Code Monkey

Every licensed NES cartridge has that indent. Press hard enough on the label and it'll look like that.

I have these. The blank one is Yar's Revenge.

I'm reading his book Once Upon Atari, here is a photo of him handing over the cartridge. The third paragraph down explains the quick change he made to the title screen.

The Incident Battle Kid (I haven't played the sequel yet) 8 Bit X-Mas 2013 Legend Of Link Deadpool I'm amazed nobody has mentioned The Incident yet, though I guess it's not really a technical marvel in any way, it was just really fun. Battle Kid was a good game but it was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life, I nreally snapped my controller in half on multiple occassions. Legend Of Link and Deadpool both use assets from other games but I'm willing to bet some of the other games mentioned also use routines and sub-routines borrowed from other games for collision / movement / sprite management.

Give it to the next person in line. I've literally bought everything I didn't already have from my local game store though I still keep going back for some reason.

I'm choosing rare because I have everything I want to play. Nintendo World Championships (grey) Nintendo World Championships (gold) Nintendo Campus Challenge Mah-Jong Air Raid The last 2 would be complete, there are only single digit quantities of each known to exist. Honourable mention to the 2 Atari cartridges, E.T. and Raiders Of The Lost Ark which Howard Scott Warshaw handed to Steven Spielberg with Spielberg's name on the title screen in place of the copyright. When you mention something unobtainable, this is the very definition.

I'm not sure I want to involve everyone else here in participating in this debate but there are some aspects here that I find interesting in regards to socioeconomics. Whether or not anyone else cares about it has no bearing on whether I care about it. The barrier of entry is objectively higher here, how much higher is irrelevant, my threshold of acceptance is 0.001. A properly coded website should use modals with dismiss properties onblur, this is an inexcusable offence. Your second comment is that I shouldn't try if my attempt will not make a large difference. So according to your logic, nobody in a democracy should vote because single votes don't mean anything. I make my choices because I have the option of making a choice, not in pursuit of any end goal. I'm not asking you to protest with me, I'm simply making my choice because I can. You should make your choice and respect me making my choice, there's room for both of us.

Your logic for why it's acceptable is because lots of people do it. That doesn't make sense, can I murder someone if lots of other people do it? My solution: make their site analytics suffer from my choices Your solution: do nothing

Welcome to ASD.

No, a greeter would be the equivalent of a modal with a dismiss property where it disappears when unfocused. This is an indismissable modal that requires direct interaction. That's the equivalent of stopping your attempt to go into the store and instead giving your direct attention to the greeter, then interacting specifically with them until they allow you to pass. There is no option to ignore. To anyone else here that develops websites, this is a prime example of exactly what not to do.

If you want customers to use your product, don't raise the barrier of entry. I'll pass. Imagine trying to walk into a store and someone steps out in front of you and won't let you by until you interact with them.

I tried using their website but there's a newsletter box covering half the page and nothing I click on works.

I think I got mine from these very forums for $25 each.

I did see that. But logically, if he's making them, I'll just wait until they're in stock. At no point did he mention they were only made to order.

I saw that post and subsequently kept watching his store to see if he made any. They never showed up.

My girlfriend was scrolling through local sales and found some sealed NES games for sale. I don't really collect sealed but I needed a few of them and they were still relatively cheap so I agreed to buy them but I couldn't go pick them up until the following day. The next morning the seller messaged my girlfriend and told her The Bandit Kings Of Ancient China was no longer included in the lot as someone else bought it but she can replace it with a copy of Batman Returns. If you collect NES games, you know there is a major difference in rarity between these two titles and I was so mad about that I almost cancelled the deal. Fast forward about 5-7 years and the Batman game is now worth double the other game because it's all ex comic book collectors getting into sealed games. That sealed Batman is one of the most valuable games I own. Games included in the lot: L'Empereur (cellophane removed, never opened) Kings Of The Beach (sealed R seal, Wata has never graded one) Batman Returns (sealed, graded 9.4) Advanced Dungeons And Dragons: Pool Of Radiance (sealed, graded 9.2) Target: Renegade (sealed) Ghostbusters II (sealed, graded 9.2) Eliminator Boat Duel (sealed) Pipe Dream (sealed) Total price on the lot was $600 CAD which wasn't that great of a deal at the time. I know the other local guy that bought Bandit Kings Of Ancient China and he immediately sold it for a profit. I also know he knew I had bought the lot because the seller told me he was quite convincing with prying that one game from the lot even though it was sold.

How? They're not listed on his site.

I skipped this one but I'd be interested if it's surprisingly good.

Where from?

The Ultimate Stuntman Megaman 3 Megaman 2 Jr. Pac-Man

Your arguments and my rebuttals: A: It's day 1 downloadable content. R: No, it's not. It's not downloadable content, it's part of the initial release of the game. A: I could have paid more money to buy something cheaper than the toys and get the same end result. R: No, I will not pay 5 cents if I already paid for the entire game. I paid for the whole game, I get the whole game, I'm not buying anything else. A: It is not required in order to enjoy the game. R: I don't care. It's part of the game, I paid for the game, I should get all parts of the game. A: Other games do it. R: And? If someone else murders someone, is it okay for you to do it? Imagine if you buy a movie and in order to watch the credits you have to tap a plastic toy on the remote control. The credits aren't required to enjoy the movie but does that sound bizarre? Do you think that should be allowed? If I pay for the movie, I want to see the credits without buying anything extra.

You misunderstood, I didn't cheat on my taxes. I'm purchasing games for my business. I'm also claiming all of the games I've sold and paying taxes on that income, it goes both ways.

It's not fraud. Like I said, I can tell you something I'm not selling is worth whatever I want. I could tell you a property down the street is worth $1,000,000, is it my fault if you buy it and find out if it isn't? In order for fraud to take place, it has to meet certain criteria and one criteria is that I have to gain an interest from the fraud. Wata helped increase the value of games they did not own and did not gain anything from the sale of games they did not own. Whether or not Jim Halperin benfitted is not relevant to whether Deniz and Wata are guilty. Whether or not Bronty benefitted is not relevant, he was just an advisor. Whether or not Mark Haspell benefitted is not relevant, he wasn't the owner. People here are confusing morals with crime, the 2 aren't the same. It was a shit thing to do but there isn't anything illegal about telling someone a product they have no interest in is worth more than it is. In fact, I'm not actually sure if the lawsuit even mentions fraud (maybe it does and I'll have to retract this) but I thought it was just about missing service level agreements. The only financial gain Wata saw was from an increased demand for their grading service which isn't the same as whether or not a game is worth a million dollars. He inflated his assets in order to gain more loans, that is a federal offence and is not the same as telling people a hobby is worth more than it is. This isn't even in the same section of the law book. They weren't giving financial advice, where did you read that? Someone asked them what it was worth and he gave his opinion. If I go to my local game store and ask someone behind the counter what a game is worth, are they liable for fraud if it's not true? No, that's not considered financial advice. This is not comparable to what happened. Deniz did not ask for investments in his company and promise dividends. He told me and you that a game they did not own is worth a certain amount. If you go and buy the game, that's on you, it's only fraud if Deniz was the one selling the game which he was not. There is a world of difference here in inflating an asset that you own and do not own. It's not fraud. And yes I was and I still have not bought that game even though I think I own every other game he has made. He should follow the rules. Again, there was deception and I don't think it was right but it also doesn't meet the criteria of a crime (except missing the SLA).