Jump to content


WG going batshit with copyright threats?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2808 replies to this topic

ZorzDePaloma #661 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 36198 battles
  • 195
  • [DBWS] DBWS
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

So game is switching to pay-to-win definitely. Just count premium tanks published in last 6 months. Then most ridiculous thing was BLACK EDITION. You can buy IS-6 and you can buy IS-6 B. Why don't you let me have 2 regular tanks in my garage? Also, adding this new OP thing after OP defender, and OP S1 and OP Skorpion is really annoying. This Skorpion goes 60 kmh!!! And has a same gun as rhm... And these are tier 8 vehicles which opens another problem: overwhelmed tier 8 battles. Last night, I've played 30 battles in O-HO and the best I've got is full tier 8 battle!!! There wasn't a single battle with tier 6 or tier 7 tanks. So, your MM is still not fixed, it is better but still not fixed.

 

What would really hurt WG is that people stop wasting money on these things. So you can take a care of your customers. But this is not possible because of your beloved WWW (weekend wallet warriors).



Eokokok #662 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:00 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 17661 battles
  • 5,883
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View Postsignal11th, on 19 May 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

 

Is it really... I mean I'm going to go home later on tonight and still play the game, I'm still going to buy some prem and at last count there at probably more than 90% of the playerbase that don't come on to the forums, don't watch streamers and still by prem and OP tanks, it's going to damage WG like a fly damages a truck doing 60 mph down a motorway.

 

Tell you what if it makes you happy I shall light a candle for Foch when I get home tonight.

 

You clearly don't understand what community team does in a company, do you...

 

View PostBlackadder75, on 19 May 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

 

The policy didn't mention their stance on frequent use of the F-word when describing Wargaming and their content

 

Ph3lan threated with youtube sanctions, which according to his supervisor is a no-go zone for company, it is not that hard to understand now, please focus...



Jigabachi #663 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17297 battles
  • 15,415
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostEokokok, on 19 May 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

And why not?

Because, at the end of the day, this is nothing but an over-dramatized first world problem? They should come here, clear up the situation, apologize to everyone involved and finally work on their customer relation. No need to fire someone.



storm4710 #664 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16930 battles
  • 661
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostHeathLedger_, on 19 May 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

 

Which I did in multiple posts, including my OP. It's just that the threat ph3lan did was in that one and it was the thing that shows the post I replied to was flat out wrong for being a gullible [edited]and trusting a Wg representative on his words, when those words were either clear lies or a way to throw Ph3lan under the buss. 

 

There's no way a guy acts on his own in a case like this, I don't believe for one second Ph3lan went rogue and pulled this stunt, not when it's about a relatively high profile youtuber.

but this picture shows it all,
the other one does not (the only thing thats in the other picture is the link Ph3lan posts, which is foch´s video)

i sometimes hate WG(for the things they do, only have a couple of games after 9.18 because it sucks IMO)
and i cant stand Foch(not my cup of tea)
i dont care but not showing the full picture is messing with the truth of what has happend


Edited by storm4710, 19 May 2017 - 04:09 PM.


Njial #665 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM

    Head of Community Management

  • WG Staff
  • 6573 battles
  • 12
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.  

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate. 

 

 



HeathLedger_ #666 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 1,035
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

I've not defended any actions of WG in this case beyond the revoking of CC status.

 

And that's highly unnecessary as no one is really surprised about that. But the copyright threat is [edited]and Njial distancing himself and Wg and trying to act as if this was Ph3lan acting on his own is [edited]as well. Ph3lan acted on behalf of WG and Njial is responsible for the actions his employees take on behalf of WG. 

 

Block Quote

 And that I do because he didn't deliver a tank review, he delivered a royal FU WG review. That is not contributing in my book, that is crying a river of tears. I would have given him an inch more slack if he had actually bothered to play the game and show the replays... he didn't. That shows how much the tank itself was the focus of the video, AKA almost zero.

 

The fact he didn't even feature a review or in game model of the tank just makes sure the copyright strike is even more [edited]. Removing his CC status and access to the tank also removes his rights to get previews of tanks and feature them on his channel. It doesn´t do that retro/actively of course, so it's unfair to call copyright either way, but he used 3rd party tools everyone has access too to flame WG. And they threatened to copyright strike him for that. 

