Big time lawsuits brewing between Valve and Vivendi

Ralfst3r said:
I think Valve can get any Publisher they want. Not a problem at all :)

and lose everything becasue they broke a distribution contract with vivendi. Valve and vivendi are no more...and with the projects currently in development, vivendi is pissed. they want a renewal, and if the judge sides with vivendi on how they have rights to steam, it may just work that way. Dammit if i don't want that to happen. One last game for vivendi...HL2. No TF2, no future expansions, no nothing. HL2 delivered, valve gets all their rights back on all IP. vevendi is SOL in continuing what may very well be the most marketable videogame frenchise known to man.
 
UPDATE:

Court filings show VU Games has the right to sit on finished Half-Life 2 code for up to six months. Could it be deja vu all over again?
As part of GameSpot's ongoing look into the two-year old copyright infringement case that pits business partners Valve Inc. and Vivendi Universal Games against each other in US District Court, additional documents uncovered this week reveal an interesting ace up VUG's sleeve.


In court filings dated August 27, 2004, VU Games' senior vice president and deputy general counsel Eric Roeder entered the following statement into the record.

"Valve has announced that it will deliver a release candidate version of Half-Life 2 (HL2) (a game required under the 2001 SPA) to Sierra/VUG within the next few weeks. If Valve delivers a release candidate version that complies with the contract and is a Final Milestone, then VUG will have six months to release the product under the 2001 SPA. Valve is pressing VUG to release the product early within that six month window, and its representatives have made a number of public statements without our consent or concurrence that the product will be published and released to the general public in September of this year."

The statement's implication is that VUG, angry with Valve's "public statements," could sit on Half-Life 2 for up to six months. But would VUG use this six-month window as leverage to force Valve to back down from demands contained in its original August 14, 2002 lawsuit?

Previously, VU Games found itself in the center of a similar conflict. At the end of September 2003, Interplay announced that it was terminating its distribution deal with VU Games, accusing the publisher of nonpayment of $3 million and failing to live up to the terms of its software publishing agreement for the console RPGs Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II.

Then, in October, Interplay announced Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel had gone gold. Interplay CEO Herve Caen went so far as to state that Interplay would distribute the two games itself, to make sure games were on retailer shelves for the all-important Holiday season. "[Retailers] already know the titles are coming out," Caen told the Orange County Register. "Profitability is contingent on the fourth quarter," Caen concluded.

Then, it was reported that VU Games was considering an injunction against Interplay to prevent it from distributing the games itself. While Brotherhood of Steel languished for in retail limbo, nary a peep was heard about the status of Dark Alliance II. Then, in November, the two announced they had suddenly resolved their issues. "We are pleased to have come to an understanding with Interplay and look forward to the upcoming launch of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel," said Philip O'Neil, VUG's then-senior vice president of sales and marketing.

However, the "understanding" VU Games' and Interplay reached didn't include Caen's wishes to release Brotherhood of Steel and Dark Alliance II in the fourth quarter. As it turned out, both titles failed to appear on shelves until the following year: Fallout was eventually released on January 14, 2004, with Dark Alliance hitting retail the following week. Sales of Dark Alliance were lackluster, while Brotherhood of Steel was both a critical and commercial disappointment.

Could a similar scenario befall Half-Life 2? "It’s a game of chicken the way I see it," said one industry observer. "VUG could hold HL2 hostage for 6 months (or threaten to) if they want to force Valve to give in to demands. But Valve knows VUG needs the revenue."

According to the two companies' current software publishing agreement, Valve cannot release the game via Steam until the retail version is brought to market by VU Games. That point was confirmed by Valve director of Marketing Doug Lombardi who said, "Half-Life 2 will be made available to customers who purchase via Steam at the same time it is made available at retail."

When asked if VUG could be targeting a "late-cycle" release date for Half-Life 2, Lombardi said, "We've been asking, but Vivendi has refused to communicate an expected retail release date for Half-Life 2." Additionally, Lombardi clarified Valve's perspective when it came to the company's desire to get the game into the hands of gamers. "We delivered the first release candidate last week, and hope to deliver the final version very soon," Lombardi said. For its part, VU Games declined GameSpot's requests for comment.

In other developments in the Valve versus VUG lawsuit, the judge hearing the case in District Court pushed the cutoff date for the two sides to present relevant documents (Discovery) from October 8, 2004 to December 31, 2004.

By Curt Feldman -- GameSpot
POSTED: 09/24/04 02:05 PM PST


Life just sucks.
 
if its delayed further the amount of people warezing this game will increase tenfold watch it'll happen
 
zdub said:
if its delayed further the amount of people warezing this game will increase tenfold watch it'll happen
No it won't, if someone was going to pirate it in the future then they would also pirate it now. The only people who even realize that HL2 has been delayed this much are the hardcore gamers that comprise probably less than 5% of total sales.
 
I feel sorry for the jury, sitting around in a smelly room all day so a bunch of nerds like us can get ahold of some game.
 
