Official Newcomer/DLC Speculation Discussion

[7NATOR]

Has Verge confirmed if the next character is first or third party? And hopefully a reveal will be at the Awards Show..

Verge really hasn't said much since he spoke on Steve's Inclusion (after the fact).

The only other recent thing was that he was supposed to investigate the League of Legends in Smash rumor, but nothing ever came of that. I don't know if that's a good thing or Bad thing. Perhaps good

But he hasn't spoken on any thing else pertaining to FP2

It means that Byleth wasn't Scorpion and probably nothing more.

Perhaps, I'll keep it in mind though

 

[dream1ng]

Hero being niche or Japan-only is a huuuuuuuuuge stretch. He's far more popular worldwide than Mega Man, who was the "big get" of Smash 4.

I'm unsure what you're basing this on. Dragon Quest is niche outside Japan. It's not without popularity, and it's not so niche as to be totally unsuccessful abroad, but most JRPG series are niche outside Japan. There's only a handful that aren't.

The magnitude of Mega Man's inclusion was owing to him being the second-most requested character Smash had, behind only Sonic, one that had been desired for many years at that point, and because of his perennial Nintendo association, which was real important back then, not because his series was the biggest possible get. The three third-parties that followed him were all bigger from a series perspective.

Plus Hero wasn't even a character until last year. Hero is a composite. Having so many visually distinct identities will not aid in overall recognition. If anything, Slime is more well known than any of the eleven.

 

[metalhydra273]

Yeah not everyone is gonna know about every character, but I feel like the majority of the niche-end inclusions are games that you would at least know exist to an extent even if you haven't had a hard introduction to them, like persona, dragon quest, and KoF. Like as a kid I at least knew about or would recognize games like DMC, Puyo, or Dark Souls even though I wouldn't know very much about them, if anything until later on. Mainly games you see/hear about offhandedly. Other franchises like Sakura Wars don't really do that for me so I kinda have less confidence in an inclusion like that. Though this isn't an end all kind of thing since everyone has different experiences, since Tales Of is also something I wouldn't know much about other than Lloyd being in smash flash. Just a personal opinion so take it with a grain of salt, but I feel there's something a bit more to games that gets name tossed now and then. Just something I felt is interesting to bring up. Maybe people wanna talk about speculated franchises that they only learned a lot about/got into recently or something.

 

[SharkLord]

I believe that more region-skewed characters have a chance if A: Their series is huge in their main region, and B: If their company is at least attempting to have them break out. That being said, they still have an uphill battle ahead of them. Using Sakura as an example, Sakura Wars as a franchise is HUGE in Japan. It's successfully branched out into basically every form of media, used to have regularly scheduled stage shows, and a themed cafe at the Sega amusement center. In a 2016 poll, it won both "franchise revival" and "franchise investment," even on a lull. There's no doubt that Sakura Wars is iconic in Japan.

In the West, it, uh... I think it had a couple OVAs translated, right? At least that's something.

But yeah. Sakura Wars is iconic, but that popularity is extremely lopsided. I believe she has a pretty good shot, but only if Nintendo's aiming for a Japan-appeal character. Then again, I'm pretty lenient in general, so who knows how accurate I am.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

More fuel on the fire.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

 

[SharkLord]

More fuel on the fire.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

sigh... C'mon Nintendo. The year sucks already. You don't need to pile it on any further.

I'd imagine that it's a mix of Nintendo being overprotective and the usage of the term "Joy-Cons," which Nintendo legally owns. I can see why they did it from a legal standpoint, but man.

%$#@ move, Nintendo. %$#@ move.

 

[cashregister9]

More fuel on the fire.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

Imma just repost what I put in my profile post...

The people who are like "I can't believe Nintendo would do something like this" must have been living under a rock because Nintendo have been staunch and unmoving for decades, They are in the legal right to do this, It's not even close to morally correct, of ****ing course they have 0 morals, They're a corporation. Much like with every other corporation out there, even the biggest gamer Strawman of them all EA, The heart Are the individuals who make the games special. Every company is scummy, Corporations are built for profit and not much else, They are not your friend. You don't need to try to defend them.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I mean... I kind of understand this one.

That seems to be a product that was sold.

