this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
204 points (87.2% liked)
Games
16818 readers
1148 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In your example where literally every detail has been changed, including the type of product being produced, that makes sense.
The video says, "Portal Revolution Official Trailer." What that says to me is "This is the official trailer" presumably released by the creator of Portal Revolution (which is a community mod).
Even in the worst possible way I can try to interpret that, calling it "manipulative" seems like a huge stretch.
If Valve somehow thinks it's the same thing as your Pokemon example, I'm sure we'll see some action taken.
I mean, you had to specify "which is a community mod". Without that information, it would be reasonable to assume it was made by Valve. No?
I did edit my comment saying it was likely not intentional. But in the case that it was intentionally using the word 'official' to mislead people to even just click on the video, is still misleading and manipulating people into doing something they may not have done otherwise.
But yeah, it's most likely that the dev did not realize the implications of using that word.
I am curious why you think the example is too different. Because it outlines the exact same scenario besides selling the product. A company owns an IP. A person uses that IP to create a product. That product is then labeled 'official' though the owner of the IP had not authorized the use of their IP.