Collecting "truths" that just aren't true

[Link | 2,768]

9 hours ago, OptOut said:

Just you wait to hear the responses from my new AI: chatOPT!

Its the same as chatGPT, apart from it openly mocks it's users, and it's prime directive is to sexually seduce all human life.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-s-bing-ai-plotted-its-revenge-and-offered-me-furry-porn/ar-AA17AoZT

[OptOut | 8,895]

25 minutes ago, Link said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-s-bing-ai-plotted-its-revenge-and-offered-me-furry-porn/ar-AA17AoZT

I am SO ready for this kind of Artificial Intelligence! 

[phart010 | 1,710]

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

2 hours ago, Link said:

Call it out. See if you can make it mad  
https://www.techspot.com/news/97621-microsoft-gpt-powered-bing-chat-call-you-liar.html

[Code Monkey | 2,023]

11 hours ago, goldenpp72 said:

I know this won't be a popular remark, but I've always found it interesting that you apparently 'need' Stadium Events to have a full NES set when it's simply retitled later. While It's kind of endearing, I don't think any console outside of the NES has such rigid requirements for some, unlicensed games, games that weren't ever released, games that aren't even games, or games retitled, all count to some. Today if Too Human on 360 had been rebranded as Human Too, no one would say 'you need both, or the first one' to have it count.

Not that I have a horse in this race as I don't collect full sets generally, but the fact some consider even titles like NWC required is a bit silly to me, but I suppose in the end, it all comes down to what you're talking about. One could be anal and say to have a true set, that you also need every possible variant, insert, or even the original seals as well. Every 'set' is really a subset of some kind in my mind, which is usually why I just put a 'some version of a game, and it was released at retail' as a personal qualifier, thankfully, I only own a few full US sets and those wouldn't be disputed I'm sure, aside the fact they are only US sets of course. 

I think a lot of it just comes from how NES was kind of the birth of the super enthusiast collector base though, everyone cared about oddities with that, but if someone tells you a 360 release has a 2 disc version versus a 1 disc version, or a disc pressed on a gold disc, or something, no one will care.

There's an easy answer for this, it depends on which set you're referencing.

Nintendo World Championships is absolutely required for a licensed NES set. This is obviously true because it's a licensed game. It is not, however, required for a licensed RETAIL NES set because it wasn't sold at retail.

People need to be more specific what they mean when referencing a set as shorthand for something else.

[Tanooki | 4,958]

Say what you will, but even when SE was a .49cent reject at Funcoland 20 years ago, it was a variant to me then too, just a senseless duplicate because of a re-issue as the core game, title aside, was unaltered.  But you're also right, money is NOW involved, too much money really so it would definitely influence some people.

Even in 2000 I would have viewed it as the same as my example of the Tengen gray and Tengen as Mindscape gray carts vs black unlicensed, same game, just re-issues...own whichever one, you got it for your "set" to get the series for a system.

Now multi-carts, legit ones (DK Classics vs DK and DK Jr, SMB+DH or +WCTM, or GameGear Sonic2in1 vs Sonic2+Spinball) those I'd call distinct new games as they're recoded and reissued bundles, budget titles as a collection.  But had they just redid the title screen or put it in a different sticker and box and shoveled it out a year or few later consider them the same game, variants, but the same and not needed as it's rational.

 

EDIT -- Kind of surprised that the taito/natsume hudson/electrobrain came up, that's a less common troll to use for variants.   Squaresoft vs SUNSOFT is an obvious beyond any for Gameboy with FFLegend 1-3 and Adventure.  Pokemon era reissues and sunsoft cheaped out, didn't reprint the square poster/maps each of the four had which sucked.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Tanooki

[Link | 2,768]

6 hours ago, phart010 said:

All they did was replace the Hudson logo with Electrobrain logo on the printed materials… the game code was not changed.

Did they do that in Microsoft Word?

