| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Release id #166930 : Yoomp!64 +3PD
Moved the discussion to the place for discussions. :)
User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 2 August 2018
Backup board is invoked if one of the main boards is down during the whole 24h. How would it make sense otherwise? If Reflections was down one hour 03 in the morning just when you tried to upload your crack, the rest of the groups wouldn't notice, and lose just because one board was down for some time during the 24h. 24h rule must mean 24h. If one board is gone for 24h, the backup board goes into effect. That is logical to me. Especially as the race isn't over until 24h have passed.
If two or three (our four?) boards all have hickups during the 24h you mean there are no boards to be counted? Your view of the rules does not make sense. I will count the boards and the releases after 24h have passed. That will show who won the race.
User Comment
Submitted by Jazzcat [PM] on 2 August 2018
We were first on all boards and sites initially. During that time both Antidote and The Hidden were down, according to the rules, the backup site RapidFire is then invoked and we were first there (and Reflections) thus we were first on the majority of boards using the 24 hour rule. Regards. Note: you cannot re-invoke downed boards. When they are down, backup is in play.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 2 August 2018
Antidote and The Hidden were down for some time, but came up within the counted 24h when we tried to upload our crack, and we were able to be first on both. We also went with Reflections and the backup BBS Rapidfire, even if the latter is a bit redundant, as we already were first on 2 out of 3 counted boards within the counted 24h. Cheers! |
|
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Actually, no. It does not mention down for the entire 24 hour period.
The rule states:
"If one of the counted boards is down, The List then invokes a deciding fallback: The fallback BBS is RapidFire - telnet://rapidfire.hopto.org (Port: 64128)"
It is quite clear who is first as we know both Antidote and The Hidden had large problems (both down) and both sysops were at work (and during that time Onslaught were first on the remaining boards invoking the backup).
Nothing more from me on this one.
Cheers. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
And that makes no sense. I will count the releases and the boards after 24h. Otherwise we will fall back to a lot of discussions about "this and that board was down then and then, exactly when I tried to upload. Boo-hoo". It will never work. 24h will count. Nothing else. That's it for me.
Spread your warez to all boards, don't give up until 24h have passed. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
The only relevant question is: what does matter for csdb and why is there no rule saying so? |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: The only relevant question is: what does matter for csdb and why is there no rule saying so?
Does not matter for csdb at all. There are many discussions in the forums here not directly involving csdb per se. The one above is one example, only relevant for the boardsters. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
obviously it DOES matter - how else do you decide what release gets the "firstrelease" tag? |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
I will do something unnatural and agree 100% with WAT Groepaz said. |
| |
Fix
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 54 |
Antidote and The Hidden was down for several hours, until 22:15 or longer...
I know, since I tried to log on... |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Jammer haha, sooo reminds me of colleagues this week telling me "Tim, you are 42.. Still listening to this bleepy bleep music, grow up".. followed by me saying.. Oh shut up, that's Jammer, he just won an award so I'm listening to his entire directory this week, keep complaining and I stop using headphones".. (no joke)
That said..
A first release has always been the pinnacle achievement of the cracking scene, with only a jewel version coming closer over the years..
As much as I realise a lot of demo sceners don't care (which coincidentally are the same sceners often complaining in pm's that we remove download links, but that's another topic) this discussion is actually important as it's obviously not only about one release, but the way 2 or 3 mags will count points/ruling.
Similar to say.. Oh I don't know, datastorm saying they'd only allow 6581 and x saying only 8580.. And coders telling you who cares, it all bleeps the same to me :p |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:but the way 2 or 3 mags will count points/ruling
no, its about how we determine if a release gets labelled "first release" on csdb. what 2 or 3 mags do - who gives a damn. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Controversial perhaps but, for new releases, why not have “First Release” as determined by CSDB rather than the BBS’s? The mags use their own rules as they see fit and CSDB use simply the upload time to CSDB.
That would appease both sides...
In terms of what the mags decide, that’s then totally up to them... and the readers will decide which they care about. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
for me, mags are more important. after all, this is only meant to be a db :p |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
i dont care how its decided - but we DO need a rule that says how its decided - as demonstrated by this thread :)
ie right now we have two cracks from different groups which are both labelled "first release" - and that makes no sense whatsoever. i am tempted to remove the label from both, just to restore sanity =P |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2070 |
sometimes I think flags make things even worse, i.e. a little harder to ignore ^^ |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Raistlin: csdb doesnt want to be a firstrelease site - so thats not an option. we had related rules a while ago, but that caused nothing but drama.
now if certain leethaxxors would set up a simple website that works as you say, we could use that as a source for who was first. (obviously the BBS poopers will not agree with it) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2070 |
BBS poopers MMD \xD/ |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Quote:but the way 2 or 3 mags will count points/ruling
no, its about how we determine if a release gets labelled "first release" on csdb. what 2 or 3 mags do - who gives a damn.
Exactly.
So that's a catch 22 isn't it if csdb documents the scene and a split comes in the scene's way of doing things (and in that sense you'll have to care about the mags as they dictate the point awarding) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
the mags dont dictate anything really. but if they did, there should be a rule saying so :) |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
It sounds like CSDB wants to be independent from the mags... but then doesn’t want to be involved in the whole first-release decision making either... so perhaps the correct thing to do is just to drop the tag - and leave it up to the mags and independent website(s) to judge. If people disagree with how those are done, it’s not CSDB’s concern.
I can see the draw of trying to get first releases, the buzz of being the first to upload etc... but it’s much different now to how it was in the 80s. Back then you’d often go to the shop, get a copy of a game a day or two earlier than release, take it home, crack it, make trainers and then upload, knowing that you probably have hours before the next uploader. Nowadays, with the games being released digitally, a first release could be made 5 minutes later if someone wanted to rush one out, surely..?
Times have changed and maybe if people care about this “first” competition, things should change with it? |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Hehe :) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: the mags dont dictate anything really. but if they did, there should be a rule saying so :)
oh but they do. they dictate their own lists based on a set of rules that (largely) most ppl follow. this db on the other hand is a consumer of the outcome of those rules. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Raistlin,
keep in mind all the players in the game, except Fairlight, feel the same about keeping the BBS tradition.. which makes a nice mix of having to do quite some effort for a release.. it's not just a quick 5 min job.
Secondly, there's hard rules in place what bare minimum effort needs to be done to a release to score points.
And then there's public opinion too, which weighs hard when for example a top game gets rushed out with only a docs file added.
all in all, it's still exciting although obvious times did change.. I still love it :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:they dictate their own lists based on a set of rules that (largely) most ppl follow.
perhaps. however they have very little authority on decisions regarding csdb - and certainly dont dictate anything happening here.
Quote:this db on the other hand is a consumer of the outcome of those rules.
it may or it may not be. whether this is the case needs still to be defined. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
:) decisions and csdb used in one sentence..
what's next, you'll use changes and implemented? :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:you'll use changes and implemented?
that not normal method |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Apart from the GP version NOT being the first release (first on the majority of counted boards by several hours) there is another point that is obvious to some.
The GP version is based on a PREVIEW of the game. The files MAIN, ESQ and MNU are clearly from the game beta version and NOT the final release of the game. With this in mind, the GP version should be marked as a preview.
