If we get them it will be later. More likely when they incorporate the legendary mechs, units etc in the game.
Most Recent News on Certain Legal Issues
- Thread starter Sable Phoenix
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If we get them it will be later. More likely when they incorporate the legendary mechs, units etc in the game.
.png){kind=avatar}
Friendly reminder from someone with no actual authority - no speculation in this thread, please. You'll call the wrath of the mods down on us.
I just want to point out the obvious outcome of what happened. It is in Russ Bullock's answer:
"Piranha Games will continue to use the "classic" BattleTech designs..."
While it states nothing specific it states the obvious. What are the classic BattleTech designs? You know the answer.
The fact that PGI will continue using whatever assets they've been using is unimportant to me. I want to know what the impact this resolution will have on MOVING FORWARD for both PGI (i.e. MechWarrior V) and HBS' BattleTech. Or did the agreed upon language prohibit any mention of future plans?
I can see the press releases now: "We've decided to make some changes to a game, at some point in the future, which may or may not be momentous! Stay Tuned (but only if you feel like it)!!!" LOL
The modding subforum has been under discussion and deliberation since just after the forums opened, the timing of creating it is just a coincidence.
And it wasn't legal issues that made them hold off so long, it was the fact that they only have modding subforums for games that officially support modding - this one doesn't, and that's why it took a while to get it up and running (even with numerous disclaimers about no official support).
My recollection is that one of the Dev Q&A sessions indicated that there was a deal where PGI provided mech art assets to HBS and HBS would provide its non-mech art assets to PGI (presumably vehicles, dropships, jumpships, etc.). This would appear to be a win-win sort of business deal, as it made BATTLETECH faster to develop and will make MW5 faster to develop.
MWO added the unseen quite a while ago, while this game was still in early production, and maybe before HBS announced the deal with PGI to exchange resources (can't quite remember the exact timing).
HBS also announced during the Kickstarter campaign that at least some of the unseen were planned for BattleTech.
It's possible that HBS already developed the unseen assets for BattleTech, based on the designs they got from PGI, and were unable to include them in the game because of the legal issues.
Hopefully we'll see them sooner rather than later or never, but we probably won't find out until they drop, if they do.
HBS also announced during the Kickstarter campaign that at least some of the unseen were planned for BattleTech.
It's possible that HBS already developed the unseen assets for BattleTech, based on the designs they got from PGI, and were unable to include them in the game because of the legal issues.
Hopefully we'll see them sooner rather than later or never, but we probably won't find out until they drop, if they do.
There were assets for the Marauder in an early build - I remember seeing the footage from that demo mission. But I'm pretty sure that other assets would have to be developed to get that into final stages - for instance, IIRC the ejection mechanics were added after the unseen were cut. So that's additional time that would have to be spent getting even the farthest-along mech assets prepped for use in the current game.
Wait a min......it doesnt say anywhere on the court documents that there were stipulations to drop this case right? A stipulation would mean we agree to drop this case with prejudice ONLY IF. We dont have that here. The court would need to know about any stipulations AKA agreements to enforce them. Guys we are clear we won.
Not incorporating the settlement agreement into the court order doesn't mean that there isn't a settlement agreement. It just means that if there's a breach of the agreement, there is potentially new litigation about the breach that doesn't come back in front of this court.
For example, PGI and HG could have made a settlement agreement that stipulated that any alleged breach would be dealt with through binding arbitration, avoiding the courtroom route in favor of arbitration instead. Judge Zilly wouldn't need to get involved then.
If the parties and the court all agree that they want the same court to handle the issue, they can include that as part of the joint motion. But there's no obligation to do so here.
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 US 375 - Supreme Court 1994 (should you wish to trawl through the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter)
For example, PGI and HG could have made a settlement agreement that stipulated that any alleged breach would be dealt with through binding arbitration, avoiding the courtroom route in favor of arbitration instead. Judge Zilly wouldn't need to get involved then.
If the parties and the court all agree that they want the same court to handle the issue, they can include that as part of the joint motion. But there's no obligation to do so here.
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 US 375 - Supreme Court 1994 (should you wish to trawl through the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter)
Only in regards to attorney fees etc. There was a link previously to someone "reviewing" the court document. It's only 2 pages, it was unsigned (at the time) by the Judge. No details other than they agree to dismissal (including all claims against Inmediaries Productions LLC) with prejudice.
Did you get a car or something, a cookie perhaps? I didn't win anything.
A cookie would be nice. *sigh* back to the wringing of handsOnly in regards to attorney fees etc. There was a link previously to someone "reviewing" the court document. It's only 2 pages, it was unsigned (at the time) by the Judge. No details other than they agree to dismissal (including all claims against Inmediaries Productions LLC) with prejudice.
Did you get a car or something, a cookie perhaps? I didn't win anything.
Yup, sorta the point I was going for. Guess my sense of humor doesn't translate well through the keyboard
But why are you saying pgu signed an agreement with out knowing what they signed
Because the all did. HBS and HG settled , PGI and HG settled , a settlement is an agreemnet. We will never likely know the details , but they all agreed to something with HG. We didn't win anything. HG didn't lose anything. They came to an agreement with the parties they sued and agreed to end the lawsuit. Whether that be a payoff, a percentage of the profit or whatever , this battle is not going to be 100% resolved until at least 2020+
2021 is the date, IIRC, when HG distribution rights for Robotech comes to an end. Given the bad blood that exists between HG & the Japanese Company that owns the IP, I sincerely doubt those distribution rights will ever be renewed.
To be honest, though, I still feel a judge should have dismissed HG suit, with prejudice, the moment it became known they launched the case without the necessary paperwork from the Japanese Courts.