Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Is it true that D&D rules are copyrighted to the extreme? What other examples do you know?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Lethn, Mar 28, 2018.

  1. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    I like to make myself legally aware of various things as a games developer should when it comes to issues of who owns what and there have been various things I have been ticked off but fascinated by for instance how apparently you can't use a red cross on a medpack the reason for this is apparently it turns out that a games developer was actually sued by some scumbags from the red cross organisation or people who represented them and they claimed that you can't use it in a game.

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/video-game-red-cross-health-pack-emblem/

    Just glancing through this article now it's even claiming that the reason you can't use a red cross symbol is because it violates the bloody Geneva Convention -_-

    Out of curiosity I recently began researching RPG's generally and I checked out D&D, guess what? There's other ridiculous copyright rules regarding all of this as well.

    https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/19718/is-it-legal-to-develop-a-game-using-dd-rules

    Apparently while they don't directly 'own' all D&D rules the guys who own the D&D brand have blocked people from using certain terms such as 'thac0' which those will be familiar with old school RPGs will know that refers to Armor Class. I know I'm getting angsty over this but to me, this is the equivalent of Valve trying to copyright equations used in physics engines because they got their first, that annoys me.

    Might be worthwhile if you have any other examples of what I view as copyright and licensing overreach so that newbies can be aware of this sort of thing so they don't get any nasty cease and desist messages just because of their design choices in a game.

    It just seems daft to me, because all that's going to happen with these situations is games developers will just get around these restrictions and make the exact same systems and call "Thac0", "bumblefart" or something or as other games developers have done with the red cross problem simply do the exact same shape and colour it green.
     
  2. FuguFirecracker

    FuguFirecracker

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Posts:
    419
  3. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    Bah, screw them.
     
  4. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Are you asking a question? Or is this just a complaint thread? :p
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  5. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    Dunno, half-rant, half-curiosity I guess, I've been doing research on it again and just got surprised at how draconian wizard of the coast are with even using their D&D rules, I'm not even sure how it could be enforced really as character attributes and so on are a pretty universally recognised RPG mechanic.
     
  6. orb

    orb

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Posts:
    3,037
    I don't think the WotC people are Draconian. Lizardmen, possibly, but scholars aren't so sure dragons are lizards ;)

    What they have (possibly questionable) copyright on is their implementation, so it's a weird subset of the rules you can use. I don't think it's a great system anyway, so I'd never mimic D20 in the first place. Computers let you go nuts with far more complicated systems if you like, while tabletop RPGs by necessity try to boil down attacks and damage to a couple of rolls (except the bad ones).
     
  7. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
  8. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Indeed, they have been very progressive with licensing, both with dnd an collectible cards. Just be creative and create something different.
     
  9. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    Well here's the thing, I wonder if I started searching this stuff up because there was a reddit post awhile back and it was a news article about how a D20 dice had been found.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/ancient-d20-die-emerges-from-the-ashes-of-time/

    Considering this historical discovery I wonder if it's possible to claim Wizards of the coast are full of crap for trying to copyright this system and it was clearly in use during ancient egypt even if it wasn't necessarily for dungeons and dragons tabletop?

    It just seems ridiculous to me that a company thinks it can lay claim to what is essentially a set of numbers and then you have other organisations trying to stop people from using a certain shape and colour.
     
  10. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    They aren’t claiming to own a the rights to a dice.
     
    zakdegarmo likes this.
  11. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Wizards of the Coast aren't selling the rule sets. Dungeons & Dragons isn't about the mechanics as much as it is about the roleplaying experience and the content it is based around. It's about Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, and so on. If the rules were the key selling point they wouldn't have made them available to third parties in the manner they have.
     
  12. LaneFox

    LaneFox

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    7,462
    D&D rules are literally just D&D rules. They made that system of rules and progression and it's their property. Unless you're doing official compatibility integration or blatantly cloning them then you don't need to worry about it.

    Make your own rules.
     
  13. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Is it their property? Below is an example of a court ruling in favor of a card game that cloned the rules of another one.

    http://strebecklaw.com/court-rules-favor-cloned-tabletop-game-no-protection-us-copyright-law/
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  14. LaneFox

    LaneFox

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    7,462
    Found a thing

    http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd

     
  15. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    No, it is not equivalent at all. It's equivalent to Valve blocking someone from calling their sci-fi shooter with a silent protagonist and aliens "Half-Life."

