surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
...wow, ok, so I didn't notice the trailing pathway at first. Yeah, that was straight up copy and pasted right there. The rest of it I could give the benefit of the doubt but that one detail is too much to be a coincidence.
I think people fail to realize that everything on this earth is imitation. Ideas are recycled and combined in different ways, there is nothing wrong with using other peoples ideas and doing different things with them. 90% of movies are based on books, comics and the like. Everything borrows from everything.
Well, consider the source as most of what Olly claims as his 'art' is wholly unoriginal depictions of other people's intellectual properties.
Or rather: He's complaining about fan art of his fan art.
Or rather: He's complaining about fan art of his fan art.
I like how Olly Moss is being referred to in this thread as "fan artist" - no, actually, he's a significant, relevant artist. His Star Wars posters are legitimate Lucas products. Lifting elements directly from them is "bad."
Anyway, Randy Pitchford seems to disagree with the defense force on this thread. Go read his twitter.
Anyway, Randy Pitchford seems to disagree with the defense force on this thread. Go read his twitter.
When I first saw the picture, I just thouth "hmmm, surely just reference material", then I looked at the trailing path and it turned out to be a little more than that.
But that is how art works, nothing is really "invented", there's a lot of copying involved.
But that is how art works, nothing is really "invented", there's a lot of copying involved.
Randy Pitchford (To Olly Moss via twitter) "You're amazing. Inspiration is part of art and you've inspired us. But the bit that was lifted is uncool, so... consequences."
@Batty yea I looked at that, it's nice to see people act respectful in situations that could be ugly. Both sides seem intent on making things right.
@indigit4l
Ah, there was nothing else directly lifted and you don't know what you're talking about. Gotcha! thanks for clearing that up!
@BattyAdroit
Actually, he seems to disagree with the people saying the lifted element is perfectly ok (it's not) and also disagreeing with the people who say the whole image is straight up theft (it isn't).
I do agree about the people calling him a "fan artist". Guy's a professional. That's not fan art.
Ah, there was nothing else directly lifted and you don't know what you're talking about. Gotcha! thanks for clearing that up!
@BattyAdroit
Actually, he seems to disagree with the people saying the lifted element is perfectly ok (it's not) and also disagreeing with the people who say the whole image is straight up theft (it isn't).
I do agree about the people calling him a "fan artist". Guy's a professional. That's not fan art.
Pitchford acknowledged the inspiration but also admitted that the clouds were directly lifted from his work. At least he wasn't a jerk about it, and the two look like they are fine together
Ths zigzag line in the background is exactly the same....EXACTLY the same.
It is clear theft, though I'm not sure illegal. It's more like just an artist just being unoriginal.
It is clear theft, though I'm not sure illegal. It's more like just an artist just being unoriginal.
@Pennywise: That's exactly what I said, bro - we're in total agreement.
I was highlighting the fact that Pitchford is disagreeing with the majority of the people this thread who claim that the there was no theft, only parody/homage/inspiration. (the people I was referring to as the 'Defense Force') :)
I was highlighting the fact that Pitchford is disagreeing with the majority of the people this thread who claim that the there was no theft, only parody/homage/inspiration. (the people I was referring to as the 'Defense Force') :)
The people who don't see the problem here have clearly never created anything worthy of note in their entire life.
It isn't hard to understand why plagiarism is problematic; unless the creative process is completely alien to you, that is.
It isn't a huge deal; in fact, I find the whole idea of authorship to be pretty interesting. I am happy to see that Moss isn't calling for blood. However, it is only right to acknowledge those who you are "inspired" by.
Please note how incredibly generous I was in that last line...
It isn't hard to understand why plagiarism is problematic; unless the creative process is completely alien to you, that is.
It isn't a huge deal; in fact, I find the whole idea of authorship to be pretty interesting. I am happy to see that Moss isn't calling for blood. However, it is only right to acknowledge those who you are "inspired" by.
Please note how incredibly generous I was in that last line...
There's nothing wrong with a homage, but yeah, that trail/river zigzag looks lifted directly from the source. That's not "taking inspiration". That's plagiarism, and a lazy mistake on the part of the Gearbox artist.
It's cool that Moss seems pretty laid back about it, moreso than some of the Gearbox fans.
It's cool that Moss seems pretty laid back about it, moreso than some of the Gearbox fans.
