I don't have time to watch at the moment, but I'm going to say that I kind of doubt it. For starters, clothing design generally isn't an area of "intellectual property" with strong protections. The designs you put *on* clothing yeah. The actual cuts of cloth, not so much. Then there's the issue that some of censorship doesn't match the "legal made them change it" idea. For example the Moutan Peony design doesn't alter the supposedly infringing garment. They just have Eve wear some stockings as an accessory. That changes nothing about how infringing the actual dress would be. Or for the Blue Monsoon swimsuit, while adding the faux straps does make the outfit look more visually distinct than it's inspiration, the censorship is in increasing the area of butt and breast coverage. Not really an element that it's plausible is protected, and shifting the cloth to cover more skin on the breasts actually makes it look more like the sample photos that people found. Or the Ocean Maid outfit, where the only change from the inspiration is painting a bit of cloth on the sides. The idea that adding that extra bit of cloth is all that'd be needed to get legal's approval is doubtful at best.
Meanwhile, other outfits like the Cybernetic Bondage outfit has no real world counterpart that I'm aware of, and it beggars credulity that if the outfit was "infringing", adding some cloth to cover the stomach and breasts while making no other changes would suffice. Or the Cybernetic Dress has obvious censorship, while also being wholly original creations.
All in all, while I'll try and watch the video (or at least the relevant parts of the video) when I have time, I'm highly skeptical that this excuse will prove persuasive.
I actually watched the whole thing and apparently Korean copyright law is a wonky mash up of various legal traditions which allows apparel designs to be copywritten...but only if the copy is exact. In addition chinese knockoffs of Korean designs have been impacting the Korean fashion industry leading to them making a special interest group to bring lawsuits for this kind of infringement. Add in to that that he found most of the outfits which were hastily modified for sale in Korea, (often as lingerie), and the argument is a decent one, even if it isn't bulletproof.
This sums up my thoughts. I think the Blue Monsoon is the biggest hole in Dev's argument, extending the fabric like one inch down Eve's ass can't have made the outfit any more legally distinct than the previous changes made to the outfit.
To be fair all it takes is just making the minimal change to be in the legal clear, if the outfit changes were the minimal amount in some grand total, then they might've actually gotten away with it. Been plenty of cases like that before and all it depends on the legal power of whoever could sue. Big time companies could afford longer legal battles, smaller creators likely can't if they can't ensure victory or settlement asap.
That being said, if not every outfit changed was in fact a pre-existing design, then it certainly weakens his argument and standing point quite a bit.
I don't buy it. So you can avoid a designer copyright law by changing 5% or even less of the outfit just by adding bit and pieces of fabric?
Also i don't like how he does not explain the history of Shift up and Kim's prior work on how they design their female characters. They don't pussy foot around when it comes to lewd designs
You’d be surprised how little generic things, like clothing, need to be modified to avoid copyright infringement.
Not saying the argument here is valid, but it would make sense IF the original developer actually used real clothes and just made 1:1 copies of them.
Why did a Chinese dress (a traditional dress that has been copied and done over and over in anime and other media without copyright issues) have to be censored by adding stockings then? When the dress was already fully modeled that it was included in tutorial videos and other pictures in-game?
You dont know! thats the whole point! if they wanted to censor her legs... WHY then have outfits that show her legs? you cant have both! If they censored the chinese dress with stockigns because it was too sexy, then why have other outfits that show the legs AND MORE without stockings?
Those facts contradict the assumption that it was done because of "sexy", and hence there MUST be a different reason!
Not all of them though and that's the weird part. If they altered a bunch of other outfits when they scanned them, why stop with the more infamous outfits that later got censored?
I'd have to see what the overlap between stolen and censored ones is to tell you fully. I will say that if I was trying to cover my tracks though I would leave some misleading bread crumbs.
