Little bugs in the database 2

[StooB]

@druellan What do you think?

I'm not keen of removing information, but perhaps we can remove EA from the publisher list, and add a note like "Electronic Arts was advertised as distributor for Dinamic's UK release.".

There definitely needs to be a note added if only to explain why some of the downloads have "Electronic Arts" in the filename. Perhaps "UK distribution by Electronic Arts" might be more succinct.

✓ Reviewed

[druellan]

Done! Also added a note about USD distributing After the War and Grand Prix Master.
Thanks StooB!

✓ Reviewed

[druellan]

The English release should be added as Re-release #1 and the IBSA re-release should be moved down to Re-release #2.

Also, Spain release price should be 875 ptas.

✓ reviewed

[druellan]

The Master
was published by Antartic, the only Spectrum release on Artic's budget label and the price should be £1.99, not £5.99

Perhaps we might also add Software Projects and Mastertronics in the re-releases? Based on the inlays they have the copyright, but also their names are visible on the loading screen and inside the game itself.

Edit: nevermind, there is some clarification on the notes:

Advertised by Software Projects in late 1984. The game was never released by Software Projects but Artic did release it as a budget game in 1986.
Version 1.35 is the Software Projects Ltd version, which uses padlock protection.
Version 2.0M is a work-in-progress version, set for publication by Bug-Byte Software Ltd.
Version 3.0 was to be published by Mastertronic Ltd.

[StooB]

Terrorpods

release year should be 1988 rather than 1989 - there are two magazine reviews from August 88 and one from January 1989

Xenon

release year should be 1989 rather than 1988 - six magazine reviews ranging from February to April 1989. There is a C&VG review from March 1988 but this is for the Amiga/ST versions.

✓ reviewed

[StooB]

Sinclair User "Soft Centre" Pull Out

This is a supplement that came with Sinclair User #24 1984/3, but the links aren't going to the correct pages at archive.org.

For example, Space Station Zebra currently shows two Sinclair User reviews:

Sinclair User #24 - 1984/3 page 13 - which links to page 13 of the main magazine, which is wrong
and
Sinclair User #24 - 1984/3 page 913 - which tries to link to page 913 of the main magazine at
SinclairUser/Issue024/SinclairUser/Issue024/Pages/SinclairUser02400913.jpg which doesn't exist

The correct page in the supplement is at

SinclairUser/Issue024/Supplement/SinclairUser024Supplement13.jpg

This also affects issue 27 and issue 30.

✓ reviewed

[Ralf]

According to this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1635

Glug Glug:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=2062

is inspired by a Japanese game called "Kaitei Takara Sagash"

✓ reviewed

[druellan]

There is an interesting piece of trivia on MobyGames about Trashman

"Most of the streets in the game are named after real streets in Bath where the game's designer, Malcolm Evans, lived. An exception is Montague Road which is in Saltford, a small village close to Bath."

✓ reviewed

[djnzx48]

Quadrax is another game that's marked as turn-based multiplayer, when it's actually simultaneous.

✓ reviewed

[Ralf]

Quadrax is another game that's marked as turn-based multiplayer, when it's actually simultaneous.

You inspired me to check Ghost Hunters:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=9350

And yes, we hit the same problem again. It can be played by two people but it's simultaneous and not turn based.

✓ reviewed

[Einar Saukas]

Sinclair User "Soft Centre" Pull Out

This is a supplement that came with Sinclair User #24 1984/3, but the links aren't going to the correct pages at archive.org.

For example, Space Station Zebra currently shows two Sinclair User reviews:

Sinclair User #24 - 1984/3 page 13 - which links to page 13 of the main magazine, which is wrong
and
Sinclair User #24 - 1984/3 page 913 - which tries to link to page 913 of the main magazine at
SinclairUser/Issue024/SinclairUser/Issue024/Pages/SinclairUser02400913.jpg which doesn't exist

The correct page in the supplement is at

SinclairUser/Issue024/Supplement/SinclairUser024Supplement13.jpg

This also affects issue 27 and issue 30.

It also affects other magazines, such as ACE (see https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=2688) and C&VG (see https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.php?cat=96&id=237).

Most magazine references in ZXDB were imported from Martijn's WoS, that didn't have proper fields to distinguish between multiple (weekly) magazine issues released in the same month, or distinguish between regular pages and supplements. I have been fixing these magazine references recently, but we have over 172,000 magazine references so it's going to take a while

[druellan]

Terrorpods
release year should be 1988 rather than 1989 - there are two magazine reviews from August 88 and one from January 1989

Confirmed. There are Spanish magazines reviews from 1988.

Xenon
release year should be 1989 rather than 1988 - six magazine reviews ranging from February to April 1989. There is a C&VG review from March 1988 but this is for the Amiga/ST versions.

