You live you learn - random ramblings

edited July 2003 in Sinclair Miscellaneous
Well I've been around for some time now and I continue to be amazed at the new things I find on WoS.

For example, today I came across Martijn's interview at Colin's ZXF website where he mentioned bout "Valid permit" for distributing games. From there I decided to have a look at the copyrights page on WoS - something I hadn't done before for the obvious reason that I wasn't really interested.

But I had time to kill today and so I headed there and came across some interesting facts(some invented by me of course):
1) most independent authors are only too ready to allow distribution of their programs if only to help preserve them for posterity

2) most are genuinely happy to note that the Speccy scene is alive and that their work in the 80's hasn't all gone down the drain.

3) some authors aren't aware of who ACTUALLY holds the copyright - them or the publishers!

4) Amstrad seems to be pragmatic about the Speccy emulation scene. They don't have any problems so far as they get mentioned (reminds me of Gilsoft and The Quill!).

5) Codemasters are a bunch of twats! one of their statements for not allowing distribution goes by the sad excuse that the rights to some games are held by artists, coders and musicians and that codemasters can't speak on their behalf. Fair enuff. But then I came across a statement by The Oliver Twins, which explicitly states (the way I read it) that they don't mind their games being distributed but that it was Codemasters who were denying it! And Codemasters isn't even promoting their games any longer.

5) Some questions that bugs me is: if the original coders don't have a problem with it (and it is they who put in the hard work), why should Codemasters? Do the dizzy characters belong to Codemasters or Oliver Twins? How would the Speccy versions of Dizzy games hurt (in any imaginable way really) Codemasters if they are made for distribution?

I guess the latter point has been a subject of debate for many years, but honestly I can't help but feel that Codemasters need to sit down and review wot WoS is all about.

I say WoS specifically because I now know for a fact (which I had assumed all this while) that Martijn is really sincere about the whole legal dangle. I can't imagine the effort he and others must have put in to contact the authors individually and get permission from them.

I half believe that most authors gave their permission simply because they were pleasantly suprised to find a website that was making an effort to contact them and ask them their opinion!

Can any other website of any other platform (even lemon64) boast of this? I think not!

I can only hope other authors/publishers will come forward on their own and grant permission for distribution. Surely, they don't want their titles being exiled to the oblivion of yesterday do they?!

100% legal software on WoS...sigh! the mere thought of such a thing in today's modern, chaotic Net-life of free-everything-rights-be-damned makes me proud. of course, it isn't really 100%, but it's close enuff! :)

Carry on WoS!
Post edited by Arjun on
«1

Comments

  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-23 13:08, Arjun wrote:
    Surely, they don't want their titles being exiled to the oblivion of yesterday do they?!

    In Codemasters' case, I think they actually don't care a peanut about whether their games are preserved from oblivion or not. They're not in the publishing business to make 'art' but really to earn bucks.

    Should they care, they would have promoted the free distribution of their old titles a long time ago, and thus certainly enhanced their present commercial image. Sadly, they obviously have no idea of what patronage (or even marketing) is all about.

    In Ultimate/Rare's case, sorry if I reinvent a dead horse -- but I have to say that I really don't understand their position. I think the speculation surrounding the much sought-after "Mire Mare" summerizes the problem quite well. Are they unwilling or unable to grant the distribution of their old titles? Has US Gold/Eidos or Microsoft something to do with that? I don't quite get it.
  • edited July 2003
    That's a fine post, Arjun. Sentiments I fully echo.

    As for Code Masters and the others. I can never get over how petty they've been over this. Look at all the other software houses who have allowed and even encouraged distribtion.
  • edited July 2003
    I dimly remember that one of Codemasters excuses was something to do with possibly developing or licensing some of their older games for use on mobile phones and suchlike. I think they argued that it would create a kind of legal grey area if they allowed distribution of some versions of their old games and then tried to sell a new version for a new platform.
    Anyway, they have a retro gaming forum, so maybe we should all toddle over and bombard them with queries as to whether they might consider having a change of heart. ;)
  • edited July 2003
    The argument of re-using old characters for games on new devices is a bit thin in my not-so-humble opinion.

    The reason is that those characters belong to a different era, a different environment. Sabreman and Dizzy were popular characters on the Speccy, C64 and other 8-bit machines. Sure, they converted it to Amiga and others but how many Amiga fans would love it the same way as 8-bitters do?

