The Banner Saga thread

[Queequeg]

So is it impossible to keep in supply in the trek across the waste?  It seems to be. 

Also, favorite moments from the game?  [spoiler]I loved Juno's discussion with the dragon.  It seemed authentically psychedelic in a way I wasn't expecting.  Kind of scary, actually.  [/spoiler]

[Habbaku]

Seems like a good place to post this :

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/24454-candy-crush-developer-kingcom-files-notice-of-opposition-against-the-banner-saga/

Mobile game developer King.com Limited, the company that brought you Candy Crush Saga, has decided that Stoic's The Banner Saga is potentially confusing to consumers and has filed a notice of opposition in the US trademark and patent office. Why? Because both game names include the word "saga." ...

[Syt]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/22/king-are-trying-to-candy-crush-the-banner-saga/

Yesterday the internet was alive with the news about King, owners of Candy Crush Saga, their trademarking of the word "Candy", and their ensuing threats to other developers who are using the word in their game titles. The response from King was to flap their eyelashes and protest innocence – they were only defending the Earth against evil, not liberally chasing anyone and everyone. About that. We've seen the document that shows their attempt to go after The Banner Saga.

Stoic's The Banner Saga is based on ancient Norse mythology. The "banner" in the title refers to items like the Raven Banner, a totemic flag depicting symbols of Odin. In Stoic's game, these banners are far longer, used to tell long tales of battle. Tales, or indeed sagas, rooted in Norse myth. In the game, the army of giants and humans carry these banners telling of their sagas. The game is therefore called The Banner Saga. It has as much to do with King's Candy Crush Saga as a wet tea towel in a cement mixer. And yet...



Over the years, King (née King.com) has registered a lot of trademarks. These include Bubble Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Mahjong Saga, Puzzle Saga, Hoop De Loop Saga, Pyramid Saga, and of course Candy Crush Saga. It is based on this that the casual puzzle game developer is arguing that Stoic's title infringes upon their trademark, and would be too easily confused with their products.

Of course, King has gone one step further, and has an application for a full trademark on simply "saga", which has yet to clear. They believe, as is proven by the nonsensical awarding for a trademark for "candy", that they have the right to lay ownership to common English words, and then use this – and their considerable wealth – to take out anyone who crosses their path. And it seems, those who wander nowhere near their path.

The wording of their opposition states "Applicant's THE BANNER SAGA mark is confusingly and deceptively similar to Opposer's previously used SAGA Marks." Deceptively? That's because of their prior claim, "Upon information and belief, Applicant had knowledge of the fact that Opposer used its SAGA Marks as trademarks before it adopted its mark." This wild supposition is purely evidenced by King's having widely promoted their casual puzzle games, rather than because of any direct contact with Stoic, or actual proof that Stoic used the name maliciously. Because of course there isn't any. Because, of course, Stoic were using a word that specifically refers to "ancient Scandinavian and Germanic history", which their game was about.

The most eye-blinking thing about this farce is that King, without irony, spell out their belief that they have "prior" on the word.

   

"There is no issue of priority concerning application Serial No. 85/819,941 since Opposer used its SAGA Marks at least as early as 2011."

King, I think the Vikings might be able to just about beat that. And yes, clearly this is about game names, but even so, their claim is tenuous. The above quote continues,

"...which is prior to Applicant's January 10, 2013 filing date and alleged January 1, 2012 first use date."

So they say they used the trademark "as early as 2011″, and that Stoic first used it on the day after 2011. It's not exactly solid evidence of their attempt to piggyback on King's reputation.

So here's the problem. This is how trademark law works. Where both US and UK trademark offices are willingly allowing companies to claim rights over incredibly common English words, the system is the primary source of the mess. That massive, rich companies abuse this is not surprisingly, although always massively disappointing. And part of this system is the need to assert your trademarks. So if King believes it has sole rights to use the word "saga" in its game titles, it needs to assert that right to maintain it. The problem is, they patently don't. The very concept that because they gave a bunch of their games similar names means they then inherit the right to that word is false. If anyone has claim over the word saga, it's the Vikings.

Stoic is a very small company. They may have done well from their Kickstarter and alpha, but they remain a small indie team, and are very unlikely to have the sort of cash put aside that could pay to take on a behemoth like King in the courts. King's claim is massively flawed – they are stating that the word leads to confusion, that people might think The Banner Saga was created by them, and therefore Stoic are infringing their trademark. But this infringement is in no way in bad faith. Their claims that it's "deceptive" are outrageously far-fetched, and they know it. Stoic has an excellent argument for using the name they did – a game based on the sagas of the banner-carrying Vikings. But if King pushes this, what chance do they have?

