Regular readers of Armchair Arcade know that there is a thriving homebrew development community for classic or orphaned game systems. No such system today has a more active homebrew developer community or consumer support than the venerable Atari 2600 Video Computer System (VCS), which debuted in 1977 and held its own in the mainstream consumer market until the late 1980’s. There are now dozens of homebrew titles for the 2600, with more on the way. A common question is, how do some of these homebrews compare to the commercial games of the past? What follows is a review that answers that question for one such game, Thrust+ Platinum Edition (PE), which has been described as a cross between Atari’s arcade classics Gravitar (1982), Asteroids (1979) and Lunar Lander (1979).

Thrust+ PE is the third revision of Thrust+, originally released in 2000. Thomas Jentzsch, the author, and part of Xype - a loose organization of 2600 homebrew programmers who decided to join together to present high-quality homebrew titles - has steadily provided modifications to that original release. The latest versions are the 2003 cartridge edition, which will be described here, and 2004’s ROM edition, which is the version used for the screenshots.

Those familiar with the Commodore 64 (C-64) Thrust (Firebird, 1985), will immediately recognize that it was the direct inspiration for the first 2600 version. The latest version, Thrust+ PE, goes one step further and incorporates a rendition of Ron Hubbard’s original Thrust music, as interpreted by Paul Slocum on the 2600’s more limited sound hardware. So 2000’s Thrust+ replicated elements of Thrust’s gameplay, 2002’s version, Thrust+ DC Edition, added additional controller support, and Thrust+ PE expanded the sound design, creating the final revision that will likely ever be made available on cartridge.

The Thrust+ PE backstory, found on the manual’s inside cover - which also covers some of the gameplay elements - follows:

The Resistance is about to launch a major offensive against the Intergalactic Empire. In preparation for this, we have captured several battle-grade starships, all we lack are the essential power sources for these formidable craft, Klystron Pods. The Resistance would like to commission you, Captain, to retrieve these pods from the Empire’s stockade planets.

Many of the pods are stored deep under the planet surface and are heavily protected by batteries of “Limpet” guns, powered by a nearby nuclear power plant. By firing shots at the power plant, the guns can be temporarily disabled. The more shots fired at the nuclear reactor, the longer the guns will take to recharge allowing you to slip past their defenses. Warning, should you fire too many shots at the reactor, it will become critical, giving you just ten seconds to clear the planet before it is destroyed. Remember, we need those pods. DO NOT LEAVE THE PLANET WITHOUT ONE. Of course, if you have retrieved the pod and feel like wasting the planet, the Resistance will reward your efforts. Once you have retrieved the pod, proceed directly to low orbit where we will jump you to the next stockade.

Intelligence reports indicate that further into the enemy system, they have engineered planets with REVERSE GRAVITY and something…even more deadly…

When played on a real 2600 system, Thrust+ PE offers four different control options, all with a nod to the hardcore gamer. The first option is to use the standard joystick, which rotates the ship using left/right stick movement, fires using the fire button (or thrusts when the shield is active), thrusts by pushing up, and activates the shield or tractor beam by pushing down. The second option is to use a standard joystick with the BOOSTER-GRIP, a device originally packaged with Omega Race (CBS Electronics, 1983). This allows the BOOSTER-GRIP to fire using the trigger button and thrust using the booster button. The third and most optimal control option, which was the one used for this review, is to use the Driving Controller, which was originally packaged with Indy 500 (Atari, 1977), for ship rotation and optional firing, and the FOOTPEDAL, which fires on the yellow button, thrusts on the red button and activates the shield or tractor beam on the green button. The fourth and final option is to use the FOOTPEDAL as above, but also utilize the joystick via the FOOTPEDAL passthrough connector.

With the controller configuration set, it’s time to begin the game. The first screen is a nicely rendered title screen with energetic opening music. Once fire is pressed, the game begins, with no “grace period.” The player ship is immediately warped into action and the planet’s gravity begins to have an effect. The first order of business is to use short thrusts to keep the ship from crashing into the ground. Seconds after that’s achieved, a green Limpet gun, on the lower right, begins firing. A quick use of the shield - which drains energy - takes care of any shots from the Limpet that get too close. To the lower left is a yellow fuel cell, which can replace lost energy from the use of thrust or shield. In order to acquire fuel, the ship must be directed over a particular spot above the cell to activate the tractor beam, which is the same function as the shield, so using one negates use of the other.

Once drained, the fuel cell goes away. If shot, the fuel cell is destroyed. In this initial level, it’s important to destroy the Limpet gun as quickly as possible, because the goal – capture of the green Klystron pod – is just to the Limpet’s lower right. In lieu of destroying the Limpet with the ship’s gun, the blue nuclear power plant to the far right can be attacked. The more times the power plant is hit, the longer it takes for the Limpet to get back online. If the power plant is hit too many times, however, it goes critical and the ship must escape – with the pod – within 10 seconds, or the planet blows up and the mission fails. The Klystron pod is captured by hovering over a certain spot and activating the tractor beam, which, as with gathering fuel, takes some maneuvering. If the ship is not over the correct spot, as before, the shield is activated instead.

Additional levels follow the same basic theme, albeit adding more Limpets to contend with and twisty underground caverns to navigate. Other level additions include switches that need to be shot to activate doors, reverse gravity and other surprises, such as the one hinted at in the manual, with “a reward at the end…but only if you’ve completed enough missions!”

There are five game variations and three difficulty levels which affect certain in-game factors, such as the force of gravity and the ship’s rate of fire. There are eight total levels, or planets, but only six – either 1 – 6 or 3 – 8, are available based on the variation chosen.

The graphics are extremely well-done, with no flicker, and are reminiscent of vector graphics, but in a “chunkier” style. Perhaps even more surprising, the visuals compare favorably to Thrust on the C-64. Thoughtful visual touches abound, such as the smoke that rises from a working nuclear power plant, until after it takes a few hits and the smoke is no more. The scrolling of the playfield is also well-done and apparently utilizes a new technique invented by the author just for the game.

The music was discussed earlier, and again compares favorably to the C-64’s Thrust. There is no in-level background music, which is actually preferable with a game such as this that requires so much concentration.

The sound effects are minimal, but every action is accompanied by an effective sound. This effectiveness carries over from the ship’s thrust all the way to the countdown to a planet’s destruction.

