About the Explanation of Development Authorization for Star Keeper Branch Version

[fcgamer | 4,719]

43 minutes ago, a3quit4s said:

My man the NFT gets you nothing to do with the main game. You get rights to make a branch game. The contract does say you get access to “resources” but not the original source code. 

Don't need it anyways as my friend can likely figure things out from the cartridge. 

[a3quit4s | 4,092]

28 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Don't need it anyways as my friend can likely figure things out from the cartridge. 

Yeah well my dad that works at Nintendo can beat up your friend 

[Jeevan | 8,909]

4 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Here's what I'd do if I were everyone:

Pay the nft fee or whatever, then send kyrz a copy of the cart. He will enjoy making custom PCBs, then he'll sell the Famicom version of the game. Within a month everyone can play it, nothing gets pirated, the op gets his money, and collectors also stay happy. 

 

56 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Don't need it anyways as my friend can likely figure things out from the cartridge. 

Are you advocating piracy or am I misreading these statements?

[fcgamer | 4,719]

28 minutes ago, a3quit4s said:

Yeah well my dad that works at Nintendo can beat up your friend 

This guy reverse-engineered a lot of "undumpable" carts, and he personally designed up PCBs for me, and I've seen many of his other projects too.

 

[fcgamer | 4,719]

2 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

 

Are you advocating piracy or am I misreading these statements?

No, if you noticed from the earlier sentence I mentioned paying the fee.

The op stated that making a Famicom version would be fine, if the fee were paid.

[fcgamer | 4,719]

3 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

 

Are you advocating piracy or am I misreading these statements?

Check 

[Jeevan | 8,909]

3 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

No, if you noticed from the earlier sentence I mentioned paying the fee.

The op stated that making a Famicom version would be fine, if the fee were paid.

doesn't the OP also state that you don't get the right to the code like over and over again throughout this thread?  which means you don't get access to star keeper, which means you would still be pirating the game I'd you don't have rights to it, right?

My understanding is that you are just buying rights to the IP and the rights to produce new games.  

[Tanooki | 4,929]

The author hours ago also said he had no problem with people making a FC version of the game, just not the NES one due to this NFT and development thing he has an idea on.

 

So no it's not piracy.  It's a reproduction of the NES game, on a 60pin FC cart which the author just said he's cool with.  You wouldn't need to hack anything, rework how the cart functions, dump the data to the appropriate chips as-is, and it works.

That's not piracy, that's working within the realm, and that I think anyone would genuinely buy who wants the game who isn't just blowing smoke whining about not having access.

[Jeevan | 8,909]

To be clear @fcgamer I'm not suggesting u advocate piracy, I'm just pointing out that supposedly the original game isn't included in the NFT, if u read something different then I apologize.

[Jeevan | 8,909]

1 minute ago, Tanooki said:

The author hours ago also said he had no problem with people making a FC version of the game, just not the NES one due to this NFT and development thing he has an idea on.

 

So no it's not piracy.  It's a reproduction of the NES game, on a 60pin FC cart which the author just said he's cool with.  You wouldn't need to hack anything, rework how the cart functions, dump the data to the appropriate chips as-is, and it works.

That's not piracy, that's working within the realm, and that I think anyone would genuinely buy who wants the game who isn't just blowing smoke whining about not having access.

idk, up to the parties tbh.  seems kinda shady to me, but I really have no interest in even playing this game at all.  nothing screams I must play this game kuz it's star keeper to me......the vids on YouTube do not interest me lol.  I'm just conversating I guess.  

either way, the original NFT was supposed to not include star keeper the game, so idk.....

[Tanooki | 4,929]

I don't see the shady other than the NFT depending on your feelings about them  But as gloves said, shady appearances or not, feelings about NFTs aside, if that by some dumb stroke of luck gets the guy enough yuan to make a sequel -- great.  I still think going at minimum with a steam copy would be a key way to rake in some fast good cash that'll drip feed after.

I never was big on Joust but I still can't get enough of balloon fight, even balloon trip mode too, so this game being like a mix of the pair speaks to me and I'd jam out on this game given the chance.  So he says he's fine having a FC port made, good, sign me up.  I imported Kira Kira Star Night DX for FC too from a tiny developer columbus circle helped out, so this I would too.

Hey maybe Columbus Circle could make it happen affordably as they're tooled up as it is.

[OptOut | 8,881]

This is just like that episode of South Park where Cartman bought that rundown Amusement Park just so he could be the only one to enjoy it, then in the end he actually made it way more popular just because people wanted the thing they couldn't have!

"Star Keeper is an awesome game for NES, built from the ground up to be one of the most innovative, fun and well crafted homebrew experiences around... And the BEST thing about it? YOU CAN'T COME!" 

