Support NeoGAF

[TommyT]

Hello, Icefrog is not the creator of DOTA, he just took over it when Guinsoo left. If anyone owns the rights to it, it should be Eul's. Icefrog and Valve are thieves trying to trademark something they do not own.

There's irony here with your name and a game the harbors the same name... :lol

 

[FieryBalrog]

This isn't true. I have played DotA for years and years now, and DotA is what it is today and became as balanced as it is because of Icefrog's work more so than anyone else. He has been a genius at fixing bugs and issues with the WC3 engine to make the game better, something that the other guys weren't able/weren't willing to do.

I mentioned balance improving under Icefrog. The heroes he added were also generally better and cooler. That doesn't change the fact that the game concept, the game mechanics and the map itself were developed entirely by different people. Icefrog has been tweaking an established concept. That is what I meant by "his contribution to the creative and development side is probably the smallest."

 

[farnham]

So you're for Blizzard since Icefrog (at Valve) is not the original creator.

looks like it. if another person then this icefrog guy made the game then i see no reason why to support icefrog

he sold an ip to valve that he does not posess in the first place

ofcourse blizzard doesnt posess that ip either but they are not claiming that dota is theirs.

I mentioned balance improving under Icefrog. The heroes he added were also generally better and cooler. That doesn't change the fact that the game concept, the game mechanics and the map itself were developed entirely by different people. Icefrog has been tweaking an established concept. That is what I meant by "his contribution to the creative and development side is probably the smallest."

i agree . bug fixing and improving is important

still he is not the one who came up with the concept

 

[zombieshavebrains]

Torchlight 2 will be Diablo 2.
Open Area, Randomly generated maps. But gain they add new ideas. Day and night cycle with different monster, events occuring randomly. They flushed all 3 Torchlight class and now go with 5 fresh new class. They want the game to be good. And low in price. And Spec.

Thank you Steam sales!

 

[Recon]

looks like it. if another person then this icefrog guy made the game then i see no reason why to support icefrog

he sold an ip to valve that he does not posess in the first place

ofcourse blizzard doesnt posess that ip either but they are not claiming that dota is theirs.
i agree . bug fixing and improving is important

still he is not the one who came up with the concept

So? The people who were in creators left the project for other things, leaving it in IceFrogs hands. I think both Icefrog and Valve are perfectly in the clear here, even if i think as a developer, still going by your internet handle is a bit ridiculous.

 

[farnham]

So? The people who were in creators left the project for other things, leaving it in IceFrogs hands. I think both Icefrog and Valve are perfectly in the clear here, even if i think as a developer, still going by your internet handle is a bit ridiculous.

if the original creators are in consens with icefrog and if they are getting their share of attention and money then im fine with it.

 

[notworksafe]

if the original creators are in consens with icefrog and if they are getting their share of attention and money then im fine with it.

The other dudes are busy working on their own DotA clone, League of Legends (which according to the flash ad below my post is being advertised as "the true successor to dota" and "from the minds behind dota").

 

[zombieshavebrains]

if the original creators are in consens with icefrog and if they are getting their share of attention and money then im fine with it.

You'll find out that a lot of "creators" of things don't get "their share".

 

[Recon]

if the original creators are in consens with icefrog and if they are getting their share of attention and money then im fine with it.

Why does it matter? They left to monetize their own Dota clone. They decided they didnt have enough time to develop their mod anymore. Icefrog ended up with it, had complete control of it, so he did what anyone sane person would want to do, GET PAID SON!!

 

[C.Dark.DN]

The other dudes are busy working on their own DotA clone, League of Legends (which according to the flash ad below my post is being advertised as "the true successor to dota" and "from the minds behind dota").

Yeah, you can buy the box that says that on it. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002HOIPCW/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Would they not be able to print that in future games?

 

[The Technomancer]

Do we know for sure that Valve never approached the other guys and said "We're working on DotA, would you be interested in coming on?" and were understandably told "no, we have our own projects now"

That's complete conjecture, but it also sounds like a very Valve thing to do.