    Are you really arguing that these guys shouldn't defend copyright on a name they made up (not even necessarily the rules behind it in this case, this is about the name unless you're retelling the story incorrectly).
     
    TeagansDad likes this.
  16. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
  17. LaneFox

    LaneFox

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    7,462
    Seems that way. There's cases of other games making near-identical d20-like systems and being fine. I think they just want to own the whole "d20" logo and "D&D" trademarking aspects of it.
     
    theANMATOR2b and zombiegorilla like this.
  18. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    That seems to be the gist of it. You are allowed to use the open source rules, you just can’t brand it with their marks or use their ip. Seems pretty fair, and positive.
     
  19. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    There are 3 things that a company can use to protect their IP. Trademarks, copyright, and patents.

    Trademarks protect the names of things. They don't always need to be "registered" trademarks either. You violate a trademark by using a name associated with another company or product in a way that to a normal person would confuse your product with the product of the company that owns the trademark, and it doesn't even have to be an exact match. Calling an RPG game "Ultimate D&D" would be a trademark violation even though it isn't an exact match to other Dungeons and Dragons product names. If you made a phone and named it the "EyeFone 11" you'd similarly be in violation of the iPhone trademark, even though it is not spelled anywhere close to the original and there currently is no iPhone 11.

    Trademarks last pretty much forever.

    Copyright protects specific products in part or in full exactly as they are. Copying the D&D rules exactly as written in any of the published D&D material and displaying them in your game to read would be a copyright violation. Taking passages of the rules, but rewording other portions, would likely be a problem as well, including using key terms in the rules invented with the original D&D games. Rewording the rules entirely, even though your version is functionally the same as the original, but shares no specific copied content with the original, would not be a copyright violation. Implementing the D&D rules within a game, as long as you steer clear of copying phrases from the published D&D rules, would not be a copyright violation. Copyrighted characters and universes are more complicated than the copyright of game rules, but the general principle still applies.

    Copyrights generally last until 70 years after the death of the original creator. This keeps getting extended out further in the United States due chiefly to lobbying on the part of Disney as they are at risk of a large portion of Disney's early work, and IP such as Mickey Mouse, becoming public domain.

    Patents protect the implementation of a novel invention. Contrary to popular belief, patents do not actually protect an idea, but how an idea is implemented. If the D&D rules were patented then implementing those rules within your game could be considered a patent violation even if you reworded everything, as long as they functioned similar enough to the patent description. Redesigning the D&D rules in a way where they functioned significantly differently in your game, even if they resulted in a similar experience for the player, would not be a patent violation.

    Patents generally last 14 to 20 years. Any patents on the original 1974 D&D should have long expired. Patents on the 1989 AD&D 2nd Edition should also be free game. 3rd or later edition patents are likely to still be enforceable. I have not researched whether TSR/Wizards has obtained any patents related to D&D, but I would assume they have before attempting to use any of their systems.

    I am not a lawyer
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  20. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    Thanks for the info guys and I guess that's not as bad as I was thinking, but it's kind of a joke you have to make sure to talk to a lawyer about this sort of thing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  21. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    I was going to say the same thing. If anything D&D is one of the LEAST copyrighted games out there; WotC actually went out of their way to set up a legal document to work around copyright laws so that people could publish content.
     
    TeagansDad likes this.
  22. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    Yes. you are not allowed to use any name from their setting, pretty much.

    The "legally usable" material is available on http://www.d20srd.org/

    Basically, portion of D&D systme are released under "open license", but that does not include any worlds or names. So you could take mechanics, but you'll have to invnet your settings. Some of monsters are trademarked (beholders, for example).

    Pathfinder used this to create their own system, and as a result portion of pathfinder material is available under similar license. You can see it on:
    http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ (official)
    https://www.d20pfsrd.com/ (unofficial).

    Please note that if you decide to use this content, you'll still need to quadruple-check if you comply with license.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  23. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    The D20 system is fairly open. Plenty of people have made content for it, or based off of it. Check out pathfinder. Its a version of the D20 system specifically based on D&D, but with a few modifications in the direction the playerbase wanted. Basically D&D 4.0 went in a different direction, so some people got together and made the game they thought should have come next. In role playing circles, its often called D&D 3.5.

