Random: Animal Crossing Player Proudly Displays PlayStation Characters in Their Home

No Doom Slayer?!

@KALofKRYPTON doom slayer is not a playstation icon as in exclusive though.

@jdv95 More a reference to the crossover memes that were spreading pre-release day.

Playstation owners show their love for Nintendo in "Dreams" and a band of lawyers show up.

@Jimmy_G_Buckets bit different from jist displaying an image on a wall tho, isnt it?

@Kidfunkadelic83 It's still copyrighted material - and notably no one else has gone after fans for, say, using Spider-Man in a Dreams game. Nintendo have gone after fan artists in the past, quite recently did cease and desists against anyone using any footage of their games on YouTube and even sometime in the past sued the creator of Fire Emblem for making another game that had similar gameplay to Fire Emblem.

The game is brilliant, and couldn't have arrived at a better time. I think we could all use something cute and funny in our lives right now.

I think someone would have had to create these as custom images, though, which blows my mind a little.

@Jimmy_G_Buckets I'm not a fan of Nintendo's aggressive legal team, but it's not the same thing at all. Sony's legal people might perk up a bit more if you could actually play games featuring Aloy, Kratos, etc.

@Matroska hold up they sued the creator of one of their exclusives just for making another game with similar gameplay ?

even if it was for other systems that would be a low from nintendo.

most friendly gaming company my ass.

@Matroska I understand its still copyrighted material but the way i see it Nintendo will make no money out of this action. If people are playing Nintendo IPs inside of dreams then that could cost Nintendo the sale of a console or the software in question. Not to mention people owning a ps4 who may buy dreams to play said Nintendo IPs thus making Sony money from Nintendos IPs. Thats just the way i see it and i have no real idea on law behind such matters. I just see it as serious/not so serious but i know it goes alot deeper than that.

@jdv95 Yeah. Initially they said it was because the name was too similar, it was called Emblem Saga. Though after Kaga (creator of FE in the first place) changed the name, they still tried to sue for $2,000,000.

It's worth pointing out that Nintendo don't own Intelligent Systems, they just publish FE, so this is like if Miyazaki left FromSoft and made a game called, say, Darkborne that was like Bloodborne in terms of being a Soulslike and was sued by Sony. Or if FromSoft sued every maker of a Soulslike, but to me it's even worse they went after the very man that created it in the first place.

I want to buy this after I'm done playing with zelda link awakening

@Kidfunkadelic83 or the mario creations in dreams can actually turn out to be free PR for nintendo since it might convince ps4 players to get a switch and buy some mario games.
as of now mario creations in dreams never costed nintendo a dime. cause it was all non profit and did not cause nintendo any loses in switch and game sales.

there's many ways to see this but ofcourse nintendo took the stuck up route as usual.

@jdv95 i dont see it that way really. I wouldnt go and buy a switch and mario at 300 quid when i can play countless mario levels and other N IPs for the cost of buying dreams and the creators dont profit from Dreams but Sony certainly do from the sale of Dreams. If people know they can play N IPs by buying a 35 quid game then Sony is making money off Nintendos IP. Either way it doesnt bother me as i have a switch and a PS4 and love them both and the games they bring but i can see N's point. Although id much rather them just talk it out and come to a compromise rather than "remove or were going to buttf**k ya"

@Kidfunkadelic83 That's a pretty massive leap.

Think about that for a minute. You have a PS4, you bought Dreams - a very specific piece of software for creation and replay of those creations; hundreds, probably thousands of unique player created experiences. And you think a handful of those being inspired by - or even lifts of existing games would actually represent a lost sale for a fully developed game on a different system?

That's nonsense.

"I was going to buy a Switch but decided not to because I can play some things in Dreams..."

@get2sammyb Why not, it's only fair considering?

@3Above Because it's a completely unnecessary (and nonsensical) action to take.

How do you do this in the game though? Can you add your own images and decorate your house with them? Seems worrying if that's the case. N is quite cautious with stuff like that.

Queue the Nintedo fanbois tying themselves in pretzels explaining why this is okay, but Mario in Dreams isn't.

@KALofKRYPTON as long as you think thats what im talking i can live with that. It was just my take on the situation. I will hush my gums in future.

I've been enjoying going back and forth between Doom and Animal Crossing.

@KALofKRYPTON I agree, but it's ok when Nintendo does it?

@Deadlyblack not got Doom yet but it does look ace. Doom64 is surprisingly good also. Had a good hour on it yesterday.

Some of you need to read Dreams Terms of Service Article 4.

Also, are those made inside the design mode of Animal Crossing or were they hacked in?

@3Above Nope

This ‘game‘ couldn’t have released at a better time and is perfect for losing yourself for an hour a day if you gel with it’s laid back gameplay...

@Dodoo Hour a day?... More like 5 hours a day for me. This is my first AC and holy cow it got it's hooks in me like crazy.

@Matroska How can you sue for a rock, scissors, paper game. I dont even understand you can sue for gameplay if you use different characters.

If a company doesnt take legal action concerning ownership of IP, it weakens their ownership of said IP - multiply this out so many times and suddenly the company no longer owns that IP in the eyes of the law. Companies take legal action in a lot of cases not because they're worried about some specific instance, but because they basically have to in order to retain ownership of their brand/IP etc.

While we're talking about Fire Emblem/Kaga, TearRing Saga is extremely derivative of and almost 100% exactly the same as FE - that's why Nintendo sued (and lost). At the time, there was no legal precedent set for "ripoff" games. If Nintendo won that lawsuit, games like Mighty No. 9 and Bloodstained might not exist or might even be illegal. Its definitely a good thing Nintendo did not win that lawsuit. Additionally, TearRing Saga is an absolutely fantastic game, and I highly recommend playing the fan translation if you're into old-school Fire Emblem.

Should Sony bring their lawyers into Nintendo now?

@get2sammyb They won't and can't. Simply because these pictures were created for private use in a private game. Sure friends can come over and see them, but that would be like Sony trying to sue someone for drawing a picture of one of their characters. As long as the artist is question doesn't make money by selling the QR codes. And anyway, I highly doubt the player in question actually created these. He used the website that takes pictures and turns the into pixel drawings for Animal Crossing.

@Yogsoggoth Look, as an aforementioned Nintendo fanboy, I can speak for most other fans when I say that we love their (mostly) consistently quality games and how well they support them...

But my goodness do they do some stupid stuff sometimes.

We certainly don't think a labor-of-love fan game in Dreams is worth lawyering up for.