BEWARE

(nUllSkillZ) #41

Something has changed.
Not sure what.
But the mail from id / activision and this thread makes me thinking.

…

I’ve written more.
Erased it all again.

It’s only :frowning:

(Joe999) #42

because of the reaction he triggers off. if it’s not bashing, how else do you call it when someone opens a public thread on something with the intent that people start boycotting a company if the company doesn’t do as the thread creator pleases? blackmailing? the problem on the one hand is that he shouldn’t have opened a domain under the exact wording of a trade mark in the first place. or did he ask activision for permission? the problem on the other hand is that activision didn’t complain when he got or while he used the domain.

and why does this become a public issue regarding the number of members? because people have to change a bookmark?

of course, under enemy-territory he could as well have news about which country the US invade as next, but i don’t think the wants to flush years of work & fun down the toilet.

well, i don’t mind what the solution is as the good sites lift themselves from others no matter what their name is.

one thing still comes to my mind, something like that when you live in a house for a certain period of time, then they can’t throw you out. to me this looks like the same case. activision just missed to throw Nail out. seen from that point of view he theoretically could have a realistic chance of keeping the domain. dunno, this is prolly far-fetched, i’m no lawyer.

of course the way activision wants to fob off Nail is kinda lame, they should offer a far better trade. however, there’s a problem and there’ll be a solution found which fits both sides. but it will be negotiated and found without the public. so why is this a public issue again?

(Apocalypse) #43

I admit it’s bad form to ask for a boycott but it certainly is nail’s freedom to post in public about this issue.

Maybe saying its a public issue is not the right word. He posted his frustration publicly, I do not think that is anything wrong. Given the lameness of how Activision deals with it.

And really, enemy territory can mean nothing to anyone who has never played games. What makes it belongs to Activision? Why does he need their permission? Am sure you can understand nail’s upset about that?

(Joe999) #44

of course, and i feel with him. however, you have to see it from a realistic point of view. they’re running a business, he’s building his website on their business with their content. hence there is a relation between “enemy territory” of the domain name and the game.

as i said: Nail can get a really good deal from this which satisfies both sides. i’m not speaking of money. i’m speaking of building up the future. face it, ET will soon pass. if he intends to keep up with quake wars what he’s currently doing, there are a lot of possibilities. he only needs to take this chance.

the way he’s currently reacting however could ruin it, hence why i suggest to solve this issue in private.

and only the trade is lame, but it’s a first try of negotiation. i wouldn’t say that activision did something lame. activision asked nicely. in such cases normally you don’t get a personal mail from the company, you get it from their lawyers.

(ayatollah) #45

First of all the first post Nail posted was just letting people know that if they had a domain name that Activision didn’t like they should expect an email. People then expressed their disgust and discussed what action Nail could talk. Yes, Nail did say he could organise a boycott, which in my opinion is a valid venture. There was also talk of setting up a PayPal link to fund a legal case case, I for one would contribute to that fund if that path was chosen, even though I don’t frequent enemy-territory.com anymore.

I do however recognise the value of that site, it has been around since the birth of ET and has gone a long way to raising the public conciousness of ET. It was basically free advertisement for the ET brand and without it Activision would not have seen an extension of the franchise as a viable option. So how much would you get paid for a website of advertising over 3 years in this industry? $250? I think not.

It is disgusting how publishers try to control mere mortals like ourselves through their corporate muscle, but in this case I don’t think Activision can do anything. Lots of people “cybersquat” just to get a load of money of the trademark holders. I can recall, shortly after the announcement of the Wii name from Nintendo, a wave of registered domain names with wii in it. There were also lots of auctions on eBay of these domains, some reaching $5000. The reason these purchases are made is to sell onto the trademark holding company, and that is without a 3 year background of promotion of said company.

In this case I don’t think Nail has to sell up but if he does he should be getting a hell of a lot more than $250.

Oh and Joe999 there was no bashing until you showed up.

EDIT: Oh and Joe you seem to forget that Enemy Territory is a franchise name not specifically directed towards Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. There is a long future ahead for ET.

(Joe999) #46

so how do you call his post then? neutral? with absolutely no further intents?

and please … “could” … who are you kidding? why did he say it in the first place?

i’m curious about his reply.

(ayatollah) #47

Because he’s pissed off, he can advise people he wants them to boycott, they don’t have to. People have their own minds you know. Although if he does and there is a mass boycott, it just shows you how much influence the website has and Activision would have to sit up and take notice.

Tell me Joe999 do you work in marketing by any chance, if you do…kill yourself!

No seriously…do!

(Joe999) #48

big words with no background, you seem so wise with your killing suggestions. i expected a more mature reply from you, guess i was totally wrong.

so tell me in your wise words, how do you call what he’s doing?

(ayatollah) #49

Not a fan of Bill Hicks then…meh

Good luck Nail with whatever you decide to do, beat them bastards.

(nUllSkillZ) #50

unsorted thought’s:

Joe999:
It’s an act against the W:ETâ„¢ community.

idâ„¢ / Activisionâ„¢ don’t honor unpayed commitment advertising and promoting their games.

