Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 29 Jun 2010
Offline Last Active Today, 01:15 PM

#5256061 [Unity] Arrays

Posted by Juliean on 07 October 2015 - 12:56 PM

Had me at coordinates but then lost me again, sorry.



Home[1,1] should give me 4 right?


0 1

But how do I write it?

My understanding of this was…

Home[0,0] would be the 0

Home[0,1] would be the 1 above 0

Home[1,0] would be the 1 after the 0.

Home[1,1] would be above the 1.


Again, not quite. 1,1 gives you 6 - it accesses 2 elements in horizontally, and then 2 vertically.


Maybe this should make it clear:

    0 1 2 3 X

0   1 2 3 4 
1   5 6 7 8
2   9 1 2 3
3   4 5 6 7


Any combination of X/Y from this table for an square 2d array will give you the element in that row/colum, 0/2 will give you 9 e.g. This works for every form of 2D-array, just put first access index as "X", second as "Y", and fill this table due to width/height.


Aside from that, I strongly second phil_t's suggestion.

#5256053 [Unity] Arrays

Posted by Juliean on 07 October 2015 - 12:15 PM

So in C# Home[1,1] would be the same as Home[1] because it means Home[1x1], giving me Home[0] and Home[1] to hold information?

Home[2,2] would give me Home[0-4], Home[2,2,2] would give me Home[0-8]?


Not quite. Home[X,Y] are coordinates into the array. Both start at 0. So 1,1 gives you 1 into the array horizontally, and 1 vertically. The formula for the linear array key is actually:

Y * width + X

Since multidimensional arrays are actually ordered line by line:

   1 2 3 4 -> // 0/0 - 3/0
-> 5 6 7 8    // 0/1 - 3/1

So you can access this whole array in the range of Home[0,0] to Home[3,1].

#5256038 [Unity] Arrays

Posted by Juliean on 07 October 2015 - 11:12 AM

public int[,] HOME = new int[4, 1]; //[Resource,Capacity]


You are declaring a 2D array with 4*1 entries,

which looks like this:

0 0 0 0

Now what your access code is doing is accessing it like that:

0 // 0/0
0 // 0/1

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to do here, but you eigther need to need to increase the vertical size of the array, or change something about your approach.


EDIT: Ninja'd, damn smile.png

#5255645 Framerate-indepentant friction?

Posted by Juliean on 05 October 2015 - 07:58 AM

well that would require me to rework my entire game as i have not a single physics function seperate from everything else. Not worth it just for friction.


Having a fixed timestep is totally worth it, and unless you want to apply the last step mentioned in the "fix your timestep" article about interpolating between current and last state, doing so is extremely easy - you literally just need to modify your game loop as mentioned in the article, thus separate rendering and state update. I would give it a try eigther way.


If this is not an option, I think I remember being given a similar solution for performing HDR adaptation in a shader:

float fNewAdaptation = fPreviousLum + (fCurrentLum - fPreviousLum) * (1 - exp(-dt * 0.98));

I'm way too tired to reformulate this, but I think this should do the same thing you search for, where "dt" is the timestep since last frame, you/someone else/me once I got some sleep just needs to change it fit your friction formula... don't know, maybe just multiply the last term with your speed?

#5254774 vector push_back creates error when multi threading

Posted by Juliean on 30 September 2015 - 07:48 AM

Make the mutex global/static. The way you have it, the mutex exists in the scope of this function only, which is not shared between different threads, meaning there is no actual locking happening at all cross-threads.


Also, unless this is an example for how to produce this kind of errors - having a lock like this makes threads literally worthless. Any one thread that grabs the lock the first time will push its 10000 elements, while the other one has to wait. You could have literally used sequential coding in this case. Just though I add, don't know if you are aware of this.



