Stupid move by Nintendo?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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 many others on this thread have been implying.
Nicholas Marty wrote:
They question is if they should.
-
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.