Fake or Rare Zelda or What?

[chowder]

No people use it in any way they like. For example printer companies uses terms like pirate ink and pirate papers for compatible third-party ink cartridges and papers which is ridiculous.

Well, yes, but I was referring to games, obviously.  People who hijack and ransom ships at sea are also called pirates, but that's hardly relevant here

[P]

Unlicensed -- games with original gameplay when compared with licensed games, even if the game borrows some graphics from licensed games.

It's just that it makes very little sense. Unlicensed = not licensed right? So it could be anything that's not licensed by Nintendo for any region.

[fcgamer]

Unlicensed -- games with original gameplay when compared with licensed games, even if the game borrows some graphics from licensed games.

It's just that it makes very little sense. Unlicensed = not licensed right? So it could be anything that's not licensed by Nintendo for any region.

But calling a game "pirated" when it isn't stealing any IP, and is 100% legal, makes even less sense.  Especially when no one would ever dare to call a homebrew game "pirated" (a homebrew game and something like the Micro Genius games are basically the same). 

Of course unauthorized copies of games are not licensed; however, the original software *was* licensed by Nintendo. 

[UglyJoe]

Unlicensed -- games with original gameplay when compared with licensed games, even if the game borrows some graphics from licensed games.

It's just that it makes very little sense. Unlicensed = not licensed right? So it could be anything that's not licensed by Nintendo for any region.

I think the term "Unlicensed Original" was used sometimes in early FW.  Yes, of course anything that's not licensed is unlicensed.  Pirates and hacks are not licensed*.  But the categorization was such that Licensed and Unlicensed games were actually original games, whereas Pirates and Hacks were just copies or variations.

It also has to do with how the FW game pages are organized.  Licensed and Unlicensed games get their own pages, while Pirates and Hacks only get mentions on the respective games that they pirated or hacked.

*edit: there are a few licensed games that could be categorized as hacks also, though

[L___E___T]

 



According to the FW definitions we currently have in place (loosely) then this would fall under the pirate category:

Pirates -- games that are the exact copy of licensed games, except perhaps the removal of the copyright or an altered title screen.
 
Obviously there is genuine debate and contention with this game and it is plausible that this particular release doesn't 100% correlate with what pirate carts typically are though.

[P]

So it's enough to change the main character to Mario and it's not a pirate anymore, cool!

Unlicensed -- games with original gameplay when compared with licensed games, even if the game borrows some graphics from licensed games.

It's just that it makes very little sense. Unlicensed = not licensed right? So it could be anything that's not licensed by Nintendo for any region.

I think the term "Unlicensed Original" was used sometimes in early FW.  Yes, of course anything that's not licensed is unlicensed.  Pirates and hacks are not licensed*.  But the categorization was such that Licensed and Unlicensed games were actually original games, whereas Pirates and Hacks were just copies or variations.

It also has to do with how the FW game pages are organized.  Licensed and Unlicensed games get their own pages, while Pirates and Hacks only get mentions on the respective games that they pirated or hacked.

*edit: there are a few licensed games that could be categorized as hacks also, though

I see so by Unlicensed you really mean unlicensed original games (I think that should be mentioned when using this term). That would also include homebrew technically.

[fcgamer]

So it's enough to change the main character to Mario and it's not a pirate anymore, cool!

Unlicensed -- games with original gameplay when compared with licensed games, even if the game borrows some graphics from licensed games.

It's just that it makes very little sense. Unlicensed = not licensed right? So it could be anything that's not licensed by Nintendo for any region.

I think the term "Unlicensed Original" was used sometimes in early FW.  Yes, of course anything that's not licensed is unlicensed.  Pirates and hacks are not licensed*.  But the categorization was such that Licensed and Unlicensed games were actually original games, whereas Pirates and Hacks were just copies or variations.

It also has to do with how the FW game pages are organized.  Licensed and Unlicensed games get their own pages, while Pirates and Hacks only get mentions on the respective games that they pirated or hacked.

*edit: there are a few licensed games that could be categorized as hacks also, though

I see so by Unlicensed you really mean unlicensed original games (I think that should be mentioned when using this term). That would also include homebrew technically.

Yes it would; however, then a distinction should be made based on fan games (homebrews) versus commercial / for profit ones (like stuff from Waixing in the 21st century). 
Post Merge: June 10, 2016, 06:35:40 am
Except for the fact that many people are not sure that it is a 100% unofficial release...

Pirates -- games that are the exact copy of licensed games, except perhaps the removal of the copyright or an altered title screen.
 
Obviously there is genuine debate and contention with this game and it is plausible that this particular release doesn't 100% correlate with what pirate carts typically are though.

[UglyJoe]

Yes it would; however, then a distinction should be made based on fan games (homebrews) versus commercial / for profit ones (like stuff from Waixing in the 21st century). 

So, like "commercial" vs "non-commercial"?  I don't really see how that's relevant.

[fcgamer]

Yes it would; however, then a distinction should be made based on fan games (homebrews) versus commercial / for profit ones (like stuff from Waixing in the 21st century). 

So, like "commercial" vs "non-commercial"?  I don't really see how that's relevant.

I personally don't like the idea of including homebrew games mixed on the same list as commercial releases from large manufacturers back in the day.  Sivak and Color Dreams, for example, are totally different beasts and to categorize them the same is foolish.  Same with categorizing Color Dreams or Tengen under the same term as a hack of Super Mario Bros.

[L___E___T]

 



Yes that gets confusing as UglyJoe said - especially when a non-profit game (like Kira Kira Night Star) eventually ends up being a for profit game, or apparently so.

FCgamer I'm not sure what you were trying to highlight with my quote - I don't agree that many people are not sure that it's a 100% unofficial release.  
It should be deemed unofficial, the question is whether it was released by Hyundai through a backdoor.  But with all the discrepancies on the packaging and the board, you can't say it's official.

