Beef Drop, Qbert, Frogger, Tubes

[Cousin Vinnie]

Would the developers of these homebrews please mention whether or not they intend on releasing these games via cart. I'm about to do a 7800 homebrew article and I have lost track of who is doing what.

 

Cousin Vinnie

bffunkrevival@comcast.net

[Bruce Tomlin]

I'm having so much fun programming an RPG for the Colecovision, and I never could figure out an actual game to make out of Tubes, so it's on indefinite hiatus.

[Schmutzpuppe]

It think there will be no homebrew until someone makes a cartridge board.

In general I am willing to release Frogger (under I different name due to legal reasons).

[Cousin Vinnie]

"I never could figure out an actual game to make out of Tubes, so it's on indefinite hiatus. " - that's sucks, b/c I really liked that concept. LOL!!! And have you seen the label art Silver Surfer came up with for it? That is pretty sweet!

 

 

You know that Combat 1990 is now out on a cartridge. Maybe talking to Harry or that Video 61 guy could help you get Frogger to where it needs to be!

 

Cousin Vinnie

Edited December 30, 2005 by Cousin Vinnie

[PacManPlus]

It looks like they (Video 61) are doing the same thing I was doing with my Pac-Man (& variations) hacks: Using existing game's boards and replacing them with eproms.

 

I stopped doing that for two reasons; 1) At that point Mitch and Bruce were discussing plans for a generic 7800 board, and it sounded like it was close to completion and 2) I didn't want to keep ruining cartridges, as at some point they would be hard to come by (I guess for the same reason it's frowned upon to 'MAME' actual arcade machines)

 

Hopefully there will be boards soon

 

P.S. - I know this is a pipe dream and I believe I already know the answer (no), but I actually e-mailed Namco asking if I can produce Pac-Man on the 7800 platform. I explained that it was never released for the 7800 and it left a big gaping hole in that system's library (actually one of a few holes). That was a few months ago. Can't hurt to ask! If by some miracle there would have been an agreement reached, the next step would be to get permission from Atari / GCC for using the existing code (Ms. Pac-Man) as the basis for the hack.

[Shawn]

I'm having so much fun programming an RPG for the Colecovision, and I never could figure out an actual game to make out of Tubes, so it's on indefinite hiatus.

991154[/snapback]

 

 

Please don't stop work on tubes!! I love it!! At least put some background music to it please, (PLEASE) as I play it on a half regular basis and I would play it even more if it at least had some backgound music (even shitty music would sufice, just something to kill the silence.)

[8th lutz]

I'm having so much fun programming an RPG for the Colecovision, and I never could figure out an actual game to make out of Tubes, so it's on indefinite hiatus.

991154[/snapback]

Try to give to another home programmer then. It should not be as bad as giving a rpg middle of development to another programmer.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

It think there will be no homebrew until someone makes a cartridge board. In general I am willing to release Frogger (under I different name due to legal reasons).

 

Dunno. I'd rather buy "Frogger" than a random Frog jumping game. The name is very important to me. Also, you might get away with it, since I think 8-Bit consoles are under Konamis radar. And if it doesn't work out, you can always rename it after they complain...

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[shadow460]

Hi there!

 

It think there will be no homebrew until someone makes a cartridge board. In general I am willing to release Frogger (under I different name due to legal reasons).

 

Dunno. I'd rather buy "Frogger" than a random Frog jumping game. The name is very important to me. Also, you might get away with it, since I think 8-Bit consoles are under Konamis radar. And if it doesn't work out, you can always rename it after they complain...

 

Greetings,

Manuel

991296[/snapback]

 

I agree, but I understand there are copyrights. My suggestion to those who buy, say, Frog Transit (oh, my that's original) and want a Frogger cartridge instead would be to simply relabel their cartridge.

I've relabeled more than one cartridge, but most of them are simply a copy of the original label (the destroyed one) that was supposed to be on the cart.

Also, if you really want a 7800 cartridge board, copy the PCB design from Hat Trick or something and make one. That is extremely difficult, I know, but if you really want the board for someone to install a ROM on, there you go.

[birdie3]

How about:

 

Salamander Shuffle

Traffic Toad

[The_Laird]

How about:

 

Salamander Shuffle

Traffic Toad

991415[/snapback]

 

A few more:

 

Toad Road

Frogged

Road Kill

Green Machine

Amphibi Run

[Harry_Dodgson]

It looks like they (Video 61) are doing the same thing I was doing with my Pac-Man (& variations) hacks: Using existing game's boards and replacing them with eproms.

 

I stopped doing that for two reasons; 1) At that point Mitch and Bruce were discussing plans for a generic 7800 board, and it sounded like it was close to completion   and  2) I didn't want to keep ruining cartridges, as at some point they would be hard to come by (I guess for the same reason it's frowned upon to 'MAME' actual arcade machines)

 

-snip-

 

991235[/snapback]

 

Want some Hat Trick ROM chips? IMHO there are plenty of 7800 cartridges/boards to fill the needs of homebrew games for decades ( unless O'Shea decides to take them out of the cave and bury them in the desert )

[PacManPlus]

It looks like they (Video 61) are doing the same thing I was doing with my Pac-Man (& variations) hacks: Using existing game's boards and replacing them with eproms.

 

I stopped doing that for two reasons; 1) At that point Mitch and Bruce were discussing plans for a generic 7800 board, and it sounded like it was close to completion    and  2) I didn't want to keep ruining cartridges, as at some point they would be hard to come by (I guess for the same reason it's frowned upon to 'MAME' actual arcade machines)

 

-snip-

 

991235[/snapback]

 

Want some Hat Trick ROM chips? IMHO there are plenty of 7800 cartridges/boards to fill the needs of homebrew games for decades ( unless O'Shea decides to take them out of the cave and bury them in the desert )

991536[/snapback]

 

Wow, really? and I was starting to feel guilty about destroying all of the Hat Trick carts that I bought to use the boards from...

 

Thanks, Harry... BTW - I bought cart #13

[shadow460]

I can't find Hat Trick anywhere for my collection.

I guess I'll have to put up with Ice Hockey.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that comment.

I think mine is even CIB--yeah. A look on the shelf says it is indeed CIB.

I just bought another game tonight that's CIB and dirt common, but it's for a different system.

[Shawn]

How about:

 

Salamander Shuffle

Traffic Toad

991415[/snapback]

 

A few more:

 

Toad Road

Frogged

Road Kill

Green Machine

Amphibi Run

991432[/snapback]

 

 

I got one too:

 

FROGGER

[shadow460]

Let's just hope that Konami, Sega, Parker Brothers, and Bridgestone will all allow that name.

 

I'd like to see it, but someone will probably say no.

[Danno]

Making homebrews of unreleased games that the licenses are owned by other people (in this case Frogger) is not illegal. I support the creation of new Atari 7800 games wholeheartedly. In fact - I've been a bugtester on several of them.

 

I love the fact that some of these great games have been ressurected and coded (or re-coded) for the 7800. Distributing them for free on the internet is perfectly fine. But I understand why these guys are using other names to protect themselves as well.

 

It's the Selling of them for profit that is against the law.

 

Now I'm not opposed to someone selling unlicensed games on cart to regain their costs of building the carts, but turning a profit on someone else's PATENTED idea is not only legally wrong, but MORALLY as well.

 

It's theft. period.

 

You can make the argument that the licenses have already paid for themselves. I agree. But the license holders for ALL of these games ARE still releasing versions of them for the newer systems, so they aren't exatly letting the statute of limitations run out on their licenses either.

 

Now Harry - he made a Brand New game, and is selling it. Bravo. That's commendable. And to date, I'm not aware of any of the other homebrewers in our community trying to turn a profit on licensed works.

 

Keep making Great homebrews. I'l bugtest them all. But keep it legal folks.

[jbanes]

It's the Selling of them for profit that is against the law.

 

Now I'm not opposed to someone selling unlicensed games on cart to regain their costs of building the carts, but turning a profit on someone else's PATENTED idea is not only legally wrong, but MORALLY as well.

 

Wow. What a mess. While I understand the sentiment, allow me to decode what you mean to say.

 

First off, video games are not protected by patents. Programming elements may be, but not the game itself. The game itself is protected by copyrights (life of owner + 75 years), and the names/feel are protected by trademarks (valid as long as it's protected and maintained).

 

Copyright doesn't enter into this discussion, since the homebrews are not derived from any original code. (At least, I assume they're not.) Thus trademarks are the primary issue to deal with. Now trademarks are much different than patents and copyrights. There is no time limit on trademarks, but in exchange the mark has to be protected. This makes it difficult to create clones without silly names. The owner of the Frogger mark may have no problem with Frogger clones. But the moment you use the Frogger name, the owner MUST shut you down or face the possibility of losing their mark.

 

With that sort of requirement over their heads, the owner will pursue you no matter what their feelings on the issue are. Even if you're not making money off the mark, you're still walking on thin ice. If you threaten their mark, you're going to be targetted. Period.

 

The only up side is that these things usually only go as far as a Cease and Desist. As long as you comply, the owner will usually not carry it any further.

 

It's theft. period.

 

Trademark infringement is NOT theft. It is a violations of government granted rights, and is subject only to civil suits. You are not taking anything from the owner of the mark, you are merely misrepresenting yourself as a legitimate owner of the mark. That doesn't make trademark infringement "right", but it isn't theft. Especially when you consider how much hard work the homebrewers have invested in creating their clones.

 

You can make the argument that the licenses have already paid for themselves. I agree. But the license holders for ALL of these games ARE still releasing versions of them for the newer systems, so they aren't exatly letting the statute of limitations run out on their licenses either.

 

There is no statute of limitations on copyrights or trademarks. The statute of limitations is for the matter of legal issues, usually criminal issues. e.g. If you steal money, but don't get charged for 10 years (or whatever the statute is in your area), then you probably can't be prosecuted.

 

What you're thinking of is the time limitations on intellectual property. Copyright is life of the owner, plus 75 years. Patents are about 14 years (though there are some tricky things that can be done to shift that protection into the future). Trademarks have no limits. All they require is that a mark be maintained. A mark is lost if it is considered "abandoned", or if the mark falls into such common usage that it is considered to be no longer trademarkable. (e.g. "Kleenex" is in danger because everyone refers to facial tissue by that term.)

 

The argument over whether or not an owner has made his money off of a product is a matter for Copyright law. The Founding Fathers of the United States wanted the Copyright to be for a very limited time. After that time, they wanted it released into public domain so that others may build on earlier works. Unfortunately, they didn't define an upper bound on what was "reasonable". Thanks to Disney's concerns over Mickey Mouse falling into Public Domain, Copyright has been extended from its original 14 years (act of 1790) to a whopping life of the author PLUS 75 years! That's simply not what our laws intended. It's screwed up and wrong, but the Supreme Court won't overturn it. The court agrees that the term is too long, but dodges the issue based on the idiocy that the upper bound of "reasonable" wasn't defined.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

A mark is lost if it is considered "abandoned", or if the mark falls into such common usage that it is considered to be no longer trademarkable. (e.g. "Kleenex" is in danger because everyone refers to facial tissue by that term.)

 

You're sure on that? I'm pretty certain for example that Sony are still the only ones selling a "Walkman". And AFAIK Nintendo pays licensing fees to Grundig to use the term "Game Boy" in Europe.

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[jbanes]

You're sure on that? I'm pretty certain for example that Sony are still the only ones selling a "Walkman". And AFAIK Nintendo pays licensing fees to Grundig to use the term "Game Boy" in Europe.

991727[/snapback]

 

I'm sure about that. "Walkman" is still trademarked. Sony is very rigid about ensuring that no one else uses the term, even though it was popular for awhile to use the term "Walkman" in common lexicon to describe any portable player.

 

Game Boy is anything *but* a household word. Generally its only used to refer to an actual Game Boy. I haven't heard anyone use the term for their GameGears, Lynxs, or PSPs. Since it's not considered generic (even though it's made of two generic words). it is perfectly trademarkable. Finally, you're mixing the trademark laws of another nation with the US's laws. While such laws are usually compatible, you always need to check what the exact laws are in other countries.

 

Even "Kleenex" is still a valid trademark. I said it was in danger because of its common usage, but no one has yet challenged the validity of the mark. Xerox sent out various pamphlets to consumers explaining how to properly refer to copies made on copy machines in an attempt to overthrow the "I'll just Xerox this document" terminology.

[DracIsBack]

I'm having so much fun programming an RPG for the Colecovision, and I never could figure out an actual game to make out of Tubes, so it's on indefinite hiatus.

991154[/snapback]

 

 

The 7800 needs an RPG too!

[8th lutz]

The 7800 needs an RPG too!

991932[/snapback]

Bruce explained the 7800 difficulties making a rpg http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=79154&st=0. Which is about dragon warrior for the 2600, mentioning the difficulties of the 7800 doing it. I think the 7800 could the first couple ultimas and wizardry at least. I think Bruce might of forgot was the 7800 was capable of bank switching up to 512k according to a thread on this forum. I know the biggest 7800 game created was 144k.

Edited December 31, 2005 by 8th lutz

[shadow460]

Darned double post, and this one was missin' stuff.

Edited January 1, 2006 by shadow460

[shadow460]

Actually, Danno is right about the copyright stuff.

In music, copyright infringement lawsuits are judged based on what amounts to the core of the song--a series of tones (or chords) played in a pattern. Making that series higher or lower does not circumvent copyright infringement.

 

Apply that to videogames, and you then see that programming code may not be what copyright infringement is based on. It may well be the general concept of the game is copyrighted as well, just like that "chord structure" (again, the basic sound of the song) in a song.

 

Granted, video games and music are different subjects (usually), but think of this:

People here are creating enjoyable games. Kenfused, Pac Man Plus, and Schmutzpuppe have created very near arcade perfect games. Would you want them to take the risk of having to stop making these homebrews?

I'm not going to ask them to do anything I'm not sure is legal. One could make changes to the media they buy containing Frogger, Beef Drop (my copy of that game has been changed), etc. like label variations and such. You can't ask the programmer to do that, though, for fear of copyright infringement.

 

Here's another thought: You put your time and effort into creating something, and then someone comes along and profits off of it, denying you the profit you worked for. They take your idea and sell it as their own. What if it's something you worked all your life for?

Is it fair for you to go to your job every day, and then return with nothing on payday because someone took your check? No, it isn't. Is it fair to be laid off because your job was outsourced? This has happened to me, and it sucks. Someone else came in, took my place at a job, and I was out on the street. I did nothing wrong--it was taken.

 

To their credit, though, none of the homebrewers here is trying to claim that they created something they didn't. I'm not sure about Bruce with Tubes, but the creators of Beef Drop, Pac Man, Frogger, Q-Bert, Klax, NTSC Sentinel, and I probably missed some, are simply doing us a service of bringing games to our system we would not have had outside the arcade otherwise. Ditto that with Video 61 and the Monitor Cartridge. They in no way have claimed it as anything other than Harry's work.

 

As for sales, yeah, the games can be sold, but only at a price that will cover the cost of manufacturing them. In other words, you pay only for the physical cartridge, not the program inside.

 

Anyway, to clarify, I heartily encourage our programmers to create more games. that includes ports of games from the arcade or another system (I'm sure they will get right on that Perfect Dark port).

I wish it were easy for them to be able to use the exact game, title, and code, but it isn't. They've done the best they can, and I say that based on my experience with Pac Man, Beef Drop, and Frogger.

 

Oh, one other thought--PacManPlus has brought up something I've thinked (thought, thinkeded--whatever) about myself. I've got a couple of homebrews that were made from other cartridges, but eventually, we're gonna run out of common games. I'd like to see the day when either I can make my own 7800 boards (don't have the tools right now) or one is created and made available for sale via the AA store.

@Bruce and co.: Even if you come up with a board that costs $20 or $30, I think it will be worth that to be able to make a 7800 game without tearing up an existing cartridge.

[jbanes]

Actually, Danno is right about the copyright stuff.

In music, copyright infringement lawsuits are judged based on what amounts to the core of the song--a series of tones (or chords) played in a pattern.  Making that series higher or lower does not circumvent copyright infringement.

 

Music is judged that way because the court has to look at sheet music. If you change the scale, you don't actually change most of the sheet music. In software, they're looking to see if significant parts are the same, or obviously ripped off. The general look, feel, and gameplay are not protected by copyright. (The artwork is though, so don't use that directly!)

 

To take a popular case in recent history, SCO was unable to prove that Linux infringed on their Unix IP, since Linux was built from scratch. However, Linux does retain many of the exact same features and designs as Unix. The judge has not at any point ruled that this similarity is enough to prosecute Linux on.

 

Granted, video games and music are different subjects (usually), but think of this:

People here are creating enjoyable games.  Kenfused, Pac Man Plus, and Schmutzpuppe have created very near arcade perfect games.  Would you want them to take the risk of having to stop making these homebrews?

 

I don't understand your point. I'm merely clarifying the laws under which protection is granted. Merely the act of creating a clone puts you in danger. Selling it only increases that danger.

