Does a 3rd party developer truly own the rights to their game?

[treismac]

Let's say that I am Konami and I want to release the NES version of Contra, Life Force, and Jackal on the PS3, Xbox 360, or some kind of plug n' play device made by Jakks. Is this legal? Does the company of a system that a video game was made for have a slice of the pie? If so, why? Would the legality change overtime as NES patents expire?

I'm assuming that unless a video game's developer made some agreement with the system's company that the game was their property entirely. I mean, if Tengen never got shut down for making unlicensed games it would seem to be legal, providing post-Tengen laws weren't penned to prevent this from happening in the future.

[The 1 2 P]

Some do and some don't. Epic still owns the rights to the Gears of War series but chooses to only releases it exclusively to the 360. Naughty Dog does not own the rights to the Uncharted series, despite creating it. Sony owns the rights to that series and pretty much everything else Naughty Dog have created on the various Playstation platforms. This is why Insomniac(creators of Sony's Resistance and Ratchet & Clank series) have decided to keep ownership rights of their next video game release. That way they can release it multiplatform(it's getting a 360 release) and they will see a bigger return of investment. The way to go for developers these days is definitely to do what Epic did and keep control of their series as opposed to handing over the rights to the publishers. I think you are going to see an even bigger shift to that during the next gen.

[Greg2600]

Pretty sure Nintendo has no rights on 3rd party NES games, and the patents I don't think will expire in our lifetimes.

[Kiddo]

Pretty sure Nintendo has no rights on 3rd party NES games, and the patents I don't think will expire in our lifetimes.

Rights here can be a confusing issue, however.
On one end, Nintendo will not put up a third-party VC release without the current owner of the property's cooperation.
On the other hand, it seems at times as though third parties have difficulty putting games they released for "Nintendo" platforms on rival consoles regardless of whether or not they have the rights to the characters, but this appears to be a case-by-case basis. Mega Man and Banjo-Kazooie are pretty notable for directly porting once-exclusive Nintendo games to third-party rival consoles, but GoldenEye for the N64 didn't make the cut, and I'm pretty certain Rare would've cashed in on Killer Instinct by now if they could. Ubisoft likewise worked with arcade versions of the retro TMNT beat-em-up games rather than the NES versions which many people remember more fondly, although I'm not entirely sure if this is a Nintendo-legal issue or simply Ubisoft being bone-headed.
You also will rarely see a third-party make a NES emulator compilation for the games they own the rights to outside a Nintendo platform even though in this scenario
1) Nintendo's patents on the NES itself expired long ago and
2) Even before that, Sony vs. Bleem ended in Bleem's favor, so
as thus there should not be any legal ambiguity about it if a third party decides to put a NES game they own all the rights to on a non-Nintendo platform through emulation.

[SparTonberry]

Konami did make a PC emulator compilation of the NES Castlevania and Contra games (though it was supposedly not as good as fanmade emulators), and Jaleco released a Famicom compilation for the GBA (said to have been based on PocketNES, as the author of PocketNES didn't explicitly forbid commercial use).

[frogofdeath]

Mega Man and Banjo-Kazooie are pretty notable for directly porting once-exclusive Nintendo games to third-party rival consoles, but GoldenEye for the N64 didn't make the cut, and I'm pretty certain Rare would've cashed in on Killer Instinct by now if they could.
Banjo-Kazooie is owned by Microsoft, thus why the two originals showed up on Live, even though they were originally onthe N64. I am almost positive Killer Instinct is also owned by Microsoft, so why they haven't released these games, or a new one, is a mystery. In fact, most Rare characters are owned by MS. The only notable exception would be Donkey Kong related characters for obvious reasons.

As for Goldeneye, Nintendo owned the rights to the franchise when Rare made the game. So technically, they still own the game design itself. Thus why you probably won't see it anytime soon. Same reason BK and Conker were not in the remake of Diddy Kong Racing, even though the game was still developed by Rare. Go figure.

