Collecting "truths" that just aren't true

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

15 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Well Khan did Frogger Ultimate Championship and that Leisure Suit Larry game, so it doesn't really matter if all the code is original when you're stealing some else's IP.  To be "inspired by others' IP" Frogger would have had to be different in some way and have a name change, same with good ol' Larry.  It's kind of like fan fiction: if you write up an all-original story using the Star Wars characters and set within the Star Wars universe, it doesn't matter that your story is original, what you're doing is still technically wrong, from a legal standpoint...

Depending on the status of the trademark at the time, Frogger might actually be in the clear.  Looking at it very quickly online, I see that it apparently hadn't been registered to a video game company in a long time until 2013 when Konami picked it up, unsurprisingly for their gambling machines.  The one showing prior to that was in 2008, but was for a golf accessories company, and I'm not able to quickly tell how long they held it, when it was abandoned, etc.  I've never played Frogger Ultimate Championship, so I don't know what the game looks like or what the exact gameplay is like, but don't forget that tons of companies cloned others' games quite legally from the beginning of the video game boom with arcades all the way up to modern day.  I'd say the only truly sketchy bit with Frogger is the name, and as I pointed out, he might have been in the clear with that one legally depending on whether the trademark was active at the time or not.

As for his/their Leisure Suit Larry clone, he didn't actually call it Leisure Suit Larry, and things are tweaked just a bit, so I really do think that he would skate through with that one just being considered a "clone" game and not something that's definitively actionable in court as having violated copyright/IP rights.

I get what you're saying with your example, but a more apt one (at least in regard to the Larry game) would be someone writing fan fiction obviously set within the Star Wars universe, but with everything changed ever so slightly so that it didn't actually say that, or name any characters or ships or locations that appeared exactly what they were within the Star Wars universe.  In that scenario you're approaching the edge of what's legal and perhaps poking the line with your toe now and again, but not doing anything that would actually cross that line.  In regard to Frogger, again, the status of the trademark on the name at the time it was published would really need to be known to know whether a legal line was crossed or not.  I'm not saying it wasn't, just seeing where it changed hands a couple of times in a relatively short span and allowing room for others to make use of it, the way trademark law does--if you don't defend it, you lose it, sometimes forever.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

I love comparing the "standards" of what a "full set" is for older consoles to that of modern gaming.  Specifically the whole "first version" being the TRUE copy of the game and all other games being variants and don't count.  Or if the code is different then it can be considered a variant.  Given how many times games can be produced with different version of the game (current patched version of the game) can lead to large number of variants.

What are people's thoughts on Minecraft for PS4.  The first version didn't have PSVR compatibility on the disc.  But if you own it you can download the latest version of the game and it will have PSVR compatibility patched into the game.  Later on they released a version with the cover advertising PSVR compatibility with the disc having a version of the game with the compatibility.  Are those two separate games?  If you are a PS4 collector does that mean you only need the first version or either version.  If you are a PSVR collector do you not include the first OG version of Minecraft?  

What about a PSVR compatible game that states its compatible on the cover; but requires an internet connection to access the VR part of the game.  What about a game that never mentions PSVR compatible but via a download (patch, "Free DLC", paid DLC) can have VR content.

If you don't include games that require an internet connection to have VR content do you then remove PSVR games that literally won't play because they are online only games that have had their servers shutdown?  Does this mean that what a "full set" is will depend on time as at one point it would be part of the "full set" and then later it wouldn't be.  

Do you include a game if there was no physical disc but a physical game case with a download code inside?  

Do you include a game it's only purchased via online store?  What if it's a foreign company with ESRB rating and region free.  What if it's not ESRB rated but region free.  

I'm really curious what people think.  Personally I think if it has an ESRB rating with VR content (with or without internet access) it counts towards the NA "full set" and any variant is acceptable.  

This is why "full set" collecting for modern consoles is meaningless. Not worth the time or effort, in my opinion.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

Digging some more on the Frogger question, it appears that there are several trademarks currently filed and registered, which makes zero sense, as multiple companies shouldn't be able to hold a valid trademark on the same name at the same time.

