Intellivision vs Arcade

[mr_me]

 

4-tris is 'Tetris like' but doesn't actually follow all the 'rules' of Tetris. This would be an improvement on 4-tris definitely. It would in fact use the spec sheet for the game. I don't know if we'd get source.

 

I'd rather not get into a copyright discussion. The fact is, that there is a reason 4-tris isn't available anymore. Having an official version, playing the complete official game I think would be great.

If you got the original source code, it might be in some Russian based script with Russian comments.

[+grips03]

Another vote for "Intellivision Burgertime is superior to arcade". I never even saw the coin op until long after I had the cart (actually, even long after I had Super BT) and I just didn't like the layout of the screens. Also, God forbid, the enemies in the Intv version are very "cute" (a word I rarely use).

 

I also like DK Arcade much more than the arcade version but then I am not that big of a fan of Donkey Kong, period. And I love the Intv DK2 cart but rarely play it just because the game is so freakin' hard. That isn't a complaint--only my preferences.

 

As for Mousetrap, I like the Intv version but I think the Colecovision version is superior. And I prefer either over the arcade, and is only because the coin op starts out too difficult (the hawk on the first level--really?).

 

Strangely enough, I have never seen an arcade Bump 'n' Jump, which might be in my top 10 of favorite Intv games.

 

I make a really nice Intellivision arcade controller with a 4-way gate that makes the game much easier to play.

[DZ-Jay]

 

I can't believe someone has a copyright on a simple geometric shape. You can only make five different shapes from combining four squares. Tetris is such a simple game that you don't need to convert the source code; you can reproduce the game just from watching it. Nice tile screen. I always preferred the old PC-DOS version of Tetris to the arcade version. 4-Tris is pretty good too.

 

Perhaps it's not as simple as a "someone has a copyright on a simple geometric shape." Have you considered that the issue may be deeper than what your layman experience (or whatever unreliable stuff you read on the Interwebz) suggests?

 

After all, there's an entire discipline in intellectual property law, just as there is one for contract law ("I can't believe someone is allowed to break the terms of a contract if it is something illegal? It's right there in black and white with a signature!"), or even family law ("I can't believe she gets half my assets when I am the one who worked for it and all she did was take care of the kids and clean the house!").

 

Anyway, I know parts of the story of 4-Tris-née-Tetris, and I'm aware that it was more than just the legal stuff going on. There were some business relationships and negotiations that needed to occur, or should have. I'm glad to hear that it's being worked out now. It helps legitimize our community when conversions (or are they ports? I lose track... ) are properly licensed; and it encourages new and original works as a suitable alternative to the high costs of licensing.

 

-dZ.

Edited June 5, 2016 by DZ-Jay

[mr_me]

I wasn't talking about 4-tris. A judge has ruled in favour of the Tetris company in a different case and everyone has to respect the law. In my layman's opinion I disagree with the Judge's ruling. As you know, copyright law permits you to copy a game idea (unless its patented). I disagree with the law here as well, I think ethically the creator of a game should get credit. But you're right its always hard for a layman or a lawyer to predict what a Judge is going to do.

[DZ-Jay]

I wasn't talking about 4-tris. A judge has ruled in favour of the Tetris company in a different case and everyone has to respect the law. In my layman's opinion I disagree with the Judge's ruling. As you know, copyright law permits you to copy a game idea (unless its patented). I disagree with the law here as well, I think ethically the creator of a game should get credit. But you're right its always hard for a layman or a lawyer to predict what a Judge is going to do.

 

I understand that you may disagree with the law, but it is the law, for better or worse. If you feel so strongly about it (as many of us do), then you should write to your Congressman and try to put some pressure on him. Only the Congress has the duty and the authority to address Copyright.

 

Sadly, it is an uphill battle.

