|
| T O P I C | |
|
GamerX, 3000AD and the corrupt web hack
October 13th 2000, 00:04 CEST by andy Bit of a weird one, this... Earlier this week, 3000AD announced that people could sign up for a new round of Battle Cruiser beta testing. There were a few weird stipulations, such as having to pay $15 for what was described as "try before you buy shareware". This prompted CNET's GamerX to post a little rant, looking at "the most outrageous parts" of the release and poking fun at them. And then... The honourable, honest, widely respected and not-at-all-loopy Derek Smart of 3000AD dropped me a line today, suggesting that I post a topic about the GamerX rant. He also asked if he could write some "opening statements" for the topic, presumably to give his side of the story. I told him sure, I'd post the topic, my only request being that he keep his comments reasonably brief. (Hey, if he rambled on like he often does then some people wouldn't read the topic properly and they'd get the wrong idea, and I'd be the one who got flamed. It was a fair request.) But -- and here's where it gets weird -- after a bit of an exchange, Derek told me "I'm not sending you shit". Why? Because I wouldn't tell him who writes the GamerX column. Apparently that meant I had "decided to impose conditions" on the topic, which he felt was "quite questionable and unethical". No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but here's the topic. (And to avoid the inevitable 100+ posts of flames and assumptions, Derek has permission to post all of my e-mails related to this topic if he thinks I've not been honest about what was said. That should shut him up.) Update: Derek has posted some comments about the GamerX column on the 3000AD web site. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: GamerX, 3000AD and the corrupt web hack
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b>#52</b>, Derek Smart: <QUOTE> OK, so you're saying that Steve Bauman is Gamer-X? Just come right out and say it please. Thank you. </QUOTE> Oh man, I really wish you could see how much I'm laughing! If any of you notice a puddle forming around the base of your monitor, that's me pissing myself. Wow... the most bizarre 'Crap thread for months, half a copy of VIZ and the new Private Eye... I might not survive the night! |
|
<b>#57</b> "bagofmice" wrote... <QUOTE>Whatever. It's his business model, if it flies, it flies. Otherwise it'll land in the dotcom soup of venture capitalists tears. </QUOTE> ROTLMAO!! So true. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#41</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>It was and always was, self-funded. </quote> Ah, cool. Thanks for the info. I was always curious about that. <quote>Steve, you're not Gamer-X are you? Just wait'll I find out who that bastard is :-) </QUOTE> Hah, no. I like to sign my name to my articles. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#45</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>BTW, I think the GamerX column was bang on the money. The person who wrote it, I don't often agree with his/her viewpoint, but with that column it was as if they'd reached into my mind and pulled out my own thoughts. </QUOTE> Gee, I wonder who that person could be, someone from C|Net Andy doesn't often agree with... gosh, the possibilities are endless. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#61</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE>Ah, cool. Thanks for the info. I was always curious about that. </QUOTE> Steve, I think you know me by now - all you had to do was, well, ask :-) Anyway, as one whose opinions I have always respected and still do, what is your take on this issue? Bearing in mind that I'm not forcing <b>anyone</b> to pay for <b>anything</b> Thanks <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#54</b>, Chris Johnson: <QUOTE> Ah yes. The old classic Andy/Planetcrap tactic(tm). when unable to actually answer a perfectly good question, answer with sarcasm in an attempt to belittle the questioner. This will undoubtedly prove your point, and make you all superior in the process. </QUOTE> I answered you. Go back and read to the end of #49. The answer is there. You'll recognise it when you see it, because it's the answer. If you have any problem, get back to me and I'll repost it for you, assuming I can find it myself, which I probably can't because I'm a but stupid. <QUOTE> But if the idea of an exclusive rebuttal from Derek wasn't your point, why do you make such a point about not getting it in the topic? </QUOTE> Because I found it funny. (There's another answer! Did you see it?) <QUOTE> Feel free to answer in your sarcastic attempting-to-avoid-the-actual-question way; I haven't gotten an eye-rolling workout this good in ages. </QUOTE> Okay! Feel free to answer by saying that I've avoided the question when I have actually answered it. Go on, you know you want to! |
