1024 new protos

[root]

Rif: 2043-1 Beta datting discussion \ gigadeath on 24th February 2008, 09:00 wrote:

Ok, I think this is the day we should really consider having a separate dat for betas/protos/unls.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 24th February 2008, 09:20 wrote:

A lot of this stuff seems pretty flaky. Sizes like 901KB, 503KB, 3018KB. Probably lots of over dumps, under dumps, bad dumps, and maybe some source code builds.

Many of the protos are pretty interesting though. Especially unreleased games. It's a good collection.

Anyway, even if they're all good (which is all but sure after the Aero the Acro-Bat debacle), I won't add 13 different protos of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers or Star Trek. If the rules will be changed, then I'll gladly put them in an alternate dat, if not, it's up to ElBarto, I won't do it for sure. The dat would be a joke that way. Spending time for jokes is not my idea of a hobby.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ generalleoff on 24th February 2008, 09:34 wrote:

I wouldn't put it all in the dat either. I move the betas and protos form all the no-intro dats into sub folders anyway. If I learned anything working on NSRT with nach and when me and a guy named manliodp where cleaning up NES before no-intro made a dat it's that in many cases whats marked as beta is actually nothing more then a bad dump. The same goes for a lot of games marked as alts. Odds are it was Cowering that first listed it as beta/alt 10 years ago for goodtools and cuz back then all we could do was guess it just stuck. Thank god people finally realized redumps are the proper way to go.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ eke-eke on 24th February 2008, 10:02 wrote:

A lot of this stuff seems pretty flaky. Sizes like 901KB, 503KB, 3018KB. Probably lots of over dumps, under dumps, bad dumps, and maybe some source code builds.

Many of the protos are pretty interesting though. Especially unreleased games. It's a good collection.

The original rom files were splitted into several parts (they were meant to be burned on eproms), drx and his mates work a lot to put everything together in binary files.

All these things come from sega developpers so these are mostly source code builds used for beta testing before official release... but there are also a few unreleased proto

Maybe it's time, as you said, to make a separate dat for unreleased prototypes /beta builds and keep only commercial cartridges in the main one

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 24th February 2008, 10:14 wrote:

The original rom files were splitted into several parts (they were meant to be burned on eproms), drx and his mates work a lot to put everything together in binary files.

All these things come from sega developpers so these are mostly source code builds used for beta testing before official release... but there are also a few unreleased proto

Maybe it's time, as you said, to make a separate dat for unreleased prototypes /beta builds and keep only commercial cartridges in the main one

Nobody is questioning drx and his hard work, it's simply time to stop pretending it's correct to shove in the same dat proper verified dumps from licensed games together with manually assembled binaries, guessed betas and basement unlicensed hackjobs.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ tetsuo55 on 24th February 2008, 10:21 wrote:

imho only proto's, beta's and demo's of which no final release was made should be included in the main dat, although currently every verfied version should be in the dat.

Personally i only use the 1g1r sets, so i hardly have any proto's and beta's and when i do i only have the newest version

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Yakushi~Kabuto on 24th February 2008, 16:21 wrote:

Quoting hidden palace:

I've worked on getting this lot built and packed for the past seven days -- it was a hefty task. Many of these came in weird formats, many were passworded/encrypted, and it was a lot of manual work.

Again, we have a case of binaries that were not dumped from carts. We should not include what doesn't come from EPROM in my opinion. A split dat isn't an option either.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ LocalH on 28th February 2008, 07:51 wrote:

Who cares if they did not come from carts? This is a release of an official SEGA archive. There are absolutely NO hacks to any of the ROMs. These proto builds likely do not exist on cart anymore (they were pretty much used for testing purposes internally). Many of the original files that drx received were in split format intended for burning to EPROM.

"manually assembled binaries, guessed betas and basement unlicensed hackjobs."? Guessed betas? Basement unlicensed hackjobs? Where the hell did you get that from? So drx took EPROM images and combined them for the equivalent of flat binary dumps that you'd get if they were on cart. That doesn't make the ROMs any less valid and authentic. These are EXACTLY what you are looking for - authentic unmodified ROMs. Let me ask you - do you have the later Sonic 2 prototype (also known as the famous "Simon Wai" proto) in the dat? If so you better get rid of it because it's not known if it was hacked or not (since the SEGA screen doesn't appear on boot).

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 28th February 2008, 10:24 wrote:

Who cares if they did not come from carts? This is a release of an official SEGA archive. There are absolutely NO hacks to any of the ROMs. These proto builds likely do not exist on cart anymore (they were pretty much used for testing purposes internally). Many of the original files that drx received were in split format intended for burning to EPROM.

"manually assembled binaries, guessed betas and basement unlicensed hackjobs."? Guessed betas? Basement unlicensed hackjobs? Where the hell did you get that from? So drx took EPROM images and combined them for the equivalent of flat binary dumps that you'd get if they were on cart. That doesn't make the ROMs any less valid and authentic. These are EXACTLY what you are looking for - authentic unmodified ROMs. Let me ask you - do you have the later Sonic 2 prototype (also known as the famous "Simon Wai" proto) in the dat? If so you better get rid of it because it's not known if it was hacked or not (since the SEGA screen doesn't appear on boot).