    This is a completely separate issue. The red cross is covered by its own specific treaties and laws. Its a special case for a special reason. Its not really comparable to any other restrictions applied on IP.
     
  24. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,616
    The people you're calling "scumbags" are just trying to protect a symbol that's commonly used to protect people in conflict zones. It's not particularly important to us in video games. Nobody gets hurt or significantly inconvenienced if we use a different symbol. It's a different story in a conflict zone though.

    Also, no, the issue was not "a red cross on a medpack". The issue was the use of a specific symbol which happens to include a red cross. You can use a red cross all you want as long as it isn't a part of that specific symbol, and the changes you'd need to make to be compliant are trivial.

    Details are important.
     
  25. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Indeed the whole point of that lawsuit was that inappropriate use of the symbol may devalue it to where it's no longer respected in a conflict zone. That would be quite disasterous for the people who use the symbol and the people who receive help from them.

    https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-broke-the-geneva-conventions/
     
    TeagansDad, hippocoder and Kiwasi like this.
  26. Well, there is a reason why I would never ever donate to the red cross. :D
    They don't really publish where they're spending the money they get and they always pull some questionable stunt like this.
    There are more decent organizations who actually help people beyond them.
     
  27. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Dude. Go do your research. This has very little to do with the red cross as a charitable organisation. Its not questionable. Its well covered by international law.

    This is everything to do with aid efforts inside a conflict zone. If I was to go into an active war zone to help injured people, I could wear the red cross with no problems.
     
    carking1996 and angrypenguin like this.
  28. Actually it is everything to do with the charitable. They're spending money on lawyers to stop to use completely unrelated red cross symbols instead of spending the money on actual work they were created for.
    I don't argue that they DID good. A lot. In the past. Now, they're money-making machine.

    Does not matter what kind of sick international law they were laid out for themselves. Because don't forget, they made their own law. Which is always questionable. Especially when it comes to an organization which pumps the money around.

    BTW, the red cross symbol won't be any less of a symbol on the battle field just because it is used in a completely unrelated situation, which is not even resembles the original effort.
    It's like the red star has completely different meaning on a Heineken bottle and on the Red Square. They have nothing to do with each other. I know, international treaty. Which made by themselves... yeah.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2018
  29. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Interesting. This has no relevance to the current topic, rather it relates to a certain other topic in this same sub-forum, but I find it significant that the mere portrayal of this in a game would be perceived as devaluing it.

    I wonder if we could say the same about other things in games, like violence...
     
  30. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    It's less about the portrayal of the mark in a single game and more about the dilution of it over a period of time across many titles. If you research trademark dilution you can find most of the arguments and reasonings behind the way this situation was treated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution
     
    EternalAmbiguity and Kiwasi like this.
  31. theANMATOR2b

    theANMATOR2b

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Posts:
    7,790
    March - April - May - OK not too bad necro. ;)

    thac0 is only relateable if the person reads the player handbook and/or dungeon master guide. So the term could be exchanged for anything in (your game) and accompanying the rules of (your game) be very similar - but with a different term, say - trbAC - (to reach base armor class) or - THUAF - to hit un-armored flesh.
    The rules that accompany the 'term' are what establish what the term stands for, and to be honest - a D20 system, seems extensive for a smaller indie title. For me anyway - I'd work towards a d12 rule set so the complexity was lessened, easier for the players to understand, as well as easier to implement.
     
    Teila likes this.
  32. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    I can understand why you necro'd it better than making a new thread on the topic. I think though trademarking mathematical systems aside I'm more worried about the sort of precedent this sets for fantasy RPGs generally and so on and with other games too. My red cross example illustrate this, for instance with RPGs what if somebody wanted to have wood elves and dark elves etc. but some company came along and trademarked the terms?

    It's entirely possible to happen, I find the whole ruleset that D&D uses to be annoying I was having a bit of a rant because I'd been doing research into this sort of thing and it pissed me off :p

    What happens for instance, when a games creator or more likely publisher inevitably ends up trying to trademark the capture the flag game mode? Will all other games developers be pushed out and forced to remove it? Too much room for abuse in my opinion.
     