|
OK Andy ... Let's do to you what you like to do to Scott Miller. :) Simple answers. Yes or no. 1. Did you, or did you not say, "Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-)" 2. Is this somehow taken out of context? 3. Is it understandable to you how this can be perceived as a bribe or incentive? |
|
<b>#41</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>Steve, you're not Gamer-X are you? Just wait'll I find out who that bastard is :-) </QUOTE> Oh, and rumor has it I'm the editor of a publication that sorta competes with Gamecenter, so me writing as Gamer-X would be sorta... bizarre. Unless they paid me a lot of money, in which case sure, I'll be Gamer-X. I can be bought, and it doesn't even cost that much money. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Mmm... I feel bad, but in a good way! I know I shouldn't be enjoying this, but I am! Please please please let George and Chet turn up before I go to bed! |
|
<b>#66</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE>Oh, and rumor has it I'm the editor of a publication that sorta competes with Gamecenter, so me writing as Gamer-X would be sorta... bizarre. </quote> uhm, right. But considering the consolidation in the media and gaming industry in general these days, that can't be such a farfetched notion, can it? <quote>Unless they paid me a lot of money, in which case sure, I'll be Gamer-X. I can be bought, and it doesn't even cost that much money. </QUOTE> LOL!! <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#63</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>Anyway, as one whose opinions I have always respected and still do, what is your take on this issue? Bearing in mind that I'm not forcing <B>anyone</B> to pay for <B>anything</B> </QUOTE> I think you can charge whatever you want so long as you're clear upfront (the "shareware" description was incorrect, though). I would never pay to be a beta tester myself, but if it defrays the cost and people are willing to pay for it, what's the big deal? People paid Origin for Ultima Online beta CDs... --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#67</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>Mmm... I feel bad, but in a good way! I know I shouldn't be enjoying this, but I am! Please please please let George and Chet turn up before I go to bed! </QUOTE> and therein lies the problem.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#65</b>, Warren Marshall: <QUOTE> OK Andy ... Let's do to you what you like to do to Scott Miller. :) </QUOTE> Okay! <QUOTE> Simple answers. Yes or no. </QUOTE> I'm with ya buddy! <QUOTE> 1. Did you, or did you not say, "Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-)" </QUOTE> Yes. <QUOTE> 2. Is this somehow taken out of context? </QUOTE> Yes. <QUOTE> 3. Is it understandable to you how this can be perceived as a bribe or incentive? </QUOTE> Yes. |
|
<quote>I would never pay to be a beta tester myself, but if it defrays the cost and people are willing to pay for it, what's the big deal? People paid Origin for Ultima Online beta CDs... </quote> I'm actually sort of mystified as to what the problem is. If you don't want to pay to beta test, you don't have to. Your other choice is to wait until the game comes out and buy it then. If you DO happen to participate in this $15 beta test, you get a little money off the full retail price when it comes time to buy the game. WTF am I missing here that's so bad? Shit, if anything this is a GREAT idea ... only people who are truly interested in the game are going to be paying money to get in early. Which means, *gasp*, people may actually PLAY the game and report BUGS. Unlike most public beta tests where the developer practically has to beg for bug reports ... and then people bitch when the game comes out with bugs in it. *sigh* :) |
|
Andy : <quote>2. Is this somehow taken out of context? Yes. </quote> OK, you're doing good bud ... we're getting somewhere now. Now, HOW was this quote taken out of context? |
|
BTW, Warren, a quick lessen for ya: <QUOTE> 1. Did you, or did you not say, "Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-)" </QUOTE> You should have written that just as "Did you say", etc. The way you wrote it would allow me to give a straight yes/no answer but then wriggle out of it later. To be clear, I meant YES, I did say that. Or I could say NO, I didn't say it. Because it was in an e-mail, so I didn't actually say it, but I did write it. Ooooh, it's very tricky. You take my point, I'm sure. <b>Yes, I wrote that sentence in my e-mail to Derek. :-)</b> (But was it mine? Did I own the e-mail? Eek!) |
