Todd Rogers banned from Twin Galaxies and records removed

[Turbo-Torch]

I'm only saying that they weren't super common, at least in my area. In fact, the first "video store" that popped up locally to us, didn't open until '87.

 

Yeah, in '82 I knew of one person who owned a VCR. He was a good friend in grade school and his father was a technology nut. He wore his brother's hand-me-downs and lived on the poor side of town, yet visiting their house was like going to Disneyland. The big screen with the pull out section that projected onto a screen, top load VCR with dial tuners, endless 2600 games, first LaserDisc, 5200 on the day it was released etc.

They started to become more common around '85 which is when prices came way down and rental places started popping up. I bought one when I was 16 (1986) and had a job. It was a return that also did time as a display model at Sears and was still about $300.00.

 

As far as $640 in 1982...that was a huge amount of money. Equivalent of $1,700 today! What kind of dedicated entertainment device costs $1,700 today and how popular is it?

[R.Cade]

Someone said you can't record Atari with a VCR. Is that true? I can't say I've ever tried...It doesn't sound true.

Edited February 4, 2018 by R.Cade

[+x=usr(1536)]

Someone said you can't record Atari with a VCR. Is that true? I can't say I've ever tried...It doesn't sound true.

 

Not true (at least in my experience), but if you're recording to VHS the result is going to look poor. Incredibly short and not-completely-technically-accurate explanation: VHS records at a lower resolution than the RF signal from the Atari is capable of and also does not reproduce color as accurately as the TV is capable of. It's not as much a limitation of the console as it is the VHS standard.

 

Using a composite-modded console will look better, but you'll still be stuck with VHS' shortcomings.

[R.Cade]

 

Not true (at least in my experience), but if you're recording to VHS the result is going to look poor. Incredibly short and not-completely-technically-accurate explanation: VHS records at a lower resolution than the RF signal from the Atari is capable of and also does not reproduce color as accurately as the TV is capable of. It's not as much a limitation of the console as it is the VHS standard.

 

Using a composite-modded console will look better, but you'll still be stuck with VHS' shortcomings.

I think the explanation was that the VCR expected interlaced frames, which the Atari didn't output, so it was not recorded correctly. I'll have to drag out a period-correct VCR and try it.

[+x=usr(1536)]

I think the explanation was that the VCR expected interlaced frames, which the Atari didn't output, so it was not recorded correctly. I'll have to drag out a period-correct VCR and try it.

 

Actually, you may be right about that. Thinking back on it, my experience with recording Atari systems was confined to the 800XL and ST range in PAL; there's a strong chance that things worked differently under those circumstances than with an NTSC 2600

[NE146]

 

If it was Ron, you can forget about it being truthful.

 

Yknow.. I don't know the guy personally but back around 1998/99 there was one experience I had involving him online that would make me believe that yeah, he could be very much less than truthful. Just saying.

[Karbuncle]

Come to find out there's ironclad evidence Billy Mitchell cheated on his million + Donkey Kong arcade records. Guess who verified his highest score that is now proven to have been done on emulator? Todd Rogers... Out of ALL the referees Billy picked, he gets Todd Rogers to verify a record now proven to be emulator driven.

 

So the question gets asked: Why did Billy use MAME instead of original hardware? Turns out other world class experts have long since questioned Billy records on this game, because his gameplay in the footage shown wasn't good enough to break a million on its own. He was relying on disproportionately excellent luck on the mashers point RNG. With the evidence now showing he was using MAME, it becomes clear: He was stringing save-states together in order to get enough luck factor to break a million. other red flags: He used direct feed instead of over-the-shoulder camera recording. The audio is muted. Video showing the swapping of DK board for DKJ was revealed to be bogus, because the original board show was ALSO a DKJ board. When people pointed this out on Youtube, their comments were deleted, and the video subsequently edited (people managed to save the original video for evidence).

 

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest the referee behind this clear attempt to deceive the public was none other than Todd Rogers. I swear this stuff writes itself!

Edited February 4, 2018 by Karbuncle

[Shawn]

Come to find out there's ironclad evidence Billy Mitchell cheated on his million + Donkey Kong arcade records. Guess who verified his highest score that is now proven to have been done on emulator? Todd Rogers... Out of ALL the referees Billy picked, he gets Todd Rogers to verify a record now proven to be emulator driven.