 

By the way, when you say "as you know, copyright law permits..." keep in mind that there is no such thing. According to the law, all copying or derivative product of a work is infringement, and only allowed to stand if its recognized as a fair use. "Fair use" is an affirmative defence, which means you have to go to court to prove it. It doesn't just happen by virtue of applying. So even when you think you are in the right (based on previous decisions), the legal process requires you to get sued in order for you to prove it in court -- so there is always the risk of a judgement against you.

 

This also means that, contrary to what many believe, it is addressed on a case-by-case basis by the courts, not on established precedent. When cases are similar, the sides can base their arguments on them, and judges may cite them as justification for their decisions; but they are still decided on the merits of each case.

 

Then again, I am not a lawyer either. However, due to the complexities of the state of things, I do accept that real and legitimate businesses may err on the side of caution and decide not to take a chance of publishing works that could be construed as infringing (even though they may feel strongly that they are not). Furthermore, as a layperson, I believe that respecting this -- and recognizing that the fault of the ambiguity of the law, and the ways in which it can be abused and exploited, lies entirely in the hands of Congress -- is the first step in getting the issues resolved constructively.

 

-dZ.

Edited June 5, 2016 by DZ-Jay

[Carl Mueller Jr]

Wow, some serious bad blood in here!

 

You have to admit this. It is not possible to take a 4x3 resolution and make it a 3x4 without some serious compromises.

Carl does a great job, I actually play his version and the arcade hack pretty often. They are close but not the same. By the way, if they were the same, I'd mostly play the arcade version!

It is hard to compete with the original look and feel. Yes, some added goodies make the intellivision version a must have. Even the similar screen have nuances that make little pieces easier or harder based on what version you are playing. Honestly, I only started playing the Arcade version when I ordered Carl's version. So, some screens I learned from the arcade version first and others on the intellivision first.

I think that may play into some of my (difficulties/quirks) from version to version.

 

As an outsider to whatever has gone on between all parties, I was not reading DZ's comments with a bad taste in my mouth, and I took what he said completely different.

 

As for Burgertime, I much prefer the Intellivision version over the arcade. WHY?, simple, I played the intellivision version hundreds maybe thousands of time before ever seeing this game in an arcade.

The arcade version can't make the 3x4 screen do what intellivision's 4x3 screen did. Yes, to me the intellivision is the original version! This is how it is, everything else is a copy of it.

 

The first version of a song you like is the original, even if some recorded years earlier.... I think it is just how our minds work. ( I usually like the original versions better, even if I didn't hear it first ), just an observation of my friends and acquaintances. In fact, I can't stand remakes that are similar to the original... Why bother? When a remake is re-crafted, different cadence, or stressing different parts etc. I can like multiple versions of a song. But if it is the same cookie cutter thing, blah, not worth the effort.

 

Then we have a game like Atari 2600 pacman... Most people hated this game because of the compromises made to rotate the 3x4 to 4x3.

I actually liked this game! I never compared it to the arcade version, to me, it was game play similar, but a new maze! The flicker does SUCK though!

 

I like the path Carl took to get some of the height back in his Ms. Pacman. Very clever, It works well. again, we have all played pacman... It's nothing new, but now we have a ton of additional mazes!

I do want to point out, Carl's Cornering in his version is the closest thing to the arcade I have seen on any console. Most remakes do square cornering, Carl's looks true. Could be my old age, but my eyes seem to see the turns gain a slight advantage over the ghost's? Carl can confirm this I am certain.

 

Be well EVERYONE! Lets have fun and let the past be the past.

 

 

 

 

 

The cornering is implemented exactly how it is in the arcade. Yes, so there is cornering and there is an advantage to doing it (outrunning the ghosts). :-)

Carl

[Games For Your Intellivision]

 

Perhaps it's not as simple as a "someone has a copyright on a simple geometric shape." Have you considered that the issue may be deeper than what your layman experience (or whatever unreliable stuff you read on the Interwebz) suggests?

