810 replies to this topic

[potatohead]

Well, there you go, had the door been open in the first place, this conversation would be very different today.  QED

@Scott, you are welcome.  I enjoy our occasional retro / nc conversations.  Hope they continue as time and life makes sense.

As for worth, I originally said $100 would be worth it for the Boulderdash game.  It makes no sense to value time on these things.  There is more time spent than can be paid for.  Valuing people and dealing in and with IP in sensible ways is the key.  The truth is, our hobby is mostly open enough for people to find their way here and have fun.  If you are not having fun, probably it's your fault.

[CPUWIZ]

[solidcorp]

batari, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:48 PM, said:

solidcorp, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:32 PM, said:

(Personally, I think $75 + S&H for BoulderDash is a little nutty and at that price they will gross $37,500 in 500 units, nearly $5K over my asking price, but that's their prerogative and I wish them all the luck, after all it took the two of them 6 years to bring to market - that's a lot of evenings and weekends)

There are only going to be 250 units of BD carts (that's $18,750, $14k less than your price) and it has way more overhead than you can imagine, FAR more than your game. There will be full-color, professional boxes (250, not one), 250 boards (which have 16k RAM, using 250 expensive microcontrollers) and First Star is taking a significant amount in licensing fees. This is the most expensive production for any modern homebrew game, hands down. The programming in this game is simply amazing and consists of thousands of hours of work by several programmers. You really cannot compare.

My point is pricing is their prerogative.

Your bitterness is noted.

I can imagine, I've done a lot of licensed games, and I deal with the cost of technology all the time.

I used that game as an example because everyone is familiar with it and Andrew is so vocal on the topic of licensing.

They may be doing this for zero profit for all I know, they could have charged double and it wouldn't matter - they are within their rights either way and I am not going to buy it for $75, so it may as well be $75,000 to me.  I didn't say it wasn't a fair price (which should not be determined by cost of goods and services but bound by it, to maximize profit price should be set by what you honestly think the market will bear over time), I said it it was "a little nutty" because I will not buy any 2600 game, BoulderDash or Star Castle it at that price.

I was not comparing the technical implementations of the games (nor do I wish to).

[thegoldenband]

potatohead, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 3:15 PM, said:

Well, there you go, had the door been open in the first place, this conversation would be very different today.  QED

Intending no disrespect, I don't think that "QE" has been "D" at all.  The tone might be different, but the basic issue, which was eloquently summed up by Propane13 here, wouldn't be resolved.

I don't like the fact that people have made caustic comments towards Scott, but I still think his basic attitude is the opposite of what this community should be about.  The ideal member of a community is a person who tries to give more than he takes, and while I have a pretty good sense of what Scott wants to get from all of us, I'm not sure what we've gained, overall, from his contributions.  It's a little too easy to believe that his intention was to throw down the fabled golden apple of discord -- which I guess makes Eris the oldest troll of all, eh?

Obviously it's important to Scott that he retain maximum control over his work.  That's a power-oriented paradigm: either you're in control, or you're compensated by getting power in a different form ($$$).  It also implies an adversarial relationship between the creator and the consumer, or really between "me" and "you".  I'm the good guy, always in danger of being unfairly victimized; you're the enemy, who wants to screw me out of what's mine;  so I'd better get everything I can before you show your true colors.

Problem is, we're a love-oriented community, much as it might pain some of our gruffer members to admit it.  The best members try to give more than they take, and try to treat each other like friends.  Even in the Marketplace, most sellers aren't looking to charge a premium -- for most items you (the seller) can get more money on Ebay, though that necessitates dealing with people who bear you no particular goodwill, and may well be looking to screw you over.

The thing is, power and love are pretty much opposites.  The more you pursue one, the more you must renounce the other;  the more you insist on control, the less capacity you have to give freely.  So maybe this match just isn't meant to be.

[potatohead]

Well we differ, and here is where the core difference is:

I know what I can control and what I can't.  How Scott or anyone IS happens to be on the list of things we DON'T control.  As ambassadors to the hobby, what we can control is important.  It's important because the hobby is attractive, and that attraction is what can get people to consider why it's attractive, and part of that is how it works as it does.

