burninmylight said:
noname2200 said:
burninmylight said:
You honestly believe that as long as Nintendo asks politely, it can play with other publisher's toys without any give-back? Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut.
|
I've no doubt that Capcom's getting a cut. I also don't think they necessarily had to cut a check to Capcom before putting in once of Capcom's characters into one of their more popular games, since the two companies seem to have an unusual relationship at the moment.
You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Nintendo felt it wise or necessary to pay Capcom outright to rent Ryu for Smash. You may be right, since like you I won't pretend to have inside info. I just don't think, in light of circumstances, that that's necssarily true. That's all.
|
What's the point of owning and copyrighting intellectual property if you're going to let others use it with reckless abandon?
Also, you seemed to have missed this part:
"Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut."
|
"Reckless abandon." Okay.
And I did not miss the emphasized part, just like I did not miss the patronizing skepticism in the first sentence. I simply interpreted the contradiction between the two as the latter being the honest expression, with the former a polite attempt to lessen the impact. Be that as it may, I've said my peace on the subject; please feel free to continue if you have not, or we may jointly drop the subject.