To further explain, mutex is not a magical thing that exists to solve all threading problems, but a simple language construct. Essentially, mutex is equivalent to:

void doit(std::vector<int>& d){
    static bool locked = false;
        locked = true; // atomic
        for (int i = 0; i < 10000;i++)
        locked = false;

Only that it is implemented more efficiently, for example by having the lock be atomic, so that two threads cannot interfere. This should make it pretty clear already why first of all you have to share the mutex explicitely between threads. Also you have to make sure you do not deadlock your other threads by locking too often or in the wrong places. I'm not too much of an expert on threading, but essencially it should be better in your above example to handle the lock like this:

void doit(std::vector<int>& d){
    static std::mutex m;
        std::vector<int> dTemp;
        for (int i = 0; i < 10000;i++)
        std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m);
        d += dTemp;

This allows all threads to do their work in parallel, and only write their output once the thread is finished. It might not be better, depending on how the appending of the array is implemented, but in more real-world applications (ie. the more complicated the work you do inside the threads is becoming), from my understanding this should yield better results. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

#5254275 Managing input layouts

Posted by Juliean on 27 September 2015 - 04:27 PM

In the D3D11_INPUT_ELEMENT_DESC structure, "SemanticName" is a pointer (LPCSTR) which would make the result non nondeterministic. The idea of an integer key is appealing though.


Sorry, just figured I should mention that and edited in. See explanation above, you would do something like this:

enum class AttributeSemantics

AttributeSemantics convertSemantic(LPCSTR semantic)
    if(!strcmp(semantic, "SV_POSITION"))
        return AttributeSemantic::POSITION;
    else if(!strcmp(semantic, "TEXCOORD"))
        return AttributeSemantic::TEXCOORD;
    // and so on

This gives you the value of the bitsection for "semantic", now you have to do this for all the rest of the attributes that matter for the key and put them together, and you are done.


Would you mind explaining what Int128::add does ? I'm not sure i understand.


All it pretty much does is a bitshift, like in the first function. The only reason I need it is as I said, I need more then 64 bits for which I had a custom class. Int128::add equals to:

unsigned long long key;
key += (attributeKey << 7 + numAttribute * 12);

for a 64 bit integer variable. Whether this is enough depends on your needs - you should be able to stuff 6 input attributes in such a key with 64 bit, if you need more you need a larger integer class (or, if you have to/want to support an arbitrary number of integers you might need to use a variable sized integer class; or somebody else has an even better idea for this case).


EDIT: Alternatively in case of an arbitrary number of input attributes, you can always just store a custom struct with a vector of attribute keys for each layout, with a custom compare operator if you know what I mean.

struct LayoutKey

    std::vector<unsigned int> vAttributesKeys; // 32 bits is more than enough for each attribute

    bool operator<(const LayoutKey& key) const; // so the map can actually sort those

#5254268 Managing input layouts

Posted by Juliean on 27 September 2015 - 03:12 PM

You could literally just build a key from the layout data by putting the attribute declarations bitwise in an integer, like so:

unsigned long long getAttributeKey(const VertexAttribute& attrib) // get a key for a single input attribute
    return attrib.semantic + (attrib.slot << 1) + (attrib.type << 5) + (attrib.numElements << 7) + (attrib.buffer << 10) + (attrib.instanceDivisor << 11);

sys::Int128 getKey(PrimitiveType type, const IGeometry::AttributeVector& vAttributes) // build combined key for primitve type & attributes
    sys::Int128 key;
    key.Add(0, 7, (long long)type);

    unsigned int numAttribute = 0;
    for(auto& attribute : vAttributes)
        const unsigned long long attributeKey = getAttributeKey(attribute);

        key.Add(7 + numAttribute * 12, 12, attributeKey);

    return key;

Don't get weirded out by the syntax, I'm using a custom 128 bit integer class ( key.Add(0, 7, value) just writes the 7 bits to position 0 ). Depending on what attribute properties you want to handle (instancing isn't something you can reflect anyway) and how many attributes your vertex shaders can have, you can eigther just use a build-in 64 bit integer type, or have to use a larger data structure.


EDIT: Forget to mention explicitely, so just that it is clear... you first need to bring the reflected values in a usable integer data range for this to work (spent to much time with my abstraction layers so I didn't think about it first). What that means is that ie. you map the reflected values to a custom enum. Say like the semantics of the attribute, sv_position, texcoord, etc..., you map the strings to a custom enum value, and depending on how many different semantics you want to support, you can see how many bits you'll need in your key.

