surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
"I won't go into the history of DotA too much, but suffice it to say that the creation was a product of Blizzard and the modding community."
How does it belong in any way to Blizzard? By that logic Red Orchestra belongs to Epic, and Team Fortress belongs to ID. Blizzard had no involvement in the creation of Dota except the mod happened to use their engine.
How does it belong in any way to Blizzard? By that logic Red Orchestra belongs to Epic, and Team Fortress belongs to ID. Blizzard had no involvement in the creation of Dota except the mod happened to use their engine.
Excellent article. I was asking myself the very same question recently and I am glad that the fact that Valve was trademarking 'DOTA' seems weird to other people as well.
As much as I like Valve, if there is justice in this world, they should not be permitted to trademark 'DOTA', and I find myself agreeing with Mike Morhaime: DotA is a community creation. And I too also fear a stupid and pointless legal battle between Valve and Blizzard should Valve get DOTA trademarked.
As much as I like Valve, if there is justice in this world, they should not be permitted to trademark 'DOTA', and I find myself agreeing with Mike Morhaime: DotA is a community creation. And I too also fear a stupid and pointless legal battle between Valve and Blizzard should Valve get DOTA trademarked.
The way I see it, Blizzard had years of chances to capitalize on DOTA and did not really get behind it until Valve started Dota2.
This "it belongs to the community" stuff comes off insincere when they start hyping thier own now and thier best answer to community involvement elsewhere is paying gold farmers and not genuine content creators like Valve does in TF2. Or hire mod creators like Valve does.
I don't play Blizzard stuff and only Valve stuff on console but I know which community I'll join when I get a new PC.
It's not Blizzard's.
This "it belongs to the community" stuff comes off insincere when they start hyping thier own now and thier best answer to community involvement elsewhere is paying gold farmers and not genuine content creators like Valve does in TF2. Or hire mod creators like Valve does.
I don't play Blizzard stuff and only Valve stuff on console but I know which community I'll join when I get a new PC.
It's not Blizzard's.
I'd like companies to be more creative with the name of their games. DOTA not being an acronym anymore as Valve sees it doesn't mean anything, its as dumb as Rage. 4 letter catchy words with no real meaning should not be the title for your game.
No one calls League of Legends by the term "DOTA". It's called a MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena). Why would DOTA be a generic term? The logic in this article is ill thought and flawed or at the very least not researched.
I was also, and still am, confused by this. I would think that only the creators of the original mod would have the right to trademark the name. But, like everything else in politics, shit is way more convoluted and complex than it should be, especially copyright/trademarks.
The piece of this that I'm particularly lost on is where does valve come in on this story? I know that they are making DOTA2, but did they just see a cool mod and say "hey thats cool, were going to do the sequel and own it now!"?
blarg.
The piece of this that I'm particularly lost on is where does valve come in on this story? I know that they are making DOTA2, but did they just see a cool mod and say "hey thats cool, were going to do the sequel and own it now!"?
blarg.
I just want to throw this in there because you want to "ignore the history" for the sake of your article. Guinsoo made dota, then transferred ownership to Icefrog. Icefrog now works for Valve, if he's alright with Valve trademarking Dota then that's his decision. You can't just ignore what happened to make an argument.
Yeah this is silly. Modders came up with the DOTA term and no one should be allowed to trademark it.
But then again copyright laws can suck my cock.
But then again copyright laws can suck my cock.
@cbre88x
League of Legends calls itself a MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) for legal reasons (read: they don't want to be sued by Blizzard and now Valve). Its not actually a widely accepted term.
League of Legends calls itself a MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) for legal reasons (read: they don't want to be sued by Blizzard and now Valve). Its not actually a widely accepted term.
@Dethlocke
Last I checked, one of the original creators of Original DOTA was hired by Valve for it. Icefrog or somesuchlike. Others went on to do other things, like a DOTA-Allstars creator going on to create League of Legends.