[Greg2600]

Well Goldeneye wound up being re-released (updated) on Wii, and then PS3/360 anyway as Reloaded. I really don't think there's anything stopping the 3rd party if they still own the rights.

[Mobius]

I believe, for the most part, it's the PUBLISHER that maintains the rights for a game. So, you have the developer, the publisher, and the game platform owner. Sometimes, one company fills multiple roles (like EA developing and publishing their own titles) or they're all the same company (for instance, Nintendo developing and publishing their own games for their own hardware). A developer will create a game, then often sell it to a publisher (or create it under contract for the publisher), who then pays for the physical distribution and licensing fees and keeps most of the profit.

Basically, it's different for every game. But the game platform maker almost never owns the rights to a third party game, unless they acted as publisher. They get their license fee for the original release, and that's it.

[tom]

Let's say that I am Konami and I want to release the NES version of Contra, Life Force, and Jackal on the PS3, Xbox 360, or some kind of plug n' play device made by Jakks. Is this legal? Does the company of a system that a video game was made for have a slice of the pie? If so, why? Would the legality change overtime as NES patents expire?

I'm assuming that unless a video game's developer made some agreement with the system's company that the game was their property entirely. I mean, if Tengen never got shut down for making unlicensed games it would seem to be legal, providing post-Tengen laws weren't penned to prevent this from happening in the future.

They are Konami's property as arcade games to start of with anyway, so yes, they belong to Konami.
Tengen never got shut down, they released many games for Mega Drive, Amiga, Atari ST, Sega CD, Lynx...etc.

[theclaw]

Some games could be using the console maker's libraries. Say audio stack, compression routines, etc. That might cause difficulty re-releasing on other systems.

[The 1 2 P]

I am almost positive Killer Instinct is also owned by Microsoft, so why they haven't released these games, or a new one, is a mystery. In fact, most Rare characters are owned by MS.

You are correct, Microsoft owns all of the properties that Rare owned, including Killer Instinct. They have gotten many request for remakes or new versions of KI(among others) ever since acquiring Rare but for some dumb ass reason they refuse to release any new games in the series.


Well Goldeneye wound up being re-released (updated) on Wii, and then PS3/360 anyway as Reloaded.

And that is the most annoying part of Goldeneye 64 never being released for XBLA despite being completely finished by Rare. Nintendo basically strong-armed Activision to not allow it to appear on a non Nintendo system and yet thats exactly what happened with the remake. I'm still holding out hope that eventually we will get it but I'm not holding my breath.

[sloan]

3rd party publishers like Konami, Capcom, Pony, etc. for the NES own all rights to their IP's. Only area this might get kind of muddy is with VC licensing for Wii. Does Nintendo somehow acquire exclusive rights when selling VC Wii copies that preclude the original developers from partnering with Jakks or Radica for pnp devices?

[theclaw]

Owning the IP doesn't mean they own all code/assets in a particular game. Licensed music or product placement is tricky.

[MarioMania]

You are correct, Microsoft owns all of the properties that Rare owned, including Killer Instinct. They have gotten many request for remakes or new versions of KI(among others) ever since acquiring Rare but for some dumb ass reason they refuse to release any new games in the series.

I think the reason is, it might not sell that much, It did in the 90's..But today might not

[Leo_A]

Pretty sure Nintendo has no rights on 3rd party NES games, and the patents I don't think will expire in our lifetimes.

They're copyrighted, not patented. All NES era patents have now lapsed.


Well Goldeneye wound up being re-released (updated) on Wii, and then PS3/360 anyway as Reloaded. I really don't think there's anything stopping the 3rd party if they still own the rights.

No, it didn't. That was a completely original game.

Being based on the same movie IP and taking a bit of inspiration here and there is a far cry from it being an updated rerelease of the original.


I believe, for the most part, it's the PUBLISHER that maintains the rights for a game.

Only if the publisher owns the developer of the game (And often then, if the developer gets sold off, often the rights go along in the sale such as what went on with Rare), buys the asset outright, or contracted with the developer to start with to create a game for them.