Thanks for letting me know. I'll remove the later Sonic 2 beta.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Yakushi~Kabuto on 28th February 2008, 12:33 wrote:

Who cares if they did not come from carts?

To me it does matter. Every game has potentially dozens and dozens of internal builds. We can not be bothered to include them all. If we don't put a limit, we will keep including countless dupe junk to our database, I'm sure people who use our database don't want that (or they'd use goodgen) so there ought to be a limit and, IMHO, that limit should be whether they were dumped from a PROM by a trusted dumper or not. If they don't meet these criterias, it's just junk kiddies roms as far as I'm concerned, and I thought our project was about preservation of the real deal.

This is a release of an official SEGA archive.

No, it's neither a release nor official. It's stolen material from a company with code that was not supposed to be used by non-devs.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ resxto on 28th February 2008, 13:25 wrote:

Only include what's on cart.

I mean, of course several protos are interesting, but what's the actual sense of including them? It's the same as artworks or concept scetches or a storybook from a movie. Nice for some, but nothing relevant in terms of preservation.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 28th February 2008, 13:36 wrote:

It's not that we don't like what DRX has to offer, but a line has to be drawn at some point. There are other projects including each and every file (file, not dump) for a system.

No-Intro should not duplicate the "all-in" philosophy, being born for the exact reason of contrasting that tendency. A dat where for every official releases there are 10 prototype builds is not a valid goal.

These files won't be lost anyway, the community supporting them is strong and it has its own distribution channels.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Zocker on 28th February 2008, 13:47 wrote:

No, it's neither a release nor official. It's stolen material from a company with code that was not supposed to be used by non-devs.

I don't quite understand. If you talk about code that was not meant for the public, why include betas etc. then? Could you ever officially, i. e. legally buy a non-final version of a game somewhere?

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Blade Arts on 28th February 2008, 14:06 wrote:

I don't quite understand. If you talk about code that was not meant for the public, why include betas etc. then? Could you ever officially, i. e. legally buy a non-final version of a game somewhere?

He said they aren't official nor released, he never said that's the reason why they should be excluded. He mentioned why they should be excluded in the part of the quote you deleted: dumped and trusted.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Zocker on 28th February 2008, 15:31 wrote:

He said they aren't official nor released, he never said that's the reason why they should be excluded. He mentioned why they should be excluded in the part of the quote you deleted: dumped and trusted.

So Beta A is on a cart, Beta B not. This means, A will be datted, B not. Right? (If dumped from a trusted source, yes. But this aspect is irrelevant regarding my question anyway. Just want to get the logic behind.)

[root]

Rif: 2043-2 Re: 1024 new protos \ michal99 on 1st March 2008, 14:44 wrote:

So Beta A is on a cart, Beta B not. This means, A will be datted, B not. Right? (If dumped from a trusted source, yes. But this aspect is irrelevant regarding my question anyway. Just want to get the logic behind.)

We are talking about how you get the data and from which media. If you steal/buy someone hdd and compile the sources or get the data from that hdd then we are not interested in this data. Our dat is only for dumps from real HW and it means official cartridges (you can buy them in a regual shop) or from not for resale cart or even betas/proto from dev cart like if they left that cart on the show or someone steal/buy it from dev.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gingerbuns on 1st March 2008, 15:01 wrote:

Ah yes, the no-intro creed: we preserve games! (but only some).

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ xuom2 on 1st March 2008, 15:12 wrote:

Ah yes, the no-intro creed: we preserve games! (but only some).

if you search for *all* games, have you tried goodtools?

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 1st March 2008, 16:08 wrote:

Ah yes, the no-intro creed: we preserve games! (but only some).

Yeah, basically.

Wasn't this the point from the beginning? Keeping useless/unverifiable things out? Am I missing something?

Wasn't Cowering already doing the kind of stuff you look for even before No-Intro was born? So I don't get what you mean

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gingerbuns on 1st March 2008, 16:49 wrote:

Okey, how about this. A non-final binary built from source code is not accepted. But a non-final binary built from source code and then burned onto eeprom and made into an unknown amount of carts. One or several of those carts find themselves into the hands of a dumper and this is accepted.

I don't understand why you make the distinction since, inherently, a beta build is pretty volatile and unverifiable by nature. It's not like software development magically goes start->one beta build->final release.

Our dat is only for dumps from real HW

This is really my issue, snarky comment aside. It's not like there's some database of known and unknown beta carts out there or anything. If i took a nes cart, soldered some programmable eeproms on it and burned one of these beta builds to it, you'd be none the wiser as to its authenticy. However if a real beta cart with the same build surfaced it would now be authentic and judged ok for inclusion. If you want to catalogue betas, then do so without regards of their origins.

source code -> build binary -> not ok for inclusion
source code -> build binary -> burn to eeprom -> is ok for inclusion

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Yakushi~Kabuto on 1st March 2008, 16:53 wrote:

So Beta A is on a cart, Beta B not. This means, A will be datted, B not. Right?

