Textfyre - Jack Toresal and The Secret Letter - Standard Version
ChicagoDave
As announced on the blog, we're introducing a "Standard" version of
each game, leaving the Silverlight version named as the "Deluxe"
version. The price for the Standard version is $9.95 USD. The UI is a
standard text interface with the same general feel of a standard
interpreter.
For now, only Windows is supported, but I'm working on setting up a
Linux version and then a Mac version via the Mono platform.
Going forward, we will introduce each game in the Standard version and
develop the Deluxe UI over time. This gives us time to put more detail
into the Deluxe version without rushing its publication. It also gives
the IF community access to our games at a much reduced price in a
familiar user interface.
If you have any issues, please feel free to contact me directly.
See http://www.textfyre.com/ for more information.
Thanks,
David
David C.
Also, if you've alreayd purchased Secret Letter and want a copy of the
new version, let me know that too. I can get that to you.
We're also updating Secret Letter in the next week or so, which will
be Version 2.0. Both the Standard and Deluxe versions will be updated.
We're also adding a customer downloads section to the website, but
that's a work in progress.
David C.
S. John Ross
> See http://www.textfyre.com/for more information.
I couldn't find any more information ... could you provide a direct
URL for the page where the additional info is (on the Standard
Version, I mean); I'm not having much luck navigating to it on my own :
(
Peter Pears
> > Seehttp://www.textfyre.com/formore information.
>
> I couldn't find any more information ... could you provide a direct
> URL for the page where the additional info is (on the Standard
> Version, I mean); I'm not having much luck navigating to it on my own :
> (
In terms of "Shadow of the Cathedral", what does this mean for people
who pre-ordered it? Which version did I pay for?
David C.
All versions. You'll get the Standard one first, the Deluxe version
shortly after...when it's completed and ready.
David C.
David C.
> > Seehttp://www.textfyre.com/formore information.
>
> I couldn't find any more information ... could you provide a direct
> URL for the page where the additional info is (on the Standard
> Version, I mean); I'm not having much luck navigating to it on my own :
> (
It's on the Games page on the right side: http://textfyre.com/Games.aspx
I simply added new Buy Now buttons for the Standard version.
David C.
S. John Ross
> It's on the Games page on the right side:http://textfyre.com/Games.aspx
Yeah, I saw that page. It doesn't even mention what the Standard and
Deluxe versions actually are, much less provide "more
information." :/
> I simply added new Buy Now buttons for the Standard version.
Yeah, that part was easy to find. So ... is there, in fact, no more
information yet? (forthcoming site update?)
David C.
My bad - there's more info now....but the Games page needs a
reworking. Anyone interested in helping maintain the website, let me
know. It's really not my expertise (the UI stuff).
David C.
S. John Ross
> My bad - there's more info now...
Thank you. I guess my only lingering question (that I can think of
now, anyway) is: how much like a standard IF-hobbyist 'terp is the
Standard Version's interface (user's choice of fonts and colors, for
example)? Your phrase "the same general feel" is tantalizing but a bit
vague :)
Conrad
Any possibility of getting the demo in the standardized flavor? I
haven't tried the freebie version strictly through an unwillingness to
install Silverlight (whatever that is; I strongly suspect I don't need
or want it on my computer).
Conrad.
S. John Ross
I installed Silverlight to try the demo when the demo first went
up ... and tonight the demo tells me THAT version of Silverlight isn't
good enough anymore, and I need to update it, so ... yeah. Yay
Silverlight :(
Peter Pears
that was asked before: why reinvent the wheel?
You had great reasons for trying out something new, which you did with
silverlight. You stuck with it and perfected it, even though everyone
around you told you to basically screw Silverlight and go back to
Frotz, or some such. I say, good for you.
But if you want to make a "standard" version... well, from what I
gather, your code is pretty much in I7. You can use the existing
interpreters to give the players a hell of a lot of options. You don't
have to struggle with that *MORE* thing issue, for one. To be honest,
I'd feel rather cheated if I had to pay for a game *and* an
interpreter, when I already have an interpreter that is probably a lot
better. It's certainly been around, has a lot more experience, and I
got to know it and it got to know me and we're THAT close.
I also dislike the no-graphics in the deluxe version. You know what I
*would* like? Playing Toresal in a regular Glulx interpreter, watching
the graphics without having to bother with the Silverlight interface.
