Nintendo Wins Suit Against the Japanese "Real Life Mario Kart" Company

[GTnForza4ever]

And THIS, is why if I ever get to ending my RPG and sharing it, I'll never post a video of it, 'cause immediately I'd get a copyright infringement for adding a half-pokemon character.

 

[Robin]

Nintendo love lawsuits more then any other company.

It's because all they have is their IP, without it they would be a mediocre portable console manufacturer that wouldn't sell squat like many of the others which have fallen by the wayside over the years.

I think this MariCar thing is different enough to warrant having a right to operate. Look at travelling fairs for example that brazenly use Disney artwork and themes and get away with it!

 

[Imari]

It's because all they have is their IP, without it they would be a mediocre portable console manufacturer that wouldn't sell squat like many of the others which have fallen by the wayside over the years.

That's sort of the point though, right? IP matters, and particularly for Nintendo it matters quite a lot. It's important for them to protect it and not let any other Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks that they can make a quick buck off Nintendo's hard work do so.

I think this MariCar thing is different enough to warrant having a right to operate. Look at travelling fairs for example that brazenly use Disney artwork and themes and get away with it!

Meh. Disney would have every right to go after them if they wanted.

Maricar has every right to operate, but not by selling itself on Nintendo's properties. Having a real life Mario Kart-esque excursion is a fine idea, but you can't really use Nintendo characters and IP without getting their permission. That's just clambering on the back of Nintendo's hard work establishing the properties.

I'd say the smart way would be to either make up their own characters and costumes (the connection to Mario Kart and similar games will still be there, but you can't claim ownership of a general genre of games), or make it very obviously parody. Or just make it super generic and let people read into it what they want. Nintendo can claim ownership of a Princess Peach costume or a Mario costume, but they can't claim ownership of Generic Pink Dress #477,849 or Overalls and Coloured Skivvy Costume, with Moustache.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And THIS, is why if I ever get to ending my RPG and sharing it, I'll never post a video of it, 'cause immediately I'd get a copyright infringement for adding a half-pokemon character.

Gee, how does a guy like videogamedunkey do it then? Talks about Nintendo games all the time, shows content of him playing nintendo games, and yet his videos are still there.

 

[Imari]

Gee, how does a guy like videogamedunkey do it then. Talks about Nintendo games all the time, shows content of him playing nintendo games, and yet his videos are still there.

I believe generally they just claim revenue from videos featuring their content.



They don't want it gone, they just want the lion's share (or all) of the profits. Which strikes me as greedy BS that stifles the communities for the games, but Nintendo be Nintendo, yo.

 

[Wolfe]

It's because all they have is their IP, without it they would be a mediocre portable console manufacturer that wouldn't sell squat like many of the others which have fallen by the wayside over the years.

Every home or portable console lives or dies by its games, no matter how powerful or clever it is or who owns the IP.

As much as Nintendo survives by floating on their IP, I'd say that's a consequence of their various missteps since the SNES days, as opposed to the sole saving grace of anything they do. Turning off developers/publishers, turning off "core" gamers, and being slow to change course like they've done now are why they've had to rely on Mario and Zelda.

 

[Robin]

Every home or portable console lives or dies by its games, no matter how powerful or clever it is or who owns the IP.

Or rather in the case of Nintendo its 1st party games, for example the PS2 actually thrived more on it's 3rd party titles than anything else. Consoles have also sold themseleves on technological prowess, features etc separate from how good the games are. I bought my PS3 purely because it was a powerful piece of kit with Blu Ray and nothing else, at launch the title choices were actually pretty terrible.

As much as Nintendo survives by floating on their IP, I'd say that's a consequence of their various missteps since the SNES days, as opposed to the sole saving grace of anything they do. Turning off developers/publishers, turning off "core" gamers, and being slow to change course like they've done now are why they've had to rely on Mario and Zelda.

I agree.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I believe generally they just claim revenue from videos featuring their content.



They don't want it gone, they just want the lion's share (or all) of the profits. Which strikes me as greedy BS that stifles the communities for the games, but Nintendo be Nintendo, yo.

I would wonder if this was a once in awhile thing considering Nintendo videos and his JonTron like knowledge of games are a constant theme. And also because he seems to make his living (more so in the past than recent months) on content creation. So while you've brought up something that I actually forgot about, and makes a solid point, I wonder if he came to some deal to be a content creator and thus why he keeps up with it, or he is doing something else and doesn't care if he loses money through his videos.

 

[PocketZeven]

Every home or portable console lives or dies by its games, no matter how powerful or clever it is or who owns the IP.

As much as Nintendo survives by floating on their IP, I'd say that's a consequence of their various missteps since the SNES days, as opposed to the sole saving grace of anything they do. Turning off developers/publishers, turning off "core" gamers, and being slow to change course like they've done now are why they've had to rely on Mario and Zelda.

They had a large misstep with the Wii U and probably tried to consolodate the hemorraging of money and started this youtube policy. Hopefully with the succes of the switch they will change their policy if they want Nintendo Online to be succesfull. Without streamers embracing online gaming with Nintendo, I dont see how Nintendo Online will ever reach the succes of PSN and Xbox. The runaway succes of Fortnite is, in part, because streamers on youtube/twitch embraced the game.

 

[Wolfe]

Or rather in the case of Nintendo its 1st party games, for example the PS2 actually thrived more on it's 3rd party titles than anything else.

Like I said, it doesn't matter who owns the IP. Software is paramount -- whether that software is games, or movies, as you have rightfully pointed out. The PS2 benefited even more from being a DVD player than the PS3 did as a Blu Ray player. More recently, I think there are a fair number of Playstations and Xboxes that were bought at least partly to be a Netflix box.

The silver lining of the Wii U's years is that Nintendo somehow managed to tap into indie games right around the time that they really started to flourish (IMO), complementing its first-party titles and filling in for the absence of big third party titles. Perhaps I'm mostly speaking for myself, but I think quality indies are more suitable for the "Nintendo audience" than contemporary games from the major third-party publishers anyway -- a better fit for what kind of games Nintendo fans want to play. It wasn't enough to carry the Wii U, but the trend has carried over to the Switch, which has reportedly been a goldmine for a number of indie developers.

I have my Switch for both first-party titles and indies (as well as "smaller" third-party games like Octopath Traveler), which leaves very little for my PS4 to scoop up aside from driving/racing games, with the occasional outlier like Ace Combat 7. It's not all first-party games anymore.

They had a large misstep with the Wii U and probably tried to consolodate the hemorraging of money and started this youtube policy. Hopefully with the succes of the switch they will change their policy if they want Nintendo Online to be succesfull. Without streamers embracing online gaming with Nintendo, I dont see how Nintendo Online will ever reach the succes of PSN and Xbox. The runaway succes of Fortnite is, in part, because streamers on youtube/twitch embraced the game.

Nintendo Online needs more than just Nintendo relaxing their YouTube/streaming policy to reach the success of PSN/XBL. It needs better functionality with your friends list, game invites, messages/chat, etc., and some more online-dependent titles to justify the subscription.