You haven't been to the Spanish scene. At least not when I was still new here.

I have to sort of agree with Disch on the anti-ebay messages and splash screens.  I can totally understand why a group would want to put one of those in and how grating it must be to see someone selling your hard work online, but part of the fun of rom-hacks and translations to me is experiencing a game as if it were a new from-the-store circa 1989 (or whatever year) game or official translation.  Huge splash screens and DO NOT EBAY messages take away from that.

Of course, its their choice, and it's not a huge deal either way.  But I don't like it.

...often people put together splash screens, logos, and group-tags that look like they belong there, though.  That's neat.  But no matter how well-worked-in it is, it's a little jarring to boot up a game from 1989 and see DO NOT EBAY on the bottom of the screen.

DXOII

DXOII

DXOII... Gar. I gotta remember that.

I played to the first random encounter and figured there was probably no way in hell to hack that game, to be honest.

Very true.  Point taken.

I guess I'm just seeing ROM hacking as the same (or similar) thing as working with open source software.  While it's true that it's not entirely the same thing... it is strikingly similar.  A developer would take the source to X program and add onto it and modify to make his new version Y, and release it under the same terms as X was released (or technically under the terms of which X says to release it).  Whereas a ROM hacker would take game X and add onto it and modify to make his new version Y, and release it under appropriate terms.

The problem here is that people are wanting to change the terms on which they're releasing their work.  I see that as paramount to taking open source software and changing it to make it closed source.  It's bullshit, lame, counterproductive... and I'll even say that it's a very assholish thing to do.


On a side note... wasn't this originally about preventing selling hacks on eBay?  I still don't see how locking a hack would do anything to prevent that... it seems like that was just a cop out excuse to try and justify this behavior.


You're right -- I was using "freeware" when I should've been saying open source software.  And I was generalizing a lot.  It's true not all ROM hackers share such an attitude.

Though I will say I see a definite trend among ROM hackers that's much more greedy and selfish than that of open source communities.  Many posts in this thread are good examples -- and this isn't the first time I've seen instances of this.  Many ROM hackers have a "mine! mine!" mentality when it comes to their hack (and again, I'm generalizing here).  Some aren't willing to cooperate with others at all -- and some are, but only with heavy strings attached.

Strange when you consider that most of the final product isn't even the hacker's work.  Even in extremely thorough hacks, probably 60% or more of the original game was left either only slightly modified or completely untouched.

I'm coming from a world where people build things 100% from the ground up, then turn and hand out their work in its entirety for the benefit of others.  To get used to that, then come to the ROM hacking world to see people slap a game together with level makers, copy/paste graphics from existing games into their hack, and release their product with all sorts of strings ("must contact me before hacking", "don't redistribute without my permission", "mine mine mine") just seems so..... petty.

Now that's not to say many freeware developers don't share the same mentality.  In fact, you're right... a lot of them do.  But even then I'd say they have more of a right to, since their work is entirely their work -- it's not a modification of someone else's.


edit - removed redundant paragraph

edit again:

Just wanted to give a firm handshake to Nightcrawler here.  I enjoy debates like this and it's not often I'm able to touch base with someone who has their act together as tightly as he does.

The only reason might care about my hack being sold on ebay is if konami took notice of someone selling and distributing it for mass profit without them getting a penny and somehow connect me with it, then attempt to sue my ass. I highly doubt that such a situation would escalate though.

I think you have more or less the same idea as what I was trying to say... but I didn't mean to say you can't take ownership.  A lot of hard work can go into a hack and I think it's perfectly acceptable to want to call it your own.  But like you say in that last bit there, a hack is ultimately a modification of existing work.  Despite how original it is and how much it changes, it's still an add on to an existing product.  Assuming authority over how the hack is to be handled after just having blatantly underminded the authority of the original author is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

ROM hacking in particular depends on taking and borrowing from others.  To ROM hack is to use what others have done in order to make something new.  If you remove all that from the picture, ROM hacking couldn't exist.  So, logically, you would think that the ideas of sharing and collaboration would be embraced by ROM hackers like they are by the open source community.  I just find it extremely strange that, more often than not, that isn't the case.

How about when the game company DOES NOT EXIST? There is nobody to ask. The copyright holders have been dissolved. All bets are off.

Well, there's a few possibilities as to what happened with the copyrights/licenses.  If the company was bought out/merged/etc., the assets likely belong to the new company.  If the company went bankrupt, or just closed down, chances are they liquidated any assets before doing so, meaning someone bought the rights.  Even if they didn't sell them off, there was possibly something in contracts that dictated who retained ownership.

I seriously doubt the rights just cease to exist.  Someone likely has the rights, but tracking them down may prove rather difficult.