|
<b>#72</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote... <QUOTE>WTF am I missing here that's so bad? </quote> You got me. <quote>Shit, if anything this is a GREAT idea ... only people who are truly interested in the game are going to be paying money to get in early. Which means, *gasp*, people may actually PLAY the game and report BUGS. </QUOTE> That's a very good point. I think people sign up as beta testers because they think it'll be fun (hah!) or to get free software. If they give some sort of committment that goes beyond their time, they may be more inclined to put in more effort. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
When I first heard about this pay-for-beta deal, my first thought was "what a crappy deal!". After some thought though, I'm <i>partly</i> siding with Derek on this one (which is a surprise to me). First, I agree that charging the public for access to the beta is ok. Sure, it might be ethically wrong, but if the potential beta testers want to beta test / get a hands on feel of the game before anyone else and are willing to pay a price, let them. Second, I think it's nice of 3000AD to credit/give a discount to the beta testers for the gold version of the game <i>if</i> they wish to purchase the game. This case is similar to pre-ordering the game except that upon pre-ordering (and putting some money down), the buyer gets a beta build of the game early with the final gold version later (if they choose to order the gold version). Again, nothing wrong with this. Third (and this is where I disagree with Derek), I feel it's ethically wrong to not refund a portion, if not all, of the $15 to the beta testers if they choose not to buy the full version of the game. Derek can keep shipping costs and manufacturing costs but he should refund any profit of the $15 he would be making off of the beta price to testers not wishing to buy the full version of the game. However, the testers not wishing to buy the final game knew what they were getting into when buying the beta so I can't really feel sorry for them. |
|
<b>#69</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE><B><A href="spy-internal:Load/171#63">#63</A></B> "Derek Smart" wrote... <quote>Anyway, as one whose opinions I have always respected and still do, what is your take on this issue? Bearing in mind that I'm not forcing <B>anyone</B> to pay for <B>anything</B> </quote> I think you can charge whatever you want so long as you're clear upfront (the "shareware" description was incorrect, though). I would never pay to be a beta tester myself, but if it defrays the cost and people are willing to pay for it, what's the big deal? People paid Origin for Ultima Online beta CDs... </quote> K, thanks. And I agree that the shareware description may be somewhat inaccurate. But, I think the fact is that the terms of the release are pretty clear. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#53</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>Oh, so you're not running WIN9x then, right? </QUOTE> Win9x is different. I was paying for a Bug fix, not a beta test :-). Also Bill Gates can do that because he is Bill Gates. You, Mr. Smart, are not Bill Gates. Back to the original topic at hand....let me quote: <a href="http://www.netdictionary.com/html/b.html"></a> beta -- A version of an application that is made available prior to the official release <b><u>for the purposes of testing</u></b> So, if you weren't going to ask the public to test it, then why did you post it as a beta? <b>#72</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote... <QUOTE>Shit, if anything this is a GREAT idea ... only people who are truly interested in the game are going to be paying money to get in early. Which means, *gasp*, people may actually PLAY the game and report BUGS. Unlike most public beta tests where the developer practically has to beg for bug reports ... and then people bitch when the game comes out with bugs in it. *sigh* :) </QUOTE> This is a horrible idea. Lets give an analogy: I'm a construction foreman, and you're looking for a job. I tell you you can work the hottest part of the day, and 24-7, but you have to pay ME $5.15/hr to do it! Does that not sound wrong? <b>"Butt kicking for goodness!"</b><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
There's a good reason why it's self-funded--no one would pour money into a half-assed PoS 'game'. (unless they're Eidos and you have long luscious locks). |
