this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
136 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30561 readers
27 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is clearly not true, Portal literally just got a huge fangame with a Steam release. the issue is entirely that it uses Nintendo stuff and the guy even says as much
This is just a corporate passing of the buck. There’s no reason to believe a third party infringing upon the properties of two parties would give the latter parties any ability or risk of going after one another.
This project was not on steam and as such was not distributed by nor associated with Valve in any way beyond infringement of IP and use of their assets. Let's not give Valve a pass just because they can lazily and baselessly say "um nintendo!" about it.
okay but this was not your initial argument--this is an entirely separate issue from it, actually. your argument was "Valve about to become as litigious as Nintendo with IP they’ve let rot." and that is demonstrably false or they wouldn't have let Portal Revolution release. if they were going to be litigious about the Portal IP, why would they DMCA Portal64 but not Revolution?
to me, this is clearly an example of incorrectly getting mad about something and then shifting the goalposts to not have to take the L.
Revolution is a mod for Portal 2 and requires the purchase of Portal 2 to play. Anyone who wants to play it has already given money to valve, or needs to. Revolution Is great for Valve, they do basically nothing and get they more sales of Portal 2. Portal64 does nothing for Valve.
There is a very clear incentive for Valve to not only allow but boost Revolution.
While Valve permits Revolution, a game that benefits the company, it does not imply they would also permit Portal64, a game that lacks benefits for Valve.
From what I read of the portal64 project it did require owning the original (or having a copy of it) because it patches the assets from the base game.
Portal64 required you to have access to one file from portal 1, portal_pak_000.vpk. It's trivial to get that file. Either via google, or purchasing Portal, extracting the file, then getting a refund.
Revolution requires a continuously working copy of Portal 2.
It's significantly easier for the general population to play Portal64 without giving money to Valve than Revolution.
Or it's hyperbole.
you run into the same issue: being hyperbolic here doesn't really work if literally the same week of your hyperbole, something directly countering the hyperbolic point you're making happens. hyperbole isn't non-falsifiable or unimpeachable just because it's hyperbole and intended to be humorous--you can still be hyperbolically wrong, and in this case you are.
Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It's a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself. In this instance it's a rhetorical device being used to communicate the idea that, were this Nintendo, they'd be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it's Valve doing the takedown.
well... now you're indicating that this kind of isn't hyperbole from you, because you're just straight arguing the underlying (and still incorrect) "hyperbolic" point now, lol
i mean i think this is just obviously ridiculous. if someone said "every person who dislikes Valve is a pedophile who hurts children" or whatever hyperbolically i think it'd be silly to say that's non-falsifiable just because it's hyperbolic. there's still an underlying and incorrect claim being made
This is nitpicky and toxic. Who cares? Bee nice.
are we seriously calling "pointing out that the argument being made has been changed in a rhetorical sleight of hand because the original argument is completely wrong" nitpicky and toxic now? come on. this is a piss take and bordering on "let's look the other way when someone is making a false argument that aligns with what i want to be true".
I feel like you should take a step back and take a look at your posts lately. You've been super combative, looking for points to cling to and attack people on. It literally looks like every angry redditor. It's a terrible look for the admin of an instance whose slogan is 'bee nice'.
While you may not agree with the tone that Alyaza used in their reply, their response is logically and factually correct and I think it's natural for someone to be upset about someone who's being deceitful with their point (whether it's done consciously or not). Furthermore, jumping into a conversation someone else is having online to call one side pedantic or toxic isn't exactly treating them with good grace or being nice. If you wanted to diffuse, you could have asked questions or treated their response as charitably as possible before jumping to conclusions about intent.
Being nice and being civil are two different things and we do not strive to be perfectly civil around here. After all, weaponizing civility is often used by the intolerant to try and tone police others. While tolerance/intolerance isn't at play here, the same mechanisms of speech are, and its fair to attribute charitability and faith based on the conversation as it unfolds. If someone is deceitful in their response, someone responding to that bad faith with less respect is to be expected.
i guess this is a bit opaque but: pretty much any (formal or informal) mod action or guidance that isn't completely self-evident (i.e. spam removal, approving users, pinning threads) has been seen by at least two or three other mods, usually more depending on who's around. that includes this informal correction from me upthread. the site-wide mod team is aware of what i said because we have a chat for vibe checking stuff like this--and straightforwardly, if they disagreed with how i responded or the substance of what i said, then the posts would not still be up because i'd delete or amend them.
