Looks like them PUBG creators really did go cry in the car. They suing Epic Games

[itsyoung!!]

I'm gonna have to disagree with just about everything you typed here, and Korean courts will too. It is what it is.

But fortnite was a game before it was a battle royal game.. and it didnt have those things I listed, so where did it get the ideas to put that into the game?

The courts will decide with PUBG, but only time will tell..

 

[OneManGang]

But fortnite was a game before it was a battle royal game.. and it didnt have those things I listed, so where did it get the ideas to put that into the game?

The courts will decide with PUBG, but only time will tell..

Of course they got ideas from PUBG, but as we've said before you can't patent ideas. If that was the case there'd only be one game per genre across the board. Think about that. Whoever made the first MOBA, whoever made the first third person shooter, whoever made the first racing game. I can go on and on.

 

[Detroit Wave]

Fortnite is NOT "different enough" if you take away the things they copied from PUBG/h1z1/day-z which Player Uknown created for Battle Royal genre;

-Party Bus/parachutes to enter the map
-the open field map design
-the "gas" (electrical field) to shrink the map to a designated area
-the timer in the gas
-100 player count
-duos
-quads
-loot system

You are left with what ? Dances and John Wick skins..

They changed NOTHING from the previous battle royal games outside of graphics and YOU CAN SUE for that because if you CREATED something and can SHOW PROOF of the intellectual property you can win.



Those other games are all created by the same person that created PUBG though

I think you guys confuse PLayer Unknown for a developing company.. its just a single person who helped mods games(Arma/h1z1).. and then finally created his own (PUBG)


If you , @Detroit Wave created a UNIQUE gambling feature for this site (but say took the general concept of GAMBLING [FPS genre, in this case]) and then other sites like Boxden literally copied and pasted your code and changed it to fit their forum lay out but didnt give you credit, how would you feel about that ?





I just want to be clear, theirs ABSOLUTELY 0 way to this biased towards a video game to think Fortnite did not steal from PUBG. This is the worst case of stanning ive seen in my life.

there are half life mods etc that use the same concept breh. spawning players in a free for all situation with random weapons scattered is not new.

 

[itsyoung!!]

Of course they got ideas from PUB

case closed.

but as we've said before you can't patent ideas

Battle Royal is not an idea, its a sub genre.

If that was the case there'd only be one game per genre across the board.

Not true at all. Call of Duty, as example.. plays, looks and acts nothing like Doom. Outside of First Person Mode, which a lot of these games do in fact use either the Quake or Unreal engine, in which they pay licensing fees for, so ID Software (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein) or Epic (Unreal/Unreal Tournament), would LOSE more money than they would make from licensing their engines out to other companies to use their engines which is the core of the games you are suggesting they sue. They are getting paid one way or another from the shooter genre.

do you even know that almost 100% of the games youve ever played in your life are either on the Quake or Unreal engine that includes RPG's, MMO's, etc.

You really are out of your league here with knowledge it seems. Should do some reading up then revisit this thread.

hoever made the first MOBA, whoever made the first third person shooter, whoever made the first racing game. I can go on and on.

The first MOBA (AoS really but most people now credit DOTA even though AoS was out during Starcraft 1, but either way point still stands), was a player created map through the custom map design through Blizzard supplied tools (same with tower defense).

Funny enough you bring up MOBA's because Valve was taken to court by both Riot and Blizzard for the franchise DOTA. Valve eventually won but Valve, in this case, would be PUBG and Riot would be Fortnite, in which Riot lost the case to Valve as DOTA had proof they were first..

 

[itsyoung!!]

there are half life mods etc that use the same concept breh. spawning players in a free for all situation with random weapons scattered is not new.

Not dropping from the sky to a non linear map with gas concluding on them to rush them into a random designated zone with duos, quads, or single vs 100 players it didnt

im a half life stan half life never had a 100 player free for all that if you died once you got taken out of the lobby cut the shyt

 

[OneManGang]

case closed.


Battle Royal is not an idea, its a sub genre.


Not true at all. Call of Duty, as example.. plays, looks and acts nothing like Doom. Outside of First Person Mode, which a lot of these games do in fact use either the Quake or Unreal engine, in which they pay licensing fees for, so ID Software (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein) or Epic (Unreal/Unreal Tournament), would LOSE more money than they would make from licensing their engines out to other companies to use their engines which is the core of the games you are suggesting they sue. They are getting paid one way or another from the shooter genre.

do you even know that almost 100% of the games youve ever played in your life are either on the Quake or Unreal engine that includes RPG's, MMO's, etc.

You really are out of your league here with knowledge it seems. Should do some reading up then revisit this thread.



The first MOBA (AoS really but most people now credit DOTA even though AoS was out during Starcraft 1, but either way point still stands), was a player created map through the custom map design through Blizzard supplied tools (same with tower defense).

Funny enough you bring up MOBA's because Valve was taken to court by both Riot and Blizzard for the franchise DOTA. Valve eventually won but Valve, in this case, would be PUBG and Riot would be Fortnite, in which Riot lost the case to Valve as DOTA had proof they were first..

This is going in circles. You're bringing up arguments and stating facts that I'm not even delving into, because they have no bearing on this discussion. Call it what you want, idea, sub-genre...whatever. You can't patent that. Your point about COD playing nothing like Doom is a bit disingenuous as well. Why bring up COD, which is a more modern example of a FPS? Why not compare it to Marathon? Or Quake? Or System Shock?

