Support NeoGAF

[Sixfortyfive]

Shouldn't EVO have made sure they have the rights to stream that game as soon as possible since people gathered money for it and all? Seems like such a poor handled situation from both parties.

1) Should everyone who streams Nintendo games on twitch.tv also ensure that they have a specific license to do so?
2) If not, what is the legal distinction between a lone individual streamer and EVO in this situation?

 

[JBtheHunter]

If not, what is the legal distinction between a lone individual streamer and EVO in this situation?

What is the legal distinction between someone underage buying alcohol from a friend and buying alcohol at a public store?

 

[Hitokage]

Nintendo tried to crack down on individual youtube uploaders before.

 

[daxgame]

Triforce described it on OBS just now, or at least their mentality.

He also just read out the summary Nintendo asked him to write to them and the process of it all.

what did he say?

 

[one_kill]

It was the responsibility of EVO organisers to get the ok with Nintendo. They should've gotten their approval before they ran the charity drive.

 

[Sendou]

1) Should everyone who streams Nintendo games on twitch.tv also ensure that they have a specific license to do so?
2) If not, what is the legal distinction between a lone individual streamer and EVO in this situation?

1) If they gather money to play that specific game then I say absolutely.

2) Depends

 

[Hitokage]

It was the responsibility of EVO organisers to get the ok with Nintendo. They should've gotten their approval before they ran the charity drive.

You need approval to play the game at all?

 

[Sendou]

You need approval to play the game at all?

You need approval to make money from someone else's work? Yes, you do. And that's what they got so good for them.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I'm not even going to touch that analogy. You aren't even trying.

It was the responsibility of EVO organisers to get the ok with Nintendo. They should've gotten their approval before they ran the charity drive.

You're still missing the point. Every publisher has the right to forbid a public broadcast of their games, be it for a good reason or a terrible one. No other publisher exercises this right because they understand the net positives in simply letting it be (effectively free advertising and PR). Other publishers don't require explicit approval. Nintendo is the anomaly, and it's worth highlighting how shitty their policy/attitude in this field is.

 

[one_kill]

You need approval to play the game at all?

You don't? I mean, EVO organisers used Nintendo's IP for a charity drive. They're also receiving payment from tournament entry fees and possible twitch revenue for streaming the game. I don't see why Nintendo wouldn't have a beef with them if nothing was agreed on, especially given recent circumstances.

 

[one_kill]

I'm not even going to touch that analogy. You aren't even trying.


You're still missing the point. Every publisher has the right to forbid a public broadcast of their games, be it for a good reason or a terrible one. No other publisher exercises this right because they understand the net positives in simply letting it be (effectively free advertising and PR). Other publishers don't require explicit approval. Nintendo is the anomaly, and it's worth highlighting how shitty their policy/attitude in this field is.

As shitty and outdated their policies and outlook may be, it would be unwise for an international corporation with multi-million dollar franchises to simply let others use their IP for the opportunity to profit.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

You don't? I mean, EVO organisers used Nintendo's IP for a charity drive. They're also receiving payment from tournament entry fees and possible twitch revenue for streaming the game. I don't see why Nintendo wouldn't have a beef with them if nothing was agreed on, especially given recent circumstances.

So you're cool if Nintendo comes down on Twitch and feels like banning their games from being streamed in any capacity at all, except in cases when and if they explicitly grant consent? I mean, it's their right to do something like that. But is it a good idea to exercise it?

The Smash entry fee goes entirely to the players' prize pool, by the way. EVO doesn't collect that money. They collect the venue fee, which is separate and not tied to any specific game.

 

[nephilimdj]

This pretty much sums up what happens if you ring nintendo, still cant believe people get free out of warranty repairs and they wanted me to pay $50 for a new wii power cord.

They are random as hell.

 

[one_kill]

So you're cool if Nintendo comes down on Twitch and feels like banning their games from being streamed in any capacity at all, except in cases when and if they explicitly grant consent? I mean, it's their right to do something like that. But is it a good idea to exercise it?

The Smash entry fee goes entirely to the players' prize pool, by the way. EVO doesn't collect that money. They collect the venue fee, which is separate and not tied to any specific game.