|
<b>#24</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>I didn't say it was shareware. Here is what I said and perhaps my statement is cloudy? <I>"If this sounds familiar, it is. Back to the good old days of try before you buy shareware"</I> </QUOTE> Ok then good enough for me, then again the connection is a bit shaky but I see that's been beaten to death now and you've said it might not have been the best way to say it (or something sort of to that effect). <b>#66</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote... <QUOTE>I can be bought, and it doesn't even cost that much money.</QUOTE> Anyone else find this a bit disterbing in an editor? Come one steve you can mange to hold out for more, you've got a rather good position stop selling yourself short. Your bigest fear should be that some one might go over your head with the bribe and have them force you to do something (but they generaly cost much much more). -- None-1a. O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>I answered you. </quote> To be competely honest, you answered the second part of a two-parter. You chose to skirt the first part with Andy's patented sarcasm-o-rama. <quote>Go back and read to the end of #49. The answer is there. You'll recognise it when you see it, because it's the answer. </quote> Again, you answered part two. I recognized it the first time, which is why I didn't bring it up. You obviously felt the need to, if only to reassure yourself. So thank you for the answer to part two. <quote>If you have any problem, get back to me and I'll repost it for you, assuming I can find it myself, which I probably can't because I'm a but stupid. </quote> No comment. Except to say I think the word your looking for is "bit". ;) <quote>Because I found it funny. (There's another answer! Did you see it?) </quote> Ah, more sarcasm. Nifty. You speak to any professionals (the ones in white coats) about this defense mechanism of yours? <quote>Feel free to answer by saying that I've avoided the question when I have actually answered it. Go on, you know you want to! </quote> Nope you answered part of it, and for that you get partial credit. Congrats. <quote>Mmm... I feel bad, but in a good way! I know I shouldn't be enjoying this, but I am! Please please please let George and Chet turn up before I go to bed! </quote> PC Tactic 2: show superiority by using humor to belittle people who have argued with you in the past. Relate the amount of humor you derive from the comments in the thread. This way, people will not challenge your obvious superiority. And above all else, continue to avoid relevance in favor of the Smokescreen of Sarcasm, +17. |
|
<b>#73</b>, Warren Marshall: <QUOTE> OK, you're doing good bud ... we're getting somewhere now. Now, HOW was this quote taken out of context? </QUOTE> You're harassing me! Leave me alone! *hides behind Charlie* We're still doing the Scott Miller thing, right? <b>Answer:</b> Because the line before it was missed out. The line you quoted, on its own, could lead a slow person to believe that I was trying to bribe Derek. If the line before it had been included, the aforementioned slow person would have probably come to the same conclusion, but they would have looked even more stupid. And I'd be laughing even harder, which right now would probably kill me, so they'd be up for manslaughter by being an idiot. <i>Okay, okay, here's the sensible answer:</i> The quote was out of context because the line before it was missed out, which changed the tone of the e-mail exchange. I still don't see how people could read it as a bribe, but they did, so there must be a way. |
|
<b>#77</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>K, thanks. And I agree that the shareware description may be somewhat inaccurate. But, I think the fact is that the terms of the release are pretty clear. </QUOTE> Perhaps they are clear but I don't think many people read them ;). Personally I would have done it a different way thou. Instead of pay us $ to beta test our product - I would have marketed it as "pay us $ to get a special preview edition of product - numbers are limited !". The way you marketed it I think was completely wrong but the idea has merits ;) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
What's the problem with charging to beta test? You know up front and can agree or not. Derek's the one taking the risk. It's all interest level and economics. Would I pay to beta test Warcraft 3? Yes. Some lesser game? Depends. And Andy posting this topic after he and Derek disagreed and fell apart in email is silly. He cleary did so for spite. I doubt he would have run it otherwise. George Broussard, 3D Realms |
