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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What Metroid 64 Could've Looked Like

JWeinCom on 01 May 2022
Doctor_MG said:
JWeinCom said:

I am pretty sure that is incorect. There is a copyright exception for libraries and archivists, not for individuals. 

What I think people are referring to is the first sale doctrine. This allows you to generally do what you like with a particular item you bought. If the rom is considered a copy of the item, then that could be allowable, but based on other cases, I'm pretty sure it would not be. For example in one case, a website tried to sell used mp3s, by having users upload their copy and delete the original (verified by software). This was held not to be ok. So I don't think a rom would fall under this exception.

That being said, if you just made a rom from your physical copy, I don't think anyone could really do anything about it. Just on a practical level, who is ever going to care if it's not distributed somehow?

As for the causal link, yeah, I don't think a court would buy that at all. Contrary to popular belief, lawyers cannot simply make any argument they want, and their are potential sanctions for bringing frivolous arguments. Usually that's more for if you bring a whole case on a frivolous argument, but in any event, that's something I probably wouldn't bring up. 

I'm going to respectfully disagree with your analysis there at the end. To start, this isn't a frivolous argument. Even if the court wouldn't buy it that doesn't make it frivolous, that just means it wasn't convincing. There is definitely some base to suggest that the monetary compensation that the company received from advertisement was influenced by the sites downloadable software. Especially since these ROM sites are typically single purpose sites, and you could analyze how often people click on an advertisement from the home page vs. the page that offers the file. In addition, there are many sites that force a tab open to an advertisement when you click on the download (I know this because I'm an awful person who downloads ROM's). These would not be baseless claims to suggest that their monetary compensation is directly tied to the files they are offering. 

As for the rest of your post, I suppose I'm not as sure as I thought I was before. It seems that the DMCA is not nearly as clear about copying videogame software as I thought that they would be, and since there are disclaimers within the game itself about the ownership of the game (i.e. it's entirely owned by the copyright holder) then Title 17 wouldn't really matter. Still, this makes the determination about the legality of ROM sites even more black and white, IMO. 

A frivolous argument actually is an argument that the court would not buy, more specifically one that is so pointless you are wasting time by using it. Just the way they'd phrase it in legal circles, or at least in law school, so maybe shouldn't have used that word here. At any rate, I think you misunderstood me, as I was agreeing with you on that. Obviously the income is because of the roms they offer, and arguing otherwise is what I meant would be frivolous.

Title 17 is like, all of US copyright law, so you couldn't put in a disclaimer that would nullify it. You can make contractual arrangements that would modify your rights beyond what the law typically allows, but a disclaimer isn't exactly a contract, and that raises a whole bunch of other issues. I don't think I brought up the DMCA here. The only part of that I studied was 17 USC 1201-1205 which deals with circumventing copy protection measures. At least in that part, there is certainly no exception for personal use. There may be other parts that apply, but I'm not aware of them. At any rate though, if there is any form of copy protection on video games, and I'm assuming there is, then circumventing it would technically not be allowed, but if you were truly doing it for your own personal use, what could anyone really do about it?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 01 May 2022

Around the Network
Illusion on 01 May 2022
JWeinCom said:

Because being a big company doesn't mean people can steal your intellectual property. I've yet to hear an explanation or reasoning besides what amounts to "c'mon Nintendo, be cool."

It's not just some poor bloke that started a rom site in his spare time, it's someone who is trying to profit off the hard work of others and is making a pretty large effort to do so. I see no reason why the relative size of the parties should matter. I don't think being a large company should entitle one to more or less protection of the law than a small one. If you're going to say people could use Nintendo's IP however they like, then the same has to be true for indie developers, or really any creator of any IP. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion means no protection for intellectual property. 

As for how to compartmentalize my behavior, I've downloaded roms before, and probably will again. If Nintendo wants to sue me for the value of those roms, then they'd be well within their rights. But, I've caused a relatively minor amount of damage, if any, and the rom site has caused way more.  

OK so there are two arguments here:

1) Is existing copyright law just.

2) Is it right (aka. moral) for Nintendo exercise its rights fully under the law enforcing copyright law.

