They could always do a movie based on...
Gaming rock star Notch, the man behind the childhood-devouring mega-smash Minecraft, has pulled the plug on a fan movie based on the game. The film, titled “Birth of Man” was to be crowdfunded. A Kickstarter begging page started off well enough, gathering a little over ten per cent of its $US600,000 goal. But things went …
Special effects, he promised, “will be done on PC's, not super-computers”
Not a new concept.. The sci-fi spoof "Star Wrek: in the Pirkinning" was rendered this way already in 2005. Looked pretty good despite the shoestring budget. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472566/ (where the "trivia" section tells the rendering took 5 years overall).
Speaking as someone who was using Lightwave and NewTek's Video Toaster at the time..... The Toaster had nothing to do with Lightwave. Lightwave could be used without the Toaster (although until '94 you could only get it by buying a Toaster). The Video Toaster purely handled switching, keying, and character generation. It was in no way involved in rendering in Lightwave. That was handled by the 680x0 chip in the Amiga.
Waiting for full trace renders in Imagine or Lightwave on a 68040 could mean hours for a single frame.
"My first thought was Babylon 5, though they did have a special piece of hardware (Video Toaster). I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, though."
I personally like the series, but due to the technology, it is now easy to see when the CG was invoked (it reduces the resolution and is easy to notice in DVD releases). I personally would like to see the series upgraded to BluRay quality the way they're redoing Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I maintain skepticism over the possibility (mainly the availability of the original film footage).
I can see his point although I think his stupid, there are identical free clones of this game that will love the coverage and probably jump at the chance.
This guy seems a bit of a numpty if im honest, he is quite happy to sell the game on the android market, he sells it for windows desktop, he even sells it on Apples market as well as Microsoft xbox stores but he refuses to put it on to the Windows RT market because on principle he doesn't like the start menu!
yeah I know his made his millions but why chop off a whole chunk of your market, for nothing but a personal gripe, MS has said the game is ready to run, just needs his nod, but he openly refuses to do it!
Sorry mate, but you need to sort your self out or you will go down as not only creating one of the biggest hit games in a generation but of also being an equally big cock.
If I write a game, why do I have to port it to any specific platform at all?
I could say Linux kernel only, or XBox only etc, and nobody at all can force me to change my mind.
One of the above has been done several times.
Will Microsoft port Halo to Linux? I doubt it, and they don't have to - it's entirely up to them.
- Also, if Microsoft really did have a port ready to go, it would imply they had done something they are not permitted to do... MS legal isn't stupid!
>>"If I write a game, why do I have to port it to any specific platform at all?"
You don't, but if your reason not to is stupid, then people will be irritated and reasonably so.
>>"Will Microsoft port Halo to Linux? I doubt it, and they don't have to - it's entirely up to them"
Presumably MS would reply that the install base for GNU/Linux on home PCs is tiny tiny compared to Windows and that this doesn't justify the work. You see the difference - one is a reason based on economics, the other is a reason based on something petty. He doesn't have to use the Start Page if he doesn't want to. But others of us like it and don't see his dislike a good reason to refuse our money.
>>"In summary, Windows 8 x86 runs the Windows version just fine, and Windows 8 RT has a minuscule installed base, apparently no Java (really!?) and thus would be incredibly expensive to do and lead to very few sales. That all adds up to a strong economic argument not to do it.
You seem to be ignoring that the developer himself has stated that he's not going to allow it because he dislikes Windows 8. He's on record and been perfectly clear on that point. No financial reasons given. He stated that maybe disallowing Minecraft on Windows 8 would help lose Microsoft a few sales of it. But you ignore even the developer of the software itself in favour of your own unsupported argument because you think it is easier to spin. What is your basis for saying it would be "incredibly expensive" to port? You have no idea, in actuality. And it seems that the job was actually already done because this whole thing came about because Microsoft approached Notch asking to certify it for Windows 8, so apparently pretty far along.
