Search options (Page 24 of 48)

It depends on the playback driver, of course, but in short: it definitely is.

My additional chip vote goes to YM2413

I don't belive you for a second! Machines with buttons certainly still have an edge over touch screen/accelerometer devices when it comes to ergonomics. I don't think anyone would happily replace their keyboard with a device they had to look at to use.

As for really old computers, as custom chips and old components die out I think people will come up with transparent replacements, whether they are drop-in chip replacements or replace whole motherboards with some FPGA chip.

I've been toying with the thought that at some point, all our knowledge of some old computers will mostly be based on slightly inaccurate emulators, which means that over a long period of time our ideas of what they were might change a lot. Especially machines that haven't been treated as well as the C64 when it comes to emulation. Many emulators already allow you to set up configurations that would have been impossible on the original machines. WinUAE and recent "classic" amiga software development springs to mind. In WinUAE, you can set the CPU emulation (and chipram and the blitter!) up to be as fast as the host computer can muster. A lot of new software (and whole OS distributions) take advantage of this to the point that they are useless even on the fastest real Amiga accelerators. Mplayer for 68k Amigas? Exists. Amigas that can run it? None, unless you like slideshows. Retro revisionism!

I don't think there is. However, a change in the structure of the 2.0 licenses (where public performance/reproduction aren't actually defined, but covered under the same point under Restrictions) and the 3.0 licenses (where there is a clear distinction between public performance and reproduction in the definitions section) could mean that they are atomizing further.

Either way, the 3.0 license is easy to adapt to this type of case. It's just a matter of removing a few words.

I'm sorry, I can't take anything called "witchhouse" seriously. Seconding ant666. What about it?

"Almost certainly" surely won't cut it if you want to strike a deal with anyone with even a just tiny bit of dignity. If you don't like the risk of paying up front, there's the option to offer a small part of what you might earn as royalties. Just ask yourself who'll be running at a loss if you aren't, and then try to figure out what kind of desperate artist would pick up on this kind of deal.

From what I can tell from this thread, you don't have any real plans for the game and you probably don't have the ambition to make something really good out of it. Now, I'm being quite blunt, and I don't know if I'm right, but my point is that to get an artist interested you have to offer something in return, even if it's a freeware project and can't pay for whatever reason. I think a few decent artists would happily offer free help for a freeware game if you had a promising idea or some cool looking screenshots. Get your shit together, then talk business

If you aren't offering artists any money (in case you decide to go for a commercial game release), you could at least give some more detailed information about the game. I think that the offer, and the way you put it, will at best attract a bunch of mediocre artists interested in the publicity opportunity, and you could end up with a haphazard and disjointed collection of bad music. In the end I think it's better if you do it yourself after all, or pay someone good to do a coherent soundtrack.

I sincerely agree with this 100%!