 

So the question gets asked: Why did Billy use MAME instead of original hardware? Turns out other world class experts have long since questioned Billy records on this game, because his gameplay in the footage shown wasn't good enough to break a million on its own. He was relying on disproportionately excellent luck on the mashers point RNG. With the evidence now showing he was using MAME, it becomes clear: He was stringing save-states together in order to get enough luck factor to break a million. other red flags: He used direct feed instead of over-the-shoulder camera recording. The audio is muted. Video showing the swapping of DK board for DKJ was revealed to be bogus, because the original board show was ALSO a DKJ board. When people pointed this out on Youtube, their comments were deleted, and the video subsequently edited (people managed to save the original video for evidence).

 

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest the referee behind this clear attempt to deceive the public was none other than Todd Rogers. I swear this stuff writes itself!

 

And this all leads me to the same question I had about Todd. Billy is a proven video game master so why the hell he would choose to cheat is beyond me. Look what the guy did with arcade pacman. Perfect game, kill screen, confirmed and verified in all ways possible. But... Another game he was once probably the best at (arcade dk) has his score beat by another player and he can't handle the loss in stock so he cheats his way back to the top? I just don't understand. Myself I'd be happy with being a has been rather than a never was. I'd rather the public remembered a time when I was the best, not how I feel from grace and cheated to keep my name at the top when my time had passed.

[MaximRecoil]

As far as $640 in 1982...that was a huge amount of money.

 

Again, that was an average price, not the lowest price. The average price of a new car today is about $34,000, but there are new cars that sell for under $13,000. Also, as I mentioned before, VCRs were available second-hand, and to rent.

 

 

 

Equivalent of $1,700 today! What kind of dedicated entertainment device costs $1,700 today and how popular is it?

 

How about we compare it to 1982 instead of today? Here's a dedicated entertainment device of a type that was quite popular:

 

 

1982 Sears catalog, 19" color TV, $640.

 

Did you know anyone in 1982 with a 25" color console TV? I knew plenty, and we got one in '84:

 

 

Electronics in general were ridiculously expensive back then, but people still managed to buy them.

Edited February 4, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[MaximRecoil]

I think the explanation was that the VCR expected interlaced frames, which the Atari didn't output, so it was not recorded correctly. I'll have to drag out a period-correct VCR and try it.

 

I don't know if I've ever specifically recorded Atari 2600 gameplay on a VCR, but I've definitely recorded other consoles, such as the NES and SNES, and it looked fine. Nearly all, if not all, consoles up to and including the original PlayStation output progressive video (not interlaced).

[Turbo-Torch]

A TV was pretty much a necessity back then and a VCR was a luxury toy. Those top of the line items you listed were a dream for most people. You gonna tell me that $640 19" TV was common in most peoples' bedrooms? A 12" to 19" B&W set was common, not that thing. We had a 25" at the time and it sure as hell wasn't that $800 model. As far as used VCRs go, those would have been from the 70s and how many sold back then?

[+stephena]

I didn't get a (used) 20" colour TV in my bedroom until my first year of university (1992), and I considered that a pretty big expenditure even then. Electronics have really gotten cheaper over the past 20 years.

[MaximRecoil]

A TV was pretty much a necessity back then and a VCR was a luxury toy.

 

And you could rent a VCR for $5 a night.

 

Those top of the line items you listed were a dream for most people.

 

Those were far from top of the line. They weren't even the most expensive TVs in that particular issue of the Sears catalog. On page 19 there's a 19" TV for $1,000, and on page 21 there's a 50" rear-projection TV for $2,500.

 

Lots of people in 1982 had 25" color consoles TVs, and those started at around $500. The cheapest one in that issue of the Sears catalog is $560, which they declare to be their "lowest price ever". Their cheapest color TV of any kind is $260, and that's a 12" one with mono audio and analog tuning dials. Their cheapest 19" color TV, which is about the minimum size anyone had in their living room back then, is $350, which again is mono with analog tuning dials (no remote control of course).

 

You gonna tell me that $640 19" TV was common in most peoples' bedrooms? A 12" to 19" B&W set was common, not that thing.

 

Who said anything about bedrooms?

 

We had a 25" at the time and it sure as hell wasn't that $800 model.

 

If it was new in 1982 then it would have been in the $500 range at least (which is in the range of what the cheapest new VCRs would have cost in 1982), which translates to over $1,300 today. That's why the comparison needs to be made to 1982, not to today. How popular are $1,300 TVs today? Not very, but 1982 was before everything was the product of cheap Chinese labor.

 

As far as used VCRs go, those would have been from the 70s and how many sold back then?

