6 ms·

Cool, seems like it would be the beginnings of a sellable game if it didn't use a bunch of Nintendo assets

by camhenlin 12y ago

vlunkr 12y ago
Assets? It's literally a clone of a Nintendo product.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Games are not copyrightable, assets are. That said, i can't see this end in anything else other than a C&D unless he actually talks to nintendo.
  - th0br0 12y ago
    Wait, in the US APIs are copyrightable but Games aren't? ...
    - icebraining 12y ago
      APIs are copyrightable? I don't think so. Oracle lost, after all. However, on the primary copyright issue of the APIs, the court ruled that "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical." The ruling found that the structure Oracle was claiming was not copyrightable under section 102(b) of the Copyright Act because it was a "system or method of operation."
      - djur 12y ago
        That ruling was overturned on appeal. From the same Wikipedia page: _The appeals court reversed the district court on the central issue, holding that the "structure, sequence and organization" of an API was copyrightable._
    - DavidAdams 12y ago
      The game's actual source code would be under copyright, but presumably you could re-write a game and exactly copy its gameplay and that wouldn't be copyright infringement any more than writing a poem using the same meter with different words as a famous poem would infringe.
      - lost_name 12y ago
        > any more than writing a poem using the same meter with different words as a famous poem would infringe This is clearly a rabbit hole of exceptions and ifs, but this somehow doesn't apply to music as well, based on the recent judgement over Blurred Lines (the song).
  - ambler0 12y ago
    This statement surprised me. Is it really true? It appears that there is conflicting precedent: "The first approach is from the 2nd circuit "The Subtractive Approach" (Altai, Nichols) and the other approach is "The Concept and Feel Approach" (Ruth Greeting Cards, Krofft)" http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Copyright_Trademark_Intellectual_Property#What%20parts%20of%20the%20video%20game%20are%20copyrightable http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Co...? I am curious to know what would happen if someone decided to clone the exact level design of a game but changed all the audio/visual assets.
    - mathgeek 12y ago
      > I am curious to know what would happen if someone decided to clone the exact level design of a game but changed all the audio/visual assets. This actually happened quite often in early generations of computer games and consoles. Super Mario Bros had quite a few clones where all that changed were the visual assets. More recently, there are many examples of this happening on the iOS App Store and other venues with a low barrier to entry.
      - ambler0 12y ago
        I seemed to recall such Mario clones as well. Nintendo is quite protective of their IP, so I have to think that they must have threatened legal action. Does anyone know? Is there precedent for legally protecting the layout of a level?
        emodendroket 12y ago
        Are these bootleg carts? Otherwise they had to approve of everything that was sold on the NES.
        ambler0 12y ago
        I think the clone I'm semi-remembering was a PC game. Regarding your second question: There were very many unlicensed Nintendo games. I don't know how many of these Nintendo fought. They very famously battled Tengen over this issue in the courts.
  - HeXetic 12y ago
    The "Mario" character is copyrighted.
    - pkaye 12y ago
      Super Maryo Chronicles
    - thirsteh 12y ago
      And trademarked. Edit: and :)
      - forrestthewoods 12y ago
        Characters are subject to copyright. http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/04/copyright-in-fictional-characters-can-i.html http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/04/copyright-in-fictiona...
        thirsteh 12y ago
