MS-DOS or Windows GameDB entry

[Spectro1111]

So I have a game on Steam that appears to be a re-release of a MS-DOS game, not a remaster or remake but the same game. I'm trying to decide if I should force the match to the MS-DOS version or create a Windows entry in the DB. Is the game considered an MS-DOS game still or should it be considered a different version and thus require its own entry in the windows platform like PS4/Xbox versions are.

[SentaiBrad]

It's still a DOS Game, it was just sold on Steam. If it's using DOSBox, then it's still a DOS game to me.

[Spectro1111]

It does use DOSBox. Thanks for clearing that up.

[SentaiBrad]

Yea, it's tricky and I get that. Maybe the true answer is for it to be on Windows? Because, if a game gets re-released, you don't usually say it's still on the old console, it's on the new console, and that applies even for emulation (Mega Man Collection, rumored Mega Man X Collection, Saturday Morning Cartoons Collection). So I don't know. Sorry, I went back and forth with myself after I talked about it. I think the big differentiating factor here, is that it's a legit port / emulation bundle. I wouldn't call emulating SMB3 in Mesen a Windows game, but if Nintendo released Virtual Console games on Windows, then I'd call that version a Windows Game. So, sorry for the conflicting messages (going back and forth is what we're built on).

[SentaiBrad]

We had a very long conversation about this on the Discord! This sparked a heated debated.

[Enverex]

I'd agree that it's still DOS simply because it's using DOSBox, so it's simply emulated.

 

If they'd released binaries to make it run on Windows directly then it could be put under Windows.

[SentaiBrad]

And my argument is that, even if it's using emulation, it's now officially been re-released on a new system and could now also be considered a game available for the new platform. Not trying to re-start this debate, just offering the counterpoint to anyone who originally missed it. The debate was much more heated than I had anticipated. I still think that even with using Emulation, it's safe to say that the game is now available on a new platform, and should get it's own entry. There are examples where games are emulated on newer systems and called games for the new system.

[syntax_X]

If it plays on a Dos computer is a Dos game. No real space for argument there.
Doesn't matter when it was released, a game is a game.

There are still new NES and SMS carts being produced in Brazil, you could get them, dump them and play them on a windows NES/SMS emulator but you wouldn't call them windows games.

If the game doesn't run natively in windows then not windows

Edited May 28, 2017 by syntax_X

[SentaiBrad]

No, you wouldn't call those a Windows game, but that's not the same argument. Those are homebrews and unlicensed games dumped. This is very different. Sure, it's using emulation, but they've now been officially released by the rights holders somewhere for a system that's not the original one. Even games on PS3 and PS4 that use emulation, they say where they are from, but are considered PS3 / PS4 games because that's the console those packages are released on. All those emulation anthology packs, Disney Afternoon Collection, Mega Man Collection, all games from a different system, but that package is now called a PC, PS4, what have you game. I don't see why it's any different in this case. Sure, the games on GOG are dos games, but they've now officially been released on Windows. If someone released those games on a console, even if it's using DOSBox, it's now a what ever system game, right?

[Selymax]

So I have an issue with the DOS vs Windows thing.. Should this not just be "PC"?  We are creating many duplicates in the databases for Dos versions and Windows versions of the same game.

Many games in the crossover period had dos and windows version in the same box, identical game.

Even if you did have to buy separate version, the game was still the same. 

So my main point is, why don't we save a lot of hassle and simple combine these into PC?

Alternatively..  Allow multiple systems to be specified in the Platform section where games are identical.  for example, most sierra titles were identical on Dos, Windows, Amiga and Atari (and to a lesser extend Mac).  

I can see an argument for separating the Megadrive and Snes versions of games, they often looked, felt and sounded different.  But between the computers of the age, a lot of titles were as I said, identical.

Food for thought..  but I think it will really help the database, peoples collections and cut down on a lot of duplication.

Cheers guys.

[syntax_X]

50 minutes ago, Selymax said:

Many games in the crossover period had dos and windows version in the same box, identical game.