I mentioned earlier that the optimal controller configuration is the one that uses the Driving Controller and FOOTPEDAL. Unlike the other methods of control, the Driving Controller allows the ship to freely rotate 360 degrees, which takes both hands, particularly if that controller is also used for firing. The FOOTPEDAL then allows the player’s feet to control the rest of the action, creating a very unique and fun setup. In fact, this setup makes an otherwise single player game into something of a party game.

When I first tried Thrust+ PE and attached the Driving Controller and FOOTPEDAL and started the game, I had two other people with me—my sister and wife. My sister, a non-gamer, took control of the red thrust foot button. My wife, who rarely plays games, took control of the green shield and tractor beam foot button. I used the Driving Controller to steer the ship and fire. At first, it was a challenge coordinating all of our actions, but after a while, a natural rhythm formed and we started having success. Each player had an important function and was dependent upon the other for the single ship’s survival. It was at times frustrating, but the game has this indomitable “just one more try” vibe to it that only the very best arcade-style games have. We played for hours, taking turns at each of the controls, laughing up a storm, shouting at the screen and each other, having a great time; again, with two people that are fairly typical non-gamers.

More recently, a childhood friend - who I hadn’t seen in about 10 years - came over for a visit. Of course it was a great opportunity to play videogames like we used to. Out of the huge collection of classic and new videogame and computer software that I have, the most fun we had and the most played was – you guessed it – Thrust+ Platinum. I worked the FOOTPEDAL better than he did and he “drove” better than I did, so we had our tasks set before us, and, just like in the old days, we did our best to beat this game together. Unfortunately, we didn’t get all the way through, but of course there were several “just one more try” play sessions.

Besides the audio-visual elements, production values and unique control scheme that can make friendly cooperation an unexpected gameplay element, the way the game “feels” is just right. I want to stop short of calling it physics because that has negative connotations to some in regards to modern gameplay, but nevertheless, the gravity feels sufficiently “heavy,” the ship’s thrust must be handled carefully because of momentum, and “hooking” the Klystron pod and trying to fly with it has an effect on your thrust and inertia, often acting like a pendulum at the bottom of your ship if you don’t maneuver carefully with it attached. This almost real-world environmental reaction is certainly a big element of what seems to make the game enjoyable for so many different people. Add that to literally pixel perfect collision detection - meaning if you crash into something you know it’s your fault - and you have a nearly faultless game experience.

The Thrust+ Platinum 2600 cartridge is presently available from the AtariAge store for a reasonable $35.00 (US), which includes a full color box and manual. For an extra $10.00 (US), you can bundle the FOOTPEDAL, which can be used with any game on any system that uses standard Atari-style controllers, such as the C-64. The FOOTPEDAL is also available by itself for $15.00 (US). Generously, the game is also available as a free ROM download for use in your favorite 2600 emulator. Without the use of one or more Stelladaptor’s on your compatible computer and the right peripherals, you’ll have less of an “authentic” controller experience, but the game is still highly enjoyable using just a keyboard.

Thrust+ Platinum Edition
Advantages – Because homebrew games such as this cater to hardcore consumers, interesting controller options can be and are supported. This is a classic Atari 2600 game that deserves to be placed near the top of any all-time “best of” listing. Can be purchased as a cartridge or freely used in an emulator.
Disadvantages – The most interesting control options will be difficult for many to pull together.
Overall – Must Have (5 out of 5 stars)

Guide to Game Rankings:

Good Deal Games (GDG) is a hard Website to classify. In fact, at first glance it can be rather overwhelming. GDG offers new games for sale for classic videogame systems, an online store featuring items that cater to orphaned consoles, articles, news, classified ads, an audio feed, online games and so much more, like helping hobbyist developers publish their creations. In short, GDG is a great destination for any classic gaming fan. Much of the site’s diversity can be directly attributed to GDG’s founder and president, Michael Thomasson, whose gaming involvement goes far beyond collecting. What follows is a partial listing of Michael’s background and accomplishments:

• Owner, Web designer and content director for GDG
• Teaches many classes for Canisius College in Buffalo, New York. These are mostly graphic-oriented courses like design and animation, but also teaches "The History of Videogames"
• Owns all kind of unusual gaming items and just about every game ever made for the systems in his personal collection
• Sponsor of Classic Gaming Expo (CGE), JagFest, Mid-Atlantic Game Festival, Philly Classic, Oklahoma Gaming Exhibition, Midwest Classic, The Videogame Summit, East Coast Gaming Expo and more
• Column in Manci Games, a print classic gaming magazine and price guide



• Syndicated Knight-Ridder ResN8 newspaper videogame journalist
• Book cover designer for Phoenix: The Fall and Rise of Videogames 4th Ed.
• Book cover designer for ABC to the VCS 2nd Ed.
• Pixel and cover artist for Songbird Productions, an Atari Lynx and Jaguar game developer and publisher
• Artist and cover designer for Classic Gamer Magazine (issues 2 - 7)
• Station Manager of WGDG Videogame Radio
• Committee member and contributor to the CinciClassic Videogame Expo
• Beta tester and cover designer for Classic Game Creations’ Gravitrex (Vectrex)
• Cover artist for Ralph Baer’s (“Father of Videogames”) autobiography
• Logo designer and artist for Syzygy Magazine, which is focused on the coin-operated and console video beat
• Cover Designer for Classic Game Creations’ Vectopia! (Vectrex)
• Founding member of BETA (Beta EPROM Testing Association) Club
• Volunteer for Bluegrass Electronics Center, a service organization
• CES Software Analyst for “Video Supreme” chain stores

What follows is a partial listing of new games published through GDG for select classic and orphaned systems:

Sega CD
• Citizen X
• Star Strike
• Bug Blasters: The Exterminators
• Marko
• Battle Frenzy

GCE Vectrex
Vec Sports Boxing

Philips CD-i
• Jack Sprite vs. the Crimson Ghost
• Go
• PlunderBall
• Space Ranger

Coleco ColecoVision
• Cosmo Fighter 2
• Cosmo Fighter 3
• ColecoVision Game Pack #1

At this point, we would like to welcome Michael Thomasson to Armchair Arcade…

Bill Loguidice from Armchair Arcade (AA): Can you tell us a little about your “The History of Videogames” course at Canisius College?
Michael Thomasson (MT): I taught this course for Canisius College in Buffalo, New York, for the first time last summer. I had previously been instructing animation and design courses for the college, and many students were asking the department for videogame content to be offered. The course deals with all the classic systems and covers material up to and including the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). Canisius' facilities are top notch, and there is something truly remarkable about playing classic games on large projection screens larger than life. The "blips" of the 1970's and 1980's boom through modern day state-of-the-art sound systems and the Atari 2600's video pixel size is bigger than a human head!

