-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Kotaku Article "Nintendo's Lawyers Need To Chill"
- Thread starter regenhuber
- Start date
Did you know that Pokémon Showdown has over 100,000 active daily users?
I'm honestly surprised it's still going. I have my doubts it will continue after this year seeing as they're advertising having all Pokémon and will be fighting against Nintendo's paid online
That this is now an actual selling point of Showdown says more about Gamefreak than it does about the fans.
That it's a text based thing that uses assets created by Game Freak and thus has less development time than the actual games where developers have to model, rig, animate hundreds of Pokémon?
Yeah
You responded to a completely nonexistent argument of effort and not to the main point that this shouldn't be a selling point for a fan game in the first place.
God, this shit is tiresome.
OP
OP
This. No idea why some people want to shut down discussion with a quick "It's their shit, fuck off".
I don't see that anyone (this includes the Kotaku author) is even arguing that Nintendo should give away the rights to Mario & Link or that they are the only ones protecting their assets.
This whole article is asking if there's a way to handle situations like Mario Royale a little better. Maybe there's even a way to make it worthwhile for all sides?
The creator of AM2R released a basically finished game to great acclaim and then got hired by Moon Studios to work on Ori 2.
Seems like a pretty good end to me.
I agree with Nintendo on this there is a lot of "donate" options, support my Patreon, just in general straight knock off games that get pretty far on mobile stores and online scam game websites. If you want to make a Nintendo fan game that badly just make it and release it when it's done. If you get a C&D it's already out there circulating. If it's on kotaku or on any website you've already made a mistake and should know what's gonna happen.
Yeah it's weird how people seem to lack the ability to think about this for more than 5 seconds
"Why not just make their own IP"
The same reason people learning guitar don't start by writing their own album, it's easier to learn how to do something by trying to replicate something that already exists
Maybe someone wants to learn to programme or design a game but doesn't want to also create their own IP and assets first
Your example proves fan games can lead to people getting into the industry
Wasn't Sonic Mania a similar story, with the designers starting with fan games?
If these people had made clone games instead they probably wouldn't have their dream jobs
I think Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night shows how problems like these can be effectively side-stepped.
Sometimes the publicity and attention are worth it. They get their name out there anyway. Probably the biggest reason to ape on Nintendo IP, more than being a fan or anything.
Lawyers are just doing their job.
As for Nintendo they are protective because they care about their IPs.
I'd say they should be more lenient on copyright restrictions on YouTube, it could work in their favour too and I believe they are getting better on that.
They are right on fan made /clone games though.
As for Nintendo they are protective because they care about their IPs.
I'd say they should be more lenient on copyright restrictions on YouTube, it could work in their favour too and I believe they are getting better on that.
They are right on fan made /clone games though.
This seems to be the safest route if someone wants to make a fan game. Be similar enough but don't be the exact same.
Yeah this is the way to beat the system
If your game is good, you will get a positive reaction, maybe job offers, and your game will be available to whoever wants it, and Nintendo will probably Streisand effect your game by issuing a C&D, which will then be further boosted by Nintendo fans posting about how your game is ruining Nintendo on forums
Yeah. Eidos/Square Enix have been allowing Tomb Raider fan games to be made and released for ages (I'm assuming fan games for other franchises, as well, but I only know about the Tomb Raider ones). They do have final say over it, of course, (I imagine if someone made a porn game featuring Lara, for example, they'd draw a line) but they've rarely ever interfered AFAIK.
Nintendo said multiple times, that they always in a competition about people's time. If you play a fan game staring their property, you don't have time to play and buy there game with their property. That's why they most don't care for other form of fan media, since it isn't using up people's play time.
And what a bullshit excuse that is. Yeah I'm not buying Breath of the Wild 2 cause of the Link to the Past ROM hack I downloaded.
Because its way easier to put together a game with premade assets, music and code than it is to create one from scratch. Alot of fangames are made when people are still learning how to do it rather than trying to really do it for themselves. And its fun to see your favourite characters doing new stuff.
Its almost like the same idea behind a mario maker, level editor or remixing your favorite song. Its fun to be creative with something that already exists and it can be a learning experience.
Some people take it too far and try to promote it to get noticed or get a patreon to make money off it, which i dont agree with at all. But the idea of taking something yoy love and making something out of it is understandable.
