Stupid move by Nintendo?
-
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.
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
-
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...? :doh: 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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Nintendo says Super Mario in-browser game 'illegal' Super Mario Brothers was first copyrighted in 1985 Continue reading the main story Related Stories How Nintendo pioneer changed gaming A browser-based re-creation of the popular Super Mario Brothers console game has fallen foul of Nintendo's copyright lawyers,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24612069[^] Should Nintendo be aggressively crushing this boy and the online browser version of the game or should they give him a reasonable offer, buy the game off him and maybe win some customer loyalty points? Simply crushing the game will make fans of the series turn on Nintendo, maybe they're missing a trick here? Nintendo as many might know haven't been doing well recently, the WII U being a massive flop. "Earlier this year Nintendo stopped people posting footage of their games on YouTube." Which in my opinion is one of the worst decisions a gaming company could make, people watch these games on YouTube, watch the "Let's Play" and are encouraged to play the game themselves, it's free, positive marketing!
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
28 years after first release... 10 years after re-release... The funny thing that the browser based remake has a 1985 Nintendo copyright on it... It's true that the game belongs to Nintendo, but... ...Josh Goldberg doesn't made it for money (and I believe he didn't got any), so Nintendo's attempt to make money out of it (Nintendo's sales of Super Mario is close to zero, as you can get a used copy from $9 without paying a cent to Nintendo) is looks bad...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is (V).
-
Quote:
Nintendo says Super Mario in-browser game 'illegal' Super Mario Brothers was first copyrighted in 1985 Continue reading the main story Related Stories How Nintendo pioneer changed gaming A browser-based re-creation of the popular Super Mario Brothers console game has fallen foul of Nintendo's copyright lawyers,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24612069[^] Should Nintendo be aggressively crushing this boy and the online browser version of the game or should they give him a reasonable offer, buy the game off him and maybe win some customer loyalty points? Simply crushing the game will make fans of the series turn on Nintendo, maybe they're missing a trick here? Nintendo as many might know haven't been doing well recently, the WII U being a massive flop. "Earlier this year Nintendo stopped people posting footage of their games on YouTube." Which in my opinion is one of the worst decisions a gaming company could make, people watch these games on YouTube, watch the "Let's Play" and are encouraged to play the game themselves, it's free, positive marketing!
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
Paulo makes some good points. To build on them, if Nintendo doesn't protect their copyright, they will lose it. Another consideration is that if the game doesn't work well, it will reflect badly on Nintendo, not on the people who wrote it. This is multiplied by magnitudes if it's related to serious problems, like becoming a malware vector. (Do note that Nintendo has always been extremely protective of its IP and brand, so this is nothing new and is quite mild by comparison of other actions the company has taken. From what I've observed, nothing seems to make Nintendo fans turn on their master, which is both remarkable and sad.)
-
Quote:
Nintendo says Super Mario in-browser game 'illegal' Super Mario Brothers was first copyrighted in 1985 Continue reading the main story Related Stories How Nintendo pioneer changed gaming A browser-based re-creation of the popular Super Mario Brothers console game has fallen foul of Nintendo's copyright lawyers,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24612069[^] Should Nintendo be aggressively crushing this boy and the online browser version of the game or should they give him a reasonable offer, buy the game off him and maybe win some customer loyalty points? Simply crushing the game will make fans of the series turn on Nintendo, maybe they're missing a trick here? Nintendo as many might know haven't been doing well recently, the WII U being a massive flop. "Earlier this year Nintendo stopped people posting footage of their games on YouTube." Which in my opinion is one of the worst decisions a gaming company could make, people watch these games on YouTube, watch the "Let's Play" and are encouraged to play the game themselves, it's free, positive marketing!
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
If you'd like to see development on Full Screen Mario continue, why not pitch in?
[Donate]Perhaps the fact that he is asking for donations to continue development of a game is clearly an infringement on their copy-write has something to do their actions. If he had put it out there as a demo of "hey world, see what cool things I can do in HTML5" without the hint that he intends to be compensated for it some manner, Nintendo's response may have been "hey dude, not cool that you used our IP without permission, but perhaps you would like to work for us". [edit] corrected typo.
