this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
410 points (99.3% liked)
Games
23920 readers
150 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do agree with that, but if you also agree with that then I have no idea why you commented in the first place. You should understand where the other person was coming from because the art style, while similar, is not the same as Minecraft. And since that person was talking about specifically in the context of a DMCA claim he is right that there is literally nothing in that claim that has any grounds (which is why MS withdrew it pretty fast) because if you get into the details nothing shown looks exactly like Minecraft. It looks similar to Minecraft but is still distinct from it.
Even in that image that looks exactly like Minecraft if you get into the details:
It's simply a coincidence that the singular image in broad strokes ends up looking like Minecraft. If you understand that I really do not understand why you commented in the first place. Just to make an argument that at a glance that single image looks like Minecraft?
Yup, that's the reason. OP had said that the textures weren't even similar iirc. Arguing against that doesn't mean I was arguing against their overall conclusion about the DMCA being invalid. Probably should have phrased it less confrontationally.