| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
Release id #176410 : Propaganda List #1 2019
Quite funny: If the coder is member of the releasing group and supplies the original, it gets no points here (example: The Age of Heroes). If the musician of the game is member in the releasing group, it's OK (example: Nono Pixie Preview 4). C'mon. Get real! Crackers have always used "connections" to get hand on the originals first. Usually you did not even ask for the source. You just respected that they had it first, point. The rule here is not thought through until end and does not respect tradition IMO. |
|
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Trust me. We thought about this, and I believe you are reacting too fast here.
We gave points to your TND supplied releases, as you actually did not make those games, even if you apparently have close ties to Richard, helping him with ntsc-fixing and whatnot. Right? We don't hit down on "connections". We will mention them, of course, if we know about them. Crackers never had high morals.
Cracking the game you made yourself, however, can't actually, in any sense, be seen as a real crack. It's ridiculous. You can't crack your own code. As pointed out in the rules:
"No points will be handed out for releases where the cracker group made the game in question, or where a member of the group coded or were the main architect of the game being first released. For now we will still count it as a (lame) form of first release, but we want to award skill, speed, effort and challenge, and cracking your own game has nothing of this. Cracking your own games is concidered harmful to the first release scene and the spirit of it."
This is however not the place for debating this. You are welcome to discuss it with the ones that really care (because this thread will be filled with trolling and moaning in 3.. 2... 1...). You are more than welcome to contact us. |
| |
E$G
Registered: Dec 2007
Posts: 790 |
@Hedning: you also invited me to contact you (I mean leaders of the rulez). I wish I had because it would have been nice to propose something to improve this system, letting the groups to play with fun and providing good quality release. Readin' 1.5 rulez I'm happy not to have wasted my time. I let you create rulez impossible to be respected or totally nonsense. Paper stars are less valuable than the gold shining ones. Groups and sceners will be pissed of soon, demotivation will overhelm patience and boring system. Only the release as it is will survive. |
| |
Dr.Strange
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 100 |
Quote: @Hedning: you also invited me to contact you (I mean leaders of the rulez). I wish I had because it would have been nice to propose something to improve this system, letting the groups to play with fun and providing good quality release. Readin' 1.5 rulez I'm happy not to have wasted my time. I let you create rulez impossible to be respected or totally nonsense. Paper stars are less valuable than the gold shining ones. Groups and sceners will be pissed of soon, demotivation will overhelm patience and boring system. Only the release as it is will survive.
@E$G: Are you seroius? The new rules are impossible to be respected? So, are you saying that if we give 0pts to groups cracking their own games, that will piss off everyone? Can you explain to me why first releasing a game you coded is a good thing for the scene? Saying that, I know we did the same time ago and I take full responsibilty for it. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
Crackers never cared about the source. Usual path of a crack release:
1. Grab the game/preview, wherever you got it.
2. Do with it what you think you need to do with it.
3. Tag your work and be proud of it.
I just point out that the source of a crack has never been of any importance and it is tradition to be this way.
IMO it would be dumb not to take advantage of the fact that you have game producers in your own rows which are willing to give you the game first. Not taking advantage of this is a personal decision but has nothing to do with traditional pirate spirit. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
<Post edited by hedning on 2/4-2019 09:08>
I agree that the source is of no big importance, except when you crack games that you actually produced in house - in some cases even by the same coder that coded the very game "cracked". In these last cases I rather respect this view: Cherry vs. Scene. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2076 |
Sorry, I really(!) wanted to keep out of this drama as I know that this is the only reasonable way to deal with madmen immune to any logic, but as Hedning phantasized about HF/MYD conspiracy to "mock" the first release scene,
I must state that this set of rulez plus arbitrary flags etc. here on CSDb also controlled by the same person(s),
makes it so utterly ridiculous/real satire that no mockery is necessary.
Making HF top of the bottom due to minus points for jewel releases and zero points due to "cracking own games" is simply ridiculous. As Didi says, making a difference between musician/graphician/tester/coder suppyling whatever group is nitpicking.
Also I am not Achim, I did not get the source code of TAOH nor a memory map but only the release as .D64, crunched and everything, and yeah, way earlier than Sun as I freely admit. So if we had just kept secret who supplied the original or created some dummy handle, it would have granted us points? Nonsense!
I'm not "pissed" (not more than before) as Enrico says but amused. However, the feeling grows that rules will always be changed in favor of very few people. Now we even bothered to make people do the BBS dance for us, then a new rule is created, WTF. If(!) we cared, that would not really contribute to motivate to take part in this so-called race. In fact, we're not eagerly planning doing any more first release stuff than in former years, and we have zero ambition to be in some top 3 or 5 or 10.
