A new engine

[Andy_Spacey]

Now, I've no doubt this topic has popped up many times in the past.

I had no idea until 30 minutes ago that there was a FF7 "modding" community at all.

I was busy playing FFXII and thought, wouldn't it be great if I could play FFVII again with better graphics, or even on my DS! Of course, this would require making a whole new engine for FFVII, but I've hacked games before, and made emulators, interpreters and engines aswell. I also felt like a challenge, and a new project to waste my life away on.

So I decided to install my old FFVII PC version to find out exactly how the files worked. About 3 hours later I'd written a Delphi class to extract the LGP files, and then altered it to read some of the different file types straight into structures (only HRC and RSD files at the moment). I then started looking into where the text is stored, and found it quite quickly. It was there, whilst trying to decode the text, that I decided to look on the internet and see if anyone else had ever done it before (which I presumed they had).

Then I found this site, and realised quite quickly that I have a reasonable amount to learn about the inner workings of FFVII before I can catch up any of you knowledgable guys.

My question though, is simply, how close are we to rewriting an engine? What is currently understood, and what isn't?

I am willing to attempt to create an engine from scratch, but it's hard to judge the difficulty of such a project before delving deep, and investing a lot of time, into something which may eventually become a waste of time.

 

[Synergy Blades]

Seriously, scroll down a little; it's happening right now. No, it's not going to be FFXII-style graphics (or even different at all), since to try to do so would be a waste of time given the scale of such a project, and a fair ol' infringement on SE's IP since you'd have to update all the models and textures and so on (cease and desist territory). But it is a new engine to play the existing game on modern operating systems.

 

[Andy_Spacey]

Excellent, thanks for the reply. I obviously missed that section  :roll:

I'll look into that, I may decide to try and help out. I guess theres no point in doing it all from scratch when theres already people working on it  :-D

 

[Andy_Spacey]

I wasn't really thinking FFXII graphics, as that would require making a whole new game from scratch, I was more just thinking higher polygon models, maybe slightly touched up backgrounds. I would guess that this would be legally okay, provided there was still necessity for some of the original game files for the engine to work. If you look at Morrowind, or Oblivion, there are loads and loads of mods that simply replace models and textures to make the graphics nicer

 

[halkun]

Marrowind users also have explicit permission to alter the game.

Look at Chrono Trigger:Ressurection. That was an "updated" version of CT with new polygons and it got shot down in the demo stage by SE's legal team.

Sorry, we are just making a boring engine core, that's it.

 

[Andy_Spacey]

I was under the impression that Chrono Trigger: Resurrection was a complete remake? I never really looked into that much, but I did know that it didn't follow the story exactly, and it only got to "demo" stage, which gives the impression they were remaking the entire game. Therefore a player would receive the original game, with better graphics, for free. So it's understandable that Squaresoft wouldn't like that happening.

There is a large amount of games where the models and textures have been upgraded to look better, and I've not heard of any of these being shut down by the original developers.

Again, I may be wrong, and I'm certainly not here to incite argument.

Also note, that I am not actually asking for this, and I understand perfectly if you do not wish to.

 

[halkun]

Q-gears will not allow the mixing of square data and user-created data. They will be two different formats. (The user-created data will be XML) This allows us to use the engine to play the original data, but allow us to make our own *original content* when the engine becomes more mature. This also allows for an "exit plan" of sorts. If things get a little legally "iffy" we can de-couple the square content and still have a functioning engine.

Then we can make our own game, which would be much cooler anyway.

The CT:R fiasco was because the engine developers were using a bunch of unlicensed content for a commercial venture. They were planning on selling the engine, using the CT demo as a tech demonstration of sorts. To understand why it was shot down I'll gave an example of one of the many things wrong with the demo.

When Square made the original Chrono Trigger, they paid a few million of dollars to Akira Toriyama to do the character designs. Now here was some company using Toriyama's designs without license. If Square would allowed them to contine, they could of been sued by Toriyama himself for breech of contract. (Allowing a 3rd party to use his exclusive artwork)

That alone was enough to shut down the project. This isn't even counting that in the demo, they were using Square's copyrighted music, trademarked logos and other miscellaneous IP. Then creators of CT:R demo said, "they were not affiliated with Squaresoft", when if fact they were using their IP.

An now you know the rest of the story.

I, personally, hate IP peeing contests. I actually despise the word "Intellectual Property" as it insinuates some kind of physical ownership. However, I have to work within the laws given until the laws are changed. That's how it works.

