[RMVX ACE] A LOT OF THE RECENT PROJECTS LACK A RVPROJ2 FILE (.RVPROJ2), WHY IS THIS?

Now I'm really confused. So I do need to lock games if I used paid resources?

I think it depends on the pack. Some people are more detailed about how they want their resources handled than others. I think Celianna and/or Lunarea prefers that you lock your projects if you use their commercial assets.

Gotcha, I just have to check with who made it. Okay, thanks!

Keep in mind, not everybody wants to lock their project, but they're sort of forced to when they purchase anything from the store. And yes, even non-commercial developers gladly purchase packs from the store to further invest in their hobby.

While other sites may not care too much, if you put your game up at RMW with store assets in them, they expect you to lock your game, and can hold you liable if it's not. Which is silly, because it seems they're more concerned about people stealing tilesets, but seem to ignore the fact that store purchased music still can't be locked by the default encryption method.

Edit: Somehow missed that spill when I wrote this, but already discussed.

Adding more to this:

author=nhubi
Also how would that work for some of the older engines which didn't have an encryption option?

If you're buying resources from the store, you're not allowed to use them in anything except for RMXP, VX, Ace, and IGM (for the most part) without buying other licenses for outside use. I don't think you are allowed to use them in 2K and 2K3 regardless if you have a legal version or not.

There was even a post awhile back where somebody asked about using 2K/3 resources in something like Ace for a commercial game as long as they owned a legal Japanese version of 2K/3. Afterall, you can use XP resources in Ace if you own both XP and Ace. But in this case, they were to told to avoid doing that, probably because of the mess it would create trying to prove you do own a legal version of 2K/3, and everybody else wondering why they can't do the same, even though they don't have legal versions.

But then there is the question of how stable some of the older games really are. I believe VX had a certain size the encryption allows before bugging out. So if you're using paid resources in a VX game that's over the size, what then? Either not use the resources you purchased or try and find a better encryption method beyond the default, and then have the programming knowledge to get it to work.

A New Edit:

author=Archeia_Nessiah

author=Craze
There's nothing in the EULAs stating such a thing, for either audio or graphics. I just checked several.

Isn't it this one?

2.1 Your game must include additional documentation that clearly indicates the use of the Resource Pack and the following copy:
2.2 Solely used for the creation of your game, you can edit, process, and modify the materials contained in the Resource Pack.
2.3 Do not sell, distribute, lease, or transfer the Resource Pack itself (even if the materials were edited, process, or modified by the User).

By not encrypting, you're distributing the game resources.

I'm going to throw a wrench into this whole thing by mentioning the Steam Workshop for VXA. You can lock the game by a sort of "Play Only" option, but you can't encrypt the resources, even when "Play Only" (or whatever it's called) has been selected.

When this issue first came about, artists tried saying you weren't allowed to use paid resources in the workshop until they could be encrypted. But this led to an uproar in the Steam community. Afterall, even non-comm developers purchase the resources for their projects, but why would they when they can't post their games where they want?

So from last I checked, people can still host their games using paid resources on the workshop (even if the resources can't be encrypted), so long as it's clear the resources aren't to be pulled and used.

So why is it a violation of the EULA to post an open game on an RM site that uses paid resources, but it's not a violation to post the same game with the same resources on the workshop?

author=Max McGee
A game containing resources from the Resource Pack is OBVIOUSLY not the Resource Pack itself and any argument otherwise is basically indefensible from a legal standpoint, and the parenthetical clause does nothing to change this.

And fuck it, I'll just say what's on my mind anyway: information wants to be free.

I know for a fact that I don't want my resources that I worked hard for to be sold in the store to be distributed for free (e.g. RMDS/RMDS+/Retro Scifi/Luna Engine) when people can just use an open project and get it from there. Especially when we still own the rights for the packs we released.

You are technically redistributing the resource pack itself by including it in an open project. Can you imagine if you distributed a game under MIT license with the resources in it? That's basically redistributing it. It's one thing to release a game but still retain the license that the resources have, but outside of RM community, people have different licenses for games. It doesn't help that most RM games are unclear about the 'license' their games are distributed. Open Source isn't the most clearest of terms. :V

Granted Audio encryption is impossible in RM, but graphics and script data is totally possible (by default standards). Unless you can somehow stop people from getting it that easily. Which is possible btw. You can have some resources only encrypted by isolating them and then just put the other folders outside the encrypted archive and it'll work. I do it sometimes ._.

author=amerk
So why is it a violation of the EULA to post an open game on an RM site that uses paid resources, but it's not a violation to post the same game with the same resources on the workshop?

Workshop handles files differently. You don't have direct access to the game's files and play it through a client. You can't even open it through the editor and just 'play it only.' That's why. It's obviously not fool proof but unless you're slightly computer savvy, it's easily taken. I know that the workshop is flawed as hell due to how RM is built though. And it also makes it hard as hell to redistribute resources without having to deal with bs with ReStaff materials.

Craze I think you can just have the raw .rpgproj2 file along with the encrypted game and put them both in the same zip file. So technically, you're shipping the game with two .rpgproj2 files: an encrypted one, and an unencrypted one. It's crude, and I'm not really sure if it'll work, but it's worth a shot.

There might be a script out there that can do this, but I'm not really sure. I, for one, never saw any.

good to know. i'm 100% against project encryption but i've bought luna and i'm totally using it on all and every project from now on so I guess i'll just have to deal with it (and document design choices / fundamentals of whatever game I make to make up for the loss)

I don't understand why the concept of protecting stuff you bought from free distribution is a hard concept to grasp. They're being sold for a reason. If the store creators wanted to give them for free then they would've done that.

author=Archeia_Nessiah
I don't understand why the concept of protecting stuff you bought from free distribution is a hard concept to grasp. They're being sold for a reason. If the store creators wanted to give them for free then they would've done that.

nah, you know it's not that and nobody here is against that xD

btw I think I just got how partial encryption works. That sounds pretty awesome. So I basically remove every graphic file but the pack, encrypt it and put the rest of the graphics back?

If it's that, then I'm totally happy with it, because i'd be then protecting the pack while still allowing people to learn from my mess of a project!

Is it the same for scripts? you encrypt it then pop in a scripts.rvdata with the rest of the files? ;_;

I think this would do a nice tutorial >.<