Why are there no unlicensed games today?

[Buyatari]

Why are there no unlicensed PS3,360,Wii games that run on hardware without modifications?

Is it too hard to do?
Is it illegal?

[substantial_snake]

I would imagine that its too expensive to make something that would entice people to buy while still being economically competitive. Unlicensed games seemed to fall around the time that the 3D revolution hit the industry.

[Nebagram]

There's always xbox indie games...

[goatdan]

Why are there no unlicensed PS3,360,Wii games that run on hardware without modifications?

Is it too hard to do?
Is it illegal?

The DMCA essentially removes all rights to do such a thing any more from companies. It hasn't been tested yet in court, but pretty much that act was written so the more money you have, the more right you are. No one wants to test that.

The reverse engineering to get to the point you could release an unlicensed game is not so difficult (see: DS Piracy) to make it so that it wouldn't work. The DMCA does. It's a *really* crappy act.

[jonebone]

Because of portable gaming apps. You can make an app for Droid / iPhones and go from there. No hardware costs, so your only real investment is time.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

All three consoles have reasonable in-roads for independent developers to sell small-dev-team/small-budget titles on their online stores respectively.

I would have to guess that that discourages the effort involved in producing unlicensed physical product that would run on the consoles.

That and the fact that unlicensed software could be locked out with a console firmware update.

[buzz_n64]

Which systems had unlicensed games for it?
That I know of-

MSX
Mark I/II/III/Master System
Famicom/NES
Mega Drive/Genesis
SNES/SFC
GB
GBC
GBA

[BlastProcessing402]

Which systems had unlicensed games for it?
That I know of-

MSX
Mark I/II/III/Master System
Famicom/NES
Mega Drive/Genesis
SNES/SFC
GB
GBC
GBA

Well, licensing didn't really start until the days of the NES, so pretty much any 3rd party game for a console before then could be considered unlicensed.

Notably, Activision was founded by former Atari programmers expressly for the purposes of putting out games for the 2600 without Atari's approval because they were pissed at Atari's policy of not crediting them for the games they worked on.

[Robocop2]

I'd argue that the homebrew applications and software that are released and playable on modded consoles/handhelds would count as unlicensed.

Though granted I have very little experience with it as I don't own a modded box.

[Buyatari]

I'd argue that the homebrew applications and software that are released and playable on modded consoles/handhelds would count as unlicensed.

Though granted I have very little experience with it as I don't own a modded box.

Sure that could count as unlicensed but that isn't what I am asking.

As was already stated Activision came out against Atari and none of it was licensed. With the NES there were several small companies who did this but Atari under the Tengen name released mostly unlicensed titles.

So why doesn't EA or Infogrames or Activision or even an up and commer release unlicensed games is it all the DMCA? I guess I don't understand how that works then. I was under the assumption that the DMCA had more to do with tampering with the hardware.

[chrisbid]

there are unlicensed dreamcast games

[Kitsune Sniper]

So why doesn't EA or Infogrames or Activision or even an up and commer release unlicensed games is it all the DMCA? I guess I don't understand how that works then. I was under the assumption that the DMCA had more to do with tampering with the hardware.

... They make more than enough money the legal way.

Also, why would anyone risk being sued by Sony or Microsoft? It's not worth the money. And they can just block you with a firmware update.

[FABombjoy]

To create a game disc that ran an unlicensed game on a modern console, you would need to either steal or recover the private encryption key used to sign & authenticate the application code, OR exploit a bug in the existing hardware design (and pray that a firmware update doesn't fix it).

You might also need a disc fabricator that can replicate any unique disc-based authentication mechanisms, unique formatting, etc.

[goatdan]

To create a game disc that ran an unlicensed game on a modern console, you would need to either steal or recover the private encryption key used to sign & authenticate the application code, OR exploit a bug in the existing hardware design (and pray that a firmware update doesn't fix it).

You might also need a disc fabricator that can replicate any unique disc-based authentication mechanisms, unique formatting, etc.

All of this is pretty doable though with today's technology. It's pretty much been done with both the DS and PSP for a long time now, and if there was money to be made it would be done with everything else.

The key, however, is that the DMCA gives the companies the right to not just sue the person who programs the game, but also the production house that produces the game. The DMCA then allows the company to sue the production house, which makes it so that unless you build your own production house, no company is going to be stupid enough to risk millions on a tiny, tiny project for an indie developer.

Running the GOAT Store, I had to explore this a TON when it came to making independent Dreamcast titles. The law is a really bad one in the way of digital freedom, and one that could have easily been fixed to be a heck of a lot more fair for all involved. But, it was written by people who owning everything forever was more important than money (Disney), so it is written completely to benefit businesses, not to benefit the regular people.

