Sinmax ad w/unknown titles; Home Vision connection?

[Ballblaɀer]

I stumbled upon this (two-page pdf file) while trawling through Ralph Baer's litigation files from Magnavox vs. Activision* -- it's an ad for Sinmax computer hardware that also lists four game titles available for the "Atari Video Game System" (see the bottom of the second page, or the cropped image I've posted below for the most pertinent part). I'm guessing that this is the same Taiwan-based Sinmax (i.e. Sinmax / Dimax / Artic) that released the alleged first-ever hack of a 2600 game -- Space Robot -- among a few other titles, and that the "Video Game System" in question is the Atari 2600, given that the same phrase was used on the back of a Space Robot manual.

 

If you squint, you can also kinda make out that the top cart in the stack of carts shown looks like a 2600 Pac-Man cart:

 

 

Do any of the four listed titles correspond with any known releases? My thoughts:

• Space Defender -- this uses the same artwork that was used on Hot Shot / Goliath's release of Space Raider (the original release was probably Sky Alien, for Home Vision). Perhaps there's a Sinmax / Home Vision connection?
• Yan Ken Lady -- perhaps it's some kind of rock-paper-scissors game, which is called "Jan-Ken-Pon" じゃんけん in Japan? Otherwise, I've no idea.
• Puck Robot -- from context from the LCD handheld section right above, the "Puck" says Pac-Man to me; considering the usual game artwork, perhaps it's Pac-Kong?
• Robot Invader -- super vague, could be anything. Maybe this is Space Robot?

Unfortunately there's no date or source for this advertisement. There are no other relevant search results on the internet that I can find for "VCS 80", "VCS 40", "Adventurer" (with respect to LCD handheld games), or any of the supposed game titles. The Space Defender artwork is the only specific connection to anything known that I can find. Has anyone ever seen that "Adventurer" logo before? Has anyone seen or heard of any of the listed computer hardware?

 

I think Sinmax/Dimax is still a super interesting mystery, and this only adds more to the puzzle.

 

* The files are hosted at ipmall.info -- it's a University of New Hampshire School of Law site, don't worry about the shady-looking URL

[Rom Hunter]

Great find!

Thanks for sharing!

There is a connection between Sinmax, Dimax and Home Vision.

The first version of Astrowar from Dimax (called Astrobattle) had the Sinmax logo on screen and the first version of War 2000 from Home Vision had the Dimax logo onscreen.

And a manual of Space Robot from Dimax exists with a Sinmax logo on the back.

[Ballblaɀer]

There is a connection between Sinmax, Dimax and Home Vision.

 

The first version of Astrowar from Dimax (called Astrobattle) had the Sinmax logo on screen and the first version of War 2000 from Home Vision had the Dimax logo onscreen.

 

And a manual of Space Robot from Dimax exists with a Sinmax logo on the back.

 

 

I knew about the Sinmax logo on the back of the Space Robot manual, but I didn't know (or I forgot) that there was a Home Vision cart with a Dimax logo on screen. Thanks for the reminder.

 

I also forgot that there's "Go Go Home" from Dimax, which shares artwork (with inverted colors) with Home Vision's "Go Go Home Monster", and that "Space Robot" from Dimax/Sinmax shares artwork with Home Vision's "Robot Fight".

 

While shared artwork isn't definitive proof of a relationship, I think it's more than coincidence, and I think that everything -- including this new case of shared artwork with Hot Shot / Goliath -- continues to point to Bit Corp being the driving force behind almost all of the "pirate" ventures.

[Rom Hunter]

What's interesting is that we now know the adress of Sinmax.

Wouldn't surprise me if it's the same adress as Dimax or another Taiwanese brand.

[Ballblaɀer]

It can now be proven that Sinmax, Dimax, and VDI/Home Vision are all related to the same company.