There is a copyright 1988 on the inlay and also inside the game, but confirmed there are no reviews from that year for the ZX Spectrum version.

✓ Reviewed

[Juan F. Ramirez]

There is a copyright 1988 on the inlay and also inside the game, but confirmed there are no reviews from that year of the ZX Spectrum version.

This made me think: what does the copyright year mean?

Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?

[StooB]

This made me think: what does the copyright year mean?

Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?

Copyright begins at the time of creation.

It's only because software was produced so quickly that the copyright year and release year tend to be the same, compared to books where there it could take years for something to be published.

[druellan]

Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?

Copyright begins at the time of creation.

Pretty sure when WOS started, copyright year and publication year (release year) was the same. I'm starting to think if worth to have a copyright holder and copyright year somewhere, there are plenty of titles published by a subsidiary, while the copyright is owned by the parent company.

[StooB]

Pretty sure when WOS started, copyright year and publication year (release year) was the same. I'm starting to think if worth to have a copyright holder and copyright year somewhere, there are plenty of titles published by a subsidiary, while the copyright is owned by the parent company.

When the release year and copyright year are different it usually just means that the development was started late in one year but not finished until the next which isn't really very interesting!

Where there is a non-trivial difference - for example The Bobby Yazz Show which was released on a cover tape three years later than its copyright date, or titles that re-used older code like Pac-Man or World Cup Carnival - those reasons are already explained in the comments.

[StooB]

One for [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention] here:

Is it correct that titles that were first released on compilations or on cover tapes have an entry in the releases table?

examples:
Blob The Cop which was only released on the Sinclair User #83 cover tape
- it is listed as an "Original Release" published by Sinclair User, 1989
- and also appears on the compilation "Sinclair User issue 83: Megatape 12" published by Sinclair User, 1989

Great Gurianos first released on the Trio compilation from Hit-Pak, and later as a budget release from Encore
- listed as an "Original Release" published by Hit-Pak, 1987
- and also appears on the compilation "Trio" published by Hit-Pak, 1987

Aren't "releases" supposed to be for titles that had a standalone release? It doesn't seem consistent when titles that were re-released on a cover tape or compilation don't have a "release".

✓ Reviewed

[StooB]

Flashpoint

This was advertised by Ocean in 1987 but not actually released until 1989 on a Your Sinclair cover tape.

So:
Original Release Year should be 1989
Original Publisher should be "Your Sinclair (UK)"
Original Price of £7.95 should be removed.
The release by Ocean in 1987 at £7.95 should also be removed.

and a comment like "Originally advertised by Ocean for release in 1987." should be added.

✓ reviewed

[druellan]

When the release year and copyright year are different it usually just means that the development was started late in one year but not finished until the next which isn't really very interesting!

I was thinking more towards the copyright information itself, not only the year, but just an idea.

[djnzx48]

From here: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1662

Stereoscopic Television and Electronic Holograms refer to the same thing and should be merged.

✓ reviewed

[Juan F. Ramirez]

One for @Einar Saukas here:

Is it correct that titles that were first released on compilations or on cover tapes have an entry in the releases table?

I prefer the current criteria, IMO.

In this case, as it was first released in a compilation, it should be considered as first release, the year in the game entry is the year of the first release.

Otherwise it can be confusing.

Just the entry should be very clear at indicating this 'anormality'

[StooB]

In this case, as it was first released in a compilation, it should be considered as first release, the year in the game entry is the year of the first release.

Otherwise it can be confusing.

Just the entry should be very clear at indicating this 'anormality'

It's already confusing - it looks like the games were released individually and also appeared on a compilation/covertape. Especially on Great Gurianos where the "original" release has been given a price of £2.99.

[StooB]

Battle Ships

Original release year should be 1987 rather than 1988 as it's on the Best of Elite Volume 2, released in 1987.
Original publisher should be Hit-Pak (UK), not Encore.
Original publication should be "As part of a compilation".
Original price of £7.95 should be removed.

Comment of
"Originally advertised to be released in 1987 on the Elite full-price label, but issued the next year on the Encore budget label instead, after receiving unfavorable reviews."
should be changed to :
"Originally advertised to be released in 1987 on the Elite full-price label, but released on the Best of Elite Volume 2 compilation instead, after receiving unfavourable reviews."

✓ Reviewed

[StooB]

The Best of Elite Volume 2

The SPOT comment of "[Bomb Jack 2 + Ghosts 'n' Goblins + Paperboy + Space Harrier]" should be removed as Space Harrier was replaced by Battle Ships on the final release.

A comment of "Original advertisments featured Space Harrier instead of Battle Ships" might be added.
(https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/mag.php ... 524&page=2)

✓ reviewed

[StooB]

The Elite Collection

Release year is 1987, not 1988 - all magazine references are from January 1988 (which would have been published in 1987), and they all suggest buying it for Christmas.

✓ reviewed