A note to the ColecoVision homebrew idea peddlers

[PkK]

In the 80s most ColecoVision games were arcade ports. And arcade-style games are still the most popular, even among games released now. Most proposals for homebrews are arcade ports.

 

Unfortunately it's quite unlikely a homebrew author would get a license to make such a game (Nintendo licensing Donkey Kong 3?). Making the gmae without a license would be illegal, even though the risk of getting caught probably isn't that high.

 

That basically leaves three choices:

- Look at games where the rights are not held by big companies (I have a T&T license)

- Original game ideas (e.g. Bankruptcy Builder)

- Make games that are different enough from the original to not infringe their rights (e.g. Paint Trax ~> Steamroller, Fantasy ~> Search for the stolen Crown Jewels).

 

I think homebrew game idea proposals have a higher hance of being picked up by a homebrew author when they don't require a license from a big company.

 

Philipp

[newcoleco]

Hello Philipp,

 

Actually, getting a license to make a port is something I didn't see yet. And the critics about original games mostly finish like : "it looks like this and that" or "it's crap".

 

What I know for sure is there are some people who pay, or at least ask permission, to release in cartridges the prototypes made by companies like AtariSoft, and that's why we finally get pacman, digdug and joust in cartridges. But some prototypes, like He-Man, are ready to be release but not release at all because both part, the toys company and the actual owners of these rom, do not agree about money.

 

There is something I don't understand about prototypes. The rights to make a game based on He-Man, Drangon's Lair or whatever license was already granted in past, so how these games never released suddently became not license to be release if originally it was supposed to be released? If I'm wrong, prove it to me. The toys companies logic is beyond my conception of logic; what I think it's happening is they saw a way to make even more money on something they already negociated in the past and "forgot" for their own benifits. They want to make us afraid of them just because they want more money, that's the only purpose I can see, and it works.

 

It's true that arcade games have more success than original content for at least 3 reasons :

1st - nostalgia, gamers played these games in the arcade.

2nd - colecovision success was based on license arcade games. and the story continue.

3rd - a good reputation of an arcade game result in an immediate success of the port version.

 

All these reasons explain why it's more difficult to suggest original content than arcade games. Each time we have something new, some people said it's a reskin of this or it looks like that, and if it's too original the gamers are afraid and prefer something they already know. What can we do? With time, if the original games we made are really good, the reputation and success will be there, just delayed. And a way to keep a success is to base the new games on a same character that became a mascot, an icon that gamers will recognize as good quality. That's why sequels work, that's why a name like Mario gets already the attention, even if some games are bad.

 

Making original content for ColecoVision is not an easy task, and it's satisfying to realize that you did it all by yourself, it's your own idea and it's a success. At this point, you can consider yourself as a real video game company with a good reputation and success; and gamers are then expecting no more than excellence for your next games and this can be hard to deal with.

 

PKK, I'm very impress of what you did and what you are doing now. I encourage you to continue. I admit it, I don't have all your games, but it's just a question of time.

 

Take care and good luck in your projects.

 

Sincerely,

 

Daniel Bienvenu

In the 80s most ColecoVision games were arcade ports. And arcade-style games are still the most popular, even among games released now. Most proposals for homebrews are arcade ports.

 

Unfortunately it's quite unlikely a homebrew author would get a license to make such a game (Nintendo licensing Donkey Kong 3?). Making the gmae without a license would be illegal, even though the risk of getting caught probably isn't that high.

 

That basically leaves three choices:

- Look at games where the rights are not held by big companies (I have a T&T license)

- Original game ideas (e.g. Bankruptcy Builder)

- Make games that are different enough from the original to not infringe their rights (e.g. Paint Trax ~> Steamroller, Fantasy ~> Search for the stolen Crown Jewels).

 

I think homebrew game idea proposals have a higher hance of being picked up by a homebrew author when they don't require a license from a big company.

 

Philipp

[ten-four]

hi...

 

I understand the case to some extent.

But in the time since it went Coleco well, there were plenty of sales in their games, and people were aware of Coleco's qualities.

But as we know, it all stopped abruptly.

I had hoped and pleased to game industry would continue to still make games for ColecoVision.

 

So I have set myself the hope that some very talented people out there, will try to try to create the best modifications as possible to make a game which is close to the original.

And it may be very close, and preferably be from a coin-up game.

 

It's now over 20 years ago since when the last official game came out for ColecoVision.

