• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Rumour Tactics Ogre Reborn leaked on PS Store (UPDATE: new details, see threadmarks)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Clov said:
No, that's not true. Trademarks are different from copyright. The reason you don't see Nintendo's copyright on the back of the box of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance is that Nintendo has no ownership over it. Even the credits of the game denote that the game is fully owned by Square-Enix. See also the Wii U re-release, which you've brought up; published by Square, not Nintendo. The reason? It's their game. Nintendo can't re-release the game because they do not own it.

Tactics Ogre is a different story, in that it's co-owned between Nintendo and Quest; Quest was bought by Square, meaning that the game is currently co-owned between Nintendo and Square. This game would need both Nintendo and Square's go-ahead to see any kind of re-release.

You also have the Bayonetta situation wrong. Bayonetta 2 and 3 are not fully owned by Nintendo; they are co-owned between Nintendo and Sega. The original Bayonetta, as well as all characters from that game, are fully owned by Sega. Bayonetta 2 and 3 (and any original elements of those titles) are co-owned between Sega and Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Ok, let me clarify some things about ownerships:

Who Framed Roger Rabbit: Completely owned by Disney. Back of the Blu Ray box, there are copyrights for Warner Bros and MGM. They have no stake in the movie, they have no say in the movie. Only Disney can re-release it. But in order to re-release it they need to license IP names from respective owners and they have the right to refuse. The title "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is owned by Disney and Disney 100% funded the movie.

Kingdom Hearts: Completely owned by Square. A lot of characters, including Sora, are Disney property, Square needs to license everything before release. Some of the IP's are not even owned by Disney, Disney in turn needs to license the names like Tarzan from owners in order to re-release the first game and they can block the re-release if they want. The game itself and the name Kingdom Hearts are owned by Square, only they can release where they want. And Square can make a Disney free KH title without any licensing if they want (without Sora of course)

Bayonetta 2: Completely owned by Nintendo. They funded the game, they own the game. They can re-release it wherever they want. But the name "Bayonetta" and some characters belong to Sega so they need to license out the names to re-release it. The characters debuted in Bayo 2 are owned by Nintendo, not Sega. Kamiya said this many times, the game is owned by Nintendo, period.

Tactics Ogre The Knights of Lodis: Completely owned by Nintendo, completely funded by Nintendo. Only thing Square owns here is the "Tactics Ogre" name. There's no such thing as "go ahead", Nintendo can re-release the game simply by licensing the "Tactics Ogre" trademark. If Square refuses to license the name, Nintendo still can re-release it by not using the "Tactics Ogre" name because they own the game itself. They'd use "The Knight of Lodis" as the sole title of the game. They also need to change the names and likenesses of the characters that also exist in the Let Us Cling Together, which was owned by Quest alone.

FFTA: A Square game which Nintendo has a stake in. The title, characters, everything belongs to Square, Nintendo does not own any trademark in the game. Nintendo cannot re-release it without Square and Square cannot release it anywhere else without Nintendo. The game was published by Nintendo in west on GBA but Square in VC.

Super Mario RPG: A Nintendo game which Square has a stake in. Despite having many of their own characters appear in the game, Nintendo does not completely own the game. And just like FFTA, Nintendo and Square need each other for a re-release. Co ownership made it difficult to release it in Europe on SNES.
 
I guess i'll go Law path this time and hate myself every step of the way.

By the way i'm really fucking hyped for this, please don't fuck up Square
 
0
9-Volt said:
Square owns FFT trademark completely, and the game was published in Japan by SE (Nintendo doesn't publish Japanese third party games in Japan). I don't think it's possible to see Nintendo copyright on the back of the box. Copyright notes only denotes the ownership of trademarks, which Nintendo owns none of here. Owning the name/IP and owning a single game are not the same thing, this is the reason why the only Square game released on western Wii U VC was FFTA. Nintendo can re-release the game but they'd need Square co-operation.

Tactics Ogre The Knights of Lodis is a different story. Square acquired to rights to name "Tactics Ogre" in 2003 but the game is fully owned by Nintendo and the subtitle "The Knights of Lodis" is a Nintendo property. Nintendo should have much easier time re-releasing the game, all they need to do is licensing the "Tactical Ogre" from Square and "Atlus" names and logos.

