Why is CiV HOF so restrictive?

[Martin Alvito]

Martin could not be a better spokesman to support my argument. The underlying assumption in this comment ASSUMES Civfanatics has the right to use the Civilization V name at will. Companies tend to challenge these assumptions when their copyrighted names are at risk.

Ever heard of 'fair use'? Yes, I'm assuming that the site has the right to use the Civilization name more or less at will. There are a lot of legal hurdles to clear in order to establish a copyright case, and you haven't made it over any of them yet.

Martin has just stood up and said that Civfanatics and not 2K Games speaks for Civilization V.

Demonstrate the chain of logic that leads to this conclusion. In no way does the creation of house rules cause a third party to speak for the developer. If that were the case, the more popular PnP RPGs would have hundreds of thousands of 'voices'.

 

[iggymnrr]

Ever heard of 'fair use'? Yes, I'm assuming that the site has the right to use the Civilization name more or less at will. There are a lot of legal hurdles to clear in order to establish a copyright case, and you haven't made it over any of them yet.

There is a simpler way to do this. 2K can simply offer their own HoF and stamp it "official." 6-1 says Civfanatics buckles without pressure.

Do you note the in-game HoF feature in Civilization? Forgive the leap in logic here, but remember Watson of the Mac? A lone developer took some Apple ideas further, later Apple simply reclaimed them and called the result Sherlock. Sherlock or Watson? Who's the boss?

Demonstrate the chain of logic that leads to this conclusion. In no way does the creation of house rules cause a third party to speak for the developer. If that were the case, the more popular PnP RPGs would have hundreds of thousands of 'voices'.

See above. Any rule based on whether something should or should not be patched out is redefining the game which a developer may not want. In this case, one way around silencing 100,000's voices would be to put out an "official" HoF, regaining control over the rules. Put the shoe on the other foot.

I think you lose this argument every time developers make authentication of products mandatory. Perhaps, I am saying you helped make Steam verification desirable?

 

[Peets]

There is a simpler way to do this. 2K can simply offer their own HoF and stamp it "official." 6-1 says Civfanatics buckles without pressure.

Do you note the in-game HoF feature in Civilization? Forgive the leap in logic here, but remember Watson of the Mac? A lone developer took some Apple ideas further, later Apple simply reclaimed them and called the result Sherlock. Sherlock or Watson? Who's the boss?
See above. Any rule based on whether something should or should not be patched out is redefining the game which a developer may not want. In this case, one way around silencing 100,000's voices would be to put out an "official" HoF, regaining control over the rules. Put the shoe on the other foot.

I think you lose this argument every time developers make authentication of products mandatory. Perhaps, I am saying you helped make Steam verification desirable?

If they would make one it would be so buggy that their forums will be full of people like you crying about it about how unfair it is when they change something you don't like. If you don't like this one, make one yourself.

 

[iggymnrr]

If they would make one it would be so buggy that their forums will be full of people like you crying about it about how unfair it is when they change something you don't like.

Moot point. Civfanatics would be forced to rename.

If you don't like this one, make one yourself.

Civfanatics should not be in the business of redefining the game. Renaming the HoF would resolve this issue. DLC and redefining the game under the guise of rules are only parts of the issues. The restriction to the Windows platform, and thus patch version, should also be considered. 2K reaches out to the Mac user, Civfanatics HoF does not. As pertains to Steam, the Civfanatics HoF also has the hidden restriction that Windows users must also have heard of Civfanatics. That should not be the case.

I do not necessarily dislike the concepts behind what is now referred to as the HoF. The term "gauntlet" accurately reflects the competition Civfanatics offers.

 

[Smirk]

Do you have an off switch?

Who cares what is what, thats the rules, play by them or not. Whats the big deal? This HoF began with Civ3 with a real way to compare games. The in-game HoF only rewarded one thing, milking in a long game, i.e. Score. The HoF has lots of other ways to rank, additionally taking games from users in the community as has been said, to brag to others.

 

[Denniz]

Hey Smirk, Have seen you around for a long time. Welcome back.

 

[Smirk]

Thanks, has been a while. I was glad to see the HoF still going, fun institutions.

 

[HardRocker]

DLC's can also be bought with a debt card, btw, that is how I obtained them, since I do not have nor do I want a credit card.

 

[iggymnrr]

Who cares what is what, thats the rules

Hold it right there. Civ V is a game that allows equal access to every buyer Windows or Mac. It has broken up Civ components of the past by DLC. It now requires Steam authentication. Slapping on an HoF sticker is not a means to circumvent these and redefine the game itself.

1) Mac users need to be allowed equal access to the HoF. The equivalent handicap restrooms/wheelchair ramps/parking etc. need to be provided. Civfanatics has been in the public forums long enough that discrimanation on this basis is no longer acceptable. Rules based on things like patch version are discriminatory. Every Civ V owner needs to be allowed equal access.
2) 2K has broken up the game by means of DLC. Civs that have been part of past editions like Babylon and Korea are now sold as DLC and are included in the Game of the Year edition. 2K has defined the game like this. Use of the HoF sticker to say these civs are not part of the game slaps 2K in the face. Like the phone company that broke up long ago, the monopoloy is over. 2K says these civs are Civ V. They are Civ V. It is not the business of Civfanatics to say they are not.

As is is the was Civfanatics uses the term Hall of Fame is an exploit and should be banned itself. It is a Hall of Bigots. There were once rules that mandated segregation. Do you want to go back to them to because someone called them rules?

 

[Ozbenno]

OK enough!

You have made your thoughts very clear on the subject and continual harping from the sidelines is not helping your cause at all.

This thread is for civilised discussion of the OP only.