118 replies to this topic

[DreamTR]

MrMark0673, on Sun Aug 2, 2009 11:16 AM, said:

Tempest, on Sun Aug 2, 2009 9:50 AM, said:

Why not give Andrew a cut of the profits from the repros?  That's what Al does with homebrews and Andrew is the author of the game.

Tempest

Exactly what I've suggested several times already.  If the game uses a fairly simple mapper, I could even help with making repros like I did with Hoppin' Mad.

If Mayhem gives the ROM to Andrew and he gives it to someone to make repros and proceeds go to Andrew, great, everyone is happy, but again, authoring a game and owning the rights to it are two different things. If Beam owns the rights to it, then everything is for naught.

Gonzo: I have to say though that sometimes copyright holders are complete idiots and don't even know about their own products. Anyone that remembers the Felix the Cat NES incident the past year or so will have a good laugh out of that one. eBay was pulling bonafide Felix the Cat NES auctions because the copyright holder claimed they were not licensed and had no idea there was an NES version. Obviously someone NEW working there with the license.

[Andrew Davie]

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 2:16 AM, said:

Tempest, on Sun Aug 2, 2009 9:50 AM, said:

Why not give Andrew a cut of the profits from the repros?  That's what Al does with homebrews and Andrew is the author of the game.

Tempest

Exactly what I've suggested several times already.  If the game uses a fairly simple mapper, I could even help with making repros like I did with Hoppin' Mad.

As I said, it's been 20 years (this year!) since I last saw it.  It uses the simplest of mappers, I think it's MMC1, though don't quote me on that. As to "cut of the profits" I already said -- all I want is a copy on cart.

Cheers
A

[Tempest]

Andrew Davie, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 7:03 AM, said:

As to "cut of the profits" I already said -- all I want is a copy on cart.

That's generous of you.  Personally I think you deserve more, but then again it's your game.

Tempest

[Mayhem]

I should make one point here just to ask peoples' thoughts. NES repros of unreleased games have been going on for years without (to my knowledge) any license or revenue heading towards the programmers who actually wrote the games. California Raisins anyone? Is the only reason why this proto is causing such furore by comparison is because its programmer is known and on these boards? Why is this suddenly a special case?

Note that this doesn't mean I think Andrew shouldn't have any say in how things are progressed or possibly a cut of the proceeds from any repro sales, and as stated before, he should certainly have a copy of the ROM at minimum because it IS his work. I want to know the next time an unreleased game comes up and repros are suggested, will the same attitude prevail if the programmer of the game isn't immediately known? I doubt it. And that's all I will say regarding sudden double standards... why does it appear "alright" to repro a game if we don't know who made it, but seemingly "not alright" if we do?

As I asked before Andrew, PM me your email address and I'll send the ROM across to you.

Edited by Mayhem, Mon Aug 3, 2009 10:07 AM.

[privateers69]

I think Andrew is waiting for the the ROM on a 'CART' rather than a ROM BIN file (and he's been waiting for awhile now)

Seems to me he's more than willing to see his work spread out to be enjoyed by others.. All he ask is for one of the first early reproduced carts..

Sorry for butting in but that's my take on his wording..

[TheRedEye]

Mayhem, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 11:07 AM, said:

I should make one point here just to ask peoples' thoughts. NES repros of unreleased games have been going on for years without (to my knowledge) any license or revenue heading towards the programmers who actually wrote the games. California Raisins anyone?

No, this is completely different. I found the programmer of California Raisins, emailed him the binary, and had a one-off cartridge put together as a gift for him before the ROM went "public" at all, because it was the right thing to do. It sickens me to hear Andrew hasn't seen the same treatment, considering he is an active member of the community and is only a private message away.

Yes, people have sold reproductions of Raisins, but there is a difference between some dude offering an EPROM burning service for the cost of parts and labor versus someone actually manufacturing and selling someone else's game in mass quantities. Even if they don't walk away with a big profit, it's still a dirty and strange practice that I hope to god this hobby matures out of someday.

Andrew, do you have the game yet?

[Andrew Davie]

privateers69, on Tue Aug 4, 2009 2:17 AM, said:

I think Andrew is waiting for the the ROM on a 'CART' rather than a ROM BIN file (and he's been waiting for awhile now)

Seems to me he's more than willing to see his work spread out to be enjoyed by others.. All he ask is for one of the first early reproduced carts..

