Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

General No-Intro related discussions.
Post Reply
Hiccup
Datter
Posts: 1680
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 11:29

Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Hiccup »

https://strawpoll.com/polls/bVg86Mel3yY

I've posted this in a few related Discord servers as well. Note this is just for gathering opinions.

Edit: poll closed on 2022-11-11
https://strawpoll.com/polls/bVg86Mel3yY/results (archive)

Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
relax
High Council
Posts: 934
Joined: 27 May 2008 17:52

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by relax »

I voted yes, due to the huge number of unlicensed ROMs in certain dats.

However, to not flood the number of dats, it could be set a minimum number of unlicensed ROMs before making the split. Some systems have one or just a few unlicensed ROMs.
Hiccup
Datter
Posts: 1680
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 11:29

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Hiccup »

Hm, good idea. After this poll I'll probably make another poll about how it be implemented exactly.
omonim2007
Datter
Posts: 427
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 12:20

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by omonim2007 »

relax wrote: 05 Nov 2022 22:54 I voted yes, due to the huge number of unlicensed ROMs in certain dats.

However, to not flood the number of dats, it could be set a minimum number of unlicensed ROMs before making the split. Some systems have one or just a few unlicensed ROMs.
+1
Flashfire42
Posts: 46
Joined: 25 Feb 2020 05:19

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Flashfire42 »

When you can decide what an unlicensed rom is maybe I will consider it. But jury still seems to be out on homebrew vs unlicensed vs licensed vs digital vs physical. Just fix one problem at a time
Hiccup
Datter
Posts: 1680
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 11:29

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Hiccup »

Well vs unlicensed vs licensed and vs digital vs physical are very clear cut. But stuff like homebrew/aftermarket, not so much. I'll probably make another poll after this, about how the split should be implemented exactly.
User avatar
Arctic Circle System
Datter
Posts: 53
Joined: 21 May 2020 04:43

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Arctic Circle System »

We had this discussion years ago about putting betas and prototypes in the main sets and it was determined that it wasn't necessary to split them because they were typically in the same format as final ROMs and they could be filtered out. A good solution for sorting would be to implement the ability to filter unlicensed titles out of daily packs and filter out (Homebrew) and (Pirate) ROMs alongside (Unl) ROMs when that setting is activated. As far as I can tell, there is no need to split the dats arbitrarily like this. The issues with filtering out unlicensed ROMs when downloading dats can be solved with a toggle on the daily pack, just as we've solved those issues when downloading individual dats. This is an issue with the website, not the way the dats are categorized.

However, I do concur with what Flashfire42 said. We really need to figure out official guidelines of when to use the Unl tag, the Homebrew tag, the Pirate tag, and the Aftermarket tag. Clearing that up will make things a lot easier. ~Tammy
Hiccup
Datter
Posts: 1680
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 11:29

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Hiccup »

I think this is really about the default dats that are used by most people, so any filtering capability is kind of irrelevant here unless its enabled by default. But we don't want to exclude stuff from the dats completely, so that's why separating this stuff is probably the best solution. Either by having seperate sections (and therefore dats) in datomatic, or by having datomatic produce multiple dats for each section, splitting on the unlicensed (etc) flags.
User avatar
dreimer
Posts: 213
Joined: 14 Nov 2015 13:26

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by dreimer »

I don't really see the reason for a split. All are ROMs for the specific systems. Old retail games, aftermarket, pirate etcetc. The DAT is downloaded and you can verify whatever ROM you have floating around. Why would someone need a split off database for exactly the same ROM type? This makes verification just more difficult as you need to verify the ROMs with a number of databases then.

I see only one reason here (But feel free to correct me if I am wrong): Collectors who lament about the DAT changing too often to get the most recent Torrent off some questionable source as already happened here. I think this is not the reason, so... why?!
Hiccup
Datter
Posts: 1680
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 11:29

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Hiccup »

I think it'd be a good idea as it makes the "default experience" with datomatic/dats/romsets less messy. I think its fair to consider homebrew/aftermarket stuff as in a separate realm to retail and contemporary unlicensed stuff, since there's a bunch of this stuff being released as of late that wasn't around while the NES was still produced.

There isn't likely to be any/much overlap between the two dats imo.
Flashfire42
Posts: 46
Joined: 25 Feb 2020 05:19

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Flashfire42 »

dreimer wrote: 08 Nov 2022 15:06 I don't really see the reason for a split. All are ROMs for the specific systems. Old retail games, aftermarket, pirate etcetc. The DAT is downloaded and you can verify whatever ROM you have floating around. Why would someone need a split off database for exactly the same ROM type? This makes verification just more difficult as you need to verify the ROMs with a number of databases then.

I see only one reason here (But feel free to correct me if I am wrong): Collectors who lament about the DAT changing too often to get the most recent Torrent off some questionable source as already happened here. I think this is not the reason, so... why?!
These are the exact people complaining the most. People who collect roms like pokemon cards that are mad that they have Dungeons & Doomknights in the same place they have Legend of Zelda. Choose how you want the dat rather than downloading a rompack and you will be fine
User avatar
Madeline
Datter
Posts: 145
Joined: 29 Oct 2020 00:28

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Madeline »

I feel the same way as dreimer. Having one dat for everything is so much more appealing for me
Flashfire42
Posts: 46
Joined: 25 Feb 2020 05:19

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by Flashfire42 »

Looks like it may split looking at how the voting is going.
omonim2007
Datter
Posts: 427
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 12:20

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by omonim2007 »

I voted NOT to split, because all kinds of sorting can be done using standard DB features:

Image

There is no need to do DBs more complex and to create dozens of new dats.
omonim2007
Datter
Posts: 427
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 12:20

Re: Poll: Should No-Intro split unlicensed ROMs into separate DATs from licensed ROMs?

Post by omonim2007 »

Flashfire42 wrote: 10 Nov 2022 06:09 Looks like it may split looking at how the voting is going.
I think a lot of external users voted for SPLIT.

From my point of view everything should remain as it is, and additional features should be organized outside the database (for example, using ROM managers).
Post Reply