Because I would gladly pay that extra "deluxe" bit for the pictures -
because I happened to like them, because you guys need some support
right now and I'm happy to hand it over, because they added somewhat
to the game (incomplete as they were at the time).
But I would not want to pay extra for the Silverlight version. That I
can do without.
Why not strike a middle ground? Have a very plain, no graphs, no
hints, no nuthin' ZCode version. Have a super-hyper Silverlight
version. And inbetween, offer your own interpreter, if you like,
with... hey, with at least some graphics.
Honestly, I'd only buy the deluxe version if it had music and/or sound
effects, as well as some animation.
James Jolley
All good points. I agree with everything here, the fact that the
thing's using Silverlight, blocking out blind players and not only
that, we're expected to have to play a special texty version because as
a developer, you're too soft to comply with standards, sorry, computer
says no and i'll not be touching. Standards are here for a reason, use
them!
Best
-James-
David C.
> Honestly, I'd only buy the deluxe version if it had music and/or sound
> effects, as well as some animation.
The Deluxe version isn't specifically because it's in Silverlight.
It's because it has a fancy UI with artwork, hints, and other advanced
features. We're trying to replicate the Deluxe version in Flash too.
The Standard version is meant to offer a lower priced UI to those that
want IF in a text only package.
I can't use the existing terps because I don't own them.
I won't release games in ulx format because that will invite people to
simply share them with everyone without paying.
David C.
Peter Pears
> On Sep 19, 4:38 am, Peter Pears <peter_pe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Honestly, I'd only buy the deluxe version if it had music and/or sound
> > effects, as well as some animation.
>
> The Deluxe version isn't specifically because it's in Silverlight.
> It's because it has a fancy UI with artwork, hints, and other advanced
> features. We're trying to replicate the Deluxe version in Flash too.
Ok, that makes sense.
> The Standard version is meant to offer a lower priced UI to those that
> want IF in a text only package.
Ditto... except that I still dislike paying for the UI when I have a
perfectly good one already.
> I can't use the existing terps because I don't own them.
You don't need to use them, surely? Just link to them. You only need
to use the format.
> I won't release games in ulx format because that will invite people to
> simply share them with everyone without paying.
And you think releasing games in .msi format won't? I understand your
POV, but if that's the only reason, then it's a bad choice. Pirates
will be pirates. It's as easy to share the .msi installer as it would
be to share .ulx files. On the other hand, 1893 - in TADS format -
doesn't seem to have been much pirated. I checked, just for kicks.
Similarly, Future Boy is nigh impossible to find - even in a mere .hex
extension. And Treasures of a Slaver's Kingdom? Ditto, and that's
ZCode.
David C.
> > The Standard version is meant to offer a lower priced UI to those that
> > want IF in a text only package.
>
> Ditto... except that I still dislike paying for the UI when I have a
> perfectly good one already.
>
You're not paying for the terp...you're paying for the game.
> > I won't release games in ulx format because that will invite people to
> > simply share them with everyone without paying.
>
> And you think releasing games in .msi format won't? I understand your
> POV, but if that's the only reason, then it's a bad choice. Pirates
> will be pirates.
Sure, but releasing the game file would make it that much easier.
We've
discussed piracy internally and this is what we came up with.
The interpreter I've developed has font/color changing features. The
only
feature I can think of that it's missing is "more" prompts. Everything
else
is in there.
But the over-riding reason for not releasing the game file is that
we're a
business with serious asperations to find investors. Investors are
getting
savvy where open source business models are concerned, but there not
quite ready to hand over the store.
David C.
Peter Pears
I see. Then I have only one final question - I don't suppose the
Deluxe version can include the standard version? :) I always like
having both options in case one of them stops working unexpectedly.
James Jolley
I didn't even know you couldn't copyprotect ULX. What about some sort
of INI file with strings in for info? Not ideal but just a thought.
David C.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess I need to make that clear on the website and also add the
Standard download into the Deluxe product, but the intention is to
offer the Standard as a part of the Deluxe version.
David C.
S. John Ross
> I won't release games in ulx format because that will invite people to
> simply share them with everyone without paying.
Sentences like this one make me giggle. Speaking of which: you guys
have any comedy/satire titles in the works? I appreciate that the
snoozy born-to-be-mild stuff is more appealing to educators and
parents and that they're the primary market target, but it'd be nice
seeing something with a little bite to it someday, too (maybe once
you've got some other lines well-established?)
