Rip-off tossers

[Jim Miles]

Ah, I see. I get it now.

However, although I haven't played the games and wouldn't have a professional opinion anyway, it does sound like Codemasters may have a legal leg to stand on, with regards to owning the IP to the nicked idea.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Ah, I see. I get it now.

However, although I haven't played the games and wouldn't have a professional opinion anyway, it does sound like Codemasters may have a legal leg to stand on, with regards to owning the IP to the nicked idea.

Yes. Codemasters own the IP to Sensible Trainspotting (not me, I never did, it's a Sensible game). Technically I have no right to do what I've done. But technically Demon Star have no right to do what they've done either, so let's see if they sue me. Let's see if they fancy standing up in front of a judge and saying "We illegally ripped this game off, now this guy's interfering with our ability to make a profit on it!"

[Monkichi 2.0]

Yes, I understand Stu, it's the principle of the thing that bothers you. All I'm saying is that if a company owns the IP and doesn't want you doing something with their game (Emulation or what not) then it's also the principle is it not?

Anyway, this is sidetracking a bit and not really what this thread is about. What are you planning on doing now? Is it possible the developer guy didn't believe you are who you claim to be?

[Monkichi 2.0]

Double post. I'm having a bit of an unwanted copy problem myself

[Disgraced Toblerone]

Option 1, but just because I'm a greedy, empathy-less, unconsiderate lawyer and want my fellow comrades over the channel getting more work, more money, and ultimately more coke and women.

But can we know how many games they sold so far? If the answer is "not many", I can't see option 4 (my other choice) very annoying for them.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Yes, I understand Stu, it's the principle of the thing that bothers you. All I'm saying is that if a company owns the IP and doesn't want you doing something with their game (Emulation or what not) then it's also the principle is it not?

Owning IP has nothing to do with the legal right to back up your legitimately-purchased software. Backups are legal. IP infringement is not.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

But can we know how many games they sold so far? If the answer is "not many", I can't see option 4 (my other choice) very annoying for them.

I don't expect that it will be very damaging. I don't particularly want the company driven out of business, I just want them to stop ripping off other people's games for money. If the link becomes widely known, that aim will be achieved.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

But can we know how many games they sold so far? If the answer is "not many", I can't see option 4 (my other choice) very annoying for them.

I don't expect that it will be very damaging. I don't particularly want the company driven out of business, I just want them to stop ripping off other people's games for money. If the link becomes widely known, that aim will be achieved.

Okay then.

And you probably want them to look like the bunch of rip-off tossers they actually are?

Good luck.

[Ed-E]

Hmmm. Gonna have to disagree with you here, Stu (I'm sure you're weeping into your Commun-o's about that). Being a hobbyist developer myself, I must admit that I think Demon Star haven't really done anything wrong. Given your quest for justice (which I wholeheartedly support - I'm glad that people like you are fighting for such things) shouldn't you also be kicking up a fuss about those "Tetras" games you always see at the back of GAME selling for £10 (you know the ones, and there's tons of them - "Frog Crosser" or whatever)? Because surely that's exactly the same thing?

I can understand why you're angry - I would be, too - but I think the most you should do is get them to admit that it's inspired by your game. Although it does sound fucking cheeky if they've written a whole history about how they came up with the idea...

--Ed

[Sledge]

Incidentally, you still profited from that act in the form of kudos,

Oh, come on.

Stock Campbell dismissive response to avoid rational argument #1, I see. You come on -- the net result of your lofty status is that you get offered work, so ultimately posting an illegal download on your site has contributed to your financial income. I fail to see how that is different to Demon Star's questionable software making it money.

Course, I'm all for a relaxed attitude to these things: I like being able to access the lost Mario game, same as I like the fact that gamers with zero sense of rock 'n' roll can play a trainspotting game enhanced for the platform they actually own. You're just being a damn hippy.

Sorry, hypocrite.

As always, in my own small way I'm policing justice, not law.

I'm not sure it's just to loose the normal levels of Campbell wrath in this case, though -- this isn't ELSPA or the Fruit Machine cads we're talking about. Your email might have been non-rude, but rallying the troops with your prejudged position before even waiting for a resonse to become overdue? Interesting, thought-provoking and debate inspiring... but not really just.

I dunno, can't you afford to be magnanimous by now? Couldn't you just mentor this guy out of his dodgy position rather than sending him a copy of THQ's latest wrestling game*? Do you even recall that stuff about winning people over being more effective than treating them like the enemy?