Sorry for butting in but that's my take on his wording..

Exactly! And I'm happy to pay for the cart.
Cheers
A

[MrMark0673]

TheRedEye, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 11:29 AM, said:

but there is a difference between some dude offering an EPROM burning service for the cost of parts and labor versus someone actually manufacturing and selling someone else's game in mass quantities. Even if they don't walk away with a big profit, it's still a dirty and strange practice that I hope to god this hobby matures out of someday.

Err, how is it different?  A larger release just means more labor, and that usually goes along with a larger reimbursement.  I don't find it strange that people reproduce and distribute abandoned video games, and I definitely don't see it as a dirty move when the programmers were most certainly paid for their time working on the games.  Was it common practice for programmers to receive royalty checks for games they developed?

The only ones legally and financially affected by these sort of reproductions, if anyone, are the dev companies.  I've seen it to be the case that nearly all members associated with projects during the NES era are no longer associated with the companies that developed those games.

[TheRedEye]

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 1:42 PM, said:

Err, how is it different?  A larger release just means more labor, and that usually goes along with a larger reimbursement.

Is there seriously no part of you that sees how packaging and selling someone else's work without permission is wrong? This goes beyond money or the original developers getting paid or whatever, I'm asking you a purely moral question.

[MrMark0673]

TheRedEye, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:04 PM, said:

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 1:42 PM, said:

Err, how is it different?  A larger release just means more labor, and that usually goes along with a larger reimbursement.

Is there seriously no part of you that sees how packaging and selling someone else's work without permission is wrong? This goes beyond money or the original developers getting paid or whatever, I'm asking you a purely moral question.

I asked you a very similar moral question before that you neglected to answer...

Do you see reproducing on a small scale for a small compensation (from labor associated with reproduction) as something different than reproducing on a larger scale for a larger compensation (again, for labor associated with reproduction)?

I don't see much logic behind that, but to each their own I guess.  Also, when you say "packaging and selling someone else's work" would you clarify as to who the someone else is that you are referring to?  Is it the programmer who was already paid for their work, or the development company that abandoned and junked the project?

Since you neglected to answer my question, I'll respond to yours.  Please though, don't rebut if you are not going to take the time to address my question.

I'll have to use specifics to answer your question and past examples as to where I have done (and will do) basically what you allege.  Do I have any moral issue with "packaging" and selling Hoppin' Mad the way I did?  Nope, not in the least, and I'll tell you why as I already have in the past...

1.  I purchased the cart after one of the members of the team passed away and his storage space was sold to a consignment shop.  I later tried to contact the other two programmers credited for working on the game, and neither one cared enough to respond to my calls and emails.  That aside, I still insisted on keeping all three programmer's names on the cart when it was released to give them credit for their hard programming work.  So morally, I have no issue releasing the game and making a small profit from those 3 individuals.

2.  The current company known as Elite Systems Ltd. has NO TIES to any of the former employees who worked for the company during the time the game was being worked on.  Not one, not a single one at all.  I'm fairly confident that no one at the current Elite company has ever heard of Hoppin' Mad, so I most certainly have no moral issue with releasing it and making a small profit off of it from those individuals.

3.  As started before, I took home $1,010.76 after everything was siad and done, NOT INCLUDING the purchase price of the prototype.  This is also after MONTHS of hard work.  Frank, have you ever reproduced an NES cartridge?  Have you ever spent months buying donors, removing labels, desoldering boards, buying eprom chips, blanking the chips, programming the chips, soldering the chips in place, creating label art, creating labels, adhering labels, packaging and shipping NES carts?  It is a ton of hard work, and the minimal compensation I took home from it coupled with the dozens of happy NES collectors made the project worth while.  No moral issue making money their, most people make money from hard work.

4.  The game wasn't even finished.  If I didn't have the help of one of the best programmers in the NES homebrew scene (Zzap!), this game would have been some half assed demo.  He worked very hard to make the game playable (and enjoyable) so that the NES community could benefit from that.  I have no moral issue giving him money for his hard work.

Now I'll go onto another example; Kitty's Catch is going to be our next project.