Sure why not, Beta A is a sample sent to a review magazine, Beta B is one of many internal builds, that's totally different.

MAMEdevs also dropped support for roms downloaded/copied/stolen from dev's HDD. Here are several examples:

1998 Pop'n Music 1 (ver JA-A)
1998 Pop'n Music 2 (ver JA-A)
1999 Pop'n Music 3 (ver JA-A)
1999 Pop'n Stage EX (ver JB-A)

I don't see why No-Intro could not apply similar limits. Most of our staff has never thought "the more entries, the better", we prefer to focus on more legitimate entries and have more accurate database.

Our objective is to preserve the hardware, not to identify every binary ever found on the internet. I think another project is precisely doing that.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 1st March 2008, 20:22 wrote:

I don't see the purpose for such a distinction between betas, but I also figure No-Intro might as well stick with retail only games. Just my two cents, which is probably how much my opinion is worth anyways...

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ bestill on 1st March 2008, 20:24 wrote:

Umm. There are two games here that were never released commercially. Are you just going to throw them away then? Baby Boomers is mental but I can't remember the name of the other one.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 1st March 2008, 22:05 wrote:

In my opinion, they should be preserved. This doesn't have to be the job of No-Intro, though. After all, the GoodTools and NonGood dats cover this area and more. I'm not sure if TOSEC would cover this or not, but they also cover a wide range if not always as large (depends on the system).

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Foppe on 1st March 2008, 22:44 wrote:

These will be covered in some tools in the future. May it be Tosec, may it be Goodtools or may it be something else.
I´m just amazed how many there are.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 1st March 2008, 23:36 wrote:

Feel free to bet your right arm that these will end up in GoodGen. That's pretty sure, so they're not going anywhere.

They'll be playable by your nephews too - if they'll care at all about 40 years old games, that is. I can assure you they won't don't forget that in the end we're doing this all for ourselves, future generations won't give a rat ass about our games and our nostalgia about them.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 2nd March 2008, 02:12 wrote:

The only way I can imagine that it wouldn't be in GoodGen is if Cowering quit working on the GoodTools. Even then, I can't imagine someone else not picking up the "slack".

As an aside, I don't really see the reason to differentiate between betas that were and weren't put onto a cart. Call me a purist, but I think No-Intro should exclude noncommercial carts. That's just my opinion, though, and you know what they say about opinions.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Zocker on 2nd March 2008, 09:50 wrote:

The only way I can imagine that it wouldn't be in GoodGen is if Cowering quit working on the GoodTools. Even then, I can't imagine someone else not picking up the "slack".

As an aside, I don't really see the reason to differentiate between betas that were and weren't put onto a cart. Call me a purist, but I think No-Intro should exclude noncommercial carts. That's just my opinion, though, and you know what they say about opinions.

Yes, just get rid of those carts which aren't/weren't sold officially - at least that would be logical to me.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ relax on 6th March 2008, 20:16 wrote:

One more unreleased game, Slam - Shaq vs. the Legends, was posted on Hidden Palace

I agree we shouldn't add dozens of betas of the same game to the dats. Whether the ROM comes from a cart could be a distinction. But when it comes to protos (latest version if more than one exist) of unrelased games (from licensed developers), I think they are worth adding to the dats, even if we don't have proof they are dumped from a cart.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 8th March 2008, 03:20 wrote:

How about going with the latest verifiable version of the prototype? This would prevent multiple versions of one game being in the dat and should have the version that best reflects what would have been released.

On a related note, what about betas of released games? IMO, it should probably follow the unreleased setup or should be excluded from the dat. I'd go with the latter, but the former should work just as well. Not that I have a say in any of this.

[root]

Rif: 2043-3 Re: 1024 new protos \ NGEfreak on 10th March 2008, 07:32 wrote:

Imho, it's better to move these into a seperate dat than not including them at all. Relying on GoodTools for this task sucks. I don't want to mess with GoodTools just to get these prototypes. It should be well known by now that a lot of titles are wrong tagged or named in GoodTools. Besides Cowering is tagging some titles incorrect on purpose.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ BigFred on 10th March 2008, 08:06 wrote:

Imo a destinction between cart/non-cart betas is questionable. Why not just move everything distracting from the primary goal to a 2nd dat. This means all beta dumps of released games (Demos are official and should be in the main dat I'd suggest), weird unl stuff from china, russia or whereever that willl never get proper verification and documentation and maybe also pirate originals. This way we had a dat to focus our verification project on and one for everything else of interest that might be worth preserving but merely is a bonus for the gamer or nostalgic purposes.

When the dat-o-mat is ready for other systems everyone might be able to choose what is suitable for him.

Anyone unhappy with this solution?

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Yakushi~Kabuto on 10th March 2008, 12:37 wrote:

Imo a destinction between cart/non-cart betas is questionable.

Then let me hear your questions, I'll gladly answer them.

Why not just move everything distracting from the primary goal to a 2nd dat. This means all beta dumps of released games (Demos are official and should be in the main dat I'd suggest), weird unl stuff from china, russia or whereever that willl never get proper verification and documentation and maybe also pirate originals. This way we had a dat to focus our verification project on and one for everything else of interest that might be worth preserving but merely is a bonus for the gamer or nostalgic purposes.

