Geno (♥♪!?): Return of the Starsend Savior

[Deleted member]

Geno is owned lock and stock by Square Enix, not Nintendo.

I didn't say that Nintendo owned Geno. Geno is a Nintendo character who is owned by Square Enix, but since Nintendo took part in creating him, they would get some of the profit if they make him DLC

You mean because they already got the rights or because he’s obscure? Hmmm... Yeah, I guess that could make sense, but would that really offset the perceived lost sales from Geno being an obscure character?

As an example: Vaati (who might be owned by Capcom) might be cheaper than, say, Dante, but would that make up for the fact that Vaati might sell less?


No they don’t. Geno is fully owned by Square Enix.

Can someone else explain this to him? I get the feeling they won’t believe me just because I’m me.

I didn't say Nintendo owned Geno. I said they took part in creating him, and that they would get some of the profit if they made him DLC. Don't misread my posts

 

[GenoFlash]

You mean because they already got the rights or because he’s obscure? Hmmm... Yeah, I guess that could make sense, but would that really offset the perceived lost sales from Geno being an obscure character?

As an example: Vaati (who might be owned by Capcom) might be cheaper than, say, Dante, but would that make up for the fact that Vaati might sell less?


No they don’t. Geno is fully owned by Square Enix.

Can someone else explain this to him? I get the feeling they won’t believe me just because I’m me.

For what it's worth, Geno's likeness and rights to appear in Smash Bros have already been negotiated, and he's the only Square character to get any kind of Spirit (presumably) and Multiplayer Icon, though it's possible he was included as a Mario brand character the way the Rabbid Spirits were.

It's not just a matter of Geno being cheaper, it's that he has a dedicated fanbase chomping at the bits to see him in Smash who will pay for him. He won't make as much money as Sora would, but he'll cost a helluva lot less to get into the game.

I didn't say that Nintendo owned Geno. Geno is a Nintendo character who is owned by Square Enix, but since Nintendo took part in creating him, they would get some of the profit if they make him DLC

They would not. That's not how copyright works.

 

[Deleted member]

For what it's worth, Geno's likeness and rights to appear in Smash Bros have already been negotiated, and he's the only Square character to get any kind of Spirit (presumably) and Multiplayer Icon, though it's possible he was included as a Mario brand character the way the Rabbid Spirits were.

It's not just a matter of Geno being cheaper, it's that he has a dedicated fanbase chomping at the bits to see him in Smash who will pay for him. He won't make as much money as Sora would, but he'll cost a helluva lot less to get into the game.

Like I have mentioned before, since Geno is more requested than Sora, more people would buy him over Sora

 

[GoodGrief741]

I didn't say Nintendo owned Geno. I said they took part in creating him, and that they would get some of the profit if they made him DLC. Don't misread my posts

Nintendo would get the same part of the profits for any other DLC character. Their hand in his creation has no bearing whatsoever.

For what it's worth, Geno's likeness and rights to appear in Smash Bros have already been negotiated, and he's the only Square character to get any kind of Spirit (presumably) and Multiplayer Icon, though it's possible he was included as a Mario brand character the way the Rabbid Spirits were.

It's not just a matter of Geno being cheaper, it's that he has a dedicated fanbase chomping at the bits to see him in Smash who will pay for him. He won't make as much money as Sora would, but he'll cost a helluva lot less to get into the game.



They would not. That's not how copyright works.

But while we have the impression that Geno would sell better than Sora, can we really say that’s a guarantee? Or that that’s a risk the bigwigs at Nintendo are going to take?

 

[Deleted member]

Nintendo would get the same part of the profits for any other DLC character. Their hand in his creation has no bearing whatsoever.



But while we have the impression that Geno would sell better than Sora, can we really say that’s a guarantee? Or that that’s a risk the bigwigs at Nintendo are going to take?

Like I have explained numerous times in this thread, Geno and Mallow are the only Square Enix characters that Nintendo would benefit from. Nintendo would not benefit from Sora, a DQ character, or a FF character because they have no history with them and they did not take part in creating them. Also, if Sora did make more money than Geno, then he would have gotten a Mii costume along with or instead of Geno in Smash 4

 

[GenoFlash]

[

Nintendo would get the same part of the profits for any other DLC character. Their hand in his creation has no bearing whatsoever.



But while we have the impression that Geno would sell better than Sora, can we really say that’s a guarantee? Or that that’s a risk the bigwigs at Nintendo are going to take?

I don't think Geno would sell better than Sora; Dragon Quest is arguable but sure as hell not Kingdom Hearts.

It's more a matter of Kingdom Hearts and possibly Dragon Quest not being feasible to acquire due to costs and legal rights, whereas Geno is already in the game. He costs less than getting a huge name like Sora, and he'll make them money because there are enough people who want him in the game that they'll happily buy him.

 

[Deleted member]

[

I don't think Geno would sell better than Sora; Dragon Quest is arguable but sure as hell not Kingdom Hearts.

It's more a matter of Kingdom Hearts and possibly Dragon Quest not being feasible to acquire due to costs and legal rights, whereas Geno is already in the game. He costs less than getting a huge name like Sora, and he'll make them money because there are enough people who want him in the game that they'll happily buy him.

Geno would make more money than Sora because he is more requested among the Smash community. If Sora sold better than Geno, he would have gotten a Mii costume along with or instead of Geno is Smash 4

 

[TheCJBrine]

Geno would probably be a safer pick for them; they could probably still benefit from the other SE characters, but for Sora you have to give Disney most of the profit (and SE though I don't know if they get any profit at all from Sora, aside from KH sales because the games have FF characters in them), and DQ has multiple parties involved plus a stubborn composer with political issues.

 

[EarlTamm]

Okay, I think this is a good point for Geno. Nintendo has no legal profit from Geno himself. Its not like Nintendo and Square split the rights, no, Square owns him fully. But here is the key thing, Geno can't exist without Nintendo. We all like to say how Square is keeping Geno locked away because they are malicious jerks, but how do you think they can use the character on their own? It's not like they can feasibly make a spinoff that stars the SMRPG characters and all the sudden separate them from Mario. No, that was never an option, especially after Nintendo and Square broke up. Square got the rights to the characters under the assumption that they and Nintendo would continue to work together and make more games, and Square owning the characters was just the two companies splinting the share. And Nintendo likely recognizes all of this. If they chose Sora or a DQ character, those properties are not in any form bound to start appearing on Nintendo consoles, but with Geno its different. If the SMRPG Square characters all the sudden get this new burst in interest and Square wants to jump on that opportunity, who do you think they are gonna go running too? Helps that Square has an entire team made to work on Switch exclusives like Octopath.

 

[GenoFlash]

Geno would make more money than Sora because he is more requested among the Smash community. If Sora sold better than Geno, he would have gotten a Mii costume along with or instead of Geno is Smash 4

Sora isn't even owned by Square. It'd be a huge amount of work to negotiate his rights just for a costume.

 

[GoodGrief741]

Like I have explained numerous times in this thread, Geno and Mallow are the only Square Enix characters that Nintendo would benefit from. Nintendo would not benefit from Sora, a DQ character, or a FF character because they have no history with them and they did not take part in creating them. Also, if Sora did make more money than Geno, then he would have gotten a Mii costume along with or instead of Geno in Smash 4

Stating is not the same as explaining.

There is no reason why Nintendo would benefit more from a character just because they had a hand in its creation, when they don’t own a share of the rights. No matter the character’s history, rights ownership is the only thing that matters when you want to make money.

If Nintendo sold Sora as DLC, let’s assume Disney takes 70% and Nintendo does 30%. That’s the standard, right?

Let’s assume they also sell, say, Dante as DLC. Capcom takes 70% and Nintendo takes 30%. Same deal.

If they make Geno DLC, Square takes 70% and Nintendo takes 30%. There’s no difference.

 

[Deleted member]

Geno would probably be a safer pick for them; they could probably still benefit from the other SE characters, but for Sora you have to give Disney most of the profit (and SE though I don't know if they get any profit at all from Sora, aside from KH sales because the games have FF characters in them), and DQ as multiple parties involved plus a stubborn composer with political issues.

Well, Square Enix would get some of the profit since they have history with the character and created the character, but yes, most of the profit of Sora would go to Disney

Stating is not the same as explaining.

There is no reason why Nintendo would benefit more from a character just because they had a hand in its creation, when they don’t own a share of the rights. No matter the character’s history, rights ownership is the only thing that matters when you want to make money.

If Nintendo sold Sora as DLC, let’s assume Disney takes 70% and Nintendo does 30%. That’s the standard, right?

Let’s assume they also sell, say, Dante as DLC. Capcom takes 70% and Nintendo takes 30%. Same deal.

If they make Geno DLC, Square takes 70% and Nintendo takes 30%. There’s no difference.

Nintendo wouldn't make any money from Dante or Sora since they do not own the rights to the characters or took part in creating the characters. For Geno, Nintendo took part in creating him, so they would no doubt get some of the profit, and Square Enix would get at least half of the profit since they own the rights to the character

 

[GenoFlash]

Well, Square Enix would get some of the profit since they have history with the character and created the character, but yes, most of the profit of Sora would go to Disney

This part is true. Square doesn't actually own the rights to Sora.

 

[Deleted member]

Sora isn't even owned by Square. It'd be a huge amount of work to negotiate his rights just for a costume.

Then how hard do you think it would be to get the rights to the actual character? Like I have said before, Geno is more requested, so he would make more money

 

[FCZHornet]

I think people making statements about who gets what in a corporate negotiation that we have no knowledge of is silly.

 

[GoodGrief741]

Nintendo wouldn't make any money from Dante or Sora since they do not own the rights to the characters or took part in creating the characters. For Geno, Nintendo took part in creating him, so they would no doubt get some of the profit, and Square Enix would get at least half of the profit since they own the rights to the character

That’s just incorrect. You don’t appear to have any comprehension of copyright law, Geno’s ownership status, or how companies deal.

I’m speaking to a wall here.

One last time: Nintendo creating the character does not entitle them to any share of the profits. Square Enix fully owns Geno. For practical purposes, it would be the same if Geno had been created for a Final Fantasy title. Nintendo has as much right to Geno as they do to Cloud.

 

[Deleted member]

I think people making statements about who gets what in a corporate negotiation that we have no knowledge of is silly.

We can make statements about this based on what we know of who owns the character and who took part in creating the character

 

[FCZHornet]

I mean yeah you can make statements about anything you want, but they are purely speculative. Royalties, copyrights and product revenue are VERY grey areas. “As I’ve said before” does not equal fact.

 

[TheCJBrine]

Did Nintendo even help with making Geno?

I thought Square created the game.

 

[Deleted member]

That’s just incorrect. You don’t appear to have any comprehension of copyright law, Geno’s ownership status, or how companies deal.

I’m speaking to a wall here.

One last time: Nintendo creating the character does not entitle them to any share of the profits. Square Enix fully owns Geno. For practical purposes, it would be the same if Geno had been created for a Final Fantasy title. Nintendo has as much right to Geno as they do to Cloud.

For the 100th time, Nintendo would benefit from Geno because they took part in creating the character. They would not benefit from Cloud since they do not own the character or took any part in creating the character. Btw I have as much comprehension of copyright law as you do, so if you make those statements about anyone else, you also have to apply it to yourself

Did Nintendo even help with making Geno?

I thought Square created the game.

Super Mario RPG was a game created by both Nintendo and Square Enix

 

[Datboigeno]

Do you really think Geno’s inclusion would boost sales of the SNES Classic? I dunno, it’s kind of a collector’s item for retro enthusiasts, not really something you’d have a kid asking for.

It’s not impossible, but it would take some deliberate and heavy handed marketing by Nintendo (‘You like Geno? Buy his game on the Virtual Console/SNES Classic!’)

If they were explicitly going for promotional picks, I’m not sure Geno would be their first choice.

If he becomes popular it would. I mean history has shown that after a retro character is present in a smash game demand for said character to appear in other things increases which results in things like the West getting Fire Emblem and Kid Icarus: Uprising. It boosts recognition of the character and kids who may have not been interested in the Classic before might be afterwards if that's their only way to play as Geno outside of Smash. And it would open them up to all the other franchises included in the Classic's list of games. I don't think the marketing would be that forced. I feel like I've seen other companies do the "To play more of X's adventures check out X game", etc. If we have them doing an SE character it would be more synergistic than anyone else I can think of. Definitely moreso than DQ and KH at this point. Because Nintendo would be benefitting from the sales of the Classic versus a Sora inclusion which would possibly lead to more KH3 sales benefiting Sony, Microsoft, and Square, but not Nintendo.

 

[Deleted member]

I mean yeah you can make statements about anything you want, but they are purely speculative. Royalties, copyrights and product revenue are VERY grey areas. “As I’ve said before” does not equal fact.

As someone who played Super Mario RPG and has knowledge of Square Enix, Ninteno, and Disney, these are my thoughts on how each company benefits from one thing or another, considering different groups of companies created and own the rights to the characters

 

[TheCJBrine]

Super Mario RPG was a game created by both Nintendo and Square Enix

Is there a source? I only find that Square were the developers, with Nintendo publishing it. Square just had the rights to use Nintendo characters, if they didn't have ties to Nintendo at the time (I mean, like Rare).

They weren't Square Enix back then, but just Square and then they merged with Enix, but I'm just finding this on Wikipedia and a MarioWiki so it could be entirely incorrect of course. I don't know where to find this stuff.

 

[Deleted member]

Is there a source? I only find that Square were the developers, with Nintendo publishing it. Square just had the rights to use Nintendo characters, if they didn't have ties to Nintendo at the time (I mean, like Rare).

They weren't Square Enix back then, but just Square and then they merged with Enix, but I'm just finding this on Wikipedia and a MarioWiki so it could be entirely incorrect of course. I don't know where to find this stuff.

If you just look up "Super Mario RPG" it will show that both Nintendo and Square Enix developed the game. There may not be a 100% accurate source that states it, but everyone knows the legacy of Super Mario RPG, since it was the first time Nintendo and Square Enix (Square Soft at the time) combined and created a game, and it was magnificent

 

[Darkfur]

If you just look up "Super Mario RPG" it will show that both Nintendo and Square Enix developed the game. There may not be a 100% accurate source that states it, but everyone knows the legacy of Super Mario RPG, since it was the first time Nintendo and Square Enix (Square Soft at the time) combined and created a game, and it was magnificent

Square Developed the game and Nintendo published it. They had help with the Nintendo characters through Shigeru Miyamoto being an adviser, but Nintendo is only the publisher.

I'm assuming you got your information from the google search index card of info. That's not accurate. Dig a little deeper.

 

[*Verrix*]

As mentioned before, Dragon Quest has no readily available games for people outside Japan to support on Nintendo platforms aside from Dragon Quest VIII on the 3DS eShop, an almost 2 year old port of an almost 14 year old game. Compare this to Castlevania, Sonic, Megaman, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Pac-Man, and Bayonetta and this is a stark difference. For Sonic, Pac-Man, Megaman, and even Final Fantasy you can count on your fingers and toes the number of games that you could buy right now either by walking into a store or hopping into the eShop. Metal Gear is an exception but, when he debuted, there was the Twin Snakes for the GameCube and it's important to note that Snake was cut from SSB4.

I mean that's not entirely true, there is Dragon Quest builders that's in the US but that's a spinoff Minecraft clone. But there is a sequel in the works for that as well. I still think Geno has a better shot but they do have Dragon Quest content on the switch you could go buy now.

 

[meleebrawler]

I'd like to remind everyone we support characters because we like them, not because of how much money they'd make for Nintendo.

 

[GoodGrief741]

I'd like to remind everyone we support characters because we like them, not because of how much money they'd make for Nintendo.

This, I support Geno because I love the character and I love his game, so even if I know it’s a pipe dream I’ll still support.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Oh man, we are getting ever closer to 300 pages.

I wonder if we can beat the Brawl thread's 441

 

[Sovereign Trinity]

Did Nintendo even help with making Geno?I thought Square created the game.

If you just look up "Super Mario RPG" it will show that both Nintendo and Square Enix developed the game. There may not be a 100% accurate source that states it, but everyone knows the legacy of Super Mario RPG, since it was the first time Nintendo and Square Enix (Square Soft at the time) combined and created a game, and it was magnificent

Let me clear this up. Square developed the game, Shigeru Miyamoto is the one that let Square use the rights to Mario, Peach, Bowser and all the Mario enemies in the game. There are a lot of Mario enemies in there that have different names, my only assumption is Square didn't have the rights to call them by their first name, so they had to use their own names and used different designs: Koopa Troopas in the game looked completely different and had various names such as "Terrapin" and "Terra Cotta"; Piranha Plants in the game were called "Smilax"; Shy Guys were called "Shysters" (the ones with pogo sticks), "Sling Shys"and "Shy Aways".

The completely random characters in there that looked like wasps, wizards, stars, mushrooms, etc. and such are all Square's characters, including Geno. I call Geno a "half" Nintendo and Square character because Geno is a first-party character owned by a third-party company, but as of now, it's only known that Square owns all of Geno... HOWEVER, there are some sources that say Shigeru Miyamoto created Geno, he's just owned by Square.

But in a way, the Geno DLC and amiibo profit would be estimated with going to Nintendo and Square. In Smash 4, the third-party DLC characters' profits went both to Nintendo and their third-party companies. The third-party amiibos are also created and developed by Nintendo, JUST THE AMIIBO ITSELF, not the character, but the amount of money that the amiibos cost, I believe half the profit goes to Nintendo and half the other amount goes to the third-party company. Let's say Geno is an amiibo, it would benefit both Nintendo and Square; Square would be getting profit off of the Geno amiibo because they own Geno, and Nintendo would be getting profit from the amiibo because they created and own the amiibo toy.

 

[GoodGrief741]

Let me clear this up. Square developed the game, Shigeru Miyamoto is the one that let Square use the rights to Mario, Peach, Bowser and all the Mario enemies in the game. There are a lot of Mario enemies in there that have different names, my only assumption is Square didn't have the rights to call them by their first name, so they had to use their own names and used different designs: Koopa Troopas in the game looked completely different and had various names such as "Terrapin" and "Terra Cotta"; Piranha Plants in the game were called "Smilax"; Shy Guys were called "Shysters" (the ones with pogo sticks), "Sling Shys"and "Shy Aways".

The completely random characters in there that looked like wasps, wizards, stars, mushrooms, etc. and such are all Square's characters, including Geno. I call Geno a "half" Nintendo and Square character because Geno is a first-party character owned by a third-party company, but as of now, it's only known that Square owns all of Geno... HOWEVER, there are some sources that say Shigeru Miyamoto created Geno, he's just owned by Square.

But in a way, the Geno DLC and amiibo profit would be estimated with going to Nintendo and Square. In Smash 4, the third-party DLC characters' profits went both to Nintendo and their third-party companies. The third-party amiibos are also created and developed by Nintendo, JUST THE AMIIBO ITSELF, not the character, but the amount of money that the amiibos cost, I believe half the profit goes to Nintendo and half the other amount goes to the third-party company. Let's say Geno is an amiibo, it would benefit both Nintendo and Square; Square would be getting profit off of the Geno amiibo because they own Geno, and Nintendo would be getting profit from the amiibo because they created and own the amiibo toy.

So, to clarify, Nintendo would profit from Geno exactly the same way that they would from any other third party character.

 

[Sovereign Trinity]

I'd like to remind everyone we support characters because we like them, not because of how much money they'd make for Nintendo.

Exactly. I want Geno in Smash because of his amazing character and great personality. As Sakurai stated before, Geno fits in really well with Smash; he knows Geno's perfect for Smash.

#GenoForSmash!
#TeamGeno!

 

[Deleted member]

Square Developed the game and Nintendo published it. They had help with the Nintendo characters through Shigeru Miyamoto being an adviser, but Nintendo is only the publisher.

I'm assuming you got your information from the google search index card of info. That's not accurate. Dig a little deeper.

Let me clear this up. Square developed the game, Shigeru Miyamoto is the one that let Square use the rights to Mario, Peach, Bowser and all the Mario enemies in the game. There are a lot of Mario enemies in there that have different names, my only assumption is Square didn't have the rights to call them by their first name, so they had to use their own names and used different designs: Koopa Troopas in the game looked completely different and had various names such as "Terrapin" and "Terra Cotta"; Piranha Plants in the game were called "Smilax"; Shy Guys were called "Shysters" (the ones with pogo sticks), "Sling Shys"and "Shy Aways".

The completely random characters in there that looked like wasps, wizards, stars, mushrooms, etc. and such are all Square's characters, including Geno. I call Geno a "half" Nintendo and Square character because Geno is a first-party character owned by a third-party company, but as of now, it's only known that Square owns all of Geno... HOWEVER, there are some sources that say Shigeru Miyamoto created Geno, he's just owned by Square.

But in a way, the Geno DLC and amiibo profit would be estimated with going to Nintendo and Square. In Smash 4, the third-party DLC characters' profits went both to Nintendo and their third-party companies. The third-party amiibos are also created and developed by Nintendo, JUST THE AMIIBO ITSELF, not the character, but the amount of money that the amiibos cost, I believe half the profit goes to Nintendo and half the other amount goes to the third-party company. Let's say Geno is an amiibo, it would benefit both Nintendo and Square; Square would be getting profit off of the Geno amiibo because they own Geno, and Nintendo would be getting profit from the amiibo because they created and own the amiibo toy.