Who said I was cool with it? But it's reality.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

Twitch receives money from the ads they run, so if what you were saying was the case, Twitch needed to have received a cease and desist letter as well. I

 

[one_kill]

Twitch receives money from the ads they run, so if what you were saying was the case, Twitch needed to have received a cease and desist letter as well. I

Do we know if they did or didn't? I don't know. I'm just saying that it was the responsibility of EVO organisers to have gotten approval. Is that wrong?

 

[Professor Beef]

Twitch receives money from the ads they run, so if what you were saying was the case, Twitch needed to have received a cease and desist letter as well. I

Well shit, you better let Nintendo know!

As shitty and outdated their policies and outlook may be, it would be unwise for an international corporation with multi-million dollar franchises to simply let others use their IP for the opportunity to profit.

And you better let Namco and Capcom know this, too.

 

[Darryl]

So you're cool if Nintendo comes down on Twitch and feels like banning their games from being streamed in any capacity at all, except in cases when and if they explicitly grant consent? I mean, it's their right to do something like that. But is it a good idea to exercise it?

The Smash entry fee goes entirely to the players' prize pool, by the way. EVO doesn't collect that money. They collect the venue fee, which is separate and not tied to any specific game.

twitch has a legal team that does secure permission for the games they play, no? i thought i heard they had a deal with nintendo as well, that's why they have box art up and stuff

 

[Vice]

Twitch receives money from the ads they run, so if what you were saying was the case, Twitch needed to have received a cease and desist letter as well. I

Having to have a license to play or perform another person/company's work is the norm for music and movies. Media companies depend on their IPs and generally can't stand to see anyone profit from their products or devalue them by giving them away for free. Video game publishers see it as free advertisement I guess. Video game streaming is a very new area of entertainment so its very undefined legally I believe.

 

[Papercuts]

You need approval to make money from someone else's work? Yes, you do. And that's what they got so good for them.

People can and do make a living off of sites like Twitch and Let's Play series on youtube, they get the money directly from the ads. NINTENDO HAS ALREADY TRIED TO FIGHT THIS IN THE PAST. They started trying to copyright claim and push nintendo product ads on these videos, so the actual uploader got no money and they did instead. So they stopped playing their games and they backpedaled on the claims, as they "now understood" or something and just wanted to protect their IP. By, uh, keeping the videos up and getting all the money from other people giving them free advertisment.

People can(and do) throw around claims with this stuff, it usually doesn't work. The law around this stuff is still argued a bunch, but when people are streaming/uploading their own gameplay it's different from a movie. It is always technical new content. The only time action is done is when the main head of it(i.e. Youtube or Twitch) is actually contacted about it, and they take the stuff down asap to avoid legal action in general and then figure it out behind the scenes. So at times videos on youtube do go down for their claims, but later come up because the claim is bullcrap. I've been following things like this for awhile, and from my understanding they can't just single out and say "no, you can't stream this". It doesn't legally hold any merit, they would have to target Twitch in general and stop all of the streams entirely. But it makes sense just with a statement from them that most people would immediately respect and honor it to avoid taking it any farther, which is what evo did at first. They don't file paperwork or anything, that's hilariously off base. Anything like that is handled through the host of the website, not the stream. So, Twitch. And obviously they're legally sorted out, I just fucking watched a Melee stream for a few hours last night. It may be legally different in a tournament setting somehow, as I'm not a TO, but I really don't think people need to ask permission for every tourney stream for every game. Wouldn't really make any sense to me if so.

Nintendo are literally the only people who even seem to care at this point. A single lone soldier fighting a pointless war.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

We're honestly just missing too much info tbh. We don't know if EVO asks to if they can stream games or not. Idk if other majors ask if they can. I think everyone besides Nintendo in this instance don't give a damn. Which I think is many peoples (and my own) problem with the situation.

EVO would have been the wrong target anyways since they don't make money from the stream itself like stated above. They get their money from sponsors and venue fees. Its the same with other tournaments and events. Idk its a murky situation that was thankfully avoided but the ramifications of it will still be there.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

twitch has a legal team that does secure permission for the games they play, no?