 

[daze23]

we really don't know the specifics of what they're claiming. or what the context is of them doing this in Korea

 

[itsyoung!!]

This is going in circles. You're bringing up arguments and stating facts that I'm not even delving into, because they have no bearing on this discussion. Call it what you want, idea, sub-genre...whatever. You can't patent that. Your point about COD playing nothing like Doom is a bit disingenuous as well. Why bring up COD, which is a more modern example of a FPS? Why not compare it to Marathon? Or Quake? Or System Shock?

Because Doom and Quake are made by the same people all 3 main early examples you used, Doom, Wolfenstein and Quake are made by same company only furthering my point how old are you

I used call of duty because its a popular game so its an easy to use example

Throw the damn towel already

Youve proved my point like 5 different ways already

 

[TBdaGhost]

Lawsuit across the belly
It proves you lost already

 

[OneManGang]

Because Doom and Quake are made by the same people all 3 main early examples you used, Doom, Wolfenstein and Quake are made by same company only furthering my point how old are you

I used call of duty because its a popular game so its an easy to use example

Throw the damn towel already

Youve proved my point like 5 different ways already

Breh, ok i used two other example besides Quake. Speak on those as well. I get that you are more intimately knowledgable on the IP ownership, but don't reduce the conversation to smilies and simplifications just to "win". Lets have an adult discussion. COD is still a terrible analogy, but at the end of the day it's a FPS, just like its counterparts. I guess Infinity Ward stole the idea. Lets not even mention that PUBG is just a bunch of assets purchased from the Unreal store. It's not even that novel of an idea on it's own, other media have captured the idea of a battle royale like Hunger Games and the Japanese movie Battle Royale

 

[Notorious Jerry]

we really don't know the specifics of what they're claiming. or what the context is of them doing this in Korea

What they actually claiming is complex it's not actually battle Royal, Epic broke NDA when were working with PUBG development with engine tweaking. They saw the value of the concept and made their own version to profit. How ever epic own the engine Pubg runs on.

 

[OneManGang]

What they actually claiming is complex it's not actually battle Royal, Epic broke NDA when were working with PUBG development with engine tweaking. They saw the value of the concept and made their own version to profit. How ever epic own the engine Pubg runs on.

This makes much more sense.

 

[Greenhornet]

dont realize h1z1 isnt the first BR game either brehs

H1Z1, like Fortnite, was originally a whole another game with a different objective. H1Z1 was originally a zombie survival crafting game (like Rust). You used to craft bows and arrows. The game didnt pick up traction even though they were sponsoring every big streamer at the time. So they made a separate mode called Battle Royal which was copied from Day-Z's battle royal, which was a mod in itself since it was originally a mod for Arma.

great post my dude

 

[Dank Hill]

Lets just find cases of companies suing other companies for cloning games
I'll start
Patent Arcade: Case: Capcom v. Data East (N.D. Cal. 1994) [C]

Capcom filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Data East from distributing the video game “Fighter's History,” which Capcom alleges infringes upon its copyrights for the “Street Fighter II” series of video games. Capcom introduced Street Fighter II in 1991, whereas Data East introduced Fighter’s History in 1993. Capcom alleges that Data East's Fighter's History copied the distinctive fighting styles, appearances, special moves and combination attacks of many of Street Fighter II's characters, as well as the control sequences used to execute their moves. Data East claimed that there was nothing original about Street Fighter II, which used stereotypical characters and common fighting maneuvers.



To prevail on its motion for a preliminary injunction, Capcom had to show either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions going to the merits existed and the balance of hardships tipped sharply in its favor. Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Systems, Inc., 886 F.2d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir. 1989). A showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a copyright claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm. Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1174. After establishing valid copyrights, Capcom needed to prove that they were in fact copied. Capcom had no direct evidence, but instead relied on the circumstantial weight of Data East's project proposal for Fighter's History which made repeated references to Street Fighter II in addition to the similarities in characters and moves between the two games. Because there was no direct evidence of copying, the Court applied the two part test of access and 429 F.2d 1106, 1109 n. 3 (9th Cir.1970). The test to establish substantial similarity consists of extrinsic and intrinsic prongs.

To analyze extrinsic similarity a court must filter out those elements of the copyrighted work that are deemed unprotectable, and reserve only protectable expression for comparison under the subjective test. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 821 F.Supp. 616, 623 (N.D.Cal.1993). Capcom had identified a number of alleged similarities between Street Fighter Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1990). Although the Court had concluded that three Fighter's History characters--Matlok, Feilin and Ray, were similar to Guile, Chun Li and Ken in Street Fighter II, the characters were not virtually identical and Data East certainly had not bodily appropriated them for use in its game.

Applying the Ninth Circuit standard for granting a preliminary injunction to the facts infra, the court determined that Capcom had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or even serious questions concerning the merits. The advantage Capcom gained in relying on these stock characters and standard moves was that they were immediately recognizable and familiar to the player. One of the risks consequent to that tactic, however, was that much of Street Fighter II was left unprotectable from competitors' simulations. Based on this analysis, the preliminary injunction was denied.

 

[Dank Hill]