Martinet: SMB3 to hit Virtual Console tomorrow
by Kyle Orland 
{ Nov 4th 2007 at 11:00PM }
While we usually have to wait until Monday to find out the week's new Virtual Console releases, the folks over at GoNintendo got a special late night news tip treat from none other than Charles "voice of Mario" Martinet. In a voice mail, Martinet confirms that Super Mario Bros. 3 will be available on the Virtual Console tomorrow, along with the Genesis' Alien Soldier and the TurboGrafx-16's Power Golf (a.k.a. two filler games that no one cares about when placed next to freakin' Mario 3).One of the best-selling and best-received games of all time, the Virtual Console release marks the fourth official version of the game, including 1993's Super Mario All-Stars and 2003's Super Mario Advance 4 (and don't forget the awesomely unofficial hack, Mario Adventure). Will you be buying yet another copy, or just using this excuse to crack out a classic version?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Fish @ Nov 4th 2007 11:07PM
Buying it, definitely.
I've got it for my NES, but it's such a pain to get those games to work, especially when the flap of your NES is busted out, and you get to have another cartridge in there to hold it down... :S
Geist @ Nov 4th 2007 11:52PM
Blowing in it solves everything!
Rubang B (BRUSH WITH FAME) @ Nov 5th 2007 12:00AM
Don't listen to him. Never ever blow in cartridges. That's what KILLS them. Rubbing alcohol on a Q-tip, then a dry Q-tip to dry it out.
Trust me. I've talked to Nintendo customer service about this on the phone. I have 300 NES carts. They all work like 300 dreams.
Dreamcicle @ Nov 5th 2007 2:40AM
Rubang you're messing with a time honored ritual to appease the Nintendo gods. Every kid remembers blowing on the cartridge to make the game work. ;)
Rubang B (BRUSH WITH FAME) @ Nov 5th 2007 3:17AM
I used to blow on them, but then my NES died and I had to order a new 72 pin connector from Nintendo (FREE!) and the Nintendo rep told me that they even thought blowing on it was a good idea back in the day because they never expected the games to be this popular for this long. Even the official NES cleaning kits would leave the connectors wet and were just as bad as blowing into them. Do what you gotta do, but make sure you dry the connectors.
B3astofthe3ast @ Nov 4th 2007 11:09PM
I have it for the GBA, no need to repurchase.
Foggy Bottoms @ Nov 5th 2007 5:55AM
i don't. must repurchase.
fiiiinally
James @ Nov 5th 2007 7:19AM
I have it for GBA but they buggered it up with new graphics.
I've got a working NES cart though. Shame my TV doesn't work with my NES.
hvnlysoldr @ Nov 4th 2007 11:10PM
Carn sarn my non-wireless connection! As soon as possible it's as good as bought.
Count Noobula @ Nov 4th 2007 11:12PM
I just got a GP2X, so now the VC is moot for me.
Steve @ Nov 4th 2007 11:18PM
That's cool, unless you haven't bought the titles you'll be illegally downloading and playing, in which case you are a loser.
Count Noobula @ Nov 4th 2007 11:22PM
@ Steve: If I download a game that makes me a loser? You've been brainwashed by those commercials that tell you not to steal satellite signals.
Why pay more for something I played like 15 years ago.
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 4th 2007 11:43PM
Yo, you get the GP2X F200? Those look shit hot to me but not sure if it's worth the upgrade.
And don't worry about Steve. He's the same kind of person who can see the ripping of MP3s off a CD as perfectly legal but ROMs and emulators exist in some strange land of "buying the same fucking game 14 times but somehow it's the only legal way."
I mean, even if Sony put Bust A Groove up on the Playstation Store, I still have my copy that I can just hack and put on my PSP without them. But I'm stealing by doing that somehow...
vidGuy @ Nov 4th 2007 11:49PM
@Count,
If you don't want to pay for it, don't buy it. If you want to play it, buy it. Just because it's ~15 years old doesn't mean it's okay to steal it.
