Boulder Dash ROM will not be released

[GroovyBee]

Just because I accept that I must give my personal information, birthdate, and social security number to the DMV when registering my car, does not in and of itself mean that I should feel as comfortable doing the same when I register my new dishwasher with the manufacturer -- and it most certainly does not mean I will even consider doing so for a video game.

I think it boils down to the £££ cost of the item e.g. house > car > dishwasher > video game > ROM, as to how much information I'm comfortable giving away in order to get it.

[freewheel]

I think it boils down to the £££ cost of the item e.g. house > car > dishwasher > video game > ROM, as to how much information I'm comfortable giving away in order to get it.

 

It really boils down to how much is REQUIRED. And there's certainly a cost-benefit analysis going on each time:

 

Kids today have no problem informing the entire world of their whereabouts 7x24, who they interact with, and exactly what they do. For what gain? Pretty much nothing other than "status", in whatever flavour that comes today. Does that come back to haunt them later, even when they haven't actually done anything illegal? Sure, it's extremely unlikely for an individual, but it can and does happen. And when it does... boy howdy. Pure ugliness. Jobs lost, people in jail, lives ruined. And for what? So that your Aunt Martha can keep track of what you do in your life, without having to actually talk to her? That strikes me as a pretty poor bargain, so I choose not to participate. And just like in this forum, there are people out there who think I'm crazy to think the way I do about it. So be it. I'm not exactly missing out on much. And they're free to take these risks if they so choose.

 

In order to have a car, which basically provides me as much transportation freedom as exists in our society (a HUGE benefit), I give up plenty besides money. All sorts of personal information. And to operate it on public roadways (again a huge benefit) I have to agree to give up a bunch of freedom. Can't speed. Can't do all sorts of things I might want to do with it. And I'm willing to accept that, because holy crap does a car make life infinitely better. Same goes for a house. Because man, my life is a heck of a lot nicer when I don't have to live inside a cardboard box.

 

But for a video game? Are people serious? Is that seriously where this conversation went?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

It might be as simple as asking a question, but what is he going to do if the person questioned decides to lie? If you don't accept what's being said, you're not asking, but accusing. (guilty until proven innocent)

In my mind I would mark that person as suspicious (and not supportive). But I would definitely link that information to other evidence. Either other pirates originating from the same person (even more if their sale started after the 1st one showed up) or the persons general reputation in the community. There is not automatism (unlike big companies, we can afford that manual effort), instead a lot of sanity and reason.

 

Watermarking isn't going to help that out very much, and certainly won't stop it.

Why not. I could buy a pirated copy from the person trying to make profit and analyze the watermark. This would allow me tracing the source back to one individual. Then I may or may not ask that person. Maybe I wait until a second or third pirate shows up from the same source. Maybe not.

 

The theoretical chance alone of getting caught or even only suspected on supporting pirating will stop quite some people.

 

I guess if you want to really see the impact adding a watermark has to a rom, then the developer should be up front and honest about it when they do a release for a game. Tell people who are buying it that there is a watermark and why it's being applied. And the market will decide if they care about it or not. I'm sure some will be very vocal about it, others may still be against it but just silently pass on it without making so much as a peep.

Of course. This is a sensitive point, so transparency is crucial. Edited July 20, 2015 by Thomas Jentzsch

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I think it boils down to the £££ cost of the item e.g. house > car > dishwasher > video game > ROM, as to how much information I'm comfortable giving away in order to get it.

That makes sense. Some people may not even buy a car for those reason and some even use Facebook.

 

BTW: I suppose if a homebrew would cost as much as a car, less people would complain about watermarking. Problem solved!

[Mr SQL]

Do you own a car?

 

You may not be aware, but that's the new software model we are facing. The owner (e.g. me), watermarks his product. He then lends (not sells) it to his customer. The customer pays a one time fee for lending it. Now the watermark helps the owner if his product is stolen (pirating is theft).

 

What? Tom your interpretation seems at odds with physical media distribution. You sell a disc, a tape or a cart with program code on it and the end user owns that media, can go ahead and resell it or back it up (if they can - DCMCA means your copy protection can't be taken apart). The model you're referencing has to do with leased IP only; you did not lease BD to folks because they puchased a physical cart.

