The instructions to do it yourself are fine. Tools to do it yourself are fine. The material itself is not. Look, you can keep whining about it, but this is what's going to be in place from now on. I do hope you realize that I've made every effort to give reasonable concessions to people exactly like you, and honestly, the fact that you're continuing to argue for more than that is erring on the side of not-good.Sodaholic wrote:But what if it's difficult to rip them yourself? Why can't it be done by someone with the tools and know-how to allow people to use it as a community resource, under the assumption that if you download it, you're agreeing that you own the game in question? I think that's a reasonable policy if used to an extent: have it be free to download, but explicitly state that you only have the right to download it if you own the source of the resources? That way, if someone downloads it without owning it, it's their fault.wildweasel wrote:I'm just saying don't post them here.
Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
Forum rules
Before posting your Resource, please make sure you can answer YES to any of the following questions:
Consult the Resource/Request Posting Guidelines for more information.
Please don't put requests here! They have their own forum --> here. Thank you!
Before posting your Resource, please make sure you can answer YES to any of the following questions:
- Is the resource ENTIRELY my own work?
- If no to the previous one, do I have permission from the original author?
- If no to the previous one, did I put a reasonable amount of work into the resource myself, such that the changes are noticeably different from the source that I could take credit for them?
Consult the Resource/Request Posting Guidelines for more information.
Please don't put requests here! They have their own forum --> here. Thank you!
-
- Posts: 21706
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:33 pm
- Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
- Operating System Version (Optional): A lot of them
- Graphics Processor: Not Listed
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
-
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:45 am
- Location: UK
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
...and how on earth are we supposed to enforce something like this? It sounds just about as effective as the old "You must be 18 or over to enter" 'rule'... people are going to download the resources regardless of whether they have the game or not.Sodaholic wrote:under the assumption that if you download it, you're agreeing that you own the game in question?
-
-
- Posts: 10773
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:15 pm
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
Whelp. I turn my eyes away for a second and the thread's at five pages. 
Just to clarify, the only thing I find odd about any of this is the four-year rule (which has no reason to exist, as the "no unmodified commercial rips" clause covers everything that needs to be covered). Everything else is just fine, and yes, it's definitely better to have this sort of thing in writing. The first question of mine was just wondering what had prompted the post so long after the discussion -- I'm used to these sorts of things being posted in response to an immediate issue. Good to see that it wasn't, at least.

Just to clarify, the only thing I find odd about any of this is the four-year rule (which has no reason to exist, as the "no unmodified commercial rips" clause covers everything that needs to be covered). Everything else is just fine, and yes, it's definitely better to have this sort of thing in writing. The first question of mine was just wondering what had prompted the post so long after the discussion -- I'm used to these sorts of things being posted in response to an immediate issue. Good to see that it wasn't, at least.

-
- Posts: 21706
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:33 pm
- Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
- Operating System Version (Optional): A lot of them
- Graphics Processor: Not Listed
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
Well, as I stated in the Rage thread, I really don't feel so great about a game that is barely a week old already coming to the chopping block, so to speak. I don't recall if there was a specific reason I chose four years as the cutoff date, but were it not for the cutoff date's existence, it would have been that either commercial resources weren't allowed at all, or that they were allowed 100% of the time, defeating the entire purpose of even posting rules and only further irritating those that wish we'd make more original things.Xaser wrote:Just to clarify, the only thing I find odd about any of this is the four-year rule (which has no reason to exist, as the "no unmodified commercial rips" clause covers everything that needs to be covered).
-
-
- Posts: 10773
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:15 pm
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
What makes you say that? The rule that already addresses this is right there above it:wildweasel wrote:...were it not for the cutoff date's existence, it would have been that either commercial resources weren't allowed at all, or that they were allowed 100% of the time, defeating the entire purpose of even posting rules and only further irritating those that wish we'd make more original things.
This right here is already enforcing a fair policy against straight rips (e.g. the aforementioned "rip all of Rage's sounds" example), regardless of date or time or whatever. Adding the four-year rule on top of that does nothing more but place an additional (arbitrary, mind you) restriction, making it so, say, an MSX-style heavily-cleaned spriteset based on a Doom 3 model would be allowed but not one based on a Rage model. Here, it doesn't make sense to allow one and restrict the other.Any unmodified resource from a commercial game may not be uploaded. If you've modified said resource severely (i.e. there is almost nothing left of the original resource - this rule could be bent a little in regards to screenshot-ripped models) then we may make an exception, but you should probably run them by someone qualified first.
