Definition of a "Complete Set"?

[Splain | 2,569]

Remember when DreamTR was selling his huge collection, and he insisted that he didn't need to say anything more than "it's every game for those systems" and tons of people had questions about what that meant. Granted, it's annoying to have to say things like "including both Caltron and Myriad 6-in-1" and give special attention to unlicensed fringe games. But unless there is universal agreement about it, the fringe has to be specified.

Game Boy collecting isn't expensive or popular, but the fringe pieces there would be:

- There are 2 Centipede releases with different product codes. https://tcrf.net/Centipede_(Game_Boy)
- There are 5 Infogenius "utility" carts that aren't games.
- Wisdom Tree released 5 "contemporary" unlicensed carts for GB.
- Interestingly I don't ever see the Game Boy Camera included in any collection, though there are lots of games and unlockables in it.
- Pokemon Yellow blah blah blah
- There are a handful of games that appear on more than one cart, similar to the SMB/Duck Hunt "unique games" question

The only thing that people usually separate out are the Wisdom Tree games. Two of them go for a few hundred each, so a lot of GB collectors just stick with the licensed stuff. (which should be specified.) Nothing else is expensive enough to argue about, so it's easy to include everything and pretend that it's simple. But you can bet that if anything from that list were Stadium-Events-level expensive, people would justify it out of the fullset.

[Sumez | 2,950]

Unless you want to own everything that exists in the entire world, a "set" is nothing other than a specific list of items.

You decide what items are a part of that list, and those make out the set. If you have all of them you have a "complete set".

Any other way of looking at it is ridiculous.

[avatar! | 1,811]

13 hours ago, Sumez said:

Unless you want to own everything that exists in the entire world, a "set" is nothing other than a specific list of items.

You decide what items are a part of that list, and those make out the set. If you have all of them you have a "complete set".

Any other way of looking at it is ridiculous.

Right. You can own a subset of NES games, and have "the set" you wanted.  My original posts were not actually about what constitutes a set, which again, I think Code Monkey explained very well. Rather, my original post was about licensed games, and the fact that new NES games are indeed officially licensed. I think that riled some people because I believe they want to have or are hoping to have "a complete set of NES games" but of course that just is not possible. That said, again, there definitely is a well-defined list of "Nintendo NES Licensed Retail Games" but that doesn't change the fact that more licensed games are currently being made for the NES. 

[cartman | 195]

34 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Right. You can own a subset of NES games, and have "the set" you wanted.  My original posts were not actually about what constitutes a set, which again, I think Code Monkey explained very well. Rather, my original post was about licensed games, and the fact that new NES games are indeed officially licensed. I think that riled some people because I believe they want to have or are hoping to have "a complete set of NES games" but of course that just is not possible. That said, again, there definitely is a well-defined list of "Nintendo NES Licensed Retail Games" but that doesn't change the fact that more licensed games are currently being made for the NES. 

What do you mean by this talk? If a new NES homebrew game is released you're saying Nintendo must sanction it?

What new NES games are officially licensed?

[Splain | 2,569]

From now on, nobody is allowed to say they own every game in any set, they have to specify that they own ONE COPY of each game.

[avatar! | 1,811]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

What do you mean by this talk? If a new NES homebrew game is released you're saying Nintendo must sanction it?

What new NES games are officially licensed?

No, you're making the wrong assumption that a game needs to be licensed by Nintendo to be legit. That's not the case. Galf, for example

https://limitedrungames.com/products/galf-nes

Was officially licensed by LRG. As LRG notes "NES is a registered trademark of Nintendo. This release is not endorsed by nor affiliated with Nintendo."  And indeed a game does NOT need to be endorsed by Nintendo to be licensed. Same thing with games by iam8bit

https://www.iam8bit.com/pages/game-cart-faqs

In the case of the latter, they are officially licensed reproductions, but again are not endorsed nor affiliated with Nintendo. 

