|
| 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>#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> |
|
More interesting topic Andy. Isn't it intereting that most developers don't have message forums on their sites? I mean why don't Blizzard, LucasArts, id, Valve etc at least run a silly little EZ Board or Ultimate Message Board. Don't they all have at least one person at the company already doing web work that can maintain it? Don't they want their fans to have a place to meet and talk about their games? /boggle. George Broussard, 3D Realms |
|
Oh yeah? Well I'm Gamer V! That extra line that got missed out in the email exchange doesn't change my opinion; but I never thought that what Andy was doing was "bribing." I just thought he was being an ass. I'll stand by that. Especially since it is now revealed that Andy doesn't acutally have Clue One about who this anonymous ranter is? Wow, your ass just got a whole lot bigger! |
|
Man, what a crazy topic this is! I think that if any topic will ever get to 1000 posts, this just might be it. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I'm Gamer-X!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Andy in #107 wrote: <quote>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> If thats the case this thread should never have happened. Truth be told you never would have even entertained a response to Derek Smart's email with anything other than "No, thank you" were you not interested, to SOME extent, in him or his game. To say you weren't is the rediculous statement, as the splash (however tiny it may be) caused by the Gamer X article piqued atleast a tiny level of interest in you. It wasn't really that big of a deal when Microsoft asked payment for beta-ing Windows 2000. I didn't mind, at least. (well, I didn't mind leaching a copy off of a sucker that paid for it =)) --Intaglio Gurutech.org <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Andy : <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. </quote> OK, cool. Seriously. Now that I see it in context, I don't have any problem with it. If you had just done that at first, we could have all been spared a lot of time and trouble. George : <quote>Isn't it intereting that most developers don't have message forums on their sites? I mean why don't Blizzard, LucasArts, id, Valve etc at least run a silly little EZ Board or Ultimate Message Board.</quote> I dunno, aren't there enough message boards in the world? Almost every web page has a forum these days ... it's almost becoming stupid. |
|
<b>#10</b> My Personal Lord and Savior "Todd G." wrote: <QUOTE>I was under the impression that shareware is a relativly free (and finished) preview which I am free to pass around at my own will.</QUOTE> You do ocassionally see copies of the Duke Nukem shareware for sale at Wal-Mart. I also remember the shareware for Duke 1 & 2 being sold for a minimal fee (like $10 or so). Same thing for Blood back in the day. So, it's not exactly a new thing for a company to charge for a shareware version of the game if it comes on a CD. And Derek has already stepped forward to say this wasn't a shareware, but a beta test; which just makes it sleazier :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#102</b>, Chris Johnson: *COUGH* Do I have your attention? Okay, PLEASE, just this once, read carefully. <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></QUOTE> Right, now this is the bit I really want you to concentrate on: You asked that question in post #44. I answered it in post #49. In post #54 you then said I hadn't answered it. In post #64 I pointed out that I had. Now, again, you're saying that I haven't. <b>THE REALLY IMPORTANT BIT:</b> Go and read the end of post #49. The answer is there. <QUOTE> For the life of me, I can think of absolutely no reason why. </QUOTE> Because I've got about a dozen "intelligent" people telling me that I bribed Derek Smart to give me an exclusive. How could I not feel superior to those people? They're acting like idiots, and that includes you. |
|
<i>#insert "disclaimer.h"</i> George Broussard (#109): <i>I mean why don't Blizzard, LucasArts, id, Valve etc at least run a silly little EZ Board or Ultimate Message Board.</i> ask EA/Origin why not. reference Ultima IX in your email. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Intaglio : <quote>It wasn't really that big of a deal when Microsoft asked payment for beta-ing Windows 2000. I didn't mind, at least. (well, I didn't mind leaching a copy off of a sucker that paid for it =)) </quote> Your friend paid for the software like he was supposed to, and you stole it. But he's the sucker. Riiight... |
|