 

After all, there's an entire discipline in intellectual property law, just as there is one for contract law ("I can't believe someone is allowed to break the terms of a contract if it is something illegal? It's right there in black and white with a signature!"), or even family law ("I can't believe she gets half my assets when I am the one who worked for it and all she did was take care of the kids and clean the house!").

 

Anyway, I know parts of the story of 4-Tris-née-Tetris, and I'm aware that it was more than just the legal stuff going on. There were some business relationships and negotiations that needed to occur, or should have. I'm glad to hear that it's being worked out now. It helps legitimize our community when conversions (or are they ports? I lose track... ) are properly licensed; and it encourages new and original works as a suitable alternative to the high costs of licensing.

 

-dZ.

 

Yes, there was a big 'drama' regarding '4-tris' and it almost was 'legit'.

 

However, we would NOT simply be taking 4-tris and slapping the Tetris logo on it and calling it 'Tetris'. It would be a totally new game with all new code, following all of the rules of Tetris and we would try to 'up our game' on presentation.

[Carl Mueller Jr]

I think the first screen in Jeff's D2K (arcade hack version) is a pita. It was a good idea that Carl replaced it. The second Inteliivision D2K on the SE cartridge is more comparable to the arcade hack.

 

So the extra music in Carl's DK Arcade is actually programmed in the original arcade game but never used? Is that the game over music in Carl's DK Arcade.

 

Radar Scope reminds of Beamrider; not enough to call it an arcade conversion.

The hidden music I used for the title screen, the game over screen, and as a randomly selected "end-of-rivets" victory song that can occur from level III up, if I remember correctly.

I also agree that The Foundry from Jeff's game is the worst D2K level. The Incinerator is not bad however. But there were reasons I cut these levels -- they would have been too hard to implement with my engine the way it was. I also ended up liking my original levels better than the two they replaced.

Carl

[+freewheel]

After all, there's an entire discipline in intellectual property law, just as there is one for contract law ("I can't believe someone is allowed to break the terms of a contract if it is something illegal? It's right there in black and white with a signature!"), or even family law ("I can't believe she gets half my assets when I am the one who worked for it and all she did was take care of the kids and clean the house!").

 

I like this paragraph. A lot.

[First Spear]

This is not entertaining me. Well, it kind of is. Please continue.

Edited June 6, 2016 by First Spear

[Carl Mueller Jr]

 

The kettle is calling.

 

Go ahead and insult me. People can read my posts as much as they like, I have nothing to hide. In fact, I'll make it easy: here's the link. And while they are at it, they can see my actual contributions to the community on record and judge my comments in the proper context.

 

I do not believe myself an authority on anything except of my own opinions, which I share openly in this forum, just like anybody else.

 

Oh, and speaking of insecurities, who's the one who requires constant positive reinforcement and praise, lest he takes his ball and go home? The one who seems to get annoyed when someone wants to resell his game after playing it once? Yes, talk about overreacting.

 

You are a very talented programmer, but you need to grow up and learn to deal with your personal issues.

"Who's the one who requires constant positive enforcement and praise, lest he takes his ball and go home?"

Show me where I've done that. Asking a person why he would play a game once and then sell it is a legitimate question, when it takes repeated play to actually see what the game actually contains. I would not call that a tantrum.

[mr_me]

 

I understand that you may disagree with the law, but it is the law, for better or worse. If you feel so strongly about it (as many of us do), then you should write to your Congressman and try to put some pressure on him. Only the Congress has the duty and the authority to address Copyright.

 

Sadly, it is an uphill battle.

 

By the way, when you say "as you know, copyright law permits..." keep in mind that there is no such thing. According to the law, all copying or derivative product of a work is infringement, and only allowed to stand if its recognized as a fair use. "Fair use" is an affirmative defence, which means you have to go to court to prove it. It doesn't just happen by virtue of applying. So even when you think you are in the right (based on previous decisions), the legal process requires you to get sued in order for you to prove it in court -- so there is always the risk of a judgement against you.

