Bloody Mario! 5 realities of Mario going public domain at 11:39 AM

Mario, about to kick a fire

The time of my public domain themed gamejam is ever aproaching. As such, it's time to think about our futures again.

Mario goes into the Public Domain, according to my expert calculations, in 2078 And, much like with Batman, it is something we are utterly unprepared for.  Many people don't understand the temporary nature of copyright, which is understandable, because a few people are up there, mucking up the works.

Let's get into a serious discussion of what could happens to gaming's most popular character in 2078

5) Not much

Princess Who?

If you think Mario's gonna be just as popular in 50 years as it was 30/20 years ago, you don't understand how pop culture works. What are the tv shows that where popular in 1985? Look upon those works, ye mighty, and despair.

Don't ask me, I was 2 years old.

By the time Mario gets around to being public domain, Mario might very well be more obscure than even the Golden Girls. Who knows what will happen to Nintendo  between here and there?

4) We can finally get that Mario movie done right

Mario should never have been bald, you cretins!

But for those of us already reaching the Godly Age Limit,  we'll be able to right the wrongs of our fathers, in making a Mario Movie that doesn't suck-a-balls-ah.

I mean, some people like Super Mario Brothers: The Movie.  But the general consensus is that it's hot garbage and should have been good.

17 years old Max Landis(of Chronicle fame) wrote an enormous, mammoth script for a Super Mario movie.  I'm sure we've all dreamed of adapting our childhood heroes for a modern age. It's probably too much to expect Max Landis to reach 2078 alive and lucid enough to get this script to filming with enough budget to get it to make sense. But those are the breaks. Somebody else, surely will, and hopefully they will.

3) More LEGAL Mario

THIS TITLE MAKE ME ANGRY.

Now, mind you, there's not a lack of Mario out there. In fact, I think I kind of called on all of you to fucking quit it with the Mario already.

But those are fanworks. They're not official, and they're only in existence because Nintendo is merciful/tired and doesn't want to take them down. If Mario where legal to remake now, you'd see the XBLAs and PSNs and Steams just be bursting with Mario all over the place.

Not only that, but Mario would consistently be showing up in other videogames as well. But remember...


2) Somebody would Legally make Mario Horrible

Art by José Emroca Flores...please don't sue me! I have kids to feed!!

This is one of the concerns of people out there when we talk about shorter copyright: That  somebody could make a mockery of the authors intent. or, as it was put to me:

That Captain America: The Winter Soldier DVD was just asking for it.

You don't have to go very far to see that. Mario's  been possesed by the Satsui No Hadou, Princess Peach has been made to fuck her way through the Mushroom Kingdom and some people apparently think Waluigi is sexy.

Apologies to those of you that got here expecting sexy Princess Peach pics.

Invariably somebody's going to make a game where Mario is a serial killer, and it's going to be legal as shit. They'll be selling it on gamestop.

But this is a good thing, in the same way  American McGee's Alice is a good thing: By being able to do a dark take officially, we can get "Dark and Gritty Mario" to be something compelling, instead of something made to be just for kicks.


1) Nintendo would benefit most of all.

We're-ah all about the money!

 Yes, Nintendo will not be the only game in town with Mario game's anymore. But that's perhaps for the best.You see, Nintendo's sphere of influence it pretty much limited to Nintendo consoles, officially. They don't do PC, Mac, or cellphones(unless they started doing that and I never found out). What has happened is that, what, with the Internet and all, those of us who won't buy Nintendo's machines anymore can still play a game of Mario, only, say, one that happens to also have Megaman and Simon Belmont. The fans filled the void.

Nintendo's influence would spread ever farther if you could legally buy Super Mario Bros for the Xbox 1. People would play it, like it, love it, and then look for Nintendo to provide more. Sure, technically they didn't make money on the one sale, but "official" New Marios would still be available exclusively in Nintendo's machines.

5 ways in which Cyborg will suck as bad as Steel at 9:24 AM

I don't envy you, kid. Except your charming good looks and your money and that you get to play a superhero, and you're a shoe in for an Obama Biopic.

Ah, yes, once again DC/WB had announced  a bunch of movies, and like a kid saying he'll be a rockstar one day, you have to humor the idea that, even if you know in your heart you've heard the same flights of fancy from others, who are currently flipping burgers. You just don't have the heart to tell DC it's more likely to end up sweeping floors than it is to make a Wonder Woman movie.