It's essentially a skin or accessory that's being sold without their permission.

**** move, but there's some logic to this one.

 

[SharkLord]

I mean... I kind of understand this one.

That seems to be a product that was sold.

It's essentially a skin or accessory that's being sold without their permission.

**** move, but there's some logic to this one.

Yeah, they're legally in the right. It's just that we're not big corporations, so we look at the moral side instead of the legal side. Not like we can do much about it.

Stinks.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

For real though, why is Nintendo doing all this stuff now?

Like, why did their legal team go on this absurd spree?

EDIT:

Oh apparently the joy con thing happened in September.

So this is an old thing.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

It’s strange cause there’s tons of people doing the exact same thing on Etsy and yet they specifically went after this.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

It’s strange cause there’s tons of people doing the exact same thing on Etsy and yet they specifically went after this.

View attachment 294437

Well that leads me to my next question.

How much publicity did the Etika ones get?

 

[Mushroomguy12]

I mean... I kind of understand this one.

That seems to be a product that was sold.

It's essentially a skin or accessory that's being sold without their permission.

**** move, but there's some logic to this one.

I feel like regardless of any legal right to do this, it’s still a morally scummy thing to do and it certainly does not help their PR after everything else that’s happened in the past few weeks.

 

[Koopaul]

I agree that people far overstate the likelihood of characters that skew very heavily towards one region or another. That is a thing that Smash clearly avoids, and if we are to get those characters, I'd imagine they'd have to be both highly prevalent in their popular region, and at least decently known in the other.

And with that comes people equating characters niche in a region, like Hero or Terry, with characters that are actually obscure, who I would reason Sakura and Arle are in the west (though Sakura more so). Not Travis though, his games are actually more popular outside Japan than inside.

And it cuts both ways. I think people expecting Mortal Kombat or Spyro, or, frankly, maybe even Rayman to spring up on the roster are going to be left disappointed. I'd even say that Doom has quite an uphill battle. Not for the violence, but for the lack of familiarity in Japan.

The one character that I could possibly see overcoming the regional deficit in Japan is Master Chief, who, in many ways, is sort of the parallel to Hero. Though after Steve that seems like less of a reality. Apart from that, I think expecting a character that the other region is barely familiar with, whether east or west, is a good way to get your hopes crushed.

Japan is pretty familiar with Crash. That might be the last Western character that has a decent amount of appeal there. But yeah, I completely agree about Rayman and Doom. Those games are too niche in Japan.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I feel like regardless of any legal right to do this, it’s still a morally scummy thing to do and it certainly does not help their PR after everything else that’s happened in the past few weeks.

This happened in September.

It's a stupid move to be sure. I won't deny that.

I was just trying to understand the logic behind it. I don't agree with the decision they've made, but I understand why they made that decision.

 

[Cosmic77]

Making custom Joycons and selling a few on Etsy isn't the same. If this was supposed to be done on a large scale and if they were selling this particular product to potentially hundreds of people, then it becomes an issue. You would need permission from Nintendo themselves, because you're basically taking their own product, reselling it as something they never approved of, and directly competing with their own Joycons.

I get that it was for a good cause, but both technically and legally, the people doing this were in the wrong. I know it was a cool product, but they really should've stayed away from reselling officially licensed products and tried making something completely orginal. If not that, ask Nintendo for permission first, even if they would likely have said, "No."

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

...Isn't selling IP stuff you don't own just thievery? That's morally scummy too.

Don't call people scum for protecting their rights when people steal their work. Nintendo are frankly the opposite of scum for being reasonable here.

Robin Hood, get this, is a thief and a lawbreaker. The story is a cool one, but he is not a "good guy" by any means. He isn't in the moral right for stealing from people. There is no "for a good cause". There is "respecting the law and working within it". It is true to change some laws you have to break it, but those laws have to truly be corrupt. People not wanting their stuff effectively stolen isn't a corrupt law.

Also, Nintendo doesn't know all the sellers on E-Bay. They'd have to have some take a huge amount of time to find every person, make sure they didn't get permission from Nintendo, and also outright know this is happening. Then they can send the C&D to each one who didn't get permission. And that also assumes what happens with E-Bay isn't entirely private. Nintendo may not be able to even take action there.

