Jump to content

Lurdiak

Members
  • Content count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About Lurdiak

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. Lurdiak

    Patch Notes - 06.08.18

    Goodness, this patch backfired somewhat...
  2. I don't deny that this seriously hampers the future of the game and that it'll probably start dying off due to not being able to add new content, but I think it's a bit soon to have a "going out of business" sale.
  3. Dead because of a lawsuit against the rights holder. Or did you miss that part? I'm very sorry to tell you this, but this game not being up to your expectations doesn't make it a scam.
  4. Oh, so it's just wishful thinking from bitter fools. Got it. I thought there might be an actual reason that a small developer that made a very profitable game on a shoestring budget might have issues in the future.
  5. No offense but when a developer says they're not adding new content ever again, you should probably believe them.
  6. Lurdiak

    Is the Game over now?

    They've repeatedly said they will work on bug fixes even though they can't make new content. I don't know why you're just assuming that's a lie.
  7. That isn't true. You're confusing the initial lawsuit with the new claim Miller filed. While the initial lawsuit didn't affect the development of this game, the new one does.
  8. I don't think they're legally allowed to say that. Even if the lawsuit is somehow resolved tomorrow and the game continues as if nothing happened, saying this is a possibility right now would count as marketing the hypothetical future content. There are likely provisions in the court order itself to prevent this. To use a very simplified example, I can't say that something I'm making MIGHT have Mickey Mouse in it in the future. Disney could come after me for making such a claim.
  9. Promising that content they're not legally able to add currently might become available later as a way of maintaining sales would probably count as violating the court order, regardless of if the team internally thinks that's a possibility.
  10. But the DLC would still be attached to a game literally called Friday the 13th. You can't make a case that you're not profiting off the name in that situation. The only way to make money off new content without violating the court order would be if it was part of a separate game.
  11. The problem is that any content released in this game would automatically qualify as derivative of the Friday the 13th brand, which is what is being contested in the lawsuit. Essentially, any new counselor they add could end up being the property of Victor Miller if the lawsuit goes his way. I feel bad for them but they can't argue that this game is their livelihood in court, a judge would simply tell them to make a new game.
  12. Charlie Chainsaw, all you've been doing in both of the threads covering this topic is vent your frustrations at the developers in an unproductive way. You keep assuming bad faith and incompetence on their part based on very little evidence, and I don't understand why you think that's helpful to anyone.
  13. Lurdiak

    Is the Game over now?

    This logic would not hold up in court for one second. You don't seem to understand the difference between intellectual property and trademark, for one.
×