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

44 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

doesn't the OP also state that you don't get the right to the code like over and over again throughout this thread?  which means you don't get access to star keeper, which means you would still be pirating the game I'd you don't have rights to it, right?

My understanding is that you are just buying rights to the IP and the rights to produce new games.  

You're exactly right.  It's in section 2.5 of the agreement presented in the original post.  I've got it quoted for you below, with relevant sections highlighted.  Anyone dumping the original Star Keeper and then releasing for the Famicom would be guilty for piracy, as the contract specifies that NFT purchasers gain zero rights to the original game or its direct line of sequels and also that no branch game is allowed to be released on the NES platform.

41 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

The author hours ago also said he had no problem with people making a FC version of the game, just not the NES one due to this NFT and development thing he has an idea on.

So no it's not piracy.  It's a reproduction of the NES game, on a 60pin FC cart which the author just said he's cool with.  You wouldn't need to hack anything, rework how the cart functions, dump the data to the appropriate chips as-is, and it works.

That's not piracy, that's working within the realm, and that I think anyone would genuinely buy who wants the game who isn't just blowing smoke whining about not having access.

If someone dumps the original game and comes out with a Famicom version, it is 100% piracy, pure and simple.  Go re-read section 2.5 of the "contract" presented in the first post of this thread.  I've replied to Jeevan below and included the quote in case you don't need/want to scroll back and highlighted the relevant portions.  When OP was talking about being ok with a "Famicom version" in this thread, he was again talking about someone making a branch game that comes out on the Famicom platform, since the NES platform is specifically and deliberately excluded per the contract.

41 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

To be clear @fcgamer I'm not suggesting u advocate piracy, I'm just pointing out that supposedly the original game isn't included in the NFT, if u read something different then I apologize.

You're not wrong.  The contract specifically states that OP retains all rights to the original Star Keeper game and any direct offshoots.  It also specifically prohibits anyone gaining access to create "branch" games to do so for the NES.  What OP stated previously regarding a Famicom release would be that any branch games created could come out on Famicom, but not NES.  Here's the quote from the first post (the three separate important parts highlighted slightly differently for emphasis):

"2.5 NFT-supported branch games will not damage the lineage of the Star Keeper game because the copyright of the main version of Star Keeper, including Star Keeper2, Star Keeper (N), and numbered main versions, is retained, and NFT authorization is only for branch versions. Moreover, the branch version authorized through NFT cannot appear on the NES platform."

[Jeevan | 8,909]

9 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

You're exactly right.  It's in section 2.5 of the agreement presented in the original post.  I've got it quoted for you below, with relevant sections highlighted.  Anyone dumping the original Star Keeper and then releasing for the Famicom would be guilty for piracy, as the contract specifies that NFT purchasers gain zero rights to the original game or its direct line of sequels and also that no branch game is allowed to be released on the NES platform.

If someone dumps the original game and comes out with a Famicom version, it is 100% piracy, pure and simple.  Go re-read section 2.5 of the "contract" presented in the first post of this thread.  I've replied to Jeevan below and included the quote in case you don't need/want to scroll back and highlighted the relevant portions.  When OP was talking about being ok with a "Famicom version" in this thread, he was again talking about someone making a branch game that comes out on the Famicom platform, since the NES platform is specifically and deliberately excluded per the contract.

You're not wrong.  The contract specifically states that OP retains all rights to the original Star Keeper game and any direct offshoots.  It also specifically prohibits anyone gaining access to create "branch" games to do so for the NES.  What OP stated previously regarding a Famicom release would be that any branch games created could come out on Famicom, but not NES.  Here's the quote from the first post (the three separate important parts highlighted slightly differently for emphasis):

"2.5 NFT-supported branch games will not damage the lineage of the Star Keeper game because the copyright of the main version of Star Keeper, including Star Keeper2, Star Keeper (N), and numbered main versions, is retained, and NFT authorization is only for branch versions. Moreover, the branch version authorized through NFT cannot appear on the NES platform."

ya, idk, this is all clear as mud from the get go lol.  

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

2 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

ya, idk, this is all clear as mud from the get go lol.  

As @Gloves has pointed out, the whole contract is on really shaky legal ground, with a lot of unintended loopholes built into it, so it's understandable.  However, it's spelled out pretty deliberately in section 2.5 that people who purchase an NFT have no rights to the original game or any direct offshoots, are only allowed to make "branch" games and "branch" games cannot appear on the NES.  Therefore, anyone dumping the original game would be guilty of piracy since they don't have any rights to do so per the current NFT contract, regardless of what non-NES platform they release on.

[zxdplay | 149]

5 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Here's what I'd do if I were everyone:

Pay the nft fee or whatever, then send kyrz a copy of the cart. He will enjoy making custom PCBs, then he'll sell the Famicom version of the game. Within a month everyone can play it, nothing gets pirated, the op gets his money, and collectors also stay happy. 