The expectation that it's all share and share alike is the norm for those in the hobby.  Been true for a long time.  That is why I have followed it for so long, and why I participate when inclined to do so.  Communicating why that's of value is the best case move.  From there, people make their choices.  That's as good as it gets.

When newbies walk in, those norms can be seen.  Where there is friction, any number of things can and will happen.  How that goes is what I'm speaking to, and the "D" in QED.  IMHO, no amount of shitty contributions, guilt, shame, anger, etc... will get somebody to participate on terms that are better aligned to the norms.  Often the result is just a turn off, and people quietly leave the scene.  Sometimes, they push back to make a point.  My point here is the end game isn't good.

On the other hand, keeping the door open, interacting, building trust, making friends, sharing the fun parts to be shared, etc... shows how attractive the thing is, and the "door is open" for more.  They can come to a place where maybe it makes sense for them, however they get there.  Nobody can force that.  Building walls does nobody any good.

Finding common ground to build on does everybody good, without doing any bad.  That's my point.  We only benefit in the end.

A similar thing happened with Ian's project.  Did it change anything?  No.  Will it ever?  No.

I like Ian, I like Scott, and in fact, I pretty much like everybody.  Even RT   Seriously, RT is cool.  I don't agree with everybody, and how I would play it isn't how they may be inclined to play it.  But, positive advocacy toward this hobby can rope more and better people in, more and better works, and it's all fun.  Negative advocacy, shame, fear, anger, etc... just turns 'em off.  The common  bond here is the hobby.  We need to respect that and demonstrate it's worth to others, not turn them off, or there won't be others, and it dies off.

I have no doubt this scenario would have played out differently had it been a net positive.  The hobby is as attractive as we, the ambassadors of it,  make it out to be.  Where we do a good job on that, it grows and life is good.  Where we do not, it shrinks, gets stale, and life is not good.

Edit:  You said this:  Problem is, we're a love-oriented community, much as it might pain some of our gruffer members to admit it. The best members try to give more than they take, and try to treat each other like friends.

Yeah, exactly.  Growing that circle only happens when we keep the higher ground, door open.  We didn't do that in this case, and so we lose out.  No fault on that, only reality.  I'm not blaming anybody for anything, simply stating that there could be better choices, and in the future people should consider them.  Doing that is in all of our collective interests.  Not doing that might feel good, but it's a net loss overall.  This is why I'm a common ground, keep the door open kind of guy.  No matter what the other party chooses to do, I benefit from that perspective.  In other words, keeping the positive on the table means it could happen.  

Negative?  Door closed, next.  Why do that?  There is no gain.  Frankly, there could be losses.  Setting the expectation that we have some entitlement to a lot of what happens is a road nobody wants to go down.  People who do have the right to check that just might decide some folks need to learn a lesson.  Nobody wants that, and it could very well happen.

I'm done again.  Negative gets everybody nowhere, and I'll stand on that point, this discussion case in point.

Edited by potatohead, Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:34 PM.

[potatohead]

No disrespect taken, nor intended, BTW.  Door always open...  

[SoulBlazer]

Not to mention, there ARE ways to control the piracy problem if he really wanted to.....I'm sorry, I still see this as a case  of 'look what I did, and no one can ever play it, heh heh!' ego stroking.

[Keatah]

This discussion is all very complex and heady. I prefer to keep things simple, like playing Missile Command on game #17.

[rhindlethereddragon]

This thread has gotten pretty ridiculous, with a new twist: "the trolling programmer".

Anyway, if the footage of 2600 Star castle is indeed EVEN REAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, then we are faced with the question: could it possibly mean that the guy who marched through the doors of Atari's management and stated that Star Castle couldn't be done on the 2600 and convinced them to do a completely different game instead was:

1) LYING?

2) Didn't have the programming skills to pull it off?

3) Too lazy to attempt a proper port of Star Castle?

[Keatah]

We really shouldn't be discussing this.

[jetset]

SoulBlazer, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:57 PM, said:

'm sorry, I still see this as a case  of 'look what I did, and no one can ever play it, heh heh!' ego stroking.