If I know my DC it'll be back to just Batman in no time (and occasionally Supes getting a reboot), but let's play their game. Sure, you plan to have  2 DC films a year ,yeah, whatever. Green Lantern and everything.

But most baffling of all of those is Cyborg. Dc HAS been trying to push the character to the forefront as of this last few years. He's on the new 52 Justice League, and also features in a big way on recent DVD and game based affairs.

And he was also in a pretty popular cartoon over 10 years ago. But you all knew that.

It's not the first time DC has tried to get hype for a black tech based superheroe. Years ago, shortly after Superman did his little tango with death, a character rose from the ashes of synergy. Steel. He was my favorite. When I read Steel had a movie coming out, I thought it was great. But I had THIS guy in mind.

I always wondered how he managed to move the face, though.

Instead, I ran across THIS in my local Blockbuster.

His helmet was like the movie...they both flopped.

Now, I know it was a different time, where DC movies where slightly more likely to be supershitty and slightly more likely to exist(but not too much, either). But I feel Cyborg is gonna end up being closer to Steel than it will be to The Dark Knight. It's not just because they both star a black Superhero. Buuut...

5)  A Black Superhero

No movie for you!

Well, it's not that making a movie about a black superhero is harder than anything. There's some good black superheroes out there, who just need their story told right.

 It's just that, historically, they've never been done right. But right as in "anyone would watch it, even if they didn't have some kind of ban against White People stuff".
 

Or maybe you have some counter-examples?

Sadly, Steel had to rely on being a "Black" movie, with gangbanger enemies, a chika-chicka 70s soundtrack , and an obvious blaxploitation feel. This is gonna be one of the challenges of Cyborg because...

4) The character's worth depends on other characters.

Seriously, Cyborg's not even the most interesting Titan

So let's say I'm not heavilly invested in DC comics of today. In fact, I'm not. All I know from Cyborg is what I know from the Teen Titans the cartoon(he's a cyborg and likes yelling Booyah!)

Sell me Cyborg. What are his enemies? What makes him special? What makes him likable?

I suspect Cyborg is at his peak in the Teen Titans. He's got attachments,  there, relations, stories. Just like Steel.

Steel's very origins where related to Superman. That's where he was at his most interesting. Otherwise he was just a black Ironman.

Which is one of the things where the movie goes wrong. Shaquille O'neil as a low ass budget Tony Stark? Come on!

Again, Cy-Hards, let me know if Cyborg has some great villains and stories waiting to be  brought to screen. Otherwise, he, too might just end up saving the 'hood from a gun dealer operating out of  an arcade.

3) The Tone is compromised

Not even Michael Jordan could have saved this tripe.

Steel the movie could never be like Steel the comic. No way with a budget like it had. The changes to it's source are mostly traceable to "not enough money." Even if it had had intentions of being the best possible movie starring the (other) Man of Steel...money wasn't enough for Flying.

Cyborg faces similar problems, but money's no object this time. For you see, Cyborg is being set up in next year's Batman V Superman.

For the record, here's Smallville's low budget Cyborg.

Whatever they're gonna do in 2020 depends heavilly on what the character is set up as in Batman vs Superman and in the Justice League movie. If that movie has Cyborg as a wise ass clown, or boring and generic the solo movie's director won't be able to turn him into the next Wolverine.

And what exactly will be set up, with Wonder Woman, The Suicide Squad, and Flash and Aquaman all also being set up? Is it like when they set up Hawkeye is a human who shoots arrows in Thor?

2) DC is bad at cinematic universe building, Solo movies.

"In my planet, liking fried chicken is totally a white people stereotype."

DC's terrible record at making movies that aren't Batman and Superman is well earned. But a large part of that comes from spinning of secondary and tertiary characters into their own movies. Because as long as we're not leaving our comfort zones(Gotham and Metropolis), we might as well dredge up some of the unexplored characters from there.

This is how we ended up with Catwoman, Supergirl, and yes, Steel.  All these characters suffer from #4, and their movies are a testimony to that.

It might take some universe building, Marvel style, to get people into  Cyborg. Or rather, the opposite of Marvel: try to use a team up to promote a single character. Their attempts to initiate a united universe have gone straight to hell so far, unless the Justice League movie they have coming up is called Justice League : Mortal and The Suicide Squad's Amanda Waller is played by Angela Basset.