Konami has a bunch, but then there are several others that I noticed, at least two by golf companies (one registered to the golf company and another registered to a person, so that second one could be someone working at that company), and another by a company making equipment to assist with parallel parking.

Check out the various trademarks for "Frogger" here.

Because of the was trademark law works, whoever would be deemed the final/primary owner of the "Frogger" trademark, if they never defended it (sending cease and desist letters, filing a lawsuit, etc.), then they would actually lose that trademark and  others' use of it would be/become legal.

Mind you that I'm not saying that someone using the name of someone else's IP isn't sketchy, just pointing out that at a technical level, it might not have been illegal to do so.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

7 minutes ago, DoctorEncore said:

This is why "full set" collecting for modern consoles is meaningless. Not worth the time or effort, in my opinion.

I enjoy it. It brings me joy, therefore it is not meaningless to me. I can also separate expectations/reality from fantasy and accept that I most likely won't have a Stadium Events or a Speed Racer Exertainment combo cart in my collection. It doesn't bring me stress or worry knowing that. I still like having every other possible release that I can get in a console's available library.

It's all subjective. 

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

What are people's thoughts on Minecraft for PS4..  

If you have a copy, you have a copy.  One is the original, the other one is a variant, as all it did was include more up to date patches on the disc.  I think the only difference here for PS4 collectors would be whether they're going for a "full" set or a "complete" set.  Minor variation in terms, but "full" would be one of every title released for the system, while "complete" would indicate every version of every title released, thus putting "complete" collectors on the hook for every SE, CE, etc. edition as well.

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

What about a PSVR compatible game that states its compatible on the cover; but requires an internet connection to access the VR part of the game.

It's a physical release, so it would still be counted, as the code to actually operate the game on the console is still on the disc even if the back end content isn't.  MMORPG's would fall into this category, as the game itself is included in the box that you buy on a CD/DVD, but the game world that you're going to be exploring, etc., is streamed to you from online servers required to really do much with the game.

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

What about a game that never mentions PSVR compatible but via a download (patch, "Free DLC", paid DLC) can have VR content.

I don't think this sort of thing would count as needing to be part of a "full" PSVR set to most, but if I were collecting the subset for that peripheral, I would personally make sure to have a copy of all games that did, in fact, include some PSVR content, even if it wasn't the primary selling point.  With many systems (including the PS3 and PS4), third party software has been developed to allow update patches to be downloaded permanently to PCs, and then again streamed to the consoles they were downloaded for, so it would be technically possible to keep local, hard copies of such non-disc DLC updates for non-PSVR games that eventually had that functionality added.  Basically, those games wouldn't be "officially" part of the list, but those with OCD or are super picky about their collections would most likely add them in.

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

f you don't include games that require an internet connection to have VR content do you then remove PSVR games that literally won't play because they are online only games that have had their servers shutdown?  Does this mean that what a "full set" is will depend on time as at one point it would be part of the "full set" and then later it wouldn't be. 

If there's a physical disc with the actual game code on it that will install the game and then launch it, I believe it counts, regardless of whether back-end server media required to make any or full use of the game was still available later on or not.  Those types of titles would be less desired by people who were collecting PSVR titles in order to actually play them, but would still be "required" by those who were collecting the games in order to have a "full" set of them.  The fact that you might not be able to play certain games past a certain point doesn't remove their existence, and thus requirement for the set, just like World Class Track Meet's existence doesn't remove Statdium Events' existence, and thus its requirement in order to claim an actual "full" set of the US NES library.

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

Do you include a game if there was no physical disc but a physical game case with a download code inside? 

