| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 478 |
What is a "crack"?
In the release On the Farm III +8FD there started a discussion about what is a "crack". In CSDb rules a crack is defined as an unauthorized modification. In other scenes this would be called a "hack" or a "mod".
I hardly remember any games since 1994 which really needed to remove a protection, so most "crackers" started to use different clauses to declare their work, e.g. "raped" or something like this. But there also should be made a difference between linking an intro or training a game and other improvements like highscore-savers, bugfixes, improved packing and loading routines, etc. Crack might not be the correct name for it but what else to call it?
|
|
| |
Fierman
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 85 |
i am getting bored by this taking of 'originals' that were dumped ages ago anyway. there's a few thousand more games labelled 'uncracked' on gb64. are you going to do all of them? |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 478 |
@Fierman:
Nice off topic comment. You may sit down... |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2047 |
As I said in the release comment discussion, the whole debate is old and I'm getting bored to read the same pros and cons over and over again. I'd be the last one who's against a category "mod". But in the end, the CSDb mods are the ones who interpret their set of rules, and I do not see any new arguments which might change their minds, so I expect that they will keep considering also bugfixing, training, NTSC-fixing, modding and whatsoever as cracking. And I won't lose any sleep over it. Copy protection? Come on, this is 2012, how many people still releasing C64 software still waste their time on futile copy protection!? |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 478 |
This topic has been widely discussed long time before CSDb existed and never led to a final conclusion. But why not discuss it if there's the need for. But release comments seems to be the wrong place for that. |
| |
Sixx
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 229 |
Mean while in a crack house down under.. |
| |
Achim
Registered: Jan 2010
Posts: 28 |
I won't lose any sleep over it either. But the simple question is why another category is always rejected. Look at the dreadful rules for 'crack'. What's that good for? Everybody knows that there're almost no more games to crack. We all know that modfiying is exactly what contemporary 'cracker' groups really do. So why not call it that way? Makes no sense at all.
|
| |
Moloch
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2890 |
CSDb needs another category just like it needs more credits categories ... it doesn't, there is plenty right now.
Non-wares sceners and newbies certainly shouldn't have a say in changing things in the first place. Harsh words, but the truth really. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11089 |
having another category just creates the need to define what belongs into the new category and what not. and it doesnt really solve anything.
tons of the "cracks" released in 1985 dont involve removing copyprotection or even linking an intro either, they are often basically hex-edits in new fangled emulamer lingo. does anyone give a damn?
|
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
" there're almost no more games to crack "
actually there are, there is almost no one able to do them. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4574 |
There is indeed a lot to do still, and you also need to do a nice package out of it after you got your hands on some obscure original with docs and everything needed for a nice release. I'm just happy people still care about this thing, and enjoy what we spend time and money on (getting originals, dumping them, cracking when needed, bug-fixing, ntsc/pal-fixing, scanning and typing in (sometimes translating) docs, sometimes make additional music and gfx to the game). Respect to the active groups on our beloved c64. |
... 42 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
