Nintendo Takes Down Pokemon TC Hack After 8 Yrs in Dev. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;51562830]I think honestly he could've avoided a lot of this by not using the name "pokemon" or throwing around the words "official." Nintendo may have just felt that people would get confused by it being an official thing. If it stays underground, Nintendo usually hears about it one way or another but ignores it. this just went public hard with such a big announcement and release trailer and stuff. and he admits that in his tweets, i think that if it had stayed underground for just a bit longer it could've gotten out.[/QUOTE] Consider a game like [I]Stardew Valley[/I], very blatantly and very heavily inspired by the [I]Harvest Moon[/I] series made over several years by a single fan of those games unhappy with how offical channels were taking the franchise. But he didn't call it Harvest Moon: Stardew Valley, instead it was his own thing. Now, not only does it not get a DMCA takedown within days but it is even headed to Nintendo Switch. It [I]does[/I] suck to have literal years of your work taken away, but if you're using someone else's code to make a game based on someone else's characters with someone else's name - don't be surprised when they come a-knockin'.

Not to be someone who doesn't seem to care (this is still a really, really shitty outcome) or a fan theorist grasping at straws but [IMG]http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/44/800Necrozma.png/400px-800Necrozma.png[/IMG] There's probably another reason why this happened all the sudden besides Nintendo's already on-going crusade against ROM hacks and the fan-game's terms being so vague.

[QUOTE=Giraffen93;51562423]yeah i'm pretty sure i'm not getting a switch after all these ridiculous acts[/QUOTE] I'd still get one but only secondhand, because then some dude on eBay gets my money and not Nintendo.

[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;51564677]Not to be someone who doesn't seem to care (this is still a really, really shitty outcome) or a fan theorist grasping at straws but [IMG]http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/44/800Necrozma.png/400px-800Necrozma.png[/IMG] There's probably another reason why this happened all the sudden besides Nintendo's already on-going crusade against ROM hacks and the fan-game's terms being so vague.[/QUOTE] Exactly the first thing I thought, they probably don't want people to think that (for some bizarre reason) this romhack is a sun/moon sequel Or maybe interfere with trademarking? Though it's not like they've given a single shit before: [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Telefang.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;51564677]Not to be someone who doesn't seem to care (this is still a really, really shitty outcome) or a fan theorist grasping at straws but [IMG]http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/44/800Necrozma.png/400px-800Necrozma.png[/IMG] There's probably another reason why this happened all the sudden besides Nintendo's already on-going crusade against ROM hacks and the fan-game's terms being so vague.[/QUOTE] I dont understand what you are suggesting? I think Nintendo saw the trailer and shut it down like they do all fan works right?

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51565155]I dont understand what you are suggesting? I think Nintendo saw the trailer and shut it down like they do all fan works right?[/QUOTE] It's a Pokemon based on the concept of a prism

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51565155]I dont understand what you are suggesting? I think Nintendo saw the trailer and shut it down like they do all fan works right?[/QUOTE] In addition to what IliekBoxes said: Necrozma is considered to be the "mediator" between Solgaleo and Lunala (i.e: the cover Legendaries for Sun and Moon). Go back to Emerald, Platinum, and B2/W2 where the previous trio mediators (i.e: Rayquaza, Giratina, and Kyurem) were given the spotlight in those games (with the exception of Zygarde for Gen VI, much to the ire of some). As Jorori stated, either (most likely) A): They don't want people to confuse it as a sister game / sequel to Sun and Moon, and / or B): GF as of now is actually making a version called Prism, along with the trademark issues going on with that process.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51561492]Wow thats a true shame. Seems like Nintendo is only getting worse and worse about all fan creations, content, projects, etc. A real anti-consumer stance.[/QUOTE] When you don't have original games to put out, you have to protect what you have

It sucks but he had it coming, he knows very well they wouldn't allow this if he gave them a chance. And he gave them a chance, he released a public trailer for it, of course Nintendo is going to find out. This is like giving out counterfeit merchandise on Facebook and being surprised when the cops show up and confiscate it.

