Blizzard has revealed the start and end dates for Overwatch Anniversary Remix: Vol. 3, the final limited-time event before the Overwatch 2 release date. It starts on August 9 and it will run until August 30.
MORE FROM FORBES‘Overwatch 2’ Won’t Have Another Beta Before LaunchBy Chris Holt
Overwatch Anniversary Remix: Vol. 3 replaces Summer Games this year. Along with allowing players to snap up all previous event cosmetics — including skins, emotes, voice lines and player icons — it will offer up remixed versions of fan-favorite skins from previous events. Judging by previous remix events, you may have another chance to unlock skins from previous weekly challenges too.
Remember: all of your cosmetics from Overwatch will transfer to Overwatch 2. There will be a way to merge accounts as well, so you can access all the cosmetics you’ve unlocked on PC and console from different devices.
With only two days to go before the event starts, we’ll soon find out which new skins it will have on offer.
In other news, the Overwatch League returns this week! Keep your eyes peeled on my blog for some insight from OWL officials on how Overwatch 2 you have impacted the league this year.
A lawsuit against Activision Blizzard was dismissed last month because, according to a judge in the Southern California District Court where the complaint was brought, the plaintiffs didn’t play enough Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare to make an informed case against the maligned publisher. For eleven in Activision Blizzard’s many contentious legal battlesthings ended smoothly.
According to to report by a litigation associate at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (who tipped Kotaku off), Activision Blizzard was sued in November 2021 by Brooks Entertainment, Inc., a California-based company specializing in film and TV production and other forms of entertainment. However, Kotaku couldn’t find an official website for the company. Brooks Entertainment and its CEO, Shon Brookswho describes himself as an inventor, claim they hold the trademarks for the financial mobile games Save One Bank and Stock Pickers. It should be noted that Kotaku couldn’t verify the existence of these games, either.Regardlessall three of these entities, alongside Activision Blizzard and 2016’s Infinite Warfarewere at the center of the lawsuit.
In October 2021, Brooks Entertainment alleged Activision ripped off intellectual property from both Save One Bank and stock pickeras well as the identity of its owner, in Infinite Warfare. To be more specific, the complaint asserted the “main character” for the 2016 first-person shooter, Sean Brooks, was based on the company’s CEO and that all three games had “scripted battle scenes that take place in a high fashion couture shopping center mall.” There were other similarities, too, but these claims were the crux of the complaint.
But if you’ve played just an hour or so of Infinite Warfare, you’d know this is all wrong. For one, the main character isn’t Corporal Sean Brooks at all but rather his squadmate CommanderNick Reyes, a space marine who becomes the captain of the game’s primary militia. Moreover, while there is a scripted battle scene in a shopping mall, it takes place in far future Geneva, one of many in-game locations, and Sean Brooks ain’t in it. You play as Reyes the entire time.
In January 2022, Activision’s counsel wrote to Brooks Entertainment’s counsel that the complaint “contain[ed] serious factual misrepresentations and errors, and that the claims set forth therein are both factually and legally frivolous.” If the company didn’t withdraw the lawsuit, Activision would file Rule 11 sanctions, penalties requiring the plaintiff to pay a fine for submitting dubious or improper arguments without substantial—or, for that matter, accurate—evidentiary support. And that’s exactly what happened in March 2022, when Activision filed its motions for sanctions against Brooks Entertainment, saying the plaintiffs failed to play Infinite Warfare and provided inaccurate filings.
G/O Media may get a commission
20% Off
Logitech G502 Lightspeed Wireless Gaming Mouse
Gaming! Uses exclusive ultra-fast wireless tech to make sure your mouse is faster than you are, can be sued alongside special software for highly-customizable performance, and has 11 buttons to mess around with, a hyper-fast scroll wheel, and RGB lighting too .
The Southern California District Court accepted Activision’s motions on July 12, dismissed Brook Entertainment’s lawsuit with prejudice (meaning the claim cannot be refiled in that court), and ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to compensate the troubled publisher for the money and time it wasted. In its conclusion, the court said the plaintiff failed to conduct a thorough and reasonable inquiry into the relevant facts about the game before filing the suit.
“Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare is a first-person shooter game, not first- and third-person as alleged, and Sean Brooks does not conduct a scripted battle scene in a high fashion couture shopping mall,” the court said in its ruling in favor of Activision. “Plaintiff’s counsel could have easily verified these facts prior to filing the factually baseless Complaint, just as the Court easily verified them within the first hour and a half of playing the game.”
Kotaku reached out to Activision Blizzard for comment.
Richard Hoeg, a lawyer who specializes in digital and video game law, told Kotaku that unprotectable concepts like the names of people used in fictional entertainment are pretty difficult to copyright and claim infringement upon.
“It’s hard to say why the suit was brought up,” Hoeg said. “Certainly if a suit gets kicked out *with sanctions* it wasn’t a very good one in the first place. It might be simply hubris or it may have been counsel encouraging a suit against a well-resourced party. The suit itself says [Brooks Entertainment] pitched a game to Activision between 2010 [and] 2015. That all said, the infringement lawsuit is awful, alleging infringement on such unprotectable concepts as: ‘Shon Brooks navigates through both exotic and action-packed locations and Sean Brooks navigates through both exotic and action-packed locations.’”
Hoeg went on to say it’s hard getting “actual sanctions imposed on you” because that would be a level of bad lawsuit filing well above just a simple dismissal.
“The court basically finds the whole argument crazy,” Hoeg concluded. “Brooks Entertainment even included Rockstar Games for no reason (which didn’t help their cause with the judge). So, the sanctions here are Brooks Entertainment [has] to pay for Activision’s legal fees and costs.”
While things may have ended well for Activision this time, the disparaged publisher is still causing legal headaches. The company was just blasted by Devil devs for union-busting. Again. Ugh.
Devil Immortal‘spay to win mechanics have been controversial since the game launched back in June. Now they’ve also apparently broken the game for at least one YouTuber who reportedly spent over $100,000 on beefing up his Barbarian character. The player’s win rate is seemingly so good the game won’t even match him against other players, torpedoing his prospects of competing in the latest Rite of Exile end game event.
over the weekend, Devil Immortal YouTuber jtisallbusiness asked viewers if he should try to refund his $100,000 account as a result of the issue. He claimed that he spent so much money immediately following the game’s release that he was able to easily overpower almost every opponent in the game’s PVP Battlegrounds mode. As a result, he had hundreds of wins and only a few losses, pumping up his MMR (match-making rank) so high it became impossible to queue with anyone else.
“I would say it’s probably around, somewhere around 48 to 72 hours somewhere in between that of only trying to queue for a Battleground and never being able to get one,” he said.
Jtisallbusiness contacted Blizzard about the issue almost a month ago, and said he was eventually told the problem would be addressed in a couple weeks. Now, however, his clan of him OneTimes is competing in the Rite of Exile to defend its Immortals title against other players as part of Devil Immortals elaborate end game. The only problem is Jtisallbusiness can’t join them. Part of the questline requires participating in a standard Battlegrounds PVP match, but because of his matchmaking limbo he was unable to qualify.
“So basically I’m stuck as the clan leader in the Immortals clan not being able to queue us up for Rite of Exile at all,” he said. “I can’t do anything about it.” Adding to his frustration from him is the fact that he’s trying to make money off Devil Immortal as a streamer and content maker, an effort now seemingly stymied by his early spending spree (other videos are devoted to showing off his collection).
For many other players in the community, however, it’s a chef’s kiss moment for everything they hate about the game’s monetization. “Congratulations, you just ‘won’ in a p2w game,” reads one of the top comments on his YouTube video discussing the issue. “Can’t complain about that, you got what you paid for.” Others shared similar sentiments, and the video itself was downvoted thousands of times.
Players on Reddit, where links to it were being passed around, were equally unmoved. “I know it’s his money from him and people can do whatever they want with theirs but come the fuck on man. 100k?! On Devil Immortal?!” wrote one person. “When someone’s Devil character is worth close to my entire mortgage,” wrote another.
Blizzard and jtisallbusiness didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. It’s also not yet clear how the situation will affect the rest of his clan, which includes players he said have each poured thousands of dollars of their own into the game. Once the Rite of Exile is completed, the top 30 challengers are pitted against a single Immortal who is transformed into a raid boss. One thing seems certain: It will not be Jtisallbusiness.