[Splain | 2,569]

Is there anything more "official" about LRG licensing a game, than me making a one-off game in my garage, officially licensed by Splain?

[Gloves | 11,777]

3 minutes ago, Splain said:

Is there anything more "official" about LRG licensing a game, than me making a one-off game in my garage, officially licensed by Splain?

Only individual perception.

[O.G. CIB | 415]

22 minutes ago, avatar! said:

No, you're making the wrong assumption that a game needs to be licensed by Nintendo to be legit. That's not the case. Galf, for example

https://limitedrungames.com/products/galf-nes

Was officially licensed by LRG. As LRG notes "NES is a registered trademark of Nintendo. This release is not endorsed by nor affiliated with Nintendo."  And indeed a game does NOT need to be endorsed by Nintendo to be licensed. Same thing with games by iam8bit

https://www.iam8bit.com/pages/game-cart-faqs

In the case of the latter, they are officially licensed reproductions, but again are not endorsed nor affiliated with Nintendo. 

You are making the case against your own argument. A “licensed” game is a two way street.... it must be licensed by the developer/publisher and the console manufacturer. Till this day no side show bob can legally make a game for a console and have to be approved by the console manufacturer. Nintendo has since stop licensing any game for their systems up to the Wii in North America Which was confirmed by V-Blank when they couldn’t make Shakedown Hawaii in NA. 
 

Make no mistake about it.... if Nintendo wrote LRG a letter and told them they couldn’t create anymore reproduction carts for their previous systems it would be shut down. As far as LRG they licensed it from the developer to publish the carts which they would need to reproduce them legally or risk being sued by the developer. 
 

I always go back to the list Nintendo Published maybe 18-20 years ago of their NES licensed games which had a few exclusions because they didn’t want to recognize things such as MTPO. If you even go to their financial historical data they publish on their own site...... it sure doesn’t include anything past the time they were manufacturing the carts. 

[cartman | 195]

50 minutes ago, avatar! said:

No, you're making the wrong assumption that a game needs to be licensed by Nintendo to be legit. That's not the case. Galf, for example

https://limitedrungames.com/products/galf-nes

Was officially licensed by LRG. As LRG notes "NES is a registered trademark of Nintendo. This release is not endorsed by nor affiliated with Nintendo."  And indeed a game does NOT need to be endorsed by Nintendo to be licensed. Same thing with games by iam8bit

https://www.iam8bit.com/pages/game-cart-faqs

In the cg ase of the latter, they are officially licensed reproductions, but again are not endorsed nor affiliated with Nintendo. 

I thought licensed was = Nintendo like that was the whole definition. But i guess it does make sense that it isn't i mean they can't decide what people get to run on their system that they bought & own.

So basically it's just an endorsement/credibility sort of thing that means Nintendo stands behind it, or LRG in these modern times.

[avatar! | 1,811]

1 hour ago, Mr. CIB said:

You are making the case against your own argument. A “licensed” game is a two way street.... it must be licensed by the developer/publisher and the console manufacturer.

That is simply incorrect. 

Heck, even Nintendo says

UNLICENSED PRODUCTS
If a product does not carry one of the seals listed above, it is likely not licensed by Nintendo. Unlicensed products and accessories do not undergo Nintendo's testing and evaluation process. They may not work at all with our game systems, and they may have compatibility problems with certain games or accessories.

https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/licensed.jsp

Note that Nintendo said nothing about games they do not license as being "bootleg/pirated/illegal" all they say is that such a game does not "undergo Nintendo's testing" that is it! There is NOTHING about any game having to be licensed by the console's manufacturer. 

[avatar! | 1,811]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

I thought licensed was = Nintendo like that was the whole definition. But i guess it does make sense that it isn't i mean they can't decide what people get to run on their system that they bought & own.

So basically it's just an endorsement/credibility sort of thing that means Nintendo stands behind it, or LRG in these modern times.

