going by the other comments on the link & elsewhere, seems to be mostly that they don’t want to even remotely be in the same context as unlicensed/proprietary nintendo libraries the portal64 dev is using. (also mentioned in the the dev’s own message on the screenshot)
Makes sense then. If they doesn’t use Valve asset but only the IP, and don’t distribute outside of valve preferred method, then they won’t have any problem from Valve (see: Black Mesa). But it seems like they already have problem with the development and Valve is just the final straw.
seems to be mostly that they don’t want to even remotely be in the same context as unlicensed/proprietary nintendo libraries the portal64 dev is using
This is just a corporate passing of the buck. There’s no reason to believe a third party infringing upon the properties of two parties would give the latter parties any ability or risk of going after one another.
going by the other comments on the link & elsewhere, seems to be mostly that they don’t want to even remotely be in the same context as unlicensed/proprietary nintendo libraries the portal64 dev is using. (also mentioned in the the dev’s own message on the screenshot)
not a clue about TF:S2 though.
edit: about the TF:S2 https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/01/2024-01-10-valve.md - apparently bundling and distributing their assets isn’t cool.
Makes sense then. If they doesn’t use Valve asset but only the IP, and don’t distribute outside of valve preferred method, then they won’t have any problem from Valve (see: Black Mesa). But it seems like they already have problem with the development and Valve is just the final straw.
Ok so if they did it like Tales of Two Wastelands, they’d be in the clear basically
This is just a corporate passing of the buck. There’s no reason to believe a third party infringing upon the properties of two parties would give the latter parties any ability or risk of going after one another.