#3rd Party Use Of Illuvium IP

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

solid star
#

As caveman points out in this recent Twitter post, games such as fortnite, star atlas, and I’ll add in Axie Infinity have been encouraging their communities to be creative with use of their IP.
https://twitter.com/cavemanpolemos/status/1650473194577436675?s=46&t=aEG5c0Za8sjsAiWkeDtS8w

Ethlizards have announced plans to create an Illuvium Beyond D1sk battle platform so we know this is already taking place to some extent.

I don’t think this should be a free for all, but I do think we need to have a clear path for other projects or individuals to propose plans for use of the illuvium IP.

An IIPP? Illuvium Intellectual Property use Proposal
These proposal should outline how they plan to use the IP, how it will benefit the community, how it will bring more utility to current NFTs, how they plan to accomplish this….

These proposal would require passing a council vote. Strategy sub-council seems like the best fit right now, but a future governance model could include a new sub council specifically for these.

All feedback is welcomed here.

Caveman | Polemos ♊ (@CavemanPolemos)

#Illuvium community and candidates running for DAO council; here is a big question I would like to propose to everyone(Strategy council members should have a good response to this):

Several gaming studios: @FortniteGame, @playSHRAPNEL, and most recently @staratlas (A few…

Twitter ·
plucky jackal
#

This makes sense. I was thinking if it will be possible to spin up a mini-game utilizing illuvitar nfts.

#

Having a clear way for creators to build in our ecosystem might be beneficial. Think of all the games and genres that started because community was allowed/encouraged to build. Examples like DotA, Counter Strike, Autochess.

solid star
hollow prism
#

I feel there should be a well-defined path for getting access to the IP and support from the dao. Well-defined, achievable, but upholding the highest quality. Don’t sacrifice quality for a spray-and-pray, which is what Axie feels like right now.

limber hemlock
#

I don't know that a separate proposal type is needed to approve IP usage (IMO it could be completed with an IIP).

There's some interesting considerations with IP usage.

I think it's important to be very clear about what type of usage we're talking about. There's User Generated Content (UGC), where players and communities can create new gaming experiences, assets etc. to be utilized in the Illuvium ecosystem. This is typically implemented with a royalty system to incentivize creators to be making this type of content. This particular implementation depends (IMO) a lot more on what the team feels is possible without delaying the game. Creating infrastructure for UGC can take a lot of time, and it is important to be planning for such a system in advance. A parallel to this would be mods for games on Steam. If the developer creates and shares easy to use development tools, it's much more accessible and likely that people will engage with creating content for a game.

Facilitating UGC is (IMO) less of an IP issue than it is a design issue.

I'd regard explicit IP partnerships as a separate topic. Collaborations with, for example, other studios or brands who may use our IP to market products, or comparable situations are, to me, a different issue than allowing UGC.

Additionally, many of our assets exist on decentralized networks. Part of that reality is that people can create tools that utilize those assets without our permission. For example, marketplaces exist to sell Illuvium's assets. Someone can make a custom system (Ex. Disk Battles) that utilizes d1sks in a capacity other than simply opening them, and there's really not much we could do to stop them (even though I think, for example, ETHlizards disk battles is a good idea).

TL;DR: UGC is a great addition, but is a design issue, and if that's something we want, we need to consult the team about it. I regard IP usage as a separate topic, personally.

coarse plaza
#

I don't think we should be allowing people to do anything with our branding/IP until we've already established who and what we are to the general public/target audiences. If we let other people play with our toys prematurely we run the risk of dilluting our brand consistency/identity before we've even started

hollow prism
#

I would agree that it doesn’t make sense to open the IP to third party developers until Illuvium’s core product lines are live and public. Developers will need years to make quality games, so I would say there’s probably a balance there, where they can start building earlier than a public launch would be permitted. Not sure how best to draft that part of it but good point Dan.

tropic palm
#

I think this is a good topic to debate. I did not see any discussions about eth liz making a 3rd party game platform for illuvium beyond. I may have just not seen it but I think their needs to be clear paths for discussion and community involvement. I know that nda will be tricky but we are a DAO.

solid star
solid star
coarse plaza
solid star
solid star
coarse plaza
# solid star I agree and this should not be rushed. Do you think it’s smart to think about th...

Personally, I don't think we should be thinking about anyone else using our IP anytime soon. We're a first time studio and we haven't released a full product yet. We should focus on that.
If the game blows up then we won't need to let developers know it's an option, we'll likely be inundated with developers coming to us with proposals. So I don't think we lose anything by focusing on building what we have instead of randomly expanding for expansion's sake.
Even when we're secure and 3rd party things could be an option, I'd like to know why we'd chose to give up control and let 3rd parties build things with our branding and IP attached when we could simply come up with ideas ourselves, outsource, and retain control? I'd like to know what people think the pros and cons are of both options.

