Pre Civilization Egypt

[Philippe]

I haven't watched the video yet.  I thought about getting it but have doubts about the replayabilitity.  Wishlisted.

Same.


I'm a bit concerned about it's depth.  Is it another made-for-tablet game?  Read mentions of it being rather puzzle-like in it's strategy.

But I'm always looking for more ancient bronze age stuff.  Someone will give impressions, I hope.

The made for tablet medium informs the presentation of their game, and that's one of the reasons they aren't charging fifty dollars for it (at least they won't until they get picked up by Matrix, but that's another story).  I think the initial release price is about eight bucks, which isn't much.

I suspect that they were thinking tablet, but actually made the game for the PC, though I could be wrong.

This game is not about Egypt in the Bronze Age.  It's not even about Egypt in the Early Bronze Age.  It's about Egypt from the end of the Mesolithic, through the Neolithic and Chalcolithic (aka Copper Age), and pretty much ends when you unify Egypt.  The First Dynasty and the Old Kingdom (the one that built mastabas and pyramids) are in the next game that they probably haven't made yet.  So it's about Egypt before the Early Bronze Age, and really is about the invention of civilization. The name of the game is unfortunate, and should have been Egypt: Pre-Dynastic Civilization. In this game you get to watch the Egyptians figure out what it means to be Egyptian, and why.  The agricultural revolution and the invention of beer are a big deal.  Narmer and the Scorpion King  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_King)  put in cameo appearences.

You play this game because you like looking at the art.  If you don't love the art, you should play something else because you won't like the game.

[clarusvictoria]

Hello! Thank you for your interest in our game. I'm one of the developers of the game, just come to pay you our respects, and so you can to evaluate all the features of the game, I would like to suggest you to play the demo versions:

For Windows https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzZwzbvbTtHLRkxMZDJoUEZFWDg/view?usp=sharing
For Mac https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzZwzbvbTtHLQ1dOSGhYSDRoSGc/view?usp=sharing

Hope you will like it!

[glen55]

I've always been on the lookout for pre-civilization games, ever since I found the most interesting part of Civ I to be the beginning. I would really LOVE a strategy game about taking a tribe of cavepersons and making them into a civilization.

The closest to that, and my favorite pre-civilization game, is King of Dragon's Pass.

Interested in hearing reviews on this, but I'll probably buy it anyway.

[Philippe]

Clarus Victoria, Egypt's developer has just had this and another game (Marble Age) dropped from Steam.

Here's a link to their statement.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/461620/discussions/0/215439774862269688/

This is a sad example of the 800 pound gorilla getting to make the rules. 

I presume that Valve/Steam's in-house legal department is (correctly)  more concerned about getting sued by Take Two Interactive than Clarus Victoria -- Valve/Steam have the deepest pockets and are the natural target.

As a small Russian company, Clarus Victoria doesn't have an American counsel to write Steam, Valve, 2 K Inc., and Take Two Interactive the appropriate starchy letters, and they can't afford one (they'd probably have to go through Russian counsel to a legal correspondent, and that could mean double fees).

And they haven't a clue as to how to go about getting the big boys to back off.

Russians probably think Civil Code is the norm for how legal issues are supposed to work outside Russia, because most of their neighbors in Western Europe use it.

Steam will (and did) drop them like a hot potato because if you had to lose a customer and had to choose between 2 K Inc. and Clarus Victoria, ...

A good lawyer would know how to negotiate them out of this bind, but I am not a lawyer (I hope Jarhead sees this).

If you can ignore the drama queen act, the YouTube video has some important pieces of the fact pattern.

[Philippe]

Here is a direct link to Clarus Victoria's YouTube posting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdBXksKoiAo

[Hartford688]

I haven't watched the video yet.  I thought about getting it but have doubts about the replayabilitity.  Wishlisted.

Same.


I'm a bit concerned about it's depth.  Is it another made-for-tablet game?  Read mentions of it being rather puzzle-like in it's strategy.

But I'm always looking for more ancient bronze age stuff.  Someone will give impressions, I hope.

Somehow, playing this on a tablet seems very in theme.

[Raied]

All my support to Clarus Victoria, I will what I can do... share and share

[Hofstadter]

Holy crap, 2K went full on Fine Brothers

[Boggit]

I hope Clarus Victoria do challenge 2K's trademark, in the word "Civilization". At first sight it seems to me that 2K are being anti-competitive on a very tenuous argument - that they "own" the word "Civilization" - a word in common usage. If they are right then, perhaps I should be "clever" and register the trademarks in the words "a", "the", "is", "and" etc... :DD 

The hijacking of commonly used words as a trademark is vulnerable to challenge in English law (and also EU law [which supercedes the law of a member state], although this may vary in other jurisdictions), to prevent monopoly abuse by creating an artificial assumption of ownership in a common term. If challenged this can result in a registered trademark being deregistered - if the Courts find the trade mark holder "blameworthy" in usage not linked to the business complaining of infringement - and the fragility of registered trademarks relying on a "common word", as opposed to a graphical mark (the trade mark itself - logo if you like) is well known to Intellectual Property lawyers.

