Just wanted to post this comment in case some of you didn't completely exhaust all the resources from Derek's archival post. It's from the comments in Jacob's post. I thought it was a pretty sound description from someone who seems to know their shit about the ins and outs of Trademarks.

I've been compelled to register to clear up some schoolboy-level misunderstandings of trademark law that are being propagated here. As a disclaimer, my own background in IP law is only as much as I've picked up on mandatory training (to ensure we don't cause a legal fiasco in our jobs) and has more to do with patents, which are a much more cut-and-dry field.

The idea that someone can "register" a patent and then anyone who uses it is "infringing" is a common fallacy that comes from confusing trademark law and patent law. Trademark registration is simply a way of publishing your trademark so that others can avoid infringing upon it and provides no additional legal protection. If anything, it is for the legal benefit of others, who can avoid wasting money developing what turns out to be someone else's distinctive mark. All trademarks, registered and unregistered, whether they have that little "TM" sign or not, are equally protected.

Trademark "infringment" is a civil offense that's decided on a "reasonable" basis. Essentially, someone infringes on your trademark if their actions can be reasonably expected to lead to confusion between themselves and your business/products/whatever in practice. For example, if I release a product called "Coca Cola", then obviously that will confuse any reasonable customer into believing that it's made by the Coca Cola Company. You could argue that the product is a cheeseburger and not a soda, but that probably won't fly because the "Coca Cola" name itself is so tightly bound to the Coca Cola Company in the public consciousness. I would obviously be trading off Coca-Cola's reputation as a business.

However, suppose that tomorrow a children's book company decided to call itself "Caterpillar", with a cute little green caterpillar as the logo. That word is the trademark for a hugely successful and well-known brand of hydraulic equipment, and a great deal of licenced merchandise tying into that image. However it's extremely unlikely that any reasonable individual would confuse the two companies. The word "Caterpillar" is not distinctive enough, and not unique enough, for that confusion to arise when the two companies are in entirely different lines of business. Therefore that would not constitute an infringement.

As another example, suppose you have a company called "Venice Blinds" that produces blinds to be sold under store own-brands. Another company calling itself "Venice", and producing blinds, would likely be confused with the original by buyers for retail chains, and therefore that trademark would have been infringed upon. However a blinds company called "Spiffy Blinds" could put out a set of Venetian blinds called "Memories of Venice" direct to the consumer. Given that nobody in consumerland is aware that "Venice Blinds" exists, there's no risk of customer confusion. If "Venice Blinds" was a household name, it might be that a reasonable person would belive that "Memories of Venice" was somehow derived from Venice Blinds' product range, and we're back to infringement.

As you can see, trademark law is very context-sensitive, and it is very much based upon the public awareness of the mark. Trademark law is engineered to ensure business cannot trade off each other's reputations. It's not like patent law, or a registered design, where someone is given an exclusive right to something in exchange for registration.

We have a special case here in that EDGE Games' web-site attempts to present Langdell's licencees' products as his own, and therefore he is acting contrary to his obligation, as a trademark holder, to protect his mark's distinctiveness. If Edge is his trademark, he is obligated to ensure that people know that those products were not actually his. In fact he is doing the opposite, and therefore his trademark is diluted. This would not lead to a very positive outcome if he was attempting to defend the mark in court: defendants could argue that his claim was in bad faith.

To exacerbate matters, he uses the distinctive marks of EDGE Magazine as his own logo and a huge amount of former EDGE Magazine website content (much of which still links back to www.edge-online.co.uk) for his own business, which means that in all likelihood he's infringing on Future Publishing's trademarks in the form of the distinctive EDGE Magazine "E" symbol, which is much more strongly linked with that magazine than it is with EDGE Games.

Mr. Langdell has no reason for accusing the Edge iPhone game of "copyright infringement", as some sites have reported, which is an entirely different tort. I suspect mistranslation somewhere.

even though yea, he's only really released 71 games or so. They are still all separate SKUs so he could _technically_ defend that by defining "games" as separate SKUs and etc.

Though... that doesn't make it any less misleading to the general game development population. Building a career on technicalities and gotchas is a sad life indeed.

I agree with you Edmund, "art games" is a really dumb name. I also think Pilgrimage _is_ a really good, expressive and well executed game. I enjoyed it.  But, I'm with Fish... honestly, what's with all the hostility? Just because the journos labeled it something backwards doesn't mean that games that have a bit more of an expressive slant even subscribe to that whole misnomer. Under that idea the only kind of "expressive/experimental" games you could make would be ones that make fun of the art games moniker.