Peter Pears
Ah, wonderful. Well, that's all my queries made as a costumer. I'm
satisfied, and will probably keep buying your products, as long as
your quality in games doesn't decline - and nothing makes me think it
will. :)
Conrad
>
> Sure, but releasing the game file would make it that much easier.
> We've discussed piracy internally and this is what we came up with.
I *really* don't understand that. If I bought the delux edition, what
would prevent me from zipping it up and mailing it to all my friends?
Some kind of online registration thing, in order to run?
> The interpreter I've developed has font/color changing features. The
> only feature I can think of that it's missing is "more" prompts. Everything
> else is in there.
I'm pro-TextFyre; I hope your guys' venture pans out. But what you're
saying here is that the wheel you re-invented rolls just as well as
the old one, except that the axle requires Silverlight.
> But the over-riding reason for not releasing the game file is that
> we're a business with serious asperations to find investors.
> Investors are getting savvy where open source business models
> are concerned, but there not quite ready to hand over the store.
Well, it sounds like nonsense to me; but then, a lot of business
practice does, so I can take your word that it's good practice,
business-wise. But I wish it didn't require Silverlight. (Which,
I'll point out, you also don't own. But it has MicroSoft's brand on
it, so I guess investors see it differently.)
Conrad.
Dannii
> I can't use the existing terps because I don't own them.
Doesn't look like Glulxe requires the source of derived versions to be
redistributed. Even if it does you could just release the source too,
it would be extremely unlikely to be useful to anyone else. You could
even add copy protection to it.
Otto Grimwald
>> simply share them with everyone without paying.
Maybe we could ask Zarf to implement some kinds of DRM inside the glulx
specifications so serious businessmen could consider using the glulx
machine for their products?
>But the over-riding reason for not releasing the game file is that
>we're a business with serious asperations to find investors
Is **asp**eration the process to release games through asp.net
technologies only? ;)
More seriously, I think you could just trust people, for my parts the
only games I've ever bought were games which were both multiplatform and
DRM-free (the latest one being World of Goo).
And if you wish to protect your property, you could even recompile and
personalise every copy of the games in the glulx format, it may prevent
them to give it away to everyone and it would eventually permit to track
down who leaked the copy. I shouldn't take more than 30 sec / copy to
make it unique.
David C.
> Well, it sounds like nonsense to me; but then, a lot of business
> practice does, so I can take your word that it's good practice,
> business-wise. But I wish it didn't require Silverlight. (Which,
> I'll point out, you also don't own. But it has MicroSoft's brand on
> it, so I guess investors see it differently.)
Sorry. I know there are other ways of doing business, but this is the
way I feel comfortable doing things. If you start a business, you can
do it all your way. If you get investors, fantastic. I think there are
many ways to skin a cat...it's all the same in the end.
As for people zipping up the installation and giving it away, well
you're right, I can't stop that. But it stops most honest people and
that's all I care about.
David C.
David C.
> each game, leaving the Silverlight version named as the "Deluxe"
> version. The price for the Standard version is $9.95 USD. The UI is a
> standard text interface with the same general feel of a standard
> interpreter.
A demo version is available at:
http://textfyre.com/demos/SecretLetter-1.07StdDemo.msi
It's listed on the games page too.
David C.
Jerome West
> As for people zipping up the installation and giving it away, well
> you're right, I can't stop that. But it stops most honest people and
> that's all I care about.
A .ulx file would stop most people, since they wouldn't have a clue what
to do with it. It's hard to see how an installer with no copy protection
would stop anybody, honest or otherwise.
Sorry if this seems negative, I'm fully supportive of TextFyre and its
aims, it's just hard to fathom the thinking behind this particular decision.
David C.
And I can't fathom why this is such a big deal. You buy the product,
install it, play the game.
Textfyre is a business, not an IF author. There's a very distinct
difference. If that doesn't make any sense, find a friend or relative
who is a lawyer and maybe they can help explain why things need to be
done "a certain way".
I might be able to shed some light with a scenario...
Textfyre sells a bunch of games, attracts $500,000 in investments. We
are now beholden to one or more people with very serious concerns
about how we do business. We sell a few more games. One of them
becomes very popular. One of the investors is on a trip overseas. They
find out that a lot of people are playing the new popular game and
didn't pay for it because the "game file" was on download sites. They
come back to me and ask how this might have happend. Was it "hacked"?
I say no, that's how we deliver the game to customers. The investor
asks, "So you're not putting any protections in place to prevent
widespread piracy?" I say no, we've done nothing. The investor sues me
for fraud and negligence.