        Interesting.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    A concrete example: the classic game "Descent" was written by Parallax and published by Interplay. The split-up remnant of Parallax owns all of the assets -- the ship name and artwork, the name of the evil corporation, the music, the robot artwork. Interplay owns the name Descent. Anybody can make a game that flies like Descent (Sol Contingency and Geocore are both trying to), but only an Interplay-licensed company can call their game "Descent", and only a Parallax-licensed company can put in the "Pyro-GX" and the "PTMC". And there seems to be some distrust between the two companies. This has led to a fair bit of complication for the Interplay-licensed Descent:Underground game (currently on kickstarter -- https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/descendentstudios/descent-underground https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/descendentstudios/desce... ). A lot of fans are asking "where's the pyro?" Well, they can't have the pyro, because they don't have a license for that part of the game. They can make a ship that looks fairly similar and flies identically, but it has to be identifiably visually different and have a different name.
  - mksaunders 12y ago
    He should just call it Great Giana Sisters 64 HD...
    - alcari 12y ago
      Black Forest Games is still around, and making Giana Sisters games.
  - KeytarHero 12y ago
    But they are patentable (or at least elements of them can be). Konami successfully sued[1] the makers of In The Groove, a Dance Dance Revolution clone. I know parts of Mario Kart are patented[2], so I wouldn't be too surprised if parts of Super Mario 64 are patented as well, given that it pioneered the 3D platformer genre. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Corp._v._Roxor_Games_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Corp._v._Roxor_Games_Inc. [2] http://www.google.com/patents/US7278913#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents/US7278913#v=onepage&q&f=false
    - greggman 12y ago
      Yes but patents only last 17 years? Super Mario 64 is 18-19 years old
      - autoreleasepool 12y ago
        Patents can be evergreened with minor changes[0]. Pure speculation: It's possible Super Mario Sunshine(2002), Super Mario Galaxy(2007) and other Mario-like 3D could have "refreshed" any patents from Super Mario 64. That is, if any patents from Mario 64 exist. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      FWIW this http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061170445FSupp2d725_11105 http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061170445FSupp2d725_11105 appears to be the text of the decision, I couldn't find a non-commercial source for the text: gpo.gov only has N, W and S Districts of Texas for some reason. The patent in question, http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6410835 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6410835. Espacenet has it too of course, http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=2001004861A1&FT=D http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=..., but Google is better is it gives the B2 published form of the claims as opposed to the A1 first submitted form. Major fail there for the EPO's ESPACENET in my opinion. Claims 1, priority date is 24 July 1998: >"1. A dance game apparatus comprising: music output means for outputting one piece of music from at least one stored piece of music; a floor panel having a step-on base section; said step-on base section comprising a top panel and a support member which supports the panel; detection means for detecting a stepping operation on said step-on base section; said detection means comprising stepping sensors interposed between said panel and said support member at mutually opposing positions of said panel; said stepping sensors comprising longitudinally extending conductive sections having a longitudinal length, one of said conductive sections being moveable laterally relative to another of said conductive sections at any one of a plurality of positions along the longitudinal length of said one conductive section to effect contact with said other conductive sections at any one of a plurality of corresponding contact positions such that said stepping sensors detect stepping on said step-on base sections at plural locations corresponding to said plurality of corresponding contact positions, guidance means for performing a stepping operation instruction to said step-on base section in time with said music; measurement means for measuring a time deviation between the timing of a stepping operation instruction and the time at which the fact that said step-on base section is stepped on is detected by said detection means; and evaluation means for providing a higher score the smaller the measurement result." // FWIW the Mario Kart patent you cite refers to methods of controlling NPC in order to provide strong rivals, avoid bunching of NPC in racing games and provide variation in race orders despite relatively fixed characteristics (acceleration and top-speed). None of that prevents you having cars with the same styles, having the same tracks, having the same end goals, having the same range of pickups and such - it only relates to specific algorithms for providing competing computer controlled cars/NPC.
