Company of Heroes III - Your expectations

"Besides the utilitarian argument, thoroughly in favor of deposing IP law, there's also the natural law argument: if property is from the natural law, then why haven't the vast majority of civilizations throughout history acknowledged intellectual property along side it? Why is it a very recent invention?

Relatively speaking, the complete end of legalized slavery in the west, suffrage, child labor laws, etc. are "recent inventions." How long the idea has been around is irrelevant.

Moreover, what constitutes ownership, and how can one 'own' an 'idea'? If ideas are ephemeral universals, they must be owned by all, as one could only discover and distribute ownership: there would be no way to scarcity in the economic sense, and thus no way to lock it down as a given person's. If ideas are only present in each mind, be it as universals or as particulars or as illusions, they must be re-created in each person's mind from external stimuli. If it is their creation, and if its removal depends upon aggressing (lobotomizing) them, then it is theirs wholly simply by knowing it."

Your argument is really odd. On one hand its a "everyone owns everything" communist mentality, but you rationalize it because it would supposedly increase competition, which is a free market idea. Well you don't increase competition by letting someone be lazy and steal code, and then repackage Relic's hard work with different icing on the top to cut in to their market. They don't own the rights to WW2 RTS, cover system, vet, or any other concepts in their game. If someone else wants to compete and develop a COH clone under a new title that would be great, but they better get their own art assets, engine, etc. Ripping off 95% of someone elses hard work just to improve the shitty 5% would be so pathetic, thank god for intellectual property laws.

i'm not sure that they really want to make another company of heroes. With Sega in their back they probably want more futuristic stuff

Relatively speaking, the complete end of legalized slavery in the west, suffrage, child labor laws, etc. are "recent inventions." How long the idea has been around is irrelevant.

Your argument is really odd. On one hand its a "everyone owns everything" communist mentality, but you rationalize it because it would supposedly increase competition, which is a free market idea. Well you don't increase competition by letting someone be lazy and steal code, and then repackage Relic's hard work with different icing on the top to cut in to their market. They don't own the rights to WW2 RTS, cover system, vet, or any other concepts in their game. If someone else wants to compete and develop a COH clone under a new title that would be great, but they better get their own art assets, engine, etc. Ripping off 95% of someone elses hard work just to improve the shitty 5% would be so pathetic, thank god for intellectual property laws.

You mistake my argument(s), sir. I'm not arguing both sides, I'm defending both angles of attack, so no matter what one's position on what constitutes an idea is (there are only those two; either universals or particulars manifest in the mind and some combination of these things) they still cannot rationally be owned. My personal position is the latter, that they are manifest as particulars in each person's mind and not some Platonic universal or communistic public property. They are created by each person and cannot be deprived (that is, appropriated, thus there is no homesteading ideas) from anything. One cannot own that which one could not take from nature first. There is no theft, for theft implies appropriation and thus deprivation from another; one creates each particular idea in one's mind, and the mind which houses it they have complete ownership of. Now, what would be wrong is stealing or altering (without permission) the hardware that the software is on; be it brain or drive.

Furthermore, the argument from time is not meant to stand alone but in context of the more important argument, which I outlined above. It's 'empirical indication that supports deduction of truth, which itself is immutable regardless of the supposed empirical tale (which further needs to be interpreted by an analytical framework, or truth deduced from truth).' For my axiom I take that of self ownership, and reason out what it means to 'own' something, through Lockean homesteading and original appropriation, and what something must be to be ownable. That aside, slavery was not a nearly universal feature of complex society, as say the institution of private property is recognized in some way, nor was suffrage. And, for child labour, the victory is owed to the free market: it turns out when the marginal revenue product of the parents are enough to support the family without putting their children to work they elect to take their children out of work, as rational parents want. Child labor is necessary for those families and places where the marginal revenue product has not yet reached that stage, otherwise the family starves. It is a sad essential for economic development, just as we must say lower levels of capital structure accumulation are earlier stages of such development.
What I mean by all the above is that the natural law is not objective, or subjective. It is normative, and must be carefully distinguished. That is, it implies a norm towards which we should all propend, that nature or its author has allowed us to deviate is because "of the hardness of [our] hearts."

Again, intellectual property law acts as a cost ceiling or price floor. Ceteris paribus, it decreases the supply of a given thing, and prevent the market from tending towards equilibrium. There will be more supply, if it is not reached already.
Lastly, I'll re-post the utilitarian argument of my main post which you seem to have missed: to be consistent, you'll have to argue that the fashion, magic, comedic, food, and furniture industries are deplorable because they don't have IP law.

