I've lately been playing Milton Bradley's Dark Tower board game. Can't help but wonder if this would be possible on the 2600.
2
Dark Tower?
Started by dr. kwack, Aug 11 2011 7:44 PM
7 replies to this topic
#2 OFFLINE
bennybingo
-
-
- 2,041 posts
River Patroller
- Which came first...the kernel or the cob?
- Location:Lost...somewhere in the "CORN" thread
Posted Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:06 PM
dr. kwack, on Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:44 PM, said:
I've lately been playing Milton Bradley's Dark Tower board game. Can't help but wonder if this would be possible on the 2600.
I loved that game as a kid! I wish mine wasn't thrown away when it broke back then. I tried to buy one recently and was blown away by the price for a complete set up.
It would make for a cool atari game, but wouldn't it need a game board (similar to quest for the rings on the Odyssey)?
#3 OFFLINE
PacManPlus
-
-
- 3,320 posts
River Patroller
- Location:Naples, Florida
Posted Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:22 PM
Don't Bother. I already asked Hasbro for permission to make Dark Tower for the 7800 (making a 30 year old game for a 30 year old system). I asked if it could be licensed on a 'per cartridge' basis, or a set amount, etc, anything. The assholes immediately answered 'no', without any kind of compromise or even a suggestion. It just annoys me... What is the harm? It just gets the name out the for that many more people. Idiots.
#4 OFFLINE
orangest
-
-
- 877 posts
Dragonstomper
Posted Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:35 PM
bennybingo, on Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:06 PM, said:
It would make for a cool atari game, but wouldn't it need a game board (similar to quest for the rings on the Odyssey)?
As far as I know, the Vectrex version of Dark Tower had gameplay that made a board unnecessary, though mapping things out yourself probably would be mighty helpful.
#5 OFFLINE
SoundGammon
-
-
- 386 posts
Moonsweeper
Posted Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:34 PM
...how about doing something similar with a different name?
#6 OFFLINE
moycon
-
-
- 20,236 posts
Quadrunner
- moycon?? What the hell is that??
- Location:Acworth, GA
Posted Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:17 AM
Black Tower sounds good.
#7 OFFLINE
EricDeLee
-
-
- 5,749 posts
Quadrunner
- Location:Michigan
Posted Fri Sep 2, 2011 2:11 PM
PacManPlus, on Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:22 PM, said:
Don't Bother. I already asked Hasbro for permission to make Dark Tower for the 7800 (making a 30 year old game for a 30 year old system). I asked if it could be licensed on a 'per cartridge' basis, or a set amount, etc, anything. The assholes immediately answered 'no', without any kind of compromise or even a suggestion. It just annoys me... What is the harm? It just gets the name out the for that many more people. Idiots.
Page 1.jpg
Page 2.jpg
Page 1.jpg Page 2.jpgDamn... there went my whole idea of eventually wanting to recreate it for the Atari Lynx.
What happens amongst the collectors... stays amongst the collectors. LOL
#8 OFFLINE
raindog
-
-
- 1,481 posts
Stargunner
- Location:upstate NY, USA
Posted Fri Sep 2, 2011 10:36 PM
Why on earth would someone try to make an officially licensed 2600 game in 2011? How would Sega's blessing have made Turbo 2600 better, or would Thrust+ have been improved by a little "Approved by Superior Software's Successors And/Or Assigns" sticker on the box?
You're essentially asking lawyers to give you something for no significant benefit to their company. It's their job to say no to things like that. The answer is never going to be anything other than "no" unless there's some unusual situation where the rights reverted to the programmer and he isn't looking to monetize them, as with Randy Glover and Jumpman. The best you can hope for is that they won't bother wasting any time on you, since there are no real damages to be collected (even the most successful Atari homebrews haven't sold enough to have the royalties pay for one hour of a competent IP lawyer's time).
Even Halo 2600 is likely a "look the other way" situation with no lawyers involved; certainly Microsoft didn't make any announcements about it and Fries left there over seven years ago. If he "ran it by legal", he hasn't mentioned it and neither has Microsoft.
Better to just work on your game, put it out there with source code and if they slap you down, adapt (or let others adapt) the game into something more original. I say that after having been approached, fradulently, by someone who was once a member of this community (his account still exists, I just looked) and claimed to own the home console rights to Pac-Man. It put a bad taste in my mouth about doing Atari stuff for a decade, but at least my code and notes (for my hacks and the Boing and Ballblazer demos) were out there for other people to make use of them, and in at least two cases I know of, people did.
Thanks to the DPC+, there are all these new possibilities for 2600 adaptations that weren't possible 2 or 3 years ago while still having been within the realm of possibility during the 2600's original lifetime. The ones we actually get to play are going to be the ones whose authors release early and often and wait to be told they're wrong rather than seeking denial up front.
Be smart. Try to pick inactive trademarks, and realize that most lawyers are not gamers and don't know the difference between an Atari game that might make you 50 bucks and an iPhone game that'll make you a million.
You're essentially asking lawyers to give you something for no significant benefit to their company. It's their job to say no to things like that. The answer is never going to be anything other than "no" unless there's some unusual situation where the rights reverted to the programmer and he isn't looking to monetize them, as with Randy Glover and Jumpman. The best you can hope for is that they won't bother wasting any time on you, since there are no real damages to be collected (even the most successful Atari homebrews haven't sold enough to have the royalties pay for one hour of a competent IP lawyer's time).
Even Halo 2600 is likely a "look the other way" situation with no lawyers involved; certainly Microsoft didn't make any announcements about it and Fries left there over seven years ago. If he "ran it by legal", he hasn't mentioned it and neither has Microsoft.
Better to just work on your game, put it out there with source code and if they slap you down, adapt (or let others adapt) the game into something more original. I say that after having been approached, fradulently, by someone who was once a member of this community (his account still exists, I just looked) and claimed to own the home console rights to Pac-Man. It put a bad taste in my mouth about doing Atari stuff for a decade, but at least my code and notes (for my hacks and the Boing and Ballblazer demos) were out there for other people to make use of them, and in at least two cases I know of, people did.
Thanks to the DPC+, there are all these new possibilities for 2600 adaptations that weren't possible 2 or 3 years ago while still having been within the realm of possibility during the 2600's original lifetime. The ones we actually get to play are going to be the ones whose authors release early and often and wait to be told they're wrong rather than seeking denial up front.
Be smart. Try to pick inactive trademarks, and realize that most lawyers are not gamers and don't know the difference between an Atari game that might make you 50 bucks and an iPhone game that'll make you a million.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