Basically you're panning an entire set of media because of its _name_ rather than their individual qualities.

Bit of a drastic change here, though there is still some rif-raff in levels 2-7. I scrapped 99% of the art and focused on the only thing I was really happy with, the dark background. It's still in there but the tileset is completely new and much more tiley as opposed to special set pieces. This will give us a lot more flexibility for levels and modularly creating whatever we want. I'm not happy with the lights/lighting ATM but I do like how it provides a couple levels of feedback about grapple radius and player guidance...



As usual, check out the latest build in the first post to play.

@cymon i'd have to agree

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvNGZjMt8I&feature=fvsr

@Kaelan

1) that's cool, maybe we'll start it a month or two before the announced release date. Or maybe not, i dunno...

2) fear is the mindkiller. besides it's public domain, we won't be infringing on any Langdellian issues (trademark) or copyright so what's really to fear? Sure, anyone can sue anyone for just about anything but if you really are afraid of that then I'm not sure what to tell you.

3) Isn't that what a compo is? Also: "[it should be about] proving you're a superior game designer." That's the whole point of the compo, isn't it? Well that and having a structure for making some sweet games based on an interesting piece of work. The compo wouldn't be about mockery/parody of EA's Inferno, it'd be about games based on the Divine Comedy. The release date is the sticking-it-to-the-man part. I guess I'm not following you here.

[We all work on Dante's Inferno games (maybe a larger collab to make a larger game?) with the deadline being EA's release date.]

So... you may have already heard of this, but EA is dragging Dante's classic through the muck with this: http://www.dantesinferno.com/home.action

It's basically a complete bastardization of his entire body of work. It was brought up by Glaiel here: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=6082.0 along with some talk of making a game that is actually based on the Divine Comedy. I thought that was a cool idea then, and I was reminded today from Darius Kazemi (tinysubversions/the dude who made the LED roguelike badassery among other cool stuff) from his twitter:

RT @leighalexander: indie devs, please read clint's comment on http://bit.ly/3LLvGm and accept the challenge!

That link is basically the comments section of some ubisoft groaning similar to the groaning that went on in the thread on TigForums. Here's the original article from Sexy Videogame Land: http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2009/06/welcome-to-hell.html

Anyway, here's Darius's nod to Clint's comment parsed here:

Yeah, I think the whole thing is kind of mildly depressing. Just right on the edge of being so mildly depressing to not even bother commenting.

I first heard about this several months ago... maybe even a year and I think a bit of cola came out my nose when I laughed. We all joked about how it would be a generic beat-em-up GoW clone, ha-ha-ha. We even joked about just MAKING another, different Dante's Inferno game, since they actually couldn't stop you. Oh the laughs we had.

But now I just find it kind of yucky and I feel morose when I think about it. Why not 'Demon Hunter'? Why not 'To Hell and Back'? Why not 'Love be Damned'? how about just 'Infernal'? (probably taken)... but anyway - reiterating the point that a generic demon killing game would be better marketted to a generic audience of demon killing game fans by losing the pretentious title and just calling it what it is.

Is it an *active attempt* by EA to undermine the credibility of people who actually might one day aspire to make a real game adaptation of Dante's Inferno or any other serious work? hrrmm...

When does it ship? Someone should build an indie dev team and release a real Dante's Inferno game for PC and broswers and iPhone and facebook and launch it day-and-date with this one just to confuse EA's communications and cash in on the hype with a game that people might actually find beautiful. That would be divine comedy.

So yea, that last paragraph is basically the compo. We all work on Dante's Inferno games (maybe a larger collab to make a larger game?) with the deadline being EA's release date.

What do you guys think? I think it could turn out some really interesting stuff.

Giant Enemy Crab, PLEASE be in this.

If Einstein and God made it in, I wouldn't be surprised.

well, it seems like it might be an issue of adjectives like it points out in the joystiq post. Though, i'm guessing they want to cover any and all memes that they can.

I agree, though the sprites are small enough that I'm not sure changing the face will do a ton. I'd say the biggest issue is the fact that the player sprite is a biped and the cats are quadrupeds. biped + brown + fuzzy = teddy bear. Either that or make the cats bipeds and try and play up the snout a bit more.

even so... does it really matter?

Found this on Data's twitter.