On this one, I think it would depend.  Was there a version that did include a physical disc/cartridge as well as one that just had a download code in it?  If so, then yes it would count, but you'd need to get your hands on the physical media (thus likely making that title harder to find and more expensive as time goes on and available copies reduce in number).  If there wasn't, then I would consider this one optional.  It would look nice to have the case on your shelf, but there never was anything in the box that you could just plug into your console and play, and past a certain point you wouldn't be able to get the software to be able to attempt to play it.  This is different than the aforementioned scenario where a game stops working because the back end no longer exists due to the fact that no media of any function that the system could ever read was never inside that box anyway.  Just as a heads up, these types of releases really piss me off, but I'm glad that at least for now, they're semi-clearly marked so that it's possible to avoid them when shopping in stores.  Another heads up would be that should GameStop survive long enough, they themselves will eliminate all such games from existence over time, as they will simply throw out those boxes when people inevitably bring in a box of games to trade in, and since there's no game inside (and never was), they're considered literal trash.

9 hours ago, FireHazard51 said:

Do you include a game it's only purchased via online store?  What if it's a foreign company with ESRB rating and region free.  What if it's not ESRB rated but region free. 

If you mean that you need to purchase online in order to get a physical copy, like buying it from Amazon.com exclusively, then sure.  If you mean that it's digital only and you have to purchase it online, then no, although again, if I were doing such a collection, I would go ahead and purchase a copy, then do my best to somehow make a local/hard backup copy, if possible.

In regard to foreign releases, I think it depends on what set you're actually collecting.  Most of us on here are in North America, and as such are referring to the North American set of retail releases when we use the term "set."  If that's the type of collection someone is going for, then foreign releases which are not released at retail domestically (mom & pop game stores which import and sell copies don't count) would not count toward such a set.  The same thing would go for games which feature an ESRB rating but are pressed/manufactured as region free.  If it was available domestically within the region you're collecting for, then yes, absolutely, otherwise no.

A similar vein that you didn't mention would be games where the scarcity is artificially created, such as games where the publisher deliberately only makes a few hundred, and if you got in for a preorder you're golden, but otherwise locked out of being able to put together a "full" set.  I view these as nice bonuses, and believe they shouldn't be considered as part of any "full" set due to the manufacturing and distribution shenanigans going on.  Just like the vast majority of people wouldn't consider a Kickstarter exclusive edition of a game a requirement for a "full" set for a system (with only as many copies manufactured and made available as were backed/purchased via the Kickstarter), I believe that things like LRG releases and the various other deliberately limited edition games, post-system re-releases, etc., shouldn't count unless someone is going for a "complete" set where they have to have one of everything released for a system (which would again get to be subdivided and split up between regions, unless they were going for an everything everywhere set).

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

28 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I enjoy it. It brings me joy, therefore it is not meaningless to me. I can also separate expectations/reality from fantasy and accept that I most likely won't have a Stadium Events or a Speed Racer Exertainment combo cart in my collection. It doesn't bring me stress or worry knowing that. I still like having every other possible release that I can get in a console's available library.

It's all subjective. 

I agree for the most part, although I do feel a bit of disappointment that in most circles there's no current recognition for folks who have managed to put together the entire rest of a set save for that single OMGWTFBBQ priced rare game.  Yes, having or stumbling into a game that has a price equivalent to a decent car or small house is absolutely an achievement, but in the case of most system sets, so is chasing down all of the other hundreds of games available for it, many of which are similar in rarity if not dollar value to the outrageously-insanely-priced cart that most lack due to not being able to pony up a check worth as much as the rest of the collection combined.

I'll never stop looking and hoping for that last slot on the shelf to be filled, but I'm realistic enough to know that the satisfaction of ticking over from 99.99% to 100% completion isn't worth the sacrifice that it would take to get over the finish line.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I enjoy it. It brings me joy, therefore it is not meaningless to me. I can also separate expectations/reality from fantasy and accept that I most likely won't have a Stadium Events or a Speed Racer Exertainment combo cart in my collection. It doesn't bring me stress or worry knowing that. I still like having every other possible release that I can get in a console's available library.

It's all subjective. 

I was really just talking about modern consoles (basically PS3, 360, Wii U onward). Retro consoles have a pretty defined and objective list of what was released during their lifetime. There are a few outliers, as you mentioned, but there is general agreement for 99% of the stuff. These newer consoles have way too many variations, limited runs, promotional items, etc to make full sets even worth considering, in my opinion.

