|
|
Post by traviz on Jan 25, 2006 21:50:09 GMT -5
Let's say you wanted to add ,say, the Rock to the Legends of Wrestling, but having the chance to speak with him would probably be pretty tough and then there's the whole WWE issue to contend with, is it possible that you could add him as an unnamed "bonus" card to an edition? What if he wasn't officially named on the card? I can't see how there could be legal ramifications to this, and I was just using the Rock as an example of someone that is unlikely to appear because of all the "red tape" involved, there's a ton of others.
Or, let's say a winner of the Promoter Madness lottery wants to make a Matt Hardy card. Maybe he could be listed as the Hardy Boy or something. Again that's just an example. Would that be possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by offspring515 on Jan 26, 2006 1:32:32 GMT -5
I'm thinking "The Hardy Boy" or something similar would be a trademark issue. It's not just the name that is part of the trademark. The likeness, the trademark move names...By the time you got rid of all that, there wouldnt be much point to the card.
Now take all I said with a truckload of salt, because I have no idea of the legalities of the cards or whatever. But that would be my perception of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2006 17:25:12 GMT -5
Other games have taken this approach of producing these bogus-type cards (or whatever) because they didn't get the official permission of the wrestlers (or didn't try). The advantage of our approach and the credibility it brings us is that we're an officially licensed product.
As a result I'm not inclined to offer playing cards that "kind of remind" players of someone we're all supposed to know. It would mean changing the names of the moves too much (as offspring515 said) and either not including a drawing or making the drawing so different it would be unsatisfying because the similarities would be minor as to not be clearly recognizable.
Maybe a separate edition someday...maybe. But not as part of a regular edition or even a Limited Edition card where we'd have to say who it is we're trying to sell!
I'm very proud, as are all our fans, that we have a game that is supported by the wrestlers themselves and that we can be out in the open about everything. And anybody can make a bootleg playing card any time for people not in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnestormer on Jan 28, 2006 15:31:40 GMT -5
As a result I'm not inclined to offer playing cards that "kind of remind" players of someone we're all supposed to know. It would mean changing the names of the moves too much (as offspring515 said) and either not including a drawing or making the drawing so different it would be unsatisfying because the similarities would be minor as to not be clearly recognizable. So how was it you were able to get away with introducing Big Superstar in the GWFF so many years ago, since he was "sort of a reminder" of Hulk Hogan? Or was Big Superstar what put the idea in your head to attempt the Legends of Wrestling game? |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 28, 2006 19:04:33 GMT -5
Big Superstar was satire, pure and simple. The idea of Legends had not even come to my mind at the time.
I'd be tempted to give Triple-H the same treatment today.
|
|
|
|
Post by nelson on Jan 28, 2006 19:38:24 GMT -5
in udder words a cheap shot well done tom.
neil
|
|
|
|
Post by offspring515 on Jan 29, 2006 0:59:10 GMT -5
Tom, I'd love to see "The Big Schnoz" added to the GWF. His finisher could be called "The McMahon Impaler".
|
|
|
|
Post by GalactiKing on Jan 29, 2006 10:57:15 GMT -5
Chuckles..that's so wrong Offspring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Jan 29, 2006 13:19:37 GMT -5
I'd be tempted to give Triple-H the same treatment today. On his card there could be a "roll for length of meaningless rant at start of show" option. |
|
|
|
Post by nelson on Jan 29, 2006 14:08:57 GMT -5
also nose into eye.
neil ;D
|
|