 

Specifically, it was 探奇科技股份有限公司 -- Tàn qí ("Adventurer") Technology Co., Ltd. -- that applied to register all of the above as trademarks in Taiwan... along with marks for 太空機器人 (Space Robot) and 宇宙大戰 (Astrowar), two games published with Sinmax/Dimax branding. Here's the full listing for trademark applications by 探奇 (hereafter "Adventurer") in Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office:

 

 

Adventurer's trademark applications for 甜蜜屋 (Tiánmì wū, "Sweet House"), a.k.a. Home Vision, were rejected by the IPO, as were some initial registration applications in January 1983 for Space Robot and Astrowar. I don't know if there's a way to determine exactly why they were rejected. Regardless, the application dates for Sinmax/Dimax match the history that had been theorized: The Sinmax brand was established first (registered 1 April 1983), followed shortly thereafter by Dimax (registered 16 September 1983). Here are the associated trademark images:

 

 

Of course, trademarking does not tell us exact dates of anything, especially in this "Wild West" era of international intellectual property rights. It's possible that the Sinmax/Dimax releases happened prior to when the trademarks were applied for and registered. The box with Dimax branding for Go Go Home has 1983 printed on it. And of course, Home Vision boxes also have 1983 copyright dates on them. We can be pretty confident that all the Sinmax/Dimax releases were taking place in 1983, but again, this shouldn't be considered definitive proof.

 

Some unanswered questions:

- Why no trademark applications for Go Go Home or The End of the World? (Maybe someone at Adventurer decided that trademarking every game name was unnecessary?)

- What are the identities of the games advertised in the Sinmax ad? (See first post in this thread.)

- Why were the Home Vision trademark applications rejected, while the application for VDI was accepted? (Furthermore, is Adventurer directly related to GEM International, or are they possibly the same company? We've been so far unable to find an entry for GEM Int'l in the Taiwan IPO.)

- Is Bit Corporation related to this company somehow? (I think it remains possible, but they could also be fully unrelated.)

 

Many, many thanks to my friend @hallyVORC for assistance with the IPO searches! Some additional exciting new information about East Asian companies involved with making 2600 games will be forthcoming, stay tuned...

 

[Mr. Postman]

16 hours ago, Ballblaɀer said:

- Is Bit Corporation related to this company somehow? (I think it remains possible, but they could also be fully unrelated) 

 

I love all the info, but I cannot understand the purposeful exclusion of Bit Corp being the obvious sole link to both Gem International and VDI. Every new piece of information is wonderful and great information, but GEM International did distribute Bit Corporation carts and that’s a hard Fact. I’m going to have to side with Bit as the “mother of all” as usual, but do enjoy the new deep dive.
 

It’s very clear that Bit Corp is factually *involved* with GEM and VDI, if not the blatantly probable origin. The GEM sample cart is physical evidence that’s less theoretical than leaning on just trademarks alone. There’s lots of players in the Taiwanese game, but why would Bit Corp be the sole creator of the only sample cart for Belgian GEM & Taiwanese VDI if it wasn’t a real fact? All new information is great and the more that can be discovered the better. The only known GEM/VDI sample cart is a Bit Corp game in a Bit Corp cart shell.

 

http://www.atarimania.com/game-jacky-jump_s13238.html

 

 

As far as my response, Of course I don’t know the whole story! Ballblazer is not only a great guy but also the true strict definition of a dedicated enthusiast. I think he’s a wonderful person always onto great leads and takes his time to research and discover new info for the community. I look forward to everything he has to share so we can further unmask such a fun & curious area of Atari 2600 history.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Mr. Postman

[Rom Hunter]

Many thanks for sharing this information, Ballblazer.

It confirms my earlier findings/theories about Sinmax / Dimax / Home Vision.

[Ballblaɀer]

I really don't understand the "purposeful exclusion" accusation. My post was about the Sinmax, Dimax, and VDI/Home Vision brands being provably connected to a company in Taiwan that had not been previously named. I could have (and perhaps should have) not even mentioned Bit Corp, because I don't think this new information really moves us any closer to knowing the answer to that question.

 

I also don't understand the suggestion that I'm "leaning on just trademarks alone", when I'm not "leaning on" anything. Adventurer Technology existed. They applied for these trademarks. Some were registered. The rest remains unclear.

 

Based on a variety of evidence, I do believe that Bit Corp is connected to VDI/GEM/Home Vision. Yes, the GEM sample cart also suggests a connection. I suspect that Adventurer = GEM, but unless evidence one way or the other turns up, it's just conjecture.

 

I appreciate the kind words. It would be great to see a re-kindled interest in mysteries like this one. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not going to quit looking for new information, either.

[Mr. Postman]

On 7/6/2020 at 10:52 AM, Ballblaɀer said:

I really don't understand the "purposeful exclusion" accusation. My post was about the Sinmax, Dimax, and VDI/Home Vision brands being provably connected to a company in Taiwan that had not been previously named. I could have (and perhaps should have) not even mentioned Bit Corp, because I don't think this new information really moves us any closer to knowing the answer to that question.