2. License
2.1 Provided that you comply with the terms of this agreement, 87Arts hereby grants
you a limited, non-exclusive license to develop, promote, and sell Branch Games
of the Mainline Game (Star Keeper) globally.
2.2 NFT Owners have the right to use all resources of the Mainline Game except for
the source code, including game world view, character design, scene tiles, scene
music, and all other content.All game resources are limited to software resources,
excluding game card PCB circuit diagrams, chip models, and circuit schematics.

NFT Owner also has the right to use the resources developed by Branch Games
authorized through that Authorization NFT (with the same NFT ID), but this does
not include the source code.

Buyers of Authorization NFTs have the right to request game development
resources from sellers of Authorization NFTs. If you need resources for the
Mainline Game, please contact the official 87Arts email cn_87arts@yahoo.com.

2.3 NFT Owners can design Branch Games arbitrarily, such as adding levels,
expanding plots, and designing new characters and scenes, in compliance with
this agreement. Games can be developed using any engine. Games can use 2D or
3D , the art style and game genre are not limited.
2.4 The name of the Branch Game should consist of the Mainline Game name
followed by a subtitle, for example: Star Keeper - xxxx, Star Keeper xxxxx.

I think you should look at the authorization agreement first

you can make a branch version of Star Keeper similar to the mainline version on FC, Star Keeper - XXXX

Edited March 2, 2023 by zxdplay

[Tulpa | 3,488]

3 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

 

I think you should look at the authorization agreement first

you can make a branch version of Star Keeper similar to the mainline version on FC, Star Keeper - XXXX

So you're NOT giving fcgamer the original game.

[zxdplay | 149]

Just now, Tulpa said:

So you're NOT giving fcgamer the original game.

He can make his own game but not allowed to copy

[Jeevan | 8,909]

11 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

As @Gloves has pointed out, the whole contract is on really shaky legal ground, with a lot of unintended loopholes built into it, so it's understandable.  However, it's spelled out pretty deliberately in section 2.5 that people who purchase an NFT have no rights to the original game or any direct offshoots, are only allowed to make "branch" games and "branch" games cannot appear on the NES.  Therefore, anyone dumping the original game would be guilty of piracy since they don't have any rights to do so per the current NFT contract, regardless of what non-NES platform they release on.

ya, lawyers need to be involved for this to be legit lol.

[a3quit4s | 4,092]

3 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

2.2 NFT Owners have the right to use all resources of the Mainline Game except for
the source code, including game world view, character design, scene tiles, scene
music, and all other content.

Is this not just saying the branch owners have no access to anything in the mainline game? You need to really get more specific about what in the mainline game they have access too. I would suggest if you are serious about this you get together with a contracts attorney before you end up costing yourself more than you think. 
 

I wish you luck with whatever you decide to do and I’m out the door on this thread. 

[Jeevan | 8,909]

2 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

He can make his own game but not allowed to copy

yep, that was my understanding.  thanks for clarification.

[Deadeye | 1,595]

@zxdplaywelcome to VGS and happy to see you found us.  Like many, I am a fan of the game, play it often, and wish you the best of luck.  NFTs are not something I am interested in, but based on the thread, you seem have to made up your mind, so I am not going to try to talk you out of it.

I will only echo what some of the staff and others said, if you are interested in going a publishing route for your first game or sequels you development, we are willing to talk or help you find connections to do so.

[zxdplay | 149]

8 hours ago, Gloves said:

You're absolutely right that he's almost certainly overestimating the valuation of the IP. 

It's noteworthy that the contract even if it DID stand up in court, explicitly states that neither party is allowed to litigate. So no chance it even gets to court if something happens, you can buy the NFT, get him to give you all the assets he's willing to share, then share those assets on the internet freely without recourse, make games about murder death porn, whatever you like, and all he can do is say "please no" and you can ignore him. Hence my suggesting he speak with an actual lawyer. It's in his best interest, for real. 

Thank you very much, at least you read the contract carefully, if there is a problem with the contract, there is still a chance to revise it

[Jeevan | 8,909]

1 minute ago, zxdplay said:

Thank you very much, at least you read the contract carefully, if there is a problem with the contract, there is still a chance to revise it

I mean, has someone purchased the NFT already, because you can't change a contract after the deal is done.  So anyone prior to the restructuring can do what they want right?

[Tulpa | 3,488]

30 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

He can make his own game but not allowed to copy

You probably need to make that absolutely clear, as it looks like he wants to copy the original.

3 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

Thank you very much, at least you read the contract carefully, if there is a problem with the contract, there is still a chance to revise it

There's quite a few problems with the contract. As @Glovessaid, get a lawyer to go over your contract with you.