In what seemed like a nice nod to classic adventure gamers, Vivendi Universal recently confirmed their release of a number of collections of classic Sierra Adventure Titles including Space Quest and Leisure Suit Larry. They also prominently advertise that these new games will run on Windows XP.

Many assumed this to mean that VU had actively gone back and revisited these classics, reworking code to update them from DOS and allow them to run natively on Windows XP. However, buried in the legal text on any one of the collection pages linked above is the notice: "DosBox © 1989-2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. for more information go to http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1"

DosBox's site is down at the time of this writing, but it seems VU took advantage of the GPL/open-source license, having the difficult job of recoding these old titles done for them for free with an existing freeware emulator they need not even pay licensing fees for. Also, the newer "talkie" games in these collections have been left out, and it's probably no coincidence that they don't currently run in DosBox.

This isn't the first time this has happened.

Over the past two years, Hudson has been releasing NES compilations for Game Boy Advance using a hacked up version of PocketNES, an open source NES emulator for the system. They released sports, action and even Bomberman compilations this way, and the PocketNES guys didn't get ONE IOTA OF CREDIT for their work.

That and the emulator sucks. It's not perfect, it's glitchy, flickers way too much, the sound breaks up, and the gameplay slows down all the time. The emulator wasn't perfect by any means, which is why it was open source, so others could fix up the code. But Hudson didn't even bother to do anything but add the game images and hack up the menus.

I am honestly worried sick about this. Does this mean that companies can now take open source software and package it for use on their commercial programs just like that?

Absolutely. I know nothing about PocketNES, but unless there's something in the license saying that they can't, they're entirely within their rights to tweak and redistribute. Most open-source projects don't have a lot of rules in their licenses, that's part of their appeal. But a lot of them do ask for proper crediting at the very minimum. Which is fine.

I don't see any problems with VU grabbing up DOSBox for use in their compilation. It's obvious that DOSBox is a successful project that's now being used by commercial vendors. But think about it... DOSBox can't play these games unless someone has a copy of the game product: All this is doing is letting people buy a copy of the game. That's great.

Of course if VU really wanted to show their appreciation, they have the source code to all of these games and could probably contribute something valuable into the DOSBox project tree. Failing that, there's always financial compensation... even if it wouldn't be near the same price as VU buying a license for the emulator. Neither is required, but they are nice gestures and the decision belongs to VU.

The DOSBox in the meantime should go get ready to put a "The official emulator of Sierra's Compilation Package" banner on their website, as well as keep track of any other commercial uses of the product.

The author of the PocketNES emulator said that he was fine with Hudson using the emulator for their own means. My problem was that they didn't even bother to fix up the bugs or anything; they just stuck the games in the program, added menus, and boom, they were done.

Sierra is once again doing a half-arsed job with this compilation. They're using open sourced software to run their games; if anything, they should contribute and try to ADD the necessary features to make sure the talky versions work. My guess is that either they didn't because they're lazy (likely) or due to contracts which forbid their programmers to work on open sourced software (like what Microsoft has with some of their workers).

The people in the know will probably try to update the emulator to the latest version. The people outside the know (including most reviewers) will only know about the end product of this package and will evaluate/review that on it's merits. If the mouse cursor flickers near the ice castle and crashes completely outside the Alluminum Mallard... well then that will reflect badly on VU/Sierra who didn't even bother to fix it up.

Sounds like Hudson released a lousy product, I hope it reflects badly on them. It sounds like VU's might be bad too if it's nothing more than DOSBox with a menu system attached. It would have been nice to see the talkies, and maybe folks will blast them for not having them, but what's there might still be nice. You're right that it would be nice if they were actively thinking of how to get the talkies working and improving the entire project... and maybe they'll get shunned at the marketplace for not having them.

At least we'll get some trivia items to attach to these compilations.

Steve Eberly wrote: Also, the newer "talkie" games in these collections have been left out, and it's probably no coincidence that they don't currently run in DosBox. ____________________________________________________

Actually, talkie sierra games run fine in Dosbox. That VU games didn't include those versions is another matter.

___________________

Kitsune Sniper wrote:

That and the emulator sucks. It's not perfect, it's glitchy, flickers way too much, the sound breaks up, and the gameplay slows down all the time. The emulator wasn't perfect by any means, which is why it was open source, so others could fix up the code.

_________________________

The emulator does not suck at all. There may be games like Blood which do not run at full speed but the other games, if taken the proper time and reading to configure, work perfectly. I've already tested it quite extensively and I must say it is one great project. Almost every game plays just as if ran in real dos.

What's more worrying is that VU games didn't take the time to port those sierra classic games properly and are instead relying on other people's work. That's the sad part.

I believe he was referring to PocketNES.

I've always personally had trouble with LSL6 on DosBox, and have heard similar rumblings about other Sierra talkies. LSL6 is listed as "broken" for 0.62 on the DosBox site. But I've also been able to run Blood at full speed. Perhaps it's different for different configurations and systems? Won't that be fun trying to explain to a confused consumer...