Someone on /VP/ leaked the game.

Can someone answer me this. Why is this app called Catch'em Monster (an app I occasionally see ads on YouTube for) able to freely use the Pokémon name and monsters freely without a penalty.

[QUOTE=Dracon;51562704]yeah, was going to be released as a patch you have to apply to a rom.[/QUOTE] That makes it fine in terms of copyright (with a good patcher that makes sure there's no original content left, at least), but he still can't use the name. Something like 'Nokèmob Prism' (with other changes to sidestep the rest of the trademarks) would most likely be impossible to legally hit, on the other hand. Anyway, if he agreed to some overreaching clause in the C&D then that may unfortunately be out too. Technically Nintendo has no legal basis to force the dev to completely stop making fanhacks, but if there's a contract to that end then that may cause issues. [editline]22nd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=redBadger;51566215]Can someone answer me this. Why is this app called Catch'em Monster (an app I occasionally see ads on YouTube for) able to freely use the Pokémon name and monsters freely without a penalty.[/QUOTE] I assume they just plain haven't been caught yet (or only use non-trademarked mons with all-original assets, which would make them impervious in terms of copyright and I assume much harder to attack for trademark violation). Which brings me to the next issue: If you make a really complex romhack like this, you might as well make a completely original game out of it. That way you could even sell it. Sure, it would be blatantly obvious what it's based on to everyone who's played the original even a bit, but in legal terms that doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE=redBadger;51566215]Can someone answer me this. Why is this app called Catch'em Monster (an app I occasionally see ads on YouTube for) able to freely use the Pokémon name and monsters freely without a penalty.[/QUOTE] 1. They [I]have[/I] been taken down before, multiple times. They simply repost the game to the Google Play Store under a new name (and usually only for some Asian regions). 2. They're in China. [editline]22nd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Snakebot;51566094]Someone on /VP/ leaked the game.[/QUOTE] When you start it up, the date setup defaults to December 25th. ;_;

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51566378]That way you could even sell it. Sure, it would be blatantly obvious what it's based on to everyone who's played the original even a bit, but in legal terms that doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE] I think it depends on the franchise. There are plenty of Diablo clones that are pretty successful because people generally come to those games for the gameplay before anything else. But with Pokemon, there are hundreds of specific characters that people will want to see, and a Chinese-bootleg-style Pikachu wouldn't cut it. The thing I don't get about this (really in all cases like this) is, since they weren't planning to make money off of their fan game, what do they stand to lose by leaking it later on anyway? Change the name from Prism to something else, remove all traces of your name from it, even upload it from a public computer instead of your home to be even more safe? It seems like shit like this would be so easy to leak, regardless of what Nintendo threatens and how they're involved. If the guy doesn't leave any hard evidence that he made/uploaded the product that gets "leaked" then are they still able to sue him?

I don't know a whole lot about it, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but if Nintendo has to do all this in order to protect their IPs, how come other companies can freely accept it and even encourage it without any consequences? SEGA are always talking about how great fan content is. Just curious.

[QUOTE=Loofiloo;51566583]I think it depends on the franchise. There are plenty of Diablo clones that are pretty successful because people generally come to those games for the gameplay before anything else. But with Pokemon, there are hundreds of specific characters that people will want to see, and a Chinese-bootleg-style Pikachu wouldn't cut it. [...][/QUOTE] It's perfectly possible to make a (blatant) style copy of something Nintendo and have people come to it for that. A good example would be [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/339200/"]Oceanhorn[/URL], which looks, sounds and feels [I]very[/I] Zelda-like (but actually is a pretty different game, art and, to [I]some[/I] extent, story aside). The specific characters and the backwards compatibility are certainly a larger part of the experience with Pokémon than with Zelda, but there's [I]a lot[/I] more to the franchise than that. Things that are perfectly fine to copy are for example: - common story aspects - visual style - music/audio style - most likely all of the battle system, but not content (as long as you don't base it on the original's code) - the whole pokédex aspect (by another name of course) - battling with friends - discovering new pokémon that you haven't seen before - just about any [I]mechanic[/I] I haven't thought of just now Something that [I]may[/I] be an issue are design patents on core mechanics, but those seem to expire after 14-15 years in the US and [I]a lot[/I] of what you see in Pokémon games had individually been done by other games and by other companies before it appeared in them.