If anyone wants further evidence of this please drop me a PM. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2070 |
Quote:all the players in the game, except Fairlight, feel the same about keeping the BBS tradition.
and Mayday!
... not that we matter a lot with our fistful of cracks each year most of which are jewel versions of golden oldies anyway, so that we're not into first release races (anymore! due to some lame experiences with BBSes being down when we tried to upload and once they were online again other group's version we're already up...) normally |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Quote:all the players in the game, except Fairlight, feel the same about keeping the BBS tradition.
and Mayday!
... not that we matter a lot with our fistful of cracks each year most of which are jewel versions of golden oldies anyway, so that we're not into first release races (anymore! due to some lame experiences with BBSes being down when we tried to upload and once they were online again other group's version we're already up...) normally
@TheRyk,
Actually I would be very happy to see you guys back in the game fighting for points, but by not participating at all doesn't make Mayday a player that is objecting the way we count points. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Apart from the GP version NOT being the first release (first on the majority of counted boards by several hours) there is another point that is obvious to some.
The GP version is based on a PREVIEW of the game. The files MAIN, ESQ and MNU are clearly from the game beta version and NOT the final release of the game. With this in mind, the GP version should be marked as a preview.
If anyone wants further evidence of this please drop me a PM.
oh that spices things up.. I'll grab some popcorn :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:but by not participating at all doesn't make Mayday a player that is objecting the way we count points.
that makes no sense. they DO release cracks afterall.
someone might just start a list that counts other places and ignores the BBSs, then both sides can point fingers at the other =P |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Apart from the GP version NOT being the first release (first on the majority of counted boards by several hours) there is another point that is obvious to some.
The GP version is based on a PREVIEW of the game. The files MAIN, ESQ and MNU are clearly from the game beta version and NOT the final release of the game. With this in mind, the GP version should be marked as a preview.
If anyone wants further evidence of this please drop me a PM.
Where is the preview you're referring to and how does it differ from the final version? |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
Jazzcat already told what:
"The files MAIN, ESQ and MNU are clearly from the game beta version"
The GP version uses pre-final version files, differing in small pieces of code which had bugfixed in the final downloadable from itch.io, which is the version ONS used to make their rel. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
the preview wasnt public, whoever made that crack should know where the files came from :) |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Quote:but by not participating at all doesn't make Mayday a player that is objecting the way we count points.
that makes no sense. they DO release cracks afterall.
someone might just start a list that counts other places and ignores the BBSs, then both sides can point fingers at the other =P
By not participating in the first release race Groepaz, even you got that I'm sure :)
As for other places, go for it.. I'm already enjoying this major difference between Propaganda and Vandalism above.
The more the merrier.. Seriously, I'm dying for someone/some group/some mag to start a quality release grading challenge that awards points to teams based on a rules set for quality and not only speed |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Jazzcat already told what:
"The files MAIN, ESQ and MNU are clearly from the game beta version"
The GP version uses pre-final version files, differing in small pieces of code which had bugfixed in the final downloadable from itch.io, which is the version ONS used to make their rel.
Awe.. You're making it sound like Onslaught actually downloaded from Itch.. How cute :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:By not participating in the first release race Groepaz, even you got that I'm sure :)
your logic is flawed. you think they can only make a firstrelease when they play by your rules? their last crack was one, for example. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
Quote: Awe.. You're making it sound like Onslaught actually downloaded from Itch.. How cute :)
I haven't said that, you're warping what I said to your convenience(?), to appear smarter than me or something.
I said that ONS used the same - final - version that is available there. I know JC works for RGCD, if you were implying I didn't know that. Otherwise I don't even know what your comment is for. To add some drama? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
What i find cute is, that apparently you can only make non-rushed quality cracks when someone gives you points for that. >_< |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Jazzcat already told what:
"The files MAIN, ESQ and MNU are clearly from the game beta version"
The GP version uses pre-final version files, differing in small pieces of code which had bugfixed in the final downloadable from itch.io, which is the version ONS used to make their rel.
Yeah, I read that, but he still fails to explain how the game differs. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
@Groepaz
Oh hang on, just to make sure when you say "you think"..
..not my (teams) rules, we are just playing the game and having a good time.. at best giving a reply to proposed changes.
And I'm guessing you mean Rent-A-Cop Reloaded +5PD ?
in which case sure.. I'd say it will likely get points (and therefor be a valid first release), but because rules are followed.
- Reflections was uploaded by Eaglewing.
- Antidote was uploaded by Dslman.
But if you want to be sure -> ask Hedning/Jazzcat, their mags determine if it's a first release or not.
@Ian
I did no such thing as warping a single word Ian.
Your choice of words seemed endearingly naive, but after response rather well chosen afterall.
@Groepaz
Lolz :)
Seriously though, I've said before we would shift more manpower to quality releases, if there would be a measured competition.
That said, satisfied and proud of our 2018 line up so far which has been pretty well balanced. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:I've said before we would shift more manpower to quality releases, if there would be a measured competition
just like i said. cute. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
As mentioned, will PM the details (so send me a PM with your email for those interested). |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:it will likely get points (and therefor be a valid first release)
oh i didnt see that - cute again. as said, flawed logic.
Quote:their mags determine if it's a first release or not
again - flawed logic. the mags determine if its a first release _by their rules_. which may or may not matter elsewhere.
there have been plenty first releases in the past that were completely ignored by those mags. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Guys... The current definition of first release is determined by those still caring for it. End of story. If people want to do their own thing, create their own pages, rules or whatever... FANTASTIC! Now, time for a coffee! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
most others already created their own "rules" - the first release is the "first release". end of story indeed :=)
that said, the original problem - ie how it is determined what csdb considers a first release - is still yet to be solved and a rule to be set up. until then - see above =) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Groepaz, sure, it is still to be resolved. But then, if there is different rules, different mags, different iterations of the rules as new generations of sceners try to influence change; confusion. The first release flag should be removed from this database. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
or it could be defined as what it is: the first release :) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Yes, the other option is to keep the tag and to define it as who is first on this DB. It would need to be a bit clearer though, perhaps: "CSDb 1st" or "CSDb First Upload" :D |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: As mentioned, will PM the details (so send me a PM with your email for those interested).
Why not just post it here? Is this not just another great example of your well known master suppression techniques? :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
jazzcat: i'd plain simple use the release date - the upload date here should not matter at all. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
No, nor am I being sarcastic. It is just that I am also sending files for the compare, simply would rather do that in PM. Another option is for you to share your original with some people for validation :D |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: No, nor am I being sarcastic. It is just that I am also sending files for the compare, simply would rather do that in PM. Another option is for you to share your original with some people for validation :D
So comparing the actual files is the only way to spot any difference between the two versions? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
not the only, but the easiest. you could also spend a couple hours on playing both versions exactly the same way and compare the results/bugs :=) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
It is a beta version and not the final version that was used. In this way, your release name should be marked as beta. (e.g. "preview") |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Jazzcat,
It kept bothering me why you said the G*P version should be labled a preview or beta..