This.
And/or a case of I'm gonna make sure I make a tidy profit off this hobby/community. Fortunately, there's plenty of homebrews and such made by genuine gamers and enthusiats to enjoy. Many thanks and kudos to them for their efforts and love of the hobby over pure greed.

[johnnywc]

Uggh - every time a discussion about Star Castle 2600 comes up it really makes me sad.  I remember way back when being so excited to play other people's homebrews, starting from Oystron, Gunfight, Climber 5 and Thrust! until I was inspired to give it a shot myself and try to give back to the community a little of the fun it had given me.  As much as I loved the technical discussions of how to do what seemed to be impossible on the 2600, it's the opportunity to let someone PLAY my games that was always the most satisfying.  We are all motivated by different things and I respect different opinions even if I don't agree with them.  I hope someday to play Star Castle on my 2600 and judging by the fantastic demos posted by cd-w it looks like that just might happen sooner than later.

In the meantime, here's a reminder of how these types of things usually go on Atari Age and what makes this a wonderful community:

http://www.atariage....3-ladybug-2600/

[Inky]

SoulBlazer, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:57 PM, said:

Not to mention, there ARE ways to control the piracy problem if he really wanted to.....I'm sorry, I still see this as a case  of 'look what I did, and no one can ever play it, heh heh!' ego stroking.

Reminds me of the Cartmanland episode of South Park...

http://www.southpark...land-commercial

[batari]

solidcorp, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 3:28 PM, said:

batari, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:48 PM, said:

solidcorp, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:32 PM, said:

(Personally, I think $75 + S&H for BoulderDash is a little nutty and at that price they will gross $37,500 in 500 units, nearly $5K over my asking price, but that's their prerogative and I wish them all the luck, after all it took the two of them 6 years to bring to market - that's a lot of evenings and weekends)

There are only going to be 250 units of BD carts (that's $18,750, $14k less than your price) and it has way more overhead than you can imagine, FAR more than your game. There will be full-color, professional boxes (250, not one), 250 boards (which have 16k RAM, using 250 expensive microcontrollers) and First Star is taking a significant amount in licensing fees. This is the most expensive production for any modern homebrew game, hands down. The programming in this game is simply amazing and consists of thousands of hours of work by several programmers. You really cannot compare.

My point is pricing is their prerogative.

Your bitterness is noted.

I can imagine, I've done a lot of licensed games, and I deal with the cost of technology all the time.

I used that game as an example because everyone is familiar with it and Andrew is so vocal on the topic of licensing.

They may be doing this for zero profit for all I know, they could have charged double and it wouldn't matter - they are within their rights either way and I am not going to buy it for $75, so it may as well be $75,000 to me.  I didn't say it wasn't a fair price (which should not be determined by cost of goods and services but bound by it, to maximize profit price should be set by what you honestly think the market will bear over time), I said it it was "a little nutty" because I will not buy any 2600 game, BoulderDash or Star Castle it at that price.

I was not comparing the technical implementations of the games (nor do I wish to).

"You can't imagine" more meant "you apparently didn't imagine" but let's not worry about that.

You did the monetary comparison, so I felt the need to correct that. Essentially, the biggest homebrew production for the 2600 is barely more than half what you want for your game. I'm just saying your comparison of your own game with BD is completely unjustified and irrelevant.

Frankly, I don't care what you do with your game, just don't try to justify your pricing by comparing to legitimate productions.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

johnnywc, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 7:21 PM, said:

As much as I loved the technical discussions of how to do what seemed to be impossible on the 2600, it's the opportunity to let someone PLAY my games that was always the most satisfying.