Everyone is free to do as they like, but I consider it a poor use of my time to chase after the newer stuff and go through the mental gymnastics required to define a full set for these consoles. The fact that most of the shit won't even be playable in ten years since the discs/cartridges don't even contain the actual game software is just icing on the cake.

Edited February 21, 2023 by DoctorEncore

[twiztor | 856]

1 hour ago, DoctorEncore said:

These newer consoles have way too many variations, limited runs, promotional items, etc to make full sets even worth considering, in my opinion.

fully agree. But is anybody cataloguing all of these variants and multi-releases? In 10-20 years, will there be a market that is just pulling their hair out trying to figure out why there are 137 different releases of Minecraft on PS3-4-5?

2 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

Digging some more on the Frogger question, it appears that there are several trademarks currently filed and registered, which makes zero sense, as multiple companies shouldn't be able to hold a valid trademark on the same name at the same time.

Konami has a bunch, but then there are several others that I noticed, at least two by golf companies (one registered to the golf company and another registered to a person, so that second one could be someone working at that company), and another by a company making equipment to assist with parallel parking.

Check out the various trademarks for "Frogger" here.

prerequisite comments: 1) IANAL, and 2) "copyright" and "trademark" are different things but many times their understanding is twisted and interconnected.

this is normally how trademark works. You register a trademark for a specific usage, or umbrella usages. That's why Konami can register the trademark for "video games" while the separate company can register the same word for "golf accessories". The situation with "Frogger" isn't odd or out of line with the law. 

Without doing further research, Konami likely owns the copyright for "Frogger", since they developed the original game. As it's a single word, it's difficult to create full ownership of it, so if other companies can show that the name is not infringing on anything Konami is doing, they can apply for separate trademarks of the usage. 

[OptOut | 8,895]

50 minutes ago, twiztor said:

fully agree. But is anybody cataloguing all of these variants and multi-releases? In 10-20 years, will there be a market that is just pulling their hair out trying to figure out why there are 137 different releases of Minecraft on PS3-4-5?

prerequisite comments: 1) IANAL, and 2) "copyright" and "trademark" are different things but many times their understanding is twisted and interconnected.

this is normally how trademark works. You register a trademark for a specific usage, or umbrella usages. That's why Konami can register the trademark for "video games" while the separate company can register the same word for "golf accessories". The situation with "Frogger" isn't odd or out of line with the law. 

Without doing further research, Konami likely owns the copyright for "Frogger", since they developed the original game. As it's a single word, it's difficult to create full ownership of it, so if other companies can show that the name is not infringing on anything Konami is doing, they can apply for separate trademarks of the usage. 

Yeah, that's right, the trademark and the copyright are different.

When it comes to video games you can't copyright, or patent, a game design. The mechanics of Frogger could be copied to make a practically identical game, as long as none of the code was copied over.

But, copyright on a CHARACTER, such as Frogger himself, that's legit. Even without a trademark, you couldn't just rip-off Frogger and put him in your game, the character itself is automatically granted copyright as soon as it's created to the recognised author.

I don't know much about homebrew video games, but if they used Frogger, the character, without licensing it from the original copyright holder, then that's theft of the original IP.

Trademark is different tho, I think that's more about passing off your goods as though they were made by someone else. That's more of a commercial thing, whereas copyright is more about the actual creation itself.

To be fair, Frogger IS basically just a frog... But I assume he has a backstory and a "totally radical 'tude" to differentiate him enough to make him his own unique creation...

[fcgamer | 4,792]

The same author also did an E.T. game, apparently, and BunnyBoy's NES Christmas game from last year looked suspiciously like SMB. No idea if it was actually copied at all though or not.

I'm not trying to throw these guys under the bus or anything, but they seem to be receiving a benefit of the doubt compared to Sachen with their (from the ground up) Thunder Blast Man / Rocman game, which other than a single sprite on the title screen and a similar name, has nothing to do with Mega Man.

[Ankos | 481]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

The same author also did an E.T. game, apparently, and BunnyBoy's NES Christmas game from last year looked suspiciously like SMB. No idea if it was actually copied at all though or not.

I'm not trying to throw these guys under the bus or anything, but they seem to be receiving a benefit of the doubt compared to Sachen with their (from the ground up) Thunder Blast Man / Rocman game, which other than a single sprite on the title screen and a similar name, has nothing to do with Mega Man.

TBM I could sort of see giving the benefit of the doubt, but then we get into Sachen's really late weird outsourced titles, like 2002 Gedou Zhanlue. The only way they could possibly have thought that wasn't legally problematic is if they hired some outside company to make it for them, and did not check what it was before releasing it

[Ankos | 481]

I think people go too hard on Sachen, and often cite the wrong games as being problematic for them, but they did have some titles that were infringing. I feel that people rip into them a lot harder than other companies in that same situation though

[PuppyWaffles | 1,858]

6 hours ago, DoctorEncore said:

This is why "full set" collecting for modern consoles is meaningless. Not worth the time or effort, in my opinion.

It's more meaningless when you realize 80% of the games aren't playable once they kill the update servers...

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

12 minutes ago, PuppyWaffles said:

It's more meaningless when you realize 80% of the games aren't playable once they kill the update servers...

Could you please define "aren't playable?"  Because I find your percentage incredibly too high if you literally mean "cannot start up and be played."  Sure, a lot of games will be glitchier than they would have been if the update servers weren't offline, but I can't think of a single game that I own or have played on a modern console that is a physical release that would literally be impossible to play or play all the way through without allowing the system to update it beyond what is on the disc.

[PuppyWaffles | 1,858]

1 hour ago, darkchylde28 said:

Could you please define "aren't playable?"  Because I find your percentage incredibly too high if you literally mean "cannot start up and be played."  Sure, a lot of games will be glitchier than they would have been if the update servers weren't offline, but I can't think of a single game that I own or have played on a modern console that is a physical release that would literally be impossible to play or play all the way through without allowing the system to update it beyond what is on the disc.

It's not the discs but the console itself. Xbox One and PS5 both require constant updates. For example you can not take a day one Xbox One, plug it in and play Halo Infinite

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

8 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

Digging some more on the Frogger question, it appears that there are several trademarks currently filed and registered, which makes zero sense, as multiple companies shouldn't be able to hold a valid trademark on the same name at the same time.

Konami has a bunch, but then there are several others that I noticed, at least two by golf companies (one registered to the golf company and another registered to a person, so that second one could be someone working at that company), and another by a company making equipment to assist with parallel parking.

Check out the various trademarks for "Frogger" here.

Because of the was trademark law works, whoever would be deemed the final/primary owner of the "Frogger" trademark, if they never defended it (sending cease and desist letters, filing a lawsuit, etc.), then they would actually lose that trademark and  others' use of it would be/become legal.

Mind you that I'm not saying that someone using the name of someone else's IP isn't sketchy, just pointing out that at a technical level, it might not have been illegal to do so.

The trademark list shows Konami being the sole rights holder for any computer or video game.  The other trademarks are unrelated to the games and are thus valid for the items they are registered for.  So unless Khan got clearance from Konami, Frogger Championship would be considered a pirate game.  As for Larry, it's pretty obviously a ripoff and I doubt the courts would say any different on that one, making it a definite bootleg as well.  And lawyers got involved as recently as 2018 to protect that IP, so it's definitely not something that can be considered abandoned. 

