Why are there no unlicensed games today?

[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.