CJacobs posted:

I hate game companies' stupid lovely legal departments.

Lurdiak posted:

They probably wanted to give it a chance to exist before doing what they're legally obligated to do.

Quest For Glory II posted:

There are people who say "they have to protect their copyright or it'll hurt them in court" but that only applies to trademark and:

FirstAidKite posted:

I thought it had a couple though, like Josh being the new wendigo if he survives, that and the wendigo spirits still being around since the old man specifically said not to destroy them or else that just releases their spirits

Zaphod42 posted:

Stop saying this. This has to be one of the most pervasive internet myths of all time. That's not how the law works. They don't "have to" DMCA things. There's other solutions.

Zaphod42 posted:

There's no reason not to do that.

Quest For Glory II posted:

no, if they're using existing assets then that's infringement no matter what. like I want copyright law to be reformed but you still shouldn't just lift art/music assets unless you're transforming them in some way under fair use law. the trademark thing was just a discussion that derailed a bit. i listed it as one example of something nintendo doesnt give a gently caress about

CJacobs posted:

Using original assets is what would keep them safe from a c/d, because then it qualifies as a fangame. They can use the Metroid name all they like as long as they're crystal clear about the fact that it's not a real Metroid game. That's how Mario fan games and fan game websites have continued to exist for decades and how this project got shut down after one day.

ImpAtom posted:

Any "other solution" you have in mind is probably far more of a magical internet myth. Mega Man x Street Fighter is probably the closest and in the case of that it was shown off to Capcom staff in advance and Capcom officially agreed to assist in development, they didn't go in after it was done and release.

Zaphod42 posted:

Its what the king's quest fan mod got to do and the project1999 everquest server got to do and dozens of other fan projects get the same thing.

Ciaphas posted:

Ah, I had gotten the impression it was out already. My bad!

Zaphod42 posted:

Its not a myth by any means; its how law works.

Palpek posted:

Yeah, it does what it sets out to do well and the interactivity adds entertainment to it. In the end it's another cliche horror movie but it works because it does it straight without trying to be something more or less and seeing those typical horror scenarios play out gives some actual enjoyment because they didn't half-rear end it. There are also still some neat details and nuances to the story that are cool to uncover like one of the monsters being Hannah and her aggressive behavior towards the 'old' monsters that work as a team. I'm also thankful that it didn't end with a sequel-hook but was a full experience. One factor that can't be overlooked is that while it's not a long game it's still a pretty long horror movie so I don't hold it against them that they decided to add some Saw, X-files and zombie movies into the mix - in the end it stays within the confines of the title.

Also while controlling the characters while walking through corridors and woods I thought that it would be really neat to get a classic point-and-click adventure game with these graphics and control, it would be a joy to play. It's not really possible to have that kind of budget in that genre though.

Zaphod42 posted:

If a kid draws a picture of mickey mouse for fun its not supposed to be illegal, but our capitalist mindset has pretty much convinced everybody it should be, for some reason.

corn in the bible posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1p3KB-xECA

ImpAtom posted:

No it isn't. The law isn't "Here is a thing! It's magical and free and Nintendo are just JERKS for not using it!" How about you cite actual law instead?

Also maybe not post an article explicitly about Japanese law and a Nicovideo program which shows very specific limitations.

Zaphod42 posted:

although like I said Nintendo can play hardball and take them to court and they can't afford to prove that they're right.

Lurdiak posted:

Breaking: I'm hearing rumors someone's sending fake DMCAs in Nintendo's name because they hate Nintendo???

Stux posted:

cant wait for nms

Zaphod42 posted:

No and that's not remotely the scenario I'm presenting.

The law is "Nintendo can say its okay or they can say its not okay depending upon what they want, since its their IP"

Copyright and Trademark aren't the same thing.

They have the power. They can say its okay or they can be dicks and fight it.

How do you think copyleft even loving works? That's all plenty legal. You know about creative commons right?

Now, even if they say its not okay, fair use is supposed to cover a lot of cases. If they make it clear its an UNOFFICIAL game in big bold letters, they could still potentially get away with it even if Nintendo says they can't, although like I said Nintendo can play hardball and take them to court and they can't afford to prove that they're right.

Golden Goat posted:

So is No Man's Sky just you farting about from planet to planet and looking at whatever horrible creature's been randomly generated?

Is there anything else in it like crafting or combat or do you have to survive out there or something?

Guy Mann posted:

Old Nintendo power was so shameless.

Golden Goat posted:

So is No Man's Sky just you farting about from planet to planet and looking at whatever horrible creature's been randomly generated?

Is there anything else in it like crafting or combat or do you have to survive out there or something?

ImpAtom posted:

... Do you really expect Nintendo to put everything they have under creative commons license? Because I *really* think you should look at what that is and if it's even remotely plausible to expect them to put even Metroid alone under that. Creative Commons licensing is a great thing but it really isn't applicable here because it explicitly involves giving up control.