Valve are in their right to trademark it, but that doesn't precisely mean they're right to. Honestly, I'm on their side in this, because from everything I've read and seen of Valve's side of it, they don't intend to start the sue-machine. Sure, it'll be confusing telling apart the acronymery/initialism, but they seem to be aiming to just make their product covered by it.
Not an Edge situation, and highly unlikely it'll become a Scrolls style occurrence.
Last I checked, one of the original creators of Original DOTA was hired by Valve for it. Icefrog or somesuchlike. Others went on to do other things, like a DOTA-Allstars creator going on to create League of Legends.
Valve are in their right to trademark it, but that doesn't precisely mean they're right to. Honestly, I'm on their side in this, because from everything I've read and seen of Valve's side of it, they don't intend to start the sue-machine. Sure, it'll be confusing telling apart the acronymery/initialism, but they seem to be aiming to just make their product covered by it.
Not an Edge situation, and highly unlikely it'll become a Scrolls style occurrence.
Good job once again Brock.
Let me first state that I know nothing about DOTA...at all. I literally did not even knew what it meant before this article, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
But what I think is hurting Blizzards position in this case is that they themselves have content that has "DOTA" in the title. With that in mind, it seems strange for them to argue that it has become a generic term. After all, we don't call Call of Duty "Activision FPS" do we? It does not seem likely that a product will be marketed purely by using generic terms; you need name recognition to sell your stuff. I think it's likely that Blizzard is going for that, and not the generic term. And since Blizzard DOTA is coming up, Blizzard has a huge interest in preventing Valve from getting the trademark.
But indeed, I think that the most important aspect is whether or not people, gamers, speak of "a DOTA". Is the gamer in question "playing a DOTA", or is he "playing a arena-based game that resembles DOTA"?
I will withhold further judgment, because as I mention I am not at all familiar with these types of games or their communities, but I think that aspects like that will be the decisive factor here.
Let me first state that I know nothing about DOTA...at all. I literally did not even knew what it meant before this article, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
But what I think is hurting Blizzards position in this case is that they themselves have content that has "DOTA" in the title. With that in mind, it seems strange for them to argue that it has become a generic term. After all, we don't call Call of Duty "Activision FPS" do we? It does not seem likely that a product will be marketed purely by using generic terms; you need name recognition to sell your stuff. I think it's likely that Blizzard is going for that, and not the generic term. And since Blizzard DOTA is coming up, Blizzard has a huge interest in preventing Valve from getting the trademark.
But indeed, I think that the most important aspect is whether or not people, gamers, speak of "a DOTA". Is the gamer in question "playing a DOTA", or is he "playing a arena-based game that resembles DOTA"?
I will withhold further judgment, because as I mention I am not at all familiar with these types of games or their communities, but I think that aspects like that will be the decisive factor here.
@TheRemedy
You're right that I chose not to go into the history for the sake of the article's length, but I disagree that the history says anything dispositive about who owns what. The original map and concept for DotA was created by a user named Eul. Steve "Guinsoo" Feak woud later build on this idea, creating a structure closer to what we know as DotA today. IceFrog would pick up this mod and continue iterating on it. IceFrog is now working for Valve.
I do not agree with your assertion though that this means IceFrog "owns" DOTA and can give Valve the rights to the DOTA name. That's what this debate is about.
You're right that I chose not to go into the history for the sake of the article's length, but I disagree that the history says anything dispositive about who owns what. The original map and concept for DotA was created by a user named Eul. Steve "Guinsoo" Feak woud later build on this idea, creating a structure closer to what we know as DotA today. IceFrog would pick up this mod and continue iterating on it. IceFrog is now working for Valve.
I do not agree with your assertion though that this means IceFrog "owns" DOTA and can give Valve the rights to the DOTA name. That's what this debate is about.
And, yeah. While MOBA is the 'correct' term, nobody uses it. It's one of those situations where the product became so prominent that it became the standard name. Like 'Hoover' in the U.K being used instead of vacuum.