 

A used VCR in 1982 could have been from ~1976 to 1982. Used items that are like new typically sell for about 60% of whatever the current retail price is for the same or comparable model. That's how pawn shops typically operate anyway, i.e., for a $100 retail item that is like new, they will give you about $30 for it because they expect they can sell it for about $60 if you don't reclaim it (that's not carved in stone of course, but it's typical). But once again, VCRs could be rented, and most anyone could come up with $5 in 1982.

Edited February 5, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Turbo-Torch]

In 1982 most communities didn't even have places to rent videos from, let alone a VCR.

By 1985, only 1 in 7 households had a VCR and that's when they were the hottest selling item and rental stores were on every corner. See, I remember this because I was actually old enough to work, drive and buy things in the mid 80s.

 

Find some classified ads from 1982 and show me how many used VCRs were for sale...pick any area of the country you want. I read the newspaper and Bargain Finder back then, looking for cool things. Cheap, used VCRs were not dime-a-dozen. Also people who could afford to buy a $1200 to $1400 VCR in the 70s most likely weren't ready to take a $1000 hit in just 3 or 4 years or need to use of a pawn shop.

 

Those $600+ 19" portable TVs were not flying off the shelves and bringing them up is pointless. I can also find brochures from Lamborghini and Ferrari back then, doesn't mean they were COMMON. They sold a tiny ass amount just like VCRs back in the early 80s. At any given time I can find 100+ vintage TVs on my local Craigslist for free. Funny how those $600 to $1000 19" models rarely show up.

I'd actually pay money for the one you listed above, but they don't exist now because they barely existed back in the day.

[MaximRecoil]

In 1982 most communities didn't even have places to rent videos from, let alone a VCR.

 

My town of only 5,000 people (more like 4,000 now, ever since the Dexter Shoe factory moved to China in 2002) got its first video rental store in 1981, and it stayed in business until 2009. Even if a particular town didn't have their own video store in '82 there almost certainly would have been one within driving distance. According to Wikipedia, Rogers is from Chicago, and the chances of there being no video rental stores in Chicago in 1982 are somewhere between zero and none.

 

 

 

By 1985, only 1 in 7 households had a VCR and that's when they were the hottest selling item and rental stores were on every corner. See, I remember this because I was actually old enough to work, drive and buy things in the mid 80s.

 

I have more detailed/specific/precise memories, starting from when I was 3½ years old, than anyone else I've ever met. My older sister is 6 years older than me, and is constantly asking me, "How do you remember all that stuff, and the dates even?" My memories of the '80s are more extensive than my memories of the '90s, and way more extensive than my memories of the 2000s, because everything was new to me in the '80s, and as you get older, more and more things become old hat. The way our brains work is: new and unusual experiences tend to be more strongly remembered than things we've done many times.

 

Also, I'm willing to bet that that specific "1 in 7 households" statistic isn't something from your 1980s memories, but rather, something Google helped you find a few minutes before you typed it.

 

 

 

Find some classified ads from 1982 and show me how many used VCRs were for sale...pick any area of the country you want. I read the newspaper and Bargain Finder back then, looking for cool things. Cheap, used VCRs were not dime-a-dozen. Also people who could afford to buy a $1200 to $1400 VCR in the 70s most likely weren't ready to take a $1000 hit in just 3 or 4 years or need to use of a pawn shop.

 

Who said they were a dime a dozen? Also, people who pawn things usually expect they'll be able to buy them back in time, and also, a person's financial situation can change drastically overnight, to say nothing about in 3 or 4 years.

 

 

 

Those $600+ 19" portable TVs were not flying off the shelves

 

19" wasn't considered a portable TV in the 1980s; it was a common size for people to have as their main TV. And regardless of that, 25" console TV were common in the early '80s, and those were $500+ new.

 

 

 

and bringing them up is pointless.

 

No, it isn't. It illustrates how expensive mundane things (like 19" TVs) were in the '80s. I also mentioned that the cheapest, barebones, mono, no remote, analog dial 19" color TV was $350 in that catalog ($915 in today's money).

 

 

 

I can also find brochures from Lamborghini and Ferrari back then, doesn't mean they were COMMON.

 

This is a non sequitur. The only TV I've mentioned that is analogous to a Lamborghini or Ferrari is the $2,500 50" TV, which I only mentioned to refute your false assertion that those other well-under-$1,000 TVs were "top of the line".

 

 

 

They sold a tiny ass amount just like VCRs back in the early 80s. At any given time I can find 100+ vintage TVs on my local Craigslist for free. Funny how those $600 to $1000 19" models rarely show up.

 

Yet there are plenty of 25" to 27" color console TVs still out there, all of which sold new for $500+, which is about the price range of a low-end new VCR in 1982. And again, VCRs could be rented for $5 a night.