AA: Can you tell us a little about your 3D animation profession? Surely between Good Deal Games, Canisius College, your full-time job and other types of freelance pursuits, you must find it a challenge to actually PLAY games while still having time for family and other pursuits?
MT: I actually retired from professional 3D animation just over a year ago when I relocated to Buffalo, New York. I do still do some freelance work. I currently teach for Canisius and manage a “GameStop” store, as I missed my old retail days with the seven games stores that I used to operate in Kentucky and Indiana known as “Let's Play” and “L.A. Videogames.” Personally, I am way behind on my game playing. I purchase games at a much faster rate than I can actually play them. I have a giant pile of Sega CD and Sega Saturn role-playing games that will take an enormous amount of time to catch up on... *sigh*

AA: I think purchasing more games than you can play is a common “complaint” among collectors, and as one myself, I’ll agree with that sigh.

You gave me a list of your “classic gaming involvement”, which I’ll include in the article. Is there anything on there you’d like to elaborate on?
MT: At one time last year, I had a classic gaming television show in the works with IBC Digital with some help from Tommy Tallarico of G4techTV's Judgment Day and Electric Playground, but it fell through the cracks and has yet (if it ever will) to debut.

I am now a regular columnist for Manci Games, writing a coin-op (arcade-related) article each month for my column known as "Just 4 Qix." I'm also working on a feature story for issue three of Manci Games.

Good Deal Games also just released two new classic gaming products known as the Arcade Ambiance series (audio CD), with a 1986 volume in the works and more to come.

Back in March we went to Philly Classic 5 where we premiered Arcade Ambiance, autographed the premiere issue of Manci Games and showed off Ralph Baer’s original Brown Box (prototype for the first pong games)!

AA: Do you have your personal collection published anywhere for our readers to browse?
MT: Well, I do not have my personal collection listed anywhere, as I do not have a full and comprehensive list for myself. I certainly need to accomplish this, as often I come across a game or item that I'm not sure that I already own or not. Fortunately, I always make it a point to grab such items. If I find out that I already have the object, it simply becomes one more item up for sale or trade on the Good Deal Games Website.

I can state that I own the vast majority of games released on cartridge format, and most CD-based games. This encompasses videogame systems and not computer software, of which I have very little. I am a console player primarily.

AA: You mention you're a console game collector and player primarily, as opposed to computers. Can you tell us a little of your reasoning behind this, in particular what attracts you to one format over another?
MT: Well, it is primarily a reason of personal preference, I suppose. While I was very active in the early computer scene having access to a Commodore Pet, Commodore VIC-20, TRS-80, Atari 400, Texas Instruments 99/4A and others, I always seemed to have more fun with the console machines. This is perhaps because I prefer a joystick to a keyboard, or sitting on the couch instead of on a chair in front of a computer. Playing with a friend was always enjoyable side-by-side instead of fighting for space behind a computer desk. Simple as that, really.

AA: Anything you’d like to talk about in your personal collection?
MT: I do have some unique items, such as a leather jacket from Don Bluth Studios that was worn by the team during the production of Dragon's Lair and Space Ace; hand-painted art cels from the early 1980's Donkey Kong Jr. cereal commercials; Coke Wins for the Atari 2600; Aussie Rules Footy for the NES; promotional items such as a Sega Saturn Nights jester cap; and dozens of unreleased game prototypes such as a Tiger Game.com prototype for Command and Conquer, Sega Saturn Capcom titles like Werewolf and Major Damage, Sega CD Penn & Teller and many more. I even have the last copy of one game that was ordered to be destroyed by a court order and is so secretive that I cannot even mention the title...spooky!

AA: When did you start collecting?
MT: My collection started with my love for the ColecoVision. As a young teen I was obsessed with owning the entire ColecoVision library. My childhood friend, David Lewis, used to type up a silly little ColecoVision checklist on his mother's IBM Selectric typewriter for the task. A few years later I was old enough to drive, noticed girls and the ColecoVision was lowered on the priority scale. When Sega released the Sega Genesis, I sold the ColecoVision lot for a steal to get money to purchase the Genesis. I was then hooked on games again! I immediately started seriously collecting all the games I loved as a child and also games and systems that I had never previously owned to experience older games for the first time—better late than never!

AA: Can you tell us a little about how GDG came about?
MT: Well, I used to work as a consultant for a small video rental store called “Video Supreme.” I volunteered my time in exchange for passes to the Consumer Electronics Shows (CES), which was the place where new games and hardware premiered before E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) came about. It was held in the summers in Chicago, and was open only to those in the industry, so such an opportunity was very appealing to me. This store was the first and only rental store that I have heard that carried ColecoVision games for rental as well as purchase. The game rental business didn’t really take off until years later when the NES was introduced by Nintendo. I later operated a chain of videogame stores in the early 1990’s called “Let's Play” and “L.A. Videogames.” I met a great deal of fantastic people during this period and became friends with many of them. When I left the chain and entered into computer animation, I was constantly being contacted by old associates about trying to locate a certain game or two for them, since they knew that I had an extensive personal collection and many contacts. It became so time consuming and tiresome that I decided to teach myself Website programming with a copy of HTML for Dummies and placed my trade items online, which was just really starting to take off. The idea was to let others know what I had for trade, so that my phone would stop ringing so much. It was meant to save time, but instead it grew into Good Deal Games and now takes more time than ever!

AA: What do you see as the future of GDG?
MT: The future is never predictable, so I will not even speculate. I've been asked this question many times before and answered it, only to be proven wrong in time. Perhaps I'll answer with SNK's old slogan, "Bigger, Badder, Better!"

AA: It was great meeting you at Philly Classic 5 and purchasing some of your unique products, like Marko for the Sega CD. Certainly you’ve published some intriguing titles for systems like the Sega CD, Vectrex, Philips CD-I and ColecoVision; do you see this as something you’ll stick with? I understand publishing these games has not been as lucrative as some might think. Can you give your thoughts on why that might be?
MT: The real task is locating lost and unpublished games, obtaining the licensing rights to them, and getting them on the shelves. We've published every game that we can to date, regardless of the title or possible success. Our goal is first and foremost preservation. If we kept these games in our personal collections, then only I would be able to play them. Sure, I could sell some of these one-of-a-kind prototype games for huge sums of money, but the public would miss their opportunity to play them again, as most collectors would hoard them to keep their value high. If I were smart and profit-minded, this would be the thing to do. However, I operate GDG for the love of the hobby.