    Today's generation couldn't care less about an egg-shaped hero from the 80's, so long as the game is fun to play. Codemasters or anybody can surely come up with newer characters or did their imagination go out of existence with the 8-bits?

    Of course, the characters belong to the company and they have every right to use them the way they like. The big question is, can such companies still bank on old characters on newer devices? If so, why haven't we seen anything yet? If not, what is the harm in letting some nostalgic teary-eyed folks to indulge in playing with their old "friends" eh?

    If anything it will earn them a lot of good will, plus they will help keep alive the characters, plus if they do decide to re-use them they will have a ready "base" of fans to bank on.

    Now, what IS the real reason for their behaviour?

    "we worked hard on those games, and we wouldn't like to see that work go unrewarded by making it public domain" (a generalised quote), is a fair comment. But this would make sense if those games were making any money for them <i> now </i>. They aren't. Instead, those games they put hard work in is just heading towards oblivion, which is surely a greater tragedy!

    Wish those people would come out of their high offices and really tell us the true reasons once and for all.

    And Malcolm, I won't be surprised if people haven't tried petitioning codemasters on their forum already! But wot's the harm in trying again eh? :)
  • edited July 2003
    You just speak my mind, Arjun.
  • edited July 2003
    Today's generation couldn't care less about an egg-shaped hero from the 80's, so long as the game is fun to play.

    I've failed to have any fun playing any Tomb Raider games yet they still churn out the same game year after year.

    You fail to understand how important franchises can be to shift crap.
    "we worked hard on those games, and we wouldn't like to see that work go unrewarded by making it public domain" (a generalised quote), is a fair comment. But this would make sense if those games were making any money for them <i> now </i>. They aren't. Instead, those games they put hard work in is just heading towards oblivion, which is surely a greater tragedy!

    Arjun, trying to persuade Codemasters that releasing old games for free is something they should do is like persuading Microsoft that open source software is a good thing and not leading to the death of the software industry (read anything about SCO, nix and MS to see).
    Wish those people would come out of their high offices and really tell us the true reasons once and for all.

    I don't understand why there has to be some great reason behind it just because you don't like the answer.
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-24 18:38, cyborg wrote:
    Arjun, trying to persuade Codemasters that releasing old games for free is something they should do is like persuading Microsoft that open source software is a good thing and not leading to the death of the software industry (read anything about SCO, nix and MS to see).

    Codemasters can do watever they like with any of their software EXCEPT anything having to do with Oliver Twins software, which is not limited to Dizzy. it is owned 50/50 ... the Oliver's want Dizzy back and want to buy Codemasters' half, Codemasters' want too much even though they 'seem' to not be interested in doing anything with it and the Olivers are rightly pissed off so Codemasters won't be allowed to do anything with Dizzy either because they won't let them. I've been behind this for 5 years, had the biggest Dizzy website for 2 years, and have spoken to the Darlings ( one of them, and that was a miracle cause they never answer back on Dizzy stuff, or much of anything for that matter ) and the Olvers many, many, many, many, times ... they are nice guys, i'm not just saying so. Andrew Oliver sent me a "bag o' Dizzy goodies" once with the cards, stickers, and a bunch of nice stuff. said he was doing a bit of spring cleaning and asked if i and some others wanted this stuff ... UUUMMM ... YES PLEASE

    you can have Dizzy games on your site as far as the Olivers are concerned, they don't mind, Codemasters gave in cause I created, well, CHAOS, in the Dizzy community so if you have a Dizzy site that is "tasteful" you may have the games there and you may also have a site with Codemasters other ( ALL ) games if it's some sort of Codemasters fan/worship site. There's lots of stuff going on there but this is all I'm saying on that.

    (ARJUN): Wish those people would come out of their high offices and really tell us the true reasons once and for all.


    I don't understand why there has to be some great reason behind it just because you don't like the answer.


    right. though in Codemasters' case, i know the answers, as much as an outsider can i suppose, im just sick of repeating myself.

  • edited July 2003
    You fail to understand how important franchises can be to shift crap.

    The comparisons are hardly in order. The video game industry of today is very, very different from what it was 2 decades ago. As such, the goals and attitudes behind churning out games are different. In some ways, the expectations from today's gamers are little different too.