@BattyAdroit
Uh, well, we might be agreeing but I'm agreeing MORE. So...uh...THERE!
@burningsoup
You just HAD to go there, didn't you?
Uh, well, we might be agreeing but I'm agreeing MORE. So...uh...THERE!
@burningsoup
You just HAD to go there, didn't you?
They lifted those cloud lines straight from his print, if someone did this with assets from a popular video game there would be massive outrage from butthurt fanboys internet-wide.
tuoman, borrowing game assets from a commercial game is quite a bit different than borrowing a texture swatch from fan art. A texture swatch is usually simplistic to contribute to the picture but not to steal attention away from the end content. (The swatch looks like the only thing that was lifted straight from the picture without major changes which is why I'm focusing mostly on that.)
Game assets have to be carefully designed at multiple levels to ensure that they stay with the overall artistic style and quality of the game.
Also if you take a look at some of the comments you'd think Gearbox shot an artist and robbed them of everything they owned. They merely took the style that the fan art was done in and applied it to their own IP. Most of the image uses original art and thus shouldn't even deserve this amount of focus.
Game assets have to be carefully designed at multiple levels to ensure that they stay with the overall artistic style and quality of the game.
Also if you take a look at some of the comments you'd think Gearbox shot an artist and robbed them of everything they owned. They merely took the style that the fan art was done in and applied it to their own IP. Most of the image uses original art and thus shouldn't even deserve this amount of focus.
Lots of people don't know the differences between homage, inspiration and theft.
Homage: Taking a sound effect, an angle, a name, or a line from another movie and playing it similar. The stuff George Lucas did in the 70 were homages.
Inspiration: Creating an original work that is of the same genre as another person, or trying to use parts of his style. It tries to be distinctly different from the source.
Theft: Lifting directly from a original source. Like sonic recolors and sonic x screen-shots.
Homage: Taking a sound effect, an angle, a name, or a line from another movie and playing it similar. The stuff George Lucas did in the 70 were homages.
Inspiration: Creating an original work that is of the same genre as another person, or trying to use parts of his style. It tries to be distinctly different from the source.
Theft: Lifting directly from a original source. Like sonic recolors and sonic x screen-shots.
@Space Moose
This is equivalent to one texture on one game model, which only appears once in the game, having a single part of one texture obviously lifted from a texture used in another game.
Under those circumstances, I'd say the thread would go very much like this one has.
This is equivalent to one texture on one game model, which only appears once in the game, having a single part of one texture obviously lifted from a texture used in another game.
Under those circumstances, I'd say the thread would go very much like this one has.
They stole the river and mountains, but I don't understand why... They obviously have talented art staff, so why did they need to steal?
And to those calling it anything else just because "it's a zig-zag", it's stealing. You can all call it whatever you want after you've had your own work lifted.
And to those calling it anything else just because "it's a zig-zag", it's stealing. You can all call it whatever you want after you've had your own work lifted.
There is a LONG history of artists copying other artists. Much of the history of western art is about copying. In the art world that just how it is, in fact the whole concept of studying art is to go into museums and copy famous works of art using that artists technique...the best result being a to replicate the piece under study.
You could even say Olly Moss being intentional obtuse by saying he is disappointed when this practice is common. This is the equivalent of flopping down on the basketball count faking a foul. He is "playing it up" as an issue because the knows people who are not commercial artists will think this is bad.
This isn't bad. Bad is the Meat Council making a poster copies famous Nazi propaganda, and that bad no for copying but because they COPIES NAZI PROPAGANDA!
You could even say Olly Moss being intentional obtuse by saying he is disappointed when this practice is common. This is the equivalent of flopping down on the basketball count faking a foul. He is "playing it up" as an issue because the knows people who are not commercial artists will think this is bad.
This isn't bad. Bad is the Meat Council making a poster copies famous Nazi propaganda, and that bad no for copying but because they COPIES NAZI PROPAGANDA!
The only element I'm seeing that is questionable is the little zigzag line. That could be questionable.
Everything other element is unique to each piece. The only other thing that is similar is the general concept.
If the guy wants to pitch a fit about the zigzag then fine.... as far as the layout, that's fair game.
Everything other element is unique to each piece. The only other thing that is similar is the general concept.
If the guy wants to pitch a fit about the zigzag then fine.... as far as the layout, that's fair game.