  33. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    You know....there are hundreds of rpg rulesets out there for tabletop games. Some are open source, some are not.

    While you may not like that WoC protects their copyright, you can, if you wish, make your own rules, your own system, like the hundreds if not thousands of other people have done.

    If you do decide to use their exact ruleset, I highly suggest you contact them and ask if it is okay to use their rules in your game. Maybe they will say yes. They are much less likely to allow you to use their settings in your game. I have heard stories of people who have had games/books/art pulled down by WoC.

    I think that this makes them smart, not evil.

    Why should another person make money off of what they built? And using DnD is also trying to use the name and the popularity of a franchise that has been around a long time. This belongs to them..they have the right to market it.

    But...asking never hurts. Lots of stories out there...I think there was a Little Pony one where a game was pulled down so they changed it a big to avoid the copyright issues.

    Talking to a lawyer is a good idea. While you may say they "can't", my guess is they have the money to pay lawyers to keep you in court for a very long time and lots and lots of your money wasted.

    Make your own. It will be unique and special and you never know, you may be protecting your own copyright someday.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  34. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Totally with the red cross here. But getting political.

    In any case regarding the rules, if your game has the same rules ans DnD then why would anyone want your game when they can play in the actual DnD universe? Seems to me people choose not to play in the actual DnD universe because they want something fresh or different? Just food for thought.
     
    theANMATOR2b, Kiwasi and Teila like this.
  35. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    A copyright cannot be attached to an idea. Capture the flag is an idea...a method, and not even sure if it was even ever claimed by a person.

    DnD is a system that was developed by a group of very cool guys who worked very hard to work out all the numbers, the balancing, etc, just like many here making their own original games. Much later it was sold/acquired by Wizards of the Coast who probably paid big bucks (at the time) for the right to publish books and merchandise related to DnD.

    They own the copyrights. They have the right to sue you if you use their stuff without their permission. It is the way it works. If someone stole something I worked hard to create and used it without paying me or asking my permission, I would not be happy either. :)

    Basically, filing a copyright protects your property. You can rant all you want, but it is not ridiculous. It protects those who have invested tons of time, money, and sweat creating cool things for us to use.
     
    hippocoder likes this.
  36. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    It's entirely possible for people to simply want more of the same. I'm not arguing for DnD rules, just saying the fact that I bought The Technomancer doesn't mean I'm sick of Mass Effect and want a different sci-fi experience--it could mean that I want to play more games like Mass Effect and I'm hoping The Technomancer is like it.

    Bad example, because the two are nothing alike and that's a good thing, but hopefully you see what I mean.
     
  37. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    You are comparing apples with nuclear missiles.

    The Red Cross/Cresent/Star is a special case. Its not covered by regular copyright or trademark law. Its got its own series of international treaties protecting it. No one is going to make an special case international treaty protecting dark elves.
     
    theANMATOR2b and hippocoder like this.
  38. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Edit: on second thought...
     
  39. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    I know, I'm just pointing out how bad things can get, they've literally trademarked a shape and a colour and prevented people from using it, I don't think that should be possible.
     
  40. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    The problem is, D&D for 3rd edition has 50 books worth of content. More or less field tested.

    Trying to replace that with your own thing is like trying to rewrite windows from scratch alone.

    That's one of the reasons for people wanting to use WotC's stuff.
     
  41. Chrisasan

    Chrisasan

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Posts:
    270
    Other than Dungeons and Dragons, there was another game that came out. I believe it had it's own set of original rules. It looked like D&D but was another game. I have forgotten it's name!

    I believe there had been a few games that came out with their own rules, and they all have D&D game mechanics.

    Making a game with your own rules is fun. That's one of the gems in game development and game design.
     
    theANMATOR2b and Teila like this.
  42. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Like already pointed out it's a very special use case. Just because an exception exists doesn't mean it's the rule. Unless you can point towards another example of a basic shape with a basic color it's not even worth factoring into the discussion as it's impossible to know if any other similarly simplistic symbols from normal organizations would be allowed.
     
    Kiwasi and Teila like this.
  43. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    True, but it's thanks to that special use case games developers got scared and they switched the symbols they used because they didn't want to get harassed by lawyers over something so petty.
     