Anyways, saying there are other games around is more akin to saying he could eat cheese or drink milk instead of eat bread. There's only one baker, largely thanks to intellectual property law. Which is a hamper on the market's tendency towards equilibrium.
Now, if such laws were removed, society as a whole would be that much richer. It is a case of what is seen (a very immediate effect on a special interest group) and what is not seen (the longer term effects on everyone as a whole), as Bastiat says in Economic Sophisms and Hazlitt says in Economics in One Lesson ( https://mises.org/library/bastiat-collection and https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson, horray free PDFs!). This is not so far-fetched a suggestion. There are plenty, tons, of industries completely devoid of IP, such as the food industry, the furniture industry, the fashion industry, the comic industry, the magician industry. Alas, do we hear much complaining about those? Not a whit. Is IKEA or Brian Reagan out of business because someone copies their designs or jokes? No. Moreover, those high profile ones who do try to copy the jokes or reveal the magicians secrets are universally ousted and campaigned against, which is why it doesn't happen much. In fashion, people pay hand over fist understanding they could get an exact replica for cheaper but with a lesser degree of prestige. Why would it be any different with software? It wouldn't, don't be a silly. There are many routes to secure profit without IP laws, and those that say otherwise are simply uncreative (or not applying their creativity) or selfish. I will give you two small examples. Say, hardware developers would be out of business if they had no software to sell on. They have a vested interest, therefore, in funding game developers that people might buy their physical products. Another, say that a group of developers decides to "kickstart" and fully fund a project that way, and sign NDAs / contracts internally binding them all to keep things on lock until the funding goals are met.

Let me add to that: the entire history of technological innovation has been to stand on the shoulders of giants and make small, incremental improvements. This is how the steam engine, the light bulb, the loom, and so many other marvels, were created. It is rational to apply the same understanding of progress to things like software.
Last:

Without IP law I'd predict a much healthier games industry, and a much healthier modding community. Hardware people and alternate funding methods provide strong, flexible bases with ever expanding middleware and assets that take little more to improve or produce, and those passionate fans would tweak the games and host private services as they reached paragon status or fell by the wayside. I stand with Kinsella alongside an eminently rational position: https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 (with a free audiobook too!).

Best 3D models and it would be perfect

Instead of a whole new game, I would love to see one last expansion only taking place in the pacific. I can see that factions being Japan's Imperial Army, China's revolutionary army, U.S.M.C., and American-Filipino army. Other factions can include those from India and Burma. I also think maps could be interesting with the implication of small watercraft and maps consisting of small islands. but just a pipedream is all

Furthermore, the argument from time is not meant to stand alone but in context of the more important argument, which I outlined above. It's 'empirical indication that supports deduction of truth, which itself is immutable regardless of the supposed empirical tale (which further needs to be interpreted by an analytical framework, or truth deduced from truth).' For my axiom I take that of self ownership, and reason out what it means to 'own' something, through Lockean homesteading and original appropriation, and what something must be to be ownable.

Not trying to be an asshole, but this a gaming forum, and most of us didn't waste way too much money on a philosophy degree. Its like learning to speak Latin; its 2016 so no1 cares.
I could ramble on and on about climate/energy/regulation, IR theory, global economy, etc. but I know most people here don't care, so I won't.

to be consistent, you'll have to argue that the fashion, magic, comedic, food, and furniture industries are deplorable because they don't have IP law.

With all those industries, you have to put in your own work. You can take inspiration, but you can't sell other peoples shit. For example a comedian can copy someones style and cater to the same audience, they still have to be funny and give a good delivery. On the other hand I cannot burn a DVD montage of the funniest bits from a Louis CK and Ricky Gervais standup and sell it, which is more comparable to mandating all video games be open source.

Let me add to that: the entire history of technological innovation has been to stand on the shoulders of giants and make small, incremental improvements. This is how the steam engine, the light bulb, the loom, and so many other marvels, were created. It is rational to apply the same understanding of progress to things like software.
Last:

Its comparing apples to oranges. All of those things took years of refinement to improve and replace. Bethesda makes great games, but they are usually buggy on release. The PC version always has a community made patch that squashes a lot of the bugs before the official patch. As a result someone could buy the next Elder Scrolls game, fix a bunch of their bugs first in a couple of days, and then sell the whole game?!?! Literally an absurd proposal, if that's what you're saying. If everyone that bought the game a couple days after the release had the option of $60 buggy vanilla game, or $60 unofficial patch version, there would be no reason not to buy the version with less bugs.