 

This also means that, contrary to what many believe, it is addressed on a case-by-case basis by the courts, not on established precedent. When cases are similar, the sides can base their arguments on them, and judges may cite them as justification for their decisions; but they are still decided on the merits of each case.

 

Then again, I am not a lawyer either. However, due to the complexities of the state of things, I do accept that real and legitimate businesses may err on the side of caution and decide not to take a chance of publishing works that could be construed as infringing (even though they may feel strongly that they are not). Furthermore, as a layperson, I believe that respecting this -- and recognizing that the fault of the ambiguity of the law, and the ways in which it can be abused and exploited, lies entirely in the hands of Congress -- is the first step in getting the issues resolved constructively.

 

-dZ.

I thought about it, maybe its good that copyright does not protect gameplay and game mechanics. The last thing you want is people suing over a small amount of similarity like they do in the music industry. And lawmakers can easily screw things up; sometimes better to let the judges find the balance. In the Tetris/Xio case however, the judge determined that a 10x20 grid and falling/rotating geometric shapes constitutes a creative visual work that needs protection. There were other things too, but that was part of it.

[Games For Your Intellivision]

I thought about it, maybe its good that copyright does not protect gameplay and game mechanics. The last thing you want is people suing over a small amount of similarity like they do in the music industry. And lawmakers can easily screw things up; sometimes better to let the judges find the balance. In the Tetris/Xio case however, the judge determined that a 10x20 grid and falling/rotating geometric shapes constitutes a creative visual work that needs protection. There were other things too, but that was part of it.

 

It is best to just have a proper license or permission or just do an absolutely original game. Let the big players in game making slug it out.

 

Even if Nintendo had come at us for D2K and we 'won', we'd still 'lose' because legal costs would have bankrupted us. Discontinuing it was a good decision.

 

We would have loved to have published Ms. Pac Man legally, but we just couldn't get the rights.

 

Others can do what they want to. I'm through doing legally questionable games. It helps me sleep better.

[mr_me]

I can't see winning with D2K, that one's not questionable. But to your point, you're absolutely right. And nice work, you've got a nice library of games.

[Games For Your Intellivision]

I can't see winning with D2K, that one's not questionable. But to your point, you're absolutely right. And nice work, you've got a nice library of games.

 

Considering D2K Jumpman Returns (The Arcade Hack) is allowed to exist by Nintendo, I disagree. However, that is the point. So many people think that it isn't ok. But, what is so special about Donkey Kong? Why are no similar games to it allowed? Nobody questions clones of Moon Patrol or other such games. Games like Space Patrol....or in the Mattel library, a Space Invaders clone, Space Armada. Why is D2K singled out? Nevertheless, not my problem anymore.

[Rev]

D2K was discontinued? I seem to remember a special edition just got released. That must be a different "elektronite" on the front of the box.

 

Don't worry, you are safe. Nintendo will come after "Homebrew Inc".

[mr_me]

You're probably right about Space Patrol, it's got similar music, scenery, vehicles; compared to the original. Space Armada however, the characters look different and the playfield is black. The gameplay is not suppose to be protected by copyright so Space Invader clones, as long the aliens look different, might be okay. The KC Munchkin decision (1982) was questionable. With the D2K Jumpman Returns arcade kit, my understanding is that its a plugin to the actual DK arcade hardware, and directly uses original code in the original chips. So all the protected stuff isn't on the new chip. Perhaps that infringes something but it's different. With Intellivision D2K, if it had different characters, different music and sound, only the new screens and none of the original screens it might have a better chance with a judge. (edit: there's a lot worse violations out there than Intellivision D2K)

Edited June 7, 2016 by mr_me

[Rev]

Honestly. I seriously doubt Nintendo will ever come knocking.

