ("EULA") between Blizzard and users of Warcraft III. The
EULA sets forth the relative rights and responsibilities of the parties regarding their use
of Warcraft III and the World Editor. The EULA is displayed to users during the
installation of Warcraft III and the World Editor. All users of Warcraft III and the World
Editor must consent to the EULA by clicking on a button labeled "Accept." If the user
declines to assent, he or she may click a button labeled "Decline," at which point the
installation will terminate, denying access to the user. If a user declines to accept the
EULA, he or she may request and obtain a full refund from Blizzard of the purchase
price.

9. Pursuant to the EULA, Blizzard grants to the user, subject to the terms of
the EULA, a limited, non-exclusive license to install Warcraft III and the World Editor
on his or her computer, use the game for noncommercial entertainment purposes, and
distribute Warcraft III mods to other users via the Battle.net game service. Warcraft III's
EULA clearly specifies that all underlying intellectual property rights in and to Warcraft
III are owned by Blizzard: "All title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in
and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any
titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch
phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions,
audiovisual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and
`applets' incorporated into the Program) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors."

10. The EULA prohibits the use of Warcraft III or the World Editor for any
commercial purpose without Blizzard's prior written consent. In addition, the EULA
restricts any distribution of "New Materials [defined as modifications of Warcraft III
created using the World Editor] on a stand-alone basis... through any and all distribution
channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution
without the express written consent of Blizzard.
Click to expand...
and
13.
The DotA Mods are not stand-alone products and cannot be played
independently of Warcraft III. From a technical standpoint, the DotA mods are small
computer files that use the Warcraft III "extension" .w3x. The DotA Mods cannot be
opened, accessed, played, or used in any manner without the user having first installed
Warcraft III and assented to the Warcraft III EULA. From the user's standpoint, the
DotA Mods are Warcraft III scenarios, or "maps," that users can loaded into Warcraft III
and enable them to play Warcraft III in a slightly different manner from the original
game. The DotA Mods use the same game engine, graphical elements, artwork, sound
recordings and user interface of Warcraft III. All of the elements of the DotA Mods,
including the heroes, items, leveling system, abilities, spells, fighting mechanics,
environments, and structures, are from Warcraft III. All or nearly all of the models,
textures, animations, ability or spell effects, and icons are from Warcraft III. Further,
many of the names, sounds, and character icons of the heroes in the DotA Mods are the
same as those used by Warcraft III characters. All of these elements were utilized by the
DotA Mods under license from Blizzard and pursuant to the EULA.

14. Since its release in 2003, the DotA Mods have been downloaded and
played by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the United States and the world
via the Warcraft III game software and Blizzard's Battle.net system. The DotA Mods can
be played only after a user has installed Warcraft III onto his or her computer, assented to
the EULA, launched the game software (at which time the user is presented with the
Warcraft III game screen and Blizzard logo), and entered Blizzard's "Battle.net "
multiplayer online system. At all times, the DotA Mods have been marketed, advertised,
and promoted as Warcraft III scenarios that require purchase and installation of Warcraft
III and knowledge of Warcraft III's gameplay mechanics, user interface, and on-screen
display. The fact that the DotA Mods are "mods" of Warcraft III and that to be played
the user must first purchase Warcraft III is well-known and well-publicized throughout
the United States and the world
Click to expand...
Much of the rest of the argument is built up from this concept: That clicking 'Assent' on the EULA licensed DotA (not just the actual code, but the name) to Blizzard. They discuss how they used DotA to promote their game through their website and through other websites, how it's commonly known that DotA is a Warcraft III mod, how the mod uses in-game assets, how it can't run independent of Warcraft III... but the central pillar is that EULA. This is summed up nicely in the Introduction:
By this Opposition, Blizzard seeks to prevent registration by its competitor
Valve Corporation ("Valve") of a trademark, DOTA, that for more than seven years has
been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community, under license from Blizzard.
By virtue of that use, the DOTA mark has become firmly associated in the mind of
consumers with Blizzard, including to signify a highly popular scenario or variant of one
of Blizzard's best-selling computer games, Warcraft III. Over the past seven years, the
mark DOTA has been used exclusively in connection with Blizzard and its products,
namely Warcraft III. Most notably, DOTA has been used as the popular name of a
Warcraft III software "mod" file that has been distributed, marketed, and promoted by
Blizzard and its fans (under license from Blizzard); that utilizes and is built upon the
1 Warcraft III game engine, interface, and gameplay mechanics; that is comprised of
Warcraft III characters, items, spells, artwork, textures, and color palates; that can be
played only using Warcraft III software and via Blizzard's online service Battle.net ; and
whose name (DOTA, an acronym for "Defense of the Ancients") is a reference to
Warcraft III characters known as the "Ancients."
Click to expand...