#5254191 What should I learn before I create my own game engine?

Posted by Juliean on 26 September 2015 - 06:49 PM

Hello everyone. I'm new to game programming, and I was just curious where I should start out if I want to create my own game engine.


What previous gaming related experience do you have? Ok, you just stated you were new to game programming. Read my next question first.

What scope do you expect for your engine? Is it going to be a "make this kind certain of game, then throw it away" engine (aka = a game), or are you expecting a more general purpose toolset that you can reuse, with editor/toolchains?

If your answer is "I want to make a general purpose engine like unity", then I'll be that person to tell you. No way. Back down, you are in for trouble. Don't make engines, make games. Especially if you are a beginner. Or, at least try to help us understand your motivation. Do you want to make an engine because you are interested in the low level technical things, or do you think it is required to make a game? In latter case, let me tell you, its not, especially for beginner games. The list of recommended beginner games is simple - pong, breakout, pacman, ... you don't need an "engine" for this, you'll start out with a simple design where you have a game loop, and dedicated "Paddle", "Ball", ... classes, without much of a supporting framework - unless you decide to use an already existing engine like Unity which can take much work from you. Again, tell us more about what you really want to do - make games as fast as possible to visualize your game ideas, or learn how to code in game related environments?

#5252705 3 compiler bugs in one month...

Posted by Juliean on 17 September 2015 - 12:05 PM

I've encountered just one, which existed in VS2013 up to and including first SP I belive. Having a double initializer-list like this:

const ecs::ComponentDeclaration::AttributeVector vAttributes =
    { L"Positioning", PositioningMode::NORMAL, offsetof(Character, positioning) },
    { L"ZOffset", core::generateTypeId<int>(), offsetof(Character, zOffset) }

Somehow caused the destructor of the first element being called twice (when doubling the array), resulting in a crash. The newer service packs fixed that, though.


EDIT: I originally made a thread about it:


Was quite obnoxious because it was not appearent that it was a compiler bug.

#5251047 Convincing AntiVirsus, im not a virus

Posted by Juliean on 07 September 2015 - 02:33 PM

It was the latter. (sorry)


If found this stackoverflow-article, from someone that had the same problem like you:




So appearently you can eigther digitally sign your code (costs), or really just contact the anti-virus manufactures and have them whitelist your file (probably only makes sense after a release).

#5251043 Convincing AntiVirsus, im not a virus

Posted by Juliean on 07 September 2015 - 02:21 PM

unfortunately I do not determine which Antivirus the user has.

I don't think saying "Incompatible with shitty anti viruses." when the user downloads/buys the program is an option.


Ok, I wasn't sure in the original question whether you were referring to your PC, or PCs in general - in the former case, you can just whitelist your application in the antivirus (unless its really so shitty it doesn't even have that option ;) ), but for ALL PCs, its a little more complicated. If, as you said, multiple antiviruses all flagged your application, there has to be some common component triggering that behaviour, so you might be able to find that out and possibly alter it.

Aside from that, maybe contact the manufacturers customer support, and see if they can do anything (like making adjustments to their detection routine, to produce less false-flags like your application; though I can't say how likely that is to happen)?

#5250397 Should fanfic games be legal?

Posted by Juliean on 03 September 2015 - 04:33 AM

But if the law is relaxed to allow Fanfic games then it would also mean that other corporations could also do the same. Meaning that Ubisoft could just start making Mario games or Microsoft could start making their own street fighter game. Sure they wouldn't be able to sell them but if Microsoft were to be able to give these games away it would still be a commercial advantage to them.


In essence this would be true, I would like to think that there could be some sort of regulation to the scope of those projects, to keep big companies from using the IPs, but allow individuals to do so... I don't have any good ideas how this would look yet, but I think you could work out something.




No this is completely wrong. You don't need to alter somebodies perception that much. If an IP is associated with only quality products and somebody starts making lesser quality products then that IPs reputation has been tarnished.


