3 ms·
Isn’t DotA2, one of their core properties, built on a somewhat generous interpretation of what constitutes fair use?
by SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
Isn’t DotA2, one of their core properties, built on a somewhat generous interpretation of what constitutes fair use?
- whateveracct 3y agoI don't think it's _that_ generous. icefrog nominally owned the "dota" title (nobody challenged it at least), and the game mechanics & controls are too generic (and also configured by icefrog in a transformative way) to count as copying WC3. They already made the characters different enough (they even tweaked some over the years when they were too close to Blizzard properties, like Leoric and Windrunner). You could probably have a game have game engine parity with WC3 with original IP and get away with it.
- jamesfinlayson 3y agoRiot Games sued Valve in 2010 about trademarking the name DotA but it seems like they settled and Valve got exclusive commercial use of "Dota".
- xinayder 3y agoPretty sure it was Blizzard and not Riot. Dota was a mod for Warcraft 3.
- jamesfinlayson 3y agoIt was Riot Games but it looks like Blizzard sued Valve in 2012 for similar reason (I thought the Blizzard law suit was about some characters being too similar but maybe that was yet another lawsuit).
- whateveracct 3y agoTrue. That's trademarks though. If they lost, they could've just given it a different name but have the game be otherwise the same.
- kevingadd 3y agoClassic 'rules for thee, not for me' game dev story. All the big companies rip off smaller developers when it's profitable to do so.