Nintendo of America not allowing SSBM to be streamed at EVO [Up: Decision Reversed]
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Are you high or like 9 years old?
Starts Friday the 12th, here's the thread
TigerUppercut
Member
This weekend. I suck at fighting games as well but it's fun to watch high level tournament play.
I'm probably not going to watch EVO, but I have a friend this is very relevant to.
Hopefully we see some interesting play and not an hour of Jigglypuff and Young Link chasing each other.
Hopefully we see some interesting play and not an hour of Jigglypuff and Young Link chasing each other.
I don't think you understand: When you say something incredibly stupid for no reason and try to defend it as sarcasm, it doesn't automatically stop being incredibly stupid.
Are you ever going to explain what the hell you're talking about?
Are you trying to say that a stream is not a broadcast?
bobbychalkers
Member
Apparently July 12-14. Gamespot have huge coverage usually, and it looks like twitch will too.
JBtheHunter
Banned
NO! I'm tired of this. If you guys can't see it for yourself there's nothing left to discuss... not that anyone but me was actually "discussing" it in the first place.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Finally...
hahahahaha
JBtheHunter
Banned
I'm explaining the situation to you guys as if you were a bunch of half-wits who use internet/meme lingo. Apparently I needed to dumb down the explanation even more since none of you esteemed GAFfers understood it.
Understand the differences between the difference in language you've used, not sure what this has to do with Nintendo' decisions. Tbh I've joined this thread too late.
thanks guys! =)
I'll check it out, I hope
le
Professor Beef
Banned
Or you could help us out and clarify what you meant instead of taking your ball and going home.
JBtheHunter
Banned
Agreed
I think he mean that cant is definitive, while not having the permission mean that you could ask more nicely or have a group protest for it and get the permission.
But a Cant can still be reversed as we seen several time, with Sim City or Xbone.
Sorry I just saw this post so I will try to answer.
Fighting game tourneys are always evolving. What was considered a "major" back in the day probably would be equivalent to a local now or a CM (Curleh Mustache). Games change too along with their interest.
As far as EVO is concerned.. games like MVC2, CVS2, 3rd Strike have been the staples with the occasional 3D games making appearance. The appearance is generally a matter of popularity in smaller tournaments. Tekken (and to a lesser extent Soul Caliber) have never been scrubby/button mashy crap, especially after Tekken 3/Tag. Tekken 4 was easily the worst Tekken but it got an EVO appearance too. Ever since Tekken 5 the series has been a tournament staple but the numbers have been going down (relatively speaking) not because of the quality of the games but because of general disinterest.
VF also has not really dipped down in quality but it has dipped down in interest especially in the US. For the longest time Tekken has been more popular than VF in the US.
bodyboarder
Member
I'd say yes.
JBtheHunter
Banned
I'm only going to say this one more time. The actual quote says that Nintendo informed EVO that that didn't have permission to stream Melee. Apparently that means the "exact" same thing as Nintendo telling EVO that Melee simply CAN'T be streamed. People are creating their own context based on a quote that can be taken many ways.
I think the way "can't" is being used there is synonymous with not having permission.
But I'm pretty sure I know what you mean now.
This, I don't think the semantics of the quote really need to be argued here.
They (EVO) could indeed stream melee, but at the risk of pissing off Nintendo. That's why can't was used instead for the media or other readers, because the other possibilities are void.
JBtheHunter
Banned
If you look at the "le" example that I gave, it was basically an easy to understand (Or so I thought) example of how there is a difference between the two terms. Permission is something that can quickly and easily be given and taken away. Can't is an absolute term.
Good to see the decision is reversed. I think that it would help if the OP was edited with new info though.
Here's an article with links
http://www.nintendo-insider.com/2013/07/10/nintendo-reverses-evo-2013-smash-bros-melee-stream-decision/
Here's an article with links
http://www.nintendo-insider.com/2013/07/10/nintendo-reverses-evo-2013-smash-bros-melee-stream-decision/
Karsticles
Member
You are the one who does not know what is going on here. MrWizard clearly said they were not going to be able to stream it. Whatever little quote you want to analyze to death is completely irrelevant. Nintendo spoke to him, and their intentions were clear to him.
Second, "you do not have permission to" is legal jargon for a cease and desist situation. Your analogy is terrible because it relies on colloquial language. A better equivalent is the occasions computer users experience when they receive a "You do not have permission to change this file" notification. It is meant as a negative instance.
Finally, that MrWizard eventually said Smash was back on proves that Nintendo had a change of mind about the situation.
The situation is clear to everyone but you. You have no valid arguments, and you are insulting to the posters here without any justifiable reason. I encourage you to leave the website and find a place to post where you can be surrounded by other geniuses like yourself.
I think the difference example was good, but the way you set it out with the 'le' kind was very odd. Like a political cartoon from the 1930's
I think you're looking way too much into the quote they gave and the interpretations that the other members of media/readers gave instead
The differences in the terms would be much more important in other cases, but no so much with this.
JBtheHunter
Banned
And yet they are, like magic. That's the nature of permission. Nintendo did not deny EVO the right to stream Melee like they are denying the reversal of their region-locking policies. It's a matter of clarification, I believe.
Semantics are stupid.
EVO was going to stream Smash, Nintendo did not give them the permission to do such a thing.
It's the fact that they did not give them the permission to stream in the first place that is stupid. Stupid enough for even Nintendo to understand that it was stupid, and reverse the decision.
