So there's been a lot of controversy surrounding Capcom since the last year. Particularly, this seems to stem from the bitterness of the community because of Street Fighter 5.

As such, for a lot of people, it's a little hard to believe that professional players are praising Capcom based on their experiences at E3 and CEO when it comes to Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite. People are even going so far as to claim that these players are being paid off by Capcom to advertise their game in a positive light.

I actually have some rather large doubts about this being the case. Such an action carries a great deal of risk for the players and Capcom.

The Federal Trade Commission has regulations in place to prevent deception like this on social media sites like Twitter. If caught, there are a number of penalties and fines that can be applied to both parties.

It is possible that companies do still partake in this illegal action regardless of the ramifications but why would the parties involved in this situation take such a risk? The potential consequences in damages likely outweigh the long term investment.

AdaptiveTrigger: Can you explain the Federal Trade Commission's regulation on paid advertisement on social media sites like Twitter? Is paid advertising for a company without full disclosure illegal? UltraDavid:The FTC is empowered to make rules on advertising, including truth in advertising and advertising on social media, in an effort to stamp out illegal deceptive practices. In order to ensure truth in advertising, you have to know if the person promoting a product is being paid to do so, since obviously that has a big impact on how you might view their claims. If someone doesn't disclose that they're paying or being paid to say something, they're being deceptive. If a marketer or someone being paid to market does something that misleads a significant minority of viewers, then they're engaging in a deceptive practice. Even if lots of people are pretty sure that someone is being paid to tweet in a certain way, if there are still lots of other people who are deceived, then the marketer is being deceptive. This applies to tweets as well. If someone is being paid to tweet favorably about something, they have to disclose that to avoid illegally deceiving viewers. This can be done pretty easily by just adding something like #advertising or #sponsored to a tweet. But knowing when you need to make this paid relationship clear isn't always so simple. If everyone knows someone is being paid, then no one is being deceived, so for example I don't add #ad to a tweet that promotes my work on ESL King of the Hill because it's obvious that I'm being paid for my commentary with them. If everyone knows someone is being paid, then no one is being deceived, so for example I don't add #ad to a tweet that promotes my work on ESL King of the Hill because it's obvious that I'm being paid for my commentary with them. But if I tweeted about how great a new stick is after being given it by the stick company for free, I'd need to be clear that I'd gotten it for free, because that wouldn't be obvious otherwise. There's a lot of murkiness in between, but it's best to err on the side of disclosure when you're not sure. AdaptiveTrigger: Let's say some entity ignores this regulation and, just hypothetically speaking, let's say a game company was paying professional players to say positive things about their game on Twitter without full disclosure of it being a paid advertisement. What are the consequences and who's liable? UltraDavid: Consequences for flouting FTC rules start at cease and desist orders, can run up to tens of thousands of dollars per day, and even end in fines of millions of dollars. If a paid promoter doesn't disclose that they're being paid, then both they and whoever is paying them can be held liable. AdaptiveTrigger: Do you have any thoughts about the accusations people have been making towards professional players in regards to their opinions on Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite. Specifically the claims of them being paid by Capcom? UltraDavid: Nobody in fighting games has enough influence to bother paying them to say good things about a major developer's game. I already thought that top players and commentators didn't have much influence on which games people like; certainly my own enthusiasm for games like SFXT 2013 and UNIEL never did much for their playerbases. In this case, some parts of the community have pushed back on top players' opinions so strongly and unthinkingly that you had to interview me about the legalities of an obvious nonsense claim. Is there any better way to demonstrate how little weight top players' opinions carry? Why would Capcom pay to influence opinions that can't influence opinions? I hope people who believe this shilling stuff realize that their own reaction is the reason why their own reaction is absurd. AdaptiveTrigger: Any shoutouts you'd like to make? Where can our readers follow you? Shoutouts to my cats Ajax and Lyra, who, as the handsomest and prettiest cats in the world, respectively, are available for hire on cat runways and pet-related commercial advertising. Please follow me on Binky.

Now, I have also heard the argument that the players making positive statements about Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite are only doing so because they have their own interests in mind. Winning tournaments for monetary gain throughout the lifespan of the upcoming game.

The problem with this theory is that there is a pretty big contradiction present. A number of these same players, in the past, have not always had positive criticisms to share about Street Fighter 5.

Why bother sticking up for one game, but not another if the opinions weren't honest in the first place, especially if these players are making money off of Street Fighter 5 already? At the end of the day, these players still want to enjoy the game they'll be playing, ideally, for the next few years.

A big special thanks to UltraDavid for taking the time to explain the legal jargon for us. He is a true professional of his craft.