 

I know there are still rights in the game-industry, and i think you can make a deal with those who make the Rom back then.

 

As Daniel said, it is the Toy-market.

It is forgotten on their part, and truly I do not believe that it is a problem in itself, but once it sets up, and perhaps even sell it in stores, then I think that "the hammer would fall".

 

A very known ColecoVision programmer got, if I remember correctly, a warning once, from I think it was Taito, but no steps were taking.

Taito should be happy for their exposure, as long as it gives visibility to their name, and that's not the big money at stake.

 

It is easy for me to say that I just have you guys to continue, but it is up to you.

As long as the game has a coin-up similar gameplay, I am still a buyer.

 

But of course if it is not costly to obtain a license to create a close copy, so there is no problem at all.

 

Argh. It was a hard post to do, because it is taboo and "sensitive".

Sorry my English.

 

EDIT A Name deleted.

Edited July 23, 2008 by ten-four

[Pixelboy]

I don't recall seing many posts on AA from "ColecoVision idea peddlers", so I can't help wondering where PkK's post came from.

 

Anyhow, I tend to believe that you can't ask idea peddlers to be either creative or compromising. As Daniel said, they tend to stick to what they know and what they prefer, and coin-ops easely become objects of nostalgic comparison. That's in the peddlers' very nature.

 

So I guess my message would be for homebrewers instead of idea peddlers: Do whatever project motivates you the most, whether it's an actual coin-op adaptation or a brand new game, and don't expect idea peddlers to give you creative ideas. Being creative and innovative is your job, and the ColecoVision offers plenty of possibilities and potential for new things. Sometimes, just a special technical achievement is enough to draw attention (joyrex's WIP race game comes to mind. I wonder how that one is coming along... I hope it's not stalled).

[Underball]

My suggestion would be for all of the Colecovision fans to get a room.

 

It's getting a little creepy in here.

[newcoleco]

EDIT A Name deleted.

Even if it's an open secret, it's better to not name anyone.

[CV Gus]

In a way, the whole question of licensing is curious.

 

You could understand a game that is still a money-maker, or at least well known. If, by some weird miracle, I could program a good version of Mortal Kombat or Killer Instinct on a CV (the miracles being that I'd be able to get an emulator running, and that I'd program such a 1990s game...), there would be trouble.

 

But what I could never understand are companies that would cause a homebrewer trouble over a game nobody ever really even heard of, even "back in the day."

 

For example, we all know Space Invaders by Taito. But how many of you ever heard of Time Tunnel or Fitter? Go to KLOV website to see them. Even back in 1982, I saw these games in only one place- a small arcade in Goes, the Netherlands. After that, if not for the Internet, I would never have even seen them in any way. Period.

 

And I've never heard of them being released on any Taito Collection.

 

Why, then, would any company try to give a homebrewer any trouble for producing a home version of such games? They're not exactly making much money on them now, and the worst that can happen is that...people might actually find out that they exist.

 

Anyone?

Edited July 23, 2008 by CV Gus

[newcoleco]

It's getting a little creepy in here.

It's not getting creepy, this is the real life for the homebrewers that some gamers may have no clue about it, and it concerns more than just the coleco homebrew scene. So I see the point PKK is giving here, and it's a good advice.

 

Only the term homebrew is enough for some people, and specially lawyers, to consider something illegal. These persons also forget that homebrew is how means things a person build at home, exactly what people did in thepast before being big companies like Apple and Microsoft.

 

I can't deny that many homebrew games are not considered legal, but at the same time it's what gamers want, and for game systems like Atari2600 and ColecoVision no more in the market, what is the problem to have a fan made games library?

 

I can't see the problem of publishing original games. In fact, more I develop projects, more I want to publish my own games rather than programming games already made.

 

I worked at a video game company and I can say that they continuously copy each others, they just try to not make them looks too much alike and never use a trademark or copyright name on it.

[Pixelboy]

In a way, the whole question of licensing is curious.

 

You could understand a game that is still a money-maker, or at least well known. If, by some weird miracle, I could program a good version of Mortal Kombat or Killer Instinct on a CV (the miracles being that I'd be able to get an emulator running, and that I'd program such a 1990s game...), there would be trouble.

 

But what I could never understand are companies that would cause a homebrewer trouble over a game nobody ever really even heard of, even "back in the day."