The extent of King's Notice Of Opposition, made on the 29th December, is to have the US Patent & Trademark Office refuse Stoic's trademark for "The Banner Saga". However, they could still push this a lot further. They could, if successful, then start issuing threats to Stoic that they are infringing, and have to remove their game from sale.

The only thing likely to change their behaviour is public outrage. You can contact King to ask them why they feel it's necessary to treat indie developers in this way, when they know full well the game is no threat to their business, and certainly not using its name in bad faith. You can tell your Candy Crush Saga-playing friends about the company behind it, the company to which they're giving their money, and convince them to stop. You can go out of your way to not endorse a game publisher that behaves this way.

What King are doing is wrong. They know it. They need to know we know it.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Incredible.

[Scipio]

I think this is so great. Some attorney is making money filing barely legally sufficient oppositions to legitimate trademark applications.

He's unlikely to succeed. So, King.com is simultaneously depleting their legal services budget and their goodwill, which will hopefully further damage their already shitty public image.

[Razgovory]

I guess I'll give this a try.  25 bucks on Steam.

[Razgovory]

Crap I bought it, but it doesn't show up as me having purchased it.

[Syt]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/22/the-candy-crush-banner-saga-saga-stoic-speak-up/

This afternoon King – owners of Candy Crush Saga and an ever-increasing percentage of the dictionary – issued a statement defending their actions regarding the news that they had filed an opposition to Stoic's attempts to trademark "The Banner Saga". A defence that seems odd in the face of what's actually happening. Especially as they're arguably attempting to assert a trademark they don't actually have. Appearing to believe they are the only company allowed to register games with "saga" in the title, King has exercised this by preventing other studios' efforts to protect their unique game names with their own trademarks.

Yet in King's statement (below), they make it clear that they don't believe that Stoic is trying to profit from a similar name, and say they do not wish to prevent Stoic from using the name. A claim that seems, well, rather peculiar given the circumstances, and their appearing to say something quite different in their Opposition. It's something Stoic have now told RPS they're not too pleased about either, stating, "We won't make a Viking saga without the word Saga, and we don't appreciate anyone telling us we can't."

There's a lot of misinformation and trumpeted claims being bandied around about the need to "defend trademarks". It's certainly true that if a company does not make an appropriate effort to assert their ownership of a product name, it can eventually be considered to have entered the public domain. However, this arguably does not directly translate to stamping on every small studio whose game name bares a passing resemblance to your own. And it certainly doesn't mean attempting to assert rights to a single word for which the trademark has not been granted.

King have certainly attempted to trademark "saga". But they haven't succeeded in doing so. The mark is currently in the status "SUSPENDED". You can look through the history of their attempts to claim ownership of the word since 29th November 2011, here. There's a whole bundle of legalese in there, but the short of it is, they don't have it. They do have marks for specific game titles like Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, etc, and with repeated use of "saga" in their trademarks, they appear to be arguing that other games using the word "saga" are therefore confused with their own. Although presumably this doesn't include the 2008 game SAGA by BlueOrb Studios, or all twelve games in Square Enix's ongoing SaGa universe, Westwood's 1988 RPG Mars Saga, the ongoing wonderful Hoshi Saga games by Nekogames, Atlus's Metal Saga or Divinity II: The Dragon Knight Saga, Namco's Sigma Star Saga or Culdcept Saga, December's Vita release Sorcery Saga, LucasArt's LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga, Sony's 2012 God Of War Saga collection, and on and on and on for hundreds of games, many falling into the time period claimed by King.



And yet, as we reported this morning, Stoic's application to trademark their game, "The Banner Saga", has been blocked by King. And at length. King's response to press enquiries as to why was as follows:

"King has not and is not trying to stop Banner Saga from using its name. We do not have any concerns that Banner Saga is trying build on our brand or our content. However, like any prudent company, we need to take all appropriate steps to protect our IP, both now and in the future. In this case, that means preserving our ability to enforce our rights in cases where other developers may try to use the Saga mark in a way which infringes our IP rights and causes player confusion. If we had not opposed Banner Saga's trade mark application, it would be much easier for real copy cats to argue that their use of "Saga" was legitimate. This is an important issue for King because we already have a series of games where "Saga" is key to the brand which our players associate with a King game; Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Pet Rescue Saga, Farm Heroes Saga and so on. All of these titles have already faced substantive trademark and copyright issues with clones."

Here's the thing, though. When you look at the Notice of Opposition (pdf) from King to Stoic's filing for their trademark, it really doesn't seem to match up to these words. It states,

"Applicant's THE BANNER SAGA mark is confusingly and deceptively similar to Opposer's previously used SAGA Marks."

