Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Interesting MAME article

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:02:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm

Cribbed from elsewhere ;) 

He makes a lot of valid points and a few slightly misleading
(availability of roms) though it is slowly getting to that point, some
of which could be backed up by a certain poster here and their attitude
towards most here that love MAME for what it is.
August 15, 2005 2:42:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Zedders wrote:
> http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm
>
> Cribbed from elsewhere ;) 
>
> He makes a lot of valid points and a few slightly misleading
> (availability of roms) though it is slowly getting to that point, some
> of which could be backed up by a certain poster here and their attitude
> towards most here that love MAME for what it is.
>

If you read the thread on the MAME boards, you would be able to see and
read the responses people gave to this guy. The trouble with the
article is it has some valid points (from a certain point of view), but
he is blaming the wrong people.

In addition he moans that he lost over 3000 cfg files in some MAME
update (rendering them useless I guess), well that is not their problem
either! If MAMEDev refused to change anything because they feared it
would break something else, we would still be at MAME 0.01

Dont think I am some MAMEDev sychophant, In the past, me and a few MAME
developers havent always seen eye to eye, however on this matter, I must
agree with MAMEdev. I have always had respect for their efforts.

Now here is the way I see it...

When Nicola first released MAME, he stated that it was a documentation
project, and being able to play the games is a nice side effect ;-). As
more and more 'serious' developers joined, MAME has gone more 'strict'
about a lot of things, hacks being removed, code layout, etc (forgive me
I am not a coder, one of the Dev's that reads here will correct me if I
am wrong!) and MAME has become a strictly documentation project (going
back to its roots if you like). What do I think of that? Well I must
say I agree 100%, MAME wouldnt be so popular, so large nor so stable
without those changes that allowed it to scale up very well.

Without changes, MAME would still be DOS based (am I right guys?) and
sound wouldnt even work in XP! Some of the core changes allowed other
games to be added (or should I say drivers), so what is wrong with
change? They must be doing something right, when the actual arcade
manufacturers use their code!

The question you've gotta ask this guy is "who would he rather developed
MAME? Microsoft?"

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
August 15, 2005 6:22:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Zedders Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm

Dude is an ass PERIOD. If he knew anywhere near as much about MAME as
he attempts to convey he should have known better to begin with. Any
valid points are diminshed by the simple fact that he is a moron.

--
David
Related resources
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 8:50:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Hi,

I don't quite get what he is actually complaining about.

MAME is continuing to evolve and if he does not like the way
it is going he could simply stop updating at some version. OK,
that's the conclusion he has reached now but why the whining
then?

In his asteroids-example he has to concede that "the emulated
sound finally matched the samples" but complains that users had
to suffer in the meantime. Did they? They could have used the
version playing samples until they decided that the new way
was acceptable to them. Personally i love to know that it's
done the right way, the discrete sound system is one of the
parts of MAME I currently love most.

He also objects to MAME addressing games that are "beyond its
abilities". What does it matter to someone who considers the
program a game? Don't attempt to run these and be happy with
what can be played fine. Nobody working on the classics still
missing? Well that's a question of personal interest and has
nothing to do with the way the project is being led.

The change in config-files to XML caused major breakage, I agree.
But it was a good idea. It broke his frontend? Update that if
possible. If not you are complaining to the wrong people, go ask
the people that made the frontend. Sorry for the 3000 hand-tuned
config-files (I don't really believe that number, I have run
a few hundred games at most, and I run a lot of them through a
screensaver. When actually playing the number must be much lower).
It is technically possible to convert old-style-configs to
new-style, If I had a tome of 3000 precious configurations I
would have written a converter. Nobody has? So the need was not
that great after all.

I also have no sympathy for his trouble with updating ROMs via
Usenet. Newsgroups have always been a terribly inefficient channel
for this kind of distribution. Even if he is right, I don't know,
I do not subscribe to any binary newsgroup, that is a) not MAMEDevs
fault and b) there are much much better ways.

Thanks to the brilliant effort of supporters I find it much much
easier to keep up to date these days using bittorrent than when I
had to hunt files down standing in line at ftp servers for days.

I am quite happy with the state MAME is in. The project is absolutely
fascinating technically, is constantly maturing and yes it _is_
in fact possible to play a game every once in a while and I do not
see this changing.

Thank you!

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation,
provided you start with a big one"
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:17:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 15 Aug 2005 10:02:27 GMT, "Zedders" <no@no.com> wrote:

>http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm
>
>Cribbed from elsewhere ;) 
>
>He makes a lot of valid points and a few slightly misleading
>(availability of roms) though it is slowly getting to that point, some
>of which could be backed up by a certain poster here and their attitude
>towards most here that love MAME for what it is.