|
<b>#76</b> "Kevin" wrote... <QUOTE>Third (and this is where I disagree with Derek), I feel it's ethically wrong to not refund a portion, if not all, of the $15 to the beta testers if they choose not to buy the full version of the game. Derek can keep shipping costs and manufacturing costs but he should refund any profit of the $15 he would be making off of the beta price to testers not wishing to buy the full version of the game. </QUOTE> Technically, I am refunding the entire amount less shipping and fulfillment costs. I have to pay the company doing the CD-ROMs because thats what they do. All I do is send them the master CD-ROM and the serialization software and they do everything: billing, accounting, shipping/handling, duplication etc. I used them for my BC3K v1.0x to v2.0x upgrade and was quite happy with them. The portion that is being refunded, is the portion that does not including the shipping+handling costs, you see. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#78</b> "ThePaladin" wrote... <QUOTE>So, if you weren't going to ask the public to test it, then why did you post it as a beta? </QUOTE> I refer you to post 028. Thanks <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Okay, two points here from me: 1) I'm fully in favor of Derek's idea to charge $15 for beta testing. Why? Okay, sub-points: a) Lots of people who "beta-test" just want to jack some free shit. Why should he pay for Johnny-Six-Pack to download his game and screw around with it, without getting any guarantee of getting any results from it? Perfectly okay for Mr. Thick-Wallet-Developer to hand it out for free... Derek's not in that position. b) When I do beta-test something, especially a multiplayer-game, it is damn annoying to have to deal with the aforementioned Johnnies who are just jacking around playing for free, instead of, you know, beta-testing. Whether it is in an online match or on the message boards, wading through idiot spam while I'm trying to accomplish something productive is totally wasteful. I admire Derek for recognizing this and taking this route to weed them out. I don't care enough about BCM to pay to beta-test it... but if I did, I'd really enjoy knowing that everyone else testing the game cares enough to put their money where their mouth is. c) I don't see Derek charging for the beta to be a gimmick to make money. Especially since he is applying the cost to a possible future purchase. Hey, don't want to pay? Well wait for the demo, then. TANSTAAFL, baby. 2) You were really classless and tacky in that email exchange Andy. This is this guy's livelihood, his project, his life... and you're dangling information and issuing emoticons? Fuck that. I would have told you to go screw just as fast as Derek did. <b>Derek Smart</b> (#13): <QUOTE><quote>BTW, you know who wrote that GamerX column, don't you? </quote> <B>ME:</B> <quote> Sure thing. When do you need it by? No, I've heard rumours. who? (I'll keep this info confidential) </quote> <B>YOU (Andy):</B> <quote> Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-) </quote></QUOTE> "Ha ha, I'm smiling at you, isn't that funny? Ha ha." No, it's not funny, it is dammned puerile. I've seen the word 'unethical' being bandied about here a lot; I don't see anything unethical in this situation at all. 'Tactless,' and 'Childish' maybe... 'unethical'? Give me a break. It's fucking game software for Christ's sake. Derek's free to charge whatever he damn well wants for his product under whatever conditions he specifies. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Pissing and wailing over his choice of business model is the peak of infantile behaviour. Just because Derek has issues surrounding his ability to deal with people (Note to Derek: take a class in dealing with people. Seriously. Your talent is being held back by your attitude. Not that I think your attitude is "bad"... but how does it serve you? Is it worth it? Is it <b>really?</b>), is no reason to jump on the bandwagon of people kicking him. What purpose does that serve? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's funny. Ha ha. Goddamn kids. Get the hell off my planet. |
|
