Forums > Game Forums > Doom > Doom95
Rola (8483) on 1/18/2013 2:24 PM · Permalink · Report
I wanted to submit stuff for Doom95 (Windows port), but I'm somewhat confused. Did it include 4th episode? (thus making it Ultimate Doom) The version I bought does, but it comes from DOOM Collector's Edition so I'm not certain if 1996 release did.
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/18/2013 4:13 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
When I want to check something Doom related, I usually go to the Doom wiki.
I never used Doom95, but my understanding is that this port is based on the latest official version of the code, and as such should include support for the fourth episode, much like any other source port of the game.
Here's what the Doom wiki has to say about Doom95:
Doom95 works with Doom, Ultimate Doom, Doom II and Final Doom. It also has cheat codes that are exclusive to it, such as the ability to kill all of the monsters in a level. Several additional command line parameters were also implemented into it.
There's more info about the port, including some interesting historical facts, but I guess this answers your question. BTW, also IIRC Doom95 is available as a shareware download too.
As a side note, one big disadvantage of Doom95 is that it doesn't address the aspect ratio issue properly, unlike other source ports of the game.
For release details, you can look up the following wiki entries:
Timeline
Versions of Doom and Doom II
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/18/2013 4:20 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, the only commercial release the wiki mentions to include Doom95 is The Ultimate Doom Trilogy: Collectors Edition:
The games come with the Doom95 executable. The original DOS executables are not included in the game pack.
Havoc Crow (29859) on 1/29/2013 12:57 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--]
When I want to check something Doom related, I usually go to the Doom wiki.
[/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--] It might be worth pointing out that most of the community has moved off Wikia to doomwiki.org
leilei (343) on 1/19/2013 3:49 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Doom95 shouldn't be a game entry.
I do know the Id Anthology included Doom95 with Ultimate Doom, Doom II and Final Doom, which would make it October 1996. However Doom95 was also available electronically with the shareware Doom as well (doom95.zip) and was also available earlier in late 1995.
There is a later Ultimate Doom retail release (96ish) that included Doom95 iirc. There is also a similar Doom II Doom95 rerelease in the same year.
The not-ultimate registered 3-episode version of Doom was too early to get its own Doom95 release as Ultimate Doom already replaced it by May '95, so the Doom95 commercial release would be applicable to Ultimate Doom only.
However, don't forget that Ultimate Doom was available in patch form for registered Doom players. They could update to Ultimate 1.9 and then "upgrade" to Doom95 via the shareware doom95.zip package.
The "aspect ratio" issue is irrelevant as Doom was made for 4:3. The real problem of Doom95 is its stupid implementation of mouse control.;)
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/19/2013 1:52 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start leileilol wrote--]However, don't forget that Ultimate Doom was available in patch form for registered Doom players. They could update to Ultimate 1.9 and then "upgrade" to Doom95 via the shareware doom95.zip package. [/Q --end leileilol wrote--] So there was a patch that would add the fourth episode for no cost for vanilla Doom owners? Like the Shadow of the Serpent Riders upgrade for Heretic?
Rola (8483) on 1/19/2013 4:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Yes. I'm surprised noone submitted this as trivia - so I did it for our "Ultimate..." entry, but I guess I repeat this here.
If Windows port was also shareware (I didn't realize that file @ Doom Wiki is shareware Doom95), then Doom95 info belongs here, not under "Ultimate...".
Wikipedia & Doom Wiki say 20 August 1996, filestamps from that shareware package are also 1996, any proof on 1995 release? I read it was first packed with Final Doom (1996).
leilei (343) on 1/20/2013 1:01 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]any proof on 1995 release? [/Q --end Rola wrote--] It's fairly obscure nowadays. There's an earlier Doom95 version on this 1995 disc (lacks the frontend launcher it was known for, and other functionality (multiplayer)) I recall this 1995 version redistributed on Gamehead or Gamesdomain before the June 96 version replaced it.
The Doom 1.9 to Ultimate Doom 1.9 patch is 19_udpat.exe found in idgames/idstuff/doom
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/21/2013 8:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]If Windows port was also shareware (I didn't realize that file @ Doom Wiki is shareware Doom95), then Doom95 info belongs here, not under "Ultimate...". [/Q --end Rola wrote--] My understanding is that technically speaking, the port itself is freeware. It's just that it works with the shareware IWAD as well as with the registered IWADs. I suppose that downloading that shareware file was originally supposed to be the primary means of obtaining the Win95 version for DOS or Mac version owners, while the inclusion of Doom95 in some re-releases and compilation packs was a secondary thing.
After all, Microsoft wanted to promote its OS by making the port, right?
Also, what about the other ports? Are you going to document them too?
dalin liny on 1/27/2013 7:04 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm also surprised none submitted this as trivia.
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/27/2013 7:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Does Boom or MBF count as "official"? Final Doom, for which TeamTNT created TNT: Evilution, was an official release after all.
But you're right, my question was actually the opposite: is Doom95 an "official" release? It wasn't created by id Software. Sure, it was included in some compilations, but compilations aren't in the same "weight category" as stand-alone, original releases of games.
I also think, although I can't be sure, that some of the community-made ports was used for porting Doom to some handheld console or iPhone or whatever. But I'm not sure about it.
leilei (343) on 1/28/2013 4:04 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--]Does Boom or MBF count as "official"? [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--] No. Just because it's also another product by Team TNT doesn't mean it is published officially. Mobygames does not need to start listing unofficial source ports. .
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--] But you're right, my question was actually the opposite: is Doom95 an "official" release? It wasn't created by id Software. [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--]
Yes. It's created by who later became WildTangent under license from id Software. They later did the Hexen95 port with the same code, and unlike Doom95, THAT was only available commercially through either the 1996 Hexen rerelease or that compilation release.