@RotFX: With all due respect, are you even paying attention to the issue? Did you not see where Randy Pitchford admitted over twitter that yes, in fact, some Gearbox designer did directly plagiarize elements from Mr. Moss' work?
Did you miss the part where Mr. Moss is not just some "fan artist" but is actually a professional graphic designer, whose works are licensed products? (for example, that Empire Strikes Back poster is a legit-paid-for licensed Star Wars product) :)
Even if "most of the image" uses original art, the parts that were directly copied-and-pasted from Mr. Moss' piece are not cool. Yes, this work in an inspired homage. Yes, Gearbox thinks Moss' art is great. However, in DIRECTLY using that graphic element (The canyon clouds) they have stepped into a quagmire of copyright and fair use law.
You obviously don't understand, so I hope that clears it up a little for you. :)
Did you miss the part where Mr. Moss is not just some "fan artist" but is actually a professional graphic designer, whose works are licensed products? (for example, that Empire Strikes Back poster is a legit-paid-for licensed Star Wars product) :)
Even if "most of the image" uses original art, the parts that were directly copied-and-pasted from Mr. Moss' piece are not cool. Yes, this work in an inspired homage. Yes, Gearbox thinks Moss' art is great. However, in DIRECTLY using that graphic element (The canyon clouds) they have stepped into a quagmire of copyright and fair use law.
You obviously don't understand, so I hope that clears it up a little for you. :)
@MonkeyKing1969
Is it really that common? Even then we and the artists shouldn't stand for it, Gearbox shouldn't have done it in the first place, especially if they are making money out of the artwork.
People who replicate museums paintings do it to study and if someone wants to buy it, they know it's a fake, here it's just dishonest.
It's not the worst thing in the world, it's just frustrating.
Is it really that common? Even then we and the artists shouldn't stand for it, Gearbox shouldn't have done it in the first place, especially if they are making money out of the artwork.
People who replicate museums paintings do it to study and if someone wants to buy it, they know it's a fake, here it's just dishonest.
It's not the worst thing in the world, it's just frustrating.
@spman2099: Precisely. The tards here don't get that this was not a homage fucking idiots. It's a rip-off the kind where you HOPE PEOPLE DON'T NOTICE, not the kind where you want people to notice. An acknowledgment would have made this okay.
Guys like @Pennywise and the rest are imbeciles. I swear our society is fucked because of people like this.
Guys like @Pennywise and the rest are imbeciles. I swear our society is fucked because of people like this.
A lot of people here are missing the point by assuming Olly Moss is a fan artist. He's a professional design artist and has been hired for videogame promotional art in the past. It's not some kid who did some fan art and should feel grateful that Gearbox were inspired by him, its a working artist who's worked was ripped off when he would have been happy to work for them if they'd asked. Still, he was totally gentlemanly about the whole thing and it got resolved amicably, which is rare for internet disputes, so all is well.
@BattyAdroit
I didn't realize that she was a professional artist but that doesn't really change the fact that it was a re-mix and since most of the image is different there is no case for copyright infringement and thus require no legal action.
As you said Randy Pitchford has now attributed Mr. Moss' work as being the directly responsible for the creation of that one piece of art. Will it cause Mr Moss any loss profit that he was copied? Probably not, so I can't see the big deal.
You know that many popular songs use melodies, rifts etc which are taken directly from other artists works without any sort of acknowledgment. This technique of taking styles of other artists including basic elements is how much of art, music, games and movies are created.
I'd rather my work be directly taken and remixed to be used by others than have to tread carefully and hope that my work doesn't look too much like someone else's. Or fear that if I take some imagery from a picture to create something else I would be liable and could be sued. Art should never work that way. It would poison the very core of the community.
Believe me when I say that you don't want this to become a hot button issue or else it will make the world of art as toxic as the world of technology (Source - Apple vs Everyone)
I didn't realize that she was a professional artist but that doesn't really change the fact that it was a re-mix and since most of the image is different there is no case for copyright infringement and thus require no legal action.
As you said Randy Pitchford has now attributed Mr. Moss' work as being the directly responsible for the creation of that one piece of art. Will it cause Mr Moss any loss profit that he was copied? Probably not, so I can't see the big deal.
You know that many popular songs use melodies, rifts etc which are taken directly from other artists works without any sort of acknowledgment. This technique of taking styles of other artists including basic elements is how much of art, music, games and movies are created.