Or...to put it a broader way: do we have the reactions of the actual other creators, or just Blizzard?

 

[Shanadeus]

I for once agree with Blizzard, DOTA doesn't belong to either them, Icefrog or Valve - it belongs to the community.

 

[BuRT!]

There's irony here with your name and a game the harbors the same name... :lol

 

[notworksafe]

Or...to put it a broader way: do we have the reactions of the actual other creators, or just Blizzard?

Doesn't sound like Valve asked them, but they are filing a trademark for "Defense of the Ancients"

PCG: Who has the rights to own properties like “DotA” that started out as a single map, but have evolved into so much more? Do you have insight into the legal side of things?

Pendragon: I don’t know the answer to that question, but certainly the original authors, such as Eul and Guinsoo, and the many contributing authors and companies such as Blizzard, have contributed significantly to the creation of DotA. The situation is not as simple as a single person having total ownership over the name. But now we are exploring options to protect the DotA name. We [Dota-Allstars, LL--the company run by Pendragon] have filed for the “Defense of the Ancients” trademark to protect the work that dozens of authors have invested to create the game and on behalf of the millions of DotA players all over the world. If we were to obtain the trademark, we would keep the game and the DotA name freely available to the mod community. That way the game can continue to be worked on and enjoyed by the independent community. We want to ensure that the DotA name remains in the hands of the community and that it is free for all to use.
We have filed for the “Defense of the Ancients” trademark to protect the work that dozens of authors have done to create the game and on behalf of the millions of DotA players all over the world.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/08/17/riot-games-dev-counter-files-dota-trademark/

 

[Recon]

I for once agree with Blizzard, DOTA doesn't belong to either them, Icefrog or Valve - it belongs to the community.

While i actually kinda agree, If there was one company im glad is taking control of DOTA, its valve. I know i can expect a highly polished product that is gonna be very reminiscent of DOTA. Along with a ton of free updates, and wont crash my PC like HoN does every other game. No matter how negative it seems, we are going to get a sequel to one of the most popular mods of all time, coming from one of the most community friendly developers of all time. I just dont see the downside to this.

 

[Mrbob]

Wow this thread and the PC gamer link are a fascinating read. I guess looking at the outside, I don't see a problem with Valve trademarking DOTA. They were smarter than anyone else to go ahead and do it. Also, if Blizzard has had this long to lock down DOTA and never did so that is just a big mistake on their part. I didn't know everything made for SC2 was owned by Blizzard anyway. So in effect they are basically unofficially officially attempting to lock down DOTA to their product. The SC2 content lock down is the most disappointing thing I read in this thread.

 

[notworksafe]

I wonder how the lockdown part of the EULA would do in court, especially if you made your own art/model assets?

Though I suppose at that point you could just sell your stuff through Blizzard's store.

 

[JWong]

This isn't true. I have played DotA for years and years now, and DotA is what it is today and became as balanced as it is because of Icefrog's work more so than anyone else. He has been a genius at fixing bugs and issues with the WC3 engine to make the game better, something that the other guys weren't able/weren't willing to do.

He's failed to fix major issues with the game that are addressed in LoL. Also some improvements that couldn't be done in the War3 engine which I'm curious to see if he's bothered to do anything about it when DotA2 comes out.

 

[stuminus3]

You reap what you sow, Blizzard people. Valve have made a laughing stock of just about all the big players in the old school PC space, and that's with no Episode 3 in sight! Now go sit in the corner and cry with Microsoft.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Do we know for sure that Valve never approached the other guys and said "We're working on DotA, would you be interested in coming on?" and were understandably told "no, we have our own projects now"

That's complete conjecture, but it also sounds like a very Valve thing to do.

Or...to put it a broader way: do we have the reactions of the actual other creators, or just Blizzard?

Guinsoo's interview was linked earlier in this thread. He doesn't sound particularly on board with Valve trademarking DotA.

 

[Home]

I don't understand how people think Blizzard lost out on DOTA. The map they're making is free, Dota for Warcraft 3 is still more popular then LoL or HoN, and I'm sure the SC2 one will be very popular as well.