Claiming the naming of Stoic's game is "deceptive" is really quite another thing from their statement. And Stoic themselves aren't buying it either. In a statement given to us this evening, they say,

"Two years ago, the three of us at Stoic set out to make an epic viking game: The Banner Saga. We did, and people loved it, so we're making another one. We won't make a viking saga without the word Saga, and we don't appreciate anyone telling us we can't. King.com claims they're not attempting to prevent us from using The Banner Saga, and yet their legal opposition to our trademark filing remains. We're humbled by the outpouring of support and honored to have others stand with us for the right to their own Saga. We just want to make great games."

And it's important to note that King's intervention on The Banner Saga isn't a one-off recent thing. They've been drawing this out, in efforts to prevent Stoic registering their game's name. A name they applied for, say Stoic, before King attempted their own registration of "saga" alone.

"We currently have a trademark filed for "The Banner Saga", which we submitted before King.com filed for the word "Saga". They've blocked our trademark and extended the deadline for the opposition twice so that we are unable to have the rights to the name."

So what are the consequences of this for Stoic? Where does it leave them?

King's public response is "King hasn't and isn't trying to stop Banner Saga from using its name. We don't have any concerns that Banner Saga is trying build on our brand or our content and so we're not asking them to change their name. Rather, we have asked them not to trademark it as their IP."

Essentially, we are not allowed to own the name "The Banner Saga" for our game about a viking epic, because King.com claims rights to the noun "Saga", which means "a viking epic", which they would retain forever more in the realm of games.

Here's the thing: the tragedy is, who's right or wrong is entirely irrelevant, because this will only ever come down to money. Stoic haven't told us what they plan to do next, but my guess is it's not going to be to make a legal challenge. Why? Because it would cost a fortune, and they're a tiny independent studio that wants to be able to continue making games. King have a portfolio of games that makes literally millions of dollars every day. If Stoic lawyered up, King could (and I stress "could" – we've no evidence that they would) bleed them dry of every last cent before anything got anywhere, and it wouldn't be a blip in King's accounts.

Bearing this in mind, I contacted King to ask them for some more specifics over their earlier statement. I asked about the seeming contradiction between their statement, and the wording of their Notice Of Opposition, and how they believed preventing Stoic from registering the game's name wasn't their stopping Stoic from using the name. (By preventing Stoic's ability to trademark "The Banner Saga", King are of course preventing Stoic from having any of the rights and abilities to protect themselves against clones and tricksters attempting to ride their own successes, leaving them exposed to the very issues King believes are so dangerous.) I also asked whether King recognised that their wealth and scale made it essentially impossible for small, independent studios to defend themselves against their actions, and finished by asking whether anyone at King has considered whether these actions are actually necessary? Since copyright can potentially protect them against the cloning they so frequently cite, while trademarks obviously can't do anything about that at all, do they really need to so aggressively assert their marks, whether owned or imagined, against small indies?

King's reply? They sent me the statement I was asking questions about, and quoting from.

When I mentioned that this didn't move us any farther on, I was told,

"This is the official response on this issue. Thank you."

I've asked for an interview with someone at King, based on a desire to put these questions to a person, and have been told that they'll "see what we can do". I genuinely hope they do, as I think it would be worthwhile to hear from their management in a frank exchange.

In the meantime, those are the statements from both sides of this Goliath Vs David dispute. A sad story, all round. Stoic can continue to call their game "The Banner Saga", and for the moment King are saying they won't pursue it further. They could of course change their minds. But it means Stoic can't own the trademark for "The Banner Saga", and as such are prevented from being able to protect their own unique brand. You can let King know how you feel about this situation here.

[LaCroix]

Stoic haven't told us what they plan to do next, but my guess is it's not going to be to make a legal challenge. Why? Because it would cost a fortune, and they're a tiny independent studio that wants to be able to continue making games. King have a portfolio of games that makes literally millions of dollars every day. If Stoic lawyered up, King could (and I stress "could" – we've no evidence that they would) bleed them dry of every last cent before anything got anywhere, and it wouldn't be a blip in King's accounts.

chicken little?

[Queequeg]

Anyone tried Hard yet?

[Scipio]

Anyone tried Hard yet?

Not yet.

[Tamas]

At one hand I am really interested in this game, on the other hand based on what I am reading it seems like a pretty linear story linking together very same-y tactical battles.
Yet I am having trouble resisting a purchase.

[Queequeg]

25 dollars would pay for enjoyment of the artwork alone.

[fhdz]

At one hand I am really interested in this game, on the other hand based on what I am reading it seems like a pretty linear story linking together very same-y tactical battles.
Yet I am having trouble resisting a purchase.

It's a linear story, yes - it'd be a little bizarre if it were a nonlinear game about getting from place X to place Y. There are some scripted events and there are some random, KoDP-style events.

The battles *are* somewhat same-y. I think they're fun, though.

[MadImmortalMan]

My neighbor growing up once tried to trademark middle C.