Exactly. Mr. CIB has it wrong when he said a game has to be licensed by Nintendo. Nintendo could not tell LRG to stop publishing for the NES any more than they could tell you to stop playing the NES. Again, the NES has a lock-out chip which is why back in the day, before producing NES games was relatively easy, most games had to be licensed by Nintendo. Otherwise Nintendo could prevent you from publishing your game. Nintendo is actually very very protective of their IP. For example, they recently became aware of a fan-made smutty game that has been around for years, and just sent a DMCA notice. 

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/nintendo-takes-down-peachs-untold-tales-fan-game/

If Nintendo suspected that LRG or any company was doing anything "wrong" or were not paying them money that they were entitled to, I promise you Nintendo would act. Truth is, and this is a good thing, you can produce your own NES game and get it published and make money! You don't have to get Nintendo's permission or license your game to them. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by avatar!

[Splain | 2,569]

Ok, but it's a little silly to say that a game that isn't licensed by Nintendo can still be a "licensed" release. Sure, a license might be little more than a thumbs-up from Nintendo. But you can't pretend that games without that thumbs-up are still "licensed."

[cartman | 195]

9 minutes ago, Splain said:

Ok, but it's a little silly to say that a game that isn't licensed by Nintendo can still be a "licensed" release. Sure, a license might be little more than a thumbs-up from Nintendo. But you can't pretend that games without that thumbs-up are still "licensed."

Yeah aren't the Sachen and Tengen releases usually excluded from the official NES library count for this exact reason? 

[Tulpa | 3,493]

17 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yeah aren't the Sachen and Tengen releases usually excluded from the official NES library count for this exact reason? 

Tengen had three games officially licensed by Nintendo. Nintendo much later removed those three from their "official" NES games list (along with three others, including their own MTPO.) Collectors still count them, because, well, they exist, they have license seals, and they're in licensed shells.

The other Tengen games are unlicensed, and I've never seen anyone argue otherwise (the three licensed ones were also later reissued as unlicensed ones, black shells and everything.)

Sachen to my knowledge has always been unlicensed. There's been speculation on what the distribution of them in the US actually entailed, but they're otherwise an unlicensed publisher for the NES.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

22 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Tengen had three games officially licensed by Nintendo. Nintendo much later removed those three from their "official" NES games list (along with three others, including their own MTPO.) Collectors still count them, because, well, they exist, they have license seals, and they're in licensed shells.

The other Tengen games are unlicensed, and I've never seen anyone argue otherwise (the three licensed ones were also later reissued as unlicensed ones, black shells and everything.)

Sachen to my knowledge has always been unlicensed. There's been speculation on what the distribution of them in the US actually entailed, but they're otherwise an unlicensed publisher for the NES.

I know they're unlicensensed but what i meant was in regards to what's considered a "full" NTSC library. Except maybe those 3 i think the general consensus is, a complete set does not require Tengen/Sachen.

[Tulpa | 3,493]

3 hours ago, cartman said:

I know they're unlicensensed but what i meant was in regards to what's considered a "full" NTSC library. Except maybe those 3 i think the general consensus is, a complete set does not require Tengen/Sachen.

If you mean the full licensed NTSC retail library (assuming NTSC - North American or US set), then yeah, just the three licensed Tengens.

But there were 90 (or 91, if you count the unreleased Cheetahmen II) unlicensed games that were retail released in North America. That includes all the Tengens (about twenty) and would duplicate a few games. The three licensed Tengens, the Namco Pac-Man, and the Mindscape Temple of Doom had unlicensed Tengen duplicates, but all of them count towards a 768 licensed+unlicensed North American set.

Sachens are more of a mixed bag. More information is needed for them. They did come out, and a few made their way over here, though it seems the company would sell and ship to anyone who threw money their way. If you're going for a worldwide retail set, I don't see any way you could exclude them. You'd also need the Gluk games, the HES stuff, and some others.