The guys a self opinionated twat stuck in his own little world ( of
Stuart )
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

MCR wrote:

> Now here is the way I see it...
>
> When Nicola first released MAME, he stated that it was a documentation
> project, and being able to play the games is a nice side effect ;-). As
> more and more 'serious' developers joined, MAME has gone more
> 'strict' about a lot of things, hacks being removed, code layout, etc
> (forgive me I am not a coder, one of the Dev's that reads here will
> correct me if I am wrong!) and MAME has become a strictly
> documentation project (going back to its roots if you like). What do
> I think of that? Well I must say I agree 100%, MAME wouldnt be so
> popular, so large nor so stable without those changes that allowed it
> to scale up very well.

I have to agree - the point of MAME is not to play the games, after all. I
do think that it would be a much better documentation utility if one of two
paths are taken:

1. PDFs of each board layout and the chips they contain, pinouts and
diagrams where necessary. Hex codes of the ROM contents would be necessary,
and useful for tracking down problems with your own ROM chips. This would
end up in a huge amount of documents, but would be a truly worthwhile method
of preventing the boards from disappearing into obscurity. You could simply
refer to the diagrams and layouts, and build your own perfect working Arcade
game. It would definitely steer the MAMEDevs away from the "You're promoting
piracy!" attack - you couldn't hope to play these games unless you built
them yourself. The R0Mz D00Dz and L33T W4R3Z pirates would stay well away.

2. Simulation rather than emulation. Each board is simply a complex
collection of interacting components. Simulate each component (tracks,
resistors, capacitors, chip wafers and pins etc) - the advantage of this
would be clear: you could *see* and query the state of everything needed to
get the game running. ROM Images would still be needed though - so it would
still be an enticement to piracy. However, although you would likely attach
a simulation of the arcade monitor screen you wouldn't be actually able to
"play" the game to any extent. The CPU overhead of simulating the board
would be far too great.

Either of these methods would be a far better effort for documentation than
the current emulation method, which I'm sure you all agree is on shaky legal
ground as more and more companies become interested in the activities of
emulator authors and the users of their systems.

From the standpoint of the current MAME enthusiasts, I'm sure all would
agree that the documentation is far more important than playability - we
could all do without actually playing the games, right?

D.






PS - this post was meant to be taken in good humour, and no offense was
intended. I applaud the efforts of the MAMEDevs to try to distance
themselves from piracy, but I really don't think that the main point of MAME
is documentation. It certainly isn't for *me*. And yes, I am an emulator
author, and I understand where they're coming from. Fortunately for me, very
high levels of accuracy still result in a playable emulator. Lucky me, eh?
Still... the idea of simulation rather than emulation *is* rather
intriguing.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:42:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"SINNER" <arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96B35F4DAB38ALouiscypherhellorg@140.99.99.130...
> * Zedders Wrote in alt.games.mame:
>
> > http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm
>
> Dude is an ass PERIOD. If he knew anywhere near as much about MAME as
> he attempts to convey he should have known better to begin with. Any
> valid points are diminshed by the simple fact that he is a moron.
>
> --
> David

I agree with some of his points, particularly about having to constantly
update ROMS

OTOH I also consider it bad manners to complain when people give you free
stuff, which is effectively what we're getting with MAME

Nobody is forcing anybody to download the new updates. If you don't like it,
don't do it
August 15, 2005 10:10:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Bastie Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> Nobody is forcing anybody to download the new updates. If you
> don't like it, don't do it

This is really the bottom line. If you were doing anything else, like
updateing per release, you are involved in a development cycle and you
are a beta tester. This morons inability to understand this very basic
yet obvious point proves how clueless he really is about what he was
involved in.

--
David
August 15, 2005 10:10:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:10:11 GMT, SINNER
<arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote:

>* Bastie Wrote in alt.games.mame:
>
>> Nobody is forcing anybody to download the new updates. If you
>> don't like it, don't do it
>
>This is really the bottom line. If you were doing anything else, like
>updateing per release, you are involved in a development cycle and you
>are a beta tester. This morons inability to understand this very basic
>yet obvious point proves how clueless he really is about what he was
>involved in.


Apparently the person that wrote the article has never used a
Microsoft product either. I can think of quite a few times over the
years that an update to Windows has broken compatibility with another
program, and in some cases Windows itself.

If I remember correctly, in that particular case, Microsoft's own
products even have problems with the update. Some of their own
products that were broken by SP2 included Visual Studio and Office, in
some fashion.

Botom line is that when you upgrade something, you should always
expect that you might have to also update some of the supporting
files.

Oh well... You can't please everyone.

In the case of this author, I think he has an extra "GOTO 10" line
stuck in his head someplace...

--
Cordata
http://abem.mametitles.com - alt.binaries.emulators.mame FAQ
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:29:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 15 Aug 2005 10:02:27 GMT, "Zedders" <no@no.com> wrote:

>http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm
>
>Cribbed from elsewhere ;) 
>
>He makes a lot of valid points and a few slightly misleading
>(availability of roms) though it is slowly getting to that point, some
>of which could be backed up by a certain poster here and their attitude
>towards most here that love MAME for what it is.