I expect nothing from Relic at this point

Africa
Italy
Brits and US vs Germany and Italy
Better commander system
Not rushed
Optimized
Side armor
Infantry spacing/clumping button
More utility on weapon teams
House breaching to break the garrison meta

all i want is that launch state be as polished as coh2 is now. plus optimisation.

Not trying to be an asshole, but this a gaming forum, and most of us didn't waste way too much money on a philosophy degree. Its like learning to speak Latin; its 2016 so no1 cares.
I could ramble on and on about climate/energy/regulation, IR theory, global economy, etc. but I know most people here don't care, so I won't.

Hey, well, I didn't waste money getting a philosophy degree either, so we have something in common.
Though, I'd appreciate it if you didn't simply ignore a fundamental argument and only focused on the utilitarian argument. It doesn't take a degree to do some thinking, I'm sure you can come up with something reasonable... if that position is reasonable. Go ahead! Otherwise I'll repeat the same arguments, utterly unopposed save for snobbery, to anyone with a healthy (open) disposition on argumentation.

With all those industries, you have to put in your own work. You can take inspiration, but you can't sell other peoples shit. For example a comedian can copy someones style and cater to the same audience, they still have to be funny and give a good delivery. On the other hand I cannot burn a DVD montage of the funniest bits from a Louis CK and Ricky Gervais standup and sell it, which is more comparable to mandating all video games be open source.

The only reason people have to put in their own work for comedy and magic is because the communities are staunchly against it, as I've already said: comics who've 'stolen' jokes are ousted by an army of angry pamphleteers and their ticket sales plummet. Val Valentino can't get any gigs and other magicians refuse to associate with him because of what he did to reveal their secrets. Say, why can't the 'work' be cracking the dev's code the same way a magician gets into the industry (and why does removing intellectual property law mandate they all be open source)? Or, why can't people simply shun those who are proven to come about their software through dishonorable means, informed by an army of angry internet pamphleteers? There is no obstacle. If there is demand sufficient for a profit, no matter the industry, would-be suppliers would find creative ways of getting that profit. People are incentivized to give workers that profit any ways, because without them they wouldn't have anything.
All that aside, you can't 'sell someone else's shit' if it wasn't ownable in the first place, and so I point to my earlier arguments that you hand-waved. How about you foxtrotting address what it means to own an idea so I can demolish it?

Its comparing apples to oranges. All of those things took years of refinement to improve and replace. Bethesda makes great games, but they are usually buggy on release. The PC version always has a community made patch that squashes a lot of the bugs before the official patch. As a result someone could buy the next Elder Scrolls game, fix a bunch of their bugs first in a couple of days, and then sell the whole game?!?! Literally an absurd proposal, if that's what you're saying. If everyone that bought the game a couple days after the release had the option of $60 buggy vanilla game, or $60 unofficial patch version, there would be no reason not to buy the version with less bugs.

No reason to buy an inferior quality product for the same amount of money? That's right. Would Bethesdas still exist and turn a handsome profit in an industry devoid of IP law? I bet you anything that they would, though I also bet they'd shape up right quick if they knew the rules of the game were gonna be changed. Besides, you failed to address my points about alternative funding / monetization schemes that would likely appear in the absence of state-enforced monopoly on ideas (again, something that's unownable. Do I need to copy-paste the arguments again?).

As much as I love the CoH franchise, I think this would be the thing they deserved for fucking with their customers for almost 10 years.

If my baker made bread for his customers and everyone wanted full wheat but he always made white sandwich bread, he would be bankrupt in less than 3 months.

The problem with Relic is that they are the only bakers out there and people have to deal with their shit because of that. No one likes Relic. We just have to stick with it because there is no alternative. It's like the current US election.

You have your own baker?

Besides, you failed to address my points about alternative funding / monetization schemes that would likely appear in the absence of state-enforced monopoly on ideas (again, something that's unownable. Do I need to copy-paste the arguments again?).

Everyone already said they don't own the ideas of a squad and cover based WW2 rts. Broad ideas will not get legal protection. Be philosophical all you want, but at the end of the day the USPTO (or any other intellectual property office) considers software design as a trade secret.

I don't know, I wouldn't mind a new setting, I think. But no future bullshit, please, unless it has a quality backstory on Half Life 2 level. Everything that isn't a grim, atmospheric dystopia is annoying when it comes to future settings. Like, please no shiny buttons and shit, please no!

