4 ms·

Its a real pity, but consider it to your advantage that this occurred, because it means that all your hard work can be pushed further into newer territory. Whi

Its a real pity, but consider it to your advantage that this occurred, because it means that all your hard work can be pushed further into newer territory. While you would have been limited by how far you can promote a Super Mario clone, now the engine can be re-purposed to something else instead - something creative, perhaps? (It wasn't something I would have considered to be terribly creative, btw: the correct word to use is derivative..) So, if you take the perspective that Nintendo are doing you a favour by pushing your next phase of development away from derivation and instead into creation, and if you do indeed re-factor the codebase to do something else, then you will have experienced a positive effect from this experience. If all you do is take it down and not think about the next generation of product that you can base on your proven, demonstrated working technology, then I think you will have kind of missed an opportunity. Of course, easier for some random stranger on the internet to say this: but if you roll your own content on top of this layer, then you'll have really made something ..

Kequc 13y ago
So since the source code is written from scratch and the only thing copied were art assets and level design. And since there is a level editor available. They would be able to release it again without prebuilt levels with different art. It's already not derivative other than cosmetically, I can understand trying to find silver lining but the whole DMCA thing is a ridiculous grey fluster cuck.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >It's already not derivative other than cosmetically // Appearance matters, form matters the moreso I'd say. If the appearance and level structure and such didn't matter there would have been no reason to duplicate them would there?
  - Kequc 13y ago
    I'd be hard pressed to come up with any way in which Nintendo was losing money here though.
    - cpayne 13y ago
      It's not about losing money. It's about protecting their brand. Precedent is a slippery slope. Once you allow the "first" to copy your product, its so much harder to fight the 2nd or 3rd attempt.
      - Kequc 13y ago
        They can licence the dude that made this html5 demo so he can use their assets.

Kequc 13y ago

So since the source code is written from scratch and the only thing copied were art assets and level design. And since there is a level editor available. They would be able to release it again without prebuilt levels with different art. It's already not derivative other than cosmetically, I can understand trying to find silver lining but the whole DMCA thing is a ridiculous grey fluster cuck.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>It's already not derivative other than cosmetically // Appearance matters, form matters the moreso I'd say. If the appearance and level structure and such didn't matter there would have been no reason to duplicate them would there?
- Kequc 13y ago
  I'd be hard pressed to come up with any way in which Nintendo was losing money here though.
  - cpayne 13y ago
    It's not about losing money. It's about protecting their brand. Precedent is a slippery slope. Once you allow the "first" to copy your product, its so much harder to fight the 2nd or 3rd attempt.
    - Kequc 13y ago
      They can licence the dude that made this html5 demo so he can use their assets.