Maybe HF and MYD and a few other remaining sane people really should do some "conspiracy" in form of own lists without nonsense. Main reason against that is, I don't give a damn. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
@hedning: Interesting move of Cherry Soft in the past. Result shows that it did not work as the only existing crack is from F4CG. :D
@TheRyk: You are right. It is easy to obfuscate the source path if you want to or do not mention it at all. So the Propa Staff may suggest it but they have no proof. ;)
Well, release list editors have always bent rules to their favour, why should it be different today? That's some kind of tradition, too. :p |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: Sorry, I really(!) wanted to keep out of this drama as I know that this is the only reasonable way to deal with madmen immune to any logic, but as Hedning phantasized about HF/MYD conspiracy to "mock" the first release scene,
I must state that this set of rulez plus arbitrary flags etc. here on CSDb also controlled by the same person(s),
makes it so utterly ridiculous/real satire that no mockery is necessary.
Making HF top of the bottom due to minus points for jewel releases and zero points due to "cracking own games" is simply ridiculous. As Didi says, making a difference between musician/graphician/tester/coder suppyling whatever group is nitpicking.
Also I am not Achim, I did not get the source code of TAOH nor a memory map but only the release as .D64, crunched and everything, and yeah, way earlier than Sun as I freely admit. So if we had just kept secret who supplied the original or created some dummy handle, it would have granted us points? Nonsense!
I'm not "pissed" (not more than before) as Enrico says but amused. However, the feeling grows that rules will always be changed in favor of very few people. Now we even bothered to make people do the BBS dance for us, then a new rule is created, WTF. If(!) we cared, that would not really contribute to motivate to take part in this so-called race. In fact, we're not eagerly planning doing any more first release stuff than in former years, and we have zero ambition to be in some top 3 or 5 or 10.
Maybe HF and MYD and a few other remaining sane people really should do some "conspiracy" in form of own lists without nonsense. Main reason against that is, I don't give a damn.
The first release flag here on csdb is meaningless, and should be removed, or better specified. I am very clear that I do not mix my csdb moderatorship with GP stuff. If you think I do, and that is a problem (please point out examples), I will be the first to resign from moderation. Trust me. I would rather work only with organizing GP and writing Propalist, than holding on to a csdb moderator status that you think is corrupt. But we should keep to the topic:
This new rule also means GP won't release games made by Mermaid/Shadow/Wertstahl etc, of course. We have done that before, and actually, I don't feel that is something I am proud of.
With taunting I mean the "We don't care about the boards and the silly rules" followed by the opposite reactions. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: @hedning: Interesting move of Cherry Soft in the past. Result shows that it did not work as the only existing crack is from F4CG. :D
@TheRyk: You are right. It is easy to obfuscate the source path if you want to or do not mention it at all. So the Propa Staff may suggest it but they have no proof. ;)
Well, release list editors have always bent rules to their favour, why should it be different today? That's some kind of tradition, too. :p
In what way is this in our favour? It stops us from releasing games by Mermaid/Shadow/Wertstahl etc etc. We have more games coming, and we won't crack them either. Laxity has nothing to lose on this, btw. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
My arguments have nothing to do with Laxity losing or winning anything. I just pronounce to respect tradition and cracking tradition does not care about the source of a crack (unless you recreck ;p), simple as that. |
| |
Dr.Strange
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 100 |
@Didi: We in ATL lost points for this reason, so you can take your "bending rules in our own direction" back please. GP has gamedevs in the crew too. Then, we don't care where you get orries, the important thing is that they are not coming from a member of your group. That's all.
@TheRyk: HF got penalised because they re-released stuff. Shit happens, and this rule is everyone. Then, they released two games done by HF members and they got 0pts.
Again and again, we want the scene to be more interesting and challenging, but if you still think that first releasing your own games is fun and challenging, go ahead, nobody will stop you. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: My arguments have nothing to do with Laxity losing or winning anything. I just pronounce to respect tradition and cracking tradition does not care about the source of a crack (unless you recreck ;p), simple as that.
