Its amazing how successful Nintendo is despite their idiotic anti-consumer stances. They better be glad there's enough people out there willing to spend 60+ dollars on 10 year old games year after...
Its amazing how successful Nintendo is despite their idiotic anti-consumer stances. They better be glad there's enough people out there willing to spend 60+ dollars on 10 year old games year after year (and thousands of dollars on Amiibos and switch relaunches)
For context, Nintendo has never been particularly thrilled about the competitive scene that popped up around its games, in particular Smash Bros. It has always treated Smash Bros as more of a...
For context, Nintendo has never been particularly thrilled about the competitive scene that popped up around its games, in particular Smash Bros. It has always treated Smash Bros as more of a party game, one where people play 8 player FFAs with items, and likely it believes that is one of the reasons Smash Bros sells an order of magnitude or two higher than any traditional fighting game series.
In addition to that, the competitive scene has never had a particularly well regarded reputation. Even in already niche, gaming enthusiasts circles, a mention of a Smash Bros tournament is always followed by a joke about body odor. The community, not uniquely by any means for a competitive gaming scene, has had issues with gatekeeping, misogyny, and recently, raping children.
In terms of enforcement, although it's dubious to what extent Nintendo could stop a group of people from playing the game together, it's unequivocable that they can DMCA strike with impunity any streams of that tournament, and without being able to stream, any large tournament is dead in the waters.
The rules Nintendo put out were mostly for "non-profit" tournaments - the natural implication is that all large, for-profit tournaments must apply for a license with Nintendo. In practice, this may not mean much, especially for Splatoon and Smash Ultimate, but it could also spell the end of large Melee tournaments.
But that's why Nintendo fairly uniquely tries very hard to distance itself from its competitive scenes, when companies like Blizzard pour billions into endeavors like the OWL.
Given Nintendo's reputation of striking down even the very last innocent fan project, I'm very skeptical of the fact that a group of ill intentioned people who happen to play their games is the...
But that's why Nintendo fairly uniquely tries very hard to distance itself from its competitive scenes
Given Nintendo's reputation of striking down even the very last innocent fan project, I'm very skeptical of the fact that a group of ill intentioned people who happen to play their games is the reason they are distancing themselves from competitive scene. It's not like they're even trying to position themselves against some of the attrocities you mentioned (which btw I was unaware of as I don't follow Smash competitive scene).
I dunno, if I were Nintendo, and kids were getting molested at an event that was centered around my game and used my branding, I would do everything in my power to shut that down. Even if you or I...
I dunno, if I were Nintendo, and kids were getting molested at an event that was centered around my game and used my branding, I would do everything in my power to shut that down.
Even if you or I know enough about how these things work to understand that these tournaments have no real affiliation with Nintendo apart from using their hardware and software, the average person does not. And stories like these can be extremely damaging to a brand so heavily focused on being kid-friendly.
There are certainly similarities to how Nintendo goes after fan projects that use their IP. But they are not nearly as onerous with streamers and youtubers, which I think exist closer to smash tournaments than fan games.
They certainly are nasty with their streaming/youtube policies, but it is at least still possible for people to run streams and youtube videos about Nintendo games and use the actual titles of...
They certainly are nasty with their streaming/youtube policies, but it is at least still possible for people to run streams and youtube videos about Nintendo games and use the actual titles of those games in titles and thumbnails.
Whereas with tournaments it seems clear that Nintendo does not want these happening at all in any way that might associate them with their brand.
Sorry, this is not a very constructive comment, but: As someone not very into/familiar with competitive gaming all I can think as a reaction is "WTF?!". I just can't wrap my head around it
Sorry, this is not a very constructive comment, but:
As someone not very into/familiar with competitive gaming all I can think as a reaction is "WTF?!".
I just can't wrap my head around it
As always, it is extremely unreasonable that a company gets control over streaming rights to a product that they no longer sell, and haven't sold for over a decade.
As always, it is extremely unreasonable that a company gets control over streaming rights to a product that they no longer sell, and haven't sold for over a decade.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a product they no longer sell or still sell today. The streaming of the game is not redistributing the game itself. It's more of an individuals expression of their...
It shouldn't matter whether it's a product they no longer sell or still sell today. The streaming of the game is not redistributing the game itself. It's more of an individuals expression of their experience of the game, which shouldn't be able to be restricted by copyright holders of the game. By expression of experience of the game, I don't just mean their reaction to the game, but I mean their actual gameplay within the game is their expression. Not just anyone can speedrun a game at the level the top speedrunners can, their ability to execute very specific moves in sequence is an expression of their time and effort spent learning how to do those things. In the same way, competitive multiplayer shouldn't be dampened either.
