Feels a bit like Stardew Valley with the mix of farming, simple combat, crafting, fishing and talking to the locals, but crossed with Earthbound indeed. Looks good.
Also, anyone interested in a big company going after an emulator can read up on Bleem.
"Ultimately Bleem! won in court and a protective order was issued to "protect David from Goliath". Sony lost on all counts, including Bleem!'s use of screenshots of PlayStation games on its packaging. The court noted that Bleem!'s use of copyrighted screenshots was considered fair use and should be allowed to continue."
Bleem did succumb to bankruptcy due to the legal expenses, but ultimately won. And this was even though Bleem was sold commercially for a profit, unlike most emulators today.
Virtual Game Station was a similar case at the time, also a PS1 emulator.
"Sony perceived VGS as a threat, and filed a lawsuit against Connectix for copyright infringement. The case was eventually closed in favour of Connectix, but Connectix was unable to sell the software in the meantime because Sony had been awarded a temporary injunction.] Soon thereafter, Sony purchased VGS from Connectix and discontinued it."
It was released before the PS2 had even come out, so would be like Cemu today... but VGS was a commercial product and much more complete than Cemu is today.
The original GC is great but Dolphin is great too. You think graphics don't matter until you've played Sunshine in 1080p, 60fps widescreen with HD textures. Plus the ability to use anything you want to control the game with full remapping, including GC, Wii, PS4, XBO controllers and keyboard... and instant save states, action replay/gecko codes, etcetera are nice... also netplay for some titles like SSBM.
On the other hand you need a good computer and specific settings for somes games to run well and some titles have some glitches. It's not perfect. But the "so does my GameCube/Wii" comments miss the point of Dolphin entirely. Plus, the memory cards can die on GC, you have to switch disks and it's more difficult to record footage.
Also:
"It's interesting that, over many years and with so much coverage, Dolphin seems to have been left alone by Nintendo; perhaps the absence of GameCube titles on the eShop helps with that, or on a fundamental level it's possible Nintendo doesn't object to what it delivers."
It wasn't targeted because emulators themselves are generally legal, at least in the US. The "fundamental level" is called "the law." Why should it seem interesting it hasn't been targeted? I have OpenEmu and it uses cores from dozens of emulators. It can emulate NES, SNES, N64, GB, GBA and DS... and you can get those emulators separately too. Forget GC/Wii, there's a 3DS emulator called Citra and Wii U one called Cemu in development. They're not illegal, at least in the US. The Cemu team even has a Patreon, receiving $2,600 a month.
@LemonSlice Note that most of the eggshells are related to the question posed at the time of whether or not his practices were illegal. The original unedited post had an unintended accusatory tone which was unwarranted, so it was edited after a short period of time as soon as I realized to remove those implications–it is more important to me that the person reading understands that it's conjecture and probably not true than to seem like an internet tough guy. The apology later was simply because, well, I didn't want it to look like I was accusing him of illegal activity which he didn't commit (guilty before proven innocent); that wasn't my intent. Regardless of the ethics of his practices they do appear to be legal. Also, I don't really have a big problem with the guy himself. He's made some OK budget titles; they just weren't the majority of his output, which I feel is a sad waste of potential... however small you may think that potential is.
That said... the titles that were simply flipped should've never made it onto the eShop imo.
@Dumpler I have no reason currently to distrust the fact that RCMADIAX has obtained licenses for all his games. The original post, which was edited shortly after arrival to make very clear the fact that it made assumptions and was purely speculative, is not really relevant anymore as it does seem RC reached out to these developers. It was never my intent to accuse him of undertaking any criminal practices; rather explore the potential legal pitfalls with business models like his which he seems to have avoided... the one in question being relying on default licenses on sites like SCIRRA assuming they're all similar just because the categories/content are.
I agree that it could head in a bad direction and don't encourage anymore speculation in that area.
@faint He could've Googled, but I can understand why he didn't in this situation. I'm surprised he didn't know by now, but whatever. Doesn't really matter.
@998613game It does. Reading them now.
As for my opinion I understand both sides. I don't think get why NL would even contact you beforehand if they didn't require your input... why not just post it and tell you "hey, we posted this about you" if they'll ignore your request?
On the other hand, I understand them wanting their readers to know about this practice they may not know about... but once you said no, then it should've been made a generalized piece about the practice and less about you, imo, otherwise why contact you before it goes out at all? I mean, the title even has your company name in it so I can understand your reaction.
@998613game I originally just was seeking a comment from you as I was curious and you frequent the site. Never requested "proof"; just explained the theoretical pitfalls of flipping SCIRRA assets. But now I feel kind of guilty... just for the record, while I get your comment is directed primarily at NL itself and not me, I wasn't being accusatory of your business practices or accusing you of doing something illegal (though I did obviously mention the effects such developers have on the market place, which isn't a personal attack); rather trying to make sure you did get permission in case you didn't notice the licensing difference between categories, as that could bite you in the rear later. Despite the effects on the marketplace, I obviously wish you luck in your future endeavors, since those are simply a symptom of the modern market. I personally think while the article wasn't meant to damage your company that it should've probably just been a generic article on this topic, not referencing your company for most of the examples.
@faint It's originally from the Swing Birds page, actually.