If a publisher merely picks up the rights to publish a game, those rights are almost always (If not always) for a limited amount of time. Microsoft has no ownership stake in Outrun 2 on the original Xbox, for instance, despite being the publisher of it here in North America.

[Greg2600]

Oops, meant copyrights, they go on for a very long time. True, Reloaded was a suped up version of Activision's Wii version. The upgraded N64 game for XBLA will never see the light of day. But really the game companies holding onto an IP for dear life is not exclusive there. In movies its far worse, where you're just going to be bombarded with rebooted Marvel franchises for years to come, because Sony and Paramount don't want to lapse and have to turn the contracts back over to Marvel (now Disney).

[Leo_A]

True, Reloaded was a suped up version of Activision's Wii version. The upgraded N64 game for XBLA will never see the light of day.

While 100% true, that's not what I was saying.

Activision's Goldeneye game on current generation consoles isn't an updated rerelease of the N64 game from Rare like you claimed. It's an original game that beyond sharing a common movie IP, genre, and a few unofficial nods to it here and there was completely unrelated to the N64 game.

[BetaWolf47]

Didn't the Ninja Gaiden NES games get packed in with one of the Xbox titles?

[wiggyx]

OP, there is no single answer to this question, as should be fairly obvious based on all the responses. Each publisher and developer have a contract with each other. That contract outlines who is the owner of the name, code, any imagery, etc.


Pretty sure Nintendo has no rights on 3rd party NES games, and the patents I don't think will expire in our lifetimes.

Patents expire in 25 years, but can be extended.

Copyright, in this context (i.e. anything from the time-frame that we're talking about), lasts a good long time. Longer than any of us will live and likely far past the commercial viability of the IP. The exact time varies depending on the length of time that the person who created the material lives. After they die, there's a timer that counts down before the property becomes public domain. This may change very soon as many of Disney's copyrighted characters are quickly approaching the point of becoming public domain, and they WILL NOT let that happen. Hell, Disney is a huge part of the reason that copyright exists at all.


Some do and some don't. Epic still owns the rights to the Gears of War series but chooses to only releases it exclusively to the 360. Naughty Dog does not own the rights to the Uncharted series, despite creating it. Sony owns the rights to that series and pretty much everything else Naughty Dog have created on the various Playstation platforms. This is why Insomniac(creators of Sony's Resistance and Ratchet & Clank series) have decided to keep ownership rights of their next video game release. That way they can release it multiplatform(it's getting a 360 release) and they will see a bigger return of investment. The way to go for developers these days is definitely to do what Epic did and keep control of their series as opposed to handing over the rights to the publishers. I think you are going to see an even bigger shift to that during the next gen.

Naughty Dog operated as a "2nd party" developer for a long time. I.e. Sony had a significant vested interest in the company, and thus has exclusivity rights for many, if not all, of the properties created by Naughty Dog. At this point they are 100% owned by Sony, so ANYTHING that they create post the 2001 purchase is owned by Sony.


Banjo-Kazooie is owned by Microsoft, thus why the two originals showed up on Live, even though they were originally onthe N64. I am almost positive Killer Instinct is also owned by Microsoft, so why they haven't released these games, or a new one, is a mystery. In fact, most Rare characters are owned by MS. The only notable exception would be Donkey Kong related characters for obvious reasons.

As for Goldeneye, Nintendo owned the rights to the franchise when Rare made the game. So technically, they still own the game design itself. Thus why you probably won't see it anytime soon. Same reason BK and Conker were not in the remake of Diddy Kong Racing, even though the game was still developed by Rare. Go figure.

Killer Instinct is NOT owned exclusively by Rare/Microsoft. That IS why there have been no KI titles on the 360 to this date (or any Nintendo system for that matter).


You are correct, Microsoft owns all of the properties that Rare owned, including Killer Instinct. They have gotten many request for remakes or new versions of KI(among others) ever since acquiring Rare but for some dumb ass reason they refuse to release any new games in the series.

