EDIT4: https://twitter.com/NinImpactGaming/status/772566818754072576

Proof has been posted on Twitter of a conversation between RCMADIAX and the original developer by Nintendo Impact Gaming. Seems legitimate, in which case none of the below about the licenses should apply. So read it if you like reading something akin to watching paint dry while you're on the can or something... I don't know, but realize it's old conjecture and almost assuredly not applicable to RCMADIAX. Last edit unless I notice some huge issue.

EDIT (old): Read the original post content below, first. But it seems RCMADIAX is indeed in violation of his license for games from the Games With Source Content, assuming he purchased his license directly through the site and didn't directly ask the developer for permission. Appended at the end of the post is the full license in intalics.

Longtime lurker, made this account just to post this. Skip ahead five paragraphs if you're only interested in some interesting stuff I've found about the legality of this.

I think many people are missing the point on why this is often frowned upon. This is not just asset licensing as seen in DOOM, etcetera. In most projects, SOME part of the game is original. Maybe a designer and artist wants to make a game but isn't a good programmer or musician, so he/she purchases code and music assets which work together with his original content to make a new game. Or maybe a programmer purchases the art and music... I'm even fine with someone buying a full game asset like Panda Love and adding some more levels and selling it. If RCMADIAX took Pixel Slime or Panda Love and doubled or tripled the level count–probably doable in a few weeks, maybe a month, if you're competent enough with the tools–then I don't think most people would have a big issue with that.

The problem mot people have is that in most cases none of the content appears to be original content. The main code base, the design of the game and its levels, the music and the art in many of these titles are identical to the demo versions. (See Skeasy/Panda Love.) If any of these parts were original that'd be one thing. But it seems like he's literally just buying the licenses for these starter projects at, quite literally, ten dollars or so, modifying the controls slightly for Wii U if necessary, making sure they work on the GamePad and then shipping them off to Nintendo.

The other part that seems disingenuous is that these can be played for free. Simply go to the games' pages and click on "Play Demo." The "demo," since the product is the source code and assets themselves, is the entirety of the gameplay. I haven't tested it on the Wii U, but several of these probably already work on it, since the browser is HTML5 compatible... meaning you don't need to pay RCMADIAX two dollars; you can just play them in your browser. For the few that don't work. well... they should with a USB keyboard.

Now, to be fair he has added a few things to some of them... basically, if the game has no music (AVOIDER) or graphics (SHOOTY SPACE) he seems to get someone to make an asset. He's basically acting more as a publisher than a developer, that tweaks the games slightly for the platform.

It's his choice how he makes a living and no one is being forced to buy his stuff. But these kinds of operations are a big part of the reason other app stores are flooded with so much shovelware that the actual good stuff gets the life squeezed out of it due to lack of visibility.

Legality discussion:

Note that the intent for some of these games it seems is not to be sold like this. For example, the "games with source" category on SCIRRA has the following description:

"These games are provided with the CapX source files for you to learn from."

Note also that the description for the page in Google results is "Panda Love - Game Development Examples - Scirra.com"

As for the legality of this operation... well, it seems like the licenses for some of these projects differ based on category. Note that Panda Love, Don't Crash and Jackpot are all found in the Games With Source Category with this clause and description.

"2. Provided CapX Source Files

Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.

You are not permitted to claim ownership of any derivative works you create from the Source Files.

You are only permitted to privately distribute derivative works amongst friends and family in person (not online), strictly for demonstrative purposes.

You are not permitted to distribute derivative works in any other way, including but not limited to online publishing/distribution, public demonstrations, for sale, or accessible to the general public in any form."

It seems like his games may be counted as a derivative, for obvious reasons, and this is reinforced by the fact that this clause is NOT in other licenses found in other categories with source files. There are three categories of whole game assets. There's the "Games With Source" which seems to be only for educational purposes. The OTHER two categories are meant for commercial use ("Game Licenses") and ("Royalty Free Assets -> Game Templates"). Since those three games are not under Game Licenses (where there might be stipulations in how you may use the asset, but it states explicitly it's for commercial use) or Royalty Free Assets (no major stipulations, pay once up front per commercial project)... and have that license clause... yeah, they could be educational tools he's not supposed to be selling. However, it's possible he got expressed permission directly from the developer.

Note that games from the commercial sections (example: Slime Pixel) cost a LOT more. Slime Pixel costing $360 US. The average price is $80 and as high as $500, as opposed to the $5 to $20 for the Games With Source, though they seem to go on sale for $10 occasionally. They also state in the license that they can be used for commercial use and do NOT have the stipulation about distributing derivative works. Note, however, that these licenses by default are only for putting the games on your website; not on a console.

"Seller grants Licensee a Commercial and Royalty Free license to the Licensed Content. Licensee may generate unlimited revenue from Licensed Content for the duration of this Agreement.

...

Licensee is only permitted to deploy the Licensed Content on the web. Licensee may use the Licensed Content on 1 domain name (the “Domain Name”), and all subdomains of that domain name."

However, since these don't come with source code I'm sure RCMADIAX contacted the developer of the game and got the correct license; the descriptions states that other licenses and source code are available if you contact him. So this one seems fine... so long as he contacted the developer and didn't use the SCIRRA license, which does NOT cover non-website deployment.

The rest of his games fall into the Game Templates, Royalty Free Assets category. These are legal, though most were clearly made to be modified and are incomplete, being just basic game systems and engines. Also note that these ones require you to purchase another license for each product you use the assets in; so I'd assume RCMADIAX is supposed to buy a second license for his bundles where the game is sold again, and if he didn't would be in violation of his license.