Ok.. so both files differ slightly, that does NOT make the GP version a degraded version of the game.
So why would you want to lable it a preview.. kept bothering me a game.. oh yah.. and then it dawned on me:
From Vandalism online rules:
-------------------
Sales version
A different, enhanced or official version of a game that was released before. Normally it is the official version made by the producer themselves. Sales Versions differ from the original in ways such as extra levels, intro sequence and other enhancements. This includes previews also. They will only receive one point for something special. However if the Sales Version is extremely different from the original release, it will receive full first release or NTSC/PAL import points.
-------------------
So..
Remind me.. What does a sales version score in points if it barely has any enhancements? |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
when looking at the beta it matches to the gp version.
can email you the files if interested? edit: one file differs majorly, not just some bytes. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2070 |
Quote: or it could be defined as what it is: the first release :)
THIS
believing in anything else (especially that twisted BBS stuff which aims at counting only an inner circle of extreme eggheads and excluding/ignoring everyone sane/else) would make me even crazier than I am already.
For the time being, we've got a good laugh when we appear in any statwanking on place ten with minus points :P |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
I've looked over the binary diff sent to me by Jazzcat. Thanks for that. It did seem odd that Jazzcat had all those files - it made sense that he had the Onslaught and G*P cracks, and the clean Itch download, but the folder labelled as "preview" struck me as odd... then I realised the RGCD connection that people are talking about here.
There were 3 files mentioned that differed:-
- one file differed by 2 bytes - and those had changed just by 16 each... I've no idea what that meant but it could be anything from the timing of some transition effect to a preset highscore.. who knows? Without delving into it more I can't say...
- one file that was "missing" was actually embedded into the PRG. This was probably a loading screen or something like that?
- one file differed quite a bit. The file's just 1k in size... this could be anything. I know that with Delirious 11, every single time that the demo was built, I'd generate some noise patterns for such as the initial fade-in of the demo. So I could generate 2 versions of the demo within 5 seconds of each other, almost identical, but there'd be quite a bit of pre-generated data that would differ in ways that nobody would notice or care about.
My point with this last thing is that, yes, there could be a huge difference between the two versions.. or there could be no discernible difference at all. BUT... if nobody can see any difference, and if no difference can be pointed out by people that work at RGCD, can the difference really be important enough to claim that one version is a "preview"?
Note that I haven't spoken to the cracker(s) about this, or the programmer of Yoomp, I've just delved into the binaries because this thread was doing my head in.
In summary, unless it can be proven otherwise, I'd argue that the G*P release is -not- a preview.
REGARDLESS.. all of the above seems moot since the original "argument" still stands as to which release was "first". That all comes down to the rules ... as Groepaz rightly pointed out, CSDB doesn't have such rules of it's own - so doesn't actually need to abide by anyone's rules..
SUMMARY.. nothing is resolved? |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Thanks for checking Raistlin! I guess the point being is that the GP version matches to the beta version I emailed. Usually beta gets treated as preview here. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
"I guess the point being is that the GP version matches to the beta version I emailed. Usually beta gets treated as preview here."
I work in the game industry and have for 24 years.. I realise C64's a little different of course.. but a "beta" version would usually be significantly different to a released one...
Only somebody at RGCD could tell us the real difference I think - but it might be a little strange to ask a publisher to settle an argument between the groups cracking their game, even if one of those groups includes their employees ;-)
Seriously though, is RGCD able to state what the difference is between the two versions? That would settle this - and the lack of that information makes me wonder as, as far as everybody can tell, the G*P version plays identically. If it's something like "we fixed a crash bug that would occur after 24 hours of play" then I'd argue that that isn't sufficient to call one version a preview/beta ;) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Well, how things have worked in the scene. When a beta is used, it is marked as preview. no more than that. a bit different to the commercial scene but it is the crack scene. anyway, discussed with several guys now and will mark gp version as a beta. ons version as final and first by several hours. cheers. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
"how things have worked in the scene"
.. is that publishers can have the final say?
"When a beta is used"
.. there will be a discernible difference between the two versions. Demonstrating a binary difference should never be enough.
What has the scene come to that we're negotiating with the publisher about where a release originating from .. and that someone working at that publisher is fighting over a "first release" tag for a game that they themselves have published..?
I saw that "Phantom of the Blasteroids" wasn't cracked by G*P, just to give an example, because .. well .. who would crack their own game? IMO, it looks lame.
Just my two cents .. I'll go back to coding now ;-) |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
I have obtained the preview and final release and analyzed it a bit, compared them with ONS and GP releases. This was my live comment on chat @ #c-64. Some others commented, but i changed their handles to protect them, i'm posting private convos so they can't sue me. :D
[00:08] <iAN_CooG> main proof of gp using the preview (which is dated back 2018 january) is the sysline of the main prg =)
[00:08] <iAN_CooG> 160 SYS02062
[00:08] <iAN_CooG> instead of 10 SYS2061
[00:15] <iAN_CooG> and another thing the preview doesn't do is stopping restore by altering fffa/b vectors =)
[00:16] <iAN_CooG> easily testable on gp version
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> the preview does this useless 0314/5 redirection
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C512 A9 68 LDA #$68
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C514 8D 14 03 STA $0314
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C517 A9 C5 LDA #$C5
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C519 8D 15 03 STA $0315
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C51C A5 01 LDA $01
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C51E 29 FC AND #$FC
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C520 09 02 ORA #$02
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> C522 85 01 STA $01
[00:19] <iAN_CooG> removed from final
[00:20] <xx_yyyy> does it make the game different?
[00:20] <xx_yyyy> when you'd be playing the game?
[00:20] <iAN_CooG> i have not tested every single different bit, the point is that GP didn't use the final release build, but an early build
[00:21] <abcd> even if the game is near identical, technically it was the preview build
[00:21] <xx_yyyy> in the end the question is: "does this matter?"
[00:21] <iAN_CooG> to be fair, yes.
[00:21] <123> the knowledge of it will gnaw at your soul in the darkness of everlasting nights!
[00:21] <xx_yyyy> haha :)
[00:21] <iAN_CooG> gp released a preview, ons the final retail version
[00:21] <xx_yyyy> iAN_CooG - ok then!
[00:22] <iAN_CooG> i'm done with the analysis
[00:22] <iAN_CooG> deleting both and going on
|
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Well, how things have worked in the scene. When a beta is used, it is marked as preview. no more than that. a bit different to the commercial scene but it is the crack scene. anyway, discussed with several guys now and will mark gp version as a beta. ons version as final and first by several hours. cheers.
Do as you wish in VN, of course. Read the whole story in the next issue of the Propaganda List, all details revealed, delivered to you on time, 1st of October. As I am biased regarding this release I will let others judge the releases in question, of course. Cheers. |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
Quote:Just my two cents .. I'll go back to coding now ;-)
wise decision! :)
Raistlin, I was one of your biggest fan back in the days as I always loved your coding skills. Today I'm so überhappy and I can't believe to see ya old bitch back in 2018 and even see you still have the magic touch! :)
But hey: you look a bit like Sly in demolition man, cryogenically frozen for a couple of decades. no offence dude, but I'm afraid for you the more you try to understand what today is meant with "cracking" the less you'll like it. so looping my comment: coding is wiser. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Ian,
A photo sent by your partner of a bread, a block of cheese, a pack of butter.. that's a preview
Standing in the kitchen, him/her giving you a block of cheese to taste, perhaps a slice of tomato.. that's a preview
Looking at the bill of the overpriced ingredients and having to listen for 2 hours on where he/she went shopping.. that is still a preview..