Alternatively, the investor goes overseas and hears about some people
playing the game without paying and they come back to me with the same
questions. I respond, "We encrypted the game file, buried it into the
installation package, and forced any person installing it to digitally
sign an end user license agreement. We were going to add registration
codes necessary, but thought this was too much in our start-up phase
and that getting the word out was more important. We don't want to
scare people off. In the end though, a hacker disassembled our
installation package, decrypted the game file, and placed it on file-
sharing websites. There's really nothing we can do at this point." The
investor shrugs and goes about their business.
Do you see the difference now? It's not about piracy...it's about
business liability and finding investors to support your business.
People don't invest money in people that don't take their products
seriously and just throwing game-files out without _some_ copyright
protection is stupid. No one would invest in a stupid business.
Now, if our model wasn't to sell games, but to say, put advertising in
our games and hand them out for free, that's a _different model_.
We're not in the advertising business, although it's not a bad idea.
Maybe in Giant Leaps all the kids will drink Coke or Red Bull and
maybe I can get a buck or two out of those companies. That's a
different model, but it's not a bad idea. Maybe I create a game that
represents the physical world of 3rd Street in Geneva, Illinois where
there is a 175 year old shopping district. Maybe all the shops pay me
a licensing fee to keep the in-game experience of their store up to
date and link to their website. That's a different model.
Our model is to publish games in a traditional manner. You buy it, you
play it. This includes some semblence of copy-protection and
proprietary interpreters/user interfaces. If you don't like it or get
it, I can't help you. It seems pretty simply to me.
David C.
S. John Ross
> But it stops most honest people and that's all I care about.
It's good to know you've taken the steps necessary to stop honest
people from stealing.
Pardon me - to stop MOST honest people from stealing. Because lord
knows, without prevention, those wacky honest people would rob us all
blind.
S. John Ross
> No one would invest in a stupid business.
What an interesting planet you live on.
Adam Thornton
David C. <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 10:13�am, Jerome West <jeromecw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A .ulx file would stop most people, since they wouldn't have a clue what
>> to do with it. It's hard to see how an installer with no copy protection
>> would stop anybody, honest or otherwise.
>>
>> Sorry if this seems negative, I'm fully supportive of TextFyre and its
>> aims, it's just hard to fathom the thinking behind this particular decision.
[snip]
>And I can't fathom why this is such a big deal. You buy the product,
>install it, play the game.
Because the msi is a big middle finger to non-Windows users. Your
business, your decision.
Adam
David C.
> In article <4928894d-f072-4e78-8296-57155d34b...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> David C. <david.cornel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 20, 10:13 am, Jerome West <jeromecw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A .ulx file would stop most people, since they wouldn't have a clue what
> >> to do with it. It's hard to see how an installer with no copy protection
> >> would stop anybody, honest or otherwise.
>
> >> Sorry if this seems negative, I'm fully supportive of TextFyre and its
> >> aims, it's just hard to fathom the thinking behind this particular decision.
>
> [snip]
>
> >And I can't fathom why this is such a big deal. You buy the product,
> >install it, play the game.
>
> Because the msi is a big middle finger to non-Windows users. Your
> business, your decision.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's certainly an inaccurate
characterization. I've never said I wouldn't produce non-Windows
versions and we do have an Intel Mac version. I just tested Secret
Letter in Moonlight on Ubuntu and Suse last night and it works for the
most part. There are some issues with Moonlight that need to be
cleaned up, but it's 98% working. You're pretty much dead wrong when
you say we haven't thought about non-Windows users. I just set up an
Ubuntu box last night for the very specific purpose of creating Linux
builds of both the Standard and Deluxe versions of our games.
David C.
Adam Thornton
David C. <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry you feel that way. It's certainly an inaccurate
>characterization. I've never said I wouldn't produce non-Windows
>versions and we do have an Intel Mac version. I just tested Secret
>Letter in Moonlight on Ubuntu and Suse last night and it works for the
>most part. There are some issues with Moonlight that need to be
>cleaned up, but it's 98% working. You're pretty much dead wrong when
>you say we haven't thought about non-Windows users. I just set up an
>Ubuntu box last night for the very specific purpose of creating Linux
>builds of both the Standard and Deluxe versions of our games.
Is it an msi?
