Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(11 edits) (-16)

EDIT 2: I wrote a blog post that makes my stance clearer. The below is kept for posterity.

It was my idea that put demanding the return of prize money on the table. (I did not directly suggest doing it, for various reasons; but I did entertain the idea.) It was also my idea to disqualify the works retroactively. To be clear, I am not an organizer of gbcompo23 or gbcompo25, nor am I involved in any of the teams, nor am I a moderator of the gbdev Discord, or anything like that. I was consulted purely on the basis of providing a personal opinion. The full conversation which led to this is available on the gbdev Discord in the #homebrew-hub channel.

I believe it is unfair to benefit - especially financially - from a community effort, then turn your back on said community. It is your right, you are correct in saying so, but it is also a bridge that you are burning and you must be aware of that. I made the suggestions mentioned above in this light, after consulting some other people to get a reality check myself.

The administrator of the website in question, Homebrew Hub, is Antonio Vivace. He also operates the gbdev Discord and organizes gbcompo. There was no solution in which taking a combative stance, even if justified by law, would lead to “major Game Boy publishers” not finding out - because these people all talk to each other, because all of these projects are highly interconnected.

The rules state, quote, “Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website”. You are correct that there is no specific time period listed. However, at no point was it stated to be specifically Itch, either. The website which hosts the rules is gbdev.io, not itch.io. The rules say published, but they don’t specify by who. An interpretation which sidesteps linking to authors’ Itch pages completely is, therefore, potentially just as acceptable. I don’t know - I ultimately recommended Vivace to get a real lawyer before doing anything extreme, but it would probably be much more expensive than it is worth.

It is really unfortunate that they were written so imprecisely, but I suppose the organizers felt it was unnecessary to be pedantic, given that the communities Game Boy homebrew owes its heritage to (in particular the demoscene) see this kind of redistribution of competition works as a kind of common law. I am pretty sure this will be amended for future events.

For whatever it’s worth, I recommended removing the works irrelevant to gbcompo immediately, as my problem was specifically with what I saw as a break of its social contract.

EDIT: After getting a broader sampling of feedback online, I agree that suggesting an escalation all the way up to “return our prize money” was a mistake on my behalf. Even if I pointed out that it was a nuclear option with massive asterisks and did not recommend in the end, I should have pushed back on taking it that far, as maybe some of this could have been avoided.

(+15)(-2)

I’m flummoxed by this mentality. If Antonio and the team took your recommendation seriously and are trying to enforce it, then both you and the gbdev team don’t actually know what community means.

This stance is harmful to devs, and does not benefit the community or the developers. When I helped organize GB Compo 23, there was no discussion amongst us regarding requiring the ROM to be hosted indefinitely on compo’s website, nor repercussions for redaction.

Shameful.

(-12)

I’m surprised by this, given that entries for GB Compo 21 have been hosted indefinitely on GitHub since, well, 2021: https://github.com/gbdev/gbcompo21 - the same goes for the 2023 and 2025 iteration. Were you not aware of this?

The same applies to adjacent homebrew competitions: the yearly NESdev competition requires all ranked and judged entries to consent to being included as part of a freely distributed multicart, whereas the N64brew jam has a similar policy of mirroring compo releases on their GitHub.

This also goes outside of homebrew competitions and into demoscene. For example, the largest demoscene party, Revision, states in their rules that all entries presented will be mirrored on scene.org. Another large party, Evoke, explicitly requires contestants to accept that their works will be freely distributed online.

This also goes beyond the West. The Japanese WonderWitch Grand Prix, a hobbyist console game competition that ran from 2001 to 2003, also stipulated consent for free distribution.

I believe that access to games which were the result of a competition co-funded by the community helps the community as a whole grow. The social contract has two sides, not just one, and I think the non-developer side can feel rightly betrayed in this situation.

(+11)(-2)

I’ve reached out to Antonio with my thoughts. This mentality is partly why I left the competition.