  44. orb

    orb

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Posts:
    3,037
    You're describing every other tabletop fantasy RPG where dragons are involved somehow.
     
    Kiwasi, Teila and Ryiah like this.
  45. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Read up on the emblem of the Red Cross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement

    This is not just a shape and a color.

    And certainly not petty. Believe it or not, there are some things that are just more important than a game. ;)

    The symbol is used for protection of hospitals and other safe places during an armed conflict. This is protected by the Geneva Conventions. Why? Because when planes dropping bombs overhead see this symbol, they know it is a place of aid and avoid the area. If allowed to be used by everyone, the symbol loses it's meaning and can be used in a way that may not uphold the conventions.

    Respecting the importance of this symbol and it's meaning is very important. I think maybe you can find some other REALLY stupid copyrights, but this is not one of those.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  46. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Yep, and I imagine many of the DnD players would love to see the rules in more games. My son has the books memorized and he would feel pretty comfortable and powerful playing a game where he knows the rules like the back of his hand. lol

    However.....WoC has the right to make games or license their rules to 3rd parties. So they get to decide.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  47. Lethn

    Lethn

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Posts:
    1,583
    These are games we're talking about, you're applying the usage of a symbol in the real world compared to the symbol being used in a virtual world, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact, if that's the best response you've got I'm extremely surprised that the lawyers trying to stop developers from using this symbol got away with this.

    This is the same kind of logic people use when trying to talk about violence or sex in games, they're trying to make the claim that something happening in a virtual world can have any impact on real life when psychologists have consistently proven that this isn't the case.

    Yes, this is exactly the same situation, please explain to me how using a certain symbol in a game has any impact on people in the real world? By the way, another situation I just thought of is Call of Duty in one of their more recent WW2 games which was an absolute disaster removed the Nazi symbol from their flags in order to not offend people.

    By supporting the banning of symbols within games are you seriously suggesting that for instance if I put in a Nazi flag within my game people are suddenly going to get up and go around goose stepping and shouting sieg heil just from playing it?

    It's a completely ridiculous stance on the issue to take especially when it has been so thoroughly debunked by legitimate experts.
     
    Lurking-Ninja likes this.
  48. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    A symbol that is protected, whether by a copyright or by an international treaty, must be enforced. Once you fail to enforce, then the symbol or title or whatever becomes open to abuse. If one were to allow their art or their code or whatever to be used without enforcing the copyright, they can no longer enforce it at all.

    The only way to keep a copyright valid is to enforce it when it is threatened. If a company like WotC has a copyright on DnD rules, then if anyone tries to use them in a game or whatever, they MUST enforce the copyright.

    As for the Nazi flag, in a historical context, I agree with you. I believe in many cases though such symbols are disallowed in some countries. So it could be it was taken out so that the game could be marketed and sold in those countries.

    I think maybe you should get rid of the anger and start really analyzing what you are saying. You are the one who can find the answers yourself if you really think about it. Instead, I feel as if you are just trying to be provocative.

    Copyrights and international agreements and taboos when publishing in other countries all seem unfair to you. But really, they exist for a reason. We do not live in a world where everything goes. Artists and writers and engineers and all creators protect their inventions for a reason. I have no doubt you will someday figure it out.

    Regardless, I give up. Obviously, you find it all ridiculous so nothing one can say will change that. Good luck to you!
     
  49. I think it is time to watch these basic presentations about the IP, trademark and copyright.




    In general, these symbols are prohibited to use except for educational or artistic reasons. Video games usually fall into the later category, arguably.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2018
    Teila likes this.
  50. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    That makes sense. So I wonder why the symbols were taken out of the game? Public backlash maybe?

    We forget sometimes that game companies/studios want to sell game. So if something is perceived as bad by the people they want to sell the games to then often the games will make changes. We see this all the time with all sorts of products out there.

    It has nothing to do with copyrights or laws then, simply about a company making a decision to attract as many customers to their products as possible. When controversial issues are added to games or symbols that evoke negative emotions, the company will probably lose some customers. They might add some too so I guess it is a decision made based on marketing research.

    There are some things that are put in games that turn me off. I will not buy those games. But that is true with everyone, whether we are aware of it or not. :) The more bland a game is, the more people will look at it, but how many will buy it?
     
    Kiwasi likes this.