Things aren't simple as "why they didn't do this" at any point. That's not how life is. There's going to always be complications. They should take down anyone selling their IP without permission. Can they feasibly do it? No. But they can do as much as they are aware of.

 

[Cosmic77]

...Isn't selling IP stuff you don't own just thievery? That's morally scummy too.

Don't call people scum for protecting their rights when people steal their work. Nintendo are frankly the opposite of scum for being reasonable here.

Robin Hood, get this, is a thief and a lawbreaker. The story is a cool one, but he is not a "good guy" by any means. He isn't in the moral right for stealing from people. There is no "for a good cause". There is "respecting the law and working within it". It is true to change some laws you have to break it, but those laws have to truly be corrupt. People not wanting their stuff effectively stolen isn't a corrupt law.

Also, Nintendo doesn't know all the sellers on E-Bay. They'd have to have some take a huge amount of time to find every person, make sure they didn't get permission from Nintendo, and also outright know this is happening. Then they can send the C&D to each one who didn't get permission. And that also assumes what happens with E-Bay isn't entirely private. Nintendo may not be able to even take action there.

Things aren't simple as "why they didn't do this" at any point. That's not how life is. There's going to always be complications. They should take down anyone selling their IP without permission. Can they feasibly do it? No. But they can do as much as they are aware of.

This is something that I wish more people would understand.

They had good intentions, and I'm glad the money went somewhere it was needed. Still, good intentions don't make a wrong action okay. Personal animosity toward a person or company or the belief that they have enough money doesn't justify those actions either.

And I'm not just applying this logic to Nintendo. Same goes for any other company, regardless of how I feel about them.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Making custom Joycons and selling a few on Etsy isn't the same. If this was supposed to be done on a large scale and if they were selling this particular product to potentially hundreds of people, then it becomes an issue. You would need permission from Nintendo themselves, because you're basically taking their own product, reselling it as something they never approved of, and directly competing with their own Joycons.

I get that it was for a good cause, but both technically and legally, the people doing this were in the wrong. I know it was a cool product, but they really should've stayed away from reselling officially licensed products and tried making something completely orginal. If not that, ask Nintendo for permission first, even if they would likely have said, "No."

Yes because shells to put your own joycons in are such harsh competition to actual joycons in the marketplace

Friendly reminder that legal and morally correct aren't the same

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

This is something that I wish more people would understand.

They had good intentions, and I'm glad the money went somewhere it was needed. Still, good intentions don't make a wrong action okay. Personal animosity toward a person or company or the belief that they have enough money doesn't justify those actions either.

And I'm not just applying this logic to Nintendo. Same goes for any other company, regardless of how I feel about them.

Exactly. The chances Nintendo would've been okay with it are pretty damn high anyway, if they just asked. Whether they wanted some small royalties, licensing fees, or nothing at all, they are open to these kind of things. Due to having issues with their own covers, I'm sure royalties is more logical. But they know it's for a good cause. In that case, they wouldn't have to take legal action either way, nor feel the need to.

I feel bad for the guy being C&D, but barely. I'm a person who works very hard to create lots of unique content. I'm very clear on what I "edited" and what I made on my own. I don't mind if people edit my stuff. But I do have an issue with people taking my hard work and selling it without getting my permission or at least paying me royalties(in which case, unless I have to take legal action or lose my IP, I'd forgive 'em) too. Seeing as I'm making more than one game with 100% unique content, I wouldn't want people stealing from me either. Take a guess how many people enjoy their content being outright stolen. The answer is; less than 1% of the world. Sadly few can take action at this point too, due to poverty or too much money for court cases.

It's why I sometimes also keep stuff free to play for any betas etc. till I'm ready to sell. Cause imagine how much publishing costs too. I'd probably need a patreon at that point, heh. It's sad many don't give a **** about people's basic IP rights. Not enough human decency, really.

 

[Cosmic77]

Yes because shells to put your own joycons in are such harsh competition to actual joycons in the marketplace
View attachment 294438



Friendly reminder that legal and morally correct aren't the same

Of course they're not the same, but in this particular case, he was only halfway morally correct. He was trying to do something selfless, but he had to steal intellectual property to do so.