<b>#42</b> My Personal Lord and Savior "Derek Smart" wrote: <QUOTE>Besides, if Microsoft asked people to pay $15 to get in early on Halo, how many would bitch about it? You guys bitch and moan about having to wait for products, burn effigies in developers' honor when products are pushed back, then, I decide to quench the thirst of <B>of those who really don't give a shit about the premise but just want to get their hands on the product</B> and I get this crap. Now you know what this statement in the first paragraph was meant to convey. </QUOTE> You are correct, we all worship at the altar of Bill Gates, we would never, ever accuse him of being a blood-sucking inhuman monster trying to make a quick buck with an incomplete product... like Windows 95/98 :þ<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Clubb : <quote>And Derek has already stepped forward to say this wasn't a shareware, but a beta test; which just makes it sleazier :) </quote> Why is it sleazy? |
|
<b>#114</b>, Warren Marshall: <QUOTE> If you had just done that at first, we could have all been spared a lot of time and trouble. </QUOTE> If I'd done that at first, I'd have been flamed for posting private e-mails. That's why I gave Derek permission to post mine. But silly me forgot that some people don't always quote accurately. <b>#109</b>, George Broussard: <QUOTE> More interesting topic Andy. </QUOTE> Hmm, assuming this wasn't a flame that went over my head, I agree, that would have been a much more interesting topic. <b>#113</b>, Intaglio: <QUOTE> If thats the case this thread should never have happened. </QUOTE> I always try to post suggested topics, even if I don't agree with them and even if I don't like the person who suggests them. Just because I don't have much interest in Derek, there may be a few lonely people out there who can manage to prop their eyes open for long enough to read the first few paragraphs from one of his lectures. Who am I to deny them that pleasure? |
|
Warren Marshall in #118 wrote: <quote>But he's the sucker. Riiight... </quote> Seems like it to me: a) The software was unfinished and crashed often. A colleague of mine paid $60 for it. b) The entire scheme solely benefited Microsoft. By paying for the software, my colleague was only putting more money in Microsoft's pockets. Yes, it seems to me like my colleague got suckered, cheated, ripped-off, etc. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
He led him on. He dangled a carrot obviously to get Derek to respond. He made it seem as if he was going to "Supportive". As far as Shareware and Freeware and what this Beta is. Lets clarify what Beta's,FreeWare,Shareware,demo mean Freeware=TOTALLY FREE. ShareWare=A portion of a full product released to give a potential consumer a chance to sample it and many times Shareware products cost a small portion of the full price. Ex's Doom ,Gamespy3d Beta's Usually a limited portion of an unfinished title released to a small group for gameplay testing and bug testing. Many times these are free.. but they can be pay to test issues just like MS windows 2000 beta was pay to test. Ex. Diablo2 Mp beta test,Q3 beta demo. Demo= Can be free or can be released after the release of a finalized product to allow someone to sample it. Most times Demos are just free. In this case. The Bc3k beta is a pay to test venture. Derek has every right to charge. He has to master the cd,issue either elecronic or paper manuals with it and he has to endure the cost of shipping. Plus he is giving those who Pay to beta test back a portion of the fee as a down payment on the final product. End result its not a bad deal after all. As far Andy's stupid antics. He has proven time and time again that one he is unethical, two has no common sense and three he is a downright liar who won't admit he is wrong even if 1000 people were to point his mistake. Lets face it a 5 year old child has more maturity and honest then Andy. And in the end his antics just take a decent article and drag it down to utter CRAP. will the child ever change. Probably not. Will he admit he was leading on Derek. OF course not. Will he post another idiotic article with so many holes it makes a swiss cheese look like a solid piece of granite. You bet. As always I have to ask... How does one get to be able to post an article for Planetcrap? Or is this the AndyCrap Show and no one else is invited? |
|
Context arguements aside you have a company making an <B>offer</B> to allow players to pay 15 bucks to play. The company then puts in an clause that makes the money non refundable for any reason. Why should the average gamer, who by the way you need to attract as well as your loyal community, even give your title any type of consideration when an <QUOTE>offer</QUOTE> like this is made ? |
|