Was honestly surprised to see someone posting "proof." I guess a lot of the comments in this thread could sound accusatory, ex. "Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps @BarryDunne can now understand exactly why the dev didn't want us to run this story?" which implies he didn't comment because he was guilty (note I said in my own comment that this wasn't a witchhunt and "Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license trough other means", etcetera to deescalate it)
@Vineleaf Note that, as Damo pointed out, NL reached out to him and he refused to comment and give his side of the story. Also, it wasn't Damo or Thomas "going after him"... the article clearly states it's legal so long as the terms of the license are being obeyed and positions it as a launching point for discussion around asset flipping. The bit about it being legal so long as the license is being obeyed kind of got me thinking about the way SCIRRA licenses work and the potential pitfalls. The main one being publishing a game from the Games With Source section commercially without developer approval, not realizing the license here doesn't cover that (unlike other sections of the site.)
I wasn't trying to accuse @RCMADIAX of something, just wondering if he could've fallen in said pitfall.
Seems like the proof is legit. I have no reason to distrust those involved. Hopefully this didn't cause anyone to lose their hair at my nitpicking of the license agreement about the whole legality of the matter. I have a tendency to research things... extensively and theorize about the possibilities. Didn't think anyone would care to read my wall of text to be honest.
But now we have proof he got permission, so basically, as I said, RCMADIAX is essentially a publisher more than a developer as far as these titles are involved. Nothing wrong with that, imo. Would've been nice if these were in the proper licensing category to begin with... most of the games RCMADIAX uses are in Game Templates (like Avoider) which state they are for commercial use so that not everyone who wants to buy them has to ask for the developer's opinion.
At least this thread can serve as a warning: be responsible like RCMADIAX and when in doubt, ask for permission and don't assume just because the source code is for sale that you can publish it commercially. (Seen this end the other way in the Unity community before; tutorial code and assets, etcetera published without developer consent.) And, I mean, go look at Ninja Pig and his copyright history...
Also note that all three games with that license were from the same developer, further increasing the likelihood he got permission from the original developer. The only way to know for sure is to ask @RCMADIAX and Bilge Kaan (original developer, can contact through support link.)
@Damo Indeed. I personally think there's nothing wrong with this article. It's not "witchhunting"; just bringing up some interesting discussions. I chuckled at this part "perfectly legal thing to do, provided that in each case the terms of the license are being followed."
Would highly recommend @RCMADIAX contact a lawyer and/or contact SIRRA or the original developers for clarification if he hasn't already gotten their permission and obviously pull the offending titles from the shop if they violate the licenses. I mean, he has tons of games in the clear anyway so it's not like he's going to lose his livelihood... but leaving it could have repercussions if I'm right, and if I'm wrong it doesn't hurt to check.
Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license trough other means. He seems to have asked on the Don't Crash comment thread (based on the user's avatar being similar to his company logo) whether or not he can resell it and got no response; it's possible he directly contacted the developer and got his permission. I just viewed the comment thread for Panda Love and someone asked if they could resell it and was told they could. Keep in mind these are just the default licenses available for purchase through SCIRRA which I should've stressed more; nothing is stopping him from directly contacting the devs and getting their permission, as far as I can tell. I really should've put that in the original post so that's going in now as an EDIT.
I have now viewed the full licensing agreement. RCMADIAX's games from the Games With Source category seem to be, indeed, in violation of his liscense. Updating original post. I can't say for sure as I'm not a lawyer but I cannot see any other way of construing this.
EDIT: This is assuming he did purchase his license through SCIRRA and didn't contact the original developer for permission to do this; which is a big assumption.
@faint Thanks. I'm no expert but I do think the titles from Games With Source aren't for resale. I used to use Unity a long time ago and I asked a developer of one of these sorts of products if users could resell it for a profit and he said no. The product was, similarly, a small game you could play and view the source code to dissect for educational purposes, though it was free to access at the time (originally for sale if I recall). Don't remember the product as, as I said, it was a long time ago.
However, I could be wrong, so I wouldn't pass judgement too hastily... and note most of his games are not from this category and seem to be perfectly legal. It's also possible he legitimately obtained permission directly from the developer.
I would recommend RCMADIAX double check his license for his games from the Games With Source category and contact SCIRRA regarding this issue to make sure he's in the clear.
EDIT4: https://twitter.com/NinImpactGaming/status/772566818754072576 Proof has been posted on Twitter of a conversation between RCMADIAX and the original developer by Nintendo Impact Gaming. Seems legitimate, in which case none of the below about the licenses should apply. So read it if you like reading something akin to watching paint dry while you're on the can or something... I don't know, but realize it's old conjecture and almost assuredly not applicable to RCMADIAX. Last edit unless I notice some huge issue.
EDIT (old): Read the original post content below, first. But it seems RCMADIAX is indeed in violation of his license for games from the Games With Source Content, assuming he purchased his license directly through the site and didn't directly ask the developer for permission. Appended at the end of the post is the full license in intalics.
Longtime lurker, made this account just to post this. Skip ahead five paragraphs if you're only interested in some interesting stuff I've found about the legality of this.