If you're a betting man right now, money's good on them screwing up  something that's both of the things they can't  ever do right.

1) You can't do the Marvel, DC

We don't roll our eyes when Marvel announces their Captain Marvel movie, DC.

Franchises everywhere want in on the Marvel thing, from Universal Monsters to Robin Hood. As always, Hollywood studio heads completely misunderstand the very basics of what makes something a success.

Marvel's first couple of movies only had little hints at a larger universe. They also happened to be mostly good-to-great  movies about characters  who where not as popular as the X-MENs and Spider-Mans of the world.

A Mediocre Batman movie is already a half won battle. Millions of people in the world who only know what movies say through Subtitles, millions who'd never Wiki-binge the Dc pages or pick up a comic, know Batman and are willing to give him money.

Getting people to shell out a Bunch of money for Guardians of the Galaxy takes something WB  didn't sure as hell put into Jonah Hex.

WB didn't put any heart into Steel. If they successfully put as much heart into Cyborg  as much as they did Steel, and history so far says that's likely, then obviously it's poised to be the next Steel.

If it ever gets off the ground, that is. If you can actually go through with a plan to make a movie in 5 years, I'll eat my hat. That I'll have in 5 years

All wrongs deserved at 10:28 AM

Reminder: Public Domain GameJam coming soon!

Open letter to Steve Gaynor at 4:12 PM



This is the guy I'm talking to, Google Image Search

Greetings, MR Gaynor. I would like to say I'm a big fan, but alas, I'm barely aware of your work. As of late my finances keep me from enjoying most modern games. I did see the ad for your game, Gone Home. It looks intriguing and well done.

I read your piece regarding John Walker's article on the public domain, and how games should become public domain after 20 years. And I want to reply to that, because the public domain is a subject that highly interests me as of late.

One day your game, Gone Home, will be public domain. That won't be within most our lifetimes, in modern law.  Your characters, your stories, they are yours, until after 75 years after you die(if you, as a person, own the IP. If Fullbright owns it, and it does, make that 95 years starting with this one).

But let's examine exactly what would happen if Gone Home went public domain in 20 years.

Everyone would be able to duplicate your game. Admitedly, having everyone be able to make their own Gone Homes would cut into your profits from selling the game. It is interesting, because games, unlike Music or Movies, have to essentially be remade for each platform they are on. In the 2030s, who knows what platforms will exist?  Will people start porting the Game to Super IPhone 25, Nintendo WaHoo and Game Implant? Possibly.

However, this will not stop Steve Gaynor from also doing so. What's more, as the original creator you should have priority if your game still piques people's interest 20 years down the line. As someone who is presumably still a force in the games industry, Steve Gaynor would have the advantage over most people in this. Batzarro's Gone Home would obviously hold less interest than Steve Gaynor presents: Gone Home: Game of the Decade edition.

Somebody could improve or ruin upon your work. Somebody could absolutely make a new version of Gone Home that will make people forget your version. This is less likely if Gone Home is still hot enough to be selling in two decades, but it certainly happened to Corman's Little Shop of Horror. While most of us know the the musical movie with Rick Moranis, it was once a black and white horror comedy made and never re-registered. They took something from the past and said "let's give this another angle."

On the other hand somebody could just make the a worster version of gome home. Somebody could make Gone Home into the exact opposite of what you intended.

While this could potentially make you sad, it would not (and should not) stop you from producing your own remake, sequel, or reboot of Gone Home.

Roger Corman did not crawl into a hole and die because his ideas where profiting other people and neither did Romero after his zombie movie went public domain, which, I don't need to tell you has resulted in plenty of people utilizing zombies in their work. Romero still works today. Corman still works today. Steve Gaynor can continue to work today.

 

You also point out that the industry itself needs this. That the people who pay for making a game would need the sales from the old game to fuel their publishing of new games. If we take that income from them by allowing ANYONE to make their own version, well, that's just bad for the industry.

