question

There's nothing "virtual" there, their invocations are identical. IIRC the policy was that it's the user's responsibility to not enable duplicate skills on their device.

Galactoise pretty much hit the nail on the head there. In addition, it is helpful to add something unique to your launch phrase, such as using "Nick's Blackjack" instead of just "Blackjack". That way, even if users have a much lower chance of enabling two conflicting skills. Otherwise, the newer skill will be invoked in general when there is a conflict. -Nick

I agree that the user can manage skills with the same or similar sounding invocation names as long as the skill name is the same as the invocation name. However, there is a potential issue with invocation names that are markedly different than skill names - e.g. the skill "NYC Subway Status" has the invocation name "subway." In the rather probable scenario that a hypothetical subway restaurant chain (or perhaps a sandwich buff) releases a skill with the invocation name "subway," a user who has both skills enabled will be confused when she wants to order a subway sandwich and instead learns about the status of the NYC subway system. This could be a tough one to troubleshoot for the average user - which could also result in an undeserved 1-star review for one of the skills...

You have to balance name collision against usability. For example, my users just requested I create a Facebook page for Starlanes, However "Star Lanes" is a bowling alley in Kentucky. So I had to pick a URL of https://www.facebook.com/StarLanesAlexa Now, if that Bowling Alley had an Alexa app that, I don't know, told you the times it was open, it would probably call it "Star lanes", just like mine. But the chance of a single user wanting to both play Starlanes and play at Star Lanes is of much less concern to me than having to school users into remembering to invoke my game as "Star Lanes Alexa" or something. So, between the two, I'm OK with the choice Amazon made here.