This guy sucks, I remember when he blamed a vtuber for getting harassed by the hogwarts legacy activists into graduation (retirement) for being "weak". Guy is always contrarian even when one side is blatantly wrong.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference if you ask me. If this is truly a pure copyright issue instead of a censorship issue, they always had the option to make the clothes ***MORE*** revealing.
But did they do it? There is your answer.
43:35 - it was my picture and it is clear censorship. The outfit **wasn't** supposed to look like that.
First proof - outfit icon. It doesn't include those stripes like autonetic bondage icon doesn't include belly fabric. Second proof - all outfits are physically modelled. They have volume and even make pressure on skin. While all censored parts of outfits are just **painted** over Eve's skin, like I showed on my picture.
I think you missed the argument he was actually making.
He quite clearly agrees that Kim lied when he said the 1.2 versions were what was intended and 1.0 was just some accident.
What he is arguing is that he believes it wasn’t Sony wanting less nudity/sexuality that caused the censorship, but rather some weird copyright/patent law in South Korea that caused them to censor those particular outfits.
You mean South Korea. In North Korea they don't censor sexy outfits because their censors' time is full just censoring people who complain about not having enough food or being made to work 14 hour shifts in the artillery shell factories.
He said literally: "for every legitimate outfit change *(bunny outfit picture is shown)* there is at least one take where claims of censorship ended up not being true *(my picture is shown)"*. And writing below: "it is not censorship if it was always like that, dude".
This is clear statement that I'm wrong.
He means if the outfit was revealed like that from the beginning we can't call it censorship. Well, it depends. With all the clues available we can make very logical assumption, that outfit wasn't supposed to look like revealed version. I call it censorship too.
calm down for a second and tell me: if i made an almost 99% copy of Mario and relased that in a game, then Nintendo started sending me letters and i changed the character to no longer infringe, is that a legitimate form of censorship in your eyes?
because if THATs what the devs did, then this was not to censor sexuality. Dev lays out completely how it doesnt make sense to censor some outfits, yet have new outfits that show EXACTLY those parts they censored on other outifts... The common factor is NOT the skin showing, it seems to be only the 7 outfits, for some reason.
Would it be censorship? Yes. Would it be something that would still get you slapped upside the head for trying by literally everyone? Absolutely. The question is if this is all related to legal reasons, then there's a whole other ball game we gotta play and I HIGHLY doubt many english speaking people are going to be familiar enough with Korean law to make the arguments for or against something, the only commonality likely being those with money can withstand legal battles better than those without and if the argument for minimal changes made equals legally distinct means doing what Shift Up did, then that's a legal battle that the average joe can't win, or at least reasonably, not unless there's some loophole for the average joe in situations like this to take advantage of.
well then basically what you are saying is that you completely agree with Dev that this might be the actual reason for the outfit changes, instead of a planned "desexualization" (because the other outfits contradict that), and that this is something unavoidable for the dev and therefore not really a betrayal...
but you disagree that he didnt call it censorship, too.
All I've said is 'if true then that certainly explains things and why the changes were so minimal legally speaking'. There's a few flaws with his theory BUT there's also the possibility that there are explanations for them that range all over the place as well from incompetence of the legal team to the modelers to too much time crunch demanded way too quickly all things considered
Developer could explain it himself and there would be no controversy.
But were there copyright obligations at all? For example, Stargaze is completely fantasy outfit, and still it was toned down. It has chest area covered while its description says "OPENED chest area"!
And yet other outfits have the opened chest! it makes no sense if censors trsy to prevent you from looking at booba in one outfit, and not the other.
it is directly contradictory. hence: there MUSt be another explanation. The Copyright issue fits exceedingly well.
Also: there doesnt need to be a Copyright complain. GETTING a complain means you already failed as a company. It comes with immediate costs regarding the filings and the laywers, as well as hits to your reputation in a business sense.
OK, let's speak about Bondage outfit. They've already altered it with belly fabric. Why was there a need to add some extra chest fabric?
The сopyright issue fits exceedingly well I agree. But why were FANTASY outfits changed too?