I purchased the game through a source who bought it directly from David Wiebenson.  David worked for Gametek during the early 90's and worked on a few of the game show turned video game NES titles.  He had a bunch of old "junk" (his words, not mine) that he was looking to unload on Craigslist.  He sold all of it knowing that he would never see it again and that he had no other copies of the material.  I am going to produce and distribute Kitty's Catch carts for the same minimal compensation that I received for Hoppin' Mad.  He sold the games (aka, was compensated for what he deemed a fair price) and since Kitty's Catch is not attached or affiliated with ANY production company, I have no problem reproducing and making a small profit from it.  Oh yeah, and David will receive FULL CREDIT for programming the game.

So now back to my question; What the fuck is the difference bewteen making a small profit on a small run of reproduction carts (due to the labor associated with it) compared to making a larger portion of money for a larger run of reproductions (again, due to labor)?  I'm really curios to see how you can rationalize this ass backward logic.

[DreamTR]

TheRedEye, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:04 PM, said:

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 1:42 PM, said:

Err, how is it different?  A larger release just means more labor, and that usually goes along with a larger reimbursement.

Is there seriously no part of you that sees how packaging and selling someone else's work without permission is wrong? This goes beyond money or the original developers getting paid or whatever, I'm asking you a purely moral question.

TRE: I think the point Beaglepuss is trying to make is that technically in a lot of these cases, the programmer does not own the rights to his own game, nor does he have any more rights than the person that found the cart in the first place unless he purchased the rights from said company during his salaried tenure.

THe "people" that should be upset really about this are the "companies" that own the rights to said games. Whether or not Andrew wrote this game or not, he probably does not own the rights to it. Beam Software owns it. California Raisins rights are owned by the California Raisins company and game code by Capcom...or something (just as an example).

Morality aside, everyone has their own beliefs on morals (sex before marriage, illicit drugs, going to church, etc) but yes, it does seem wrong to profit off of someone else's work, but many people don't really complain about it as much because the Atari 2600/Coleco/Intelli repros were going on for years and years before anyone pulled NES games out of a hat...

Most of us in the community "like" seeing releases for new games, licensed, abandoned, etc. Does not matter. But I do agree that it is a very very gray line. Snow White for 2600 anyone? Elevator Action? Bugs Bunny? The problem is, to do it "correctly" means the odds are said licenses will cost a ton of money, and you won't see the games released period in any format for these 50 to 100 print runs...

Beaglepuss and MrMark took an unfinished game and added stuff on to it...as a collector, I think it's great, but yes, this, Mike Ditka, the NWC and Campus Challenge, I mean, these are all "owned" by someone else or likeness rights would need to be revisited, but again, a good point as the programmers and developers were paid for these game in tenure/salary, so unless everyone is receiving royalty checks.

Heck, here is a really good example. Ed Boon, created the MK series. Does he own the "rights" to these games because he worked on them all? No. He would have to purchase them from Midway/WB whoever owns them now and it's millions of dollars. He of course was paid, and I am sure he received company bonuses as is the case when games do well, but in no way shape or form does he own the franchise rights (as far as I know). He may be the franchise face, but someone else gets the majority of the profits from the games....

I think Super Fighter is the only company addressing "rights" before releasing games, and Atari2600.com as well, but no one else to my knowledge.

Edited by DreamTR, Mon Aug 3, 2009 3:50 PM.

[the.golden.ax]

But what about things like Plutos and Sirius from Tynesoft for 7800... There is a company that was disolved 100% What then when no one has a claim on the rights? I'd have gladly paid the guys who worked on those games for the effort (both for what was found, and future stuff if they could be talked into making more!)

The funny thing is that lots of these guys from the old days could easily make a come back with their own new games. I'd rather pay $50 hands down for any 8 bit homebrew than a Xbox360/PS3/wii new release... I think plenty of people feel the same way.

AX

[TheRedEye]

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:44 PM, said:

Do you see reproducing on a small scale for a small compensation (from labor associated with reproduction) as something different than reproducing on a larger scale for a larger compensation (again, for labor associated with reproduction)?

Yes, I do. I see a huge difference between paying some dude $20 to burn EPROMs with the data I provide him versus paying "Nowhere Productions" or "Retro Zone" or "OlderGames.com" or whatever for a fully packaged product featuring a game that they're holding some exclusive stranglehold on. I am not personally bashing you or bunnyboy or anyone else when I say this, as you're all stand-up gentlemen who have done good things, I'm merely answering your question. To me it is the difference between burning a copy of a movie for a friend versus standing out on the street corner with a table full of packaged bootlegs. Both are illegal and in some ways immoral, but I think you cross a strange line when you manufacture and sell copies of something that isn't yours, especially if you attach your name to it.