[DZ-Jay]

 

Considering D2K Jumpman Returns (The Arcade Hack) is allowed to exist by Nintendo, I disagree. However, that is the point. So many people think that it isn't ok. But, what is so special about Donkey Kong? Why are no similar games to it allowed? Nobody questions clones of Moon Patrol or other such games. Games like Space Patrol....or in the Mattel library, a Space Invaders clone, Space Armada. Why is D2K singled out? Nevertheless, not my problem anymore.

That's not really true. Many people have said the same thing about Space Patrol. It's just not commonly talked about because Joe Z. Is not actively selling, or defending it constantly.

 

As for Space Armada, Mattel is a big company with lots of muscle, and back then, Taito was far away in Japan and the intricacies of the law hasn't been really tested in the industry. I can totally see how they could have taken a chance.

 

The thing about Copyright is that there is no requirement to defend or protect it, like with Trademarks. The fact that Nintendo didn't sue the ass off Jeff does not make your projects safe. I'm not saying that they will sue you (they probably don't care or know who you are), but it is their prerogative to enforce their copyright as they wish, and go after whomever they want.

 

Like you said in your previous post, it's better to not take a chance and risk being sued to oblivion. Namco, for example, is sueball happy and goes even after the little guys. Skipping someone along the way does not make it OK or safe for the next guy.

[+SoulBuster]

D2K was discontinued? I seem to remember a special edition just got released. That must be a different "elektronite" on the front of the box.

 

Don't worry, you are safe. Nintendo will come after "Homebrew Inc".

D2K Special Edition is not an Elektronite Release. It is a Homebrew Inc. release. I just used the materials I purchased from Electronite and got permission to use them in this scenario.

[Eric7100]

Honestly. I seriously doubt Nintendo will ever come knocking.

 

I agree. Everyone is just freaking paranoid.

[+freewheel]

But, what is so special about Donkey Kong? Why are no similar games to it allowed? Nobody questions clones of Moon Patrol or other such games. Games like Space Patrol....or in the Mattel library, a Space Invaders clone, Space Armada. Why is D2K singled out? Nevertheless, not my problem anymore.

 

Because Nintendo has a long history of suing the living shit out of anyone who even sniffs at their IP. Who even owns Moon Patrol? Some shell companies that use the Irem/Williams names, but hasn't developed console video games in eons. I can't even remember the last time Taito went after anyone in a public sense, but I don't think I was legal drinking age when it happened.

 

Donkey Kong contains Nintendo's single biggest source of revenue in Mario. And Nintendo spent more than two decades suing the pants off of anyone who even hinted at using the name or likeness, or tried legally cloning their hardware, or allowed someone to run non-approved software on their hardware, etc, etc, etc.

 

I'm still rather surprised that they haven't gone after the Jumpman Returns hack, but is that being sold commercially?

 

I've whipped up some Super Mario graphics for the Intellivision, and the game play would work well on the system - but I wouldn't even dream of selling it, nor even having my name attached to a ROM. I'm not interested in that kind of attention. Nintendo is almost as bad as Disney, who sues daycares for painting a crude image of Mickey on the walls.

 

[Rev]

I've whipped up some Super Mario graphics for the Intellivision, and the game play would work well on the system - but I wouldn't even dream of selling it, nor even having my name attached to a ROM. - Freewheel

 

 

 

---------------

 

But I will. Pm me!

[wolfy62]

I like both sides of this coin and it is maybe worth the chance!

 

Great experiment to test the waters of copyright and see who has given up on what. Best to all you guys, enjoy your day!

[mr_me]

Interesting; I just found that Nintendo didn't have the copyright on Donkey Kong code and got sued twice by the contractor that programmed it for them.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php?print=1

Nintendo obviously have the trademarks on Donkey Kong but I wonder if they have copyright now.

 

Regarding the D2K arcade hack, the creator did contact Nintendo for permission but apparantly nothing came out of it.

 

If you're doing it as a hobby the worst thing might be a cease and desist letter.