FOUND: Rubik's Cube in 3D !!! (eprom prototype board)
David Winter
Sometime in 2002 I acquired a few eprom prototype boards for the 2600, among
which a Rubik's Cube board. I didn't have an eprom reader back then, so
didn't bothered doing any review.
However, I recently bought an eprom programmer, so I read the eproms, and
realized that my prototype was a real 3D version of the game, which I didn't
know to exist before.
Note that I did not try the game recently on a real 2600 due to lack of
time, so I used Z26 to try it. So far I couldn't rotate the sides, but could
only select a face and cheat the color. The game also has a "solve" option
to solve the cube. What is amazing is that when I first tried the game on a
real 2600 (without playing it), I got the "solve" option to work by itself,
rotating the sides until the cube gets completed. Under Z26, this is done
MANUALY step by step.
Therefore, I will need to try this game again on a real 2600 to see how it
works exacly.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK FOR ROM DUMPS as I will eventually do a cartridge sometime
in the future IF there is enough interest in it.
For screen-shots:
http://www.pong-story.com/2600/rubikscube3D.htm
David Winter - http://www.pong-story.com
Robert
news:3e070d9b$0$6296$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net:
What do you mean by "doing a cartridge"? Do you intend to sell carts of
this game?
And even if you choose not to release a dump of the rom, I think that you
should dump it and keep at least two backups. Otherwise, this prototype may
be lost. Eproms decay over time, and the clock is ticking....
Rob Mitchell
near future to recoup his expenses .. if he can get the copywrite
problem resolved (whatever).
Find a more extensive discussion on Atariage.com
Rob Mitchell, Atlanta, GA
SS
"David Winter" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message
news:3e070d9b$0$6296$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
That looks pretty interesting. Please keep us updated.
Robert
deja.com:
Well, that clears it up. Thanks. Although I personally think that the rom
should be released, I guess it's fair for David to attempt to recover the
cost of acquiring the prototype.
Hey David, will you be releasing the rom after you recover your costs?
Rolenta
the prototype in order to recoup his costs. Now how much could this thing
cost him? Let's, for simplicity sake, say he paid $4000 for it. Now he'll
sell 100 cartridges at $40 each and he'll make up the money he spent. But
he'll still own a $4000 prototype that he now essentially paid nothing for.
Of course these are all arbitrary amounts. I have no idea how much David
paid or how much he'll charge for the carts. But let's call a spade a spade
about the real reasons for selling the game.
Leonard Herman
"Robert" <bssrpante...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92EDB675A6154bs...@24.64.223.211...
stonic
from didn't know either, so he couldn't have paid that much for it (if
anything).
Rolenta <rolent...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BBPN9.21295$cR2....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
cxturbö
wrote:
>Since he didn't know what he had when he got it, then the person he got it
>from didn't know either, so he couldn't have paid that much for it (if
>anything).
So what's it anybody's business what he paid for it? Somehow he
aquired it, it's in his possession and more power to him for whatever
he wants to do with it.
Soon as I read his post I wondered how long it would be before the
typical "controversy" bullshit in this community starts.
George
Robert
news:aua8pe$sc1$1...@blue.rahul.net:
> In article <3e08902...@news.netnitco.net>,
> cxturbö <vair...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >So what's it anybody's business what he paid for it? Somehow he
> >aquired it, it's in his possession and more power to him for whatever
> >he wants to do with it.
>
> Selling copies is copyright violation. He's *not* supposed to do
> that. It violates the law.
>
> As a practical matter, we have to accept certain kinds of copyright
> violation simply because there's no other way to do certain
> things--it's the only way for any of us to play the game, after all.
> But if we're going to do this, we should only accept it to a limited
> degree, just enough that we can play the game. To do that, he'd have
> to give out copies, but he doesn't have to sell them.
Well, I wouldn't be against him selling copies at the cost it takes to
produce them. Actually, maybe a little higher than cost, to prevent a net
loss if not all of the carts produced are sold.
This kind of controversy is one of the reasons I'm mainly a NES collector.
Although there aren't very many interesting prototypes to uncover, at least
there aren't fiascos like the Hozer one, the Airworld "proto", and this.
Sniderman
> Soon as I read his post I wondered how long it would be before the
> typical "controversy" bullshit in this community starts.
>
> George
It's the "When will we see a ROM? When will you dump the ROM? I want
the ROM. Dump it before it gets lost from bitrot. Then give it free to
the community or you're a bastard" threads that get my goat. I
guarantee there are many more undiscovered protos out there, but the
collectors who have them would never admit to it for fear of the
burning-in-effigy-type discussions that explode whenever similar
announcements - like this one - occur.
Robert
news:12f60b62.02122...@posting.google.com:
I just want to reiterate that my question was simply whether or not the rom
was dumped. I don't particularly care if it's released or not.