I'm not trying to advocate the rip-spree mentality here. It's just that a fair solution to the actual problem (unmodified resource dumps) has already been posted, and this item is something that's detracting from the whole thing by seeming out-of-place.
-
- Posts: 3463
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:39 am
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
Go to a different forum, website, IRC channel, etc? They do actually exist, y'knowSodaholic wrote:But what if it's difficult to rip them yourself?

Also, since my original post appears to have been missed:
I would also add to that, freeware!=free to use for whatever you want. Just because a formerly commercial game is released for free by the developer/publisher, doesn't mean they're giving anyone legal permission to rip resources from it. They could just as easily launch legal action as the creators of a brand new 1 day old game.NiGHTMARE wrote:Regarding the second rule, "unmodified graphics and sounds from any non-commercial IWAD or game are okay to be uploaded": surely it isn't okay to upload such resources if the documentation file accompanying said IWAD or game state that you can't use them (e.g. the old "Authors may NOT use the contents of this file as a base for modification or reuse" in the idgames .txt file template)?
Note that I'm NOT saying that only resources for genuinely GPLed (or similarly licensed) content should be allowed, just that the current rules are somewhat silly; from a legal perspective, whether a game is free to download or costs $100 or anywhere in between is irrelevant when it comes to ripped resources.
-
- Posts: 2648
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:08 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
If we want to extract graphics from an obscure game, but don't know how, are we allowed to talk about ways to reverse engineer it, without posting the sprite sheet after we succeed? It was Gez who really wanted to reverse-engineer Shadow Caster's graphics. In the end he found someone who can do it, and then he reluctantly posted a sprite sheet (at realm667?) as proof.
-
-
- Posts: 26701
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
The only thing I have a problem with is the four year rule (as I did in the RAGE ripping thread). Everything else makes sense from a reasonable and practical standpoint and clarifies the forum position. Yes, there may still be some nuances that are still to be made clear but on the whole it makes sense.
Except the four year rule. Unlike everything else, where the roots of the rule are a reasonable and practical implementation shaped by something hard and fast - ie the legal position, the four year rule just seems to be a random figure arbitrarily plucked out of the air and applied "just because". In practical terms, I don't really care because it is highly unlikely to affect me but the abitrary nature of this rule bothers me.
Except the four year rule. Unlike everything else, where the roots of the rule are a reasonable and practical implementation shaped by something hard and fast - ie the legal position, the four year rule just seems to be a random figure arbitrarily plucked out of the air and applied "just because". In practical terms, I don't really care because it is highly unlikely to affect me but the abitrary nature of this rule bothers me.
-
- Posts: 21706
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:33 pm
- Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
- Operating System Version (Optional): A lot of them
- Graphics Processor: Not Listed
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
That would fall under "common sense" - just as a commercial game's resources would be okay if an author gave the okay, so too will a freely available project's resources be against rules if the author has specifically said no (i.e. Kristus, 40oz, et al).NiGHTMARE wrote:Regarding the second rule, "unmodified graphics and sounds from any non-commercial IWAD or game are okay to be uploaded": surely it isn't okay to upload such resources if the documentation file accompanying said IWAD or game state that you can't use them (e.g. the old "Authors may NOT use the contents of this file as a base for modification or reuse" in the idgames .txt file template)?
I must admit that I'm really trying my best to strike the best balance, legal or otherwise, because naturally making everything absolutely against the rules would piss off everybody and solve no problems at all.I would also add to that, freeware!=free to use for whatever you want. Just because a formerly commercial game is released for free by the developer/publisher, doesn't mean they're giving anyone legal permission to rip resources from it. They could just as easily launch legal action as the creators of a brand new 1 day old game.
Note that I'm NOT saying that only resources for genuinely GPLed (or similarly licensed) content should be allowed, just that the current rules are somewhat silly; from a legal perspective, whether a game is free to download or costs $100 or anywhere in between is irrelevant when it comes to ripped resources.
As stated to Sodaholic earlier, instructions are okay and tools are okay.printz wrote:If we want to extract graphics from an obscure game, but don't know how, are we allowed to talk about ways to reverse engineer it, without posting the sprite sheet after we succeed? It was Gez who really wanted to reverse-engineer Shadow Caster's graphics. In the end he found someone who can do it, and then he reluctantly posted a sprite sheet (at realm667?) as proof.