And that is exactly what I meant. The existence of a bad fan fiction game doesn't do anything to the IP per se. If I were to make a bad mario game, and never release it, than it would exist, but nobody would know about it so it doesn't matter. If I were to put a bad mario game online, but nobody would come across it, same here. If I were to put a bad mario game online and everybody would come across it and play it, but knows that it is not part of what officially is part of the IP, and thus does not alter their perception of the reputation of the IP and their actions towards it, again, there is no harm done. Only if people actually start to somehow conflate this bad fan game with the official products, and alter their action (buying less products, producing bad word-to-mouth due to it...) that is when you do damage to the IP.

From my own point of view, this is unbelivable. I personally would never ever, if I knew that it was a fan game, draw any (negative) conclusion from any fan-game whatsoever, so I find it hard to belive that this actually happens in case that people know that said game is a fan game.




OK this is a rather extreme example but, the OP is talking about an old game that hasn't been seen for 20 years but he has no idea about what future plans Nintendo may have for it. Its all very well saying use it or loose it but businesses have roadmaps. The game in question may already be scheduled for a reboot but somewhere 5 years down the line on Nintendos roadmap.


Trust me - IF this happens to stay true I will willingly take my fanfic off the internet the news hit the table. Part of why I've been making it is that there was no sequel. Also, just since focus has been drawn to my personal project a few times - it is virtually impossible that the game I'm targeting is going to be used again. I would be so fucking happy if they did it (before starting this I signed an online petition towards enix to produce a sequel to Terranigma, so yeah...), but they won't. Technically I can't know that but I would bet a huge ton of money and even my ass that they won't. Kind of comes already from the context of the game - its actually part of a 3-part series of games with all unique stories and settings, only some key elements in common. Terranigma wasn't even released in US, so if they ever were to do something with the game, they would rather start with the first of the series. The game in question was never designed to be a stand-alone game. So the only think to happen is if they were to remake the whole "Soul Blazer" series. There is literally no way they make a direct sequel to eigther the soul blazer series, or the terranigma game itself. No, I don't technically know that, but I have strong faith the until the day I day, I will never see an official product related in any way, shape or form to terranigma (which, as a huge fan of the game makes me even more sad than that I cannot legally work on my fan-fiction sad.png ).




Proved his point nicely there as there are actually three studios developing CoD at the moment. (Also all the other studios that help out for each release but three main ones)


Ok, point taking, I didn't actually know that. Still - I would know to differentiate any game that was neigther made by any official studio, what was my original point, maybe bad worded.

#5250335 Should fanfic games be legal?

Posted by Juliean on 02 September 2015 - 04:33 PM

Method A) Someone playing the game may not realize it is a fan work. Unless it is explicitly stated that it's a fan work, only someone who is already a fan would be able to tell. For people who aren't a fan, they can play the game.


Ok, fair enought. Though, this is kind of a prerequisite for my definition of what I'm talking about "legal" fan fiction - being able to clearly distinguish it by all means as fan-work, without having to inform themselves. Everything else goes into deceit and should not be legal even in my view.




Method B) The fan-made version might do something so terrible or dramatic or interesting, that you can't play the original game without thinking about the fan game and the experience being influenced by the fan game. This can damage the perception of the brand. However, despite that, while recognizing the damage, courts sometimes say this is protected speech, because the value to the public outweighs the (real) damage to the brand.


This is something that I personally just cannot imagine. Might just be that I'm not as easy to influence by external factors when it comes to games. I'm not there to enforce my personal and probably biased opinion upon others, so I'm just going to assume that this is actually a thing.




Method C) If I make a Mario game that is BETTER than the real Mario, and also free, even if it's a fan game people would play my game and might not feel the need to buy the real Mario game, costing Nintendo profits.


Ok, thats also fair. I've already stated thought that I do not support production of games that directly compete with active titles - but let me put it more clear what I mean: If I were to make a fan-sequel to Super Mario World from 1992, in the same 2D style & graphics, with pretty much the same system but improvements, than even IF it is VASTLY better than the original, it still will not compete with Nintendos current 3D projects. Sure, as I've mentioned, if I make a free Super Mario Galaxy 3 that is even better than nintendos, that is a problem, and I'm not for that. But aside from that I'm not seeing that really happening in the contect I propose - Nintendos developement team is LARGE, and if I where to make a 3D mario of that proportion, it would need a whole studio, which can probably only ever be run commercially, which would require them taking revenue from the brand they do not own - which I'm against).


