Yes, John got his +D in 1993 so that's when that format was made available by Zenobi across the board.
Little bugs in the database 2
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Hi, sorry for going back into this, I don't want to make mistakes. Based on the files listed on the downloads sections, are this changes correct?8BitAG wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:22 pm Microfair Madness
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=6682
was re-released by Zenobi in 1993
Note: only the 128K version was re-released. Not the separate and distinct 48K version.
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).mgt.zip -- 1995 -> 1993, based on the previous report
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, 128k version
MicrofairMadness(different)(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- bogus image
MicrofairMadnessPart1(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
MicrofairMadnessPart2(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
Thanks!
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Only to happy to clarify anything.druellan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:49 pm Hi, sorry for going back into this, I don't want to make mistakes. Based on the files listed on the downloads sections, are this changes correct?
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).mgt.zip -- 1995 -> 1993, based on the previous report
MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, 128k version
MicrofairMadness(different)(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- bogus image
MicrofairMadnessPart1(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
MicrofairMadnessPart2(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
Yes.MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).mgt.zip -- 1995 -> 1993, based on the previous report
Yes.MicrofairMadness(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, 128k version
Yes. I'm still not sure what this is or where it came from!MicrofairMadness(different)(ZenobiSoftware).tzx.zip -- bogus image
Yes, I presume they are snapshots from the Zenobi edition... there's no way of actually telling.MicrofairMadnessPart1(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
MicrofairMadnessPart2(ZenobiSoftware).z80.zip -- 1991 -> 1993, snap of the 128k version
However... the one labelled part two is actually a snapshot of part three of the game.
It's been an ongoing saga to get the second part of the game correctly referenced in the database... I gave up trying to do so on WOS!
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
I can see that the release date is also 1983, based on the inlay:Frankie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:54 am https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=14836
Needs to be changed from: Skatteberegning
to: Skatteberegning 1983
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Hi! We are discussing what to do about this one. We don't want to remove EA, even as distributor we believe they are part of the game history and worth preserving. The problem here is that the information is not accurate or displayed on a improper way: visually looks like EA is a co-publisher, not the distributor. But until we fix that, I think it is better to keep EA on the entry.StooB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:49 pm It's very clear on the UK adverts for Game Over 2 and Navy Moves that Electronic Arts are the distributor, not the publisher. Electronic Arts were the distributors for several publishers, most notoriously CRL, and EA don't get a publisher credit on those titles.
So, since you mentioned CRL and other labels also distributed by EA, I was wondering if worth the task to add EA also on those. Perhaps we can find a compromise. I'm going to open another thread to discuss this more in deep.
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
The reasoning for Navy Moves is that, in this particular case, it seems EA was not just a retailer/reseller for this game. The fact that EA name was included in adverts and/or inlays suggests that EA was more directly involved in the actual release of the game.druellan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:49 pmHi! We are discussing what to do about this one. We don't want to remove EA, even as distributor we believe they are part of the game history and worth preserving. The problem here is that the information is not accurate or displayed on a improper way: visually looks like EA is a co-publisher, not the distributor. But until we fix that, I think it is better to keep EA on the entry.StooB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:49 pm It's very clear on the UK adverts for Game Over 2 and Navy Moves that Electronic Arts are the distributor, not the publisher. Electronic Arts were the distributors for several publishers, most notoriously CRL, and EA don't get a publisher credit on those titles.
So, since you mentioned CRL and other labels also distributed by EA, I was wondering if worth the task to add EA also on those. Perhaps we can find a compromise. I'm going to open another thread to discuss this more in deep.
For the record, when you see 2 (or more) company names listed as publisher for the same release, it means the game was "co-published" together by them. Perhaps both companies shared all publishing responsabilities. Or perhaps they divided responsabilities, with one company more involved in production and another in distribution for instance.
IMHO it would be weird for us to omit the name of a company that was credited in the original game material. Perhaps we should draw the line as follows: if the original release considered worthwhile to credit the distributor together in the publishing credits, then we should also list it as co-publisher.
Now regarding Game Over 2, I think we should apply the same logic, updating re-release #1 to indicate this specific release was co-published by both Dinamic and EA together (instead of just EA).
Makes sense?
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Actually, the only place Electronic Arts are credited is on the advert - there is no mention of them on the box, in the instruction manual or on the tapes themselves. Even the barcode is Dinamic's 413460 (which is the same on Dinamic titles that are not EA distributed), rather than Electronic Arts (015839).Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:52 pm Perhaps we should draw the line as follows: if the original release considered worthwhile to credit the distributor together in the publishing credits, then we should also list it as co-publisher.
The instructions are in French, Italian, German and English so I think that the same product was sold in all four countries with EA just being the UK distributor. Here's a French advert showing Ubisoft as distributor:
http://www.atarimania.com/pubs/hi_res/a ... over-2.jpg
The CRL titles distributed by EA only seem to be identifiable by a "Distributed by Electronic Arts" sticker on the inlay. They aren't mentioned on the adverts at all.
- Einar Saukas
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
OK, I'm convinced! Now I think it makes more sense to only credit Dinamic for this re-release.
[mention]druellan[/mention] What do you think?
[mention]druellan[/mention] What do you think?
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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.".
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Oh, Mummy: https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=3494
The Sinclair research re-release is part of a compilation for the Spectrum +2, so the re-release year should be 1986. Also the two Sinclair downloads are from that compilation (again, 1986).
The Sinclair research re-release is part of a compilation for the Spectrum +2, so the re-release year should be 1986. Also the two Sinclair downloads are from that compilation (again, 1986).
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Done! Also added a note about USD distributing After the War and Grand Prix Master.
Thanks StooB!
Thanks StooB!
✓ Reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Also, Spain release price should be 875 ptas.The English release should be added as Re-release #1 and the IBSA re-release should be moved down to Re-release #2.
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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.StooB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:26 am 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
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.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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.
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
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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.
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
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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"
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
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Quadrax is another game that's marked as turn-based multiplayer, when it's actually simultaneous.
✓ reviewed
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
You inspired me to check Ghost Hunters:Quadrax is another game that's marked as turn-based multiplayer, when it's actually simultaneous.
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
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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).StooB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:54 pm 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.
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
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Confirmed. There are Spanish magazines reviews from 1988.StooB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:13 pm Terrorpods
release year should be 1988 rather than 1989 - there are two magazine reviews from August 88 and one from January 1989
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
- Bugaboo
- Posts: 5137
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:55 am
- Location: Málaga, Spain
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
This made me think: what does the copyright year mean?
Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
Copyright begins at the time of creation.Juan F. Ramirez wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:37 am This made me think: what does the copyright year mean?
Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?
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.
Re: Little bugs in the database 2
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 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:40 amCopyright begins at the time of creation.Juan F. Ramirez wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:37 am Is it possible to have a (c) year and a different release year?