Standing in the kitchen patiently and grabbing the final result to scoff it down because you are hungry.. that is not a preview.. it's a damn sandwich.
The cellophane that should have gone around it does not make it a sandwich. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Thanks Smasher, I think I will.
Times sure have changed... when the “publisher” of a game gets first-release status for cracking their own game, you just know that the shark has been well and truly jumped 8)
Anyway, i’m gonna go write a script to help me release 1000 different maze games in September so that I can crack them all myself and own the charts :-) .. people will think i’m a true crack god for cracking my own games :-) |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
Tim: go to sleep, you're too drunk to post. |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 42 |
Quoting RaistlinTimes sure have changed... when the “publisher” of a game gets first-release status for cracking their own game, ...
It also happened in the past. Examples may be Zuul, Cross It, Rubicon, Solitax by your very own groups. ;-P |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Quoting RaistlinTimes sure have changed... when the “publisher” of a game gets first-release status for cracking their own game, ...
It also happened in the past. Examples may be Zuul, Cross It, Rubicon, Solitax by your very own groups. ;-P
At least they tried to hide it back then. By a reason. The problem here is actually not the crackers. They do what they always do, even lame stuff. If anyone should be questioned it is the game companies that willingly leak the games they try to sell to specific cracking groups, without having the game coder accepting that. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Tim: go to sleep, you're too drunk to post.
Actually on a diet AND hungry non-stop giggle :) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
with the entries on this db.
is a beta a preview?
also, if the ons version doesnt contain a bug that is in the gp preview, do we mark the ons version with the 100% tag?
greetz |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Surely "100%" would only make sense if you're agreeing that the GP version was a release version and that a bug is being fixed/patched in that...
ie. surely either:-
(i) both versions are classed as "release" and it's agreed that the ONS version is a 100% patch;
(ii) the GP version is classified as an early-release/preview and the ONS version is simply release (no need for 100%). |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
spot on |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: Surely "100%" would only make sense if you're agreeing that the GP version was a release version and that a bug is being fixed/patched in that...
ie. surely either:-
(i) both versions are classed as "release" and it's agreed that the ONS version is a 100% patch;
(ii) the GP version is classified as an early-release/preview and the ONS version is simply release (no need for 100%).
Cool. Thinking on the DB integrity/consistency. Would be better for (ii) to mark the GP version as an early-release. As the ONS version is not fixing a bug but using the correct final build in the first place. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Surely "100%" would only make sense if you're agreeing that the GP version was a release version and that a bug is being fixed/patched in that...
ie. surely either:-
(i) both versions are classed as "release" and it's agreed that the ONS version is a 100% patch;
(ii) the GP version is classified as an early-release/preview and the ONS version is simply release (no need for 100%).
We live in interesting times when people believe a disabled Restore decides that a game is a preview, and not a full game. Which is the case here. It is the only thing that differs our original from the one Ons had. Yes, I have talked to the game coder. The only change between the versions is that he disabled Restore. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
So you agree that the GP version was not the final version of the original (e.g. beta)? I am sure the major byte differences are not just to disable Restore either. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: So you agree that the GP version was not the final version of the original (e.g. beta)? I am sure the major byte differences are not just to disable Restore either.
I agree that the version we got was the full game, not a preview, with no difference in gameplay or anything else from your version. The only thing that differ is the restore-fix. I have double checked with the game coder. |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
if this thread goes on till you guys agree on something I guess it won't be closed before 2075 or so... :) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: I agree that the version we got was the full game, not a preview, with no difference in gameplay or anything else from your version. The only thing that differ is the restore-fix. I have double checked with the game coder.
So your version was not the final build Hedning? |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: if this thread goes on till you guys agree on something I guess it won't be closed before 2075 or so... :)
Lol. :D Well. After discussing the issue with the game coder it was clear that the only difference between the original we had, and the one Ons had, was the Restore-fix. In my world that little thing should not be enough to define our release as a preview, as it is the full game with all bells and whistles. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: So your version was not the final build Hedning?
You are the guy being part of RGCD - you should know. What I am saying is that we got the full game, completed and fully working, and then a Restore fix was delivered, which obviously is not present in our version. Still a preview is defined as a non finished game. Our version is still the full game. Just do not press restore. If such small difference is supposed to define what a full game and a preview is, I'm not following the logic anymore. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
"I am sure the major byte differences are not just to disable Restore either"
.. so if it's found that the byte differences are inconsequential, eg. if they're just random numbers, are you saying that the GP release, which differs only in the RESTORE key "problem", is a full release?
We should ask the coder. From what I can see, there's one file, the ESQ file, that's changed "significantly". So much so that I have a theory about what it is .. random numbers, obviously quite useful in game development ... the other file that's changed has only had 2 bytes changed - this will be the RESTORE key fix.
If it turns out that it's a set of numbers that changes every time the game is built, or is otherwise unimportant (ie. the 2 versions can be happily interchanged without anyone seeing any real difference), can this whole joke be put to bed? We can then get back to arguing about which release was first - and whether Onslaught were right to ignore the rules when a BBS was down for X number of minutes/hours. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: "I am sure the major byte differences are not just to disable Restore either"
.. so if it's found that the byte differences are inconsequential, eg. if they're just random numbers, are you saying that the GP release, which differs only in the RESTORE key "problem", is a full release?
We should ask the coder. From what I can see, there's one file, the ESQ file, that's changed "significantly". So much so that I have a theory about what it is .. random numbers, obviously quite useful in game development ... the other file that's changed has only had 2 bytes changed - this will be the RESTORE key fix.
If it turns out that it's a set of numbers that changes every time the game is built, or is otherwise unimportant (ie. the 2 versions can be happily interchanged without anyone seeing any real difference), can this whole joke be put to bed? We can then get back to arguing about which release was first - and whether Onslaught were right to ignore the rules when a BBS was down for X number of minutes/hours.
Onslaught have their rules in VN, and the rules in Propaganda does not differ much from them. However we interpret 24 hour rule slightly different. For Jazzcat it seems that even if a board is down for some hour (even minutes) or so during these 24 hours, it is enough to disqualify it for the complete 24h. For me 24 hours are 24 hours. After 24 hours have passed, you check the boards and can easily see who was first on the majority of the counted boards. The race goes on for 24 hours, and I will not disqualify a board just because it's down exactly when I want to upload. It would be convenient for me if I could just ignore the boards that are down exactly when I want to upload, but it's not fair to the others that play this little game; thus: Propaganda's 24 hour rule means 24 hours, after that time frame it will be absolutely clear which group was fastest and had the stamina and will. If a board is down during this whole time (24h), the release won't be there anyhows, but should be on the backup board, which then counts instead. Easy peasy. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
hi guys,
so was your original not the final build? (still waiting on the answer). we know you got the beta. based on this alone you did not have the final (spin the tale how you want). and based on this you were not first. easy peasy.
secondly, the 24 hour rule is about who is first even with down times. in this case hidden and antidote were down for many hours and as such the fallback is used.
thirdly, as you don't seem to admit you didnt use the final build. we can mark our version as the 100% then. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Ok, now I'm confused...