<b>#78</b> "ThePaladin" wrote... <QUOTE>This is a horrible idea. Lets give an analogy: I'm a construction foreman, and you're looking for a job. I tell you you can work the hottest part of the day, and 24-7, but you have to pay ME $5.15/hr to do it! Does that not sound wrong? </QUOTE> No because 3000AD is not a construction company and the person paying for the Beta is not a construction foreman. sheesh. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#82</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>The quote was out of context because the line before it was missed out</QUOTE> What line was missed out? <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#78</b> ThePaladin wrote this horrible analogy... <quote>Lets give an analogy: I'm a construction foreman, and you're looking for a job. I tell you you can work the hottest part of the day, and 24-7, but you have to pay ME $5.15/hr to do it! Does that not sound wrong?</quote> Using your bad analogy, here's how construction is normally done... Mr. Construction Foreman hires volunteer workers to work 24-7 without being paid a dime! Their payment is enjoyment of being able to work on a possibly cool building. (Though they may show up and do nothing) ...on the other hand... Derek Smart, Construction Foreman, is looking for volunteer workers who would love to take part in working on his building -- but for a price. The catch is that the volunteer workers are willing to work on this building <i>so</i> badly that they're going to pay the Foreman. |
|
<b>#83</b> "RahvinTaka" wrote... <QUOTE>I would have marketed it as "pay us $ to get a special preview edition of product - numbers are limited !". </quote> You're right, now why didn't I think of that? <quote>The way you marketed it I think was completely wrong but the idea has merits ;) </QUOTE> <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#81</b>, Chris Johnson: <QUOTE> To be competely honest, you answered the second part of a two-parter. You chose to skirt the first part with Andy's patented sarcasm-o-rama. </QUOTE> I don't honestly know what you're asking anymore. You're talking about dangling carrots and bribes, etc, but I've already explained that Derek *asked* me to post his comments for him. Here's an idea: You tell me why you think I'd have tried to bribe him. Go on, ANY explanation, however vague or tenuous. Explain to me why, when Derek asked me to post something, I'd try to bribe it out of him. Doesn't make much sense, does it? <QUOTE> No comment. Except to say I think the word your looking for is "bit". ;) </QUOTE> Good boy! *pats head* <QUOTE> Ah, more sarcasm. Nifty. You speak to any professionals (the ones in white coats) about this defense mechanism of yours? </QUOTE> I did, yes, but they said go away, we're selling ice cream and you're scaring the children. (I was naked at the time. The kids were more amused than scared, but I wasn't about to start arguing semantics.) <QUOTE> Nope you answered part of it, and for that you get partial credit. Congrats. </QUOTE> Your other question made no sense! You wanted to know why I bribed him, right? I didn't! How can I tell you why I bribed him when I didn't bribe him? You can't even tell me why you think I said you would think I said I thought I'd bribed him! <QUOTE> PC Tactic 2: show superiority by using humor to belittle people who have argued with you in the past. Relate the amount of humor you derive from the comments in the thread. This way, people will not challenge your obvious superiority. And above all else, continue to avoid relevance in favor of the Smokescreen of Sarcasm, +17. </QUOTE> I'm just having fun. Yes, right now, I do feel VERY superior. |
|
<b>#84</b> "George Broussard" wrote... <QUOTE>What's the problem with charging to beta test? You know up front and can agree or not. Derek's the one taking the risk.</quote> Yep <quote> And Andy posting this topic after he and Derek disagreed and fell apart in email is silly. He cleary did so for spite. I doubt he would have run it otherwise. </QUOTE> Which is why he posted as he did in 045. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Kevin : <quote>Third (and this is where I disagree with Derek), I feel it's ethically wrong to not refund a portion, if not all, of the $15 to the beta testers if they choose not to buy the full version of the game.</quote> It's your choice if you want to risk your money to play the beta. Which means you'd better be serious about it. This cuts down on the number of random people just trying to get in on it so they can brag to their friends on IRC. I would wager that anyone serious enough about BattleCruiser to pay to beta test it, is going to be buying the game when it comes out anyway and genuinely WANTS to help out in the beta test ... not just up their 1337 rating. ThePaladin : <quote>This is a horrible idea. Lets give an analogy: I'm a construction foreman, and you're looking for a job. I tell you you can work the hottest part of the day, and 24-7, but you have to pay ME $5.15/hr to do it! Does that not sound wrong? </quote> Let's give a proper analogy ... I own a building. You might want to buy one of the apartments when the building is done. I say, "You can try an apartment out for a while if you want, but it'll cost you $100 and I want you to tell me if anything is wrong with it while you're living there. That will help make the building better for everyone when it's done." |
