Commodore backs down over FPGA firmware lockdown — firm stops trying to block third-party firmware installs but will stand firm against bricked modded units

News
By published

'Clear disclaimer, free experimentation, just no free support/replacement for bricked modded units' becomes the new policy.

Commodore backs down over FPGA firmware lockdown decision
(Image credit: Commodore)

Commodore fans were split earlier this month as an official document revealed the firm planned to prevent tinkerers from loading third-party firmware to the C64 Ultimate computer by locking down such upgrades to the FPGA. The iconic home computer brand has now backed down, reversing the decision but issuing a statement making it clear that users can enjoy “free experimentation, just no free support/replacement for bricked modded units.”

It is evident that the FPGA firmware gatekeeping decision had been a tricky one for the new Commodore. And telegraphing a change “preventing firmware not released by Commodore from being loaded onto the hardware,” split the user base, but we think most comments were on the side of user freedom. As social media and forum discussions heated up on the topic, Commodore published a detailed blog with a point–by-point defense of its new policy.

To be clear, the FPGA firmware flashing blocks were not rolled out yet. The 1.1.0 firmware release simply came with a statement that “A future update may introduce safeguards to help make sure incompatible firmware not released by Commodore does not damage your motherboard.” In the follow-up blog the seminal home computing firm highlighted that it had already seen non-functioning casualties of third-party firmware updates requiring support. This wasn’t sustainable, it reasoned. Servicing “hardware returns and replacements due to actions entirely out of our control” was a step beyond what Commodore was prepared to do.

Latest Videos From

The new Commodore “values freedom of choice the most.”

The official blog post update from Commodore regarding firmware is pretty clear about the change in policy. “We will not prevent you from installing other firmware on your Commodore 64 Ultimate,” states a key highlighted phrase in the post.

It goes on to say it remains worried about users bricking their C64U machines and then putting in return and replacement requests (under warranty, we guess). However, it admits “that's 'Ultimately' an "us" problem, not a "you" problem.”

In the firmware block policy's place, there will instead be a stern disclaimer. Commodore will insist that “community-installed firmware, patches, or other modifications are used at the owner’s own risk, and Commodore cannot provide free support, free warranty service, or free replacement for units bricked or damaged as a result.” Most retro gaming community and tinkerer folks will probably be pleased with Commodore gracefully bowing to popular pressure on this. It will be interesting to see how the new policy affects the warranty returns process.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Mark Tyson
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

7 Comments Comment from the forums
  • ezst036
    They should've known they gotta get people hooked and reeled in before they can start doing locking down procedures.
    Reply
  • alan.campbell99
    I would agree that they shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for people bricking their devices, it's little different from CID. It's not a manufacturing defect.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    ezst036 said:
    They should've known they gotta get people hooked and reeled in before they can start doing locking down procedures.
    I'm pretty sure it was never sold as being open for those kinds of mods.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    bit_user said:
    I'm pretty sure it was never sold as being open for those kinds of mods.
    I don't think it was but going in, they had some brand trust. But now its too late.

    No hooks no fish. And since they tried hooks first now they gotta give away free worms. For years. What else do they have to build trust?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    ezst036 said:
    I don't think it was but now its too late.

    No hooks no fish. And since they tried hooks first now they gotta give away free worms. For years.
    Luckily, they don't seem to have a business model that's based on selling subsidized hardware (i.e. like gaming consoles tend to have). As long as they're not stuck providing warranty support for damage done by users, it sounds like they really don't care what you do with you machine.
    Reply
  • cuvtixo
    ezst036 said:
    They should've known they gotta get people hooked and reeled in before they can start doing locking down procedures.
    that sounds good, except the original C64 came out in 1982! That's 44 years of hooking and reeling!
    And since they tried hooks first now they gotta give away free worms. For years. What else do they have to build trust?Again, there's over 12 years of game releases, most of which are either abandonware, or just so easily pirated(only 10s of kilobytes!). That is literally years of free (not so literal) worms. Amateur game releases in more recent years usually ask for a small price (imagine releasing on cartridges in 2026!) But "Retro game machine" business not the same as new game consoles. There is a different set of business rules involved. For example there's no competition for frames per second; nothing like that.
    In fact I would say their reaction to modding reflects actions Tramiel of old Commodore would have tried, perhaps they are so immersed in that world, they couldn't foresee the modern fan reaction. They had to back down precisely because they are a company built on nostalgia, not typical supply and demand of modern consoles. I am indeed encouraged to reflect that you're modern cynicism just doesn't apply. And I've been quite skeptical myself, and glad to see myself proved wrong, at least so far.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Both the initial statement as well as the "back down" gave the same reason, they are just too small of a company to be able to afford repairing stuff for something that isn't their fault.
    Reply