Actually to the first question you answered this: <quote>Oops, remember the three steps: 1. Read. 2. Understand. 3. THEN Respond. Never forget that crucial second step! </quote> Not exactly an answer I'd say. Your second answer was: <quote>I think I know who it is, but I can't prove it, which is why in the end I didn't mention it in the topic. (I'm not into starting/spreading rumours.) And as the person who I thought it was, and who I still think it is, just told me by e-mail that it isn't them, I think that was the right decision.</quote> A pseudo answer at best. I asked a yes or no question, do you have the information, to which you answer, "well, kinda, you see, in my world, kinda sort of knowing who it might be counts as knowing it, but since I really don't know for sure I'm not gonna tell you who it is or even who I thought it might have been in the even that the planerts were all aligned." More of a non-answer actually. I wanted to know, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? You replied with something that sorta reads like maybe, but you're not going to tell anyone for sure. So no. you didn't answer me. No more than you ever truly come clean when someone takes you to task. To which Derek Smart answered you with <quote> Pathetic. </quote> Favorite part for me: <quote>Because I've got about a dozen "intelligent" people telling me that I bribed Derek Smart to give me an exclusive. How could I not feel superior to those people? They're acting like idiots, and that includes you. </quote> PC Tactic 4: When against the wall, cal people stupid. This will hopefully make them angry enough to lash out at you violently enough to look unstable, or at least as if the validity of their remarks are questionable. This will also help to shore up your ego. The unfortunate side-effect to this tactic is showing how far away from the points at hand you're willing to go to avoid actually coming to terms with reality. To borrow a phrase from Messr. Smart, if I may: "Pathetic." Go ahead an reply if you want. I gots me better things to do with my time this evening. Thanks for the laughs though. I needed them. |
|
<b>#120</b> My Personal Lord and Savior "Warren Marshall" wrote: <QUOTE>Clubb : <quote>And Derek has already stepped forward to say this wasn't a shareware, but a beta test; which just makes it sleazier :) </quote> Why is it sleazy? </QUOTE> Many years ago, a sad comic book company on the verge of bankruptcy decided to hold a script-writing contest where the winners would get their story printed. Their offices were flooded by amateur scripts, which they then proceeded to publish with no financial restitution to the authors (as per the contest agreement). The winners weren't upset, but the future professionals of that group looked back on it as a truly sleazy moment in comic book history, which, thankfully, didn't give other comic book companies ideas. Now, this isn't nearly as sleazy, but you do have a reversal of the normal procedure, where beta testers are either payed or get free access to the product. If it weren't for the discount being offered on the finished product, this would be a rather sleazy precedent for the video game industry. But it's pretty damn close.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Intaglio : <quote>Seems like it to me: a) The software was unfinished and crashed often. A colleague of mine paid $60 for it. b) The entire scheme solely benefited Microsoft. By paying for the software, my colleague was only putting more money in Microsoft's pockets. Yes, it seems to me like my colleague got suckered, cheated, ripped-off, etc. </quote> But you wanted this unfinished, crashing software anyway so you stole it? Actually ... forget it. I don't have time to get into a long drawn out argument trying to explain why warez are bad. Take your parting shot, and we'll go our seperate ways. |
|
#126 I'm sorry, I don't understand at all. For one thing, I don't see any parallel between the comic book thing and Derek's thing, and for another, even after reading your post twice, I have no clue as to what makes either instance "sleazy." Please, can you describe this logically, rather than emotionally? Thanks. |
|
Gotta say, I'm with Andy on this one, because of the smiley. If it was some kind of quid pro quo deal, he wouldn't have ended it with a smiley. Seriously. I think it was pretty clearly lighthearted banter, but anyone who's watched Monty Python knows the capacity for misunderstanding in banter. I also agree with Warren: If the whole e-mail exchange, unedited, would have been posted in the first place, all this nastiness could have been avoided. I am absolutely the first person to scream for Andy's head on a spike outside Morn's house, but in this case, I think people are (somewhat) understandably misinterpreting this, probably largely because they don't think much of Andy in the first place. Now can we please get back to the topic at hand? Here's a question for Derek: When it's released, is BCM going to have a proper shareware version, in the old sense of getting to play a bit for no charge and buying if you like it? -brennan |