He's probably lurking behind his newsreader right now waiting for us
to comment on his article.. :-)


dare2001
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 5:20:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Marian Aldenhövel wrote:

> He also objects to MAME addressing games that are "beyond its
> abilities". What does it matter to someone who considers the
> program a game? Don't attempt to run these and be happy with
> what can be played fine. Nobody working on the classics still
> missing? Well that's a question of personal interest and has
> nothing to do with the way the project is being led.
>
Alot of highend games have been add before they were playable on a PC. The
total percentage of game that are 'beyond the abilities' are less than 1%,
I would guess. So I find that not a big problem, when 99% of the game are
playable (ones that work correctly).

> The change in config-files to XML caused major breakage, I agree.
> But it was a good idea. It broke his frontend? Update that if
> possible. If not you are complaining to the wrong people, go ask
> the people that made the frontend. Sorry for the 3000 hand-tuned
> config-files (I don't really believe that number, I have run
> a few hundred games at most, and I run a lot of them through a
> screensaver. When actually playing the number must be much lower).
> It is technically possible to convert old-style-configs to
> new-style, If I had a tome of 3000 precious configurations I
> would have written a converter. Nobody has? So the need was not
> that great after all.
>
I build alot of custom controls and I always use the default controls so I
don't have to reconfigure. The only one that seems to be screwed up is
Defender/Stargate which don't map Hyperspace to the same key, though that
might have changed, haven't checked it in a while. Since I need a new 2
way joystick for the panel.


> I also have no sympathy for his trouble with updating ROMs via
> Usenet. Newsgroups have always been a terribly inefficient channel
> for this kind of distribution. Even if he is right, I don't know,
> I do not subscribe to any binary newsgroup, that is a) not MAMEDevs
> fault and b) there are much much better ways.
>
I have updated my ROMs with the Usenet for years, at most I have to wait
maybe a day, most of the hours or less. If he is having that many problems
with Newsgroups, I would say it his server and not the kind people who
upload the
ROMs to the newsgroups.
All I do is download all the NEW Roms to the same directory and let CLRMAME
do the updating, simple and easy.


> Thanks to the brilliant effort of supporters I find it much much
> easier to keep up to date these days using bittorrent than when I
> had to hunt files down standing in line at ftp servers for days.
>
I remember when MAME started hunting through FTP sites was the only way to
go for the ROMs. Now you have bittorrents, newsgroups and other methods.
Unless your lazy, it should take long to update the ROMs.

> I am quite happy with the state MAME is in. The project is absolutely
> fascinating technically, is constantly maturing and yes it _is_
> in fact possible to play a game every once in a while and I do not
> see this changing.
>
I'm happy also, so there is no need to bitch about it. If you really want
something changed, learn C and change it yourself.
August 16, 2005 8:44:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:17:09 GMT, PRoToCoL wrote:

> The guys a self opinionated twat stuck in his own little world ( of
> Stuart )

FYI, he also is the same guy as "Nicky Special" of previous VPinball
modding controversy....

His ego really seems to be bigger than one of those full-size environmental
cabs :p 
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:41:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:17:09 GMT, PRoToCoL wrote:
>
> > The guys a self opinionated twat stuck in his own little world ( of
> > Stuart )
>
> FYI, he also is the same guy as "Nicky Special" of previous VPinball
> modding controversy....
>
> His ego really seems to be bigger than one of those full-size environmental
> cabs :p 
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:57:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Any valid points are diminshed by the simple fact that he is a moron."

Well done, Rumpole. With debating skills like that you should become a
hostage negotiator.

"OTOH I also consider it bad manners to complain when people give you
free
stuff, which is effectively what we're getting with MAME

Nobody is forcing anybody to download the new updates. If you don't
like it,
don't do it "

The article was free and nobody forced you to read it, so why are you
complaining about it?

"Apparently the person that wrote the article has never used a
Microsoft product either. I can think of quite a few times over the
years that an update to Windows has broken compatibility with another
program, and in some cases Windows itself.

If I remember correctly, in that particular case, Microsoft's own
products even have problems with the update. Some of their own
products that were broken by SP2 included Visual Studio and Office, in
some fashion.

Botom line is that when you upgrade something, you should always expect
that you might have to also update some of the supporting files."

That's got nothing to do with MAME, but thanks for the update anyway.
The point is, not only do older ROMs and config files no longer work
with the latest version of MAME, but the application is slowly being
mutilated for no good reason other than the developers believe that it
should be a technical document to preserve the pinout of some 20 year
old arcade board, instead of actually allowing you to play the games.

"I'm happy also, so there is no need to bitch about it. If you really
want
something changed, learn C and change it yourself."