Respecting tradition is actually keeping from cracking games you made yourself. It has always been looked upon as a nono, and should be embarrassing. Please explain when and how it would be a good idea for the scene to promote creating games yourself that you then release yourself as a crack. I am curious for real, as I truly want to help the scene thrive and be taken a bit serious. Right now parts of it is a big joke, and I do believe Propalist is the path forward, and I know other groups are backing this view, even if they don't comment here (this is the wrong forum for it, and will only spawn criticism and trolling in the end by people not caring about the first release list to begin with). |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
Releasing your group own games prevent other groups from gaining profit from your group's work. Usually you do not do the crack yourself but leave it to a groupmate (like MYD did) but it does not matter anyway. This was quite common in the past and is the traditional way I accept. You guys can make your own rules, but I take the freedom not to accept and support them. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: Releasing your group own games prevent other groups from gaining profit from your group's work. Usually you do not do the crack yourself but leave it to a groupmate (like MYD did) but it does not matter anyway. This was quite common in the past and is the traditional way I accept. You guys can make your own rules, but I take the freedom not to accept and support them.
Yes of course. Everyone can do their own list and rules as well. We choose to go this way, and we have people behind us. Other lists might have others behind their rules. It would be all happy and dandy is everyone agreed on everything, but that has never been the case - I guess that is part of the tradition as well. In the end I hope we did the right choice for the health of this scene of ours. Time will tell.
And they can still release their game to prevent others from gaining points, but they won't get awarded for doing that. It boils down to precisely that. |
| |
Danzig
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 429 |
Puh, I just logged in at work to throw my 2 cents:
These new rules just suck donkey...
The problem of coders or groupmates cracking their "own games" is not (C) 2019, dudez :-D
Just compare to demo scene: The world keeps turning and you have to adjust yourself, not bend the rules to fit your liking. If you can't keep up, lay to rest...
Next up is: if some game-coder ever was member of your group you get no points... this is ridiculous! Finally start facecontrol and you got fascism ;-) |
| |
Majikeyric
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 83 |
haha another drama is coming for my next game release :D !
Now I release normal version and trained version that's all, and if you don't like honestly I don't care, my aim is not to gain points nor preventing other groups to gain points, as I don't care about the cracking scene at all, yes yes I'm in a cracking group and what ?. But this shouldn't be marked as 'Crack' but rather 'Trainer' . |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: haha another drama is coming for my next game release :D !
Now I release normal version and trained version that's all, and if you don't like honestly I don't care, my aim is not to gain points nor preventing other groups to gain points, as I don't care about the cracking scene at all, yes yes I'm in a cracking group and what ?. But this shouldn't be marked as 'Crack' but rather 'Trainer' .
Can't see any drama coming up because of that. Proceed as you wish. You don't have to change your ways at all, especially if you don't care. :) The only drama I can see here comes from the guys that wish to get first release points in Propalist for cracking their own games. |
| |
Dr.Strange
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 100 |
All your complaints just prove our point. And again, free to do whatever you want: refer to other mags, open your own list, not use boards and crack your own games. |
| |
E$G
Registered: Dec 2007
Posts: 790 |
<Post edited by E$G on 2/4-2019 17:18>
@Propaganda editors: as it happens in politic and government but also in sport or in competitions prize, the rulez are applied after a certain period and doesn't affect the past. So let us know the rulez then apply on the next issue!!
So why I said PENALIZED because YOU changed the rulez when something happened (to us and MYD but next time could be everyone). Democracy doesn't work in this way.
You can obviously say don't play with our small tiny toy but all the groups that take care of the scene and have the opportunity to have a never released game deserve to partecipate. Care or don't care about the chart is a feeling but care about correctness is the right way to do.
@Hedning: "I will be the first to resign from moderation". Don't do it as co-moderator I can certify about your great work. At least you can resign from GP dedicating to u/l all the old games released and goin' on a moderator. Let's bring back king -$iXX!-
@Hedning: hmmmm let me check in the sorceress ball. I see the future, the next US president will be... back to the scene interest...
"This new rule also means GP won't release games made by Mermaid/Shadow/Wertstahl etc, of course".
The ball say that this gameS will be released by TRIAD or ATL. This gameS won't be released by Laxity or Excess or...
So there is something wrong if friendship among groups allow to "trade" orries?
@all: about what Didi say concerning sources. Am I wrong if I say GTW always supplied Jazzcat? Am I wrong if I say some software label supply just one cracker group that promise not to distribuite the commercial game providing the day of the release with best jewel available?
Am I wrong if the game tester (or graphician or musician) usually supply the group he belongs to?
@Dr.Strange: I know your scenetiquette and way to behave, I can't critize you about it, not all sceners are like you and sorry that you're not a free man and I respect the GP alliance that involve common decisions about bbs, mags, charts. If you like it and share common thought glad for you.