And that is the most annoying part of Goldeneye 64 never being released for XBLA despite being completely finished by Rare. Nintendo basically strong-armed Activision to not allow it to appear on a non Nintendo system and yet thats exactly what happened with the remake. I'm still holding out hope that eventually we will get it but I'm not holding my breath.

Again, not true. The "dumb" reason is partial ownership by both Rare and Nintendo. No agreement, no new titles. As I understand it, Nintendo is the one that has been difficult to work out an agreement with.

Goldeneye works like KI does. Partial ownership on both sides. Rare was another 2nd party company at the time that Golden Eye was created and this is why many of Rare's IPs are not exclusively owned by Rare/Microsoft. Nintendo didn't "strong-arm" anyone. They hold partial rights, and that's all it takes to prevent a re-release elsewhere. I don't blame them. GE is a HUGE, potentially profitable IP. They don' want to let that one go without being able to put their hands in the cookie jar as well.

[frogofdeath]

Killer Instinct is NOT owned exclusively by Rare/Microsoft. That IS why there have been no KI titles on the 360 to this date (or any Nintendo system for that matter).

Who else owns rights to Killer Instinct? According to IGN, Microsoft gained full rights to Killer Instinct (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/371/371977p1.html) with their acquisition back in 2002. Now maybe Midway had some say in the IP, but they are now defunct, so I doubt that is the reason.

Also there is this two year old interview with Ken Lobb (http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-4488-X10--Ken-Lobb--Killer-Instinct-Has-a-Place-on-the-XBLA.html) that makes it seem like a Killer Instinct re-release or update could still be a possibility on XBLA. Granted, this is over two years old, so I am still guessing there never will be a new release.

[wiggyx]

Nintendo of course.

Even if they don't own part of the IP, then it's still possible that they have some sort of ownership of publishing rights that has yet to expire. As much as I've read "we're waiting for the right time" blah blah from the developers regarding the perfect timing for the release of a KI title, I can't help but notice a distinct lack of KI as DLC for ANY console. That leads me to believe that there's still some question as to who has certain rights and who doesn't. I would wager that nobody is willing to talk about it at this point, so we'll just keep hearing the same shtick over and over about how they're working on it or waiting for a perfect moment in time to release it. If the difficulties with getting Goldeneye onto the Xbox are any indicator, then it's hard to imagine that something similar isn't going on with KI and that we'll never hear about it again until/if it settles.

Hell, there could even be concern over emulation of the original hardware that ran the game (which is owned and patented by Nintendo) and that emulating it would cause concern for Nintendo and their still existing patent rights for the U64/N64.

[frogofdeath]

Nintendo of course.

Hell, there could even be concern over emulation of the original hardware that ran the game (which is owned and patented by Nintendo) and that emulating it would cause concern for Nintendo and their still existing patent rights for the U64/N64.
I'm not buying this as the reason Killer Instinct has not shown up as a re-release or in a new version. If this was the case, there would have been all kinds of issues with Banjo-Kazooie and Perfect Dark, two similar IPs in regards to them at one time being part of Nintendo. However, after Nintendo sold their share in the company, and Microsoft bought Rare, these IPs no longer had anything to do with Nintendo beyond a historical footnote. That is why these games (BK and PD) are on 360 and not on the Wii - it has nothing to do with the original hardware the game debuted on.

Goldeneye is a whole different animal. This is an IP that is owned by a completely different company/group/estate. Nintendo bought the rights to the Bond movie/characters and, from what I recall, were sitting on these property rights for a couple years. They said, "Hey Rare, see what you can do with this." Then Rare develops an important piece of gaming history. Now, Rare would like to release this game on XBLA and I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason they haven't is because Nintendo is blocking them. While I have no direct knowledge, I am only assuming this is because Nintendo owned the rights to the Bond license, and so the game, 15 years ago and can somehow block the game from being re-released in 20XX.