When the dat-o-mat is ready for other systems everyone might be able to choose what is suitable for him.

Anyone unhappy with this solution?

In that second dat, let's include homebrew, hacks and whatnot. Then let's name it No-introsecgood dat.

The dat-o-matic categories choice and 1G1R are leechers features and should in no way elude the debate about what is worth preserving and what is not. May I remind you goodtools also allow to exclude categories?

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ BigFred on 10th March 2008, 13:52 wrote:

Then let me hear your questions, I'll gladly answer them.

Star Fox 2 for instance was compiled from source code. It's a bit far fetched to see the difference between an unreleased game non-cart beta and one that got a retail release. Besides how do you want to find out what exactly came from a cart and what not? Lots of the older betas won't surface easily again.

In that second dat, let's include homebrew, hacks and whatnot. Then let's name it No-introsecgood dat.

The project is about verifying gaming history. Doing this with documented software that one is able to track down is one thing. Betas or unl from nowhere don't fit into that category but might be worth keeping - grey area stuff so to say. If I thought they weren't at least in some way worth preserving I wouldn't suggest to dat them. I won't include all these betas in the main dat for sure but who really knows what we have here?

The problem of goodtools never was pirates and whatnot but bad dumps, overdumps and hacks.

If all these betas were proven to be dumped from carts we would have to include all in the dats according to you. If that was the option of choice this discussion wouldn't have started. I guess no one ever expected such a spree and we only see now that we have a problem to handle.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ NGEfreak on 10th March 2008, 14:11 wrote:

In that second dat, let's include homebrew, hacks and whatnot. Then let's name it No-introsecgood dat.

Nobody said anything about homebrew or hacks. Why do you want them to be included as well?

May I remind you goodtools also allow to exclude categories?

What good is this feature if the titles are incorrectly tagged?

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ michal99 on 10th March 2008, 19:14 wrote:

As from my point of view I would also exclude the unl crap from the main dat. I thought and that was also the main reason I choise no-intro dat for its accuracy, for that it does not include the crap from internet (hack, baddumps etc.) and only retail version and things related. Then I am also for remove all the unl from main dat.
That remaind me when I check unl in DAT-O-MATIC for NDS then it will not include the demo part.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 10th March 2008, 21:06 wrote:

What BigFred and NGEfreak have suggested sounds reasonable to me. In fact, the idea for the first dat sounds similar to an earlier suggestion of mine.

My only question then is, what about pirate carts that contain hacked retail games (graphics hacks, cracks, intros*, etc.)? Should these be excluded as they aren't "originals" or are they of some worth preserving (if verfiable &/or depending on the case)?

*I have an SNES multi-cart and one of the games is from a "scene" release with a simple and crappy intro. Pirates ripping off other pirates.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ BigFred on 10th March 2008, 21:37 wrote:

Just like "normal" romhacks these shouldn't be included.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 10th March 2008, 22:11 wrote:

That's what I figured. Sounds reasonable to me.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ ElBarto on 11th March 2008, 17:14 wrote:

Why not using the "resource" in clrmame ?

We create a "resource" for the main system (commercial games) and one for Beta/Proto. Exemple :

Code: Select all

resource (
	name megadrive
	description "Mega Drive Commercial Games"
	year 1989
	manufacturer "SEGA"
)

resource (
	name mdbeta
	description "Mega Drive Proto/Beta Games"
	year 1989
	manufacturer "SEGA"
)

And for each commercial games we add the line "romof megadrive", and for each beta/proto games the line "romof mdbeta".
If someone doesn't want to collect beta/proto games, he only unclick the "Mega Drive Proto/Beta Games" in the systems window.

EDIT :
I've just tested, it works great except that we have to declare a common rom for each ressource.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Zocker on 11th March 2008, 22:00 wrote:

Either way, I'd like a solution which clearly separates the games officially-legally released to the public from the releases (burnt or not burnt onto a cart [I see the difficulty to verify something that doesn't exist on a cart so it can be redumped. But IMHO a beta, etc. is not more valuable just because it has been burnt]) only meant for a "closed" group of people (devs, testers, or whatever). Maybe the situation is a little bit "tricky" regarding unlicensed games - do they violate the law? So I'm not really sure here if they should go into the "main" or "additional" dat (i.e. separated or not - just wanted to make things a little bit more concrete - the suggestion from "ElBarto" would also be an option, I guess).

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ coolnation on 11th March 2008, 22:07 wrote:

Who cares if they did not come from carts? This is a release of an official SEGA archive. There are absolutely NO hacks to any of the ROMs. These proto builds likely do not exist on cart anymore (they were pretty much used for testing purposes internally). Many of the original files that drx received were in split format intended for burning to EPROM.

