Max Payne. The great equaliser. A video game about a cop on a journey to avenge the murder of his wife through copious amounts of murder on his own end. A gaming classic, slathered in moody melodrama, heavily black and white colours and comic panel theming and the genesis of the much renowned 'Bullet Time' mechanic. It's also the major point of contact through which the struggling juggernauts of today intersect before now. Because you see, both Remedy and Rockstar games had their chance to touch the franchise with their own games for it. Whatever you have to say about Max Payne 3- Rockstar did throw their weight behind trying to continue the franchise that Remedy currently couldn't. So you might think a silly little dispute like this could be swept up in the background between companies with enough points of contact to settle this sensibly. You'd have thought incorrectly.
It seems that Remedy and Rockstar have entered into contention over the ownership of the letter R. Yes, it is a very valuable and useful letter, resplendent yet reserved, regal and rambunctious- but to be clear the actual contention is over the branding of these studio logos. Take a quick look at Remedy's logo, then mosey on over at Rockstar's. Both very minimalist, as is the style with modern day company iconography, and both featuring that all important consonant. As is ever the case with hyper-active lawsuit filers, this 'of course' means you need to be terrified over the ever present possibility of the moronic public eyeing the two brands and assuming one is the other despite- you know- the very distinct and noticeable difference in colour, the echo effect on Remedy's logo and, you know, the fact that Remedy's logo literally has the word 'Remedy' under the R. That's uh... a pretty explicit difference right there. You'd think the issue would be wrapped up by that alone.
But to be fair, I'm pretty sure the big legal departments of these massive studios are kept on tentative retainer on the expectation that they will proactively justify their own existence wherever possible. Of course, sometimes there are internal departments that are just chomping at the bit to exercise their power, flex them sore muscles. I can't appear to spot any apparent legal Department listed in Rockstar's key executives, but I'm sure I'm just missing them tucked away under someone else. Maybe Marketing. Either way, it's pretty obvious that this is a Rockstar or Take Two aggressor because in situations like this it's always them running to the court house. (And, you know, no one would be stupid enough to try and take on Rockstar in court. Except for the Florida Joker. That guy already made enough poor choices to get the fame he has, threatening to sue the most litigious company in gaming is just on-brand at that point.) They must have a tent up in the courtroom or something for often they're there!
And Remedy weren't a problem for all the many years they were nose-to-the-grindstone, trying to make Alan Wake 2 the best it can be. But show up to the Game Awards, get a little celebration under your belt and suddenly it's all "These guys are going to dilute our brand! You have to stop them!" Were we in a world of sense and logic this would be a frivolous waste of time- but Rockstar have both the size and the connections to outlaw such a world in their proceedings. If there were any legal precedent for suing people into a death sentence, Rockstar would be in contention for America's leading cause of death after drunk driving incidents- they are a company as obsessed with mastering the intricacies of game design as they are with the brusque art of legal beatdowns.
Let us not forget the time that Rockstar went out of their way to hunt down and digitally eradicate all traces of mods for Grand Theft Auto's III through to San Andreas, after facilitating something of a quiet relationship with many of the bigger mod developers beforehand. Or how about when they banned TPain from playing GTA RP because he is apparently helping with Grand Theft Auto VI's soundtrack. Why, because the guy can't be trusted with a simple NDA? You have to ban him from interacting with the community as well? Or is it because if TPain is acknowledged as being involved with GTA VI and is seen having fun in his own personal streaming career, then that might be construed as a quite approval for this unofficial way of playing GTA V? Mayhaps that be the issue?
It seems all of Rockstar's legal prickliness stems from their xenophobia over anyone experiencing their products in a way not tactically intended by the developer and it's oddly reminiscent of Nintendo's view on all things related to their properties. Only- Nintendo has the rather flimsy excuse that they're trying to protect the family friendly image of their brand from anything they don't explicitly control, which is also their excuse for debuting a modern video game console without any form of voice chat, by the way. But what's the excuse for Rockstar? They aren't shrinking violets when it comes to adult content, they court controversy with every breath and as they are happy to demonstrate in an overly zealous manner, any genuine breaches of their conduct could be surgically removed with a well-aimed lawsuit if they pleased. So what's with the scorched earth policy?
Many are eager to sprint to their defence and declare innocence on behalf of Rockstar, because all these evils are actually the purview of their parent company Take Two- but I think there's something of a misunderstanding here about how subservient Rockstar are to the boys upstairs. If Rockstar wanted to tone down the zealous nature of their image they have the power and influence to get that done- they are the single most well received video game company in the world right now and if they make a suggestion then any money-minded executive with their head on straight is going to follow the directive. Take Two's overzealous nature when it comes to these take downs is either due to rank indifference on Rockstar's end, or a harmonious conviction to lock up the IP to the public.
There's enough space in the world for two company's with largely different names that happen to share the same first initial and distinct logos. Just as there's enough space for two producers with strangely similar names such as 'Take Two' and '2K'. The reputation of fear so eagerly stoked with this muscle flexing is the same aura of terror that makes Rockstar so standoffish, which makes it so inaccessible to the public, which sours the next generation of developers who might otherwise aspire to one day lend their talents to the heroes who's games they used to take apart and backwards engineering back in the day. I just hope Rockstar fully comprehend the extent of the persona that they're building for themselves, because it's one hell of a doozy if they don't see it coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment