Price to rent a programmer?

[lucifershalo]

ok, to do what I would like (the DIG DUG improvement)

is it a hack of the original game

or do I need to program it from scratch?

[Omegamatrix]

I think you'd be better off learning assembly and trying it yourself. If you simply wanted to hack Dig Dug, well here's a rough disassembly that will give you a head start.

 

 

Dig Dug.zip

[EricBall]

ok, to do what I would like (the DIG DUG improvement) is it a hack of the original game or do I need to program it from scratch?

 

It depends on how easily the code can be modified to meet your requirements and how willing you are to compromise your dreams. Think of it this way - at one end of a line is Dig Dug unmodified; at the other end is your dream. To move one end requires effort; the other end requires sacrifice.

 

The disassembly is probably a good place to start. That will give you a base to start modifying. At some point you may decide "you can't get there from here" and start from scratch. But the experience of modifying the base won't be wasted. You will better understand what you need to create in order to meet your dream. And you still may be able to use some parts of the original you modified.

[lucifershalo]

thanks for this reply, Eric

[potatohead]

I would add that the journey is a lot of fun.

 

Might not be a bad idea to work through some really simple games. Maybe do PONG, or BREAKOUT. You will have a good time, and learn a lot of interesting things.

 

bB is an easy setup, and there is lots of simple code posted here to work with. It does have a lot of limitations, but there is an upside to that, which I really like. That is with those limitations comes a natural focus on just the game elements. You will gravitate right toward those because with bB and the VCS, there isn't any choice!

 

Just be sure and keep your initial expectations nice and low. Build something, make it work, tweak it, etc... Once you have that foundation, you will see how other things are possible. From there, it really is sacrifice time for the reward of seeing something you want to have happen, actually happen!

[the.golden.ax]

Narf. I need to become super good at coding. I'd take $20/hr if I could do it well As it is I do it for free and suck at it.

 

AX

[e1will]

Even without being a programmer I doubt it will be possible to do a giant boss

 

Depends on how big you want it. If memory serves, the Arrangement boss took up about 1/5 of the horizontal space, and as luck would have it, that's exactly the size of a quad sprite: 32 pixels out of a 160-pixel wide screen. So that part of it shouldn't be a problem at all. Look at the bridge in Adventure for a good estimate of the width you'd get. And of course, you can make it as tall as you want.

 

What you propose is quite doable. Doesn't mean it wouldn't take a long time (either making sense of the .asm or doing it from scratch), but it's definitely possible.

 

--Will

[Bill Loguidice]

I would think the only way a pay-for-play arrangement were to work in this situation would be to take a page from how they pay us to write books. Essentially give an advance against royalties and then once sales exceed the advance get a percentage of the margins. For instance, a programmer might be offered a $2000 advance and 10% royalties thereafter. While you're not talking the same volume as a book might sell (at best a few hundred versus thousands), the profit margins should be higher.

 

You might ask then why would a programmer accept this when they can just program something themselves? Well, in this case they'd be $2000 richer and the "publisher" (funder) would be assuming the financial risk. At the same time, the programmer would also be held accountable to certain deliverables at certain times. Like with book writing, no one would be in it to get rich, just in a mutually beneficial relationship to get something done.

[yuppicide]

I'm not really reading every post in this topic, but that one was funny.

 

Sometimes I kind of wish there was a cheap floozy who didn't want to make games of his own.. just wanted to fulfill others wishes by making their games.

 

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any programmers who fit into the "cheap floozy" category.

[Bruce Tomlin]

I would think the only way a pay-for-play arrangement were to work in this situation would be to take a page from how they pay us to write books. Essentially give an advance against royalties and then once sales exceed the advance get a percentage of the margins.

Except that this model doesn't work very well when you just want a custom hack of an existing game. It's hard to give an advance against royalties of something that isn't going to be sold.

 

You could maybe offer bounties for specific goals, like a proper disasembly with all the references figured out such that you can randomly insert NOPs into the source code and the game still runs, but you have to come up with very specific goals (so that there isn't disagreement about when money should be paid), and you still have to be able to do something with what you get. If you have a good disassembly and still don't know enough programming to hack the game, you still won't have what you wanted.

[jaybird3rd]

Sometimes I kind of wish there was a cheap floozy who didn't want to make games of his own.. just wanted to fulfill others wishes by making their games.

I doubt any such creature exists. The only programmers who would spend hours developing for an "ancient" video game console with no serious commercial potential--and who would actually finish what they begin without getting bored--are the ones motivated primarily by their own self-interest: fulfilling a creative vision, enjoying the challenge of efficient low-level programming, etc. People in that category aren't likely to put others' ideas ahead of their own. As for people motivated by money, if they're good enough to do anything on the 2600 beyond simple graphics hacks, they can easily make a lot more money elsewhere.

 

In other words, if you have an idea for a game (or even a hack) and if you want it badly enough, you'll just have to break out the manuals and learn to make it yourself.

Edited November 5, 2009 by jaybird3rd

[mos6507]

can I smell elitism??

 

has anyone been hired to program a 2600 homebrew, already?

 

Have you played the new games on Flashback 2? That's what you get when you pay programmers peanuts to write 2600 games rather than it being done for the love of it.

[Tursi]

I doubt any such creature exists. The only programmers who would spend hours developing for an "ancient" video game console with no serious commercial potential--and who would actually finish what they begin without getting bored--are the ones motivated primarily by their own self-interest: fulfilling a creative vision, enjoying the challenge of efficient low-level programming, etc.

 

I dunno, I've done it a few times.. not for the 2600 yet, but various other systems. Sometimes I don't mind breaking from my own projects, if I like the project in question.

[jaybird3rd]

I dunno, I've done it a few times.. not for the 2600 yet, but various other systems. Sometimes I don't mind breaking from my own projects, if I like the project in question.

But even then, you're doing it for your own reasons: because you like the project. I was referring more to the idea of developers taking on projects that someone else wants to see, but that the developer himself might not like or care about.

 

I've written more of my thoughts on creative game development in mos6507's thread, if anyone cares to read them.

Edited November 5, 2009 by jaybird3rd

[VectorGamer]

Hey I read the review on N.E.R.D.S - man that was funny...I like how the viruses would go right through the ship - I mean wasn't that the whole point of the game?

 

Is N.E.R.D.S worse than E.T.?

[jaybird3rd]

Hey I read the review on N.E.R.D.S - man that was funny...I like how the viruses would go right through the ship - I mean wasn't that the whole point of the game?

 

Is N.E.R.D.S worse than E.T.?

Yes. Games like N.E.R.D.S. and The Last Ninja only exist because somebody noticed that there was money to be made in the homebrew game collector's market and wanted a piece of it. I'm a believer in free markets, and I would have had no problem with this if they had taken the opportunity to create something worthwhile and made an honest buck in the process, but they phoned in a half-baked effort to try to cash in on the fad. It was a cynical move, and Nathan's reviews are evidence that the market recognized it as such. There's no way the developers could have taken legitimate pride in their work, which to me is what hobby development should be all about.

Edited November 5, 2009 by jaybird3rd