11–20 of 55 posts
I was thinking about a game like starcraft in the browser... I wonder how hard it would be to make the game (or any game of this style) feel smooth and be an html5 game.. Does anyone have any examples of a html5 rts that is good?
Can this be elaborated a bit? I grabbed an MPQ Editor but none of the 'original' files in the MPQ match names referenced in the JS files. For example, Buildings.js references bgm/ProtossBuilding.selected.wav but the sound file in the MPQ is just a string of letters; I'd have to rename each audio file myself...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, non-enforcement of trademarks results in losing said trademarks. I've been downvoted more than once around here for saying that, so here's a citation[1]: > Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. Secondly, why pay for Starcra…
> Secondly, why pay for Starcraft when I can just play Starcraft-JS for free? Well, presumably (some of) that money goes somewhere else than Kotick's pockets. If they can't compete properly then isn't that the market working as intended?
They can compete, just not with the same trademarked name or, as previously, copyrighted materials. I'm not referring to how things should work, rather how they actually work.
Technically true, but that name is still trademarked. Considering that this ultimately affects Blizzard's bottom line, I can't see them being nice about this.
> Considering that this ultimately affects Blizzard's bottom line How exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, non-enforcement of trademarks results in losing said trademarks. I've been downvoted more than once around here for saying that, so here's a citation[1]: > Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. Secondly, why pay for Starcra…
> Secondly, why pay for Starcraft when I can just play Starcraft-JS for free? Well, presumably (some of) that money goes somewhere else than Kotick's pockets. If they can't compete properly then isn't that the market working as intended?
I was thinking about a game like starcraft in the browser... I wonder how hard it would be to make the game (or any game of this style) feel smooth and be an html5 game.. Does anyone have any examples of a html5 rts that is good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that this ultimately affects Blizzard's bottom line How exactly?
Firstly, non-enforcement of trademarks results in losing said trademarks. I've been downvoted more than once around here for saying that, so here's a citation[1]: > Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. Secondly, why pay for Starcra…
In the world I would like to live in, Blizzard game devs would see this as a challenge and aspire to make games of sufficient quality that they fairly out-compete a scrappy open source js pretender.
The state of the gaming industry being what it is these days though, theres a solid chance of this project producing an objectivly better game than Blizzard is currently capable of making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that this ultimately affects Blizzard's bottom line How exactly?
Firstly, non-enforcement of trademarks results in losing said trademarks. I've been downvoted more than once around here for saying that, so here's a citation[1]: > Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. Secondly, why pay for Starcra…
The Starcraft-JS people might be able to argue it's a purely descriptive use, definitely if they change the name to ThirdParty-Starcraft-Clone-In-Js or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that this ultimately affects Blizzard's bottom line How exactly?
Firstly, non-enforcement of trademarks results in losing said trademarks. I've been downvoted more than once around here for saying that, so here's a citation[1]: > Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. Secondly, why pay for Starcra…
Secondly, are you seriously comparing a game that had 10 installments or so and sold in millions of copies with somebody's fan hobby project?
Could reasonable person confuse the two? Could reasonable person claim that one is substitute for the other?
Also "bottom line" suggests that Blizzard could be harmed financially which is preposterous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that this ultimately affects Blizzard's bottom line How exactly?
Firstly, non-enforcement of trademarks results in losing said trademarks. I've been downvoted more than once around here for saying that, so here's a citation[1]: > Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. Secondly, why pay for Starcra…
It's a clone of the original Starcraft, which came out 18 years ago. I doubt Blizzard sells that many copies today...