    Also, while you may not have liked Tomb Raider games (and I didn't either), I know many people who did. On the other hand, in the Speccy scene, if 2 out of 3 mags gave game X a lousy review, you could bet that a sequel would be the last thing on the publishers mind! Not so in today's world. Tastes are as varied as the people who play them.

    Arjun, trying to persuade Codemasters that releasing old games for free is something they should do is like persuading Microsoft that open source software is a good thing and not leading to the death of the software industry (read anything about SCO, nix and MS to see).

    I don't see the connection. For one, open source is hardly "old" or "unavailable". If you are talking about the mentality, then maybe, but I would like to believe that companies of yore would understand the sentiments of gamers, unlike companies of today (call me a romantic fool if u will).
    I don't understand why there has to be some great reason behind it just because you don't like the answer.

    Ah! But it is precisely the answer(s) I'm looking for! The why's and wherefores. I may not like them but surely I have the right to know them!

    And if you have the answers that make sense, Cyborg and Amigo, it would be great if you could share it with us mere mortals.
  • edited July 2003
    why in the hell do you say "us mere mortals" as if we were trying to come off as something bigger and that we know something you dont?

    i cant speak for cyborg but for me i can only guess and generalize as to why others wouldnt give the games up, or whatever this is about, im so sleep deprived i dont know or care much really. maybe they plan to do an updated version and dont want the old one available so the ignorant of the old version will think it's something new ... (?) ... and wont find out through a network of teeny bop friends or an older person saying "i played a gamed called "that" on my old "whatever" and it was pretty fun, creating curiosity in them and possibly tempting them look to for it online and the company doesnt want them to play an older version, which they will ( rightfully ) think will shape potential buyers' opinions of the new version, that is to say: THEY'LL THINK IT'S CRAP CAUSE THE OLDER VERSION HAS 4 COLOURS AND BLEEPY SOUND AND AND THEY ARE USED TO NEW SYSTEMS WITH MILLIONS OF COLOURS AND CD AUDIO AND THINK "WTF?" BECAUSE THEY NEVER GOT TO KNOW WHAT MAKES A GOOD GAME GOOD AND CAN ONLY BARE MODERN 3D SHIT? or ...... THEY MAY LIKE IT AND NOT BOTHER BUYING THE NEW ONE!

    SHIT ,,, I-DON'T-KNOW

    and about the codemasters thing ive written about it several times on these forums, and i said some of it agin in my previous post. like i said i am not going to repeat myself over and over, IM TIRED!!! i have better things to do than get into the every nook and cranny about the animosity surrounding codemasters, the oliver twins and dizzy for the umpteenth time and it's 7:09am and i havent been able to sleep yet!

    why isnt what i wrote good enough for you? its basically it, in a nutshell.

    why dont you sign the dizzy petition. once i hit 1000 i hope the Olivers will find it worth their while to buy the other half of Dizzy ... just click the www icon below. Matthew Smith signed it you could take the time too ( yes i confirmed its Matt Smith )

    [ This Message was edited by: Amigo on 2003-07-25 13:15 ]
  • edited July 2003
    The comparisons are hardly in order. The video game industry of today is very, very different from what it was 2 decades ago.

    Not really - the only real difference is that you don't have smaller players at the fore. Otherwise there have always been big players and with big companies comes big company mentality. You forget that not all game companies started from the ground up and many companies migrated into video games from already established areas.
    As such, the goals and attitudes behind churning out games are different.

    Make a profit. It's not that different as far as the big players are concerned.
    Also, while you may not have liked Tomb Raider games (and I didn't either), I know many people who did. On the other hand, in the Speccy scene, if 2 out of 3 mags gave game X a lousy review, you could bet that a sequel would be the last thing on the publishers mind!

    Rubbish - if it sold well a poor game will more likely spawn a sequel critical acclaim or not.
    Not so in today's world. Tastes are as varied as the people who play them.

    Rubbish - the PC platform argueably has the most varied selection of games yet is the smallest market as far as gaming is concerned. The majority of gamers play the same sort of games over and over - consoles just don't lend themselves to certain genres.
    I don't see the connection. For one, open source is hardly "old" or "unavailable". If you are talking about the mentality, then maybe, but I would like to believe that companies of yore would understand the sentiments of gamers, unlike companies of today (call me a romantic fool if u will).