 

Why, then, would any company try to give a homebrewer any trouble for producing a home version of such games? They're not exactly making much money on them now, and the worst that can happen is that...people might actually find out that they exist.

It's a general rule of business, which can be summed up in one phrase: "Don't touch my properties."

 

Allow me to present a simple example to demonstrate the legal implications:

 

1) Individual A does a homebrew coin-op adaptation for a dead system (CV, Atari 2600, whatever) and asks the copyright-holding company ABC for permission to release it in small quantities, as long as no real profits are made from sales.

 

2) Company ABC welcomes the free publicity, and allows Individual A's homebrew to be published, for a small licensing fee, which Individual A is happy to pay. The licensing fee is calculated in relation to the number of copies produced, so for a small run, it's not too high.

 

3) Someone at company XYZ learns of the deal between Individual A and company ABC, and tries to get the same deal for the same game in company ABC's back catalog. Only this time it's for a current-generation gaming platform, and company XYZ wants to make it a wide release with potentially thousands of copies sold. Company ABC charges "regular" licensing fees, according to current industry practices, which cost a lot more.

 

4) Company XYZ later sues company ABC on the basis that Individual A paid much lower licensing fees for the exact same game, and claims this is unfair. The judge ignores the fact that Individual A's homebrew was made in small quatities for a dead gaming system, and rules in favor of company XYZ, forcing company ABC to charge lower licensing fees to company XYZ, and everyone else who may want to buy a license for the game.

 

See the problem? Actual licensing realities are more complex than the example above, but the idea is that if a company starts granting various licenses at varying prices, then that company exposes itself to losing control over its rights to charge what it wants for said licenses. And that means loss of important profits.

 

This was explained to me last year when I contacted Blue Planet Software in an effort to get permission to have Bruce Tomlin's ColecoVision port of The Black Onyx released in small quantities. Henk Rogers wasn't against the idea of a ColecoVision port, but this was incompatible with general business practices for his (or any other) company, and he couldn't allow it.

[Pixelboy]

It's getting a little creepy in here.

It's not getting creepy, this is the real life for the homebrewers that some gamers may have no clue about it, and it concerns more than just the coleco homebrew scene. So I see the point PKK is giving here, and it's a good advice.

That's not what he was hinting at. Underball seems to think that ColecoVision-related posts are polluting the AtariAge homebrew forum. Considering the fact that he registered in January 2008 and has been an infrequent poster, I'd say his "perception" is not to be taken too seriously. ColecoVision homebrews have been announced, developed and released for many years on these AA forums, many of which have been sold in the AtariAge store. These forums have always welcomed CV homebrewers and their homebrews, and Underball's comment is in strict contrast with this fact.

[ten-four]

I can already see a big black hole ahead, let us close this thread.

 

But regardless, there is no one, yet -has been sued.

And as long as we are in a small closed group, nobody will surely do us something... -I think.

[newcoleco]

To complete the discussion, there still another possibility...

 

 

Rather than doing games we want, it's making games for others as a contract. Because of the contract, the game rights is something the programmers lose but also avoid legal problems. I had the chance to experiment a contract at least one time with success. And more recently, I received two offers, and one came from River West Brand, to make Colecovision games... and I think it's because of the visibility I tried so much to increase during years.

 

 

It's very difficult to do an original game, and those who can do it, congratulations!

 

I have some original ideas, but I have other projects in the way. Free time is another problem, but it's not related to the actual subject.

[retroillucid]

Rather than doing games we want, it's making games for others as a contract. Because of the contract, the game rights is something the programmers lose but also avoid legal problems.

 

Absolutely right

[Cybergoth]

My suggestion would be for all of the Colecovision fans to get a room.

 

It's getting a little creepy in here.

 

My suggestion is that you stop that kind of bullying, else I will stop it.

[Underball]

It's getting a little creepy in here.

It's not getting creepy, this is the real life for the homebrewers that some gamers may have no clue about it, and it concerns more than just the coleco homebrew scene. So I see the point PKK is giving here, and it's a good advice.

That's not what he was hinting at. Underball seems to think that ColecoVision-related posts are polluting the AtariAge homebrew forum. Considering the fact that he registered in January 2008 and has been an infrequent poster, I'd say his "perception" is not to be taken too seriously. ColecoVision homebrews have been announced, developed and released for many years on these AA forums, many of which have been sold in the AtariAge store. These forums have always welcomed CV homebrewers and their homebrews, and Underball's comment is in strict contrast with this fact.

