This site is currently undergoing a massive backend rework. As such, many pages may become broken for brief periods of time.
If you see any issues, please do make us aware via our Contact Form.

Thank you for browsing, we hope you enjoy the improvements that are coming to the site!

On “The Dolls”, and Scott’s desire to remove it from Steam

A Correction on the article

After Scott had personally responded to this, I’m issuing a correction to this article.

TheDollsThe original article debated over if Scott had the legal right to take down The Doll, based on the fact that no patents were lodged. It talked of the slippery slope if this situation proceeded to an actual takedown.

After discussion on the subreddit, it would appear a law does exist, in which games that are substantially similar – to the point where they had to have been copied – could be taken down for infringement.

I asked if there was any legality at the end of the article, and after a mini heart-attack of a response, I suppose there was an answer to this legal grey area.

There is a legal precedent to take down The Dolls. as per King v 6Waves, any game that is substantially similar can be taken down over copyright.

I am more than happy to cop to my mistakes. In the original article, I had said many times that the game was sub-par, and I did actually hope some reason presented itself. It seems there is a counter-precedent concerning Capcom v Data East, but I suppose if it ever does go that far, this would resolve the two arguments. There is legal precedent for and against, it’d just be a matter of duking it out.

When I made the article, I did so with the sole issue of worry over this area, as many others have expressed in the reddit post about it, yet so many more saying it was 100% cast iron against copyright. A position that could have been very chilling. I issued the article to try and show that actually no, this could be a serious issue. I also asked at the end for a response from Scott – a response I genuinely did not believe I would obtain, but if a response were added, I would happily redo and correct the article, which I am doing now.

I believe Scott saw it as an attack, but this was not the case. I have no idea if Scott believes this was not the case, but it genuinely wasn’t, and I don’t know how I could possibly convey this. I suppose my best analogy, and I say this as it’s the only thing I know while typing, is much like Jim Sterling’s comments on Scott’s recent games. It was not an attack on Scott whatsoever, but analysis and breakdown on the games itself (Though he does have a very abrasive way of tackling it).

Likewise, I didn’t write this to attack Scott. I wrote it over the potentially damaging takedown precedent that could be set. This has been my thought from the second I saw the comment, until the second I saw the legal correction.

I suppose, what a way to find out a developer knows about your site. A potential takedown being considered, and then clarification that it’s safe to stay up. I honestly did not expect it to get to this point, and I wish it had been on better terms. Still, what’s done is done, I suppose. I guess I can only focus on making this the best lore site I can, and try to crack it to regain any kind of lost ground there.

I’d like to apologise to Scott for any hate that had come his way over this, and thank him for clarifying this case. I’m certain, with the door buttons as they are, there is certainly a case for the “substantially similar” argument to win over. I do not feel “bitter” over “losing” anything. Like I said, I found the game inferior, and am against asset flips regardless. This news, while a shock in it’s delivery, is actually good news for the overall Steam community.

I’m unsure how to end this one – I’ve tried about three times but found I needed to add more to express how I felt over the situation. All’s said and done, and the situation is resolved with clear cut legal precedent that will not cause a slippery slope. It seems it will go either one way or the other, but there is a specific precedent in this case for either side.

I think that’s the best place to end it.