|
<b>Derek Smart</b> (#91): <QUOTE>You're right, now why didn't I think of that? </QUOTE> Because you have no people-skills. Sorry, guy. Look to your inadequacies and eliminate them. |
|
<b>#94</b> Warren Marshall wrote... <quote>It's your choice if you want to risk your money to play the beta.</quote> I couldn't agree with you more. Going back to my post I said it would be <i>nice</i> if Derek returned any profits he <i>may have</i> made from the beta cost (<b>Derek said earlier he did not though</b>) to those not paying for the full version. And then I said that, in any case, I wouldn't feel sorry for those not getting anything back as they knew what they were getting into. |
|
<b>#94</b> Warren wrote a much better analogy than ThePaladin... Much better analogy, thank you =) |
|
Hey, I was just talking to a friend on the phone. I asked him if he'd record a TV show for me tomorrow because I'm going to be out and my VCR is broken. He said sure, of course he would, and then he mentioned that he got a new VCR today. Scum! I don't have time for his VCR-based teasing antics! I immediately demanded that he give me his VCR! He said no, but he'd let me use it to watch the show when I get back tomorrow. The bastard! Bribing me like that! |
|
<b>#86</b> "Derek Smart" wrote... <QUOTE>I refer you to post 028. Thanks </QUOTE> You misunderstand my question-let me reiterate it, and emphasize with bold: <QUOTE>So, if you weren't going to ask the public to test it, then why did you post it <B> as a beta?</B> </QUOTE> And for Kevin and Warren: Yes, I recognize that it was a bad anology now. <b>"Butt Kicking for Goodness"</b><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Andy : <quote>Okay, okay, here's the sensible answer: The quote was out of context because the line before it was missed out, which changed the tone of the e-mail exchange. I still don't see how people could read it as a bribe, but they did, so there must be a way. </quote> OK, near as I can tell, the proper quote should be ... <b>"As soon as you want to send it. Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-)"</b> I don't get it. :) How is that additioal sentence helping? Or is that not the correct line? Jafd : <quote>I've seen the word 'unethical' being bandied about here a lot; I don't see anything unethical in this situation at all. 'Tactless,' and 'Childish' maybe... 'unethical'? Give me a break. It's fucking game software for Christ's sake. </quote> This really doesn't work anymore. Do you have any idea how much money the games industry pulls in each year? It's not a kids show anymore. :) Ethics do play a part in it ... Andy : <quote>Good boy! *pats head* </quote> Masturbate on your own time, OK? :) |
|
ThePaladin : <quote>So, if you weren't going to ask the public to test it, then why did you post it as a beta? </quote> Beta doesn't mean the public gets to play it. That's not the definition of the word. |
|
Andy 92: <quote>Your other question made no sense! You wanted to know why I bribed him, right? I didn't! How can I tell you why I bribed him when I didn't bribe him? You can't even tell me why you think I said you would think I said I thought I'd bribed him!</quote> Um no... actually that had absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you. What I said and asked was this: <quote> Perhaps not a bribe,but definitely an attempt at a big incentive, at least in Derek's POV. Nice job avoiding the question at hand by the way, which was, did/do you really have that information, or was it a bluff in order to get your precious exclusive? And if you really do have the info, are you willing to prove it, or claim that you don't need to prove nothing to us proletariat? </quote> So the first part would have been that before the first quesion mark. To avoid confusing you it follows: <quote>did/do you really have that information, or was it a bluff in order to get your precious exclusive?</quote> See? I asked if you had that information. No why did you bribe him. I'm typing this slowly so you get it, by the way. As for your completely unrelated question as to why you would want to bribe him, I have no idea. I really have no clue as to why you would, or if you did. I didn't bring that up, so why exactly are you asking me this? <quote>I'm just having fun. Yes, right now, I do feel VERY superior. </quote> For the life of me, I can think of absolutely no reason why. |