  - monochromatic 12y ago
    > Games are not copyrightable I have no idea why you think this.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html This is long settled in US law. Things like art and text are copyrightable. The game itself is not.
      - forrestthewoods 12y ago
        The sentence "games are not copyrightable" isn't particularly meaningful. That does not inform what is or is not protected. The link in question does not say that games are not protected. It says, and I quote, "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game". Keyword: idea. The idea is not protected. The expression is. What is a game if not an expression of an idea? I would not call the idea for a game a game. I would call the expression of an idea a game. Therefore I would consider games protected by copyright. At least in casual conversation. When speaking in legal terms there is a lot more nuance. On one hand you can say that games are not protected. Tetris however is. And has successfully been defended us such in court. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/defining-tetris-how-courts-judge-gaming-clones/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/defining-tetris-how-co... If you re-created Mario 64 from scratch but art swapped every asset with something original you would get bitchslapped in court. Hard. The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea. If you want to make a different level using different assets but using the same mechanics of Mario 64 then that is probably acceptable. You're making your own expression. It does get a little tricky if you start copying the physics of Mario 64 precisely. There are lots of platformers. Why copy the exactly moveset from Mario 64? Why meticulously reverse engineer the physics of jumping from Mario 64? Copy too much and you run risk of losing a copyright suit as demonstrated by Tetris.
        nknighthb 12y ago
        > What is a game if not an expression of an idea? A set of rules. Such rules are potentially eligible for patent protection. They are not eligible for copyright protection. > On one hand you can say that games are not protected. Tetris however is. And has successfully been defended us such in court. I suggest you read the actual text of the Mino decision, which rests heavily on visual elements, not gameplay. I also suggest you not put too much stock in the decision of a single district court judge. District court decisions are not binding precedent. Especially ones obviously written by a judge who either doesn't understand what the functional elements of a game are, or was looking for an excuse to find for Tetris. > The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea. Those would be assets.
  - MrDosu 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure copyright isn't everything in this. Trademarks seem a much higher legal barrier for example.
  - sspiff 12y ago
    As Nintendo supports Unity on the Wii U, this would have been a great project as a tutorial for indie Wii U devs. Now though, I can't see this as being acceptable for Nintendo.
- duaneb 12y ago
  I'm not sure if you understand the video game industry, but literally every popular game is a clone of something that came before it. EDIT: This is obviously not true for some X where X is a base case of a popular game genre (e.g. Portal, Donkey Kong, Wolfenstein 3d), but it's generally true. Mario 64 is just a 3d platformer at some level, which is why it's so easy to clone.
  - gharbad 12y ago
    Portal: Narbacular Drop Wolfenstein 3d: Catacomb 3d Note- I'm not certain that the games on the right are the originators of the genre of games on the left, but they certainly came prior.
    - Chinjut 12y ago
      The games on the right certainly are the originators of the games on the left; in fact, in both cases, the developers of the game on the right were the very team which followed up by developing the game on the left.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    Either you've redefined "literally" or "cloned" to mean something they don't mean. Or both.
eloisant 12y ago
That's the thing when you get to use a powerful game engine: there is value in the game mechanisms, game assets but not so much in the code.