Since we shared HF for some years you know my correctness and fun "working" for the scene that's what I care. As organizer I care about my group works and achivements of course, as most of us having the spotlight we have on being in the scene.
to close: About behaviour do you think that many "scener" voting low (aka downvoting) expecially in competition, voting and feedbackin' just for friends, releasing v.0.001 preview just to get a bunch of points is so respectfull. Trying to steal members to other group is correct? Omitting line-up, work releases of a group and giving focus exalting others is a correct editorial behave, in some mags/charts?
In the name of piracy everything is allowed (Didi refreshed our mind about the sacred oath), in the name of friendship and loyal behaviour let me say not. Do what you want, the eternal saying eye for eye tooth for tooth will hit all of us (this is not a menace in italian maFFia style but just for say that rulez, impeachment created in the name of good way to "use the scene" will be back against as a boomerang. EnjoY!
I wish to be represented by my lawyer Bacchus he knows to handle politics affair more than me, I just follow my heart and that's enough since 1982! |
| |
The Overkiller
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Too bad my Friend Enrico takes this too seriously (well, even if I understand his feelings). For me this new amazing rules take the circus to a next more serious level of a Cirque Du Soleil. The main problem is that games done within groups are not shared to others groups, that's it! And when in directed (or INDIRECTLY) way you try to ask in first access a game done by Eric (oh, and if in any case it's an early access, where's the competition?), you can do all the rules you want, I'll support his decision because the will of my members came before all your rules. But you can always do an introlinking and if any of these BBS work (yeah!) then rush it and get your precious points, or why not another dinasourwhatever version removing trainers? For me it's quite a relief to use even less these BBS, and keeping supporting only one (yes, the one that magically we disappeared from the list). Now I let you continue this fantastic debating, as I always say, we have to produce not talk. |
| |
Dr.Strange
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 100 |
@The Overkiller: If you think you are better than this circus, feel free to avoid the first scene and maybe participate differently. I have to be honest, it's very irritating to keep seeing this "I don't care" attitude from many people here, but then you (generally referred) ask people to upload your stuff on the boards, you go hunting points, open and support boards and so on. Nobody is forcing you into anything. Also, Iit's fair to propose new rules or criticize them, but being considered a sort of clown in a circus sounds like an insult to me.
That's it from me, see you next quarter. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: Too bad my Friend Enrico takes this too seriously (well, even if I understand his feelings). For me this new amazing rules take the circus to a next more serious level of a Cirque Du Soleil. The main problem is that games done within groups are not shared to others groups, that's it! And when in directed (or INDIRECTLY) way you try to ask in first access a game done by Eric (oh, and if in any case it's an early access, where's the competition?), you can do all the rules you want, I'll support his decision because the will of my members came before all your rules. But you can always do an introlinking and if any of these BBS work (yeah!) then rush it and get your precious points, or why not another dinasourwhatever version removing trainers? For me it's quite a relief to use even less these BBS, and keeping supporting only one (yes, the one that magically we disappeared from the list). Now I let you continue this fantastic debating, as I always say, we have to produce not talk.
Please, don't be paranoid. I already told Optic F to tell you that it was an accident not adding HF to the rules text when updating the rules. Sorry. I just focused on the rules part when updating, and forgot to add HF to OI (And FLT to RapidFire). It's already corrected. And then: Why accepting our invitation to share Optical Illusion with us, if you don't care about the boards? Bah. I don't get that game of yours.
I second Dr. Strange: See you in next chapter. |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
that mentioned Cherry Soft deal was pure shit. yes, it gave us (F4CG) a couple of easy firsties, but also a lot of troubles. It probably harmed the group more than the benefits we got. I personally can't type anything bad about Newscopy, as Per was/is a friendly guy, but if I remember right he was then kicked out for that lame story. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Vandalism News arrives June 9. No changes to the rules. Read it there if you do not agree with this list. I guess different lists, allow different views to be expressed. Above all, enjoy what you do!
Greetz.
p.s.
http://thelist.c64.org |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: Vandalism News arrives June 9. No changes to the rules. Read it there if you do not agree with this list. I guess different lists, allow different views to be expressed. Above all, enjoy what you do!
Greetz.
p.s.
http://thelist.c64.org
Nice to hear you speeded up the pace! Indeed, keep on doing what you like to do. |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Quote: Respecting tradition is actually keeping from cracking games you made yourself. It has always been looked upon as a nono, and should be embarrassing. Please explain when and how it would be a good idea for the scene to promote creating games yourself that you then release yourself as a crack. I am curious for real, as I truly want to help the scene thrive and be taken a bit serious. Right now parts of it is a big joke, and I do believe Propalist is the path forward, and I know other groups are backing this view, even if they don't comment here (this is the wrong forum for it, and will only spawn criticism and trolling in the end by people not caring about the first release list to begin with).