On the one hand you're saying that the G*P version was a preview ... on the other, that Onslaught's is a 100% fix of that preview?
The thing is, if you can't decide for yourself, why are you trying to convince others?
The clear answer to me is:-
1) Neither G*P or ONS version are previews.
- they're clearly not previews. If I was looking at Yoomp! in, say, 2028, and saw that there's a preview there I'd think "cool, let's take a look at this preview to see what they changed for the final version" followed by "this is dumb, the preview is near-identical to the final release? WTF?";
2) The ONS version could be considered a 100% version since, yes, it includes a fix;
3) The 24 hour rule is argued separately... it sounds like there're 2 sets of rules here for each mag. CSDB has agreed to neither of these..
a) Vandalism's rule that basically ANY of the listed BBS's can be used in the 24hours and that the "fallback" word should be removed from those rules to avoid confusion (if I say that a BBS was down for 2 minutes, nobody can possibly verify that I'm telling the truth - so there's no point at all in having some BBSs ranked as "fallbacks");
b) Propaganda's rule that 24hours means "24 hours" and that fallback means "fallback". |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
IMO, and I say this not knowing which way this would go, whether they'd agree or not ... we should draft in a proper old-school cracker to decide.
Mr.Z for example, since he's currently the top cracker on CSDB?
https://csdb.dk/toplist.php?type=scener&subtype=%2816%29&submit..
It just feels to me like this should be clear cut ... I'm scratching my head wondering what on earth is going on and why such a simple thing turned into a huge debate. It's worse than BREXIT. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
hehe, basically there is several faults with the gp version. anyone of them by itself is a disqualification. for VN we will be calling the 24 hour rule. the other points are just further consolidating that same outcome. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: IMO, and I say this not knowing which way this would go, whether they'd agree or not ... we should draft in a proper old-school cracker to decide.
Mr.Z for example, since he's currently the top cracker on CSDB?
https://csdb.dk/toplist.php?type=scener&subtype=%2816%29&submit..
It just feels to me like this should be clear cut ... I'm scratching my head wondering what on earth is going on and why such a simple thing turned into a huge debate. It's worse than BREXIT.
the rules being referred to are well after mr.z. perhaps consulting the person who has documented the first release 'list' for the longest time in the scene might be more in context? |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
*BANG HEAD*
"basically there is several faults with the gp version" .. you should be in the Conservative government, seriously .. can you tell me what faults there are other than the RESTORE key problem? As in, tell me the faults, not tell me that binary differences are showing up in a file (half the old-school cracks would fail if that were a criteria, all IFFL'ed cracks for example).
"for VN we will be calling the 24 hour rule" .. in what way does 24 hours come into your rule when you're saying that the fallbacks can be used if there're just minutes of downtime? It makes zero sense. Can you explain how "24" comes into it? |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
i guess if you can scroll up you will see this is well covered.
24 hr rule is first to counted boards, if some are down, fallback bbs is used. ons was easily first here.
beta versions, non finals. usually get marked as a preview or beta. our version is 7 months newer than the gp version. fact.
bug fixed cracks are marked as 100%, superceding previous versions. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
"i guess if you can scroll up you will see this is well covered."
.. no, there's only mention of a RESTORE bug. I ask again, Mr President, can you tell me what the other bugs were that you mention?
"24 hr rule is first to counted boards, if some are down, fallback bbs is used. ons was easily first here"
.. absolutely ridiculous and easily open to abuse. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I think
"our version is 7 months newer than the gp version"
.. the amount of time taken to fix the RESTORE bug is inconsequential here ... that doesn't make it a preview ;-) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
beta is beta, not final. take as you will, this is well documented. 24 rule is what it is. clarified. just abide by it or not. up to everyone. 100% is just that. no more from me on it. we agree to disagree. :)
greets! |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
"there is several faults with the gp version"
AGAIN.. please state the faults. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
the faults are the qualifications of first release.
24 hr rule. failed.
final build. no.
100% version. no. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
also: Retaliate Preview +2 |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Seriously, stay off the Kool Aid.
After several PMs with Jazzcat, I'm nowhere.
1) he says that the G*P version is a preview/beta;
2) he says that the ONS version is a 100% version.
How in the hell can both of these things be true...?
Seriously, decide what you want and stick to it .. do you want to label G*P's version as a preview? Or for Onslaught's to be a 100% fix? Why not claim an NTSC fix at the same time? And that you wrote the game? I mean, RGCD did everything - but if you're claiming the fix that they did is Onslaughts, you might as well take credit for everything else ;-)
What next.. he'll be cracking Uncensored (Booze demo), fixing a glitch in it (if there is one) and asking for their version to be marked as a beta ;-) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: Seriously, stay off the Kool Aid.
After several PMs with Jazzcat, I'm nowhere.
1) he says that the G*P version is a preview/beta;
2) he says that the ONS version is a 100% version.
How in the hell can both of these things be true...?
Seriously, decide what you want and stick to it .. do you want to label G*P's version as a preview? Or for Onslaught's to be a 100% fix? Why not claim an NTSC fix at the same time? And that you wrote the game? I mean, RGCD did everything - but if you're claiming the fix that they did is Onslaughts, you might as well take credit for everything else ;-)
What next.. he'll be cracking Uncensored (Booze demo), fixing a glitch in it (if there is one) and asking for their version to be marked as a beta ;-)
their version is not first. not even on this db (i even uploaded their delayed beta for them lol). i am sticking with that.
have a nice day. :) |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: their version is not first. not even on this db (i even uploaded their delayed beta for them lol). i am sticking with that.
have a nice day. :)
That was because I want to do the boards first, and then upload to CSDb. I was able to upload to all boards, you were not. Perhaps because you were busy clicking "first release" on your version before the 24h passed. ;) |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: That was because I want to do the boards first, and then upload to CSDb. I was able to upload to all boards, you were not. Perhaps because you were busy clicking "first release" on your version before the 24h passed. ;)
well, as mentioned we can just agree to disagree. can see no more traction is being made here for quite some time. cheers. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
oh on the beta marking as preview: Retaliate Preview +2 |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: oh on the beta marking as preview: Retaliate Preview +2
Oh, yes, in that case it was named that by the coder as well (besides being a real preview, i.e.not finished). In Yoomps case it was a complete game version that was sent in that we released. The Restore-bugfix does not affect the game in any way. Cheers. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
After yet more PM's (Admins are welcome to read them), Jazzcat now says:-
- G*P version is a beta
- only difference is the RESTORE bug
- ONS version is a 100% fix of the release version
?!?!?
These 3 things don't go together ...
I'm out. The guy's drunk, seriously... and I have a life beyond this thread. I hope. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: After yet more PM's (Admins are welcome to read them), Jazzcat now says:-
- G*P version is a beta
- only difference is the RESTORE bug
- ONS version is a 100% fix of the release version
?!?!?
