What's the deal with Wikipedia and homebrews?

[Rev. Rob]

So, I updated the Wikipedia page for the Channel F to correct a bunch of information, and as part of the update I added the Pac-Man homebrew that one of the members here created to the games list. It turns out that adding homebrews to release lists over at Wiki is frowned upon. What's the fuck?

 

Since then I've made a point of adding homebrews to other release lists when possible. I guess they don't see the value in documenting homebrew releases, but we know better. It annoys me.

[carmel_andrews]

Mr. Bob/Rob...there's a big difference between the people here and the people who frequent the wiki thing, the majority of people who frequent the wiki thing and know sweet FA about the retro/classic hardware or software scene are basically the great unwashed and also ignorant about such things...which means they will see the concept of 'homebrew' as something illegitimate and illegal (like you said though we know better)

 

Perhpas you should stick up a whole section on the wiki thing explaining in 10 y/o english exactly what homebrew (or user written) software is all about and at the same time educate the unwashed/ignorant in regards to the fact that this is the main source/thrust of s/w development for that particular system

 

Alternatively just stick up a HUGE linky to AA and we'll educate them for you

[nester]

I think homebrews need their own separate lists. Usually game lists on Wikipedia are for the regular released games, and it bugs me when protos and homebrews get mixed in. The regular released games and the ones people made themselves after a system's life are two very different things.

[MausGames]

I'm not sure about it, but I'd say a majority of at least the 2600 homebrews have been commercially released to the masses. Small group or company, I don't see how they count any less than games that were released during the system's original run.

 

If things like Wall bear and the no gang and Bible adventures for the NES are considered legitimate releases, I don't see how any of the homebrews aren't. I think any games created and marketed for a specific system, belong on that systems complete games list.

Edited January 4, 2010 by MausGames

[+save2600]

I think homebrews need their own separate lists. Usually game lists on Wikipedia are for the regular released games, and it bugs me when protos and homebrews get mixed in. The regular released games and the ones people made themselves after a system's life are two very different things.

 

 

But they're (homebrews) relevant because someone could be looking at a list of originals and be enamored that people still have an interest in producing for said console. It's part of a consoles life and people need to be made aware. That said, any homebrews that do get thrown in to the mix need to be clearly labeled so. The year it was released, who programmed it, where to purchase, etc. Hacks now, that's a different story. I don't see the logic in posting al the hacks people have done throughout the years.

[Video]

Nothingwrong with Homebrew, however....Pacman? Something screams copyright infringement there. I understand that it was done largely as a tech demo, but really who doesn't see the problem with that? (especially that it is made and SOLD, which just compounds how illegal it really is)

 

Now, I bet thay wouldn't have said a thing for, say, Thrust, Marble Craze, Jacked, or whatever other ORIGINAL titles that are homebrewed for various systems.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Video

[nester]

Well I'm not saying that homebrews aren't important. They're just not part of the official game list. The old unlicensed NES games are a little different because you could buy most of them in stores or at the very least rent them. They were made by companies during the system's life who were trying to make money and be real companies. Also, I know many people who count the unlicensed games separately from the licensed ones as well. You could probably start a separate page for homebrews in wikipedia and you'd be okay.

[SeaGtGruff]

Nothingwrong with Homebrew, however....Pacman? Something screams copyright infringement there. I understand that it was done largely as a tech demo, but really who doesn't see the problem with that? (especially that it is made and SOLD, which just compounds how illegal it really is)

 

Now, I bet thay wouldn't have said a thing for, say, Thrust, Marble Craze, Jacked, or whatever other ORIGINAL titles that are homebrewed for various systems.

That was my thought, too.

 

Michael

[SeaGtGruff]

the majority of people who frequent the wiki thing and know sweet FA about the retro/classic hardware or software scene are basically the great unwashed and also ignorant about such things...

Hey, wait a sec, I like to frequent the wiki thing!

 

[sniff][/sniff]

 

Oh, hang on... I *am* unwashed.

 

[Emily Litella]Nevermind![/Emily Litella]

 

Michael

[Tursi]

You could probably start a separate page for homebrews in wikipedia and you'd be okay.