Once again: Richard 0: Reality 1.
You should really stop making things up and relying on sounding confident to win an argument. You just get shot down and the only reason you get any upvotes at all is because you pander to people's prejudices.
"I could say Linux kernel only, or XBox only etc, and nobody at all can force me to change my mind.
One of the above has been done several times."
Indeed you are correct. The number of programs that unnecesarily use linux-hooks is staggering.
When a Linux user moans about programs not being portable, generally he/she really means that said program doesn't run on Linux - if a program only runs on Linux, then everyone else 'should be using llinux' anyway.
It's not just with totally differrent operating systems - In Linux, if an implementation doesn't work properly, instead of fixing it, Linux people rewrite a new standard.
OSS -> ALSA anyone? And yku only have to go by the names to see how much Linux folk really care about portability. The 'O' in OSS stands for 'open'; the 'L' in ALSA stands for 'Linux'...
And now the Unix world is facing similar crap with the move to udev/upower etc. when better solutions already exist elsewhere, and of course, the 'software should be portable' vocalists then change their code only to work with these Linuxisms.....
Sigh, the hypocracy of some people in the Linux camp when moaning about Microsoft is probably going to be highlighted by the amount of downvotes with no reasoned comeback this post and others receive if they dare criticise anything-Linux.
Bring it on, fanbois!
OSS -> ALSA anyone? And yku only have to go by the names to see how much Linux folk really care about portability. The 'O' in OSS stands for 'open'; the 'L' in ALSA stands for 'Linux'...
You're still using ALSA? How very 2005.
It's PulseAudio these days if you want to go to that low a level and not just drag in OpenAL Soft, SDL::Mixer or some other cross-platform sound library.
"You're still using ALSA? How very 2005.
It's PulseAudio these days if you want to go to that low a level and not just drag in OpenAL Soft, SDL::Mixer or some other cross-platform sound library."
Nooooo. Using OSS on not-Linux. channel mixing has been around like, forever. And per-channel mixing has been a few years too.
Pulse audio etc. are sound servers anyway - they still talk to alsa/oss at the lower level!
No, there is a reason for Windows RT, it doesn't run (for the most part) x86 code, so yes an RT version would make sense,
That site has links to the original comments and sums up quite nicely the stupidity of it all
Yes your right, he doesn't have to port it to anything, his the developer and can do what he wants, BUT the only reason he isn't pushing the "go" button is because he doesn't like Windows 8. From a commercial point of view THAT is stupidity. Of course this is the register and we are talking about Microsoft and Windows so that means be default we all have to be against MS and thus pro Notch, but if you replace MS and windows with any other platform and apply the same logic, you will see its stupid. Dev costs are non existent, its done already, support costs might go up, but so would income.
There is the X360 version, the PS3 version, they all take time, this costs money. Then there will almost certainly next be XBOne and PS4 versions, but these are all guaranteed sales.
Win 8 can run the Windows version and how many people would buy the TIKFAM tablet for games? But a note to Notch, I have two Minecraft mad teenagers here who want it on their Vitas.
I know this might come as a shock to some, but making tons of money (especially when you've already done so) isn't always the be all and end all of motivations. Profit =/= value.
If he was broke and his was his only choice, I'm sure he would allow an RT version, but he isn't so he wont.
Sometimes your principles give way to your needs, but in this case they don't have to (even if you disagree with the principle).
> That site has links to the original comments and sums up quite nicely the stupidity of it all
Let me try and spell this out for you as you appear to be have suffered a rush of shit to the brain.
1. Notch refused to help certify Minecraft on x86 Windows 8. Minecraft runs fine on x86 Windows 8 tablets like the Surface Pro. Note that certification would very likely have been a non-starter anyway as it breaks at least two of Microsoft's arbitrary rules (it's not standalone and it's not feature complete).
2. Minecraft is a Java game and Windows RT does not appear to have a Java implementation. Therefore Notch would have to write an entirely separate port. Your assertion that this is already written is entirely wrong.
