Highest Rated Comments


jabberwockxeno85 karma

I would!

jabberwockxeno52 karma

Sort of.

That's indeed the case with trade marks, but only with trade marks, and it doesn't really work quite like that. The actual term for it is Genericization.

It's not a case where if nintendo doesn't go after fan works, they lose the ability to do so at all. Rather, genericization is when a brand name becomes so widespread and intrinsically linked to the product or service itself, it becomes synonymous with what the product/service is to the general public.

For example, the Yo Yo was originally a brand name, but just due to how widespread that brand was, eventually after many years, to the public "Yo Yo" meant that type of toy, not the brand of that type of toy.

So yeah, that's not really an excuse for Nintendo to go after fan works, because that sort of situation doesn't apply.

What could happen, and what nearly did back in the 80's, is that Nintendo consoles could become such a standard that to the public that the word "Nintendo" just becomes a synonym for "video game console".

jabberwockxeno22 karma

Recently Twitter banned a controverial news report from an outlet that has been widely criticized as being inaccurate and disinformation.

There's been a lot of disscusion on various platforms, as far as I can tell largerly falling along political lines, of this either being a good move to combat misinformation among the left, or condemned as censorship by the right.

However, something that doesn't really seem to come up in these conversations is how the majority of discourse in society, as well as the place most people get their news and information, is on the web, which is pretty much all run by private companies who can decide to limit or spread information selectively if they so choose. There was a recent whistleblower memo from facebook outlining how mid-level facebook employees descions or lacktherof can influence elections in small to mid sized countries.

What do you think we can do to address the danger allowing private companies to run such critical areas of our society without it totally falling into partsian spats where depending on who is getting targetted, it's either supported or condemned by one or the other side?

jabberwockxeno16 karma

I have 3 questions, feel free to answer as many or as few as them as you all want, i'd be ecstatic with even one answer!

  1. I saw in one of the images on the IGG page for Indivisible that Tenochtitlan, or at least a city based on it, appears in the game. Can you guys go into more detail about how you guys selected what cultures to pull stuff from and focus on, and what specifically drew you guys to the Aztecs? (I think they are super cool and Tenochtitlan especially needs to show up more in fiction)

  2. I see you guys finally got the Skullgirls frame compendium up for sale, any chance we could see Alex's sketchbook as well, or will that remain exclusive as an IGG reward (I sadly only found out about skullgirls long after that campaign ended)

  3. Was there ever a point in Double's development stages where she(?) had her own entirely unique moveset and animations? If not, was the fact that animating so many moves for such a amorphous character would be too difficult, or was that not even considered, and was she always intended to have clone moves?

Also, this goes without saying, but skullgirls was fantastic and I can't wait for indivisble, crossing my fingers what little I was able to help with will make a difference!

jabberwockxeno14 karma

Something which was in the news not too long ago was Nintendo subpoenaing Discord, 4chan, and I also believe reddit to try to track down the source of leaks from Pokemon Sword and Shield, not just of the original leaker who was presumbly under NDA, but also other people who that person gave images two who presumbly were not under NDA or even employed in the games industry.

What legal right does Nintendo actually have to pursue these people in that case, given that, per the court document linked, Nintendo was purseuing the leakers on Trade Secret violations not copyright infringement?