 

bitd if a DRM product went bad my company policy was to replace it for free. What's your policy, do you lend another copy? And what about the copy they had on loan, shouldn't they pay a fee for losing your property?

 

From our conversation earlier - didn't you write Thrust for the c64 bitd and a cool racing game as well or was that a different Tom Jentzsch from the Twilight Zone?

[Andromeda Stardust]

Yeah regulations regarding real estate and motor vehicles are put in place for a reason. Land owners must pay taxes. Drivers of motor vehicles must not put other people at risk because they happen to be daredevils or idiots. So owning a house or a vehicle requires some semblance of responsibility or record keeping. The fact that they are the two biggest purchases most people make in a lifetime is moot. Pets and livestock are also regulated and ownership requires responsibility.

 

A video game or other property is different. If I want to mod my game/console, or resell it, or hit it with a sledgehammer, it is my right. If I want to add an extra room to my house, well there are building codes to look into, and permission from the city is necessary in some cases. I must use a licensed contractor for certain improvements. I cannot just tamper with or remove the emissions system or other safety features of my vehicle. I cannot mercilessly beat my dog because I have an anger problem.

 

So the comparisons between the government telling me what I can and cannot do with real estate, motor vehicles, or live animals, and a video game developer or manufacturer telling me what I can and cannot do with a piece of software or hardware, are two different things. Sure using any modern digital service involves signing a contract. Some of this is to limit the liability of the company and some of it restricts your consumer rights. Regardless, DRM or other schemes is basically the business or rights owner telling consumers what they can and cannot do with their hardware. In the Wild West of video games, company/dev is sheriff of their own village, and if you want to take up residence, you gotta play by their rules.

 

Like it or not, the consumer signs a legally binding contract to use the video game system or software, which is upheld in a court of law. Don't like it, don't sign up. If enough consumers vote with their dollars, the company will lose money and start to listen. DRM in music stores has largely been defeated. Watermarking is another story. However, in the case of homebrewer developers trying to control a consumer's use of your game, guess what? The system you are developing had it's own protections put in place decades ago by the console manufacturer which may or may not be defunct. By creating said game, you are defeating those measures. But the warranties are long null and void on old hardware and patents expired, so nobody's going to chase you with a stick.

 

But attempting to add additional protection and security to your own game and tell the consumer what they can and cannot do with your game, is toxic to the very nature of homebrew as a concept. Homebrew development is done generally for the love of the game and not the programmer's sole source of income. Your fans deserve better than this treatment.

Edited July 20, 2015 by stardust4ever

[slab0meat]

Some homebrews are sports games. These pictures relating to sports, was this a catch?

 

The "meaning" of a catch is looked at different ways, despite a rulebook definition of it... which changes occasionally.

 

 

[Thomas Jentzsch]

What? Tom your interpretation seems at odds with physical media distribution. You sell a disc, a tape or a cart with program code on it and the end user owns that media, can go ahead and resell it or back it up (if they can - DCMCA means your copy protection can't be taken apart). The model you're referencing has to do with leased IP only; you did not lease BD to folks because they puchased a physical cart.

 

bitd if a DRM product went bad my company policy was to replace it for free. What's your policy, do you lend another copy? And what about the copy they had on loan, shouldn't they pay a fee for losing your property?

If I would lend software, yes. But that was only a hypothetical thought during the discussion.

 

From our conversation earlier - didn't you write Thrust for the c64 bitd and a cool racing game as well or was that a different Tom Jentzsch from the Twilight Zone?

No, I only wrote Thrust for the Atari 2600.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

...and a video game developer or manufacturer telling me what I can and cannot do with a piece of software or hardware, are two different things.

Almost every developer will tell you that you are not allowed to make copies for profit. And you accept that when you buy the game.

 

But attempting to add additional protection and security to your own game and tell the consumer what they can and cannot do with your game, is toxic to the very nature of homebrew as a concept. Homebrew development is done generally for the love of the game and not the programmer's sole source of income. Your fans deserve better than this treatment.

I agree with you, that our fans deserve the best. But I think developers can expect the same from their fans.

 

That's why I am looking for the least annoying suitable compromise. A watermark does not limit your legal use at all. You already signed a contract which limits illegal use. So what's wrong when a developer wants to know who broke the contract?