    1) You're a romantic fool.
    2) The companies of old are also the companies of today.
    3) How a company acts hasn't changed that much over the last twenty years.
    4) Read the material on the arguements MS gave as to why open source software is bad.
    Ah! But it is precisely the answer(s) I'm looking for! The why's and wherefores. I may not like them but surely I have the right to know them!

    Sigh - I'm saying the response from Codemasters is the answer and it's not the one you want to hear - I seriously doubt there is any other grand reason behind it.
  • edited July 2003
    Okay, does anyone know how much Rare or Codemasters would want for the license to these games?

    A few years ago the fans of a band called Marillion started a Tour Fund to pay for the
    band to tour the USA. All the fans put in a donation, and they raised about US$50,000.00
    Anyone who donated got a free CD recording of one of the concerts on the tour. It was a huge sucess and got the band alot of promotion as well.

    We could do something similar to buy the license for a game off Ultimae or Rare, anyone who donates could get there name on the tape inlay that would be produced...
  • edited July 2003
    It's a great idea in theory, but I'm sure that you've got more chance of TKRAP inventing a new Solar powered Spectrum with 24 bit colour, and quadrophonic sound that is fully Gamecube compatible.
  • edited July 2003
    Arjun, do You check Your mailbox?
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-26 14:54, chaosmongers wrote:
    It's a great idea in theory, but I'm sure that you've got more chance of TKRAP inventing a new Solar powered Spectrum with 24 bit colour, and quadrophonic sound that is fully Gamecube compatible.
    It'll happen... you'll see!

    He's just got to finish programming the bios in Fortran :-\
  • edited July 2003
    Amigo, have you noticed the amount of "maybe" in your post. That is exactly my point. You, me and others are just not sure what the whole deal is. It's just a lot of "maybe this, maybe that, I don't know for sure, etc".

    Cyborg says codemaster's gave the answer. But if this answer still leaves so many doubts in the mind, then maybe it isn't the complete answer, is it?

    I'm not asking for a grand reason either. A simple but sensible answer would be enough.

    Also, I totally beg to differ regarding the state of the gaming industry. I'm surprised you say that people don't have varied taste just because the overall PC gaming market is small. It maybe small in Japan and America, maybe even Europe, but there are many countries where PC gaming is far bigger than consoles. Gaming is not limited to the borders of the developed world my friend. Tastes do differ. And if repetition of games on consoles is of concern, blame the publishers not gamers for the taste.

    Regarding MS vs OS. Again, that's besides the point. When you think of Origin making Ultima 4 (I think) free for distribution, despite the ongoing Ultima saga, and Sierra making some of their earlier games free for distribution, you can't help but think that some of the arguments against free distribution are plain rubbish. I don't think Origin and Sierra have been in the least affected by this move. If anything, it has helped build a friendly community.

    Anyhow, we are a little OT here, the point wasn't to specifically blame Codemasters or anyone for their policies. Just that there seemed to be some ambiguity here, when it comes to Dizzy games. If you read my first post again, I did mention that one of the prime reason Codemasters gave (in writing, note) was that they didn't want to mess with the rights held by programmers, artists, musicians, etc since it's their work. But then Oliver twins have indicated that they don't mind free distribution of their work, but for the fact that codemasters aren't ready. So, obviously there is more to it than meets the eye, which was the whole point of the post.

    I really have no idea how it got sidelined, but there it is again, for whatever it is worth.

    BTW, one point that needs to be clearly understood is that free distribution doesn't mean relinquishing rights to the game! No indeed. The publisher continues to hold rights to the game and can even withdraw permission to distribute at a later time. It doesn't jeapordise the ability to continue the franchise or re-using of characters, plot, etc for future games.

    I hope that clears somethings up!

    PS: Yerz, my reply is in your mailbox!
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-28 07:55, Arjun wrote:
    Amigo, have you noticed the amount of "maybe" in your post. That is exactly my point. You, me and others are just not sure what the whole deal is. It's just a lot of "maybe this, maybe that, I don't know for sure, etc".