"manually assembled binaries, guessed betas and basement unlicensed hackjobs."? Guessed betas? Basement unlicensed hackjobs? Where the hell did you get that from? So drx took EPROM images and combined them for the equivalent of flat binary dumps that you'd get if they were on cart. That doesn't make the ROMs any less valid and authentic. These are EXACTLY what you are looking for - authentic unmodified ROMs. Let me ask you - do you have the later Sonic 2 prototype (also known as the famous "Simon Wai" proto) in the dat? If so you better get rid of it because it's not known if it was hacked or not (since the SEGA screen doesn't appear on boot).

Interesting post.
Are you 100% sure, that the later Sonic 2 Beta (I heard rumors that it comes from some Sonic 2 pirate cart or the MD Game Doctor release "MD8123.bin") is a hack and not worth preserving? Also, Is Sonic Crackers genesis dump a hack of some sort?

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ gigadeath on 11th March 2008, 23:14 wrote:

Interesting post.
Are you 100% sure, that the later Sonic 2 Beta (I heard rumors that it comes from some Sonic 2 pirate cart or the MD Game Doctor release "MD8123.bin") is a hack and not worth preserving? Also, Is Sonic Crackers genesis dump a hack of some sort?

The majority of older beta releases are hacked in one way or another. That's life, I guess. But what kills them dead in my eyes is the combo "being hacked + being unfinished code of games which for the most part suck even in finished form". Sure, no discrimination should be done, but hey, no one is gonna make me interested in some unfinished code of an early '90 Western-developed game which I find abysmal even in its retail form, just to make an example. Again, that's life. Thankfully for this abortions, there are people other than me who care about them.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ coolnation on 12th March 2008, 04:02 wrote:

Either way, I'd like a solution which clearly separates the games officially-legally released to the public from the releases (burnt or not burnt onto a cart [I see the difficulty to verify something that doesn't exist on a cart so it can be redumped. But IMHO a beta, etc. is not more valuable just because it has been burnt]) only meant for a "closed" group of people (devs, testers, or whatever). Maybe the situation is a little bit "tricky" regarding unlicensed games - do they violate the law? So I'm not really sure here if they should go into the "main" or "additional" dat (i.e. separated or not - just wanted to make things a little bit more concrete - the suggestion from "ElBarto" would also be an option, I guess).

The majority of older beta releases are hacked in one way or another. That's life, I guess. But what kills them dead in my eyes is the combo "being hacked + being unfinished code of games which for the most part suck even in finished form". Sure, no discrimination should be done, but hey, no one is gonna make me interested in some unfinished code of an early '90 Western-developed game which I find abysmal even in its retail form, just to make an example. Again, that's life. Thankfully for this abortions, there are people other than me who care about them.

If some people in this world insist on continuing to ditch all the betas (regardless they come from cart or not) which may be important for emulation development and other things..then
I might consider to give up dumping, buying new copiers or contribute to the emu scene.
since nowadays more people don't respect pirates unl, betas, etc... its really sad, you know.. (which, in pirate some of them helped to spread unreleased or prototype games like Eon Man aka. Nitra's Time Diver Avenger, Starfox 2, Sonic 2 etc.).,
which, honestly, I (like many people who is very interested in them) think they and their works deserved to be respected, preserved and credited
but I have not made a decision yet, Anyway I will try my very best to get these games recognized and acknowledged and purchase some undumped pirate SNES cart one day and yes, my goal is to get them dumped.

As B00 puts it.. "There is a respect to be given to those who try to take a piece of the legal market's pie. I'd like to see to it that their deeds go recorded for the purpose of documentation.

In the past I use to accrue wholesale databases of these "pirate" companies that documented all of the products they sold. And as for finding them by sheer coincidence, many unreleased prototypes and unlicensed games in other regions show up just in that manner."


===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ Zocker on 12th March 2008, 13:20 wrote:

I don't want to see all the non-official releases go straight into the dustbin. I'm sure there's lots of interesting stuff among them. However, I'd prefer a distinction between official/legal/licensed/commercial/meant for you and me (i. e. for the public) and the "others". Of course, I don't claim it has to be done this way, it's just my point of view.

[root]

Rif: 2043-4 Re: 1024 new protos \ Tharon on 12th March 2008, 14:10 wrote:

I agree with you zocker

Surely pirate,unlicensed,betas and hack dumb are important, but should be keeped in separate from the official, licensed carts.

The officials no-intro dats must have only the roms that are the closest as possible to the original licensed cartridges.

===============================================

Re: 1024 new protos \ StriderSkorpion on 13th March 2008, 03:59 wrote:

Heh. Seems I'm not the only one to think No-Intro should be about (licensed) commercial games. Of course, I feel there should be some record for the other ROMs. They are a part of gaming history too. Mostly the "seedier" side, but history none the less.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ scott21 on 13th March 2008, 17:48 wrote:

i have to agree with most. usually when i go to play games, i hate to filter through 2,3, or 4 or more versions of the game to find the original release. drx sure didn't help my cause but i know a lot of people are interested in digging around those older versions to see what changes were made. making seperate dats to keeps the 20 versions of sonic out of the "clean" dat just makes sense. there no point in discarding any of those 20 versions of sonic since they are history and no-intro is about preservation, but there's no point in bunching them together and making the dat twice as big either.

i think people either want "everything" (aka goodxxx'ish), or what no-intro was originally going for, "100% verified". very few of the protos/hacks/betas/etc etc fall into that "100% verified" catagory. even so, its not like i can buy a copy of the game on ebay and verify it also.

theres no point in discarding the current betas/protos and whatnot, but lets separate them and make things easier for everyone.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Tharon on 13th March 2008, 18:59 wrote:

Wait scott21.