The technical side is totally doable. The law makes it so that Sony or Microsoft could sue the production facility for millions, and it is written in a way that it would take millions in litigation to get through. FAR more than it would cost for a company to legitimately buy development consoles and license their games.

[TonyTheTiger]

Even if it is possible and doing it doesn't put you in lawsuit territory, there's simply the basic premise that you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Publishers develop a symbiotic relationship with the hardware manufacturers and overt antagonism does nobody any good.

[RCM]

Ultimately, there's no need to release unlicensed games on current-gen consoles.

[Buyatari]

... They make more than enough money the legal way.

Also, why would anyone risk being sued by Sony or Microsoft? It's not worth the money. And they can just block you with a firmware update.

Well that is my question. IS it illegal?

Activision started out doing this. When exactly did making unauthorized software become illegal. Now I'm not talking about bootleg copies but new games created by companies.

Also there used to be unauthorized strategy guides but you never see any these days. Are these illegal these days as well? You can write a book about Brad Pitt and Angelina and the 17 children but not about Call Of Duty 3? WTF ?!?

[Baloo]

Also there used to be unauthorized strategy guides but you never see any these days. Are these illegal these days as well? You can write a book about Brad Pitt and Angelina and the 17 children but not about Call Of Duty 3? WTF ?!?

Well, Prima I think has those official licenses with the companies to make strategy guides, and I'm sure gets all the tips and tricks from developers to every cheat and unlockable in the game.

Back in the day it was one thing to write an unofficial guide on "Sonic the Hedgehog" for Genesis. Would anyone even want to try giving that a crack on a game like Call of Duty: Black Ops? I sure as hell wouldn't, WAY too much work involved.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Well that is my question. IS it illegal?

Activision started out doing this. When exactly did making unauthorized software become illegal. Now I'm not talking about bootleg copies but new games created by companies.

Also there used to be unauthorized strategy guides but you never see any these days. Are these illegal these days as well? You can write a book about Brad Pitt and Angelina and the 17 children but not about Call Of Duty 3? WTF ?!?Does it matter if it's illegal? See that part where I said they'd sue the pants off of you. Even if the law was on your side, they could still sue you and force you to spend everything you have on laywers knowing they could just keep doing it until you ran out of money and then force you to pay them more.

...

*coughs*

[skaar]

Games can only be manufactured in Nintendo/MS/Sony facilities and require digital signatures from each. They've made it so that people can't do this anymore. Licensed publishers included.

[theclaw]

Cost vs risk is too much for "pirate" type companies to create original content, or waste time supporting unpopular systems. Why else do you think there's so few Sega CD bootlegs? No one gives a **** despite utter lack of copy protection in any form worth noting. While for things like DS, they earn more by just stealing than through effort.

[goatdan]

Well that is my question. IS it illegal?

The answer to this question, without writing a freaking novel about all the stuff that I went into thanks to the Dreamcast releases is simply...

No one really knows if it is legal or not until the law is tested, but the law is now written in such a way that I greatly doubt that someone would be willing to take the risk to test it. The legal fees to defend yourself against action from the company would be FAR, FAR, FAR more than the cost to just pay for licensing in the first place.

[skaar]

The answer to this question, without writing a freaking novel about all the stuff that I went into thanks to the Dreamcast releases is simply...

No one really knows if it is legal or not until the law is tested, but the law is now written in such a way that I greatly doubt that someone would be willing to take the risk to test it. The legal fees to defend yourself against action from the company would be FAR, FAR, FAR more than the cost to just pay for licensing in the first place.

The best kind of law. The one with the most money wins.

Sigh.

[Griking]

Because nobody wants to take on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo's legal teams.

[Griking]

The key, however, is that the DMCA gives the companies the right to not just sue the person who programs the game, but also the production house that produces the game. The DMCA then allows the company to sue the production house, which makes it so that unless you build your own production house, no company is going to be stupid enough to risk millions on a tiny, tiny project for an indie developer.

Running the GOAT Store, I had to explore this a TON when it came to making independent Dreamcast titles. The law is a really bad one in the way of digital freedom, and one that could have easily been fixed to be a heck of a lot more fair for all involved. But, it was written by people who owning everything forever was more important than money (Disney), so it is written completely to benefit businesses, not to benefit the regular people.

The technical side is totally doable. The law makes it so that Sony or Microsoft could sue the production facility for millions, and it is written in a way that it would take millions in litigation to get through. FAR more than it would cost for a company to legitimately buy development consoles and license their games.