Considering that I've streamed romhacks and fan games that exist entirely in a legal gray area in and of themselves (one of which has actually been C&D'd by Sega), I'm going to say no, probably not. I'm really not sure how you came to this conclusion.

These "Only For" avatars are making it extremely easy to filter this thread, by the way.

 

[call_kotaku]

The whole thing is a legal gray area as far as I know.

Blizzard does grant tournament licenses (for a fee) if you want to run tournaments above a certain pay rate, I think. It's purely there to prevent KESPA or some equivalent from running a league without their consent (along with no LAN support).

Again, the problem isn't whether Nintendo has the legal authority to do this, because they absolutely do, it's why they'd say no to probably one of the biggest stages for their franchise and their brand this year. NRS paid (probably) for the privilege.

 

[Professor Beef]

NRS paid (probably) for the privilege.

As well as Atlus, Capcom, SNK (I might be getting them confused with Atlus in this case), and even Sony. Nintendo mostly doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to tournaments or the community at large.

 

[Vice]

People can and do make a living off of sites like Twitch and Let's Play series on youtube, they get the money directly from the ads. NINTENDO HAS ALREADY TRIED TO FIGHT THIS IN THE PAST. They started trying to copyright claim and push nintendo product ads on these videos, so the actual uploader got no money and they did instead. So they stopped playing their games and they backpedaled on the claims, as they "now understood" or something and just wanted to protect their IP. By, uh, keeping the videos up and getting all the money from other people giving them free advertisment.

People can(and do) throw around claims with this stuff, it usually doesn't work. The law around this stuff is still argued a bunch, but when people are streaming/uploading their own gameplay it's different from a movie. It is always technical new content. The only time action is done is when the main head of it(i.e. Youtube or Twitch) is actually contacted about it, and they take the stuff down asap to avoid legal action in general and then figure it out behind the scenes. So at times videos on youtube do go down for their claims, but later come up because the claim is bullcrap. I've been following things like this for awhile, and from my understanding they can't just single out and say "no, you can't stream this". It doesn't legally hold any merit, they would have to target Twitch in general and stop all of the streams entirely. But it makes sense just with a statement from them that most people would immediately respect and honor it to avoid taking it any farther, which is what evo did at first. They don't file paperwork or anything, that's hilariously off base. Anything like that is handled through the host of the website, not the stream. So, Twitch. And obviously they're legally sorted out, I just fucking watched a Melee stream for a few hours last night.

Nintendo are literally the only people who even seem to care at this point. A single lone soldier fighting a pointless war.

There's precedent for not being allowed to profit off of someones else's works even if the performance (gameplay) is original. Performing something in public, say a song or play, requires a performance license from the copyright holder. The thing is, no one really enforces the things unless someone makes serious money because there are too many people performing copyrighted material.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Blizzard does grant tournament licenses (for a fee) if you want to run tournaments above a certain pay rate, I think. It's purely there to prevent KESPA or some equivalent from running a league without their consent (along with no LAN support).

This is a good point to bring up, actually.

If Nintendo were running and streaming their own Smash Bros tournaments, charging their own entry fees or viewer fees and running their own ads on them, I'd imagine that very few people would really have an issue with them trying to prohibit other organizations from doing the same on any kind of large scale. It certainly wouldn't be viewed as that big of a deal in comparison, anyway.

 

[Papercuts]

There's precedent for not being allowed to profit off of someones else's works even if the performance (gameplay) is original. Performing something in public, say a song or play, requires a performance license from the copyright holder. The thing is, no one really enforces the things unless someone makes serious money because there are too many people performing copyrighted material.

Yeah, I added a bit just now. I'm not a tourney organizer so I didn't really look at it from that angle, but like you said nobody enforces it. And like mentioned above, other copyright holders PAY THEM for it, as it's just helping them show it in a good spotlight.

 

[Darryl]

Considering that I've streamed romhacks and fan games that exist entirely in a legal gray area in and of themselves (one of which has actually been C&D'd by Sega), I'm going to say no, probably not. I'm really not sure how you came to this conclusion.