In my ideas/point of view, I'm all for regulations. I'm not proposing the idea of unconditionally allowing all fan-fiction, especially after considering all the feedback I got. What I think would be fair is, as already has been mentioned, making a certain time-limit to games disallowing fan-fiction while they are active, but allowing it once a certain time frame has passed, while still keeping the whole franchise even longer active. I really do not see how making a game in the style of say a tile-based 2d title based SNES-style game of any brand is competing the slightest with todays games.




Many informed gamers and game developers know who made what games. I don't believe the vast majority of the public knows who the studios, publishers, and so on are. They might be able to name a few of the bigger ones, like Activision, Ubisoft, and EA. But they would probably be hard-pressed to remember who made what games.

I'm of the opinion that the franchise carries more brand-cachet than the publisher or developer, in the minds of the public at large.


Well, than in order for something like my idea of a fan-fic legalisation to happen, information about the difference is key. I wasn't even putting that much focus on the actual developers - like, I quess that its true that not even all CoD players know that there are two studios alternatively producing the next game. What I meant with that is more on the lines that its developers actually officially endored/licenced (I'm missing the proper english word here, sorry, I hope you still get it) by the IP holder - versus fan-made games which are, well, made by individual fans.


So I quess we can agree on that if it is possible to make a clear differenciation between what is fan-made and what is officially made, this would not be a problem? Since from what you wrote it appears that confusing a fan game for an official game is the main problem, not the fan-game itself (except point B) maybe).

#5250320 Should fanfic games be legal?

Posted by Juliean on 02 September 2015 - 03:08 PM

Thanks for all the additional replys, obviously its again way to much to commentate on all of it, but be sure I read all of it and got some new things I didn't think of before.


None of these show the entire game in detail as video from start to finish. Once youve seen it all what value remains in playing the game?


Watching someone play game != playing game. If I asked you to come over and watch me level a character to 100 in WoW without us communicating, would you do it? (or pick your favourite game you eigther have played or didn't play yet but want to).

To be a little more precice, there is so much more value to playing a game than just having it auto-pilot before your eyes - how you play it, how you control your character, having/showing/developing the skill needed to beat and/or master the game, the choices you make, the order in which you progress, how you design/progress your character, being able to set your own pace... some of those are subjective to certain types of games, but there is always something - there is a reason they say "Playing video games is more fun than watching other people play video games".

Heck, if seeing it one time, why do people play through games multiple times? I think I've literally played through every single game I liked more than one time.

Also, there is the other way around - at one time I came into touch with dead space and got fascinated by the setting, but were a little reluctant about it being a "in your face" type of horror game. I watched a small play/walkthrough (at least 30 minutes of ingame footage), and decided to buy it based on that. If there was no (moving) ingame material outside of trailes, I would not have bought it.


Case and point, I find it not convincing that having video footage online will harm the company. If anything, there is even evidence pointing in the opposite direction. CAN companies be hurt by people making a say review that consists of 50%, if not 100% of the game? Potentially yes, but I lack evidence to belive that it actually does.


Except by using somebody else IP you could devalue it by so much that it becomes worthless. Which makes it much worse than taking somebodies car because you can still give the car back and you probably wouldn't have affected its value.


After thinking much about it, I'm not really sold about this argument. (this is not only a response to your post, but also the other times it was brough up)


Ok, first of all, IF you damage an IP, thats absolutely a no-go.


But I do not belive that (small-scale) fan fiction can really hurt an IP. An IP is not a physical object where you can go in an take stabs at, rip stuff out, or poor nasty stuff over. The value of an IP purely lies in its perception amongs the consumers, and potentially financees.

So in order to hurt an IP, you must alter the perception of the target audience to the point where they go "Eh, I don't think I want to buy that new mario game from nintendo anymore - some jerk on the internet made a really terrible rendition on it, I quess that IP is dead for me" (a little bit exaggerated, but you get the idea).

