Topic: Would you like retro licensed games to have the license removed for a re-release?

Of course, this couldn’t apply to games where the license is a large part of the game and cannot simply be altered with a new cast.

Many old games had the license as an after thought such as a generic platform game that happens to have characters from a movie, cartoon or comic book. Some games had different licenses in different regions - a Game Boy game had Ghostbusters, Garfield and Mickey Mouse characters in different regions but was still the same game.

Often now the original license is either unobtainable or too expensive to acquire meaning those games are lost to us. Rebranding such a game with characters the developer owns can bring that game back to us. The licensing doesn’t extend to the game itself; only the use of names, characters and music. Replacing these is allowed as shown in the example above. But there are likely a few examples contrary to this; N64 Goldeneye for example. I don’t think that would be allowed but we got it on NSO anyway.

One such game I’d like to be rebranded is NES Popeye as Donkey Kong 2. Keep the graphics and gameplay the same, just replace the licensed sprites. And it’s Donkey Kong 2 as Donkey Kong Jr was never called this then the numbering went to 3 for the sequel.

@Bass_X0 If Popeye arcade or Simpsons Hit & Run characters were replaced, unfortunately that would probably kill the charm that made them compelling. Although, I bet in some cases, I think there could be success with swapped characters. But if it's just a cash grab with no love put into the changes and new character animations/design, it could easily ruin a good choice or new characters from a different franchise/IP.

There was an Elevator-Action-like game from game boy or DS that used Nickelodeon characters, I thought, but I can't find it, or remember the name.

I would have to agree with this. I've played plenty of licensed games when I was younger, and still do. Playing something like Jimmy Neutron: Jet Fusion wouldn't be the same as without the Jimmy Neutron license.

Similarly, I'm looking forward to playing Trolls Remix Rescue later this year, I want to play it because it is a Trolls game.

Then again, it might vary based on content, IIRC Crus'n on Wii was just a Fast and Furious game without the license. Again, I suppose you could replace the cars and remove the name. Wouldn't this make "another" game.

Also, I have the PC version of Crazy Taxi, they replaced the soundtrack, it just doesn't feel like the same game I have on GameCube and Dreamcast.

You could take Punch Out for the NES as an example of a game where this was done fairly successfully. Putting Mike Tyson into the game was a late addition though, so he could be replaced with Mr. Dream with only cosmetic changes when that deal ran out.

A game where the license has been baked into the design right from the beginning would be a sterner challenge though. When the discussion of GoldenEye previously came up, I suggested that stripping all the Bond film references out of the game and replacing them with a different protagonist and new content, basically gives you Perfect Dark! It's a decent game in its own right, but it's not GoldenEye.

@WoomyNNYes
Yeah while i haven't played hit n run sadly ,one of the things which i found sounded appealing was the idea of driving around Springfield and seeing all these recognisable landmarks, i feel a lot of the charm would be lost without that.

I think people's opinions will vary, and mainly on whether it was a licensed game that they had already played in its original, intact form in the past.

I, for one, loved the old Popeye arcade game and its port on the Colecovision, but if it were Pauline singing and throwing kisses to Mario instead of Olive Oyl to Popeye, I would feel it's a compromised product. I'd be inclined to hold out for an authentic port of the original game, which looks and plays as I remember it, though people who never played Popeye most likely wouldn't give a hoot.

I think in many cases, losing the license would seriously reduce the appeal of the game. Can you imagine enjoying Konami's belt-scrolling beat 'em ups without the TMNT, Simpsons, or X-Men? I don't think I would bother replaying Goonies 2 on the NES if it lacked the chiptune version of "Good Enough." The license is like the special sauce that can make a good game great! Lacking it can make a good game mediocre or worse.

Also, I strongly dislike it when devs cheap out on a license and produce a game with some licensed assets, but not others. For instance, Zen Studio's E.T, Back to the Future, and Jaws digital pinball games have great-looking art, but lack the MUSIC and authentic character voices, and it seriously lessens my enjoyment of those games.

I would like to encourage devs to do their best to keep licensed games intact (even if it costs us shoppers a few more $$), rather than skimp and sell us watered-down versions.

Zen's release of Indiana Jones: The Pinball Adventure is an accurate sim of the great table with all it's art, music, and actors' voices, just as I remember them in the 90s. It cost $9.99 but was worth every penny to me, whereas I probably wouldn't have even bought Jaws/E.T./Back to the Future except that they were on sale for super cheap.

I’d say Hit & Run is definitely a Simpsons game. The license is securely baked into the game.

Whereas Popeye is just a game that happens to have Popeye characters.

trace memory time hollow and hotel dusk

People have complained about Popeye without the Popeye license wouldn't be the same.
But that's exactly what the original Donkey Kong was! Mario, DK and Pauline exist because Nintendo couldn't get the license in time.

That Game Boy game Bass was referring to was just because it was the standard Kemco way of doing things.
I think that's why Bugs Bunny Birthday Blowout is a decent game but doesn't feel much like a Looney Tunes game. Even though it did make it out in all regions as a Bugs Bunny game, I would not be surprised if Kemco designed it as something they could do a character swap if they wanted to.

Krustys fun house was just a branded rat trap

What happens to licenced games of defunt publishers/devs like acclaim and ljn?

So many i'd love to see again like bart vs the space mutant,terminator 2 etc

I never understood why a game had Roger Rabbit in Japan and the same game was Bugs Bunny here. Didn't both of these properties originate in the US?

@HenryKibble from what I understand, it was because the Roger Rabbit game made by Rare got in the way for a US release, so Kemco got the rights for Looney Tunes characters to use for the US version of Crazy Castle.

Kemco's license with Roger Rabbit ended up giving them rights to use Disney characters for their games in Japan, so their later games in the Crazy Castle series starred Mickey Mouse.

Hamster's Arcade Archives is trying something new. They are putting out licensed classic games and charging double the price. For example, games are usually $10 CAD, these games are $20 CAD.

That's one way to go. Just pass the cost of the license onto the consumer.

Not licensed games, but related: I was looking forward to getting some of Hamster's Neo Geo Super Sidekicks games, but they were delisted because they included Taiwan as a team. China no likey, so they're banned. As gross as that is, I would buy a censored version if they brought it back.

I think it depends on the game, on whether it just completely ruins the fun, but given the option I would rather pay more for the original licensed one.