It's a fundamental abuse of copyright law what Nintendo is doing here.
This take kind of falls apart for certain games where watching someone play through it and playing through it yourself offer the same experience. Amending the law to allow the former while...
This take kind of falls apart for certain games where watching someone play through it and playing through it yourself offer the same experience. Amending the law to allow the former while protecting IP holders from the latter sounds tricky.
If the input of the player has no significant variation or impact on the output, then it's more like a video than it is a game. There's no expression happening, so it wouldn't fall under the same...
If the input of the player has no significant variation or impact on the output, then it's more like a video than it is a game. There's no expression happening, so it wouldn't fall under the same umbrella that I'm describing. It's not anymore tricky than fair use in general, which can be pretty tricky, but not so tricky or lacking value that it should be ignored.
With regards to that type of content that lack player expression, there's also likely a lack of general incentive to share this content with others other than for monetary incentives, because there's nothing personal involved to share. If you make a crazy good goal in Rocket League, or an insane no scope kill in whatever online multiplayer game you want to pick, or you just beat some ridiculously hard campaign mode in super fast time etc., you have something personal you want to share. Something you gained knowledge in, spent time and effort learning how to do. If all you did was move a character from Point A to Point B and it just plays the next clip to tell more of the story, there's no real incentive to share unless you're trying to capture viewers who only want to watch this "game". This is where the arguments over how to distinguish these things would come down to, and surely there will be some games that straddle the line, but it's absolutely a worthy cause.
Imagine if you couldn't show people how good of a basketball player you were because Spalding and Wilson had a monopoly on basketballs and you're not allowed to play basketball publicly without a license. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but I'm trying to show how completely insane it is the idea that humans can't express their skills because of copyright. It's absolute horse shit.
Ah yes...one of those annoying little things companies can do because you don't own your hardware or games, you just bought a very complicated and revokable (by them) licensing agreement. In all...
Ah yes...one of those annoying little things companies can do because you don't own your hardware or games, you just bought a very complicated and revokable (by them) licensing agreement.
In all honesty, I don't really mind that they're doing this (and article points out some of the upsdies), but rather am irritated that this is a thing that is possible at all.
I'm curious if anyone knows, has Nintendo actually been challenged in court on this? If they haven't then I guess I'm not surprised why, because there's probably no one who is impacted by it that...
I'm curious if anyone knows, has Nintendo actually been challenged in court on this? If they haven't then I guess I'm not surprised why, because there's probably no one who is impacted by it that has the resources to do so. I'm sure it would be a long shot anyways because copyright law is so broken and the courts are so inept that it probably wouldn't matter. I realize that it would probably be not too dissimilar from trying to challenge any other EULA or TOS even where if you agree to it, in theory that's the end of the story, but on the other hand there are some limits to those where you can't just literally put in whatever you want and say that the user agreed to it. Clearly Nintendo has gone much further than others in abusing copyright protections on this and I'd just be interested to know if it was ever even challenged in court.
The comment I responded to was speaking somewhat generally about the nature of copyright and how "you don't own your hardware or games, you just bought a very complicated and revokable (by them)...
The comment I responded to was speaking somewhat generally about the nature of copyright and how "you don't own your hardware or games, you just bought a very complicated and revokable (by them) licensing agreement".
From what I have seen, it is clear that Nintendo takes more action against people who do anything that involves Nintendo's products, whether they should legally have the right to or not.
So while other publishers may have tournament guidelines, generally speaking, Nintendo is still going further in abusing copyright protections outside just the scope of operating tournaments, which is why Nintendo has a reputation that others don't have.
The upsides in the article aren't really reassuring. one was "other tourneys do this" which just makes me question the entire concept. And the other is "hey, Nintendo requires people to be nice to...
I don't really mind that they're doing this (and article points out some of the upsdies)
The upsides in the article aren't really reassuring. one was "other tourneys do this" which just makes me question the entire concept. And the other is "hey, Nintendo requires people to be nice to each other". A good rule but not one I feel needs to be said.
I understand a business wants to make money and not let others make money, but it's not like official nintendo tournaments are happening every week, nor will small time tournaments try to compete to begin with.
I sincerely hope that this kills Melee and Ultimate as esports. Not out of any dislike or disrespect towards the Smash competitive scenes, but rather because Nintendo do not deserve this level of...
I sincerely hope that this kills Melee and Ultimate as esports.
Not out of any dislike or disrespect towards the Smash competitive scenes, but rather because Nintendo do not deserve this level of success whilst being litigious assholes towards their fans.
