Command and Conquer's "Baneblade"

[Bigred]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s720x720/419787_396055620421720_324066077620675_1434970_164 4117246_n.jpg

From Electronic Art's upcoming Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances
(http://www.facebook.com/TiberiumAlliances)
This could get ugly....

[frommage]

NO WAY!!! This as to be a fake! I mean what are EA's lawyers on?

[Joshh]

That's hilarious. I want one.

[Thornblood]

They really didn't have to change much to make it their own and unique... but heck 'copy paste' is just too easy.

Now whens this game out? I wanna kill things with my faux-blade!

<edit> browser based strategy game! Sweet!

[Kawauso]

The Baneblade is just an amalgam of features from various WWII tanks, and there -were- historic attempts to create tanks on a similar scale.

So even though it looks like a Baneblade, they really aren't 'stealing' much of anything. No one owns the concept of 'a really big tank, with lots of guns'.

[Cheexsta]

Agreed. The resemblance is definitely there, but it's different enough IMHO. And it's not like GW is completely innocent of the same thing.

[Big Jim]

Wow, that really does look like a Baneblade! At lease EA has the moxy to tussle with GW.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

It feels pretty presumptuous to call a generic tank covered in guns "Gamesworkshop's". It's an overarmed tank, 40k doesn't have a monopoly on those.

[TSINI]

Not only are the turrets positioned the same, but the hull is almost exactly identical, right down to the "hexagonal" shaping under the main turret

I don't care how "generic ww2" it is, basic design rights would cover that kind of similarity in a lawsuit

[fuzzbuket]

there are 3 turrets on the front intead of 2 but apart from that even the lasguns look the same :D

but i really dislike c&c and socail games so meh,

[docbungle]

With those rivets looks like the Orks have been at it again

[heretic marine]

lol, that thing looks so funny. but so does the real baneblade, but EAs is more funny

[Kazwulf]

I don't know if it is a copy, but that is very, very similar.

[thereverend]

haha, wow, that is cool. I don't know why GW and EA just didn't team up 10 years ago with C&C:40k, they both would have made a mint and GW wouldn't have had to go through teh whole development process like they did. we all would have been happy if EA had just renamed their armies Space Marines, Orks and ELdar and moded the graphics in a token gesture..

[Wolfshade]

Its completely different I don't see what the fuss is about :rolleyes:

[MajorWesJanson]

Looks a lot like the old Armorcast/ Epic Baneblade.

Why replace the Mammoth Tank with a knockoff Baneblade?

[Eyespy]

At lease EA has the moxy to tussle with GW.

EA's legal team would take GW's to school, and won't simply roll over to a cease and desist letter like most of GW's targets.

[p00zer]

mmmmm... tank.

[Lucian Kain]

Now we just have to wait for the GW Mammoth Tank,duel battle cannons and rockets

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Lol, I'm pretty sure that I've even seen a baneblade painted up like that.

[Colonel Kreitz]

Looks a lot like the old Armorcast/ Epic Baneblade.

Why replace the Mammoth Tank with a knockoff Baneblade?

Almost identical, in fact.

I assume this is in response to Games Workshop giving the Necrons Tesla weapons. Presumably, GW will soon respond by releasing a SoB special character named Tanya...

[Zuul]

Nothing about this smells right. I can't help but wonder what direction GW legal will take on this one.

[Kawauso]

They won't.

It's not a copyright violation.

And EA's got way more money to feed their lawyers.

But it's still not a copyright violation.

Just like Starcraft isn't a copyright violation of 40k, even though it is -super- -super- similar in terms of its aesthetic and even some of its background.

[Cartographer]

They won't.

It's not a copyright violation.

And EA's got way more money to feed their lawyers.

But it's still not a copyright violation.

Just like Starcraft isn't a copyright violation of 40k, even though it is -super- -super- similar in terms of its aesthetic and even some of its background.

I'm by no means any type of Copyright expert but I have to agree. If the name of the tank or an emblem was ripped from GW than they have something to fight, but there isn't enough unique character in the Baneblade that GW can claim IP on to fight other large tank designs.

[Terence]

I would wonder what the GW lawyers think about that?

[Kawauso]

They think that regardless of whether or not a case could be built, they don't have the money to go toe-to-toe with EA's legal team.

[Chuck777]

They think that regardless of whether or not a case could be built, they don't have the money to go toe-to-toe with EA's legal team.

Truth!

[Dragonlv8]

I posted this on the Tiberium wars page on facebook the other day and the page admin commented saying they were dropping it.

[Corvus-Master-of-The-4th]

^ Does that mean the Games Workshop Contacted them, or just pure coincidence? :)

[SOB]

First thing i thought was, are they bring back something from dawn of war?

[Denzark]

As commented on here, an in some of the links from the main BoLS page, this is an almost exact copy of the original epic baneblade, possibly called the Glaive or some such, in its original state.

Another site shows a copy of an old epic Ork vehicle I forget the name of.

Definite copies.

[Wildcard]

EA says it has resolved the issue with the tanks..


"Games Workshop and EA are aware of the IP issues around the artwork in question, which have now been resolved," an EA representative said. "The artwork was internal EA concept art that was unintentionally released publicly. No Warhammer 40,000 tanks have ever made an appearance in Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances, and never will.

Source:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-explains-command-and-conquers-warhammer-40k-tanks-6371694