 

Metafox (not sure if they're on this board?) did this a few years ago for the Dreamcast scene, covering all the companies and releases GOAT had approved and sold. They set up as a separate project Wiki, were reviewed, then approved for inclusion into Wikipedia. About a year later, all the entries were marked "not notable" and deleted.

 

I see there's still a list of independently released games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercially_released_independently_developed_Dreamcast_games

 

All three bleemcast! releases are still active, as are DUX, Last Hope, Rush Rush Rally Racing and Wind and Water (though except for Bleemcast, all these entries postdate the purge I mentioned.) All the GOAT releases - Cool Herders, Feet of Fury, Inhabitants and Maquipai, as well as DreamParaPara from Teamcast, are listed but their entries were deleted.

[+SpiceWare]

Who knows - I tried to add line about Medieval Mayhem to their page on Warlords as it already contained a line about Castle Crisis. Slightly over an hour later it was removed as homebrews are "outside the scope of this article". And yet the Castle Crisis line remained

 

From the Revision History:

06:13, 9 April 2007 Wgungfu (talk | contribs) (RV homebrew, outside the scope of this article.) (undo)

04:57, 9 April 2007 70.116.106.36 (talk) (added reference to new homebrew version, Medieval Mayhem.) (undo)

[carmel_andrews]

the majority of people who frequent the wiki thing and know sweet FA about the retro/classic hardware or software scene are basically the great unwashed and also ignorant about such things...

Hey, wait a sec, I like to frequent the wiki thing!

 

[sniff][/sniff]

 

Oh, hang on... I *am* unwashed.

 

[Emily Litella]Nevermind![/Emily Litella]

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slight difference being that you understand and appreciate the importance and significance of the homebrew scene

[vdub_bobby]

Nothingwrong with Homebrew, however....Pacman? Something screams copyright infringement there. I understand that it was done largely as a tech demo, but really who doesn't see the problem with that? (especially that it is made and SOLD, which just compounds how illegal it really is)

 

Now, I bet thay wouldn't have said a thing for, say, Thrust, Marble Craze, Jacked, or whatever other ORIGINAL titles that are homebrewed for various systems.

First, what difference does it make if it was released illegally? Does the Tengen version of Tetris not count as an official NES release now or something?

 

And second, Thrust is...not original. It is explicitly a port:

XYPE programmers Thomas Jentzsch and Paul Slocum have joined forces up to create Thrust+ Platinum, an updated version of Thomas Jentzsch's Atari 2600 port of the Commodore 64 classic

[icemanxp300]

Tengen Tetris was not and will not ever be an "official" nes release. It is not licensed by Nintendo therefore it is not an offical nes release. This is why licensed and unlicensed games are seperated such as official releases and unofficial releases, homebrews sort of fall in the unlicensed category.

[Rev. Rob]

Nothingwrong with Homebrew, however....Pacman? Something screams copyright infringement there. I understand that it was done largely as a tech demo, but really who doesn't see the problem with that? (especially that it is made and SOLD, which just compounds how illegal it really is)

 

Pac-Man on Channel F is awesome. The creator is a member here and I gladly dished out the$70 for it.

 

I added homebrews as a separate section to the Channel F page, and it got nuked again.

 

Damn Wikipedians!

[Video]

I know it was an awesome game, but my point was that it is absolutely copyrite infringement. There is probably something in the rules of Wiki or whatever that won't allow them to post that kind of thing....

 

As for tetris for Teengen, the deal isn't that the game was unlicensed, it's that the lockout chip was. And when the liscense ran out on Tetris for Teengen, they just dropped it (look at all the other teengen releases that continued on even though they weren't "liscensed"

[gdement]

I know it was an awesome game, but my point was that it is absolutely copyrite infringement. There is probably something in the rules of Wiki or whatever that won't allow them to post that kind of thing....

 

As for tetris for Teengen, the deal isn't that the game was unlicensed, it's that the lockout chip was. And when the liscense ran out on Tetris for Teengen, they just dropped it (look at all the other teengen releases that continued on even though they weren't "liscensed"

 

Tengen didn't have a legal license for home console Tetris. They thought they did, but it turned out later that their license wasn't legitimate and thus the games they had produced were copyright infringing.

Edited January 8, 2010 by gdement