5 ms·

Nintendo seems to go through these litigious cycles every once in a while. I wonder if this is them asserting their IP as part of a larger strategy to focus att

by bane 2y ago

Nintendo seems to go through these litigious cycles every once in a while. I wonder if this is them asserting their IP as part of a larger strategy to focus attention on an upcoming system launch?

harles 2y ago
I think this misses the point of the article, which is that a third party is filing fake DMCA notices in Nintendo’s name.
- ohmyiv 2y ago
  The end of the article has an update of a post from Garry saying that the takedown notices are legitimate.
keiferski 2y ago
They have only recently started allowing their IP to be used for non-game products, like the recent Mario movies. My guess is that they are being litigious again because they want to avoid any confusion between sponsored and non-sponsored products.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  As usual, it’s also worth remembering that compared to their competition: - Nintendo is the most reliant on their own IP for sales - Nintendo does not have a corporate giant to absorb any misfires - Nintendo is the smallest gaming giant, at half the value of Sony, and less than a tenth the value of Microsoft - Nintendo has the greatest dependency on maintaining an image of being family-friendly. Shock content wouldn’t muster a single headline for a Microsoft IP, but could be national news if it involves Yoshi and causes suicidal thoughts in a 6 year old All of this adds up to a more strict attitude.
- garciansmith 2y ago
  Only recently? They've had non-game products for decades. They had branded breakfast cereal back in the late '80s, the Mario, Zelda, and Captain N cartoons, the first Super Mario Bros. movie was released in 1993, etc.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    I should have said, "re-allowed." But yes, and after that first movie, Nintendo really didn't want to let anyone else near their IP for a long, long time. The Acquired episodes on Nintendo are great btw, and cover this extensively: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo-the-console-wars https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo-the-console-wars From Wikipedia: Released on May 28, 1993, Super Mario Bros. was a critical and financial failure, grossing $38.9 million worldwide against a budget of $42–48 million. Though appearing on several lists of the worst films ever made, it has developed a following over the years,[9][10] and has been reappraised by some as a cult classic for being "so bad it's good".[11][12][13] In 2013, a webcomic sequel was produced in collaboration with Bennett. After Super Mario Bros., Nintendo would not license another film based on the Super Mario game series for 30 years, until an animated reboot titled The Super Mario Bros. Movie was released on April 5, 2023. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film)

by bane 2y ago

Nintendo seems to go through these litigious cycles every once in a while. I wonder if this is them asserting their IP as part of a larger strategy to focus attention on an upcoming system launch?

harles 2y ago

I think this misses the point of the article, which is that a third party is filing fake DMCA notices in Nintendo’s name.

ohmyiv 2y ago
The end of the article has an update of a post from Garry saying that the takedown notices are legitimate.

keiferski 2y ago

They have only recently started allowing their IP to be used for non-game products, like the recent Mario movies. My guess is that they are being litigious again because they want to avoid any confusion between sponsored and non-sponsored products.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
As usual, it’s also worth remembering that compared to their competition: - Nintendo is the most reliant on their own IP for sales - Nintendo does not have a corporate giant to absorb any misfires - Nintendo is the smallest gaming giant, at half the value of Sony, and less than a tenth the value of Microsoft - Nintendo has the greatest dependency on maintaining an image of being family-friendly. Shock content wouldn’t muster a single headline for a Microsoft IP, but could be national news if it involves Yoshi and causes suicidal thoughts in a 6 year old All of this adds up to a more strict attitude.
garciansmith 2y ago
Only recently? They've had non-game products for decades. They had branded breakfast cereal back in the late '80s, the Mario, Zelda, and Captain N cartoons, the first Super Mario Bros. movie was released in 1993, etc.
- keiferski 2y ago
  I should have said, "re-allowed." But yes, and after that first movie, Nintendo really didn't want to let anyone else near their IP for a long, long time. The Acquired episodes on Nintendo are great btw, and cover this extensively: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo-the-console-wars https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo-the-console-wars From Wikipedia: Released on May 28, 1993, Super Mario Bros. was a critical and financial failure, grossing $38.9 million worldwide against a budget of $42–48 million. Though appearing on several lists of the worst films ever made, it has developed a following over the years,[9][10] and has been reappraised by some as a cult classic for being "so bad it's good".[11][12][13] In 2013, a webcomic sequel was produced in collaboration with Bennett. After Super Mario Bros., Nintendo would not license another film based on the Super Mario game series for 30 years, until an animated reboot titled The Super Mario Bros. Movie was released on April 5, 2023. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film)