/signed

[Andrew Davie]

As much as I didn't want to enter into a debate about Boulder Dash® vs. Star Castle, since there have been some comments comparing the two I feel that I need to just say a couple of things. Firstly, in some ways both are "holy grails".  Certainly, Boulder Dash® was a holy grail for me -- it was considered impossible to do.  And, I'm sure that for 'solidcorp', Star Castle was a holy grail for him.  It was claimed that "it couldn't be done". So, both "great" achievements, each in their own way.  They have satisfied the programmers' passion to show that, in fact, we can do the impossible. And I do very much admire people who DO stuff as opposed to those who just talk about it. So on that front, 'solidcorp' has my admiration.
That's pretty much as far as I'm comfortable taking the comparisons. Each program is different, and each programmers' actions and motivation, after the game was complete, are different.  Each to his own.
Where I do get uncomfortable is the comparison between the cost of the games, and the implication that they are similar.  Licensing Boulder Dash® and production of the complex cartridge is very expensive, a cost that we (Thomas, Al and myself) have to bear *UP FRONT*. I priced the game at a point where I felt a balance between cost to consumer, and reasonable profit for yours truly (for the record, WAY less than 10% of what 'solidcorp' is asking for his game).  But more to the point, I tried to get the game "out there" for people to play. I showed this by negotiating with FSS for permission to release a free 2-level demo, and secondly by successfully negotiating a fully licensed release for purchase.  Using Boulder Dash® as a justification/validation of the price of StarCastle is unacceptable.
And finally, I'm not concerned about piracy;  Boulder Dash has adequate protection on cartridge to make piracy unlikely.

[solidcorp]

rhindlethereddragon, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 5:56 PM, said:

This thread has gotten pretty ridiculous, with a new twist: "the trolling programmer".

Anyway, if the footage of 2600 Star castle is indeed EVEN REAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, then we are faced with the question: could it possibly mean that the guy who marched through the doors of Atari's management and stated that Star Castle couldn't be done on the 2600 and convinced them to do a completely different game instead was:

1) LYING?

2) Didn't have the programming skills to pull it off?

3) Too lazy to attempt a proper port of Star Castle?

The game is real enough, I've exhibited it twice, people have played it on video and if you look you should be able to find links to interviews with live gameplay.

• 2010 crimestopper's video interview,  Note: I mention that I did not discuss the project with anyone except my friends Kevin and Bob.  I was not an active member of the Atari Age community, just an occasional reader.  Upon review, at four minutes into the video I find it creepily prophetic when crimestopper says "...once I post this video to AtariAge.com there's going to be a fury about it...", though he clearly meant something less literal when he said fury.
  
• 2010 interview, gameplay by my friend Kevin on the melody cartridge, featuring crimestopper and I playing the game.
  
• 2011 interview with full custom cartridge, lights, improved ship control, progressive difficulty, and AI truer to the original than the 2010 version.

Perhaps my motivations and reservations are better explained in these interviews (I am more likely offering more fodder for criticism).

As for Howard Scott Warshaws motivations, I can't speak to them in any way other than to direct you to the material I read.  I'm a big fan - I certainly don't think he was lying or inferior in any way.  After all Yars Revenge was his first Atari 2600 project, he did it in 4K, and sold well over a million units all of which are truly awesome feats.  I invite you and anyone else to draw your own conclusions - read Racing the Beam, check out Howards Once Upon Atari documentary and read his interviews - Star Castles aside, it's all really interesting:

• http://www.digitpres...tt_warshaw.html
  
• http://www.ataritime...showarticle=522
  
• http://www.playmount...e-t-cartridges/

Scott

[solidcorp]

SoulBlazer, on Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:57 PM, said:

Not to mention, there ARE ways to control the piracy problem if he really wanted to.....I'm sorry, I still see this as a case  of 'look what I did, and no one can ever play it, heh heh!' ego stroking.

I respectfully disagree... Are there any Atari 2600 games that are unrippable or unemulatable?

I doubt it, the best we can do is make it hard, but without hard copy protection in the console the 2600 is a 6507 machine that can only run software out of a 4K address space.  It's almost trivially easy to either emulate a 6507 to "run" the game on an ICE connected to a cartridge, or monitor the address and data lines while a game is being played "live" to map the data in a cartridge.  You can add encryption or key software to the cart, but in such a small system with a community of experts like this, there's bound to be someone who would be up to the challenge of ripping, patching if necessary, and sharing the game.  If the 2600 can read it, something else can too.  It's only a matter of time.