As far as other companies "allowing" mods to their content. If the game is designed to allow easy additions of user textures, polygons, and such, then sure.

But remember , just because a company does not act on misappropriation of IP, it does not mean it is legal.

To put it another way, Silence Doesn't Necessarily Mean Permission

Remember that.

Looking at how Square designed the PC port, they took active steps to keep fingers out of the data files. This is a silent "no trespassing" sign that we, as programmers, recognize and tread very softly.

 

[Andy_Spacey]

Q-gears will not allow the mixing of square data and user-created data. They will be two different formats. (The user-created data will be XML) This allows us to use the engine to play the original data, but allow us to make our own *original content* when the engine becomes more mature. This also allows for an "exit plan" of sorts. If things get a little legally "iffy" we can de-couple the square content and still have a functioning engine.

I didn't know that was the plan for Q-Gears, but I think it's a good strategy.

Surely it's not a breach of IP if the engine is free? I presume you're not planning to sell Q-gears? If it defaced it, I suppose it could be, but I'm sure thats not the plan either.

I guess it's a path you dare not tread though, understandably. Has anyone tried asking Squaresoft? I've no doubt that this site and perhaps the project have already been observed by them before, they may be willing to shed light on the legalities of such a project. I worked on the Fallout 2 modding scene for a while, and we had communication with the developers about what could, and could not be done.

I envisioned custom content being used by a new engine in a similar way to how you're allowing user-created content in Q-gears, although I'm presuming you will not allow the 2 to work together. I imagined that the original squaresoft data would be a base, and any user-created content would be higher priotity, and would replace, at runtime, the original data. So, a user created texture file, with all its general data stored in XML, and picture data in any format, would replace at runtime a given original texture file, without ever actually touching the original squaresoft data.
The original content therefore being completely untouched, yet still allowing people to add new content, or even entirely new games, on top of it.

But my eventual goal in all of this is to have an engine that I could use to play FFVII on the DS, and that probably isn't powerful enough for much better graphics anyway, heh.

 

[halkun]

Contacting Square has three major difficulties.

1) The game is 10 years old. Most, if not all, of the developers have moved on.

2) The game has "ascended" from being a product being worked on by developers to an item in SE's intellectual property catalog. With one you deal with programmers, the other you deal with lawyers.

3) There is a gigantic language/cultural barrier that prevents us from contacting them. Japanese software development is a very "closed door" environment. Most Japanese programmers are not authorized to say what company they are working for (To keep them from getting hired by a competing company). Also, when it comes to IP in Japan, it's almost militant. There is no "fair use" there, and originally, Japanese software companies were suing rental places in the U.S. for reselling/renting used games without giving them a cut. In Japan, media prices are fixed, and the stores are not authorized to sell at a discount or resell used media. This goes for movies, videos, CDs, and video games. They have an exacting control over their media and content. In the U.K., for example, Sony just shut down a Hong Kong company for allowing Japanese consoles to be sold in Europe. That's the kind of culture we are dealing with. They are outwardly hostile to user choice and content. The less we step on toes the better.

 

[Jari]

Surely it's not a breach of IP if the engine is free? I presume you're not planning to sell Q-gears?

Without commenting on whether the engine would be breach of IP - free or not - there's something I have to ask; where the heck does the 'it's free, so it's okay'-mentality come from? Because it's really popular.

Copyrights are copyrights, regardless of whether you are trying to get rich on someone else's IP, just giving it away, or even paying people to take it off your hands - all this is illegal.

Certainly the owner of the IP might be lot more inclined to sue, if someone was making money using their stuff, but AFAIK fair use is the only legal way to use someone's IP. And you can make money under fair use, think about parodies for example (Spaceballs in particular).

 

[Andy_Spacey]

I understand your point Halkan, I guess I do not know how the games industry works in Japan.

Without commenting on whether the engine would be breach of IP - free or not - there's something I have to ask; where the heck does the 'it's free, so it's okay'-mentality come from? Because it's really popular.

Copyrights are copyrights, regardless of whether you are trying to get rich on someone else's IP, just giving it away, or even paying people to take it off your hands - all this is illegal.

Certainly the owner of the IP might be lot more inclined to sue, if someone was making money using their stuff, but AFAIK fair use is the only legal way to use someone's IP. And you can make money under fair use, think about parodies for example (Spaceballs in particular).