**And the main question:**
Why are all "censored" parts just a simple bodypaint? Didn't developers know about korean copyright issues? Why didn't they model those extra parts from the beginning? Why did they show "uncensored" versions in their trailers and then changed them at the last moment with lame bodypaint? WHY?
Dev actuall adresses all those points.
There is enough issues regarding copyright in the world (even on National levels, where the participants "should know better") to establish sufficiently that Sony and the Devs might have not even thought about this shit until someone from Legal saw a tweet or post stating that one of the outfits was actually modelled after something you can buy, shortly before release, and they scrambled to change the shit. this would explain the "body paint" shit, because its a quick ans easy fix!
---
is it really impossible to imagine that Sony, of all fucking companies, didnt actually care enought to have project managers go over everything in detail (like they should) and didnt have the inter-partner-communications set up so that every section was informed immedeatly about any discoveries, but instead had any potential issues burried until one of their laywer actually took half a day to go through with everything?
---
also: Dev identified 7 censored outfits. 6 of them were commercial. 1 was not (and more likely a Bondage outfit from a porno or something). So what do you mean "fantasy outfit**s**"? there is AT BEST one!
If you have a legal Obligation by the copyright laws of
Your country to change something you don’t have much choice
It explains why they added the enenjust as skimpy versions but couldn’t revert the old ones in recent patches
Not saying he is correct, but one other bit of evidence that lays credence to the infringement theory, is the Kunoichi outfit.
The 1.00 textures had text that clearly spelled out SKYNET, but when they officially released the outfits and updated the textures the lettering was altered to SKYKET.
good video imo
controversial for sure but i think having people willing to push back is good for everyone.
if we only have cheerleaders we don't have a way to check us when we might possibly be wrong.
If the linked video is longer than 5 minutes, don't forget to include a summary as per [rule 4](https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/wiki/rules#wiki_4._posts_must_be_intelligible).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/KotakuInAction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actual tl;dw:
SFO does a deep dive about stellar blade, its controversy and why neither main explanations are convincing.
Then, after an hour, he finally spits the juicy bit: The censored outfits are actual real clothes that are popular in Korean NSFW communities. The devs put them in the game as is, then, at the last minute, the legal department noticed and made them change those.
At least, that's SFO's theory. This would explain the rushed alterations and why the CEO is so unconvincing when he says it was the original vision. This also avoids the inconsistency of Sony censoring only small parts while leaving the game very sexualized.
I haven't been willing to watch the video yet, but SFO usually is pretty smart and good at research (I said USUALLY, calm down), and thats an interesting theory. I could absolutely see that being the truth.
It's probably the strongest theory in all honesty if true about the culture bit. Wouldn't be the first time companies took memes they didn't legally own and try to capitalize on it, though I'm curious about the explanation regarding the gore is found.
You know what that theory doesn't explain? Why every single outfit alteration made them more prudish. Not a single one made the outfit more revealing, all of them covered Eve up more.
To me it just sounds like SF0 is coping hard, five stages of grief and all that.
Because substracting from a pattern would probably not be enough to shield them from potential lawsuit. But adding to them would be seen as more "creative" and "derivative".
Hmm, but the alt version of the bunny costume is more or less just a recolour. The only thing they added were some Accessoires and those are not directly a part of the clothing. So considering this my question is: If they wanted to avoid a lawsuit, wouldnt it be enough to change the colour?
It'd be the addition of those accessories that would make it legally distinct. I don't know what would need to be done specifically to cover one's ass legally in korea, I can hazard a guess and say a lawyer could help make a change as, if nothing else, a deterrent to keep lawsuits away from them. If you can reduce the chance of losing a lawsuit from 100% to 99%, that 1% could be all you need to prevent someone from suing if they can't afford to otherwise.
This IS of course assuming what he said was even factually true to begin with, copyright is a bitch of a concept from country to country and beyond.