[QUOTE=Vegetable;51566695]I don't know a whole lot about it, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but [B]if Nintendo has to do all this in order to protect their IPs[/B], how come other companies can freely accept it and even encourage it without any consequences? SEGA are always talking about how great fan content is. Just curious.[/QUOTE] Put simply: They don't. ROM hacks are usually distributed as patches, which don't contain any of the original developer's copyrighted code or trademarked symbols. Fan games do exist in a legal gray area (often using trademarked symbols but being distributed for free), but one would have to somehow demonstrate that a fan game is taking sales away from the original IP or hurting the IP's image in some way in order to be considered outright infringement. There's an important distinction to make here, since [I]so[/I] many people get this wrong: Only [I]trademarks[/I] have to be actively defended in order to keep them. [I]Copyrights[/I] do not. If you made something, then you're pretty much the owner of its copyright for as long as a copyright can possibly last according to copyright law. A trademark has to be formally registered with a trademark office, and that office expects you to uphold your power over that trademark for you to keep it. The supposed problem with Pokemon Prism is that it was advertised with the Pokemon trademark on full display, with official-looking boxart and a trailer. The ROM hack itself may not contain the trademark and it's not even a product being [I]traded[/I], but Nintendo's lawyers came across the dev's site and found the trademark being used as if to advertise a product. Time to rev up that C&D. It can be debated whether the C&D even holds water, but the main problem isn't whether or not it's legitimate. Sadly, it's about who has the most money. If Nintendo decided to bring a lawsuit down on this guy, he would lose simply because he probably couldn't afford the thousands of dollars in legal fees getting dropped on his head by a massive multinational company. The C&D is basically just Nintendo's lawyers saying "do as we say or you'll find yourself in a very deep hole with a very small shovel".

[QUOTE=Vegetable;51566695]I don't know a whole lot about it, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but if Nintendo has to do all this in order to protect their IPs, how come other companies can freely accept it and even encourage it without any consequences? SEGA are always talking about how great fan content is. Just curious.[/QUOTE] I'd say that in this case Nintendoesn't either, since the ROM hack was distributed as patch. If they just wanted to be on the safe side, they could require fan content to have 'unofficial' and links to the official games plastered all over it for example. In legal terms, you can issue blanket licenses to let others use your IP (or parts of it) under a set of rules. I have no idea how SEGA handles it in particular, though. The main danger arises if a trademark becomes generic, which for example Google may be dangerously close to in terms of it being used as verb. I assume this may also happen if 'Pokémon' became a genre name, but there are certainly ways to avoid that even while allowing fan games. Copyright and patents (as opposed to trademarks) [I]don't[/I] have to be protected in this way, since works and inventions themselves can't become generic. Companies can grant blanket licenses or just choose to not persecute asset use to some extent if they prefer to keep fan creators in a legal grey area (which gives them more freedom to act on infringements as they see fit). It's really just a matter of company policy. Nintendo has the right to shut down fan games (advertised) like this and they use it. SEGA also has that right, but they use a very different approach (and in general seem to be a lot more connected to the community now, even if they don't make as polished experiences as Nintendo).

[QUOTE=redBadger;51562287]Meanwhile companies like Sega actively promote fan mods and games. Nintendo needs to get over themselves.[/QUOTE] Yeah but to be fair, 10-year-old modders can make a better Sonic game than Sega can so