Preservation has nothing to do with playing.

I (and many other) have surely better use of our hard disk other than host hundred of gigas of craps and uplayable games. But all these games existed, and in most case are doomed without the ones who dump them, who classifed them, and (last but not least) who collect them all.

The main purpose is preservation.

But there are various level of preservation. I think that no-intro must maintain a zero tollerance with betas, hacked, unlicensed and protos.
The is aim of no-intro is (or was) only to classify only pure and clean commercial sets. This is why no-intro is so different from others.

As stated before, there was other crews that collect and preserve there roms, so i don't see the point to follow goodtools and Tosec and add garbage to No-Intro dat's, even if part of this garbage is interesting and should be preserved.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ NGEfreak on 14th March 2008, 07:55 wrote:

Some people get it wrong. Just because we include unlicensed or beta roms doesn't make us GoodTools-like. We are far from it.

Saying that the aim of no-intro is only to classify pure and clean commercial cartridges is a wrong statement in more than one way:
1.) Technically, we included beta roms since day one. Yes, that's right. The very first GBA dat already had beta roms. Remember the first dump of Super Mario Advance for example? Even, if we don't count this. The first dats for other systems (GB and GBC) also included them as most (all?) further dats.
2.) Not all official roms are commercial available. Some roms are not-for-sale games or are test software for example (Aging Cartridge).
3.) Not all official roms are distributed on cartridges (or similiar physical media). Many are from network services or similiar download services. (Satellaview, Nintendo Power, DS Download Station, etc)
4.) Not all included roms are pure and clean. We also include bad and hacked roms if no good dump exists.

A look in the future:
Now, people want to split beta/unoffical roms from official roms. Tomorrow they want not-for-sale roms split. The day after, they want them split by country. When will this end?

Before people complain about stuff they don't want, they should ask themselves questions like
- why can't I use my OS search to find and remove all unwanted roms?
- why did I get them in the first place?

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Tharon on 14th March 2008, 08:45 wrote:

Saying that the aim of no-intro is only to classify pure and clean commercial cartridges is a wrong statement in more than one way:

I'm just referring to what is write in the frontpage :

"No-Intro" lists only the best available ROM; it must be a full dump with no faults and no changes to the file, basically just the ROMS that are the closest as possible to the original licensed cartridges.

Now, closest as possibile to original licensed cartridged = pure and clean commercial cartriges, as far as i know.

A look in the future:
Now, people want to split beta/unoffical roms from official roms. Tomorrow they want not-for-sale roms split. The day after, they want them split by country. When will this end?

No, people wants only out what don't fit in the statement above (yes, not for sale roms too because aren't closest as possible to the original licensed cartridges).

Before people complain about stuff they don't want, they should ask themselves questions like
- why can't I use my OS search to find and remove all unwanted roms?
- why did I get them in the first place?

Because they TRUST the project.
If the datter include a rom the collector grab the rom for preservation thinking (even if is a beta) that is the possible closest to the original.
But now we all are seeying that other roms are included, roms that have already a better version.. just betas or early betas, or unlicensed and protos.
This make people's think that the project is going to be corrupted and becoming something different from what they read from the very first moment.

I can write from myself a litte program that grap dat files from no-intro pages, filter them removing all the unwanted things and finally put them in clrmame dat directory.
But think of it... why is the sense of making such a program if goodtools already have such (and more powerful) filter option ?

I've joined no-intro because i don't need at all goodtool's filters. The only filter i want is the one provided by no-intro : the fact that just [quoting] the ROMS that are the closest as possible to the original licensed cartridges are added.
This is what i and a lot of others no-intro collectors expect from the project. No more no less what we read and accepted from the very first time.

Obiouvsly i will continue to follow the project, even with the garbage inside. But my hope is that all the unwanted stuff will be dropped, or splitted to another dat.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Zocker on 14th March 2008, 13:18 wrote:

1.) Technically, we included beta roms since day one. Yes, that's right. The very first GBA dat already had beta roms.

Sorry, but just because something has been done a certain way for a long time that doesn't mean it's the only-ultimate-solution.

2.) Not all official roms are commercial available. Some roms are not-for-sale games or are test software for example (Aging Cartridge).

If so, I'd plead for splitting them.

3.) Not all official roms are distributed on cartridges (or similiar physical media). Many are from network services or similiar download services. (Satellaview, Nintendo Power, DS Download Station, etc)

No "problem" at all if these official games were/are accessible by everyone.

4.) Not all included roms are pure and clean. We also include bad and hacked roms if no good dump exists.

Basically, I agree: A bad dump is better than no dump (if clearly tagged as bad/hacked/etc.).

A look in the future:
Now, people want to split beta/unoffical roms from official roms. Tomorrow they want not-for-sale roms split. The day after, they want them split by country. When will this end?

