#19289 - ferentix - Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:27 am
I'm not quite sure about the legalness of developing using unofficial developing software to compile code etc. Could anyone who knows for sure whether it's legal or not (assuming I don't rip stuff from existing Nintendo or liscensed 3rd party games etc.). Also, do you have to be liscensed by Nintendo if you made games worth selling (though this is very unlikely to be a situation I get into anyway). Action Replay seems to get away with it, but then that isn't actually a game. Please could someone explain to me? Similar topics have been posted, I know, but I still don't quite understand. I would probably only distribute the game amongst friends for free anyway, or on the internet as a free downloadable ROM, but again I'm not sure how legal this is. Also, is it true that emulators eg. Visual Boy Advance or whatever are only illegal if you play ROMs of commercial games?
#19291 - KernelPanic26 - Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:32 am
#19298 - bats - Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:49 pm
if you're interested in emulation history, including legal precedents, I'd suggest reading the emufaq, written by Sam Pettus. It should be the first item in an "emufaq" google search. Wait, don't try it now, I've done it for you http://overclocked.org/emufaq.
If I remember correctly, this document concluded that:
1) emulation is legal
2) emulators are legal
3) Downloading commercial ROMs is illegal (even if you own the game).
4) Selling or giving away ROM backup units is illegal.
5) The only truly legal way to use ROMs is if you backup the ROMs yourself from a backup unit that you made yourself.
And as far as legality of developing for the Gameboy Advance:
If you're just planning to develop software for yourself, it is definitely legal.
If you're planning to sell software... I can think of two legal precedents, but there are probably more: Nintendo v. Color Dreams and Sega v. Accolade.[/list]
#19301 - jenswa - Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:51 pm
I am sorry to say:
emulation of a nintende-gba-rom is illegal, even if you own the original cartrigde, that rule is based upon a rumour, spread by everyone to make emulation (of nintendo-gba-roms) acceptable.
eidt:
With nintendo-gba-roms i mean the official games which you play on your gba. (not the homebrown stuff)
_________________
It seems this wasn't lost after all.
#19304 - tepples - Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:30 pm
| bats wrote: |
| if you're interested in emulation history, including legal precedents, I'd suggest reading the emufaq, written by Sam Pettus. |
I've written a rebuttal to some of the points in that EmuFAQ, scrutinizing the specifics of the cases it uses to support its arguments, specifically this one:
| Quote: |
| 4) Selling or giving away ROM backup units is illegal. |
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#19324 - ferentix - Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:12 am
Please correct me if i'm wrong then but is the general idea that:
-Homebrew amateur games developed with unofficial software OK, at least non-commercially.
-Playing non-commercial homebrew games on emulators also OK (assuming the creators permission to do so, I seem to remember reading somewhere...)
-Playing ROMs of commercial games on emulator illegal
is that right?
Thankyou to all who answered this topic so far.
#19327 - dagamer34 - Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:20 pm
Yeah, that seems about right.
One question I have to ask. I'm thinking about applying to DigiPen Institute of Technology in a few years. Since they are directly associated with Nintendo, would it be a good idea to say that I have done some GBA programming(legally and unofficially) and put that on my application? Because I don't know if it will help me or seriously hurt me.
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#19341 - Miked0801 - Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:04 pm
I don't think it would hurt. It would show you have platform knowledge and programming skills which I think would be a plus.
#19344 - tepples - Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:06 pm
Actually, I've read that DigiPen prefers applicants with less programming experience so that they don't have as much to unlearn.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#19364 - dagamer34 - Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:00 am
Could you tell me where you read that, tepples? I really want to go to this school and don't want my eagerness to be my downfall.
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#19375 - tepples - Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:40 pm
I read about DigiPen's preference for applicants with less programming bad habits in Nintendo Power magazine, in the first article NP published about the school, back in the Super NES days.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#19377 - poslundc - Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:44 pm
Given the current state of the market contrasted to what it was like then, they'll probably take your GBA programming experience as an enormous asset.
But tepples makes a good point not to appear fixed or single-minded in your ways. Make it clear that you are there to learn.
Dan.
#19379 - dagamer34 - Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:39 pm
When I take a look at the GBA, I really do realize how much I don't know.
Thanks for your input though.
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#19536 - corranga - Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:34 pm
| KernelPanic26 wrote: |
| In order to produce commercial game I don't known if you have to be licensed by Nintendo. |
to produce a commercial game you MUST be a Nintendo officially lisenced developer. This goes bad to the older 'vintage' gaming days, with machines like the Commodore 64 where anyone could develop and there was so much utter crap released thatit started to effect sales of the actual console. From the beginning of Nintendos console days (with the Famicom) licencing was required, in fact for a long time, only Nintendo could develop and release games for the Famicom (later the NES in the US & Europe). This was to control the games on the consoles, so no crap would be released. Due to the shear popularity of the Famicom, Nintendo then had to releant and grant licences to other game developers (amoungst the first were Hudson - of Bomberman fame, and Namco - we should all know Namco!)
Anyway, this licencing is now depicted by the 'Nintendo Official Seal Of Quality" - a little gold oval symbol on PAL stuff (not so sure about NTSC mind)
Apperently if you do get a licence from the big N to develop and released a commercial game (very difficult) the prices they charge to manufacture the games is so much you struggle to break even unless you sell a crap load of games (like 1,500,000 copies plus!)
Chris
_________________
If virtual reality is ever on a par with reality, I want to be Bomberman! :D
#19538 - Miked0801 - Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:47 pm
not nearly that many - off by about a 0. BTW, the seal appears on NTSC games as well...
#19541 - tepples - Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:55 pm
| corranga wrote: |
| to produce a commercial game you MUST be a Nintendo officially lisenced developer. |
Tell that to American Video Entertainment and Codemasters, whose NES compatible software products resisted lawsuits from Nintendo, and to Color Dreams, who never got sued in the first place. See also Sega v. Accolade, 977 F2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); you can read the opinion.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.