Also creative commons licenses are genuinely without a ton of precedent, especially in US case law, and as far as I know video games haven't really been looked at at all and would involve a lot of complexity. Even just attributing photos used in ad campaigns can be difficult.

Zaphod42 posted:

Are you really this loving thick?

Stux posted:

i havnt followed anything since it was announced so all im expecting and wanting is flying about in a cool universe and anyhting else is icing imo

Zaphod42 posted:

Yeah all of that. There's crafting and combat, but the combat is super simple. There's both ground combat and space combat. You can upgrade your ground suit and ground laser gun, (and there's different types of laser gun) as well as your spaceship and its guns.

There's loooots of crafting, that's most of the game. Some environments are poisonous, super hot, super cold, radioactive, etc. and your suit has to be upgraded to defend against them. (It sounds just like the HEV suit from HL1 )

Its basically space minecraft but with no base buildng (yet, they're patching it in later) but way more variety in the environments.


Are you really this loving thick?

No I'm not expecting Nintendo to put everything under creative commons, that was just a loving example of the fact that legal copyleft systems can exist and IP holders CAN share their IP without losing the rights to it like you keep suggesting. It would make absolutely no sense for Nintendo to do that, but that's just one of the many many legal schemes there are for dealing with such a thing. I'm just using it as an example, a lower bound. How is that so hard to understand? Context is important ImpAtom.

The rights owners to Everquest didn't put Everquest under creative commons licence but they DID offer a non-commercial licence to project1999 which they currently operate under. For gently caress's sake. They still own the rights to Everquest and I can't infringe without paying but project1999 is not infringing because they said so. Its that simple.

Stux posted:

Zaphod42 posted:

Are you really this loving thick?

No I'm no expecting Nintendo to put everything under creative commons, that was just a loving example of the fact that legal copyleft systems can exist and IP holders CAN share their IP without losing the rights to it like you keep suggesting.

FirstAidKite posted:

I thought it had a couple though, like Josh being the new wendigo if he survives, that and the wendigo spirits still being around since the old man specifically said not to destroy them or else that just releases their spirits

Tho if you just mean that it had a complete ending that had a definite starting and ending point without any dumb "well if you wanna know more about x then you'd better play the sequel!!!" then yeah, it didn't have anything like that I don't think, and that's good.

Red Bones posted:

I appreciated that they took a style of game (walkin and talkin and doin QTEs) that's been criticised in the past and actually made a really satisfying game out of it. I think it's because mostly those games are made by David Cage and are sold as like, compelling stories that you can choose the outcome to, and they never really end up being either of those things. Until Dawn accomplishes the story it set out to tell really well, and it establishes from the outset that the thing you can influence in this story is who lives and who dies, and it follows through on that promise completely.

Golden Goat posted:

People seem angry about it but it looks like goofy fun from some of these videos.

ImpAtom posted:

Why are people angry about it anyway? I can't seem to find an actual answer.

ImpAtom posted:

... well, for one, copyleft literally involves giving up some but not all rights. That's part of the point of it? It also explicitly involves giving up a fair bit of control which is something Nintendo has little reason to do. Almost all those legal systems are intended for mass distribution for education or other purposes. Nintendo could probably find a way if they really wanted to but the number of ways it can backfire are through the roof.

Golden Goat posted:

Development delays annoyed people.

ImpAtom posted:

Why are people angry about it anyway? I can't seem to find an actual answer.

FactsAreUseless posted:

Nintendo haven't issued any sort of C&D or DMCA notice to the AM2R people, that was a hoax. Just an FYI for all the amateur lawyers.

ImpAtom posted:

Oh, so it's more of a "this took too long for what it is" thing and not a "the game is literally poo poo from a butt" thing?

Golden Goat posted:

That's beautiful acting right there.

ImpAtom posted:

Oh, so it's more of a "this took too long for what it is" thing and not a "the game is literally poo poo from a butt" thing?

corn in the bible posted:

It also has the worst puzzles I've ever seen in an adventure game and that's no exaggeration

One part of the game can be made unsolvable if you use a pair of scissors you find on some items in the wrong order, because he throws them away in traditional adventure game fashion after using them on one item but you also need to use them on something else later that doesn't make him throw them away

Zaphod42 posted:

The lovely part for the fan game people is that they're in this weird limbo space where Nintendo could change their minds at any second. I can't imagine putting in that much work on a project only to find out as you're releasing it or a day or two after that you have to shut the whole thing down.

corn in the bible posted:

It also has the worst puzzles I've ever seen in an adventure game and that's no exaggeration

One part of the game can be made unsolvable if you use a pair of scissors you find on some items in the wrong order, because he throws them away in traditional adventure game fashion after using them on one item but you also need to use them on something else later that doesn't make him throw them away