There's no question, if the games are identical then Demon Star needs to alter its version before it does 'em, damage. But, precisely because there's no question, you really don't need to be arsey about it.

A game about trainspotting, of all things, isn't particularly "out there" in the grand scheme of concepts

Hmm, that would be why, in the 25-year history of gaming, there have been exactly two.

Whaaaat?! The reason there have only been two is because the subject matter is so spoddish. It's not an abstract concept that's difficult to come by and will be arrived at simply by going down the big list of "things that people like to do that I could make a game out of". Most people, sensibly (and un-Sensibley) have obviously ignored it as an option, given that a computer-based interpretation of the saddest hobby in the universe could well rip a hole in the fabric of existence.

You could have to click on the number on the train itself as it shot past, adding an element of Op Wolf-style skill. You could have to type the number in order to write it onto your notepad, nudging it into the popular niche genre of typing games. You could control the spotter with the joypad, having to stand him at a particular position on the respective platforms in order to "see" each number, making it a maze game where you have to judge the fastest routes between the platforms in order to get to the right trains. (Maybe you could have the ability to jump across instead of using the bridges, but have to risk being hit by another train to do so.) That one would be funny, since he'd have to move superfast, and you could have to dodge the other people on the platforms, maybe replenish your energy with trips to a vending machine etc.

There's three in about four minutes of thinking. How many more would you like?

Just one that constitutes a shorter route from concept, to design, to implementation than we've seen, that's all. Just one. Convergent similarities follow the shortest, simplest route from A to B; you're adding complexity for the sake of being different, which we would expect of Demon Star had they been aware of the original. It's the fact that neither game could really be much simpler that maintains the possibility of isolated development.

I'm only saying this because, what with the possibility existing, I wouldn't want you doing anything impulsive. Like hosting a registered version of Train Tracking next to SMB Special or something. Heh heh, as if, eh?

*Thus "laying the Smack-Down" on him, for those at the back.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

.

Stock Campbell dismissive response to avoid rational argument #1, I see. You come on -- the net result of your lofty status is that you get offered work,

Bollocks I do. And even if I did, I'd be writing about newsworthy events in videogaming, such as the uncovering of a "lost" Mario game. And here's the thing - writing about newsworthy events in videogaming is my job. You seem to be implying some hypocritical cynicism in the fact that I do my job properly, which I can't fathom at all.

I fail to see how that is different to Demon Star's questionable software making it money.

Because I'm perfectly entitled to write about videogaming news. They're NOT entitled to sell OTHER PEOPLE'S intellectual property. It's not difficult.

I'm not sure it's just to loose the normal levels of Campbell wrath in this case, though

For fuck's sake, what is it you think I've done to these poor little lambs, exactly? I've made a game which they have NO RIGHT TO SELL IN THE FIRST PLACE a little harder for them to sell. I could have done a lot worse.

I dunno, can't you afford to be magnanimous by now? Couldn't you just mentor this guy out of his dodgy position?

Not when he won't reply to emails, no. Have you even been reading the thread?

Most people, sensibly (and un-Sensibley) have obviously ignored it as an option, given that a computer-based interpretation of the saddest hobby in the universe could well rip a hole in the fabric of existence.

Yeah, because grown men twatting around on a skateboard or pretending to be elves in Fairyland is REALLY cool.

Just one that constitutes a shorter route from concept, to design, to implementation than we've seen, that's all. Just one.

What the hell kind of argument is that?

[Sledge]

writing about newsworthy events in videogaming is my job. You seem to be implying some hypocritical cynicism in the fact that I do my job properly

I'm not knocking how you do your job, seeing as it's fucking exemplary. Posting IP that doesn't belong to you (SMBS) isn't, by any stretch, your job though.

For fuck's sake, what is it you think I've done to these poor little lambs, exactly? I've made a game which they have NO RIGHT TO SELL IN THE FIRST PLACE a little harder for them to sell. I could have done a lot worse.

That they've no right to sell it has yet to be established and I listed the things you'd done that I was referring to as hasty. But hey, you invited opinion about how to handle this... you don't have to take my advice just because I'm not baying for blood.

I dunno, can't you afford to be magnanimous by now? Couldn't you just mentor this guy out of his dodgy position?

Not when he won't reply to emails, no. Have you even been reading the thread?