I think respecting cracking tradition has totally flown out the window here, we in Fairlight have found spending the time on something older, with real protection or fixing some that was previously bugged, gets more votes and comments than a 1 file wonder preview.
You currently have groups rushing to train and intro link a non protected, often 1 filed game.
Some of those intros are sloppy and larger than the game itself at times.
So wheres tradition in that ??
Also what's the difference in releasing your own groups game that you may have the source too, or finding source code to a game on Github and releasing that ??
Maybe all github games should be zero points too ?? |
| |
Golara
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2018
Posts: 212 |
Quote: I think respecting cracking tradition has totally flown out the window here, we in Fairlight have found spending the time on something older, with real protection or fixing some that was previously bugged, gets more votes and comments than a 1 file wonder preview.
You currently have groups rushing to train and intro link a non protected, often 1 filed game.
Some of those intros are sloppy and larger than the game itself at times.
So wheres tradition in that ??
Also what's the difference in releasing your own groups game that you may have the source too, or finding source code to a game on Github and releasing that ??
Maybe all github games should be zero points too ??
I'm not a cracker, never was probably never will be, but I totally agree with that. I always thought that "cracking" unprotected new 1 file games was really weird, i mean, what was there to crack ? At least trainers make a bit of sense, but that's it. For example the "crack" of robozzle is just a linked intro and docs. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Guys, since this topic affects all teams in the game, a response is due too from Excess too:
Having debated this topic for a day now in our team, we are somewhat hung over the issue and understand the intent, however also find it very hard to support these changes as presented.
Moving forward we will be in touch off-line from CSDB to provide our input/feedback as we too share some of the objections already mentioned by others in this thread.
You can frown upon certain releases, it is an interesting topic to debate, and we will gladly sit and debate on it with Propalist editors and other teams off-line from CSDB.
One objection however we will openly post:
Clipping Hokuto Force at 0 pts, this is simply wrong, and we hereby formally request this rectified in the next edition. We can debate moving forward, but we cannot accept new rules being applied backwards. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: Guys, since this topic affects all teams in the game, a response is due too from Excess too:
Having debated this topic for a day now in our team, we are somewhat hung over the issue and understand the intent, however also find it very hard to support these changes as presented.
Moving forward we will be in touch off-line from CSDB to provide our input/feedback as we too share some of the objections already mentioned by others in this thread.
You can frown upon certain releases, it is an interesting topic to debate, and we will gladly sit and debate on it with Propalist editors and other teams off-line from CSDB.
One objection however we will openly post:
Clipping Hokuto Force at 0 pts, this is simply wrong, and we hereby formally request this rectified in the next edition. We can debate moving forward, but we cannot accept new rules being applied backwards.
We hear you and we'll answer and get in touch outside of CSDb (like I said in my first message in the thread), for sure. BTW: Nice to get a clear and civilized answer. :) |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
Tradition was not to crack your own stuff. There was a commercial reason not to. And we also don't want to encourage People to code small shitty games and pump them out to gain points. I guess that was the reason why SEUCK games didn't get points either.
Releases of GitHub projects in as many iterations as the prerelease rules allows and adding an intro bigger than the game (as Pitcher already pointed out), to gain points is not the sport we play on FairLight. That's like adding intros to PD games and that's unworthy. Under our dignity.
But still - everybody with a list own the set of rules associated with that list. Its up to the list maintainer if they want to bring in opinions, or not. Feel free to humbly ask for reasons on changes of criteria, but unless you own the list you are in no position to request.
Of all the remarks I particularly fancied the reference to the BBS dance.
Pontus "Bacchus" Berg
* FairLight Council * |
| |
Optic Freeze
Registered: Jun 2011
Posts: 9 |
Quote: Guys, since this topic affects all teams in the game, a response is due too from Excess too:
Having debated this topic for a day now in our team, we are somewhat hung over the issue and understand the intent, however also find it very hard to support these changes as presented.
Moving forward we will be in touch off-line from CSDB to provide our input/feedback as we too share some of the objections already mentioned by others in this thread.
You can frown upon certain releases, it is an interesting topic to debate, and we will gladly sit and debate on it with Propalist editors and other teams off-line from CSDB.
One objection however we will openly post:
Clipping Hokuto Force at 0 pts, this is simply wrong, and we hereby formally request this rectified in the next edition. We can debate moving forward, but we cannot accept new rules being applied backwards.
This!! Right on the $. Well said Bordeaux.
Cheers gents!