I also think the Valve game could be great as well, but with 2 already similiar games in existence, plus I would guess the majority of SC2 owners would rather play with their already purchased game, we'll see.

 

[erpg]

He's failed to fix major issues with the game that are addressed in LoL. Also some improvements that couldn't be done in the War3 engine which I'm curious to see if he's bothered to do anything about it when DotA2 comes out.

Ugggggghhhh.

 

[owlbeak]

Am I alone in that I've never heard of DOTA...except for a couple threads on here?

 

[Shanadeus]

While i actually kinda agree, If there was one company im glad is taking control of DOTA, its valve. I know i can expect a highly polished product that is gonna be very reminiscent of DOTA. Along with a ton of free updates, and wont crash my PC like HoN does every other game. No matter how negative it seems, we are going to get a sequel to one of the most popular mods of all time, coming from one of the most community friendly developers of all time. I just dont see the downside to this.

When I say DOTA I'm really talking about the name, everyone should be able to call their game "DOTA" of course so I agree with you there.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

You reap what you sow, Blizzard people. Valve have made a laughing stock of just about all the big players in the old school PC space, and that's with no Episode 3 in sight! Now go sit in the corner and cry with Microsoft.

who makes more money off their developed games again?

 

[Archie]

He's failed to fix major issues with the game that are addressed in LoL. Also some improvements that couldn't be done in the War3 engine which I'm curious to see if he's bothered to do anything about it when DotA2 comes out.

What "major issues" were addressed in LoL? Please don't say runebook please don't say runebook please don't say runebook.

 

[Igo]

Eul and Guinsoo gave up DotA and gave it to Icefrog. They have no say in what happens to it, they quit, they relinquished control, that was their decision and it's nipped them in the butt.

They could have certainly taken the DotA name with them but didn't because they felt it was best left in the 'communities'" hands. Valve should have taken a similar path.

I really hope Valve aren't granted the trademark and if they are that they allow the community to continue updating WC3 DotA.

 

[FieryBalrog]

What "major issues" were addressed in LoL? Please don't say runebook please don't say runebook please don't say runebook.

Last hitting? Item Recipes?

 

[sflufan]

Not that I really care about the silly name or the game, but all this could've been avoided if Valve had just called it "Protection of the Elders" or something to the effect.

 

[erpg]

Last hitting? Item Recipes?

So, a form of skill and timing, and something that can't really be fixed in War3. Alright.

 

[Archie]

Last hitting? Item Recipes?

Last hitting is in LoL (and is an easy to make money when you have noobs on your team who just auto attack). I'm guessing you meant denying, which I'm not going to argue makes the game better or worse since it is a matter of preference.

And combined items are still in the game, albeit you don't need a dedicated recipe. Once again that is a matter of preference.

 

[charlequin]

Because he didn't create it and make most of it and now Valve is using his involvement as some sort of claim to the DotA name, which they will own forever if they successfully copyright it?

So:

1. Copyright is not at issue here. Icefrog pretty much clearly holds copyright for the current version of DotA All-Stars, but that's also largely irrelevant since anyone can create a DOTA-alike game if they want regardless of who owns the copyright (see: LoL, HoN)
2. What is at issue here is a a trademark. This refers only to the name DOTA and literally the only result of Valve being granted this trademark is that it would prevent anyone new from calling a game DOTA -- not, I think, all that big a deal in the larger picture of things.
3. Icefrog's involvement isn't "some sort of claim to the DotA name," it's about the only kind of legitimate claim someone could have. Trademarks are based on using names as unique identifiers in commerce. They are not related to who "created" something, nor should they be: their only purpose is to distinguish a product in the marketplace from other similar products by different manufacturers. At the moment, there are really only two possibilities with the DOTA name -- Icefrog is "using it in commerce" (despite not selling the mod) and therefore he or agents on his behalf (Valve) are legitimately able to register the trademark, or it's already considered to be in common use and therefore is not available to trademark (which would still mean Valve were perfectly within their rights to use it as a name.)

The idea that the original creators of DotA are relevant in the trademark issue just isn't really supportable.