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

2 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Say what you will, but even when SE was a .49cent reject at Funcoland 20 years ago

I'm pretty certain that it wasn't ever actually this, as there aren't any reported cases of anyone ever actually finding and buying it this way.  There are, however, tales upon tales of people going onto wait lists at their local/regional Funcoland locations in order to get a copy at that price should one ever be traded in.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

7 hours ago, phart010 said:

Gameboy has a bunch of examples. Adventure Island and Felix the cat were both Hudsonsoft games. They were reprinted by Electrobrain. All they did was replace the Hudson logo with Electrobrain logo on the printed materials… the game code was not changed.

Also Bubble Bobble On Gameboy. The Taito logo was replaced with the Natsume logo on printed materials only. Game code did not change.

Same with the Gameboy Final Fantasy Adventure games.

Definitely interesting.  I was out earlier, saw this on my phone, and tried looking up the differences between the versions and the only thing that I could come up with were the publisher branding on the label that you pointed out as well as the Game Boy game code.  What seems to be happening here is that the original publisher farmed out re-issues to another company, most likely not being able to be bothered to do it themselves, then either licensing someone else to do it for them or allowing them to do so for some sort of profit split for their trouble.  Since you're saying it's verified that the game code didn't change at all, and the game codes only changed from the original xxx-xxx-USA to xxx-xxx-USA-1, I'd be shocked to learn if there was any changes to either the manual or box beyond perhaps updating the publisher logo on the re-issues.

[phart010 | 1,710]

5 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Definitely interesting.  I was out earlier, saw this on my phone, and tried looking up the differences between the versions and the only thing that I could come up with were the publisher branding on the label that you pointed out as well as the Game Boy game code.  What seems to be happening here is that the original publisher farmed out re-issues to another company, most likely not being able to be bothered to do it themselves, then either licensing someone else to do it for them or allowing them to do so for some sort of profit split for their trouble.  Since you're saying it's verified that the game code didn't change at all, and the game codes only changed from the original xxx-xxx-USA to xxx-xxx-USA-1, I'd be shocked to learn if there was any changes to either the manual or box beyond perhaps updating the publisher logo on the re-issues.

When I say the game code is not changed, I mean the game program. Not the product code xxx-xxx-USA.

The product codes were all revised to add the 1 suffix. But the actual Game programming didn’t change.

I have not looked deeply into this, maybe someone could actually compare the assembly code..If it did change, the first they would have done would’ve been to change the publishers name on the title screen. This did not happen so I think it’s safe to assume that no other things were changed.

Edited February 17, 2023 by phart010

[RH | 5,014]

2 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Say what you will, but even when SE was a .49cent reject at Funcoland 20 years ago, it was a variant to me then too, just a senseless duplicate because of a re-issue as the core game, title aside, was unaltered.  But you're also right, money is NOW involved, too much money really so it would definitely influence some people.

Even in 2000 I would have viewed it as the same as my example of the Tengen gray and Tengen as Mindscape gray carts vs black unlicensed, same game, just re-issues...own whichever one, you got it for your "set" to get the series for a system.

Now multi-carts, legit ones (DK Classics vs DK and DK Jr, SMB+DH or +WCTM, or GameGear Sonic2in1 vs Sonic2+Spinball) those I'd call distinct new games as they're recoded and reissued bundles, budget titles as a collection.  But had they just redid the title screen or put it in a different sticker and box and shoveled it out a year or few later consider them the same game, variants, but the same and not needed as it's rational.

 

EDIT -- Kind of surprised that the taito/natsume hudson/electrobrain came up, that's a less common troll to use for variants.   Squaresoft vs SUNSOFT is an obvious beyond any for Gameboy with FFLegend 1-3 and Adventure.  Pokemon era reissues and sunsoft cheaped out, didn't reprint the square poster/maps each of the four had which sucked.

The sunsoft versions did, in fact, reprint the maps and inserts.

EDIT

They didn't update them with their logo though.  They only slapped Sunsoft on the box and game label.

Edited February 17, 2023 by RH

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

2 minutes ago, phart010 said:

When I say the game code is not changed, I mean the game program. Not the product code xxx-xxx-USA.