|
<b>Warren Marshall</b> (#100): <QUOTE>This really doesn't work anymore. Do you have any idea how much money the games industry pulls in each year? It's not a kids show anymore. :) Ethics do play a part in it ... </QUOTE> Oh no I totally agree with you. Games are big business. Ethics are needed. However in this instance the only failure in ethics, that I see, are all the piddling screamers ready to string Derek on the cross for his utter audacity in, you know, charging for his product. I don't see Andy's behaviour in that email as unethical either, just tacky. |
|
The wonders of the communication age. Derek, large-though-finite amounts of trouble could have been avoided through removal of the term "shareware" from references to your beta. Also, it would probably have created much clarity to just say something like: "By signing up for the Beta Test Program you are agreeing to pay $14.99 (or whatever) to cover shipping and handling costs for your beta CD. For security reasons there will be no version available for download, so CDs will be the only means of delivery. As part of the Beta Program you will receive a credit for $14.99 (again, or whatever) towards your purchase of the game. Thank you." And then some paragraph of small print outlining the conditions for the vouchers, etc. I've run a few of these tests, they're not that complicated, they just require that one lay EVERYTHING out in plain language and make sure that i's are dotted and t's crossed. Also note that, frankly Derek, you've not the most enviable reputation (deserved or not) as far as delivering quality product. Thus you already have one strike going with things like this, and folks can and will froth at the mouth waiting for strikes two and three. Offhand do you have someone managing this Beta? Doesn't seem like it, which makes me wonder how useful it'll be.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Warren: <Quote>Beta doesn't mean the public gets to play it. That's not the definition of the word. </Quote> Refer to post #78 where I define beta. And my main point in that question was that Derek mislabled something else as a beta. (Last post of the night...G'night all) <b>"Butt Kicking for Goodness"</b><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#80</b> "None-1a" wrote... <QUOTE>Anyone else find this a bit disterbing in an editor? Come one steve you can mange to hold out for more, you've got a rather good position stop selling yourself short.</QUOTE> Hey, can you negotiate my salary at my next review? --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#100</b>, Warren Marshall: <QUOTE> I don't get it. :) How is that additioal sentence helping? Or is that not the correct line? </QUOTE> It's the correct line. Look, I'm just going to quote the whole e-mail and Derek can whine about privacy as much as he wants. There's nothing here that hasn't been quoted already. I'm bold. (But you know that already.) <quote> At 06:14 PM 10/12/2000 +0100, you wrote: Hi Andy you've probably seen my Beta announcement at www.3000ad.com/gnn/index.shtml and probably not this: http://www.gamecenter.com/Opinions/Gamerx/101100/?st.gc.fd..gx Is it possible to open a topic on this, with opening statements from me? Can you keep the opening statements reasonably brief? No offence, but if you write a whole essay on the subject then people won't bother reading it, and ultimately I'm the one who will get flamed. Sure thing. When do you need it by? <b>As soon as you want to send it.</b> BTW, you know who wrote that GamerX column, don't you? No, I've heard rumours. who? (I'll keep this info confidential) <b>Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-)</b> </quote> I can see how people are misunderstanding it. They're reading it as "send me the intro and I'll say who GamerX is, don't send the intro and I won't". That's not what it meant. Just believe whatever you want. Truth be told, I don't think much of Derek, don't consider him at all important and don't have any interest in him, his company or his wretched game. So the idea of me trying to bribe him for anything, let alone to write a topic that HE requested, is ridiculous. <QUOTE> <quote>Good boy! *pats head* </quote> Masturbate on your own time, OK? :) </QUOTE> Ah, if only my arms were that long... |
|
Derek, I'm Gamer X. Here's hoping everyone saw Spartacus and joins in :) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: GamerX, 3000AD and the corrupt web hack
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|