Donkey kong 2 artwork

[mytymaus007]

Does anyone have Donkey kong 2 control panel overlay, sideart and marquee in ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR

[javeryh]

I think you can purchase the artwork outright from ThisOldGame.  I'd be surprised if there were files being passed around.

[mytymaus007]

I think you can purchase the artwork outright from ThisOldGame.  I'd be surprised if there were files being passed around.

There all sold out but does anyone have an Adobe Illustrator file of Donkey Kong 2

[mytymaus007]

 

[CheffoJeffo]

I think (hope) that you will find that, even if there was a file out there, folks won't disrespect Rich like that ... But then I thought that folks wouldn't disrespect Jeff either ....

[CheffoJeffo]

Nintendo didn't see it that way ... Unless something new has happened.

[CheffoJeffo]

The big difference is that Jeff showed his work to Nintendo before releasing his kits.

[mytymaus007]

What so special about Donkey kong 2 . There is a whole website dedicated to art work.


http://arcadeartlibrary.com/arcade_art/categories.php?cat_id=6&sessionid=6d0a99cfd59dca382ea9d6d606822202

[ChadTower]

You do realize that we, along with many others, put that website there?

DK2 is a sensitive topic because of how much work went into it and how many people stole it as soon as it was released.

[CheffoJeffo]

Chad is exactly right.

We are not talking about something that was made decades ago and had the revenue stream run out ... people who are active in the hobby did this work recently, with the expectation that they would be rewarded monetarily.

Rich didn't make the DKII art so everybody could just print their own -- he did it so that he could sell it. Similar to how Jeff developed and released the actual kit.

Once upon a time the MAMEDevs had a rule about not releasing games that were currently earning in the arcades.

The idea is that you don't bite the hand that feeds you ... Rich made the artwork to sell and he does tons for the hobby.

Ripping off his work is bad arcade karma.

There are interesting examples of people in this hobby who have decided to stop their contributions after having their work taken advantage of.

[Hoopz]

Not to pick nits, but is DK2 in Mame now or just Mess?  Or is the general use of Mamedev being used because Mame and Mess share contributors?

I haven't played around with Mess in awhile and haven't updated a Mame set in years now.

[mytymaus007]

Thats great I respect everyones hard work and their contributions. Im not looking into ripping anyone off! My intentions were to buy the art in the first place i only needed to modify it to fit my Arcade. So if Rich or Jeff would like to sell it to me I would greatful.

[Well Fed Games]

It is in Mame.

I don't know, I think DKII is very well done, but not sure why it is put on a pedestal over any other hack or homebrew game. (Not trying to troll, putting on helmet anyway). I see so much in this hobby that is done with an open hand, seeing things like artwork files withheld feels like a step backward, in my opinion. If he had programmed an original platformer IP I could see it, for sure, but something that uses existing characters and engine seems like it should be in the creative commons. Just my 2 cents. 

Not to pick nits, but is DK2 in Mame now or just Mess?  Or is the general use of Mamedev being used because Mame and Mess share contributors?

I haven't played around with Mess in awhile and haven't updated a Mame set in years now.

[ChadTower]

I don't know, I think DKII is very well done, but not sure why it is put on a pedestal over any other hack or homebrew game. (Not trying to troll, putting on helmet anyway).

I don't consider it a hack.  It's new content that runs in a closed and antiquated platform.  A hack is what pinballjim did - change some characters and text. New levels are an extension of the original software, and let's face it, decompiling the source code of embedded software that old is a feat by itself.  Extending the software, re-embedding it into the original package, and then making it run on the same ancient hardware is hardcore.  The level of respect among those of us who are also software engineers is why this one gets treated differently.

[ChadTower]

Pinballjim didn't do that hack.  Like a good MBA, he hired someone else.   

Good point.  I spend too much time in project management land these days listening to people talk about things they accomplished when really all they did was run meetings.   

[Malenko]

 The level of respect among those of us who are also software engineers is why this one gets treated differently.

 

[mytymaus007]

Just want Artwork Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wanna Pay I Never heard back from This Old Game

[javeryh]

DKII is too hard.   

I wish more people did stuff like that though.  It's pretty awesome.

[mytymaus007]

  This old game just confirmed that i can order the Art work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Well Fed Games]

I wish more people did stuff like that though.  It's pretty awesome.

