-DEMISE-

@MetaRyan Yeah let's have Nintendo emulate Sega's business practices from now on. Great idea lolol

@Enigk Did you know that if you cover a song without permission, you are technically breaking the law? Especially if you're making money off of it. If you come across a cover in an official context, that person is most likely giving a cut of the money it generates to whoever owns the original song. Also, for every cover on youtube, there are a thousand covers that have been taken down from youtube because they were posted without permission by the original artist or publisher.

@ThanosReXXX I'm not a lawyer either, but I've had my fair share of experience with copyright/patent law, and it's just common sense to me that you can't actually expect to make a project like this without being challenged by the copyright holder. And I also know from experience that gigantic corporations only have so much in the way of resources and time in the day, which leads to blind-spots and prioritizing. For me, it's sort of an Occam's Razor scenario in that it makes more sense that Nintendo either weren't aware of the project or didn't have the ability to do much about it until it actually started circulating online than it does for Nintendo to have maliciously elected to let the project roll on to completion and THEN shut it down just so they could watch the guy squirm.

@ChuckYeah Somehow in the bizzarro world that the internet has created, that's exactly what it means.

@RandomBlue A better game than Nintendo? By remaking.... a game that Nintendo made? Yeah that makes sense. How original.

@ThanosReXXX I never said I don't admire the guy's skills as a programmer, but don't overstate it- this is a remake. It's not a new game, it's not a parody, and it clearly didn't make enough changes to qualify as anything resembling fair use. And I don't know where people are getting that "8 years" figure. Everything I can find about the project says it started in 2012. But what difference does it make? If Nintendo knew about it before now and had the ability to do anything about it, do you seriously believe that they wouldn't have done so? How does it make sense in your mind that they would let the project go on right up until launch, and then shut it down, presumably just so they could screw with someone? For fun or something? I don't get it.

@PanurgeJr Because Nintendo are a giant corporation, which in the minds of your average entitled gamer equates to "the embodiment of evil", and they therefore don't deserve to protect their copyrights. The bigger you are, the more you deserve to be robbed blind.

@ThanosReXXX I think it's very safe to say that Nintendo didn't know this remake even existed until very recently. There are probably hundreds of similar "remakes" and fan projects being posted online every single year, so it's not really realistic to expect that Nintendo will be aware of every single one of them, or even have the ability to go after all of them.

@huxxny Were Nintendo even aware that this remake existed? For all you know, this thing wasn't even on Nintendo's radar until it started getting coverage like three days ago.

@goonow How would this have any impact on Federation Force? They're not even remotely similar or related in any way other than the word "Metroid". Also, have you played Federation Force? Read any reviews for it? No? Then how do you know it's bad? (hint: you don't)

How is this "sad"? I can't imagine these people actually expected any different outcome. This is what companies like Nintendo do, and the way copyright laws work. I have zero sympathy for someone who decides to dedicate their life to revamping the graphics of someone else's game and giving it away instead of just making their own game. But don't pretend that Nintendo are somehow unique in their desire to keep the things they created and own under their control. Anyone who's ever actually made something original and had it stolen can probably agree with that.

@huxxny Oh boo freaking hoo. You don't like Nintendo telling someone they can't give their games away for free? Games which Nintendo are still selling through Virtual console, by the way. Go ahead and make a game and let someone else slap a new engine on it and give it away and we'll see if you feel the same way.

@IPrino No hostility intended. I just honestly think it's funny that so many people are freaking out at the prospect of NX using a chip that 99.99% of those people probably haven't even heard of, and probably don't really understand now that they have heard of it.

@gatorboi352 As usual, your comments are full of assumptions and conclusions based on nothing, and everything you post contradicts something else you posted. Which is it, NX is too weak, or NX is too powerful? Is it the next Wii or the next Vita? And no, I'm not a member of the imaginary "NDF" that you keep referring to, unless the "N" stands for "Not-an-irrational-idiot".

But you know, that begs the question- why are you even on this site? I mean you know it's specifically dedicated to all things Nintendo and Nintendo fans, so if people choose to defend Nintendo on this site, what's it to you? I mean seriously, why waste your precious dial-up data on a site dedicated to something you clearly hate when you could be using it to order a new tin roof for your lean-two, or to sign up for a dating service so you can finally find a girlfriend that doesn't attend the same family reunions as you?

@MrHaggi A "hybrid" system is what people have been asking for since Wii U came out, and it's what a lot of gaming sites, including this one, have been speculatively referring to in their stories for about that long. And that's because it's a phenomenally good idea for Nintendo to make a machine that can play console-quality games, but be fully portable, which was everyone's pipe dream with the Wii U gamepad.

@gatorboi352 That's not really an answer or an explanation, but okay. I sincerely hope you do just that.