Alright, I didn't know. Thanks for clearing everything up

This, I support Geno because I love the character and I love his game, so even if I know it’s a pipe dream I’ll still support.

Well, Geno isn't exactly a pipe dream, since he has a pretty good chance of getting in

 

[GoodGrief741]

Well, Geno isn't exactly a pipe dream, since he has a pretty good chance of getting in

I wish I could be as optimistic as you.

Welp, here’s hoping you’re right.

 

[Dr. Robotnik]

Ok, some of the "newer" members of SB need to pull back just a bit. Were getting to a level of aggression that is just unnecessary. Non of the profit argument has any sort of relevance to us just as Piranha Plant was obscure and irrelevant. Keep Subjective opinions clean and dont push subjective opinions on others.

We actually did get a bit of Nintendo News today with the Detective Pikachu movie as the first live action pokemon movie. It does show that nintendo is more and more open to taking risks with their IP, which only spells good for "obscure" decisions Nintendo likes to make, such as ice climbers, pit, duck hunt and Piranha plant. Obscurity isnt a problem for a company all about taking risks, and their whole goal was giving into demand of the public. I Personally think this benefits the argument to Geno.

 

[Sovereign Trinity]

So, to clarify, Nintendo would profit from Geno exactly the same way that they would from any other third party character.

Correct, that even includes third-parties that are already in the Smash 4 base roster. For example: Sonic, Mega Man and PAC-MAN, their amiibo profit would go to SEGA for Sonic's amiibo, Capcom for Mega Man's amiibo, and Bandai Namco for PAC-MAN's amiibo; Nintendo still gets profit for the amiibo because they made the toy. The only way for third-parties to get their own amiibo is to give the license of their characters to Nintendo so they have the rights to make the amiibos, and I'm assuming Konami is currently working with Nintendo right now with letting Nintendo make Snake, Simon and Richter's amiibos. (This is probably why there hasn't been any new third-party character amiibos shown yet, besides Ken since Capcom might've already been through the process of giving the green light to Nintendo.)

 

[Deleted member]

Correct, that even includes third-parties that are already in the Smash 4 base roster. For example: Sonic, Mega Man and PAC-MAN, their amiibo profit would go to SEGA for Sonic's amiibo, Capcom for Mega Man's amiibo, and Bandai Namco for PAC-MAN's amiibo; Nintendo still gets profit for the amiibo because they made the toy. The only way for third-parties to get their own amiibo is to give the license of their characters to Nintendo so they have the rights to make the amiibos, and I'm assuming Konami is currently working with Nintendo right now with letting Nintendo make Snake, Simon and Richter's amiibos. (This is probably why there hasn't been any new third-party character amiibos shown yet, besides Ken since Capcom might've already been through the process of giving the green light to Nintendo.)

So, for instance, Nintendo would not benefit differently from Geno than Sora?

 

[Sovereign Trinity]

So, for instance, Nintendo would benefit from Geno the same as the benefit from Sora?

I believe so, but this still makes Sora an unlikely decision. I don't think Square would push for a character they don't even own because they won't get money out of Sora, only Disney and Nintendo will, hence why Nintendo would only go for someone much cheaper than Sora, basically a character that's actually owned by Square.

 

[Deleted member]

I believe so, but this still makes Sora an unlikely decision. I don't think Square would push for a character they don't even own because they won't get money out of Sora, only Disney and Nintendo will, hence why Nintendo would only go for someone much cheaper than Sora, basically a character that's actually owned by Square.

Again, thanks for the clarification

 

[Sovereign Trinity]

Ok, some of the "newer" members of SB need to pull back just a bit. Were getting to a level of aggression that is just unnecessary. Obscurity isnt a problem for a company all about taking risks, and their whole goal was giving into demand of the public. I Personally think this benefits the argument to Geno.

I could've joined these Smash forums years ago, but I'm glad I joined now than never. I honestly like talking here with y'all instead of YouTube because I'm finally with a bunch of great Geno fans and supporters, and this thread gives me hope whenever I'm in doubt of Geno... not to mention that I get harassed by a bunch of people on YouTube because I want Geno in Smash. lol

You mean this helps backup Geno being included in Smash? I couldn't understand if you said this goes against or helps Geno's chances, could you clarify please?