The product codes were all revised to add the 1 suffix. But the actual Game programming didn’t change. If it did, the first they would have done would’ve been to change the publishers name on the title screen. This did not happen so I think it’s safe to assume that no other things were changed

I'm aware of that.  I'm saying the specific games were re-issued by another company who didn't originally have anything to do with it the first time around and presumed that it was because the original publisher didn't feel it was worth their while.  What we were really talking about, though, was another company releasing the same game as their own, which would presumably have had a totally different game code and not just a suffix addition/change from that of the original publisher.  So, really, the Game Boy examples, while neat, are still somewhat different than someone else publishing their "own" version of a game with the same title and zero code changes.  In these cases, it's clearly publisher #2 being authorized by publisher #1 to re-issue and distribute publisher #1's work wholesale, save the minor change to the displayed publisher logo and a suffix change to the game's ID code.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

9 hours ago, fcgamer said:

I'm not really a fan of the gross generalizations you are stating in the above paragraph; ironically enough, your above post would fall into the realm of this very thread itself (i.e. the idea that the Asian non-Japanese companies are not legit, and are just pirate / bootleg outfits stealing IP without discretion and what not. 

The items I'm going to reference are of course legit items from legit companies.

Let's first take a look at Klax on Famicom. It was developed by Tengen, then licensed and published in Korea by the company Daou Infosys. The game is identical to the US release on the NES. I also have Road Runner from them (forgot to take a picture, it's around here somewhere), also identical to the US release. 

Daou Infosys also released Skull n Crossbones and Toobin', developed by Tengen, but they updated the splash screens and copyright screens.

Daou Infosys and Color Dreams would ink a similar deal together. The Color Dreams games would all have updated title screens though.

Finally, American Game Cartridges, Inc would ink a deal with Daou Infosys to license out their game Shockwave. Once again, it is indentical to the US release.

IIRC, BIC did something similar when they inked a deal to license and  publish the Codemasters NES catalogue to be published on the Famicom. The game data has not been changed at all, and even more interesting, some games (such as Ultimate Stuntman, Mig 29, Micro Motions IIRC) even had TWO DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS; one version used NES boxes / manuals and is credited to BIC as the publisher, whereas the other used clamshell boxes which credits the game publisher to Realtec. Now, Realtec and BIC are more or less the same company, but technically if one wanted to get anal about it, they should be considered as two different companies.

Then there were also the Tiger releases of the Codemasters games - once again, no altered title screens.

EDIT: Forgot to mention AV Mahjong

Developed by C&E, the same company that did some games such as Bubble Bath Babes / Mermaids of Atlantis and Ultimate Soccer (they later even did an authorized PS game IIRC, as well as a Baseball game that licensed stats from the baseball teams here in Taiwan, so this isn't just some fly-by-night bootleg outfit).

They develoeped AV Mahjong for Hacker International in Japan, but also released their own version of the game in Taiwan, and the two games are identical. For those who are wondering, yes the C&E-published version has the naked chicks, the idea that it didn't was another one of those rumors that gained life but isn't true.

Were any of the mentioned foreign releases licensed by Nintendo in order to be official Famicom releases, either in Japan or abroad?  Nintendo did, in fact, have a licensing program for the Famicom, and even if it was far less restrictive than what they did with the NES, it still applied.

If the publishers that you mentioned were actually legally licensing their content from various developers, that's great.  But the moment one of them publishes someone else's work without having such a license in place, they pretty much fall off the map as far as being a legitimate developer, regardless of how much by-the-book work they'd done previously.  Just look at what Atari did with Tengen when they just didn't feel like obeying their licensing agreement with Nintendo.

It's immaterial how much content was licensed from other developers' games for the US market and then dumped wholesale, unchanged onto Famicom cartridges for a totally different region.  The discussion was about multiple copies of the exact same game being released by different publishers within the same market/region.  If those specific developers you mentioned actually paid for the privilege, great, but having a totally different format cartridge that's only distributed in a market half a world away with the same code on it as one available in the US isn't the same as two cartridges available on the shelf at Walmart using the same title, programming code, boxes, etc., but listing two different publishers and pretending to be different games.  Regarding your mention of BIC and Realtec, I think much more detail would be necessary there to make a call since you're both calling them the same as well as separate companies.

