Redump Forum

Attention *clears throat* *taps podium mic*

As many of you know I've been hunting PS-series PAL demos for quite some time. OPS2M PAL demos are particularly tricky for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that discs from Region A often get released into Region B and the data is modified between regions. This by itself wouldn't be an issue, however the disc label from Region A carries over to Region B, which conflicts with the Issue # and packaging Demo # from Region B.

For example:
This demo was released as an exclusive to Benelux. This serial number has never been spotted in another region. Now there are technically two different demo #'s this could be labeled as:

* Officieel PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 73 (referencing the disc #)
* Officieel PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 57 (referencing the packaging # and issue #)

I argue the disc # is the incorrect one to use because it is incongruent with the regional ordering. If we used disc titles for all regional variants and lined them up, you'd see numbers wildly skipping around.

In addition to Jackal modifying / favoring disc label numbering (which is unintuitive), he also is renaming entries with the UK titles, for example this entry is named: "Official PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 73". Nowhere on this disc or packaging does "Official PlayStation 2 Magazine" appear, period!

In addition, many other entries go by packaging / issue numbering (which makes perfect sense), however Jackal's modifications do not!

Here's another example: https://redump.info/disc/51793/
The packaging number is 9, the issue number is 9. It is the 9th disc released in the series in France.
HOWEVER! If Jackal's reign of terror continues, this would be relabeled as "ops2m demo 11" because that's what the disc label says. Is it from the 11th issue? NO. Is it listed as the 11th Demo on the packaging? NO. Is it arbitrarily called the 11th issue on the disc label because the disc label art was ported from another region? YES.

For these reasons, we should go with the packaging Demo #'ing system and not the inaccurate disc labels that Jackal is so keen to use and mess up the database with. Right now, Redump OPS2M regional entries are a mish-mash of packaging/issue and disc label numbering.

Please let us bring accurate order to this chaos, not add to the misinformation.

Post pictures, or this thread is useless. And it belongs in the fixes forum.

Re-read. This is about choosing one system of numbering over another. This does not relate to a specific incident but MANY, but your arbitrary changing of the most sensible system of numbering of random entries.

There are two Demo #s on all OPS2M releases, you're choosing the irrational option for the titles.

Do you really think they just printed some random wrong demo number on the disc and you want to replace it with the magazine title and issue of 1 particular country and ignore all the others?

Yes, they did this in many instances. They reused UK labels, even when modifying the data so that it does not match UK releases. That's why there's such a huge mismatch between packaging #s and disc label #s outside of the UK releases.

MOST disc label numbers do NOT match their packaging #'s for anything outside of UK.

The packaging numbers count like this:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The disc label numbers count like this:
1
2
5
7
8
10
13
9

So, to sum it up there are two issues here?

• Inaccurate titles
• Inaccurate numbers

The first one I'm not sure about what 'side' to agree with. One one hand, of course we want to use the titles used on the disc/box, but... in the case of the magazine discs they can be all over the place I'd almost say to just use a 'custom' title to aid with sorting and searching. If Redump would support multiple (regional) titles per dump, then it would be a total other story of course, but for now we have to work with what we have...

As for the numbering: I think I agree with user7 there. If there's indeed reused labels with numbers that don't match the issue they were bundled with I rather have the package issue number than the label number on the title. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a clusterfuck for anyone not waist-deep into PS2 demos to see what has and has not been dumped. But, of course the label-printed number should be added to the comments section.

>One one hand, of course we want to use the titles used on the disc/box

Well to be clear, the box has one Demo # and the disc label has another Demo # often. Within a region, the box Demo # flows in a stable order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6..., whereas the disc label Demo # follows an uneven order: 3, 2, 7, 12. The reason is because the disc labels #s are adapted from the UK disc labels.

This usually doesnt matter because they'll match the UK entries (which are treated as master titles with sans-UK in their name), but when regional variants are unique builds, the waters get murky. This is why I believe using the packaging Demo # is more accurate, because the Disc Label #s are repurposed out from other counties out-of-order numerically. The disc label Demo # refers to "random grab bag region where we pulled disc label art from without updating it".

This is why it makes the most sense to use the packaging Demo #s.

However with NL Demo 80, it had a disc label # of 101. I can see this being a nice bookend and why it's tempting to name it as 101 in the redump entry, but in the context of all regions with exclusive variants, it's not the best approach due to the above mentioned chaos of disc label demo #s.

I understand some of the reasoning behind going strictly with what is on a disc - and I also understand that from a quality control / accuracy and ease of consistent submissions standpoint, that does streamline things and make it a bit easier. 

However, I'm also inclined to agree with user7 in this instance because there is solid logical reasoning for why naming them the way he suggests is more clear in a way, and better represents what those discs truly are.  I am ALL for adding comments and additional details that explain variances and such. 

As a user, when I am viewing and using the redump database, I'm looking at a disc and I want the title to tell me truly what the disc is.  If the disc is a game called Fire: Pass the Torch [hypothetical game], and the disc has an error that says Fire: Ass the Torch, whereas all of the packaging and everything else is "Pass the Torch" - do we name it "Ass the Torch" in the database because it is literally on the disc, though it truly misrepresents what the game is? I do realize that is a somewhat ludicrous example, but hopefully it illustrates the point.

Another example is this one:
https://redump.info/disc/53248/

The serial listed on the disc is 972227, but it is an error and should be 97227.  I believe the 'true' serial for this release is 97227.  While the issue is noted in the comments, personally, I think the database should be 97227, as the extra digit one is completely erroneous.

I know it's a difficult balance, because creating exceptions based on unique situations does make this more challenging.  But I also think it can provide other value and usefulness as well.  Some of things will just have to evaluated on a case by case scenario. 

IF you disagree with the above and have strong logical reasons for not doing so - that is completely fair - then please share those thoughts so we can hash it out and come to some finality on the issue and move forward - that would be great!

In addition to Jackal modifying / favoring disc label numbering (which is unintuitive), he also is renaming entries with the UK titles, for example this entry is named: "Official PlayStation 2 Magazine Demo 73". Nowhere on this disc or packaging does "Official PlayStation 2 Magazine" appear, period!

The disc title is "ops2m demo 73/benelux". ops2m = Official PlayStation Magazine.

There are other sources using the same naming: https://wiki.pcsx2.net/Official_PlaySta … ne_Demo_73

Some discs were renamed by Lizard to have the issue number in the name instead of the disc number, because you told him so in the Fixes forum. So if there is someone creating a clusterfuck it's you. We have to stay consistent and either go with the disc numbers always, or come with another solution. Using the magazine titles and issue numbers doesn't appear to be a good solution, especially because different magazine issues from different countries can have the same disc. The solution that you provided for those cases of just picking one of the countries / issue numbers to go in the filename (and thereby ignoring the other ones) is unacceptable imo.