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

Yeah i agree with Nintendo on this case.



Around the Network
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.



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.



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.



DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

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:

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

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.

So Nintendo is right when they do it.

"Why would Sony expend money on litigation to avoid removing the content Nintendo requested" Even Sony know this fan game is illegal, so they have to remove it, thank you for agreeing with me.



Around the Network

I don't think this should be allowed. Or that Nintendo should be able to do this.

This is like buying a digital sketchbook, in which you can draw and share anything. Your work or creation is not monetized, you aren't selling it. But Nintendo ends up having a problem because you decided to share the artwork of one of their character that you made.



WTF. Thats shit and not okay @ Nintendo



The best summer of all time, for all GAMER:
"The Last of Us 2" in June, "Ghost of Tsushima" in July !!
2020-Game of the Year, currently: Persona 5 Royal, FF7 Remake
Intrinsic said:
I don't think this should be allowed. Or that Nintendo should be able to do this.

This is like buying a digital sketchbook, in which you can draw and share anything. Your work or creation is not monetized, you aren't selling it. But Nintendo ends up having a problem because you decided to share the artwork of one of their character that you made.

Except it is literally not their work.  It is Nintendo's design and IP.  That is the whole point.  

And Dreams isn't free.  A major selling point is playing the creation the players create.  And players are creating designs based on Nintendo's IP.  Nintendo is legally correct on this one.  The courts don't care what random people on the internet think/feel.  There is a reason Sony is assisting Nintendo on this.  

Do I personally think Nintendo overreacts?  Sure.  But they are within their legal right.  I was excited about the fan remake of Chrono Trigger, but Square shut it down.  Square wasn't wrong to do so, it is their IP.    

And the idea of IP expiring after 10 years is still crazy to me, not directly aimed at you btw, but a general comment.  So I can start a soft drink company and brand it Coke or Pepsi?  Lol, yeah giant **** no.    

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 27 March 2020

Intrinsic said:
I don't think this should be allowed. Or that Nintendo should be able to do this.

This is like buying a digital sketchbook, in which you can draw and share anything. Your work or creation is not monetized, you aren't selling it. But Nintendo ends up having a problem because you decided to share the artwork of one of their character that you made.

The key thing is the word Mario. If they want to make a mario style game on dreams then they shouldn't have used assets that relates to Mario in any shape or form. Why not just make new characters? 

That's like if ubisoft made a Mario Rabbids game without Nintendo permission.  



Pocky Lover Boy! 

HoangNhatAnh said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

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.

So Nintendo is right when they do it.

"Why would Sony expend money on litigation to avoid removing the content Nintendo requested" Even Sony know this fan game is illegal, so they have to remove it, thank you for agreeing with me.

They are in their right to take measures, in this case I do agree they have ground, but several others they don't.

And no, it doesn't need to be illegal for sony to agree to take it out. Litigation cost is still very high even if you are right or there isn't anything illegal occuring.



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