And, to be totally honest. I don't see that happening in any shape or form from some inofficial fan-made work. The damage that comes from a bad game in an IP being released comes with the perception of "The developers of this IP screwed over, they surely won't make another good game after this".


Kind of reminds me of the current situation in World of Warcraft - people are really pissed of at the developers for being appearently being deceptive about released information, cutting content here and there, not even having enough relevant content to keep people entertained, and a general decrease in quality, effort and a focus towards casual gaming (lets not discuss those points here for the sake of the argument, I know some might be object of discussion for people who actively play WoW). Now, the WoW/Warcraft-franchise surely took damage from this, it already lost half its subscribers in just a few months. For most people, WoD is strictly the worst addon ever made, and many people are gone for good.

BUT, the point is - if I was to make this kind of WoW, call it "World of Wacraft 2", host my own servers, say even offer a free char trans for a matter of allowing people to play here - and say I made this addon even shittier than it already is, putting no effort whatsoever, but just putting "WoW" lore, characters etc.. whereever I can - do you honestly belive that it would have had the same effect, or even any effect on blizzards playerbase? Take aside that now there would have been a free WoW-alternative which could have made some player unsub for the time - granted, this is the kind of thing I'm not even supporting - just to make it clear, I am NOT for being able to just offer an active competition based on the same franchise for any currently sold game. But aside from that, people as I see it would have gone more on the lines of "WTF did this guy make a shitty game and call it World of Warcraft, what an insult to the name. I'm going back to the real game".

Kind of case and point, to stay on the example, is with WoW private servers. Blizzard actively takes those down when they get to big/relevant, and its obviously illegal. However, even though there is no fixed data on this, it appears that those servers actually gain blizzard more than they lose them. I've heard noumerous stories of people starting out on free, illegale private servers, then switching to actual paid WoW, not even though, but mostly because those private servers are buggy as hell, have lack of people, updates, content, you name it. Hell, I even personally recruited I belive 11-15 people from a private server (some close friends, some I only knew onlines), some of who would have never, ever touched WoW if they had to start while playing it.

I know, the problem with this is that it is extremely hard to pinpoint "facts" like this (is the existence of private servers in WoW actually pulling more potentially paying subscribers away, or are there more people that start to play payed WoW due to the "free" demo?), and thus hard to come to some sort of conclusion, or thinking even further laws/guidelines - but the point is, as far as I'm concerned with all the information that I have, Blizzard is not taking any damage eigther to their IP nor to their finances due to the (in case of this thread really extreme, corporate example) of illegal free servers with indirect competition (said servers are always 2-3 addons behind).


Ok, but another example to stay more on the topic of fan-fiction, there are three games that actually uses popular IPs from Nintendo, without Nintendo developing them: Hotel Mario, Link: The faces of evil and Zelda: The wand of gamelon. Those where all based on Nintendo working on developing a CD based console with Philips. Even though this failed, Nintendo still somehow reserved philips the rights to use their characters in some of their games - but thats appearently all the control that nintendo had. What came out of this where 3 truly horrible games, the zelda games especially being considered by far the worst of the series, if not some of the worst games ever made. True, Nintendo technically allowed Philips to use their characters - but the actual point is, do you honestly belive that those absolutely horrible Zelda games, made on some obscure console, without being "licenced" by nintendo, had any direct impact on the franchise? Almost any alleged Zelda player knows of them, even outside of that they are kind of infamous - now those would precicely fall into the category of "well known, horrible, (almost) without oversight of the original creater of the IP". I just fail to find evidence, nor belive, that Nintendo took any direct damage due to those games existing. Are you telling me that there are really supposed to be relevant amount of people going "yeeesh, those zelda games from god know who where horrible - now I'm less hyped for Majoras Mask than I was before"?

Or at this point, I'm kind of assuming I eigther misunderstood the argument, or there is some sort of cultural barrier - because from how I've been raised and where I grew up, the thought that someone completely unrelated making something horrible based on a certain idea/story/franchise, and thus devaluating the franchise itself, is quite odd to me.



