Collecting "truths" that just aren't true

[phart010 | 1,710]

Just now, the_wizard_666 said:

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.

Thank you for the correction. I may have not been technically correct but at least you get the general idea I was trying to convey.

@darkchylde28I’ve given up on the Gameboy discussion.. we are going in circles and I don’t understand the “distinctions” that are being made.

[fcgamer | 4,792]

41 minutes ago, phart010 said:

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

I didn't paraphrase anything; it's either a quote from you or somehow a quote within a quote got attributed to you.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

10 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.

I mean, is this true? Is it licensed? Licensed for what? What is the definition of "licensed" when it comes to the NES set? Licensed to be produced? Licensed to be sold at retail? What is the proof that it is a licensed game? Is it in the code? The title screen? Does the seal of quality indicate the license? The NWCs dont have a seal of quality on them. Curious everyone's thoughts on this.

[phart010 | 1,710]

13 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I mean, is this true? Is it licensed? Licensed for what? What is the definition of "licensed" when it comes to the NES set? Licensed to be produced? Licensed to be sold at retail? What is the proof that it is a licensed game? Is it in the code? The title screen? Does the seal of quality indicate the license? The NWCs dont have a seal of quality on them. Curious everyone's thoughts on this.

Licensed means Nintendo gave the publisher permission to release the game on the NES. Nintendo designed the NES to be a closed market and the only way to get into the market would be to be granted a license by Nintendo on a per title basis. @Dr. Morbis  made a valid point that Nintendo doesn’t need to give itself permission. A more correct term (that nobody will use) would be the “Nintendo Seal of Quality” set

Edit: which by the way, NWC doesn’t have a seal of quality

Edited February 18, 2023 by phart010

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

Nice I have a full nintendo seal of quality set then!

 

Up yours nobody that cares!

[fcgamer | 4,792]

20 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Licensed means Nintendo gave the publisher permission to release the game on the NES. Nintendo designed the NES to be a closed market and the only way to get into the market would be to be granted a license by Nintendo on a per title basis. @Dr. Morbis  made a valid point that Nintendo doesn’t need to give itself permission. A more correct term (that nobody will use) would be the “Nintendo Seal of Quality” set

Edit: which by the way, NWC doesn’t have a seal of quality

It was on a per region basis, not per title basis.

Time Diver Avenger and Videomation were both not licensed by Nintendo on Famicom, but we're (or in avenger would have been if it were released) on NES.

[phart010 | 1,710]

18 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

It was on a per region basis, not per title basis.

Time Diver Avenger and Videomation were both not licensed by Nintendo on Famicom, but we're (or in avenger would have been if it were released) on NES.

I was just talking about on NES. I can’t speak for Famicom because I have no clue how they did things in Japan 

[Code Monkey | 2,023]

2 hours 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...  

I hate you because that makes total sense. Now I just have to do some more research to see if technically they are granting themselves a license.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

2 hours ago, phart010 said:

Licensed means Nintendo gave the publisher permission to release the game on the NES. Nintendo designed the NES to be a closed market and the only way to get into the market would be to be granted a license by Nintendo on a per title basis. @Dr. Morbis  made a valid point that Nintendo doesn’t need to give itself permission. A more correct term (that nobody will use) would be the “Nintendo Seal of Quality” set

I'm not so sure this works. IF the definition of "licensed" in this case means "permission from Nintendo to release a game" but as you stated, Nintendo doesn't need to give itself permission, then by definition, Nintendo's own games are unlicensed. 

Obviously, first party Nintendo games are licensed.... right? I mean what went into licensing? What was the process? did a license simply mean "you have permission"? Were there caveats? Some driver's license restrict certain drivers. Did some publishers have restrictions?

There is so much we don't know. I'm hard pressed to believe anything without definitive proof. 

 

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

Well, the seal shouldn't be a metric for a license anyway.  The seal originally stated, and I quote, "This seal is your assurance that Nintendo has approved and guaranteed the quality of this product."  Later it was shortened to "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality."  Of course, Nintendo would only give you that seal if you paid their fees and towed the line.  But it was meant to vouch for the quality of the game, not to denote the licensing agreement.  That was the fine print on the back or the box and/or in the manual.

[goldenpp72 | 1,242]

I'd not really personally buy into the licensing argument there, that's like saying I'm not permitted in my house because I didn't give myself permission, permission is implied when it's my house. Nintendo titles are still the equivalent of a licensed game even if the definition is slightly different, but it is funny to imagine. 

[phart010 | 1,710]

42 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I'm not so sure this works. IF the definition of "licensed" in this case means "permission from Nintendo to release a game" but as you stated, Nintendo doesn't need to give itself permission, then by definition, Nintendo's own games are unlicensed. 

Obviously, first party Nintendo games are licensed.... right? I mean what went into licensing? What was the process? did a license simply mean "you have permission"? Were there caveats? Some driver's license restrict certain drivers. Did some publishers have restrictions?

There is so much we don't know. I'm hard pressed to believe anything without definitive proof. 

 

Just because something is technically correct doesn’t mean it is practical. Everyone knows what they mean when they say licensed (with like 2 game exceptions that are the subject of debate). 

