>Ed, I can understand your points, but in my opinion, not only the
>development system, but the inconvence of cart distribution are responsible
>for the dearth of new 2600 wares. Home computer orphans, being open
>systems, by and large see more active programming because of this.
I think the dearth of 2600 programming stems from the fact that it is not
easy by any stretch of the imagination. Development for ROM or Supercharger
is largely the same. The vast majority of the coding can be done using
emulators to test with. It's not untill the final stages that you really
have to verify that it really runs on a real hardware. Most of the
emulators out there these days are so good you don't have too much
to worry about in this area though.
>1) Carts take up more physical space in your home than .BINs would. For
>some people, this is an issue.
True, but the kind of people who want new 2600 games in 1997 are also
the ones who probably have not only a hard drive full of .BINs, but also
a closet full of carts! :-) There will be exceptions of course.
>2) Swapping carts is less convenient than clicking on .BINs or .WAV files.
I sort of agree, but to me at least, its more of a pain just hooking up my
2600. Once it's hooked up, swapping carts isn't a big deal. In fact
it would be more of a pain to keep a tape recorder and/or CD player
and/or a PC with audio-output near my 2600 to load the .BINs from.
Playing on emulators is of course probably the easiest thing, but
somewhat different from "the real thing". And the nastolgia factor
is what really drives this collector community more than anything else.
>3) Not all developers are going to want the hassle of manfucturing carts,
>and not all developers will want to limit their games so that they fit in a
>standard Pac Man PCB, and won't have the resources to make custom
>banked-ROM carts.
I did not find the agreement between myself and Randy a hassle at all.
I pretty much watch the mail for a check every once in a while! :-)
Randy takes care of all the manufacturing, parts procurment, collecting
payments, etc. We each take a cut of the money. Even if you didn't
want to partner with Randy for some reason, I'm sure there are other
people out there willing to take on the "burden" of manufacturing.
>4) In an effort to fix the above, some of the more worthy banked ROM
>cartridges may wind up being cannibalized for new games just because it's
>cheaper that way (kinda like people stealing Pokey chips from 7800
>Ballblazer vs. ordering them from Best Electronics). Pac Man, okay, there
>are enough of those. But I wouldn't want to see Solaris and the like get
>trashed like this.
I mentioned in another port I just sent, that the key to bank switching
is inside the chips. So there is not much real benefit to canabalizing
current 8K boards.
>And exclusive plusses to .BIN distribution:
>1) Close to no cost (time or money) associated with internet distribution.
$16 is not much for a new cart, given the work that goes into the
programming, and the novelty of the item, future collectibilty, etc.
And Randy and myself are both happy with the monetary payback. (Not that
that was a big factor in the first place, but its a real gas to see
the hobby pay off! :-)
>2) Instant global distribution (vs. snail mail).
Err, can't beat that one ! :-)
>3) Helps to popularize the Supercharger, which in turn creates a new
>standard programming environment as opposed to the highly limiting 4K ROM
>Pac Man PCB standard.
The supercharger only has 2K more than 4K. Granted, it is writeable, and
that is the real benefit to supercharger programming. But still, there
is going to be some time before this enhanced capabilty is used.
>#3 above was most important to me. To me, writing for a 4K ROM standard is
>just foolish if you have an alternative like the Supercharger. It's just
>making things harder for you, and God knows the 2600 doesn't need an
>imposed limitation that was broken way back in 1981 when it is 1997 and 1mb
>may cost what 4K did then. For SoundX and Okie Dokie, fine, but once you
>get to the point where you are banging your head against the wall over the
>limited RAM et. al., why bother-- just for the sake of holding a physical
>cartridge in your hand? Just because you think "shareware" is just another
>word for "freeware" and noone will send you dues?
Absolutely for the sake of holding a cart in your hand. My main goal in
getting into 2600 programming was to "Make a cart", just like as if I
had done it 15 years ago. If I had, I'd be a rich man now! :-)
The game making aspect of it I could get from programming a PC game.
Nastolgia is the key factor here. Carts are nastolgic, .BINs are not.
I think we can see from the "emulator scene" that "shareware" is in
fact seen as "freeware" by a large section of people out there on the net.
Unfortunate but true.
Not that money is the big issue here, after all, I probably make more
money by skipping lunch than making atari carts! :-)
>There are other ways to make a game an attractive and full-fledged
>experience other than having it in a cartridge. Distribute your games as
>ZIPs with multimedia artwork and an RTF manual or something. Be creative...
Yes, but if your going to do that, its probably better to just go
the whole route and do a PC game to begin with. A super-VGA game +
multimedia packaging like your thinking would be far more attractive
than a "clunky-graphics 2600" game + dazzling multimedia. The
packaging would overshadow the 2600 game, so why bother with the
2600 part at all? Its not nastolgic at all. And as a media, the 2600
has far better alternatives these days.
>But if you want to make carts, be my guest. But please don't ignore the
>electronic distribution options now available.
I've thought about it quite a bit. (Since the fist glimmering of the
Supercharger project, and all it's implications.) I've pretty much
come to the conclusion that if I do another 2600 game, it will in fact
be on ROM cart only, as long as the collector community doesn't come to
expect all future 2600 games to be free .BIN files. I might make a
demo available via .BIN, but not the whole game. Thats probably
the best way to go, and the closest to the successful products in
the PC "shareware" market.
EdF
--
To unsubscribe, send the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
stella-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
