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
Jranation said:

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.  

And i also do not think it should be aplauded when people make uncreative copys of a brand,is that fanmade or is it just made to gain the most popularity it can at the expense of the brand?

Questionable behaviour i do think.



Around the Network

I kinda understand why Nintendo has to do this but it's kinda silly at the same time.

If the creators of the fan game made the character sorta like Mario but not really Mario, and didn't use the name at all, would Nintendo be entitled to do this as well?



Chrkeller said:
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.    

Jranation said:

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.  

Immersiveunreality said:
Jranation said:

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.  

And i also do not think it should be aplauded when people make uncreative copys of a brand,is that fanmade or is it just made to gain the most popularity it can at the expense of the brand?

Questionable behaviour i do think.

So if I draw the Mona Lisa, because my attempt wasn't perfect or original the fact that it was fan-made should be frowned upon? I would think it should only be frowned upon the second try and sell it or monetize it.

_________________________________

OK,  I am still not following this...

Let's take for instance you buy a Cintiq tablet, that has a user share function. So you can draw whatever you want on ts tablet and share it with everyone that has a Cintiq tablet. You are not getting paid for what you have drawn or shared. Cintiq just made you something that you could just draw whatever you want and share it within the community.

What you guys are saying, is that if I decide to draw a link character and share it, Nintendo would have a problem with me?



Intrinsic said:
Chrkeller said:

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.    

Jranation said:

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.  

Immersiveunreality said:

And i also do not think it should be aplauded when people make uncreative copys of a brand,is that fanmade or is it just made to gain the most popularity it can at the expense of the brand?

Questionable behaviour i do think.

So if I draw the Mona Lisa, because my attempt wasn't perfect or original the fact that it was fan-made should be frowned upon? I would think it should only be frowned upon the second try and sell it or monetize it.

_________________________________

OK,  I am still not following this...

Let's take for instance you buy a Cintiq tablet, that has a user share function. So you can draw whatever you want on ts tablet and share it with everyone that has a Cintiq tablet. You are not getting paid for what you have drawn or shared. Cintiq just made you something that you could just draw whatever you want and share it within the community.

What you guys are saying, is that if I decide to draw a link character and share it, Nintendo would have a problem with me?

First bolded: Depends on your intention so case by case scenario but the assumption that every uncreative bad copy is supposed to be fan-made is not viable.

Second bolded: Did not see anyone say something like that,if you would draw a link character and use it in a way that can take away attention and profit from the original product then Nintendo could have a problem with it and that is how company's work and not decided by what you think we are saying. :p

In this case making Mario levels in Dreams could potentially draw consumers in to buy Dreams on Sony Playstation while using a Nintendo brand instead of buying a Nintendo product,it is not about the maker of that Mario level but it's about the platform it is made on that could be proffiting from it without owning the brand.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 27 March 2020

Intrinsic said:
Chrkeller said:

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.    

Jranation said:

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.  

Immersiveunreality said:

And i also do not think it should be aplauded when people make uncreative copys of a brand,is that fanmade or is it just made to gain the most popularity it can at the expense of the brand?

Questionable behaviour i do think.

So if I draw the Mona Lisa, because my attempt wasn't perfect or original the fact that it was fan-made should be frowned upon? I would think it should only be frowned upon the second try and sell it or monetize it.

_________________________________

OK,  I am still not following this...

Let's take for instance you buy a Cintiq tablet, that has a user share function. So you can draw whatever you want on ts tablet and share it with everyone that has a Cintiq tablet. You are not getting paid for what you have drawn or shared. Cintiq just made you something that you could just draw whatever you want and share it within the community.

What you guys are saying, is that if I decide to draw a link character and share it, Nintendo would have a problem with me?

To play those Mario levels on dreams you need to buy A PS4 and Dreams. Those Mario levels can be seen as a promoting the game so people can buy a PS4 and Dreams to play Mario levels. Quality is not a criteria here. 

Other companies may not have a problem with this. But Nintendo has the RIGHTS to remove those fan made games. 



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Around the Network
KazumaKiryu said:
WTF. Thats shit and not okay @ Nintendo

He copied from Nintendo ip, that is illegal. If it is legal, Sony wouldn't have to listen to Nin.



DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

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.

So after all, Nintendo is right in this case, good.



Spike0503 said:
I kinda understand why Nintendo has to do this but it's kinda silly at the same time.

If the creators of the fan game made the character sorta like Mario but not really Mario, and didn't use the name at all, would Nintendo be entitled to do this as well?

He made Mario levels in Dreams and that could draw peoples in to buy Dreams on PS4 while using a Nintendo brand, it isn't about the maker, it's about making money from it without owning Nintendo's brand.



HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

So after all, Nintendo is right in this case, good.

Nintendo is right to do so by law, by Moral and fan support NO 



HollyGamer said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

So after all, Nintendo is right in this case, good.

Nintendo is right to do so by law, by Moral and fan support NO 

No to the moral and the support of non-Nintendo fans, agree with you. But to Nintendo fans? They don't care, they already have Nintendo platforms with Mario games on it legally.