These "Only For" avatars are making it extremely easy to filter this thread, by the way.

i leave the fanboy crap on my avatar so that people like you would "filter" my opinion. if you want to disregard peoples opinions based on an avatar, i don't know if you were ever worth having discussion with to begin with

 

[Sixfortyfive]

if you want to disregard peoples opinions based on an avatar

I didn't disregard your post. I debunked it.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Sendou]

This is a good point to bring up, actually.

If Nintendo were running and streaming their own Smash Bros tournaments, charging their own entry fees or viewer fees and running their own ads on them, I'd imagine that very few people would really have an issue with them trying to prohibit other organizations from doing the same on any kind of large scale. It certainly wouldn't be viewed as that big of a deal in comparison, anyway.

I think they do. In Japan at least. I'm not sure if they stream them though.

I'd like clarify that by no stretch do I feel that Nintendo should try to prohibit these types of events. Especially considering the industry standard. The way they have been acting about these events and streaming in general in past is just beyond my comprehension. I'm just not sure why EVO didn't ask for permission from Nintendo before they started collecting money (no matter where the money goes to) especially considering the company's history on these matters. There was a great chance it could have blown up with lots of unhappy people and it wouldn't have been only on Nintendo.

 

[Vice]

Yeah, I added a bit just now. I'm not a tourney organizer so I didn't really look at it from that angle, but like you said nobody enforces it. And like mentioned above, other copyright holders PAY THEM for it, as it's just helping them show it in a good spotlight.

The thing is targeting Evo makes sense. It's a large target that can deter other from attempting to stream their game without a license. For example, Metallica is unlikely to sue some 13-year old kids for covering Master of Puppets in their garage but if a band that's making lots of money and getting lots of attention tried the same thing Metallica would have their lawyers on the case asap.

And, in most other media the process of obtaining a license before performing something normal because there have been quite a few cases of regular people losing tons of money to media companies for singing a song at a park performance or something similar so that normal people are fearful of legal action.

 

[call_kotaku]

As well as Atlus, Capcom, SNK (I might be getting them confused with Atlus in this case), and even Sony. Nintendo mostly doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to tournaments or the community at large.

As far as I know, the Japanese companies don't subsidize their games to make sure they show up at tournaments (like Call of Duty and League do for MLG or what NRS probably did with Injustice and MK9), because as a whole I think they're still sort of baffled by the tournament scene since it doesn't exist as such in Japan. Nintendo isn't an extreme outlier in that regard, since Capcom also has an extremely supportive US office that get undermined and embarrassed at every turn by Japan headquarters like some sort of abused spouse. I'd put pot bonuses and moneyhatting MrWizard's mcrib fund in different categories.

This is a good point to bring up, actually.

If Nintendo were running and streaming their own Smash Bros tournaments, charging their own entry fees or viewer fees and running their own ads on them, I'd imagine that very few people would really have an issue with them trying to prohibit other organizations from doing the same on any kind of large scale. It certainly wouldn't be viewed as that big of a deal in comparison, anyway.

I think that might be the best way to spin this for Nintendo fans. "They shut it down because they're planning their own smash league!"

 

[Darryl]

I didn't disregard your post. I debunked it.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

you said you played a fan game on twitch. explain the step by step process as to how this debunks that they don't have a legal team or they don't have permission to stream games from nintendo.

 

[Professor Beef]

I'm just not sure why EVO didn't ask for permission from Nintendo before they started collecting money (no matter where the money goes to) especially considering the company's history on these matters.

Because Nintendo never bugged them before, nor did they bug MLG.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I think they do. In Japan at least. I'm not sure if they stream them though.

I'd like clarify that by no stretch do I feel that Nintendo should try to prohibit these types of events. Especially considering the industry standard. The way they have been acting about these events and streaming in general in past is just beyond my comprehension. I'm just not sure why EVO didn't ask for permission from Nintendo before they started collecting money (no matter where the money goes to) especially considering the company's history on these matters. There was a great chance it could have blown up with lots of unhappy people and it wouldn't have been only on Nintendo.

The bolded is interesting. I'm surprised they support competitive Smash in any capacity considering the public statements they've made about it. And as an aside, as someone who's attended official Pokemon tournaments, it's absolutely bizarre how different their attitude is when it comes to different franchises (and especially considering that I think they do such a better job at supporting competitive Pokemon than the Pokemon community does, at that rate).