The argument you would have to make in this case is, "They should've allowed him to continuing stealing the IP because it was helping people." Could they have done that? Of course, but no one is really in a position to act like Nintendo committed a sin by not letting that happen. The IP is something they own, and the only reason why people are so offended is because of where the money was going. If he pocketed the money, no one would probably care.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Of course they're not the same, but in this particular case, he was only halfway morally correct. He was trying to do something selfless, but he had to steal intellectual property to do so.

The argument you would have to make in this case is, "They should've allowed him to continuing stealing the IP because it was helping people." Could they have done that? Of course, but no one is really in a position to act like Nintendo committed a sin by not letting that happen. The IP is something they own, and the only reason why people are so offended is because of where the money was going. If he pocketed the money, no one would probably care.

Ah yes, theft, because as we all know, anything fanmade is theft which is why a Pokemon themed party ended up in a lawsuit costing over 5k and which is why stuff that's fully original and not for sale is seen as such a threat. Why, SEGA must be bankrupt from all the theft done by the fanhacking community, and Capcom's struggles in the 2010's had to be because of Megaman x Street Fighter!

News flash, reacting like this and acting like Nintendo's absolutely fragile and risking major losses over this gets you the reputation of a fanboy who can't handle seeing Nintendo getting criticized, I advise you stop this. Also, it's ****ing disgusting to imply people wouldn't care about this if the seller kept the money of a product made in the name of a dead man for himself.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

...Isn't selling IP stuff you don't own just thievery? That's morally scummy too.

Don't call people scum for protecting their rights when people steal their work. Nintendo are frankly the opposite of scum for being reasonable here.

Robin Hood, get this, is a thief and a lawbreaker. The story is a cool one, but he is not a "good guy" by any means. He isn't in the moral right for stealing from people. There is no "for a good cause". There is "respecting the law and working within it". It is true to change some laws you have to break it, but those laws have to truly be corrupt. People not wanting their stuff effectively stolen isn't a corrupt law.

Also, Nintendo doesn't know all the sellers on E-Bay. They'd have to have some take a huge amount of time to find every person, make sure they didn't get permission from Nintendo, and also outright know this is happening. Then they can send the C&D to each one who didn't get permission. And that also assumes what happens with E-Bay isn't entirely private. Nintendo may not be able to even take action there.

Things aren't simple as "why they didn't do this" at any point. That's not how life is. There's going to always be complications. They should take down anyone selling their IP without permission. Can they feasibly do it? No. But they can do as much as they are aware of.

Of course they're not the same, but in this particular case, he was only halfway morally correct. He was trying to do something selfless, but he had to steal intellectual property to do so.

The argument you would have to make in this case is, "They should've allowed him to continuing stealing the IP because it was helping people." Could they have done that? Of course, but no one is really in a position to act like Nintendo committed a sin by not letting that happen. The IP is something they own, and the only reason why people are so offended is because of where the money was going. If he pocketed the money, no one would probably care.

They had to purchase the Joy Cons first anyway before reshelling so Nintendo was literally making money off of every Joy Con sold and the concept of reselling has been around since forever, but please keep defending those poor multi billion dollar corporations.

 

[NonSpecificGuy]

All of the profit of Etika’s Joycon skins went straight to a charity to help bring awareness to mental illness in honor of the Iceman himself. Of all the things Nintendo could go after, all the Etsy crap, anyone actually using their IP to gain profit, any place that uses their likeness to sell products, they went after a guy that made Joycon covers to support Mental Illness Awareness for Etika. That’s bull ****.

Edit: I never ever ever expected the white knighting of Nintendo to go this far. I’m incredibly disappointed.

Edit 2: Ah I see. I’m enlightened. This man was stealing for buying a Nintendo product directly from them and thus supporting them, slapping on a cover to honor Etika and bring attention to Mental Illness, and then reselling and giving the profit to charity. He is a thief. How silly of me.

 

[N3ON]

Nintendo is in their right to be doing what they're doing, and they've always been draconian assholes who quash the innocuous efforts of the very people that support them, probably stemming from some mandate from incredibly out-of-touch old men unfamiliar with the culture they aim to control, but the reaction elicited from these most recent run-ins with Nintendo's heavies suggest this result was somehow unexpected. It wasn't to me.