[thegoldenband]

There's no form of media that will ever be immune to piracy, really -- not music, not film, not print, and not games.  If you can experience it, you can pirate it.  The idea of making it impossible is a chimera that alienates consumers and only encourages crackers to do their thing.  As a musician, that doesn't trouble me very much, and personally I get a thrill every time I find out that someone has incorporated my music into an online mixtape or an amateur film.

(It's also nice to know that my work has a way of surviving that's independent of me.  Think of silent movies: the ones that survive are largely the ones that were illegally archived.  If more people had made copies, we wouldn't have so many lost films, let alone the massive amounts of missing material from the Dumont Network and the BBC that was deliberately destroyed.)

OTOH, the recent Genesis releases have pretty much stayed off the ROM sites.  Some of that is because they use tricky ROM schemes that aren't supported in emulators, but some of it is because the Genesis community has a lot of goodwill towards Super Fighter Team (though that's been endangered recently) and Watermelon Software, and want to see more releases from them in the future.

Without intending disrespect, I just can't relate to your concern about piracy, especially because you're not the originator of the IP in question.  It'd be different if the game were an original concept -- then it'd be 100% your baby -- but it's not, and as far as I'm aware you haven't offered to share any of your asking price with the game's original programmer(s).  (If you have, then I salute you for that.)

It reminds me somewhat of the people who tape bootleg concerts and refuse to share their tapes.  They often say it's because they don't want their tapes to be released by professional bootlegging labels.  For some of them that's true, and fair play to them.  But for some, it's because they think they have a right to profit from their work, and are either waiting for the right price or for copyright law to allow them to openly profit (through auction or through pressing their own CDs).

Now, I know from experience that taping concerts is tricky work that demands considerable skill if done well, and even when it's done openly the stress of it can ruin the concert for the taper.  So I'm all for appreciating the documentary work that tapers do, and I'm not even 100% averse to the idea of paying them a modest fee in exchange for getting copies from their masters for distribution.  But when they start asking $5k, or even $25k, then it turns the equation into something rather different -- and I doubt any of them are sending a cut of their asking price back to the band.

Anyway, those are my two cents.  I hope that someday you see potatohead's "open door" as an attractive possibility that would, ultimately, bring good things into your life and ours.  But outside of your technical achivement, the game itself is of no great interest to me (I have a Vectrex if I really want to play it), so it's strictly a question of principle, really.  I'd just prefer to keep "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg" scenarios in the realm of fiction, and keep the big bucks away from my hobbies.

[solidcorp]

For those of you too numerous to quote who continually suggest that I'm teasing for the ego boost...

I'm sorry you feel that way.  Really, I am because that's not at all what I set out to do or how I had hoped it would be received.

I made it it, it took a long time, it was hard, and I'm damn proud of it. I exhibited it twice where people seemed to genuinely like it, but when it was showed here I didn't know it was a mandatory prerequisite to share it (crimestopper actually shared it initially).

If, after actually listening to the interviews, you really think that I took all the time and energy to write this game and make this cartridge only to parade it here on Atari Age to tease and to torment this passionate community then maybe, just maybe, you ought to reconsider who the "ego maniacal narcissist" may be.

I'm done talking about this for now.

D. Scott Williamson

[atarilovesyou]

Here's my two cents.

Dude programmed it, he can charge whatever he wants for it.

People don't want to pay the price, game doesn't get released.  Ever.  Oh well...does this really even matter to anyone?  Is anybody going to cry over the fact they can't play a game that was programmed so many years after the fact?  Those people, I have this message: GET A LIFE

He has every right to protect his product.  Sure, it'll never sell at that price, but who cares?  Not me, not in the least.

I've read that horribly long original thread, and there are a lot of you here who seem to think the developer is the troll.  What?!?!...nowhere did he attack, bully or throw insults to make his points.  He stated his points clear enough. Those who think he's a troll are just angry nerds.  Nerd Rage 101, in fact.  Angry nerds who are angry that they can't play a game.  That's clear cut nerd lunacy, and I feel sorry for you.

For those who think this place is one of 'open love' of gaming, that love seems to be conditional: "let me play your game, heck, I might even pay 35$ (but probably won't) to do so"...yet those are the few.  The majority?...emulate.  Yawn.