For the rest of the post, eh... I can agree that a "better safe than sorry / cover all your bases" approach would have been prudent and smart, but still. EVO doesn't have to beg other publishers to stream their games; Nintendo hasn't shut down other Smash majors before. I think spreading blame around does a disservice and muddies the issue when there's only one party in the picture with questionable intent and policy.

The thing is targeting Evo makes sense. It's a large target that can deter other from attempting to stream their game without a license. For example, Metallica is unlikely to sue some 13-year old kids for covering Master of Puppets in their garage but if a band that's making lots of money and getting lots of attention tried the same thing Metallica would have their lawyers on the case asap.

I think this is a questionable analogy, despite what the likes of Jaxel and JamesMK have to say about it.

you said you played a fan game on twitch. explain the step by step process as to how this debunks that they don't have a legal team or they don't have permission to stream games from nintendo.

I guess I'll go ahead and answer this.

You said Twitch probably goes to certain lengths to get permission to stream the games they do. Considering that they have a database entry for Streets of Rage Remake, a game specifically taken down from the internet by Sega themselves, I feel comfortable in saying no, that isn't the case. They clearly have a Youtube-esque policy in which the users have mostly free reign to upload what they want to, and only take legal action when copyright holders raise specific complaints after the fact.

 

[Papercuts]

The thing is targeting Evo makes sense. It's a large target that can deter other from attempting to stream their game without a license. For example, Metallica is unlikely to sue some 13-year old kids for covering Master of Puppets in their garage but if a band that's making lots of money and getting lots of attention tried the same thing Metallica would have their lawyers on the case asap.

And, in most other media the process of obtaining a license before performing something normal because there have been quite a few cases of regular people losing tons of money to media companies for singing a song at a park performance or something similar so that normal people are fearful of legal action.

Would someone in their own room just streaming stuff be considered "public" then? This stuff interests me, so I'm wondering the specifics. I understand how/why it works with other media, but gaming is more of a grey area. I figured that Twitch in general would have all the legal stuff figured out.

 

[call_kotaku]

Would someone in their own room just streaming stuff be considered "public" then? This stuff interests me, so I'm wondering the specifics. I understand how/why it works with other media, but gaming is more of a grey area. I figured that Twitch in general would have all the legal stuff figured out.

The technology is moving faster than the law can keep up with, and copyright law in general is a clusterfuck. If some company for some reason didn't want anyone streaming their game on twitch or youtube, I'm sure it's perfectly legal for them to shut it all down. It's why youtube has a "shoot first ask questions later" policy in regards to copyright takedowns.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Would someone in their own room just streaming stuff be considered "public" then? This stuff interests me, so I'm wondering the specifics. I understand how/why it works with other media, but gaming is more of a grey area. I figured that Twitch in general would have all the legal stuff figured out.

UltraChen had an episode that covered this discussion to some extent before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_84qxB0sI

Relevant talk starts about 14 minutes in. For those who don't know, UltraDavid is both a fighting game commentator and a lawyer that specializes in law specifically related to video games.

 

[Darryl]

I guess I'll go ahead and answer this.

You said Twitch probably goes to certain lengths to get permission to stream the games they do. Considering that they have a database entry for Streets of Rage Remake, a game specifically taken down from the internet by Sega themselves, I feel comfortable in saying no, that isn't the case. They clearly have a Youtube-esque policy in which the users have mostly free reign to upload what they want to, and only take legal action when copyright holders raise specific complaints after the fact.

well yea i get that much, most of the games listed on twitch don't have cover art nor correct listed names. there's clearly a method of putting in user games. however, that doesn't really disprove anything i said at all. youtube has a legal team that secures deals with companies. it isn't free reign at all. they actively try to get companies to register their content with them and when they do we don't really know because it's none of our business, it goes under the table. twitch.tv looks like an attempt to go legit over their obviously pirated-content ridden justin.tv, so i wouldn't be surprised if they were trying the same thing as well. saying that you debunked the possibility of a behind-doors discussion like that is pretty obnoxious, we just don't know and we'll probably never know.