Disagreement with the trademark aside, I'ma hafta disagree with the notion of "DOTA" as a genre name. I have never seen anyone refer to League of Legends or its genre as "DOTA", nor HoN or RoI or any other interpretation. Friends have said "it's like DOTA" but that's like saying "Battlefield X is like Call of Duty X".
DOTA is a distinct product, referring to a certain canon of game champions, and it may have popularized the genre, but definitely did not invent it. I'd argue that honor lies with Aeon of Strife, the gloriously overkill mod for Starcraft, which laid the basic framework for the original DOTA: waves of minions crashing into each other, with a single player-controlled hero to level up and duke it out with others.
So I don't think that the genre argument holds much water. Focus on the others, like original ownership agreements between original devs, perhaps. I think it's a tough argument for why Valve shouldn't get it because previous devs left it for other things. On the other hand, Valve is the one who needs to take action if Blizz goes ahead with the DOTA name, and that's bad community rep for Valve.
DOTA is a distinct product, referring to a certain canon of game champions, and it may have popularized the genre, but definitely did not invent it. I'd argue that honor lies with Aeon of Strife, the gloriously overkill mod for Starcraft, which laid the basic framework for the original DOTA: waves of minions crashing into each other, with a single player-controlled hero to level up and duke it out with others.
So I don't think that the genre argument holds much water. Focus on the others, like original ownership agreements between original devs, perhaps. I think it's a tough argument for why Valve shouldn't get it because previous devs left it for other things. On the other hand, Valve is the one who needs to take action if Blizz goes ahead with the DOTA name, and that's bad community rep for Valve.
@dangerousforays
Good point to bring up with Aeon of Strife. That was earliest example I could find of the game type as well. DotA wasn't the first, but if it has become a common moniker for that style of game then it might be considered to be the genre. Gamers stand at different points of savvy on the issue, so what is a MOBA to some might be DOTA to others. Whether or not DOTA can be considered a genre is simply one of the possible issues that could be brought up in trying to stop Valve from getting the trademark, not necessarily the best argument to be made.
Good point to bring up with Aeon of Strife. That was earliest example I could find of the game type as well. DotA wasn't the first, but if it has become a common moniker for that style of game then it might be considered to be the genre. Gamers stand at different points of savvy on the issue, so what is a MOBA to some might be DOTA to others. Whether or not DOTA can be considered a genre is simply one of the possible issues that could be brought up in trying to stop Valve from getting the trademark, not necessarily the best argument to be made.
Didn't blizzard hire IceFrog to work on DOTA 2 anyway? So the original creator and the people who own the game that was modded are both involved here, so I think they have a pretty good claim to the name. And as many have said, the term for the genre is MOBA, so no one in the MOBA community is gonna care.
It's just a name. People say DOTA-like when they should be saying "MOBA" (Multiplayer online battle arena).
Seriously, this stuff is ridiculous. It's only got meaning so long as there are so few games like it, which eventually it won't. VALVe can own it because they will do justice to it... And they paid for it. IT's a damned name.
Seriously, this stuff is ridiculous. It's only got meaning so long as there are so few games like it, which eventually it won't. VALVe can own it because they will do justice to it... And they paid for it. IT's a damned name.
DOTA is in no way an official term for the whole genre. It was the name of a single mod and other people started using the *name* of that mod as a general term to describe the genre. The name belongs to IceFrog who now works for Valve. Like TheRemedy said, if IceFrog is okay with Valve trademarking it, I really don't see the problem here.
You know, like TheRemedy said.
You know, like TheRemedy said.
@ Brock
Sorry, but the reason IceFrog took over was because the original guys stopped developing. They could have pulled the mod alltogether, but they let IceFrog take control of it. It ceased to be their baby the moment IceFrog took over and began to add/change the game.