Cool, seems like it would be the beginnings of a sellable game if it didn't use a bunch of Nintendo assets

vlunkr 12y ago

Assets? It's literally a clone of a Nintendo product.

Mithaldu 12y ago
Games are not copyrightable, assets are. That said, i can't see this end in anything else other than a C&D unless he actually talks to nintendo.
- th0br0 12y ago
  Wait, in the US APIs are copyrightable but Games aren't? ...
  - icebraining 12y ago
    APIs are copyrightable? I don't think so. Oracle lost, after all. However, on the primary copyright issue of the APIs, the court ruled that "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical." The ruling found that the structure Oracle was claiming was not copyrightable under section 102(b) of the Copyright Act because it was a "system or method of operation."
    - djur 12y ago
      That ruling was overturned on appeal. From the same Wikipedia page: _The appeals court reversed the district court on the central issue, holding that the "structure, sequence and organization" of an API was copyrightable._
  - DavidAdams 12y ago
    The game's actual source code would be under copyright, but presumably you could re-write a game and exactly copy its gameplay and that wouldn't be copyright infringement any more than writing a poem using the same meter with different words as a famous poem would infringe.
    - lost_name 12y ago
      > any more than writing a poem using the same meter with different words as a famous poem would infringe This is clearly a rabbit hole of exceptions and ifs, but this somehow doesn't apply to music as well, based on the recent judgement over Blurred Lines (the song).
- ambler0 12y ago
  This statement surprised me. Is it really true? It appears that there is conflicting precedent: "The first approach is from the 2nd circuit "The Subtractive Approach" (Altai, Nichols) and the other approach is "The Concept and Feel Approach" (Ruth Greeting Cards, Krofft)" http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Copyright_Trademark_Intellectual_Property#What%20parts%20of%20the%20video%20game%20are%20copyrightable http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Co...? I am curious to know what would happen if someone decided to clone the exact level design of a game but changed all the audio/visual assets.
  - mathgeek 12y ago
    > I am curious to know what would happen if someone decided to clone the exact level design of a game but changed all the audio/visual assets. This actually happened quite often in early generations of computer games and consoles. Super Mario Bros had quite a few clones where all that changed were the visual assets. More recently, there are many examples of this happening on the iOS App Store and other venues with a low barrier to entry.
    - ambler0 12y ago
      I seemed to recall such Mario clones as well. Nintendo is quite protective of their IP, so I have to think that they must have threatened legal action. Does anyone know? Is there precedent for legally protecting the layout of a level?
      - emodendroket 12y ago
        Are these bootleg carts? Otherwise they had to approve of everything that was sold on the NES.
        ambler0 12y ago
        I think the clone I'm semi-remembering was a PC game. Regarding your second question: There were very many unlicensed Nintendo games. I don't know how many of these Nintendo fought. They very famously battled Tengen over this issue in the courts.
- HeXetic 12y ago
  The "Mario" character is copyrighted.
  - pkaye 12y ago
    Super Maryo Chronicles
  - thirsteh 12y ago
    And trademarked. Edit: and :)
    - forrestthewoods 12y ago
      Characters are subject to copyright. http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/04/copyright-in-fictional-characters-can-i.html http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/04/copyright-in-fictiona...
      - thirsteh 12y ago
        Interesting.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  A concrete example: the classic game "Descent" was written by Parallax and published by Interplay. The split-up remnant of Parallax owns all of the assets -- the ship name and artwork, the name of the evil corporation, the music, the robot artwork. Interplay owns the name Descent. Anybody can make a game that flies like Descent (Sol Contingency and Geocore are both trying to), but only an Interplay-licensed company can call their game "Descent", and only a Parallax-licensed company can put in the "Pyro-GX" and the "PTMC". And there seems to be some distrust between the two companies. This has led to a fair bit of complication for the Interplay-licensed Descent:Underground game (currently on kickstarter -- https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/descendentstudios/descent-underground https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/descendentstudios/desce... ). A lot of fans are asking "where's the pyro?" Well, they can't have the pyro, because they don't have a license for that part of the game. They can make a ship that looks fairly similar and flies identically, but it has to be identifiably visually different and have a different name.
- mksaunders 12y ago
  He should just call it Great Giana Sisters 64 HD...
  - alcari 12y ago
    Black Forest Games is still around, and making Giana Sisters games.
- KeytarHero 12y ago
  But they are patentable (or at least elements of them can be). Konami successfully sued[1] the makers of In The Groove, a Dance Dance Revolution clone. I know parts of Mario Kart are patented[2], so I wouldn't be too surprised if parts of Super Mario 64 are patented as well, given that it pioneered the 3D platformer genre. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Corp._v._Roxor_Games_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Corp._v._Roxor_Games_Inc. [2] http://www.google.com/patents/US7278913#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents/US7278913#v=onepage&q&f=false
  - greggman 12y ago
    Yes but patents only last 17 years? Super Mario 64 is 18-19 years old
    - autoreleasepool 12y ago
