I am okay with both, I just REALLY want Legends 3Man about 45% of this topic will be so disappointed when it turns out it's MegaMan legends 3.
I am okay with both, I just REALLY want Legends 3Man about 45% of this topic will be so disappointed when it turns out it's MegaMan legends 3.
Not if they don't asking Microsoft for the usage.Guys, here's LordKano's post again:
IP law is complicated but in this case yes, the Trademark being abandoned does mean it's possible another party can use the Scalebound name. Depending on a bunch of factors, such as time after abandonment.
They can use the Scalebound name without asking Microsoft to use it, since Microsoft abandoned the trademark.
I'm not saying Scalebound is coming to Switch, I think the whole rumor is bull, but the trademark being abandoned means precisely that MS can no longer enforce it. I'm correcting you on that specific point.
They can use the Scalebound name without asking Microsoft to use it, since Microsoft abandoned the trademark.
This is the simplest possible point, why is that so hard for you to understand. Anyone can use the Scalebound name now. I could make a fart simulator named Scalebound and put it on the App Store, and Microsoft can't stop me.
The characters, assets, setting, etc that have been shown on Xbox One still belong to Xbox One
To revive the trademark, they would have to show an immediate (within an 18 month timeframe) intended commercial use case for the brand. So unless they have either revived Scalebound themselves or intend to, their petition for said revival would fail, particularly coming on the heels of an immediate abandonment.They could petition to revive the trademark I think, but again this depends on a whole bunch of factors that I probably don't know the half of. It's not as simple as that.
But it does mean that they no longer have immediate protection for the name, yes. So they can't sue you right away.
There's really no evidence of that. It depends on details we don't have.
To revive the trademark, they would have to show an immediate (within an 18 month timeframe) intended commercial use case for the brand. So unless they have either revived Scalebound themselves or intend to, their petition for said revival would fail, particularly coming on the heels of an immediate abandonment.
The vastness of my joy will more than make up for it.Man about 45% of this topic will be so disappointed when it turns out it's MegaMan legends 3.
To revive the trademark, they would have to show an immediate (within an 18 month timeframe) intended commercial use case for the brand. So unless they have either revived Scalebound themselves or intend to, their petition for said revival would fail, particularly coming on the heels of an immediate abandonment.
That's why I presented it as a scenario and below stated that Microsoft could have sold them off. But I do agree and hope other people know that all we are doing is speculating about something that none of us know yet outside of Microsoft, Nintendo, and Platinum Games.
This would be amazing!!The reappearance of Fez 2 in the Nintendo Direct of E3 2019 will surprise everybody.
Sure, I'm just saying that "Microsoft owns the trademark/Microsoft will need to sign off on it being used by another company" is an incorrect position.Right, probably true.
Either way, the point is if they want to dispute another party using the name (in court) they will be able to at least try.
Microsoft clearly feels that retaining the trademark was not worth the cost, which is why they abandoned it.My question would be, how expensive is it for Microsoft to retain the trademark for the name? Is it too expensive that they would much rather lose it than keep a name pretty well known within video game circles? Or do they feel like the name itself has been damaged to the point that it makes no sense keeping it?
That's why i said they need to ask Microsoft first because it's totally not worth it to break the relationship for a cancelled game.Right, probably true.
Either way, the point is if they want to dispute another party using the name (in court) they will be able to at least try.
My question would be, how expensive is it for Microsoft to retain the trademark for the name? Is it too expensive that they would much rather lose it than keep a name pretty well known within video game circles? Or do they feel like the name itself has been damaged to the point that it makes no sense keeping it?
Nintendo really trying to help Platinum with their ideas if its indeed Scalebound. Likely a good relationship going forward between the two if its true.
Bayonetta series, Astral Chain, and now possibly Scalebound
I agree with you. But even if the assets etc belong to Microsoft. The simple solution is build from scratch using the Switch's hardware. I don't think MS could sue (if the case of asset ownership were true) if Scalebound Switch ended up having a completely different art style with assets designed around the Switch's hardware limitations (and thus differences in how characters looked) and if they altered some story elements here and there.There's really no evidence of that. It depends on details we don't have.
Does that classify as buried? I remember the cancellation feeling rather shallow.The reappearance of Fez 2 in the Nintendo Direct of E3 2019 will surprise everybody.
It was a bit sad that after Bayonetta 2, it seemed like Nintendo might not fund any more of their games.Nintendo really trying to help Platinum with their ideas if its indeed Scalebound. Likely a good relationship going forward between the two if its true.
