Locking for trouble?
The pointlessness of locked layouts.

It takes a very confident individual to design something, and then, at the point of release, declare to the world; "This is perfect, it's as good as it can ever be, there isn't a single thing anyone could possibly want to change about it, and what's more, I'm going to stop you doing so even if you feel the need to. Oh yes, and if anyone out there wants to use my work as the basis of a learning exercise, or as a stepping stone for a project of their own, forget it, because I'm not even going to let you see how I put it together."

Sounds kind of arrogant, doesn't it? Well count up the number of locked MPU3/4 and JPEM releases you have on your hard drive, because that's how many times that exact thing has been said to you, but perhaps with the occasional extra "So fuck you all, bitches" on the end.

Why on earth would anyone want to lock an MPU3/4 (or JPEM) layout? Of course it makes sense to lock certain things safely away; bombs, for example, because loony terrorists might steal them and blow people up. But MPU3/4 layouts? Oh my, who dares to dream of what evil may be unleashed upon the world if they were to be left unlocked? ("I'm afraid it's a terrible mess, hundreds dead, seems someone left an unlocked fruit machine layout where anyone could get to it.....").

One of the biggest problems with the crazy world of locked layouts is that no one has EVER been able to offer a SINGLE reasonable and POSITIVE explanation as to why they choose to lock their layouts. Here are the reasons we have been given thus far, with monotonous and predictable regularity:

1) I need to PROTECT MY WORK!

Umm, protect against what exactly? You know how many malicious, nasty hacks we have seen in ten months? How many times the scene has been rocked to its foundations by unscrupulous hackers? I'll tell you. Twice. First was the now legendary "Beaver Fever", a hack of "Over The Moon" - and the truth of the matter is that this would have immediately slipped into obscurity had not a couple of people decided to chuck a massive strop over it. The other was "Jackpot Gems Erotic", which sunk without trace before anyone had even noticed it (in fact, I'll bet that's the first time many of you have even heard of it).

Moreover, the point that no one seems willing to accept is that the hacks were a direct protest against the closed nature of development on the MPU3/4 scene at that time, since the release of MPU3/4 with dev tools we have, of course, seen precisely zero hacks, because no one can be remotely bothered. After all, why go to the trouble to hack your way into something when the front door is open with a big "WELCOME" mat outside?

Ahhh, but what about the hacked releases of Steve Phipps' layouts?

It is quite true that myself and Kev released a number of slightly modified versions of several of Steve's "original" layouts that were bundled with the commercial version of MPU3/4. These were released at a time when the scene was looking like tipping over the edge into oblivion, largely because of the hysterical reaction to the Beaver Fever hack. The fact that the layouts were originally by Steve was made crystal clear with every release, and there was no attempt to pervert or distort the fine work that Steve had put into them. And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of someone taking Barcrest's copyrighted ROMs, hardware and artwork, modifying them into an emulator and layouts, bundling the whole lot together on a CD, selling it for £50, and then telling other people "That's mine".

It's also worth noting that since the release of V8.73 of MPU3/4 with dev tools over two months ago, everyone has had the ability to hack every single RES file ever released to pieces. In times gone by we have been warned of the "dangers" of publicly available dev tools, how development needed to be controlled for the common good, and how locked layouts were essential to the survival of the scene. Well what's the situation now? Everyone has dev tools, everyone has access to every unlocked RES file ever released and can hack and slash them as they please. How many hacks do you think we've seen? That's right. None. (But of course, that's no reason not to re-release every old RES file as nice new locked DATs).

At the end of the day, is the "protecting my work" argument valid? Make your own decisions, but look at the scale of the problem (two hacks that were released months ago which no one was overly concerned about anyway other than the people who seized upon them as a vehicle for the "necessity" of locked layouts), and compare it with the response (complete locking of layouts that prevents people doing so much as changing the game name, moving a single lamp, correcting the smallest error, or even seeing how the layout is put together out of interest or as the basis for their own layout).

2) Locking layouts is my choice and I want to!

Indeed it is, and presumably the fact that this choice has no basis in common sense, community spirit or plain good manners is neither here nor there. Just as well that those of us who have spent hundreds of hours maintaining websites to support the scene didn't refuse to upload our pages to the servers until someone had come up with a locked internet. 

3) I have my reasons!

This is something we hear a lot, in fact, even the most avid fans of layout locking seem to have given up on the "protection" argument, as it is clearly a load of big fat hairy bollocks. Instead, we are now mysteriously told "I have my reasons", we are never told what these reasons actually are, and one is forced to assume that this is because, other than selfishness and arrogance ("It's mine and I don't want you playing with it in any way other than how I decide"), there is absolutely no good reason whatsoever for someone to lock their layouts.

4) Working it all out for yourself is a good way to learn - I had to do it, so you should too.

This is trotted out occasionally, although the "it's a good way to learn" side of things is a nonsense - the important bit here is "I had to do it the hard way, so you should too". What this translates as is, "I spent hours working out all the lamps and I am too selfish to even consider the possibility of just giving that away to someone else". Indeed, we have now, on several occasions, been presented with the absurd situation on MPU Forums where people are asking "Who did this layout? I'm trying to do a DX and I can't work out some of the lamps, but the classic is locked". Thus begins a game of PM and e-mail tag where someone desperately tries to find out who holds the magical key so that the arcane secrets of, gasp, lamp numbers can be revealed....

We've seen those trying to create a DX of a machine be forced to work out every single lamp number again from scratch because the classic is locked and the author can't/won't be contacted, and we've seen designers use an unlocked layout to get the lamp numbers, and then release their own layout of the same machine locked (no, really).

Over the months several competent designers have emerged who, in the early stages of their efforts, had their fair share of problems with layout design. A combination of having unlocked layouts to learn from, and releasing their layouts unlocked so that others could fix and correct as necessary, has ultimately presented the scene with more designers than we would ever have had if every layout were locked.

5) Some people still release layouts unlocked, so people can use those to learn from, I can still lock mine.

"Some people are not stupid, which means that I can be stupid and hopefully get away with it."

Fine - but really, what difference does it make if people lock their layouts or not?

It makes a lot of difference. If we want to go back far enough, this scene would not have even got off the ground if the commercial version of MPU3/4 would have been supplied with locked layouts. In those early days, what do you think would have happened if Harvey and Gary would have been presented with an encrypted DAT file when they fancied a piece of the designing action? Viva Espana DX? Sorry mate, not a chance. And do you think they would have been able to get to grips with the basics of layout design without unlocked layouts to analyse? How everything was put together, how lamps were assigned, how reel bands were created? Those of you who were around on MSN in the early days will remember that perhaps the biggest driving factor behind the early burst of energy and design work was the unlocked, unencrypted nature of RES files.

And that same principle holds true today, since MPU3/4 V8.73 was released complete with dev tools we have seen numerous layout designers coming on stream, treating us all to a number of excellent classic and DX layouts. Now, how do you think these people learnt their craft? Did they download a locked DAT and look slightly mystified for a few minutes until being blessed with the divine knowledge of expert layout design? Probably not, I'd guess that they started dissecting old RES file based layouts to see what made everything tick - layout design is a relatively difficult procedure, the best, indeed the only way to learn is to see how people have done it before you. (Ironically, even those who lock their own layouts still always advise newbies to go and take a close look at somebody else's old unlocked RES file to get a feel for things....).

MPU3/4 is complex, non-intuitive and almost totally undocumented, with locked layouts, newbies have practically no hope of ever contributing anything. Unlocked layouts are the catalyst for forward momentum and a vibrant, healthy scene. You'd think that those who benefited from having access to unlocked RES files to learn the ropes in the first instance would then decide to do their bit for the next generation by releasing their layouts unlocked. But no, a great number of them choose to release locked DATs - how's that for a poke in the eye?

And be honest with yourselves here, how many designers would have never got into layout designing if they'd never have been able to play with other unlocked layouts first? Near enough everyone who gets started in fields like this does so by playing around with something that already exists, it's hard to be inspired just staring at a blank screen. How many designers would never have even attempted to create a layout of their own, much less go on to release if there weren't unlocked layouts available to play with in their early days?

You're getting awfully carried away, how much difference can it really make?

Let me put it this way, if the original commercial version of MPU3/4 had been supplied with locked layouts and uncrackable dev tools there would be no scene, no designers, no public release of MPU3/4, no layouts, no DXes, no JPEM, no nothing. Everything, and I mean everything was kicked off by Gary and Harvey being able to dissect RES files, get into MPU3/4's dev tools, and start releasing layouts of their own. It really is that simple. The Hovel wouldn't have lasted long on the original batch of Steve Phipps layouts, and the freeware release of V6.0 was only made because it was known that V5.9 had been cracked and more layouts were on the way.

So then, locked or unlocked - still think it doesn't make much difference?

But there is a scene now, and designers, and DXes, and JPEM, what are you going on about?

Isn't there something to learn here? Isn't a pattern emerging? Is everyone stupid, or something, or what? This whole scene was built on dev tools and unlocked layouts, the emergence of many designing talents and a new lease of life for the scene was built on dev tools and unlocked layouts, the darkest hours have been when development was closed and people didn't share. Have we learnt nothing at all? Are we all just going to stick our heads in the sand and say "La la laaa I can't hear you"?

OK, but I don't want to design and release layouts, why should I care if they're locked or not?

Even the most timid of individuals can benefit from playing unlocked layouts. An error is always an error, and when spotted, is easily fixed on an unlocked layout. A lack of functionality (missing shortcut or lamps for example) has a detrimental effect on the playing experience, but is easily fixed on an unlocked layout. Beyond that, everyone's got an opinion on what they like and what they don't - and making minor cosmetic changes to unlocked layouts is a piece of cake. Recent examples:

1 - Error) Rich And Famous - the bottom award on the Snooker feature is wrong, it should be 60p, not 40p.
Unlocked - Easy, go into edit mode, change the value, save the layout, inform layout designer, upload fixed version if approved.
Locked - Tough, report to author, hope they fix it, download the fixed version and then upload it.

2 - Functionality) The original Andy Capp DX (not Nicky Special's latest "super-DX") - Missing insert £1 shortcut, missing "LO" shortcut.
Unlocked - Easy, go into edit mode, add in the shortcuts, all done.
Locked - Tough. report to author, hope they fix it etc etc....

2a - Functionality) Action Club (AV release) - Used all manner of obscure fonts I didn't have on my system, and looked a total pile of arse as a result.
Unlocked - Easy, go into edit mode, change offending text to use a more common font.
Locked - Tough, wait for re-release and issue of a "font pack", so even if you didn't actually want all those extra fonts cluttering up your system, you had no choice.

3 - Cosmetic) Rocket Money - Jumping Jack lamps, ideally would be colour coded to show which goes where.
Unlocked - Easy, go into edit mode, a few changed lamp colours later, and the job's a good 'un. No need to upload new version as this is purely a personal preference thing.
Locked - Tough. Full stop.

I've lost count of the number of times I've made minor modifications to a layout purely for my own benefit. Not to hack, not to try and destroy the scene and show "disrespect", simply because I like certain things to be a certain way. Spelling errors on layouts (there are a surprising number of these out there), lamp colours, different jackpot values, generally shuffling things around a bit - nothing major, just the MPU3/4 layout equivalent of moving things around on the mantelpiece so that they look nicer. (Or it would be, if the mantelpiece wasn't surrounded by machine gun nests and vicious guard dogs).

Doubtless you've got a nice neat conclusion for us now?

Locked layouts are the absolute antithesis of what emulation is (or should) be all about. For a start, by design, emulation only works at all if someone takes it upon themselves to steal the work of others. In this case, Barcrest's MPU3/4 and JPM's IMPACT hardware systems have been chopped up into a million little pieces and reassembled as pieces of code. Their copyrighted ROMs, artwork, licences, themes, samples and sounds have been taken, lock stock and barrel and without any permission whatsoever, hacked about, and then given away to the world for people to play with. That is a fact, and with that fact in mind, it is clearly astonishingly arrogant and hypocritical to then lock a layout and say "This is mine, I can tell you what you can and can't do with it, I claim ownership of it."

The breathtaking hypocrisy of stealing somebody else's work and then claiming it as your own aside - there are all manner of practical reasons for not locking layouts. Giving beginners a place to start, allowing players to make minor modifications for their own use, easily correcting errors, improving functionality, providing a solid base to build an enhanced version of a layout - all of these are facilitated by people releasing unlocked layouts.

A locked layout is a statement of arrogance, hubris and self-aggrandisement - it unequivocally declares to the world that the designer considers their work to be so perfect, so beyond reproach and so untouchable that the only way it can be protected from being sullied by unclean hands is to lock it.

There isn't a single positive reason for anyone to lock a layout. All the reasons (even those offered by those who lock) are based on selfishness, secrecy, and a simple, irrational "Because I can". Locking a layout achieves absolutely nothing beneficial whatsoever. And if the only reason is "I won't release unless I can lock my layouts", which is what it has often come down to, then that is a sad, sorry way for things to be.

I challenge every designer who locks their layouts to come up with just one positive reason as to why they choose to do so. That is, a reason that has beneficial implications for other people and the scene. For example, if you were justifying leaving layouts unlocked you could say, "I leave my layouts unlocked to help others learn", or, "I leave my layouts unlocked so that others can change things if they want to".

Now try this, "I lock my layouts because...." - end that sentence with a positive remark. Go on, try, but I bet you can't.

Well if you're going to get so high and mighty about it, why not make a stand and refuse to host locked layouts?

Because I don't hate you as much as they do.

24th April 2002.