I can see why for something like Fortnite it totally makes sense though, their whole brand and appeal is based on memes and chaos, so a whole bunch of random fortnite stuff is totally on brand.

solid star
# coarse plaza Personally, I don't think we should be thinking about anyone else using our IP a...

Allowing ethlizards to create an extension game to illuvium beyond was justified. I believe Kieran had mentioned the Illuvium team wanted to focus on what they already are working on and didn't have the time or personnel to build it out.

Why not allow a 3rd party, under guidance, help create more games? It'll bring more utility to each NFT and more gamers to the space who might not like What Illuvium already has to offer, but would like the new game.

coarse plaza
#

In theory sure, although you could argue ethlizards is a special case. But it might very well be justified for any potential game, it's a relatively new concept and I'm just speculating.
Generally speaking though I don't think we should be in a rush to expand the ecosystem

hollow prism
#

I don’t think we should be in a rush either, but, quality games take years to make. I think it would be good to work out the details and draft some standard approval/procedure for future opportunities. We can even stipulate that new opportunities can’t launch until a certain period of time passes after the launch of Illuvium’s core titles etc, giving time for both sides. Game devs get the time they need to design, raise, build, etc. We have time to build our own traction with these first titles.

But in any event, I agree there should be no rush. It just pays to be prepared I think.

#

And I can’t emphasize this enough, I really think the process by which a third party can access the IP should be stringent. It’s one thing to just open the IP up for a free for all and another to hand-select and approve the qualifications of applicants. The former too easily risks jeopardizing the high standard of quality that we all love Illuvium for. The latter can be a strategic means of scaling to additional genres and bringing fresh revenue into the DAO that doesn’t require overhead.

tropic palm
limber hemlock
plucky jackal
#

I know I can get some flak for this, but here we have an announcement from yesterday on how Star Atlas is handling this exact thing.

image.png
#

Maybe just setting up some definitions for clarity will benefit people who are considering trying to do anything around our IP.

midnight glen
#

I think the focus should be on promoting innovation and also maximizing value of the IP.

We can be aggressive and closed off pursuing legal action against anyone not authorized using illuvium IP. Nintendo is a good example and has held a high standard and value in it’s IP. Innovation comes from within the company.

We could be passive and allow others to use the IP but not have any official policies or tools to support. Early Mojang would be a good example of this. Moding happened organically and has led to an dedicated fan base and innovation has mostly come from this community while the base game has not innovated. Microsoft was able to capitalize on this and is monetizing and now supporting these innovations.

Another way to be would be open. Valve is an example of this with steam workshop and releasing the code for their games. Leading to innovation such as counter strike. The community comes up with great ideas and valve figured out a way to monetize the popular ideas.

Web3 has an ethos that aligns more with passive or open with IP. I also align more with being open or passive since it allows the community to develop good ideas and maximizes innovation with little effort from the team. Smart contracts and the blockchain should make it relatively easy to monetize any good games, mods, or ideas that comes from this approach.

naive scarab
# solid star As caveman points out in this recent Twitter post, games such as fortnite, star ...

Thanks for continuing the conversation @solid star !

I think @midnight glen has presented this well in how IP has been successfully used in the past.

I also belive that web3 principles and more flexible IP usage run parallel.

I think we should should be pursuing all routes. It just comes down to terms and conditions.

We can be very restrictive on our policies. But at least there would be a clear path as to how someone could use our IP and grow together. We can be as selective as we want.

I honestly think these policies should be in place before Eth Liz or IMX or anyone has a chance to build using our assets.

We could even have a bid system. Where individuals, studios, and other organizations all have to create proposals to create products and services with our IP.

Taking for example this disk battle system. Let's say another big, well know studio wants to step in and build a mini game off that. They would compete with Ethliz in creating and presenting a game design paper to the council.

There are MANY ways we can set this up.

What I'm really curious about is how the Strategy sub council will research and assess different IP policies.

I am a firm believer that the more people you have building and supporting a product the greater it's reach and overall potential will be.

mild mantle
#

I agree with Dan that the main product/IP should be solidly built out first before releasing it to third parties. Illuvium has always been about creating games that are as perfect and polished as possible. A lot of scuffed third-party games could shift that image in a bad way, especially if they are released before the Core Games have established themselves in the gaming market. This full IP release, in most cases, seems more like a desperation move.

I also agree that if needed, Illuvium can outsource to other studios to bring their ideas to life, maintaining the focus on Quality over Quantity. I'd rather see 10 great Illuvium Games instead of 100 mediocre ones.

That is not to say that I dislike the idea of Community created Games. A nice middle way for this could be a powerful custom map builder like Warcraft 3 for example, where anybody can create what they dream of, but inside the already existing game.

Coming back to the original idea though:
What about a more DAO-inspired approach? -after the core games are up and running
Individuals/Teams can write an outline of what they are trying to build, and the community/council votes on it. If approved, they are allowed to build the game. This would provide an entry barrier to make it harder for bots/scam/low-effort intentions to get through and also provide a better overview of what is being built on the side by the community.

solid star