These 3 things don't go together ...
I'm out. The guy's drunk, seriously... and I have a life beyond this thread. I hope.
just to correct only difference is restore. no i did not say that. and ons version is the only 100% crack of the final build. and no, i am not drunk. thanks for the chat, have a nice day! |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
as said before I'm afraid the long discussions about: a) who was first? - b) is GP version final? - will never end and none will take a single step back. well, since we live on a planet with bigger problems like global warming and world hunger if a) + b) will stay unsolved that should not a big issue I guess.
now my suggestion is to go with c) how to improve the 24h / bbs down rule and agree on its interpretation? so we won't see the same discussion on a future release again. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: as said before I'm afraid the long discussions about: a) who was first? - b) is GP version final? - will never end and none will take a single step back. well, since we live on a planet with bigger problems like global warming and world hunger if a) + b) will stay unsolved that should not a big issue I guess.
now my suggestion is to go with c) how to improve the 24h / bbs down rule and agree on its interpretation? so we won't see the same discussion on a future release again.
hi, agree on clarifying. also discussed with Bordeaux the same. we will go over the rules and build out any areas not worded clearly enough so that people can enjoy the race. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
btw, if those massive changes are infact a table of random numbers - chances are they change the gameplay significantly. not obvious for some perhaps, but its certainly the case. this is pretty much why you usually want to use a predictable proper random generator that always spits out the exact same sequence for the same seed. this weird random number feature in kickass is really a bad bad BAD idea for the same reason, the behaviour of your entire program changes randomly every time you compile it. good luck debugging and testing this properly :) |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Well yeah, game programmers would never use it for gameplay affecting stuff. You'd typically use it for something like an end of level screen fade, a star field, etc.
Has anyone (other than G*P) spoken to the coder of the game about this yet by the way..? Honestly, it would save everyone a lot of time ;-) |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
I have. This is the answer: "Two last changes: it was the passwords - remove digits from passwords and the next change was to block from crash when pressing restore key, your version has the same passwords as last version but crashes when restore key is pressed and it has no more changes." |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1378 |
Quoting RaistlinWell yeah, game programmers would never use it for gameplay affecting stuff.
*dies laughing*
Well, ideally they wouldn't, but come on Raistlin, you've worked in the industry. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Ah, how many days I hunted for that bug that sent Destruction Derby replays out of sync ;-) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1378 |
Oh gods, those fucking replays. Rinse and repeat for Driver 1-3 + Stuntman.
Anyway, about that Yoomp crack… |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Quote: Oh gods, those fucking replays. Rinse and repeat for Driver 1-3 + Stuntman.
Anyway, about that Yoomp crack…
Test Drive 4, PC version only, had a multiplayer bug (!) where if you drove on a certain piece of grass before a tunnel the game would go out of sync... we tried for a week to find the bug, and couldn't. It didn't happen anywhere else in the game on any other bit of grass, nothing ... So instead we moved the start point of the level to be past the bit of grass 8) ... "fixed, ship it!"
Getting back to Yoomp, though, well... I'm going to go bang my head against the wall some more as I try to figure out exactly what Jazzcat wants - if he even knows himself. I guess it's just "whatever will give us the most points - we'll just bore everyone with the argument until they agree... even though we make the chart and the rules ourselves and so can just do whatever we want."
Rumour has it that any group whose name is an anagram of "Snot Laugh" will get a bonus 1000 points every day just for hilarity. |
| |
Heavy Stylus
Registered: Apr 2007
Posts: 61 |
Hello all! I missed all this drama, which is a shame as it looks like it was fun :D
Ok, so from my side, what I know is this:
Game was classed as complete quite a while ago, beginning of the year was when the last significant changes were made (passwords having numbers removed to make it easier for the end user to read with the game font). Release was held back significantly due to the graphic designer I work with going through some serious real life issues.
It's quite clear, and I am transparent about the fact that Jazzcat assisted us with testing the game (ONS) on various machines (he is even listed in the credits for this). In addition to this, of course, MCH is the musician (the GP connection here).
A few weeks before release, I noticed that the RESTORE key crashed the game. I asked the developer for that fix as a last minute change before making the carts and the sending the disk version to Kenz at Psytronik.
Obviously, GP had the version previous to this change. Other than that, as far as I know, there is no difference between the two.
I personally had no contact with GP about this game around the time of release - and I know that ONS 'released' their crack at exactly the same time I made the game available. So in my personal opinion, ONS release was really the 'firstie' in this case, but to call the GP one a 'preview' is unfair. Of course, it's obvious (in hindsight) that GP were expecting the first release as their musician was involved. But there was no contact with them to plan a joint release from my side.
What should have happened here is that ONS should have simply uploaded their crack to CSDB - as it was indeed released (digitally) for free/PWYW with all $ going to the developer. I/we really appreciate the store links, but no-one asked if I would object to the CSDB entry having a DL (and I don't).
Anyway, guys, can't we all just get along and declare this one a 'draw'? :D |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
There can't be a draw on declaring a 1st release, there is only ONE first release, and GP version, even if it has a minimal difference, is a 99% version of the final game, so can't be a first rel. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
plot twist::
- GP has the firstrelease
- ONS release is the "sales version" release |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
groepaz: they gave a goof. :) |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Great to see this all looking more promising. It's not just about this release, it's just nice to know that the right precedents are being set so that the database can be relied upon.
IMO, and I'm no expert here, cracks on CSDB should tag/detail the crack itself rather than the original game. As we know, several games have gone through various revisions. Some recent games, for instance, have had multiple digital releases before the actual disk/cartridge/tape version are set in stone.
With Yoomp, I'd suggest:-
- GP is v1.0 rather than 99% ... when talking about cracks, wouldn't 99% imply a cracker mistake rather than the original game? As an example, check my 1989 crack of Indiana Jones.. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade +5 .. that could be called a 99% version - I'd even go as far as 50%. Multicolour mode staying on is "kinda" important - and I broke it.. (anyone with the inclination, feel free to tag that release and add the goof ... you don't have to play the game long to see it)
- "goof" is fine I guess.. I don't know whether the intention here is for cracker goofs or not?
- ONS version should be v1.1 rather than 101%... the developer fixed it, so it's a different version.. 101% to me implies that the cracker fixed it
Maybe I'm misinterpreting things .. but CSDB credits the people involved with the crack, rather than the people that made the game, so I'd imagine that the tags should align with that? |
| |
Heavy Stylus
Registered: Apr 2007
Posts: 61 |
IMO:
The version released on itch.io at 15:30 GMT 2nd Aug 2018 was version 1.0. This was the first time the game was made publicly available, and had the RESTORE key bug fix already. The ONS version is based on this, and was uploaded shortly after (i.e. minutes later).
Therefore, surely the GP version, as it is from a pre-final, internal release, must be 0.99999? ;)
To me, declaring the ONS release as version 1.1 implies that a version 1.0 with the restore bug was publicly available, when it wasn't. The first 'final' version of the game that was available to download or buy was the one with the RESTORE key bug fixed.