3. Windows RT is a very small market compared to the any of the others and with the cost of development and the SDK it's entirely likely they would make a loss.
4. You can (allegedly) run Minecraft with some fiddling on Windows RT anyway.
What Notch is refusing to do is spend his time and his money developing a version of his game for a tiny market. That seems fair enough to me.
FYI:The reason you are rustling so many jimmies with your comments is that Notch is one of the very few remaining good guys in the gaming industry.
If Notch is not certifying Minecraft as an anti-Windows8 strategy (that is, to discourage Win8 adoption) he gets my full support. While Apple is the epitome of not only closed and controlled platforms but control-freakery and "screw the devs, we'll do what I say" not even Jobs did what Ballmer and Sinofsky pulled off with the TIFKAM thingy on Win8. They were told by pretty much everyone that TIFKAM was a disaster and they stayed course. The end result is that the thing isn't being bought except on new PCs, and given that new PCs no longer have Win7 as an option (at least not easily for consumers) the PC sales that were already falling took a nosedive.
Win 8's TIFKAM should be deprecated, those responsible should be fired and a service pack should be offered for free allowing to revert the UI into Aero at the very least and turn TIFKAM into an optional thing. (Keep the UI on tablets, where it's supposed to be useful.)
Compare Apple; they did add iOS-ish features to OSX but all of these are optional. I'm not forced to use Launchpad and it seems that most OSX users don't use it. On Win8, you have to use the hideous Start Screen, and a lot of config stuff is now only available on TIFKAM. They screwed the pooch big time.
"Sorry mate, but you need to sort your self out or you will go down as not only creating one of the biggest hit games in a generation but of also being an equally big cock."
So if someone decided to make a movie about you or something that you made, without asking first, then you'd be cool with that?
"Err, no, I wouldn't, but rather than spit my dummy out id have a wee"
I don't think he spat his dummy out. He made the kind of sarcastic comment on Twitter that I would without threat of lawyers. I imagine that he also spoke to them, because I doubt the production company would shut their plans down just because of a Twitter post, do you?
I'd say the man's tweet had bright neon lights pointing at the latch to open the door.
The man has a trademark and like it or not, under the law he is required to protect it or he loses it. Having been involved in two such disputes I can tell you the typical response, usually drafted by a lawyer is something along the lines of:
Dear [insert name of defendant here]:
[Name of trademark holder] has become aware of ongoing work [defendant] is engaged in which violates their trademark protected materials. Cease and desist all activities in regard to this project immediately and [insert rest of terms here, including but not limited to turning over or destroying all infringing materials, posting public notices of your infringement and apologizing for same]. If not we will be forced to pursue legal remedies.
Now, if another lawyer reads the letter they may think to ask for permission and/or licensing terms. If the transmitting lawyer is really, really nice [not all that common] they MIGHT leave a pointer that the plaintiff is really angling for a licensing deal but are required to respond in the manner indicated. In the first dispute I was involved in, the lawyer was directed to write the hint in the letter because frankly the defendant was bigger than we were and gave us great publicity. We knew the defendant had intended it as a compliment, but our hands were tied. Thankfully their lawyer understood, sent the appropriate reply, and we granted permission to use the trademark with the appropriate notice. In the second instance we sent the other kind of letter because there was no other resolution we would regard as satisfactory.
>>"he even sells it on Apples market as well as Microsoft xbox stores but he refuses to put it on to the Windows RT market because on principle he doesn't like the start menu!"
You're joking, seriously? Is there a source for that. Not calling you a liar, I just want to see what he actually said and how in case there's anything in there that makes it sound less stupid (benefit of the doubt, I try not to condemn based on second hand reports). How petty and selfish? I've occasionally looked in the store to see if it's available out of curiosity (never played the game) and been surprised it hasn't appeared there, yet.
So the reason I can't play it because the Start Page (which I like) is something he doesn't!
