What does "Made with RMMV" mean?

It doesn't matter what you know or think that MV is - it only matters what Kadokawa says what the licence provides.
And unfortunately, the community and laws in Japan work a bit differently than what the western community does - which created a few points like the TileD-Plugin.


As Shaz said, this topic is NOT for discussing what the community wants - it is here to explain what Kadokawa decided to be allowed or not.


The first post explains that, and while it is not exactly bullet-proof for several reasons - until a different official definition is found and released, it is legally binding for you.

I was clearly misunderstood here. I wasn't discussing the rules, I was trying to learn the exact borders. But I understand that this was premature, because within the next 6 months, I am sure that most of the necessary clarification to cover my question will be made. So, thank you for your answers and sorry for the fuss.

If you don't even have to open MV in order to continue creating your project, then you're not making it with MV. That you originally needed a new project to get your game started is irrelevant. If you're not actually using the MV engine in your development- editor, database, events, etc - then you're not making a MV game. Same goes for trying to hit that minimum amount of MV use to try and fall within the guidelines of "MV game". If the majority of your game isn't made within MV, then it's not a MV game.

Of course, it's also important to note that this definition is there so you know what's ok out-of-the-box and what requires special permission/license.

If your project does use a lot of customized tools and/or bypasses the need to use MV extensively, just contact us for permission. It doesn't automatically mean you're out of luck and can't make your game. It just means that projects that don't fit those initial guidelines will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

OK, but on my case: I don't use the RTP or anything that is exclusive other than the JS code itself. Do I need to get permission for my project anyway?

Is it a commercial game?

Yes

Then, yes, please do contact us for permission. :)

As I said in the first post - the EULA states that the RTP belongs with "the software" which is the MV editor - NOT the game you make with it. If you're not using the editor, then you can't use the resources, nor can you say your game was made with MV, because MV IS the editor.


Using TileD or converting your project from Ace gives you maps. But how are you going to put in your database, your events, your battles? You either have to use the editor, or do them manually in a text editor or alternate program. If you don't use the editor, then you are not making your game with MV.


(this is not directed at you, Hudell, as Lunarea has already answered you, but to the other comments that have been made since my last post).


Surely it's not so difficult that most of us can't decide whether we're actually using MV - the editor - to make our games or not? If you have to open the editor program in order to work on your game, then you are making it with MV.

So this is official! As long as I can load, save and effectively edit a project in MV (editor), it's officially "Made in RPG-Maker MV". So I can optimize, overwrite, skip and extend the system functions (JS core) as necessary, as long as RPG-Maker MV is the place where I mainly create my game (ie. setting up my map, manage the events, plugins...).

Well, ... thank you, and no since MV consist of several vital parts it wasn't really clear to me until you've pointed that out.

I'm not sure where the difficulty is in deciding. If you are using the editor, then your game is made with MV, even if you've modded SOME of the base scripts.


Just because you can load, save and edit a project in MV, doesn't mean it's made in MV. It's how you are making the majority of it that's important. I'm sure there are people here who could confirm that you could create an entire project without touching MV at all, in such a way that it can be loaded, edited and saved with the editor. Such a project is NOT made with MV.


If there are people who are doing everything possible to avoid using the MV editor, but who still want to be able to claim their game was made with MV so they can use the resources - that's not on. Anything else should be straightforward - it's not if you CAN use the editor - it's if you ARE using the editor.

Don't worry, I've read all entries here very closely, therefor I wrote "effectively edit" and "mainly create ...". But as I said, the things I was unsure and confused about, you completely answered me.

So if like I use tileD for the mapping, use almost all custom plug-ins, write the json files directly and just use MV to pack the game then it's not "Made with MV" anymore right? Just really curious. :)

That's right. Using MV to 'pack' the game and using MV to 'make' the game are not the same things. Just because your files can be read by MV doesn't mean you're using it for development. That is the key.

I definitely feel that this topic has opened a lot of things up. Clarified a lot, and even brought up a definitive point that Should probably be addressed. And I think that would be that, if people are so readily headed off to alternative applications to build their game, should not the editor evolve in some way to incorporate the more advanced features that Makers crave that lead them off towards those bits of software? MV is still early in its lifecycle. And I genuinely enjoy working with it, but even I who am dependent on the editor for working with 90% of the games data, see some glaring issues with some of the limitations of the editor, that the engine itself is clearly not limited by.

An example would be The SV Weapon Animations, the engine can easily recognize a Weapons4.png in the image/system/ folder. and with a few lines of code added even interact with it. But the Editor has 30 slots hard coded and the last 6 we cant even use the editor to change the name of to make setting them up easier to match the weapon their going with. Whereas in the past with RM2k3 that was completely open, While not completely unlimited, you could have every single weapon in your game [if you had enough resources to do it of course] use a completely unique weapon animation.