I think after the publicity they can’t go back.
It would be a sign of weakness.
And others could abuse this weakness.

I had the idea that W:ETâ„¢ has to die (to get players for ET:QWâ„¢).
Why else should a big community be removed.
I think closing this community is like cutting of one of your own hands (see above: unpayed promotion and advertisement).

And I’m afraid that this address only will be used to re-direct visitors to the official side.

But on the other hand:
Without a community they can’t sell their next game.

May be the community should ask for payment for every news about their games.
No money = no news.

Seems that all in life is about money.
No place for idealists and involved fans.

(Joe999) #51

good point, but let me throw in some questions: so this “community” is turning the back on the people who gave them the game on which the community is built up? and this “community” got the game for which price? in how far is this public thread helping quake wars, enemy territory or SD? or the so-called “community”?

if the “community” says: boycot activision games, in how far is that good for anyone? i think the term “shoot into your own leg” fits here.

but as i’m one of the few who’s not on the bashwagon i probably don’t get the point. or maybe because i’m obviously the evil one here according to chin. still as a non natively english speaker i’d like to know the word of what is happening here. i looked up the dictionary for someone who tries to make someone look bad, and it showed up the word “bashing”. so maybe someone who speaks english can throw light on the correct wording. so far i know it’s not “making friends”.

(nUllSkillZ) #52

Actually they turned their back.
The game is free.
But the more people know and play W:ETâ„¢ the more will buy their new game.

And E-T.com also promotes and advertises ET:QWâ„¢.

I would understand idâ„¢ and Activisionâ„¢ if the side would say somthing against their products.
Or would be a private side / not game related.

Edit:

BTW it’s good to have all opinions represented here in the thread.
But there shouldn’t be flaming.

(unblind) #53

just for your information joe, the reason the domain redirects to 4players.de is that, although EasyRider owns the domains, 4players host the site (and game server) for us

between downloads of the game client e.t.c and players using the game server they have uploaded terabytes of data for us, as such they feel the need to recoup some of their operating costs by adding advertising to our site

we have tried to battle them to change the nature of the advertising to something more appropriate, we have suceeded in the short term but it always goes back in the end, but the long and short of it is that while they host it, they control what they add to the site.

i do believe we’d be hard pressed to find such a generous host but i can assure you none of the users or staff of the site have made any profit from it to the best of my knowledge, besides there are always ways around your e-problems (until someone has more lawyers than you :p)

(RosOne) #54

Joe999, I think you’re missing the point here. No one is going to boycott Activision, we will still buy ET:QW and until then we’ll be playing W:ET. No one is turning his back on Activision, Splash Damage or id Software.

Activision wants the www.enemy-territory.com domain. They claim they will get it anyway and as an act of settlement they are offering $250 and a game. And exactly that is the reason why people are upset. It’s something they shouldn’t do. That price is a joke, $2500 would be more appropriate.

From Activision’s point of view it’s a lot simpler. They piss of a couple people, get their domain and people will still buy Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. There are plenty of other fan sites which they can rely on, no need to get a headache over Nail not running a ET:QW site anymore.

Sure, Activision has the right to do this, no question about that, but are you ok with it? Is it a nice thing to do? No one said they have to be nice, of course, but c’mon.

No one can blame you on your perspective, you’re free to think whatever you like and no one (at least I’m not) is bashing or flaming you.

PS. About W:ET’s price: Sure it’s free, but do you think it’s still one of the top 10 multiplayer games because it was free 3 years ago? Since then people bought lots of multiplayer games, but are still playing W:ET. Did fan sites help make it popular or have you’ve been checking the official site for maps, mods, etc? Is it a sure thing that ET:QW would be in development if W:ET wouldn’t be such a huge success? In the end - who is making a game popular and successful? The publisher or the gamers?

I don’t see how anyone could not be mad about this. If you’re buying a Bic Mac and it tastes like crap you give it back and get a new one plus a free coke. You’re the customer, you are the one who pays. The more I think about it the more I’m mad. And I’ll better stop now…

(Sauron|EFG) #55

Great post Ros. :slight_smile:

Unless your name is Ronald, in which case you only get the free coke if you change your name. :wink:

(Joe999) #56

of course i’m not ok with it :wink: but i’m not ok either with the unprofessional way that this topic was started. looks more like Nail got the mail, got angry and started making threads. but that’s something he should sleep over before he posts, and words should be chosen wisely as this is the kind of info that spreads like fire. the way this thread currently goes doesn’t help anyone.

(Bernie) #57

They want to buy for 250$ !?

Just don’ t sell less than 250.000$, they can afford it… and they’ ll make a good deal !

(nUllSkillZ) #58

2nd one who is suggesting a higher price.
I think you can’t sell heart and soul.

(Bernie) #59

hmm, may be it will becoming a truth…

(kamikazee) #60

Raising the price too much isn’t good either - eg. Microsoft’s lawyers wait for such thing to get the domain free of charge since they make the previous owner look like someone who bought the domain only for the profit of reselling. (Was it “cybersquater”?)