      Patents can be evergreened with minor changes[0]. Pure speculation: It's possible Super Mario Sunshine(2002), Super Mario Galaxy(2007) and other Mario-like 3D could have "refreshed" any patents from Super Mario 64. That is, if any patents from Mario 64 exist. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    FWIW this http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061170445FSupp2d725_11105 http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061170445FSupp2d725_11105 appears to be the text of the decision, I couldn't find a non-commercial source for the text: gpo.gov only has N, W and S Districts of Texas for some reason. The patent in question, http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6410835 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6410835. Espacenet has it too of course, http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=2001004861A1&FT=D http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=..., but Google is better is it gives the B2 published form of the claims as opposed to the A1 first submitted form. Major fail there for the EPO's ESPACENET in my opinion. Claims 1, priority date is 24 July 1998: >"1. A dance game apparatus comprising: music output means for outputting one piece of music from at least one stored piece of music; a floor panel having a step-on base section; said step-on base section comprising a top panel and a support member which supports the panel; detection means for detecting a stepping operation on said step-on base section; said detection means comprising stepping sensors interposed between said panel and said support member at mutually opposing positions of said panel; said stepping sensors comprising longitudinally extending conductive sections having a longitudinal length, one of said conductive sections being moveable laterally relative to another of said conductive sections at any one of a plurality of positions along the longitudinal length of said one conductive section to effect contact with said other conductive sections at any one of a plurality of corresponding contact positions such that said stepping sensors detect stepping on said step-on base sections at plural locations corresponding to said plurality of corresponding contact positions, guidance means for performing a stepping operation instruction to said step-on base section in time with said music; measurement means for measuring a time deviation between the timing of a stepping operation instruction and the time at which the fact that said step-on base section is stepped on is detected by said detection means; and evaluation means for providing a higher score the smaller the measurement result." // FWIW the Mario Kart patent you cite refers to methods of controlling NPC in order to provide strong rivals, avoid bunching of NPC in racing games and provide variation in race orders despite relatively fixed characteristics (acceleration and top-speed). None of that prevents you having cars with the same styles, having the same tracks, having the same end goals, having the same range of pickups and such - it only relates to specific algorithms for providing competing computer controlled cars/NPC.
- monochromatic 12y ago
  > Games are not copyrightable I have no idea why you think this.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html This is long settled in US law. Things like art and text are copyrightable. The game itself is not.
    - forrestthewoods 12y ago
      The sentence "games are not copyrightable" isn't particularly meaningful. That does not inform what is or is not protected. The link in question does not say that games are not protected. It says, and I quote, "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game". Keyword: idea. The idea is not protected. The expression is. What is a game if not an expression of an idea? I would not call the idea for a game a game. I would call the expression of an idea a game. Therefore I would consider games protected by copyright. At least in casual conversation. When speaking in legal terms there is a lot more nuance. On one hand you can say that games are not protected. Tetris however is. And has successfully been defended us such in court. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/defining-tetris-how-courts-judge-gaming-clones/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/defining-tetris-how-co... If you re-created Mario 64 from scratch but art swapped every asset with something original you would get bitchslapped in court. Hard. The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea. It's an expression of an idea. If you want to make a different level using different assets but using the same mechanics of Mario 64 then that is probably acceptable. You're making your own expression. It does get a little tricky if you start copying the physics of Mario 64 precisely. There are lots of platformers. Why copy the exactly moveset from Mario 64? Why meticulously reverse engineer the physics of jumping from Mario 64? Copy too much and you run risk of losing a copyright suit as demonstrated by Tetris.
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        > What is a game if not an expression of an idea? A set of rules. Such rules are potentially eligible for patent protection. They are not eligible for copyright protection. > On one hand you can say that games are not protected. Tetris however is. And has successfully been defended us such in court. I suggest you read the actual text of the Mino decision, which rests heavily on visual elements, not gameplay. I also suggest you not put too much stock in the decision of a single district court judge. District court decisions are not binding precedent. Especially ones obviously written by a judge who either doesn't understand what the functional elements of a game are, or was looking for an excuse to find for Tetris. > The layout and configuration of levels is not an idea. Those would be assets.
- MrDosu 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure copyright isn't everything in this. Trademarks seem a much higher legal barrier for example.
- sspiff 12y ago
  As Nintendo supports Unity on the Wii U, this would have been a great project as a tutorial for indie Wii U devs. Now though, I can't see this as being acceptable for Nintendo.
duaneb 12y ago
I'm not sure if you understand the video game industry, but literally every popular game is a clone of something that came before it. EDIT: This is obviously not true for some X where X is a base case of a popular game genre (e.g. Portal, Donkey Kong, Wolfenstein 3d), but it's generally true. Mario 64 is just a 3d platformer at some level, which is why it's so easy to clone.
- gharbad 12y ago
  Portal: Narbacular Drop Wolfenstein 3d: Catacomb 3d Note- I'm not certain that the games on the right are the originators of the genre of games on the left, but they certainly came prior.
  - Chinjut 12y ago
    The games on the right certainly are the originators of the games on the left; in fact, in both cases, the developers of the game on the right were the very team which followed up by developing the game on the left.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Either you've redefined "literally" or "cloned" to mean something they don't mean. Or both.

eloisant 12y ago

That's the thing when you get to use a powerful game engine: there is value in the game mechanisms, game assets but not so much in the code.