I never said any of that. NONE OF IT.

 

I merely made a few sarcastic jokes, because there seemed to be a lot of heated CV conversations lately, none of which have I participated in.

 

I've been a member here for years, just lost the password to my old account.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

I'd also like an apology.

[Pixelboy]

It's getting a little creepy in here.

It's not getting creepy, this is the real life for the homebrewers that some gamers may have no clue about it, and it concerns more than just the coleco homebrew scene. So I see the point PKK is giving here, and it's a good advice.

That's not what he was hinting at. Underball seems to think that ColecoVision-related posts are polluting the AtariAge homebrew forum. Considering the fact that he registered in January 2008 and has been an infrequent poster, I'd say his "perception" is not to be taken too seriously. ColecoVision homebrews have been announced, developed and released for many years on these AA forums, many of which have been sold in the AtariAge store. These forums have always welcomed CV homebrewers and their homebrews, and Underball's comment is in strict contrast with this fact.

I never said any of that. NONE OF IT.

 

I merely made a few sarcastic jokes, because there seemed to be a lot of heated CV conversations lately, none of which have I participated in.

 

I've been a member here for years, just lost the password to my old account.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

I'd also like an apology.

Okay, I apologize. I admit I overreacted, but just for the record, associating the word "creepy" with ColecoVision fans wasn't exactly a good idea to begin with.

[PkK]

I don't recall seing many posts on AA from "ColecoVision idea peddlers", so I can't help wondering where PkK's post came from.

 

Though only few such posts have appeared here I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic with you. There have been more such posts on the ColecoNation list.

 

Philipp

[Gorf]

I coded Gorf Clasic for the Jaguar. Put over a year of work into it.

I had to remove it from sale. Unless you are 100% you are cool

(as I thought I was, but it turns out I was'nt) Dont waste your time

doing an exact arcade port unless you want trouble. Then there are

those of you who try to justify their thieving and pirating ways by

comparing this honest mistake to out right stealing of ROMs they have

NO business touching. Make clones with enough difference. No one

will complain that way( no one who actually matters that is.)

Edited July 24, 2008 by Gorf

[Underball]

How about making a 100% arcade port and NOT putting it up for sale, but just releasing the rom for people to use in multicarts, emulators or homemade carts?

 

I really never understood why so many people here at AA code games for their favorite old systems to make money. The risk of getting smacked down by the license holders doesn't seem to justify the meager/non-existent profit margin for games that are coded for systems that haven't been in production for 25 years.

 

It seems to me that the only reason things get difficult for homebrew coders is when they try to sell something they don't have the rights to. If you code it and release it for all to enjoy, with no money expected in return, most license holders aren't going to chase you down over it.

 

Myself, I've worked as a coder and tester on a number of emulators and homebrewed games for various platforms. I tend to follow the MAME train of logic, in that we do it for preservation of history, and future enjoyment, not for profit.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Underball

[newcoleco]

Life is full of trials and errors.

 

Let me try to explain the situation I experienced during all these years.

 

My dream was to make games for the ColecoVision game system and it's exactly what I did. At the beginning, my experience in coleco programming wasn't filled with tools and emulators like today, we developed all these tools and ways to publish games during the last 8 years and no one complains about it. It's fun to talk about all the cool stuff we are making to people who share the same passion. And if you still don't understand why we bother to publish in carts, look at what we did during all these years... personaly, I think it's cool! we did make new games for the golden age consoles! it's amazing!

 

And there is nothing like the real deal, the real machine, no emulator is perfect and a usb joypad or a keyboard with more than 100 buttons is not a Coleco or an Atari joystick... it's really not the same. There is nothing bad about playing public domain games with emulators; but it's just not the same.

 

The reason why we publish games in cartridges? Read all the messages in forums like this one and you will have your answer.

 

You know, I'm starting to consider you as a troll. So I will apologize and stop answering your messages because it's really going off-topic.

Edited July 24, 2008 by newcoleco

[PkK]

How about making a 100% arcade port and NOT putting it up for sale, but just releasing the rom for people to use in multicarts, emulators or homemade carts?

 

I really never understood why so many people here at AA code games for their favorite old systems to make money. The risk of getting smacked down by the license holders doesn't seem to justify the meager/non-existent profit margin for games that are coded for systems that haven't been in production for 25 years.