Then decide if you actually want to make the film, or would prefer to sit on the rights for an indefinite time period. (This happens a lot)
The prospective film maker was an idiot. You do not try to use any well-known* IP without getting the rights!
This was even true back in the days of silent cinema - look at what happened to "Nosferatu" because they did a Dracula clone without permission from Bram Stoker's estate.
* If it's not well-known and you are a big Hollywood studio, you can often get away with it and pay a pittance after you get sued.
>>>It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Doesn't make it right.<<<
Not in the movie world. You can sink as much money as you like, but if the IP holder says 'no', it's dead money. More likely the IP holder takes the opportunity to scalp you at the same time. Nobody will touch it without full chain of title (and that's a helluvalotta paperwork right there)
I don't think that's true.
I can make a film about anything I like and no-one can stop me as long as I don't pretend it is authorised or use copyrighted material without permission. So the film could concentrate on the game writers early life and his existential angst as a teenager (should he have had one) but it can't show large sections of Minecraft game play.
...not that I really care that this particular film will never be made......
Possibly that's true, possibly even a well-funded lawyer might acknowledge the point, but since that copyright material includes aspects of look and feel, graphic designs, names, etc this movie was surely infringing. Even before they "borrowed" the company logos to make it look approved...
A sad case in point - the splendid 2004 book "Tarzan Presley" (being a fusion of the Tarzan story and the Elvis legend used to examine the Kiwi mythos - and a bloody good read) was sued to oblivion by the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs, since he invented the character in 1912. It got reissued as "Jungle Rock Blues" with Caliban Presley as the protagonist - luckily so far the estate of William Shakespeare has stayed their hand... (glass half-full: it seems the Presley Estate can accept that the cultural significance of Elvis makes reference both inevitable and not inappropriate)
The more serious problem was that the entire kickstarter description was specifically written to make it look like it was fully endorsed and approved by Mojang (the company that owns Minecraft). The document was even signed off with the Mojang name and copyright notices.
That's not the way to ask somebody for permission...
This post has been deleted by its author
The idiot behind the film either needed to get permission first - or maybe he was hoping to force permission by getting all the fans first and then it would be Notch's fault. Either way - a complete chancer.
The fact that he commented that Minecraft was perfect for a film since there wasn't any pre-existing plot to deal with in terms of the main character filled me with dread too. There wasn't much pre-existing plot behind the Doom film either - look how well that turned out.
Oh - and to the guy complaining about no minecraft on Windows RT... stop trying to make Windows RT happen - it's going into the dustbin of history just like Windows CE.
There was a pre-existing plot to Doom, scientists open gateway to hell on Mars, marine goes in to kill everything. The film makers, because they are 'artists', decided that wasn't suitable and just made Resident Evil in space.
If you want a decent game into movie fix try Forward unto Dawn. It may be just a fancy extended advert but it actually made me want to play the game.
"There wasn't much pre-existing plot behind the Doom film either - look how well that turned out."
The original Doom game and its sequel didn't have much of a story, mostly "UAC set up base in Phobos and Deimos, find gateways, play with them, get invaded by Hell" with the second one extending the invasion to Earth. But Doom 3's reboot/remake of the whole story actually fleshed out a well-planned story. Hell, a whole play through could've been recorded by FRAPS and made for a movie by itself, and would've managed to be a far better movie than what was actually made.
IIRC the Doom movie had its plot changed to "Resident Evil IN SPAAAACE" out of fear from the whole Hell and Satanic themes causing an uproar from the conservatard/religious zealot groups. The resulting mess was… okay, better than an Uwe Boll movie, but anything is better than an Uwe Boll movie.
If you want to see a movie based on a near-to-none background story, I'd point to Super Mario Bros, which also turned out to be a turd.
"I'd of thought notch has made enough millions without wanting to milk some small production movie too, which lets face it is just more publicity for the game!"