I heartily agree with this. Would love to see what the "next level"  would be for various other games.

[ChadTower]

We all would but the arcade community did its best to discourage others from repeating the effort.   

[javeryh]

I'd love to see a new Pac-Man.  I wish the championship edition was in 3:4 aspect and used the old graphics and limited you to 3 lives.... and ran in MAME.

[ChadTower]

Pac Man Battle Royale just came out.  4 player simultaneous!

[nitz]

I might be sorry for putting my two cents in, but here goes (puts helmet on)

I don't know, I think DKII is very well done, but not sure why it is put on a pedestal over any other hack or homebrew game.

My thoughts exactly. DK2 is an awesome hack, I respect the guy for accomplishing it, and I do not begrudge him selling rom upgrade kits (or however he sells it). But at the end of the day, it's a hack and I don't think anyone should feel bad about playing it in mame. If it was an original game, I would feel differently.

There is this awesome program (can't remember the name) out there that lets you easily hack Super Mario Bros. You can put all the bricks, question blocks, pipes, coins, enemies, items, etc. where ever you want - essentially you could do to Super Mario Bros. what Jeff did to Donkey Kong. Consider the following 2 situations:

1) I use this program to make an incredible hack of SMB that everyone loves, and wish to sell it. Is it ok for someone to take the rom and distribute it freely?

2) Same as situation 1, but the program does not exist and I had to do all the hard work myself. Is it ok for someone to take the rom and distribute it freely?

IMO if you answer yes to one question and no to the other, you're a hypocrite. If the end product is the same, the amount of work that went into it should have no bearing on whether it's ok for people to distribute it freely.

Now I think the folks who are mad about people "stealing" DK2 the moment it was released, would have to answer no to question 2 above. It's basically the same situation, different game. But would you seriously answer no to question 1? If I used that hacking program to make a "new" SMB game, would you really think I should tell people to pay me for it and that it's wrong for someone to get it for free?

I think taking the attitude of "This guy worked really hard on this, and if I play the game, I would like to pay him" is perfectly fine. But trying to make people feel bad about playing it in mame and not paying him is asinine. It's a freakin' rom hack. It's elaborate and no doubt took a lot of time and effort, but it's still a hack. If you feel this hack should be paid for but others shouldn't be, then where are you drawing the line? Who should decide what constitutes "too much work was done to get this for free"? No, I think you either have to say that all hacks are free, or we should be paying everyone for their hacks. I'm going with the former, simply because if I were hacking something, there's no way I would expect to get paid for it.

I don't consider it a hack.  It's new content that runs in a closed and antiquated platform.  A hack is what pinballjim did - change some characters and text. New levels are an extension of the original software, and let's face it, decompiling the source code of embedded software that old is a feat by itself.  Extending the software, re-embedding it into the original package, and then making it run on the same ancient hardware is hardcore.  The level of respect among those of us who are also software engineers is why this one gets treated differently.

That's fair enough if you don't consider it a hack. When you look at what the guy did, I could see someone taking that perspective, and the guy does deserve respect for doing it. But it uses the same graphics, engine, and IP as Donkey Kong. To me, that's a hack. I just can't accept it as an original game. Again, who has the authority to decide where the line gets drawn?

Rant over.

[ChadTower]

Who should decide what constitutes "too much work was done to get this for free"?

The market.  The market appears to have decided that there is not enough incentive for talented software engineers to repeat what he did because people are just going to take what they want because they can.  Yes, it was always grey area intellectual property wise, but so is nearly everything in this hobby.  We're either going to support the people doing cool and innovative things or we're going to slap them in the face for their efforts.  The market did a lot more slapping than rewarding here.

[Hoopz]

If anyone wants to wade through the original thread about this topic, here's the link:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=74719.0

[Vigo]

Consider the following 2 situations:

1) I use this program to make an incredible hack of SMB that everyone loves, and wish to sell it. Is it ok for someone to take the rom and distribute it freely?

2) Same as situation 1, but the program does not exist and I had to do all the hard work myself. Is it ok for someone to take the rom and distribute it freely?

IMO if you answer yes to one question and no to the other, you're a hypocrite. If the end product is the same, the amount of work that went into it should have no bearing on whether it's ok for people to distribute it freely.