My above point dealt strictly with #2 and it is a subjective argument, not a legal one.  No, I do not think that Nintendo as a large company should be suing small players, issuing cease and desist orders for tiny not-for-profit projects like Metroid 64, etc even though the law allows them to do it.  It is bad business because it makes long-time loyal fans like myself who have given Nintendo thousands of my own dollars over the years want to boycott them.  It's also the case that Nintendo is basically by far the worse in the industry, where their competitors only just underline how excessively litigious Nintendo is. 

Also, I am not talking about the pirates out there that make big cash on Nintendo's IP, I am talking about the many small ROM sites that get taken down that basically had enough add revenue to break even but nothing more getting sued for multi-million dollar suits and essentially ruining the lives of these people.  It should be sufficient in my view at most to issue a cease and desist order to these ROM sites and sue for whatever profits the site earned, not bring down multi-million dollar damages that will ruin a person's life.  That being said, an even better way to handle the problem is for Nintendo to take a page from Sega's book and put their old ROM's up for sale on Steam and effectively kill the market.  Nintendo creates its own problems and then relies on heavy-handed legal force to deal with the fallout.  Yes it is completely within their rights, but I think that it is abhorrent and it is a bad image for a company that should be focused on fun and great memories.



JWeinCom on 01 May 2022
Illusion said:
JWeinCom said:

Because being a big company doesn't mean people can steal your intellectual property. I've yet to hear an explanation or reasoning besides what amounts to "c'mon Nintendo, be cool."

It's not just some poor bloke that started a rom site in his spare time, it's someone who is trying to profit off the hard work of others and is making a pretty large effort to do so. I see no reason why the relative size of the parties should matter. I don't think being a large company should entitle one to more or less protection of the law than a small one. If you're going to say people could use Nintendo's IP however they like, then the same has to be true for indie developers, or really any creator of any IP. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion means no protection for intellectual property. 

As for how to compartmentalize my behavior, I've downloaded roms before, and probably will again. If Nintendo wants to sue me for the value of those roms, then they'd be well within their rights. But, I've caused a relatively minor amount of damage, if any, and the rom site has caused way more.  

OK so there are two arguments here:

1) Is existing copyright law just.

2) Is it right (aka. moral) for Nintendo exercise its rights fully under the law enforcing copyright law.

My above point dealt strictly with #2 and it is a subjective argument, not a legal one.  No, I do not think that Nintendo as a large company should be suing small players, issuing cease and desist orders for tiny not-for-profit projects like Metroid 64, etc even though the law allows them to do it.  It is bad business because it makes long-time loyal fans like myself who have given Nintendo thousands of my own dollars over the years want to boycott them.  It's also the case that Nintendo is basically by far the worse in the industry, where their competitors only just underline how excessively litigious Nintendo is. 

Also, I am not talking about the pirates out there that make big cash on Nintendo's IP, I am talking about the many small ROM sites that get taken down that basically had enough add revenue to break even but nothing more getting sued for multi-million dollar suits and essentially ruining the lives of these people.  It should be sufficient in my view at most to issue a cease and desist order to these ROM sites and sue for whatever profits the site earned, not bring down multi-million dollar damages that will ruin a person's life.  That being said, an even better way to handle the problem is for Nintendo to take a page from Sega's book and put their old ROM's up for sale on Steam and effectively kill the market.  Nintendo creates its own problems and then relies on heavy-handed legal force to deal with the fallout.  Yes it is completely within their rights, but I think that it is abhorrent and it is a bad image for a company that should be focused on fun and great memories.

Whether it is bad for business is not is really up to Nintendo. Doesn't seem based on this topic or their earnings that there is a ton of sympathy for rom sites. But if it is bad for their business, then that's their problem, and too bad for them. Actions have consequences.


Nintendo doesn't really decide whether or not they can receive damages beyond what the profits are. But, if the website's profits (which would be really hard to determine and I'm not sure I'm trusting the rom site to be honest) are all they could lose, then running a Rom site is a risk free endeavor. If you get caught, just give back the excess, and all you lost was time. If you don't, then you're making some nice bank. 

In US law at least, Nintendo has to demonstrate the amount of harm done to them, and that's what they could recover (unless the court imposes punitive damages). If you did 1 million dollars of damage to Nintendo, then that's what you should be forced to pay back. That seems pretty darn reasonable to me. I see nothing immoral about holding someone liable directly in proportion to the harm done. 

