What's the difference between the two?
I'm pretty sure our game list defines them like this:
A Pirate (http://www.famicomworld.com/Games/?q=&fc=1&fds=1&p=1) is a port of some other game or a game that makes use of someone else's intellectual property.
An Unlicensed (http://www.famicomworld.com/Games/?q=&fc=1&fds=1&u=1) game is an original game that was never licensed by Nintendo.
Ah okay. Thanks man, that one had been bothering me for awhile.
UglyJoe's got it right. I'd add that hacks are pirates, not originals, even something like Pandamar which is quite extensive hack of SMB. Where we run into trouble distinguishing between the two is when it comes to original unlicensed games that are hacked for later releases. For instance, would we consider Tekken an original or a hack of Street Fighter II? We may never have an answer.
Well... All pirates are unlicensed.. which only adds to the confusion.
Well, not exactly. The games on pirates were licensed. The licensed games were just stolen.
Now, another area of trouble are multis that include some licensed and some unlicensed games. I'd call those pirates because it's likely the unlicensed games were included without permission.
Yeah, but they weren't licensed as pirates :P
Someone will have to explain the licensing process. I was under the assumption that the game had to be licensed but the publishing didn't, at least in Japan.
Well, an easy way to look at it is that any non-official game is an unlicensed game (since all the official games were licensed).
I agree that Pirates are technically Unlicensed. Hacks are, as well. I was under the impression that our classification system simply chose the most specific title. That is to say, a game is either official or unlicensed. An official game is Official. An unlicensed game can be a Hack (regardless if it is a hack of an official game or a hack of a pirate), a Pirate, or a general Unlicensed.
Don't make me break out a Venn diagram ;D
Venn diagram, please...
(http://www.famicomworld.com/Personal/uglyjoe/venn.png)
(the purple (Hacks) section are games that are hacks of pirates, which we would probably label as a Hack instead of a Pirate)
I see. So you're saying there are:
Official
Unlicensed
Unlicensed Pirates (of Official)
Unlicensed Pirate Hacks (Hacks of Official)
Unlicensed Hacks (Hack of Unlicensed)
Right?
But you can't just call them official. Call them licensed. Nintendo is not a god, their word on what games are "official" is not the end of everything. Now that the wii has "hacked" games that are licensed, I think the hacks circle should go over licensed too.
I don't think your pirate and hacks definitions are exactly correct either. I don't really see how hacks and pirates overlap because I can't think of a single instance where a pirate has been hacked. A hack would be by different people or used without permission. I can't think of how we would know this to be true. I think the hack circle should be in the pirate circle.
That's more difficult than I always assumed.
I'm kinda leaning towards what Michael said above.
Every hack uses and/or infringes other people's IP, so every hack would fall into the pirate category in my book.
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
But you can't just call them official. Call them licensed.
The official/licensed thing is just petty semantics, isn't it?
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
Nintendo is not a god, their word on what games are "official" is not the end of everything.
Um...they sort of are in this case. It's their console. The games that they approved are the official games for the system.
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
Now that the wii has "hacked" games that are licensed, I think the hacks circle should go over licensed too.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What does the Wii have to do with the Famicom exactly?
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
I don't think your pirate and hacks definitions are exactly correct either. I don't really see how hacks and pirates overlap because I can't think of a single instance where a pirate has been hacked. A hack would be by different people or used without permission. I can't think of how we would know this to be true. I think the hack circle should be in the pirate circle.
JC mentioned Tekken/SFII earlier in this thread (Tekken as a hack of SFII, a hack of a pirate, if I understood him correctly).
I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to come up with a reason not to put the Hacks circle in the Pirates circle and I can't come up with a good reason not to. I guess that's what I get for making a Venn diagram at one in the morning :P
Wow this is more complicated than I thought.
Quote from: UglyJoe on June 19, 2008, 04:52:53 am
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
But you can't just call them official. Call them licensed.
The official/licensed thing is just petty semantics, isn't it?
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
Nintendo is not a god, their word on what games are "official" is not the end of everything.
Um...they sort of are in this case. It's their console. The games that they approved are the official games for the system.
Yeah, you're probably right. I don't like it still, but I'm probably fighting a losing cause.
Quote from: UglyJoe on June 19, 2008, 04:52:53 am
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
Now that the wii has "hacked" games that are licensed, I think the hacks circle should go over licensed too.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What does the Wii have to do with the Famicom exactly?
Quote from: michaelthegreat on June 19, 2008, 02:31:23 am
I don't think your pirate and hacks definitions are exactly correct either. I don't really see how hacks and pirates overlap because I can't think of a single instance where a pirate has been hacked. A hack would be by different people or used without permission. I can't think of how we would know this to be true. I think the hack circle should be in the pirate circle.
JC mentioned Tekken/SFII earlier in this thread (Tekken as a hack of SFII, a hack of a pirate, if I understood him correctly).
I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to come up with a reason not to put the Hacks circle in the Pirates circle and I can't come up with a good reason not to. I guess that's what I get for making a Venn diagram at one in the morning :P
As far as the wii hacked games thing, It was the first example where I could think of games with "hacked" console games being official released. Wave race had Kawasaki removed for example. But I actually fought for both sides of the argument. I said hacks should include official, but then said that hacks shouldn't be by the same people to be considered hacks.
If you allow hacks to include hacks by the people who make the games, you have lots of licensed hacks. You have the the cart games that were originally released on the disk system. You have every translation ever released (most US games are hacks in this definition). So I refuse the fact that hacks can be made by the same people. Then it's just said that they use the same engine, released a different version, or something like that. That's why I don't think that Tekken is a hack of SFII unless it's by people with no connection to the original game (even if that connection is licensing). Maybe it's just semantics again, but I don't like the hacks category too big. (but not to say that tekken is a hacked version of sfii).
So I can't think of an example where hacks should be with licensed, but I still like hacks in pirates. Probably semantics again..