As a matter of fact, most of our retro-published titles have lost money after paying for licensing, royalties, printing costs, production and other expenses. However, when someone orders one of our titles, they often add another game from which we do profit a bit from, and that income goes to fund the next project. To further back up this claim, no one at GDG has ever taken a single penny from the organization. All income is used to operate the Website and release new classic gaming related products. Why are there not other companies doing what we are doing? Well, most organizations are in business to gain profit and not to actually lose money. For instance, two of our Sega CD games cost well over $70,000 to develop. Our best selling title has sold over 400 copies. At $19.99 each that is only $7,600, which is just the gross income. Again, it doesn't include any operating, licensing, production, manufacturing or other costs. Who would be crazy enough to do this but fans and hobbyists!

AA: If you plan on continuing this route, what types of new games for old systems are you most looking forward to or do you think would have the greatest chance at success? Or, to put it another way, what type of game, if anything specific, do you think would be most “accepted” by the typical classic gaming consumer?
MT: We do plan on releasing more titles in the future. However, it is getting harder and harder to locate lost titles as time goes by and formats change. At some point, the "well of unpublished games" will simply dry up.

We also create new games for classic systems, but this is very time consuming and few individuals have the skills to develop a new game. If anyone reading this has a game that they have finished, Good Deal Games would be happy to fund your project and get it out to those that would appreciate your time and work.

Sure, there is demand for games for certain platforms, but there are also obstacles. For instance, we wanted to release some Sega Saturn games, but their proprietary discs contain an information "ring" that is not available on modern day CD-ROM discs and cannot be duplicated. We have licensed two 3DO games for release, but they will only play on development units and we have yet to break the encryption. Fortunately, we have a record of releasing games for which there is not heavy consumer demand. There is a reason why we are the only Sega CD publisher left on the planet. Do you think that there are people screaming for new Philips CD-i titles to play? Absolutely not! Again, these actions are for the love of the hobby and definitely not for profit.

AA: I’ve personally noticed a fairly recent trend in England with a large influx of mainstream magazines (Edge Retro, Retro Gamer Magazine, etc.) and television specials covering classic gaming and computers. Certainly the US has a large classic gaming community (Internet, live events like Philly Classic and CGE) and potential market, but we’ve still not quite seen the same mainstream penetration as England has enjoyed. Considering what you teach, your involvement through Good Deal Games and other related interests, do you think the US market is quite ready, or will it EVER be ready, for a newsstand magazine and regular history programs? In other words, how much bigger do you think things can get in the US?
MT: Well, I was the cover artist and contributor to Classic Gaming Magazine a few years ago, and although the magazine was of high quality both visually and in written content, the magazine folded after just over a half a dozen issues. I was also involved with Syzygy Magazine, which unfortunately only lasted three issues.

I currently have my own column in the new classic gaming magazine and monthly price guide entitled Manci Games. If you’re reading this interview and love your hobby, then I encourage that you subscribe and not only promote the magazine, but get a healthy dose of classic gaming goodness in the process. Such magazines keep cropping up, so there is obviously demand. I believe that the inclusion of the price-guide will help promote the hobby to that of a more collectable status. Although you can't go to a K-Mart and purchase a classic system, there are still hundreds of millions of classic game playing machines in homes, which is a much larger number than Sony has PlayStation 2 units in homes, or ever will. So, is the market untapped? Definitely!

AA: I'm sure our readers would be very interested in how you get some of these previously unreleased games to market. Can you tell us a bit of the high-level process in finding previously unreleased games, procuring rights to these games if possible, the decision to manufacture, decision about when to publish (timing), etc.?
MT: Unreleased games have populated my collection through several sources over the years. I often attended trade shows such as the CES and E3 over the years, and in the process obtained many test or review copies of upcoming games.

Sometimes these games were never released for one reason or another, and I'm left with the game in hand. In some cases, an employee leaves a company and takes copies of their work with them. Years later they come across them and contact us stating that they would like for someone to be able to play their game that was never published. In these cases, we contact the developer and see if we can obtain the rights to license and release the title.

In the case of releasing Star Strike and Bug Blasters: The Exterminators, when we contacted the original developer to license the games, we received a response something like, "We'd be interested, but we do not have the original files preserved to allow such a project to happen." It is at this time that already owning a copy of the unreleased games is an incredible advantage. Companies change, and during the course of such changes, cancelled projects are not always backed up as they should be. Others incorrectly assume that the work is properly preserved, computers and systems change, and company priorities change, so it is amazing how much work is lost over time.

I find it very interesting that GDG actually supplied the games to the original developer almost a decade later. We also licensed a third game from Stargate Films, entitled Wing Nuts. Unfortunately, a copy of the game has yet to be located, so until it is we obviously can't release it. So, if anyone reading this has a demonstration or test copy of Wing Nuts for the Sega CD or 3DO, please contact us!

Since such games are not common, we release the games when we can tie up the loose ends. The nice thing about publishing classic games is that there is really no rush to get them to the market, as they just become more classic over time. We do what we do for the love of the hobby. As stated, contrary to what some may believe, there is not a huge demand for such releases and publishing for less popular systems of the past such as the Sega CD and Philips CD-i is done first and foremost for the pleasure and not for financial gain.

AA: With the previous question in mind, can you relate the same process to how you handle homebrew or 100% original titles?
MT: Homebrew games are much easier to publish, but require more work upfront. Obviously, when Good Deal Games releases a new original game, an unpublished game is not found, it is created...from scratch. This takes a great deal of time, not just in the engineering and programming, but also in the development of actually designing the game. Designing games for older consoles is a task that many programmers are unfamiliar with. For instance, they have to learn to program in a very limited and finite amount of space. 2K of memory is an absolutely tiny amount of room to work within, especially with the huge amount of data current modern-day programmers are accustomed to having at their disposal. It is difficult to find a programmer that can work within such constraints.

There are also technical issues, such as hardware limitations. When an Atari 2600 game is being developed, the programmer must realize that the console itself can only speak to the television through certain processes. You have limited numbers of sprites, and only so many sprites can occupy certain horizontal rows. The programmer has to synchronize the screen refresh rate with that of the television, or else the results are not even legible. There are dozens of specifics that could be mentioned, but the truth is that such programming is very difficult. The good news is that now much of such information is documented and toolkits have been designed, so now game design for these classic systems are actually easier than they were during their original reign on the home market. If you go to the GDG Website through the following link, one can download a complete development suite for the ColecoVision. We chose to share these tools to help promote such development and hopefully offer the ability for those that may be interested in an opportunity to create a new title. If anyone reading this takes the time to use the tools, and they successfully make a game, Good Deal Games will gladly help you publish your title.

