Is there a more annoying argument than “video games are art”? So, how about: “What is a video game?” Gamers have been arguing about it from day one, and every time a new trend emerges, the argument will reappear, such as “walking simulation games”, ARG or visual novels, Just to name a few.This is why it is interesting (perhaps a bit sad) to see the American justice system let us down again and in the meantime the legal definition of “video game” The verdict of the Epic v Apple trial on Friday.
California Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued her ruling on Friday morning. Although Epic “won” on an important charge, the judge agreed with Apple on most of the charges. the opinion of. However, the exact legal definition of video games is largely undecided.
“The court started with the definition of video games. Unfortunately, no one agreed, and neither party provided any generally accepted evidence of the industry definition,” the judge’s ruling read. During the trial, both Epic and Apple were arguing whether certain aspects of Epic’s Fortnite were games, and whether digital services such as Netflix could be considered video game stores after releasing items such as choosing your own adventure Bandersnatch movies.The matter was serious enough in a short period of time that legal experts had to solve a semi-naked version of Peely, the sentient banana man of Fortnite.
However, Judge Rogers did question some deliberately vague definitions of video games in her ruling.
“At least, video games seem to require some level of interaction or participation between players and the media,” the judge’s ruling noted. “In other words, games require players to be able to enter a certain level of commands or choices, which are then reflected in the game itself. This definition of a game contrasts with other forms of entertainment, which are usually passive forms of consumer enjoyment (movies, TV, music). Video games are also usually presented or animated graphically, rather than live recording or motion capture like movies or TV. In addition, the video game market seems to be very eclectic and diverse.”
Don’t we know, Judge Rogers. But the whole industry, Can Do A sort of small better one.
Rogers added that the court “does not need to make a decisive definition of video games” because all parties have considered Fortnite as the main factor in the litigation, namely video games.
As the reporter of The Verge pointed out, an interesting legal implication Adi Robertson: Judge Rogers refused to rule on whether interactive movies such as “Black Mirror: Bandersnatch” are video games. Rogers pointed out that these examples, plus platforms like Fortnite’s “metaverse” (basically its willingness to create elaborate marketing crossovers with numerous intellectual property rights) only point to a trend where video games and passive entertainment begin to “converge and overlap.” .
If Epic wants to continue its argument that platforms and services like Netflix are being financially damaged by Apple App Store rules, then this ruling may provide a legal basis for companies like Apple to avoid these arguments. Basically, the fewer examples that Epic can use to prove that Apple maintains monopoly power over developers, the less likely it is for Apple to deal with the legal consequences of such extensive control over the application market. If Epic cannot legally assert that Netflix is a video game storefront, then it may not affect the judge’s decision.
So you have it. Has the US legal system failed the people again, or has it saved us from another round of meaningless fan quarrels? Frankly speaking, I am not disturbed by Judge Rogers’ vague ruling.Video games have always been an evolving medium, just like any other art form, it has very low requirements Some Interactivity or other personal input makes it unique and makes these experiences special.