Kong Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Ran into this article intially from HomeLanFed News... which linked to VoodooExtreme, www.ve3d.com , the BFC mention is at the end of the quote. "Sony Registers 'Shock & Awe' Slogan 10:03 AM - Andrew "Andy" Burnes - Games: General News - (86) Thanks to Kevan Mander for this news: Japanese electronics giant Sony has taken an extraordinary step to cash in on the war in Iraq by patenting the term "Shock and Awe" for a computer game. It is among a swarm of companies scrambling to commercially exploit the war in Iraq, which has killed more than 5,000 soldiers and civilians in the space of three weeks. MediaGuardian.co.uk has learned that Sony is set to launch a computer game called "Shock and Awe", having registered the defining phrase of the coalition's military campaign as a trademark in the US. It registered the term as a trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office on March 2 1 - just one day after war started. It wants to use it for computer and video games, as well as a broadband game played both locally and globally via the internet among PlayStation users. The phrase, coined by former US navy pilot Harlan Ullman, was adopted by Washington to describe the fierce bombardment of Baghdad on the second night of the war - the military tactic designed to bully the Iraqi resistance into submission. A spokesman for Sony PlayStation in the UK admitted the company might not stock the game in Britain and Europe owing to political sensitivities. Update: Kevan got back to me and mentioned that Battlefront.com, makers of the Combat Mission series of games have registered the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' " So just what are you BFC boys up to?!?! First you pull a rabbit out of your hat called CM:AK... what is next?!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 disturbing news in fact... if it is true 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNoobie Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by Xavier: disturbing news in fact... if it is true yes if its true....next engine should STAY WWII or no money from me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cast Iron Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 I hope not. Who would want to be the Iraqis?That would be a very one sided CM.(If it's going to be that) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I agree with Noobie. WW2. Maybe they are registering the game name so no one makes it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Combat Mission: From Baghdad Bob to Reality For play balance purposes the Iraqis will actually use chemical weapons and Americans will actually commit suicide at the gates of Baghdad. BFC may just be reserving the name for future use and not actually be developing such a game at this time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymaxx Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Aren't TacOps and Strategic Commander developed by BFC too. I just hope they reserved the name for future development of those series and not my loved CM . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill S. Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Why don't we wait until BFC themselves confirm this, ok? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keke Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Madmatt just called me to say that there's no need to panic, because the registered name has nothing to do with CM...which is kinda strange because I don't even know him! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Registering product trademarks and possible naming conventions is a standard practice. It's not necessarily reflective of any product development in progress, or even something that's on any business development roadmap for a company. It's purely a defensive and opportunistic move, costs little to do and may have merits in regards to non-traditional business revenues that are completely outside actual core product offerings. Our companies do this on a regular basis, so I wouldn't read a whole lot into this until you are given direct reasons to "panic". I think we should probably just take a Prozac, Valium, or whatever your relaxation poison is and focus on the great stuff we know is happening such as CMAK! Just two cents from an old investment executive. Regards, Badger Edit: Sorry, didn't see keke's post... was typing mine when he posted... doh!!!! [ April 10, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymaxx Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kirill S.: Why don't we wait until BFC themselves confirm this, ok? Since gossip is fun . And, quite as a natural law, BFC replies faster the more absurd gossip there is . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Dang, moneymaxxx might be on to something here Okay, here's the official stance: Yes, it's true that we have registered "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as a trademark. We have registered a number of trademarks in the past, it's part of doing business, you know. We are planning to make a modern war game in the future - always have - , and obviously having the option to use a title with high recognition isn't a bad thing. If this will be the first game with the new engine - truth is, we don't know ourselves. As we have said in the past, the theater or even timeframe for the new engine has not been decided yet. Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keke Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom: From El Agheila to Bagdad... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGMB Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 "We are planning on making a modern game." Go play Tacops ye swine! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kong Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 Here is my $.02 cents, and this is what I thought before Moon's post. CMX2 is going to be much more "flexible" than CM. What this means to me is that once the engine is done (terrain, AI, graphics, pathing) it will be relatively simple to plug in whatever "units" you want. I see the engine or the virtual world being created so that any type of unit can be simluated.So you want a Modern War, just plug in modern units, you want WWII you got it, you want Civil War, can do. So with this type of flexibility BFC can create any type of War Simulation they want. And... it would also make the "Engine" quite licensable too! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mud Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 If there can be an engine that flexible while still retaining authenticity... that would be pretty damned impressive. Something tells me that the technology gap would seriously mess with any attempt at an AI that could handle everything from WWII-style battles to more modern scenarios where accuracy, lethality, range and response time get improved so greatly. And if you want to go back to ACW, well, the technology and tactical theory would again mean drastic changes -- reliance on lines, squares and cavalry, for instance. It'd be rather nifty, but I'd rather the engine come out this decade without the only potential customer being governments, large businesses and the wealthy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Just to reinforce what Moon had to say... We thought to register the name NOW even though we have no plans on using it. We might not use the name at all, even if we do an Iraqi game (oh... I dunno, because the name is a bit corny ). We might also find another developer who is making an Iraqi type game for Battlefront and the name could be used for that project. Or we might let it go and allow someone else to use it if we really don't think we'll touch it. Or we could use it ourselves 4 years from now. Who knows which this will be? Well, we don't kking199 Here is my $.02 cents, and this is what I thought before Moon's post. CMX2 is going to be much more "flexible" than CM. What this means to me is that once the engine is done (terrain, AI, graphics, pathing) it will be relatively simple to plug in whatever "units" you want. Correct. The main problem with the current CM code base is that it contains a rather big learning curve. You programmers out there know what that means -> inflexibility (at best ). The new engine was designed to not only bring things up to near future technological capabilities, but also to make the engine far more friendly to modularized programming. In short, it means we can do many things with the engine without having to do a complete rewrite. Mud is also correct, and that is making a "generic" engine is a BAD idea. CMX2's "game" code will largely be specific to whatever game we make. However, all the rest of the code (graphics, sound, multi-multi-player, etc.) will be instantly available to whatever game we decide make. This means a lot less coding per game and ALL of it centered around making the "game" part, not rewriting animation, networking, interface, etc. code. This means CMX2 will allow new games to be churned out MUCH quicker than we have been doing. Oh... say 10 months instead of 18-24. Quicker, but not instant Steve [ April 10, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Clearly with the user/fan base that frequent this forum BFC are going to have to be careful about anything they announce in public ...... Update: Kevan got back to me and mentioned that Battlefront.com, makers of the Combat Mission series of games have registered the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' " Or maybe something like......... Posted by Steve: The new engine was designed to not only bring things up to near future technological capabilities, but also to make the engine far more friendly to modularized programming Was designed .... Hmmm past tense ! I also liked the sound of the "multi-multi-player" comment ! "Somebody throw me a frickin bone here !" But as for an Iraqi Freedom game ... just how much fun and playability can you get from a game where one side had the most modern equipment in the world and the otherside just ran away and the main part of the war lasted less than a month. Who would the opposition be ? The Republican guard ! ... how could any developer implement the 'Fire 5 rounds, change into Civi's and surrender' command [ April 11, 2003, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Lou2000 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akdavis Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Or we might let it go and allow someone else to use it if we really don't think we'll touch it. Ah yes, Operation Iraqi Feedom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Well, I know I'll never be a good business-man. The rubbles are still smoking and some company already think about how to make money with a reality which is not yet History 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 The most difficult part of a CMOIF game may be to find an opponent to play the Iraqi side... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt. Cook Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Well, Operation Iraqi Freedom could be a pun on the Roman invasions of the Parthians (with a Valerian stuffing scenario) or maybe the Crusades (with the defense of Tyre and chair armor figuring large). I can take whatever they throw my way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I would welcome a Battlefront game based on modern conflict. Would be great!!!!! Regards Gian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engel Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Almost any modern game would have to be fictional, I can't see any actual conflicts apart from small-unit actions that would have any long-term staying power. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 (CMOIF) Where could you actually sell it ... The US/UK/Australia would buy it..... The Spanish would probably only play the demo.... Most countries would just read the reviews and look at the screenshots.... But the French / Germmans and Russians wouldnt even stock it However a follow on 'resource management' game where you could bid for contracts to rebuild Iraq would see a huge market world wide The French would probaly go to court and demand the European distribution rights ! .......Such is life 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.