There is this weird notion you seem to have that if you're just infringing a widdle bit then you're like a mom and pop rom shop and everyone should be nice to you. Like they just accidentally opened a rom site one lazy Saturday afternoon. No, it wasn't a small momentary lapse in judgment, they worked hard on this. If you don't want to face a multi million dollar damage... maybe don't run a rom site? If someone gets caught stealing and has to pay the consequences, they're ruining their own lives.

Like I said, this argument just boils down to "come on, Nintendo, be cool". I don't see why from a business, legal, or moral perspective, Nintendo shouldn't protect their property from theft just because it would be a major bummer for the thief.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 01 May 2022

Darc Requiem on 02 May 2022
Chrkeller said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Fuck this whole thread. I was hoping for people thinking this Metroid 64 thing looked cool, but instead we ended up fighting about fan work take downs. -_-

Well YOU started the thread with:

"Enjoy it before Nintendo's bullshit takes it down like everything else that's fab made for free"

So yeah....  

/this

You can't kick a hornet's nest and complain about getting stung.



SanAndreasX on 02 May 2022
Illusion said:

Really cool.   Thanks for sharing this.  I would have been even more blown away if it was running on actual N64 hardware, but it's not too far off.  The textures and the Samus model just looks a bit too sharp to me for N64 graphics, although it might be a bit more believable towards to end of the generation when larger cart sizes and Expansion Pak support was more common.

I agree that the 3rd person concept would have been what was used for an N64 Metroid game.  FPS games really weren't able to successfully achieve platforming during the N64 era.  Most of the best FPS's just didn't allow jumping at all and the games that did (Turok, Shadows of the Empire) the platforming was extremely awkward.  Metroid Prime was actually a pioneer in this regard since Retro figured out that it was best to allow the character to actually be able to walk a meter or two past the edge of a cliff before falling off.  This concept essentially made first person platformers viable and it was ahead of its time in 2002.  I am just not sure if developers would have been able to discover this sweet-spot back during the N64 era, they probably would have just stuck with a 3rd person view at that point in time.

It looks like a lot of work went into this.  Given that NoA Legal is likely to issue a Cease & Desist and shut this whole thing down any day now I have to really tip my hat to this person who put this much work into something that it likely not to have much of a future.  It's an interesting vision of what could have been.

Just a reminder that Metroid Prime was made by quite a few of the people who worked on Turok. Retro Studios was founded by the guy who ran Iguana Austin.



Around the Network
SanAndreasX on 02 May 2022
Pemalite said:



Illusion said:

Sorry about the garbage and having your thread hijacked.  I am not sure why people feel so compelled to jump to the defense of a giant company that makes a secondary business out of destroying the lives of average people.  Honestly, I used to be a huge Nintendo fan but not so much anymore after seeing how they treat some of their biggest and most loyal fans.  Just because the law allows a company to do something, doesn't mean that they should do it or that it's even moral.

Protecting I.P is absolutely important.

You can embrace the fan community like Bethesda... Which pays off, or you can be protectionist like Nintendo which has also paid off.

It is what it is... I honestly love seeing these fan projects.

This Metroid one is interesting... But I need to ask... What would the gameplay have been like? Super Metroid is regarded as one of the best games of all time... And is certainly one of my favorite games of all time... So would it have been better to do another 2D title? Or rudimentary 3D that ages poorly? I would argue the N64 was lacking in quality 2D titles anyway...

I have no quarrel with people or companies protecting IP myself. 

On the subject of 3D Metroid, a 3D Metroid, done right, would have done much more for the series than a 2D Metroid would have. A 2-D Zelda on N64 would have never achieved anywhere close to the kind of atmospheric immersion, let alone the huge sales, of Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask, and that immersion is what really sold those games. They also set the stage for Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and Breath of the Wild, which are all excellent games that are more contemporary, so it doesn't necessarily matter if they "aged well" or not. A 2-D Zelda would have just been seen as more of the same. Zelda is a series that shattered the 3D ceiling in spectacular fashion where series like Castlevania hit the ceiling with a resounding thud. Given a chance on the N64, Metroid might have done the same. The N64 didn't really seem to be cut out for 2-D games anyway. A lot of the 2D games we did get looked like blurrier, more inferior versions of the same games we saw on the SNES. 

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 02 May 2022

Pemalite on 02 May 2022
SanAndreasX said:
Pemalite said:



Protecting I.P is absolutely important.

You can embrace the fan community like Bethesda... Which pays off, or you can be protectionist like Nintendo which has also paid off.