 

Take the example of The Tetris Company. While they've quieted down quite a bit over the years, they used to send Cease and Desist letters to nearly every clone in existence, regardless of whether or not money was made or the name was used. At the time, these actions had a chilling effect on the industry as no one wanted to take the Tetris Company to court. From Wikipedia:

 

In 1996, he and Henk Rogers formed The Tetris Company LLC and Blue Planet Software in an effort to get royalties from the Tetris brand, with good success on game consoles but very little on the PC front. Tetris is a registered trademark of The Tetris Company LLC ("TTC"). TTC has licensed the Tetris mark to a number of companies, but the legality of tetromino games that do not use the Tetris name has not been decided in court.

 

According to circulars available from the United States Library of Congress, a game cannot be copyrighted (only patented), which refutes much of TTC's copyright claims on the game, leaving the trademark on Tetris as TTC's most significant claim on any government-granted monopoly.

 

To clarify that last sentence, a clone of a game cannot be protected under the "derivitive works" concept that authors are often able to use in protecting their works. The source code and game code is otherwise copyright protected. The flyer the text refers to can be found here. The first sentence states:

 

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

 

The text then goes on to describe how to register your game's copyright. (Which, BTW, you have an automatic copyright under the current laws ratified by the Berne Convention.)

 

I'm not going to ask them to do anything I'm not sure is legal.  One could make changes to the media they buy containing Frogger, Beef Drop (my copy of that game has been changed), etc. like label variations and such.  You can't ask the programmer to do that, though, for fear of copyright infringement.

 

As I said, as long as your sourcecode, artwork, and other elements are original, copyright does not apply. (Which doesn't stop the owner from sending a Cease and Desist, regardless of whether he believes he'll win the case.) You need to make sure you're in compliance with trademarks. It wouldn't do to spend all that time obscuring the game itself only to get in trouble for using the name.

 

Here's another thought:  You put your time and effort into creating something, and then someone comes along and profits off of it, denying you the profit you worked for.  They take your idea and sell it as their own.  What if it's something you worked all your life for?

 

That's hardly a fair comparison to what homebrewers are doing. Homebrewers are writing their own code, creating their own images, and generally doing all their own work. The market sees this as competition to an otherwise monopoly.

 

If it could, the market would allow for competition in music, as the individual songs can command unnaturally high prices. For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller CD costs more money in stores today than when it was originally released on cassette. CDs cost less to produce than cassettes, and the product should deprecate in price over time. Yet since there's no competition to Thriller, there's no reason for the prices to drop.

 

Unfortunately, there's no way to both respect the copyrights of an artist and provide for competition, so the music industry continues to get away with exhorbant prices.

 

Is it fair for you to go to your job every day, and then return with nothing on payday because someone took your check?  No, it isn't.  Is it fair to be laid off because your job was outsourced?  This has happened to me, and it sucks.  Someone else came in, took my place at a job, and I was out on the street.  I did nothing wrong--it was taken.

 

Again, not the same thing. Creating a clone of a game is like creating a competing pocket calculator. Let's say you created the first calculator. Is it fair that all these other manufacturers took your idea and created their own pocket calculators? It could be argued that it's not fair, but the US market is structured to encourage such practices. That's why many new businesses always look for what's called a "high barrier to entry" when creating a new product. "High barrier to entry" means that it's difficult for a competitor to provide your product or service, thus ensuring your monopoloy for a longer period of time than would otherwise be possible.

 

Anyway, to clarify, I heartily encourage our programmers to create more games.  that includes ports of games from the arcade or another system (I'm sure they will get right on that Perfect Dark port).

I wish it were easy for them to be able to use the exact game, title, and code, but it isn't.  They've done the best they can, and I say that based on my experience with Pac Man, Beef Drop, and Frogger.

 

I think you misunderstand me. I am in no way encouraging authors to "rip off" the originals. I'm only clarifying the precise laws and vectors of attack that authors need to concern themselves with. Trademarks can actually be more dangerous than copyrights because individual characters and likenesses can be trademarked. For example, Mario is a trademark of Nintendo Co, LTD. If you use Mario's likeness, you're in a far worse position than if you use a generic character.

 

Danno's heart was in the right place, but his understanding of IP Law was seriously skewed. If you're going to protect yourself, you need to understand exactly what laws you're trying to stay in compliance with.

Edited January 10, 2006 by jbanes