Ah, is that the wonderful 'unless you made it yourself, you have no
right to complain' argument? Yes, yes I believe it is.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 10:26:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Stuart loves emulation more than most people has his articles filled
with love to which he links clearly shows.. In his article (on his own
website, so he didn't try to troll mamedev or anything), he shows he
regret on what is done to the thing he loves. He doesn't attack anyone,
and he comes to the conclusion that he will stop updating (just as
people here are suggesting), to remain playing.

The fact that his points are causing such hars and passionate reaction
shows for a neutral outsider like myself

(a) Mamedev is a very closed community, and if one little rock thrown
into the water causes such hatred, it will do them good to test their
thesis if it is the right one (think of popper's falsification)
(b) Clearly there is a market for gamers, as the reactions on WoS and
Yakyak have shown. They are important for having a correct mame too, as
they will be able to reflect. Wht treat them which such contempt (e.g.
the use of [l]users

Therefore it is a good thing there is debate about the direction of
Mame.. And while I commend the fact that Mamedev tries to make games
work platform independent, it would clearly be a great thing if they
just think about the gamers using Mame too (by simply allowing option
to be switched off if they compromise correct emulation) and providing
some conversion tools when there is a radical shift, or more warning in
advance that an update will cause you to lose years of work...

Gamers and Emulatorprogrammers do need each other, don't forget that...
August 16, 2005 6:06:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

romanista wrote:
> Stuart loves emulation more than most people has his articles filled
> with love to which he links clearly shows.. In his article (on his own
> website, so he didn't try to troll mamedev or anything), he shows he
> regret on what is done to the thing he loves. He doesn't attack anyone,
> and he comes to the conclusion that he will stop updating (just as
> people here are suggesting), to remain playing.

Although I agree superficially he does seem to 'love' MAME(tm), he
perhaps should have vented his spleen in trying to get emulator
developers to make stand alone emulators or special hack versions of
MAME off of the source tree.

> The fact that his points are causing such hars and passionate reaction
> shows for a neutral outsider like myself
>
> (a) Mamedev is a very closed community, and if one little rock thrown
> into the water causes such hatred, it will do them good to test their
> thesis if it is the right one (think of popper's falsification)

They dont hate him. Not all the people that post on the MAME forum are
MAMEDev (I post there for one). They are just resolute in their
standing that MAME should not be corrupted by developers in order to
make a game work. This as far as I know was always the case. I have
always, for example, upgraded my PC's specification to ensure that my
machine runs emulated games particularly (but not exclusively), MAME.

There are a lot of MAMEDev 'sychophants' on the board that can go over
the top, and maybe, just MAYBE their devotion 'to the cause' can make
MAMEDev seem more radical than it is. Haze's 'I dont care' attitude is
refreshingly honest, and whether I agree or not with his opinion has no
impact on MAME, as I am not developing the code, and he is.

> (b) Clearly there is a market for gamers, as the reactions on WoS and
> Yakyak have shown. They are important for having a correct mame too, as
> they will be able to reflect. Wht treat them which such contempt (e.g.
> the use of [l]users

If you want to play newer games at full speed, look for an alternative,
buy a conversion (if one is available) or use another emulator to play
the home version (which is what I do for buggy boy). No one is forcing
anyone to use MAME, no one is forcing users to upgrade.

> Therefore it is a good thing there is debate about the direction of
> Mame.. And while I commend the fact that Mamedev tries to make games
> work platform independent, it would clearly be a great thing if they
> just think about the gamers using Mame too (by simply allowing option
> to be switched off if they compromise correct emulation) and providing
> some conversion tools when there is a radical shift, or more warning in
> advance that an update will cause you to lose years of work...

On the point of debate, there is none. It is not a democracy, it is a
dictatorship. You can either go along with what MAMEDev's policy, or
you can go somewhere else.

The one thing you have to remember is the decisions they make today, can
change tomorrow, something you may not agree with may yet be changed. A
good example of that is the gambling drivers (which I am ambivilant
about!) A lot of people kicked a stink up that they were removed, in
fact the project forked. But look, 0.99u2 and they're back in (for what
ever reason). People are now asking about pong for crying out loud, and
I am sure that eventually it will be back in.

> Gamers and Emulatorprogrammers do need each other, don't forget that...
>

They are insistant we 'the gamers' are not the target audience, in fact,
Haze said on the newsgroup when I asked him to clarify who the audience
was, mentioned every group EXCEPT gamers. That came across as a bit
arrogant to me, but I cut the guy some slack (and it's a moderated
group!). Hopefully, one day, MAMEDev will see that the gamers are an
important group to MAME and FOR MAME. We are not all warez kiddies, we
are not all pokerom collectors (guily as charged!), and we are not all
ungrateful. That is the day I am waiting to pass.

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
August 16, 2005 6:32:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* romanista Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> Gamers and Emulatorprogrammers do need each other, don't forget
> that...

Emulator programmers need bug testers familiar with the games they dont
need nor want gamers for the exact reason that you are seeing here, it
interferes with their work. Imagine if MS listened to every user.