So for me the legal case rests upon whether or not you support the notion that click-through EULAs have such force of law that any creations built on top of a EULA'd product- not the original artwork, not the specifics of the mod code, not even the lore, but specifically an acronym that was not present in the original game- can immediately by considered "owned" by the party conferring the EULA to the extent that licenses can be granted and trademarks denied.

I think that's an absurd standard and I hope Valve's legal team goes about dismantling it.
 
D

DarkKyo

Member
Interesting. Most people here support Valve where as most people talking about it on reddit support Blizzard. Wonder what that's about..
 
D

Deadly

Member
The EULA posted seems to be an updated version though. Which version of the EULA would apply? The one now or the one when DotA was coined?

If Blizzard really is just against the trademarking of the name then I think it's ok but I doubt their intentions are so pure.
 
I

Ikuu

Had his dog run over by Blizzard's CEO
They obviously want to be able to use the name themselves, either for their mod or a potential retail game (even though they had nothing to do with the development of the game).
 
W

wrowa

Member
The concept that the person who came up with the idea and the name of a mod loses his rights to it just because something has evolved due to the ambitions of the community seems stupid to me. If Eul is the person who came up with it, then he should be the person who decides what happens with it. If he wants to join Valve, then no one should stop him from doing so.

The whole "the community made it to what it is today" aspect seems silly to me. I think what made Dota popular in the end is entirely beside the point.
 
V

VanillaCakeIsBurning

Member
I think if I was the creator of DOTA I would be pretty annoyed at Blizzard for trying to pull this now. Did they not basically ignore the existence of DOTA until recently after the success of games like League of Legends? It seems like they are trying to jump into this space now after seeing how successful it can be.

I don't see how Valve trademarking the name of a mod the original creators(who now work at Valve) are working on is a bad thing. I'm not an expert but isn't it standard procedure to trademark the name of your game?

Not to mention that original DotA and Dota 2 are still going strong and are both being routinely updated, so it's not as if the existence of Dota 2 annihilated the old mod or something. The game(Dota 2) uses entirely new assets as well.

They mention the EULA, but wouldn't that only apply to the name "Defense of the Ancients"? Unless when the mod was created and released the names "DOTA", "DotA", "Dota", and "Dota 2" were included as other recognized names for the mod by the authors.
 
R

r_x2

Member
"Blizzard Legally Opposes Valve Trademark Over DOTA Name!"
"It looks like"
*Puts on sunglasses*
"They underestimated the Danger Of The Acronym"
YEAAAHHHHH!
 
T

The_Endgamer

Member
Evlar said:
Here's the bit I object to:

So for me the legal case rests upon whether or not you support the notion that click-through EULAs have such force of law that any creations built on top of a EULA'd product- not the original artwork, not the specifics of the mod code, not even the lore, but specifically an acronym that was not present in the original game- can immediately by considered "owned" by the party conferring the EULA to the extent that licenses can be granted and trademarks denied.

I think that's an absurd standard and I hope Valve's legal team goes about dismantling it.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that because the creator of the mod was ignorant of signing permission of these even though it would have explicitly said, 'read these terms and conditions' (like they usually do) that there is a chance the original modder can somehow win?
He signed them knowing full well that they were signing over the rights of that game. If not explicitly, it must have occured to him that Blizzard could do such a thing as it is not an uncommon practice given that you usually buy a license for a product rather than full ownership.

On top of that your intentionally omitting the fact of the gameplay similarities between the DOTA 2 and DotA games.

That's not cricket.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
The_Endgamer said:
So your argument is that because the creator of the mod was ignorant of signing permission of these even though it would have explicitly said, 'read these terms and conditions' (like they usually do) that there is a chance the original modder can somehow win?
He signed them knowing full well that they were signing over the rights of that game. If not explicitly, it must have occured to him that Blizzard could do such a thing as it is not an uncommon practice given that you usually buy a license for a product rather than full ownership.

On top of that your intentionally omitting the fact of the similarities between the DOTA 2 and DotA games.

That's not cricket.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not my argument.
 
T

TheExodu5

Banned
shagg_187 said:
CEN 800 - Law and Ethics. Study of the legal and ethical aspects of engineering practice, including Canadian legal system and business organizations, tort liability, business contract law, intellectual and industrial property, principles of arbitration and alternative dispute resolutions, the practice of engineering, occupational health and safety, ethical aspects of engineering practice, ethical dilemmas in project management, sustainable development and ethical behavior, and globalization and international standards for ethical and social responsibility.

Your contribution to society/this_thread is...

?
Click to expand...

High-five, fellow engie.
 
S

Sciz

Member
scytheavatar said:
I think Valve is the one who are the villans, Blizzard isn't trying to claim the DOTA name as much as they are trying to prevent it from falling in Valve's hands.
Click to expand...

That argument vaporized the moment Blizzard got the pending trademark for "Defense of the Ancients" from Riot. That, plus the fact that part of their argument against Valve depends on "Defense of the Ancients" and "DOTA" being recognized as the same brand suggests to me that they are absolutely trying to claim it for themselves at this point.
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Funny...valve has sued vivendi, and actvision blizzard 2 times before including sierra online for distrubuting Cs to cafes. So they will protect their ip's, Blizzard is just trying to cover their asses if valve decides to block future dota products.
 
Z

Zzoram

Member
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.

Valve hired Icefrog. That gives them 1000x more legitimacy to claiming the DOTA name.
 
Interfectum

Interfectum

Member
Zzoram said:
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.
Click to expand...

Yup. They missed the boat now they want to get it back.
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Zzoram said:
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.

Valve hired Icefrog. That gives them 1000x more legitimacy to claiming the DOTA name.
Click to expand...

Hey i saw plenty of dota tournaments at blizzcon side by side with wc3 , sc, and diablo :)
 
M

MRORANGE

Member
scytheavatar said:
if that guy wanted to own the Dota name he shouldn't have released it as a fan mod for a commercial game in the first place.
Click to expand...

yes lets stop the modding community creating stuff for games, makes sense, I mean who needs counter strike, team fortress, alien swarm or day of defeat?
 
J

JustinBB7

Member
Zzoram said:
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.

Valve hired Icefrog. That gives them 1000x more legitimacy to claiming the DOTA name.
Click to expand...

This

dorkimoe said:
Activision probably told them to. Activision sues everyone
Click to expand...

I was thinking this too. I don't really play anything from Blizzard, but it sounds more like Activision then Blizzard.
 
T

The_Endgamer

Member
Evlar said:
Nope, that's not my argument.
Click to expand...

Well then humour me on how the two are so different. If you read the document you'd see that Blizzard specifically addresses the naming convention to include DOTA, Dota Defence of the Ancients and so on stipulating their ownership and rights toward the name. (See Points 15-21 for Blizzard's Rights and compare them to 22-26 on Valve's Trademark Application)

Given that the name specifically that it is derived from is imbedded in the Warcraft fiction then it becomes a problem further, this in effect undermines the naming convention that Valve has seemed to misappropriate.
 
S

scytheavatar

Member
Evlar said:
So for me the legal case rests upon whether or not you support the notion that click-through EULAs have such force of law that any creations built on top of a EULA'd product- not the original artwork, not the specifics of the mod code, not even the lore, but specifically an acronym that was not present in the original game- can immediately by considered "owned" by the party conferring the EULA to the extent that licenses can be granted and trademarks denied.

I think that's an absurd standard and I hope Valve's legal team goes about dismantling it.
Click to expand...

EULA is a contract........ a contract is more than enough of a force of law for Blizzard to lay claim to the Defense of the Ancients trademark. This is trademarks you are talking about, do you honestly think that Valve can successfully argue that "DoTA" is a distinct trademark from "Defense of the Ancients"? If you do then you obviously do not know anything about trademark laws.

The EULA made it very clear, by making a mod you are giving away the right to ever use your creation for commercial purposes.......... if Eul is unhappy about that then why didn't he spend time and money to make his own RTS game engine? Also, do you guys seriously think DOTA would have been a fraction as successful as it was had it not leech off the success of Warcraft III? That the MOBA craze would have been possible if not for Blizzard giving their fans the right to modify their games? Which they spent millions of dollars to develop?

I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks Blizzard has no rights to the DOTA trademark.
 
S

scytheavatar

Member
Ikuu said:
Could easily argue that War3 was as successful as it was due to DotA.
Click to expand...

Warcraft III sold 1 million in its first month, it was as successful as it was primary due to Starcraft, which was as successful as it was primary due to Warcraft II.

MRORANGE said:
yes lets stop the modding community creating stuff for games, makes sense, I mean who needs counter strike, team fortress, alien swarm or day of defeat?
Click to expand...

Blizzard has made it clear, modders are free to create their mods for non-commercial purposes. Eul was free to make DOTA, that doesn't mean that he owns the right to make a standalone DOTA game for Valve.
 
M

M3d10n

Member
scytheavatar said:
EULA is a contract........ a contract is more than enough of a force of law for Blizzard to lay claim to the Defense of the Ancients trademark. This is trademarks you are talking about, do you honestly think that Valve can successfully argue that "DoTA" is a distinct trademark from "Defense of the Ancients"? If you do then you obviously do not know anything about trademark laws.

The EULA made it very clear, by making a mod you are giving away the right to ever use your creation for commercial purposes.......... if Eul is unhappy about that then why didn't he spend time and money to make his own RTS game engine? Also, do you guys seriously think DOTA would have been a fraction as successful as it was had it not leech off the success of Warcraft III? That the MOBA craze would have been possible if not for Blizzard giving their fans the right to modify their games? Which they spent millions of dollars to develop?

I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks Blizzard has no rights to the DOTA trademark.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything in the EULA about names and trademarks. Just like Apple's (pre-update) iBooks EULA claimed ownership of the iBook-produced file, not the book itself, WC3's EULA seems to claim ownership over the WC3 implementation and distribution of the mod itself and it's assets, not the ideas behind the mod.

You also think Google should have the rights to a song I write myself and upload to YouTube just because it would have never gotten popular without using YouTube's infrastructure? That's nonsense!
 
J

J-Rod

Member
Blizzard seems to be trying hard to throw out all the goodwill it has accumulated with its consumers throughout the years as quickly as they can. They messed up on battlenet, LAN, realid, and forcing online sp. Now they want to control dota this late into it, something they didn't give two shits about before. I'm rooting for Valve on this one
 
D

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
Drkirby said:
There is also the factual error where they state the only way to play Dota is to use Battle.net
Click to expand...

the only way to play DOTA is thru the WCIII engine.

blizzard has a point here, the "ancients" are developed by them the Frozen Throne, and the Tree of Life are characters they designed. A large percent of the moves again some are re arranged but are still their design, a move like Omni Slash is original but blade fury and healing ward are straight from the game for example. In the end the art, sound, animations (there are alot of unique ones) and characters are from the WC3 engine. So i think blizzard has a right to say hey first of all the gameplay is unique but the mod is from our engine so why can Valve copyright it? I dont think valve will take legal action if another "dota" pops up though. But i do see the original modders + blizzards side of the argument, they did , ultimately mod blizzards work and for another company to copyright the name of the mod is kinda unfair if they start lording that over everyone. I dont think they will though.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
scytheavatar said:
EULA is a contract........ a contract is more than enough of a force of law for Blizzard to lay claim to the Defense of the Ancients trademark. This is trademarks you are talking about, do you honestly think that Valve can successfully argue that "DoTA" is a distinct trademark from "Defense of the Ancients"? If you do then you obviously do not know anything about trademark laws.

The EULA made it very clear, by making a mod you are giving away the right to ever use your creation for commercial purposes.......... if Eul is unhappy about that then why didn't he spend time and money to make his own RTS game engine? Also, do you guys seriously think DOTA would have been a fraction as successful as it was had it not leech off the success of Warcraft III? That the MOBA craze would have been possible if not for Blizzard giving their fans the right to modify their games? Which they spent millions of dollars to develop?

I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks Blizzard has no rights to the DOTA trademark.
Click to expand...

No, these things are NOT self evident as you seem to believe. The act of putting "End User Licensing Agreement" at the top and an "Accept" button at the bottom in a window created by the installation script doesn't mean that any and all words between the top and the bottom are enforceable as a contract. The case law on this is still developing, and various courts have made contradictory rulings, leaving both sides of these agreements (the licensor and the licensee) somewhat unclear on what their legal obligations and privileges are.