Yes, there absolutely is a way to handle situations like this. Dont promote it before its released, dont attatch your identity to it and for fucks sake kotaku and others, stop signal boosting it before its had a chance to breath when you know its gonna get CnD'd. These things thrive on word of mouth, not on media coverage.
And likewise, just because we understand that they are just a for-profit company that "isn't our friend", doesn't mean that anything they do is wrong and that anyone who is up against their interest is right.
That's no excuse, that's business and as a company, they need to make money to pay for the projects, shareholders and employees. They are in a competition with fan games and it is cost them money, so that's why there are so hard against them.
I get it can be seen as harsh, but I get it. If anyone could do whatever the hell they want with their IPs, who stops, idk, Sony doing a free version of Playstation All Stars with smash characters. I know it's a ridiculois example, but the same rules would apply to that case.
It being free it doesn't mean it can't hurt the brand, exploit their IP without their consent.
It being free it doesn't mean it can't hurt the brand, exploit their IP without their consent.
Not sure how Mario Royale could be handled better when it uses the first SMB in its entirety. In general, Nintendo seems to be pretty strict when it comes to fan projects copying large parts of existing games. Remakes also seem to fall into this category but they are hardly the only one (see Chrono Resurrection, Resident Evil 2 Reborn, Streets of Rage Remake, Metal Gear Solid Remake etc.).
Maybe fan creators should look at something like Solarus if they want to continue making highly derivative work.
I honestly kinda get things like Mario Royale and Super Mario Crossover being taken down. Those were straight up replications of levels and gameplay, it makes sense for Nintendo to view those as unsanctioned ports, and it was an especially tricky situation when the former was advertising a donation page.
Like, I don't agree with Nintendo's DMCA-happy approach to a lot of things, but sometimes it does make logical sense for them to act on it.
Like, I don't agree with Nintendo's DMCA-happy approach to a lot of things, but sometimes it does make logical sense for them to act on it.
Last edited:
While I agree in general terms, you can see the logic behind it. The very moment someone decides they do not need to buy a Nintendo console or its games because they have same-brand alternatives online for free, then it's money Nintendo loses.
Someone could think, why buy Metroid Samus Returns if AM2R is an option closer to the original sprite-based games? Or why buy Pokémon Sword and Shield with their not-so-good 3D graphics and limited Pokedex if they can get some "homage" 2D fan game instead?
I know most people don't think this way, but if there's a proportion that do, that's money lost to Nintendo.
I don't defend it (I loved AM2R), but it's understandable.
Someone could think, why buy Metroid Samus Returns if AM2R is an option closer to the original sprite-based games? Or why buy Pokémon Sword and Shield with their not-so-good 3D graphics and limited Pokedex if they can get some "homage" 2D fan game instead?
I know most people don't think this way, but if there's a proportion that do, that's money lost to Nintendo.
I don't defend it (I loved AM2R), but it's understandable.
I don't think it really works the other way around; an indie developer having Nintendo make a game based off of their idea is probably somebodys wet dream. It's also an incredible signal boost to an IP and since they aren't profiting off of it, they still can themselves.
Are we even sure it's 100% illegal? Is fan art illegal? All we know is that nobody has the money or time to argue otherwise and that is why Nintendo's scare tactics work.
The Switch has made me fall in love all over again with Nintendo, but I really can't stand their legal corporate side. I feel it goes against a company that is able to inject such love and passion into their games, a company that seems to have such a wonderful phylosophy when it comes to positively supporting and encouraging creativity.
I 100% get the fact that it's their IP etc. And if a fan game did threaten their own release, I'd unserstand. But in almost all cases, this isn't so.
That C64 Mario remake for example? It's both an own goal AND bad PR. What they should have done is put that in their news section, invite those guys down to Nintendo HQ and allow them to present their creation to Miyamato and given them a tour of the building.
The sheer number of positive news stories that would have hit the gaming media over the folllowing days would have equaled millions of $$$ spend in advertising. And tbh, you can't buy that kind of positive PR.
The one thing we must keep in mind though is that, usually, in big companies, the legal dept is very seperate to everyone else. They are effectively laws unto themselves and as someone who works in one, very few non high up managers agree with many of the things they do.
If a change is to happen in the way Nintendo makes use of its legal dept, it will require a very strong MD to take them on.