[theclaw]

I'm not buying this as the reason Killer Instinct has not shown up as a re-release or in a new version. If this was the case, there would have been all kinds of issues with Banjo-Kazooie and Perfect Dark, two similar IPs in regards to them at one time being part of Nintendo. However, after Nintendo sold their share in the company, and Microsoft bought Rare, these IPs no longer had anything to do with Nintendo beyond a historical footnote. That is why these games (BK and PD) are on 360 and not on the Wii - it has nothing to do with the original hardware the game debuted on.

Goldeneye is a whole different animal. This is an IP that is owned by a completely different company/group/estate. Nintendo bought the rights to the Bond movie/characters and, from what I recall, were sitting on these property rights for a couple years. They said, "Hey Rare, see what you can do with this." Then Rare develops an important piece of gaming history. Now, Rare would like to release this game on XBLA and I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason they haven't is because Nintendo is blocking them. While I have no direct knowledge, I am only assuming this is because Nintendo owned the rights to the Bond license, and so the game, 15 years ago and can somehow block the game from being re-released in 20XX.

Are we positive Goldeneye doesn't contain Nintendo code? If so then, licensing or not, the game may need a significant reprogram either way.

[Jorpho]

Patents expire in 25 years, but can be extended.What gives you that idea? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States)

There are cases in which patents have expired on useful and profitable inventions to which a company lost exclusive rights upon expiry of the patent. A company can get a new patent that improves upon an old invention, and get exclusive rights to the improved invention, but there is nothing to stop the original patent from expiring.

Anyway, I think Nintendo may have some sort of rights to Goldeneye and KI in Japan that they do not have elsewhere, given that the Proximity Mine (http://www.ssbwiki.com/Motion-Sensor_Bomb) is properly attributed in the Japanese version of Smash Bros Melee but not the US version. The same goes for the Cloaking Device, as I recall.

[The 1 2 P]

Killer Instinct is NOT owned exclusively by Rare/Microsoft. That IS why there have been no KI titles on the 360 to this date (or any Nintendo system for that matter).

To the best of my knowledge Nintendo no longer has nothing to do with the Killer Instinct franchise and even if they did hold partial rights to past games in the series(which I don't believe they do) that wouldn't hold up any new games in the series. Microsoft is pretty much just holding back from releasing any new content despite having every legal right to do so. In the meantime Rare has made avatars and Kinect Sports. While not the best or worst of initiatives theres nothing really stopping them from having time to make new KI games...except for Microsoft.




No agreement, no new titles. As I understand it, Nintendo is the one that has been difficult to work out an agreement with.

This has already been well documented for the saga of why Goldeneye never got released on the 360. To which....


Nintendo didn't "strong-arm" anyone.

When you tell a publisher not to allow a certain game to appear on a competing platform(which is exactly what Nintendo did when they told Activision not to allow the updated version of N64 Goldeneye to be released on XBLA) that doesn't have anything to do with you and they comply for fear of angering you--thats called strong-arming. At that time the Wii was still the top selling console worldwide and Activision didn't want to lose that revenue source so they did as Nintendo asked.


I don't blame them. GE is a HUGE, potentially profitable IP. They don' want to let that one go without being able to put their hands in the cookie jar as well.

And thats the thing. Microsoft did offer them either a percentage or lump sum of money and also was going to allow them the ability to release their own version on the Wii's download network. But Nintendo refused because they didn't want any of their previous games on competitors systems and in the process denied Wii owners of getting a version of Goldeneye 64 for download. It may have worked for Goldeneye but not other games. Nintendo must really hate that Perfect Dark XBLA release.

[Kiddo]

I think the reason is, it might not sell that much, It did in the 90's..But today might not

We're almost past the peak of the 2nd 2D Fighter Renaissance. The perfect time to bring back Killer Instinct would've been... a bit before or after Mortal Kombat 9 came out. That time has come and gone.

Anyhow, one note everyone's forgetting about Killer Instinct here, is that it's highly possible the rights issues are unique and different between that game, being an arcade title, and Rare's N64 catalogue.