Player First Games, Ludosity, Fair Play Labs and GameMill wish they had the same level of following as Super Smash Bros has.
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "Well then they're idiots. You have to be serious daft to not expect Nintendo to do something like this." but then I read the article and yeah,...
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "Well then they're idiots. You have to be serious daft to not expect Nintendo to do something like this." but then I read the article and yeah, not a single person they've cited is surprised. One person even said, "What we feared would happen just happened".
It never even occurred to me that they needed Nintendo's permission in the first place. I get that they own the trademarks and maybe that limits how you could market and name things, but Nintendo...
It never even occurred to me that they needed Nintendo's permission in the first place. I get that they own the trademarks and maybe that limits how you could market and name things, but Nintendo can also demand that you not show anyone a video of yourself playing their games? That's crazy!
It's stuff like this that's caused me to stop buying from Nintendo altogether. I don't care how good their games are frankly, there's tons of great games out nowadays
It's stuff like this that's caused me to stop buying from Nintendo altogether. I don't care how good their games are frankly, there's tons of great games out nowadays
Nintendo is perhaps the best company in the world at hurting the people who love its products the most.
Its amazing how successful Nintendo is despite their idiotic anti-consumer stances. They better be glad there's enough people out there willing to spend 60+ dollars on 10 year old games year after year (and thousands of dollars on Amiibos and switch relaunches)
For context, Nintendo has never been particularly thrilled about the competitive scene that popped up around its games, in particular Smash Bros. It has always treated Smash Bros as more of a party game, one where people play 8 player FFAs with items, and likely it believes that is one of the reasons Smash Bros sells an order of magnitude or two higher than any traditional fighting game series.
In addition to that, the competitive scene has never had a particularly well regarded reputation. Even in already niche, gaming enthusiasts circles, a mention of a Smash Bros tournament is always followed by a joke about body odor. The community, not uniquely by any means for a competitive gaming scene, has had issues with gatekeeping, misogyny, and recently, raping children.
In terms of enforcement, although it's dubious to what extent Nintendo could stop a group of people from playing the game together, it's unequivocable that they can DMCA strike with impunity any streams of that tournament, and without being able to stream, any large tournament is dead in the waters.
The rules Nintendo put out were mostly for "non-profit" tournaments - the natural implication is that all large, for-profit tournaments must apply for a license with Nintendo. In practice, this may not mean much, especially for Splatoon and Smash Ultimate, but it could also spell the end of large Melee tournaments.
But that's why Nintendo fairly uniquely tries very hard to distance itself from its competitive scenes, when companies like Blizzard pour billions into endeavors like the OWL.
Given Nintendo's reputation of striking down even the very last innocent fan project, I'm very skeptical of the fact that a group of ill intentioned people who happen to play their games is the reason they are distancing themselves from competitive scene. It's not like they're even trying to position themselves against some of the attrocities you mentioned (which btw I was unaware of as I don't follow Smash competitive scene).
I dunno, if I were Nintendo, and kids were getting molested at an event that was centered around my game and used my branding, I would do everything in my power to shut that down.
Even if you or I know enough about how these things work to understand that these tournaments have no real affiliation with Nintendo apart from using their hardware and software, the average person does not. And stories like these can be extremely damaging to a brand so heavily focused on being kid-friendly.
There are certainly similarities to how Nintendo goes after fan projects that use their IP. But they are not nearly as onerous with streamers and youtubers, which I think exist closer to smash tournaments than fan games.
It's all still speculation. Nintendo has been anti "stream anything", not just smash/competitive games.
They certainly are nasty with their streaming/youtube policies, but it is at least still possible for people to run streams and youtube videos about Nintendo games and use the actual titles of those games in titles and thumbnails.
Whereas with tournaments it seems clear that Nintendo does not want these happening at all in any way that might associate them with their brand.
Sorry, this is not a very constructive comment, but:
As someone not very into/familiar with competitive gaming all I can think as a reaction is "WTF?!".
I just can't wrap my head around it
As always, it is extremely unreasonable that a company gets control over streaming rights to a product that they no longer sell, and haven't sold for over a decade.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a product they no longer sell or still sell today. The streaming of the game is not redistributing the game itself. It's more of an individuals expression of their experience of the game, which shouldn't be able to be restricted by copyright holders of the game. By expression of experience of the game, I don't just mean their reaction to the game, but I mean their actual gameplay within the game is their expression. Not just anyone can speedrun a game at the level the top speedrunners can, their ability to execute very specific moves in sequence is an expression of their time and effort spent learning how to do those things. In the same way, competitive multiplayer shouldn't be dampened either.