--
David
August 16, 2005 6:37:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER wrote:
> * romanista Wrote in alt.games.mame:
>
>
>>Gamers and Emulatorprogrammers do need each other, don't forget
>>that...
>
>
> Emulator programmers need bug testers familiar with the games they dont
> need nor want gamers for the exact reason that you are seeing here, it
> interferes with their work. Imagine if MS listened to every user.
>

Yeah... we might even get a secure OS ;-)

There is a difference between not NEEDING gamers and not WANTING gamers.
MAME is popular therefor information on it spreads and new developers
join. If MAME had NO users, it will still be a program on Nicola's hard
drive, somewhere in Italy.

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 7:22:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Hi,

> That's got nothing to do with MAME, but thanks for the update anyway.
> The point is, not only do older ROMs and config files no longer work
> with the latest version of MAME, but the application is slowly being
> mutilated for no good reason other than the developers believe that it
> should be a technical document to preserve the pinout of some 20 year
> old arcade board, instead of actually allowing you to play the games.

Separate ROMs from config files.

When ROMs change they do not do so to bother users but because errors
have been discovered in the data that has been used so far. Correcting
this is a perfectly sensible thing to do _even_ if it does not perceivably
change gameplay. MAME Developers are not to be blamed for this.

The change in the config file format was not technically necessary. It
might have been made in a more conservative manner like transparently
reading the old format and writing the new. But that would have complicated
things and everyone is _still_ invited to do it. It's a no-fun job so
I am not volunteering.

> Ah, is that the wonderful 'unless you made it yourself, you have no
> right to complain' argument? Yes, yes I believe it is.

Don't complain, right. Don't talk of hijacking. Ask nicely. Or find
someone who does it in a way more to your liking.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation,
provided you start with a big one"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 8:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-16, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On the point of debate, there is none. It is not a democracy, it is a
> dictatorship. You can either go along with what MAMEDev's policy, or
> you can go somewhere else.

Yup, the number of people who can't understand that is amusing :-)


> The one thing you have to remember is the decisions they make today, can
> change tomorrow, something you may not agree with may yet be changed. A
> good example of that is the gambling drivers (which I am ambivilant
> about!) A lot of people kicked a stink up that they were removed, in
> fact the project forked. But look, 0.99u2 and they're back in (for what
> ever reason). People are now asking about pong for crying out loud, and
> I am sure that eventually it will be back in.

Pong, SMGP and other discrete games are way less probable to come back
in, because while the decision of excluding the gambling games was
purely political, the exclusion of pong and friends is purely
technical. Mame's architecture is so at odd with accurate emulation
of the discrete games it's not funny. OTOH, Tickle Rebound edition[1]
looks like a very nice step in the right direction. And curious
programmers can see that the dce/* code uses pretty much nothing of
the normal emulator infrastructure that is not simply communications
with the OS, i.e. the equivalent of Mame's OSD.


> Hopefully, one day, MAMEDev will see that the gamers are an
> important group to MAME and FOR MAME.

Doubtful, because fundamentally they aren't. All they do is using the
program. So their net contribution goes from zero (normal users,
which we're essentially ok with) to negative (the lusers) with the
ones who remove proms or readmes from the dumps because Mame does not
load them, or pollute the boards with demands and whines, to very
negative (DVD rom collection buyers).

OG.

[1] http://www.ascotti.org/programming/tickle/tickle.htm
August 16, 2005 10:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:

Snipped

>>Hopefully, one day, MAMEDev will see that the gamers are an
>>important group to MAME and FOR MAME.
>
>
> Doubtful, because fundamentally they aren't. All they do is using the
> program. So their net contribution goes from zero (normal users,
> which we're essentially ok with) to negative (the lusers) with the
> ones who remove proms or readmes from the dumps because Mame does not
> load them, or pollute the boards with demands and whines, to very
> negative (DVD rom collection buyers).
>
> OG.

I agree with /nearly/ everything you say. I agree that a lot of the
gamers out there 'contaminate' the scene with there continuous whining,
warezing etc. All I ask is that MAMEDev realise when they retaliate
against the lamers, they are insulting the gamers too with their
comments of 'We dont need them'. It says a lot when a DEV says "normal
users, which we're essentially ok with" and I take that as a complement.
Obviously this can fall under 'Haze's we dont care' policy, but I wish
it didnt. What I am trying to say is there is a large group of MAME
users out there, non-technical, non-losers, non-scammers that appreciate
what you and the rest of MAMEDev do. All I ask is MAMEDev not to label
all the 'gamers' with the same brush.. :-)

> [1] http://www.ascotti.org/programming/tickle/tickle.htm

Thanks for the link :-) I will have a read.

