pitfall1982

Hmmm... At my computer on a Sunday morning an unrelated search turned up this post - 10 years later. But the DPC chip sound generators were such a fun circuit I will explain them here (remembering the good times as I relate the story) in case anyone is still interested. The 2600 had the ability to use the TIA sound chip as a 4-bit D to A (digital to analog converter). One turned OFF the TIA's square wave audio circuit - leaving it in a logic "1" state - and adjusted the 4-bit volume control. Set the volume to 0 and the DC level of the output of the sound chip is zero. Set the volume to $0f (1111) and the DC level output of the sound chip is at maximum. Modulate the audio output between the 16 values of $00 to $0f and you could generate a waveform. With this method one could create almost understandable speech - with the consequence of stopping the game and turning off the display since the CPU's entire processing time would be taken up by the process. For the DPC I designed 3 independent, free-running clock dividers similar to the two in the TIA itself. One sets a divide counter value and divides the system clock by n to create a square wave in the audible range. Once set, there are 3 asynchronously running square wave pulse streams being generated which, if you could hear them would be audible tones. So now the big question: How to get those tones from the cartridge and into the TIA chip (and ultimately to the TV's speaker)? This was accomplished first with combinational logic that simulated an adder circuit. The best way to understand this circuit is to imagine that the first of the bit streams has a value of 6; the second a value of 5; and the third a value of 4. So the first bit stream is outputting: 0,0,0,0,0,6,6,6,6,6,0,0,0,0,0,6,6,6,6,6... and so on. Now add the three numbers together. A1 A2 A3 Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 9 6 0 0 6 6 0 4 10 6 5 0 11 6 5 4 15 The result is a 4 bit number that represents the mixing of 3 independent tones. It even has the added benefit of providing different relative volumes between the tones. Channel one is slightly louder than the rest, so is used for melody. The other two channels have the right volume mix for harmony and base. Now, how do we get this 4 bit value into the TIA? The 4-bit value is presented to the CPU bus through an address on the DPC chip. In other words, if the code reads a specific address the value changes each time it is read as the data changes with the music. One could simply set up an infinite loop of "LOAD ADDRESS, STORE VOLUME" and three-part harmony music will play out of the TV speakers. But that is not very useful. If all the CPU is doing is reading and writing audio samples, there is no display and no game. So I had to introduce a sampling system. If that "LOAD/STORE" could be performed at least as often as every scan line of the TV signal the audio would be updated at a sampling rate of 15,750 Hz. This is sufficient to achieve reasonable fidelity. Using that fact, I inserted that "LOAD/STORE" into every line of the display kernel, every game play subroutine, every line of setup, vertical sync, overscan, etc. I often had to put multiple LOAD/STORES into long calculation routines to make sure that the sample rate was kept up. If not, the music would begin to get fuzzy or even introduce harmonics between the notes and the sample rate. With a little trial and error I was satisfied with the quality of the musical score in Pitfall II. I created the DPC chip because the poor old 2600 had lasted years past the lifespan anyone had ever hoped for it. And if we were going to keep making games for the system it needed a bit of a facelift. Sadly, after Pitfall II, sales of 2600 games finally fell below the point where a game could be made profitably. It would have been fun to see what else we could have done with the technology. David Crane, August 2013 P.S. The TIA has two audio channels, and among the built-in 'tones' available is a noise generator. While the first TIA audio channel was busy working as a D to A, I used the second audio channel in noise mode to create a snare drum track. But any time the game needed to produce a sound effect - like Harry's jump - I needed that sound channel. Has anyone ever noticed that the snare drum goes away whenever the game plays a sound effect?

I received an offline email from LX.NET asking for my opinion about the game. To be very clear, I have no personal problem with anyone copying my old games to keep them alive in the Classic Gaming space. But my opinion carries no weight with Activision. And I would predict that Activision won't even talk to you, let alone give you permission. There are two legal issues that you need to deal with, and while I can't offer a legal opinion, I will point out that most game developers have a completely upside-down understanding of issues like copyright. You can't copyright a game concept. It is really weird, but imagine you said to yourself "I want to make a game like Pac Man." Copyright law now allows you to exactly clone the game play - even of a game that is totally unique. Blind Justice says that "If a person wants to make a maze game where the main character gobbles dots and is chased by enemies, he has that right. And since he is implementing the same game concept it is not only likely but completely acceptable for the game to play exactly the same." What you can't do is copy the characters. Pac Man's copyright protects Namco's implementation of the "gobble dots maze game concept." You would be in trouble if the main character looked like a yellow smiley face, etc. So be forewarned... Game designers often have the thought "I have just come up with a truly unique game play... I think I will copyright it." If that happens to you get very specific legal advice, and ask very pointed questions about what is protected. A copyright doesn't protect the stuff that you think of as being unique... the game play. For this project your bigger problem might be with the Trademark. Activision has trademarked Pitfall. Again, I am not offering legal advice, but Trademark 101 tells you that a company is required by law to protect their trademarks. Failure to protect a trademark can result in the loss of protection under the law. If some small non-profit group calls itself Exxon, and the big oil company does nothing about it, they could lose their trademark protection. Then another big oil company could start using the term Exxon as a generic term for gasoline (think Kleenex, Xerox, and Jello). Obviously an extreme example. But the threat of losing a trademark has made big companies act harshly over any public use of their marks, whether there is a profit or other financial incentive involved or not. So I can't advise you on your project. But there are always legal issues to consider when making use of other companies' intellectual property. And in some cases they have to come after you even where there is no financial incentive to do so.

People have been having trouble making the decision to back the project without more detail on the game. As Crazy Climber mentioned I have just updated the project to show the “Living Jungle” art direction and a detailed description of the game. tinyurl.com/JungleUpdate Spread the word!

So Random Terrain, I hope that was a joke. (And yes, I recognize the reference to 'The Game'.) I'll chime in again here, not because others can't explain Kickstarter better then me, but because trust is very much an issue. If a Kickstarter project doesn't fund, backers' money is 100% refunded. In fact, as I understand it the money is not even taken in the first place until it closes. But yes, once it funds you have placed your trust in the team to deliver. So choose wisely. But in most game development projects a backer is putting up $15 for a copy of the game. That is your risk. There are higher tiers so that we can provide a physical collectible object for die-hard collectors. And even there, if the project doesn't fund your money is refunded. If the project funds it is a pretty safe bet that those collectibles will be created. But trust is part of it once a project successfully funds. There has not yet been a big game project that failed to deliver. I have a proven track record, and I have chosen my team based on the same thing. I will not be the guy who fails to deliver a game worthy of my reputation. Another big issue is whether the project is properly funded. A lot has been made of the size of my Kickstarter project. If you give it 5 seconds of thought, however, you see why this is a big positive. I have set the development budget to accurately reflect what it costs to make a game. So rather than focusing on the $900K number, consider this: I am not asking any backer to 'give' me $900K. I am offering to produce a $900K game that you can have for $15. If I set the budget for this game at $100K you might rightfully doubt that I could create a game that you would want to play. As it is, the size of the raise increases the likelihood of a great game. But to address the biggest issue here, Kickstarter is designed to 100% refund your money if the project doesn't fund. And if it does fund, most backers are risking the cost of a movie ticket to be part of a major, professional game development project. That is the value proposition that you are considering as a risk / reward.

It seems that the Kickstarter project is not resonating with gamers largely because they don't know what the game is, and are therefore not excited about seeing it made. So my team and I have been working on providing more detail on the game. (Probably will update on Saturday.) This game will not be made if the Kickstarter goal is not met, and as you know it is not looking good. The strangest comments I have gotten are things like "I would back it, but it doesn't look like it is going to make it." That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What is the risk to showing your support? If it doesn't make it your pre-purchase is refunded. Many other classic gaming enthusiasts have said great things about the project and then become backers for $1 - wanting access but not helping to pay the costs of getting it made. I'm just saying there is a lot of strange thinking going around. Anyway, check back in a couple of days and see if you like the direction the game design is going. If you like it, let's try to keep spreading the word. Again, the game won't get made unless the Kickstarter project reaches its goal, and a grass roots effort can still make it happen.

At the risk of repeating myself, thanks for the support. I have put together my team, I have started work on a design, and I am really looking forward to making the best game I can without being limited by a publisher's budget or driven by a client's agenda. The games I make are for the players, and I won't be able to do that without more support from people like you. The reality of crowd funding is that it takes a crowd. If you want to see this game become a reality, know that it will only happen if you tell 10 friends, and they each tell 10 friends, etc.

Again, thanks for the support. An update has been posted with some more information: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jungleventure/david-cranes-jungle-adventure-0/posts

Good insights into what might make a Kickstarter project click. I have just recorded an update video that addresses some of the questions we have been getting. That should go up soon. But the most important aspect of crowd funding is the viral nature of a crowd. I will continue to refine the story so that more people understand it as they are first exposed, but if you want to see this product made, the best way is to network it. Those of you who now get where I am going with this can make a big difference by being the project's evangelists. Spread the word on your own networks, and if your enthusiasm for the project is contagious, more will join. What has been proven this year is that $15 plus networking can make a million dollar project a reality. You guys are in control. Thanks for your support.

Or I set the game in a Mayan temple where our hero discovers the REAL Mayan calendar and explains why the movie 2012 got the date wrong.

We have already opened a dialog with Steam, and there are other digital publishers as well. Your backer copy will likely come through one of those companies, and if we can set up a closed Beta with one of them we will be able to get your feedback on the game after you have your hands on it.

System requirements will be driven by the middleware we choose, which in turn is driven by the design, so that is TBD. Leaning toward Unity 3D at this point, and I will be efficient in my use of technology. I don't expect you will need a $600 video card. Any computer less than a few years old should suffice.

Yes, PC or Mac digital download. I wanted to find a way so that every backer, at even the lowest level, gets the game. SInce every dollar from backers goes to making the game, it would harm the game to take funds away to make a boxed game. Besides, no matter what your favorite console might be, everybody owns one of those computers. Other platforms will be added if we exceed the minimum target.