You can only sue for the money that you will have lost due to the violation in question. A non-profitable breach of copyright cannot be sued, because they have lost no money. Giving MP3s away for free, is illegal, because they are losing money from CD sales. I don't propose giving any of the copyrighted material in the game away. If anything, they will have gained money due to a new wave of popularity. I personally have no money anyway, so what could they sue me for if I did it? lol. CR:T was shut down, I now suppose, because they wanted money for their engine, and used Squaresoft's trademarks and IP for advertisement. Squaresoft would (and any subsidiaries) therefore have legal rights to a share of the money from the engine, and if they were to receive none, could have rights to sue.

 

[Synergy Blades]

It's not just Japan. It would be diluting their brand/franchise and companies will pursue these infringements to varying degrees and clearly SE values their IP more so than the companies you have experience with (I guess, the larger the company, the less likely you will be able to get away with it).

No, I think you will find they will send a cease and desist if you try to update graphics and so on, even if you aren't profiting. Let's say you go about updating the models. Okay, but you will then be applying your own style to their franchise (should it be a few more polys, or up to Advent Children standard? Should you make Cloud's eyes blue or green? Brown hair? etc) You then get people applying Tifa Boobies models to your new engine (search the forum, I'm not making this up) and so on, further adding to said dilution.

 

[Jari]

You can only sue for the money that you will have lost due to the violation in question. A non-profitable breach of copyright cannot be sued, because they have lost no money.

Interesting. I challenge you to find the actual law text saying this.

Until you do, I'll just trust the Berne-convention, which says:

Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

It would be interesting indeed, if the law of a member state wouldn't give the tools to combat said reproduction.


EDIT: Actually, I'll just save you the trouble, and quote 10 Big Myths about copyright explained:

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
    False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.


11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
    Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.

While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.

So, if there are no actual damages, you don't have to pay for them (duh), but that does not prevent them from suing you if they are enough pissed off. The possibility of ending up paying the court costs is probably enough to most people, and of course, they can get an injunction, making further distribution a breach of that injunction.

Which means that breach of an IP is breach of an IP, regardless of whether you are making money (or actually; the copyright owner is losing money), and there is a chance of getting sued for it.

Could we now put the "It's free, so it's okay"-myth to the same place where "It's okay, if I delete it within 24 hours" and "It's okay, if it hasn't been released here"-myths, please?

 

[Andy_Spacey]

Interesting. I challenge you to find the actual law text saying this.

My dads actually a solicitor, so I think he'd know, heh.

As he stated. There are no losses. I will not be breaching copyright as I am not giving anything away. I will not be distributing anything that anyone would need to have bought. I will merely be distributing an engine to run alongside the original data that the person must have to buy in advance, and then they can download external "add-ons", if you will, that will improve the games graphics.

and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property

The "myth" you posted is completely correct. If you duplicate copyrighted material, it is illegal, as I stated in my earlier post with the MP3 scenario...I am quite aware of this, what I'm saying is completely different though. Not charging for something that costs the company money is still a breach of copyight, but not charging for something that doesn't cost the company isn't an issue. Or even if it is, they have made no losses, so how can I be expected to pay for losses? heh. I'm not going to give away ANY of the original material, nor am I going to create anything that can run without the requirement of the original game. Therefore they can't "sue" me at all, as suing is merely getting payment for damages. At least here it is, the word seems to be brandished quite freely in the US, heh.

And I doubt they'd take me to court. It would cost them money, to take an incredibly small amount, possibly nothing at all, off me. And i'm pretty certain that in England, if you're accused, you don't pay the court bills, particularly if you're found innocent.

Now can we please agree to disagree, if you do indeed disagree on this. I came here merely for discussion, yet I feel like I'm on the receiving end of an interogation, heh. Lets get back to what really matters. If I choose to create an engine that can allow this, presume that I will not do it without prior knowledge of the legalities involved. I do not expect anyone else to do it, as I stated earlier, I understand peoples reservations on the matter.

 

[Jari]

Interesting. I challenge you to find the actual law text saying this.

My dads actually a solicitor, so I think he'd know, heh.

If I wasn't such a cynic, I might actually believe you. OTOH, he should be able to look up the actual text for you, right? :-D But that doesn't really matter here...

I will merely be distributing an engine to run alongside the original data that the person must have to buy in advance, and then they can download external "add-ons", if you will, that will improve the games graphics.

...this does. I'm glad that you are still talking about the engine, because then it actually makes sense. I was just referring to the rather common notion of "But I'm not making any money from it, that means it's okay, right?", which we have seen more than once over the years.

