• Durandal ( Durandal@lemmy.today ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    You should always check with the IP owner first aside… this does seem like an uncharacteristic move from valve. Like… black mesa existed as a mod for a while… crickets. They remade it in a new engine… crickets. They put it on sale on steam… and valve endorsed it. afaik they never asked permission… but even if they did it’s weird to have a team doing a fully 3rd party remake of a core game and being fully endorsed by the company.

    But here you have someone well known, doing a skin essentially… that only works on the valve product… and valve has issue with THAT? odd.

    • mfed1122 ( mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      My guess would be that Valve had plans to make one themselves. Maybe as sort of a second gen or limited release thing.

      Maybe it’s also just not set a precedent. It is pretty crazy to make a product that uses such a famous piece of IP as a big company and not even asked for permission. It’s one thing if you’re like selling crafts on Etsy, but not even asking at that level is wild.

      • If someone at Valve hadn’t at least mocked up one as a faceplate a long time ago, I’d be amazed. Dbrands over-engineered full case probably makes their version look real disappointing even if it is likely more technically sound.

        Realistically, it probably is the precedent, maybe combined with technical concerns like the thermals/RF/etc.

    • ProdigalFrog ( ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Valve has a history of hiring modders and making the mods official products (counter strike started as a Half Life mod). Black Mesa was originally a free mod, they then approached valve about selling it later, which Valve then approved. Had the devs not asked permission, Valve probably would’ve shut it down had they tried to sell it.

  • lime! ( lime@feddit.nu ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    isn’t dbrand the guys who publically bragged about having “gotten ahold” of a pre-launch switch 2 and started showing peripherals before nintendo had even revealed it? it’s a pattern with them.

    • 0x0 ( 0x0@infosec.pub ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think gaben is just sour that they didnt think of this and now theyre just pingu about it, missed opportunities and all

    • just2look ( just2look@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      They can make a case, but they can’t make a case that profits off of property and designs that are owned by valve, which the companion cube is. The normal process would be to reach out to valve and request a license to produce it. Dbrand didn’t do that, and valve told them to stop.

      Whether you agree with IP laws or not, this is how the laws currently function and dbrand has to know that. So this was a really stupid blunder for them to make.