 

[call_kotaku]

well yea i get that much, most of the games listed on twitch don't have cover art nor correct listed names. there's clearly a method of putting in user games. however, that doesn't really disprove anything i said at all. youtube has a legal team that secures deals with companies. it isn't free reign at all. they actively try to get companies to register their content with them and when they do we don't really know because it's none of our business, it goes under the table. twitch.tv looks like an attempt to go legit over their obviously pirated-content ridden justin.tv, so i wouldn't be surprised if they were trying the same thing as well. saying that you debunked the possibility of a behind-doors discussion like that is pretty obnoxious, we just don't know and we'll probably never know.

There's a massive amount of evidence that weighs against Nintendo having enough understanding of streaming or the internet for that to happen, though.

There could be a tiny teapot with the nintendo logo on it orbiting the sun. You never know I guess.

 

[kick51]

People won't learn about it and Nintendo will take all the blame, as usual...

People assume they deserve the blame, but don't really know any of the details.

Yep, the fact that they reversed it so quickly probably means it was a misunderstanding of some sort.

I think it all depends on how you think of Nintendo. A lot of people think of businesses like they're human beings. In that scenario, well obviously they're wrong. This was a bad thing to do. Nintendo is a huge business, though. Businesses have rules and bureaucracy. They don't always have a thinking mind at all levels of operation. Not all actions they take have a person at the other end debating the ethics behind it. Sometimes things are done because that's how they're done so it happens. So when you accept that Nintendo is a business and may have had rules around this stuff, it's sort of hard to come to terms with who is wrong or right here especially off what little information we have. Nintendo would obviously be in the right for protecting their copyright. EVO would obviously be in the moral right for pursuit something that one wouldn't think was illegal and was a mutually beneficial relationship. In the end, it's probably falling somewhere in the middle. We don't know, and the situation is over already to benefit of both parties, so I don't even know why anyone would need a definite target to blame for this.

But we don't even know if any brakes were actually put on it. For all we know Nintendo just postponed Melee's involvement in the streams because wanted to clarify with the people of EVO before they allow their game to be shown at such a big event. The statement says "we do not have permission to broadcast Super Smash Bros. Melee for Evo 2013" That can be taken a lot of ways. People just decided to take the easy route and assume Nintendo just removed it because they could.... which makes ZERO sense.

This is 100% assumption. There are NO details about this situation. I'm tired of seeing people come up with their own idea of what happened. We don't know at all... AT ALL... what Nintendo and EVO respectively did to cause this to happen.

I mean we went from "We don't have permission broadcast Melee" to a few hours later, Melee being broadcast again. That doesn't sound like Nintendo trying to control the situation. If they wanted to do that they would have done it a long time ago around the time Melee was first revealed to be broadcast at EVO. To me it sounds like a miscommunication. This is my guess based on the simple logic of putting 2 and 2 together.

I think you're drawing a whole lot of conclusions out of absolutely nothing. These issues are blown up into being such a big deal because they're incredibly un-Nintendo, not that they're necessarily that big of a deal to begin with. This is the company that let a popular fan film hit theaters and then be distributed around the internet for free, with their support. I would have believed that there were issues going on in communication over this stuff.. back before they fixed this issue in just a few hours. If anything, I think they've proven themselves efficient at this stuff since then.

Umm... okaaaay. Good to know. I don't know what this has to do with anything.


You and I are ignorant because we don't actually know what happened. Nintendo is knowledgeable.

If it's Nintendo's policy to ask permission to stream, I don't see how it's Nintendo's fault Evo didn't get permission. We don't know what happened, which means we don't know who fucked up. Assuming it has to be Nintendo's fault, at this point, is disingenuous. Either way, the issue is resolved so until we do get word on what happened and who fucked up, there isn't much left to discuss.

Yes it does. The second part is my uneducated, but logical GUESS about what happened. What I'm tired of is ASSUMPTIONS: "A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof"

You shouldn't use assumptions with Nintendo either. I remember when people assumed that we'd never get a new Kid Icarus game. I remember when people assumed the Wii U wasn't getting Watch Dogs. I remember when people assumed the 3DS would fail. It's best to stay objective.