(+7)

What exactly does the host of this event lose by de-listing the game? What goodwill are they burning with developers by taking such a harsh stance? I'm seeing a lot of fellow developers upset by this decision and reconsidering participating in the future compos.

Ok, so you've listed some ethical precedents. Yes, it's true that there are a lot of creators who are willing to license their products as shareware, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to. From an archivist perspective, I would much rather there be accurate records kept that acknowledge all entries, even if those entries aren't available to play anymore. I'm literally writing a book about homebrew games made during the early days of the internet, so I know how frustrating it can be for games to disappear to history.

But at the end of the day, it's about a creator wanting to protect their copyright in order to sell it. If the compo truly acknowledges that creators could want to turn their entries into commercial products, then they shouldn't stand in the way when creators want to.

Speaking of social contracts, I just think that non-developers shouldn't have such a demand on the free labor of creators. If they want access to a game, they should pay for it.

(2 edits) (-10)

I listed precedents in the form of other major competitions which impose similar, or even harsher, requirements on their participants, to explain that this is not an unusual policy for a game jam, especially one with prizes/rewards at play. Yes, everyone who submits their work to these competitions - the NESdev compo, for example - has to either allow distributing their work in this manner, or not submit their work to that specific competition. My stance is specifically that it is not uncommon or unreasonable for an event, especially in the social circles GB/GBC homebrew was born out of, to impose such expectations!

At the end of the day, many freely available GB/GBC games have already been turned into commercial products. You can do this by releasing an expanded version of the game (which has precedent), by putting the same game on a physical cartridge, or even by paywalling ROM downloads but not the web emulator (which another gbcompo entry has done). Even allalonegamez’s own 2025 entry, Zorvad, which is still available on Itch, has had a commercial release announced while still being playable online. The competition has not interfered with any of those - it only stepped in when a game which was entered in the competition was threatened with the possibility of it not being available online at all.

“Speaking of social contracts, I just think that developers shouldn’t have such a demand on the free labor of organizers and judges. If they want their game critiqued and promoted, they should pay for it.” /hj

Thank you for having the courage to speak up.

(1 edit) (+1)

I have just read both posts fully (allalonegamez’s and yours, on your website). I found yours interesting, thank you for explaining.
For the tl;dr crowd, if I understand correctly the situation and the legalese:

  1. The wording about leaving the game freely accessible is somewhat ambiguous, although it can be interpreted as being ‘perpetually’ (and there is no explicit mention of ‘only for the duration of the event’);
  2. Correlatively, going as far as reclaiming the money back was an unfortunate step too far;
  3. Leaving the event version free does not mean you cannot make a commercial version (generally extended, or through other means);
  4. There has to be some common-sense common ground on what is right as a whole for all parts — developers, organisers, and the public —, and the usual common practice goes by letting the event version perpetually free, as a way to build an archive (the ‘common good’).

A point I do not see addressed is the possible lack of communication between both parts; it is clear to me that there should have been some talking prior to making the removal demand (and maybe there has?) (and also during), to clarify any legal point that needed to and make sure this would not cause trouble.
‘When in doubt, always check’ is a nice motto to live by.

My two cents (I know, I am not an appointed judge, but I would say the following were I one, after carefully reading both accounts) is that claiming the money back is too much, while the event version should stay online (which does not prevent selling the post-event version), and the participation traces should be put back (if possible…). So, both parts should be reasonable. I would consider this case a good faith misunderstanding that ends up as setting a precedent and clarification.
(The conditions should also get clarified, but this has probably been already done, seeing the example of N64brew Jam.)

I have left the comments section open so that people can share their opinions. This space is meant to be a platform for freedom of expression, where everyone is welcome to voice their point of view, regardless of its nature.
I do not delete any comments, as you were able to express yourself without issue. However, I would like to remind you that this space is not intended to be used as a promotional tool for other social media platforms.
Therefore, I kindly ask that you remove the link you added at the beginning of your post.
You have your own social media channels to communicate : please feel free to use them.