I think many people are missing the point on why this is often frowned upon. This is not just asset licensing as seen in DOOM, etcetera. In most projects, SOME part of the game is original. Maybe a designer and artist wants to make a game but isn't a good programmer or musician, so he/she purchases code and music assets which work together with his original content to make a new game. Or maybe a programmer purchases the art and music... I'm even fine with someone buying a full game asset like Panda Love and adding some more levels and selling it. If RCMADIAX took Pixel Slime or Panda Love and doubled or tripled the level count–probably doable in a few weeks, maybe a month, if you're competent enough with the tools–then I don't think most people would have a big issue with that.
The problem mot people have is that in most cases none of the content appears to be original content. The main code base, the design of the game and its levels, the music and the art in many of these titles are identical to the demo versions. (See Skeasy/Panda Love.) If any of these parts were original that'd be one thing. But it seems like he's literally just buying the licenses for these starter projects at, quite literally, ten dollars or so, modifying the controls slightly for Wii U if necessary, making sure they work on the GamePad and then shipping them off to Nintendo.
The other part that seems disingenuous is that these can be played for free. Simply go to the games' pages and click on "Play Demo." The "demo," since the product is the source code and assets themselves, is the entirety of the gameplay. I haven't tested it on the Wii U, but several of these probably already work on it, since the browser is HTML5 compatible... meaning you don't need to pay RCMADIAX two dollars; you can just play them in your browser. For the few that don't work. well... they should with a USB keyboard.
Now, to be fair he has added a few things to some of them... basically, if the game has no music (AVOIDER) or graphics (SHOOTY SPACE) he seems to get someone to make an asset. He's basically acting more as a publisher than a developer, that tweaks the games slightly for the platform.
It's his choice how he makes a living and no one is being forced to buy his stuff. But these kinds of operations are a big part of the reason other app stores are flooded with so much shovelware that the actual good stuff gets the life squeezed out of it due to lack of visibility.
Legality discussion:
Note that the intent for some of these games it seems is not to be sold like this. For example, the "games with source" category on SCIRRA has the following description:
"These games are provided with the CapX source files for you to learn from."
Note also that the description for the page in Google results is "Panda Love - Game Development Examples - Scirra.com"
As for the legality of this operation... well, it seems like the licenses for some of these projects differ based on category. Note that Panda Love, Don't Crash and Jackpot are all found in the Games With Source Category with this clause and description.
"2. Provided CapX Source Files
Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.
You are not permitted to claim ownership of any derivative works you create from the Source Files.
You are only permitted to privately distribute derivative works amongst friends and family in person (not online), strictly for demonstrative purposes.
You are not permitted to distribute derivative works in any other way, including but not limited to online publishing/distribution, public demonstrations, for sale, or accessible to the general public in any form."
It seems like his games may be counted as a derivative, for obvious reasons, and this is reinforced by the fact that this clause is NOT in other licenses found in other categories with source files. There are three categories of whole game assets. There's the "Games With Source" which seems to be only for educational purposes. The OTHER two categories are meant for commercial use ("Game Licenses") and ("Royalty Free Assets -> Game Templates"). Since those three games are not under Game Licenses (where there might be stipulations in how you may use the asset, but it states explicitly it's for commercial use) or Royalty Free Assets (no major stipulations, pay once up front per commercial project)... and have that license clause... yeah, they could be educational tools he's not supposed to be selling. However, it's possible he got expressed permission directly from the developer.
Note that games from the commercial sections (example: Slime Pixel) cost a LOT more. Slime Pixel costing $360 US. The average price is $80 and as high as $500, as opposed to the $5 to $20 for the Games With Source, though they seem to go on sale for $10 occasionally. They also state in the license that they can be used for commercial use and do NOT have the stipulation about distributing derivative works. Note, however, that these licenses by default are only for putting the games on your website; not on a console.
"Seller grants Licensee a Commercial and Royalty Free license to the Licensed Content. Licensee may generate unlimited revenue from Licensed Content for the duration of this Agreement.
... Licensee is only permitted to deploy the Licensed Content on the web. Licensee may use the Licensed Content on 1 domain name (the “Domain Name”), and all subdomains of that domain name."
However, since these don't come with source code I'm sure RCMADIAX contacted the developer of the game and got the correct license; the descriptions states that other licenses and source code are available if you contact him. So this one seems fine... so long as he contacted the developer and didn't use the SCIRRA license, which does NOT cover non-website deployment.
The rest of his games fall into the Game Templates, Royalty Free Assets category. These are legal, though most were clearly made to be modified and are incomplete, being just basic game systems and engines. Also note that these ones require you to purchase another license for each product you use the assets in; so I'd assume RCMADIAX is supposed to buy a second license for his bundles where the game is sold again, and if he didn't would be in violation of his license.
TL;DR of legal section:
Some of RCMADIAX's games come from the Games With Source category on SCIRRA and not the other two categories clearly intended for reselling. Reasons supporting not being supposed to resell them:
1. License stipulation prohibiting selling source derivatives; compiled game is probably applicable.
Note that this stipulation is not in Game Template assets and Game Licenses sold for commercial use.
2. Google results call them "Developer Examples."
3. Category description is "These games are provided ... for you to learn from."
4. The text for adding to cart is "Buy" whereas the commercial categories is "Purchase Single
Project License" with a question mark describing the license.
