Main > Main Forum
a good read. in my mind clears up past rhetoric...
Orclord:
Me to.....
Although I'm sure it will only enforce my views on the wanker....
Or maybe not....
But I doubt that very much...
:)
brophog:
Can't we get this moved to a more appropriate board. :police:
markrvp:
That whole article was Bull ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.
Pipercub:
In a technical sense they may be right. But the reality is that their product does not suit my desires or needs. If MAME did not exist I would simply have only dedicated machines and no multi-machines. An absence of MAME would never lead me to purchase their products. And clearly because I own dedicated machines that I already have oppertunity to play in MAME, MAME has not stopped my from buying. Of course these machines already gave the manufacturere their profits 20 plus years ago and my buying them doesn't do anything for them. Bottom line is, there is no huge market out there that MAME is denying them. Let them burn all the money they want trying to fight a foe that doesn't exist. MAME users will still have their MAME machines.
And that is what this is all about, trying to make a poor product profitable by preventing alternatives. A good product will sell regardless of emulation alternatives. And under their plan a bad product will always have the phantom excuse of failing because of emulators. Atari came out with the Flashback 1, a crummy product in terms of game quality so I only bought one and only for it's novelty. Having an actual 7800 and several emulators did not influence my decision. Had the Flashback 1's novelty not been valuable to me Iwouldn't have bought it. Then Atari came out with the AWESOME flashback II and delivered on all the promises of making a legacy hardware unit. I already have 2600s, emulators and ALL of those games ROM images. Yet I have bought 10 FB2s (just bought 2 this morning for Xmass gifts) the others were as gifts, being able to always have one NIB, playing etc. But Atari sold me $250 worth of product despite me having the emulators and ROMs because it was a good product.
danny_galaga:
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on December 10, 2005, 10:32:38 am ---A very biased article IMHO. It could have been written by Foley himself.
--- Quote ---Stung into action the MAME developers bit the bullet and took hold of their responsibility, and through last-minute negotiations with UltraCade took over the control of the MAME trademark, a resulting disclaimer removed all ambiguous statements stating clearly that the open-score code can not be used for financial gain and not with illegally acquired ROM's - slamming the door in the face of the MAME based cabinets open to prosecution of illegal representation.
--- End quote ---
I still don't think we're getting the full story here. If the MAME developers weren't threatened in some way by Foley when why did they go to the time, trouble and possible expense of getting the MAME logo trademarked? They weren't distributing the ROMs so they weren't doing anything illegal themselves. Why are they now effectively working for Ultracade? Did Foley use stick, carrot, or a mixture of the two?
--- End quote ---
you're own quote says its so. i thought it was obvious from the article that MAME was coerced into action...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version