@IPrino Did you even know what a Tegra X1 was before the NX eurogamer "leak"? And do you even know the difference between it and X2 now that you've heard of it?

@gatorboi352 Go ahead and explain to me how Nintendo's history of nothing but success in the handheld segment, which goes back like thirty years, supports your claim that their next handheld will be "dead on arrival", yet refutes my claim that a Nintendo handheld has "a better chance for success on the market" at this point than a home console would. I'd honestly love to know how you came to that ingenious conclusion, which no one else has ever come to.

Oh, and also explain how Tegra X1 will mean "no 3rd party support." Because you come off less as someone who knows a lot about this sort of thing, and more as a semi-literate shake-n-bake-addicted redneck from Tallahassee, but feel free to change my mind.

Very interesting indeed. Game Theorists did a neat little video about this. Only a few minutes long, and worth a watch, I think.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKVNp6n9rw

@gatorboi352 Hybrid doesn't equate to home-console first, which is how you're treating it. You need to get that idea out of your head. It's not a traditional home console. It's a portable that outputs to your tv, which is totally fine if it has Tegra soc, even if it's X1.

And it's honestly baffling that you think a Nintendo handheld is "doa" because that assessment flies in the face of what virtually everyone inside the industry and any gamers who know Nintendo's history have been saying for years, which is that Nintendo should focus on the handheld market first and foremost. Because as everyone knows, their handhelds ALWAYS perform better on the market than their home consoles. Your judgment of the situation is such an outlier to the consensus that I don't think you'll find anyone who takes you seriously, except for maybe a few trolls and people who just generally don't know what they're talking about.

@Camilla They've also said that they won't sell a system at a loss, which they'd be more likely to have to do if they went with a brand new chip like X2 vs an older one. But X1 is still a good chip. It is not bad for a handheld by any means. And besides, Nintendo would probably be getting some custom variation on whatever processors they end up using anyway, so even if it's based on X1 the specs could be different than the standard model X1.

@Camilla Right, which is why X1 is more likely for the system. Its age means it will be significantly cheaper for Nintendo.

@faint Ah. It seemed like you were saying the use of flash was a bad choice, so thanks for clarifying.

@Octane What? Not even close. That ad slogan had nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the systems it related to. It was just a good bit of marketing that had more to do with the creativity and design philosophy of the games than the specs of the systems they ran on.

NES was made with a weak chipset who's architecture was already like a decade old by the time that system released, and SNES was arguably weaker than Genesis. N64 was restricted by lack of RAM and the fact that it used outdated cartridge tech. GameCube was powerful enough, but Nintendo deliberately hobbled it by making it compatible with tiny proprietary discs to arbitrarily restrict game file size. And Nintendo's handhelds have never been powerful by any standard contemporary to the time they're released in.

@Camilla Yeah hopefully. I'm sure it'll come down to price point for Nintendo, but we'll see what happens.

@gatorboi352 If it's the X1... what? X1 is more than capable enough for a handheld console. I love how people like you seem to think Tegra X2 is somehow the only chance NX has at being a capable system just based on the ill-informed internet commentary you've encountered and are now parroting, when you clearly don't know much (or anything) about either chip.

@faint Flash is generally the only type of memory you're going to see in mobile devices such as phones and tablets. Also, solid-state drives use flash, including the NAND type mentioned in this article. It's not like this thing is going to be running off a usb junk drive or something.

@Ichiyama You haven't met gatorboi yet, have you? He alone supplies more than enough of the "typical Internet" that this site is otherwise mostly devoid of.

This thing is neat and all (I'm a sucker for miniature anything), but why would I "get bored" of the games on the official NES Mini at this point just because they happen to be permanently grouped together on one device? The whole point is that those 30 games are classics, so if people aren't bored of them after like 30 years of being on the market and have enough interest in them to buy them in spite of their age, then I doubt they'll get bored of those games to the point that they'll never "return to the machine" they happen to be stored on. Just my take on it, though.

Also, people can't be serious in thinking that Nintendo should have done something like this for the NES Classic. It's one thing to say how cool this thing is, but that doesn't mean that it's "better" than Nintendo's product. The two things are different and would appeal to different types of people, and Nintendo's system is clearly likely to sell more units just based on its ease of use. If this were a purchasable product it would mainly appeal to an enthusiast market, which isn't at all what Nintendo are aiming for. They're going after a market of people who are mostly what we think of as "casuals" who want to relive the good old days in a cheap and highly convenient way that's as easy to use as the games folder on their iPhones, which a miniature NES with pre-installed games is perfect for. It doesn't take any setting up, no messing with swapping media, and it doesn't take up a ton of space with its 30 cartridges, which will eat into shelf space on an entertainment center even if they are small. I mean no offense to the guy that made this, because it's awesome, but it defeats the whole point of Nintendo's philosophy behind selling a miniature plug-and-play NES, which boils down to little commitment of space in the living room, and little hassle to use it.