I'm pretty sure that his Wii U games from the Games With Source category are considered derivative works created from the source code and thus are in violation of his license... provided he did indeed purchase a license through SCIRRA and not directly from the seller. It seems you're buying the right to view the source code for educational purposes and play the game, not sell it. Ex. Panda Love and Don't Crash.
The ones from the Game Licenses section are fine so long as he contacted the seller and had them give him a commercial license that includes selling it on the Wii U eShop as the default license does NOT. If he didn't, his license is invalid for this purpose. Ex. Pixel Slime.
The ones from Game Templates are fine, so long as he purchases one license (this applies to Game Licenses as well) per app that uses the assets. This might apply to bundles as he's not bundling licenses to two separate titles but making a new combination title, in which case if he only has one license for his bundled software he's in violation here. Ex. Skeasy.
Note that I am not a lawyer and none of this should be taken as legal advice. This is all layman speculation on the legality, or at least intended usage regardless of legality, of some of RCMADIAX's games' source. Also see EDIT3; he could've gotten permission directly from the developer for the games from Games With Source.
TL;DR or everything including previous TL;DR:
Three of the games in the article seem to have non-commercial licenses stating that distribution of derivative works for non-educational purposes beyond friends and family is prohibited and so they could be illegal if he didn't get permission from the original developer. (In case you didn't read the edits... it seems he did.) The other ones are legal if he handled it right. I have no problem with RCMADIAX so long as their operation is legal, but find it sad that these low quality games threaten to one day flood the eShop like mobile marketplaces. At least some of the games, like Super Robo Mouse and Drop Blok x Twisted Fusion seem to be his own work. This shouldn't turn into a witchhunt but should open up an interesting discussion on the matter of reselling whole-game assets. I think the most correct viewpoint here is that RCMADIAX is, essentially, a publisher more than a developer and simply pays for the right to publish the games found on SCIRRA to the eShop.
As mentioned in EDIT 1 (old): Full license for Games from the Games With Source from SCIRRA:
"D. Games 1. Usage
Games are for personal use only. You may not use the games or any part of the games content for any commercial, promotional, institutional, corporate or teaching purposes.
Each game you purchase can only be downloaded to and stored on a maximum of 5 devices and/or computers at any one time.
You are not permitted to share any games you purchase. This includes but is not limited to, peer-to-peer networks, file sharing websites, family, friends, colleagues, internet communities.
You are not permitted to modify or reverse engineer the games in any way (including but not limited to removal of copyright notices).
You are not permitted to copy or publish the games, or any part of the games content (text or graphics). E. Games With Source 1. Extension of Games License
This license should be considered an extension of the Games License listed above. 2. Provided CapX Source Files
Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.
You are not permitted to claim ownership of any derivative works you create from the Source Files.
You are only permitted to privately distribute derivative works amongst friends and family in person (not online), strictly for demonstrative purposes.
*You are not permitted to distribute derivative works in any other way, including but not limited to online publishing/distribution, public demonstrations, for sale, or accessible to the general public in any form."
In addition to not being able to distribute derivatives of the source, which the games should be considered now after briefly reviewing a few dozen similar topics in the past on Stack Overflow (mostly about open source software licenses and how the creator of a new piece of software that was created from open source code may itself have to be open source if the license states that derivative works must adopt the original's license... which implies that slightly modified software is a derivative of its original source code, which makes complete sense), it's also apparently in violation of the original license that that part is an extension of!
Again, not a lawyer. Could be completely wrong. Also see EDIT3; he could've gotten permission directly from the developer.
EDIT2: Note that the whole clause about not modifying the software seems to be meant only for game without source code and modifying the source code if you bought it doesn't seem to violate this otherwise everyone would be in violation... (I surmise technically you're not modifying the game but the source and then making a new game/derivative work. It seems because derivative works are allowed for personal use that this clause in the extension trumps the clause preventing modification. I don't know for sure but I know it's intended to stop people from buying a game without source and decompiling it. Made this edit just in case someone tries to make a lame argument using that clause that "Everyone is in violation!")
EDIT 3: Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license through other means. He seems to have asked on the Don't Crash comment thread (same real name, same company logo...) whether or not he can resell it and got no response; it's possible he directly contacted the developer and got his permission. Keep in mind these are just the default licenses which I should've stressed more; nothing is stopping him from directly contacting the devs and getting their permission. This is also pretty likely as the three games in question were all made by the same guy; even if there was a licensing issue, it seems like the developer has no problem with this behavior as he OK'd putting a derivative of one of his games on Google Play when someone asked him in a comments thread, in which case this is most likely more of a technicality than any moral dilemma.
User 1: Is the like a game template which you buy and then edit to sell or not?
User 2: Same question as above. If we buy it, are we allowed edit it and put it on google playstore?
Developer: AT User2 Yes, you can publish on Google Play.
All @RCMADIAX has to do is come on here and tell us he has permission from the developer beyond the basic license found on SCIRRA to publish the game on the eShop and everything is done and dusted here.
Comments 15
Re: "Slow Living Miniscape RPG" Picontier Coming To 3DS, Gives Us Earthbound Feels
Feels a bit like Stardew Valley with the mix of farming, simple combat, crafting, fishing and talking to the locals, but crossed with Earthbound indeed. Looks good.
Re: The Dolphin Emulator Can Now Play the Entire GameCube Library
Also, anyone interested in a big company going after an emulator can read up on Bleem.
