To think, this could have all been avoided if Ubisoft simply ASKED the guy for permission to use the idea.
Author Claims Assassin's Creed Set-Up Was His Idea
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
You're assuming Ubi (or anyone else, for that matter) had ever read or heard of his book. The novel in question is only distributed online and had 1 amazon review for all its years of publication, at least prior to the moron brigade trying to blast the book and author because he's suing Ubisoft. This is not an issue of "Ubisoft clearly read and made direct reference to my work without compensating me" but is rather "Here are a few coincidental common elements in our works, mine came first so GIMME MONEY!"Dynamo9876 said:
True, but then you'd have to consider how much Ubisoft is willing to risk with their games. You'd think a big company like them would have the time and money to spend researching their ideas to see if anyone else is already using them to make sure they aren't crossing the line into copyright infringement. That way they wouldn't have to deal with frivolous lawsuits like this in the first place.Nerexor said:
I'm sure they spend some time on that (and I think I saw a post earlier which claimed that Ubi had gotten permission from another novelist to use some of their ideas), but consider the subject matter: Conspiracy theories, assassins, templars, and experiencing genetic memories. These are subjects that have seen a lot of use in fiction. Which is why the low distribution of this guy's book is a factor, if the book is obscure and difficult to find, then it could easily have been missed by Ubi's research. And that's only an issue assuming his claims of similarity actually hold up. Even if they do, the best he can say "Is someone at Ubi might have read my book and taken those ideas but I have no proof one way or the other."Dynamo9876 said:
You can't account for every book and idea that someone else might have had that's similar to a creative work that you (or your major software company, in this case) is making. You just hope they have the good grace to be an adult about it instead of a lawsuit happy twit.
Dammit guy, read the rest of the thread.Jamous said:
This entire thread is littered with people having the same 'revelation' as you. Maybe you should sue them for having the same idea as you.
It's not a very creative idea, dude.
Granted, I never read the book, but the guy sounds kind of full of himself.
Granted, I never read the book, but the guy sounds kind of full of himself.
I can see how the ideas are similar but they are implemented in very different ways. In the book the plot seems to focus on the machine where as the Animus is more just there so that the story can be told (yes it becomes more relevant later but still). Besides, you trip over religious themes everywhere in modern story telling. I don't see how he has a case.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what if the author never plays video games so doesn't take notice on releases for video games? What if he has only recently became aware of the similarity.
I have only played Ass Creed 1, and never read the guy's book so I won't put any judgement.
I have only played Ass Creed 1, and never read the guy's book so I won't put any judgement.
Right, because when something is well known, you must know about it. Ask people in this thread how many know King Lear by Shakespeare, or The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. These are well read popular books. That he's late come to this doesn't prove anything.gigastar said:
There's a difference between having an "idea" and having already written the story. An idea has no copyright protection (for obvious reasons), but a piece of work does. And bearing in mind that this was written before Assassin's Creed, I guess it's possible that they "borrowed" from his work.thiosk said:
Speaking as a person who has never played Assassin's Creed or read Link, I have to say that there are some similarities between the concepts. I guess what matters now is whether the courts deem the idea specific enough for it to be attributed to one copyright.
Hmmm, well I have mixed opinions on this.
On the surface this is a legitimate complaint, the basic concept of his novel is very similar to what "Assasin's Creed" is doing, even if the use the concept/technology is being put towards is differant. The idea of the way the philsophies run and the exact "mesaage" or meaning behind some of the actions and conflicts also sounds very similar.
What's more, creators have been known to steal from each other regularly, and the "little guy" with one book to his credit and little in the way of financial resources is a frequent victim. After all a big company generally doesn't want to give a "one hit wonder" millions of dollars to use something they thought of first. This has gone back and forth for a VERY long time accross tons of media platforms, with mixed results.
Looking at it differantly though, the idea of "genetic memory" is an old one, being inherant to certain well known concepts like memes, and how say people from one part of the world without any real guidance will tend to gravitate towards doing things in the style of their forefathers.
The subject is touchy because for everything that can be said to support it, it basically amounts to racism because the basic idea is that someone with say the "genetic memory" of a people that never went anywhere or remained primitive for a long time, is inferior in terms of instincts and creativity to someone from a people that progressed more. Even if there are no real differances in overal capabilities, that genetic memory does make a differance. Basically one guy having to work against the genetic memories of his ancestors, while another person can work with them. Or so many of the arguements go, and as a result it remains as a "fringe science". It's one of those things that if ever proven to the point of being accepted in the mainstream could have a LOT of ramifications, so a lot of people don't want the answers. A good example of this would be "Avatar" where they talk about kicking the Na'Vi's arses so hard it will be burned into their genetic memory, which is possible under this theory (it not just coming from positive developments and achievements), the ramifications of being able to literally do something like that are obvious, and the contreversy when it comes to later development pretty much writes itself.