ps: How many lurkers/regulars thought this was going to be another MCR
Vs OG thang ;-) I DO appreciate what they do, honestly!
--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:20:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:32:09 -0400, Cordata
<cordata@NOTRASHabem.mametitles.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:10:11 GMT, SINNER
><arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote:
>
>>* Bastie Wrote in alt.games.mame:
>>
>>> Nobody is forcing anybody to download the new updates. If you
>>> don't like it, don't do it
>>
>>This is really the bottom line. If you were doing anything else, like
>>updateing per release, you are involved in a development cycle and you
>>are a beta tester. This morons inability to understand this very basic
>>yet obvious point proves how clueless he really is about what he was
>>involved in.
>
>
>Apparently the person that wrote the article has never used a
>Microsoft product either. I can think of quite a few times over the
>years that an update to Windows has broken compatibility with another
>program, and in some cases Windows itself.
>
>If I remember correctly, in that particular case, Microsoft's own
>products even have problems with the update. Some of their own
>products that were broken by SP2 included Visual Studio and Office, in
>some fashion.
>
>Botom line is that when you upgrade something, you should always
>expect that you might have to also update some of the supporting
>files.
>
>Oh well... You can't please everyone.
>
>In the case of this author, I think he has an extra "GOTO 10" line
>stuck in his head someplace...

Stuart Campbell (for it is he) has always been an arrogant toss pot of
the highest order. I've sort of had dealings with him in the past
which resulted i na rewritten article after we applied some pressure.

I don't mind journalists having personality, in fact it's a bonus. But
autommically assuming what you say is god, without checking your facts
(or in the case of him, having a disclaimer - warning writer has his
head so far up his own arse he can't see daylight) is frankly
unforgivable.


Dazza.
Dragon whips it's tail.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 5:28:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Just wanted to know, what do you find so very negative about Rom DVD
buyers?
August 18, 2005 5:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 17 Aug 2005 13:28:17 -0700, albrowne@gmail.com wrote:

> Just wanted to know, what do you find so very negative about Rom DVD
> buyers?

I think he meant "sellers"....
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

I'm going to have to agree with Stuart on this DVD matter, I cannot
download that amount of roms with my internet connection, so I gave a
burner the equivilent of the cost of the DVDs and postage to download
them for me. I see nothing wrong with this.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:21:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-17, albrowne@gmail.com <albrowne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to know, what do you find so very negative about Rom DVD
> buyers?

That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:22:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Mike <mdh@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 13:28:17 -0700, albrowne@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to know, what do you find so very negative about Rom DVD
>> buyers?
>
> I think he meant "sellers"....

I mean both.

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 7:58:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

> That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
> without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.

Really? Please tell us the ways in which either set of people has helped
"destroy" MAME. Which elements of MAME have been lost due to DVD
sellers/buyers?
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 7:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>> That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
>> without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.
>
> Really? Please tell us the ways in which either set of people has helped
> "destroy" MAME. Which elements of MAME have been lost due to DVD
> sellers/buyers?

Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.

OG.
August 18, 2005 7:58:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>
>>>That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
>>>without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.
>>
>>Really? Please tell us the ways in which either set of people has helped
>>"destroy" MAME. Which elements of MAME have been lost due to DVD
>>sellers/buyers?
>
>
> Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
> least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
> Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
> effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
> by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.
>
> OG.

Nice answer.

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Wavey Dragon" <Wavey@dragons.lair.right.this.is.real.net> wrote in message
news:i6i4g1l83etijgg80e1ks1c8jh9r2a2hf8@4ax.com...
> Stuart Campbell (for it is he) has always been an arrogant toss pot of
> the highest order. I've sort of had dealings with him in the past
> which resulted i na rewritten article after we applied some pressure.

Ooh! Really? Do elaborate, little mystery guy!
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

> Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
> least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
> Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
> effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
> by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - in which ways *that a normal person
might understand*? Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
about their "bottomline"?

Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.
August 18, 2005 8:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:
>>Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
>>least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
>>Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
>>effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
>>by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.
>
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer - in which ways *that a normal person
> might understand*? Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
> about their "bottomline"?
>

www.starroms.com, they sell the ROMs to Atari games LEGALLY and are
licenced to redistribute them. What OG is saying is that if you can
easily obtain these ROMs via USENET for example, why would you pay? If
Starroms makes no money, and it isnt seen as a good business model,
other people wont try an licence the ROMs too. Without a legal recourse
of obtaining ROMs, any ROM collecting is illegal.

One fact MAMEDev are wrong about though, is it is illegal to have the
ROM dumps, even if you own the board, and to trumpet this reason for
having them (without paying) is wrong, and just as illegal.

I admit to breaking the law by downloading ROMs to which I do not own,
but I do not advertise my illegal activities on Ebay for example,
raising the profile of MAME, by saying "MAME ROMS FOR SALE". For the
record, there is no such thing as MAME ROMs, the are ARCADE ROMs etc...

> Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
> experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
> liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.
>
>

The arcade manufacturers ignore the scene as they see no money is
chaning hands, and its full of fans etc... but turning the industry into
one which is generating a substantial revenue stream will only mean they
would want to inforce their IP rights. Surely you know how THAT works?

