$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 65.66

4,622 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
29.1% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Mech Command RTS» Forums » General

Subject: No longer "Armored Core RTS" due to potential IP issues rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jim Pooley
United Kingdom
Cheshire
flag msg tools
Another worry on top of the Serpent Tongue links(which I only found out about from this.)

The makers are changing the name from Armored Core as they aren't sure they will get the permission to use the name from the IP owners.

Does this worry other people?

People are dropping out as it was the Armored Core name that drew them in.

Now if the game play and upgrade system is exactly the same it might be OK but if the original IP holders tell them the game mechanics are too close to the orginals mechanics might that mean a change in the way the game is played (with either delays for gameplay testing or poor new rules due to not enough gameplay testing).

I'd assumed the comapny had got permission from the IP owners before launching?

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dustin Rhoades
United States
Lawton
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Not going to lie, it's what drew me in. Why wouldn't you secure the IP first?! Giving me pause and reconsideration...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Pooley
United Kingdom
Cheshire
flag msg tools
Seems they've been in discussions scine before Feb this year - cancelling halfway into the actual campaign after 6months sounds strange timing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xavier Lloyd
Jamaica
Kingston 5
Kingston
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the main issue is not the IP on a whole, but moreso the IP as it relates to some of the stretch goals and Kickstarter exclusives.

I'm still holding on to my pledge (all in early bird here) but I'll drop it if the IP is lost.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Bailey
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"We've been lying to you for the entire kickstarter - but please still give us your money."
Sorry but this is an obvious red flag. If you stay in this kickstarter at this point, I hope you have very few hopes of being satisfied, and are just being charitable.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron White
Australia
Bathurst
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Bennett from Brawl
badge
Slow and Thoughtful
mbmbmbmbmb
My confusion is from how much they have done. Models, prototypes, art, IP approvals. How could things be so bad that dropping the IP is the best option? Surely Armored Core is worth fighting for?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Bailey
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Well they seem to think that some of the stretch goals might not meet with licensor approval. - But if that is the case wouldn't it be better to simply change or drop the stretch goals, rather than drop the license?


It's like buying a new car because your old car ran out of gas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John di Battista
United States
Virginia Beach
Virginia
flag msg tools
Crabbok wrote:
"We've been lying to you for the entire kickstarter - but please still give us your money."
Sorry but this is an obvious red flag. If you stay in this kickstarter at this point, I hope you have very few hopes of being satisfied, and are just being charitable.


I got the impression that they had the license. They were forced to choose between dropping their original designs, pretty sure the 6 legged chassis which is the only thing blatantly not in Armored Core or dropping their license. It sounds to me like there were other issues dealing with From besides, but this is what broke the camels back. Licensing from overzealous IP holders can be a major pain from what I understand.

Their system should be unaffected, but they're going to have to go through and pull all the Armored Core designs, imagery and references from the game lest they risk a law suit. Not the thing I'd like to see halfway through funding. They should have canceled the KS when they lost the IP, replanned and relaunched later under their own brand name.

I wish Bad Crow luck, but I pulled my pledge. Too many unknown risks at this point. I don't want to fund a total redesign halfway through the funding period.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John B

Virginia
msg tools
Agreed. Close this campaign, re-tool, and give it a go. Because of the buzz generated with the current campaign, I'm sure people will come back on at a later day. To keep blasting forward after entirely losing the name due to IP fights, is asking for a wreck.
Other games have cancelled the campaign and come back better for it.
I loved the video game, and maybe that is the true way to get real time strategy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Lemon
msg tools
Yeah, this seems sketchy to me.

I don't understand how they can continue to use any current mechs if they drop the IP. Aren't the current models from/based on mechs from Armored Core?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oblivion Doll
New Zealand
flag msg tools
CaGeRit wrote:
pretty sure the 6 legged chassis which is the only thing blatantly not in Armored Core


They have deployable energy screens, cloaking devices, ion weapons and corrosive weapons. None of those things exist in ANY form in ANY game in the franchise.

The game also lacks some things which are key elements of every Armored Core game - the most obvious example is how defenses work. In the older games, the balance is simply physical vs. energy damage, while the 5th-gen games (which this game used designs from) have kinetic, chemical and thermal damage types. While they added two new weapon types with their own out-of-place damage rules, the game lacks any distinction between taking hits from a laser and a gatling gun.

Also, while shield generators TECHNICALLY exist in several AC games, there's absolutely ZERO possibility of that tech being mounted on an AC in any game in the franchise - only NEXTS and other super-giant machines comparable in scale to the boss that was added into the AI expansion can use them.

I'm actually VERY happy to see them remove the brand name from this project, because as a long-time fan of the franchise, there are a lot of things that simply don't fit the setting. All of them are very cool ideas and I'm really excited for how the game looks with those things, they just don't belong in Armored Core.

As a big fan of AC, the removal of the name actually has me more inclined to support the project, since it's no longer pretending to be something it's not. There are other concerns at this point, though, so I'm inclined to wait and hope for a successful retail release instead. I really want the game to succeed, but I'm not in a position to risk the amount of money I'd need to feel like I was getting something worthwhile in return.

EDIT: Just adding a quote from Aaron Gabrielson (one of the creators) in the kickstarter comments section:

Quote:
We did due diligence on the name "Mech Command RTS" and because we are using different fonts, colors, box art, different title, and the fact that it is a different industry (board games), creates a clearly distinct product in the marketplace. No other board game has ever used the title "Mech Command RTS", and no other game of any type has ever used that title. We have our bases covered on this one and we will defend our right to it if anyone challenges it.


They seem to be missing the rather obvious fact that MechCommander is a series of RTS games based on BattleTech...

...and BattleTech is a miniature-based game about giant robots fighting over territory with rules for support units and objective-based combat.

It also has rules designed to simulate realtime play through a simultaneous turn-based system. It's not as fast-paced and fluid as this game, but it's definitely a DIRECT competitor with a secondary product that practically shares a name.

Not a good look for "due diligence" to have not realised that already.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Pooley
United Kingdom
Cheshire
flag msg tools
I think they really need to re-look at the "Mech Command RTS" title as it IS very close to Mech Commander RTS whiich if you google gets you these results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mech+commander+RTS&ie=utf-...

Top being the video game which goes onto say it is based on the tabletop BattleTech - still far too close to be comfortable with from an IP point of view.

Some good lawyers could argue that the "Mech Command RTS" title is attempting to be look similar to the "Mech Commander RTS" which is linked to Battletech the miniatures game...which is what "Mech Command RTS" is...a miniatures game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I'm going to back out. I just can't see this avoiding litigation - from someone - and I think this will be unfulfilled for a long time whilst it explores legal avenues.

Worst case, funds get used for legal expenses. The whole shebang implodes.

Pull it; sort the licence; relaunch. Anything else is going to offer a pale imitation of what is promised/hoped for - let alone a pale imitation of Armored Core.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
k c
msg tools
It's looking like another name change might be needed. My suggestions:

Neo Peter Gabriel Evangelist
Robot Tech
Mobile phone Suite Gun-Damn
9 Volt-Tron batteries
Battle Tech(nology)

No games have ever used any of those titles, so I can't see any problems...
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oblivion Doll
New Zealand
flag msg tools
kdc629 wrote:
Battle Tech(nology)


...too soon.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.