I 100% get the fact that it's their IP etc. And if a fan game did threaten their own release, I'd unserstand. But in almost all cases, this isn't so.
That C64 Mario remake for example? It's both an own goal AND bad PR. What they should have done is put that in their news section, invite those guys down to Nintendo HQ and allow them to present their creation to Miyamato and given them a tour of the building.
The sheer number of positive news stories that would have hit the gaming media over the folllowing days would have equaled millions of $$$ spend in advertising. And tbh, you can't buy that kind of positive PR.
The one thing we must keep in mind though is that, usually, in big companies, the legal dept is very seperate to everyone else. They are effectively laws unto themselves and as someone who works in one, very few non high up managers agree with many of the things they do.
If a change is to happen in the way Nintendo makes use of its legal dept, it will require a very strong MD to take them on.
Nope, I'm fine with Nintendo's stance on this. They've done a great job of protecting their IP so far. *shrugs*
Nintendo can be selective, but that would make grounds for the argument that they're discriminating against certain projects. For this reason, at they can - and may as well - just take it all down, no matter the quality.
While I am a fan of many projects, I find that people are often willing to disregard the rights of any person og company's intellectual property in favor of their demand, but if the position switches, well...
Think of it this way: You ever made a joke, but no one laughed, and then your friend stole the joke a second afterwards and everybody laughs? It's the same, except on a much, much smaller and less serious scale.
Honestly, Nintendo's lawyers seem aggressive, but there's no good argument for why they shouldn't practice their rights - rights that are rooted in a dilemma, which has been discussed for hundreds of years now.
While I am a fan of many projects, I find that people are often willing to disregard the rights of any person og company's intellectual property in favor of their demand, but if the position switches, well...
Think of it this way: You ever made a joke, but no one laughed, and then your friend stole the joke a second afterwards and everybody laughs? It's the same, except on a much, much smaller and less serious scale.
Honestly, Nintendo's lawyers seem aggressive, but there's no good argument for why they shouldn't practice their rights - rights that are rooted in a dilemma, which has been discussed for hundreds of years now.
I'm not for allowing license-free use of any living person's IP. I run a high-school drama club that puts on two shows a year. If I tried to perform, say, Hamilton in the spring, I would likely get a C&D, even if it were a free performance, in a country where Hamilton is not performed, and the only people who would see it would be students and teachers. Why?
1. My school and I still stand to benefit from someone else's IP even if no one's paying.
2. There is still a risk that people will forego buying Hamilton tickets in the future because of my show.
3. Living creators should be able to control their IP even if someone else really wants to use it.
4. There's nothing stopping me from making my own Hamilton-inspired show that uses content of my own creation.
1. My school and I still stand to benefit from someone else's IP even if no one's paying.
2. There is still a risk that people will forego buying Hamilton tickets in the future because of my show.
3. Living creators should be able to control their IP even if someone else really wants to use it.
4. There's nothing stopping me from making my own Hamilton-inspired show that uses content of my own creation.
I doubt an indie developer would see it that way if their work is suddenly perceived as someone elses game, it would be seen as what it is, theft of intellectual property.
It's 100% illegal and yes, fan art, fan fiction etc. are illegal too, most IP owners just don't care enough about that. But when they do it's game over, Anne Rice famously despised fan fiction based on her works and got rid of it. Those aren't scare tactics, Nintendo has the law on their side.
I repeat, you still have to buy the games from Valve to play these mods. CS, DOD, Black Mesa. They all required Half Life or Half Life 2 before they became standalone games. Nothing changes. If you played them for free, you have been pirating
Maybe you should read the post before them? It is a competition about people's time.
Their policy is relatively clear at this point, don't remake one of their games and you won't get a dmca. They will rarely go after you if you use some Mario assets or ideas to make an original game, but if you include 1-1 or any other level copied directly from one of their games you're fucked. It's why Smash mods are never C&Ded, because they always do something new enough that Nintendo doesn't care to deal with them, even ones like Project M that are incredibly popular and feature tons of assets lifted from other titles in their publicly shared files
Exactly. The argument about making it harder to sell the proper games I see all the time is a straw-man, It's about protecting your IP, because you can lose the right to it if you do not protect it. It matters not that losing your IP hasn't really happened, that fact that it can if you chose not to protect it does.