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:44 PM, said:

I don't see much logic behind that, but to each their own I guess.  Also, when you say "packaging and selling someone else's work" would you clarify as to who the someone else is that you are referring to?  Is it the programmer who was already paid for their work, or the development company that abandoned and junked the project?

Does it matter who I'm referring to? As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't make something, I can't package it and sell it as if I did.

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:44 PM, said:

The current company known as Elite Systems Ltd. has NO TIES to any of the former employees who worked for the company during the time the game was being worked on.  Not one, not a single one at all.

You really sound sure of yourself! Not that it matters, but to set the record straight, you're wrong. Elite currently employs about three people. One of them, chairman Steve Wilcox, has been around since its 1984 inception.

I'm really tired of this argument, and I don't know why I keep involving myself. I just got a little angry reading this thread and seeing that Andrew didn't get a copy of his game three years after it was dumped. Sorry for any headaches I may have given you and for all the time you've had to put into your lengthy replies defending yourself against my own personal morals. You think it's cool to sell someone else's work (profit or no profit, doesn't matter to me), I think it's weird and wrong. At least we've got more old junk to play with, which is the whole reason any of us are posting on these forums.

[TheRedEye]

DreamTR, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:49 PM, said:

TRE: I think the point Beaglepuss is trying to make is that technically in a lot of these cases, the programmer does not own the rights to his own game, nor does he have any more rights than the person that found the cart in the first place unless he purchased the rights from said company during his salaried tenure.

Hi Jason. I appreciate the detailed reply, but I think you missed the part where I said that my question went beyond payment and was purely moral. My arguments here have little, possibly nothing, to do with money.

[DreamTR]

Ax: I would not say a "ton" of people are interested. Most of these older games can't even sell out 250 copies, so sometimes it's not worth it for the old schoolers unless someone REALLY wants to see said game...

[MrMark0673]

TheRedEye, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 9:48 PM, said:

MrMark0673, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 4:44 PM, said:

Do you see reproducing on a small scale for a small compensation (from labor associated with reproduction) as something different than reproducing on a larger scale for a larger compensation (again, for labor associated with reproduction)?

Yes, I do. I see a huge difference between paying some dude $20 to burn EPROMs with the data I provide him versus paying "Nowhere Productions" or "Retro Zone" or "OlderGames.com" or whatever for a fully packaged product featuring a game that they're holding some exclusive stranglehold on. I am not personally bashing you or bunnyboy or anyone else when I say this, as you're all stand-up gentlemen who have done good things, I'm merely answering your question. To me it is the difference between burning a copy of a movie for a friend versus standing out on the street corner with a table full of packaged bootlegs. Both are illegal and in some ways immoral, but I think you cross a strange line when you manufacture and sell copies of something that isn't yours, especially if you attach your name to it.

So you condone stealing and piracy in small numbers, but too much and it becomes bizarre and twisted?  I'm sorry, you're right, that seems totally logical...

If you get so hung up about it, stop featuring our shit on your home page.  I mean without Happy Camper and Hoppin' Mad to talk about, you totally had some great stuff on your homepage 11 months ago  

Wilcox had nothing to do with this game and has never had anything much to do with the US branch of Elite who developed the game, where are you getting your facts?  Mark Cooksey, Mark Crane, and Steve Beverly worked on the project and have no ties to Elite at all anymore.  You can keep trying to pester Elite for junk like Grid Grabber, but odds are they didn't give a shit enough about it to keep it and no longer have it.

If you haven't noticed, I've been getting NES proto ROMs to the masses better than almost anyone currently, and all but ONE have been free.  Even then, I released the ROM to anyone who wanted it on two major sites (NA and Unseen64).  Your skewed logic leaves you in the minority regardless of whether you see it or not.

I'd love to see Andrew get a copy of the game and I'd be willing to help in any way that I can.  If anyone who had worked on a game that I have released wanted a copy I'd make one for them too.  The truth is, usually they don't.

[TheRedEye]

MrMark0673, on Tue Aug 4, 2009 12:10 AM, said:

So you condone stealing and piracy in small numbers, but too much and it becomes bizarre and twisted?  I'm sorry, you're right, that seems totally logical...

