This might help to understand the situation better.
Please read carefully. Don’t let this NFT situation ruin the game for you.
As scummy as it is, BHVR is pretty much forced to do what the current license holders of Hellraiser want. The current license holders lose their ownership of Hellraiser at the end of the year and it transfers to a different owner (Park Avenue Entertainment to the original writer Clive Barker on 19 Dec 2021).
What this essentially is, therefore, is PAE using the license they granted to BHVR to force BHVR to give them the models and keys necessary for them to work with a THIRD group called Boss Protocol (of which I can find NOTHING online other than a [.io] website and a Twitter profile created on 22 Sept 2021) to make said NFTs (Boss Protocol seems to be a group that makes NFTs based on IPs).
So, it is pretty ######### that BHVR is wrapped up in this, but it looks to me like they A) have no choice in the matter because it's PAE behind the NFTs and B) need to work on the wording of their licensing contracts in the future so that this doesn't happen again. The spookiest thing about this whole shitshow is what the ######### is Boss Protocol?
The only things I can find on them are their [.io] site, which has nothing but a big advertisement for this whole Hellraiser NFT, and a brand new Twitter page. Digging further, they have the same icon as the similarly named Boss Team Games, which makes games based on IPs fans love, so I would expect it's a spinoff of BTG.
BTG also has a link on their homepage titled "NFT" which leads to BP's [.io] page. The young age of both BTG and BP makes me smell a massive scam there (BTG formed in Dec 2020 and BP in Sept 2021 and I can't find anything on employees/etc) but I am about 80-90% sure that BHVR has only complied with licensing orders under PAE, who are the ones working with BP. That all said, this is still a REALLY ######### practice, and BHVR REALLY needs to look at their licenses in the future to prevent this from happening again, because the vast majority of folks online don't support NFTs or other scams. From what I can see, the NFT is in no way related to the gameplay of DbD and therefore isn't going to break Steam's new rules regarding NFTs and crypto in games. The closest thing to it is that you get (or might get) a Steam key for the DLC.
This is from Twitter. Someone did a very good research.
Comments
-
I would rather have no Hellraiser content in the game if it was NFT-related in the slightest.
That's the long and short of it. If BHVR had said "No, we won't work with you if you plan on using this for NFT-related objects," I would have been amazed.
But they didn't. No matter what the "agreement" is, BHVR said "MORE MONY PLEASE" and went with NFTs, regardless of what their involvement is.
If it means they provided any assistance to generating NFTs whatsoever, I want Hellraiser content stripped out of the game until such a time as no one involved in the process of licensing Hellraiser to DbD is involved in NFTs.
11 -
This. BHVR had a choice to make, and they made the wrong one. I don't think anyone wanted Pinhead "at any cost"
It's even shittier that players (myself included) unwittingly supported this by buying the chapter because BHVR didn't say a god damn word about the NFT ties until now
11 -
Licensing agreements aren't like The Godfather. A company doesn't give you a license for their content and say, "Someday, I may ask you for a favor..." and then, when the day comes, you just have to do it no matter what it is. The terms of the agreement are spelled out exactly before you sign. So, BHVR knew what they were agreeing to, and they chose to sign anyway when they could have refused.
9 -
I feel I would regain a bit more respect for them if they considered all of these responses and recalled/deleted the Hellraiser dlc with refunds to those who bought it.
It's understandable that they may have been hoodwinked a bit to claim the licence, so I don't think they are evil-incarnate. Bit of they knew that NFT's were involved then it would have been worthwhile asking a general consensus to everyone, explaining about the deal and what their understanding of the NFTs are, and maybe asking for feedback. Then if they decided against it at least everyone would understand.
They can turn this round, but it needs to be faster than their current cannonball-turning capabilities.
0 -
First voice lines there were in the game already get removed.
Then BHVR deny any involvement with NFTs.
Now BHVR are actively promoting NFTs.
Seems to me that BHVR are caught in some legal disputes with PAE, likely as a result of rushing through a licensing deal before PAE lost Pinhead. Along with PAE rushing out products like these NFTs to make the most out of it while they have it.
2 -
What I don't get is, if the rights transfer in December, why didn't they just wait, and license it from Clive Barker? They could have worked on something else until then. And what will happen to it after that? Will we have another Stranger Things situation?
3 -
They're still the ones who agreed to this,the game would have been ok even without the Pinhead license,they could have waited until the current owners lose license and avoid all this drama,please dont be that guy finding excuses for them.
1 -
BHVR should come clear about this. Apologies for the inconvience and make a statment about their future stance on NFTs and licensing agreements with such clauses. We should not be unforgiving but we should demand them to come clear about this and tell us how much they got from this and how much was forced onto them.
The thing is that not always something bad comes from those agreements. Remember the Ghostface? They now made new masks based on the DbD model for the red ghostface and more are coming. This makes for a pretty nice halloween constume for many people and makes them happy.
Not every time something like this comes off it is bad.
0 -
I am not 100% well-versed in how Copyright Laws work, especially in the United States, but here is my very educated conjecture.
Cote explained that he's been looking into getting the rights for Hellraiser for quite some time. It is likely there have been talks about this for months, even years. The law that makes original writers and creators recover their intellectual property is quite recent and has been only taking shape and effect in the last couple of years. It is likely that, when Clive Barker formed his lawsuit against Park Avenue Entertainment, BHVR was already in talks about getting the license to include Pinhead in DBD. So, they set up their requirements and it was either BHVR agreeing or cancelling the deal and waiting until Barker got the rights back (which could've taken years) and attempt to start the process over with him.
This contract will hold until it expires. We do not know how many years they agreed to it, but once it expires, it is required to reform it. This time with Clive Barker.
0 -
There is always a choice.
They just could have Noped Hellraiser. Case solved.
1 -
I think the lack of transparency BHVR has demonstrated here is indefensible. But I do find it hard to take people's outrage with this in regards to climate change too seriously, my country (more aptly archipelago) has already began to disappear over the last decade because of rising sea levels. NFT's are deplorable for the environment but so are most of the long standing capitalistic practises that give you your first world status that have already resulted in my nation drowning. I guess I'm just completely burnt out of my climate injustice rage at this point idk
1 -
Sorry if I seem a bit too simplistic here, but couldn't BHVR have just waited till the 19th of December 2021 to start discussing licensing?
2 -
I think they wanted Doug so the chapter would be a success since I don’t think it would’ve taken off had it been anyone else.
0 -
You aren't being simplistic. It's a valid question, but no one here can answer it with certainty. I can only make conjectures.
As I said, we do not know how long they've been seeking the license, but we do know Chapters are made with months of anticipation. They may have made or closed this deal years ago or were rushed into closing it once Clive Barker presented his lawsuit in the premise that there was no factual word of how long it'd take for Barker to get the character back. It's all very situational.
2 -
I think my issue is how utterly unnecessary it is.
You could grade the necessity of things from very necessary to frivolous; things that relate to health and live saving technologies... peoples wellbeing... housing and food supplies... infrastructure... cultural and educational resources... entertainment (we are here)... and then right down the bottom of totally unnecessary is... crypto currency and illegitimate financial transactions.
Then there's the scale of it. For a single pointless NFT transaction, you could power your computer for about 200 hours of playtime.
It's just grossly irresponsible.
1