I guess I don't understand why any of this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't companies be able to control who develops games for their platforms?

[buzz_n64]

I guess I don't understand why any of this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't companies be able to control who develops games for their platforms?

I guess, but the 2600 was unregulated, and look at all their shitty games. Then again, I wouldn't mind picking up some 360 porn games.

[jcalder8]

Because nobody wants to take on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo's legal teams.
I think it's more likely that there is no money to be made from taking them on.


Then again, I wouldn't mind picking up some 360 porn games.
I can't wait for the Japanese Kinect sex games

[Mynamesukx]

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't unlicensed games cause the big crash in 83? That might have something to do with it me thinks.

[FABombjoy]

All of this is pretty doable though with today's technology. It's pretty much been done with both the DS and PSP for a long time now, and if there was money to be made it would be done with everything else.
Well, I was going specifically on "PS3,360,Wii" as asked by Buyatari. Protection wise, the DS and PSP are lost causes, although I haven't heard of any bootleg/pirate UMD titles.

But really for the big three listed above, DMCA issues notwithstanding, pirating existing titles would be doable if you can find a producer that can fully duplicate the existing physical format. If you had developed a unique and unlicensed game, you would still need to have it signed or incorporate a seamless exploit and pray that it is never patched in a firmware update. I figure that you'll know when this has happened by the appearance of 10-kajillion-in-one game discs loaded with emulators and ROM files. Or if we're lucky, a unique new title like Bible Adventures 3000.

[Rickstilwell1]

Also the fact that fangames and homebrews are much more easily devloped for PC.

[Ludwig]

I guess, but the 2600 was unregulated, and look at all their shitty games.

PC, completely unregulated too, tons of shit, but people mostly ignore those. It also wasn't just 3. party games, let's not forget about Pac-Man and ET. Haven't there been 2 hentai-style erotic games for the SNES or am i confusing stuff?

Well, it's the golden age of independent games, and the consoles don't really get it, just because it's so much more complicated to release games for those. :)

[dendawg]

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't unlicensed games cause the big crash in 83? That might have something to do with it me thinks.

Partially, but it was more like a glut of shitty games caused the crash. Atari couldn't do anything about unauthorized 3rd parties then, so that's kinda moot.

[goatdan]

Well, I was going specifically on "PS3,360,Wii" as asked by Buyatari. Protection wise, the DS and PSP are lost causes, although I haven't heard of any bootleg/pirate UMD titles.

But really for the big three listed above, DMCA issues notwithstanding, pirating existing titles would be doable if you can find a producer that can fully duplicate the existing physical format. If you had developed a unique and unlicensed game, you would still need to have it signed or incorporate a seamless exploit and pray that it is never patched in a firmware update. I figure that you'll know when this has happened by the appearance of 10-kajillion-in-one game discs loaded with emulators and ROM files. Or if we're lucky, a unique new title like Bible Adventures 3000.

Right, and the firmware issue makes it tougher for people to develop games, however it's worth pointing out that Accolade counter-sued Sega when Sega tried locking out the ability for the Genesis to play their unlicensed games... and won. There is a lot more to that story, but if there was enough money in it, it could happen today. But the risk greatly outweighs the reward.

[goatdan]

I guess I don't understand why any of this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't companies be able to control who develops games for their platforms?

Because that is a right that was never granted before. The law as written gives more protections to the company that sells the console than the person that buys it. To me, it would be like if you went and bought a car, and after you did you wanted to get a new stereo for it, but the car company said that you couldn't. Why is the company that sold you an item always able to control the item? If I buy something, shouldn't I have the right to do with it what I want? Taking it further, different companies always buy and reverse engineer the competitor's goods. Like cars, Toyota will buy the new Honda to take it apart and see what they did and if they should alter any of their plans with this new knowledge. It legally allows them to better their own product, as long as you aren't interfering with patents. That ability is gone now in media, and I don't like it.

The other side of it, again, without writing a novel, is that it pretty much makes it so that nothing goes into public domain ever anymore. The long story short is that this was all more or less started because Mickey's first cartoons were going to go public domain, and Disney stood to lose a lot of money if they did. So, they lobbied to have the law expanded and continued.

It means that preserving games from companies that went out of business in the 70s is a totally illegal affair. It means that books or movies or whatever that have been forgotten about and perhaps shouldn't have been cannot be picked up by someone and sold years later. It greatly stifles the free flow of information, something that America was founded in many ways because of.