Guys, As you know I try to keep an eye on AtariAge, and I ran into this thread. You all make some good points, particularly Dragonstomper who gives a clear analysis of the other big Kickstarter gaming projects. But you are missing the point, and I take full responsibility for that - obviously I am not getting the point across with the brief explanation on the Kickstarter page. In the early days of Activision I had complete creative control over the games I made. I could keep at it until I got it right. I think I demonstrated that my judgement could be trusted for when a game is really ready. I made a dozen or so games this way, and many of them are still being played today. I have kept at it over the years as the industry changed, publishing over 100 games in all. Most of these later games were constrained by an arbitrary budget, a client with creative control, or a heavy-handed licensor. Every game I have made since the early days could have been better if I was given an adequate budget and full creative control. The question I am asking with this Kickstarter project is: "Do you want to see what I can make today under similar conditions to those when I made my greatest hits?" Second, ever since I made my first game people have been asking "How did you get your idea?" "What happens in the design lab?" "Why this feature?" "How do you make a game fun?" And so on. I look at Kickstarter and see it as a way for people to see inside the game design process. This has been top secret for my entire career, and now for $15 you can own the game and take a ride on the creation train. That should be worth the price of admission right there. I took a risk. If I believe that people want to be a part of the game development process, then they should want to be a part of the game design process even more. If I brought a completed game design to Kickstarter it would be too late to share in that. So it is true that you can't tell exactly what the game is going to be at this point. That is because the game design process only begins in earnest when the project is funded. And you can be a part of that. Did I set the game budget too high? Hardly. This may be eye-opening for some, but the cost of making a top quality game starts in the high six figures, and goes up from there (into the tens of millions, depending on the design.) Kickstarter will always be a place where small, indie developers can get a Flash game funded for a few thousand dollars. But my project will help to answer the question of whether there is a place for crowd funding in the high-end game development business. And don't get hung up over the number. With crowd funding it isn't the amount, it is the size of the crowd. If only a tiny percentage of the millions of game players are intrigued by the idea of getting in this early, the project will be a success. And think about how many of today's game players learned to play on one of my games. Finally, will I deliver? I have given millions of game players thousands of hours of enjoyment. You can trust me to deliver. But more important, as far as I can tell I have published more games than any other individual in the world. I know how to allocate time and resources to get a game done. I have access to game development professionals to expand my team as needed. And I will have the final say on creative issues. You may have backed some less experienced game developers and been disappointed. I will not disappoint. I came here to write a post and I ended up writing a novel. You can see why it is difficult to convey all of this on one page on Kickstarter. But to try to simplify it, this project gives you a chance to be part of the design process of a high-end David Crane game, then be part of the development process, then own the game and get hours of game play enjoyment, all for about the price of a family meal at KFC. If I didn't get that across in a couple of paragraphs on the Kickstarter page, I apologize.

Rob, you make a number of great points, not only because you have always had a strong grasp of the processes we lived through but also because you have been there personally - inside Zynga. The most frightening statement you make (which is unfortunately true) is that "everybody in the social games space wants to be just like them." Like you, I have no interest in playing most social games. But I take it one step farther and refuse to get sucked into the phenomenon on the development side either. I believe there is still room for authorship in the game business. I used Zynga as an example of an environment that completely squashes creativity. You let the air out of that example by pointing out that there is no room for authorship (read creativity) in their process, so why should their environment support it? So maybe it was a bad example. But as they are held up to be the gold standard in social gaming, there is a risk that "everybody in the games space wants to be just like them." The effects are insidious... I just saw a game design space redesign - costing hundreds of thousands of dollars - where the space designers came in and turned the place into a high school cafeteria. The managers were thrilled and said "Now we're just like Facebook." Anyway, to put an end to this rant, I still contend that the hard-won lessons of the past 30+ years of game design should not be lightly ignored. I bow to your point that there is no place in Social Gaming for authorship. But Social Games are not the only game in town, and great game design still finds an audience. To use your analogy, there is no need for top writing talent on reality TV shows, but that just makes original Showtime and HBO series stand out that much more.

Yes, many of today's game designers may have been inspired by Activision's policy of promoting it's designers. But the next generation will be left out. I just gave a talk at a technology conference in Rome about that very thing. Activision pioneered so many aspects of the video game business. The biggest of these was the third-party game publishing business. We were the first to make games without being affiliated with a hardware manufacturer. (Today that describes 99.9% of game companies.) But some of the more important "firsts" were: • Publicly value the creative talent. • Recognize the game designer as the author of a creative work. • We pioneered the "Design Center" method of small design teams working closely together, cross-pollinating even if they are on different projects. (Became a university case study.) • And a fun "first": First video game Achievements. Those patches were the first time achievements could be earned from playing a game. Sad to say, but except for the last one (which Microsoft thinks they invented with XBLA) those important advances have all but been forgotten. Facebook and Zynga cram hundreds of people into a work environment that looks like a high school cafeteria. Nothing truly creative can happen in that environment. And can anybody tell me who was the designer behind Farmville? Or any Zynga game? Where will the inspiration for tomorrow's game designers come from? (OK, so now I am officially not a one time poster.)