I could nitpick about losing the old Layering system from XP but technically the layers are all still there... just hidden behind a veneer of automatic code. And that's fine, but does make fixing mistakes a little tedious, while it makes copying parts of the map to move to other parts a lot easier. And after a good long time mastering the exact layering order it wants you to use, you start to intuitively design your maps in that order.

I kinda wandered away from my point, and that is that from reading this conversation it's clear the more advanced members of the community crave more advanced features. And while scripts/plugins help in that regard, more advanced options in working with their game inside of the editor looks to be something very necessary. Even if it's a check mark in the menu to switch between simple/advanced mode. SO who would we as a community need to bug for KDKW to push towards that kind of goal during the lifespan of MV as they work towards MVAce, [or however they want to call their next editor in the series that we all will probably pounce on because despite its problems, RPG Maker is still a really fun thing to use.]

I am sure, most of these things will get addressed in the near future... they have to. At the moment and I can just speculate that there is a lot of fear and anger involved because of 'toxic' discussions in other RPG-Maker forums and a bit of helplessness to address the topics because of the lack of worked out policy guidelines.

Just lately I stumbled over a topic about parallax mapping (in a different content) but I wondered if parallax mapping could also be considered as avoiding RPG-Maker MV since a graphic program like Photoshop would replace part of the functions of the editor.

No, the main problem is that Kadokawa still primarily targets the RM at the japanese market, and that market works differently compared to the western community. So their lawyers didn't address the same topics in their EULA as we are concerned about - they didn't even think on several topics that came up in our community almost first day.

And getting an EULA corrected or specified in a way that stands in court is not something that can be done fast...

As for parallax mapping, no that doesn't matter at all since it only provides resources and you still need the editor to set passability even for the parallax map.

Unless you don't. Some people use images to define passability.

Using an external program to make one or two aspects easier is okay - like TileD or parallax mapping (and that has ALWAYS been okay). But if you make maps externally, you still need a plugin to handle the new format, and you can still do all your database and your events in the editor.

Due to the nature of how the English market came to learn about RPG Maker, there are far more unofficial, and pirated resources out there that makes it legally dubious if those assets or resources can be used.

A) I have purchased RPG Maker MV, and primarily use the MV editor and resources = No problem

B) I purchased an earlier version of RPG Maker and use resources purchased from EB/DEGICA to use with it in MV, using MV's editor = No problem

Those above have been repeatedly stated to be OK. Here's some areas that look grey but aren't:

C) RPG Maker MV was purchased, but the user of MV decides to use a different product after starting their project with MV = Not OK unless the RPG Maker assets are removed. Reasoning: license. This does not count as piracy but is prohibited by license.

D) A user uses the trial version of RPG Maker MV to create a game, but then never purchases MV and continues to use the assets with the other product = Not OK. Reasoning : license. This counts as piracy since the user has no license to use the assets for any reason outside the MV trial.

E) A user obtains the RPG Maker MV (or any other version) assets (RTP) from a fan community in order to localize a Japanese-language RPG Maker game. Regardless of any permission obtained from the Japanese author, this would not be permitted since the RPG Maker license belongs to the original author. In this case the person doing the localization would need both the Japanese and the English (or whatever locale) language version of the product to have the rights to the RTP assets and editors since the original author can't transfer the license. Assuming they did obtain permission to localize, this comes back to everyone who works on a project needs their own copy of the software if they are unable to use the same machine that it is installed to.

Plus the Never OK's:

F) RPG Maker assets were obtained from a fan community, but the user doesn't own any RPG Maker licenses. It's considered piracy.

G) RPG Maker was obtained from an unauthorized source. This is also piracy.

What has come up in this thread is how much of RPG Maker MV must be used to use the assets. Which is to echo the statement again "If you can not open the game with the MV editor, make any non-trivial edit to the game, and save it" it's still an MV game. The reason this is the legal test of it being an MV game is that the Assets can only be used with theMV Editor. Is it possible to make it possible to minimally use the MV editor? Yes. Would that make it still a MV game? Yes, but if you did this primarily to fulfill the license obligation, if it were to be tested in court, one would be asked "List all software packages used to build this game." and lying under oath is a crime. Any other software products used would be discovered during discovery, that includes emails and how those software packages were obtained.

So ultimately is it really in ones best interests to weasel around the license? No. It would be very expensive and waste a lot of peoples time.

The bold part isn't necessarily right. My game, for example, would fall under your "C" item, but it can still be opened, modified and played from RPG Maker.


Anyway, even if my game were to be approved by sending a message asking for permission, I decided to stop working with RPG Maker. It's just not worth it to have to deal with this kind of thing. It's not the first I've had to worry about RM's license and I never really had similar problems with any other engine I worked with, so I decided to move on.