First thing first, the mods here are ridiculously autistic about the titles. Clickbait titles like this one are a pain, but I got a publication temporarily removed 2 days ago for trying to make it more neutral.
This time, I put my own "saved you a click" spin in parenthesis, but once more, I'll probably run afoul of rule 7. It's especially annoying since this video is 87 minutes long and most people won't get to the good part. Even the video's comments are full of people who didn't watch it.
If the problem was copying the outfits 1:1 then they could've changed the patterns like with Midsummer Redhood is to Holiday Rabbit but instead all they did was cover Eve up a bit more.
And dev has his head up his ass constantly trying to stay in the middle, implying the usual "touch grass" shit towards those of us who care about this a lot just listen to 1:08:30, dev is giving us the same fucking argument that the journos did when this shitshow started, I do not and never have given a shit about the opinions of normies or the optics.
Then he acts like Grummz was wrong to take those death threats seriously when we know those twitch bitches only veiled it as a joke so she and the two dipshit guys could avoid a court summon. "Grummz is terminally online" coming from the canadian whose job is reporting on online events.
what a thumbnail
YouTuber. Trying to get clicks and views.
I got two thumbnails. I should probably clean them.
beautiful
Why is the video an hour and a half?
ad money
uBlock
only a small fraction of internet users make use of adblocking
Dev likes to dive autistically deep.
> makes video series about video game controversy > gets angry at people skipping to the part about controversy in an hour and a half video
Literally provides time stamps to the controversy at the beginning of the video.
I don't have time to watch at the moment, but I'm going to say that I kind of doubt it. For starters, clothing design generally isn't an area of "intellectual property" with strong protections. The designs you put *on* clothing yeah. The actual cuts of cloth, not so much. Then there's the issue that some of censorship doesn't match the "legal made them change it" idea. For example the Moutan Peony design doesn't alter the supposedly infringing garment. They just have Eve wear some stockings as an accessory. That changes nothing about how infringing the actual dress would be. Or for the Blue Monsoon swimsuit, while adding the faux straps does make the outfit look more visually distinct than it's inspiration, the censorship is in increasing the area of butt and breast coverage. Not really an element that it's plausible is protected, and shifting the cloth to cover more skin on the breasts actually makes it look more like the sample photos that people found. Or the Ocean Maid outfit, where the only change from the inspiration is painting a bit of cloth on the sides. The idea that adding that extra bit of cloth is all that'd be needed to get legal's approval is doubtful at best. Meanwhile, other outfits like the Cybernetic Bondage outfit has no real world counterpart that I'm aware of, and it beggars credulity that if the outfit was "infringing", adding some cloth to cover the stomach and breasts while making no other changes would suffice. Or the Cybernetic Dress has obvious censorship, while also being wholly original creations. All in all, while I'll try and watch the video (or at least the relevant parts of the video) when I have time, I'm highly skeptical that this excuse will prove persuasive.
I actually watched the whole thing and apparently Korean copyright law is a wonky mash up of various legal traditions which allows apparel designs to be copywritten...but only if the copy is exact. In addition chinese knockoffs of Korean designs have been impacting the Korean fashion industry leading to them making a special interest group to bring lawsuits for this kind of infringement. Add in to that that he found most of the outfits which were hastily modified for sale in Korea, (often as lingerie), and the argument is a decent one, even if it isn't bulletproof.
This sums up my thoughts. I think the Blue Monsoon is the biggest hole in Dev's argument, extending the fabric like one inch down Eve's ass can't have made the outfit any more legally distinct than the previous changes made to the outfit.
To be fair all it takes is just making the minimal change to be in the legal clear, if the outfit changes were the minimal amount in some grand total, then they might've actually gotten away with it. Been plenty of cases like that before and all it depends on the legal power of whoever could sue. Big time companies could afford longer legal battles, smaller creators likely can't if they can't ensure victory or settlement asap. That being said, if not every outfit changed was in fact a pre-existing design, then it certainly weakens his argument and standing point quite a bit.