TL;DR of legal section:

Some of RCMADIAX's games come from the Games With Source category on SCIRRA and not the other two categories clearly intended for reselling. Reasons supporting not being supposed to resell them:

1. License stipulation prohibiting selling source derivatives; compiled game is probably applicable.

Note that this stipulation is not in Game Template assets and Game Licenses sold for commercial use.

2. Google results call them "Developer Examples."

3. Category description is "These games are provided ... for you to learn from."

4. The text for adding to cart is "Buy" whereas the commercial categories is "Purchase Single

Project License" with a question mark describing the license.

I'm pretty sure that his Wii U games from the Games With Source category are considered derivative works created from the source code and thus are in violation of his license... provided he did indeed purchase a license through SCIRRA and not directly from the seller. It seems you're buying the right to view the source code for educational purposes and play the game, not sell it. Ex. Panda Love and Don't Crash.

The ones from the Game Licenses section are fine so long as he contacted the seller and had them give him a commercial license that includes selling it on the Wii U eShop as the default license does NOT. If he didn't, his license is invalid for this purpose. Ex. Pixel Slime.

The ones from Game Templates are fine, so long as he purchases one license (this applies to Game Licenses as well) per app that uses the assets. This might apply to bundles as he's not bundling licenses to two separate titles but making a new combination title, in which case if he only has one license for his bundled software he's in violation here. Ex. Skeasy.

Note that I am not a lawyer and none of this should be taken as legal advice. This is all layman speculation on the legality, or at least intended usage regardless of legality, of some of RCMADIAX's games' source. Also see EDIT3; he could've gotten permission directly from the developer for the games from Games With Source.

TL;DR or everything including previous TL;DR:

Three of the games in the article seem to have non-commercial licenses stating that distribution of derivative works for non-educational purposes beyond friends and family is prohibited and so they could be illegal if he didn't get permission from the original developer. (In case you didn't read the edits... it seems he did.) The other ones are legal if he handled it right. I have no problem with RCMADIAX so long as their operation is legal, but find it sad that these low quality games threaten to one day flood the eShop like mobile marketplaces. At least some of the games, like Super Robo Mouse and Drop Blok x Twisted Fusion seem to be his own work. This shouldn't turn into a witchhunt but should open up an interesting discussion on the matter of reselling whole-game assets. I think the most correct viewpoint here is that RCMADIAX is, essentially, a publisher more than a developer and simply pays for the right to publish the games found on SCIRRA to the eShop.

As mentioned in EDIT 1 (old): Full license for Games from the Games With Source from SCIRRA:

"D. Games

1. Usage

Games are for personal use only. You may not use the games or any part of the games content for any commercial, promotional, institutional, corporate or teaching purposes.

Each game you purchase can only be downloaded to and stored on a maximum of 5 devices and/or computers at any one time.

You are not permitted to share any games you purchase. This includes but is not limited to, peer-to-peer networks, file sharing websites, family, friends, colleagues, internet communities.

You are not permitted to modify or reverse engineer the games in any way (including but not limited to removal of copyright notices).

You are not permitted to copy or publish the games, or any part of the games content (text or graphics).

E. Games With Source

1. Extension of Games License

This license should be considered an extension of the Games License listed above.

2. Provided CapX Source Files

Game source files (the “Source Files”) which are usually provided in the CapX file format are strictly permitted for use for personal educative and learning purposes.

You are not permitted to claim ownership of any derivative works you create from the Source Files.

You are only permitted to privately distribute derivative works amongst friends and family in person (not online), strictly for demonstrative purposes.

*You are not permitted to distribute derivative works in any other way, including but not limited to online publishing/distribution, public demonstrations, for sale, or accessible to the general public in any form."

In addition to not being able to distribute derivatives of the source, which the games should be considered now after briefly reviewing a few dozen similar topics in the past on Stack Overflow (mostly about open source software licenses and how the creator of a new piece of software that was created from open source code may itself have to be open source if the license states that derivative works must adopt the original's license... which implies that slightly modified software is a derivative of its original source code, which makes complete sense), it's also apparently in violation of the original license that that part is an extension of!

Again, not a lawyer. Could be completely wrong. Also see EDIT3; he could've gotten permission directly from the developer.

EDIT2: Note that the whole clause about not modifying the software seems to be meant only for game without source code and modifying the source code if you bought it doesn't seem to violate this otherwise everyone would be in violation... (I surmise technically you're not modifying the game but the source and then making a new game/derivative work. It seems because derivative works are allowed for personal use that this clause in the extension trumps the clause preventing modification. I don't know for sure but I know it's intended to stop people from buying a game without source and decompiling it. Made this edit just in case someone tries to make a lame argument using that clause that "Everyone is in violation!")

EDIT 3: Also note I wouldn't really assume RCMADIAX hasn't obtained a valid license through other means. He seems to have asked on the Don't Crash comment thread (same real name, same company logo...) whether or not he can resell it and got no response; it's possible he directly contacted the developer and got his permission. Keep in mind these are just the default licenses which I should've stressed more; nothing is stopping him from directly contacting the devs and getting their permission. This is also pretty likely as the three games in question were all made by the same guy; even if there was a licensing issue, it seems like the developer has no problem with this behavior as he OK'd putting a derivative of one of his games on Google Play when someone asked him in a comments thread, in which case this is most likely more of a technicality than any moral dilemma.

User 1: Is the like a game template which you buy and then edit to sell or not?

User 2: Same question as above. If we buy it, are we allowed edit it and put it on google playstore?

Developer: AT User2 Yes, you can publish on Google Play.

All @RCMADIAX has to do is come on here and tell us he has permission from the developer beyond the basic license found on SCIRRA to publish the game on the eShop and everything is done and dusted here.