Frankly as much as I think Jim is a self interested hypocrite he is right about these devs and hopefully this gets thrown out or it could set a really nasty industry precedent.
Asset flipping and shovelware are a big problem in indie dev and it would be nice to see these guys nailed with a counter suite for wasting Jim's time.
'Dumb' and 'desperate' are probably better words to describe them right now. I kinda doubt they made much money from their "game development" business, but it was probably easy money. Then Sterling came along and blew the whole thing up. Quite mercilessly, I might add. At this point they have nothing to gain but a small sum of money and a patch for their bruised egos. If they're lucky. Their case doesn't seem so strong and they don't seem to be planning on getting an attorney...
'Dumb' and 'desperate' are probably better words to describe them right now. I kinda doubt they made much money from their "game development" business, but it was probably easy money. Then Sterling came along and blew the whole thing up. Quite mercilessly, I might add. At this point they have nothing to gain but a small sum of money and a patch for their bruised egos. If they're lucky. Their case doesn't seem so strong and they don't seem to be planning on getting an attorney...
I doubt they will be able to get a dime from Sterling. He is nothing but a critic of the games that they put out to the public, and his opinion could have been stated by anyone, and in fact MANY other critics talked shit about that dev and their games.
It would be like Universal Studios suing the Schmoes guys for giving a movie a bad review.
Then again DH made a slanderous video themselves, which Jim can use against them in court. Then he has the audio interview he did with them. There is so much evidence against DH that any sane judge will throw out their suit as nothing more than a pathetic gasp of bullshit.
Remember, just because your suit is frivolous, doesn't mean it won't be heard in a court. Nor does it mean that an appellate court won't hear the appeal.
Remember, this is the same country where The Great American Pants Suit [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung] was a thing. And, even though karma bit the plaintiff on the ass, it still cost the defendant thousands of dollars in court expenses and caused them to shutter one of their businesses.
Does AZ law allow charges to be brought up for badgering someone with frivolous lawsuits?
He dredged their name because they're horrible at what they do and he's a critic, they're dredging his name for monetary gain and defamation (albeit by law).
Did they in fact steal assets before? is there proof of that?
1. Jim is a really small guy, business-wise so Disney financially I'm sure wouldn't give two craps about him.
2. Who Jim works for may go all the way up the chain to Disney but it still doesn't mean Disney is gonna financially care about anyone that works for a company that works for a company that works for itself.
3. I don't think Digi Homi is rolling in dough here unless scamming Steam users pays the big bucks so they're not exactly a juicy treat to go after anyway.
Does AZ law allow charges to be brought up for badgering someone with frivolous lawsuits?
He dredged their name because they're horrible at what they do and he's a critic, they're dredging his name for monetary gain and defamation (albeit by law).
Did they in fact steal assets before? is there proof of that?
I'm pretty sure any US court will allow a defendant to counter sue should a lawsuit be deemed frivolous. Especially if they make it known ahead of time. Jim would likely file a counterclaim demanding the suit be dismissed and that Digital Homicide foot the bill for his lawyer and legal fees.
As for theft, they regularly use Unity Assets. Mind you the entire point of Unity is that you buy the assets and use them as a base off of which to build your game. Jim is constantly talking about games that literally use the Unity assets without changing anything. Digital Homicide is often guilty of that. Also, he pointed out that in their game, The Slaughtering Grounds, the blood spatter was literally one of the first things you found on Google Image search. They didn't even do a good job of editing that as you could still see the white outline from the image.
And seriously, look closely at the spatter on the side. You can clearly see tons of white in the hard to read spaces between spots of blood and the larger pool. It couldn't be more obvious it was taken from Google Images.
These may not be illegal, but they sure as Hell are lazy. Digital Homicide is not afraid to take something that someone else made and make money off it.
Does AZ law allow charges to be brought up for badgering someone with frivolous lawsuits?
He dredged their name because they're horrible at what they do and he's a critic, they're dredging his name for monetary gain and defamation (albeit by law).
Did they in fact steal assets before? is there proof of that?
I'm pretty sure any US court will allow a defendant to counter sue should a lawsuit be deemed frivolous. Especially if they make it known ahead of time. Jim would likely file a counterclaim demanding the suit be dismissed and that Digital Homicide foot the bill for his lawyer and legal fees.
As for theft, they regularly use Unity Assets. Mind you the entire point of Unity is that you buy the assets and use them as a base off of which to build your game. Jim is constantly talking about games that literally use the Unity assets without changing anything. Digital Homicide is often guilty of that. Also, he pointed out that in their game, The Slaughtering Grounds, the blood spatter was literally one of the first things you found on Google Image search. They didn't even do a good job of editing that as you could still see the white outline from the image.
And seriously, look closely at the spatter on the side. You can clearly see tons of white in the hard to read spaces between spots of blood and the larger pool. It couldn't be more obvious it was taken from Google Images.
These may not be illegal, but they sure as Hell are lazy. Digital Homicide is not afraid to take something that someone else made and make money off it.
If AZ law works anything like for example Dutch law, all Jim has to do is bring proof that they've done it before and it will look like an easy mistake after that.
Defaming someone requires there was the intention to hurt the company and to spread falsehoods.
Jim didn't spread faulty information on purpose, he made an understandable mistake given the poor reputation of the developer and his perspective was coloured by that.
Unless they have proof of everything beyond that I don't see them winning this case.
He has posted evidence in his videos before; evidence of blood effects taken from Google without citation nor presumably permission, and evidence of promotional images taken from Deviantart without citation nor apparent permission are the only two I recall.
I think those to are what landed Sterling (or Stanton as it turns out) in trouble. He accused them of using them without permission and they didn't. They had permission. Everything else about them lazily using pre-made assets still stands, but it's a small legal technicality that snagged him. He has since retracted it but that doesn't matter in Arizona apparently.
I still seriously doubt this will end up with Jim being found liable. It's too petty and all else has that was said was true or a matter of opinion.
EDIT: Since DH released their own video slinging shit at Sterling, what's their status on the chopping block?
They are now sue Jim Sterling, for calling them out on their bullshit. How the fuck can anyone look at this seriously. I hope Sterling and his lawyer eat this company alive.
http://kotaku.com/angered-game-developer-sues-game-critic-jim-sterling-fo-1765484317 Here is the article.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2016cv00604/969057 Here is the link to the lawsuit filing.
Where I come from, threatening someone with harm is a form of assault. Now, I wish DigiHom the best of luck in proving he threatened them or that he caused anyone else to threaten him, but I think we all know the point isn't what they can prove; the point is how intimidated into silence he'll be by that long list of charges they'll totally sue him for. No, they're gonna do it. For real. I'm super cereal.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