Or even if it is, they have made no losses, so how can I be expected to pay for losses? heh. I'm not going to give away ANY of the original material, nor am I going to create anything that can run without the requirement of the original game. Therefore they can't "sue" me at all, as suing is merely getting payment for damages. At least here it is, the word seems to be brandished quite freely in the US, heh.

Oh, I agree that engine such as that would be legal (IMHO), but in general I believe that the linked article explains quite clearly that you can be sued to get an injunction as well, and not just for damages - actually the entire "protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used" would be totally hollow, if you couldn't be sued without financial damage. And if you end up paying their legal bills, it might not matter very much whether you had to pay for damages as well - those big legal teams are not cheap.

I believe that there has to be a way to sue for injunction (or equivalent) in England as well, since they are member of the Berne-convention. There certainly is a way here in Finland.

And I doubt they'd take me to court. It would cost them money, to take an incredibly small amount, possibly nothing at all, off me. And i'm pretty certain that in England, if you're accused, you don't pay the court bills, particularly if you're found innocent.

Again; over such engine? Most likely not. But in general about IP breach that didn't cause any real financial loss...

Two words; Lik-Sang. Or is that one word? :-D

I will bet real money that Sony's SLAPP-campaign cost them more than Lik-Sang's imports ever did. Basically Sony just wanted to be a b*tch, because they could. I'm not making a direct comparison here, but I'm saying that you shouldn't underestimate the vengefulness of companies either. After all, Sony's decision to sue seems to make very little financial sense.

To conclude, I am arguing that in general you can get sued for an IP breach that does not result in financial loss. Because a) we get people claiming otherwise pretty often (and I'm pretty damn tired of them), and b) because at least to me your "You can only sue for the money that you will have lost due to the violation in question." sounds lot more like a generic comment, than something specific to this engine issue.

As far as the engine is concerned, I actually agree with you.


EDIT: And of course, they could sue you just as a scare-tactic, counting on your inability or unwillingness to invest all the money, time and effort it takes to go to court. They (talking about companies in general) surely have lot deeper pockets than you do, after all.

 

[Andy_Spacey]

I do agree with what you're saying, on some levels, don't get me wrong. I was merely stating that, in my case, they would have no grounds to sue me.

If I wasn't such a cynic, I might actually believe you. tongue OTOH, he should be able to look up the actual text for you, right? grin But that doesn't really matter here...

lol, I don't think he can be bothered looking up such things purely for a petty internet discussion. I certainly wouldn't ask him to, I just asked his opinion on the matter.

As for the court bills, I'm pretty certain it's up to the courts discretion who will eventually pay the bills, but most of the time the accusers will pay unless the court decides the accused should cover the costs, as part of the damages. Again, I may be wrong about this. It certainly makes sense that way.

"protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used", would this mean if somebody took quote from a book, they're liable to be sued? In general the rule is, that as long as you use it within reason, and acknowledge the author of said quote, you can use it quite freely. If I'm wrong there, I could be sued for many essays I've written, heh. If, however, I used the quote in a book that was for commercial gain, I would probably need to ask permission, and perhaps pay royalties, to the author of the quote, as they would be losing out on money from their own work.

 

[halkun]

I'm going to stop this conversation now, as it has devolved into nitpicking.

A little about myself.

I am 32 years old(!) and have been studying intellectual property law for the last 5 years as a hobby. I have also been involved with an IP lawsuit (Sony v. Connectix). I was to be a witness on the misappropriation of trade secrets. Companies have sued for less just to make a point. In the lawsuit I was involved with, Sony actually took the clam that simply making a copy of data from a CD-ROM into memory for was copyright infringement, therefore emulation was an illegal infringement on Sony's rights. (i.e. Only Sony had the right to put their PSX game data into any kind of computer memory).

This is false, (see Lewis Galoob v. Nintendo of America), however it didn't stop Sony from making the clam anyway. Companies will file suit, and throw everything they have as a tort, true or not. Though a series of pretrial motions with the judge, only *then* are the bogus claims weeded out. (For more information on this, see the current IBM v. SCO case. They made over 250 claims of infringement and IBM has had to counterclaim every one multiple times.)

It doesn't matter what you think, and it's not up to you if they have grounds to sue. Everyone has grounds to sue for anything. If it's a matter of barrity, (Frivolous lawsuits just to waste peoples time), that is a matter to be decided by a judge. Period.

We're nitpicking. This thread also isn't about tech issues anymore. The fact is I'm happy with the IP philosophy that Q-gears is adopting. (No crossing of square and non-square content) and that's the way it is.

Locked. (I *do* so love having the last word.)