 

Games are indeed an investment, and nobody invests hoping that their product will be feeding people decades after their death. If that seems exaggerated, well this is current copyright law.  Life of the Author(that would be you) plus 75, and years for corporate owned works(i.e. The Fullbright Company owns the right to Gone Home, regardless of if Steve Gaynor is alive or part of it or if Disney buys it)  

 

Vidoeogames are far too recent to be part of the public domain. The entirety of the medium is enshrouded in copyright laws designed to achieve maximum profits for IP owners, and minimum wiggle room for those wanting to use those without paying.  Many works are already being lost to this law, and I expect  the effect would be doubly harsh on the medium, if not for our ability and knack to duplicate the works ourselves.

 

 

 

In 20 years Gone Home will still be under copyright. The Fullbright Company will still be able to duplicate and resell it at a whim, or not, if it still owns it(and regardless of Steve Gaynor). Maybe it doesn't. In 20 years Gone Home could be a curiosity from this decade. Something we talk about infrequently, rather than revisit constantly. Maybe it's become like Ninja Baseball Batman, something you literally can't play unless you break the law. Maybe, like the Valis series and other games from  the defunct Telnet, it'll be something we talk about someday selling, rather than something we can actually play legally.

 

It would be sad for future generations NOT to be able to enjoy Gone Home because of some odd expectations of continual profit from the works of 2 decades ago, which, I may add, are not necessarily invalidated by someone else making their own Gone Home. But the law has spoken, and copyright hoarding is, apparently, good for creativity, besides being  good for the business. Mind you, I'm sure the business would appreciate other people's works being available to re-sell, reuse, and remix, and characters to rework.

 

Look at movies. As much as certain firms(Disney, most of all) have pushed for copyright to last until the heat death of the universe, they don't mind that they can use zombies, Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, and the Hunchback of Notre Dam. They don't mind that anyone can make a movie about Noah, Jesus, The Little Mermaid, Snow White(Disney, most of all). "Now owning the work wholesale" is not equal to "Not being able t, haha)to profit from it." In fact, a games distribution/development company like the Fullbright company  if game characters and concepts  and games had lapsed into the public domain, would themselves be able to work off other people's ideas.

 

 

 It would be indeed rare and special if Gone Home is still profitable in itself after 20 years as a stand alone product. But realistically most works aren't even profitable within the first DECADE of their existence.  Is it a fair trade that the majority of works that won't be profitable  should stay behind a lawsuit shaped wall of fear, just so the few products that are profitable can enjoy the continual legal protection?

 

So you say game companies having exclusive rights to resell their own work  will "encourage them" to make NEW product, based on the profits from old games? Won't that just encourage them to drag out their old games constantly? I mean, Capcom's profits from Street Fighter 2 on XBLA aren't telling Capcom to make Darkstalkers 4, or even (New Franchise). They are telling Capcom selling Street Fighter 2 is good, and they should do it on every new console, Phone, Tablet and anything else. Videogames are not "bands", and game publishers aren't looking for "fresh new talent".

 

So yes, I disagree with you on this, but, alas, to your fortune, copyright already lasts as much as 175 years, if the author where to die 100 years old. That's almost the whole of time America has existed. Corporate works at least have copyright for 95 years. That's what, half the time America has existed?

 

If copyright had always been like this , Oliver Twist would still be under copyright.  Sherlock Holmes would still be under copyright,  and basically most of the works in American History would only a few decades ago begin trickling into the public domain. But maybe publishers could use the windfall of those profits from works 150 years old to publish new, unproven writers, huh?

 

So I disagree, obviously. I think that copyright is doing to games the opposite of what it was expected it would do to the "sciences and the useful arts" in the constitution. But that's not your fault, Steve Gaynor. I am, though, trying to get more people to know about the perils of excessive copyright. In this sense, I thank you, for bringing this topic to light, so that we may discuss it.

 

 

15 Questions about #Gamergate at 1:54 PM



THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF HISTORY!

 I'm hoping that by the time I publish this, it's subject matter will no longer exist. I'm sort of a late adopter, and I mostly sat out of the whole ruckus of Gamergate.

From the beginning I had my doubts. I couldn't muster any anger about some lady doing some sex things to some people from some sites  I didn't even frequent. I haven't had a console in roughly 4 years. Money problems is all.  And really, the whole thing where there where so many accussations and counter accusations...I wrote like 3 articles about it I never posted because it hardly felt right. Even the one I did post kind of makes me feel a little stupid, in retrospect.

But in that time I also watched. Gamergate was not about the pretty blond lady who made a text game, or the lady dressed as a sultry lumberjack, it's members said. They claimed that the media had them figured all wrong, and if we only listened. 

