The difference between unlicensed and homebrew games

[fcgamer]

I am curious as to whether people here see a difference between unlicensed and homebrew games.  This question stems from a debate over on Nintendo Age.  While by definition of the word unlicensed, all homebrew games are unlicensed by default, I feel that the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Likewise, some people suggested date to be the determining factor of whether a game is unlicensed or homebrew, but (imo) the major snafu in that way of thinking is then we have large game companies, like Waixing, that produced brand new Famicom games up through the late 2000s, probably 2008 or so.  Linked to the original time era (they were formed in 1993), I personally would consider them to be an unlicensed company, not a homebrew outfit.  But if we go based on dates alone, we end up in the goofy situation where half of their catalog is considered homebrew and the other half unlicensed, thus why I think we can't make a determination purely based on date either.

So I just want to know:  do the folks at FW see a difference between unlicensed and homebrew games?  If so, why, if not, why not?

[M-Tee]

I would consider the homebrew moniker to be something that the programmer / developer self-identifies with-and for any game distributed without a license to be unlicensed. Therefore, I do not see the two as mutually exclusive categories.

[L___E___T]

 
Unlicensed just means that that release didn't have an official license.  Homebrew games are unlicensed, but are also developed many years after the Famicom/NES console's life cycle and are therefore quite different to games made back in the late 80s / early 90s as software targeting the legitimate market and just missing a license.

Note that some games manage to be both because of how they were released across different territories.  Cosmic Spacehead / Linus was unlicensed in North America, while officially licensed in PAL regions and at once unreleased in Japan, while bootlegged in parts of Asia.

I wouldn't call bootlegs unlicensed, those are stolen software sold against copyright laws, though technically they are indeed 'unlicensed' based on the fact that they don't have an official license to be sold either in some regions like Taiwan, Hong Kong and other parts of Asia.

This is mainly semantics.  American grammar and language use is as a rule not always up to speed (no offence, discounting US/British English differences), so I'm surprised that this debate is taking place over there - though there are plenty of egos I suppose.

I'm not the expert on this - If I was to refer to anyone on this subject it would actually be you FCgamer

Do you have the thread to link to?  I'm interested in a read.

[FamilyMan]

I believe unlicensed has sub-categories... its either officially licensed or not. You could say its an unlicensed homebrew...
I believe that these modern games coming out for nes are not homebrew, but are in fact unlicensed since they are being developed similar to companies.

Since dates need not apply for unlicensed, I think it doesn't make sense to make post famicom/nes era categories.

Make it simple...making "eras" overcomplicated things.


Homebrew= hot seat harry or garage cart

unlicensed= Battle kid or the mad wizard

[L___E___T]

Homebrew generally implies that they are made by one guy at home - hence the moniker.  So I have to admit, I would class Battle Kid as homebrew.

Something like Pier Solar for MD is indeed unlicensed, as Watermelon are a registered company and have registered trademarks among other things.

[P]

The use of term unlicensed is strange though, since it should technically include all Famicom software that's not among the licensed.

I agree that there's a need to make a distinction between homebrew and "pirate originals" (or whatever we should call that group of games) although the line between them isn't  very clear.

[FrankWDoom]

The use of term unlicensed is strange though, since it should technically include all Famicom software that's not among the licensed.

I agree that there's a need to make a distinction between homebrew and "pirate originals" (or whatever we should call that group of games) although the line between them isn't  very clear.

Licensing wasn't really a thing for famicom games was it? It thought it was the scheme they came up with for the NES to limit 3rd party releases in an effort to head off another Atari-style meltdown. For famicom I'd lump anything from Nintendo or anyone using Nintendo's development resources in the licensed bucket and leave all the other guys as unlicensed.

Here's the NA thread: http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=22&threadid=148201 Some heated argument, but most of it revolving around one guy who can't ever be wrong about anything.

[HVC-Man]

Family Computer was trademarked by Nintendo, any third party games bearing that logo (or even Nintendo's logo) required licensing from Nintendo. Go browse through NESCartDB, virtually all Famicom games listed there have the official Family Computer logo. The only reason third party-manufactured cartridges were so rampant on Famicom is because Nintendo had no legal control over it. It's precisely why Nintendo added the security hardware to the American NES, to legally control cartridge production. Obviously it's a lot more profitable to funnel all companies through your production methods rather then let them go to manufacturers directly.

[nerdynebraskan]

An unlicensed game, at its most basic, is anything that was manufactured without the consent or authorization of Nintendo (at least for the NES). But the games that are most likely to get that label are the ones that were manufactured without Nintendo's consent during the lifespan of the NES: the Tengens and Camericas of the world.

Homebrews are completely original coding that were created in our aftermarket "hobby/collectible" era. They are usually a labor of love, done by one or a small handful of producers. Very few homebrew developers or publishers are even trying to make a living off of them.