|
<b>#116</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>Because I've got about a dozen "intelligent" people telling me that I bribed Derek Smart to give me an exclusive. How could I not feel superior to those people? They're acting like idiots, and that includes you. </QUOTE> I missed the message where someone accused you of bribing Derek. People used barter, dangle, a tease, an incentive, a precondition... there may be more, but I can't seem to find the "bribe." But I'm dumb. And I think one person mentioned the term "exclusive," not "about a dozen." But then again, I'm sorta dim. --- "My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Nightcloud : <quote>Context arguements aside you have a company making an offer to allow players to pay 15 bucks to play. The company then puts in an clause that makes the money non refundable for any reason. Why should the average gamer, who by the way you need to attract as well as your loyal community, even give your title any type of consideration when an offer like this is made ? </quote> Because the company wants to get as much -quality- feedback as it can to make the finished product better. They don't want random people getting beta copies and not doing anything with them. Charging for the beta weeds out the deadbeats. The average gamer should be jumping for joy ... the finished game will have less bugs in it! Clubb : <quote>Many years ago, a sad comic book company on the verge of bankruptcy decided to hold a script-writing contest where the winners would get their story printed. Their offices were flooded by amateur scripts, which they then proceeded to publish with no financial restitution to the authors (as per the contest agreement). The winners weren't upset, but the future professionals of that group looked back on it as a truly sleazy moment in comic book history, which, thankfully, didn't give other comic book companies ideas. Now, this isn't nearly as sleazy, but you do have a reversal of the normal procedure, where beta testers are either payed or get free access to the product. If it weren't for the discount being offered on the finished product, this would be a rather sleazy precedent for the video game industry. But it's pretty damn close. </quote> I don't think it's even remotely close. |
|
<b>#128</b> My Personal Lord and Savior "Jafd" wrote: <QUOTE>I'm sorry, I don't understand at all. For one thing, I don't see any parallel between the comic book thing and Derek's thing, and for another, even after reading your post twice, I have no clue as to what makes either instance "sleazy." Please, can you describe this logically, rather than emotionally? Thanks. </QUOTE> 1) I really like comic books and these stories come out. It was a story in which a company took advantage of aspiring writer's desire to be published to save money producing their books. 2) It's a reversal of industry norms. Beta testing is something that people are paid to perfrom. Having the beta tester pay to do the same job would be sleazy. 3) To be fair, Derek is offering a discount on the finished product to the beta testers, so he's managed to counter-act virtually all of the sleaziness--in the end, it just <b>seems</b> real funny.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Wow, only 125 posts and already we're at the stage of misquoting people and then challenging them not to reply! Yeehaw! Hey Chris, shouldn't we continue this on Usenet? Those tactics are bad even for ye olde 'Crappe! |
|
<b>#131</b> My Personal Lord and Savior "Warren Marshall" wrote: <QUOTE>I don't think it's even remotely close. </QUOTE> Sorry, that was a mis-write. I meant to say it was close to being sleazy, but was saved by the offer of a discount on the final product. I did not mean to imply that it was anywhere close to the incredibly sleazy situation of the comic book company. Had Derek not offered the discount, I think it would have been very close to the situation I described at the comic book company. Just because a bunch of rabid fans are willing to let a company dick them over, doesn't mean the company is write in dicking them over. Again, I'm not accusing Derek of this, his offer of a discount kept this situation from being sleazy, but it does sort of look sleazy at first glance. I really need to stop posting when I'm sober :) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