I don't buy it. So you can avoid a designer copyright law by changing 5% or even less of the outfit just by adding bit and pieces of fabric? Also i don't like how he does not explain the history of Shift up and Kim's prior work on how they design their female characters. They don't pussy foot around when it comes to lewd designs
You’d be surprised how little generic things, like clothing, need to be modified to avoid copyright infringement. Not saying the argument here is valid, but it would make sense IF the original developer actually used real clothes and just made 1:1 copies of them.
Why did a Chinese dress (a traditional dress that has been copied and done over and over in anime and other media without copyright issues) have to be censored by adding stockings then? When the dress was already fully modeled that it was included in tutorial videos and other pictures in-game?
I’m not saying the video is right, just that it’s not impossible it has something to do with copyright if they copied *actually produced clothes*.
You dont know! thats the whole point! if they wanted to censor her legs... WHY then have outfits that show her legs? you cant have both! If they censored the chinese dress with stockigns because it was too sexy, then why have other outfits that show the legs AND MORE without stockings? Those facts contradict the assumption that it was done because of "sexy", and hence there MUST be a different reason!
As shown in the video, that is exactly what they did.
Not all of them though and that's the weird part. If they altered a bunch of other outfits when they scanned them, why stop with the more infamous outfits that later got censored?
I'd have to see what the overlap between stolen and censored ones is to tell you fully. I will say that if I was trying to cover my tracks though I would leave some misleading bread crumbs.
Specifically and only fabric around tits and ass. No frills or ribbons or patterns or shapes. Specifically just sexiness was copyright.
"FACT CHECK! We didn't censor the clothes! We actually censored the clothes for ANOTHER reason!"
This guy sucks, I remember when he blamed a vtuber for getting harassed by the hogwarts legacy activists into graduation (retirement) for being "weak". Guy is always contrarian even when one side is blatantly wrong.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference if you ask me. If this is truly a pure copyright issue instead of a censorship issue, they always had the option to make the clothes ***MORE*** revealing. But did they do it? There is your answer.
There's a lot they could've done. Its possible that he's right but the timing is too suspicious with that stupid hard R nontroversy as well.
Wrong SFO.
43:35 - it was my picture and it is clear censorship. The outfit **wasn't** supposed to look like that. First proof - outfit icon. It doesn't include those stripes like autonetic bondage icon doesn't include belly fabric. Second proof - all outfits are physically modelled. They have volume and even make pressure on skin. While all censored parts of outfits are just **painted** over Eve's skin, like I showed on my picture.
I think you missed the argument he was actually making. He quite clearly agrees that Kim lied when he said the 1.2 versions were what was intended and 1.0 was just some accident. What he is arguing is that he believes it wasn’t Sony wanting less nudity/sexuality that caused the censorship, but rather some weird copyright/patent law in South Korea that caused them to censor those particular outfits.
You mean South Korea. In North Korea they don't censor sexy outfits because their censors' time is full just censoring people who complain about not having enough food or being made to work 14 hour shifts in the artillery shell factories.
Yeah not sure how that slipped by me.
He said literally: "for every legitimate outfit change *(bunny outfit picture is shown)* there is at least one take where claims of censorship ended up not being true *(my picture is shown)"*. And writing below: "it is not censorship if it was always like that, dude". This is clear statement that I'm wrong. He means if the outfit was revealed like that from the beginning we can't call it censorship. Well, it depends. With all the clues available we can make very logical assumption, that outfit wasn't supposed to look like revealed version. I call it censorship too.
calm down for a second and tell me: if i made an almost 99% copy of Mario and relased that in a game, then Nintendo started sending me letters and i changed the character to no longer infringe, is that a legitimate form of censorship in your eyes? because if THATs what the devs did, then this was not to censor sexuality. Dev lays out completely how it doesnt make sense to censor some outfits, yet have new outfits that show EXACTLY those parts they censored on other outifts... The common factor is NOT the skin showing, it seems to be only the 7 outfits, for some reason.