Similar situations with Bayonetta and Grandia: Bayo 2-3 is fully owned by Nintendo but the title and logo of "Bayonetta" is a Sega trademark. Grandia III is full Square title but the rights to "Grandia" name belongs to GungHo.
Click to expand...
That's uh, not how copyright law works. Like at all.
 
0
9-Volt said:
Ok, let me clarify some things about ownerships:

Who Framed Roger Rabbit: Completely owned by Disney. Back of the Blu Ray box, there are copyrights for Warner Bros and MGM. They have no stake in the movie, they have no say in the movie. Only Disney can re-release it. But in order to re-release it they need to license IP names from respective owners and they have the right to refuse. The title "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is owned by Disney and Disney 100% funded the movie.

Kingdom Hearts: Completely owned by Square. A lot of characters, including Sora, are Disney property, Square needs to license everything before release. Some of the IP's are not even owned by Disney, Disney in turn needs to license the names like Tarzan from owners in order to re-release the first game and they can block the re-release if they want. The game itself and the name Kingdom Hearts are owned by Square, only they can release where they want. And Square can make a Disney free KH title without any licensing if they want (without Sora of course)

Bayonetta 2: Completely owned by Nintendo. They funded the game, they own the game. They can re-release it wherever they want. But the name "Bayonetta" and some characters belong to Sega so they need to license out the names to re-release it. The characters debuted in Bayo 2 are owned by Nintendo, not Sega. Kamiya said this many times, the game is owned by Nintendo, period.

Tactics Ogre The Knights of Lodis: Completely owned by Nintendo, completely funded by Nintendo. Only thing Square owns here is the "Tactics Ogre" name. There's no such thing as "go ahead", Nintendo can re-release the game simply by licensing the "Tactics Ogre" trademark. If Square refuses to license the name, Nintendo still can re-release it by not using the "Tactics Ogre" name because they own the game itself. They'd use "The Knight of Lodis" as the sole title of the game. They also need to change the names and likenesses of the characters that also exist in the Let Us Cling Together, which was owned by Quest alone.

FFTA: A Square game which Nintendo has a stake in. The title, characters, everything belongs to Square, Nintendo does not own any trademark in the game. Nintendo cannot re-release it without Square and Square cannot release it anywhere else without Nintendo. The game was published by Nintendo in west on GBA but Square in VC.

Super Mario RPG: A Nintendo game which Square has a stake in. Despite having many of their own characters appear in the game, Nintendo does not completely own the game. And just like FFTA, Nintendo and Square need each other for a re-release. Co ownership made it difficult to release it in Europe on SNES.
Click to expand...

No, you are still getting most of these wrong. Copyright denotes that you are the owner of an original work. A trademark is just ownership over a name, or symbol of some sort that sets your product apart from similar ones. In any case, let's go through one by one.

Roger Rabbit: Wrong. You are getting the details about the other companies like Warner correct, but you are forgetting that the film was a co-production with Steven Spielberg's production company, Amblin Entertainment. I own the 4K UHD of this, and the copyright at the back credits both Buena Vista and Amblin. Both funded it, both own it.

Kingdom Hearts: Wrong. Kingdom Hearts is in fact fully owned by Disney. Notice the back of the box; the copyright (the actual ownership over the game) is credited only to Disney. There is a note mentioning that the game was developed by Square Enix, and separate copyright notices specifically for the use of Tarzan and Square's original Final Fantasy characters, the only components of the game not owned by Disney. Square cannot make a KH game without Disney, because even the name "KH" is owned by Disney.

Bayonetta 2: Co-owned between Sega and Nintendo. Refer to the copyright, once again. If this game were fully Nintendo-owned, it would only have Nintendo's copyright, with separate notices about the copyright of elements from the original Bayonetta game, which are fully owned by Sega. Instead, both are listed, as both own it. Neither can do anything with the game without the other's permission. In this case there's several things you're disregarding; the fact that Bayonetta 2 wasn't actually fully funded by Nintendo, since it was partially made under Sega before being cancelled and later revived, for one... but more importantly, the fact that funding something doesn't actually give you ownership over that thing. Take Momotaro Dentetsu 2017 for 3DS for example; fully funded by Nintendo, owned fully by Konami... because Nintendo only licensed it from them. The only thing that actually matters is the copyright, which is what actually, legally denotes ownership.

Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis: Co-owned between Nintendo and Square. Refer to my previous post on this. There is nothing that actually indicates that Nintendo has sole ownership of this title; it was co-owned between Nintendo and Quest; Quest was bought by Square, and that includes their stake in this title. Square did not only purchase the "Tactics Ogre" name, they bought the entire company.

FFTA: Wrong, refer to my previous post on this. This is fully owned by Square in every way, shape, and form; there is nothing that indicates any Nintendo ownership over this title. They merely acted as an overseas publisher.

Mario RPG: This one you are somewhat correct on! The game itself is co-owned between Nintendo and Square. There are separate copyrights for the characters; the original characters are fully owned by Square. The Mario characters (and presumably Mario derivative characters) are fully owned by Nintendo.
 
9-Volt said:
Ok, let me clarify some things about ownership
Tactics Ogre The Knights of Lodis: Completely owned by Nintendo, completely funded by Nintendo. Only thing Square owns here is the "Tactics Ogre" name. There's no such thing as "go ahead", Nintendo can re-release the game simply by licensing the "Tactics Ogre" trademark. If Square refuses to license the name, Nintendo still can re-release it by not using the "Tactics Ogre" name because they own the game itself. They'd use "The Knight of Lodis" as the sole title of the game. They also need to change the names and likenesses of the characters that also exist in the Let Us Cling Together, which was owned by Quest
Click to expand...
This is written with such authority but is one of most insane misunderstanding of copyright law I have ever seen.
 
Clov said:
Take Momotaro Dentetsu 2017 for 3DS for example; fully funded by Nintendo, owned fully by Konami... because Nintendo only licensed it from them. The only thing that actually matters is the copyright, which is what actually, legally denotes ownership.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I'm talking about! IP, characters everything is owned by Konami. It's Konami's brand. But that one single game is funded by Nintendo. Can Konami do something with the game? No, they can not re-release it, they just licensed their IP out to Nintendo. Nintendo can re-release it but they need to re-license the IP from Konami.

Another example where changing characters work for re-releasing the games: Diddy Kong Racing. We talked about this on gaf and found out that only Banjo and Conker were completely owned by Microsoft, Nintendo just replaced them with DK characters to re-release the game on DS, as MS would never license their characters to another platform holder. There was no MS copyright on the game box or in booklet, all Nintendo and Rare. They just overrode the MS ownership.

Here's an example from my own life: My sister in law, a teacher, established a Kindergarten in early 2000s with Disney's preschool learning license programme. She funded the whole thing and paid Disney for license costs. The name of the school was Disney something, not something she came up with. With disney copyright on brochures and all. When the license ran out, she just simply changed the names and continued to operate the school. From outside it looked like Disney owned the school but it was just brand licensing. School was completely owned by my sil.
Phosphorescent Skeleton said:
This is written with such authority but is one of most insane misunderstanding of copyright law I have ever seen.
Click to expand...
I find non-context responses a little disrespectful. Please, point out where I'm wrong.
 
9-Volt said:
I find non-context responses a little disrespectful. Please, point out where I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The context is your post where you just make stuff up with no connection to how things work in the real world. Your post reads like a child claiming you have an uncle that works at Nintendo.
 
Last edited:
It is all moot because soon all games will be owned by a singular gigacorp.
 
9-Volt said:
Yes, that's what I'm talking about! IP, characters everything is owned by Konami. It's Konami's brand. But that one single game is funded by Nintendo. Can Konami do something with the game? No, they can not re-release it, they just licensed their IP out to Nintendo. Nintendo can re-release it but they need to re-license the IP from Konami.

Another example where changing characters work for re-releasing the games: Diddy Kong Racing. We talked about this on gaf and found out that only Banjo and Conker were completely owned by Microsoft, Nintendo just replaced them with DK characters to re-release the game on DS, as MS would never license their characters to another platform holder. There was no MS copyright on the game box or in booklet, all Nintendo and Rare. They just overrode the MS ownership.

Here's an example from my own life: My sister in law, a teacher, established a Kindergarten in early 2000s with Disney's preschool learning license programme. She funded the whole thing and paid Disney for license costs. The name of the school was Disney something, not something she came up with. With disney copyright on brochures and all. When the license ran out, she just simply changed the names and continued to operate the school. From outside it looked like Disney owned the school but it was just brand licensing. School was completely owned by my sil.