@stalepie I didn't know it even had a first-person mode! I'll have to try that out. I played through most of Star Fox Zero in first-person/cockpit view, and it definitely made it much easier for me.

@rjejr I haven't played a DS game on Wii U VC in a while, but I'm pretty sure they have the screen-smoothing feature, which really helps quite a bit in getting rid of the jaggies. I mean it's not a major overhaul in image quality, but it's something.

@Moon Yeah that's true. I wonder if there'll be any shared games between the Wii U eShop and whatever the NX will get, which I assume will be its own version of the eShop. There's just so many awesome games that are download-only on Wii U and it would be a shame to see them be basically forgotten when NX comes around.

@Moon Yeah at this point I would say it's definitely late in the game to be buying an external drive for Wii U haha. I actually didn't have any plans to buy one, but then I replaced a laptop HD and ended up with a 500GB drive just sitting there, so I ordered a case and y-cable for like $7 and boom, external hard drive for practically nothing. And it works flawlessly.

@Moon You can get very small external hard drives. I actually built my own out of an old laptop HD I wasn't using, and it is basically invisible back there. Just sayin'.

I downloaded this game the other night, and I like most of what I saw of it. The art-style and music are great, and sort of remind me of a very colorful version of Tron. And I love basic arcade shooters, so on the whole it's in the vein of something I would love. But then I got to "The Box" and the wheels fell off. It really does feel like the ship just can't turn sharply enough for this level. I played it a handful of times, but it was way too frustrating for me to want to keep trying and dying on it. Not sure if or when I'll give it another shot, but that level really does suck.

TURBOTASTIC!

@gatorboi352 Ummmmmmm yeah. That is what you said. Here, I'll quote you since you apparently forgot what you said: "Two Tribes, of ALL developers, being left in the dark STILL to this day on what NX will be is the most concerning piece of info in the whole article. I don't have high hopes for NX at this point. Too many unknowns and the fact that next to nothing is out about it when it's supposedly dropping in March can't bode well."

So you're essentially saying that you don't expect NX to be good/sell well, and you cite a (basically) defunct indie developer's supposed lack of inside knowledge of NX as evidence for your opinion. Sooo back you go to the white trash meth den that is the playstation site that accidentally led you here.

@Wolfgabe I know. I don't get some of these people.

@gatorboi352 Are you actually being serious right now? Yeah dude, the NX is going to be a failure because Nintendo (allegedly) hasn't informed Two Tribes, a diminutive and insignificant indie developer that announced like two years ago that they're going out of business after their next game, what the system will be like. "Hey guys, we know you're not going to exist as a developer by the time our next console comes out, but we really want to tell you about our super secret console that's releasing after you go out of business!" And again, why are you on a site about Nintendo if you hate Nintendo as much as all your comments suggest you do?

Does anyone actually take this guy seriously? He's as famous for being an idiot as he is for anything else. And anyway, I've spent zero dollars on Pokemon GO, and yet I've had significantly more fun than I would if I had paid $10 to go see one of his movies. And I haven't even had that much fun with Pokemon GO so that's saying a lot.

@happylittlepigs Half-assed argument? What argument? I never made an argument one way or the other. My entire point all along has been that it is crazy/wrong/useless/really bizarre/dumb to condemn a company, in this case Nintendo, for doing something that no one has even hinted at, and for which there is not one single shred of evidence. Your response was to give me a lengthy lecture and dissertation on fair use. If you can't see why that's condescending, that's not my problem, but you might want to make an effort of finding out why so you can avoid coming off as a dbag in the future.

And since you apparently missed it, Kirk is basing his reaction to this on his own emotions because he was apparently bullied by Warner Bros., but other than that he has nothing to go on here. And his reactions to any and every story this site posts involving copyright or trademark or patent or anything of the like are utterly predictable in their similarity to his reaction to this one in that he ALWAYS sides with what he considers to be the "little guy" no matter how indefensible that side is because his personal bias, which is glaringly obvious, drives him in that direction whether he realizes it or not. So hitching your wagon to that probably isn't wise.

@Kirk Do you not see the differences between your case and this one? Yours was about the use of a single, commonly-used word, which you were using in a context that didn't infringe on Warner's use of the word, and you weren't directly profiting from your use of the word. This case is about a book of full-page images of Nintendo's characters, which they own not just as it pertains to their use in games, but in any use of their respective likenesses, and it is directly generating income off of those characters. I mean it's great that you were able to face Warner Bros. and come out ahead, because their claim was clearly bs, but it's almost entirely dissimilar to this story.