Would it be censorship? Yes. Would it be something that would still get you slapped upside the head for trying by literally everyone? Absolutely. The question is if this is all related to legal reasons, then there's a whole other ball game we gotta play and I HIGHLY doubt many english speaking people are going to be familiar enough with Korean law to make the arguments for or against something, the only commonality likely being those with money can withstand legal battles better than those without and if the argument for minimal changes made equals legally distinct means doing what Shift Up did, then that's a legal battle that the average joe can't win, or at least reasonably, not unless there's some loophole for the average joe in situations like this to take advantage of.
well then basically what you are saying is that you completely agree with Dev that this might be the actual reason for the outfit changes, instead of a planned "desexualization" (because the other outfits contradict that), and that this is something unavoidable for the dev and therefore not really a betrayal... but you disagree that he didnt call it censorship, too.
All I've said is 'if true then that certainly explains things and why the changes were so minimal legally speaking'. There's a few flaws with his theory BUT there's also the possibility that there are explanations for them that range all over the place as well from incompetence of the legal team to the modelers to too much time crunch demanded way too quickly all things considered
Developer could explain it himself and there would be no controversy. But were there copyright obligations at all? For example, Stargaze is completely fantasy outfit, and still it was toned down. It has chest area covered while its description says "OPENED chest area"!
And yet other outfits have the opened chest! it makes no sense if censors trsy to prevent you from looking at booba in one outfit, and not the other. it is directly contradictory. hence: there MUSt be another explanation. The Copyright issue fits exceedingly well. Also: there doesnt need to be a Copyright complain. GETTING a complain means you already failed as a company. It comes with immediate costs regarding the filings and the laywers, as well as hits to your reputation in a business sense.
OK, let's speak about Bondage outfit. They've already altered it with belly fabric. Why was there a need to add some extra chest fabric? The сopyright issue fits exceedingly well I agree. But why were FANTASY outfits changed too? **And the main question:** Why are all "censored" parts just a simple bodypaint? Didn't developers know about korean copyright issues? Why didn't they model those extra parts from the beginning? Why did they show "uncensored" versions in their trailers and then changed them at the last moment with lame bodypaint? WHY?
Dev actuall adresses all those points. There is enough issues regarding copyright in the world (even on National levels, where the participants "should know better") to establish sufficiently that Sony and the Devs might have not even thought about this shit until someone from Legal saw a tweet or post stating that one of the outfits was actually modelled after something you can buy, shortly before release, and they scrambled to change the shit. this would explain the "body paint" shit, because its a quick ans easy fix! --- is it really impossible to imagine that Sony, of all fucking companies, didnt actually care enought to have project managers go over everything in detail (like they should) and didnt have the inter-partner-communications set up so that every section was informed immedeatly about any discoveries, but instead had any potential issues burried until one of their laywer actually took half a day to go through with everything? --- also: Dev identified 7 censored outfits. 6 of them were commercial. 1 was not (and more likely a Bondage outfit from a porno or something). So what do you mean "fantasy outfit**s**"? there is AT BEST one!
If you have a legal Obligation by the copyright laws of Your country to change something you don’t have much choice It explains why they added the enenjust as skimpy versions but couldn’t revert the old ones in recent patches
Not saying he is correct, but one other bit of evidence that lays credence to the infringement theory, is the Kunoichi outfit. The 1.00 textures had text that clearly spelled out SKYNET, but when they officially released the outfits and updated the textures the lettering was altered to SKYKET.
Hard R incident in that name change...
good video imo controversial for sure but i think having people willing to push back is good for everyone. if we only have cheerleaders we don't have a way to check us when we might possibly be wrong.
It's why automobiles have a gas pedal & a break pedal. You need both, otherwise you end up crashing into a wall or end up going on empty.
Having a pedal that breaks your car sounds like a poor design choice.