I think the guy has the right to protect his product, even though it's essentially worthless as a money-investment.  But I refuse to blame the creator of this game (no, not the original, but who here could have done what he did?) for placing a value on his product.

It's just a shame that people who create games, music, any other media that can be pirated don't get the respect they deserve.  Like the fools who were steamed that Lars Ulrich from Metallica was AGAINST Napster...never quite understood that one.

[Dino]

I don't think piracy is really a problem at all. You will struggle to sell 300 copies of any homebrew Atari 2600 game as it is, and most of the copies that would sell would be sold via pre-order anyway.  Nobody is then going to bother breaking the encrypion purely to pirate the game just to sell a couple of pirated copies....  As for it being dumped and made available to people with emulators, look how hard it is to find Ebivision roms on the internet

[Random Terrain]

atarilovesyou, on Tue Jan 3, 2012 10:38 PM, said:

People don't want to pay the price, game doesn't get released.  Ever.  Oh well...does this really even matter to anyone?  Is anybody going to cry over the fact they can't play a game that was programmed so many years after the fact?  Those people, I have this message: GET A LIFE

You can pull out the lame-ass 'get a life' card for almost anything. Why have an opinion? Why care about anything? Just stare at TV like a good mainstream automaton, buy the products shown in the latest commercials, then die and make way for the next batch of drooling mainstream automatons.

People with opinions and interests, other than what is expected of them, have a 'life' too. I know! Why don't we have our own opinions and interests and never say 'get a life' again? Then we won't sound like complete douche-nuggets.

[atarilovesyou]

Random Terrain, on Tue Jan 3, 2012 11:24 PM, said:

atarilovesyou, on Tue Jan 3, 2012 10:38 PM, said:

People don't want to pay the price, game doesn't get released.  Ever.  Oh well...does this really even matter to anyone?  Is anybody going to cry over the fact they can't play a game that was programmed so many years after the fact?  Those people, I have this message: GET A LIFE

You can pull out the lame-ass 'get a life' card for almost anything. Why have an opinion? Why care about anything? Just stare at TV like a good mainstream automaton, buy the products shown in the latest commercials, then die and make way for the next batch of drooling mainstream automatons.

People with opinions and interests, other than what is expected of them, have a 'life' too. I know! Why don't we have our own opinions and interests and never say 'get a life' again? Then we won't sound like complete douche-nuggets.

People with opinions and interests who voice them logically, in a way that the developer of this game has, makes a lot more sense than the numpties who are bagging on him for pricing his game too high.  It's those nerds who dwell in basements, eagerly awaiting the next reason to cry and whine about why life just doesn't seem to go their way.

Those people should, but won't, get a life.  Do something else other than complain.  The "poor me" attitude from many of the posts in that thread are really revealing of the personalities behind the nerd rage.

14 pages and a lockout of said thread...yes, indeed: people need to get a friggin LIFE, dude.  If you can't see that, then by all means...go play some Star Castle or something else to make it all better.

[Random Terrain]

atarilovesyou, on Wed Jan 4, 2012 12:36 AM, said:

People with opinions and interests who voice them logically, in a way that the developer of this game has, makes a lot more sense than the numpties who are bagging on him for pricing his game too high.  It's those nerds who dwell in basements, eagerly awaiting the next reason to cry and whine about why life just doesn't seem to go their way.

Those people should, but won't, get a life.  Do something else other than complain.  The "poor me" attitude from many of the posts in that thread are really revealing of the personalities behind the nerd rage.

14 pages and a lockout of said thread...yes, indeed: people need to get a friggin LIFE, dude.  If you can't see that, then by all means...go play some Star Castle or something else to make it all better.

I must have skipped over the hordes of basement dwellers who were crying that they couldn't play his game. The posts I read seemed to be more about the principle of the thing. Making a port of a game, then saying you can only play it at Atari nerd conventions where he is appearing or if you are very rich is kind of nuggety. I never really liked Star Castle, so I don't care if I ever play it.

Some people really want to play an Atari 2600 version. If someone makes a version they can play, why not? What's it to you? If you 'have a life' why are you wasting time waving your finger at basement dwellers? Shouldn't you be out playing golf or having tea on a yacht somewhere?