Anyone else miss this? http://bit.ly/zK9TO Vids: http://tinyurl.com/orftwd & http://tinyurl.com/qqf2pe

It's a puzzle game called Scribblenauts. Here's a blurb to give you a taste:

The premise of the game is simple -- you play as Maxwell, who must solve various puzzles to obtain Starites spread across 220 different levels. To execute the aforementioned solving, you write words to create objects in the world that your cartoonish hero can interact with. It's a simple concept that's bolstered by one astounding accomplishment from developer 5th Cell: Anything you can think of is in this game. (Yes, that. Yes, that too.)

So yea...

 

i checked the wiki and here a bit. maybe i'm not having any luck because i don't know the name of the guy. But i'm having trouble paying to open up a path to the next world. I've done it before but i thought it happened automatically... how do i pay to open the path after beating area 1?!?!?!?!

EDIT: it's tunnel man that i'm talking about: http://spelunky.wikia.com/wiki/Tunnel_Man

this page doesn't do much for me though as I've been to world 2 a number of times but he is still not showing up. is this a known bug of some kind or do i need to hit a certain button? I tried not hitting any buttons and it just hangs at the score breakdown screen.

[sell]

Now, about selling the game. Thanks so much about informing me about that website, I must admit I don't really know anything about selling games and it's a world that frightens me a little. I'll have to seriously think about it. On one hand, money is gooood, although I'm in no dire need of it at the moment. But on the other hand, I can't bare the thought of giving my precious creation away for a small fee, just thinking about it feels like I'm selling a part of myself, and how much could I get from it? 100$? 200$ if I'm lucky? It feels like a dilemma. I'll just have to think about it.

I understand your anxiety and I share it. Though a sponsorship is a bit different than giving it away. Basically you still control everything you want about your game except you'll be putting a short "ad" for them on the front of your game just after your preloader. Like "SEGA" shows up before Sonic or something like that. The ad will have a linkback to their site and that's what the sponsor is paying you for, for more exposure to their site as well as to link your neat game to their brand. Personally, I don't like the system, but if you're just putting this game up for free and want to make freeware flash games, this is the established way to make money off of them. While I'm not a huge fan of this system, it still remains the best way to monetize smaller games like this if they are Flash freeware. For larger games there are other more complicated (and more indie) options similar to what Fantastic Contraption, Incredibots, Auditorium does with their subscription/pay-to-play models. All of those games are special case and particular features that make payment a logical and profitable solution for them. Anyway... FGL has a great FAQ about all of this here: http://www.flashgamelicense.com/view_library.php Check that out, it will hopefully clear up any confusion you have about it.

HOWEVER, one thing you absolutely have to figure out first is if you want to actually sell your game. If you're planning on selling this game to consumers for something like $20 a pop you wouldn't want to look for sponsorships since that assumes you'll be making your .swf freely available for all to play. FGL and these markets are developed around freeware games. Personally, since this is a prototype and in Flash even if you were planning a much more expansive version later (even one you'd pay for) there'd be no harm in offering this up as freeware on various flash portals. If you sell a sponsorship you still retain all IP rights and ownership of your game and are free to do whatever you want with it. Basically it boils down to selling a spot on your intro-reel before the game starts as I mentioned earlier.

Finally, even if you don't need the money going through this kind of experience would is very valuable and a good chance since it's not a big deal if the game doesn't go for much since you're just putting it out there to see how it all works. If you are interested in trying to do this fulltime, and want to get into the Flash freeware world, or just even get used to the feeling of getting some money for making these games, then I'd recommend at least giving it a shot. The worst that could happen is that you don't get any offers or get some offers you don't feel comfortable with and decide to deny them. No loss.

I realize I'm jumping around here and probably not doing a great job of explaining this, and that's basically because it's something you should go through and learn about on your own. Nonetheless I'd be happy to answer any questions/concerns that are more specific through PM as to not clog up your feedback thread with boring business stuff.

EDIT: I forgot to address the exact amount you could expect. It's really hard to say, there are a lot of unknown variables that can really change things that range from gameplay to time of year. However, there {b]is[/b] a thread on this in the business forums actually.

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=6490.msg209172#msg209172

It seems Jesseyay has received a bid of $250 for a physics based coconut-in-the-basket game. Take a look at that game and see how it compares to yours. It's not apples to apples, but it's at least a start. Like I said, i'd be willing to go into more specifics through PM if you wanted...

looks great! A couple things here i've got feedback on.