 

It seems to me that the only reason things get difficult for homebrew coders is when they try to sell something they don't have the rights to. If you code it and release it for all to enjoy, with no money expected in return, most license holders aren't going to chase you down over it.

 

Myself, I've worked as a coder and tester on a number of emulators and homebrewed games for various platforms. I tend to follow the MAME train of logic, in that we do it for preservation of history, and future enjoyment, not for profit.

 

1. Since the money made from selling games isn't much a license holder that's willing to sue over that will probably sue homebrew authors that give their games away for free. Of course one could try to avoid that by releasing the game pseudonymously or anonymously and hoping it would spread to ROM sites and survive there.

 

2. Probably most of our effort goes into the free tools we create to make games ourselves and help others make games.

 

3. Making carts costs money. Some people want the games on carts (most of them even want a printed manual and box), some authors like to make real hardware (I do).

 

Philipp

Edited July 24, 2008 by PkK

[Underball]

You know, I'm starting to consider you as a troll.

great.

 

so because we disagree on principal as to how to distribute content, you start slinging insults.

 

And I have moderators threatening ME for "bullying".

 

that's rich.

[CV Gus]

In a way, the whole question of licensing is curious.

 

You could understand a game that is still a money-maker, or at least well known. If, by some weird miracle, I could program a good version of Mortal Kombat or Killer Instinct on a CV (the miracles being that I'd be able to get an emulator running, and that I'd program such a 1990s game...), there would be trouble.

 

But what I could never understand are companies that would cause a homebrewer trouble over a game nobody ever really even heard of, even "back in the day."

 

Why, then, would any company try to give a homebrewer any trouble for producing a home version of such games? They're not exactly making much money on them now, and the worst that can happen is that...people might actually find out that they exist.

It's a general rule of business, which can be summed up in one phrase: "Don't touch my properties."

 

Allow me to present a simple example to demonstrate the legal implications:

 

1) Individual A does a homebrew coin-op adaptation for a dead system (CV, Atari 2600, whatever) and asks the copyright-holding company ABC for permission to release it in small quantities, as long as no real profits are made from sales.

 

2) Company ABC welcomes the free publicity, and allows Individual A's homebrew to be published, for a small licensing fee, which Individual A is happy to pay. The licensing fee is calculated in relation to the number of copies produced, so for a small run, it's not too high.

 

3) Someone at company XYZ learns of the deal between Individual A and company ABC, and tries to get the same deal for the same game in company ABC's back catalog. Only this time it's for a current-generation gaming platform, and company XYZ wants to make it a wide release with potentially thousands of copies sold. Company ABC charges "regular" licensing fees, according to current industry practices, which cost a lot more.

 

4) Company XYZ later sues company ABC on the basis that Individual A paid much lower licensing fees for the exact same game, and claims this is unfair. The judge ignores the fact that Individual A's homebrew was made in small quatities for a dead gaming system, and rules in favor of company XYZ, forcing company ABC to charge lower licensing fees to company XYZ, and everyone else who may want to buy a license for the game.

 

See the problem? Actual licensing realities are more complex than the example above, but the idea is that if a company starts granting various licenses at varying prices, then that company exposes itself to losing control over its rights to charge what it wants for said licenses. And that means loss of important profits.

 

This was explained to me last year when I contacted Blue Planet Software in an effort to get permission to have Bruce Tomlin's ColecoVision port of The Black Onyx released in small quantities. Henk Rogers wasn't against the idea of a ColecoVision port, but this was incompatible with general business practices for his (or any other) company, and he couldn't allow it.

 

 

Actually, I wasn't referring to piracy, but hassles.

 

What I mean is this: Newcolopcode wants to program Snap Jack for the CV.

 

He finds out who (if anyone) owns the rights to this game.

 

Contact.

 

O.K., now why would they not give him permission to do it, maybe asking a token $1.00 per sale? The game is so obscure, that they could only benefit by exposure. Permission was asked, and granted. The title screen displays that it is nice and legal. Just because he only has to pay a crummy one buck per game doesn't mean that if Microsoft does this for the X-Box 360 that (Snap Jack rights people) must also ask for a mere dollar from Microsoft.

 

It seems like flexibility and common sense are things of the past. It reminds me of the joke that if a city has one lawyer, he'll be on food stamps, but if there are two, they'll be driven in limos to their mansions.

Edited July 25, 2008 by CV Gus