How do grown ass adults look at this and think anything other than “damn, that’s pretty cool!”? Literally nobody and no company has any conceivable money to lose over this and couldn’t convince me otherwise. Law should have nothing to do with all this pussyfooting about legality.
Valve removed it because it used official N64 APIs that Nintendo holds as classified information. I think if it had totally been bottom-up crafted from scratch, it would have survived. But Valve does NOT wanna deal with a Nintendo lawyer.
Wait but why is Valve involved at all, then? Not like it’s their fault that some people they have nothing to do with are building a game based on those APIs, so shouldn’t Nintendo approach the developers of the port directly instead?
Nintendo sues everyone they encounter in the faintest context of their IP with the power of a thousand suns. See also, the failed launch if Dolphin on Steam. Valve is justifiably cautious here.
Yes, Nintendo is stupid. They see capitalism as a zero-sum game, and so any time someone has or keeps their own money, that’s the same as Nintendo losing that money, so they do whatever they’re legally able to do to ruin people financially, going as far as taking 30% of your income for the rest of your life if you do wrong by them.
No but Nintendo is fiercely protective of all of its IP. We know there’s not really harm being done here but it is within their rights to block this and that is the road they always choose.
Why do grown adults keep using IP copyrighted by big companies? Unofficial ports, unofficial remakes, unofficial sequels, etc. get taken down all the time and yet constantly the creators think “no, my project is special. It’ll be spared that fate” and almost every time they’re wrong.
A Portal-like game without using Portal assets and Valve had no leg to stand on…
A Portal-like game without using Portal assets and Valve had no leg to stand on…
This wasn’t taken down because it was based on Portal. It has nothing to do with Portal or Valve, really. It was taken down becuase it uses the official N64 SDK, which is still for some reason considered “confidential.” Valve said to take it down either under duress from Nintendo, or because Valve expected to be under duress from Nintendo and didn’t want to be. If it had used the libdragon API library instead of Nintendo’s official one, then this wouldn’t have happened and Nintendo would have been told to bite rocks.
You have no clue. It was Valve who issued the DMCA takedown. Yes, based on the wrong argument that APIs are copyrighted by Nintendo but Valve cannot take down random software. They are only involved because it uses Portal assets.
How do grown ass adults look at this and think anything other than “damn, that’s pretty cool!”? Literally nobody and no company has any conceivable money to lose over this and couldn’t convince me otherwise. Law should have nothing to do with all this pussyfooting about legality.
Valve removed it because it used official N64 APIs that Nintendo holds as classified information. I think if it had totally been bottom-up crafted from scratch, it would have survived. But Valve does NOT wanna deal with a Nintendo lawyer.
Classified?
Wait but why is Valve involved at all, then? Not like it’s their fault that some people they have nothing to do with are building a game based on those APIs, so shouldn’t Nintendo approach the developers of the port directly instead?
Valve holds the copyright to Portal, so Nintendo probably just “encouraged” them to pull some strings.
Nintendo sues everyone they encounter in the faintest context of their IP with the power of a thousand suns. See also, the failed launch if Dolphin on Steam. Valve is justifiably cautious here.
Right, but what the heck is up with Nintendo clinging into ancient obsolete stuff? They’re not stupid right?
Yes, Nintendo is stupid. They see capitalism as a zero-sum game, and so any time someone has or keeps their own money, that’s the same as Nintendo losing that money, so they do whatever they’re legally able to do to ruin people financially, going as far as taking 30% of your income for the rest of your life if you do wrong by them.
No but Nintendo is fiercely protective of all of its IP. We know there’s not really harm being done here but it is within their rights to block this and that is the road they always choose.
Why do grown adults keep using IP copyrighted by big companies? Unofficial ports, unofficial remakes, unofficial sequels, etc. get taken down all the time and yet constantly the creators think “no, my project is special. It’ll be spared that fate” and almost every time they’re wrong.
A Portal-like game without using Portal assets and Valve had no leg to stand on…
This wasn’t taken down because it was based on Portal. It has nothing to do with Portal or Valve, really. It was taken down becuase it uses the official N64 SDK, which is still for some reason considered “confidential.” Valve said to take it down either under duress from Nintendo, or because Valve expected to be under duress from Nintendo and didn’t want to be. If it had used the libdragon API library instead of Nintendo’s official one, then this wouldn’t have happened and Nintendo would have been told to bite rocks.
You have no clue. It was Valve who issued the DMCA takedown. Yes, based on the wrong argument that APIs are copyrighted by Nintendo but Valve cannot take down random software. They are only involved because it uses Portal assets.
I think you need to read the comment you replied to again.
Here’s the bullet points:
Valve doesn’t want Nintendo getting involved
Valve think Nintendo will get involved because the project is using confidential Nintendo code
Valve think Nintendo may litigate (or are already) against them because Portal is Valve’s IP
Valve want it down so Nintendo can’t mistake it to be Valve’s responsibility and so Valve don’t get the blame
Valve is only involved because the game uses Valve’s assets. It’s not so hard to understand. Nintendo didn’t even issue the takedown. Valve did.
Neither I or the person you replied to have said Nintendo have issued this takedown. That is not what we said