-
-
- Posts: 17937
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm
Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
The four year term is of course entirely arbitrary. Any term is going to be arbitrary, including the "0 hours" that the Sodaholics of the world want to be used as the rule.
But if people aren't happy with four years, I suggest a compromise: let's use five years instead.
But if people aren't happy with four years, I suggest a compromise: let's use five years instead.
I suppose you could say I found myself.printz wrote:In the end he found someone who can do it
-
- Posts: 3463
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:39 am
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
It would fall under common sense, if it weren't for the word "any" in the rule. "Any non-commercial IWAD" would include those that don't give permission. Also, and alas, just because something is common sense doesn't mean it makes sense for everyone.wildweasel wrote:That would fall under "common sense" - just as a commercial game's resources would be okay if an author gave the okay, so too will a freely available project's resources be against rules if the author has specifically said no (i.e. Kristus, 40oz, et al).NiGHTMARE wrote:Regarding the second rule, "unmodified graphics and sounds from any non-commercial IWAD or game are okay to be uploaded": surely it isn't okay to upload such resources if the documentation file accompanying said IWAD or game state that you can't use them (e.g. the old "Authors may NOT use the contents of this file as a base for modification or reuse" in the idgames .txt file template)?
I would suggest changing the rule to something along the lines of "unmodified graphics and sounds from non-commercial IWAD or game are okay to be uploaded, as long as the author(s) don't expressly forbid it".
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:28 pm
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Just beyond the line horizon
Re: Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
Hm... I wasn't aware that Strife was Abandonware and not freeware. I support these rules.
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:56 am
Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
These new rules disappoint me. I really liked coming here and seeing that someone had posted resources from an obscure 90s FPS that I had missed and was no longer available. I downloaded these resources with the sole intent of looking at them, not using them in any projects (I have no projects). I was really looking forward to seeing the full resources from Eradicator, for instance, but I doubt this will happen now (I own Eradicator, by the way, but the effort required to rip its resources is evidently non-trivial). Are there any other places where people focus on ripping old sprite-based PC FPS games as opposed to old console/arcade games?
-
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:13 pm
Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
@Wildweasel
Okay, fine, no commercial resources, but many people still take issue with this pointless 4 year rule. I see nothing wrong with trying to rip a game that's even a millisecond old. I just don't, honestly, where's the logic, or is it really nothing more than "I have a slightly uneasy feeling about this" with no actual, hard reasons behind it? Because that's what it looks like to me.
But seriously, can anyone explain to me the hard, logical reasons behind the 4 year rule, or is it just something pulled out of nowhere because of some arbitrary moral qualm with ripping a game that just came out? I don't see that as a good enough reason to impose a ban on ripping newer games, it just doesn't have enough merit in my opinion to turn it into a fullblown rule.
Okay, fine, no commercial resources, but many people still take issue with this pointless 4 year rule. I see nothing wrong with trying to rip a game that's even a millisecond old. I just don't, honestly, where's the logic, or is it really nothing more than "I have a slightly uneasy feeling about this" with no actual, hard reasons behind it? Because that's what it looks like to me.
I understand that even no time limits are arbitrary, but I feel that it's a lot more reasonable than having a time limit at all.Gez wrote:Any term is going to be arbitrary, including the "0 hours" that the Sodaholics of the world want to be used as the rule.
Yeah, no.Gez wrote:But if people aren't happy with four years, I suggest a compromise: let's use five years instead.
But seriously, can anyone explain to me the hard, logical reasons behind the 4 year rule, or is it just something pulled out of nowhere because of some arbitrary moral qualm with ripping a game that just came out? I don't see that as a good enough reason to impose a ban on ripping newer games, it just doesn't have enough merit in my opinion to turn it into a fullblown rule.
-
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:29 pm
- Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
- Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 11
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Re: ATTN: Stricter rules re: commerical game resources.
What part of "New" don't you understand?Sodaholic wrote:But seriously, can anyone explain to me the hard, logical reasons behind the 4 year rule, or is it just something pulled out of nowhere because of some arbitrary moral qualm with ripping a game that just came out? I don't see that as a good enough reason to impose a ban on ripping newer games, it just doesn't have enough merit in my opinion to turn it into a fullblown rule.