I'm just not getting how a piece of work, that is labelled as being made inofficially, and shows no sign of the original makers involved (were really not talking about the people putting "made by nintendo" in their fan work), is ever going to influence the IP in a negative way. Ok, I buy the argument of coming in the way with a companies plan if we are talking about highly active franchises. I'm also sold on the argument that if you make a free alternative to a current game, or make some direct competition based on the same IP in the time, that this is going to hurt the company (though I never supported that in the first) place.

Outside of this, I just don't see how an unrelated piece of work is actively doing damage to the franchise it is copying/using without permission. If I made the worst kind of game, like a sex themed mario game where Mario is a Pimp, Peach is a hooker, and Bowser is something-Im-not-going-to-mention-because-I-feel-its-inappropriate, my point is, that while yes its inappropriate, yes its very untrue to the original idea, yes the original creater will not like it (and it might even be good if the original author had some sort of say over things THAT extreme), the IP will not take damage. Why? Because its a unrelated piece of work. Yes it has Mario, yes it has peach, yes it is called "Super Mario XXX", but its just that - a game some jerk made on the internet. People will eigther ignore it generally, or view it as an abomination out of the sick brain of some internet pervert. Heck, I'm just talking about the very idea - that alone puts this thoughts in your head, and introduces the idea to everyone who reads this - why does it need to be made as a game to allegedly take damage to the mario franchise? The only time when its a problem is IF it is from the original creator, or licenced developers/publishers, or shows some sort of endorsement from Nintendo, since this is what ultimately links the game to the franchise/cannon.

Now if someone could explain to me how damaging a franchise/IP via a work of unrelated fan-fiction works (aside from already mentioned correlation with companies plans), even better if you have some examples, that would be nice - so far, I can only say, yes its can of course happen like everything, but its not something that I see as very likely. 

(Note: This only takes objection to said idea of "damaging the IP via fan-fiction", and does not propose the idea that based on, that I do not belive this is a likely thing, I'm for throwing all copyright and allowing everyone to use and market every idea someone had.)


Aside from that, I like some of the suggestions, like making copyright limited to a certain amount of time. I do see though that it is very hard to come to a certain conclusion, but I like the ideas proposed so far.

#5249964 Should fanfic games be legal?

Posted by Juliean on 31 August 2015 - 12:15 PM

Do you have examples of this case? I would be surprised if caricatures are allowed to be taken down by the court, as that should falls under fair use. Perhaps the author of the caricature decides to take it down anyway rather than take it to court which could be expensive for both parties.


Of the top of my hat, I can give you two examples:


Nintendo recently decided to disallow Let's plays on the platform youtube. As early as 2013, it allegedly already wrote a warning to youtube channels showcasing nintendos content in those vidoes (for those who don't know: Let's play is a form of video format where a person plays through a video game, while giving eigther entertaining, educational, or funny comments), stating that it was infringing copyrights. Unless I am mistaken, legally Let's plays should fall under fair use as "review", since while the Let's player is showing the full game more or less, its his commentary/video feed that actually makes the Let's play. First, nintendo wanted to eigther take down all those videos, or take all the revenue those youtubers are making. Appearently they have now offered a deal for those people, taking "only" 40% of the revenue of all nintendo Let's plays. Now please correct me if Nintendos behaviour is legally correct, but as far as I am aware this should fall under fair use. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Play_%28video_gaming%29, under "Legal issues".


Second example that I am personally aware of would concern internet movie reviewers like the "Nostalgia Critic", who has received multiple copyright claims and had videos taken down, from big news company TMZ (which he parodied in one of his episodes), and from (relatively unknown) filmmaker "Tommy Wiseau" due to his review of the film "The room". This is the two examples I know of, but appearently those things happened more frequently. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't movie reviews/parodies supposed to be fair use?


So thats what I actually know of. Now while its true that nobody was being sued here (most videos where eigther taken down by youtube, or the claim of copyright-infringment was taken back, or the alleged offender took the videos down to avoid trouble), this was just my point: Companies are already making ridiculous copyright claims, this is not something that needs to be enforced by all means without exceptions.