VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by twiz11

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I mean most of the games today would never have worked without DOSBox or the source code, and frankly not a lot of publishers release the source code to games because of the right to be forgotten and also planned obsolescence. The fact is that DOSBox makes new games not worth buying or playing because the experience is exactly the same, for example first person shooters. To deathmatch back then is to deathmatch today, the same thing get many points, I mean for example doom, people are hacking and modding doom to do things more than the new doom today and its like you bought a cheap game then all the mods that came with it which was a pretty good deal, and people did the work for free so it was a cost saving measure. I think releasing the source code has contributed more to the community than DOSBox ever has, and I think without DOSBox I think more publishers would have contracted with a developer to develop source ports for great games and I think we would all benefit. Especially for Blood, who Atari will never release source code because of DOSBox. if there was no DOSBox I think it would have forced them to make a source port for purchase, otherwise they would have lost the trademark Blood. Atari profits off of free work because there is no incentive to actually do work and that is why they went bankrupt numerous times

Reply 1 of 6, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Are you trolling or is this legit?

If it's the former then I'm closing this thread just like I was about to.

If the later then if you know anything about how publishers and developers handle their games (poorly) then the thought that DOSBox prevented the market from being flooded with source code for old games is simply ludicrous.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Make your games work offline

Reply 2 of 6, by Silanda

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

You think that if Dosbox hadn't been created publishers would release source code or would be forced to commission source ports? I really don't think so. Even if the source is available, which it isn't in all cases, most publishers are loathe to allow its release. Furthermore, most games are not going to deemed worth the cost of commissioning a source port. They aren't going to spend tens, or maybe hundreds, of thousands on porting a game which might barely get sales in four figures. They can't even be bothered to remove old, non-working, copy protection in most cases, and that would allow some of their games to be sold again with no port work necessary.

And if ports were commissioned rather than being fan based and free, how, pray tell, do we all benefit from having to re-buy games that we already own?

As for Atari going bust because they profit of free work, do you not see the issue with your logic? If they have to pay to commission port they will make less profit, not more. They're not going to sell massively more copies of ports than they are emulated versions unless they're selling full remakes, which cost a lot to make.

Reply 3 of 6, by twiz11

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

well I mean contract with some small developer or the community but limit it only to a few to commission a source port for free under NDA, its like releasing the source code but non-commercial purposes, keep source code secret and get a new port, that really means that games without source code are utterly useless without community involvement, I like dos games because of dosbox, but I really do not want to use dosbox because it is a pain in the ass to configure. If companies allowed a few people in the community access to the source code and make a non-commercial source port, then I do not think that violates any laws, if it done right under NDA, the community gets a source port, the dev can put that source port on their resume under fun projects, and Atari is none-the-wiser protected. If games are allowed to lapse in the realm of being protected by software that no longer works or is supported, then we loose that part of history. Sort of like a challenge to port games into the new OSes without releasing source code and have it be non-commercial, which is great for a programmer wanting to add volunteer work on his or her resume. Dosbox is great, but I do not want publishers solely relying on third party software to get their games working ergo once that software is discontinued. Sick twisted way of saying I would rather a game be taken off the store page or rescinded if a source port is not available, because it cheapens the experience to pay for the same game back then with no added benefit.

Reply 4 of 6, by Silanda

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

If the port was strictly non-commercial then the publishers couldn't sell it either and there'd be no benefit for them to commission its creation. If the port was commercial, no-one's going to work on it for free.

If your concern is that one day Dosbox may no longer function either, well yeah, that's an eventual possibility. However, Dosbox's source code is freely available; as long as there are people willing to work on it, it can always be adapted to new systems.

Reply 6 of 6, by twiz11

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Silanda wrote:

If the port was strictly non-commercial then the publishers couldn't sell it either and there'd be no benefit for them to commission its creation. If the port was commercial, no-one's going to work on it for free.

If your concern is that one day Dosbox may no longer function either, well yeah, that's an eventual possibility. However, Dosbox's source code is freely available; as long as there are people willing to work on it, it can always be adapted to new systems.

I mean create the non-commercial port to sell the commercial game, like a mod, though is it a paid mod?