Sorry for poking the hornets nest some more! ;D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
I see someone had the bright idea to add firstrelease to both again.
GOOD JOB! |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Actually, yeah, what HS says makes sense. |
| |
Fix
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 54 |
My 100 cents,
If any group releases a version of a game not based on the release version in my view it's a beta, preview, 0.999% or what you would like to call it even if there only were small changes.
Else suddenly all groups can say our not final version is only lacking that or that, but has everything else claiming a 1.0 version with first release tag.
A game that is not based on the final release can surly be a First Release, but with a proper tag for example Preview, 0.9 version or what you would like to call it.
Else it can get pretty funny..
Our version only lacks gfx, else it has everything... :-)
Don't forget to have fun! |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
fix: exactly. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: groepaz: they gave a goof. :)
As stated above, it's no goof. At least not from our side. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Hello all! I missed all this drama, which is a shame as it looks like it was fun :D
Ok, so from my side, what I know is this:
Game was classed as complete quite a while ago, beginning of the year was when the last significant changes were made (passwords having numbers removed to make it easier for the end user to read with the game font). Release was held back significantly due to the graphic designer I work with going through some serious real life issues.
It's quite clear, and I am transparent about the fact that Jazzcat assisted us with testing the game (ONS) on various machines (he is even listed in the credits for this). In addition to this, of course, MCH is the musician (the GP connection here).
A few weeks before release, I noticed that the RESTORE key crashed the game. I asked the developer for that fix as a last minute change before making the carts and the sending the disk version to Kenz at Psytronik.
Obviously, GP had the version previous to this change. Other than that, as far as I know, there is no difference between the two.
I personally had no contact with GP about this game around the time of release - and I know that ONS 'released' their crack at exactly the same time I made the game available. So in my personal opinion, ONS release was really the 'firstie' in this case, but to call the GP one a 'preview' is unfair. Of course, it's obvious (in hindsight) that GP were expecting the first release as their musician was involved. But there was no contact with them to plan a joint release from my side.
What should have happened here is that ONS should have simply uploaded their crack to CSDB - as it was indeed released (digitally) for free/PWYW with all $ going to the developer. I/we really appreciate the store links, but no-one asked if I would object to the CSDB entry having a DL (and I don't).
Anyway, guys, can't we all just get along and declare this one a 'draw'? :D
I can only congratulate Jazzcat having you running a game company supplying him the goods, really, crackers do what they do, but I wonder how you can keep your cool towards the game makers when it's obvious you leak almost all the games to a cracking group? It's quite fascinating from that perspective. As I have talked the coder of Yoomp64, I also know that he asked you specifically not to, and I know it happened before too, with another coder.
Oh, and if you need another tester I have all the gears needed. Just ask me! I'll do it for free. :) I have a good reputation testing. :D |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 445 |
Perhaps you guys should get a dishing machine to clean your dirty dishes :-P
Anyway: about how CSDb should handle cases like this, my 5 cents: either both or none of those two releases should get "first release" flag and explanation could go into the "trivia" field. Just copy'n'paste this discussion. Cases like this are quite rare in the end.
For me personal ONS would deserve "first release" this time, just because common sense tells me "first" means "first". But on the other hand you dug your own grave with making up some rules that make second releases first or first releases second, depending on how someone interprets those rules.
I must admit, it's quite interesting to watch defenders of those rules that I never really understood arguing about them. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
I am not going to argue who has the first release.
IMHO both VN/Propaganda had incomplete rules to cover what happened, it will fall under editorial decisions, so be it.. agree to disagree, start your own mag, whatever..
So that aside.. I do want to raise the point of labeling a game preview/beta.
Am I REALLY the only one, who remembers the days that we would all applaud teams that managed to do whatever it took (including selling their mothers) to first release a game BEFORE it hit the streets?
As much as I appreciate Heavy Stylus popping in and clarifying a few things, the developers standpoint of what is their 1.0 release is only mildly interesting to determine if a crack is a justified first release, because it makes comparing GP’s version to the studio’s final easier.
But say hypothetically that GP had released their version 4 weeks ago.. Would anyone here have disputed it being a first release full game?
If you are tempted to say yes..
please note there’s 2 points here:
1. There is an unfixed restore bug
2. The game has not been released as a studio 1.0
Point 1 -> without a doubt, this can easily be dismissed based on a handful of releases from the last two years that had a restore bug, and points were awarded by both mags.
Point 2 -> imho is a simple matter of know your history.
I can understand some of us saying it’s 2018..
perhaps a rule needs to change, after all we work closer with/and try to support devs in our cracking community..
Perhaps someone even thinks “hmm, what actually differs a preview/beta/full game.. ok, so open that debate in a separate thread fine.. I can grasp that sentiment to a point.
What I just cannot grasp is if anyone here from our cracking scene would say “yes, this is a reason to dismiss a release from first release points“ solely on the reason that a studio has not released a title as their 1.0.
That is just simply wrong by blatantly ignoring decades of cracking history. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Quote: Perhaps you guys should get a dishing machine to clean your dirty dishes :-P
Anyway: about how CSDb should handle cases like this, my 5 cents: either both or none of those two releases should get "first release" flag and explanation could go into the "trivia" field. Just copy'n'paste this discussion. Cases like this are quite rare in the end.
For me personal ONS would deserve "first release" this time, just because common sense tells me "first" means "first". But on the other hand you dug your own grave with making up some rules that make second releases first or first releases second, depending on how someone interprets those rules.
I must admit, it's quite interesting to watch defenders of those rules that I never really understood arguing about them.
I'll second the CSDB suggestion.. either both or none, and leaning to none as preference because;
1. First on csdb in theory would be an option too, but would mean having to reset a hell of a lot of historical flags.
2. There's a conflict now with 2 mags, in theory (if Didi reboots his mag) there are 3 with 3 potential outcomes, and future proofing there might be more at some point.
IMHO based on previous statements CSDB is a database logging releases, so using all or none in case of conflict seems the most logical indeed. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Just to say while someone’s talking about the rules being broken before... the Vandalism rules were updated following this release to define it in a way that, of course, would give Onslaught the first. If a BBS is down, they go to the backup.
What’s not clear to me though is:-
- how long does the BBS need to be down? A second? A minute? An hour? 24 hours?
- how is the BBS being down verified?
To me, just saying “you can use the fallback if a BBS is down” is just open to even more cheating... it’s not clearly defined. It’s STILL a broken rule. This stuff isn’t rocket science... choose a rule and stick to it.
Propaganda’s rules, to me, make sense. 24 hours means 24 hours, down means down, etc. This is what’s needed: hard and fast rules that don’t allow cheating.
Jazzcat claimed that groups may cheat by making BBS’s go down to their advantage... this seems very odd to me - if you can’t trust the 3 BBS’s that you list as the mains, you have the wrong BBSs. Surely you NEED to be able to trust them to be fair? If you can’t, it’s not just them being “down” that you should worry about - you should worry about traffic priority, transfer failures and all sorts of dirty tricks that could be used. Trust them 100% - or not at all.
Also, wow, if what Hedning says is true, which i’m sure it is, feeding releases to a crack group against their will is an amazing way to make sure you’re not publisher more from that developer. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: My 100 cents,
If any group releases a version of a game not based on the release version in my view it's a beta, preview, 0.999% or what you would like to call it even if there only were small changes.
