Snowie vs JellyFish
David D. Wright
Snowie vs JellyFish? Are there any opinions out there as to which
program is stronger and a better tutor? I am assuming that there are
some players who have played/used an advanced copy of Snowie. I think
its introductory price is going to be $200 less than suggested retail.
Is it worth buying early, saving $200, if one already has JellyFish.
Dave Wright
Kenneth M. Arnold
My opinion: Snowie is light years ahead of JF in its interface and
overall value. Snowie **probably** outplays JF, but that is not certain.
Snowie surely plays backgames far , far better than JF.
The real benefit of Snowie is that the interface is superb and makes it
simple to improve one's game. Having used JF for years, I feel that
Snowie taught me more in 3 weeks than JF did in 3 years. It highlights
errors, blunders and cube decisions. It is possible to import entire
matches from GamesGrid or Fibs or JF and then to have snowie roll out
every single move in the match any number of times with just 2 or 3 mouse
clicks. This means that you are compariong your plays to the 3888 game
rollout instead of the Level 7 opinion which makes a huge difference in
the quality of the information.
Another interesting feature is that Snowie will provide (graphically and
numerically) the skill level and 'luck level' for each player by game and
by match. You can even build compilations of the skill level of each of
your opponents over a period of time, which will tell you whether you are
really getting outrolled or outplayed.
In my opinion, anyone who wants to win at this game should get Snowie
asap. The price is steep but it is reasonable to expect a major
improvement in your game!
You can view samples of the analysis the Snowie provides by going to the
following site:
http://wwwtech.cyberarts.com/web/snowie/matches/kavsjolev7pt.htm
CyberArts is a distributor of Snowie.
David Montgomery
In article <3570792d...@news.mindspring.com> kena...@mindspring.com writes:
>My opinion: Snowie is light years ahead of JF in its interface and
>overall value. Snowie **probably** outplays JF, but that is not certain.
>Snowie surely plays backgames far , far better than JF.
I have tremendous regard for Snowie, but this post seems like quite
a bit of hype.
Snowie's interface is superior to JF's, overall, for the student of
the game. It's not clear to me that it is for the average player. Snowie
has a number of great features which do advance the state of the art
for backgammon programs, but as of the most recent beta it still lacks
some important features that JF has -- features important to the
serious student of the game. I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment
specifically on these, but in any event it wouldn't be fair to the
developers of Snowie since it hasn't been officially released yet,
so they can still add functionality.
It is hype to say it's light years ahead. Maybe 1 year ahead. Two
at the outside. (I know, light year is distance, years are time.)
Snowie definitely plays some positions better than JF. JF definitely
plays some positions better than Snowie. I know this for a fact,
based on rollout data. Most of the time, the Snowie evaluations "look"
a bit more accurate to me than the JF evaluations, but this is very
subjective. I have seen positions where Snowie's evaluations were
much more accurate than JF's, and positions where JF's were much more
accurate than Snowie's.
The best objective evidence I know of for comparing JF and SW's overall
strength is the two program's average rating on FIBS. JF has several
thousand experience points supporting the case that on level 7 with
a modest time factor, JF's rating will average about 2050. Despite
SW's 2100 rating, it passed 2050 less than 500 experience points ago.
So based on the objective evidence, I think the claim should be,
Snowie *probably* plays about as well, overall, as JF, but it might
not.
I'm not saying this is the best evidence we could have, just the best
that I know of that has been gathered already.
As far as a specific class of positions, backgames... well, backgames
are actually of a multitude of forms. Based on the rollouts I have
done, I feel that JF plays backgames better. JF definitely plays
some of them better. Maybe I haven't looked at enough positions, or
Ken is considering a different type of backgame class than I am, but
I would be stunned to find out that SW plays backgames, overall,
"far far better than JF" since I know that in the cases I've checked,
JF plays them better.
>The real benefit of Snowie is that the interface is superb and makes it
>simple to improve one's game. Having used JF for years, I feel that
>Snowie taught me more in 3 weeks than JF did in 3 years.
This is hype. Snowie has a much, much better interface for reviewing
matches and games, but the time ratio is nothing like 52:1. I have
been reviewing matches with almost nothing but Snowie since I began
beta testing it, but I've certainly gotten more benefit out of JF the
last 4 years than out of snowie the last 2 months. I think the time
advantage of Snowie is probably between 2:1 and 10:1 -- still big.
>In my opinion, anyone who wants to win at this game should get Snowie
>asap. The price is steep but it is reasonable to expect a major
>improvement in your game!