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

2 hours ago, PuppyWaffles said:

It's not the discs but the console itself. Xbox One and PS5 both require constant updates. For example you can not take a day one Xbox One, plug it in and play Halo Infinite

I don't own an XBox One or PS5, but at least up through the PS4 era, if a console required a specific update in order to play a certain game, it was virtually always included on the game disc and would alert you it was needed and needed to be installed in order to proceed with installing/playing the game.  This link indicates that at least in the case of the PS5, this practice has continued, with required updates being provided on-disc, so it really wouldn't matter if the system update servers were no longer accessible.  Another workaround would be to just Google whatever update you need, download it independently of Sony's website/servers, put it on a USB flash drive, then install it on the system that way.  I haven't been able to get Google to find relevant results for me regarding the current generation of XBox consoles, but I would assume that they would still be keeping up with this practice seeing as they did so in the past and Sony is also doing it.

1 hour ago, the_wizard_666 said:

The trademark list shows Konami being the sole rights holder for any computer or video game.  The other trademarks are unrelated to the games and are thus valid for the items they are registered for.  So unless Khan got clearance from Konami, Frogger Championship would be considered a pirate game.  As for Larry, it's pretty obviously a ripoff and I doubt the courts would say any different on that one, making it a definite bootleg as well.  And lawyers got involved as recently as 2018 to protect that IP, so it's definitely not something that can be considered abandoned. 

Thanks for the breakdown regarding the trademarks.  So Frogger would definitely be IP infringing as far as the name goes, but perhaps not in regard to the game itself.

In regard to Larry, the 2018 legal saber rattling was due to the original programmer, Al Lowe, looking to auction off his diskettes containing the original source code for the original game.  Activision owns the rights to the original game due to all of its acquisitions, but apparently no longer actually owns the IP itself, as it appears that Codemasters owns the trademark on the name as well as the rights to the character, likeness, etc., at least as of ~2013 when Al Lowe worked with new developers and Codemasters to release Leisure Suit Larry: Reloaded (basically another remake of the original game).  Based on Codemasters not having any sort of documented licensing agreement in place with Activision, it would seem that LLLFLL might just be in the clear legally, even if it is a bit murky.

[Link | 2,768]

10 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

I get what you're saying with your example, but a more apt one (at least in regard to the Larry game) would be someone writing fan fiction obviously set within the Star Wars universe, but with everything changed ever so slightly so that it didn't actually say that, or name any characters or ships or locations that appeared exactly what they were within the Star Wars universe.  In that scenario you're approaching the edge of what's legal and perhaps poking the line with your toe now and again, but not doing anything that would actually cross that line. 

If Roger Corman does this, it's a ripoff, but iirc the legal challenges are few due to his spot under the radar relative to the size of potential plaintiffs.

Wes Craven does it as parody (albeit largely of his oen work.) Quentin Tarantino, a tribute. E.L. James, a whole new multimillion-dollar franchise. 

Here's a question to speculate on. Giana Sisters had trouble at first, but now the franchise is allowed (and even had a game on a Nintendo system). If there was a case similar to that or KC Munchkin now, which side would win? 

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

Just now, darkchylde28 said:

Thanks for the breakdown regarding the trademarks.  So Frogger would definitely be IP infringing as far as the name goes, but perhaps not in regard to the game itself.

In regard to Larry, the 2018 legal saber rattling was due to the original programmer, Al Lowe, looking to auction off his diskettes containing the original source code for the original game.  Activision owns the rights to the original game due to all of its acquisitions, but apparently no longer actually owns the IP itself, as it appears that Codemasters owns the trademark on the name as well as the rights to the character, likeness, etc., at least as of ~2013 when Al Lowe worked with new developers and Codemasters to release Leisure Suit Larry: Reloaded (basically another remake of the original game).  Based on Codemasters not having any sort of documented licensing agreement in place with Activision, it would seem that LLLFLL might just be in the clear legally, even if it is a bit murky.

LLLFLL doesn't just copy the mechanics, it copies the character and more or less the entirety of the game itself.  That's full blown piracy, no ifs, ands, or buts.  Also, it wasn't because Activision had any rights to the IP itself, but because they owned the rights to King's Quest and Space Quest, and there was potential for code from those games to be found within LSL's code (which Al Lowe agreed with, as the game used the same engine).  Frogger falls into the same domain as it was basically as close a copy as one could get to the original game.  Basically, any port of an existing game that isn't in the public domain is piracy.  Basically, Khan Games is almost entirely a pirate company, as the majority of their releases are guilty of infringement at best and completely ripping off the source at worst.  Kevin is a great guy, and a pillar of the community, but that doesn't change the fact that most of his games break the law.