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body were:
>> Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
>> least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
>> Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
>> effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
>> by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.
> Sorry, I should have been clearer - in which ways *that a normal person
> might understand*? Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
> about their "bottomline"?

Yes you should, as how they are one of the only legal sources for ROMs.

> Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
> experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
> liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.

Also, there have been a few instances where copyright holders have gotten
pissed off that others are illegally profiting off their properties and
have tried taking it out on the community at large.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
> experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
> liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.

Ever heard of Contributory Copyright Infrigement? Of Napster? Hell,
it's not even entirely clear whether the drivers aren't derivative
works of the roms given that they tend not to do much without them.

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:25:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> www.starroms.com, they sell the ROMs to Atari games LEGALLY and are
> licenced to redistribute them. What OG is saying is that if you can
> easily obtain these ROMs via USENET for example, why would you pay? If
> Starroms makes no money, and it isnt seen as a good business model,
> other people wont try an licence the ROMs too. Without a legal recourse
> of obtaining ROMs, any ROM collecting is illegal.

Yes. And part of what is needed to ensure that the games are still
alive in the future (which is the entire point of Mame) is that the
roms are accessible legally. The freeloaders don't make it easy.


> One fact MAMEDev are wrong about though, is it is illegal to have the
> ROM dumps, even if you own the board, and to trumpet this reason for
> having them (without paying) is wrong, and just as illegal.

That's local law dependant. Not everywhere is the USA.

OG.
August 18, 2005 8:52:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Rev. Stuart Campbell Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
> about their "bottomline"?
>

Your an Emulation Journalist and you dont know who Starroms is?

Quit your day job.

--
David
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:13:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"MCR" <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2k2Ne.12581$JB4.2241@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

> www.starroms.com, they sell the ROMs to Atari games LEGALLY and are
> licenced to redistribute them. What OG is saying is that if you can
> easily obtain these ROMs via USENET for example, why would you pay? If
> Starroms makes no money, and it isnt seen as a good business model,
> other people wont try an licence the ROMs too. Without a legal recourse
> of obtaining ROMs, any ROM collecting is illegal.

Yeah, and that's *really* damaged MAME so far. But more relevantly, that
argument applies even more to people distributing the ROMs for free, by
whatever method, than it does to people selling DVDs.

> I admit to breaking the law by downloading ROMs to which I do not own,
> but I do not advertise my illegal activities on Ebay for example,

What difference does that make to anything?

> The arcade manufacturers ignore the scene as they see no money is
> chaning hands, and its full of fans etc... but turning the industry into
> one which is generating a substantial revenue stream will only mean they
> would want to inforce their IP rights. Surely you know how THAT works?

People have been charging money for ROM CDs and DVDs for at least the last
five or six years. I haven't seen any publishers trying to enforce their IP
rights as a result yet. The real reasons they don't (and I speak as someone
who's worked in the videogames industry for the last 15 years, both as a
journalist and a developer) are:

(a) it would be a tedious and difficult process;

(b) it would do them no good - if anything emulators only increase public
awareness of their IP, and therefore help should they plan to produce retro
compilations or remakes;

(c) they just don't care very much. They have bigger fish to fry than
spitefully going after some guy making a few dollars flogging ROM DVDs.

I don't know why anyone would buy a ROM DVD when you can get them free from
people like Lazarus, but what seems clear is that every time the transaction
occurs, the buyer is happy and the seller is happy, and the only people
getting pissed off are people who it has *absolutely nothing to do with*.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:13:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> People have been charging money for ROM CDs and DVDs for at least the last
> five or six years. I haven't seen any publishers trying to enforce their IP
> rights as a result yet. The real reasons they don't (and I speak as someone
> who's worked in the videogames industry for the last 15 years, both as a
> journalist and a developer) are:
>
> (a) it would be a tedious and difficult process;

They went after websites distributing roms, you know? It's not a big
step for them to go after the reason why the roms are distributed in
the first place.


> (c) they just don't care very much. They have bigger fish to fry than
> spitefully going after some guy making a few dollars flogging ROM DVDs.

Maybe not. OTOH, the RIAA is not afraid to go after small time music
downloaders. And in any case, we're not talking of legal action after
the people who are selling the roms, we're talking legal actions
against mame and the mamedevs.


> I don't know why anyone would buy a ROM DVD when you can get them free from
> people like Lazarus, but what seems clear is that every time the transaction
> occurs, the buyer is happy and the seller is happy, and the only people
> getting pissed off are people who it has *absolutely nothing to do with*.

Absolutely nothing? Would you say the guy whose email address is on
some of these DVDs as a "ask for support with mame there" has
absolutely nothing to do with it for instance?

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:21:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9d24.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
> Yes. And part of what is needed to ensure that the games are still
> alive in the future (which is the entire point of Mame) is that the
> roms are accessible legally.