george said: <quote>More interesting topic Andy. Isn't it intereting that most developers don't have message forums on their sites? I mean why don't Blizzard, LucasArts, id, Valve etc at least run a silly little EZ Board or Ultimate Message Board. Don't they all have at least one person at the company already doing web work that can maintain it? Don't they want their fans to have a place to meet and talk about their games? </quote> Most companies don't want to shell out the money to pay for the bandwidth (ie - Epic closing down the fabled Megaboard). Most publishers have them, but not all developers... |
|
<b>#127</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote... <QUOTE>But you wanted this unfinished, crashing software anyway so you stole it? </QUOTE> That's been ticking me off latly as well. People run around griping about how such and such software titles sucks and crashes constatly or isn't what they expected it to be, then turn right around and steal it becuse they wanted it (same thing happens with MP3's, the record compaies are turning out crap, but I want the crap so I'll steal it). I mean gees I don't like crispy cookies but every now and then I get a craving for some chunky chips ahoy and I would think of heading out to shoplift a bag because I disslike the fact that they are crispy. Ok now to what I think about charging for the beta. So what big deal it's his game, people buying the beta are not being empolyeed by 3000AD per-say. what they are buying a product that is labled as unfinished. The reporting bugs part is acctauly very small and no where near like working as a beta tester would be (I don't see derek or anyone else sending e-mails to people telling them what to test each day and requiring a reports). Lets put it this way if a record company showed up and told you they where going to sell a as of yet finished CD (still unmixed, some songs may not be in the version relased, and other might change) and offered a discount on the final mixed release how many people would call that sleazy. -- None-1a. O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#136</b> "None-1a" wrote... <QUOTE>I mean gees I don't like crispy cookies but every now and then I get a craving for some chunky chips ahoy and I would think of heading out to shoplift a bag because I disslike the fact that they are crispy. </QUOTE> Opps would NOT (must remember the word NOT when talking about this stuff). -- None-1a. O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#109</b> My Personal Lord and Savior "George Broussard" wrote: <QUOTE>Isn't it intereting that most developers don't have message forums on their sites? I mean why don't Blizzard, LucasArts, id, Valve etc at least run a silly little EZ Board or Ultimate Message Board. Don't they all have at least one person at the company already doing web work that can maintain it? Don't they want their fans to have a place to meet and talk about their games? </QUOTE> Considering that you picked four companies whose games would sell even without a message board, I think the answer is self-evident. I know for a fact from your message board, you end up with spiralling levels of aggression from various posters. Someone comes up with what they believe is a brilliant idea for your game, you politely tell them it's a piece of shit idea ("that's a great idea, but it wouldn't work for this game") and suddenly they start talking about how you don't give a shit about your fans anymore. It's almost like stalkers who somehow come to think that their fanhood is as important to the celebrity (or in this case, game company) as it is to the fan. That's not even getting into the "Company X is trying to suppress my freedom of speech" every time you decide to delete some hateful bit of electronic graphitti. Id, LA, Blizzard, and Valve probably end up sparing themselves a lot of ill-will and headaches from not putting up message boards.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
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? No because 3000AD is not a construction company and the person paying for the Beta is not a construction foreman. sheesh. <b>but the comment was to take the context and find a better way to look at it ..paying to work hard isnt right but if you are not requireing feedback from your beta test then who cares about the 15 dollars</b> (holds out the GamerX cap for the next guy) |
|
<b>#133</b> Andy wrote... <quote>Wow, only 125 posts and already we're at the stage of misquoting people and then challenging them not to reply! Yeehaw! Hey Chris, shouldn't we continue this on Usenet? Those tactics are bad even for ye olde 'Crappe!</quote> As Chris said in #54, Tactic #1 at work... |
|
oh yeah -- blizzard has <b><A HREF="http://www.battle.net">huge forums</b></a> on battle.net. |
| 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
|