It's a fundamental abuse of copyright law what Nintendo is doing here.
This take kind of falls apart for certain games where watching someone play through it and playing through it yourself offer the same experience. Amending the law to allow the former while protecting IP holders from the latter sounds tricky.
If the input of the player has no significant variation or impact on the output, then it's more like a video than it is a game. There's no expression happening, so it wouldn't fall under the same umbrella that I'm describing. It's not anymore tricky than fair use in general, which can be pretty tricky, but not so tricky or lacking value that it should be ignored.
With regards to that type of content that lack player expression, there's also likely a lack of general incentive to share this content with others other than for monetary incentives, because there's nothing personal involved to share. If you make a crazy good goal in Rocket League, or an insane no scope kill in whatever online multiplayer game you want to pick, or you just beat some ridiculously hard campaign mode in super fast time etc., you have something personal you want to share. Something you gained knowledge in, spent time and effort learning how to do. If all you did was move a character from Point A to Point B and it just plays the next clip to tell more of the story, there's no real incentive to share unless you're trying to capture viewers who only want to watch this "game". This is where the arguments over how to distinguish these things would come down to, and surely there will be some games that straddle the line, but it's absolutely a worthy cause.
Imagine if you couldn't show people how good of a basketball player you were because Spalding and Wilson had a monopoly on basketballs and you're not allowed to play basketball publicly without a license. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but I'm trying to show how completely insane it is the idea that humans can't express their skills because of copyright. It's absolute horse shit.
Obvious solution is to build a fangame that's as close to smash while being legally distinct as possible
I feel like that’s what the Nickelodeon guys are trying to do. It’s not there yet but after a few more iterations, maybe
even then you're still beholden to the huge brand owner
A few attempts have been tried but it's got a variety of issues with the execution.
Ah yes...one of those annoying little things companies can do because you don't own your hardware or games, you just bought a very complicated and revokable (by them) licensing agreement.
In all honesty, I don't really mind that they're doing this (and article points out some of the upsdies), but rather am irritated that this is a thing that is possible at all.
I'm curious if anyone knows, has Nintendo actually been challenged in court on this? If they haven't then I guess I'm not surprised why, because there's probably no one who is impacted by it that has the resources to do so. I'm sure it would be a long shot anyways because copyright law is so broken and the courts are so inept that it probably wouldn't matter. I realize that it would probably be not too dissimilar from trying to challenge any other EULA or TOS even where if you agree to it, in theory that's the end of the story, but on the other hand there are some limits to those where you can't just literally put in whatever you want and say that the user agreed to it. Clearly Nintendo has gone much further than others in abusing copyright protections on this and I'd just be interested to know if it was ever even challenged in court.
The article includes comments from the CEO of an e-sports organization, according to whom this is completely normal:
The comment I responded to was speaking somewhat generally about the nature of copyright and how "you don't own your hardware or games, you just bought a very complicated and revokable (by them) licensing agreement".
From what I have seen, it is clear that Nintendo takes more action against people who do anything that involves Nintendo's products, whether they should legally have the right to or not.
So while other publishers may have tournament guidelines, generally speaking, Nintendo is still going further in abusing copyright protections outside just the scope of operating tournaments, which is why Nintendo has a reputation that others don't have.
The upsides in the article aren't really reassuring. one was "other tourneys do this" which just makes me question the entire concept. And the other is "hey, Nintendo requires people to be nice to each other". A good rule but not one I feel needs to be said.
I understand a business wants to make money and not let others make money, but it's not like official nintendo tournaments are happening every week, nor will small time tournaments try to compete to begin with.
It floors me that people continue to support a company that is always finding new ways to think less of them.
I sincerely hope that this kills Melee and Ultimate as esports.
Not out of any dislike or disrespect towards the Smash competitive scenes, but rather because Nintendo do not deserve this level of success whilst being litigious assholes towards their fans.
Player First Games, Ludosity, Fair Play Labs and GameMill wish they had the same level of following as Super Smash Bros has.
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "Well then they're idiots. You have to be serious daft to not expect Nintendo to do something like this." but then I read the article and yeah, not a single person they've cited is surprised. One person even said, "What we feared would happen just happened".
It never even occurred to me that they needed Nintendo's permission in the first place. I get that they own the trademarks and maybe that limits how you could market and name things, but Nintendo can also demand that you not show anyone a video of yourself playing their games? That's crazy!
It's stuff like this that's caused me to stop buying from Nintendo altogether. I don't care how good their games are frankly, there's tons of great games out nowadays
Nintendo hating their fan base, what else is new.