[Gloves | 11,892]

1 minute ago, the_wizard_666 said:

LLLFLL doesn't just copy the mechanics, it copies the character and more or less the entirety of the game itself.  That's full blown piracy, no ifs, ands, or buts.  Also, it wasn't because Activision had any rights to the IP itself, but because they owned the rights to King's Quest and Space Quest, and there was potential for code from those games to be found within LSL's code (which Al Lowe agreed with, as the game used the same engine).  Frogger falls into the same domain as it was basically as close a copy as one could get to the original game.  Basically, any port of an existing game that isn't in the public domain is piracy.  Basically, Khan Games is almost entirely a pirate company, as the majority of their releases are guilty of infringement at best and completely ripping off the source at worst.  Kevin is a great guy, and a pillar of the community, but that doesn't change the fact that most of his games break the law.

Hey man, Khan made ShmupSpeed for NES for me and that's 100% original!

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

1 minute ago, Link said:

Here's a question to speculate on. Giana Sisters had trouble at first, but now the franchise is allowed (and even had a game on a Nintendo system). If there was a case similar to that or KC Munchkin now, which side would win? 

If it was literally the same case, I think that the KC Munchkin developers would win today, as while the gameplay is similar, it's not exactly the same, the characters aren't exactly the same, etc.  There are similarities, but not so many and none so close that a reasonable person would mistake one game for the other, which is typically where the burden of proof lies.

I think that lawsuit turned out the way that it did due to the fact that around that time it hadn't even been determined whether software could be protected via a copyright, so there were lots of one-off decisions made solely by the judge in question, with no other examples, case law, etc., to consider.  Judges at the time weren't really gamers and weren't familiar with games, so everything looked very similar, in much the same way that when many of us were young, most parents, grandparents, etc., referred to every console as a "Nintendo," even though it's clear to anyone who understands what each console is that they're not.  The Wikipedia article about the case actually contains a link to two later, but very similar cases, where the exact opposite decision was made in each case.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

7 minutes ago, Link said:

Here's a question to speculate on. Giana Sisters had trouble at first, but now the franchise is allowed (and even had a game on a Nintendo system). If there was a case similar to that or KC Munchkin now, which side would win? 

When the OG Giana Sisters game was released, it was kind of the wild west of the industry.  There were no real precedents in the legal system at the time, so a bunch of larger companies would be trigger happy with the lawsuits, and many smaller companies would cave before getting to a courtroom because they simply couldn't afford it.  I don't know much specifically about Giana Sisters, but if it was simply a game similar to Mario it probably would've been fine even then, though if it copied levels directly it'd be a bit tougher to defend.  But either way, the creators made the characters and thus any later games that weren't infringing on other titles would be perfectly fine. 

 

2 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Hey man, Khan made ShmupSpeed for NES for me and that's 100% original!

He also did Study Hall and a couple other unique ones.  But his ports of Larry, ET, Scramble, Frogger, and Sneak 'n Peek are all pirate copies of other companies' products. 

[Gloves | 11,892]

Just now, the_wizard_666 said:

He also did Study Hall and a couple other unique ones.  But his ports of Larry, ET, Scramble, Frogger, and Sneak 'n Peek are all pirate copies of other companies' products. 

Oh totally agree. I just like to remind people that ShmupSpeed exists whenever I get even the faintest hint of a chance.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

1 minute ago, Gloves said:

Oh totally agree. I just like to remind people that ShmupSpeed exists whenever I get even the faintest hint of a chance.

Probably worth reminding people too, since he doesn't list it on the KHAN games website.

[Gloves | 11,892]

1 minute ago, the_wizard_666 said:

Probably worth reminding people too, since he doesn't list it on the KHAN games website.

I know.