Whether or not EVO asked first is besides the point. Even if Nintendo had just said, "hey, we're not giving you permission", EVO would still then have to ask for permission, and then get denied in order for them to come back to us and tell us that they were not allowed to run it. I have no clue what's being argued here. The "le" example given, denies the fact that the mother "nintendo" answered the child "EVO", with "you cannot" at some point for them to issue the message they did yesterday.
Defending them, at this point, when they clearly acknowledged that this was an unfavorable move by reversing the decision, is really, really shortsighted.
EVO was going to stream Smash, Nintendo did not give them the permission to do such a thing.
It's the fact that they did not give them the permission to stream in the first place that is stupid. Stupid enough for even Nintendo to understand that it was stupid, and reverse the decision.
Whether or not EVO asked first is besides the point. Even if Nintendo had just said, "hey, we're not giving you permission", EVO would still then have to ask for permission, and then get denied in order for them to come back to us and tell us that they were not allowed to run it. I have no clue what's being argued here. The "le" example given, denies the fact that the mother "nintendo" answered the child "EVO", with "you cannot" at some point for them to issue the message they did yesterday.
Defending them, at this point, when they clearly acknowledged that this was an unfavorable move by reversing the decision, is really, really shortsighted.
I'm getting tired of this console war fanboy crap stifling every discussion. I wasn't defending Nintendo at all here, I was pissed off at them. You selectively missed those posts when you tried to "call me out", oddly.
Darryl said:
Darryl said:
I don't even know what calling people out for Nintendo avatars is supposed to mean. This was an event that upset hardcore Nintendo fans, the ones still interested in their games after over a decade. I'm using a GameCube avatar for a GameCube game tournament, If I don't have street cred to discuss this then who is supposed to? I don't think in black-and-white. I don't have preformed console war agendas before I go into a discussion. Being called out twice for this in a thread that shouldn't even be about console wars is just ridiculous.
I think the difference example was good, but the way you set it out with the 'le' kind was very odd. Like a political cartoon from the 1930's
I think you're looking way too much into the quote they gave and the interpretations that the other members of media/readers gave instead
Yeah, I take back what I said about it being nonsensical (because I went back and read it again and it made sense), but it sure isn't very straightforward. And even though I get it, I don't agree with it. I've never heard of that difference before between the two terms, and I still think in the given context, they mean the exact same thing.
I think the difference example was good, but the way you set it out with the 'le' kind was very odd.Like a political cartoon from the 1930'sa rage comic with memes and that
I think you're looking way too much into the quote they gave and the interpretations that the other members of media/readers gave instead
The differences in the terms would be much more important in other cases, but no so much with this.
Fixed
Delusibeta
Banned
I'm guessing 4chan.
JBtheHunter
Banned
Actually they never had permission to stream it, Nintendo only informed EVO of that pre-existing fact. Nintendo didn't simply go to the people of EVO and say "We changed our minds, you can't stream Melee anymore." The way it seems to me is that Nintendo, at the last minute for whatever reason, pulled Melee out of the stream schedule in order to clarify with EVO about the business-side of things. The fact that it was at the last minute rather than around the time it was first announced makes it seem like something Nintendo was rushing to do, because it was important to them.
I've never been to 4chan at any point in my life. that place has always scared me. Never been to Reddit either, I don't even know what that is to be honest. I just keep imagining some website that's decorated with red every time I hear it.
I was gonna post earlier to ask if this was a semantics argument about "can't" vs. "the rights to broadcast," but I thought it would be too fucking stupid to be that. Who on Earth could be that petty?
It turns out it was that the whole time.
wow.
and the "le" bullshit. Am I on reddit from 5 years ago?
I am their le king since i have 2 "le"
Well if the game people play is Melee, then they are not practicing on Wii U and 3DS. People will buy used Melee Copy and play the game there, which reduce the sales for the Wii U version. Even more when Sakurai said that he do not want an another Melee, in term of competition, with Wii U and 3DS.
People want to argue, and when the decision came a favorable conclusion. Well, they still wanted to argue and turned on each other to continue the argument.
I'm not sure why everyone here is not preparing to watch their favorite streams.
The problem here is that you are also making assumptions.
The official post from EVO:
To me, this doesn't sound like Nintendo came to EVO and said "hey, our corporate policy doesn't really jive with this, let's settle some stuff on the side and then issue a statement!" This means that EVO was flat out told "you do not have permission to stream our content at your show", and therefore EVO had already begun to make changes to their stream lineup. If Nintendo had come to them with an offer, such as, we'll give you permission after negotiation, EVO would have sit tight before issuing a statement about changing anything.
Going by this, it's really pretty clear that Nintendo gave them an ultimatum (do not stream or we will enact penalties) rather than a "heads up". I work in video sales, I know how these cease and desist letters go for Nintendo. I've even seen one myself. They're pretty straightforward and non-negotiable. It's possible that's not what EVO received, but that's unlikely.
Ultimately, this is all idle speculation and we'll never fully know. Bad thing: Nintendo has really antiquated streaming policies. Good thing: They reversed their decision for EVO.
DimmuBurgerKing
Member
Non! There can be only one.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Boy has this thread turned to shit. I hope it gets locked soon. Nintendo reversed course, move on.
Avallon
Member
There's clearly two.
no! we still have some semantics to discuss!
Nah I think it's fine now.