If you wanted to create a cross-platform version of the non-Deluxe
version, I too think you'd stop screwing around burning your development
dollars on trying to patch around the fact that Microsoft doesn't really
support non-Windows platforms, and just release a blorb.
But apparently you believe that a) we're all feeeelthy pirates, and b)
that somehow an msi would inhibit people from feeeeelthy piracy where a
blorb wouldn't. I don't really believe either of these.
I don't get it, and I don't much care: it's your business, and your
decision about what you release and when. If that happens to not much
align with what I'd like, well, too bad for me: I didn't put any money
into your company, and I don't and shouldn't get a vote.
Adam
Conrad
> I don't get it, and I don't much care: it's your business, and your
> decision about what you release and when. If that happens to not much
> align with what I'd like, well, too bad for me: I didn't put any money
> into your company, and I don't and shouldn't get a vote.
Well, you "vote" by buying the game or not.
So, as I understand it, while there is no actual distinction in ease
of piratability, Dave and his business associates can string together
a bunch of words that make it appear that there's a distinction.
Perhaps the next cycle of interpreter development might include
something that a private company could customize, entangle with a
game, and sell as an installable executable?
I'm thinking that if the purpose of developing interpreters is to get
games to people, it might be worth ... er, I'm trying to think of a
value-neutral way of putting, "pander to the bizarre face-saving needs
of business" -- since businesses (like Dave's) will undoubtedly raise
IF's profile.
Conrad.
S. John Ross
> So, as I understand it, while there is no actual distinction in ease
> of piratability, Dave and his business associates can string together
> a bunch of words that make it appear that there's a distinction.
Yeah. The argument seems to be less about the value of copy-protection
(since there is none, really) and more about the need to snow
investors who don't understand the issue but can be comforted by a
quick puppet show on the subject and walk away assured that honest
people are being kept honest (still a bit confused by THAT detail) :/
I just know that if I can get a copy that doesn't require Silverlight,
I'll probably finally break down and purchase it just to contribute to
the completeness of my growing IF library. If nothing else I'd like it
to fill that virtual hole in the virtual shelf, so to speak, even if
the game itself looks a bit bland for my gaming tastes.
Map's very pretty, though.
Jesse McGrew
What would be the point of that? If you need a special interpreter to
play the game because it's copy-protected, then it's no longer "just
an .ulx file", even if it happens to be called something.ulx.
Hmm, here's a wacky idea. What if you could export a .ulx file from
the game, or request one from the web site, but it came out
watermarked so that your name, email address, etc. were printed in the
banner to discourage copying?
vw
Matthew Russotto
Jerome West <jerom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry if this seems negative, I'm fully supportive of TextFyre and its
>aims, it's just hard to fathom the thinking behind this particular decision.
Once the anti-piracy bug gets into someone, it just grows and grows
until it takes over the whole operation; eventually all that is
produced is something hard to pirate which no one wants in the first
place. Just move on.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
Gene Wirchenko
<david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I can't use the existing terps because I don't own them.
Do you own Silverlight?
>I won't release games in ulx format because that will invite people to
>simply share them with everyone without paying.
If you really want strong protection:
I won't release games because that will invite people to simply
share them with everyone without paying.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Ikz
> Hmm, here's a wacky idea. What if you could export a .ulx file from
> the game, or request one from the web site, but it came out
> watermarked so that your name, email address, etc. were printed in the
> banner to discourage copying?
>
> vw
I came up with this too, I don't think there's anything you can do to
deter the average user more than having his name, home address, and
phone number hanging on the banner that shows up at startup.
But that's the average user. Hackers do what hackers do.
All we really know about this decision (because people are telling us)
is that sales are being lost because it's not just a blorb. We don't
know investors will want these measures, because seriously, what
investors? That's an unknown.
I'm with Adam I guess.
David C.
I never really viewed sales from the general IF hobbyist community as
anything measurable or expected. It's certainly not in the business
plan. I did, however believe, for whatever odd reason, that there
would be more support for Textfyre in measurable actions.
I can't say I'm surprised, but I am slightly disappointed in the lack
of support as well as the hostility. Certainly the people that are
involved have put an enormous amount of effort into Textfyre's
success. But the drop off in support from the community after that is
significant.
My impression is that most hobbyists simply don't care one way or the
other about Textfyre. They might poke at the demo of a game and if it
meets or exceeds some watermark for their personal taste in gaming,
they might shell out a couple bucks. But outside of that, there's no
real interest in seeing us succeed - or fail.
There are a handful of people that would like to see us succeed, but
won't help.
