Hunchy (my first 2600 homebrew game)

[c107]

The source code is included in the attachment (GPL licensed).

 

Thank you for making your game free software! Can i buy a cart?

 

Perhaps the 2600 can be the first game console to be used in freedom.

[littleman jack]

c107,

 

hello. You can get te game at the Atari Age Store, on the 2005 minigames multicart. It's the 1st cartridge listed in the 2600 homebrews section, and ccontains a bunch of good, little games. One is even a two player simultaneous tank game.

 

Here's a link too: http://atariage.com/store/index.php?l=product_detail&p=331

 

And kudos for the GNU link. Good stuff!

 

littleman jack, Atari Ager and Linux user

[littleman jack]

One more note:

the author of Hunchy made another Hunchy. It's Hunchy II, and can also be found in the Atari Age Store under 2600 homebrews. It's a really great game, and takes the idea to a whole other level. It has hints of Miner 2049er and other great platformers. And there's really nothing else quite like it for the 2600.

[c107]

Please let me know what you think, and any suggestions for improvement.

 

I think you have betrayed all users by releasing the real version of Hunchy, Hunchy II, under a plain copyright statement that denies their rights as people of cyberspace.

 

I think you should give necessary freedom to your users by releasing your game program as free software under the GNU GPL.

 

EDIT: I will no longer aim to buy a cartridge of any of your game programs.

Edited November 20, 2013 by c107

[c107]

One more note:

the author of Hunchy made another Hunchy. It's Hunchy II, and can also be found in the Atari Age Store under 2600 homebrews. It's a really great game, and takes the idea to a whole other level. It has hints of Miner 2049er and other great platformers. And there's really nothing else quite like it for the 2600.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot play Hunchy II, because it is not a free program. I will not buy it. I am very saddened that I will not be able to have the pleasure of playing this game without forfeiting my freedom and supporting a culture of greed and lack of education.

[AtariBrian]

 

Unfortunately, I cannot play Hunchy II, because it is not a free program. I will not buy it. I am very saddened that I will not be able to have the pleasure of playing this game without forfeiting my freedom and supporting a culture of greed and lack of education.

Umm its a cheap enough homebrew . If one cant afford a cart price maybe one could buy the rom . I think the cart is only 20 with manual . But reading this just makes me shake my head ! Greed ? Greedy people want things for free dont they ?

Edited November 20, 2013 by AtariBrian

[c107]

c107,

 

hello. You can get te game at the Atari Age Store, on the 2005 minigames multicart. It's the 1st cartridge listed in the 2600 homebrews section, and ccontains a bunch of good, little games. One is even a two player simultaneous tank game.

 

Here's a link too: http://atariage.com/store/index.php?l=product_detail&p=331

 

And kudos for the GNU link. Good stuff!

 

littleman jack, Atari Ager and Linux user

 

I cannot buy Hunchy II because it is not a free program and does not respect my rights in cyberspace.

 

Thank you for your support of GNU. We need it.

 

You can support GNU by taking three seconds to say GNU+Linux, rather than naming your system after the kernel it normally uses.

 

You can support the 2600 by making free games for the 2600, and showing it to affiliates of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF would be happy to promote a legendary game console and support the hobbyist community if it cared about digital freedom.

[c107]

Umm its a cheap enough homebrew . If one cant afford a cart price maybe one could buy the rom . I think the cart is only 20 with manual . But reading this just makes me shake my head ! Greed ? Greedy people want things for free dont they ?

 

I am talking about freedom, not price. If we were writing in Spanish, as I'd prefer, I would be typing "libre".

[DoctorTom]

Your concept of freedom is twisted.

[Impaler_26]

I think you have betrayed all users by releasing the real version of Hunchy, Hunchy II, under a plain copyright statement that denies their rights as people of cyberspace.

 

WTF?

 

You can download the roms for the 2005 Minigame Multicart and Hunchy II right here at AA so you don't have to pay for the games if you want to play them.

 

[+Gemintronic]

batari has already called him out on the GNU issue and Atari games

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/191837-time-to-abandon-dasm/page-3?do=findComment&comment=2869014

 

I think his blanket statements can be ignored.

[cd-w]

Unfortunately, I cannot play Hunchy II, because it is not a free program. I will not buy it. I am very saddened that I will not be able to have the pleasure of playing this game without forfeiting my freedom and supporting a culture of greed and lack of education.

To educate you:

 

1) The rom is freely available here: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/72308-hunchy-ii/page-4?do=findComment&comment=945737

It can be played in an emulator or on real hardware with a Harmony cart.

 

2) The source code is also freely available (part of the zip archive above) so anyone can learn how the game was created.

 

3) The cost of the cart version is mostly production, and any extra I donate toward the running of the AtariAge website.

 

Chris

[+SpiceWare]

Don't waste your time trying to educate, we've got a rabble rouser trying to stir up trouble. Just see here:

As I come to click "Add Reply", I notice that the "Attach Files" section employs Adobe Flash. This is a great burden to accessibility and freedom. I hope that file attachments will soon be implemented in a better way.

 

If c107 is so concerned about its great burden, why even have Flash installed?

 

I don't have Flash installed, because it's always performed so poorly on my Mac, yet I can upload just fine.

[+Nathan Strum]

Crackpots used to be more entertaining and funny. Now they're just tiresome.

[+Random Terrain]

Posts by c107 remind me of posts by Deemar in a weird way:

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/212554-princess-rescue-now-available/page-18?do=findComment&comment=2798445

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/212554-princess-rescue-now-available/page-23?do=findComment&comment=2800909

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/212554-princess-rescue-now-available/page-29?do=findComment&comment=2827858

[+batari]

Your concept of freedom is twisted.

I think you nailed it here.