"Ultimately Bleem! won in court and a protective order was issued to "protect David from Goliath". Sony lost on all counts, including Bleem!'s use of screenshots of PlayStation games on its packaging. The court noted that Bleem!'s use of copyrighted screenshots was considered fair use and should be allowed to continue."
Bleem did succumb to bankruptcy due to the legal expenses, but ultimately won. And this was even though Bleem was sold commercially for a profit, unlike most emulators today.
Virtual Game Station was a similar case at the time, also a PS1 emulator.
"Sony perceived VGS as a threat, and filed a lawsuit against Connectix for copyright infringement. The case was eventually closed in favour of Connectix, but Connectix was unable to sell the software in the meantime because Sony had been awarded a temporary injunction.] Soon thereafter, Sony purchased VGS from Connectix and discontinued it."
It was released before the PS2 had even come out, so would be like Cemu today... but VGS was a commercial product and much more complete than Cemu is today.
Re: The Dolphin Emulator Can Now Play the Entire GameCube Library
The original GC is great but Dolphin is great too. You think graphics don't matter until you've played Sunshine in 1080p, 60fps widescreen with HD textures. Plus the ability to use anything you want to control the game with full remapping, including GC, Wii, PS4, XBO controllers and keyboard... and instant save states, action replay/gecko codes, etcetera are nice... also netplay for some titles like SSBM.
On the other hand you need a good computer and specific settings for somes games to run well and some titles have some glitches. It's not perfect. But the "so does my GameCube/Wii" comments miss the point of Dolphin entirely. Plus, the memory cards can die on GC, you have to switch disks and it's more difficult to record footage.
Also:
"It's interesting that, over many years and with so much coverage, Dolphin seems to have been left alone by Nintendo; perhaps the absence of GameCube titles on the eShop helps with that, or on a fundamental level it's possible Nintendo doesn't object to what it delivers."
It wasn't targeted because emulators themselves are generally legal, at least in the US. The "fundamental level" is called "the law." Why should it seem interesting it hasn't been targeted? I have OpenEmu and it uses cores from dozens of emulators. It can emulate NES, SNES, N64, GB, GBA and DS... and you can get those emulators separately too. Forget GC/Wii, there's a 3DS emulator called Citra and Wii U one called Cemu in development. They're not illegal, at least in the US. The Cemu team even has a Patreon, receiving $2,600 a month.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@LemonSlice Note that most of the eggshells are related to the question posed at the time of whether or not his practices were illegal. The original unedited post had an unintended accusatory tone which was unwarranted, so it was edited after a short period of time as soon as I realized to remove those implications–it is more important to me that the person reading understands that it's conjecture and probably not true than to seem like an internet tough guy. The apology later was simply because, well, I didn't want it to look like I was accusing him of illegal activity which he didn't commit (guilty before proven innocent); that wasn't my intent. Regardless of the ethics of his practices they do appear to be legal. Also, I don't really have a big problem with the guy himself. He's made some OK budget titles; they just weren't the majority of his output, which I feel is a sad waste of potential... however small you may think that potential is.
That said... the titles that were simply flipped should've never made it onto the eShop imo.
@Dumpler I have no reason currently to distrust the fact that RCMADIAX has obtained licenses for all his games. The original post, which was edited shortly after arrival to make very clear the fact that it made assumptions and was purely speculative, is not really relevant anymore as it does seem RC reached out to these developers. It was never my intent to accuse him of undertaking any criminal practices; rather explore the potential legal pitfalls with business models like his which he seems to have avoided... the one in question being relying on default licenses on sites like SCIRRA assuming they're all similar just because the categories/content are.
I agree that it could head in a bad direction and don't encourage anymore speculation in that area.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@faint He could've Googled, but I can understand why he didn't in this situation. I'm surprised he didn't know by now, but whatever. Doesn't really matter.
@998613game It does. Reading them now.
As for my opinion I understand both sides. I don't think get why NL would even contact you beforehand if they didn't require your input... why not just post it and tell you "hey, we posted this about you" if they'll ignore your request?
On the other hand, I understand them wanting their readers to know about this practice they may not know about... but once you said no, then it should've been made a generalized piece about the practice and less about you, imo, otherwise why contact you before it goes out at all? I mean, the title even has your company name in it so I can understand your reaction.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@998613game As stated, use BBCode or upload to imgur, etc and leave the link. BBCode tags are [img]url_img[/img].
That'll embed whatever the url_img leads to. Mine would've read "Untitled" because there's no valid link but I escaped it ().
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@samuelvictor I would also like to know the time frame as 3-4 hours does seem kind of short.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@998613game I originally just was seeking a comment from you as I was curious and you frequent the site. Never requested "proof"; just explained the theoretical pitfalls of flipping SCIRRA assets. But now I feel kind of guilty... just for the record, while I get your comment is directed primarily at NL itself and not me, I wasn't being accusatory of your business practices or accusing you of doing something illegal (though I did obviously mention the effects such developers have on the market place, which isn't a personal attack); rather trying to make sure you did get permission in case you didn't notice the licensing difference between categories, as that could bite you in the rear later. Despite the effects on the marketplace, I obviously wish you luck in your future endeavors, since those are simply a symptom of the modern market. I personally think while the article wasn't meant to damage your company that it should've probably just been a generic article on this topic, not referencing your company for most of the examples.
