Tank Designs Were Unintentionally Release Concept Art, Not Plagiarism, Claims EA

[IvanTSR]

This is publicity, the logo's, detailed background..

You know how easy it is to make those right? i.e. any graphic artist would put them on his internal pitch to a superior to make it look better...

[PURITy Kin]

They're not trying to "sell" it to their superior. They've already got the job, they're already being paid, their name is already on the credit. Why would you waste your superiors time and your employer's money by trying to "sell" him your idea which isn't original, when you've already got the job?

What you're talking about is the individuals port folio. It has nothing to do with the software life cycle or EA's marketing department. You must realise that these images did not come from the design team and they weren't leaked by insiders. They came directly from ea's marketing department. EA's marketing and pr department send out media kits to media orgs. Do you not understand that? They would have had to have been approved by at least (minimum) 2 layers of senior authority to even get that far. Is that so hard to understand. This isn't Ken Silverman's little labyrinth game being developed here, it's a professional software development organisation with strict procedures and policies.

[TRB]

It is after all EA.

Seriously, I can't be the only one that is being annoyed by this argument being thrown around in every "EA does xy" news post.
It just seems a little ignorant.

Ignorant?
What is it you think people are being 'ignorant' of?
what is it we don't know that you do?

[Anon. E. Moose]

It is after all EA.

Seriously, I can't be the only one that is being annoyed by this argument being thrown around in every "EA does xy" news post.
It just seems a little ignorant.

Ignorant?
What is it you think people are being 'ignorant' of?
what is it we don't know that you do?

Ignorant of the inner workings of EA. People so blindly follow the belief EA are pure evil and out to destroy our way of life.

The general consensus in the other news post was "Of course the designs are stolen, it's EA afterall" then along comes this news post and the new consensus is "Of course the whole thing was a marketing ploy, it's EA afterall."

[Marius]

The general consensus in the other news post was "Of course the designs are stolen, it's EA afterall" then along comes this news post and the new consensus is "Of course the whole thing was a marketing ploy, it's EA afterall."

My theory was based on more points than 'it's EA'.

The main point I stated was that GW and EA are business partners. Business partners have custom agreements about using IP. This is backed up by the statement that GW and EA have both resolved the issue internally. So quoting their external IP policy achieves nothing. Nor does copyright law say anything relevant. Law only comes into the picture after these arrangements fail.

Second, the leaked art came direct from the marketing department. Usually the main thing marketing departments release are, in fact, marketing ploys.

So what we have is marketing material released that GW have stated to be fine about. Isn't the most simple explanation that GW were informed of the whole thing all along?

[Anon. E. Moose]

My theory was based on more points than 'it's EA'.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the points you're putting foward.
I'm saying the ignorance is coming from people saying it's a marketing ploy simply because it's EA, not because it came from their marketing department.

[Tas]

The general consensus in the other news post was "Of course the designs are stolen, it's EA afterall" then along comes this news post and the new consensus is "Of course the whole thing was a marketing ploy, it's EA afterall."

My theory was based on more points than 'it's EA'.

The main point I stated was that GW and EA are business partners. Business partners have custom agreements about using IP. This is backed up by the statement that GW and EA have both resolved the issue internally. So quoting their external IP policy achieves nothing. Nor does copyright law say anything relevant. Law only comes into the picture after these arrangements fail.

Second, the leaked art came direct from the marketing department. Usually the main thing marketing departments release are, in fact, marketing ploys.

So what we have is marketing material released that GW have stated to be fine about. Isn't the most simple explanation that GW were informed of the whole thing all along?

I would have thought it rather obvious, or are we meant to declare our opinions now before others make a comment, I am glad you have "EA for life" poster on your little bedroom wall next to lady gaga. But for some of us, we dont see EA as anything but opportunistic, an lazy. Hence why they have the reputation that they do.
Or let me guess, your gonna say its "only my opinion" an EA dont do anything but enrich our lives.. blah blah... lol

[Marius]

No it's next to my Leliana poster.

[revengous]

^ post of the week.

[Tas]

No it's next to my Leliana poster.

I am sure that would be funny if I new who it was, but I dont follow young talent time sorry.

[revengous]

No it's next to my Leliana poster.

I am sure that would be funny if I new who it was, but I dont follow young talent time sorry.

[TRB]

Ignorant of the inner workings of EA. People so blindly follow the belief EA are pure evil and out to destroy our way of life.

The general consensus in the other news post was "Of course the designs are stolen, it's EA afterall" then along comes this news post and the new consensus is "Of course the whole thing was a marketing ploy, it's EA afterall."

I think its you who are ignorant.
Ignorant of why people say "its EA after all".

Its because EA [and activision and atari] are the worse kind of publishers/devs out there.
they don't care about the game for the sake of the game.
They only care about what will make the most $.

that is why, no one expects EA to do anything decent, only to do every sleazy thing possible that they think will increase their bottom line.

So its perfectly legitimate that people say "it is EA after all" when they do something that seems shonky, because EA are known for making shady moves all for the sake of the bottom line.

Devs and publishers that people don't expect that kind of move from get that reputation by doing things that maybe wont make them more money but will make for a better game.

So it should be no surprise that people think EA are capable of copy/pasting to mnake developing a game cheaper.
Anyone who's played dragon age 2 knows full well that EA has nothing against a game full of copy/paste.

[IvanTSR]

They're not trying to "sell" it to their superior. They've already got the job, they're already being paid, their name is already on the credit. Why would you waste your superiors time and your employer's money by trying to "sell" him your idea which isn't original, when you've already got the job?

Ever worked in/with or managed design? Tipping not. There is always an internal sell. Especially in a larger company which large design teams. As to why an individual would come up with copied material? Like I said in previous post. Lazy.

What you're talking about is the individuals port folio. It has nothing to do with the software life cycle or EA's marketing department. You must realise that these images did not come from the design team and they weren't leaked by insiders. They came directly from ea's marketing department.

And before they got to the marketing department they had to be designed. Likelihood that this occured within their design team = pretty decent.

EA's marketing and pr department send out media kits to media orgs. Do you not understand that?

Yes. Once the material has been designed. Concept art for a unit within the game would again, have to have been designed. By designer. Within a design team.

They would have had to have been approved by at least (minimum) 2 layers of senior authority to even get that far. Is that so hard to understand. This isn't Ken Silverman's little labyrinth game being developed here, it's a professional software development organisation with strict procedures and policies.

I don't know if you have ever worked within a huge organisation (i.e. govt or corporate) but if you ever do you'll drop the bar on your expectations pretty low. It is totally plausible that something completely plagiarised could make it that far. Tips are none of the senior authority play 40k.