    Cyborg says codemaster's gave the answer. But if this answer still leaves so many doubts in the mind, then maybe it isn't the complete answer, is it?

    my "maybes" are intentional because you seemed to want a definite answer to something which no one can give, and althogh you say this is your point, it also seems to me that at the same time you do want or hope for an answer from someone here, but how can expect this when you said the problem is we dont know ... there's a conflict there, unless im wrong how i am reading you here i apaologize but it seems that way to me- though, regarding "codemasters" - they are just babies and an assimilated answer can be found in my previous post, unless you think i really don't know and don't believe me, for whatever reason. I'm just not going to spend time going through old emails or searching my brain for every conversation and every little detail ive had with them over the past few years. i do know the deal and what i wrote should be enough to appease you as far as they are concerned.
    I'm not asking for a grand reason either. A simple but sensible answer would be enough.

    and i gave you one for codemasters.
    Anyhow, we are a little OT here, the point wasn't to specifically blame Codemasters or anyone for their policies. Just that there seemed to be some ambiguity here, when it comes to Dizzy games.

    answered
    If you read my first post again, I did mention that one of the prime reason Codemasters gave (in writing, note) was that they didn't want to mess with the rights held by programmers, artists, musicians, etc since it's their work.

    they are full of BS. either they tell you that lie and make you think "well, then i guess we'll just have to contact the individuals and ask them. i can understand where they are coming from then ,,," or tell you the truth, "no. why? none of your business but because we just don't want to that's why" and make you think, "what stupid bastards!"
    But then Oliver twins have indicated that they don't mind free distribution of their work, but for the fact that codemasters aren't ready.

    which is one indication they are full of crap. then there should be no problem hosting Dizzy games because the Olivers don't mind but Codemasters have said no, knowing they don't mind. Working for Codemasters is like selling your soul. and as for the Dizzy games not done by the Olivers they were done under their supervision for the most part, these other programmers and musicians were hired and got paid to do a job. Dizzy still rests on the laps of Codemasters and the Oliver Twins.

    So, obviously there is more to it than meets the eye, which was the whole point of the post.

    not to me there isnt. i'm not saying i know of every legal meeting and conversation between them and their lawyers, but the Olivers have been very liberal in sharing what's been going on. i have not talked to any of them for a year or nealy a year though. but i will as soon as i reach the 1000 mark.

    Codemasters HATE dizzy. they are mainly sports games fans and never even wanted to go for the first. note that. but, SURPRISE! it was a hit and made them money so they put up with it. no matter what they say. for them it's a power play ... and 50% rights of Dizzy being owned by CM is why you'll never see an official Dizzy game again ( everyone yaying drop dead ) and a mocking laugh and smack in the face to the Oliver Twins when they agree to sell them their share of Dizzy but at a price that would make your eyeballs pop out, and so they know they won't pay such a ludicrous amount of money therefore Dizzy is trapped between two worlds.

    but like i said. make a Codemasters tribute site and put EVERY GAME you can find on it and announce some of the new tiles they have coming out and link to their site and see if they bother you. No, buddy. you will be left in eternal peace. make it a real good one and they may offer their assistance to you and make it an ofiicial Codemasters site. they tried it once already with someone i know.

    They also don't want to be hated either, which is why they hide behind fake smiles and BS excuses. I got the whole Dizzy comunity incensed 3 years ago and CM didn't want a bad reputation spread across the gaming sites and forums and hate mail, and people saying they would boycott them and not buy another CM game because they're dickheads, not over their whole library but just because of Dizzy, and they let us alone. some of their employees would post at yolkfolk.com ... write codemasters an email and see the lame reply you get. write to david or richard darling id bet my money you wouldnt get a reply. they also said we could make Dizzy games as long as they are in good taste, but nothing in 3D allowed ... why 3D? what are most games today? they say this on a pretense insinuating that if they want to bring him back there can be no 3D dizzy, "God forbid they make a good one for free they wont buy ours" ... and they shut one down so far though there is another being done at the moment, but as if two people could make a real professional quality 3D game upto commercial standards that would threaten anything they would do ... ya, sure ... more BS by CM ... and another thing is they CANT make a Dizzy unless the Olivers say they can and they say "NO", which is good because Codemasters will feck it all up. The Olivers dont program anymore but they made it and certainly would overlook the project. Philip Oliver once said if it came back it would be in the style of Rayman 2 but totally Dizzyesque ... but this was 3 years ago. He also signed my petition, though i dont know if it counts. If i ever want to ressurect my old site I will and i wont even ask. I really don't care what CM say, think or threaten to do, partly because they wont do anything. i was a fan of their games and when i saw this attitude many years later it boggled my mind. i respect anyone who wishes to comply with a company's wish that their games are not made available, but i may not care after some thought and taking certain things under consideration. it depends. anyway most of it is all out there somewhere, whether they like it or not.