Nice use of the socratic method, BTW.


Here is how i see it all in a nutshell. The guy shouldn't expect to have any IP rights over this work, unless he was explicitly endorsed and approved by Nintendo (which he wasn't...lack of action does not equal approval), he shouldn't expect a dime for his work. I'm not gonna begrudge the guy for going for it and trying to charge for his work. If people want to pay him to support him, then that is good as well, it adds incentive for this kind of material to come out. He just shouldn't expect people to pay for a bootleg product. I just don't see his work as a sacred cow that deserves equal IP rights to an original work. I see it as a great project that people can voluntarily support like the frontend creators here that make something great for the community.

Of course, I have a beef with IP laws in general, and would love a world where people can take completely dead work and build on it and take ownership over it. Instead, we live in a world where the Happy Birthday song is somehow still under copyright protection, makes about 2 million dollars a year in usage fees and restaurants are not able to sing the song to guests without legal worries of doing so.

[CheffoJeffo]

The thread that Hoopz links to takes me back -- nice to see that my position hasn't changed.

I really like Nitz's analysis, but it misses the main point -- which is that now Jeff won't do anything like D2K again. There are a number of similar examples of folks stopping doing cool stuff (or threatening to quit).

Kudos to the OP for supporting Rich! 

[nitz]

Who should decide what constitutes "too much work was done to get this for free"?

The market.  The market appears to have decided that there is not enough incentive for talented software engineers to repeat what he did because people are just going to take what they want because they can.  Yes, it was always grey area intellectual property wise, but so is nearly everything in this hobby.  We're either going to support the people doing cool and innovative things or we're going to slap them in the face for their efforts.  The market did a lot more slapping than rewarding here.

I really like Nitz's analysis, but it misses the main point -- which is that now Jeff won't do anything like D2K again.

You guys make a valid point. It's a fair assessment, and I can see the logic in it. But...

The guy shouldn't expect to have any IP rights over this work, unless he was explicitly endorsed and approved by Nintendo (which he wasn't...lack of action does not equal approval), he shouldn't expect a dime for his work. I'm not gonna begrudge the guy for going for it and trying to charge for his work. If people want to pay him to support him, then that is good as well, it adds incentive for this kind of material to come out. He just shouldn't expect people to pay for a bootleg product. I just don't see his work as a sacred cow that deserves equal IP rights to an original work. I see it as a great project that people can voluntarily support like the frontend creators here that make something great for the community.

I just agree with this 100%. No one should make derivative works of other people's IP and expect to get paid for it. I don't know Jeff and can't speak for him, but I seriously doubt making money was his main motivation, if that was even a motivation at all. (Obviously if he's making rom upgrade kits he's gotta charge people for that to at least cover his expenses.) People do stuff like this for the challenge and the fun. If someone decides they don't want to do something like this because Jeff may have missed out on some money, then they were doing it for the wrong reasons. We may lose out on something awesome, and that sucks, but in my mind I just can't justify the line of reasoning that goes, "We have a duty to pay people for IP they don't own so that we don't piss off other people who might have been thinking about making derivative products of IP they don't own." I can see the logic in it, I just can't justify it.

There are a number of similar examples of folks stopping doing cool stuff (or threatening to quit).

Any links or stories? I'm really not looking for stuff to argue about btw. I just happen to find this subject quite interesting, and some other examples might help me gain some more perspecitve.

[ChadTower]

The thread that Hoopz links to takes me back -- nice to see that my position hasn't changed.

I really like Nitz's analysis, but it misses the main point -- which is that now Jeff won't do anything like D2K again. There are a number of similar examples of folks stopping doing cool stuff (or threatening to quit).

I don't have to drop $20 in the pot at the yearly Three Stooges Festival either but I do.  Sometimes it is best to make a contribution in appreciation of someone else's hard work.  That's what failed here.  The amount of people who took it without any compensation at all, and actually taunted the author over it, seriously lowered my respect for the MAME userbase.  Yeah, he had no legal right to the IP, but neither did any of the users who took it.

[CheffoJeffo]

He was (and Arcadeshop is) charging $40 for the chip upgrade.

$79 was for Brasington's high score kit (which is required, but not a product of Jeff's and costs $45) and the ROM update.

[southpaw13]

Sooo....is the artwork available for purchase again?