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 5th 2007 12:23AM
vidguy, who's to say he hasn't bought it in the past? After all, it's been on tons of machines and even supported the eReader in one of it's iterations. Are you saying that he should buy the Wii version even if he already owned a previous version just to support the GP2X version which is not supported by Nintendo in any way whatsoever? I mean, let's put it this way...
I buy Jet Moto on PSN... I get to USE Jet Moto on both my PSP and PS3.
I buy Super Metroid on VC (actually, that's a lie, I have the SNES cart in front of me and saw no reason to throw more money when the original version ran me $65) and I only get to use it on Wii. Not DS, not GBA, not even my computer. Unless I emu it. And play it on my PSP. Technically, I did buy the game. I just didn't rebuy it everytime they rereleased it.
Count Noobula @ Nov 5th 2007 12:44AM
Wow, all I was saying is that I WILL NOT be buying this or any other VC games because I now play all the classics on my GP2X. Its my choice to emu them or not. And in Canada its ok for me to do this, its distributing that is illegal.
vidGuy @ Nov 5th 2007 12:45AM
You may be a little confused, sheppy. You cannot download a copy of a game you own and legally play it. You can only legally plays games in the medium they were meant to be played - Jet Moto can be played on both PSP and PS3 because that was an intend perk, whereas it would be illegal to move a Wii VC game to a DS with an SD card. I'll shorten these up but please follow the link for more gems of knowledge.
"Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game?
...It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy....Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."
"Isn't it Okay to Download Nintendo ROMs for Games that are No Longer Distributed in the Stores or Commercially Exploited? Aren't They Considered "Public Domain"?
No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status...."
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html#what%20are%20ROMs
...the archival copying exception of Section 117 does not apply to contemporary personal computer, videogame console, or online gaming environments...
http://books.google.com/books?id=CqWOhgUWqccC&pg=PA464&lpg=PA464&dq=section+117+exception+archival&source=web&ots=v2Afyt8RAg&sig=Fhk0o8U6hrJy-ZPC30VZ_5lrI_Q
bm @ Nov 5th 2007 12:47AM
You're kidding yourself if you seriously think most (emphasis on most) of the people who go "whats the point of the VC if we got emulators on the PC lolz" actually own any of the games.
A few exceptions aside, they're just cheap hobo's making excuses.
Yoshi Likes Boys @ Nov 5th 2007 1:54AM
BM wins, and Noobula is a hobo.
Vidikron (FU) @ Nov 5th 2007 2:48AM
@vidguy
Ummm... you're not exactly right either:
"You can only legally plays games in the medium they were meant to be played"
That's BS. Are you claiming it's then illegal to rip CDs you own to MP3's or other portable formats? Technically, it is indeed illegal to download copies of games, but you CAN make copies yourself. Of course, very few people do that with cart ROMS because very few people have the equipment, but no is going to get in trouble for having copies of games they already own... no matter what Nintendo claims on their site (FYI, Nintendo is not the law).
syco @ Nov 5th 2007 2:49AM
Vidguy, despite what Nintendo says, I'm pretty sure any court in the country would consider playing a game you allready own a legitamite copy of on an unintended platform as qualifying as fair use. The DMCA regards circumventing copy protection encryption, which does not exist on the NES, so the DMCA does not apply here.
It's essentially the same as ripping a legally purchased CD and putting it on your iPod, or timeshifting TV shows. Nintendo would rather not mention fair use, and will always say that any unintended use of their IP is illegal, but it is still a legitimate legal and moral defense for that sort of activity. Nintendo has a vested interest in keeping people ill-informed of their own rights when it comes to games and fair use.
Actually downloading roms off the internet is in a legal grey area, in that distributing it is clearly illegal, but downloading it may or may not be. It is only clearly legal to rip the roms yourself off of your own carts, but I feel that the impracticalities of that approach would probably allow downloading it instead to stand up in court if it ever came up.
Regardless, I consider it to be perfectly moral. As long as you've paid for it, it's yours. It's the people who fill their GP2X's with roms of games they do not own you should be angry with.
syco @ Nov 5th 2007 2:52AM
Vidguy, despite what Nintendo says, I'm pretty sure any court in the country would consider playing a game you allready own a legitamite copy of on an unintended platform as qualifying as fair use. The DMCA regards circumventing copy protection encryption, which does not exist on the NES, so the DMCA does not apply here.