That said the idea of using machines to read genetic memories is an old one, involving such wierd science fiction concepts as someone say abducting a guy to find out where his ancestors hid a treasure, or using a machine to use the "memories" of an ancestor who was a famous writer to produce best selling novels, or whatever else. A "memory machine" of this sort showed up in the old "Warehouse 23" supplement for Steve Jackson's "GURPS" game (to which I am surprised the "Warehouse 13" TV series did not give a nod).
That said, I think the idea has been around long enough, and been contreversial in enough circles, where I do not think anyone can claim to really "own" it for purposes of science fiction right now. The guy writing "Link" himself was doubtlessly inspired by other sources and what is a general scientific theory.
While similar cases hold weight, I don't think his is going to, and that has nothing to do with the Assasins killing people and such, because what actually happens in the Assasin's Creed game was irrelevent to his claims, merely the basis used to frame it.
Of course even if he was right it probably wouldn't matter. I was kind of bummed out when the guys doing "Underworld" got away with it. I'm not a big fan of White Wolf (kind of an understatement) but they WERE 100% correct in that movie ripping off a paticular story called "For Love Of Monsters"... a point a lot of people seem to miss, in thinking it was all about "modern vampires" or other things. I read a lot about it at the time, and as much as I liked the first "Underworld" movie, I had to admit that White Wolf WAS right.
On the surface this is a legitimate complaint, the basic concept of his novel is very similar to what "Assasin's Creed" is doing, even if the use the concept/technology is being put towards is differant. The idea of the way the philsophies run and the exact "mesaage" or meaning behind some of the actions and conflicts also sounds very similar.
What's more, creators have been known to steal from each other regularly, and the "little guy" with one book to his credit and little in the way of financial resources is a frequent victim. After all a big company generally doesn't want to give a "one hit wonder" millions of dollars to use something they thought of first. This has gone back and forth for a VERY long time accross tons of media platforms, with mixed results.
Looking at it differantly though, the idea of "genetic memory" is an old one, being inherant to certain well known concepts like memes, and how say people from one part of the world without any real guidance will tend to gravitate towards doing things in the style of their forefathers.
The subject is touchy because for everything that can be said to support it, it basically amounts to racism because the basic idea is that someone with say the "genetic memory" of a people that never went anywhere or remained primitive for a long time, is inferior in terms of instincts and creativity to someone from a people that progressed more. Even if there are no real differances in overal capabilities, that genetic memory does make a differance. Basically one guy having to work against the genetic memories of his ancestors, while another person can work with them. Or so many of the arguements go, and as a result it remains as a "fringe science". It's one of those things that if ever proven to the point of being accepted in the mainstream could have a LOT of ramifications, so a lot of people don't want the answers. A good example of this would be "Avatar" where they talk about kicking the Na'Vi's arses so hard it will be burned into their genetic memory, which is possible under this theory (it not just coming from positive developments and achievements), the ramifications of being able to literally do something like that are obvious, and the contreversy when it comes to later development pretty much writes itself.
That said the idea of using machines to read genetic memories is an old one, involving such wierd science fiction concepts as someone say abducting a guy to find out where his ancestors hid a treasure, or using a machine to use the "memories" of an ancestor who was a famous writer to produce best selling novels, or whatever else. A "memory machine" of this sort showed up in the old "Warehouse 23" supplement for Steve Jackson's "GURPS" game (to which I am surprised the "Warehouse 13" TV series did not give a nod).
That said, I think the idea has been around long enough, and been contreversial in enough circles, where I do not think anyone can claim to really "own" it for purposes of science fiction right now. The guy writing "Link" himself was doubtlessly inspired by other sources and what is a general scientific theory.
While similar cases hold weight, I don't think his is going to, and that has nothing to do with the Assasins killing people and such, because what actually happens in the Assasin's Creed game was irrelevent to his claims, merely the basis used to frame it.
Of course even if he was right it probably wouldn't matter. I was kind of bummed out when the guys doing "Underworld" got away with it. I'm not a big fan of White Wolf (kind of an understatement) but they WERE 100% correct in that movie ripping off a paticular story called "For Love Of Monsters"... a point a lot of people seem to miss, in thinking it was all about "modern vampires" or other things. I read a lot about it at the time, and as much as I liked the first "Underworld" movie, I had to admit that White Wolf WAS right.
In the end it comes down to how similar the ideas are. So while broad ones can be copied, more specific ones belong to a single copyright. In the end it's up to the judge to decide how similar the ideas are.FoolKiller said:
And as for the "might not be a gamer" thing, I totally agree. The people of this community often forget that people outside this community hear next to nothing about what's going and what stories are being told in even AAA games. When I think of my family for example, I think only my sister would be able to say: "Yes, Assassin's Creed is a video game." And even she wouldn't be able to tell you what it's about. So with that in mind, I wouldn't say it's inconceivable that a writer hadn't heard about Assassin's Creed's plot up until now.