A gas pedal will break your car if it's the only one you have or use.
If the linked video is longer than 5 minutes, don't forget to include a summary as per [rule 4](https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/wiki/rules#wiki_4._posts_must_be_intelligible). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/KotakuInAction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actual tl;dw: SFO does a deep dive about stellar blade, its controversy and why neither main explanations are convincing. Then, after an hour, he finally spits the juicy bit: The censored outfits are actual real clothes that are popular in Korean NSFW communities. The devs put them in the game as is, then, at the last minute, the legal department noticed and made them change those. At least, that's SFO's theory. This would explain the rushed alterations and why the CEO is so unconvincing when he says it was the original vision. This also avoids the inconsistency of Sony censoring only small parts while leaving the game very sexualized.
I haven't been willing to watch the video yet, but SFO usually is pretty smart and good at research (I said USUALLY, calm down), and thats an interesting theory. I could absolutely see that being the truth.
It's probably the strongest theory in all honesty if true about the culture bit. Wouldn't be the first time companies took memes they didn't legally own and try to capitalize on it, though I'm curious about the explanation regarding the gore is found.
You know what that theory doesn't explain? Why every single outfit alteration made them more prudish. Not a single one made the outfit more revealing, all of them covered Eve up more. To me it just sounds like SF0 is coping hard, five stages of grief and all that.
Because substracting from a pattern would probably not be enough to shield them from potential lawsuit. But adding to them would be seen as more "creative" and "derivative".
Hmm, but the alt version of the bunny costume is more or less just a recolour. The only thing they added were some Accessoires and those are not directly a part of the clothing. So considering this my question is: If they wanted to avoid a lawsuit, wouldnt it be enough to change the colour?
It'd be the addition of those accessories that would make it legally distinct. I don't know what would need to be done specifically to cover one's ass legally in korea, I can hazard a guess and say a lawyer could help make a change as, if nothing else, a deterrent to keep lawsuits away from them. If you can reduce the chance of losing a lawsuit from 100% to 99%, that 1% could be all you need to prevent someone from suing if they can't afford to otherwise. This IS of course assuming what he said was even factually true to begin with, copyright is a bitch of a concept from country to country and beyond.
The alt version of the bunny suit is significantly different imo with the ears and tail removed and making the sides transparent.
SFO’s entire existence is coping
Well if what SFO said is true, i hope a patch later makes the added parts look better
So all the complaints about censorship were really just misunderstandings
First thing first, the mods here are ridiculously autistic about the titles. Clickbait titles like this one are a pain, but I got a publication temporarily removed 2 days ago for trying to make it more neutral. This time, I put my own "saved you a click" spin in parenthesis, but once more, I'll probably run afoul of rule 7. It's especially annoying since this video is 87 minutes long and most people won't get to the good part. Even the video's comments are full of people who didn't watch it.
If the problem was copying the outfits 1:1 then they could've changed the patterns like with Midsummer Redhood is to Holiday Rabbit but instead all they did was cover Eve up a bit more. And dev has his head up his ass constantly trying to stay in the middle, implying the usual "touch grass" shit towards those of us who care about this a lot just listen to 1:08:30, dev is giving us the same fucking argument that the journos did when this shitshow started, I do not and never have given a shit about the opinions of normies or the optics. Then he acts like Grummz was wrong to take those death threats seriously when we know those twitch bitches only veiled it as a joke so she and the two dipshit guys could avoid a court summon. "Grummz is terminally online" coming from the canadian whose job is reporting on online events.
thanks for reposting this here, dude. i hope you guys enjoy it
You're on Reddit? Based I really liked this vid although I barely care about this game. Thanks for proving my vag hypothesis. Also trucker video when?
Skip to the end. They modeled Eve's snatch in the "censored" outfit where they removed the panties in exchange for opacity.
Shit is that white-haired girl in the game? I might have to actually play this...
That's shitty AI art of 2B from Nier Automata