Valve hired IceFrog and he took the concept forward. Unless those creators can prove that IceFrog stole their IP witout their permission, it's tough luck for them.
Sorry, but the reason IceFrog took over was because the original guys stopped developing. They could have pulled the mod alltogether, but they let IceFrog take control of it. It ceased to be their baby the moment IceFrog took over and began to add/change the game.
Valve hired IceFrog and he took the concept forward. Unless those creators can prove that IceFrog stole their IP witout their permission, it's tough luck for them.
@Prootzel IceFrog is not the original creator, Guinsoo is.
Also, the following is from Warcraft 3 Editor EULA.
"C. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to: [ . . . . ]
(iii) use or allow third parties to use the Editor and the New Materials created thereby for commercial purposes including, but not limited to, distribution of New Materials on a stand-alone basis or packaged with other software or hardware through any and all distribution channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution without the express written consent of Blizzard;"
There is strong debate on whether or not Blizzard owns the IP of custom maps.
Also, the following is from Warcraft 3 Editor EULA.
"C. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to: [ . . . . ]
(iii) use or allow third parties to use the Editor and the New Materials created thereby for commercial purposes including, but not limited to, distribution of New Materials on a stand-alone basis or packaged with other software or hardware through any and all distribution channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution without the express written consent of Blizzard;"
There is strong debate on whether or not Blizzard owns the IP of custom maps.
Blizzard is full of shit because they want to use the term DOTA, even if I think that if anyone should have the trademark its Blizzard. Even then, DOTA only describes one type of map that has to do with Warcraft lore and setting. It doesnt even make sense for anything else!
Valve lost a bit of my respect by trying to copywrite the name, its just fucking stupid.
Valve lost a bit of my respect by trying to copywrite the name, its just fucking stupid.
Meh I don't give a shit about it. All I know is Blizzard and Valve are the Gods of the game industry and they can do whatever the fuck they want. All others are pathetic peons.
@Buga: Interesting bit of information. But they are mentioning it in relation to their own editor. As far as I can tell they're basically saying that you aren't allowed to do anything commercially with stuff you created with the use of their editor. And not that you aren't allowed to recreate your own creations for commercial purposes with a totally different editor/game engine.
Also, is Valve just copyrighting the name DOTA or the whole concept of a DOTA-inspired game? Because their game being named 'DOTA', of course they're gonna copyright it! That's what every company out there does when it's giving names to their products.
vvvvvvv THIS THIS THIS THIS vvvvvvvvv
@ Brock
Sorry, but the reason IceFrog took over was because the original guys stopped developing. They could have pulled the mod alltogether, but they let IceFrog take control of it. It ceased to be their baby the moment IceFrog took over and began to add/change the game.
Valve hired IceFrog and he took the concept forward. Unless those creators can prove that IceFrog stole their IP witout their permission, it's tough luck for them.
@ Brock
Sorry, but the reason IceFrog took over was because the original guys stopped developing. They could have pulled the mod alltogether, but they let IceFrog take control of it. It ceased to be their baby the moment IceFrog took over and began to add/change the game.
Valve hired IceFrog and he took the concept forward. Unless those creators can prove that IceFrog stole their IP witout their permission, it's tough luck for them.
It confuses me that Valve is doing this, DOTA is not an established IP with any real value. What are the DOTA assets and DOTA story? Valve's game looks exactly like League of Legends because they're starting from scratch. DOTA the name may or may not be legally generic, but what it describes kinda is. Trademarking DOTA is just wasteful and confers no advantage other than name-recognition.
Besides that, I keep forgetting about this game anyway. For a Valve release, this seems really dull and needless. I've never anticipated a Valve game less. There have been scores of games exactly like it for years. It's just too late for a game like this to blow minds.
Besides that, I keep forgetting about this game anyway. For a Valve release, this seems really dull and needless. I've never anticipated a Valve game less. There have been scores of games exactly like it for years. It's just too late for a game like this to blow minds.