And I'm sure your initial contact explained how willing you were to work with him in order to get him out of his jam and won't have worried the shit out of him.

Yeah, because grown men twatting around on a skateboard or pretending to be elves in Fairyland is REALLY cool.

I'll let you into a secret... I wouldn't really not play a game because it's based on trainspotting, I'm just poking fun. That's just me though, I don't get embarrassed about treating those I believe to be in the wrong in a conciliatory fashion either. But then I don't have your fearsome reputation to uphold, do I?

 

Just one that constitutes a shorter route from concept, to design, to implementation than we've seen, that's all. Just one.

What the hell kind of argument is that?

Whether you understand it or not, it's the argument that could well cunt you in court. The provision of trains and a list is the most expedient implementation of an idea that isn't particularly bizarre (as it's based on a real-world activity, the likes of which often provide a basis for interactive entertainment). Identical or not, Demon Star having come up with its game independently isn't sufficiently implausible for comfort... the games simply aren't complex enough for this to be beyond dispute.

Now what kind of forumite would I be if I didn't mention that after you specifically asked?

[Dimahoo]

EDIT -

I would say there is only a finite way to produce a 2D game based on trainspotting, but that aside, you cannot patent a game genre can you?

Its far to open. You;'d have companies suing left, right and centre.

Next, you'll have the BR board saying, "

OI Codies, we never gave you permission to copy our platforms, or benches, or our Passengers and, and are they our trains?"

[Monkichi 2.0]

As stated before, it's not the fact it's based on trainspotting but the fact the game functions in exactly the same way. GT and PGR are both games on motor racing but "feel" completely different.

[The Liberal Elite]

As stated before, it's not the fact it's based on trainspotting but the fact the game functions in exactly the same way. GT and PGR are both games on motor racing but "feel" completely different.

but what about sega GT and GT1/2/3 then? I still maintain that they're essentially the same game - you've got your cars, your tracks, your licences, your ability to buy new cars - Sega have essentially 'ripped off' polyphony's game.

One big difference is that they are available for completely different formats. UAE aside, there is no trainspotting game available for PC anyway. And how many ways could you do such a thing? Are you saying that once you've come up with a game concept, that is - game over for anyone else who dare think up the same concept? And who's going to take who to court for loss of earnings then?

[Monkichi 2.0]

I've not played Sega GT but are the menus the same? Is the handling the same? Is the whole layout and feel the same?

Again, it's not that it's a trainspotting game, it's just that it's the same trainspotting game.

[furq]

And who's going to take who to court for loss of earnings then?

Indeed. It would never get to court for that reason.

The author has been discourteous, at the very least - IF he knowingly stole the idea - but he’s not exactly stealing food from other people's mouths, is he?

[The Liberal Elite]

I've not played Sega GT but are the menus the same? Is the handling the same? Is the whole layout and feel the same?

Again, it's not that it's a trainspotting game, it's just that it's the same trainspotting game.

not it isn't! if you're criteria is that they're not the same if they look different, you clearly haven't looked at Stuart's web page championing the cause for Codemasters!

They look totally different! The concept might be similar, but then again the concept of driving a car on a track is a similar concept on umpteen million racing games!

And TBH, the linking to the game itself is out of order, if you ask me. I do hope noone informs Stuart's ISP that he's hosting pirated wares on his site.

[The Liberal Elite]

Out of interest, can anyone remember how codemasters actually began life? that's right - with a blatent rip off of another game.

Oh, sure, they changed some key elements, i.e. the fact that the player was driving bikes instead of formula 1 cars, but I challenge anyone to say they're not the same concept

and if it's OK for them, then why not someone who's apparently ripped off their IP?

[Dimahoo]

They look different through age, but i can see the simularity.

This is, theres so many rip off's on that site, that i think Stu his wasting his time. I mean, theres pac man clones and Mario clones.

The only good thing is it would force these guys to program more orignality in their games, which is what i've assumed occurs anyway.

the thing is....Theres loads of these sites and you can bet there being scoured by game company A&R types looking to create the new game.

Of course, theres no proof a given AR guy ever visited that site, and thus ever saw the game. So the small guys gets fingered.

Worms was a bit like this, but i'm unsure what the outcome ever was.

Theres plenty of games that rip-off plenty of others but seeing as theres only ever been 2 games of this type ever created, that seemingly look or rather play similar, the Stu's idea to at least credit the orignal programmer is fair.