But if I don't assume Gamergate is about what it absolutely looks like it's about, by all the evidence and, frankly with most of it's supporters replies on Facebook (it rhymes with Shmarassment of Shwomen, and Shmear of Shmeminism), then I have to ask a question or 15 of them. Speak now, Gators. I will listen.

15. Why don't you harass men more?

I mean, yeah, not ALL the Gamergators or whatever, threaten women with death and rape. Some threaten some men, too. But...there's a disproportionate amount of hate towards females, who, like Leigh Alexander, aren't even being extreme: they're just disavowing the harassment.

This threats make you look bad and sexist. You should be equal opportunity harassers and harass some men. It's not like there's a shortage of men that disagree with your opinions.

People of all genders and creeds agree that Gamergate is just a bunch of idiots from 4Chan out to spook women for laughts. Won't you prove them wrong?


14. What are you gonna do when games grow up?

I mean, clearly, games are becoming more of an expression form. While the first 3 decades where spent mostly with the commercialist doldrums of selling children and young adults entertainment, they are now enjoyed all over the world as more than mere entertainment.

Gamergate is clearly here to stay for many years to come. It has all the components of a long lasting cultural faction. When we start seeing, as I suspect we will, more games made by minorities and women, games that are not only not adventures, but that aren't even violent at all...what are you gonna do?

But you are against such "political ideas" even being discussed. Naturally gamergate, as an addendum to gamer culture, needs to evolve WITH games, to recognize all kinds of ideas  can have a place. As much  as GG may gripe about their ar and it's users being put on the spot, it also has to recognize that this is still a young medium, ripe for growing.

15 years ago I'd have told you a game about a lawyer is a stupid idea. What's he gonna do, shoot laws at the enemies he comes across? And yet, they did it. One day, the lawyer might not even have to make his enemies explode!



"Your move, Richard Gear."

One day, all I'm saying is, criticism of games is gonna come in the form of a  game. And that day, GG will have to decide if it can take the contradiction.

13. What's up with all the stuff that didn't turn out to be true?

Your movement started with a bunch of trumped up charges against a lady that...I'm not gonna say you lied. You may have acted on unconfirmed information sound better to you?

I mean, if you think this is something so serious that 1000s from all over the globe need to get together....shouldn't your information be fully confirmed?

If I were you, and all the stuff  I'd said had been a full on not truth, and my achievements on It had been enabling a bunch of troglodytes to dox two citizens of the United States of America...well I'd have disbanded the movement right there. Any good you could maybe get done is already tarnished.

But maybe this whole "getting magazines to always tell you who their friends are" thing is bigger than all of us.

12. Why do you think your movement attracts such negative attention?


I did stab them! My view points are valid!

I understand that not all gamergatees are involved in the threatening of women. Some of them  even constantly remind us. But why does the media continue to focus on all the misogynists who happen to have attached themselves to your cause?

I don't know why you don't attract more people who aren't interested in Zoe Quinn's sexual escapades. Who WOULDN'T want to join the rough and tumble  world of telling magazines what their content should be? It's a universal thing.

But for some reason, people who join you are  very often, well...not misogynists, just...currently engaged in the production and distribution of  misogyny. You should do stuff that makes those people not want to join Gamergate.

11. You guys know a gamergate is an antclass, right?

I know, somebody must have said this. But I love me some bugs!



CHIIIIICK FIIIIGHT!

10. What is a Social Justice Warrior?

I'm asking, because I see the term bandied about a lot, and I'm still not sure what it means. All I imagine is an old 80s cartoon intro with  synthesizer music, or maybe  a crossover between Conan and Martin Luther King.



BY CROM! YOU ARE ALL SO UNDERREPRESENTED!

Is it anyone who thinks the depiction of women is important? Or does it have to do with  how much influence that person has.

Anita Sarkeesian, for example, wielded zero influence in videogames until she started getting harassed. Now, I know  a lot of you feel that this harassment never happened, and neither did the harassment of 9 whole people whose harassment is atributted to your group.

Is the guy who's bothered that Chris Redfield is gunning down African all over the place a Social Justice Warrior? If I say you are misogynists, does that make me a Social Justice Warrior?