I'd rather my work be directly taken and remixed to be used by others than have to tread carefully and hope that my work doesn't look too much like someone else's. Or fear that if I take some imagery from a picture to create something else I would be liable and could be sued. Art should never work that way. It would poison the very core of the community.
Believe me when I say that you don't want this to become a hot button issue or else it will make the world of art as toxic as the world of technology (Source - Apple vs Everyone)
@indigit4l
In his own Twitter stream, Olly Moss has taken the exact same position I've voiced here. Is he also an imbecile?
In his own Twitter stream, Olly Moss has taken the exact same position I've voiced here. Is he also an imbecile?
@Pennywise: You think because the zigzag was the only thing directly lifted that it's not a rip-off? Just bc he's being nice about it doesn't mean they didn't use the entire concept to make their graphic. They did. To me, and to the anyone with half a brain, you would call that a rip-off. It's not a tribute or homage. You do understand this right? Because you're not making any points for your own opinion.
THEY ALSO RIPPED OFF SHOCKWAVE'S HEAD (the Decepticon) for the promo shot of the Mechromancer! Art plagiarism galore at Gearbox!!
@indigit4l (If that is even your real name!)
They're obviously copying the visual style Moss uses in his work. I never said otherwise. (You may have realized that if you weren't so determined to find a reason to be so angry.)
But OTHER THAN lifting the one part of the image directly (and let's be clear, that was most definitely not ok), there's nothing blatantly illegal or immoral about making an obvious pop cultural reference, for a game loaded with them, by making insert art that directly references the visual style of a movie poster.
Got that kid? Ripping actual artwork from a piece by someone else and using it in your own work? Bad!
Original art that happens to be done in the same visual style as someone else? Not bad!
They're obviously copying the visual style Moss uses in his work. I never said otherwise. (You may have realized that if you weren't so determined to find a reason to be so angry.)
But OTHER THAN lifting the one part of the image directly (and let's be clear, that was most definitely not ok), there's nothing blatantly illegal or immoral about making an obvious pop cultural reference, for a game loaded with them, by making insert art that directly references the visual style of a movie poster.
Got that kid? Ripping actual artwork from a piece by someone else and using it in your own work? Bad!
Original art that happens to be done in the same visual style as someone else? Not bad!
I'm a senior artist in the gaming industry with over 11 years experience. In my opinion this is perfectly legit. Not just legally, but ethically as well. Sure, it looks like the artist drew inspiration from the Star wars, but even if he did, note that All art is a creation from things we've experienced through our senses. Think about it, Anything you creatively come up with, as wild or imaginative as it may be, conscious or sub conscious, is a conglomerate of other things you've experience with your senses (and in this case, visual) The defining etchic line between copying someones work, or being inspired by their works, is knowingly re-creating what someone did, then claiming that to be your original works. Sure, there is the 20% rule, (change it up by 20% and you're ok- legally). Is this beyond 20%? maybe, maybe not, due to the obscurity of the image, it's pretty basic and simple. The composition concept is simlar but it's not the same.
I'm a senior artist in the gaming industry with over 11 years experience. In my opinion this is perfectly legit. Not just legally, but ethically as well. Sure, it looks like the artist drew inspiration from the Star wars, but even if he did, note that All art is a creation from things we've experienced through our senses. Think about it, Anything you creatively come up with, as wild or imaginative as it may be, conscious or sub conscious, is a conglomerate of other things you've experience with your senses (and in this case, visual) The defining etchic line between copying someones work, or being inspired by their works, is knowingly re-creating what someone did, then claiming that to be your original works. Sure, there is the 20% rule, (change it up by 20% and you're ok- legally). Is this beyond 20%? maybe, maybe not, due to the obscurity of the image, it's pretty basic and simple. The composition concept is simlar but it's not the same.
@Pennywise: You are an absolute idiot.. Calling me kid? How old are you? I'm pretty sure I'm older lol. Though I wouldn't want to much older than I am.
The fact that the directly ripped zig-zag is in the art, shows that they mimicked the entire image and they did so without crediting the dude. They didn't even have to say on the picture "in reference to so and so" but they could have promoted it themselves, on twitter or anything even before the dude found out himself. The man should have been credited.