Another probable reason for keeping the talkies out is that Larry in particular refers to "all the fun of" etc etc "on one CD." Not even a DVD, or multiple CDs. So if one CD is their target, then what has to go is obvious.

So though I can't complain about the prices (especially when you compare the new ones on Amazon to the older collections' "used" prices), it seems like VU did this entirely because it required no effort on their part. No coding, no marketing, even the cases look like old artwork (I KNOW I've seen that PQ art on a previous pack). Pretty much just print a run of CDs and move on. And "borrowing" a freeware project and dumping the tech support back on them seems awfully inappropriate. What kept them from using Microsoft Virtual PC, for example, or developing their own player similar to ScummVM for LA games, aside from the money.

Keep in mind that 0.62 isn't the newest version. Try using 0.65 and see if it works for you.

Also, looking at the site, I'm seeing it LSL6 listed as fully supported on 0.61, so it should work in other versions as well.

You're correct, I believe 0.65 is the current version. However, 0.62 has the last submitted LSL6 entry in their database, and it's listed as broken. That database is supported by submissions from the users though, and I've seen a lot of "worked for me on this version" "didn't work for me on the same version" notes.

Also, DosBox has been notorious in the past for having games work with one version that then break in the next. As they added on EMS, XMS, different ways of processing, it opened up new games while breaking the way old ones worked (see Under a Killing Moon for one example, if memory serves). But I'm no spokesman for DB, and could just be doing it wrong :P

Chirinea - I was able to find two posts glossing over the subject in their forums. Marko has the same understanding of that I do - that they took DosBox without "permission," but I'm sure VU had an army of lawyers look over the GPL license first, and determine that they didn't need ask.

Would have been nice if VU had clicked on the "donate to this project" link, at least, or maybe give DB some advertising or credit (besides that little legal note)

I was actually referring to PocketNES. I haven't used DOSBox in over a year, so I'm not aware of how well it runs DOS software these days. :)

You said... " What's more worrying is that VU games didn't take the time to port those sierra classic games properly and are instead relying on other people's work. That's the sad part."

That's pretty much what Hudson did with their compilations, and that's what's bugging me.

My guess is that either they didn't because they're lazy (likely) or due to contracts which forbid their programmers to work on open sourced software

My bet would be that all staff members from that era have long since been given pink slips and scattered to the four winds, with all assets and source code ending up in paper shredders and dumpsters. It's not like Activision enhanced Infocom's games when they shoveled them out either -- I'm sure Vivendi understands that the people who are going to buy these are going to do so whether they add any bells and whistles or not... and likely figures that its programmers can do more good pushing into the future than dwelling in the past.

DOSBox's site is online now, but there's no mention of the fact. Could it be that VU did it without asking permition?

It depends on what license they are using. If DOSBox uses GPL, there is no need to ask any permissions. As long as VU is willing to deliver DOSBox to anyone who wants it it's fine. If they make any changes, they also have to deliver the changes.

Of course, in a situation like this, it would be morally right if they donated some money to the project.

There's info at their forum, sorta.

http://vogons.zetafleet.com/viewtopic.php?t=13347

I was planning on get them all (except Kings' Quest), but the closer the release date approached, the less interested I got. It's great for those who only downloaded the game because they missed the original and compilation releases, but want to get a legit version. Still, it looks too cheap, and nothing short of a glorified bootleg CD.

Still on the subject of emulated commercial releases, isn't the Sold Out "Broken Sword Double Pack" stuffed with ScummVM ?

Yes, I pretty much think that was the case.

___________________

Kitsune Sniper wrote:

I was actually referring to PocketNES. I haven't used DOSBox in over a year, so I'm not aware of how well it runs DOS software these days. :)

______________________



I'm sorry, my bad. ;) I think I got carried away because the news item incorrectly stated that dosbox didn't support talkie sierra games.

Dosbox runs great, you won't believe how much it has progressed. I know because I didn't at first.

Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes! I've actually been meaning to get DOSBox for a while since I own dozens of classic DOS games I want to play, and I'm sure they won't work on XP. I have several Star Wars shooters and the Dark Forces series, which I got at the flea market for cheap. :)

And you know, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that the reason that they aren't updating the executables to run in modern computers may be that the source code was lost somehow. We =are= talking about ten to twenty year old software here!

You may be right! I think I recently read in exult's website (the ultima 7 port, allowing u7 to run on modern machines) that the original ultima 7 source code was lost so they had to reverse engineer from scratch. You've touched upon a very interesting issue.

Well, in all resources Sierra/Vivendi has, I'm sure hiring a couple of paid developers for a couple of months to develop an interpreter that runs natively in XP/Vista isn't impossible. I'm almost sure the GBAGI guy would take the opportunity (after offering them his GBA engine for free), for instance.

If they make it, they're obligated to support it too. They have no such obligation for DOSBox 8)