    PEACE :)



    _________________
    Pixel Me Do?
    http://mondodizzy.members.easyspace.com/ TINY UPDATE 14 JULY 2003
    Dizzy Petition
    http://dizzypetition.members.easyspace.com/



    [ This Message was edited by: Amigo on 2003-07-28 09:51 ]
  • edited July 2003
    my "maybes" are intentional because you seemed to want a definite answer to something which no one can give, and althogh you say this is your point, it also seems to me that at the same time you do want or hope for an answer from someone here,

    let me reiterate. The "answer" I want is specific to the one regarding Codemasters statement on Dizzy. The one with the ambiguity. I'm less bothered with Ultimate/Rare's position on this since that is solely their right because they worked on it. Not so with Dizzy, as Oliver Twins own 50 % as you pointed out. Hence my "discontent" with the answer Codemaster have given.

    I hope that clears up any misconceptions anyone may have regarding my want for a "grand answer"!

    well Amigo, I certainly wasn't expecting you to give me a detailed post on CM vs OT, since you had said you won't repeat ur earlier statements on this. Thanks anyway. It does help in clearing up some points. One of them (I deduce from ur post. I maybe wrong), is that Codemaster would be worried if they hand over the rights to OT (note, this is not bout free distribution I notice, even so), since OT would obviously won't have anything to do with Codemasters after that. In one sense, people will not associate dizzy with CM, if this comes through, and CM will lose a "brand". I can see why they wouln't want that!

    BTW, have signed ur petition. You have 1007 signatures when I checked last. Time for action, Amigo! All the best!
  • edited July 2003
    Amigo, I love the title screen :p
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-28 07:55, Arjun wrote:
    Amigo, have you noticed the amount of "maybe" in your post. That is exactly my point. You, me and others are just not sure what the whole deal is. It's just a lot of "maybe this, maybe that, I don't know for sure, etc".

    None of us work at Codemasters - I don't know what you expect really.
    Cyborg says codemaster's gave the answer. But if this answer still leaves so many doubts in the mind, then maybe it isn't the complete answer, is it?

    You're looking for a the motives - not the answer. I don't care if it doesn't seem well motivated to you - that doesn't change a thing.
    I'm not asking for a grand reason either. A simple but sensible answer would be enough.

    Sigh. I cannot give you answers other than the ones given - when will you simply accept it?
    Also, I totally beg to differ regarding the state of the gaming industry. I'm surprised you say that people don't have varied taste just because the overall PC gaming market is small. It maybe small in Japan and America, maybe even Europe, but there are many countries where PC gaming is far bigger than consoles. Gaming is not limited to the borders of the developed world my friend.

    The markets are. Why the hell should Codemasters give a crap about sectors they can't sell in?
    Tastes do differ. And if repetition of games on consoles is of concern, blame the publishers not gamers for the taste.

    Supply, demand. Basic market forces stuff. It is the gamers fault.
    Regarding MS vs OS. Again, that's besides the point. When you think of Origin making Ultima 4 (I think) free for distribution, despite the ongoing Ultima saga, and Sierra making some of their earlier games free for distribution, you can't help but think that some of the arguments against free distribution are plain rubbish. I don't think Origin and Sierra have been in the least affected by this move. If anything, it has helped build a friendly community.

    Doesn't make a difference - not Codemasters so it's irrelevant what someone else is doing or has done.
    Either way I didn't say it was a good arguement, merely one that is used.
    Anyhow, we are a little OT here, the point wasn't to specifically blame Codemasters or anyone for their policies. Just that there seemed to be some ambiguity here, when it comes to Dizzy games. If you read my first post again, I did mention that one of the prime reason Codemasters gave (in writing, note) was that they didn't want to mess with the rights held by programmers, artists, musicians, etc since it's their work. But then Oliver twins have indicated that they don't mind free distribution of their work, but for the fact that codemasters aren't ready. So, obviously there is more to it than meets the eye, which was the whole point of the post.

    No there isn't. The lawyers say no. Codemasters isn't willing to spend any time pursuing the matter. End of discussion. Decision made. Final.