[Leo_A]

Goldeneye is a whole different animal. This is an IP that is owned by a completely different company/group/estate. Nintendo bought the rights to the Bond movie/characters and, from what I recall, were sitting on these property rights for a couple years. They said, "Hey Rare, see what you can do with this." Then Rare develops an important piece of gaming history. Now, Rare would like to release this game on XBLA and I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason they haven't is because Nintendo is blocking them. While I have no direct knowledge, I am only assuming this is because Nintendo owned the rights to the Bond license, and so the game, 15 years ago and can somehow block the game from being re-released in 20XX.

Nintendo doesn't and has never owned the James Bond franchise. They licensed the rights to create a videogame adaption of the Goldeneye movie and those rights have long since expired. I can't believe someone even thinks they owned the franchise...

And it's not hidden information on who has the exclusive videogame rights to the James Bond movie franchise these days. And it's not Nintendo.


Are we positive Goldeneye doesn't contain Nintendo code? If so then, licensing or not, the game may need a significant reprogram either way.

Banjo Kazooie, Banjo Tooie, and Perfect Dark on XBLA aren't utilizing original code anyways. So things like emulation which someone else already mentioned doesn't matter (Not that it would if it did, patents expire in 15 years I believe versus the 25 years I've seen cited in this thread, so the N64 is freely able to be recreated these days although the bios would be still protected by copyrights and have to be worked around). And if some copyrighted code from another company was contained within, I'm sure it would be easy to work around and eliminate during the porting process and converting it into a modern HD release with redone textures and such.


While not the best or worst of initiatives theres nothing really stopping them from having time to make new KI games...except for Microsoft.

While I've never been a fan of fighting games so it doesn't matter one way or another to me, I suspect this is a positive for the franchise.

Rare hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire over the past decade. In fact their best products have been XBLA ports of their pre Microsoft projects ported to the 360 by a 3rd party developer instead of Rare themselves in recent years.

I almost find it difficult even picturing a modern Rare programmed reboot of the Killer Instinct franchise being anything but a disappointment to the fanbase between the long time the franchise has been idle (Which means they'd be fighting a very uphill battle to match people's nostalgia) and Rare's track record of recent years.

[frogofdeath]

Goldeneye is a whole different animal. This is an IP that is owned by a completely different company/group/estate. Nintendo bought the rights to the Bond movie/characters and, from what I recall, were sitting on these property rights for a couple years. They said, "Hey Rare, see what you can do with this." Then Rare develops an important piece of gaming history. Now, Rare would like to release this game on XBLA and I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason they haven't is because Nintendo is blocking them. While I have no direct knowledge, I am only assuming this is because Nintendo owned the rights to the Bond license, and so the game, 15 years ago and can somehow block the game from being re-released in 20XX.

Nintendo doesn't and has never owned the James Bond franchise. They licensed the rights to create a videogame adaption of the Goldeneye movie and those rights have long since expired. I can't believe someone even thinks they owned the franchise...

And it's not hidden information on who has the exclusive videogame rights to the James Bond movie franchise these days. And it's not Nintendo.
Uh, what am I missing here? Don't recall saying Nintendo owned the Bond franchise, just the rights to make a game based on the franchise. Maybe I misworded my original post, or am using the wrong legal mumbo jumbo, but then you use the same terms and say some of the same things.

I was trying to point out that Nintendo is some how using the fact that they own the code to the game (not the Bond franchise...) and are using that as a reason to block a re-release. In the end, I could be completely wrong, as I have absolutely no insider knowledge of anything related to the matter. I have no idea why the original Goldeneye is not being released, nor do I care one way or the other.

[Leo_A]

If Nintendo owned the code, Rare would've never finished an XBLA port of it in the first place. The roadblock was with the James Bond licensing falling through at the last minute which has already been covered by someone else in this thread.

And maybe I interpreted your post the wrong way, but it sounds like you were of the understanding that Nintendo owned the rights to this movie franchise. Sorry if that wasn't the case.