Controls/Feel
I thought the jumping was fine, same with the movement on the ground but the air-control bugged me. Pressing back against my momentum stopped me in the air immediately as opposed to simply slow it down per tick. I'd rather have it with more of an inertia-based feel, especially in the air.

Points System
I really liked the way it worked, it added a lot of depth to the score system creating new challenges that otherwise wouldn't have existed.

Sprite Size
At first I felt like the sprite was a bit too big for its bounding box.

Finally, and probably most importantly, are you taking this particular IP further or were you developing this just to get the platformer framework down? I wouldn't consider this a prototype at all. It's a polished game with finished art/music and a full set of levels. You could at least try to sell this game (get a sponsorship) on FGL for at least a few hundred bucks. You probably still could, take it down from Deviant Art and sign up at www.flashgamelicense.com and post it up there. Sometimes it takes awhile before you get bids, but with a game of this level of polish I wouldn't see it getting overlooked. Much worse games have gotten sponsorships.

Even if you were planning on taking the characters/art into a longer/deeper game after this "prototype" you could still sell this and make the next game as a "sequel".  I know you probably made this game with the intention of learning and figuring out the design and so on and that's as far as you ever wanted to take it, but why not make a few bucks in the process? It's worth it, and it'll be another chapter in learning about how to be a flash/game developer.

ps. I know you did this for a school project, but I subscribe to the Banksy ideology that it's "easier to get forgiveness than permission." Besides, i'm sure your teachers/school wants you to succeed in your future career and every encounter i've had with publicizing/selling school projects has supported that.

theyre made of meat!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

oh man, awesome! I remember reading this somewhere, i think it was just in a short-story version or something. glad to see someone put it in action.

and here's an example of someone who almost got the point of the game

A simple mario clone with a slight twist. The story/twist in game play attempts to create what the author considers a peice of art. However the entire thing comes off as vague at best. This as itself wasn't bad, but then I made the mistake of reading the Artist Statement. Several portions of this is absolutely incoherent and so full of itself it enfuriates me. Don't mistake this for more than a subpar mario clone flash game.

From a programmer's perspective, the melting type affect was well done, but the jumping/hit detection was spotty at edge cases, the level design was boring, and the only enemy was a Goomba clone.

hahaha

awesome game Tyler.

It's very frustrating to lose all your inertia whenever you swing above the x-axis of the grapple point.

It does look a lot better visually when zoomed in, although it's hard to tell where the grapple points are without knowing the level beforehand. Even in your video, you had to grapple to points without seeing them first.

yea I hear ya, I was thinking about extending the size of those "lanterns" by making some animated lighting sprites that would be much larger so even if the lantern wasn't in view you'd see the light coming off of it. Also... the distance between these objects here is basically the maximum possible which is why it's so difficult. I'd never want to _actually_ put that in the game unless it was for an easter-egg secret or something.

Nonetheless it is a problem, and i'm a bit worried about it still...

We're working on levels now, mike has implemented a kickass scripting system alongside pulling the inertia from animation right on the timeline. It kicks ass and we can make bosses, moving stuff and other crazy shit really fast in Flash. He'll probably post in more detail on the blog or maybe here I dunno... Or maybe he won't, he's kind of a shut-in.

Anyway, now there's a few levels in there, some of them are repeats but you get the idea. I recommend level 7 for a crazy bee-box that flies around and you ride it.

------

Alright, bit of a challenge here.

Check out the new build and play level 1 and try to do the Slalom Challenge. I've demonstrated here in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib256D2f1GA

It took about three times the amount of tries than that, any more and you would have gotten bored even with the speed-up effect. I've only done it once and this will probably never make it into the game but I like hardcore stuff like this and it helped really get a handle on the limitations of the character.

isn't the beta of win7 out though? i doubt its requirements will rise substantially.

hence the " "

 

Awesome thread. I've got loads more recipes than this as well as tips. In college I considered writing a book that covered dorm cooking and apartment cooking. In high school I aspired to be a chef but soon learned what it's _really_ like working in a restaurant...

Anyway, I write occasionally about food and how to save money and stuff while still eating delicious stuff. Here's the dump from that category:

http://mile222.com/category/cooking/

I'll be sure to post new stuff here in recipe format.

6 seems like plenty. it's nice though to have that flexibility to beef that badboy up to 12 if you ever wanted. Who knows what kind of mem hog Windows 7 will be!