> > Is it acceptable to enable the disclaimer/flag screens by default but have the
> option
> > to disable them, so if a user purposefully disables them then it's obvious they
> > should know what they are doing?
>
>
> My understanding is that you can do whatever you want in your own private build, but
> as soon as you distribute it to other people, you have to play by the MAMEDev rules
> that say you can't disable those screens.
So basically it seems cabmame itself goes against these rules, now looking closer I see that. It's easy to disable the part of the hiscore patch that ignores the warning/nag screens and instead force them on by default, and if really necessary I can make it impossible to use command line options and disable them even with the user who wants to disable them purposefully and knows what they are doing. Seems that the main goal though stated is to keep bug reports from happening because a game doesn't work and the warning/nag screen would have said if there were issues. So seems that if a binary or patch that doesn't disable them itself, but does allow a user to choose to disable them themselves by conscious decision, would put up to the end user to be the one purposefully disabling the screens (since it's not disabled by default and not recommended to them to do so, yet they don't have to know how to hack mame to disable them if they really want to). I don't mind either way, I just want to make sure it's really necessary for me to go in and fully rip out the code to do this (or really just break it so it doesn't work at all) for each patch/build I make, or just simply alter the defaults to not enable the option to avoid the nag screens (or even hide the option so an end user has to read the code to even know how to set the option to disable nag screens, which hopefully then they really aren't foolish enough to send bug reports about games). Seems interesting since this option is what a lot of people with arcade cabinets like, that aren't going to be looking to send in bug reports and know what they are doing enough to know what works and what doesn't, and if a build doesn't do this without a user choosing it explicitly seems nice to have it available for the advanced cabinet users. Hopefully the goal isn't really trying to fully ban the technical information about how to disable them from being given out, seems definitely strange to do that with the main goal just being to keep users that aren't so technical from filing silly bug reports because the nag screens were disabled by default (which I do agree shouldn't be disabled by default, now looking at this, I see that by default they should be enabled, but think a cabinet user should have the knowledge to disable them if it has to be a separate patch they completely apply on their own, but it should be available). Also is this about patches too, or just Mame builds themselves with the patches applies? Since patches vs. builds seem like two different legal areas, and I could always just point to the hiscore peoples patches and have my additional patch and fully avoid having to build mame for others and do the extra footwork, but allow the cabmame patches to apply still to newer versions.
SwitchRes - http://arcade.groovy.org
Modeline Generator and Mame Wrapper for Windows or Linux
LiveCD of Groovy Arcade Linux with newest DRM for Radeon/Nvidia
--
The Groovy Organization
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: CabMame game over?
Reply