I find non-context responses a little disrespectful. Please, point out where I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The thing is, Konami could in theory still do something with the game without Nintendo. What you keep missing out is the the ownership aspect; who actually owns the game. It doesn't actually matter if Nintendo footed the bill to release the game, because they have not been granted any legal ownership over it. This was presumably part of their deal with Konami.

You are also misunderstanding the situation with Diddy Kong Racing. Even in the DS version, Microsoft actually does still own multiple characters of the game, because they are the owners of Rare. Here's how the copyright for the game breaks down: The game is owned by Nintendo. However, the only characters in the game Nintendo owns are Diddy and Krunch. The other characters are fully owned by Rare, and Rare is owned by Microsoft. Why they removed only Banjo and Conker, who knows? But even in the DS version, it mentions "certain characters owned by Rare".

In the last case, your sister in law always owned the school itself. What she didn't own is Disney's name and materials. Where you're going wrong is that you're thinking this is a similar situation to co-ownership, when it's actually just licensing.
 
9-Volt said:
The could you please explain how it actually works?
Click to expand...
The copyright for the game is co-owned by Nintendo and Square. Neither company can do anything with out the permission of the other. Square doesn't just own the trademark to the name Tactics Ogre they have copyright to all Tactics Ogre games, though in the case of this coproduction only partially so. This has been explained to you multiple time, with evidence, in great detail, and you just keep responding by making stuff up. At this point you're just being willfully ignorant.
You seem to not understand the difference between copyright, trademark, licensing, and work for hire.
 
Last edited:
Phosphorescent Skeleton said:
The copyright for the game is co-owned by Nintendo and Square. Neither company can do anything with out the permission of the other. Square doesn't just own the trademark to the name Tactics Ogre they have copyright to all Tactics Ogre games, though in the case of this coproduction only partially so. This has been explained to you multiple time, with evidence, in great detail, and you just keep responding by making stuff up. At this point you're just being willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
Hey no need to get hostile. This is literally the most discussed topic on the net, recently with Goldeneye and Netflix's Marvel shows. How did Nintendo blocked Goldeneye to be re-released or how did Disney was able to get Netflix shows easily, everyone had their own idea.
Clov said:
You are also misunderstanding the situation with Diddy Kong Racing. Even in the DS version, Microsoft actually does still own multiple characters of the game, because they are the owners of Rare. Here's how the copyright for the game breaks down: The game is owned by Nintendo. However, the only characters in the game Nintendo owns are Diddy and Krunch. The other characters are fully owned by Rare, and Rare is owned by Microsoft. Why they removed only Banjo and Conker, who knows? But even in the DS version, it mentions "certain characters owned by Rare".
Click to expand...
Sorry but this still doesn't explain anything. Rare is 100% owned by MS, but no MS copyright on DKR box despite it says some characters are owned by Rare. On the other hand, Viva Piñata DS does have MS copyright, even the logo. Hell even Banjo GBA had Microsoft copyright saying Rare and Banjo are properties of MS.

Sorry, the whole thing is so complicated it's making my head hurt...
 
9-Volt said:
Hey no need to get hostile. This is literally the most discussed topic on the net, recently with Goldeneye and Netflix's Marvel shows. How did Nintendo blocked Goldeneye to be re-released or how did Disney was able to get Netflix shows easily, everyone had their own idea.

Sorry but this still doesn't explain anything. Rare is 100% owned by MS, but no MS copyright on DKR box despite it says some characters are owned by Rare. On the other hand, Viva Piñata DS does have MS copyright, even the logo. Hell even Banjo GBA had Microsoft copyright saying Rare and Banjo are properties of MS.

Sorry, the whole thing is so complicated it's making my head hurt...
Click to expand...

Microsoft doesn't necessarily need a separate copyright for Diddy Kong Racing. Remember that Rare is a 100% owned subsidiary of Microsoft. Anything Rare owns, Microsoft owns. It was a choice to omit Microsoft's name and include Rare's, but ultimately it makes no difference as to who owns what.
 