@faint It's originally from the Swing Birds page, actually.
Was honestly surprised to see someone posting "proof." I guess a lot of the comments in this thread could sound accusatory, ex. "Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps @BarryDunne can now understand exactly why the dev didn't want us to run this story?" which implies he didn't comment because he was guilty (note I said in my own comment that this wasn't a witchhunt and "Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license trough other means", etcetera to deescalate it)
@Vineleaf Alright, no apology required.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@Vineleaf Note that, as Damo pointed out, NL reached out to him and he refused to comment and give his side of the story. Also, it wasn't Damo or Thomas "going after him"... the article clearly states it's legal so long as the terms of the license are being obeyed and positions it as a launching point for discussion around asset flipping. The bit about it being legal so long as the license is being obeyed kind of got me thinking about the way SCIRRA licenses work and the potential pitfalls. The main one being publishing a game from the Games With Source section commercially without developer approval, not realizing the license here doesn't cover that (unlike other sections of the site.)
I wasn't trying to accuse @RCMADIAX of something, just wondering if he could've fallen in said pitfall.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
Seems like the proof is legit. I have no reason to distrust those involved. Hopefully this didn't cause anyone to lose their hair at my nitpicking of the license agreement about the whole legality of the matter. I have a tendency to research things... extensively and theorize about the possibilities. Didn't think anyone would care to read my wall of text to be honest.
But now we have proof he got permission, so basically, as I said, RCMADIAX is essentially a publisher more than a developer as far as these titles are involved. Nothing wrong with that, imo. Would've been nice if these were in the proper licensing category to begin with... most of the games RCMADIAX uses are in Game Templates (like Avoider) which state they are for commercial use so that not everyone who wants to buy them has to ask for the developer's opinion.
At least this thread can serve as a warning: be responsible like RCMADIAX and when in doubt, ask for permission and don't assume just because the source code is for sale that you can publish it commercially. (Seen this end the other way in the Unity community before; tutorial code and assets, etcetera published without developer consent.) And, I mean, go look at Ninja Pig and his copyright history...
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
Also note that all three games with that license were from the same developer, further increasing the likelihood he got permission from the original developer. The only way to know for sure is to ask @RCMADIAX and Bilge Kaan (original developer, can contact through support link.)
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@Damo Indeed. I personally think there's nothing wrong with this article. It's not "witchhunting"; just bringing up some interesting discussions. I chuckled at this part "perfectly legal thing to do, provided that in each case the terms of the license are being followed."
Would highly recommend @RCMADIAX contact a lawyer and/or contact SIRRA or the original developers for clarification if he hasn't already gotten their permission and obviously pull the offending titles from the shop if they violate the licenses. I mean, he has tons of games in the clear anyway so it's not like he's going to lose his livelihood... but leaving it could have repercussions if I'm right, and if I'm wrong it doesn't hurt to check.
Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license trough other means. He seems to have asked on the Don't Crash comment thread (based on the user's avatar being similar to his company logo) whether or not he can resell it and got no response; it's possible he directly contacted the developer and got his permission. I just viewed the comment thread for Panda Love and someone asked if they could resell it and was told they could. Keep in mind these are just the default licenses available for purchase through SCIRRA which I should've stressed more; nothing is stopping him from directly contacting the devs and getting their permission, as far as I can tell. I really should've put that in the original post so that's going in now as an EDIT.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
I have now viewed the full licensing agreement. RCMADIAX's games from the Games With Source category seem to be, indeed, in violation of his liscense. Updating original post. I can't say for sure as I'm not a lawyer but I cannot see any other way of construing this.
EDIT: This is assuming he did purchase his license through SCIRRA and didn't contact the original developer for permission to do this; which is a big assumption.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
@faint Thanks. I'm no expert but I do think the titles from Games With Source aren't for resale. I used to use Unity a long time ago and I asked a developer of one of these sorts of products if users could resell it for a profit and he said no. The product was, similarly, a small game you could play and view the source code to dissect for educational purposes, though it was free to access at the time (originally for sale if I recall). Don't remember the product as, as I said, it was a long time ago.
However, I could be wrong, so I wouldn't pass judgement too hastily... and note most of his games are not from this category and seem to be perfectly legal. It's also possible he legitimately obtained permission directly from the developer.
I would recommend RCMADIAX double check his license for his games from the Games With Source category and contact SCIRRA regarding this issue to make sure he's in the clear.
Re: Feature: Exploring the Licensed Content in RCMADIAX Games on the Wii U and New 3DS eShop
EDIT4: https://twitter.com/NinImpactGaming/status/772566818754072576
Proof has been posted on Twitter of a conversation between RCMADIAX and the original developer by Nintendo Impact Gaming. Seems legitimate, in which case none of the below about the licenses should apply. So read it if you like reading something akin to watching paint dry while you're on the can or something... I don't know, but realize it's old conjecture and almost assuredly not applicable to RCMADIAX. Last edit unless I notice some huge issue.
EDIT (old): Read the original post content below, first. But it seems RCMADIAX is indeed in violation of his license for games from the Games With Source Content, assuming he purchased his license directly through the site and didn't directly ask the developer for permission. Appended at the end of the post is the full license in intalics.