I'm not going to bother responding to your personal attacks against my website or your accusations of me "pestering" people because it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, but I will respond to the above:

No, that's not what I said at all. You asked me to explain the difference between a ROM burning service and the mass production of a bootleg video game, and I've done so. I don't feel the need to explain my answer further. I think producing bootleg copies of a game crosses a line that one-off burning services do not, and I think I've done a reasonable job of explaining why I feel that way. I don't know how this became some kind of attack on you, especially after I explicitly said that it was not, but I wish you'd stop interpreting it that way.

[MrMark0673]

Frank, when you refer to what I've been doing my prototypes as a "dirty and strange practice", how am I to not take that personally?  I know it wasn't directed exclusively toward me, but there are what, 4-5 of us doing this currently?

If you're going to make bold statements like that, you are absolutely going to offend people.  We're getting protos out to the collectors, gamers, and preservationists that will enjoy them and get paid a little cash for our labor.  After everything is all said and done, I release the ROM for free so that anyone who wants to enjoy it can, even if they don't support the projects (like yourself).

[Tempest]

MrMark0673, on Tue Aug 4, 2009 10:15 AM, said:

Frank, when you refer to what I've been doing my prototypes as a "dirty and strange practice", how am I to not take that personally?  I know it wasn't directed exclusively toward me, but there are what, 4-5 of us doing this currently?

If you're going to make bold statements like that, you are absolutely going to offend people.  We're getting protos out to the collectors, gamers, and preservationists that will enjoy them and get paid a little cash for our labor.  After everything is all said and done, I release the ROM for free so that anyone who wants to enjoy it can, even if they don't support the projects (like yourself).

Dirty and strange?  Exactly what HAVE you been doing with your prototypes?  

Tempest

[the.golden.ax]

Hey I thought Shawn Sr. was the Dirty Strange game hacker (at least for 2600).



AX

[CPUWIZ]

Seems like the NES is a good Jaguar substitute.  

[TheRedEye]

MrMark0673, on Tue Aug 4, 2009 11:15 AM, said:

Frank, when you refer to what I've been doing my prototypes as a "dirty and strange practice", how am I to not take that personally?  I know it wasn't directed exclusively toward me, but there are what, 4-5 of us doing this currently?

Well, sorry you took it so personally, but that's how I feel and I don't plan on taking back what I said. I think it's wrong for anyone to sell reproductions of someone else's work without permission, and I think it crosses a line and escalates to "dirty and strange" if it's on a larger, mass-produced scale like one of your releases. I just can't wrap my head around it being OK to bootleg someone else's work and sell it, but I'm not exactly going around and telling people to boycott this stuff either. Ultimately what you and the rest are doing benefits game preservation and gives weirdos like myself more old games to play, and I'd rather things happen "your" way than not at all, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[Atariboy]

I don't mind someone selling reproductions since they're providing a service that often includes things like attractive cartridge labels, full color manual, box, etc (Not to mention burning a file to cartridge that someone wants to play on real hardware). As long as the rom is otherwise available, that they don't act like they somehow own the code itself, or price things extremely high, its fine I think from a moral standpoint. Most of these things don't go far beyond paying for the materials themselves, let alone compensating the individual for the effort they've put into it by producing a release. I think it benefits the hobby and the games themselves, and most people aren't profiting from it but rather doing it for the love of the hobby.

Plus, if it helps convince someone to release a rom of what they own if they're worried about devaluing their prototype, and people are actually getting something tangible for their money rather than just an electronic file, I think it benefits both parties.

However, when people start acting like they've inherited the ownership of that code to do with as they please, I don't think they have a leg to stand up on. I'm shocked a developer that is active in this community isn't even being allowed to have a copy of his own project, instead all I see is a bunch of nonsense about why legally he isn't entitled to it.

Edited by Atariboy, Tue Aug 4, 2009 6:43 PM.

[the.golden.ax]

I would have to second the notion that there is nothing big about private non-for profit use of proto-roms through flash-carts, or putting it on a cartridge with a nice label, as long as it's not resold to bilk the general public into paying for something anyone could make. Though it is a grey area, morally I don't find it wrong... If I like a game, just like shareware, I'd want to support the author if possible.

AX

[NESaholic]

Guys I dont want to interrupt something but I am working on a release of this game. I own the proto and want to release it with box manual and such stuff. Atm I am talking to several people to give this game a proper release, I hope this clarifies what's going on. If someone has question feel free to ask me.....

Edited by NESaholic, Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:06 AM.