Yes your likeness is used even if it isn't your name. Yes you aren't paid for it. That's the bottom line.
While there has been some talk to allow the ncaa to sell player's likeness' away, it would be hard to imagine a game that doesn't have atleast a moderate likeness to it. Do you just exclude team's specialties because of this? No Florida speedy Wide receivers? No Penn State dominating Linebackers. No Temple players sucking it up? Are stats effectively wiped to a neutral stat level for all players?
I can understand this suit, but as a gamer, I'm near to tears of what the impact would be.
So, just how does Activision feel they "overpayed" Valve? They can't disagree with the amount they owe Valve because that was decided upon by the court. Also, they're not saying they overpayed Valve by giving them more than the stipulated amount, since the article says they're giving less than that.
Seems to me that Activision is trying to squirm their way out of paying the amount the court previously determined they owe to Valve. I bet they're going to try to say that the criteria that went into how much they owe Valve was somehow wrong, and so they don't need to pay that much. If so, they're going to lose the lawsuit.
Based on what little has been put out so far, I'd say Valve has got this in the bag. Activision is just wasting more money by bringing in the lawyers again.
@Tuor_of_Gondolin: I'm guessing they're trying to say they overpaid for something else completely unrelated to this. I don't know what that would be, but that's the only way it would make sense. Otherwise they'd just be saying, "So, we're not gonna pay you the full amount because we already paid you too much, even though we didn't pay you yet." Maybe the execs at Activision are all amateur hypnotists, and they're looking for a challenge?
@cinemandrew: I seriously doubt they wouldn't have tried to pull this shit unless they had some sort of documentation for that overpayment. I believe this for two reasons:
1) That's a very specific amount of money, and I highly doubt they're stupid enough to just pull that number out of the air.
Addendum: I don't care to hear how you (Activision hater) think they are stupid enough to do such a thing because you don't like them. They're a fucking company not a cartoon villain.
2) Let's be honest here, that much money is pittance to Activision and not enough to really warrant them the bad PR, and the legal headache, to try and "wiggle out of".
Listen, I know you guys really, really hate Activision, and would blow Gage Newell if you could, but please try and be logical about this. Because in the end, all of this is speculation, but you have to use logic and the information given to us rather than make up whatever evil conspiracy fits your wet dreams.
Why can't video game company's work together like back in the old days! Why fight over shit like this and making them pay so much damn money because they did something wrong.
Aww the company loyalties are really cute people (I have a couple) but don't just jump in and agree with Valve because you like them. If Activision is telling the truth about said overpayments than they're in the right in my eyes.
@Theoutlet: Even if what Activision says is true this isn't the way to go about reclaiming those funds. Activision has a judgement against them that says they must pay X amount of dollars to Valve. Activision cannot just unilaterally decide that they overpaid Valve and will take that money out of the balanced owed. Do we really know for sure that Activision overpaid Valve in the past? Do we (and Valve) just take their word for it?
If Activision truly paid Valve too much in the past then they need to get the lawyers together and settle it or go to court.
I do find it a little suspicious that Activision decided to bring up the money now. These contracts are old and have been terminated, but now the overpaid money is important.
@Theoutlet: Look. The original lawsuit said Sierra owed Valve 2.3 million dollars. Activision only paid 1.9 million dollars.
Why are they claiming they overpaid them? The court ORDERED THEM to pay 2.3 mil. They have no excuse, they should've coughed up the full amount instead of claiming that bullshit.
@thatcreepyguy: I do find it a little suspicious that Activision decided to bring up the money now.
Do you expect to be privy to all inter-company dealings? If you do I find that shocking.
Also, you seem to be a little confused because Activision is saying that they already paid x amount of dollars, just not in the way that Valve wants it. If Activision is to be believed than they are in the right.
@pressstart: The reason they're overrated is because they generally do more work on a single game than most devs do. Hard work with a coordinated team really shows on the final product.
Oh, and why is it that there is always some one who must have their opinion known. No one asked for it.
@Gorilla Snow is Maximum Risky: Everyone in this post-tree has stated an opinion, you just don't want to hear his because it conflicts with your own.
I'm not surprised to see all the Valve cheerleading in this topic. I am surprised how easily people ignore what's going on, and just root for whoever they like best. This is almost the exact OPPOSITE response to that Bethesda VS Interplay topic a couple weeks back. Even though both Valve and Bethesda had just as much right to sue as one another, Bethesda caught nothing but flak for their actions. Now Valve is being applauded? When Bethesda was Suing Interplay, people were calling it "frivolous" ... But people are practically screaming for more lawsuits against Activision?
I just don't understand people sometimes... I guess it's just THAT cool to root for the underdog...
@Nside:For the jaded gamer critic, it's hard to fault Valve's products. Bethesda, on the other hand, copped a fair bit of flack from this group for butchering the beloved fallout into an elder scrolls game.
@Hendrixx: The day a company decides it has enough money is the day that company dies, or at least ceases to be a company(barring non-profit companies). Not to excuse this blatant assholery by Activision, but a company having "enough money" has little to do with whats going on.
I was going to use an "IRAC model" to discuss how this Bill Summary wouldn't be enforceable, but that's going to take up half the page.
So... Instead, I'll say it this way:
It won't pass because it is VAGUE AND UNSPECIFIC, as well as ARBITRARY ABD CAPRICIOUS in mature, on top of REDUNDANT, and A WASTE OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES, when we ALREADY HAVE AN ESRB THAT IS ADHERED TO
If I saw this joker, I'd probably be telling holding flashcards with those bold words in front of him and Joe Baca in a Kindergarten room. It is incresingly apparent that an education is not necessarily needed to run for office anymore.