 

He didn't feature any exclusive content that only a CC would have rights to publish and they threatened to copyright strike him for it. That means it was just a tool to silence him, which is morally wrong and has never ever not backfired on a company. 



Blackadder75 #667 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8331 battles
  • 1,899
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

I apologize to SirFoch,

 

 

 

There you have it people. Now lets go home

Strappster #668 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:08 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20116 battles
  • 6,389
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 19 May 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

Thank god for Jim Sterling, son, and who or what is a Yahtzee?

 

Zero Punctuation. His third book is also out soon if not already and he writes his own video games in his spare time.

 

 

View PostHeathLedger_, on 19 May 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

It's only because there are some dingers saying this is bullcrap as well or I'd start thinking you need to be a professional WG shill to get in...

 

We accept enthusiastic amateurs who show promise. We like to see a good overall shill rating, your recents may not be enough.



Dennyb #669 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21178 battles
  • 1,909
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.  

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate.

 

Well for one, there is no implied threat. The threat of copyright striking and complete demonetisation of all WarGaming content is stated very clearly as can be seen in the screenshot. 

Secondly, don't apologise here, apologise directly to SirFoch, he's the one you wronged.



signal11th #670 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:08 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 30974 battles
  • 4,818
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate.

 

 

 

There we go , apology has been given to Foch by the Head of Community Staff now you can all go back to looking for another "cause celebre" to jump on.

Edited by signal11th, 19 May 2017 - 04:09 PM.


Grumledunk #671 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 49192 battles
  • 968
  • Member since:
    12-12-2012

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.  

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate. 

 

 

 

Good. Make this into a video preferably or a post on the main portal and you'll be repairing some of the damage done to your reputation.

Solexi #672 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 31311 battles
  • 506
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

and will continue to work on the we communicate. 

 

 

Hahahaha fantastic.

 

On a serious note, it's nice to hear an apology from WG and a promise to learn from this dire situation.



Strappster #673 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20116 battles
  • 6,389
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostGrumledunk, on 19 May 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Good. Make this into a video preferably or a post on the main portal and you'll be repairing some of the damage done to your reputation.

 

And send everyone who's posted in this thread 3,000 gold. Because ... uh ... reasons.



Corvids_Fall #674 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 26225 battles
  • 54
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

 And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. 

 

 

 

Finally a step in the right direction. Bravo.

 

Can we have a statement on the pace of premium tank releases and their apparent balance now too?



DorsVenabiIi #675 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14189 battles
  • 498
  • [H3H3] H3H3
  • Member since:
    03-31-2015

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.  

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate. 

 

 

 

Only reason you're making that statement is because the situation has forced your hand.

Nixuebrig #676 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31436 battles
  • 283
  • [CG4A] CG4A
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Postsignal11th, on 19 May 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

 

There we go , apology has been given to Foch by the Head of Community Staff now you can all go back to looking for another "cause celebre" to jump on.

 

if there would have been no pressure from the community, they would have gotten away with that.

 

The damage is done, it is hard to repair, if it is possible at all.



iSoL8R #677 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:11 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 43374 battles
  • 190
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

 We will certainly learn 

 

 

When EVER has WG learned from anything?

Steeltank141 #678 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:11 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15676 battles
  • 244
  • [4STAR] 4STAR
  • Member since:
    01-26-2015

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate. 

 

 

 

Please also learn that the stupid flood off OP premiums every f*ucking week is not working. That is what started this nonsence in the first place. 



Irisviel_Einzbern #679 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:12 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5677 battles
  • 28
  • [MTAA] MTAA
  • Member since:
    04-03-2016

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.  

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate. 

 

 

 

This makes more sense. Hopefully that also means more future thought into issues that Foch raised in his, uh... "review", because they are still legitimate concerns.

Also, considering the amount of buzz this caused already, I'd hope a statement with more reach is on the way.



CoDiGGo #680 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:12 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12853 battles
  • 450
  • [M0ARR] M0ARR
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

View PostCorvids_Fall, on 19 May 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

Can we have a statement on the pace of premium tank releases and their apparent balance now too?

 

 


Edited by CoDiGGo, 19 May 2017 - 04:17 PM.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users