OF/G*P |
| |
Sixx
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 229 |
Releasing a game produced by yourself have always been a no-no and considered lame.
If some groups keep breaking these unwritten rules, i totally understand the need for something like this added to release lists.
Maybe it should have been communicated in advance tho, what do I know..
Cheers! |
| |
E$G
Registered: Dec 2007
Posts: 790 |
@-$iXX!-
That's the point what lame is?
A group that take advantage of releasing a game (commercial or free), considered 1st release because of the meaning the grand jury "invented"? And how many advantages will take every year (1,2 or 3)?
And what will be the way to check? Only the coder, the whole team? graphics-music and even the tester?
All this noiZe for what??
I have a clear list of what I consider lame & unfriendly in the scene today and I've written in the above message.
And how many different list - 1st release list - will have?
What will be the future? Every group will make one, pulling water to his mill?
No way you can change the position of the elements, Laxity will always win #1.
@ Hedning & Dr.Strange but also Jazzcat & more...
So what's the deal? Never turn back because of the Ripper and fight from #2 to #7 'till death will tear us apart
or sittin' in front of a virtual table with at least one organizer representative of the 1st releaser group (that coincide with the competitors) and try to listen to the many voices that wish to improve a system that doesn't fully work
With written laws, happily applied when approved? |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
Quote:Releasing a game produced by yourself have always been a no-no and considered lame.
really? I can list a lot of things which are more lame for me: recracking (i.e. replace the intro and take all the credits), sell pirated stuff and make profit, use csdb as source and introlink, etc etc.
what a coder wants to do with his game (sell each copy for 1000$, spread it for free, introlink or add trainers, release it under a fake handle, give it to another group, etc) should be his very own decision only, whether you like it or not. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 572 |
My 2p...
“Cracking” is and always has been the work done to remove copy protection from a game. The other parts - linking an intro, training, etc etc - are just what goes into releasing that crack.
Crack, train, link, release.
If I was to remove the protection from a game of my own, i’d be changing:-
#define INCLUDE_COPY_PROTECTION 1
to
#define INCLUDE_COPY_PROTECTION 0
...
If someone goes to the trouble of making a game that’s unlikely to make more than a few hundred pounds/euros/dollars, why ruin the kudos for doing that by claiming to have cracked the game? That’s what I don’t understand.
As a demo coder, I was more happy than I was as a cracker.. and I looked up to game developers at the time as that seemed like a mystic art.
Is it “lame” to release your own game under your group? Personally, i’d say “no”. But... it does seem like it should be discounted from the First Release compo... it just doesn’t fit. If this was a public facing compo with a prize, it would be investigated by the competitions police from the EU.
That said, to claim a “crack” credit on such a release.. or to expect first release points... yeah, i’d agree that’s lame. |
| |
Sixx
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 229 |
Smasher - E$G:
I don't put any personal valuation in regards to the topic or what's considered lame etc.
Have a nice weekend, ya'll.
:) |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
@sixx, you have been a f4cg'er, so I don't have to teach you what coolness mean and what lameness mean :P
have a great weekend u as well my friend! |
| |
Scan
Registered: Dec 2015
Posts: 110 |
Ok, I was trying to avoid this discussion, but I feel like I have to add my 2 cents. Some weeks ago I released here a preview of a game I'm working on, RoboZZle64, hoping to get some feedback on the playability of the game. At first I was quite pleased some group took the "trouble" to take the summary I put into that post and put it in a DOC viewer attached in front of the game, but to my disappointment this his done very hastily and sloppy. I would have appreciated if the cracker took the trouble of reformatting the docs for a 40 columns-wide display and correct the youtube link to something (bitly?) that can be copied from the docs to view the youtube video. Also, because the doc viewer uses run/stop to quit the doc viewer and I use the same key combination to select a puzzle (using kernal routines so buffered keyboard) so when exiting the doc viewer using that key results in immediately selecting the first puzzle. I do not mind having it "cracked", but I do mind when it has done sloppily and adds almost zero value to the release. I'm thinking of adding some kind of "protection" for the next version so the cracking groups will have to put a little more effort into it and prove their value. My advice for cracking groups: It's better to be the best than to be the first. |
| |
Maxlide
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 29 |
Don't blame it on the scene but one the releasing group when a release is faulty.
There have always been groups who spent more time on their releases than others.
The trick is to be good and fast. I don't know about what group we are talking and I don't care but they surely need to check their Q department then.
During the heyday of the Commodore 64 scene people tend to release two versions. A quick one for the bbs' and a second and usually better one (in terms of trainers and size) for the snailmail releases.