Longtime lurker, made this account just to post this. Skip ahead five paragraphs if you're only interested in some interesting stuff I've found about the legality of this.
I think many people are missing the point on why this is often frowned upon. This is not just asset licensing as seen in DOOM, etcetera. In most projects, SOME part of the game is original. Maybe a designer and artist wants to make a game but isn't a good programmer or musician, so he/she purchases code and music assets which work together with his original content to make a new game. Or maybe a programmer purchases the art and music... I'm even fine with someone buying a full game asset like Panda Love and adding some more levels and selling it. If RCMADIAX took Pixel Slime or Panda Love and doubled or tripled the level count–probably doable in a few weeks, maybe a month, if you're competent enough with the tools–then I don't think most people would have a big issue with that.
The problem mot people have is that in most cases none of the content appears to be original content. The main code base, the design of the game and its levels, the music and the art in many of these titles are identical to the demo versions. (See Skeasy/Panda Love.) If any of these parts were original that'd be one thing. But it seems like he's literally just buying the licenses for these starter projects at, quite literally, ten dollars or so, modifying the controls slightly for Wii U if necessary, making sure they work on the GamePad and then shipping them off to Nintendo.
The other part that seems disingenuous is that these can be played for free. Simply go to the games' pages and click on "Play Demo." The "demo," since the product is the source code and assets themselves, is the entirety of the gameplay. I haven't tested it on the Wii U, but several of these probably already work on it, since the browser is HTML5 compatible... meaning you don't need to pay RCMADIAX two dollars; you can just play them in your browser. For the few that don't work. well... they should with a USB keyboard.
Now, to be fair he has added a few things to some of them... basically, if the game has no music (AVOIDER) or graphics (SHOOTY SPACE) he seems to get someone to make an asset. He's basically acting more as a publisher than a developer, that tweaks the games slightly for the platform.
It's his choice how he makes a living and no one is being forced to buy his stuff. But these kinds of operations are a big part of the reason other app stores are flooded with so much shovelware that the actual good stuff gets the life squeezed out of it due to lack of visibility.
Legality discussion:
Note that the intent for some of these games it seems is not to be sold like this. For example, the "games with source" category on SCIRRA has the following description:
"These games are provided with the CapX source files for you to learn from."
Note also that the description for the page in Google results is "Panda Love - Game Development Examples - Scirra.com"
As for the legality of this operation... well, it seems like the licenses for some of these projects differ based on category. Note that Panda Love, Don't Crash and Jackpot are all found in the Games With Source Category with this clause and description.
"2. Provided CapX Source Files
Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.
You are not permitted to claim ownership of any derivative works you create from the Source Files.
You are only permitted to privately distribute derivative works amongst friends and family in person (not online), strictly for demonstrative purposes.
You are not permitted to distribute derivative works in any other way, including but not limited to online publishing/distribution, public demonstrations, for sale, or accessible to the general public in any form."
It seems like his games may be counted as a derivative, for obvious reasons, and this is reinforced by the fact that this clause is NOT in other licenses found in other categories with source files. There are three categories of whole game assets. There's the "Games With Source" which seems to be only for educational purposes. The OTHER two categories are meant for commercial use ("Game Licenses") and ("Royalty Free Assets -> Game Templates"). Since those three games are not under Game Licenses (where there might be stipulations in how you may use the asset, but it states explicitly it's for commercial use) or Royalty Free Assets (no major stipulations, pay once up front per commercial project)... and have that license clause... yeah, they could be educational tools he's not supposed to be selling. However, it's possible he got expressed permission directly from the developer.
Note that games from the commercial sections (example: Slime Pixel) cost a LOT more. Slime Pixel costing $360 US. The average price is $80 and as high as $500, as opposed to the $5 to $20 for the Games With Source, though they seem to go on sale for $10 occasionally. They also state in the license that they can be used for commercial use and do NOT have the stipulation about distributing derivative works. Note, however, that these licenses by default are only for putting the games on your website; not on a console.
"Seller grants Licensee a Commercial and Royalty Free license to the Licensed Content. Licensee may generate unlimited revenue from Licensed Content for the duration of this Agreement.
...
Licensee is only permitted to deploy the Licensed Content on the web. Licensee may use the Licensed Content on 1 domain name (the “Domain Name”), and all subdomains of that domain name."
However, since these don't come with source code I'm sure RCMADIAX contacted the developer of the game and got the correct license; the descriptions states that other licenses and source code are available if you contact him. So this one seems fine... so long as he contacted the developer and didn't use the SCIRRA license, which does NOT cover non-website deployment.
The rest of his games fall into the Game Templates, Royalty Free Assets category. These are legal, though most were clearly made to be modified and are incomplete, being just basic game systems and engines. Also note that these ones require you to purchase another license for each product you use the assets in; so I'd assume RCMADIAX is supposed to buy a second license for his bundles where the game is sold again, and if he didn't would be in violation of his license.
TL;DR of legal section:
Some of RCMADIAX's games come from the Games With Source category on SCIRRA and not the other two categories clearly intended for reselling. Reasons supporting not being supposed to resell them:
1. License stipulation prohibiting selling source derivatives; compiled game is probably applicable.
Note that this stipulation is not in Game Template assets and Game Licenses sold for commercial use.