I mean, I may very well be. I've written about how I agree with Sarkeesian on somethings, I also disagreed with feminists with their criticism of Skullgirls and  The Princess and the Bow(later Brave)


I either ran over her cat, or she doesn't like the way I play Rumble Roses.

I find extremes extremely tedious. Sometimes I agree with a person, but disagree with a method. For example, if you where to make a video saying you want video game journalists to be fair, I'd probably agree with that sentiment. But If your video says 5 times in as many minutes that you "don't care" if some lady had sexy times with some people, I'd probably tell you to take your bochinche trick ass  out of my eyes.


9. Could you guys create your own website?

Who am I kidding, of course you could! Being angry at publications is how most publications start! In your own website (IS GAMERGATE.COM TAKEN?)  you could have all the ethics you want, free of charge. You guys could follow kosher  law for all the world cares!

In fact, besides reviewing games and not colluding with anything, you could also be  investigating all that corruption. I mean, the movement so far is just a series of hashtags and defenses of what the movement is about. Why not go solid?


8. Why did your group donate money for a women's game making thing?

One of the allegations  you point out in your defense of why you're not a mysogiball is that you donated several thousand dollars to a  something to do with  women making games. Why?

I don't mean to be suspicious or anything, but your movement is two months old, and no friends of political correctness, as per most of the GG posts I've seen. Why, in the middle of all that, would it come up to say "let's donate money to a womanly cause"? That...doesn't even have anything to do with the ethics in journalism or whatever. What is the reason for this donation? It really looks, from an outsider's point of view, that you did it to further a case against Zoe Quinn.


7. Are you aware that there is no movement against Gamergate?

It's true. Whereas we know Gamergate has it's on little conclaves, and you guys go on there and talk about stuff, people who are against the movement because of stuff it seems to have done are even less unified. However, the difference is they all agree on several key points.

Harassing women is a terrible thing.

 

Gamergate seems specifically born out of a mentality that leads to women getting harassed.

 

Gamergate overall seems like a bad thing that needs to end.

So whereas GG alternates between complaining about journalism, women, social justice warriors, and such,  all your opponents need to do is point out what the results of your movement have been, and that's it.

Find something you all agree on,  a goal make it specific, and not about a private person having sex.

6. Do you guys have any female family?

Wait, don't answer this one. Anonimity and facelessness are key to your movement. I have a handful of sisters, and my mother's still alive. I have several cousins.

You see, sometimes, I'm playing my videogames or reading about them, and they need me. Sometimes they're hurt. Sometimes they have problems.


"I love you, but if you mess with people's videogames, you on you own, ma"

If they where getting death threats and having their personal shit spread all over the web, I'd be livid. I know for sure, whatever happens in the videogame world would just drop out of my priorities.

I dunno. Maybe that's just me. Maybe there's a mental space where threatening someone with rape is an appropriate response to videogame shit. I've never been there. I'd never even associate with people who do that, you know? Even if we agree that the pie sucks, I would not hang out with someone who feels that the only response to Obamacare is to bomb the hospital.



5. What changes, specifically, have SJWs/Feminists, brought to videogames that make them such a target for Gamergate?

I mean, I could get behind the idea that these people are making videogames too PC...but I'd need to see them successfully achieve that, first.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm a big old horndog. But if you want to know who's really making your games PC, you should look  at the lower part of the box.

That little letter right there decides if your game can be sold to the public at large in a brick and mortar store.  The ESRB makes, and has been deciding which content is "street acceptable" and which isn't. Everything over the M mark is basically not accepted.


Thanks for the heads up.

These guys, under the behest of the ESA, gaming's own special interest lobby(and you guys saying you don't want politics in gaming), are the reason more games don't actually  show you what's under the boob-shaped armor.  Formed in 1993, as a way to avoid the government enforcing it's own arbitrary forms of censorship, the ESRB has taken more boobs off of the screen than Anita Sarkeesian could see without bursting into tears of blood.

Now, we could try to get rid of the ESRB. That'd be nice, wouldn't it. It's not the 90's anymore, daddy: you can know what's in your kid's game with a single Let's Play. The comics industry blew off IT's ratings system, and it's fine.

 But maybe that's too specific for  Gamergate, huh?


4. Why not just not go to the offending websites?

You call this a consumer's revolt/revolution. You want these sites to give it to you straight, and without any corruption or thinkpieces about gaming as anything other than periodically delivered commercial entertainment.