AA: With your stated console preference in mind, will GDG ever get into computer game publishing? I know I'd be interested in getting some re-released or even new computer software for systems like the C-64, Apple II and Atari 8-bit as an example...
MT: We have not yet published a computer title, but perhaps in time. It is certainly a much easier process to copy a file to a diskette than manufacturing new cartridges. Our sister company, Older Games (OG), has published a new text (Interactive Fiction) game titled Weird World for the Commodore 64 which we carry and promote.

AA: Actually, I was initially made aware of Weird World through Lik-Sang when it was first released, so it's fascinating that there's an association. What can you tell me about Older Games, in particular your and GDG's relationship to them? For instance what does it mean to be "GDG's Prime Minister To OlderGames?"
MT: The Older Games crew attended the GDG booth at CGE years ago, and was impressed with what we had accomplished. They were big CD-i fans and decided to form their own company, and we have since co-published several titles together. We help them out a lot, and they help us. Our mission of preservation is the same, so it is a natural fit. With OG on the West Coast in California and us on the East Coast in New York, it helps us serve classic gaming fans more efficiently.

Author’s final notes: I would like to thank Michael for taking the time to participate in such an in-depth and fascinating interview for us. We encourage everyone to check out the Good Deal Games Website.

Perhaps the single most popular type of game in the history of PC gaming is the First Person Shooter (FPS). A First Person Shooter is a game that takes place from a first person perspective, essentially putting the player in the shoes of the character. The player rarely sees the character being played; the player sees exactly as his or her character sees. Universally known for an emphasis on multiplayer network combat, First Person Shooters were some of the first types of games to be played on the Internet. Most people will acknowledge that Id Software’s Doom (1993) started the First Person Shooter craze, others point to Id’s Wolfenstein 3D (1992). For me, there were two games released around the same time that practically guaranteed the domination of First Person Shooters: 3D Realms’ Duke Nukem 3D and Id’s Quake, both released in 1996. It was during this time that the mouselook control scheme was invented, which would soon become the standard control scheme for just about every PC game. Eventually First Person Shooters would dominate PC gaming. New games like Half Life (Valve, 1998), Quake 2 (Id Software, 1997), and Unreal (Epic, 1998) continued to push the graphical envelope, and, being the most popular games around, were often used as benchmarks for the latest three-dimensional (3D) graphics cards. Adventure games and other genres would soon sink into obscurity, while others like Real Time Strategy (RTS) games and Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG) would eventually provide some competition for First Person Shooters, but overall, FPS games took over.

Now, enter 2004. First Person Shooters are still some of the most popular PC games. Out of Amazon.com’s top ten best-selling PC games, four (a majority) are First Person Shooters. There have been some variations on the popular FPS formula (as accentuated by the success of Doom and Quake), such as having vehicles in games like Starsiege Tribes (Dynamix, 1998) and Battlefield 1942 (Digital Illusions, 2002), and games that attempt to simulate World War II combat like Medal of Honor (DreamWorks Interactive, 1999), Call of Duty (Infinity Ward, 2003), and Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Gray Matter Studios, 2001). Further, two heavily hyped FPS games are expected to release this year: Id Software’s Doom 3, and Valve’s Half Life 2.

Various perspectives from

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)

©1998 Nintendo

Many gamers like me have expressed their discontent about the current state of PC Gaming and the dominance of the First Person Shooter. Many of us have switched to consoles to get our gaming fix. This is because unlike PC games, one would be hard pressed to find a single genre that dominates console games. In addition, many console games tend to take place from a variety of perspectives, the most successful games utilizing multiple perspectives as needed. This can be best typified by Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998) for the Nintendo 64. In this game, the player navigates dungeons with the camera behind the character, fences with enemies in a rotating perspective, plays a musical instrument with the camera looking at the front of the character and occasionally switches to first person perspective to look around or aim a precision weapon such as the slingshot.

When I share my sentiment concerning First Person Shooters with most hardcore PC gamers, I am met with a variety of analogies. The most prominent analogy is that having a lot of First Person Shooters today is no different than when we had a lot of two-dimensional (2D) platform games in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By platform game, I define it as a game in which the player controls a character that moves from one obstacle to the next, usually by running or jumping.

I don't find it to be the case that the FPS dominance of today is anything like the 2D platform craze of yesterday. In fact, I find a fundamental flaw with all First Person Shooters that I feel constrains the gameplay to an overly simplistic process of repeatedly dodging and shooting.

One of the primary flaws of the first person perspective can be illustrated by using the classic platform fighting game, Technos’ Double Dragon (1988) for the NES, as an example. In Double Dragon, the character gained more and more abilities as the player progressed (a hair-pull kick, a spinning kick, and an uppercut). Naturally, most of the fun of the game was being able to see a variety of these attacks being performed. However, in a first person perspective, this same game concept is difficult to accomplish. It would be disorienting (and perhaps nauseating) if the player's viewpoint spun around while performing a spinning kick. Instead of changing the game's perspective and allowing some interesting attacks, most FPS game programmers don't even bother, limiting one’s movement only to the simplest running and shooting. In fact, most FPS shooters that do include melee combat do so in the form of a one-two punch, the Double Dragon equivalent of hitting the B button twice. Imagine if Double Dragon was programmed like this, limiting one’s moves only to the most basic attacks. Sure, the game had a variety of weapons, but without the repertoire of attacks, I'd imagine the game would be pretty dull.

Megaman X2 (SNES)

©1994 Capcom

Super Metroid (SNES)

©1994 Nintendo

Contra III: The Alien Wars (SNES)

©1992 Konami

Bionic Commando (NES)

©1988 Capcom

Take these four examples of platform games. In order to easily contrast these to First Person Shooters, I've chosen to include platform games that involve heavy shooting. These images are from Megaman X2, Super Metroid, Contra 3, and Bionic Commando. The scene from Megaman X2 involves X riding a futuristic motorcycle while dodging and shooting enemies. In Super Metroid, Samus is using the Speed Boots to run extremely fast and break through walls. In Contra 3, we see Mad Dog hanging from a rail while shooting. Finally, in Bionic Commando, we see the character dodging an enemy by using his bionic arm to swing from a lamppost. Although all of these games are based on shooting, they play vastly different. Megaman and Metroid share some similar elements, but the former is more action based and the latter more exploration based. Contra is a pure action shooting platformer, but contains some scenes that would be difficult to pull off in a First Person Shooter, as is obvious from the picture. Bionic Commando wouldn't easily fall into the jump-and-shoot category since it is impossible to jump in Bionic Commando.