2. Google results call them "Developer Examples."
3. Category description is "These games are provided ... for you to learn from."
4. The text for adding to cart is "Buy" whereas the commercial categories is "Purchase Single
Project License" with a question mark describing the license.
I'm pretty sure that his Wii U games from the Games With Source category are considered derivative works created from the source code and thus are in violation of his license... provided he did indeed purchase a license through SCIRRA and not directly from the seller. It seems you're buying the right to view the source code for educational purposes and play the game, not sell it. Ex. Panda Love and Don't Crash.
The ones from the Game Licenses section are fine so long as he contacted the seller and had them give him a commercial license that includes selling it on the Wii U eShop as the default license does NOT. If he didn't, his license is invalid for this purpose. Ex. Pixel Slime.
The ones from Game Templates are fine, so long as he purchases one license (this applies to Game Licenses as well) per app that uses the assets. This might apply to bundles as he's not bundling licenses to two separate titles but making a new combination title, in which case if he only has one license for his bundled software he's in violation here. Ex. Skeasy.
Note that I am not a lawyer and none of this should be taken as legal advice. This is all layman speculation on the legality, or at least intended usage regardless of legality, of some of RCMADIAX's games' source. Also see EDIT3; he could've gotten permission directly from the developer for the games from Games With Source.
TL;DR or everything including previous TL;DR:
Three of the games in the article seem to have non-commercial licenses stating that distribution of derivative works for non-educational purposes beyond friends and family is prohibited and so they could be illegal if he didn't get permission from the original developer. (In case you didn't read the edits... it seems he did.) The other ones are legal if he handled it right. I have no problem with RCMADIAX so long as their operation is legal, but find it sad that these low quality games threaten to one day flood the eShop like mobile marketplaces. At least some of the games, like Super Robo Mouse and Drop Blok x Twisted Fusion seem to be his own work. This shouldn't turn into a witchhunt but should open up an interesting discussion on the matter of reselling whole-game assets. I think the most correct viewpoint here is that RCMADIAX is, essentially, a publisher more than a developer and simply pays for the right to publish the games found on SCIRRA to the eShop.
As mentioned in EDIT 1 (old): Full license for Games from the Games With Source from SCIRRA:
"D. Games
1. Usage
Games are for personal use only. You may not use the games or any part of the games content for any commercial, promotional, institutional, corporate or teaching purposes.
Each game you purchase can only be downloaded to and stored on a maximum of 5 devices and/or computers at any one time.
You are not permitted to share any games you purchase. This includes but is not limited to, peer-to-peer networks, file sharing websites, family, friends, colleagues, internet communities.
You are not permitted to modify or reverse engineer the games in any way (including but not limited to removal of copyright notices).
You are not permitted to copy or publish the games, or any part of the games content (text or graphics).
E. Games With Source
1. Extension of Games License
This license should be considered an extension of the Games License listed above.
2. Provided CapX Source Files
Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.
You are not permitted to claim ownership of any derivative works you create from the Source Files.
You are only permitted to privately distribute derivative works amongst friends and family in person (not online), strictly for demonstrative purposes.
*You are not permitted to distribute derivative works in any other way, including but not limited to online publishing/distribution, public demonstrations, for sale, or accessible to the general public in any form."
In addition to not being able to distribute derivatives of the source, which the games should be considered now after briefly reviewing a few dozen similar topics in the past on Stack Overflow (mostly about open source software licenses and how the creator of a new piece of software that was created from open source code may itself have to be open source if the license states that derivative works must adopt the original's license... which implies that slightly modified software is a derivative of its original source code, which makes complete sense), it's also apparently in violation of the original license that that part is an extension of!
Again, not a lawyer. Could be completely wrong. Also see EDIT3; he could've gotten permission directly from the developer.
EDIT2: Note that the whole clause about not modifying the software seems to be meant only for game without source code and modifying the source code if you bought it doesn't seem to violate this otherwise everyone would be in violation... (I surmise technically you're not modifying the game but the source and then making a new game/derivative work. It seems because derivative works are allowed for personal use that this clause in the extension trumps the clause preventing modification. I don't know for sure but I know it's intended to stop people from buying a game without source and decompiling it. Made this edit just in case someone tries to make a lame argument using that clause that "Everyone is in violation!")
EDIT 3: Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license through other means. He seems to have asked on the Don't Crash comment thread (same real name, same company logo...) whether or not he can resell it and got no response; it's possible he directly contacted the developer and got his permission. Keep in mind these are just the default licenses which I should've stressed more; nothing is stopping him from directly contacting the devs and getting their permission. This is also pretty likely as the three games in question were all made by the same guy; even if there was a licensing issue, it seems like the developer has no problem with this behavior as he OK'd putting a derivative of one of his games on Google Play when someone asked him in a comments thread, in which case this is most likely more of a technicality than any moral dilemma.
User 1: Is the like a game template which you buy and then edit to sell or not?
User 2: Same question as above. If we buy it, are we allowed edit it and put it on google playstore?
Developer: AT User2 Yes, you can publish on Google Play.
All @RCMADIAX has to do is come on here and tell us he has permission from the developer beyond the basic license found on SCIRRA to publish the game on the eShop and everything is done and dusted here.