OT: TI-99 Tutankham - Marble Madness II Parallel

[+acadiel]

https://atariage.com/forums/topic/55936-can-marble-man-ever-be-released/

 

This thread reminded me of the same situation our community finds itself in with the unreleased Tutankham game.

 

Same story, it sounds like. Developer owns original, maybe one other person owns a copy. Both will not ever distribute them to share with the world, or even check with whomever owns copyright on it if they can do something like Tursi/PC99 did with their TI ROM/GROMs.

 

Very sad that a couple people hoard up these without letting people play them.

 

[+OLD CS1]

Promises not to release notwithstanding, there could be the notion of holding on to something to make it more valuable. Then also that maybe the game had some problem (contractual, bugs, it sucked, or was sloppy programmed and the potential "I should have done MUCH better and releasing this would be embarrassing" factor.) In the later cases, like was mentioned in the other thread, chances are we will out-live these old fekkers and their heirs will happily cast out their hoarded "junk." Someone will have to keep up, though, as estate sales do not always end well (or happen at all,) and sometimes this old "junk" winds right up at the dump.

 

And not the kind of "dump" we want!

[+acadiel]

Sorry to bump a 5 year old thread, but another old image was "released":

 

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/04/after-a-lost-atari-rom-leaks-retro-fans-ask-was-it-stolen/?comments=1&post=37263307

[digdugnate]

this is an interesting topic that has lots of sides and viewpoints, i think.

 

while it's well within the owner/collector's right (I guess) to hold on to something like this because of its value, I don't feel like that things like this don't do any good to the community-at-large if they're not shared with the community.

 

sure, the game may have awful gameplay, or be buggy, or any number of things, but there's intrinsic value as a snapshot or glimpse into another section of history. you could also argue the cutoff all day long, but i think once a software title (in this specific example) hits 25 years in age or older, it should be preserved like any other work of art or museum-type piece.

 

my two cents.

[sometimes99er]

https://atariage.com/forums/topic/55936-can-marble-man-ever-be-released/

 

This thread reminded me of the same situation our community finds itself in with the unreleased Tutankham game.

 

Same story, it sounds like. Developer owns original, maybe one other person owns a copy. Both will not ever distribute them to share with the world, or even check with whomever owns copyright on it if they can do something like Tursi/PC99 did with their TI ROM/GROMs.

 

Very sad that a couple people hoard up these without letting people play them.

 

 

Tutankham prototype was indeed released some years ago.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/160880-tutankham-for-the-ti-994a/page-8?do=findComment&comment=3958385

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by sometimes99er

[+acadiel]

 

Tutankham prototype was indeed released some years ago.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/160880-tutankham-for-the-ti-994a/page-8?do=findComment&comment=3958385

 

 

 

Yep it was. I wrote the original message you quoted in 2014.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[+OLD CS1]

We touched on this briefly at VCF-SE. My problem is I clearly see both sides of the argument, but ultimately I fall onto this: creative destruction has necessary casualties whether the "blame" can be placed upon one person or a group of people; no one has a right to anything owned by anyone else even if it can be copied or reproduced, and there is no right, nor duty, of preservation.

[+acadiel]

We touched on this briefly at VCF-SE. My problem is I clearly see both sides of the argument, but ultimately I fall onto this: creative destruction has necessary casualties whether the "blame" can be placed upon one person or a group of people; no one has a right to anything owned by anyone else even if it can be copied or reproduced, and there is no right, nor duty, of preservation.

I respect your opinion. I just don’t necessarily agree with it. Let’s take preservation out of the realm of computers, and say, old houses. Or old schematics for tube radios. Or old paintings that go into a museum.

 

There’s plenty of room for preservation of something without widespread distribution. Museums often hang pictures up for the public to see that belong to someone else, but the owner of the piece reserves the rights to sell merchandise like print copies. The public can still appreciate it, experience it, just can’t take it home.

 

Now, what if the picture was left in someone’s house and then they had a fire? Nobody would have experienced the picture, photographed them standing next to it, saw what it looked like, been able to buy a print copy of it, etc. For all intents and purposes, it’s like a copy of vapor ware or becomes urban legend.

 

Preservation for a picture means bringing it out and making it known, copying it and making prints and selling these to people so it gains widespread knowledge. The point is that it’s preserved, or put into other media, so that it’s not lost.

 

Do owners of paintings do this preservation because they are required to? No, on the contrary, it’s done for the greater public good. They know that the people that created these works originally intended them to be shared, known, and talked about. They know that the more people know, experience, and have exposure to the work, the better known it becomes, and that does increase the value.

 

Atari is the ultimate owner of these ROMs and can release them tomorrow. In the meantime, they’ve abandoned them, and left them in the hands of a few individuals who really don’t seem to understand preservation for the public good. Atari was a public facing entity that had much impact in many people’s lives. Should a video game that they made and abandoned be treated like a newfound Picasso that the owner allows copies to be made of?

 

Just some food for thought. The owners of the cabinets don’t own the data on the ROMs at all. It’s not theirs. In a sense, are they able to dictate the public good of keeping that game rom contents from being preserved? Or, does the public good dictate that it be copied and some sort of preservation applied to it in case something happens to those cabinets?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Omega-TI]

When it comes to obtaining game software my "logic/decision tree" is small and not very sophisticated.

 

1) Is it currently for sale? If yes, and I like it, buy it. If it shows promise, buy it.

2) Is it something I'll only play once or twice? If yes, obtain and play the free version if there is any, if I like it, then buy it.

3) Was it released to the public free of charge? If so get it, if i like it, keep a copy.

 

Most recently Dragon's Lair was a qualifier for purchase. (I still suck at it BTW).

 

4) Has it been abandoned for decades with no apparent support or payment vector to the company and/or author? If such is the case, just copy it.

 

In all honesty, I've not played more than 3 or 4 games this year with a grant total time of probably no more than two hours each, with the exception of BETA work for others.

 

When it comes to 'artistic merits', a game is different than a static picture or painting, just looking at a screen shot does nothing for me, I quite literally have to be in possession of the game to 'experience it'. Most games get played once or twice and then discarded, however I have to admit, I keep about a dozen of them on hand in case I "need" to play.

 

5) Is some Shmuck selling multiple copies of programs and copied manuals making money off of someone else's hard work, even if it is abandoned?

If so, personally vow to never to buy anything from that person ever.