Thomas Jentzsch
> I just want to reiterate that my question was simply whether or not the rom
> was dumped. I don't particularly care if it's released or not.
If you carefully look at David's website, then you would easily see
that he has posted screenshots from an emulator(!) and writes about
testing it with z26 (which is an emulator). He also writes that he
hasn't tested the ROM itself with a real 2600.
So, please tell me, how could he try the game with an emulator without
dumping it first? ;-)
Sniderman
I wasn't pointing fingers at you specifically Robert. It's just that
every - EVERY - time a proto is discovered or someone programs a new
game, it's a matter of MINUTES before someone comes along and
requests/demands that the ROM be released into the public domain.
Regardless of how you feel on the issue, you can agree that this
happens without fail. Every. Single. Time. Anyway, that's what bugs me
specifically.
stonic
recently. He noticed that it played differently with Z26, and plans to
verify this on a real system.
Thomas Jentzsch <tjen...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:4ad730fc.02122...@posting.google.com...
SS
Thomas, surely you know people are always mixing up the difference between
"dumping" and "releasing" a game!
Mike Dougherty
In a perfect world, people would make ROMs available to the community.
Now this would not have to be immediately. Certainly someone should be
able to "profit" from their work or their find.
This being said, the key here is in a "perfect" world. Not everyone
shares this position and not everyone releases their ROMs.
For example, some homebrew programers release the ROMs when their work
is done, some guard them for a while so as not to hurt sales, and some
never let the ROMs out into wide circulation (though in some of these
cases they can be acquired through other means).
As for as David not being able to sell copies of the game -- people
have not been to a Classic Video Game show lately if they believe
that. For those items are readily found at those gatherings.
As for people not bringing forth their prototypes, that is a loss to
the community. I feel that people should be willing to share in some
way. Though that is just my thought and there is not anything I can do
about it -- except to state my position.
However, I must add that it should be that person's choice what to do
with it. And that person should not be overly criticized if they elect
to choose another path. In other words, you can request something from
someone. But they are not under any obligation to do anything but what
they want to do.
Hopefully, friendly persuation will succeed. And it should never
become mean-spirited attacks. You get more flies with honey than you
do vinegar.
Mike Dougherty
Robert
news:4ad730fc.02122...@posting.google.com:
Excuse my stupidity. I guess I didn't read through his post or website
carefully enough.
Christianscott27
not.
i cant blast thru outer space or take on alien invaders in real life but i can
darn sure go pick up a rubik cube...
>>> New England Classic Gamers Group <<<
http://www.gis.net/~bertulli/
bringing geeks and their games together!
SS
news:20021225203228...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> i'm still puzzled why anyone would want to play rubik cube on an atari,
3-d or
> not.
>
> i cant blast thru outer space or take on alien invaders in real life but i
can
> darn sure go pick up a rubik cube...
If you build it .... they will come.
Robert
news:v0l4hjd...@news.supernews.com:
Well, in this case, I prefer the words of Scott Adams:
"If you build it... they will be dumb."
CPE
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>Selling copies is copyright violation. He's *not* supposed to do that. It
>violates the law.
Technically speaking he's also not even supposed to own the game or
resell it, which is the case for all prior owners also.
Protos are evaluation builds of works for hire. They are always the
property of the company that developed it. That they didn't stay that
way is due to some initial copyright infringement. History will be
thankful for that given the disregard and chaos that accompanied the
crash, but anyway...
It's within Infogrames' rights to sieze protos from anyone who owns
them if they chose to do so, and it won't matter if the guy paid
$4,000 for it or not. His ownership of the ROM is only by virtue of
the inaction of the copyright owners.
I know this all sounds silly, but if when you talk about copyright
there is a conflict of interest between the letter of the law and
common sense. Common sense indicates that these items are now
collectors items destined for trading on Ebay, or historical artefacts
that demand archiving and public electronic distribution, NOT merely
protected intellectual property anymore.
But the law hasn't caught up with common sense, so we're all stuck in
a legally grey area where only those who have cleared things with the
copyright owners can claim moral purity.
Thomas Jentzsch
> He stated he first tested it in a real system when he got it, but not
> recently. He noticed that it played differently with Z26, and plans to
> verify this on a real system.
Got me! :-)
salmoneous
> Protos are evaluation builds of works for hire. They are always the
> property of the company that developed it. That they didn't stay that
> way is due to some initial copyright infringement.
Forgive me for being anal for a minute, but there is so much
misinformation about copyright law on usenet that it's worth taking a
second to clear things up.
Copyright law covers, in general, making copies. The release of the
prototype "into the wild" may have violated some contractural
provision, or even involved theft. But it probably didn't involve a
copyright violation, unless the prototype in question isn't the
original prototype, but an illegal copy of it.