 

I also don't understand the suggestion that I'm "leaning on just trademarks alone", when I'm not "leaning on" anything. Adventurer Technology existed. They applied for these trademarks. Some were registered. The rest remains unclear.

 

Based on a variety of evidence, I do believe that Bit Corp is connected to VDI/GEM/Home Vision. Yes, the GEM sample cart also suggests a connection. I suspect that Adventurer = GEM, but unless evidence one way or the other turns up, it's just conjecture.

 

I appreciate the kind words. It would be great to see a re-kindled interest in mysteries like this one. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not going to quit looking for new information, either.

I already thanked you for your hard work, studies, reporting your findings and meant it. I was and still am saying that these trademarks are AMAZING and a great new key to the puzzle, but we can’t lean on them alone as to point us in the final direction. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Let’s get the big issues out of the way first and foremost. 

 

GEM is Belgian & their “Home Vision™️ ”  games were made by VDI, not GEM. Why would Adventurer own anything for a Belgian entity & publisher like GEM? I don’t believe they did. GEM is a lot like Zimag, even with unique carts they’re not relevant themselves as a game dev.

 

Home Vision has trademarks, but they’re supposedly made by VDI (as clearly printed on all box art) for GEM however the only physical real GEM Sample cart in existence is in actuality a Bit Corp cart with a bit corp developed game and that’s real factual Honest-to-God hard hands-on evidence for at least one cart that we know, and other *possibly* maybe the sample carts that have surfaced for Home Vision with final label art that are in Home Vision shells, or as we should probably say “VDI shells”. 

 

So no, I don’t believe Adventurer = GEM. 

I do believe that Adventurer was a company that clearly was the go-to in handling VDI’s and subsequently Home Vision Trademarks. As you’ve shown they had their thumb in many pies. I’d completely write off Home Vision and GEM as Devs because there’s absolutely zero evidence that points towards that. These companies also didn’t care to trademark everything, they sort of stopped caring.

 

So was Adventurer the biggest “parent company” in the Taiwan gaming circle or were they simply a big convenient middleman business that helped manage multiple sources applying for trademarks? I’m leaning towards the latter *if* the companies cared less about ownership than canceling out other pirates from copying their carts. 

From everything we know the majority of Taiwanese game devs don’t even bother with trademarks for all games or hardware even if legitimate.

 

It would appear to me that

Adventurer at least *managed* the filing of ownership for trademarks of the majority of Taiwanese devs of this era but Bit. But why was Bit the exclusion that still made already trademarked games on actual physical carts for the Adventure-trademarked companies if Adventure didn’t own the rights?

 

Bit made one game for VDI for GEM that we know of (Well, at least their “Jacky Jump” Bobby cart). I also think even a blind man can see that the creator (dev) of Bobby also created Lilly Adventure for VDI (which surprisingly isn’t a Bobby hack as we’ve apparently been informed).

 

That would leave Adventurer as the (possible) parent company handling everything *but* Bit, and in anyone’s best educated guess a current or former Bit Developer responsible for the “Bobby is Going Home” that made the sample game cart for VDI, for GEM, also shortly after created Lilly Adventure For VDI & subsequently released it under the trademark of Home Vision.

 

Right or wrong that’s my honest take on this huge picture. While Bit was a complete entity of it’s own I think VDI was another unique Dev company with some crossover employees (as shouldn’t come as a surprise in such a small dev community within the country of Taiwan).

 

So what about Sinmax & Dimax? 

 

They probably were their own Devs that sought the trademark assistance of Adventurer

...or *if* VDI was a Daughter company of Adventurer, it is plausibly possible that so were they... (With the remote possibility of course that VDI maybe also made the games for Sinmax/Dimax).

 

Adventurer? They sure filed a lot of trademarks in the name of multiple different companies that don’t seem all that related. Did they own them all? Were they the true monopoly or were they just a legal company? They absolutely could be at the top of the ladder, afterall they did hold the trademarks. I think we should take all known info into consideration.

 

Agree? Disagree? That’s my best take & It’s a fun topic up for much debate. I myself wouldn’t “lean on the trademarks” in the full search for the truth behind *develpment origins* given such confusion surrounding all the mysteries that simply can never be answered by just them alone. When one expands into the Post-2600 Taiwanese gaming market things get even more confusing ten fold. Everything stacked keeps adding more to the riddles with additional potential overlap and again real copyrights on completed games that ultimately were not affiliated with the original developers that even made them at all.

 

With that said, 

Happy Gaming.