It's essentially the same as ripping a legally purchased CD and putting it on your iPod, or timeshifting TV shows. Nintendo would rather not mention fair use, and will always say that any unintended use of their IP is illegal, but it is still a legitimate legal and moral defense for that sort of activity. Nintendo has a vested interest in keeping people ill-informed of their own rights when it comes to games and fair use.
Actually downloading roms off the internet is in a legal grey area, in that distributing it is clearly illegal, but downloading it may or may not be. It is only clearly legal to rip the roms yourself off of your own carts, but I feel that the impracticalities of that approach would probably allow downloading it instead to stand up in court if it ever came up.
Regardless, I consider it to be perfectly moral. As long as you've paid for it, it's yours. It's the people who fill their GP2X's with roms of games they do not own you should be angry with.
SKI @ Nov 5th 2007 8:05AM
http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html
All of you should read this.
SKI @ Nov 5th 2007 8:19AM
"As to the question of what a user can actually copy, there seems to be no clear legal consensus. Further blurring the issue is that the law treats recorded music somewhat differently than for other protected works."
There goes the "I can copy music so I can copy games" thought.
"For works other than sound recordings, there is no "section 1008." The unauthorized copying of a video, book or software program may put the user squarely within the scope of copyright infringement. In the case of software, there are typically user licensing agreements that apply at the point of purchase, which expressly state the conditions surrounding a consumer's use of the software. With the exception of freeware and open-source software, most proprietary software programs are accompanied with an elaborate set of contractual conditions, and the right to make copies is rarely among them."
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 5th 2007 8:33AM
Thank you, syco.
Vidguy, just because Nintendo says it doesn't make it so. They have a vested interest in pushing this issue. Take, for example, the case of www.demonsbane.com. Wonderful site, once upon a time. Nintendo tried to shut them down just for offering ROMs for download but this was a highly risky venture and strongarming tactics needed the all or nothing push. And so Demon's Bane, unlike many other ROM sites at the time, stood their grounds. Eventually Nintendo didn't want to shut down the entire site but rather remove all Nintendo properties, which Demon's Bane gladly complied. Things went quite for a couple months as all previous Nintendo game links came up with jokingly "dead rom" pages and then Nintendo launched their second assault against demon's bane. They attacked the radio feature on the site which featured many midi recreations and direct rips of popular SNES music. The site owner's will to fight was officially gone and he decided to just close up shop. Nintendo didn't LEGALLY shut down this site since the services offered were well within DMCA rights.
Now, vidguy, how does this apply to the fallacy's in those links? Well, simply put, anytime you buy something in a destroyable media, your consumer right is that you can make backups of that media. Just as you can tranfers cassette to CD, CD to MP3, DVD to tape, tape to DVD, any media you purchase, you have the RIGHT to backup. Now, the DMCA however is poorly writen, meant to outline consumer rights when the internet wasn't so large and so the legal grounding of the DMCA can be used in both ways but the MORAL grounding is to protect, not punish, the consumer.
The ONLY legal way Nintendo can 100% attack ROMs and their usage and tranfer to other systems is if the current attack goes through, and you better HOPE AND FUCKING PRAY it doesn't. This is a tactic they have been attempting for years and it goes like this, you never OWN the media you purchase, you merely license it. The difference? They can suddenly start charging you rates based upon where you use a DVD, in other words, this would kill the rental services since Netflix simply cannot afford to license out DVDs everytime temporary tranfer of ownership occurs. Likewise, this would effectively kill the used game industry since the games you are selling, well, they aren't yours, you only paid $60 to USE the game, not own it. And MP3s? Well, let's just say how would you like to pay $14 when you buy the CD, and another $18 when you rip the MP3s? Only by making media a licensed affair can those quotes from Nintendo become true.