It's a real rabbit hole. I know why some people limit themselves to the 677 North American licensed set, but you have to keep the qualifiers. You can't just say it's the full set, because it isn't.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[Code Monkey | 2,008]

On 10/15/2020 at 6:10 PM, MiamiSlice said:

Common usage defines meaning though. If 99% of people use “full set” to mean “full set of NES games licensed by Nintendo” then that’s what it means. Unless you enjoy getting into arguments with everyone who believes it to mean that. 

Common usage doesn't change the definition of a term. When I ask someone how they're doing, 99% of people tell me they're, "Good," that doesn't make it correct. That just tells me they don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.

(Spoiler alert, the proper response is, "I'm well.")

So that only tells me 99% of people don't know what a full set is.

[Code Monkey | 2,008]

5 hours ago, Splain said:

Ok, but it's a little silly to say that a game that isn't licensed by Nintendo can still be a "licensed" release. Sure, a license might be little more than a thumbs-up from Nintendo. But you can't pretend that games without that thumbs-up are still "licensed."

It is still licensed, just not from Nintendo. Here's an example:

There's a game titled Mighty Gunvolt Burst that is unlicensed by Capcom but it is a licensed Nintendo Switch game. It is not Mega Man (officially) but let's face it........it's Mega Man. 

Then there is the reproduction of Mega Man 2 and Mega Man X from iam8bit that are licensed by Capcom but not licensed by Nintendo.

Then there are the original Mega Man games that are both licensed by Capcom and Nintendo.

All 3 of these games are licensed in some way. Mighty Gunvolt Burst is a pretty good game but it certainly is nowhere near as good as Mega Man so here the licensing aspect matters a lot because it's missing that Capcom quality. With games like this I would prefer the Capcom license over the Nintendo license.

[Deadeye | 1,596]

5 hours ago, Code Monkey said:

When I ask someone how they're doing, 99% of people tell me they're, "Good," that doesn't make it correct. That just tells me they don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.

That's not as true as you are making it out to be.  People may know the difference and choose to use "good" because it is common usage.  

If you are going for scientific conclusions with percentages, all you know is they responded with "good", not that they don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb, that is your assumption.

[cartman | 195]

6 hours ago, Tulpa said:

If you mean the full licensed NTSC retail library (assuming NTSC - North American or US set), then yeah, just the three licensed Tengens.

But there were 90 (or 91, if you count the unreleased Cheetahmen II) unlicensed games that were retail released in North America. That includes all the Tengens (about twenty) and would duplicate a few games. The three licensed Tengens, the Namco Pac-Man, and the Mindscape Temple of Doom had unlicensed Tengen duplicates, but all of them count towards a 768 licensed+unlicensed North American set.

Sachens are more of a mixed bag. More information is needed for them. They did come out, and a few made their way over here, though it seems the company would sell and ship to anyone who threw money their way. If you're going for a worldwide retail set, I don't see any way you could exclude them. You'd also need the Gluk games, the HES stuff, and some others.

It's a real rabbit hole. I know why some people limit themselves to the 677 North American licensed set, but you have to keep the qualifiers. You can't just say it's the full set, because it isn't.

I'd count Nintendo licensed personally as opposed to sold in retail it seems more legitimate and also draw a line for the NES lifespan aswell. Technically someone could be saying that Battle Kid and whatnot are part of a "complete" set but to me that's just stretching it.

But then again something being a full set is just this arbitrary thing we make up it doesn't really mean much. A games either exist or it doesn't but categorizing is an arbitrary thing.

[Tulpa | 3,493]

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

I'd count Nintendo licensed personally as opposed to sold in retail it seems more legitimate and also draw a line for the NES lifespan aswell. Technically someone could be saying that Battle Kid and whatnot are part of a "complete" set but to me that's just stretching it.

But then again something being a full set is just this arbitrary thing we make up it doesn't really mean much. A games either exist or it doesn't but categorizing is an arbitrary thing.