The problem with the ww2 setting is, that, as time passes, the whole emotional black-and-white portrayal becomes more and more difficult, since, through time progressing, it all becomes less emotionally involved.
What I mean is, it gets harder to hate the germans in games . You will notice, if you look at the tone of CoH 1 without expansion, that they were shown more like cartooney villains, but that tone has become more and more neutral. And it had to because if they want to make their regular soldiers out to be some inhumane monsters, all of them, people just find that iffy nowadays.

You know, that's the neat thing about settings like Starcraft or Lord of the Rings: The footfolk of the bad guys are not human, they are some despicable monsters, that makes it much easier to hate those guys.
I mean, if I play a game, I don't want realism, where there's no absolute good or absolute bad; in a game, I prefer black and white.
What I'm saying is, the germans are not the perfect bad guys they used to be. Even though history has not changed and we know they had an iffy political leadership / ideology to say the least, the perception of the regular footfolk has become more differentiated, making it harder to portray them as cartooney villains all together.
That might be a good thing per se, but since in games the footfolk are what you're gonna be killing most of the time, they have become less ideal bad guys, If you know what I mean.

Yes, over the top black-and-white can be shitty: Example: In vCoH 1, just look at the intentional ugly design of Grenadiers and the idle lines of the Wehrmacht faction. Then again, I never had a problem with the evil, cartooney lines they gave some Wehrmacht guys, in fact, I found that whole underlying tone of indoctrination and all (they even had red flags on the HQ) interessting, it made it more like a movie, more emotionally involving. Even if it's a bit over the top. Where it went too far for my taste was when they intentionally uglyfied the basic german footfolk, the Grenadiers, and still insisted that these represent regular troops of germany, even in the ingame unit description. Because then they got into the territory of willingfully dehumanizing them. But that is a detail many missed since they didn't bother zooming in all the time...

So what does all that mean for CoH 3??
It means: Relic, get the tone right!! The tone in CoH 2 (base game) was not too engaging, the germans had unknown uniforms that took away WW2 feel. WW2 is a brand. It has iconic things, iconic uniforms! Use them if you make World War games!
The germans of the Wehrmacht faction in CoH 2 didn't sound german enough and didn't look german enough. You have to be on point with the germans if you make a WW2 game in the European Theatre. Bring back a more cinematic feel to the genre, a bit more exaggerated, a bit more dripping with underlying tones of ideology, but refrain from plain insults like the Grenadier uniforms in CoH 1!

^^the same stuff also applies should they go for another historical setting or a contemporary one.

figured as Jaedrik brings up IP and copyright law, I'd take the opportunity to share one of my favourite stories of patent destruction

Oh gosh, this is hilarious. Thanks for sharing
Sorry for hijacking threads--but I thought it was initially relevant to FaHu and HighFiveeee arguing.

My hopes:
Still set in WW2, with clear focus on time period e.g. Africa Campaign, Battle of France, Italian Campaign. Possible pacific theatre but no melee combat.
Focus on varied missions with challenging objectives, not 'sit here for 10 minutes and blast everything that charges headlong toward you'.
Focus on quality over quantity with map and commander design, move back to commander tree system
No more 'X faction early, Y faction late' balance
Either make bulletins useful or remove them
Side Armour
DLC for maps and single-player content, not multiplayer assets
Streamline UI
All the other small improvements that have been suggested 1000 times but ignored

My expectations:
The game doesn't get made

Infantry spacing/clumping button

Now this is a great idea. Could have it like a squad formation selection like in aoe2. Also with True Sight, that would give excellent strategic opportunity and counter to arty.

WW1

Imagine , you want to make a RTS Game.

and one great idea crosses your mind. Let's put a radius limitation on SHIFT ORDER.
Wow! Great! The idea of failure.

Improvements from COH1: True Sight (respect), Graphics (not a revolutionary as COH1), pathing (just kidding) and a few other things which i even don't remember after 1k hours gameplay.

On the other hand, P2W Commanders, Unbalanced game(indeed if you have p2w commanders , you should not expect balanced game, right?) are kinda annoying.

I don't want to say anything more.

I don't trust in Relic. They destroyed our hearts as the same way how George Lucas destroyed Star Wars.

No expectations. Really don't want another Coh game for now.

Why: Relic has already a good product in hands as Coh2, if they can't fix, monetize, why should i bother for more game incoming from them ?

Thanks.