Mr Khan @ Nov 5th 2007 9:13AM
I say its only right to take what they can't make money off of anymore anyway
Like all the episodes of SWAT Kats and/or Megas XLR that i've been hoarding, Cartoon Network's not going to make money off ownership of those properties anymore, why fight it
And i don't think the case is as absolute as either sheppy (you own it) or vidguy (you own license) makes it out to be, i say if you own it, you can do what you wish, as long as you're not making copies available free on the internet
samfish @ Nov 5th 2007 9:46AM
It's absolutely amazing how much some of you can sit there and type and still know absolutely nothing about how copyright law and ownership rules work.
megaStryke @ Nov 5th 2007 9:52AM
Here is where I'd say something about pirates and eye patches and somehow tie it to the development of night vision, but that would infringe upon samfish's intellectual property.
That being said, I think it is about time for a Naked Peach Pirate.
vidGuy @ Nov 5th 2007 10:45AM
Most of you are on the money; thanks for an intelligent discussion.
If you download a movie from a torrent site, you still downloaded an illegal copy of the movie, even if you have the DVD sitting on your shelf. If YOU make the copy by ripping the DVD onto your computer, YES that is fair use. Unfortunately, many of the softwares used to rip DVDs fall victim to the DMCA due to their illegal uses. The same idea goes for making MP3s of CDs you own. BUT downloading those MP3s is illegal if you aren't paying for the right to do so through a legal enterprise, even if you own the CD. By the current law, making ROMs yourself is legal but downloading them is not, EVEN IF YOU OWN THE ORIGINAL WORK.
Sure Nintendo is masking fair use on their site, but they are pretty damn near on the law. In copyright law, when you buy a product you only purchase the license to hear/see/experience the work. You have limited fair use as a product you own; you do not have a copyright. When Nintendo says that it is unlawful to own a second copy if it is "AN INFRINGING COPY", they are telling the 100% truth. Notice they never said anything about making the ROM yourself.
While my proposal that "you can only legally plays games in the medium they were meant to be played" is not true in some instances, I was referring to copies that are or become infringing works. Moving a Wii VC game to a DS would probably be infringing because VC games are encrypted - thus you would have to violate the DMCA to move the game. If it was unencrypted, you could move it whereever you want and make as many copies for your own use as you wanted.
The difference lies in WHO makes the copy and WHO uses it. This is a classic loophole in copyright law.
vidGuy @ Nov 5th 2007 11:02AM
And before someone calls me out on it, yes copyright infringement is a civil issue and most often results in civil suits not criminal charges - so it's not technically "legal" and "illegal". But those are just easier to type and read.
syco @ Nov 5th 2007 11:08AM
You also have to consider the fact that (parts of) the DMCA are very bad. It's utterly ridiculous that ripping a DVD is illegal if it's for personal use.
hvnlysoldr @ Nov 5th 2007 11:48AM
MegaMan is violating my copyright pending pirates wore eye patches development for night vision routine.
FidliousWong @ Nov 5th 2007 2:47PM
But vidguy, you moot your own point simply in the fact that backing up your own roms is an "illegal" practice according to Nintendo.
Let's put it this way. If Nintendo didn't fight rom backup devices every step of the way, then the whole "you can make your own vs. downloading others" would make a bit more sense but keep in mind, this is Nintendo. The very same company that, up until they could no longer do so legally, fought the gold 72 pin connectors on Ebay. They were shutting down auctions left and write, sending cease & desist, and five years ago, they could no longer do so. Nintendo's (as well as Sony and Microsoft) big beef with Lik-Sang was they were selling ROM backup devices and mod chips for various Nintendo systems. And just recently, Nintendo's big modchip bust that they are so proud of managed to snag a user who owned a single Wii modchip and several imported games. Not a pirated copy in the house. Nintendo's creative rewording to get the bust? "He owned a copyright circumvention duplication device." Layman's terms? A DVD burner. Can you even BUY computers nowadays without a burner?
Regardless, Nintendo's stance is that it's illegal to own ROMs in any way shape or form. They enforce this stance by stomping all efforts companies have made to make consumer protection devices taboo or illegal. So when the ability to MAKE your own ROMs is what gets the FBI to break down your door along with the ESA is the only way to avoid Piracy fees and pretentious little bores like you from snubbing people like me under veiled no win scenarios, it's no wonder people finally just say "fuck it, I'm downloading this copy of Ducktales 2 that won't work anymore due to cheapass design regardless."