I agree that Snowie is going to be a great product, and that any
backgammon player would like to have it. But I have heard rumors of
an extraordinarly high price. On the other hand, many players feel
that the only way for Snowie to get decent sales is to offer it at
a price below JF. A number of players are looking forward to declining
prices for top backgammon software now that there is competition.
I guess time will tell.
Based on the latest beta, I would recommend Snowie over JF, if price
were no object. But I have gotten a lot of players started with
computer backgammon, setting them on FIBS (free), teaching them to
use svempa's great FIBS to JF .mat converter (free), and making sure
they buy JF tutor ($110, if i remember right). For most players,
this gives them more feedback than they will every absorb. If Snowie
costs several hundred dollars, I don't see how I could recommend it
over this setup for anyone to whom $100 isn't chump change.
For the truly serious players, Snowie's price might be nothing more
than their equity for one night in the local chouette. But I don't
know how many of us there are.
David Montgomery
mo...@cs.umd.edu
monty on FIBS
Kenneth M. Arnold
mo...@cs.umd.edu (David Montgomery) wrote:
>In article <3570792d...@news.mindspring.com> kena...@mindspring.com writes:
>>(dig delete , see above)
>David Montgomery
>mo...@cs.umd.edu
>monty on FIBS
>
Hmmmm.... should have put this in the previous post.
The 'opinion' levels in all of these programs are too weak to be of much
value to an expert player. Only the rollouts are really reliable. Every
time that I have played a long match against JF and then reviewed it, JF
Levels 5 and 6 point out many errors which are not errors at all. Upon
doing a Level 7 evaluation or a rollout JF reverses itself and selects my
original play more often than not. Thus, JF has been of very little
value to me.
Perhaps you are more patient and more willing to do the work needed to get
the most out of JF. I like to play a match against a top human player
online, import it to Snowie, and then have Snowie do a 3888 rollout of
every play in the match (which takes ovenight on a P-Pro 200) while I
sleep. This method yields excellent data for just a minute or two of
work. It becomes easy to review the entire match or just to focus on the
rolls where there was an error.
How long would it take to do the same in JF? More than 10 times longer
(perhaps 50) and more time than I have the patience for. I have written,
reviewed and tested a LOT of software over the last 17 years. This is an
extraordinarily high quality release 1.0, better than any other software
product that I have ever seen and I doubt that anyone can point out
counterexamples.
MLeifer
>n article <3570792d...@news.mindspring.com> kena...@mindspring.com
>writes:
>>My opinion: Snowie is light years ahead of JF in its interface and
>>overall value. Snowie **probably** outplays JF, but that is not certain.
>>Snowie surely plays backgames far , far better than JF.
>
>I have tremendous regard for Snowie, but this post seems like quite
>a bit of hype.
>
The Snowie link at Ken Arnold's Gamesgrid site reveals that Ken is a
distributor for Snowie and
"Snowie will be available for shipment in 4 to 5 weeks. To get one of the first
copies order now at the
introductory price of $299. The full price will be
$599. This is not inexpensive, but the tool is exception
and far exceeds anything available to date.
To order, send a check to:
CyberArts
314 Walnut Street
San Francisco, CA 94118.
EdmondT
This isn't a program -- it's a joke. $600 for a game?
When we were discussing Snowie versus Jellyfish earlier, I had no idea that
Snowie was priced so ridiculously high -- higher than Excel, Word, or Win 98!!
I think anyone would be just plain stupid to pay this much for a new, untested
computer game. And I think the manufacturor is crazy to think that any
significant number of people would pay this much -- no matter how many posts
they plant on this board.
Take my advice, after a few months of little if any sales of this product, they
will reduce the price to something rational. Until then, buy Jellyfish, and
with the extra $500, take a trip to Paris.
Yes, that's right. You could buy Jellyfish and fly from the US to Paris with
the difference. Snowie is just a joke at this price.
Ed Zell
Kenneth M. Arnold wrote in message
>You can view samples of the analysis the Snowie provides by going
> to the following site:
>
> http://wwwtech.cyberarts.com/web/snowie/matches/kavsjolev7pt.htm
>
Ken,
I get an HTTP Error 404 Not Found when I try to go to the
above link.
Ed
Leo Bueno
On 31 May 1998 00:33:46 -0400, mo...@cs.umd.edu (David Montgomery)
wrote:
>
>The best objective evidence I know of for comparing JF and SW's overall
>strength is the two program's average rating on FIBS. JF has several
>thousand experience points supporting the case that on level 7 with
>a modest time factor, JF's rating will average about 2050. Despite
>SW's 2100 rating, it passed 2050 less than 500 experience points ago.