 

[Shanadeus]

or it's already considered to be in common use and therefore is not available to trademark (which would still mean Valve were perfectly within their rights to use it as a name.)

Hopefully this, would be the most satisfactory ending in my opinion.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

I really hope Valve aren't granted the trademark and if they are that they allow the community to continue updating WC3 DotA.

Nothing would stop the WC3 DotA community, the game is called Defense of the Ancients - All-Stars, not 'Dota.'

 

[The Technomancer]

So:

1. Icefrog's involvement isn't "some sort of claim to the DotA name," it's about the only kind of legitimate claim someone could have. Trademarks are based on using names as unique identifiers in commerce. They are not related to who "created" something, nor should they be: their only purpose is to distinguish a product in the marketplace from other similar products by different manufacturers. At the moment, there are really only two possibilities with the DOTA name -- Icefrog is "using it in commerce" (despite not selling the mod) and therefore he or agents on his behalf (Valve) are legitimately able to register the trademark, or it's already considered to be in common use and therefore is not available to trademark (which would still mean Valve were perfectly within their rights to use it as a name.)

The idea that the original creators of DotA are relevant in the trademark issue just isn't really supportable.

Valve are covering their asses. If the trademark is denied, then Blizzard can't come sue them later.

 

[hamchan]

So:

1. Copyright is not at issue here. Icefrog pretty much clearly holds copyright for the current version of DotA All-Stars, but that's also largely irrelevant since anyone can create a DOTA-alike game if they want regardless of who owns the copyright (see: LoL, HoN)
2. What is at issue here is a a trademark. This refers only to the name DOTA and literally the only result of Valve being granted this trademark is that it would prevent anyone new from calling a game DOTA -- not, I think, all that big a deal in the larger picture of things.
3. Icefrog's involvement isn't "some sort of claim to the DotA name," it's about the only kind of legitimate claim someone could have. Trademarks are based on using names as unique identifiers in commerce. They are not related to who "created" something, nor should they be: their only purpose is to distinguish a product in the marketplace from other similar products by different manufacturers. At the moment, there are really only two possibilities with the DOTA name -- Icefrog is "using it in commerce" (despite not selling the mod) and therefore he or agents on his behalf (Valve) are legitimately able to register the trademark, or it's already considered to be in common use and therefore is not available to trademark (which would still mean Valve were perfectly within their rights to use it as a name.)

The idea that the original creators of DotA are relevant in the trademark issue just isn't really supportable.

I honestly don't know enough about trademarking to make a quality post on this whole issue. Good post.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Some thoughts...

-Could the original creators create a new game with Defense of the Ancients in the name? The fan base would the do the same thing and call it DotA.

-If someone trademarked MMORPG could other devs advertise that on their box, while not having it in their title? Dota has become a sub-genre and it'd be shitty that other people couldn't advertise it as such.

-It'd also be shitty if the org. creators couldn't continue to print "From the orginal creators of Dota Allstars" on future Dota games.

 

[Igo]

Nothing would stop the WC3 DotA community, the game is called Defense of the Ancients - All-Stars, not 'Dota.'

As long as Valve don't start sending out cease and desist letters to those using the Defense of the Ancients and DotA names i'm satisfied.

 

[FieryBalrog]

So:

1. Copyright is not at issue here. Icefrog pretty much clearly holds copyright for the current version of DotA All-Stars, but that's also largely irrelevant since anyone can create a DOTA-alike game if they want regardless of who owns the copyright (see: LoL, HoN)
2. What is at issue here is a a trademark. This refers only to the name DOTA and literally the only result of Valve being granted this trademark is that it would prevent anyone new from calling a game DOTA -- not, I think, all that big a deal in the larger picture of things.
3. Icefrog's involvement isn't "some sort of claim to the DotA name," it's about the only kind of legitimate claim someone could have. Trademarks are based on using names as unique identifiers in commerce. They are not related to who "created" something, nor should they be: their only purpose is to distinguish a product in the marketplace from other similar products by different manufacturers. At the moment, there are really only two possibilities with the DOTA name -- Icefrog is "using it in commerce" (despite not selling the mod) and therefore he or agents on his behalf (Valve) are legitimately able to register the trademark, or it's already considered to be in common use and therefore is not available to trademark (which would still mean Valve were perfectly within their rights to use it as a name.)