Hopefully there'll be some game fans on the jury!!!! I know they're all meant to be unbiased, but that's extraordinary difficult to achieve, and probably in 95% of court cases some bias creeps in somewhere, it's inevitable, we're not robot's after all!!!!

At the end of the day It all depends on the evidence both sides put forward, I don't think VU has much of a case though.
 
Contrary to popular belief, most court cases are decided by a judge unless a jury is explicitely requested for some reason.

And I highly doubt this is such a case. Just hope the law favors Valve.
 
Quite patently Valve are a bunch of liars!

The theft of the source code was obviously a set up, in order that Valve could push back the release date, so steam would be ready. Hence they maximise their profits.

It's that simple, Valve are a bunch of crooks.
 
thescotster19 said:
Quite patently Valve are a bunch of liars!

The theft of the source code was obviously a set up, in order that Valve could push back the release date, so steam would be ready. Hence they maximise their profits.

It's that simple, Valve are a bunch of crooks.

um..... yeah..... i'm sure lots of people agree with you.... *cough*

*looks around at the large empty paddock....of sheep*

i think it is slightly more complicated than that.......
 
thescotster19 said:
Quite patently Valve are a bunch of liars!

The theft of the source code was obviously a set up, in order that Valve could push back the release date, so steam would be ready. Hence they maximise their profits.

It's that simple, Valve are a bunch of crooks.

I'd love to be the guy that they hired to steal the source code, ya know, since he was cought, and is now in prison. Something tells me your theory is wrong. who would really risk getting cought by that bad of a crime?
 
Nah, I'm just pissed off that I don't have an internet connection, will probably have to download a crack to play hl2.

Pissed with Valve so inclined to believe they are evil at the mo.
 
thescotster19 said:
Nah, I'm just pissed off that I don't have an internet connection, will probably have to download a crack to play hl2.

Pissed with Valve so inclined to believe they are evil at the mo.
If you don't have internet then you won't be downloading a crack :D
 
So Valve got ripped off the profit of Half-Life 1, and now they're using Steam to get back at their publishers for not giving them enough dosh. Very unethical.

If Valve leave their Publishers, who knows where they'll go next. they cannot operate on their own, they need protection from a giant organisation to give them funding and advertisement.
 
groovy said:
So Valve got ripped off the profit of Half-Life 1, and now they're using Steam to get back at their publishers for not giving them enough dosh. Very unethical.

If Valve leave their Publishers, who knows where they'll go next. they cannot operate on their own, they need protection from a giant organisation to give them funding and advertisement.

Activision. ;)
 
Wise choice, but what if Activision screw em up?

If Valve leave before their contract expires they'll have to deal with more fines. So atm they should pretty much bend over and take it for the time being.
 
FISKER_Q said:
If you don't have internet then you won't be downloading a crack :D

I can't believe how many times I have to explain this to people!

I have internet after a fashion, ie. I use an internet cafe, and I can plug my MP3 player into the USB to transport the crack back to my gaming computer which doesn't have the internet.

I'm in the military and it's simply not a possibility to have my computer connected to the internet, until the Royal Navy decides it would be prudent to install broadband in shoreside cabins on base.

So you can see, I cannot 'Activate' my copy of Half-Life 2 but I can download programs that will allow me to play the game without activation.

The question I ask myself however is that since I will be unable to get hold of updates and extra content since they will only be available through steam, should I really pay for the game?

Why shouldn't I simply buy the game, install it, crack it, then take the game back to the shop and say my computer wasn't good enough?

I probably won't, since despite this bad decision, I still believe they deserve my money. They have been working their asses off for 6 years. They could be a little more accomodating though.
 
thescotster19 said:
I can't believe how many times I have to explain this to people!

I have internet after a fashion, ie. I use an internet cafe, and I can plug my MP3 player into the USB to transport the crack back to my gaming computer which doesn't have the internet.

I'm in the military and it's simply not a possibility to have my computer connected to the internet, until the Royal Navy decides it would be prudent to install broadband in shoreside cabins on base.

So you can see, I cannot 'Activate' my copy of Half-Life 2 but I can download programs that will allow me to play the game without activation.

The question I ask myself however is that since I will be unable to get hold of updates and extra content since they will only be available through steam, should I really pay for the game?

Why shouldn't I simply buy the game, install it, crack it, then take the game back to the shop and say my computer wasn't good enough?

I probably won't, since despite this bad decision, I still believe they deserve my money. They have been working their asses off for 6 years. They could be a little more accomodating though.

You can activate your copy the same way as the crack, so yes you can.
 
FISKER_Q said:
You can activate your copy the same way as the crack, so yes you can.

Elaborate please. Are you suggesting I can download my 'Activation' onto my removable disk?

Doesn't make sense.
 
thescotster19 said:
Elaborate please. Are you suggesting I can download my 'Activation' onto my removable disk?

Doesn't make sense.
The information for it's activation is stored. That's how there are utilities to work around steam.

They might've found some fixes to it though.
 
Back
Top