That hasn't been the case for the last eight years of MAME's development,
why should it suddenly become so now?

> The freeloaders don't make it easy.

You haven't explained a single way in which DVD sellers make this situation
worse than people distributing the ROMs for free.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:21:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>
> "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:slrndg9d24.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
>> Yes. And part of what is needed to ensure that the games are still
>> alive in the future (which is the entire point of Mame) is that the
>> roms are accessible legally.
>
> That hasn't been the case for the last eight years of MAME's development,
> why should it suddenly become so now?

It has always been one of our aims, hence the hanaho-specific edition
of mame (which we're not getting any money from, nor do we want to,
TYVM).


> You haven't explained a single way in which DVD sellers make this situation
> worse than people distributing the ROMs for free.

I thought even you could understand the difference between
non-commercial and commercial copyright infrigement. Including the
associated collateral damage, especially when it comes to the cop/DA
interest level.

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9dna.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...

> They went after websites distributing roms, you know? It's not a big
> step for them to go after the reason why the roms are distributed in
> the first place.

ROM distribution is illegal. Coding MAME is not illegal.

> Maybe not. OTOH, the RIAA is not afraid to go after small time music
> downloaders.

The RIAA are cretins.

> Absolutely nothing? Would you say the guy whose email address is on
> some of these DVDs as a "ask for support with mame there" has
> absolutely nothing to do with it for instance?

If someone has done that they're a moron, but it's an entirely separate
issue to the fact of selling ROM DVDs.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:36:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> ROM distribution is illegal. Coding MAME is not illegal.

Given the DMCA access control provisions, the EUCD similar provisions,
the decss cases, the Napster case w.r.t contributory copyright
infrigement, are you 100% sure of that? I know I'm not.


> The RIAA are cretins.

And the game companies aren't? The BSA isn't? Damn.


> If someone has done that they're a moron, but it's an entirely separate
> issue to the fact of selling ROM DVDs.

Not it isn't.

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:36:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>
>>The RIAA are cretins.
>
> And the game companies aren't? The BSA isn't? Damn.
>
Let's leave the Boys Scouts of America out of this, ok? ;) 

--
FSogol
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:38:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9dvh.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
> It has always been one of our aims, hence the hanaho-specific edition
> of mame (which we're not getting any money from, nor do we want to,
> TYVM).

"TYVM"?

> I thought even you could understand the difference between
> non-commercial and commercial copyright infrigement. Including the
> associated collateral damage, especially when it comes to the cop/DA
> interest level.

Evidently, as an experienced professional who's been in actual real courts
several times over copyright matters, I don't. So why don't you explain it
to me, since I'm asking?
August 18, 2005 9:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Rev. Stuart Campbell Wrote in alt.games.mame:

>
> "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:slrndg9dvh.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
>> It has always been one of our aims, hence the hanaho-specific
>> edition of mame (which we're not getting any money from, nor do
>> we want to, TYVM).
>
> "TYVM"?

Dont Journalists have research tools?

Type it into google and see what you get or for extra points bookmark
this new tool:

http://www.acronymfinder.com

>
>> I thought even you could understand the difference between
>> non-commercial and commercial copyright infrigement. Including
>> the associated collateral damage, especially when it comes to the
>> cop/DA interest level.
>
> Evidently, as an experienced professional who's been in actual
> real courts several times over copyright matters, I don't. So why
> don't you explain it to me, since I'm asking?
>

You must have some killer clerks.


--
David
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> Evidently, as an experienced professional who's been in actual real courts
> several times over copyright matters, I don't. So why don't you explain it
> to me, since I'm asking?

I'm not responsible for correcting your incompetence. Or your bad
faith. Whichever it is.

OG.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 10:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9fcv.giu.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...

> Given the DMCA access control provisions, the EUCD similar provisions,
> the decss cases, the Napster case w.r.t contributory copyright
> infrigement, are you 100% sure of that? I know I'm not.

Yes, I am.

> Not it isn't.

Of course it is. There's no inherent connection between the two whatsoever.
Is it possible to sell ROM DVDs without giving out MAME developers' email
addresses? Obviously it is. So the problem is the giving out of the address,
not the selling of the DVDs.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 10:29:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9fod.giu.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...

> I'm not responsible for correcting your incompetence. Or your bad
> faith. Whichever it is.

Ah, the old "Yes, I do know the answer, but no, I won't tell you it"
routine. A classic of internet debating!

I think I'll leave it there, I've dealt with enough idiocy on this subject
already.
August 18, 2005 10:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
Snipped

>>One fact MAMEDev are wrong about though, is it is illegal to have the
>>ROM dumps, even if you own the board, and to trumpet this reason for
>>having them (without paying) is wrong, and just as illegal.
>
>
> That's local law dependant. Not everywhere is the USA.
>
> OG.

True OG, erm... I am from the EU, which is the law I was referring, in
fact, its worse as we dont have fair use :-(
--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
!