    What would change their minds? That's not the right question. The right question is what would make them give a crap.
  • edited July 2003
    I wouldn't worry if Codemasters keep producing the crap they have been recently someone might just pick up the rights to a lot of stuff including dizzy cheap.

    The games market in general is due a mega fall all 3 major console companies profits (worldwide) are down.

    People are getting fed up off the same old rubbish getting churned out every month, A lot of companies made there money on the back of the playstation as the mass market bought into it. People who hadn't played games at all or since the 8 bit days ran out and had to buy one. Now people have moved on to the next fashion or are just happy with their PS1 and no longer buy software. So therefore we now have some major software companies can see the vultures circle above them. Just two examples would be Capcom and Acclaim.



  • edited July 2003
    None of us work at Codemasters - I don't know what you expect really.

    I'm beginning to think otherwise! I'm not asking u for the answers anyway.
    You're looking for a the motives - not the answer. I don't care if it doesn't seem well motivated to you - that doesn't change a thing.

    a motive would be an answer enuff. whether it changes anything or not isn't the criteria in the first place.
    Sigh. I cannot give you answers other than the ones given - when will you simply accept it?

    and pray, why should I accept it blindly? where would we be if we didn't question the motives of companies, organisations, governments, etc?
    The markets are. Why the hell should Codemasters give a crap about sectors they can't sell in?

    No indeed. My point was, saying gamers don't have varied taste is generalising beyond an acceptable point.
    Supply, demand. Basic market forces stuff. It is the gamers fault.

    So, why does Eidos keep churning out Tomb Raider games? If you say, market demand, then surely there are large number of people out there who like the game. You and me don't like it. Some others don't like it. Like I said, tastes vary. QED.
    No there isn't. The lawyers say no. Codemasters isn't willing to spend any time pursuing the matter. End of discussion. Decision made. Final.

    No to what? End of discussion as far as you and codemasters are concerned, maybe. But if the 1000 odd petitioners on Amigo's site is anything to go by, it's not over by a long mile by any standards.

    You do work for Codemasters, don't you? :)
    What would change their minds? That's not the right question. The right question is what would make them give a crap.

    Whatever.
  • edited July 2003
    and pray, why should I accept it blindly? where would we be if we didn't question the motives of companies, organisations, governments, etc?

    This is a game company - get a grip.
    No to what? End of discussion as far as you and codemasters are concerned, maybe. But if the 1000 odd petitioners on Amigo's site is anything to go by, it's not over by a long mile by any standards.

    I've yet to see an internet petition actually work.
    You do work for Codemasters, don't you? :)

    Why? Because I'm not all: "OMG CODEMATERS GIEVE ME THE GAMES NOW YOUR BASTERADS!?!?!"

    Get real - you wanted to know why Codemasters is doing what they are doing, I'm giving you the answers - you just don't like it. Don't shoot the messenger.
  • edited July 2003
    This is a game company - get a grip.

    And are they above questioning? Since when?
    I've yet to see an internet petition actually work.

    besides the point. I never said it would, merely pointing out that people do have expectations from codemasters and are willing to do something about it, even if it's only signing a petition.
    Why? Because I'm not all: "OMG CODEMATERS GIEVE ME THE GAMES NOW YOUR BASTERADS!?!?!"

    Get real - you wanted to know why Codemasters is doing what they are doing, I'm giving you the answers - you just don't like it. Don't shoot the messenger.

    lighten up dude. I did put a smiley at the end of the sentence didn't I? And no I don't like the answer, and you don't have to trash me for it.

    lets agree to disagree, shall we? ;)
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-28 11:09, Arjun wrote:
    let me reiterate. The "answer" I want is specific to the one regarding Codemasters statement on Dizzy. The one with the ambiguity. I'm less bothered with Ultimate/Rare's position on this since that is solely their right because they worked on it. Not so with Dizzy, as Oliver Twins own 50 % as you pointed out. Hence my "discontent" with the answer Codemaster have given.

    yea but like i said you won't get one. Codemasters lie. They would if they thought there were enough demand for it, which i believe there is, but they're also in conflict because they hate it and they cant do one anyhow as i pointed out, becasue they each need the other's consent. i remember Andrew Oliver telling me the petition may not be such a good idea because if Codemasters see that lots of people want it ( and not just from signatures, but from a statistical point of view, that not everyone who knows or likes Dizzy has seen the petition is a fair assumption, and that people often pick up a game they know nothing about by looking at the cover or reading the back and seeing a couple screenshots. I have no doubt it would sell. ) they will never give it up. But then at the same time Philip Oliver signed it, so i was confused, then thought feck it, and let the petition stand.

    and even if they (CM) thought it would be very lucrative they might still not do try to buy the Oliver's share or even approach Blitz Games and say, "Let's do a Dizzy game. 50-50" because they are irrational and you won't ever get an answer. that's the answer.