It is what it is... I honestly love seeing these fan projects.

This Metroid one is interesting... But I need to ask... What would the gameplay have been like? Super Metroid is regarded as one of the best games of all time... And is certainly one of my favorite games of all time... So would it have been better to do another 2D title? Or rudimentary 3D that ages poorly? I would argue the N64 was lacking in quality 2D titles anyway...

I have no quarrel with people or companies protecting IP myself. 

Neither do I... Unless it impacts the consumer.
I.E. Denuvo for example typically impacts framerates and frametimes considerably... Which can often make titles unplayable... And often when companies remove the protection there is a massive increase in performance and playability.

That is IP protection negatively impacting a paid, legal experience.

I am all for IP protection, but sensibly.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Norion on 02 May 2022
Illusion said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Fuck this whole thread. I was hoping for people thinking this Metroid 64 thing looked cool, but instead we ended up fighting about fan work take downs. -_-

Sorry about the garbage and having your thread hijacked.  I am not sure why people feel so compelled to jump to the defense of a giant company that makes a secondary business out of destroying the lives of average people.  Honestly, I used to be a huge Nintendo fan but not so much anymore after seeing how they treat some of their biggest and most loyal fans.  Just because the law allows a company to do something, doesn't mean that they should do it or that it's even moral.

Yeah legality and morality do get conflated a lot. Current copyright law is horrible and with lobbying is unfortunately probably gonna keep getting worse for the time being.



Chrkeller on 02 May 2022
Illusion said:
JWeinCom said:

Because being a big company doesn't mean people can steal your intellectual property. I've yet to hear an explanation or reasoning besides what amounts to "c'mon Nintendo, be cool."

It's not just some poor bloke that started a rom site in his spare time, it's someone who is trying to profit off the hard work of others and is making a pretty large effort to do so. I see no reason why the relative size of the parties should matter. I don't think being a large company should entitle one to more or less protection of the law than a small one. If you're going to say people could use Nintendo's IP however they like, then the same has to be true for indie developers, or really any creator of any IP. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion means no protection for intellectual property. 

As for how to compartmentalize my behavior, I've downloaded roms before, and probably will again. If Nintendo wants to sue me for the value of those roms, then they'd be well within their rights. But, I've caused a relatively minor amount of damage, if any, and the rom site has caused way more.  

OK so there are two arguments here:

1) Is existing copyright law just.

2) Is it right (aka. moral) for Nintendo exercise its rights fully under the law enforcing copyright law.

My above point dealt strictly with #2 and it is a subjective argument, not a legal one.  No, I do not think that Nintendo as a large company should be suing small players, issuing cease and desist orders for tiny not-for-profit projects like Metroid 64, etc even though the law allows them to do it.  It is bad business because it makes long-time loyal fans like myself who have given Nintendo thousands of my own dollars over the years want to boycott them.  It's also the case that Nintendo is basically by far the worse in the industry, where their competitors only just underline how excessively litigious Nintendo is. 

Also, I am not talking about the pirates out there that make big cash on Nintendo's IP, I am talking about the many small ROM sites that get taken down that basically had enough add revenue to break even but nothing more getting sued for multi-million dollar suits and essentially ruining the lives of these people.  It should be sufficient in my view at most to issue a cease and desist order to these ROM sites and sue for whatever profits the site earned, not bring down multi-million dollar damages that will ruin a person's life.  That being said, an even better way to handle the problem is for Nintendo to take a page from Sega's book and put their old ROM's up for sale on Steam and effectively kill the market.  Nintendo creates its own problems and then relies on heavy-handed legal force to deal with the fallout.  Yes it is completely within their rights, but I think that it is abhorrent and it is a bad image for a company that should be focused on fun and great memories.

Nintendo should take a page from sega's book?  The company that has little to no value in their IP and is a non player in the industry??? 

Sega is exactly what happens to a company when they don't  properly manage their brand and IP.

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 03 May 2022

Darc Requiem on 04 May 2022

Chrkeller, I agree with you. The Sega take is a terrible one. Sega is where they are because they've mismanaged a wealth of IPs to the point where younger gamers don't even know about what used to be marquee titles. If Sega managed their IPs like Nintendo, they'd still be in the hardware business. Sega, in their prime, was a company that could make a top notch game in any genre. They went belly up because of their managements inability to leverage arguable, in their prime, the most versatile game developer in the industry.