Though I do agree historic 'originals' need some differentiation from say, Battle Kid or Lan Master (modern homebrew).

[UglyJoe]

Sivak and Color Dreams, for example, are totally different beasts and to categorize them the same is foolish.

How is it foolish? They are of course different beasts, but in other ways they are the same beast.  I think that categorizing "commercial vs non-commercial entity" or "large vs small entity" or whatever is splitting hairs.  If we look at every detail then every game ever released gets its own category.  We have to draw the line somewhere. 

It is acceptable for you to organize things in whatever detail you wish, but I don't believe that anyone who does otherwise is foolish for not doing so.
Post Merge: June 10, 2016, 06:57:11 am

Though I do agree historic 'originals' need som differentiation from say, Battle Kid or Lan Master (modern homebrew).

Is the release date not enough of a differentiation?  When does "historic" end and "modern" begin?

[L___E___T]

 



That's true, there's always going to be a blurry line.  One should be able to look at them, the time frames, the box art, and see the differences as well I suppose. 

I see the differences, but technically they're the same category really as you say.  

Just that one correlates to the asian 'industry' back then and the other a more western 'community' from today. 

[fcgamer]

@L___E___T:  The Samurai Nintendo games don't look overly official to me, even the so-called official ones, yet it seems that they are indeed official items.  

We don't know the story about the Zelda 2 game, so to label it as a pirate I think is a bit hasty.  That is my point, and has always been my point.  I am not sure why you are being so fast to label this as a pirate, just like the Luxembourg collector has been.  What is the hurry, why the need to so quickly get this one in the "pirates" category?

[L___E___T]

 



You say that, but there are signs on the games that I saw that look official to me.  I will run over these when I get a chance.

The frustration with this thread for me, is that it's the otehr side of the coin - where there is one sign to this game being debatedly half-legit, with numerous signs that it's unofficial and a pirate.

So there's no rush - but as it stands it should be taken as a pirate unless a new development comes in.  It's a disputed, or contested pirate you could say.  

An imagined theory isn't really tangible enough, but all the other signs that we see on undisputed pirate carts are also on this one.  So it seems a stretch, at least to me.  I don't think any of this is harmful.

Is there a desire to chuck this in the 'official' category?  I get that impression from some collectors/owners, but it feels more akin to legitimising the value of it, ironically in a rush as well.

[fcgamer]

You say that, but there are signs on the games that I saw that look official to me.  I will run over these when I get a chance.

The frustration with this thread for me, is that it's the otehr side of the coin - where there is one sign to this game being debatedly half-legit, with numerous signs that it's unofficial and a pirate.

So there's no rush - but as it stands it should be taken as a pirate unless a new development comes in.  It's a disputed, or contested pirate you could say. 

An imagined theory isn't really tangible enough, but all the other signs that we see on undisputed pirate carts are also on this one.  So it seems a stretch, at least to me.  I don't think any of this is harmful.

Is there a desire to chuck this in the 'official' category?  I get that impression from some collectors/owners, but it feels more akin to legitimising the value of it, ironically in a rush as well.

One of the people that owns this game (and would thus have a vested interest in the value) is MasterDisk, and he chose not to talk about the cart in this thread.  Jay-Ray also has one, and hasn't posted much either on it.  A bit strange that the two people with carts, who would have the largest interest in maintaining values, are also the ones not speaking about it.  So that leaves the rest of us and our stances.

I've always felt that there is not enough evidence to put this cart in either category, pirate or official.  I've felt this way since the start, and therefore prefer it being placed in a category with similar items, where more research needs to be done, and more information needs to be discovered.  What is so bad with this?  If we mark the cart as a pirate, it gets a permanent stain on it, even if it turns out to be legit later.  To do the reverse, although not as damaging imo, is also irresponsible.  Hence why it should just be placed in a category where more information needs to be done.
Post Merge: June 10, 2016, 07:39:55 am
How exactly are they the same?  There are huge differences, and we can especially see those when looking at the NES homebrew market.  The homebrew games are mostly being made as a labor of love.  Folks making limited editions of 10 pieces to give out to their friends, making games such as "I rubbed my nut sack on the neighbor's cat", etc.  They just do it for the lols, some even repurpose commercial game boards for their products.  And then for some of the homebrew games, no official versions were ever released (like Solar Wars), and repro makers just make them left and right, as the "distributor".  I doubt Chris Covell was looking to get rich and earn a monthly salary from that game...

But with the unlicensed originals, those guys were more serious.  They weren't (for the most part) making games for a 30-year old machine; they were making games for a machine that was still popular, trying to put food on the table for their families and to pay the bills.  They weren't making games for the lulz, they were trying to sell product, at the end of the day. 

Totally different contexts, different motivations, even differences in how the games were developed (many of the limitations back then have been all but removed today, in terms of development costs, parts cost, information how the machines work, etc).  Totally different beasts, and to say that they are one and the same is quite misleading.

Sivak and Color Dreams, for example, are totally different beasts and to categorize them the same is foolish.

How is it foolish? They are of course different beasts, but in other ways they are the same beast.  I think that categorizing "commercial vs non-commercial entity" or "large vs small entity" or whatever is splitting hairs.  If we look at every detail then every game ever released gets its own category.  We have to draw the line somewhere. 

It is acceptable for you to organize things in whatever detail you wish, but I don't believe that anyone who does otherwise is foolish for not doing so.
Post Merge: June 10, 2016, 06:57:11 am

Though I do agree historic 'originals' need som differentiation from say, Battle Kid or Lan Master (modern homebrew).

Is the release date not enough of a differentiation?  When does "historic" end and "modern" begin?