Alright. There's no need to get into this here. This has nothing to do with the post anymore
Dude, someone corrected your misinformation and you call them a bully?
Check the username. Wasn't a reply to me.
It's Valve's IP and assets being utilized at the end of the day sadly, and looking at the last time they got involved with Nintendo, as well as Nintendo's hatred towards emulation and reverse engineering, I wouldn't be surprised if Valve's legal team considered the options before issuing a C&D to the two N64 fan projects.
From Nintendo's perspective these are both unlicensed homebrew, implicitly allowed by the IP owner Valve... who they were in legal correspondence to fairly recently. It would be very unwise for Valve to let this slide given the circumstances, although admittedly it is not a great outcome at all
The last time you're referring to was Valve directly distributing the project in question. That is not the reality here, nor is there any implication that Valve allows it. If Valve never issued this takedown, there'd be no reason to even believe Valve knew of this infringement nor that they were so intimately familiar with it to know Nintendo's IP was also being infringed upon.
That's a mod.
You don't know what mods are?
ask any old-timer fanfiction writer about this. "fan work" as a whole--including mods--is a gigantic gray space in current copyright law and IP holders are almost certainly within their technical legal rights to prohibit any works like Revolution on a blanket basis. the current arrangement where most rightsholders look the other way and/or accept the existence of such fan works is a largely informal one, and there's nothing codifying it being that way. it could arbitrarily change (or just be fucked up by a court case) at pretty much any time--and, indeed, occasionally rightsholders still do try and enforce their IP quite aggressively.
Steam has a workshop specifically for people to release mods on to. I understand you might be somehow new to the concept of mods, even though they've been a thing for 30-40 years now, but that's what the Portal mod is - a mod.
It's even tagged as "mod" on the steam page.
It's not a recreation of the original game.
i am aware of what a mod is and literally used it at you in reply--what you call them, however, has no relevance at all to my point. you've earned the thread's first 3 day ban for your unnecessarily weird attitude about this.
It being a mod doesn't matter if it used copyrighted materials they don't have permission to use to make it.
It sounds like they had some stuff in there Nintendo took issue with, and since it was on Steam, which is owned by Valve, Valve took the mod down at the request of Nintendo.
Wow there is no reason to be that rude with your "you might be somehow new..." comment, that was uncalled for.
How is that rude, have they given any indication they understand what a mod is? They're calling mods some ridiculous name from the forties. They might actually be new to pc modding.
That's not how we disagree with people on Beehaw communities. Try to be more assertive.
So Valve takes down any project related to their IPs that isn't made utilizing their tools and done in a way they like and/or can profit from?
How is that different from Nintendo with things like Mario Maker?
No they never said that, the huge problem here is, is that the fangame runs on nintendo licensed hardware using nintendo licensed SDKs. A lot of fangames that mod valve games don't use any steam tools and Valve is still completely fine with the mods.
Legally shouldn't have ever been their problem. If I, without any permission, ported Mario 64 to the Xbox, it would make zero sense for Microsoft to raise issue with Nintendo over it.
Statement's a little incongruous: I would take a fangame that mods Valve games to mean something like a Sonic game built on the Source engine. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I get your intended meaning, and the fact is, there really aren't that many to reference. I can only think of two notable ones off the top of my head, both of which are flash games, and both of which Valve ultimately did profit off of. After digging for a short while, I came up with two others, one being a short celebration of the series made for it's 25th anniversary by a very well-known fan site, and the other being an obscure Unreal Engine project. The only other thing I can think of that might apply is Xash, which they definitely aren't fine with, they just don't have the legal standing to get rid of it without legally endangering every third-party tool made for their games.