By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo Issues Takedown Mario fan made games In Dreams (PS4)

Tagged games:

 

What do you think

That's not OK Nintendo 23 35.94%
 
I am agree with Nintendo 37 57.81%
 
I don't know what to say 4 6.25%
 
Total:64
Azzanation on 26 March 2020
DonFerrari said:

Still you would need to prove the sales that were made because people wanted to play Mario games on PS4.

Second you would need to prove that dreams have a "content creating tool using IP" from Nintendo. Because it doesn't, people can create whatever they want with the tool, but there isn't any Nintendo IP on the tool, if there was they could ask for sanction against sony itself.

Third this type of situation would most likely fall under fair use as it is fan made content not for profit and not copying the content but recreating it.

See below..

HollyGamer said:

So if someone have Lego toys and build Mario world inside Lego and let children  play their Lego by free,  does that also allow Nintendo to send cease and decease?  

You both don't understand the reasons as to why Nintendo are doing these take downs. If it benefits Nintendo than they would most likely keep it up. however its not benefiting them at all.. and that's the whole reason these things play out like they do. Nintendo is not a charity for PS nor its userbase, they know it, and so does Sony. Same can also be said if the shoe was on the other foot. Also Nintendo doesn't need free advertisement from rival systems and games to sell games.

The best example I can give you both is this. 

What if Sony hired a bunch of professional game designers to create Mario games in Dreams which turn out to be quite good? Sony can claim them as fan made to avoid copy right infringements but does that make it right? PS4 owners get to play Mario made games while Nintendo owners cannot. If fan made projects like these happen more frequently, than what's stopping MS from doing the same and creating Project Spark 2, hiring a bunch of professional game designers and recreating games like Ratchet and Clank and using it to promote Project Spark 2 which promotes the Xbox eco-system which profits MS.

This is why companies take notice because they are not as stupid as you like to think. Nintendo gain nothing from Mario made games in Dreams while PS4 gains the momentum and making Dreams more attractive to customers. Its not about if we have proof of sales, its about the logic behind the whole scenario. If Sony wanted this content to remain than maybe they need to release Dreams on the Switch and maybe Nintendo wont care as much, but like both Sony and Nintendo, they don't like sharing with each other. 

Dreams is a retail priced game which makes Sony money, and users making Nintendo games in Dreams only increases the chances of Dreams selling more copies which profits Sony at the end of the day while Nintendo profits nothing. Its the same thing if someone made a Mario game that was extremely bad in Dreams hurting the Mario brand image. That also affects Nintendo.

Game creative tools are a dangerous thing to developers as they can lead to hurting brand images to profiting other brands not associated with the original owners.



Around the Network
Burning Typhoon on 26 March 2020
omarct said:
Chrkeller said:

Absolutely brilliant.  God of War came out in 2005, I guess Microsoft can now just start making God of War games.  Might as well have Microsoft make Uncharted games too.  Since 10 years has lapsed and nobody can own Kratos and Drake....  you can't be serious.

Look folks it is this simple.  Mario is Nintendo's property.  You can't just take somebody's property.  THAT SIMPLE.  

Why the hell shouldnt microsoft be allowed to make a God of War game? Maybe they could make an amazing game. Why not give competition to the original creators to make something even better? I dont see what the problem is, if the game is good people will buy it, if its not they wont. Why are we trying to make it easier on these corporations instead of making it better for the consumers? Imagine how amazing new Pokemon game could be if we weren't forced to only buy them from the lazy bastards at Gamefreak. Where do you see anything here that affects you negatively? Yes perhaps there could be a royalty fee to the original creator if they are still alive but thats it.

If you have the ability to make this so-called microsoft-funded God of War game, and make it good, why not just come up with your own original characters too?  Sony has this IP, with character recognition.  If things worked by your rules, we can take a character like Kratos after 10 years, and people will buy our game because of the popularity he got after being made by Sony.

If you have the ability to make a good game, use your own characters, because by your rules, you'll get 10 years exclusivity with it.  And it's a horrible idea, by the way.  Some games take 4-8 years to make, or longer.  There's not a single person who wants this in the short term.  As least not anyone who has an idea to protect.