This is what Nintendo does. And they have every right to do it. But it sucks. And I have no problem with people finally being galvanized into speaking out on it. I mean I have no confidence it'll work, because the vocal contingent holds basically zero bargaining power and thus will hardly leave Nintendo shaking, but on the other hand... if nothing is done then things are even less likely to change.

Nintendo's archaic management and the resulting austerity it treats a community that oftentimes it seems to want to foster (and will only be of growing importance in the future, as streaming, esports, and digital content are, all things considered, still nascent) continues to not just stymie growth and tarnish a reputation that at the best of times is divisive, not just compounds a feeling that Nintendo doesn't really care about what may be its most loyal demographic, but hinders their potential to actually be setting the industry standard. Which, despite having stumbled upon successful fads, they've not been since they originally made the name for themselves, a feat which has carried them to the present with highly varying success along the way.

They seem content to actually be at the back, embracing trends slowly and often in a barebones manner, with much apparent reluctance, and with what sometimes almost feels like resentment. And while they excel in what is ultimately the most salient part of their medium, which are the games themselves, (the importance of which can't be overstated) it comes, for them, at the expense of almost every other area. Yet it doesn't need to.

And it's funny. They have glimpses of prescience which prove highly successful. They were way ahead of the curve on digital presentations. Their back catalogue was offered online before that was commonplace. Now we don't even get those two things as effectively as we once did. And meanwhile, their antiquated ways derailed their schedule this year to a much greater extent than their contemporaries because (with some hyperbole) they're still doing business in the 80s. And yet, because we're going through a global event that actually encourages activities like gaming, Nintendo is succeeding wildly thanks to it, and the message to modernize more than the bare minimum might not resonate as profoundly.

They seem to really want to be like Disney. But Disney doesn't do esports. Offering an olive branch (even if that's just slightly loosening the vice-grip) to people who dedicate their lives and careers to your products in (hopefully) harmless or beneficial ways would go a long way. But it's not Nintendo's MO. Because it doesn't need to be. Which, if nothing else, should maybe make you think about what you're dedicating so much of yourself to.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

They had to purchase the Joy Cons first anyway before reshelling so Nintendo was literally making money off of every Joy Con sold and the concept of reselling has been around since forever, but please keep defending those poor multi billion dollar corporations.

No they weren't. What they did was modify Nintendo's content and then sell it for a type of profit. Who they gave the profit to does not matter.

This is not re-selling items for extra money, which is called scalping, and has its own legal issues anyway. But I'm not sure on the scalping's exact details and rules. Frankly, if they did that, Nintendo wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. That's why they more or less ignore E-Bay cause 99% of the time, if not more, that's all that happens. E-Bay also, again, has its own legal rulings. So if Nintendo can't do anything to them, that's cause of the specific rules of the site. Nintendo cannot take action in every single case. You seem to be ignoring this factor too. It's always more complicated.

What the person should've did, 10 times out of 10, was talk to Nintendo. No ifs, ands or buts. Did you think they'd actually ignore a charity event or have an issue with it? No. Their issue is a form of a thievery, and let's note in no way did they sue them either. The only information we have "You need to stop" and that was it. That's a very respectable legal action. And unfortunately, they can't actually try to negotiate a deal either. Cause that means any yahoo can go out of their way to take their content and try to sell it with modifications, and they can "let it go" if they get paid off. Basically, it'd be a form of bribery. For Nintendo to protect their IP rights, they had to literally shut it down. Realistically, let's just say that no, they didn't want to do this and even would agree with the cause. They however have to do stuff to keep their legal rights. This isn't like when they went after fanfiction(or hell, the Game Genie), since that was a much different situation. The Game Genie at least was dubious due to modifying their content, but it wasn't trying to sell their content with modifications, so they easily lost. Same with fanficiton. Nobody is making money(and fanfiction is clearly a parody clause).

