It's easier to just classify anything in BYOND Anime as a rip since more often than not it's true.

I'd classify a rip as a game that uses another game's code-base/pixel art/various other elements without permission from the owner that created the game

Pmitch wrote:

So if you make a game, and someone steals it, and makes a rip of it, with them as the owner, then they give it to me, that must mean its ok. Thanks for the info.

Although my statement was Naruto based, it can be applied to other games. My last example would fit this statement. This time, we'll use DBOII.

For some reason, and you and your staff let DBZ5150 permission to use the source for their own "spin-off". Then later they give up, and someone else asks for, because they now have permission over the usage of the source, they can say whether or not the new guy can use their "spin-off", however if they want the original, they would need to go through the entire DBOII team.

EnigmaticGallivanter wrote:

If your rip is Izou, and Xzdog says he didn't give you permission, it's a rip.

If your long passed down Naruto game that is obvious WOTS, and you didn't get permission from Axerob / Bustercannon, it's a rip.

If someone got permission from them, and you take their source and they don't give you permission? it's a rip.

(those are for some naruto rips that claim they got permission from another rip)

People often tend to forget Sven helped with this game as he did with BLN. Heck Sven started WOTS when it was NSB.

All games can be traced back to Zeta.

This is your opinion of what a rip is.
It's not as clear-cut as that at all.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

A rip is:

"an opening made forcibly as by pulling apart"

Sources: Google - Define: rip

LOL

SuperAntx wrote:

All games can be traced back to Zeta.

Gokumasaki wrote:

Kumorii wrote:

I lul'd at his description; "Intermidiate Programmer/Coder"
I wish I was an 'Intermidiate' programmer.

Ah..its good to see that you waste your time.

Also good to see you removed it after you attempted to get a stab back at me.

Murrawhip wrote:

This is your opinion of what a rip is.
It's not as clear-cut as that at all.

Its up to us to create a "clear-cut" definition. So, its not his "opinion", its his connotation - There is a difference. Instead, you should be asking yourself if his statements, and definitions on what "rip" means correlate with eachother in a logical manner.

In my opinion, the definition isnt taking into account on what is widely believed to be the concept of "rip".

Basically, a "rip" would be anything that is taken directly from a game, either it be coding, icons, etc, without the creator's or current owners permission.

So if [x] transfers ownership to [y]. and [y] gives it to [z], [z] has permission from [x] through [y]. Or another way is, if [y] is given all the abilities of [x] by [x], then he should be able to do the same as [x] by giving the ability to others.

The only thing that cannot stand as a "rip" is taking "story" or "ideas". Unless the components used to implement the ideas are the same, it wont be considered a rip, through logic. If someone had the idea of a circle, and another copied it, yet implemented a circle that was different, the object itself would be different. Hence, ideas spur on coding potential.

If I read a five books on a theory, then develop something by myself based on those readings - Its okay. If I read them and directly manipulate them, its "ripping". They wouldnt be "different", but similar to the object, instead of being similar to the idea - If that makes sense.

Basically, thats how I view a "rip". Until someone pokes a hole in this logic, Haha.