Activision.
Turns out Blizzard is actually suing Valve over the Dota name, lawl:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91202572&pty=OPP&eno=1
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?They hired Eul, the guy who came up with the name and original map, and Ice Frog, the guy who made the most contributions.
What next, Gaming Age suing us over having GAF in our name?
What`s up with Blizzard nowadays?
From reading that, it looked like Riot gave up on fighting Valve for the trademark.
I hope they lose and then Valve proceeds to counter sue. (I don't know what I'm saying).
did they hire those who made WC3 engine, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?
DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.
I'd like to note that Riot is owned by the world's third largest internet company behind Amazon and Google, so they definitely didn't give up for lack of cash.
Valve has actually trademarked the DOTA name.
Blizzard is trying to launch something called Blizzard DOTA which no one will play. Valvecouldshould countersue them to shut that shit down, just to rub it in.
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design.
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?
DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.
Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
Hahaha how does Blizzard think they can get away with a crock of shit like that?
I'm wondering how they are going to prove that Valve stole a trademark that they never actually trademarked. Is there such a thing as a common law trademark?
Is that why SC2's StarEdit is such a convoluted piece of crap?Also, the person who made WarCraft 3's map editor works at ArenaNet now, as do the people who made Battle.net.
[The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
You seem to be confusing it with every other MOBA.The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
They hired Eul, the guy who came up with the name and original map, and Ice Frog, the guy who made the most contributions.
What next, Gaming Age suing us over having GAF in our name?
shagg_187 said:Whatever happened to Blizzard Dota? They gave up or something?!
This ain't the Blizzard you knew.
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?
DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.
Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
and action quake, and deathmatch classic, probably every dev who has ever done CTF. The colour brown.Should id sue Valve for Team Fortress then?
The problem here, isn't with the game, it is with the name.This certainly didn't stop TripWire with Red Orchestra or Valve with Team Fortress or Alien Swarm.
It's not stopping Unknown Worlds with Natural Selection either.
MW3 didn't suddenly stop selling cause the original creators left; not one single person is normal responsible for the quality or performance of a game, sometimes not even a team.Also, the person who made WarCraft 3's map editor works at ArenaNet now.
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
Um, all the games I listed use the same name as the original, that's the point.The problem here, isn't with the game, it is with the name.
It's not as if Blizzard is saying why they are releasing a game similar to DotA, but why they are calling it DotA.
And those games aren't nearly as popular as DotA, even none of valve games are nearly as popular as DotA.
MW3 didn't suddenly stop selling cause the original creators left; not one single person is normal responsible for the quality or performance of a game, sometimes not even a team.
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
MW3 didn't suddenly stop selling cause the original creators left; not one single person is normal responsible for the quality or performance of a game, sometimes not even a team.
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?
DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.
Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
The RTS hero concept was introduced in Warlords Battlecry II first.
So, BOps and MW3 has been made by legal department?Yeah, it's probably the legal department.
again, I am not saying that why they are making a sequel, but why they are naming it DotA 2?That would be like, well, more than enough people have already pointed out the sheer absurdity of developers suing other developers who made sequels to mods. You need to take a long, hard look at just how crazy you sound right now.
Yep. Not sure why people are arguging otherwise. Call the game something else like what S2 and Riot did, don't trademark a name that isn't yours. Heres a bad analogy, It's like if I wanted to trademark the name The Holy Bible 2.