0
9-Volt said:
Hey no need to get hostile. This is literally the most discussed topic on the net, recently with Goldeneye and Netflix's Marvel shows. How did Nintendo blocked Goldeneye to be re-released or how did Disney was able to get Netflix shows easily, everyone had their own idea.
Click to expand...
Those aren't difficult to understand. Nintendo partially owns the copyright to the game Goldeneye, and those Netflix show were made under a temporary license that expired, so they are now entirely owned by Disney. There's literally nothing to discuss.
 
0
Kaka said:
Apparently Matsuno is involved with Reborn.
Click to expand...

Even if he is not, let us speak it into existence.
If that man can be given the reins for a new OB Saga game ... ok how many copies of TO: Reborn will I need to buy to make it happen 🤔

Ray00101 said:
Honestly would much rather have an Ogre Battle 64 or March of the Black Queen remake. There aren’t many games in that style and the N64 cart is prohibitively expensive unless I want to buy a reproduction.
Click to expand...

I do think Person of Lordly Caliber is destined for NSO, but I have hopes that the original game March of the Black Queen is a full modernized, fleshed-out remake material. Helmed by Matsuno, ofc.
 
0
shoptroll said:
Triangle Strategy + Tactics Ogre Reborn + Final Fantasy Tactics Remaster + Front Mission 1st + Front Mission 2

What a year
Click to expand...

AcclaimedOldfashionedAdder-size_restricted.gif


And Metal Slug Tactics but still yeah hold me family
 
Faster gameplay is all i needed. I also hope the changes to the level system will allevate the grind somewhat. Still one of the best tactics games i have played.

I will also join in the praise for Triangle Strategy. What a gem of a game that is. I'm in chapter 14 and didn't have to grind at all.
 
9-Volt said:
Those screens have touch screen UI, meaning it's coming to Switch and mobile too.
Click to expand...
Oh good because my first reaction is concern that this is another Castlevania Requiem situation where it’s the PSP game running in Sony’s PSP->PS4 emulator

EDIT: The screens that were posted by Gematsu don't look too mobile-y to me :(

www.gematsu.com

Tactics Ogre: Reborn description, screenshots, and release date appear on PlayStation Store price tracker

Tactics Ogre: Reborn will launch for PlayStation 5 and PlayStation 4 on November 11, according to listings on PlayStation Store price tracking website PS Deals (PS5, PS4), which feature full descri…
www.gematsu.com www.gematsu.com

Also, Ogre Battle re-release when? 😭
 
Last edited:
Let's go! Can't wait to replay this. Please SQEnix, when will FF Tactics also be released for consoles/PC?
9-Volt said:
Those screens have touch screen UI, meaning it's coming to Switch and mobile too.
Click to expand...
Yep, it does look like mobile-y in the forms of big buttons at the edge of screens. Guess Switch version is a lock and probably mobile too.
Jota said:
I hope that FFT also leaked have this treatment.
Click to expand...
Can't wait for it.
shoptroll said:
EDIT: The screens that were posted by Gematsu don't look too mobile-y to me :(
Click to expand...
They have some mobile esque UI with big buttons at the edge and whatnot. Better wait yeah, but I think Switch is a lock.
 
0
If it's PS-only, I don't even have a PS and I'd buy the game to support the series.

But that said, it's totes switch-bound 🤞
 
0
Monkey's paw my god.... So many right decisions (official revamp of classes? omg yes) but the art is fucking godawful. What a tremendously horrible idea, and a real way to kill a large amount of enthusiasm when I have no shortage of games to play.

Crossing my fingers for modders or an option, please dark gods.
 
0
Ugh hate the filter.

That said, the PSP version also looked like ass unless you zoomed out on the battlefield because they did not account for the resolution difference and everything wa kinda blurry. Like Valkyrie Profile Lenneth, but not as bad.
 
0
I have only played the snes version of this; I never played the psp version since I felt the gameplay changes seemed negative for my tastes. This looks like it might play closer to the snes version actually? The leveling is at least. In any case, I'm interested and personally those graphics don't bug me.

I do hope it is getting a mobile version; it's obviously not my #1 gaming platform, but I enjoy the rare decent buy-to-own games on it. Last I got from Square-Enix was Actraiser and Saga Scarlet Grace Ambition and both were fantastic on Android.

It's kind of insane that my "2022 want to buy" list is all Square-Enix (Diofield Chronicles, Star Ocean 6, Valkyrie Elysium, Front Mission and this) with the sole exception of Xenoblade Chronicles 3.
 
0
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom