Rogue
dukeofthebump Oct 22, 2020 @ 1:30pm
Don't buy this
Rogue is a great game, and you can play it for free in your web browser on the Internet Archive[archive.org], or download it and play it in dosbox. Don't give your money to some random holding corporation that acquired the IP of a developer that went bankrupt, none of your money is going to the people who made the game.
Last edited by dukeofthebump; Oct 22, 2020 @ 1:31pm
< >
Showing 1-15 of 80 comments
Tegga21 Oct 22, 2020 @ 1:36pm 
?? we need more actual rogue-likes on steam. Support this game. They have a license.
dukeofthebump Oct 22, 2020 @ 1:48pm 
Why does steam need more roguelikes? Steam is just a store. There are plenty of great roguelikes being developed that you can buy directly from the creators, or download for free and donate to them, without valve taking 30%.
KharnTheKhan Oct 22, 2020 @ 1:50pm 
Originally posted by Duke of the Bump:
Why does steam need more roguelikes? Steam is just a store. There are plenty of great roguelikes being developed that you can buy directly from the creators, or download for free and donate to them, without valve taking 30%.
why are you going on a crusade for a 3 dollar game, Dwarffortress is coming to steam and its free, Unreal World came to steam(10usd) and its free on main website
Last edited by KharnTheKhan; Oct 22, 2020 @ 1:51pm
Magnus Oct 22, 2020 @ 2:00pm 
Originally posted by Duke of the Bump:
none of your money is going to the people who made the game.

So what? The money is going to the company that currently holds the rights to distribute this version of the game. Which is the only way you can get a license to legally play it.

What you linked is an older version that was released for free, not the version that was developed for and distributed by Epyx, which is what they have the right to sell.

Your personal opinions about who deserves to get paid for what don't have any bearing on their legal right to sell the version they have for sale.
The version on the internet archive looks suspiciously like the epyx version to me. Also the text on the title screen claims both that it is public domain and also not for sale which makes no sense. If something is public domain you can sell it all you like.
dukeofthebump Oct 22, 2020 @ 2:42pm 
Originally posted by graspee AKA pango:
The version on the internet archive looks suspiciously like the epyx version to me. Also the text on the title screen claims both that it is public domain and also not for sale which makes no sense. If something is public domain you can sell it all you like.

That message is there to let people know that if they paid for it, they got ripped off. Just because someone has the legal right to sell something doesn't mean they should, and just because something's legally available for sale doesn't mean people should buy it.

It looks like the Epyx version because it is the Epyx version. They're the same. All the Epyx version added was a title screen image, a nice box, a printed manual, and the convenience of not having to obtain a copy of the public domain version, which wasn't as easy in 1985 as it is today. Other than that, they're identical.
Last edited by dukeofthebump; Oct 22, 2020 @ 2:48pm
Originally posted by Duke of the Bump:
Originally posted by graspee AKA pango:
The version on the internet archive looks suspiciously like the epyx version to me. Also the text on the title screen claims both that it is public domain and also not for sale which makes no sense. If something is public domain you can sell it all you like.

That message is there to let people know that if they paid for it, they got ripped off. Just because someone has the legal right to sell something doesn't mean they should, and just because something's legally available for sale doesn't mean people should buy it.

It looks like the Epyx version because it is the Epyx version. They're the same. All the Epyx version adds is a title screen image, a nice box, a printed manual, and the convenience of not having to obtain a copy of the public domain version, which wasn't as easy in 1985 as it is today. Other than that they're identical.

I admit that I may be wrong but it was my belief that the version made for Epyx for the PC introduced those particular character graphics with the smiley adventurer and so on. The free version of rogue was not on DOS at the time, it was on BSD and maybe various unixes. That BSD version has been compiled for dos more recently and is available. You can tell because it uses hjkl for movement unless someone it's a version someone patched. It also has @ for adventurer and generally character graphics like brackets and # and things rather than the more graphical characters.
A complication is that the internet considered the Epyx version "abandonware" and distributed it freely. A thing that confuses me is that the source code of Epyx version 1.48 (not 1.49) is available too.Is this to conform to some licence the BSD version is under? (would that be BSD licence? which does not afaik require src)
tacogao Oct 22, 2020 @ 2:55pm 
I'm gonna buy it
Blackdeath Oct 22, 2020 @ 3:04pm 
I bought it when it first came out and just bought this now. My hope is that they release more Epyx games. Go crusade somewhere else.
☥ Docdra ☥ Oct 22, 2020 @ 3:22pm 
graspee - you aren't wrong, the original Rogue did indeed use @ and it had no color...
dukeofthebump Oct 22, 2020 @ 3:47pm 
Originally posted by graspee AKA pango:
I admit that I may be wrong but it was my belief that the version made for Epyx for the PC introduced those particular character graphics with the smiley adventurer and so on.

Nope, the first version with the CP437 glyphs was Rogue 1.0, published by A.I. Design in 1983. That company ceased to exist, the copyright lapsed, and it entered the public domain. I don't know anything about non-DOS versions of the game, but this is the version I've been playing since the late 90s and the idea that someone's trying to sell it is absurd.
Ratman Johnson Oct 22, 2020 @ 4:40pm 
Some people rather waste 2 buck fifty and have a meme game in their library and never touch it than download it for free and actually play it
Originally posted by Duke of the Bump:


Nope, the first version with the CP437 glyphs was Rogue 1.0, published by A.I. Design in 1983. That company ceased to exist, the copyright lapsed, and it entered the public domain

Copyright does not lapse anywhere near that fast.
Baguette Oct 22, 2020 @ 4:56pm 
Originally posted by Steker:
Some people rather waste 2 buck fifty and have a meme game in their library and never touch it than download it for free and actually play it

Meme game? You're saying this as if the game is trash lol. I've played it for 3 hours already, got way more out of it than I paid for. There's more incentive to play a game you paid for than one that's free anyway.
dukeofthebump Oct 22, 2020 @ 5:24pm 
Originally posted by graspee AKA pango:
Originally posted by Duke of the Bump:


Nope, the first version with the CP437 glyphs was Rogue 1.0, published by A.I. Design in 1983. That company ceased to exist, the copyright lapsed, and it entered the public domain

Copyright does not lapse anywhere near that fast.

Well, since the whole thing is based on the original public-domain BSD code, it's not entirely clear that the copyright was valid in the first place. What are they going to copyright, the different characters? If anyone can claim to own those, wouldn't it be IBM? Can I download Moby ♥♥♥♥ from Project Gutenberg, change the font, and claim copyright on that version? Sure, anyone can claim anything, but if I try to sue someone for redistributing "my" version of Moby ♥♥♥♥ I'm gonna get laughed out of court. Without litigation it's all a legal gray area that's not worth rehashing now. The ASCII version was PD in 1985, and the smiley face version is PD now. Pixel Games UK (or Code 10 Digital, or Bridgestone Multimedia Group, or whoever) has the right to sell it, but that doesn't mean anything. I have the right to sell Moby ♥♥♥♥ in Comic Sans, but that doesn't mean anyone should buy it.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 80 comments
Per page: 1530 50