|
This behavior is typical of companies that have lost their way.
They get hateful and vindictive - seen it all before.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, next they'll be suing people for having played it, a la the recording industry.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Lee Shugar wrote: they give him a reasonable offer
All the Zelda games (including the console to play them), that's a deal to me.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
does Nintendo still own the rights to the game? yes.
end of story.
|
|
|
|
|
Your reading the wrong story  , not arguing whether they can, but whether they should, are they shooting themselves in the foot by being so aggressive?
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer)
www.simonshugar.co.uk
"If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
|
|
|
|
|
It's done Disney a lot of harm.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
of course they should. it's their game.
aggressive?
imagine you're a professional programmer. one day you discover that someone has produced a knock-off of one of your best selling titles and made it available for free. you might think the person who blatantly ripped you off was the aggressive one.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: has produced a knock-off of one of your best selling titles
Question for you... How much money is Nintendo currently making off of selling a 28 year old game...? 
Everyone that is playing that game online has most likely owned that game in one form or another, whether it was the original NES version, or one of the Gameboy remakes, or the Wii Virtual Console. What is the harm in letting someone that has already bought the game (at least once) play it on a medium that you do not offer it on?
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Mullikin wrote: How much money is Nintendo currently making off of selling a 28 year old game...?
they continue to re-release it for new platforms, all the time[^].
it's not a dead product. Nintendo is still selling copies.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, a free online version of the game doesn't infringe upon any of those "milking the franchise" releases. If someone wants to play SMB on their 3DS, they'll buy it for their 3DS. People aren't buying Mario these days for that first playthrough feeling; they're buying it because its a fun replayable game that kills time. Since Nintendo does not offer an online computer version of it (to my knowledge), what is the problem with someone else doing it and offering it for free?
I feel like for most video games this online version would be an issue, but I think Mario is a special case. SMB was/is a cultural phenomenon that Nintendo has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of (not to mention all of the sequels/spin-offs). I think Nintendo needs to be reminded of Wheaton's Law[^].
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the issue is that it's still a major driver for sales of their hardware. Removing the need for their hardware would kill sales even more. Also, using someone else's name to get yourself into search results for someone else's brand is kind of problematic, since it dilutes their brand. Not that Mario isn't an instantly-recognizable brand, but you see the point.
Just put a different skin on it. Don't call it Mario. Don't rip it exactly. Make your own platformer that doesn't suck. Great Giana Sisters anyone? The new one on Steam is pretty fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
djdanlib wrote: I believe the issue is that it's still a major driver for sales of their hardware.
If people are buying new Nintendo systems just so they can play a 28 year old game that they probably already own, those people don't care about money and a free online version of the game will in no way affect their decision to buy the new hardware...
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Mullikin wrote: IMHO, a free online version of the game doesn't infringe upon any of those "milking the franchise" releases.
it does, completely. Nintendo paid to develop the game, the graphics, sound, characters, etc.. it's their property. the kid should've made his own game instead of ripping off other people's work.
Colin Mullikin wrote: Since Nintendo does not offer an online computer version of it (to my knowledge), what is the problem with someone else doing it and offering it for free?
Nintendo owns the relevant copyrights and so they get to choose how and where the game is offered, not people who don't want to pay to buy the hardware that Nintendo supports.
|
|
|
|
|
I realize the legal implications of the situation. Obviously this kid is violating their copyright. I'm just arguing that it really isn't a big deal, and I don't think it would have in any way affected Nintendo's sales or profitability (or lack thereof).
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
I am a professional programmer, I understand your point and agree with you, I'd be very annoyed but the situation is different, the game is old and they've got a potential way of boosting their reputation or even making money from the game.
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer)
www.simonshugar.co.uk
"If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Lee Shugar wrote: the game is old and they've got a potential way of boosting their reputation or even making money from the game.
they are still making money from it. they do ports and re-releases of it for every platform they create.
|
|
|
|
|
How much are they still making with it? And where do they port it to? PC? XBox? PS? yeah. sure let everyone that doesn't own or want to own an "Nintendo <xyz>" for a few hours of nostalagia buy the device so we beat that dead horse a bit more...
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: How much are they still making with it?
beats me. why does it matter?
is there something in copyright law that says you have to make money or you lose your rights ? nope.
|
|
|
|
|
I never said that they lost their right. I'm perfectly fine with them having it copyrighted, so that nobody can make his own games and gain money with it.
However in what way does a free html5 version of it by a fan hurt their purse so much that they file a copyright complaint? What good does it do to them? It only makes them seen as ridiculous.
The same with those youtube videos. What do you think: If you watch a video about a game, do you buy it because you got some impression or do you replace the experience of playing it yourself with watching a video about it? I'd say those who watch the video and don't buy & play it themselves wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: in what way does a free html5 version of it
the amount of money exchanged is irrelevant.
it's Nintendo's game. by law, they are the only people who can put new versions of it into the world. sure, they might have handled this situation in a nicer way, but they have no legal obligation to do so.
Nicholas Marty wrote: If you watch a video about a game
this wasn't a video about a game. it was the entire game, and (i believe) fully functional.
the analogue isn't people posting videos of games on YouTube, it's people posting entire albums on YouTube. the copyright owners are fully within their rights to shut it down, regardless of how much money is involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: it's Nintendo's game. by law, they are the only people who can put new versions of it into the world.
You repeat yourself ... I perfectly understand that they have it copyrighted, and I perfectly understand that they can shut everything down (or at least try to do so) what is using their property if they want to do so. Why the hell do you think, anyone would say that they don't have the right to do so?
The question never was if they legally can. They question is if they should. I'm just saying they should not, as they gain nothing from it other than bad promotion and people seeing them as arrogant pricks. You never stated why they should shut that game down, you're only saying that they have the right to do so (which is definitly true and nobody is argueing about that).
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: Why the hell do you think, anyone would say that they don't have the right to do so?
because that's what other people have been implying on this thread.
Nicholas Marty wrote: I'm just saying they should not, as they gain nothing from it other than bad promotion and people seeing them as arrogant pricks.
i don't see them that way, not at all. i see them as fully within their rights. i think the only arrogant prick in this situation is the kid who thought he could rip-off someone else's work without repercussions.
Nicholas Marty wrote: You never stated why they should shut that game down,
Nintendo still sells the game, so they have an incentive to stop people from ripping them off. and even if they weren't selling it, it's still their property and they get to choose how it's presented to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of me thinks, fair do they sat down (and created a short overweight Italian plumber who has a thing for mushrooms...not the point) didn't they also sue or threaten to sue the creator(s?) of Great Gina Sisters on the Amiga for ripping of Mario... they should have let it go, after-all he did not reverse engineer the code from a cartridge and I seem to remember a VBA hack that let you play Sonic The Hedgehog which was a rip from a cartridge and not getting too upset about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Trademark law gives rights holders the choice between acting like psychotic jackbooted thugs and losing their rights to someone who might use a case where they didn't do so as proof that they're not defending it. It's fubared in a way that makes copyright and patent law look sane.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be considered a "Fair use" ?
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