Eul (the original dota creator from WC3: Reign of Chaos) was actually hired by Blizzard. Guinsoo didn't really make anything, he just copy pasted everything from what was out there and called it dota allstars. IceFrog took over when guinsoo got addicted to wow and didn't feel like continuing anymore.
Always thought the genre was called AoS (Aeon of Strife) anyway...
Always thought the genre was called AoS (Aeon of Strife) anyway...
I don't understand how Blizzard can say "leave it to the community" when "Blizzard Dota" exists. I don't believe its monetized, but in principal that still seems contradictory. It seems like a reactionary attempt at reminding people they had ties to the game in the past.
MOBA may be what we should be calling the genre. But "DOTA-like" is the one that's in common usage. DOTA-as-generic is probably gonna continue to stick. That's why the generic usage argument might work. Nobody says MOBA. What does "massively online battle arena" describe that's meaningful?
I actually don't mind Blizzard's use of DOTA because it's not used as a name, but in a name. "Pokemon Red" is not a trademark for "Red", etc. They are using DOTA as a genre, like Mario RPG. It makes sense. DOTA the IP, in that context, seems silly.
I actually don't mind Blizzard's use of DOTA because it's not used as a name, but in a name. "Pokemon Red" is not a trademark for "Red", etc. They are using DOTA as a genre, like Mario RPG. It makes sense. DOTA the IP, in that context, seems silly.
I still prefer: 'Dynamic Squad Based Tower Defense Where You Are The Tower Sort Of But Not Really RPG'
@Automation: DSBTDWYATTSOBNRRPG? You should trademark that and release it before Blizzard DSBTDWYATTSOBNRRPG comes out.
siddartha85: Nobody says MOBA, but the meaning seems to at least describe a (vague) concept like the term MMORPG does, while Defense Of The Ancients could just as well be fantasy-movie name for the uninitiated.
@Forsakeneyes, @Automation
I agree with both of you that there is nothing genre describing about the phrase "Defense of the Ancients." That's why I mentioned that if it is "descriptive" it would have to be an implicit understanding by the gaming community. MOBA certainly seems a better name for the genre, I'm just not sure that this is the accepted term.
I agree with both of you that there is nothing genre describing about the phrase "Defense of the Ancients." That's why I mentioned that if it is "descriptive" it would have to be an implicit understanding by the gaming community. MOBA certainly seems a better name for the genre, I'm just not sure that this is the accepted term.
Forsakeneyes: I can accept that, which is why MOBA will also stick around as the legal version of "DOTA-like".
I think claiming DOTA is a bad idea, especially when creating a new name for this game would be simple. They're using DOTA for the name recognition, but it's getting the wrong kind of recognition. Valve is trying to create a DOTA mythos from scratch, which is cool, but calling it DOTA does them no favors. Calling your product the most commonly used name for that product connotes a certain blandness.
I think claiming DOTA is a bad idea, especially when creating a new name for this game would be simple. They're using DOTA for the name recognition, but it's getting the wrong kind of recognition. Valve is trying to create a DOTA mythos from scratch, which is cool, but calling it DOTA does them no favors. Calling your product the most commonly used name for that product connotes a certain blandness.
Siddartha85: I understand where you're coming from, but what exactly do you mean by "but it's getting the wrong kind of recognition"? And yes, very creative it is not and it seems that Valve mainly chose it as so say "IMMA LET YOU FINISH, BUT WE HAVE THE BEST AND MOST OFFICIAL DOTA GAME OF ALL TIME".
What I mean by the last part is that it's smells like trying too hard, while the product in development honestly looks a bit bland compared to the already existing iterations.
@Fartmonger: Yes. Because in reality it's probably only in development because others started to run with the concept and it proved to be quite a moneymaker. So understandably, Valve wants a piece of the pie as well. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. But I can't help thinking that the only reason they're using DOTA as a name is from a business-standpoint.
follow