And about your future products: a copy protection would be highly appreciated! |
| |
AlexC
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 293 |
I wonder if today set of crack releases has something to do with this discussion... or is it just a coincidence. |
| |
Luca
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 178 |
Quote: I wonder if today set of crack releases has something to do with this discussion... or is it just a coincidence.
Today Raiders of the Lost Empire's great turmoil of cracks is ab-so-lu-te-ly the funniest part of the whole drama :D What about cracking a (possibly) selfcoded game coming from nowhere, which cannot be fully evaluated about its intrinsic quality, due to its own nature (in this case, an adventure which you can see how deep it really is)?
A truck full of popcorn, please... |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Quoting LucaToday Raiders of the Lost Empire's great turmoil of cracks is ab-so-lu-te-ly the funniest part of the whole drama :D What about cracking a (possibly) selfcoded game coming from nowhere, which cannot be fully evaluated about its intrinsic quality, due to its own nature (in this case, an adventure which you can see how deep it really is)?
A truck full of popcorn, please...
Someone has written a conversion program to take PAW data files from spectrum and amstrad
text adventure games and get it working in the C64 DAAD adventure game system.
To be honest, they where posted up on the Internet the 29th March, made it to lemon by the 2nd of April, took longer than I expected to make it here. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: Quoting LucaToday Raiders of the Lost Empire's great turmoil of cracks is ab-so-lu-te-ly the funniest part of the whole drama :D What about cracking a (possibly) selfcoded game coming from nowhere, which cannot be fully evaluated about its intrinsic quality, due to its own nature (in this case, an adventure which you can see how deep it really is)?
A truck full of popcorn, please...
Someone has written a conversion program to take PAW data files from spectrum and amstrad
text adventure games and get it working in the C64 DAAD adventure game system.
To be honest, they where posted up on the Internet the 29th March, made it to lemon by the 2nd of April, took longer than I expected to make it here.
Yup. 0-pointers. Still nice to see more text adventures on the c64. And also nice when solution etc is added.
The adventure writer system also spits out Amiga and Atari versions of the adventures. For more info, check out http://www.zenobi.co.uk/?view=classic
More will come. |
| |
Luca
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 178 |
Quote: Quoting LucaToday Raiders of the Lost Empire's great turmoil of cracks is ab-so-lu-te-ly the funniest part of the whole drama :D What about cracking a (possibly) selfcoded game coming from nowhere, which cannot be fully evaluated about its intrinsic quality, due to its own nature (in this case, an adventure which you can see how deep it really is)?
A truck full of popcorn, please...
Someone has written a conversion program to take PAW data files from spectrum and amstrad
text adventure games and get it working in the C64 DAAD adventure game system.
To be honest, they where posted up on the Internet the 29th March, made it to lemon by the 2nd of April, took longer than I expected to make it here.
Aaah, have seen it cited on Twitter for a so long time, and now finally I know what DAAD can do, thank you. |
| |
Scan
Registered: Dec 2015
Posts: 110 |
Quoting MaxlideDon't blame it on the scene but one the releasing group when a release is faulty.
There have always been groups who spent more time on their releases than others.
The trick is to be good and fast. I don't know about what group we are talking and I don't care but they surely need to check their Q department then.
During the heyday of the Commodore 64 scene people tend to release two versions. A quick one for the bbs' and a second and usually better one (in terms of trainers and size) for the snailmail releases.
And about your future products: a copy protection would be highly appreciated!
It's not just one group, but in general. Last time it was Excess, where they attached a doc viewer where you have to exit using run/stop, which got buffered and then because RoboZZle64 uses kernal routines to read out the keyboard it sees the keypress and immediately selects the first puzzle.
With the latest release I did not add copy protection (as I do want this game to be freely distributed) but I added some detection to see if an intro has been attached in front of it. I examined the cracks on the last 8 pages on CSDB if they shared a common ground and found one, and that I added to the behaviour of RoboZZle64. ROLE took the bait and released a flawed version, I'm curious how long it takes them to find out where their version differs in behaviour compared to the original and what I've done to make "cracking" this a little more difficult than it seems on the first glance. Or maybe some other cracking group will find out first and release a 100% version before ROLE. The game is on ;)
Tiny hint: Win.
Edit: O'Dog found and solved the culprit. |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Quote: Quoting MaxlideDon't blame it on the scene but one the releasing group when a release is faulty.
There have always been groups who spent more time on their releases than others.
The trick is to be good and fast. I don't know about what group we are talking and I don't care but they surely need to check their Q department then.