Now keep in mind, majority of these things you mentioned were put in place to protect the consumer and yet they've only been used to punish the consumer (ie RIAA). After all, every since Torrentspy went down and I could no longer preview CDs before spending the money, I'm just not spending the money. And if Nintendo feels they can tell me playing Kabuki Quantum Fighter on my PC is wrong when their pieces of shit (seriously, they were shipping a 20% failure rate on the NES) won't do the same thing, then I have no sympathy. Nintendo doomed an entire generation of machinery to the blinkies just because they wanted to save $.98 per machine on cheap connectors and further locked out consumer media rights by establishing the Base10 system.
vidGuy @ Nov 5th 2007 3:53PM
I agree with you, but I don't see how that moots my point and I don't appreciate the personal jabs.
Nintendo is going after ROM-making-devices for the same reason movie studios go after DVD-copying software; they pose a threat to their sales and their copyrights. If they can justify shutting them down, they do it. It's a cost-benefit analysis, really. ROM-making devices cost Nintendo $x in lost sales (even though they neglect to see that 1 stolen game != one lost sale), versus the benefit gamers get from being able to back up their own games. Since this isn't a benefit that directly accrues to Nintendo, they go balls-out trying to fight these things.
Unfortunately, what's available as fair use for the individual isn't often supported through the larger structure of the law. While you may download MP3s as previews - which may or may not be viewed as fair use - the music industry still has a right to go after the MP3 distributors because they are violating the copyright. The DMCA is serious f-ed in the fact that it prevents the creation of tools that allow users to make legally recognized, fair-use copies. But it justifies preventing that fair-use by also preventing mass infringement.
This situation doesn't moot my point though because what I've been saying is:
1) Downloading copies of games is copyright infringement, regardless of legal possession of the work in another medium
2) If you want to play the game, buy it
syco @ Nov 6th 2007 4:03PM
"If you want a game, buy it"
Yeh. Well, I refuse to buy a game I allready own (unless I'm presented with an extreme convenience upgrade ex. virtual console vs. hooking up my n64) When you buy a game, you may not own the copyright to it, obviously, but you didn't buy some sort of limited license either. You bought the game, the whole game, it's entirely yours. You can play it, sell it, set it on fire, and (assuming you don't break any laws in the process) use it on devices it was not intended to be used on. It's a matter of ownership. I am not paying for something I allready own. It's just ludicrous.
bVork @ Nov 4th 2007 11:13PM
ALIEN SOLDIER is nothing compared to SMB3?! WTF?
bm @ Nov 5th 2007 12:52AM
Those are some heavy rose tinted glasses you're wearing there old chap.
Werbal @ Nov 4th 2007 11:19PM
That's almost as good a bit of news as L-Block winning the Gamefaq's stupid character battle.
Rubang B (BRUSH WITH FAME) @ Nov 4th 2007 11:53PM
I can't wait until the Weighted Companion Cube dominates all character battles forever.
Neebs @ Nov 5th 2007 12:28AM
WON, the fucking GameFAQs character battle. Goddamn, that's epic.
Donald @ Nov 5th 2007 12:40AM
Rubang, you might want to go vote for it now. It's in 3rd right now behind the almighty L Block and the ? Block.
Rubang B (BRUSH WITH FAME) @ Nov 5th 2007 3:38AM
Holy shit Donald, thanks for the heads up! I'm on it.
samfish @ Nov 4th 2007 11:16PM
Man, I haven't played this game in forEVER. Definitely gonna pick it up tomorrow.
albinogoldfish @ Nov 4th 2007 11:20PM
Some of you are gonna hate me for this, but why in god's name would you do this to yourselves? this happens to be my favorite Mario game, but damn if ten years from now there are this many Halo 3 games (and I loves me some Halo) I'm walking away from it. period. But thats just my $.02
Geist @ Nov 4th 2007 11:58PM
There is a term called 'classic', which applies to some games. It applies to this game. It does not apply to Halo 3. I don't think you need to worry about a proliferation of the title down the line.