 

BTW: The more people object to even the most harmless alternatives, the more likely it will become that some developers/manufacturers will just implement what they think is necessary and do not make this transparent. So maybe you already have bought a lot of watermarked (or even worse) media without knowing. That's the consequence of extreme positions which do not allow any compromises. On average the result is worse than a good compromise would have been.

[slab0meat]

Crazy Climber -- make me a good offer, and King of the Mountain can be yours!

[Mord]

BTW: The more people object to even the most harmless alternatives, the more likely it will become that some developers/manufacturers will just implement what they think is necessary and do not make this transparent. So maybe you already have bought a lot of watermarked (or even worse) media without knowing. That's the consequence of extreme positions which do not allow any compromises. On average the result is worse than a good compromise would have been.

 

In those cases, the developers had better hope their secret stays a secret because if word gets out, it's going to cause more of a backlash than being up front about it and accepting the reduced sales from people trying to vote on these things with their wallet.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Some homebrews are sports games. These pictures relating to sports, was this a catch?

 

The "meaning" of a catch is looked at different ways, despite a rulebook definition of it... which changes occasionally.

 

 

Yes, it was definitely a catch. Seven months later, I am still steaming over that reversed call.

[Andromeda Stardust]

BTW: The more people object to even the most harmless alternatives, the more likely it will become that some developers/manufacturers will just implement what they think is necessary and do not make this transparent. So maybe you already have bought a lot of watermarked (or even worse) media without knowing. That's the consequence of extreme positions which do not allow any compromises. On average the result is worse than a good compromise would have been.

Like I said earlier, I'm not opposed to watermarks as this only discourages *illegal* sharing. In fact many limited edition homebrew have the edition number printed on the title screen. Some even let the buyer customize the title screen. My 87 Arts "Gift" Edition of Star Keeper has my forum username on it. If that's not a "watermark" I don't know what is. More like a badge!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lrw3NNRaaF8

Edited July 20, 2015 by stardust4ever

[Andromeda Stardust]

Almost every developer will tell you that you are not allowed to make copies for profit. And you accept that when you buy the game.

Of course not. Piracy is not acceptable. This is a violation of copyright laws. But to say that I am prohibited from using said hardware in unintended ways, for instance hacking or installing homebrew on a modern system or creating *Legal* backups of commercial or homebrew carts/discs, for private use, is over stepping their bounds. And I don't give a flip about DMCA. I have made plenty of *legal* backups from commercially encrypted DVDs I own for private use and local streaming/playback. Edited July 20, 2015 by stardust4ever

[Thomas Jentzsch]

In my book, that's fair use.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Like I said earlier, I'm not opposed to watermarks as this only discourages *illegal* sharing.

I wasn't referring to you.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

In those cases, the developers had better hope their secret stays a secret because if word gets out, it's going to cause more of a backlash than being up front about it and accepting the reduced sales from people trying to vote on these things with their wallet.

The chances of getting caught are minimal. Even if you search and find the any differences between two files, you won't be able to tell for sure that this is a watermark.

 

Also most people don't care that F***book, Google, Apple etc. are able to make them almost fully transparent. They don't even care for NSA spying our government. They would sell their privacy and freedom for pennies and the promise of safety.

 

Therefore I am pretty convinced that secret watermarks (and way more) are used already.

[108 Stars]

I appreciate that you want to be honest about it. But I think sometimes that will not work for your benefit.

The idea would just be unacceptable to part of the fanbase, even if they never noticed it if they were not told. Others just do it and nobody ever knows. You are honest, and you will be blamed.

 

In the end, we all can not avoid being spied on to some degree. But people will still often not want to accept that when given the choice. Especially in our age groups, which are still different from the generation Facebook. Many of the target audience will not see a legitimate need for such measures when it comes to homebrews and will choose not to support it.

 

Great of you to be so open in thinking about ways to do both sides justice, I just don't think it will ever be broadly accepted.

[freewheel]

in the case of homebrewer developers trying to control a consumer's use of your game, guess what? The system you are developing had it's own protections put in place decades ago by the console manufacturer which may or may not be defunct. By creating said game, you are defeating those measures. But the warranties are long null and void on old hardware and patents expired, so nobody's going to chase you with a stick.