[DarkTone | 989]

...but if you put an NWC in an elevator.....

[fcgamer | 4,792]

56 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

Well, the seal shouldn't be a metric for a license anyway.  The seal originally stated, and I quote, "This seal is your assurance that Nintendo has approved and guaranteed the quality of this product."  Later it was shortened to "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality."  Of course, Nintendo would only give you that seal if you paid their fees and towed the line.  But it was meant to vouch for the quality of the game, not to denote the licensing agreement.  That was the fine print on the back or the box and/or in the manual.

It was made to guarantee the quality of the manufacturing, as the tengen situation demonstrates.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

5 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

It was made to guarantee the quality of the manufacturing, as the tengen situation demonstrates.

I'm aware, but it's definitely misleading at a consumer level.   As a kid i thought it meant the quality of the game, at least until I played a few turds, and I doubt many parents thought it was about the manufacturing.

[fcgamer | 4,792]

2 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

I'm aware, but it's definitely misleading at a consumer level.   As a kid i thought it meant the quality of the game, at least until I played a few turds, and I doubt many parents thought it was about the manufacturing.

Yes, I agree on this point.

[fcgamer | 4,792]

33 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Just because something is technically correct doesn’t mean it is practical. Everyone knows what they mean when they say licensed (with like 2 game exceptions that are the subject of debate). 

Stuff like this could be very confusing though.

American Guy: "I just played this kick ass licensed Nintendo game, Videomation"

Cousin in Famicom region: "Videomation? Wtf is this shit? It's not licensed, stupid cuz!"

The again, if we looked at the NES and Famicom as two different things entirely... problem solved!

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

27 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

The again, if we looked at the NES and Famicom as two different things entirely... problem solved!

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

17 hours ago, goldenpp72 said:

If you had seen my Vita topic before, you would see many define that 4 titles that never actually released, but only leaked and only possibly few existing, count towards the full US set towards that library. To me the idea of that is pretty insane to imagine, but that happened. Meanwhile other people don't count LRG or other limited releases because they were never retail releases, etc. That's kind of the issue when there really isn't an official authority on the matter, personally, if it was never able to be purchased in a normal distribution fashion, then it doesn't count. Anything outside of that is an interesting, potentially valuable anomaly. Much like I don't consider new fan games made in 2023 for the NES to be part of a set, it just doesn't make sense to me or fall into the spirit of the purpose.

I have seen it before. And I agree with everything you said. Simply because atop of what those Transformers collectors have said, Japanese Famicom collectors also have deemed a full Famicom set to be every commercially available game. Which totals to 1,053 titles. While some have argued on how the Disk System games should be tallied. All because out of the 199 titles made for that system, those that have to be digitally downloaded are extremely limited. With little chance that every found copy retains the game on it.

Atop of the fact that those who limit a "full set" to what LRG, etc. have sold are ignoring the fact that modern consoles are now international. Which means they should include Japan releases (e.g. Dragon Quest Heroes I&II for the Nintendo Switch) to that list. All because it is categorically no different than me buying a PS4 copy of Shantae through LRG when the Japan release is commercially available. Along with the digital download titles, since Nintendo started that trend via their Famicom Disk System days. Again, stuff that says a "full set" does not need to include any sub-sets. 

Which is probably why my return has me currently focus on the Japanese portion of the Final Fantasy franchise. With the primary focus now being limited to both the PS5, and my goal putting both first and "early purchase" variants on the top of my list. Even though most western gamers will ignore the benefits since those games are both foreign and new.

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

And speaking of those chatty AIs... I found one I had in 2014.

[attakid101 | 273]

You guys ever pee sitting down just for the hell of it?

[Aguy | 776]

55 minutes ago, attakid101 said:

You guys ever pee sitting down just for the hell of it?

I exclusively pee sitting down, makes it kind of weird to use urinals, but whatever.

[Tyree_Cooper | 782]

I don't know the situation with the grey cart version of Tengen's Gauntlet and Pac-Man, as they look to have been produced in Japan by Nintendo, but usually...

when a game is "Licensed by Nintendo", it means that it's not manufactured by Nintendo, but by a third party. A good example of a first party game that's licensed by Nintendo is the CHN version of Tetris. Elorg licensed the Tetris brand to Bullet-Proof, who sub-licensed it to Nintendo, who licensed the production of the game to Mani and gave them exclusive distribution rights.

You will not find the "LICENSED BY" line on any other version of Nintendo's Tetris, as they were all manufactured by them, except this one.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,021]

2 hours ago, attakid101 said:

You guys ever pee sitting down just for the hell of it?

Im 6'4" and the toilets in my house are apparently for dwarves. The first time I cleaned the bathroom floor here I realized the sheer amount of splashidge due to the logistics of the distance the piss has to travel before hitting the toilet water. So I had to choose - do I clean the bathroom floor every week to keep it from being disgusting or do I sit down to piss. 

Obviously I chose the latter. I only clean the bathroom floor once a month now and it's mostly for cultural purposes. 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

3 hours ago, attakid101 said:

You guys ever pee sitting down just for the hell of it?

No. I poo standing up however.