I do a lot of graphic design and I've seen my marketing techniques copied by people that have seen my ads and tried it for themselves. The person who does that is a weasel, but whatever I'm not gonna sue or anything. But it's a weasel move and you can't argue that the guy "got caught" using a completely unoriginal idea I hoped not to get caught.. He could have used AN element or maybe TWO, but the whole thing is so shady bc he took the whole thing and didn't credit it first.
It's not a pop-culture reference, but that's what your defense team might say if you wanted to argue about it. It's a blatant copy, and so say many people here. If you told me it's a pop-culture reference I'd tell you it's nowhere near the iconic status it would need to be in order for that argument to hold any water.
The fact that the directly ripped zig-zag is in the art, shows that they mimicked the entire image and they did so without crediting the dude. They didn't even have to say on the picture "in reference to so and so" but they could have promoted it themselves, on twitter or anything even before the dude found out himself. The man should have been credited.
I do a lot of graphic design and I've seen my marketing techniques copied by people that have seen my ads and tried it for themselves. The person who does that is a weasel, but whatever I'm not gonna sue or anything. But it's a weasel move and you can't argue that the guy "got caught" using a completely unoriginal idea I hoped not to get caught.. He could have used AN element or maybe TWO, but the whole thing is so shady bc he took the whole thing and didn't credit it first.
It's not a pop-culture reference, but that's what your defense team might say if you wanted to argue about it. It's a blatant copy, and so say many people here. If you told me it's a pop-culture reference I'd tell you it's nowhere near the iconic status it would need to be in order for that argument to hold any water.
@indigit4l
Would you prefer "petulant man-child" then? If you really are older than me you may want to get your bifocals checked, it's affecting your ability to read, grandpa.
It's a movie poster from Star Wars. You don't get much more "pop culture" than that. They copied the concept of the poster for a cute insert in the game case. That's it. It's not used in any of the marketing materials or advertisements. It's not the box art. Hell, I've seen plenty of more blatant Star Wars movie poster references in plenty of cartoons, comic books and, yes, even videogames over the years.
Would you prefer "petulant man-child" then? If you really are older than me you may want to get your bifocals checked, it's affecting your ability to read, grandpa.
It's a movie poster from Star Wars. You don't get much more "pop culture" than that. They copied the concept of the poster for a cute insert in the game case. That's it. It's not used in any of the marketing materials or advertisements. It's not the box art. Hell, I've seen plenty of more blatant Star Wars movie poster references in plenty of cartoons, comic books and, yes, even videogames over the years.
@Pennywise: You don't even get the reason there's a controversy at all, so logic is not your friend and either is your reading comprehension. You've just glossed over every single point of logical debate and declared nothing to make a point. GOOD JOB!
Calling people "kid" on the internet.. tsk tsk. Go ahead and tell me your age cupcake.
Calling people "kid" on the internet.. tsk tsk. Go ahead and tell me your age cupcake.
Hey guys - Adam Fletcher from Gearbox (@PezRadar on Twitter)
Just wanted to post an update to this...
First, thanks to everyone that posted here and at other places or via email/Twitter/Forums and made an effort to bring this to our attention. We thrive on creative work and ensuring our fellow artists receive proper credit is the most important thing for us and without you guys bringing it up, this may have regrettably slipped by us.
The art on the interior cover art for Borderlands 2 was created by a contracted marketing artist, and it was intended to be a homage to the work of Olly Moss and Saul Bass as we have a huge amount of respect within our development team. Taking inspiration from things we love is a huge part of our creative process but outright lifting work is something that is NOT cool. We are handling the situation with the artist, who will now be dealing with those consequences.
We have been in touch with Olly (as you guys noticed from Randy's Tweets) and we are now optimistic about a future collaboration effort between Gearbox and Olly! We both are a bit busy right now but we're excited and will keep you guys updated on any further development regarding these collaborations. Thanks again!
Just wanted to post an update to this...
First, thanks to everyone that posted here and at other places or via email/Twitter/Forums and made an effort to bring this to our attention. We thrive on creative work and ensuring our fellow artists receive proper credit is the most important thing for us and without you guys bringing it up, this may have regrettably slipped by us.
The art on the interior cover art for Borderlands 2 was created by a contracted marketing artist, and it was intended to be a homage to the work of Olly Moss and Saul Bass as we have a huge amount of respect within our development team. Taking inspiration from things we love is a huge part of our creative process but outright lifting work is something that is NOT cool. We are handling the situation with the artist, who will now be dealing with those consequences.