There are probably a few people hoping we fail, but I can't tell for
sure.
I suspect most people are just too busy with other (important) things
to pay attention.
This usenet group has also become a hornets nest of negativity. I see
no humorous or collegiate discussions of IF here anymore. I see some
help on programming, but gone are the days when people had fruitful
and happy conversations about Interactive Fiction.
I find Adam Thornton's comments painful and childish now - where a few
years ago I thought he was a funny guy. I find the abuse of Emily and
Graham outrageous. The constant Microsoft bashing, the belief that the
free software foundation is the holy grail of all things software,
that Linux is the Ark of the Covenent....it's all very annoying and
pointless. It has nothing to do with Interactive Fiction.
I guess usenet is good as a help desk, but there are now much better
places to discuss IF seriously.
It's sad, but true. rec.arts.int-fiction is dying a slow and quiet
death.
David C.
Jim Aikin
or two for clarification.
> I never really viewed sales from the general IF hobbyist community as
> anything measurable or expected. It's certainly not in the business
> plan. I did, however believe, for whatever odd reason, that there
> would be more support for Textfyre in measurable actions.
I'm not sure what this means. "Measurable actions" -- does that mean
"talking up Textfyre on your blog"? I've said over and over that I hope
your enterprise is fantastically successful. I may also have voiced some
criticisms of the business model -- but not, certainly, criticisms of
your need to license and copy-protect the game.
I live in the world of professional music software. Just about ALL of it
is well copy-protected. Everybody hates copy protection, but it's an
economic necessity. If you want into the dance, you got to buy a ticket.
People who think they have a God-given right to crash the gate hurt
everybody (including themselves) by making it more difficult for
software companies to produce innovative, bug-free programs.
> I can't say I'm surprised, but I am slightly disappointed in the lack
> of support as well as the hostility. Certainly the people that are
> involved have put an enormous amount of effort into Textfyre's
> success. But the drop off in support from the community after that is
> significant.
Again -- significant in what way? Significant emotionally, or
significant economically? If you're saying that the drop-off in support
from the community has had a significant economic impact on Textfyre,
then I'm confused, because you've repeatedly said the IF community isn't
your primary market.
I would love to see five start-ups follow in your path, all of them
staffed by r.a.i-f veterans. But that's only likely to happen when folks
see you rolling around town in a Beemer. Or at least a new Honda Civic.
> This usenet group has also become a hornets nest of negativity. I see
> no humorous or collegiate discussions of IF here anymore. I see some
> help on programming, but gone are the days when people had fruitful
> and happy conversations about Interactive Fiction.
Since my involvement doesn't date back to the old days, I'm not the best
person to judge this, but I think I can see where you're coming from.
Possibly there's less need for fruitful and happy conversations now
because the nature and limitations of IF are better understood. Or
perhaps most of the people who were contributing to those conversations
have scratched the IF itch and have now gone on to other activities,
leaving behind ... well, leaving behind whoever is left behind.
Or maybe nobody else feels a need to comment because Emily's extensive
theoretical writings have covered the subject thoroughly enough.
> I find Adam Thornton's comments painful and childish now - where a few
> years ago I thought he was a funny guy. I find the abuse of Emily and
> Graham outrageous. The constant Microsoft bashing, the belief that the
> free software foundation is the holy grail of all things software,
> that Linux is the Ark of the Covenent....it's all very annoying and
> pointless. It has nothing to do with Interactive Fiction.
Once or twice I've suggested a mass migration to a moderated forum. That
would at least filter out the worst of the noise. The amount of traffic
on intfiction.org (very small) suggests that, for whatever reason,
people are getting what they want out of the newsgroup(s).
> It's sad, but true. rec.arts.int-fiction is dying a slow and quiet
> death.
I expect you'll get flamed for saying that. But the flaming will only
prove that you're right.
But ultimately, does it matter? Arguably not. What matters is that we
have a choice of great creative tools with which to write deep,
involving IF. There is no barrier to anybody rolling up their sleeves
and doing exactly that. Kvetching about kvetching is not a very
productive activity. (And here I am, kvetching about kvetching about
kvetching. Ought to take my own advice, yes?)
--JA
Jerome West
> There are a handful of people that would like to see us succeed, but
> won't help.
>
> There are probably a few people hoping we fail, but I can't tell for
> sure.