I do think time is a critical factor in this distinction. And the Waixing example, while inconveniently blurring the boundaries of these two eras, is largely irrelevant to the discussion. The Chinese famiclone market is a non-factor to Western NES enthusiasts. 99% of NES collectors here have no interest in that. And it is completely unknown to the larger group of casual retro gamers, even among those who are willing and able to still buy used NES consoles to play games like Mario 3, Contra, etc. on original hardware. There will undoubtedly be different semantic preferences for interested persons in different regions, where the history has played out a bit differently.

[P]

Why should only NES collectors have something to say about this? Isn't the world (and this forum) full of various Famiclone enthusiasts and pirate collectors that is also part of the Famicom family? I'm not terribly interested in clones myself mind you.

If we say time is a critical factor then where in the time line should we draw the line for the Famicom's death? I guess the lockout chip is mostly limited to when the patent ran out (which is different for every country). For the logo there are other laws I think, and they might still be in effect. But there's nothing legally that stops us from making new original Famicom games anymore. Especially now when we have legal lockout chip clones.

I would divide the games in three general groups at least: Licensed games, original unlicensed games and bootlegs & hacks. The original unlicensed games can maybe further be divided into commercial games and non-comercial homebrew but it gets quite complicated.

[UglyJoe]

These definitions are all completely made up

But, anyway, what about the developer(s) intent as a factor?

I would say that an Unlicensed FC game is a game that was developed without Nintendo's blessing with the intention of being produced and sold.  A Homebrew FC game, on the other hand, is a game that was developed without Nintendo's blessing without any realistic intention of being sold.  Homebrew games are developed as a hobby or "just for fun" or as a way to learn about the FC hardware or some other reason.  It doesn't preclude selling the game at some later point, though.

[Ghegs]

Games like Battle Kid were made to be sold from the start though, and I can't imagine anyone calling it anything other than homebrew. The hobbyist part still plays a factor there, as at that point NES wasn't officially sold in stores anymore, and only retro gamers and NES aficionados had the system anymore. Basically, what nerdynebraskan said.

[nerdynebraskan]

@ P

I can best speak from the bias of a Western NES collector because that's what I primarily am, and who I primarily deal with. I know a few other American collectors who import Famicom games, and their interest in unlicensed and pirate games is practically zero. I am even of the 1% that pays some attention to the unlicensed Famicom stuff despite living in the West; I've bought a few of Dave's games before. But my interest is still pretty shallow in the Famiclone stuff; I'll take a good 8-bit game anyday, but the gems seem to be few and far between there.

@ Joe

If you really want to dig into semantics, all definitions are "completely made up." Even Webster's Dictionary can be oversimplified and biased on some of its definitions. Every word in every language was once invented, or an existing word re-applied to a new usage, by a single person. As arbitrary as that was, it made sense to enough people that its popularity expanded toward consensus usage until it became an accepted (if not uncontroversial) part of the common language.

This is an awkward thing from the standpoint of pure logic. Afterall, it is a major rule in formal logic that popularity does not equal truth. But popular usage is a significant factor of credibility when it comes to language, which is largely about communicating sometimes complex realities with simple terms. Oversimplification is always a risk when you boil a concept down to a single-word label.

The "homebrew" label, as it's been reapplied to our retro gaming hobby, has achieved a near-consensus understanding for being original programming created in the hobbyist/collector/aftermarket era. It earned that label in the first place, because the first coding nerds to contribute to the effort (at least in our region) were individual enthusiasts doing it out of their garages, not unlike the archetypical homebrewers of beer. The reality has become a bit more complicated, as some homebrewers have become more ambitious and organized, but the realities haven't changed enough for the community to feel any need to update or replace the label we've attached to this enterprise. At least not yet... but the other major factor in language is that it's constantly evolving to keep up with the needs of a changing culture.

[P]

There are games that may apply both to homebrew and "unlicensed".

@ P

I can best speak from the bias of a Western NES collector because that's what I primarily am, and who I primarily deal with. I know a few other American collectors who import Famicom games, and their interest in unlicensed and pirate games is practically zero. I am even of the 1% that pays some attention to the unlicensed Famicom stuff despite living in the West; I've bought a few of Dave's games before. But my interest is still pretty shallow in the Famiclone stuff; I'll take a good 8-bit game anyday, but the gems seem to be few and far between there.

Maybe I just misunderstood you, but you said

The Chinese famiclone market is a non-factor to Western NES enthusiasts. 99% of NES collectors here have no interest in that. And it is completely unknown to the larger group of casual retro gamers

and I just thought so what? Those opinions of causal retro gamers are irrelevant to the discussion.

[L___E___T]

Glad to see this discussion now becoming more organised, respectful and intelligent.  This thread is a really worthwhile addition to the forum