[phart010 | 1,710]

1 hour ago, darkchylde28 said:

I'm aware of that.  I'm saying the specific games were re-issued by another company who didn't originally have anything to do with it the first time around and presumed that it was because the original publisher didn't feel it was worth their while.  What we were really talking about, though, was another company releasing the same game as their own, which would presumably have had a totally different game code and not just a suffix addition/change from that of the original publisher.  So, really, the Game Boy examples, while neat, are still somewhat different than someone else publishing their "own" version of a game with the same title and zero code changes.  In these cases, it's clearly publisher #2 being authorized by publisher #1 to re-issue and distribute publisher #1's work wholesale, save the minor change to the displayed publisher logo and a suffix change to the game's ID code.

You’re talking about Stadium Events right? If so, the fact that they recoded Stadium Events to change the in-game title screen is what makes it a “different game.” The idea that it is now published by Nintendo instead of Bandai doesn’t have any bearing on the matter.

Even today there are tons of games that are published by more than one publisher. Limited Run Games is a great example. Limited Run offers to publish a physical release of a game since the developers can’t afford to publish on their own. Since LRG promises to only do a single run, if the game sells well, then another publisher approaches the developers to get permission to do additional runs.

Edited February 17, 2023 by phart010

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

46 minutes ago, phart010 said:

You’re talking about Stadium Events right? If so, the fact that they recoded Stadium Events to change the in-game title screen is what makes it a “different game.” The idea that it is now published by Nintendo instead of Bandai doesn’t have any bearing on the matter.

Even today there are tons of games that are published by more than one publisher. Limited Run Games is a great example. Limited Run offers to publish a physical release of a game since the developers can’t afford to publish on their own. Since LRG promises to only do a single run, if the game sells well, then another publisher approaches the developers to get permission to do additional runs.

I'm talking about your specific Game Boy game examples where the exact same game got reissued with the only difference being a label (and possibly box and manual) that had the re-issuer's name and logo on them.

Felix the Cat:  By Hudson Soft is DMG-C6-USA.  By Electro Brain is DMG-C6-USA-1.

They're literally the exact same game, except when the exact same code was re-issued, Hudson chose not to do it and through whatever arrangement, Electro Brain got to.

Stadium Events and World Class Track Meet would count as separate releases because the title of the game changed, the coding changed, and the publisher changed.

In the case of your Game Boy examples, those are somewhat of an Apples to Oranges example, as it's not being released a second time as a separate game, but a re-issue of the original, albeit by a different publisher.  If it were going to be an Apples to Apples comparison, the Electro Brain release of Felix would need to have a different cartridge identifier code, so DMG-VGS1-USA, for example.  As it is, it's just a weird situation all its own, where the game, and art, and game programming, etc., are literally the exact same save for the addition of -1 to the game's identifier code and the slight tweak to the label (and potentially box and manual) showing Electro Brain's information as the publisher on the re-issue.

[phart010 | 1,710]

40 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

I'm talking about your specific Game Boy game examples where the exact same game got reissued with the only difference being a label (and possibly box and manual) that had the re-issuer's name and logo on them.

Felix the Cat:  By Hudson Soft is DMG-C6-USA.  By Electro Brain is DMG-C6-USA-1.

They're literally the exact same game, except when the exact same code was re-issued, Hudson chose not to do it and through whatever arrangement, Electro Brain got to.

Stadium Events and World Class Track Meet would count as separate releases because the title of the game changed, the coding changed, and the publisher changed.

In the case of your Game Boy examples, those are somewhat of an Apples to Oranges example, as it's not being released a second time as a separate game, but a re-issue of the original, albeit by a different publisher.  If it were going to be an Apples to Apples comparison, the Electro Brain release of Felix would need to have a different cartridge identifier code, so DMG-VGS1-USA, for example.  As it is, it's just a weird situation all its own, where the game, and art, and game programming, etc., are literally the exact same save for the addition of -1 to the game's identifier code and the slight tweak to the label (and potentially box and manual) showing Electro Brain's information as the publisher on the re-issue.

