Messages

1

Graphical / Re: A Perfect AC Cloud Model

« on: 2012-11-15 08:29:59 »

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding what is illegal and what is not. The one statement I read which needs to be repeated is...

If you think it might be infringing copyright laws, It probably is.

The facts are that when you purchase a game, you are paying for usage rights. This is NOT to be confused with actually owning the content. The act of reproducing or altering the content in any way without the consent of the game's creator is technically against the law. Does this mean those of us who mod games need to worry about the Feds breaking down the front door and dragging us off to prison? That all depends on the company who created the game, their lawyers, and the answers to questions like...

- Is the individual causing our company harm to our brand?
- Are we losing income due to the individual's actions?
- Would pursuing legal action be worth risking public outcry?
- Are these graphical mods resulting in increased sales?
- Would the legal verdict in our favor solve the problem?

The only way to be 100% free of the risk of criminal prosecution is keep the mods in strict accordance with the game's EULA agreement. Every software developer has their own enforcement policy which can be completely against modding on one game yet permissive on another, so I suggest that you do your homework first.

Reading this thread immediately reminded me of how in 2004, a group of modders got together to put together an HD remake of the popular classic Chrono Trigger... resulting in Square-Enix taking legal action against them. This case set many precedents for digital copyright law and applies to almost all mods NOT specifically consented to in the EULA. We actually studied this case in one of the Jurisprudence
courses I took as an undergrad.

If anyone is interested, there is a blog called Law of the Game which is very informative and covers most aspects of digital copyright and trademark law.

This article "Your Nostalgia, While Charming, Is Illegal: the Problem with Fan Remakes" is one i recommend.

2

General Discussion / Re: FF7PC(1998): Who ported it?

« on: 2012-08-26 03:17:19 »

In 1998, Eidos Interactive was an independent software developer until 2004, then owned by Sci Entertainment till 2009. Square Enix didn't take control till that time.

Considering that, they must have had a large part in the porting process considering even the earliest PC versions had "Eidos" printed in large text on all the game materials and disks. http://viper.shadowflareindustries.com/images/2sell/ff7pc.jpg

I can't think of any other possible reason why a company completely independent from the game's original publisher would have their brand plastered all over a product in such a way, other than they were the guys who did the port.

3

General Discussion / Re: Which version do you prefer? New vs Old.

« on: 2012-08-26 02:54:38 »

As one of the few people long time gamers who simply did not play FF7 back in the day, I decided to go buy this "re-release" version a week or so ago and was horribly disappointed. So much so that I got a second hand copy (for more money than I'd like to admit) off ebay and after installing the massive 19gb Bootleg 0039 package i learned about via a google search for a high resolution texture pack, which directed me to these forums... I am VERY happy. I've played about 40 hours now and am loving every minute of it. At first though, I didn't think I'd get that emotional attachment to the characters, which is a hallmark seen in only the greatest video games made. In all honesty, that scene in the City of the Ancients proved my initial thoughts on the game COMPLETELY wrong. I started this game without any knowledge of the plot or character specifics.... and man was I floored. Im hoping she comes back in some way later in the game, especially since there is plenty of foreshadowing to support this.

I gotta go back to playing before I read any spoilers and ruin it for me...