Else suddenly all groups can say our not final version is only lacking that or that, but has everything else claiming a 1.0 version with first release tag.
A game that is not based on the final release can surly be a First Release, but with a proper tag for example Preview, 0.9 version or what you would like to call it.
Else it can get pretty funny..
Our version only lacks gfx, else it has everything... :-)
Don't forget to have fun!
Total agree. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: I'll second the CSDB suggestion.. either both or none, and leaning to none as preference because;
1. First on csdb in theory would be an option too, but would mean having to reset a hell of a lot of historical flags.
2. There's a conflict now with 2 mags, in theory (if Didi reboots his mag) there are 3 with 3 potential outcomes, and future proofing there might be more at some point.
IMHO based on previous statements CSDB is a database logging releases, so using all or none in case of conflict seems the most logical indeed.
Agreed, leaning towards removal of the first release flag on CSDb completely (as this is managed outside of CSDb). |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: Just to say while someone’s talking about the rules being broken before... the Vandalism rules were updated following this release to define it in a way that, of course, would give Onslaught the first. If a BBS is down, they go to the backup.
What’s not clear to me though is:-
- how long does the BBS need to be down? A second? A minute? An hour? 24 hours?
- how is the BBS being down verified?
To me, just saying “you can use the fallback if a BBS is down” is just open to even more cheating... it’s not clearly defined. It’s STILL a broken rule. This stuff isn’t rocket science... choose a rule and stick to it.
Propaganda’s rules, to me, make sense. 24 hours means 24 hours, down means down, etc. This is what’s needed: hard and fast rules that don’t allow cheating.
Jazzcat claimed that groups may cheat by making BBS’s go down to their advantage... this seems very odd to me - if you can’t trust the 3 BBS’s that you list as the mains, you have the wrong BBSs. Surely you NEED to be able to trust them to be fair? If you can’t, it’s not just them being “down” that you should worry about - you should worry about traffic priority, transfer failures and all sorts of dirty tricks that could be used. Trust them 100% - or not at all.
Also, wow, if what Hedning says is true, which i’m sure it is, feeding releases to a crack group against their will is an amazing way to make sure you’re not publisher more from that developer.
Regarding BBS downtime. I think that can be discretionary. Obviously a minute or two is a bit awkward. People would just retry. But for a whole day (during business hours the case of Yoomp) then this is an obvious fallback rule. It is a race, not a waiting game. Will review this when I am looking at all the rules together with Bordeaux (Tim). The goal being that we need the rules and their gaps ironed out so that people can have fun and not be bogged down in debates. Also to correct you, they are not my rules. They are heavily based on existing rules set by Psychobilly for The Pulse magazine in 1993. They have been added onto by myself, Vengeance/Success+TRC and Taper/Triad and at times with the consensus of others. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Wait. What? So the cracking scene and its rules should be made to fit people’s working hours? Why is that even a factor in this? |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Will overtime points be awarded for releasing cracks outside of office hours? 2x points would make sense. And 1.5 at peak times. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: Wait. What? So the cracking scene and its rules should be made to fit people’s working hours? Why is that even a factor in this?
no, but if a bbs is down, peak or off peak then fallback should be used for a majority ruling. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Quote: no, but if a bbs is down, peak or off peak then fallback should be used for a majority ruling.
That's possibly the craziest thing I've heard on this thread so far... it makes no sense. It opens the whole system up to a huge amount of abuse and cheating.
As I said before, choose BBS's that you trust and that are well maintained. They shouldn't normally be down for long - if they are, they shouldn't be on the preferred list. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Quote: That's possibly the craziest thing I've heard on this thread so far... it makes no sense. It opens the whole system up to a huge amount of abuse and cheating.
As I said before, choose BBS's that you trust and that are well maintained. They shouldn't normally be down for long - if they are, they shouldn't be on the preferred list.
it hasn't done so far. but will go over this and other rules as previously mentioned. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Well it arguably just has ... putting the version issue aside (pre-release, v0.99, demo, preview, whatever), there was also an argument earlier about whether G*P or Onslaught were first.
Onslaught weren't able to upload to the preferred boards within the 24 hours.. G*P were.
The issue of course being that the Propaganda rules have now changed - or "had their definition clarified".
I don't see the point in opening a system up for abuse just for the sake of gaining points on a single release ;-) |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
But anyway, I'll leave this now ... better things to do - and it feels like common sense, this time, isn't going to prevail... |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
"UPDATE 04.08.2018: Clarifications for the uninitiated: this includes the "fallback board" if other "counted boards" are offline.
The reason we don't wait for boards to be back up is that people can control the boards (pulling those strings!) - bringing them down at leisure and then bringing them up when they want (how convenient! let's make everyone have one leg while we run on two!). The race to the counted "Online" boards as first resolves this 'manipulative little trick'."
^^^ as I say, if you can't trust the BBS', don't put them on the preferred list. It's as simple as that. The simpler the rules are the better. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: "UPDATE 04.08.2018: Clarifications for the uninitiated: this includes the "fallback board" if other "counted boards" are offline.
The reason we don't wait for boards to be back up is that people can control the boards (pulling those strings!) - bringing them down at leisure and then bringing them up when they want (how convenient! let's make everyone have one leg while we run on two!). The race to the counted "Online" boards as first resolves this 'manipulative little trick'."
^^^ as I say, if you can't trust the BBS', don't put them on the preferred list. It's as simple as that. The simpler the rules are the better.
In the Propaganda rules we will instead delete cheating boards from the list of counted bords. Easy as that. Will post the updated propa rules tonight. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
I find it mightily strange that The List is effectively saying that they don't trust the owners of the BBS' that they use for calculating their scores. That's either a very strange position to be in... or an excuse that can be pulled out at will. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 557 |
Regardless of all of that, though, to me it really just changes the integrity of the VN first release list in my eyes.
CSDB's "First Release" tag is a completely different matter .. and for the powers that be there to decide. |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
So now it seems even more reasons to switching to Bacchus's idea of an internet based release site, 1 site to get your upload time and date stamped, first release problem sorted.
And then each release would be awarded points by a panel of sceners, on the merits of the crack, not just who was first.
The bbs scene would still stay alive as the only way to get others to download your crack would be via the bbs's, the first release site would be upload only.
I'm sure Bacchus will happily answer anyones questions or concerns. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
the entire discussion should be deleted and moved to your BBSs.
still the one and only thing that matters here is: what determines if a release, on csdb, gets the first-release tag? |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
deleted or just closed.
about Pitcher/Bacchus idea: so in brief a 8bit version of The iSONEWS? maybe it will work, maybe it won't. most of the time: Peecee scene != C64 scene |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Quoting ZeSmasherdeleted or just closed.
about Pitcher/Bacchus idea: so in brief a 8bit version of The iSONEWS? maybe it will work, maybe it won't. most of the time: Peecee scene != C64 scene
Yes, but also a collective of sceners, who then rate the releases between them, back to the old style of scoring, so maybe being first or quickest won't always get the best points. |