During the heyday of the Commodore 64 scene people tend to release two versions. A quick one for the bbs' and a second and usually better one (in terms of trainers and size) for the snailmail releases.
And about your future products: a copy protection would be highly appreciated!
It's not just one group, but in general. Last time it was Excess, where they attached a doc viewer where you have to exit using run/stop, which got buffered and then because RoboZZle64 uses kernal routines to read out the keyboard it sees the keypress and immediately selects the first puzzle.
With the latest release I did not add copy protection (as I do want this game to be freely distributed) but I added some detection to see if an intro has been attached in front of it. I examined the cracks on the last 8 pages on CSDB if they shared a common ground and found one, and that I added to the behaviour of RoboZZle64. ROLE took the bait and released a flawed version, I'm curious how long it takes them to find out where their version differs in behaviour compared to the original and what I've done to make "cracking" this a little more difficult than it seems on the first glance. Or maybe some other cracking group will find out first and release a 100% version before ROLE. The game is on ;)
Tiny hint: Win.
Edit: O'Dog found and solved the culprit.
Nice, it would be good to see things like this coming up more frequently. |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
thumb up for Scan! |
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1153 |
Nice one! Though I'd be wary doing detections that could trigger also on a legit copy, depending on what the user has done before loading your game (e.g. zeropage state) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2076 |
Yeah, it's indeed fun if coders bother doing some kind of protections. But what cadaver sez. And please don't overdo it (like Atwoods Studios some years ago), though :D |
| |
AlexC
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 293 |
Quote: Nice one! Though I'd be wary doing detections that could trigger also on a legit copy, depending on what the user has done before loading your game (e.g. zeropage state)
It is easy to bypass this issue by doing cart releases of originals. Unless you check for stock kernal it should always work since startup state if pretty well known (ok, memory pattern may wary and you may in same cases mix up freezer memory configuration option with default memory pattern or the other way around triggering protection as an result). |
| |
AlexC
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 293 |
Quote: Yeah, it's indeed fun if coders bother doing some kind of protections. But what cadaver sez. And please don't overdo it (like Atwoods Studios some years ago), though :D
Well, I guess Scan has still way to go as far as Exile/Audiogenic is considered as a comparison point ;) |
| |
Scan
Registered: Dec 2015
Posts: 110 |
Quoting cadaverNice one! Though I'd be wary doing detections that could trigger also on a legit copy, depending on what the user has done before loading your game (e.g. zeropage state)
If I would do a commercial game I would not have included it, as it is indeed too fragile. I just added it to prove a point about the quality of some crack releases and that a few groups are too eager to be the first than to properly check their crack.
I tested whether $100 contains a value between $30 and $3A under various conditions (vanilla C64, using retro replay, using Dolphin Dos). After reboot it holds the 1st digit of basic bytes free (3) and when you load and list a directory it becomes the 1st digit of the amount of blocks free, so I assumed it should always be $30-$3a. Since Exomizer and Pucrunch (not Nucrunch by ChristopherJam, which I used to compress the most recent version) clobber the stack it was fairly easy to detect whether the game was tampered.
In the end I'm planning to release the game in source code format as poster child for KickC, so what's the point in protecting it anyway? ;) |
| |
AlexC
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 293 |
Quote: Quoting cadaverNice one! Though I'd be wary doing detections that could trigger also on a legit copy, depending on what the user has done before loading your game (e.g. zeropage state)
If I would do a commercial game I would not have included it, as it is indeed too fragile. I just added it to prove a point about the quality of some crack releases and that a few groups are too eager to be the first than to properly check their crack.
I tested whether $100 contains a value between $30 and $3A under various conditions (vanilla C64, using retro replay, using Dolphin Dos). After reboot it holds the 1st digit of basic bytes free (3) and when you load and list a directory it becomes the 1st digit of the amount of blocks free, so I assumed it should always be $30-$3a. Since Exomizer and Pucrunch (not Nucrunch by ChristopherJam, which I used to compress the most recent version) clobber the stack it was fairly easy to detect whether the game was tampered.
In the end I'm planning to release the game in source code format as poster child for KickC, so what's the point in protecting it anyway? ;)
Now you've ruined all the fun for me to peek into you "protection scheme" releasing all those details ;). My trusty Trilogic Expert still does not work correctly on my U64 and that is the only C64 machine I have right now on my desk... |
| |
Scan
Registered: Dec 2015
Posts: 110 |
Sorry to have spoiled all the fun. However, I did not test whether this works with an Expert cartridge enabled, so I'm curious if RoboZZle64 would work as intended. I assume it does, but then again, assumption is the mother of all fuckups. ;) |