Soldier_CLE says DON'T STOP AT THE STAR! REVOKE THE WHOLE DAMN THING, OWEN!!! was starred
Soldier_CLE says DON'T STOP AT THE STAR! REVOKE THE WHOLE DAMN THING, OWEN!!! was unstarred
Soldier_CLE says DON'T STOP AT THE STAR! REVOKE THE WHOLE DAMN THING, OWEN!!! was starred
Soldier_CLE says DON'T STOP AT THE STAR! REVOKE THE WHOLE DAMN THING, OWEN!!! was unstarred
is this guy keen on banning Huck Finn too? how about any number of books or movies, for that matter? hell, i'd like him to ban Buffy reruns and DVD sales for casting vampires in a bad light.
why are games the constant whipping child for all these petty laws?
05/06/09
Yes your likeness is used even if it isn't your name. Yes you aren't paid for it. That's the bottom line.
While there has been some talk to allow the ncaa to sell player's likeness' away, it would be hard to imagine a game that doesn't have atleast a moderate likeness to it. Do you just exclude team's specialties because of this? No Florida speedy Wide receivers? No Penn State dominating Linebackers. No Temple players sucking it up? Are stats effectively wiped to a neutral stat level for all players?
I can understand this suit, but as a gamer, I'm near to tears of what the impact would be.
04/30/09
04/30/09
Seems to me that Activision is trying to squirm their way out of paying the amount the court previously determined they owe to Valve. I bet they're going to try to say that the criteria that went into how much they owe Valve was somehow wrong, and so they don't need to pay that much. If so, they're going to lose the lawsuit.
Based on what little has been put out so far, I'd say Valve has got this in the bag. Activision is just wasting more money by bringing in the lawyers again.
04/30/09
04/30/09
1) That's a very specific amount of money, and I highly doubt they're stupid enough to just pull that number out of the air.
Addendum: I don't care to hear how you (Activision hater) think they are stupid enough to do such a thing because you don't like them. They're a fucking company not a cartoon villain.
2) Let's be honest here, that much money is pittance to Activision and not enough to really warrant them the bad PR, and the legal headache, to try and "wiggle out of".
Listen, I know you guys really, really hate Activision, and would blow Gage Newell if you could, but please try and be logical about this. Because in the end, all of this is speculation, but you have to use logic and the information given to us rather than make up whatever evil conspiracy fits your wet dreams.
04/30/09
04/30/09
no fat jokes please. He is a god.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
no
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
If Activision truly paid Valve too much in the past then they need to get the lawyers together and settle it or go to court.
I do find it a little suspicious that Activision decided to bring up the money now. These contracts are old and have been terminated, but now the overpaid money is important.
04/30/09
Why are they claiming they overpaid them? The court ORDERED THEM to pay 2.3 mil. They have no excuse, they should've coughed up the full amount instead of claiming that bullshit.
04/30/09
04/30/09
Do you expect to be privy to all inter-company dealings? If you do I find that shocking.
Also, you seem to be a little confused because Activision is saying that they already paid x amount of dollars, just not in the way that Valve wants it. If Activision is to be believed than they are in the right.
04/30/09
Of course, Activision could be feeding us and Valve a load of shit, but that's not the point.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
@Grinning Colossus: Valve could sue me and I'd still love them!....ok well maybe not....naw I'd still love them!
@DaFox: CAN I GET AN ALLELUIA!!
04/30/09
MOVIN ON UP
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
Oh, and why is it that there is always some one who must have their opinion known. No one asked for it.
04/30/09
04/30/09
But how does Valve fighting Activision help my wallet?
But i guess anybody willing to take money away for bobby k is doing mankind a service.
04/30/09
04/30/09
I'm not surprised to see all the Valve cheerleading in this topic. I am surprised how easily people ignore what's going on, and just root for whoever they like best. This is almost the exact OPPOSITE response to that Bethesda VS Interplay topic a couple weeks back. Even though both Valve and Bethesda had just as much right to sue as one another, Bethesda caught nothing but flak for their actions. Now Valve is being applauded? When Bethesda was Suing Interplay, people were calling it "frivolous" ... But people are practically screaming for more lawsuits against Activision?
I just don't understand people sometimes... I guess it's just THAT cool to root for the underdog...
05/01/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
01/13/09
We can NEVER depict a black man who just happens to be eating KFC?
We can NEVER show a French woman with hairy pits, or a Russian girl with a nice ass?
01/13/09
01/13/09
A) Something our brain seems to do out of necessity
and
B) Always contain at least a small kernel of truth.
Unfortunately, that means you aren't wiping them out.
01/13/09
So... Instead, I'll say it this way:
It won't pass because it is VAGUE AND UNSPECIFIC, as well as ARBITRARY ABD CAPRICIOUS in mature, on top of REDUNDANT, and A WASTE OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES, when we ALREADY HAVE AN ESRB THAT IS ADHERED TO
If I saw this joker, I'd probably be telling holding flashcards with those bold words in front of him and Joe Baca in a Kindergarten room. It is incresingly apparent that an education is not necessarily needed to run for office anymore.
So goes the nation...
01/13/09
01/13/09
01/13/09
Stop wasting time, Government officials, find a way to properly enforce age restrictions on games.
Hell, make it a criminal offence to supply games to people under the age rating on the box. Treat it like the alcohol industry in the UK.
01/13/09
why are games the constant whipping child for all these petty laws?