I don’t think I understand what you are differing with me on. I agree that Stadium Events is a different game because it’s a different game. The programming was changed to make it WCTM.

Games that changed publishers for reprints are not different games. The programming of the game remained the same from one publisher to the next. 

It sounds like we are saying the same thing 

[fcgamer | 4,792]

4 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

Were any of the mentioned foreign releases licensed by Nintendo in order to be official Famicom releases, either in Japan or abroad?  Nintendo did, in fact, have a licensing program for the Famicom, and even if it was far less restrictive than what they did with the NES, it still applied.

If the publishers that you mentioned were actually legally licensing their content from various developers, that's great.  But the moment one of them publishes someone else's work without having such a license in place, they pretty much fall off the map as far as being a legitimate developer, regardless of how much by-the-book work they'd done previously.  Just look at what Atari did with Tengen when they just didn't feel like obeying their licensing agreement with Nintendo.

It's immaterial how much content was licensed from other developers' games for the US market and then dumped wholesale, unchanged onto Famicom cartridges for a totally different region.  The discussion was about multiple copies of the exact same game being released by different publishers within the same market/region.  If those specific developers you mentioned actually paid for the privilege, great, but having a totally different format cartridge that's only distributed in a market half a world away with the same code on it as one available in the US isn't the same as two cartridges available on the shelf at Walmart using the same title, programming code, boxes, etc., but listing two different publishers and pretending to be different games.  Regarding your mention of BIC and Realtec, I think much more detail would be necessary there to make a call since you're both calling them the same as well as separate companies.

Totally disagree on the above statement regarding licensing to Nintendo = legitimacy. As I am sure you already know, Videomation and Time Diver: Avenger both received Famicom releases that were licensed by the IP holders, yet unauthorized by Nintendo themselves, and as also mentioned, many of these developers licensed software across other platforms (Sega, Sony, Super A'can, etc), and also licensed software from other developers and studios (i.e. Daou licensing the Tengen games compared to all of the bootleg copies of Tengen's Tetris floating around on the Famicom, all unauthorized).

Regarding BIC versus Realtec, both companies were owned / founded / led by the same guy, but were different entities, on paper anyways. That being said, something like Realtec/BIC's Micro Machines versus Tiger's Micro Machines should count, as both have the same data, and were two different entities for one region.

 

[fcgamer | 4,792]

2 hours ago, phart010 said:

Stadium Events and World Class Track Meet would count as separate releases because the title of the game changed, the coding changed, and the publisher changed.

The idea-tek / Super Mega version of Venice Beach Volleyball versus the TXC/Micro Genius version seem to fit this pattern.

Two games released in one region, one company obtained the rights from the other for release.

Two different identification codes and id code schemes.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

2 hours ago, phart010 said:

I don’t think I understand what you are differing with me on. I agree that Stadium Events is a different game because it’s a different game. The programming was changed to make it WCTM.

Games that changed publishers for reprints are not different games. The programming of the game remained the same from one publisher to the next. 

It sounds like we are saying the same thing 

There's a bit more subtle nuance to what's going on with those Game Boy games than what we were discussing.

On the surface, sure, appears that it's two publishers passing off the same game as different games but basically exactly the same.

Except they're not--they're passing it off as an update/revision/re-issue of an existing title by an existing licensee, with no changes to the code, etc., just allowing a different developer to publish the update/revision/re-issue.

I mean, I spelled it out by giving the exact game ID codes that were used for Felix the Cat then invented an imaginary one that would apply if a different publisher were trying to pass off the same game as a different title while changing nothing about it.  What happened with the Game Boy games is a slightly weird situation, but isn't two publishers trying to double-dip since the later releases were published under the existing game ID code--just with a -1 suffix added to indicate some slight change.

It's a very similar situation to what we were talking about, and yet very slightly different since the later/extra copies of the game weren't being passed off as different, newly published titles with their own separate game ID codes, but instead extensions of the existing one, indicating some sort of revision/update/re-issue/whatever.