Now, I have asked this in the past, but I'm not sure if a company must protect any inproper selling of their IP(that means modifications, generally) or lose some of their IP rights. I know I read of it, but I don't know if that's the case anymore. Now, imagine if it is the case. Why would anyone be willing to risk losing their ownership of something at any point? That isn't "oh, they didn't get extra profit that wasn't needed" anymore, like the situation here. That's "we can't ever get profit from our own IP again". Now that sounds pretty bad, but that's just how bad Copyright law is. It's really really bad sadly. Trust me, Nintendo isn't doing this "just because" with that in mind. They're doing it because they have to. That's why they dealt with tons of Youtube takedowns due to them making profits off of let's plays. They had to take action. I think the law has changed, or they can mark those officially as parody now to avoid that. No company wants to outright go out of their way to cause trouble by default. I mean, you got terrible people who absolutely want to, but a company in general is not designed with that in mind. ...No jokes about lawyers.

 

[SpectreJordan]

Man, Nintendo’s been screwing up heavily these past two weeks. How disappointing. Hopefully the outrage will get them to chill, but it doesn’t seem likely.

 

[PLATINUM7]

Now, I have asked this in the past, but I'm not sure if a company must protect any inproper selling of their IP(that means modifications, generally) or lose some of their IP rights. I know I read of it, but I don't know if that's the case anymore.

I know with trademarks, failure to enforce them in the event of infringement can cause the trademark to be liable for removal.

 

[GoodGrief741]

More fuel on the fire.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

I find it really hard to understand why people are making such a big fuss from these stories now, when this is nothing new for the notoriously litigious Nintendo. Is it the Smash competitive community being pissed off because their tourney got canceled? If so, that's incredibly sour grapes imo...

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I know with trademarks, failure to enforce them in the event of infringement can cause the trademark to be liable for removal.

Hmm. Definitely doesn't matter in this case, though maybe that could be why? But I'm pretty sure this would involve copyright specifically. Since somebody isn't making a specific thing related to the trademark in itself. I.E. Changing the N64 logo slightly. Or making a product and selling it under a trademarked name. Since it's clearly not them remaking a joy con from scratch and calling it one, it doesn't seem like it applies here.

Thanks, though.

I'm 90% sure copyright is a ***** either way. I know it lasts way too long by default. But maybe that's what I was thinking of, how Trademarks work.

 

[PLATINUM7]

Hmm. Definitely doesn't matter in this case, though maybe that could be why? But I'm pretty sure this would involve copyright specifically. Since somebody isn't making a specific thing related to the trademark in itself. I.E. Changing the N64 logo slightly. Or making a product and selling it under a trademarked name. Since it's clearly not them remaking a joy con from scratch and calling it one, it doesn't seem like it applies here.

Thanks, though.

I'm 90% sure copyright is a ***** either way. I know it lasts way too long by default. But maybe that's what I was thinking of, how Trademarks work.

The item is called JoyconBoyz and has that plastered over it. The trademark infringement is why Nintendo responded.

There was a problem fetching the tweet

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I find it really hard to understand why people are making such a big fuss from these stories now, when this is nothing new for the notoriously litigious Nintendo. Is it the Smash competitive community being pissed off because their tourney got canceled? If so, that's incredibly sour grapes imo...

There are multiple reasons though the largest one seems to be frustration at the behaivour when damn near every other company would rather celebrate what Nintendo took down, the most recent example being Valve flatout acknowledging Black Mesa as a Half Life game. For those who don't know, Black Mesa is a fanmade remake of the first game which is still available for free as a download

 

[DarthEnderX]

I love SoA but man.

It bombed like both times it was given opportunity. Even Sega is in no need to give it another chance other than refrencing it in VC.

Needs a remake on Switch.

 

[Polan]

trying to make money off a dead man's name aint really on the up and up either. wish people would just let etika rest at this point.

 

[GoodGrief741]

There are multiple reasons though the largest one seems to be frustration at the behaivour when damn near every other company would rather celebrate what Nintendo took down, the most recent example being Valve flatout acknowledging Black Mesa as a Half Life game. For those who don't know, Black Mesa is a fanmade remake of the first game which is still available for free as a download

I'm aware that there are cooler companies but that doesn't mean people get to act shocked and outraged when the same thing that's happened a million times happens again. That just comes off as phony.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The item is called JoyconBoyz and has that plastered over it. The trademark infringement is why Nintendo responded.

There we go. So Nintendo had to respond or actually lose their rights.

Yeah, not a Draconian situation here. Literally a "we can't do anything else".

I'm looking up copyright law, btw. Cause I'm really curious on it.