I also think your case is making you at least a little manic in your reaction to stories like this, but maybe that's just the Scotsman/ginger in you. I'm not partial to either side here, so I'm not trying to "sweep it under the rug" or let Nintendo get away with murder, I just think you're being a touch dramatic and letting your personal experiences cloud your ability to rationally judge this case and others like it.

@Kirk How does my take on the issue have any impact on the outcome of this particular case? It doesn't. What I think or believe has no bearing on this case. The ball keeps rolling regardless of what I feel, and I'm not in a position to stop it or advance it. I'm not a lawmaker, and I'm not a lawyer for either side of this case. Go write to your parliament representatives or whatever it is you guys have over there and lobby for copyright reform, since you obviously disagree with the existing legislation on this issue.

@Kirk Um, yes. It is definitely more wrong to accuse someone of doing something wrong or breaking the law when you have zero evidence to support your accusation than it is to assume they're innocent because you have zero evidence to the contrary. That is why in justice systems in countries like the United States, for example, innocence is the baseline, i.e. Innocent until proven guilty. And since you're the only one here that's just outright concluded that one side has blatantly done something wrong, you're the only one here who has violated that principle. But hey, at least you're consistent.

@Kirk Congratulations on winning your case, but this conversation is just going around in circles now. My overall point is not that every single use of Nintendo's material is automatically illegal, or that it's impossible for fair use to protect a project like this book; it's that you are wrong for automatically jumping to the conclusion that Nintendo have done something wrong before you even know what it is that they've actually done, if anything, and that your reason for making that assumption is that you're emotionally predisposed against large companies, and I guess now we know why.

@happylittlepigs Oh wow. I'm sure you felt like you'd be impressing people by posting an entire wikipedia article in your comment, but the end result is that you are simply annoying. First, it's really none of your business how or why I know just about every conceivable angle of "fair use" as it relates to software and quite a bit about its application in art, but trust me when I say that I absolutely have zero need of schooling in this subject by the denizens of Internet U.

And I promise you that no case that hinges on fair use is ever a straightforward affair, they're never easily resolved, and the process almost always leans in favor of the original copyright holder. So even if you THINK your little pet project is a black and white case of fair use, it will be a steep hill to climb if you ever have to prove as much when challenged. And also trust me when I say, as someone who's had to sit through a painful amount of arbitration over copyright disputes, that your "conclusions" are almost all completely wrong. Just horribly, horribly wrong. As in please don't tell me you have aspirations to become a patent attorney or something, because yikes. (hint: Nintendo's copyrights cover their characters, their names, and their respective likenesses, not just the games they appear in )

As for the rest of your comment, it's virtually pointless, because like I've already said damn near a dozen times just to Kirk, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT KIND OF DEAL (if any) WAS MADE BETWEEN NINTENDO AND THE PUBLISHER OF THIS BOOK. Do you understand that? Because this entire thread revolves around the fact that people like Kirk, and now you, can't seem to comprehend that concept. I could go ahead and write you a few thousand words on why that is, but I don't like to come off as condescending, so hopefully you can figure it out on your own.

@Kirk I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but okay, I'll say it again: we have no idea what kind of agreement was made here, or if Nintendo is taking a cut. You're just jumping to that conclusion because you like having a reason to vent your righteous indignation. So tell me, how am I supposed to defend something that I don't know a single detail about? Anything I could say would be based on hypothetical scenarios, and that's a waste of time, so I'll pass.

@Kirk I've acknowledged fair use several times in my replies to you, so it's odd that you seem to think I'm unaware of the concept. Anyway, I'm not misinterpreting what you've said. You've made it clear a thousand times in this article and countless others what your stance is by jumping to the conclusion that Nintendo are in the wrong every single time their copyrights come into question. We get it, you dislike authority/large corporations/people who defend large corporations blah blah blah. The problem is that you always let your own personal bias against anyone and anything that happens to be in a position of power predetermine your assessment of every single story like this before you've even heard a single detail that would support your conclusions. It smacks of irrationality and entitlement, and it gets old, I'm afraid.

Alex's best work yet.

@Kirk You seem to be missing the entire point of this conversation, which conversation (since we don't know what kind of agreement was made) is a purely hypothetical one, and the point is that you are literally saying that Nintendo are not entitled to make money off of their own property, but another for-profit entity IS entitled to make money off of Nintendo's property. It really is that black and white.

Fair use is routinely murky and difficult to navigate. It is NOT always black and white, cut and dry. But if this book is covered by that, then that will ultimately bear itself out. But that doesn't mean that you will or should have a clear path to the bank when you're selling something that is built on top of copyrighted material that you don't own, because you will ALWAYS run into speed-bumps when you start trying to profit off of work that someone else owns. If you can't see that, then you might just be lacking a conscience.