There's a fan favorite that I don't own?  Well, I'm going to pay some other company to make horrible games featuring the character.  So many bad games that the character will be so tarnished that we'll never see another God of War game again.  Kratos will be associated with all these bad games, and my company wont be featured anywhere on this game.  Then, when people hear GOW, it will be GEARS OF WAR!

You want Mai in smash? Well, nintendo took some "sensible" liberties, and removed her bust size to make her more appropriate for Nintendo's sensibilities.

Last edited by Burning Typhoon - on 26 March 2020

Mandalore76 on 26 March 2020

How this discussion has gone on for 7 pages is beyond me.  It's not a hard concept to grasp.  The owner of an IP is duty locked in to protecting that IP wherever infringement occurs, no matter how slight, or risk allowing that permitted infringement to be used against them in a potentially larger infringement case down the road.  Is Nintendo the only one who does this?  No.

Are Fan Games Illegal? By Jack Yarwood

"Spanish coder "Bomber Link", whose Herculean tribute to Streets of Rage got shut down by Sega's legal team in April, just days after the eight-year project hit BitTorrent and Rapidshare…  Square-Enix shut down unofficial Chrono Trigger sequel Chrono Resurrection, and fan-made King's Quest follow-up The Silver Lining fell into a legal wormhole as Vivendi and Activision constantly changed their minds over whether the fan game was kosher..."

"Unfortunately, by ignoring these infringements companies would be putting their hard-earned trade marks and copyrights in danger. "If a company was to continually ignore infringements of a trade mark, the protection afforded by the mark is eroded and may render it invalid," Tutty explains. Essentially, if Sega let Streets of Rage Remake live, it'd have a harder time arguing its case if a real, bonafide rip-off of the beat 'em up emerged. The same goes for copyright. "Once the infringement of IP is ignored it becomes increasingly hard to recover lost ground," Tutty says. It's a not-so-simple case of use it or lose it. This is the exact argument that Sega gave when booting out Streets of Rage Remake. "We need to protect our intellectual property rights and this may result in us requesting that our fans remove online imagery, videos or games in some instances," a spokesperson for Sega told Wired.co.uk at the time."

"So no, without consent, making a fan game is not, generally speaking, legal."

"For fans looking to pay homage to their favourite game, while there are more tools, communities and outlets for their creative ambition than ever, its still a legal minefield with few loopholes to protect you. If you fancy making a fan game, its probably best to ask first, or just go and make something unique."

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/investigation-are-fan-games-legal

Are Fan Games Fair Use? by Josh Bycer

"Using someone else's IP in any form for a commercial product is an immediate denial of Fair-Use...Nintendo was in the legal right regarding the fan-mods and Youtube content, but hurt their public perception"

"Copyright holders must defend their IP in all cases. At the end of the day, Nintendo, just like other IP holders, ultimately is the decider in this matter. If they want to receive a cut of the ad revenue on YouTube or block fan-made games, then it's within their legal right."

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20160927/282142/Are_Fan_Games_Fair_Use.php

Maybe do some research and understand what IP infringement is.  But, it's much easier to post "Nintendo are c*nts", right?



HoangNhatAnh on 26 March 2020
DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

What's false? Explain it.

So you said i defended Nin without attacking Sony was wrong, but you attacked someone to defend another is fine? A fan made game about Nintendo character on ps4? No different than Metroid AM2R on pc which got taken down by Nin. If it is on Nin system only, it may work, but not this.

So you are taking back that you done false paralelism or will you keep it to say it isn't ok if it's made to defend Nintendo but ok to defend Sony? Which do you want? Can't have both.

We are discussing Nintendo demanding take down from a fan made content inside a Sony game and you gone for Nintendo making a Sony IP by itself. That is false paralelism.

That fan made game used a Nintendo character from Nintendo IP on ps4. If Metroid AM2R got taken down by Nin, so is this fan game.