At the end of the day, I agree that Disney should retain it's rights to Mickey Mouse. But, the law could have been written where a company needs to make something using the property in some way within the last 10 years or it goes into public domain. Get a new copyright, retain your rights from as far back as you want. You can do this by releasing a new version of it on DVD, writing a book with the character, or whatever. Voila, Mickey is safe, and things that *should* actually become public domain do. Far more fair.

As for gaming, I just feel that once you own something, you own it and it is unfair for a company to tell you what you can or cannot do with the item that you purchased. The moment I purchase it, it is mine to play with, destroy, reverse engineer, or do whatever I want with.

[chrisbid]

im surprised that places that scoff at american law like china have not done more of this.

[slapdash]

There were a couple unlicensed titles on the PS2 and Gamecube if I recall.

[Buyatari]

There were a couple unlicensed titles on the PS2 and Gamecube if I recall.

Really?

Unique US titles? Which ones?

[Buyatari]

Because that is a right that was never granted before. The law as written gives more protections to the company that sells the console than the person that buys it. To me, it would be like if you went and bought a car, and after you did you wanted to get a new stereo for it, but the car company said that you couldn't. Why is the company that sold you an item always able to control the item? If I buy something, shouldn't I have the right to do with it what I want? Taking it further, different companies always buy and reverse engineer the competitor's goods. Like cars, Toyota will buy the new Honda to take it apart and see what they did and if they should alter any of their plans with this new knowledge. It legally allows them to better their own product, as long as you aren't interfering with patents. That ability is gone now in media, and I don't like it.

The other side of it, again, without writing a novel, is that it pretty much makes it so that nothing goes into public domain ever anymore. The long story short is that this was all more or less started because Mickey's first cartoons were going to go public domain, and Disney stood to lose a lot of money if they did. So, they lobbied to have the law expanded and continued.

It means that preserving games from companies that went out of business in the 70s is a totally illegal affair. It means that books or movies or whatever that have been forgotten about and perhaps shouldn't have been cannot be picked up by someone and sold years later. It greatly stifles the free flow of information, something that America was founded in many ways because of.

At the end of the day, I agree that Disney should retain it's rights to Mickey Mouse. But, the law could have been written where a company needs to make something using the property in some way within the last 10 years or it goes into public domain. Get a new copyright, retain your rights from as far back as you want. You can do this by releasing a new version of it on DVD, writing a book with the character, or whatever. Voila, Mickey is safe, and things that *should* actually become public domain do. Far more fair.

As for gaming, I just feel that once you own something, you own it and it is unfair for a company to tell you what you can or cannot do with the item that you purchased. The moment I purchase it, it is mine to play with, destroy, reverse engineer, or do whatever I want with.

I guess the main difference is that a car company makes its money when you buy the car. They may make a few bucks if you do bring it to them for service but they make most when they sell the car.

Most consoles are sold below cost in hopes you will buy software. Same with the printer guys hoping you will buy ink but you can refill your ink legally.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Really?

Unique US titles? Which ones?

For the Gamecube, there was Maxplay Classic Games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaK2zPGBDzo

[goatdan]

I guess the main difference is that a car company makes its money when you buy the car. They may make a few bucks if you do bring it to them for service but they make most when they sell the car.

Most consoles are sold below cost in hopes you will buy software. Same with the printer guys hoping you will buy ink but you can refill your ink legally.

Right, but here's the thing -- it should be up to the company to make is so that it is too much of a challenge to reverse engineer, not up to lawyers. Once that console leaves their hands, they shouldn't have property rights to it any more. I'm ALL FOR protecting from piracy, and I guarantee that it has brought about the early demise of at least one console, but tackling that smartly and tackling that through the courts is completely different.

For cars, a better example would be if you bought your Ford, and it only took Ford gas. You couldn't get gas from Citgo, because it wouldn't work. But it really would, it's just the nozzle doesn't quite fit. If you built a new nozzle to fill your car with regular, cheaper gas, lawyers could sue you.

It's your item. Fill your car with whatever gas, or ink, or whatever you want. Those companies that take the risk of reverse engineering the console should also know they have to do it legally, and that is a huge undertaking.

[Griking]

Because that is a right that was never granted before. The law as written gives more protections to the company that sells the console than the person that buys it. To me, it would be like if you went and bought a car, and after you did you wanted to get a new stereo for it, but the car company said that you couldn't. Why is the company that sold you an item always able to control the item? If I buy something, shouldn't I have the right to do with it what I want? Taking it further, different companies always buy and reverse engineer the competitor's goods. Like cars, Toyota will buy the new Honda to take it apart and see what they did and if they should alter any of their plans with this new knowledge. It legally allows them to better their own product, as long as you aren't interfering with patents. That ability is gone now in media, and I don't like it.