The interesting thing about this case is that it gives one wealthy developer (Valve) good cause to slice up the EULA of another wealthy developer (Blizzard) on grounds of something like enforceability. Thus we might get some progress on establishing more precedent.

And as I've already stated, the idea that you can sign away intellectual property by a click-through EULA on a video game, particularly so tenuously connected to the game's IP as the acronym of a name of a mod, is chilling to me. That's not a legal argument, it's a practical one, as I feel that extends well beyond the typical understanding of modders' rights and responsibilities, and could hurt the modding scene generally if it became precedent.
 
F

FieryBalrog

Member
PoorFate said:
I think if I was the creator of DOTA I would be pretty annoyed at Blizzard for trying to pull this now.
Click to expand...
Good thing Icefrog isn't the creator of DOTA, and the actual creators of DOTA specifically chose to avoid using the DOTA name because they felt it belonged to the community.
 
I

Ikuu

Had his dog run over by Blizzard's CEO
FieryBalrog said:
Good thing Icefrog isn't the creator of DOTA, and the actual creators of DOTA specifically chose to avoid using the DOTA name because they felt it belonged to the community.
Click to expand...

:lol, the actual creator of DotA was Eul and he works for Valve.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Jesus christ, Blizzard... do they really think this will be worth the bad PR they are going to get over suing Valve and claiming a trademark over a name that was 100% fan created?
 
M

Max Knight

Member
I honestly don't care who wins or who the name goes to, as I don't have and have never had any interest in playing DOTA. I'm just baffled why Valve would want to name their game that. It seems like you'd generate more buzz pretending like it's a totally new concept than you would trying to foster brand-recognition from Warcraft III players who were probably already aware of your game anyway.
 
B

Belgorim

Member
Zefah said:
Jesus christ, Blizzard... do they really think this will be worth the bad PR they are going to get over suing Valve and claiming a trademark over a name that was 100% fan created?
Click to expand...

Are people still under the assumption Blizzard are suing Valve?
 
J

Jenga

Banned
J-Rod said:
Blizzard seems to be trying hard to throw out all the goodwill it has accumulated with its consumers throughout the years as quickly as they can. They messed up on battlenet, LAN, realid, and forcing online sp. Now they want to control dota this late into it, something they didn't give two shits about before. I'm rooting for Valve on this one
Click to expand...

nah it's cool, reddit still loves them
 
F

FieryBalrog

Member
Evlar said:
No, these things are NOT self evident as you seem to believe. The act of putting "End User Licensing Agreement" at the top and an "Accept" button at the bottom in a window created by the installation script doesn't mean that any and all words between the top and the bottom are enforceable as a contract.
Click to expand...
Oh, but click-wrap agreement has been held as a valid contract in certain cases dating back to the late 90s (e.g. Specht v. Netscape). Including Blizzard's own WoW Glider case.

You're right that the case law is still developing, but people throw around the idea that click-wrap EULA's are all null and void, and that's just not the case. EULA's are on much stronger ground than the internet law brigade gives them credit for.
 
F

FieryBalrog

Member
M3d10n said:
I haven't seen anything in the EULA about names and trademarks. Just like Apple's (pre-update) iBooks EULA claimed ownership of the iBook-produced file, not the book itself, WC3's EULA seems to claim ownership over the WC3 implementation and distribution of the mod itself and it's assets, not the ideas behind the mod.

You also think Google should have the rights to a song I write myself and upload to YouTube just because it would have never gotten popular without using YouTube's infrastructure? That's nonsense!
Click to expand...
This is about trademarks, not "the ideas behind the mod". It's solely about the right to use the name DOTA in commerce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Microsoft-Activision is a done deal – but what if the FTC still wins? Ask Whole Foods.
News
14
2K
Kuranghi replied
Dante's Developer Disdain - Traversing The Circles Of Gaming Hell!
Opinion Drama Game Dev
1
601
AlteredForms replied
  • Poll
Rate The Game Awards 2023
News 2 3
107
5K
Shakka43 replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games.
2
62
7K
Ozriel replied
After A Terrible 2019, Blizzard Is Going All-In At BlizzCon
2
89
8K
MMaRsu replied
Top Bottom