If the new programmers are going to be cunty about it, do what it takes.

Also, the codies did their 'sim games' at budget prices and one game is about a BMX and one about sports cars. Their fundementally different.

You've got to be 18 to drive. You can ride a bike at any age.

Lets see what the trainsim guys think?

[Guest Penguin_Lad]

Is that both kneecaps?

I dunno I only do as the client asks.

[dogbert]

And TBH, the linking to the game itself is out of order, if you ask me. I do hope noone informs Stuart's ISP that he's hosting pirated wares on his site.

http://www.hostweb.pipex.net/legal/aup/index.shtml

ILLEGAL USE

The Network utilised by PIPEX services may be used only for lawful purposes. Transmission, distribution or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or intellectual property right used without proper authorisation, and material that is obscene, defamatory, constitutes an illegal threat, or violates export control laws

I haven't "grassed up" the Rev, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Oh, sure, they changed some key elements, i.e. the fact that the player was driving bikes instead of formula 1 cars, but I challenge anyone to say they're not the same concept

3

They're not the same concept.

We've been over this several times already. BMX Simulator had an entirely different play mechanic in terms of how you controlled your vehicle. It also had no power-ups, a major feature of Super Sprint. To name just the two most strikingly obvious differences. (Also: no jumps, no shortcuts, no destruction of your vehicle...) You can hardly copyright the basic idea of racing vehicles round a circuit, otherwise Gran Turismo is a Super Sprint rip-off as well.

For the nth time, the problem is not that Demon Star have written a trainspotting game. It's that they've written OUR trainspotting game.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Identical or not, Demon Star having come up with its game independently isn't sufficiently implausible for comfort... the games simply aren't complex enough for this to be beyond dispute.

I'm not going to get into this any more on that basis, because the idea that anyone who played both games could plausibly suggest that the author of the second hadn't played the first is simply too farcical.

[Guybrush]

I can see why your peeved off given that it was your work and that your ex-employers own the copyright.

Out of interest though, you did recently highlight the School Daze/Back to School remake for the GBA and PC. Would you consider that to be an infringement of (insert speccy publisher here)'s copyright?

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

I can see why your peeved off given that it was your work and that your ex-employers own the copyright.

Out of interest though, you did recently highlight the School Daze/Back to School remake for the GBA and PC. Would you consider that to be an infringement of (insert speccy publisher here)'s copyright?

Clearly it's technically an infringement, although it makes quite a few gameplay changes. But as I've said all along, it's not the copying that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. It's the copying without credit, and the charging for an uncredited ripoff of something that was free in the first place (exactly the opposite scenario to most remakes of 8-bit classics). Neither of those applies to Klass Of 99.

[Guest Penguin_Lad]

Well they would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky kids.

[Guybrush]

I can see why your peeved off given that it was your work and that your ex-employers own the copyright.

Out of interest though, you did recently highlight the School Daze/Back to School remake for the GBA and PC. Would you consider that to be an infringement of (insert speccy publisher here)'s copyright?

Clearly it's technically an infringement, although it makes quite a few gameplay changes. But as I've said all along, it's not the copying that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. It's the copying without credit, and the charging for an uncredited ripoff of something that was free in the first place (exactly the opposite scenario to most remakes). Neither of those applies to Klass Of 99, or indeed to most other PC remakes of 8-bit classics.

Cool.

Isn't this the sort of thing that James Cameron had to concede even just by being inspired (or maybe it was blatant copying, I don't know) by a book he had read in making the Terminator. In the end he credited the author of the book by acknowledging him as the first credit.

Hmm, if people make pac man clones they don't generally credit the author of the original. Maybe its because your trainspotting game was so popular and ubiquitous that they thought everyone would know it was inspired by the Rev. Campbell

[Dimahoo]

Hmm, if people make pac man clones they don't generally credit the author of the original. Maybe its because your trainspotting game was so popular and ubiquitous that they thought everyone would know it was inspired by the Rev. Campbell

So why has no one done 'bullet muchers' then?

[Sledge]

the idea that anyone who played both games could plausibly suggest that the author of the second hadn't played the first is simply too farcical.

There's nothing implausible about two different people having exactly the same simple idea over the course of several years. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you'll have a merry ol' time proving yourself right given that Demon Star has documented the game's creation and obviously has people to back the story up.

I'd advise you to take a "softly softly" approach to get what you want, therefore, but of course it's too late for that now.