Jump to content
Posted Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:34 PM
Posted Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:42 AM
I was just reading the thread here and I know William at elektronite got permission from first star to make a Boulder Dash game for the Intellivision so I would not think they would turn AA down or maybe AA could talk to William and see if he could help with getting permission in making a B.D. Clone for the 2600 or 7800 from First Star. Just a thought
Posted Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:14 PM
Yea looks like I did miss something. LOL
Posted Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:33 AM
This is pretty simple. Game ideas or concepts cannot be patented. However, like all creative works, they are copyrighted. Things like game names and/or characters names and images can be trademarked, which gives them even more protection.
What this means is if you want to make a Pacman clone you can. You just can't call it Pacman because I'm sure that name is trademarked. You also can't copy the exact 'levels' of the game (create your own) because those would probably hold under copyright laws. And you can't copy the graphics or images of any trademarked characters. Making the walls or the dots look the same is not a problem, as long as you draw them yourself, but don't copy the same Pacman or ghosts basically.
If you want to make a Boulderdash clone go for it. Just don't use any of their level design, or copy their main character or use the name BoulderDash. Call it RockFall if you want, etc.. You can even have him collecting diamonds, although draw them yourself a bit differently.
The important thing is to draw all the art yourself and don't use any Trademarked characters or names.
In the early days of game IP, game company lawyers got away with way more then they should have. Things that would NEVER hold up in court today. This was because the industry was just getting started and there was a lot of frivolous patents and such getting granted. Nobody knew what to do with these things. But since then, thanks to the user interface wars, we know that computer interfaces cannot be patented. Games are basically user interfaces when you think about it.
As an example, I think one of the worse rulings granted in gaming history, was awarded to Richard Garriott's company Origin (of Ultima fame). He actually won a lawsuit against another RPG game, Questron, based on the fact that they also had a game using tile graphics! Garriott's lawyers somehow were able to convince the courts that this was a legit argument and awarded damages to them.
The makers of Questron had to pay licensing fees or fines to Origin. This was the equivalent of Garriott's lawyers convincing the courts that Origin was the first to use tile-based graphics and that no other games should be able to use them. Which I am sure they would have loved to patent. However, we now know this was total crap. Any decent programmer (not lawyer) could have argued that bit mapped tile-based graphics were essentially the same as bit-mapped character sets. So this would mean any previous game based on using bitmapped character sets, such as Rogue, could have sued Origin for copying them. The only legit argument would have been if Questron stole Origin’s source code and was using it in their game, which was not the case as far as I know. If Questron came up with their own code and graphics themselves, then there should have been no case. This was just some of the madness that game companies could get away with before the lawyers and courts started really understanding the field better.
Bottom line these days... you can make your game function just like any other of your favorite games. If you want to make a Donkey Kong style game go for it. Just don't call it the same, or copy the likeness of the characters or their names, or the games levels. Don’t use their source code or graphics, and create everything yourself from scratch and you should be golden.
Companies can not patent ideas like barrels rolling down platforms, or game characters eating dots or diamonds, etc... Companies cannot put a monkey and a plumber in their game and claim that no other game can have a monkey or plumber in it. You just can't use THEIR monkey and plumber, since they are copyright, and most likely trademarked. Sure they may try to come after you with a nasty letter, but they won’t be able to sneak one by the courts like in the old days.
Heck Zynga’s entire business model is based off of copying other game mechanics and calling them their own. Is it legal? You bet. Is it shameful? I would hope any game designer with a hint of pride in their craft would think so.
Anyway I hope this helps! Now go forth and create your "clones"
Posted Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:32 AM
Isn't this Goodtimes Entertainment's entire business plan? They're the ones that release cheap animated movies based on the same non-copyrighted stories that Disney uses.
Posted Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:43 PM
How strict is this stuff today? I saw a lot of recent encouragement to make tie-in games for horror/Halloween film properties like Halloween and The Nightmare Before Christmas. I'm getting some mixed signals, here.
And what if someone made a game based on stuff like the Rudolph or Dr. Seuss animated specials? Those things are old and, I would imagine, unlikely to rile up much trouble should one make a tie-in game on a long-outdated console, but where's the actual current state of this sort of thing?
Posted Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:22 AM
Posted Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:10 AM
I would have guessed Namco's higher risk than most, but 15 years later, the only threat I received turned out to be a fake one from an opportunist.
Interesting. I'm curious about the details on that if you're willing to share.
Posted Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:49 PM
Someone should make a game about a homebrewer blasting down corporate lawyers. Kind of a SHMUP type deal.
Oh, wait. SHMUPs have already been done before. Damn.
Anyone remember KC Munchkin?
Edited by stardust4ever, Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:49 PM.
Posted Thu Nov 6, 2014 8:38 PM
Posted Fri Nov 7, 2014 8:29 AM
I know in the arcade scene Gottlieb enforces their Qbert license HARD. Many reproduction companies have received C&Ds. Just something to think about if anyone is messing with a qbert game
Which is funny because Q*Bert was one of the more cloned games back in the day. Especially for platforms that didn't receive an official port (like the Apple II).
Posted Fri Nov 7, 2014 9:11 AM
Edited by raindog, Fri Nov 7, 2014 9:16 AM.
Posted Sat Nov 8, 2014 10:46 AM
Q*Bert strikes me as strange too, given that they just renewed several of their trademarks in July but I can't remember a Q*Bert product being produced (even as a plug-n-play or mobile app) since the late '90s.
Actually, in July they released a game called Q*Bert Rebooted for Steam and the various smartphones. (I mostly know because I bought it on sale out of curiosity). I think Sony is actually trying to bring Q*Bert back, because they keep giving him cameos in things (Wreck-It Ralph, Pixels, a Radio Shack Super Bowl commercial, etc), and now a new game. Needless to say, I think the Q*Bert name is pretty much off limits for now.
Posted Sun Nov 9, 2014 1:28 PM
I don't mean to make anyone angry or anything (especially if this is kind of a touchy subject), but I wonder... does anyone know how Taito treats homebrew ports/clones of their games?
I know someone said something about Space Invaders, which is kinda cool how you can make clones of it (as long as they're not called "Space Invaders"), but what about other games of theirs, like... oh say, Bubble Bobble? I'm tempted to send them an e-mail myself, but I'm just wondering if anyone's ever made a deal with Taito in the past, or just asked "hey, I made this port, is it okay if I release it/make it available for download?"
Another thing that scares me about it, is that they're owned by Square Enix, which... has really questionable timing, when it comes to throwing C&Ds at homebrew hacks, and things like that.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users