    It does help in clearing up some points. One of them (I deduce from ur post. I maybe wrong), is that Codemaster would be worried if they hand over the rights to OT (note, this is not bout free distribution I notice, even so), since OT would obviously won't have anything to do with Codemasters after that. In one sense, people will not associate dizzy with CM, if this comes through, and CM will lose a "brand". I can see why they wouln't want that!

    they want nothing to do with Codemasters one way or the other. and no i don't believe it's about losing a brand, or previously famous icon/mascot if thats what you mean, because they dotn talk about it, youll find no reference to Dizzy on their sites, and ask anybody who only played Codemasters' games post 8 bit, and maybe 16bit, if they know what Dizzy is and most will say no for sure, so the association does them no good anyway, even if most people did associate them with Dizzy, they aren't gaining anything from the association with Dizzy they are milking all they can and keep riding the MicroMachines/Grandtheft Auto bandwagon. If i hadnt boycotted Codemasters i still wouldnt buy their games. 99% suck in my opinion.
    BTW, have signed ur petition. You have 1007 signatures when I checked last. Time for action, Amigo! All the best!

    yea, but ill wait a bit longer, i figure about 20 are bogus. just swearing and what not. they dont count. :)



    _________________
    Pixel Me Do?
    http://mondodizzy.members.easyspace.com/ TINY UPDATE 14 JULY 2003
    Dizzy Petition
    http://dizzypetition.members.easyspace.com/

    [ This Message was edited by: Amigo on 2003-07-30 10:21 ]
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-28 16:05, Kaminari wrote:
    Amigo, I love the title screen :p

    heh, i did it almost 3 years ago in case CM really got on our case. There would have been a ring of websites with that logo on them :)


  • edited July 2003
    cyborg wrote:
    I've yet to see an internet petition actually work.
    Arjun wrote:
    besides the point. I never said it would, merely pointing out that people do have expectations from codemasters and are willing to do something about it, even if it's only signing a petition.

    true they hardly ever work. but this is a more intimate matter the Olivers have with Dizzy and its fans. the way in which I'm hoping it will work is that the Olivers will see how many have signed, take other factors into consideration, and decide if it would truly be worth their while to pay Codemasters' offer, which I believe still stands, and get it back. Also, if for anything it at least shows people cared enough to make a statement.

    anyway im not just going to email the link to the site, i intend to make heads and tails of it and clean it up, purge the entries by morons, calculate the % of people that said they think Dizzy should belong to the Olivers and the % of those who have stated they will boycott Codemasters, include all sensible comments not the sophomoric and ignorant ones, tally up the number of people at time of printing, Print, and snail mail.


  • edited July 2003
    Make sure you include the offical position on this from Oliver Twins, just in case they reply with another "oh but the rights of the programmers, artists..." crap.

    Of course, they are most likely to ignore it all together, but the numbers should at least have them scratching their balls thoughtfully.
    ;)
  • edited July 2003
    On 2003-07-30 10:32, Arjun wrote:
    Make sure you include the offical position on this from Oliver Twins, just in case they reply with another "oh but the rights of the programmers, artists..." crap.

    Of course, they are most likely to ignore it all together, but the numbers should at least have them scratching their balls thoughtfully.
    ;)

    oh no no :) ... youve got it wrong, im not sending it to CODEMASTERS AT ALL. im sending it to the OLIVER TWINS "ONLY". Why in the world would i send it to Codemasters?


  • edited July 2003
    Erm... why Oliver Twins? besides, one of them himself signed the petition, so he must be aware of your petition. how does this work?
  • edited July 2003
    Arjun you still seem to be residing under the misaprehension that all decisions made by a company must be rational and hence rationalised arguing will win the day.

    [ This Message was edited by: cyborg on 2003-07-31 08:44 ]
Sign In or Register to comment.