>So based on the objective evidence, I think the claim should be,
>Snowie *probably* plays about as well, overall, as JF, but it might
>not.
Why not just have, for example, a 10,001 point match on FIBS between
JellyFish and Snowie?
Kenneth M. Arnold
Two points here.... Snowie pricing was revised by its authors
yesterday. The new pricing is $299 introductory, going to $399.
Fine detective work learning that I am a (proud) Snowie distributor by
checking the website. I stated that fact in my original post so that
everyone would be clear.
Kenneth M. Arnold
Sorry, Ed for the bad url. To see an example of a Snowie analysis go to
this url http://www.cyberarts.com/cgi-bin/pages.pl?snowie , or click the
button at www.gamesgrid.com.
David D. Wright
Snowie's introductory price is $299, just $49 more than JellyFish. (We are talking
the analyzer version of the products.) So $49 more is not unreasonable, even if
Snowie is just moderately better than JellyFish. From the examples of Snowie
generated analysis on Games Grid, I think it will be a lot better if just for the
interface and format.
As for the after introductory price, I believe it is now advertised as $399, not
$599. If available, I would even be willing to pay a little more up front for free
future upgrades, sort of a maintenance contract.
When selling anything that has a considerable investment in management time,
engineering labor, materials, and capital equipment (not to mention overhead and
the cost of money) you have to price your product according to your projected
market volume, that is the only way you will get your investment back and make a
profit. If as may copies of Snowie would sell as MS Word or Excel, then the price
per copy would go way down. That is why math, science, engineering, and special
interest books are more expense than novels; they cost more to produce and less
copies are sold.
As for Paris, have a nice trip and don't forget to write!
Carl Larson
Jellyfish 3.0 is a two year old product that no longer justifies its
original and
unchanged price of $250. If Jellyfish 4.0 came out tomarrow at $250, I'd
expect
it to include many of the improved features that Snowie promises. Since
Snowie
for all intents and purposes is a Jellyfish 4.0 equivalent, and given that
the
nature of technology, and software in particular, is to come down in price
over
time, I expected Snowie to priced at or below $250.
The developers of Snowie certainly have put time and effort into the game
and
deserve to get a profit. However, I have bought similar game software that
plays
at a professional level in chess, bridge, scrabble, go, and misc card games
and
have always paid in the $40-100 range. Games like Chessmaster, Hasbro
Scrabble,
Crosswise, Many Faces of Go, etc. All play at the highest level for
computer
software in their area, all with interfaces better than Jellyfish, and most
with
professional-level analyzing features. Compared to these programs, Snowie
is
outrageously overpriced.
You could argue that Backgammon is not as popular than Chess or Bridge and
doesn't
have a large enough market for a reasonably priced Backgammon game to
generate
enough sales to turn a profit. There is some truth to that. However, Go,
Scrabble, and card games like Cribbage/Gin/Hearts are more in the popularity
range
of Backgammon and those games are available below $100.
My feeling is that a reasonable price for Snowie with all its professional
level
features is around $100. It also be nice for a "amateur" level version
focused on
gameplay that lacks some of the analyzing features to be available for the
more
standard software price of $40 targeted for the casual gamer. I think that
the
increased sales that Snowie would receive at these prices would offset the
lower
price.
So why $299? My theory for why quality Backgammon programs are priced so
high is
because in many camps, Backgammon is a money game. Unlike Chess, Bridge,
Go, etc.
Backgammon is more of a money game at high levels rather than a
tournament/ratings
game. Since Backgammon is very much a gambling game, and money tends to
chase
money, the Backgammon programs can command a high price. There is a
reasonable
comparison here to professional level Poker and Sports Betting programs,
that in
some cases are priced similarly high.
I belive Backgammon's gambling legacy continues to harm the game and keep it
from
being as popular as it could be. Why aren't there more regoinal backgammon
tournaments? Why no national organization similar to the USCF? Why no
national
ratings system? I think the advent of online play is the best thing to
happen to
Backgammon since the 70s. And the price of online play is right, whether
free
through FIBS or some of the Java-based services, or through GamesGrid with
their
pricing similar to other fee-based online gaming services.
I may be placing too much burden on Jellyfish and Snowie's shoulders, but to
me
it's a shame that the programs are not more accesible to more players. They
are
valuable tools and they could help the game's popularity. In a perfect
world,
the makers of Snowie would cut a deal with a large, established game
publisher
in order make the game widely available at a decent price while realizing
the
volume level that the distribution network of an established game publisher
would deliver. Maven getting turned into Hasbro's Scrabble is reasonable
example of this working.