Well, could you please document your statement? Sounds "slightly" exaggerated to me...

Before people complain about stuff they don't want, they should ask themselves questions like
- why can't I use my OS search to find and remove all unwanted roms?

May I ask you, what's the sense of a community if everyone does his own thing in the end? Yes, I could write a script with an appropriate filter fulfilling my needs. However, provided that a majority supports a certain idea, the person in charge (the datter, for example) may think over his point of view again. So, what about a poll?
(As a side note: An "effective" filter would require that we had tags for all possible cases. However, I don't think we have such a one for "test software", for example, have we? By the way, I'd also suggest a tag for dumps from hardware ("Game Boy Camera" comes to my mind, for example)).

- why did I get them in the first place?

Because we're convinced of the No-Intro project maybe?

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ BigFred on 14th March 2008, 13:53 wrote:

Well, could you please document your statement? Sounds "slightly" exaggerated to me...

If so, I'd plead for splitting them.

Well?

Obviously everyone wants his personalized dat. As always you can't serve everyone right.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Yakushi~Kabuto on 14th March 2008, 14:10 wrote:

I highly disagree with split & any kind of dat filter, they are leechers-friendly and preservation-unfriendly. No-Intro is a hardware preservation project as far as I'm concerned, it will become a rom kiddies/leechers project only on my dead body.

There is no way we are going to include 40 internal betas by game either.

So the only solution left is to exclude internal beta, it is really that simple.



By the way, this matter is discussed internally and while your end users opinions are very welcome, this will be ultimately decided internally and included in the convention. But for now we are at a very early stage where we don't even have properly defined the categories yet, which is the preliminary stage before we decide what to include and what not.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ tetsuo55 on 14th March 2008, 16:12 wrote:

what about this very simple solution, Only add verified Beta's alphas and so forth to the dat, and put the rest in a WIP dat.

The only exclusion is non-final roms for games that do not have a full version.

The wip dat would be called something like "Unverfied proto and non licenced.dat"

then when a pirate or beta cart gets found and dumped+verfied it can be moved to the regular dat

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ scott21 on 14th March 2008, 16:19 wrote:

i'm not trying to misquote your objective or anything, but by your statement above, then I assume (if things dont change) you'll remove one of the starfox 2 builds since it was compiled from source code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_2)? i know that game is one of the most more popular non-commercial games around and it would be a shame not to include it, albeit in a split dat.

i initially became a fan of the project because it didnt have 10 different bad, hacked, overdumped versions of a game. simple and clean it had the best option available. not that any betas/alphas/protos weren't welcome, but that sort of thing just doesnt tickle my fancy since I didn't have any childhood memories of them.

Other people love to dig into those and see what could have been. they enjoy pulling up an early build and see what's different. or a person bought a beta and wanted it dumped and preserved. no problem with any of that, but 95% of the time, none of that can be verified at a later date. people resell them to get their money back, lose them, they break, etc.

at the end of the day, all NFR, commercial, or hardware (like actual hardware, not carts), or any other mass producted software/game can be redumped and verified. including anything other than those, a system will never be 100% verified.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ tetsuo55 on 14th March 2008, 16:51 wrote:

Although thats true you have to put things in perspective

It really does not matter if these roms are split or not, there needs to be a completely different tagging system for these roms.

Suggestions would be:

Game X (proto) (source).bin (for a compiled from source proto)
Game X (proto).bin (for a proto that was dumped from a real cart)
Game S (unlicenced) (unknown) (it's now known where this came from, could be a hack or whatever)


Basically the games should look like this:

Name (type) (status) (date) .extention

(type) would be: proto, unlicened, pirate and so forth
(status) would be: Source, Cart, DS download and so forth
(date) would be: 00:00 01-01-01 , this would be either be the compile date or the date on the cart, or whatever

Also there should be an extra tag for games that are unique and have no final version, something like (unreleased) or (nofinal), this tag would be valid for both commercial and non commercial roms


-----------------

Basically these roms should be a completely different side project from the main commercial dumping effort, it doesn't really matter if the dat is split or not (although it would help a lot with the datting itself)

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ neoforma on 14th March 2008, 17:10 wrote:

I believe that the best option will be to add systems to dat-o-matic, so anyone can get the datafile they want (include hardware? include betas? include protos? etc.).

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Zocker on 14th March 2008, 23:43 wrote:

Well?

Well what? NGEfreak stated that people would change their mind everyday, didn't he? So where are those people? At least I have the impression that there is a tendency of different opinions going in a similar direction (of course, there are also people who are strictly against such an idea).

Obviously everyone wants his personalized dat. As always you can't serve everyone right.

Very generally expressed. I don't assume that anyone would think there will be a solution with which everyone will be 100% happy. However, I think it might be possible to aim for the golden mean.

