> > Well, there is no such thing as zero legal risk IMHO - especially with > new concepts such as Hackit's. And if we try to get rid of features to > try to reach that "zero risk", we'll just make the concept more empty. [David] I cannot agree with that, because for me the game can involve strong statements, opinions, features, without any legal risk. The strength of our ingame concepts and the legal risk are two different subjects for me. Now it's true that if for our current game, we think that involving real web sites is part of the core feature - and I believe that - and that on the legal side the risk is acceptable then we should go for it. > > I think the right approach for a potentially controversial feature is: > > 1) we look at what we want to do > 2) we look at the buzz it can create > 3) we see if this feels "right" to us, independently of the legal part > 3) we check the level of legal risk > 4) if the lawyer feels he can defend it in court with good chances of > succeeding, we do it > [David] yep
> > For me, the question here lies on where we want to provoke reactions > : on > > the game itself and its content (second option), or on the way we > display > > this game and how users actually -in the real world- behave towards > > ownership on the web (first option). > > Both! They are equally important, it's like trying to decide if game > design is more important than marketing or vice-versa. They both > contribute to the success of the game. [David] Nope, I don't agree. I'm interested to make good games as a priority, and this is where the buzz should come from, before looking for external factors that create additional buzz. _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