Who said he wanted to make any money from it? All he said is he'd expect there'd be some negotiation first. This could be financial gain, sure, but it could also be a veto on the script or the inclusion of something by Notch. Perhaps a personal appearence or commentary - we dont know because the kickstarter didn't bother talking to him first.
I see. So making a full-length Star Trek fan movie is, well, fans dicking around not-for-profit, but a machinima/live-action hybrid set in a universe that has no story of its own is piracy on the high seas? Well, I suppose legally speaking Notch is fully entitled to be a bigger jerk than CBS any time he wants to be.
Star Wreck was was losely based on the Star Trek IP but it did not claim to be Star Trek, to make any money off it (assuming you are refering to in the Pirkening) they had to redo all the VFX replacing the origional Star Trek and Babylon 5 ships with home grown designs, in the Pirkining cost about 500 euros to make (excluding VFX, all of which were done by, if i remember correctly, the director on his home PC)
The Proposed Minecraft film was clearly claiming to be Minecraft, and was seeknig large sums of money.
If someone proposed a no budget film called "Professor Where" about an excentric man who traveled through time and space solving problems in a TOURBUS (Timetravel Orginising Unsafe Red Bus with Uncomfortable Seats) , would the BBC have grounds to sue?
So making a full-length Star Trek fan movie is, well, fans dicking around not-for-profit, but a machinima/live-action hybrid set in a universe that has no story of its own is piracy on the high seas?
There are Star Trek fan movies out there with the blessing of the copyright holders, and these are alright, because they have the permission. There are parodies that exist under the US provisions that protect parody, so these are alright. If they weren't alright, they wouldn't be there, because those guys have lawyers like you wouldn't believe.
Because it wasn't a parody.
It also isn't transformitive, and is a substantial taking of content. This makes it unlikely that it would be fair use.
Combined with the filmaker already demonstrating bad faith by implying he had received permission, it's unlikely a judge would back it, and Notch has the resources to take it to court on principle (and frankly, I get the impression he would).
I'm not a minecraft player. Reading this article I get the feeling:
a) Notch probably wouldn't object to a movie if he was first contacted about it, they worked out the framework for development, and the framework wasn't seriously broken during production.
b) Notch was really, really annoyed at the presumption of the filmmaker and the lies about it being endorsed. Hence the very public biatch slap on Twitter instead of deploying a lawyer and keeping it quiet.
I rather concur with you, I think the primary objection was the presumption and lies.
I think the public bitchslap and give them the opportunity for them to back down is just good business sense. No need to involve a lawyer if you don't have to. Also, he doesn't have a reason to much care if it's quiet or not.
There is copyright, there are patents and there are trademarks, but no such thing as Intellectual Property(IP). All I see when I see IP is Internet Protocol and not the makey-upey word of Intellectual Property, which from a psychological point of view is meant to trigger that part of the brain which associates with land and ownership. Notch can bring them to court for using his trademark, but it is dead now anyhow.
The Stallman is strong with this one!
As much as RMS has gone down the ARRRGH RENEGADE path in much things, this is one thing where I do stand beside him. "Intellectual Property" doesn't exist and is used to warp different laws into something that isn't true.
Copyright is the right for the creator of a work (book, play, film, song, whatever) to profit for a LIMITED time, after that the work is released to public domain for everyone's benefit. Disney made sure that Copyright got unconstitutionally extended quasi-infinitely with things like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
Patents have a similar purpose to Copyright, except these were never extended and still have their original 24 (25?) year limit. Same principle applies, you publish the process being patented, everyone can reproduce it but they have to pay you royalties for a limited time.
Trademarks are well, images/words/sounds that identify a brand, and those are bought and maintained by paying the Trademark Office. Unlike the previous two, these can be extended indefinitely as long as the term isn't turned into a common word (see Xerox, Band-Aid, Hoover). A lot of companies that should be using this, are instead using Copyright thus the infinite expansion of that one.
The only thing here that can be "intellectual property" is the Trademark. The other two, not so much.