The idea that the original creators of DotA are relevant in the trademark issue just isn't really supportable.

Fair enough. Given that DotA is a War3 map and Icefrog has no rights AFAIK to sell it or profit from it, it's hard to see how he's "using it in commerce".

 

[∀ Narayan]

As long as Valve don't start sending out cease and desist letters to those using the Defense of the Ancients and DotA names i'm satisfied.

Valve aren't douche-bags. They won't do this.

 

[-COOLIO-]

The Author should own it, and the author got a contract with Steam. They will sell a 15$ game with Steamwork and the cloud. Why the hell not?

bingo

 

[hamchan]

Valve aren't douche-bags. They won't do this.

Gabe can't live forever etc. etc.

 

[perryfarrell]

Why would eurogamer include that unsubstantiated personal attack on Icefrog? Very odd... and unprofessional.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

As long as Valve don't start sending out cease and desist letters to those using the Defense of the Ancients and DotA names i'm satisfied.

They'll probably just ask not to use their names (see Black Mesa: Source -> Black Mesa)

Also,

Blizz automatically owning everything created with the SC2 toolkit is far more anticonsumer than commercializing a sequel to a mod with the person responsible for much of its success on board.

Blizz automatically owning everything created with the SC2 toolkit is far more anticonsumer than commercializing a sequel to a mod with the person responsible for much of its success on board.

Blizz automatically owning everything created with the SC2 toolkit is far more anticonsumer than commercializing a sequel to a mod with the person responsible for much of its success on board.

 

[K.Jack]

Moral of the story is, that idealism doesn't get you paid.

If Blizzard wanted DOTA locked down to their maps, while remaining free, they should've taken measures years ago.

 

[TheThunder]

Am I alone in that I've never heard of DOTA...except for a couple threads on here?

Really ??

If you game on PC or have the slightest interest in RTSs you should have heard of dota. It's the most poplar rts mod and one of the most poplar video game mods along with Counter Strike.

 

[charlequin]

Fair enough. Given that DotA is a War3 map and Icefrog has no rights AFAIK to sell it or profit from it, it's hard to see how he's "using it in commerce".

Well, it's possible to use a name in commerce without actually selling the product that bears it (see various open-source software packages or free services provided by non-profits) but tend to agree -- it seems likely to me that the existence of multiple products in the past referred to as "DotA" and the prevalence of the term as a generic identifier for games of that type will render it untrademarkable. But as others have noted, that's a perfectly fine outcome for Valve -- if they're denied the trademark due to widespread use, they can still call the game DOTA since no one else would hold a trademark for DOTA either.

 

[mhayze]

Community generated mods are great and both Valve and Blizzard have a history of supporting communities because they believe in 'long-tail' sales on their infrequent releases.

But, when it comes to creating commercially developed top-tier games, Valve is the company that has spent the time and money to take fan created games and turn them into top tier gaming experiences. Warcraft III is great and all, I bought it back in the day, but I don't still have it installed on my PC, nor do I want to monkey around with mods for that game. I look forward to a commercial DOTA game from Valve, and whether they get their trademark or not, I trust that Valve is not doing this for anti-community reasons. They never have to date, and I give them the benefit of the doubt. Blizzard on the other hand... take a look at the things that generate headlines with 'Blizzard' and 'community' in them and you'll see that not everything is that rosy. This comes from a long time Blizzard fan who doesn't like the direction things are going now that they are part of Bobby Kotick's community-hating empire.

 

[Draft]

As long as Valve don't start sending out cease and desist letters to those using the Defense of the Ancients and DotA names i'm satisfied.

Yup and I doubt they will do that. So it's basically a non-issue.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Valve went ahead and slapped a '2' onto the title, so I doubt there are going to do anything to 'DotA 1.'