32 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Totally disagree on the above statement regarding licensing to Nintendo = legitimacy. As I am sure you already know, Videomation and Time Diver: Avenger both received Famicom releases that were licensed by the IP holders, yet unauthorized by Nintendo themselves, and as also mentioned, many of these developers licensed software across other platforms (Sega, Sony, Super A'can, etc), and also licensed software from other developers and studios (i.e. Daou licensing the Tengen games compared to all of the bootleg copies of Tengen's Tetris floating around on the Famicom, all unauthorized).

Regarding BIC versus Realtec, both companies were owned / founded / led by the same guy, but were different entities, on paper anyways. That being said, something like Realtec/BIC's Micro Machines versus Tiger's Micro Machines should count, as both have the same data, and were two different entities for one region.

You're picking nits as well as arguments that aren't there.  Unlicensed stuff is basically the wild wild west, with any company doing anything they want, and it all being a huge mess, akin to what was going on in the Atari days.  Stuff like Tengen's Tetris really did become a sort of pirate cart on its own simply due to the fact that Atari had zero rights to publish it on home consoles--any home consoles.  So as legitimate as those Asian published copies might seem, they absolutely aren't, and depending on when they were published (before or after the court decision against Atari affirming the exclusive console rights to Tetris to Nintendo), those "legitimate" companies may have decided to pay lip service to the idea of officially licensing the title from Atari knowing all the while that Atari didn't have the rights to license it to them.  Even if you pay out money for something, if you don't have the proper legal agreement and rights in place, you're still pirating/bootlegging/etc.

Regarding BIC versus Realtec, if they weren't actually subsidiaries of a parent company, and a parent company who actually got the rights to the Camerica stuff and shared that with its subsidiaries, then yeah, those should absolutely be treated as separate entities, as otherwise the owner/founder would have had them together on paper even if it seemed like they weren't in public.  Do you know if a separate license was obtained for the Camerica stuff for each company?  If not, and the two companies weren't a case of one rebranding into the other (akin to Color Dreams becoming Bunch and then becoming Wisdom Tree), then one copy would be legitimate while the other one wouldn't be, as it wouldn't have the legal agreement with the developer to publish it, even if the same guy owned both companies and wrote all the appropriate royalty checks to Camerica.

[phart010 | 1,710]

42 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Stuff like Tengen's Tetris really did become a sort of pirate cart on its own simply due to the fact that Atari had zero rights to publish it on home consoles--any home consoles.  So as legitimate as those Asian published copies might seem, they absolutely aren't, and depending on when they were published (before or after the court decision against Atari affirming the exclusive console rights to Tetris to Nintendo), those "legitimate" companies may have decided to pay lip service to the idea of officially licensing the title from Atari knowing all the while that Atari didn't have the rights to license it to them.  Even if you pay out money for something, if you don't have the proper legal agreement and rights in place, you're still pirating/bootlegging/etc.

 

Copyright law is actually like the Wild West. There is no such thing as international copyright law. Each country has its own copyright laws. Whether one country also honors the copyrights established in another country depends on weather the two countries have agreed to copyright treaties. 

So… I believe the dude that invented Tetris was Russian. He would definitely be recognized as the intellectual owner of Tetris in Russia (for whatever that’s worth ). Whether or not the US recognized him as the owner of Tetris or not depends on whether he filed for copyright in the US or if the US honored his copyright from Russia. Even assuming that his copyright extended into the US, allowing him to license it to Nintendo, that doesnt necessarily mean he was recognized as the owner or that his agreements with Nintendo apply in all of Southeast Asia at that time. So someone else could have potentially legitimately made Tetris in some other country at that time.

Im sure today we have tons of treaties with other countries, but we’re talking about the late 80’s when Southeast Asia was an underdeveloped region.