albinogoldfish @ Nov 5th 2007 12:41AM
I hate to tell you this, but, a few years down the road, halo will be a classic, I know its hard to believe but trust me on this, I believe the formula goes a little something like this,
long term popularity+consistent popularity+time=classic
Despite Halo being a relatively new franchise its almost 7 years old, I know its a drop in a big bucket compared to Mario(having been around since 1981) but has secured itself a following in the game world just as prolific as anything else
/catch breath...sorry, I'm done
bm @ Nov 5th 2007 1:00AM
"halo will be a classic"
HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAA HAHAHAHA HAHAHA *cough*
Listen, kid. Goldeneye was a classic. Half Life was a classic. Those games meant something, did something. Halo though? It was only popular because of the ludicrous amount of advertising (ever wonder where those 4 billion dollars in losses MS made on the original Xbox went?), and because it was the only good game on that console. And this says a lot, because Halo was a derivative, generic pile of crap.
albinogoldfish @ Nov 5th 2007 1:30AM
I'm not even going to begin to address your ignorant assertion that I am first off a "kid" and your second "fact" that MS spent $4 billion in advertising for Halo, as for advertising goes, game makers market the hell out of any game they want to sell, but you know what sells games at the end of the day? Playability. Period. I play Half Life, CSS, UT, and I dabble in the Total War Franchise extensively, I ALSO play Halo because it's fun, end of story. And about your claim that Halo is a "derivative, generic pile of crap" you used examples like Golden Eye which was loads of fun but I'll be damned if being a top secret agent shooting two guns at once while saving your hot female companion isn't generic and derivative. And as for Half Life, I'm going to clarify something for you, they are not original, many stories about aliens enslaving humanity came before it, what they did(still do) was tell their particular story well, but it can still be called derivative and generic, if you want to got around comparing. Please do reply again and explain to this "kid" your point of view some more, and please be sure to not leave out your opinionated vulgarities in the next one either.
bm @ Nov 5th 2007 2:55AM
Taking that word a bit too seriously? ;) I haven't actually spied on you via the internet to know whether or not you're a child, don't worry.
I never said -all- those 4 billion in losses went to Halo advertising. Some of it likely went to Halo 2... j/k ;) But you do know that the original Xbox actually lost MS that amount of money, didn't you?
Anyway. You seem to approaching this from the storyline-side. I think you're missing the point of there, to put it mildly. I obviously meant the game itself, not the plot summary.
Goldeneye, derivative? Haha. You mean like everything is derivative -of- Goldeneye? If so, you'd be right. I won't even begin to list all the ways in which GE and HL revolutionised the genre each in their own ways (again, the plot has zero to do with it, as if it wasn't obvious enough), and how Halo did not. I don't want to type that much right now. Halo was boring, did nothing new, the only thing the game had going for it was that it was the only half-decent game on the system at the time. Every Xbox owner played it.
albinogoldfish @ Nov 5th 2007 3:56AM
I'll give it to you about golden eye's story not being the driving force in sales, I mentioned early playability, just not specifically referencing GE, but If your going to try and tell me that the storytelling in HL isn't what makes it stand out among the rest of the FPS out there, I think you'll find that just about anyone will tell you you are wrong, myself included, and that you need to reconsider what makes a good game, if you are referencing the technical aspects of the game, that is a null point simply because the PC as a platform is evolutionary, thats the nature of the beast. But it's the utilization of the technology at hand to most effectively tell the Half Life story that ultimately made it the end all be all for most PC gamers. And although I'm not a big fan of the series I understand where most fans are coming from and can appreciate it. Now what your saying is that Halo is garbage, generic, boring. while I can't tell YOU whether or not the game is boring (to each his own) but what I will tell you is that Half Life 2:Episode 2 barely did "anything new" either it propelled the story-arc, which is the main selling-point of the game. But to say Halo didn't do anything new is a lie, it did what all these PC gamer's "classics" and pinnacles of the genre couldn't do, it made the genre mainstream, it had a little bit for everyone. Sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture and realize is the fact that because Halo doesn't have the bells and whistles of it's PC counterparts is what makes it stand out, core FPS game play for the everyman, and if someday that everyman decides to go beyond Halo and check out other FPS the market has just expanded by one more gamer.