HoangNhatAnh on 26 March 2020
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

Holly, the point isn't hard to grasp. Fan made or not, the fact its Mario not on a Nintendo device or without Nintendo's consent affects the IPs quality in itself and profits Sony and not Nintendo since Dreams is only on PS4. If Sony want content like that to be there without any issues than maybe Sony should release Dreams on the Switch, than Nintendo might let it go. Fan made content will help sell Dreams and PS4s not Nintendo Switches, that's the bottom line and that's why Nintendo want to take this stuff down. Want Mario? buy a Switch, there is a perfectly good Mario game out there in Mario Odyssey.

I agree on Nintendo taking full control on there IP's reputations and id expect Sony to do the exact same if Nintendo had a content creating tool using IPs from Sony. This is why Nintendo have the most valuable IPs in the entire industry, Nintendo don't let them get washed out by others.

Still you would need to prove the sales that were made because people wanted to play Mario games on PS4.

Second you would need to prove that dreams have a "content creating tool using IP" from Nintendo. Because it doesn't, people can create whatever they want with the tool, but there isn't any Nintendo IP on the tool, if there was they could ask for sanction against sony itself.

Third this type of situation would most likely fall under fair use as it is fan made content not for profit and not copying the content but recreating it.

If this fan game is legal, Sony won't have to accept Nin's request, but they know it's wrong.

HollyGamer said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

What's false? Explain it.

So you said i defended Nin without attacking Sony was wrong, but you attacked someone to defend another is fine? A fan made game about Nintendo character on ps4? No different than Metroid AM2R on pc which got taken down by Nin. If it is on Nin system only, it may work, but not this.

I never attacking anyone LOL, I am just  not agree with Nintendo Policy. If you feel attacked by me and try to changing the subject to fan war there is something wrong with u.  I am just cleary tell you to stop defending every bad policy on Nintendo. 

You attacked Xenoblade before when people criticized Square Enix because Final Fantasy XIII.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 26 March 2020
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Still you would need to prove the sales that were made because people wanted to play Mario games on PS4.

Second you would need to prove that dreams have a "content creating tool using IP" from Nintendo. Because it doesn't, people can create whatever they want with the tool, but there isn't any Nintendo IP on the tool, if there was they could ask for sanction against sony itself.

Third this type of situation would most likely fall under fair use as it is fan made content not for profit and not copying the content but recreating it.

See below..

HollyGamer said:

So if someone have Lego toys and build Mario world inside Lego and let children  play their Lego by free,  does that also allow Nintendo to send cease and decease?  

You both don't understand the reasons as to why Nintendo are doing these take downs. If it benefits Nintendo than they would most likely keep it up. however its not benefiting them at all.. and that's the whole reason these things play out like they do. Nintendo is not a charity for PS nor its userbase, they know it, and so does Sony. Same can also be said if the shoe was on the other foot. Also Nintendo doesn't need free advertisement from rival systems and games to sell games.

The best example I can give you both is this. 

What if Sony hired a bunch of professional game designers to create Mario games in Dreams which turn out to be quite good? Sony can claim them as fan made to avoid copy right infringements but does that make it right? PS4 owners get to play Mario made games while Nintendo owners cannot. If fan made projects like these happen more frequently, than what's stopping MS from doing the same and creating Project Spark 2, hiring a bunch of professional game designers and recreating games like Ratchet and Clank and using it to promote Project Spark 2 which promotes the Xbox eco-system which profits MS.

This is why companies take notice because they are not as stupid as you like to think. Nintendo gain nothing from Mario made games in Dreams while PS4 gains the momentum and making Dreams more attractive to customers. Its not about if we have proof of sales, its about the logic behind the whole scenario. If Sony wanted this content to remain than maybe they need to release Dreams on the Switch and maybe Nintendo wont care as much, but like both Sony and Nintendo, they don't like sharing with each other. 

Dreams is a retail priced game which makes Sony money, and users making Nintendo games in Dreams only increases the chances of Dreams selling more copies which profits Sony at the end of the day while Nintendo profits nothing. Its the same thing if someone made a Mario game that was extremely bad in Dreams hurting the Mario brand image. That also affects Nintendo.

Game creative tools are a dangerous thing to developers as they can lead to hurting brand images to profiting other brands not associated with the original owners.