But...why not just not go to those sites? Aren't there any other sites that can satisfy your needs? Frankly, I'm not much of a Kotaku or Escapist fan, or IGN visitor, and that suits me fine. I go somewhere else.

3.Actually, have you guys considered leaving reviews altogether?

I mean, really, buying games based on reviews is for the birds. This is the part of the industry I feel would MOST be at risk from the kind of corruption you pay lip service to. Instead of demanding THESE websites give you fair reviews, how about FUCK reviews, I'll find out by my own damn self if the game is worth it. There's demos, there's rentals. There's even illegal downloads. Why take the long ass road of changing a bunch of sites?

2. Is Gamergate just a bunch of disgruntled people just being disgruntled?


Seriously, there's so many people in our gang. We're mostly good, but invariably some of them are gonna be bad.

I mean, gee, I don't know. I know these movement things can be pretty fluid and stuff, but It seems like this group is just vaguely aiming at the concept that videogame corruption is bad and then...continuing to aim.

Like, what DO you want? Should the president of Kotaku resign? Do you want Anita Sarkeesian to apologize to you for saying something you don't agree with?  What suits you?

The notion that these people have wronged you, somehow, can only take the movement SO far. At this point, you should at least have one of the companies you think is in corruption with specific demands. Not specific like "Let us know if you're fucking someone in the industry." Specific like "Nixon planned that espionage. Impeach Mode!"

1. Uncover any scandals that don't have to do with SJWs, Feminism, or anything like that, yet?

You can always tell a tree from it's fruit. Gourd trees give you gourds, pear trees give you peers, and pine cones give you Chris Pines, I assume.

So if Gamergate is a movement hell bent on bringing more ethics to videogames, surely it has something more than some ladies disagreeing with them to worry about. I mean, you've been at this for MONTHS. I expect you to have cracked this case by now.

Public Domain Rescue Jam 2014! at 3:18 PM

Update: The Jam now had a different name, Public Domain Rescue Jam, because some other people also did a similar jam in May with the same name. Frankly, I'm completely envious and trying to come up with a way to differentiate our jams, even though mine does not have a specific theme. For now, it's still what it is.


A new year brings a new hope! And at least, it used to bring new books, and songs and stories to the public domain, until the laws got changed here in America. Thanks to a retroactively extended copyright of over 75 years, no works have, since the mid 90's, or are even going to enter into the public domain until 2019!

Stay out of this, Anderson.

​Bestgeekever thinks that copyright durations have gone from "(promoting) the Progress of Science and useful Arts"  to basically hindering creativity and creation. To create awareness of this, I bring you, the people, the Public Domain Jam, where I challenge you to create any game you like, starring characters and settings in the public domain. A Don Quixote fighting game? A puzzle attack game with Pinochio and Dracula? A bullet hell game based on Alice in Wonderland? As long as it's not under copyright (and, don't  use someone else's take on the characters. No Disney Princesses here.) do what you will.

Look at it and think to yourself: not like this.

If you're not quite sure which property you will adapt it is you're gonna do, here's some of them.
​Public Domain music

​Public Domain Superheroes

​A small list of public domain books

​List of Public Domain movies.

I'm giving you the whole month of January to really bring your best. If you don't agree with my cause, it's at least an interesting challenge, no? Here's the 3 governing criteria, explained.


Come on, bros! You're skeeving Hitler out...

Overall Quality and Enjoyability
This is the basic element of the videogame. "Is this game fun or anti-fun?" More fun is better

No more Dracalas

Rareness of the characters
Zombies and Dracula are pretty much staples of the popular culture. More obscure characters is better.

Actually, I've never seen Dracula with an Ukulele

Creativity
Did you take your own spin on the material, or did you place the characters where they always where, doing exactly what they did in the book, looking exactly like they did? More own spin is better.

Not like this dead asshole.

Pro-Public Domain
If your game has somehow presents some kind of message against excessive copyright durations, you get a cookie.

Submission open from 01/01/2015 to 01/31/2015. Stay Tuned to THIS PAGE for more information. If this Jam is a success, Bestgeekever promises to do it again next year,  maybe with a theme narrowed down.

The simple answer to the women in videogame problem at 3:06 PM

Yes, it does turn out  you're the bad guy in the end.