-
does Nintendo still own the rights to the game? yes. end of story.
Could it be considered a "Fair use" ?
I'd rather be phishing!
-
Could it be considered a "Fair use" ?
I'd rather be phishing!
i'm not a lawyer, but i doubt it. it's not a parody, it's not an academic study, it's not for his own personal use, etc.. if he had kept it small, maybe he could claim it was a demo of the technology, but he duplicated all the original levels. and he made it public, so it directly competes with Nintendo's version (even if he's not making money directly from it).
-
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
-
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.
-
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
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
-
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
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.
-
If you'd like to see development on Full Screen Mario continue, why not pitch in?
[Donate]Perhaps the fact that he is asking for donations to continue development of a game is clearly an infringement on their copy-write has something to do their actions. If he had put it out there as a demo of "hey world, see what cool things I can do in HTML5" without the hint that he intends to be compensated for it some manner, Nintendo's response may have been "hey dude, not cool that you used our IP without permission, but perhaps you would like to work for us". [edit] corrected typo.
Quote:
not cool that you used our IP without
What do IP laws state? After all, the language is totally different so the actual code (IP) doesn't look a single thing like the Nintendo version. If I write a calculator program will Microsoft sue me claiming copyright issues just because it looks the same and is named Calculator? I know Mario is much more specific but how far does the copyright protect? I can't imagine playing Mario with a keyboard is going to be better than a console so who cares? You won't lose sales over it. In fact, I'll bet sales go up. So, then should the HTML5 guy sue Nintendo for compensation for making sales go up?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
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 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
-
Quote:
Nintendo says Super Mario in-browser game 'illegal' Super Mario Brothers was first copyrighted in 1985 Continue reading the main story Related Stories How Nintendo pioneer changed gaming A browser-based re-creation of the popular Super Mario Brothers console game has fallen foul of Nintendo's copyright lawyers,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24612069[^] Should Nintendo be aggressively crushing this boy and the online browser version of the game or should they give him a reasonable offer, buy the game off him and maybe win some customer loyalty points? Simply crushing the game will make fans of the series turn on Nintendo, maybe they're missing a trick here? Nintendo as many might know haven't been doing well recently, the WII U being a massive flop. "Earlier this year Nintendo stopped people posting footage of their games on YouTube." Which in my opinion is one of the worst decisions a gaming company could make, people watch these games on YouTube, watch the "Let's Play" and are encouraged to play the game themselves, it's free, positive marketing!
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
No one can copyright the gameplay. Only the characters are copyrighted. Turn the Mario blue, name it John, change all the environment (with something simple as mario, but with other colors) and keep the site. The people will continue to play, the same gameplay, new characters, not copyrighted, yet.
-
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 " for a few hours of nostalagia buy the device so we beat that dead horse a bit more...
-
does Nintendo still own the rights to the game? yes. end of story.
Chris Losinger wrote:
does Nintendo still own the rights to the game? yes. end of story.
How much will they make from that particular game this year, next year, etc? Zero. How many new Mario fans could have been generated by allowing people to play the on-line game -- fans who would later pay money for up-to-date versions? Lots. Are Nintendo acting like dicks and shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the source of their main revenue stream? Yes. Now it's the end of the story.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
does Nintendo still own the rights to the game? yes. end of story.
How much will they make from that particular game this year, next year, etc? Zero. How many new Mario fans could have been generated by allowing people to play the on-line game -- fans who would later pay money for up-to-date versions? Lots. Are Nintendo acting like dicks and shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the source of their main revenue stream? Yes. Now it's the end of the story.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
How much will they make from that particular game this year, next year, etc? Zero.
not true at all, since they're still releasing it for new platforms, and as part of packages. but how much they make or not it's completely irrelevant, because it's their game and they can do whatever they want to with it. that's how the law works.
-
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 " 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.