You are making a ludicrous case.

If Sony hired people to do it then it isn't a fan made product, period.

You claimed that people would been buying dreams because of these levels and can't prove so you are changing the goalpost on it, ok.

You also claimed that if Dreams was available on Switch they wouldn't have ordered the takedown. Then just ignored the scenario of someone making Mario inside Lego game available on Switch, and you know it would be ordered take down because that is how Nintendo do. They are much more strict than any other IP holder.

HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

So you are taking back that you done false paralelism or will you keep it to say it isn't ok if it's made to defend Nintendo but ok to defend Sony? Which do you want? Can't have both.

We are discussing Nintendo demanding take down from a fan made content inside a Sony game and you gone for Nintendo making a Sony IP by itself. That is false paralelism.

That fan made game used a Nintendo character from Nintendo IP on ps4. If Metroid AM2R got taken down by Nin, so is this fan game.

And I haven't said Nintendo shouldn't do it. But you compared fan making a level using Nintendo IP to Nintendo making a game out of Sony IP. Those aren't nearly similar situations.

HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

Still you would need to prove the sales that were made because people wanted to play Mario games on PS4.

Second you would need to prove that dreams have a "content creating tool using IP" from Nintendo. Because it doesn't, people can create whatever they want with the tool, but there isn't any Nintendo IP on the tool, if there was they could ask for sanction against sony itself.

Third this type of situation would most likely fall under fair use as it is fan made content not for profit and not copying the content but recreating it.

If this fan game is legal, Sony won't have to accept Nin's request, but they know it's wrong.

HollyGamer said:

I never attacking anyone LOL, I am just  not agree with Nintendo Policy. If you feel attacked by me and try to changing the subject to fan war there is something wrong with u.  I am just cleary tell you to stop defending every bad policy on Nintendo. 

You attacked Xenoblade before when people criticized Square Enix because Final Fantasy XIII.

Why would Sony expend money on litigation to avoid removing the content Nintendo requested?

No other IP owner was requesting removal of let`s play, and Youtube kept them all fine, when Nintendo took issue with it they removed only for Nintendo because they have no interest in losing money on it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Immersiveunreality on 26 March 2020

Yeah i agree with Nintendo on this case.



omarct on 26 March 2020
Burning Typhoon said:
omarct said:

Why the hell shouldnt microsoft be allowed to make a God of War game? Maybe they could make an amazing game. Why not give competition to the original creators to make something even better? I dont see what the problem is, if the game is good people will buy it, if its not they wont. Why are we trying to make it easier on these corporations instead of making it better for the consumers? Imagine how amazing new Pokemon game could be if we weren't forced to only buy them from the lazy bastards at Gamefreak. Where do you see anything here that affects you negatively? Yes perhaps there could be a royalty fee to the original creator if they are still alive but thats it.

If you have the ability to make this so-called microsoft-funded God of War game, and make it good, why not just come up with your own original characters too?  Sony has this IP, with character recognition.  If things worked by your rules, we can take a character like Kratos after 10 years, and people will buy our game because of the popularity he got after being made by Sony.

If you have the ability to make a good game, use your own characters, because by your rules, you'll get 10 years exclusivity with it.  And it's a horrible idea, by the way.  Some games take 4-8 years to make, or longer.  There's not a single person who wants this in the short term.  As least not anyone who has an idea to protect.

There's a fan favorite that I don't own?  Well, I'm going to pay some other company to make horrible games featuring the character.  So many bad games that the character will be so tarnished that we'll never see another God of War game again.  Kratos will be associated with all these bad games, and my company wont be featured anywhere on this game.  Then, when people hear GOW, it will be GEARS OF WAR!

You want Mai in smash? Well, nintendo took some "sensible" liberties, and removed her bust size to make her more appropriate for Nintendo's sensibilities.

Things will work themselves out, those "abusers" will not last long. Only those who make true gems will go forward. As for the new character aspect that you mentioned I will say 2 things, nostalgia and familiarity. Imagine if they made a new superman movie but instead of superman it was "amazingman" and they changed everything but followed the same concept, doesnt matter how great the movie was people wouldnt like it and it would feel off. 