The basic idea behind the trademark is the creation of a distinguishable, identifiable mark that indicates to the public the origin of the branded product. The legal system encourages intellectual property law judges to strike a balance between giving protection for investment, and innovation (R&D), and competition. As such it creates a set of limited monopolies - often time limited (e.g. copyright and patents) as a reward, but the courts must also weigh the balance when intellectual property is abused to prevent competition by stretching the protections offered to an unreasonable degree (e.g. an infringement of copyright would usually fail with the defence of research or private study). Even a trade mark can be revoked when a trade mark loses its distinctiveness for being generic e.g. Sellotape, or Formica, or for being abuse to unreasonably restrict competition, e.g. with a clearly identifiable, different product, unlikely to confuse the general public as to origin.

Given that the word "Civilization" is in common usage, if I were in Clarus Victoria's shoes I would consult an Intellectual Property lawyer in the jurisdiction of the registration of the trade marks to establish the strength of 2K's position. I'd also be asking my lawyer about looking to 2K for loss of sales profit as well as challenging their trade mark registration. Common sense would suggest that 2K protect its trade mark interest from challenge by agreeing a licence for Clarus Victoria to use the term for a nominal sum, rather than try to stifle independent competition, which isn't attacking their (2K's) sales of the "Civilization" game. Clearly the two games are very different.

I personally think 2K will has a hard job enforcing a finding of infringement of their Trade Mark in the common word "Civilization", without seriously risking the deregistration of the trade mark, as an abuse of using a common term to stifle genuine competition in the games marketplace. As a customer I think there is no way I'd be confused as to the origin of the Sid Meier Civilization games, and the Clarus Victoria games.

Source: WR Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (4th Ed.)

[Philippe]

Not sure where 2K's trademark is registered.  It might get mentioned in the exchange of e-mails in that video.

Clarus Victoria may not be able to afford an American lawyer even if we do figure out what state the trademarks are registered in.

But I would think that the threat of damages plus the possible deregistration of the trademark would be enough inducement for 2K to back off.

I get the impression that the party causing the ruckus is a trademark enforcement for hire company in Pennsylvania.  I wonder how long they would keep their client's business if the trademark were de-registered.

And doesn't monopolistic behavior open the doors for action under the Sherman anti-Trust act?

The problem is that all this might prove to be a pyrrhic victory for Clarus Victoria even if they come out on top.

[Boggit]

It needn't be so bad for Clarus Victoria. If they're poor they can do a lot of groundwork themselves before instructing a lawyer. They need to know the jurisdiction of the trademark, which if they don't already know from any cease and desist letter, they can look to see where the registered office of 2K is and start there. They otherwise need to do, IIRC a trademark search, which is more involved, and they would be well advised to consult a trade mark attorney, or in a pinch a trade mark agent (who can probably tell them much they need to know, although specific legal advice and court/client representation is probably out of their remit). Once they know the jurisdiction to get a better general idea of where they are with the matter, they need to read up on the Trade Mark law of the jurisdiction - getting a good current professional studies text book, and reading up relevant case law. This will save some time (and costs) with their lawyers if they already have a good appreciation of the legal issues, even if they don't fully understand how to go about their options - that's why they need to instruct an IP lawyer anyway.

As to the phyrric victory, the best case scenario for them is that 2K decide to maintain face, and grant them a licence for use for a nominal sum, rather than be obstructive and find Clarus Victoria say "fu** you, we'll challenge the trademark, as we have a very different, distinguishable, product and you are using the trademark to restrict competition in a matter where your business is not threatened by our usage of the term".

Of course, if you don't assert registered trade marks on infringement they can be revoked (certainly in the UK and EU) on the basis of acquiescence, so I'm not totally unsympathetic to 2K seeking to enforce, even if it is for a common word.

Nonetheless, honour can be satisfied for both parties by a sensible settlement not needing to go to court - along the lines I've already mentioned. Of course, if they go the whole hog to court, like you say, it becomes expensive for both parties, and hardly commercially viable with the products involved. Far better to settle amicably out of court keeping the costs down, getting on with business, and with 2K satisfied that any potential infringement has been addressed, so that it can't be said that they acquiesced in the face of infringement. Everybody wins.