We have been in touch with Olly (as you guys noticed from Randy's Tweets) and we are now optimistic about a future collaboration effort between Gearbox and Olly! We both are a bit busy right now but we're excited and will keep you guys updated on any further development regarding these collaborations. Thanks again!
Heh.
No, no, you're right. You're clearly the old man here. The senility is obvious. I apologize for mistaking it as illiteracy.
The reason there's a controversy is because the artist of the Star Wars posters noticed and posted about it on Twitter, say he was "disappointed", which people mistakenly took to mean he had been wronged by Gearbox. The real controversy was when it was pointed out that they had actually used a part of his artwork in the image, the clouds in the background.
You then came in and declared several other elements had been directly stolen, which it later turned out wasn't what you meant. Just that other composition ideas had been used. Not really the same thing.
You slung a bunch of insults while clinging to the "it's a rip-off, not an homage" line without introducing any further points, unless you're trying to argue that "tards", "idiots", "imbeciles" and your appeal to authority are what you consider "points of logical debate".
Oh, and you keep trying to declare that a fairly well known poster for the defining pop culture icon of the modern age isn't well known enough to be a "pop culture reference".
All in all I think we've successfully made up for the lack of fisticuffs in the actual controversy.
You're welcome, internet. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!
No, no, you're right. You're clearly the old man here. The senility is obvious. I apologize for mistaking it as illiteracy.
The reason there's a controversy is because the artist of the Star Wars posters noticed and posted about it on Twitter, say he was "disappointed", which people mistakenly took to mean he had been wronged by Gearbox. The real controversy was when it was pointed out that they had actually used a part of his artwork in the image, the clouds in the background.
You then came in and declared several other elements had been directly stolen, which it later turned out wasn't what you meant. Just that other composition ideas had been used. Not really the same thing.
You slung a bunch of insults while clinging to the "it's a rip-off, not an homage" line without introducing any further points, unless you're trying to argue that "tards", "idiots", "imbeciles" and your appeal to authority are what you consider "points of logical debate".
Oh, and you keep trying to declare that a fairly well known poster for the defining pop culture icon of the modern age isn't well known enough to be a "pop culture reference".
All in all I think we've successfully made up for the lack of fisticuffs in the actual controversy.
You're welcome, internet. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!
@pennywise: I gotta agree with indigit4l in regards to the poster not being a pop culture reference. IMO, it would have been a pop culture reference if it had been modeled after the poster with Luke Skywalker holding his light saber in the air with Princess Leia at his side and Darth Vader in the background. That is the poster that everyone knows about. Personally, I don't recall ever seeing the poster at the center of this controversy and I believe the artist was trying to pull a fast one.
@Pennywise: Tell me when I said things were "directly stolen".. First thing I wrote:
"It sure fucking is theft of the whole concept. I can take other people's art and move things around but you have - from what I can tell - 3 elements lifted. It's paying homage sure but not publicly, so it's dishonest."
You lie son. I never said anything but the zigzag was DIRECTLY LIFTED, so who is senile now? Show me wear I said that cupcake. It didn't even have to do with my opinion. You are having a phantom argument, going on and on for nothing.
@GBXAdamF: Thanks and I was sure that Gearbox didn't know it was lifted. I love Gearbox here in Dallas.. I've done gone the last two years fan appreciation day and both parties also at the Palladium Ballroom. Fun stuff, great company!
"It sure fucking is theft of the whole concept. I can take other people's art and move things around but you have - from what I can tell - 3 elements lifted. It's paying homage sure but not publicly, so it's dishonest."
You lie son. I never said anything but the zigzag was DIRECTLY LIFTED, so who is senile now? Show me wear I said that cupcake. It didn't even have to do with my opinion. You are having a phantom argument, going on and on for nothing.
@GBXAdamF: Thanks and I was sure that Gearbox didn't know it was lifted. I love Gearbox here in Dallas.. I've done gone the last two years fan appreciation day and both parties also at the Palladium Ballroom. Fun stuff, great company!
@Pennywise: *** Tell me when I said "SEVERAL other elements were directly stolen"
(edit for the first part of the last comment I wrote)
(edit for the first part of the last comment I wrote)
No matter what the situation, how this was handled (like mature adults) is pretty great and says volumes about both parties. I'd love to see more companies acknowledge something like this and do something about it the way Gearbox did. Love those guys.
follow
