Live data from Hacker News

Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

torrentfreak.com

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#41

Man, regardless of who is in the right legally, I wish these big corporations had a better sense of humor and would understand and appreciate that the people who go to these lengths to understand and recreate the original code aren't their enemies, but their biggest fans.

They make money from having lots of customers, not from having a few obsessed fans. I’ve heard this argument before but the kind of people who are obsessed enough to reverse-engineer old games don’t necessarily even play new games. They’re often fans of the old games and don’t play new games, or they’re people who are interested in reverse engineering. You can release a remaster of an old game, but any reverse-engine…

Here’s another data point since it’s not always as simple as “remastering”.

Nintendo released Super Mario 3D All Stars for a limited purchase window between Sept 2020 and March 2021. Super Mario 64 was included in its original 1996 glory, included a low frame rate, 4:3 aspect ratio, low res textures (iirc they were slightly improved). In fact, Nintendo’s bundle was literally a N64 emulator running on the switch.

At the same time, a group of reverse engineers had decompiled the original ROM, converted it to readable C, and added many improvements: 60FPS, widescreen support, high res textures, etc. Most notably, the project allowed them to compile the source code to native Switch architecture, which greatly improved performance and power consumption.

Most enthusiasts would agree that the “fan project” is objectively a better experience.

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#42

Man, regardless of who is in the right legally, I wish these big corporations had a better sense of humor and would understand and appreciate that the people who go to these lengths to understand and recreate the original code aren't their enemies, but their biggest fans.

It's something I really appreciate about Sega's handling of Sonic IP: as long as you aren't trying to make money you can pretty much get away with anything. I think Sonic's continued popularity is in no small part due to this policy.

It's also something that makes me appreciate how Capcom approached the Resident Evil 2 remake. They invited the devs up to their studio to show them the official remake and then asked them to cease developing theirs. No drama or bad blood.

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#43

Man, regardless of who is in the right legally, I wish these big corporations had a better sense of humor and would understand and appreciate that the people who go to these lengths to understand and recreate the original code aren't their enemies, but their biggest fans.

They make money from having lots of customers, not from having a few obsessed fans. I’ve heard this argument before but the kind of people who are obsessed enough to reverse-engineer old games don’t necessarily even play new games. They’re often fans of the old games and don’t play new games, or they’re people who are interested in reverse engineering. You can release a remaster of an old game, but any reverse-engine…

> You can release a remaster of an old game, but any reverse-engineered version would be competing with it.

Technically, that's correct of course. But realistically, how many people will build one of these projects from the source code they obtained from GitHub, download the game assets from somewhere and spend a lot of time to make it all work on their machine instead of just buying the remastered version? Some, sure, but I don't see Rockstar losing a lot of money here.

If I were in their shoes I would simply hire these developers. And leave their fan projects alone as a sign of good-will and generosity towards the community.

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#44
post #16
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the code is directly reverse engineered/decompiled from the original code, so while it doesn't contain game assets, it's based on (compiled) code copyrighted by Take-Two.

It'd be interesting to see if this actually goes to court, because decompiled code is technically new code, not the original. Decompilers can't retrieve the original code written by Rockstar devs, but it can write new code that behaves like it. Is that a derivative work? If a person were to do that by hand, I think most people would say it's fair use.

Think about it this way: if you compile source code, you get something that is technically new code (and not the original), but it is a derivative work.

Why would decompiling be different from compiling? In both cases, you are transforming code from one language to another and ending up with something "new", which is a derivative of the original. In any case, you can have a human come in and clean up, refactor, extend, or make changes... and the result is still a derivative of the original.

It doesn't really matter if you are doing it by hand or machine. I just don't see how that is relevant. There's a process involved where the input to that process is the original GTA 3, there's a bunch of steps, and the output to that process is code based on the original GTA 3 machine code, but in C or C++ instead of machine code.

There are two ways to get around this. The first way is fair use, which is complicated but certainly doesn't apply here. The other way is the "clean room" reverse engineering, where one team reverse engineers a product to figure out what it does, and produces a specification, which a second team uses to create a new implementation which does the same thing.

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make money from having lots of customers, not from having a few obsessed fans. I’ve heard this argument before but the kind of people who are obsessed enough to reverse-engineer old games don’t necessarily even play new games. They’re often fans of the old games and don’t play new games, or they’re people who are interested in reverse engineering. You can release a remaster of an old game, but any reverse-engine…

> You can release a remaster of an old game, but any reverse-engineered version would be competing with it. Technically, that's correct of course. But realistically, how many people will build one of these projects from the source code they obtained from GitHub, download the game assets from somewhere and spend a lot of time to make it all work on their machine instead of just buying the remastered version? Some, sur…

> But realistically, how many people will build one of these projects from the source code they obtained from GitHub

They released pre-built files. You download the stock version from steam like normal then unpack the pre-built files over the top replacing some of the original files (Just like many of the mods for these games).

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#47
Is anyone here a lawyer who can explain why it's worth taking such a big publicity hit over this by Take-Two? Like it is clear these guys are not taking away any business from them, nor are they really losing any money.

Is there some sort of IP reason, like they need to defend the IP lest it be marked as being abandoned? Or is there some other legit reason beyond spite that they are taking this on? I dont see Take-Two losing any significant amount of income from this enthusiast project, but I could be wrong and I am willing to be corrected.

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#49

Man, regardless of who is in the right legally, I wish these big corporations had a better sense of humor and would understand and appreciate that the people who go to these lengths to understand and recreate the original code aren't their enemies, but their biggest fans.

It's something I really appreciate about Sega's handling of Sonic IP: as long as you aren't trying to make money you can pretty much get away with anything. I think Sonic's continued popularity is in no small part due to this policy.

like this guy making a 16x16 recreation of Sonic on pico-8 https://twitter.com/troypicol

Re: Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3 and ReVC

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s not what these people did. Yes, it is. They decompiled it with tools like IDA Pro and Ghidra, and then they cleaned up and refactored the results. > ... but it was only legal for me to do so because I had the original one bought on Steam. Whether it's legal for you to run the program is a separate issue. The fact is: the code is distributed to anyone who can access GitHub, not only people who have legitimate…

> the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win I wonder was that tested in a court? In a case where the person who transcribed the song has not profited in any way from that, neither selling the transcription, not selling ads on the web?

> the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win

>> I wonder was that tested in a court? In a case where the person who transcribed the song has not profited in any way from that, neither selling the transcription, not selling ads on the web?

N=1, but when I was in high school, I remember that several friends in the drama/theatre department were really disappointed one year because they'd performed a copyrighted play the year before for our school (at no charge; our principal firmly believed that charging the $1 admission they typically charged separated the "haves" from the "have-nots"), the board of education received a letter from the copyright holder, and now they were no longer able to do any plays for the school.

I guess this doesn't touch whether or not this has been tested in court, but it certainly scared the pants off our board of education.

Post reply on HN