One could say that the main problem with First Person Shooters is focus. In a First Person Shooter, the player can only focus on one thing at a time, namely a target. First Person Shooters are limited in the sense that the player cannot creatively interact with the environment and shoot at the same time. In a 2D third person perspective platformer, the player can see everything that is going on. If an enemy is running towards the player from behind, one can often do a back flip over the enemy’s head and shoot the enemy in the back. Such an action is impossible in modern First Person Shooters. It's a shame too, because it's darn fun to watch.

The limitations of a first person perspective are even more obvious when considering a successful 2D platform to first person translation. The game I speak of, of course, is Nintendo’s Metroid Prime (2002) for the Nintendo Gamecube. In order to successfully translate the traditional 2D adventure platformer elements of Metroid, many aspects of the game were sacrificed. Samus' signature "Screw Attack" (a flipping attack) was removed, along with the Speed Boots. In Super Metroid, there was a wall jump that allowed Samus to scale even the steepest chasms with ease. Sadly, it was necessary to remove this ability in Metroid Prime as well.

This is not to say that Metroid Prime is not a good game. It's a fantastic experience that aside from its limitations, admittedly felt like a Metroid game. My point is simply that something is lost when a game is translated into a first person perspective. Whether it's hanging from the side of a cliff, holding on with one hand and shooting at what's behind the player (Contra 3), or rolling around like a ball (Metroid), the capability in the first person is lost. The only way to keep these capabilities is to temporarily switch away from first person. There have been several games that have done this, including LucasArts’ Jedi Knight (PC, 1997) and the aforementioned Metroid Prime. Unfortunately, the majority of First Person Shooters either do not include a third person view, or include it only as a novelty that adds nothing to the gameplay experience.

Call of Duty (PC)

©2003 Infinity Ward

Return to Castle Wolfenstein (PC)

©2001 Gray Matter Studios

Battlefield 1942 (PC)

©2002 Digital Illusions

Look at some of these First Person Shooters. These screenshots are from Call of Duty, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Battlefield 1942, all for the PC. Keep in mind each one of these was a commercially successful game. Yes, I'm aware that Battlefield 1942 is a hybrid game that is centered on using different vehicles in combat, but the player does spend a lot of time on foot, so I include it here. It can be argued that each game has subtle differences in gameplay, but the screenshots make it obvious that all the games have the same basic play mechanics. In these games, a player usually has access to an assortment of guns and usually one melee weapon. Often this means a knife, a pistol, a rifle, some grenades, a machine gun, a bazooka, a sniper rifle, and some sort of gimmick weapon. It is uncommon to have more than one weapon of the same type. The player usually moves with the W, A, S, D keyboard keys and aims and shoots with the mouse. Most games also have jump, crouch and crawl commands that can be used to dodge enemy fire. In a single-player mode, one sneaks around, avoiding or killing guards, while attempting to find some item or get through the area to complete a level. In multiplayer mode, there are almost always several gameplay types -- the big ones are team play, deathmatch (a free-for-all), and capture the flag. The standardization of controls, basic play mechanics, and game modes are part of the reason why most First Person Shooters play alike.

Some advocates of the first person perspective say that it's better to look through a character's eyes than look at the back of a person because it adds to the reality—the player is the character. I don't find this to be the case. Although first person games attempt to simulate being the character, most ignore things like peripheral vision and equilibrium. In real life, one can see out of the corner of one's eye, and usually sense when someone is sneaking up on them. In addition, in most of these games, limbs and body parts are not visible (except for the hand holding a weapon). If the player is climbing a ladder, hands are not visible; if the player looks down, one doesn’t see the tip of one’s nose, or one’s feet. Essentially, the reality of the game is lost when it is impossible to see the player’s own feet–creating the illusion that the player is nothing more than a floating head with a hand holding a gun.

Do platform games have a lot in common? Sure. Earlier in this article I cited examples of platform games, and reflected on the diversity of games within the sub genre of shooting platform games alone; however, shooting isn't the only sub genre of platform games. There are street fighting games, like Double Dragon. There are also games where one can kill enemies by hopping on their heads (Nintendo’s Super Mario Bros. (NES, 1985), Hudson’s Bonk’s Adventure (TurboGrafx-16, 1990), Sega’s Sonic the Hedgehog (Sega Genesis, 1990)). There are games that grant the player a sword or whip and have one gain abilities and fight off monsters RPG style (Konami’s Castlevania II: Simon’s Quest (NES, 1988), Nintendo’s Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (NES, 1988)). Most notably, at the time that platform games were at their prime, there were a variety of other popular types of games. There were games that took place from an overhead view (Hudson’s Bomberman (NES, 1985), Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda (NES, 1987)), others that gave the player an isometric view (CSG Imagesoft’s Solstice (NES, 1990), Rare Ltd’s Snake, Rattle and Roll (Sega Genesis, NES, 1990)), games that provided a third person 3D view (Square’s Rad Racer (NES, 1987), Sega’s Space Harrier (Arcade, 1985) and Nintendo's Pilotwings (SNES, 1990)), and even some that used a first person perspective (Kemco’s Shadowgate (Various, 1989) and Déjà Vu (Various, 1988)).

Essentially, when the two are put in context, having many platform games is nothing like having lots of FPS games today. It's time for a new genre of games on the PC that provide a legitimate alternative to First Person Shooters. If not, the little that's left of the PC gaming crowd will eventually seek alternatives, perhaps on other systems. There are graphics cards capable of displaying millions of polygons, adding unbelievable detail to environments, and the only games out there that take advantage of this power are First Person Shooters. It's time for change. It's time to experiment with different perspectives and try some new game ideas, or reinvent some old ones. The market is ripe for originality right now, and some publisher has to take a risk or the market will shrivel up.