 

GNU freedom refers to the freedom of the collective. The basic problem with this sort of freedom is it erodes indivudual freedom. There are great doctrines out there that grasp the concept of personal vs. collective liberty better than do, but I won't get into that right now.

 

Collective freedom only works when all individuals making up the collective are honest, altruistic and have good intentions. Unfortunately, there are plenty of profiteers in the community whose intentions are far from good.

 

In the case of the 2600 community, I believe the ideal form of freedom involves a compromise between individual and collective freedom. Most of us share source anyway without any license that forces something on us that we might not really want.

 

Edit: The Tragedy of the Commons is an example of a similar situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[c107]

 

WTF?

 

You can download the roms for the 2005 Minigame Multicart and Hunchy II right here at AA so you don't have to pay for the games if you want to play them.

 

 

You miss the point. The game is a program that runs on a computer. As a person whose life extends into cyberspace, I have the right to know and modify what my computer does according to my will. By legally barring me from modifying what my computer does with your program, you are infringing on my right to self-determination. To use your game program is to give up my rights to you.

 

El software es siempre libre. No es siempre software gratuito.

Edited November 21, 2013 by c107

[2600 Forever]

You need professional help, I would look into it.

[c107]

Don't waste your time trying to educate, we've got a rabble rouser trying to stir up trouble. Just see here:

 

If c107 is so concerned about its great burden, why even have Flash installed?

 

I don't have Flash installed, because it's always performed so poorly on my Mac, yet I can upload just fine.

 

Gnash leaves black boxes where Flash items should be. I never play them.

[c107]

I think you nailed it here.

 

GNU freedom refers to the freedom of the collective. The basic problem with this sort of freedom is it erodes indivudual freedom. There are great doctrines out there that grasp the concept of personal vs. collective liberty better than do, but I won't get into that right now.

 

Collective freedom only works when all individuals making up the collective are honest, altruistic and have good intentions. Unfortunately, there are plenty of profiteers in the community whose intentions are far from good.

 

In the case of the 2600 community, I believe the ideal form of freedom involves a compromise between individual and collective freedom. Most of us share source anyway without any license that forces something on us that we might not really want.

 

Edit: The Tragedy of the Commons is an example of a similar situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

You write a non-free program called Batari BASIC. I would love to use your software, but I would not be able to sell CDs of my operating system if I include it.

 

Permissive licenses like the Apache license are fine, but the level of individual (or corporate) freedom is so extensive that the free program can be wiped out with non-free derivatives. Google Chrome and Android are clear examples. Most Android systems are released with agreements that render Android unfree. Android rarely (if ever) reaches the user in a form that gives them freedom.

[+batari]

 

You miss the point. The game is a program that runs on a computer. As a person whose life extends into cyberspace, I have the right to know and modify what my computer does according to my will. By legally barring me from modifying what my computer does with your program, you are infringing on my right to self-determination. To use your game program is to give up my rights to you.

 

El software es siempre libre. No es siempre software gratuito.

And, you give up your individual rights with the GNU as well. To use the GNU means that programmers give up their personal rights to everyone.

 

As said, with most games here, although it's not stated, you have all of the unspoken rights of the GNU except the "right" to make a copy or very close derivative of someone else's work and sell (typically inferior) versions of it for profit.

 

Look, I do like the GNU. It works well for many situations, but this is not one of them.

[c107]

Edit: The Tragedy of the Commons is an example of a similar situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

People have the right to make, use and modify software for any purpose.

 

It is very common for businesses (and some individuals) to use free software for disrespectful purposes. Examples include Canonical, Oracle and Google. They have a right to do what they do, just as any other user does. If the agenda of the company and of the users diverge, each entity has the right and the ability to realign the program with its will.

[c107]

And, you give up your individual rights with the GNU as well. To use the GNU means that programmers give up their personal rights to everyone.

 

You give up your individual rights if you live in any somewhat liberal, democratic country.

 

Being free does not mean that one can trample on others. If you distribute a program to another person, that person must have as much freedom as you do, with regards to the essence of the program.

[+batari]

 

People have the right to make, use and modify software for any purpose.

 

It is very common for businesses (and some individuals) to use free software for disrespectful purposes. Examples include Canonical, Oracle and Google. They have a right to do what they do, just as any other user does. If the agenda of the company and of the users diverge, each entity has the right and the ability to realign the program with its will.

Precisely. So as a programmer, I have the right to allow what I see as legitimate uses and disallow disrespectful purposes. Any author of a creative work, software or not, should have individual rights. That includes the individual right to give up those rights if you choose. But, if all 2600 games used GNU, that means you lose that right to choose what to do with your work.

 

However, in reference to your prior post, you are right that you can't include batari Basic on a CD you sell. But, nobody would ever include it in a CD with an operating system. If anyone sold my software on a CD, it would likely be on an overpriced "collector" CD including all sorts of other stuff I may not want associated with it.

 

But, my license says one important thing... you only can't do this without permission.

 

All you would have to do is ask. For example, if someone gathered up a collection of source code for batari Basic games, tutorials, documents and other information and included it with the latest version of my software, put it together in a quality package for a good price, I'd probably let them.

 

All you have to do is ask basically any author here if you want source.

[+batari]

 

You give up your individual rights if you live in any somewhat liberal, democratic country.

 

Being free does not mean that one can trample on others. If you distribute a program to another person, that person must have as much freedom as you do, with regards to the essence of the program.

Yes, the GNU would trample on my rights to my 2600 creative works. That's why I don't use it for 2600 development. I would, and have, used it for other projects, though. I have even asked other authors of "non-free" works to make them GNU so I could use them in other GNU projects.

 

But thanks for sharing your opinion about software freedom. It works in many places but I don't agree that it works here. I'll ignore the use of "must" when you mean "should, in my opinion."