Bayonetta series, Astral Chain, and now possibly Scalebound
That's why i said they need to ask Microsoft first because it's totally not worth it to break the relationship for a cancelled game.
Reggie can walk to MS building and discuss with Phil now though since NoA and MS HQ just 100 meters away lol.
They don't need to talk to Microsoft is the entire point. You think they should. They have no legal obligation to.That's why i said they need to ask Microsoft first because it's totally not worth it to break the relationship for a cancelled game.
Reggie can walk to MS building and discuss with Phil now though since NoA and MS HQ just 100 meters away lol.
I think the trademark thing is a bit ridiculous to tread on.I agree with you. But even if the assets etc belong to Microsoft. The simple solution is build from scratch using the Switch's hardware. I don't think MS could sue (if the case of asset ownership were true) if Scalebound Switch ended up having a completely different art style with assets designed around the Switch's hardware limitations (and thus differences in how characters looked) and if they altered some story elements here and there.
Again I agree we have no clue on the legal status of Scalebound between MS and PG. But there's plenty of ways around any situation if Scalebound is indeed now published by Nintendo.
Microsoft could also just never owned them. It wouldn't even be the first time they contract a company to make a game, cancel that game then the company is using the tech with another company to release a game.
But yeah, there's right now no way for any of us to know those details.
Nintendo don't need to, but for Microsoft it's stupid they let it go and exclusive on Switch so easy.But again, they don't need to. They probably should, it would be the nice thing to do. But if MS no longer owns the Trademark and if Platinum has bought back the assets (this is completely unknown) then Nintendo really doesn't have much of a reason to ask MS before funding Platinum's game.
They might want to tell them "hey guys, just to let you know we're making Scalebound now, kthxbye" so that MS isn't caught off guard by the announcement but it's really unlikely MS would bother suing over this when they don't care enough about the IP to file a statement of use for the trademark.
YupKellams said on Twitter the other day that Microsoft owned the IP when Platinum was working on it.
Dont they literally own the IP.They don't need to talk to Microsoft is the entire point. You think they should. They have no legal obligation to.
Okay, I'm not doing this again
I have been anticipating the return of Wii Music. Ravi Drums where you at?!?
Microsoft would absolutely need to sign off on any of the previous work being used. If they did not, a game named Scalebound would have to be completely built from scratch with all new assets and designs.Sure, I'm just saying that "Microsoft owns the trademark/Microsoft will need to sign off on it being used by another company" is an incorrect position.
Microsoft clearly feels that retaining the trademark was not worth the cost, which is why they abandoned it.
They could try and be sneaky, by asking MS to buy the assets/all the work done for a new project;
In simple terms, they own the assets, since they funded development (unless the contract between Platinum and Microsoft had clauses that specifically stated otherwise, but we don't know anything about that, obviously). They do not own "Scalebound" the name. Hypothetically, Nintendo and Platinum can reboot development from scratch and make their own Scalebound.
Nintendo don't need to, but for Microsoft it's stupid they let it go and exclusive on Switch so easy.
Imagine how bad the PR will be, since hype of the game had been started after the cancellation announcement, and completely against current customers friendly statement.
Unless it's Switch+XB1 game, then they can fine with that.
Did we have something new since Zhuge said it wasn't probably Scalebound?
Would that be worth it? Why use the Scalebound name if its different in all but name.In simple terms, they own the assets, since they funded development (unless the contract between Platinum and Microsoft had clauses that specifically stated otherwise, but we don't know anything about that, obviously). They do not own "Scalebound" the name. Hypothetically, Nintendo and Platinum can reboot development from scratch and make their own Scalebound.
Because the name has cache, and they like the concept it was originally built around. They can still build a game around that concept while starting development from scratch.Would that be worth it? Why use the Scalebound name if its different in all but name.
Ni-Oh was in development since 2004 technically. Sometimes a team gets really attached to a project even if its looks completely different from Point A to Point B. See also, Too Human.Would that be worth it? Why use the Scalebound name if its different in all but name.
Kellams said on Twitter the other day that Microsoft owned the IP when Platinum was working on it.
Would that be worth it? Why use the Scalebound name if its different in all but name.
Yeah, sometimes that also works for the worse.Ni-Oh was in development since 2004 technically. Sometimes a team gets really attached to a project even if its looks completely different from Point A to Point B. See also, Too Human.