Who has read all of my previous posts regarding this matter, should know that in the first place, I'd like to go for a distinction between official and blah. However, there might be different solutions reaching this like one dat with separating tags, a splitted dat, a dat filter, etc.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ StriderSkorpion on 15th March 2008, 02:51 wrote:

No-Intro is a software presevation project and I don't see why betas and prototypes should be discriminated against. That is, I don't see the relevancy of discriminating betweens betas put on carts and those that weren't. Either create a separate dat or just include the latest version of the beta, if at all. If No-Intro covered commercial games only, the whole beta issue would disappear. That's just my opinion, though and No-Intro should do however it sees fit with regards to its mission.

[root]

Rif: 2043-5 Re: Beta datting discussion \ BigFred on 15th March 2008, 08:24 wrote:

Well what? NGEfreak stated that people would change their mind everyday, didn't he?

Actually he claimed that people would request more and more splits and you supported this idea by requesting not for sale games to be seperated. (Why would anyone want rare games out that are price editions or anything like that? Aren't those official games for that system?)

And then tags for "hardware dumps" - something that actually doesn't even exist. Obviously NGE is absolutely right.

So what to do with the betas? Split dats are refused and including all by default in the main dat is madness.

So I guess that the dat-o-mat would be the best solution for the majority. People start telling they "believe" in the datters. Everyone has a different opinion about what is to preserve and what not. Some people even want hacked pirates. So why do you think it's up to us finding the ultimate solution? There is no right or wrong about this matter - just opinions and these are like assholes - you know? Maybe the next one thinks that hacks and fan-translations are part of gaming history.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ xuom2 on 15th March 2008, 09:29 wrote:

dat-o-matic may be a solution: default settings based on nointro convention, but customizable by users.
for example in NDS you can exclude "XXXX" roms from your dat.

the system is at a good point of develop, mantainers should lose a bit of time doing the database/s for it. i am here for any support.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Yakushi~Kabuto on 15th March 2008, 14:57 wrote:

dat-o-matic may be a solution: default settings based on nointro convention, but customizable by users.
for example in NDS you can exclude "XXXX" roms from your dat.

the system is at a good point of develop, mantainers should lose a bit of time doing the database/s for it. i am here for any support.

Next step, fan translations will be added on popular demand, and next 500-in-1 pirate compiles, and next Cracked/Fixed roms, and next...

The underground torrents will include everything (just like goodtorrents include every bad dump), and our sets will be more and more like tosec/good sets.

You may think again, the dat-o-matic filter is a dangerous road. Again I highly disagree with the existence of these leecher-friendly filters. Besides, allowing people to customize dats so easily is preservation-unfriendly. I think we should decide what to include and what not, and then stick to it.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ StriderSkorpion on 15th March 2008, 18:07 wrote:

If betas are included, then how about the latest (verfiable) version only? That way you wouldn't have to worry about multiples of the same game being added, but you would still be able to preserve these games. I've mentioned this before and am probably beating a dead horse. Is it a suitable solution so as to avoid going down the road of the GoodTools and TOSEC? I think it might be, but that's just my opinion and check what BigFred wrote about ideas.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ BigFred on 15th March 2008, 20:35 wrote:

If betas are included, then how about the latest (verfiable) version only?

The problem is that If we just wanted to include the latest available/most complete version why would we include a beta at all? We could stick to the retail release. A beta is interesting because of the differences to the final build which vary from build to build.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ Tharon on 15th March 2008, 20:50 wrote:

Sorry if i repeat myself.

But the main point of the project is to include all closest possible roms, not the interesting ones. There are other project that cover there roms.

Betas are welcomed if a clean dump don't exist but only in that case.

If No-intro will cover beta, protos and unlicensed then the hi-council should change the aim of the project. This will stop the complains.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ StriderSkorpion on 16th March 2008, 04:01 wrote:

The problem is that If we just wanted to include the latest available/most complete version why would we include a beta at all? We could stick to the retail release. A beta is interesting because of the differences to the final build which vary from build to build.

Actually, I was just thinking about betas of unreleased games or betas for regions where the game wasn't released.

If you're not going to include all the betas, a line has to be drawn somewhere. You can continue with the cartridge only betas, but that'll leave out some that weren't put on carts or whose carts haven't been found. I don't necessarily agree with that method for the mentioned problem and hence why I mentioned that alternative.

A betas only dat (depending on the system) might be the way to go. I don't see this as being against No-Intro's mission. You wouldn't be adding anything like unnecessary bad dumps or hacks and you wouldn't really be removing anything.

In the end, I can't see this issue being resolved without disagreements whether the status quo is maintained or a new policy is adopted.

===============================================

Re: Beta datting discussion \ cools on 15th April 2008, 18:39 wrote:

I've been manually filtering Good* sets for years (probably near a decade now, scarily enough).

Mine have been particularly extreme, with goodinfo.cfg growing to 3 figure KB sizes. Bad/over/hack/pirate dumps - gone, translations gone, betas and protos gone, in most cases all non english gone, and depending on set size I'd only keep the EU release, unless one wasn't available in which case I'd use the US.

I'm avoiding good* sets now though, No-Intro naming is far nicer and more accurate. I've avoided TOSEC stuff except where other dats aren't available as the naming is ridiculous.

The problem with this is that it misses the great part about using goodtools - a personalized goodinfo.cfg.

If Roman added a similar feature, problem solved!