Even if you did have to buy separate version, the game was still the same. 

So my main point is, why don't we save a lot of hassle and simple combine these into PC?

most sierra titles were identical on Dos, Windows, Amiga and Atari (and to a lesser extend Mac)

 If you want to be the guy that cross references over 7000 games to be sure they are not identical then go for it.
Until then they should be kept apart. You can only confirm games you have played with a keen eye. Even if sounds are different.
I recently played D/Generation on dos for the first time which is looked at as a win3x dupe, but they are completely different.

[FistyDollars]

Windows and DOS versions could be VERY different from each other. It's worth noting the differences, and keeping them separate. Check out the games in the eXoDOS/Win3xO collection if you're curious to see how different they can be.

[SentaiBrad]

No, Windows, DOS, and even Windows 3.x and Windows 9.x should be different. There are too many issues when it's all combined. W3.x and 9.x aren't platforms yet, but we're moving in that direction. Even if the games are identical from DOS to PC, which most were the same or marginally different (like slightly better music), or even vastly different (much bigger resolution, voice acting, etc), they should still be kept separate. They were treated very differently back then, and like they were new platforms. I think getting down to the operating system would be too far, like needing a platform for W95, W98, 2000, XP, etc, so that's why we're going with the major eras.

[Selymax]

Fair enough.  I'm sure there is some backend or launchbox integration issues that mean it is not as simple as adding another platform and labling the different screenshots ect.

It just feels weird from a browsing perspective seeing some games that are for all intensive purposes identical being duplicated so many times.

[Enverex]

*intents and purposes.

 

Anyway, you shouldn't really see that many duplicated games unless those games were released twice, once as an MSDOS version and also again as a Windows version. Just because it's a DOS game that runs in Windows, doesn't make it a Windows game (e.g. lots of games from the Windows 95 and early 98 era).

[syntax_X]

Unless you merge win3x and dos collections you will not see any dupes. Leave them as separate platforms.

Or you could merge and consolidate, and have to right click those few games that have different versions if you wish to play them. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by syntax_X

[AnonymousMOS]

On 6/26/2017 at 2:30 AM, Enverex said:

*intents and purposes.

 

Anyway, you shouldn't really see that many duplicated games unless those games were released twice, once as an MSDOS version and also again as a Windows version. Just because it's a DOS game that runs in Windows, doesn't make it a Windows game (e.g. lots of games from the Windows 95 and early 98 era).

I agree. If the binary is designed for a specific system, even if it's repackaged in an emulator or virtualization for a different system, no matter who repackaged it, it's still a binary for the original system. It's not a game for the new system whether you can run it there or not. A DOS game on Windows is still just a DOS game on Windows, it's not now a Windows game.

[AnonymousMOS]

On 6/26/2017 at 1:10 AM, SentaiBrad said:

No, Windows, DOS, and even Windows 3.x and Windows 9.x should be different. There are too many issues when it's all combined. W3.x and 9.x aren't platforms yet, but we're moving in that direction. Even if the games are identical from DOS to PC, which most were the same or marginally different (like slightly better music), or even vastly different (much bigger resolution, voice acting, etc), they should still be kept separate. They were treated very differently back then, and like they were new platforms. I think getting down to the operating system would be too far, like needing a platform for W95, W98, 2000, XP, etc, so that's why we're going with the major eras.

@SentaiBradDo you know if we will see Win3.x or Win9x platforms in the database anytime soon? It'd solve a lot of my organization problems. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Ranthalion75

[Enverex]

I don't agree on splitting Win 9x as that's still "Windows" would would require a large amount of reorganising for me and I assume many others (that are using the catchall of "Windows").

[AnonymousMOS]

35 minutes ago, Enverex said:

I don't agree on splitting Win 9x as that's still "Windows" would would require a large amount of reorganising for me and I assume many others (that are using the catchall of "Windows").

I don't think you'd have to reorganize you're setup if the database changes, but the database change would be nice for the people that want the choice of separating those platforms.