Edited February 18, 2023 by phart010

[fcgamer | 4,792]

31 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Regarding BIC versus Realtec, if they weren't actually subsidiaries of a parent company, and a parent company who actually got the rights to the Camerica stuff and shared that with its subsidiaries, then yeah, those should absolutely be treated as separate entities, as otherwise the owner/founder would have had them together on paper even if it seemed like they weren't in public.  Do you know if a separate license was obtained for the Camerica stuff for each company?  If not, and the two companies weren't a case of one rebranding into the other (akin to Color Dreams becoming Bunch and then becoming Wisdom Tree), then one copy would be legitimate while the other one wouldn't be, as it wouldn't have the legal agreement with the developer to publish it, even if the same guy owned both companies and wrote all the appropriate royalty checks to Camerica.

The licensing agreements for the software would have been handed down by Codemasters of the UK. Regarding Camerica and Bic, it's obvious that they had some sort of agreement in place, as Bic did ALL of the manufacturing for the Camerica games.

The bigger issue is that you're constantly being obtuse with your comments and attitude towards the non-licensed Nintendo games, yet it just showcases that you know little about the situation and prefer trying to "win the argument" than actually looking at facts and examples.

Even the whole concept of licensing...what does it mean to you? It's so much more than just quality control, it's even more than just collecting fees. People should look into the manufacturing bit a little more to see the larger picture. 

 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,099]

9 hours ago, Code Monkey said:

Nintendo World Championships is absolutely required for a licensed NES set. This is obviously true because it's a licensed game.

It's fun correcting you on semantics since you always take such a hard line about it with others, but here we go:

NWC was not licensed, nor was any other first party game published by Nintendo.  They did not "license" their own games because they are already Nintendo - they don't need to approve themselves.  Look on the title screen of any third party NES game and you'll see it says "Licensed by Nintendo."   Now pop in any first party game and you'll see that it says "copyright (year) Nintendo;" the word licensed is not included because they do not "license" games to themselves.  As a result, if you really want to get technical, anyone collecting a "licensed" NES set does not need to own a single first party Nintendo game, and in fact, Nintendo-published games should not even be included in any such "licensed" NES list...  

[fcgamer | 4,792]

2 minutes ago, phart010 said:

… I believe the dude that invented Tetris was Russian. He would definitely be recognized as the intellectual owner of Tetris in Russia (for whatever that’s worth ). Whether or not the US recognized him as the owner of Tetris or not depends on whether he filed for copyright in the US or if the US honored his copyright from Russia. Even assuming that his copyright extended into the US, allowing him to license it to Nintendo, that doesnt necessarily mean he was recognized as the owner in all of Southeast Asia at that time. So someone else could have potentially legitimately made Tetris in some other country at that time.

It's funny because I've got no idea where @darkchylde28was even going with the tengen Tetris thing - it suggests to me that he skimmed or misread my earlier post.

As far as I know, while Daou Infosys licensed several tengen games, Tetris wasn't one of them. Tetris was however one of the most heavily pirated Famicom carts ever. So Daou could have easily done the same route and not licensed the tengen games properly, yet they chose to, you know, as a legitimate company would 

[phart010 | 1,710]

@fcgamer
hey man did I really say that or did you paraphrase what I said

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

18 minutes ago, phart010 said:

So… I believe the dude that invented Tetris was Russian. He would definitely be recognized as the intellectual owner of Tetris in Russia (for whatever that’s worth ). 

Except that's not technically correct.  He owned nothing in the USSR because by their laws at the time, anything created by anyone there was owned by the state.  Atari clearly didn't know that when they went and got the rights from the creator they were literally paying for nothing.

18 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

It's fun correcting you on semantics since you always take such a hard line about it with others, but here we go:

NWC was not licensed, nor was any other first party game published by Nintendo.  They did not "license" their own games because they are already Nintendo - they don't need to approve themselves.  Look on the title screen of any third party NES game and you'll see it says "Licensed by Nintendo."   Now pop in any first party game and you'll see that it says "copyright (year) Nintendo;" the word licensed is not included because they do not "license" games to themselves.  As a result, if you really want to get technical, anyone collecting a "licensed" NES set does not need to own a single first party Nintendo game, and in fact, Nintendo-published games should not even be included in any such "licensed" NES list...  

Technically correct is the best kind of correct  

Oh, and I'm surprised the talk about Game Boy agates didn't end up leading to the SNES Majesco re-releases, which fall in the same category.