Nope. We can't even tell you why it (almost) happened in the first place. Most people assume it's because of the outcry. My guess is that they just needed to clarify with EVO. Nobody really knows though.

What is the legal distinction between someone underage buying alcohol from a friend and buying alcohol at a public store?

You don't? I mean, EVO organisers used Nintendo's IP for a charity drive. They're also receiving payment from tournament entry fees and possible twitch revenue for streaming the game. I don't see why Nintendo wouldn't have a beef with them if nothing was agreed on, especially given recent circumstances.

twitch has a legal team that does secure permission for the games they play, no? i thought i heard they had a deal with nintendo as well, that's why they have box art up and stuff

i leave the fanboy crap on my avatar so that people like you would "filter" my opinion. if you want to disregard peoples opinions based on an avatar, i don't know if you were ever worth having discussion with to begin with

you said you played a fan game on twitch. explain the step by step process as to how this debunks that they don't have a legal team or they don't have permission to stream games from nintendo.

well yea i get that much, most of the games listed on twitch don't have cover art nor correct listed names. there's clearly a method of putting in user games. however, that doesn't really disprove anything i said at all. youtube has a legal team that secures deals with companies. it isn't free reign at all. they actively try to get companies to register their content with them and when they do we don't really know because it's none of our business, it goes under the table. twitch.tv looks like an attempt to go legit over their obviously pirated-content ridden justin.tv, so i wouldn't be surprised if they were trying the same thing as well. saying that you debunked the possibility of a behind-doors discussion like that is pretty obnoxious, we just don't know and we'll probably never know.

 

[Chrisness]

It was the responsibility of EVO organisers to get the ok with Nintendo. They should've gotten their approval before they ran the charity drive.

If EVO did that, there wouldn't have been as much of an uproar and we wouldn't have Smash.

 

[Chrisness]

As far as I know, the Japanese companies don't subsidize their games to make sure they show up at tournaments (like Call of Duty and League do for MLG or what NRS probably did with Injustice and MK9), because as a whole I think they're still sort of baffled by the tournament scene since it doesn't exist as such in Japan. Nintendo isn't an extreme outlier in that regard, since Capcom also has an extremely supportive US office that get undermined and embarrassed at every turn by Japan headquarters like some sort of abused spouse. I'd put pot bonuses and moneyhatting MrWizard's mcrib fund in different categories.


I think that might be the best way to spin this for Nintendo fans. "They shut it down because they're planning their own smash league!"

I'm not sure if that's true anymore (them being baffled by the scene), considering both Street Fighter and Tekken directors love and attend EVO.

 

[Lunar15]

What an embarrassment. You have to understand your audience and keep your legal team on a leash. Hey guess what, fans don't generally like to be threatened or made to feel like they're doing something bad when they're not.

I'm a huge fan of Nintendo, but I hate bad business. I hate stupid PR decisions. I hate seeing a company people love absolutely shit on those people. It's dumb and frustrating. It's worse because I actually do love the things Nintendo makes. But stuff like this makes it hard to care.

Are people making too big of a deal about this? Probably. But I think stuff like this adds up. It paints a bad picture. A company that's dependent on nostalgia and long-standing fans should always be pro-active when trying to work with those fans.

 

[call_kotaku]

I'm not sure if that's true anymore (them being baffled by the scene), considering both Street Fighter and Tekken directors love and attend EVO.

Their general corporate attitude is pretty oblivious, though, even if the developers do interact with the community. It's not a fighting game-specific problem, either, seeing how often you hear Capcom USA (or really any US branch of a Japanese company) statements about "tell Capcom Japan you want this" because they're absolutely unaware of what foreign fans want.

 

[Zaventem]

Hahahahahahaha

 

[Immaculate]

#dead

 

[YouEnjoyMySelf]

Pretty much how I view every thread the Nintendo defense force comes into.

Talk about being emotionally/personally invested. Seems like most of them are younger too, which makes it even better.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

OMG hahahaha!

 

[BlackJace]

Don't act like yall don't feel same way when you come across an influx of Kaz avatars too lol.