Yeah, it's pretty much going to be whatever line people draw, as the truly complete set is probably not achievable (unless some billionaire bought up  everything and then bribed all the homebrew guys to never make another game.)

A lot of people limit themselves to a licensed set, as it's one of the few sets where the list has been largely agreed upon. But IMO that's missing out on some great games (Micro Machines and the Tengen Ms Pacman for two.) NES lifespan ignores a lot of great homebrews as well (Blade Buster, Battle Kid as you said, etc.)

But that's up to them. Just don't be calling it "the full set" without some kind of qualifier.

[cartman | 195]

2 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Yeah, it's pretty much going to be whatever line people draw, as the truly complete set is probably not achievable (unless some billionaire bought up  everything and then bribed all the homebrew guys to never make another game.)

A lot of people limit themselves to a licensed set, as it's one of the few sets where the list has been largely agreed upon. But IMO that's missing out on some great games (Micro Machines and the Tengen Ms Pacman for two.) NES lifespan ignores a lot of great homebrews as well (Blade Buster, Battle Kid as you said, etc.)

But that's up to them. Just don't be calling it "the full set" without some kind of qualifier.

It probably is achievable you can find almost everything cheaper second hand. But you gotta gather a lot of info and constantly be updated because there's always something new being made. Games are aldready expensive and quite a few people fund that, if you dedicate those efforts towards this instead i don't see why it shouldn't be possible.

But it might not be possible to get every single thing CIB and in perfect condition. That is much more limited (and ofc more expensive aswell).

If you want a cart of every single NES game you probably can. All homebrews included.

Edited October 17, 2020 by cartman

[Tulpa | 3,493]

24 minutes ago, cartman said:

It probably is achievable you can find almost everything cheaper second hand.

Oh, when I said full, I meant everything. Including prototypes and stuff that hasn't been found yet, like the Minnesota Lottery Cart. Stuff that there's like one cartridge of.

I mean, there's one copy of Atari 2600's Gamma Attack, and the collectors for that console still consider it part of the 2600 set.

Again, unless you count everything made to work in an NES, you're still operating off of a limited definition of a set, and need to specify the qualifiers.

I understand wanting to collect for an achievable set, and it's fine, but if you use the term "full set," you have to specify what that is exactly. Is it licensed? Regional?

24 minutes ago, cartman said:

If you want a cart of every single NES game you probably can. All homebrews included.

Of the major promoted ones, yes, but there's probably some dude who made a one-off for himself that he won't release. You can argue that it doesn't count as a retail homebrew, but it's still an NES game that's out there, and is part of the grand full set. Ignoring it doesn't remove it from existence.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

12 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Oh, when I said full, I meant everything. Including prototypes and stuff that hasn't been found yet, like the Minnesota Lottery Cart. Stuff that there's like one cartridge of.

I mean, there's one copy of Atari 2600's Gamma Attack, and the collectors for that console still consider it part of the 2600 set.

Again, unless you count everything made to work in an NES, you're still operating off of a limited definition of a set, and need to specify the qualifiers.

I understand wanting to collect for an achievable set, and it's fine, but if you use the term "full set," you have to specify what that is exactly. Is it licensed? Regional?

Of the major promoted ones, yes, but there's probably some dude who made a one-off for himself that he won't release. You can argue that it doesn't count as a retail homebrew, but it's still an NES game that's out there, and is part of the grand full set. Ignoring it doesn't remove it from existence.

If it's a prototype it shouldn't count since either the full game is already released or it never was meant to be. But either way it was never circulated.

And also if something only has a very few carts but was sold then you might be ununable to obtain it yeah.

But usually a set is counted as something official because it doesn't make much sense that everything that someone creates is part of it. The outlier definition is to include homebrews and everything that runs while the norm is only the licensed. So yes you can have any possible definition but those are the ones that should be qualified not the other way around.