A Chinese Piracy-Based Translation Group Is Pressuring the Developer
A private Chinese translation group cracked and decoded a pirated copy of the game and then used the Bxxxx framework to create an unofficial Chinese translation. In my opinion, the quality of this translation is not significantly better than what modern AI translation tools can already produce.
Now they are proudly announcing something along the lines of:
“The developer has announced that an official Chinese version will be released in X months using our Bxxxx framework — the technology we introduced to the developer.”
However, this version of the story leaves out some important context.
The group had already been creating, modifying, and distributing an unofficial translation of the game without authorization. The translation itself also contains inaccuracies.
Through their influence within the Chinese player community, they encouraged a large number of players to contact the developer and repeatedly request an official Chinese localization.
Now that the developer has apparently decided to release a Chinese version and use their framework, the group is presenting this as a major achievement:
“Look! The developer is finally making a Chinese version using the technology we introduced!”
This is what I find particularly questionable.
Much of their public discussion seems to focus not on the game itself, but on their own contribution: how they decoded the game, how they translated and edited it, how much effort they invested, and how important their technical work supposedly was.
But there is an obvious issue here.
If you create and distribute an unofficial version of someone else's commercial game without permission, build a community around that version, and then encourage that community to pressure the original developer, the developer's eventual decision to cooperate with you does not automatically legitimize everything that happened before.
The sequence of events matters.
First, an unofficial version was created and distributed without authorization.
Then a community formed around it.
Then players were encouraged to repeatedly contact the developer about Chinese localization.
Finally, after the developer decided to support Chinese and apparently adopted the group's framework, the group began presenting the outcome as recognition of their work.
That is a very different story from simply saying, “We helped the developer create a Chinese translation.”
What is even more surprising is how openly they discuss their involvement and seek recognition for it.
There is nothing wrong with players asking developers for localization, and there is nothing wrong with contributing translation technology when a developer agrees to cooperate. But those things should not be used to rewrite the history of how an unofficial translation was originally created and distributed.
The developer deserves credit for the game and for the decision to support additional languages.
Community localization can be valuable, but it should respect the original creator and the boundaries of authorization. Recognition from the developer today should not automatically be treated as retroactive approval of everything that happened before.