I think if you took a straw poll, you'd find the majority of people here
fit into the former category. It's apparent that some people disagree
with some of your business decisions, but it's really none of their
concern - other than the fact that they're free to come and voice their
opinions here, and you're free to either argue the point or ignore them.
Either way, I think hardly anyone here would want Textfyre to fail. The
small group who want that seems to consist solely of the usual trolls
and malcontents.
I've once or twice been confused by a choice that you've made, and I've
entered briefly into discussions on those occasions. I don't have a
great deal of interest in your games personally, which is natural since
I'm nowhere near your target market. But at the end of the day, I follow
the story of Textfyre with interest, and wish you all the luck in the
world - not only because you seem like a nice guy, but because a
successful commercial venture can only be a positive thing for
interactive fiction.
Adam Thornton
David C. <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I find Adam Thornton's comments painful and childish now - where a few
>years ago I thought he was a funny guy.
They haven't changed much. You just were not on the receiving end of
them a few years ago.
I have been doing mostly snarky one-liners for at least a decade now.
Adam
James Jolley
> On Sep 26, 11:03�pm, Ikz <ikz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 4:33�pm, Jesse McGrew <jmcg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, here's a wacky idea. What if you could export a .ulx file from
>>> the game, or request one from the web site, but it came out
>>> watermarked so that your name, email address, etc. were printed in the
>>> banner to discourage copying?
>>
>>> vw
>>
>> I came up with this too, I don't think there's anything you can do to
>> deter the average user more than having his name, home address, and
>> phone number hanging on the banner that shows up at startup.
>>
>> But that's the average user. Hackers do what hackers do.
>>
>> All we really know about this decision (because people are telling us)
>> is that sales are being lost because it's not just a blorb. We don't
>> know investors will want these measures, because seriously, what
>> investors? That's an unknown.
>
> I never really viewed sales from the general IF hobbyist community as
> anything measurable or expected. It's certainly not in the business
> plan. I did, however believe, for whatever odd reason, that there
> would be more support for Textfyre in measurable actions.
I'm not sure what this actually means. Could you define measurable actions?
>
> I can't say I'm surprised, but I am slightly disappointed in the lack
> of support as well as the hostility. Certainly the people that are
> involved have put an enormous amount of effort into Textfyre's
> success. But the drop off in support from the community after that is
> significant.
Regarding the negativity, I can only speak from a personal view and
this isn't a reflection on others. the only reason why I did make
comments was because i'm not convinced that writing you're own
interpreter, messing with existing standards and so on is the way to
go. That's just me. I have things to consider when playing IF, namely
it's accessibility and usability for me as a blind person using a mac.
I'm not a Windows user extensively, only for music notation work as
this software is not yet accessible for me on the mac platform. Os x is
much better for me personally, and seeing this silverlight concept just
throws me when we have glulxe and standards. The pyracy issues - i'd
not considered them and that's me being plain ignorant.
>
> My impression is that most hobbyists simply don't care one way or the
> other about Textfyre. They might poke at the demo of a game and if it
> meets or exceeds some watermark for their personal taste in gaming,
> they might shell out a couple bucks. But outside of that, there's no
> real interest in seeing us succeed - or fail.
Isn't that the same for other things though? My partner likes computer
games, but i'm sure she couldn't care less if the company goes under
tomorrow as long as she has her game. That's how things are today, it's
not ideal.
For me, I actually do want Textfire to survive, just to get IF out
there to a wider market.
>
> There are a handful of people that would like to see us succeed, but
> won't help.
Many of us can't because we don't know how. I'd offer accessibility
support but you do appear to be mainly windows orriented or using
crossplatform tools witch i'm sure aren't as accessible as a nicely
written cocoa UI.
>
> There are probably a few people hoping we fail, but I can't tell for
> sure.
Possibly, but why let that bother you? you have your market, you're
obviously set up for dealing with that side of the business so why
concern yourself with the community anyway as you've told us that
you're not aiming your work at us?
>
> I suspect most people are just too busy with other (important) things
> to pay attention.
Perhaps.
>
> This usenet group has also become a hornets nest of negativity. I see
> no humorous or collegiate discussions of IF here anymore. I see some
> help on programming, but gone are the days when people had fruitful
> and happy conversations about Interactive Fiction.
I don't know. Some of the discussion is great. People drift in and out
though i'm guessing.
>
> I find Adam Thornton's comments painful and childish now - where a few
> years ago I thought he was a funny guy. I find the abuse of Emily and
> Graham outrageous. The constant Microsoft bashing, the belief that the
> free software foundation is the holy grail of all things software,
> that Linux is the Ark of the Covenent....it's all very annoying and
> pointless. It has nothing to do with Interactive Fiction.
I'm not really A FSF guy but each to there own. It's here to stay i'm
affraid. As to Emily and Graham, they've both been fine towards me and
i've not got a problem with them. Emily's been supportive to me as a
blind user of Inform on mac and I can't argue with that.
>
> I guess usenet is good as a help desk, but there are now much better
> places to discuss IF seriously.
>
> It's sad, but true. rec.arts.int-fiction is dying a slow and quiet
> death.
Wait for the flames. I don't think that's going to go down all that well.
Best
-James-
Conrad
>
> I can't say I'm surprised but I am slightly disappointed in the lack
> of support as well as the hostility. Certainly the people that are
> involved have put an enormous amount of effort into Textfyre's
> success. But the drop off in support from the community after that is
> significant.
>
>
> There are a handful of people that would like to see us succeed, but
> won't help.
Well, now look: you can't have it both ways.
If you had stucken to a open software business, I'd think you'd have
the standard crowd, with individuals constantly popping in and out,
but in large numbers, constantly hammering away and tinkering with
things to get it right.
But you wanted to own everything, down to the individual electrons.
And that may well be the right business-minded approach; I assume it
is. But if your priority is to own everything yourself, and keep it
all locked down, then the flip-side of that proposition is that you do
all the work.
That's just the nature of the thing.
For my part, I'm willing to make small investments of time to help you
guys out; I'd do the equivalent of handing out your business card, if
I had one, to people who run schools who express an interest in IF.
But other than that, it's not clear to me what kind of support you're
looking for from us.
> This usenet group has also become a hornets nest of negativity.. I see
> no humorous or collegiate discussions of IF here anymore. I see some
> help on programming, but gone are the days when people had fruitful
> and happy conversations about Interactive Fiction.
Well, nothing like having a big stake in something to take your sense
of humor out of it.
There *is* some negativity here, but I find it's pretty limited in its
extent. I think the questions people had about what's possible in the
form have been, if not ironed-out, well-mapped. Most of the
negativity is people stepping on each others' toes and then others
getting mad when they see toe-stepping. Plus a few who like to zing
people.
Conrad.
ps -
> I guess usenet is good as a help desk, but there are now much better
> places to discuss IF seriously.
Where?
ps2 -
Have you considered starting up an operation as an IF *publisher* --
where you review, edit, and market IF that was written in the usual
way? You could add pictures, etc.
Just a thought.
C.
Matthew Russotto
David C. <david.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>anything measurable or expected. It's certainly not in the business
>plan. I did, however believe, for whatever odd reason, that there
>would be more support for Textfyre in measurable actions.
Treating potential customers like potential thieves often fails to
engender support.
Ikz
wrote:
> In article <27fedd1b-04c8-49e3-9191-9bf904c61...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> David C. <david.cornel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I never really viewed sales from the general IF hobbyist community as
> >anything measurable or expected. It's certainly not in the business
> >plan. I did, however believe, for whatever odd reason, that there
> >would be more support for Textfyre in measurable actions.
>
> Treating potential customers like potential thieves often fails to
> engender support.
> --
> The problem with socialism is there's always
> someone with less ability and more need.
I think he meant support from the "IF authoring community", not from
the "IF community potential customers". Because he just said we're not
his target audience for sales, at least. Maybe he wants us to buy the
game and encourage him, or tell him if the games aren't up to snuff or
something, because we're not really a financial boon.
And as far as the FSF negativity, seriously? How is the FSF anything
but a good thing? If you don't like it, or it's too much for you to
handle, stick with your proprietary stuff. Make the call using
rational thinking for yourself. For years and years and years, the
only reason there was any real progress in the field of interactive
fiction was thanks to free and open efforts. It's probably the right
direction. I know Textfyre wants to dance the capitalist dance, and I
have respect for that, but if anyone should at least acknowledge IF's
open source history, it's the people who are using like 20 years of
free -theory- and free -standards- as a launching pad. They don't have
to make the first mistakes in execution, almost all of them have been
documented already. Maybe an apology for running off with the theory
and leaving the standards at the door is what the dissenters are
asking for.
I have a lot to say about open source vs. lockdown, but it doesn't
have much to do with the topic at hand and no one's going to get
magically converted into the opposite value system.