The other side of it, again, without writing a novel, is that it pretty much makes it so that nothing goes into public domain ever anymore. The long story short is that this was all more or less started because Mickey's first cartoons were going to go public domain, and Disney stood to lose a lot of money if they did. So, they lobbied to have the law expanded and continued.

It means that preserving games from companies that went out of business in the 70s is a totally illegal affair. It means that books or movies or whatever that have been forgotten about and perhaps shouldn't have been cannot be picked up by someone and sold years later. It greatly stifles the free flow of information, something that America was founded in many ways because of.

At the end of the day, I agree that Disney should retain it's rights to Mickey Mouse. But, the law could have been written where a company needs to make something using the property in some way within the last 10 years or it goes into public domain. Get a new copyright, retain your rights from as far back as you want. You can do this by releasing a new version of it on DVD, writing a book with the character, or whatever. Voila, Mickey is safe, and things that *should* actually become public domain do. Far more fair.

As for gaming, I just feel that once you own something, you own it and it is unfair for a company to tell you what you can or cannot do with the item that you purchased. The moment I purchase it, it is mine to play with, destroy, reverse engineer, or do whatever I want with.

I completely agree with you about not liking what they did with patent law but I only partially agree with what you said about being able to do anything you want with something once you've purchased it. I have no issues with people who want to mod their 360s. I also don't have a problem with Microsoft locking all modded consoles off of Xbox Live. It's their playground and they have the right to control who plays there.

Console manufacturers make their money bu selling games and usually take a pretty decent loss on the hardware for the few few years. Turning consoles into open platforms where anyone can make a game and sell it would cost the manufacturers tons of money and as a result you'd probably see the console costing a lot more money.

[SparTonberry]

Wouldn't Action Replay count?
I don't have any from last gen, but I read they got around the lockout by buying garbage (broken) licensed discs, cutting off the security ring and pasting them on the AR discs.
As for SNES, I think Super Noah's Ark 3D was the only US release. I have seen a few Japanese porn games. One using a passthrough (like Super Noah's Ark, requiring a licensed game to be attached) while another I've seen looks like it was made repro-style. (except that it looks whoever made them didn't even remove the donor's label before sticking the porn-game label on it)

[slapdash]

For the Gamecube, there was Maxplay Classic Games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaK2zPGBDzo

And for Playstation 2. I believe there was an unlicensed educational game for the PS2 as well, but darned if I can recall the name. Not sure that one was a US release though.

[goatdan]

I completely agree with you about not liking what they did with patent law but I only partially agree with what you said about being able to do anything you want with something once you've purchased it. I have no issues with people who want to mod their 360s. I also don't have a problem with Microsoft locking all modded consoles off of Xbox Live. It's their playground and they have the right to control who plays there.

Console manufacturers make their money bu selling games and usually take a pretty decent loss on the hardware for the few few years. Turning consoles into open platforms where anyone can make a game and sell it would cost the manufacturers tons of money and as a result you'd probably see the console costing a lot more money.

Wait now, you're confusing a few issues above...

The first thing is that I agree with you that you should be able to do whatever you want with your 360, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft has to provide you with whatever you want. If you mod your 360, that's your choice. If Microsoft disconnects you from Xbox Live because of it, no harm, no foul. That's their choice, and I have zero issues with that. You did not buy all of Xbox Live when you bought your 360. And, even if you pay for Xbox Live, you're paying for a membership.

I can be a member of a health club, but if I try to light the club on fire, I would hope that they wouldn't feel like they had to let me keep being a member.

Also, I'm not advocating open platforms. Although that model seems to work, as shown by Apple, if a company wishes to make it so that people can't make third party games for it, then do two things:

1) Put into place something with security that makes it difficult for a third party to make a game for your console. Heck, even changing your firmware to block things is fine.
2) Work with the companies that are making games so that it wouldn't be financially smart for one of them to break off and try to make a third party game. Why do you need a third party game if you get cheap licensing and Microsoft helps promote your game legally?

The reason that third party game development has happened in the past is either because there was a lack of good security measures on the console (2600), or because the company was being unfair with their licensing measures (Genesis). The other reason is because a company wanted to write software that wasn't the type of software that the hardware manufacturer wanted to directly support, and I'm okay with that too -- but, if you buy the third party porn game, then you risk it being locked out.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The best kind of law. The one with the most money wins.

Sigh.

Why bother grading or quantifying it? That's how existing law works with very little variation. No money, no justice.