The 10 years would start after the product was released so im not sure how the length of making it would come into play here. 10 years is a lot for me, that is 1/6 of my full cognitive life. But I could see the argument for extending it or reducing it depending on the product. Life is very short I dont see why you would want to limit what you could experience just so that certain people have an easier time making more profits.



Burning Typhoon on 27 March 2020
omarct said:

Things will work themselves out, those "abusers" will not last long. Only those who make true gems will go forward. As for the new character aspect that you mentioned I will say 2 things, nostalgia and familiarity. Imagine if they made a new superman movie but instead of superman it was "amazingman" and they changed everything but followed the same concept, doesnt matter how great the movie was people wouldnt like it and it would feel off. 

The 10 years would start after the product was released so im not sure how the length of making it would come into play here. 10 years is a lot for me, that is 1/6 of my full cognitive life. But I could see the argument for extending it or reducing it depending on the product. Life is very short I dont see why you would want to limit what you could experience just so that certain people have an easier time making more profits.

if something is off about that movie, then it must not be very great.  Parody movies exist, you know?  If the movie is great, and has good word of mouth, people WILL like it.  There's nothing stopping you from making "amazingman" today.  If it's a good movie, people will see it.  End of story.

That rule doesn't exist, and I don't remember you specifying that, so how could I have known.

No one likes going through the trouble of having something they've created taken away from them.  Look at Oswald, and Mickey.  If you have all this so-called experience and know-how, why can't you make the extra two baby steps it takes to come up with your own characters, if you're going to make literally everything else from scratch.  It doesn't make sense.

Imagine if Mighty No. 9 were a mega man game.  People would blame Capcom for that garbage.  Nintendo's stock went up when Pokemon Go first kicked off...  Guess what.  It dropped again when people learned Nintendo didn't make it.

Now, I'm done talking about this fictional law that doesn't make sense.  Nintendo is in their right to take down people's Mario games on PS4, because it incentives people to buy PS4s, and if it's considered fan-art, or fair use, or whatever... I'd honestly be ok with that too.



Azzanation on 27 March 2020
DonFerrari said:

You are making a ludicrous case.

If Sony hired people to do it then it isn't a fan made product, period.

You claimed that people would been buying dreams because of these levels and can't prove so you are changing the goalpost on it, ok.

You also claimed that if Dreams was available on Switch they wouldn't have ordered the takedown. Then just ignored the scenario of someone making Mario inside Lego game available on Switch, and you know it would be ordered take down because that is how Nintendo do. They are much more strict than any other IP holder

I am making examples to why the rule exists. Sony doesn't have to pay someone, they can keep it on the downlow and have people make Mario games in Dreams so you wont have to buy a Nintendo system to play Mario games. If you want to create Mario games than Nintendo has a perfect game for that and that's called Mario Maker.

I am not claiming any one is buying a PS4 or Dreams because of the Mario games in Dreams, I am claiming it only benefits Sony and PlayStation and an exclusive that's not on a Nintendo system.

I don't understand how you guys can compare Lego Worlds to Dreams.

1) Dreams is made by a competitor company, Lego Worlds is not.

2) Dreams is an exclusive to a competitor platform, Lego Worlds is on the Switch.

3) Sony profits when Dreams sells copies, Nintendo gains nothing.

4) Lego Worlds you cannot create actual Mario, like you can in Dreams, You can only make characters in shape of Lego.

5) Doesn't Nintendo have a sponsorship with the Lego brand?

Bottom line is Nintendo doesn't give a crap about the Sony fanbase or its games. If Dreams was on the Switch and Nintendo has access to the content in Dreams than MAYBE it wont be as bad as an idea however that's only speculation, Nintendo don't want Sony to have Mario period, or any other Nintendo owned IPs used. Its why no Sony characters are in Smash Bros and no Nintendo characters are in PS All Stars.

Also Minecraft has a Nintendo Pack exclusive to Nintendo, its not even available on the Xbox version.. and MS own Minecraft.

Its why many people agree on Nintendo taking them down, Sony want to have exclusive games than you have to pay the penalty when things like these happen.