 

[Cosmic77]

Ah yes, theft, because as we all know, anything fanmade is theft which is why a Pokemon themed party ended up in a lawsuit costing over 5k and which is why stuff that's fully original and not for sale is seen as such a threat. Why, SEGA must be bankrupt from all the theft done by the fanhacking community, and Capcom's struggles in the 2010's had to be because of Megaman x Street Fighter!

News flash, reacting like this and acting like Nintendo's absolutely fragile and risking major losses over this gets you the reputation of a fanboy who can't handle seeing Nintendo getting criticized, I advise you stop this. Also, it's ****ing disgusting to imply people wouldn't care about this if the seller kept the money of a product made in the name of a dead man for himself.

I'm just calling out wrong when I see it. The amount of money Nintendo has in relation to what was lost from this doesn't change anything. Where the money was going doesn't change anything. If you steal a dollar from my wallet and give it to a homeless man, you still stole money. "It was only a dollar; you have plenty of money," and, "Well, it helped someone," doesn't magically make it okay. Likewise, using an IP from a company to raise money doesn't suddenly become morally acceptable just because that company has billions or because you do something good with that money.

Call me a fanboy all you want, but I can honestly say I'd apply this to every person and company, including the ones that I'd happily bash and criticize. Extra details like these might make it harder to label something as wrong, but it is. Besides, this wasn't the only road this guy could take to raise money. Even after all this, he still has several other means to raise money. Whether or not he continues is up to him, and I sincerely want to wish him luck if he doesn't want to give up yet.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I'm aware that there are cooler companies but that doesn't mean people get to act shocked and outraged when the same thing that's happened a million times happens again. That just comes off as phony.

I disagree, that just shows how people want that to change, not to mention it assumes everyone knows every instance of Nintendo being ass hats and found them to be right every single time this without their stances changing since any time they defended it

I'm just calling out wrong when I see it. The amount of money Nintendo has in relation to what was lost from this doesn't change anything. Where the money was going doesn't change anything. If you steal a dollar from my wallet and give it to a homeless man, you still stole money. "It was only a dollar; you have plenty of money," and, "Well, it helped someone," doesn't magically make it okay. Likewise, using an IP from a company to raise money doesn't suddenly become morally acceptable just because that company has billions or because you do something good with that money.

Call me a fanboy all you want, but I can honestly say I'd apply this to every person and company, including the ones that I'd happily bash and criticize. Extra details like these might make it harder to label something as wrong, but it is. Besides, this wasn't the only road this guy could take to raise money. Even after all this, he still has several other means to raise money. Whether or not he continues is up to him, and I sincerely want to wish him luck if he doesn't want to give up yet.

This comes across as laughably insincere because you're admitting that you aren't willing to criticize Nintendo even with the times they've stolen be it fangames they've taken down only to make something suspiciously similar, the slave labour, and other potential circumstances, meaning it's good in your eyes as long as Nintendo, the richest company in Japan, does the stealing.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I'm just calling out wrong when I see it. The amount of money Nintendo has in relation to what was lost from this doesn't change anything. Where the money was going doesn't change anything. If you steal a dollar from my wallet and give it to a homeless man, you still stole money. "It was only a dollar; you have plenty of money," and, "Well, it helped someone," doesn't magically make it okay. Likewise, using an IP from a company to raise money doesn't suddenly become morally acceptable just because that company has billions or because you do something good with that money.

Call me a fanboy all you want, but I can honestly say I'd apply this to every person and company, including the ones that I'd happily bash and criticize. Extra details like these might make it harder to label something as wrong, but it is. Besides, this wasn't the only road this guy could take to raise money. Even after all this, he still has several other means to raise money. Whether or not he continues is up to him, and I sincerely want to wish him luck if he doesn't want to give up yet.

The funny pat is that it was a Trademark issue in itself.

Which makes it even worse, since it's not legally dubious at best. They literally infringed on their trademark and made a profit out of it. That's hardly what I'd call "morally good" in itself. I'm sure Nintendo would've had little issue if they A) weren't forced to take action and B) at least were contacted first.

 

[I.D.]

Corporations aren't your friend, but internet mobs are. Now get to being outraged about this thing you never even cared about before today.