 

 

I remember a long while back, when some of the first file-sharing tools were becoming popular, that several of them cost money. And had some pretty serious copy-protection mechanisms built into them. And in at least one case, one developer did try to go after people who pirated his software (unsuccessfully if memory serves).

 

Irony is completely lost on a lot of people these days.

 

[freewheel]

I appreciate that you want to be honest about it. But I think sometimes that will not work for your benefit.

The idea would just be unacceptable to part of the fanbase, even if they never noticed it if they were not told. Others just do it and nobody ever knows. You are honest, and you will be blamed.

 

In the end, we all can not avoid being spied on to some degree. But people will still often not want to accept that when given the choice. Especially in our age groups, which are still different from the generation Facebook. Many of the target audience will not see a legitimate need for such measures when it comes to homebrews and will choose not to support it.

 

Great of you to be so open in thinking about ways to do both sides justice, I just don't think it will ever be broadly accepted.

 

I imagine most of the target audience couldn't give a rat's ass. For pretty much the same reason we're not seeing rampant piracy in this field. I suspect DRM'd ROMs sell about as many copies as non-DRM'd ROMs, all else being equal.

 

If DRM'd ROMs are selling much worse, then I'm surprised that (some) developers keep insisting so strongly on DRM. If they're selling much better, then I'm even more surprised by the defensiveness towards the practice. If they're protecting your sales so well, then obviously the market is fine with it.

[+DZ-Jay]

 

I imagine most of the target audience couldn't give a rat's ass. For pretty much the same reason we're not seeing rampant piracy in this field. I suspect DRM'd ROMs sell about as many copies as non-DRM'd ROMs, all else being equal.

 

If DRM'd ROMs are selling much worse, then I'm surprised that (some) developers keep insisting so strongly on DRM. If they're selling much better, then I'm even more surprised by the defensiveness towards the practice. If they're protecting your sales so well, then obviously the market is fine with it.

 

Here's an interesting anecdote: I've been giving away the ROM for Christmas Carol since its first year, after 4 months of release and about 200 CIB units sold. It still sold 100 more units and only stopped because LTO's agreement for 300 copies ran out. From what I've heard via e-mail and PMs, there is still a bit of demand, yet I am still giving away the ROM for free and point everybody who asks for the game to the downloads page.

 

I think ROM piracy's impact on sales is overrated, but that's me.

 

-dZ.

[Andromeda Stardust]

DP.

Edited July 21, 2015 by stardust4ever

[Andromeda Stardust]

I remember a long while back, when some of the first file-sharing tools were becoming popular, that several of them cost money. And had some pretty serious copy-protection mechanisms built into them. And in at least one case, one developer did try to go after people who pirated his software (unsuccessfully if memory serves).

 

Irony is completely lost on a lot of people these days.

 

Yeah, Lime Wire or some wannabe wanted to charge people for faster downloads. I didn't know anyone stupid enough to pay, except that one asshat at my university who had a $49.99 per year supscription. Claimed because he was paying for the service, he wasn't pirating. Idiot.

 

Plenty of other 100% free file sharing services sprang up overnight. Anyway it wasn't the feds that effectively shut down Gnutella, it was all the bots spreading malware. After abput the 50th time my antivirus "air raid" siren went off, I deleted that shit. I miss the days when Avast used to go "nukular" every time it detected a threat.

Edited July 21, 2015 by stardust4ever

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I think ROM piracy's impact on sales is overrated, but that's me.

Maybe, but there are certain people around which we not want to support pirating our games at all. Also I personally heavily dislike those people who buy pirated games from those pirates.

 

For me, its not about the money.

[108 Stars]

Perfectly understandable.

In the end, you have to decide which is more important to you; stopping the pirates or not offending any honest customers.

 

BTW, concerning Intellivision if I understand correctly sales of bootleg carts are difficult for Intellivision anyway because you cannot just solder a new EEPROM onto an old PCB. So this is probably more of an issue with other Systems.

 

What we have done on the Lynx sometimes is simply put a disclaimer first for our Freeware. If you paid for this, you have been cheated. A similar disclaimer could be made pointing out how to identify a legit cartridge.