Talk:Digital Chocolate

Fair use rationale for Image:DigitalChocolate.jpg

Image:DigitalChocolate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced 2026 revival claim

The claim about a 2026 revival and “Digital Chocolate LLC” was recently re-added after being removed. It relies solely on self-published sources (the website digitalchocolate.net and a LinkedIn page that appears to be a recent rebranding of the long-inactive original company page).

No independent reliable sources (news coverage, business registries, industry reports, etc.) confirm any legitimate acquisition of the brand rights or continued operation of the company.

Per WP:RS and WP:V this material should not remain in the article. The original Digital Chocolate ceased operations in 2014. Yaroslav Galayda (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: the newly added source empireinteractive.net is also a self-published announcement from the same party claiming the revival. This entity previously made similar unverified claims regarding 3DO rights, which were publicly disputed and later withdrawn. It does not constitute an independent reliable source. Yaroslav Galayda (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia’s policies, press releases and official statements published through a company’s own website are considered primary sources. Since LinkedIn is not considered a sufficient source on its own, another editor has already updated the article with information published on the official websites of Empire Interactive and Digital Chocolate regarding this matter.

The company was closed in 2014, and all of the information on the page has remained as it was. The information added here is simply a brief explanation of a rebranding situation; it does not claim that the current company is the direct continuation of the former company.

The company was shut down in 2014, and considering that 12 years have passed, it is unreasonable to expect recent coverage in the gaming media about this matter. Digital Chocolate is not a company of such current significance in the gaming industry that its rebranding or return would necessarily be covered by the media today.

Company press releases can be used as primary sources under Wikipedia’s policies even when no secondary source is available, provided that they are being used to support straightforward factual claims about what the company itself stated. The same announcements were also published on the company’s official LinkedIn account.

Please stop repeatedly changing the content without a valid policy-based reason. This is disruptive and should not continue. Egj77 (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, trademark registrations are obtained and protected on a country-by-country basis. The fact that a trademark is registered in one country does not necessarily mean that its status can always be verified through primary sources.

For example, many trademarks that appear to be inactive in the United States today may still be active and in use in other countries. Likewise, it is not always possible to verify the existence of a company in the United States through publicly available sources. Some U.S. states do not publicly disclose detailed company information or the identities of their owners. Egj77 (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification.

The core problem is not whether primary sources can ever be used — they can, in limited circumstances. The issue is what kind of claim is being made.

The article currently states that in 2026 the company “re-entered the mobile gaming industry following the acquisition of its brand rights.” This is presented as a factual development. At present, the only sources for this are self-published statements from the parties making the claim. That is not independent verification that any acquisition of rights actually occurred.

Describing it as a simple “rebranding” does not change the nature of the claim. The original company ceased operations in 2014. What is being asserted is that a new entity acquired the brand rights of that defunct company. This is a substantive claim, not a routine corporate announcement of the type that primary sources are typically accepted for in isolation.

Regarding trademarks and company registrations: the difficulty of independently verifying such information does not lower the sourcing standard. If the claim cannot be supported by independent reliable sources, Wikipedia’s policy is to omit it until such sources exist, not to include it on the basis of the subject’s own statements.

I am not opposed to the information appearing if independent secondary coverage emerges. Until then, I believe the current wording overstates what can be verified from the available sources.

I will leave the discussion at this point. Yaroslav Galayda (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your understanding. I would also like to address another point.

A company may have acquired trademark rights outside the United States. Additionally, it may be using the brand under another company entity. Empire Interactive is currently an active company, so I wanted to mention this as well.

Regarding the 3DO situation, the legitimacy of Empire Interactive's return was never really disputed. According to what they stated, Empire genuinely registered and acquired the rights to the name “The 3DO Company.”

Although this was not widely covered by the press at the time, some of my own research suggests that Throwback Entertainment may have presented the events in a misleading way. Given their longstanding business relationship with the owner of Limited Run Games, it is possible that statements were made to the press along the same lines as “we do not believe this is legitimate,” potentially putting Empire in a difficult position. This may not have received much media coverage, but I feel it is important to mention it here.

In June, during the 3DO controversy, Throwback stated that they had owned the rights to the brand from the very beginning and had never sold them. However, Empire Interactive's side has presented evidence through the Wayback Machine showing that the 3DO.com domain was put up for auction through Sedo around 2016 for $3,500, suggesting that Throwback obtained the domain in this manner.

They also pointed out that the 3DO trademark appears to have remained unclaimed for years between 2004 and 2019, and that Piko Interactive only registered the 3DO trademark for video game console-related goods in 2020. Empire's position was that they owned the “The 3DO Company” trademark, which relates to the video game developer and publisher identity, rather than the general “3DO” trademark.

Furthermore, after the 3DO story began gaining attention, Throwback reportedly placed the “The Legend Returns” index that Empire Interactive had used in its initial press announcement onto the 3DO.com website. They also reactivated the the3docompany.com domain. After withdrawing from the project, they then stated that they had owned the rights from the very beginning, which, based on the evidence presented by Empire, appears to contradict the earlier history.

Empire has also indicated that Throwback only attempted to register the “3DO” trademark for video game development and publishing purposes for the first time in July 2026. In addition, a third company unrelated to these events, Prism Entertainment, also attempted to register the 3DO trademark in the United States.

None of these developments may have received significant coverage in the retro-gaming press at the time, but the evidence I have found through my own research appears to support the chronology described above. I believe these details are worth documenting here, particularly because they provide additional context to the claims made by the parties involved.

3do.com was put up for sale on Sedo in 2016. / https://web.archive.org/web/20161216210028/http://www.3do.com

The 3DO trademark is being sought for registration by Prism Entertainment, an independent company unrelated to the events, for activities in the field of game development and publishing, with the application filed on June 30, 2026. / https://trademarks.justia.com/999/13/3do-99913865.html

Throwback, which claims to have owned the trademark rights from the very beginning, only filed its trademark registrations for the first time on July 2, 2026. / https://trademarks.justia.com/999/20/3do-99920168.html , https://trademarks.justia.com/999/20/3do-99920175.html Egj77 (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional context. I agree that the 3DO situation is more nuanced than I initially suggested, and I don't think we need to resolve the disputed history of those rights here.

However, I don't think the 3DO evidence establishes the Digital Chocolate claim. The Wayback capture shows that the 3do.com domain was listed for sale in 2016, while the trademark records show applications filed by Prism and Throwback in 2026. Neither fact, by itself, establishes the ownership history of the relevant 3DO rights, and neither independently verifies the Digital Chocolate acquisition.

I also think it is important to distinguish between documenting a company's own announcement and stating the underlying event as an established fact. I have no objection to documenting that Empire Interactive announced an acquisition of Digital Chocolate brand rights. My concern is that the current article wording presents that acquisition, and the relationship between the former Digital Chocolate and Digital Chocolate LLC, as established facts rather than attributed claims.

For that reason, I still think the 2026 material should either be attributed to the parties making the claims or supported by additional reliable sourcing. The 3DO chronology does not change that issue. Yaroslav Galayda (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)