The history of videogame controllers is a pretty dull affair. We truly haven’t come very far since the first videogame controller—a simple device rigged up by the Spacewar! team to spare them elbow pain while playing the first videogame, which ran on a giant mainframe computer. Though many early games used paddles or trackball controllers, the winning majority of pre-NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) games favored joysticks, while the majority of post-NES games favored game pads. Modern joysticks and game pads offer various degrees of analog and digital circuitry with very precise control. Still, one wonders about the future of videogame controllers. Have we reached a plateau, or are more intriguing possibilities on the horizon? What we are concerned with here is a peculiar strain of what seems to be a very promising type of controller: An electronic glove that detects hand movements. Conceivably, such a device would allow players a stunning degree of control over their avatars.

Mattel's Power Glove.

Picture from Bill Loguidice

Mattel's Power Glove.

Picture from Bill Loguidice

In 1989, the Mattel toy company unveiled a new product for the Nintendo Entertainment System—the infamous Power Glove. I say “infamous” because the Glove did not live up to most young player’s expectations, especially those who had seen The Wizard, a movie starring Fred Savage that glorified Nintendo and suggested that the Power Glove had serious virtual reality capabilities. The film’s antagonist uses the Power Glove to play a flawless game of Rad Racer. Most kids were under the false impression that their Power Gloves would offer them unprecedented control over their videogames, too. In fact, the Power Glove lived a very short life on the NES, and remains a fairly obscure device in videogame history¹, though it still serves an important role in a few modern low-budget virtual reality applications.

The Power Glove is able to detect finger motion and “wrist roll” via a simple ultra-sonic detection system. The glove emits sounds (inaudible to humans) that are detected by a unit that wraps around the outside of the television. One problem is that the detection system’s "microphones" are of inferior quality, and a significant amount of distortion results. Players found that controlling games like Ninja Gaiden was more difficult with the Power Glove than with the standard NES controller. Another problem is that Nintendo’s original Entertainment System is not technologically sophisticated enough to handle the three-dimensional environments that could truly take advantage of a device like the Power Glove, despite Mattel's intriguing attempt with Super Glove Ball, a type of handball simulation that was the only game to specifically utilize the Glove's features. Needless to say, players were never able to achieve the fantastic effects shown in The Wizard, and Mattel eventually abandoned the product.

The P5 Glove.

Photo courtesy of MadDog Matt

Over a decade later, a new company with roots in the creation of the original Power Glove, is trying out a new version of the technology. That company is Essential Reality. Essential Reality has made some broad claims about the potential applications of its new P5 Glove:

Brandish a mighty sword in a video game, walk through an online room, or pick up objects on screen - with the power of P5, not in, but on your hands, you can fully harness the potential of today's lifelike 3D and virtual gaming environments like never before.

The P5 Glove does not work with audio signals like Mattel’s Power Glove, nor is it intended for a humble videogame console like the NES. Instead, it tracks the finger movements with an optical system—infrared signals rather than sound waves. It offers six degrees of tracking—x, y, z, yaw, pitch, and roll. The device is designed to be compatible with the Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh operating systems. Essential Reality has prepared some impressive demos that show players using the P5 to navigate first-person shooter games. The device has also appeared on Tech TV and The History Channel—snippets are included with the demos on Essential Reality’s homepage. Unfortunately, game development for the P5 is lagging, though some companies are offering custom patches for the P5, including Lionheart Studios’ popular God-sim Black and White, which seems an especially fitting choice.

What are the problems with the P5? Well, as anyone can imagine after watching the demonstrations or actually using the NES Power Glove, holding one’s hand up in front of the sensor can get quite tiring after an extended period of time. Another problem is that the P5 and other low-end virtual reality devices cannot convey the sensation of touch to the player. How can such a device determine that one is trying to pick up an apple from a table rather than smash or knock it off? If game makers really wanted to allow players to experience grasping a sword, they will need a more sophisticated (and expensive) device than the P5. These facts may make the P5 unacceptable for long-term PC use, but the potential for arcade games - considering that the average arcade game lasts from three to five minutes per play - could be an exciting new offering for those operators desperately searching for ways to draw visitors.

Visitors to modern videogame arcades - at least those familiar with the arcades of the 1980's - are often struck by the number of novelty games and electro-mechanical machines occupying spaces formerly shared by a string of Ms. Pac-Man or Donkey Kong machines. Almost all modern arcade machines feature an elaborate cabinet with an expensive control system; the idea seems to be that arcade machines should offer an experience that cannot easily be duplicated by today’s powerful videogame consoles. Modern videogame arcades are stuffed with networked racing simulators complete with steering wheels, pedals, and gear shifts; shooting games sporting pistols and rifles with vibration and recoil; pinball machines; fire-fighting simulators with virtual fire hoses, and, of course, those omnipresent Dance Dance Revolution dancing games. As a result, many see today's arcade as more amusement park than game center.

What is the P5’s real potential? It’s hard to say. If the goal is immersing the player in a more corporeal gaming experience, the answer is probably not much. There are and have been many other devices that arguably detect hand and body movement more accurately than any VR glove. Some are Konami’s arcade Para-Para Paradise, Police 911, and Mocap Boxing, as well as Sony’s home PlayStation 2 Eye Toy. These games and devices often rely on a camera’s detection of movement rather than sound or infrared triangulation. While the P5 is certainly a chic new controller, and sure to make a splash at gaming parties, most reviewers seem to value it more for its novelty than its possible utility.

Other Power Glove and P5 Resources:
Glove Files. Some (dated) articles and materials related to Mattel's Power Glove.

A review of the P5 glove by Ala Shiban.

NOTES

¹Broderbund released another strange controller for the NES called the UForce. The UForce promised to be a "hands-free" controller. The only review I could find for this device was not kind.

1. The Innovations and Aggravations of New Technology

Recognize this old game?