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/28/2013 1:59 PM · Permalink · Report
While I'm in no way inclined to propagate addition of various third-party content to the database, I'm still a bit confused about how exactly official releases - if they are not created by the "parent" company of the original product that is - are identified.
id Software provided the license for the creation of Doom95, and in that it is official. However, the public release of the source code was also made under a license, and every other source port is thus "licensed", however it's not counted as official, right? Then, is the difference in the license itself - in the case of Doom95, it was some exclusive license given to a certain entity/group of developers, while in all other cases the license is of the "anyone can do whatever they want with this" (I'm simplifying things here) type. Is that the only difference, or does something else come into consideration?
I'm sorry if I'm asking dumb questions here, but I'd really like to know the proper criteria for distinguishing official stuff from something else. I'm asking because intuitively I do agree that the Microsoft port is "more" official than, say, MBF or any other port like that, even if someone from id Software like John Romero were to say that MBF (or any other third-party port) is the best port on a particular platform or make some other statement along these lines. However, I'd like to know some explicit criteria that can be verified.
Rola (8483) on 1/28/2013 2:33 PM · Permalink · Report
This isn't an answer to your question, I just wanted to remind that you can add info about those unofficial source ports/remakes ("Brutal Doom" sounds interesting) in our trivia section (not sure if their websites would get accepted in the links section). Same applies to hacked ports (like those Hungarian C64 to C16 conversions or various Russian Spectrum stuff).
And yes, I'm leaning to admit that Doom95 was just a trick to increase Win95 popularity ("hey, it's also a gaming platform").
leilei (343) on 1/28/2013 2:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Source ports based on the original Doom Source license and later the GPL v2 != licensed by id software. The source code wasn't even released when Doom95 came to be.
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--]However, I'd like to know some explicit criteria that can be verified. [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--]
If it's not in idstuff/, then it's not official. Consoles exempt.
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/29/2013 6:31 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start leileilol wrote--]If it's not in idstuff/, then it's not official. Consoles exempt. [/Q --end leileilol wrote--] BTW leilei (sorry if I'm hijacking this thread a bit), what about the alpha and beta versions of Doom? I think I've read somewhere that they were officially released into public with id Software's consent (I think the Wiki mentions that too), but the relevant files are not present on their FTP, only in the idgames' mirrors historic section. Are those official or not after all?
Rola (8483) on 1/29/2013 7:09 PM · Permalink · Report
Weren't they made public long after the game's success? and subsequent source code release? These are just unfinished versions of the final product, so I wouldn't list them separately, only as trivia.
Compare: "Farmville" or "War Metal: Tyrant" had beta tag for months, while they operated normally.
MrFlibble (18234) on 2/2/2013 8:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]Weren't they made public long after the game's success? and subsequent source code release? These are just unfinished versions of the final product, so I wouldn't list them separately, only as trivia. [/Q --end Rola wrote--] My question was not about adding the pre-release versions as separate entries to the database (or even, adding them as trivia or anything), it was a question about the official status of these files as such - id Software supposedly gave a go to their public release, but I don't know about any official documents proving that. The alpha and beta files are not on the id Software FTP, hence the question.
Rola (8483) on 2/2/2013 8:26 PM · Permalink · Report
Maybe you should send a PM to one of our fellow MobyGames users? ;)
MrFlibble (18234) on 2/3/2013 4:09 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]Maybe you should send a PM to one of our fellow MobyGames users? ;) [/Q --end Rola wrote--] Hehe, I didn't know that, cool ^_^ Maybe I should really drop a PM. Then again, the alphas and the preview beta are on John Romero's website under Lee Killough's archived pages, which suggests that there's at least an "official" personal blessing from him.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/28/2013 2:52 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--]id Software provided the license for the creation of Doom95, and in that it is official. However, the public release of the source code was also made under a license, and every other source port is thus "licensed", however it's not counted as official, right? Then, is the difference in the license itself - in the case of Doom95, it was some exclusive license given to a certain entity/group of developers, while in all other cases the license is of the "anyone can do whatever they want with this" (I'm simplifying things here) type. Is that the only difference, or does something else come into consideration?
I'm sorry if I'm asking dumb questions here, but I'd really like to know the proper criteria for distinguishing official stuff from something else. I'm asking because intuitively I do agree that the Microsoft port is "more" official than, say, MBF or any other port like that, even if someone from id Software like John Romero were to say that MBF (or any other third-party port) is the best port on a particular platform or make some other statement along these lines. However, I'd like to know some explicit criteria that can be verified. [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--] Yours truly to the rescue.
There is no distinction between official and licensed at least not in a legal sense, except that for a licensed title there's an additional procedure: dude who own the intellectual property gives permission to another dude.
If dude who owns intellectual property suddenly becomes a left wing liberal and makes the license open-source for example, technically derivative products are still licensed (read=given permission) and to be considered as licensed products.
Though note, there usually needs a public announcement of sorts is a seemingly formal official capacity for a license contract to be applicable. Mumbling something online doesn't really count and the limitations of its legal enforceability is debatable.
<hr />However, MG uses the layman's interpretation of an official product: any product made by dude who owns it is the only official product, disregarding for example, open-source license relation.
MrFlibble (18234) on 1/28/2013 4:27 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]However, MG uses the layman's interpretation of an official product: any product made by dude who owns it is the only official product, disregarding for example, open-source license relation. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--] Well yeah, I thought so, but if this definition is followed strictly, then Doom95 is not official, since it wasn't made by id Software, right?
I guess maybe the license included with the Doom95 shareware package might clarify things.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/28/2013 5:12 PM · Permalink · Report
While this isn't the only criterion, a bit one is that officially licensed materials are often legitimate enough to have turned up on store shelves in boxes. Not just in Hong Kong!