[CPUWIZ]

Marshmallows?

[Keatah]

Careful . The mods are circling.

[Gabriel]

Marshmallows?

 

We could make s'mores.

[Turbo-Torch]

You can ramble on all you want, you're not going to change my mind...especially someone who was in kindergarten at the time.

[+thegoldenband]

Maybe it depends on your geographic area? In places where the average wage and cost of living higher, maybe VCR adoption was higher too; I don't know how much pricing varied in different markets.

 

My family had a VCR no later than 1985, and we certainly weren't made of money -- far, far from it -- but by that time my sense was that a lot of people we knew had them, including relatives who'd send kids' shows taped from cable TV for my brother.

 

I do remember that it was surprising to see one in a childhood friend's home around 1980. I think a video rental shop opened in the next town over from ours in 1983 or 1984; I recall that because they also had video games at one point, and we bought some cheap Atari 2600 games there (Cosmic Swarm was one, I think).

[MaximRecoil]

You can ramble on all you want, you're not going to change my mind...especially someone who was in kindergarten at the time.

 

I was in second-grade in '82, and could completely tear down and build bicycles, owned a rifle (.22 WMR), roamed the town freely, both on foot and on bicycle, and drove my father's truck in the woods while helping him harvest firewood. I can give detailed accounts of countless events from '82, which I can remember more vividly than anything that happened last year. My long-term memory, especially from my childhood, is far above average.

 

However, memory isn't the issue here, nor is age; those are just red herrings. Even if I were born in the 2000s it wouldn't change any of the facts of the matter, such as the fact that someone could have easily and cheaply rented a VCR in 1982, especially someone who lived in or near Chicago, Illinois, or the fact that even low-end 19" color TVs were over $900 in today's money, and 25" color console TVs were over $1,300 in today's money.

Edited February 5, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[NE146]

My family had a VCR no later than 1985, and we certainly weren't made of money -- far, far from it -- but by that time my sense was that a lot of people we knew had them, including relatives who'd send kids' shows taped from cable TV for my brother.

 

Yeah that sounds about right.. I grew up in a tiny tropical island on the other side of the world, and when we got our VCR around 1985-ish, my notion was we were somewhat behind the curve as many people we knew had been renting and watching tapes for some time (Usually the stores that sold betamax/vhs consoles also ented tapes). The big confusion then for me was whether to go Betamax or VHS

Edited February 5, 2018 by NE146

[Andromeda Stardust]

I don't remember it at all. And it's not just the Scarecrow's gun, but the other two are armed in that scene as well. The Tin Man has a giant monkey wrench and the Cowardly Lion has a giant war hammer:

 

 

I don't remember any of that. I watched it every year on TV when I was a kid, and watched it as an adult as recently as about 2010 (I've watched it more recently than that, after I found out about the Scarecrow's gun; I had to see it for myself). I've been into guns since I was about 7 years old when I got my first rifle, and I'm what you might call a "walking encyclopedia" of gun knowledge. I always notice them in movies, take note of the make and model, along with noticing the typical mistakes they make with them. So it strikes me as odd that I never noticed the Scarecrow's gun.

 

Several months ago I invited my older sister over to watch that movie (she's also seen it many times, just as most people have), and didn't say anything beforehand about the gun. I was wondering if she would notice. Sure enough, when she saw it, she burst out, "He has a GUN???"

 

When I first heard about the Scarecrow's gun about a year ago, I didn't think much of it, because I figured it must have been a deleted scene that was added back in for a "special edition" video release or something, but after researching it, apparently it's always been there in the normal cut that they always showed on TV.

I'm like 1000% sure the gun was a photoshop, like tht other snapshot you posted.

[NE146]

I'm like 1000% sure the gun was a photoshop,

hrm? Not sure if joking, but the Scarecrow does indeed carry a gun in the Wizard of Oz. that's no secret.

 

<edit2>

Edited February 5, 2018 by NE146

[Andromeda Stardust]

I just wanted to note that no matter what Todd or TG says, I hold the record for the largest number of plays of Pac-man without showing any significant improvement. This is no minor feat having been achieved on multiple hardware / software combos and spanning more than 30 years.

 

Seriously though, I do understand why it is a big deal to some people and I hope they get their long due recognition.

LOL. Can we start a "most quarters lost" contest?

 

FTR, although I beat Mario Odessy fair and square (except for using a "certain swim through space" exploit on Darker Side), I probably died at least a thousand times throughout the game. And I've seen the "Game Over" screen more times than I can count in Breath of The Wild.