The New Galaga

2004 Buck Feris

Let us begin this rather ambitious article by proposing that someone finally gets around to inventing a nifty Star Trek gadget: The replicator. We’ve all watched as Jean-Luc Picard approaches this device and calls up his favorite beverage: a cup of steaming Earl Grey. We can assume that this replicating device works by rearranging subatomic particles to form whatever objects one cares to copy, be it a beverage or a diamond—other science fiction accounts for such devices with references to nanotechnology, or incredibly tiny, self-replicating machines. In short, this machine has the rather amazing (or alarming) effect of eliminating scarcity. If we can assume for a moment that the replicator runs on very little fuel, we can realize why there is no money or exchange in Star Trek: With an increase in supply comes a decrease in demand. If everyone owned a personal replicator, we could not become wealthy by cloning billions of diamonds and tons of gold nuggets. The worth of those diamonds and nuggets would diminish proportionately to the number of them we brought into existence. Thus, in a world where everyone owned a replicator, no object at all, including other replicators, would have any intrinsic monetary value. Even works of art like the Mona Lisa would fall in value as atom-perfect clones appeared that were utterly indistinguishable by even the finest scientific equipment. Walter Benjamin, a celebrated 20th century philosopher, argued that the "aura" of artworks will fade away once industrial technology permits the rapid, accurate mechanical reproduction of such works. The point I'm making is that at the very moment “replicating” technology becomes freely available for all objects, capitalism becomes feasible only with direct legal intervention. The only method by which capitalism could be preserved in the face of replicators would be to impose strict and utterly arbitrary legislation to prevent people from “illegal” replication of legally protected objects. There would be no practical reason to impose such legislation; it would be intended only to protect those people fortunate enough to be legally entitled to monopolies over certain pieces of “intellectual property.”

Now, of course we don’t need anyone to point out that the science of Star Trek is about as realistic as the notion that human beings will eventually stop arguing with each other and decide, once and for all, to “just get along.” Clearly, any one of the inventions of Star Trek, be it the replicator, the transporter beam, or the holodeck, would be in themselves enough to transform our current society into something far less conceivable than the pleasant Star Trek fantasy. It is more likely that any one of these inventions would spark a horrible world (or perhaps intergalactic) war that would plunge humankind back thousands, if not millions, of years. The current heads of multinational corporations would take an invention like the replicator about as kindly as the Church took Galileo’s telescope, which helped destroy a significant portion of the Church’s authority. Kings do not lie idly by as the serfs run away with the keys to the kingdom. If there is one lesson we can learn from history, it’s that our leaders, whether kings, presidents, dictators, or CEO's, are perfectly willing to block any technological progress that threatens their dominion¹.

However, we need not concern ourselves with such upheavals, nor declare ourselves proletariats on the edge of a Marxist revolution quite yet. Science hasn’t even figured out how to make a decent electric razor, much the less technology as startling at the replicator. A good question is whether or not our government would allow such technology in the first place. How fair is the simple and rather cynical observation that the forces of multinational corporations fight any innovation that threatens their precious financial infrastructures, progress be damned? Let’s not get this point confused with rumors, like the gas industry’s battle to keep the hundred mile per gallon carburetor off the market. Instead, let’s borrow a page from the constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig, from whose work Free Culture I derive my own stance on this subject. His story of RCA’s mission to stifle FM radio technology ought to arouse the anger of any patriotic technophile.

According to Lessig, Edwin Armstrong invented FM radio in 1933 (or, at least that’s when he registered the patents). As anyone knows who has ever compared FM to AM radio, the aural clarity of FM is unquestionably superior. However, despite its enormous potential for the evolution of radio, Armstrong’s invention would not reach the masses until well after his patents expired (patents last for twenty years). The reason for this slow progress was not any problems inherent in the technology, but rather the legal retardation imposed by RCA—Armstrong’s company. David Sarnoff, the president of RCA, realized very quickly that FM radio would destroy RCA’s profitable AM radio network. Through a series of devious dealings and political shenanigans, RCA triumphed and Armstrong took a shortcut from a thirteenth floor window.

Okay. We’ve gone over some examples of how big business leaders squash technological developments that threaten to bounce them from their gravy train. We’d be somewhat hypocritical, I think, to claim that there is something evil about the simple desire to protect our financial interests; as a teacher, I’d be fairly upset if someone announced the invention of a “learning device” that transferred knowledge to students’ brains by osmosis and rendered human teachers obsolete. However, at some point we have to realize that such technological developments are ultimately good, not bad, and if they force us to reconfigure our lifestyles and learn new ways to make a living, so be it. The alternative is simply stagnation; yes, let’s be sure that there are plenty of old computer programmers who would have been quite happy if they had never had to learn another programming language after Cobol, but becoming a Luddite is not a wise or truly justifiable choice. A cure for cancer may put a lot of chemotherapists out of business, but we don't need to conduct a quick poll to see how many people will take their side.

2. Derivative Software and Copyright

Our discussion so far has been leading, quite predictably, I would think, to that rather nasty problem that has dogged the software market since Bill Gates secretly bought the rights to a product called QDOS for a cool $50,000 from a company called Seattle Computer Products. He then turned around and licensed the product to IBM² and eventually other personal computer manufacturers—in short, that $50,000 investment led to one of the world’s biggest personal fortunes. The richest man in software history began his career not with creativity, but with cunning, a trait he has demonstrated on many occasions with other software products. Gates’ pattern, according to his more scathing critics, is simply to buy, borrow, or steal radical software innovations (like the Windows graphical-user interface from Apple, who took it from Xerox Parc), aggressively market them, stifle competition, and protect, at all costs, his “intellectual property rights.” Gates, in short, represents what a clever and ruthless businessperson can accomplish in a new and vigorous creative market. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that Gates and Microsoft have done a good thing by allowing a standard to develop. An easy analogy to make here is to AC plugs and outlets; European tourists are quite familiar with the hassle involved in seeking “adapters” for each electrical appliance. Often enough, a standard encourages innovation, even if it is inferior to many other possibilities. The problem begins when the standard is “protected.” What if every maker of an electrical appliance had to acquire an expensive license to make a standard plug? It’s not such a well-known fact that early phone companies tried to keep hotels from allowing guests to use the phone in their rooms; they wished to grant access only to paying subscribers³. Phone companies also tried to force consumers to rent an expensive protective coupler that supposedly protected the telephone network from dangerous third-party phone equipment, such as telephones made by other companies. Of course we see this same fight happening today with computer operating systems and the third-party applications that are allowed to run on them, or companies like Nintendo trying to block third-party development on their systems with special chips or technology built into every one of their consoles.

A history of videogames, just as a history of any software “type” or “genre,” will reveal an open-source origin and a legacy of “borrowers” and “derivers” hoping to capitalize on what was originally free, whether through buying up copyrights or creating enhanced commercial versions. With an increase in the size of a software corporation comes a decrease in the level of innovation one finds there, until finally, in 2004, gamers are confronted at the videogame store with hordes of cloned videogames and programmers are threatened at the courtroom by battalions of lawyers frantically protecting someone’s “intellectual property.” The protection that intellectual property law affords software developers is possible only by seizing the rights of the users of that software, even those who legitimately purchase it. As corporate lawyers, CEOs, and investors further entrench themselves in the software market, gamers and programmers will fin