I'm still going to buy Snowie. My disposible income level and strong (but
amateur) interest in gaming make the purchase obvious. Unfortunately, I
have
a number of friends that won't buy the game at the proposed price.
Carl Larson
David D. Wright wrote in message <3573970A...@uswest.net>...
Vince Mounts
>Why not just have, for example, a 10,001 point match on FIBS between
>JellyFish and Snowie?
That is a wonderful idea. Although I doubt it would be in either parties
interest to enter into such a contest where they know that there is the
possibility that their program would prove to be inferior to the other. But
along these same lines... Maybe there should be some bot tourneys like they
do with chess programs. There are a number of ches tourneys where the
programs play each other and other tourneys where people take on the chess
bots. I guess a major problem there would be that quite a few rounds would
need to be played to determine a true champ. But the onoine servers,
especially FIBS, would be a perfect place for such tourney's. How about a
tourney where each bot plays the others 300 times. The bots just log in and
play for days on end,,, its not like they would get tired. There could be 11
pt tourneys and 1 ptr tourneys for the 1 ptr bots.
EdmondT
I'm sorry but still don't get it. Snowy starts at an "introductory" price of
$300, with a soon to be increased price of $400.
How many people do they think are going to buy it? Couldn't they sell many
times more copies at $80 a pop?
After all, they have already spent the development money. Having spent it, it
only costs them maybe $0.50 to make one more copy of the program. Why not get
everyone in the BG world using it at a low price? Then a year from now,
provide an upgrade for $35, and get scads more money.
Bill Gates, you know, knows what he's doing.
mashadi
In article <199806021651...@ladder01.news.aol.com> EdmondT wrote:
>Date: 02 Jun 1998 16:51:40 GMT
>From: edm...@aol.com (EdmondT)
>Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
>Subject: Re: Snowie vs JellyFish
>
>I'm sorry but still don't get it. Snowy starts at an "introductory" price o
>f
>$300, with a soon to be increased price of $400.
>
>How many people do they think are going to buy it? Couldn't they sell many
>times more copies at $80 a pop?
>
You will be surprised.
After GamesGrid started charging about $100.00 a year, I had to go to FIBS
exclusively because I could not afford it.
I thought GamesGrid would never be able to sign up too many people, as good
as it is, with free competition, FIBS, ZONE, VOG, Yahoo,etc.
But I was wrong. There are a lot of people who are paying GamesGrid, for the
best on line backgammon there is.
I appreciate why. The only difference between us is that I can not afford
it, otherwise I would have paid GamesGrid's price.
I suspect people who can afford it and love the game as much as I do, will
purchase Snowy.
Good for them.
mashadi
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com
> I'm sorry but still don't get it. Snowy starts at an "introductory" price
of
> $300, with a soon to be increased price of $400.
>
> How many people do they think are going to buy it? Couldn't they sell many
> times more copies at $80 a pop?
I have to agree. There's no way I could ever afford a piece of BG software
over $100, and there's really a very low chance I'd ever make $400 back at
money play as the only other BG player I know of in my town is my brother,
who plays about exactly as well as me. But... for $60 or even $80 I'd buy
Snowie in a heartbeat (the only reason I've not bought the JF 'Tutor' is the
lack of rollout capability). There's a very limited market for BG products in
the first place (compared to chess, bridge etc.) ... why limit oneself to
such a low sales volume?
I'm sure there's something I'm missing here, but does it really cost $200
*per copy* to produce one of these programs... I'd be amazed if publishing a
single unit even cost $100, with overhead.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6l1a04$6...@news.or.intel.com>,
"Carl Larson" <Carl_F...@ccm.hf.intel.com> wrote:
> I belive Backgammon's gambling legacy continues to harm the game and keep
>it from
> being as popular as it could be. Why aren't there more regoinal backgammon
> tournaments? Why no national organization similar to the USCF? Why no
> national
> ratings system? I think the advent of online play is the best thing to
I think that you're very right that backgammon's label (some might say
stigma) as a gambling game has tended to reduce its popularity somewhat,
however, I think that there are other factors.
1. Backgammon has always been, well, that weird-looking thing with the
triangles on the back of my checkers board. Freaky. Let's not play it.
Besides, the rule book says things like "tables" and "stones" in it.
2. Supplies are impossible to find. Have you ever gone to Target or Wal-Mart,
and just for the hell of it, looked for a backgammon board? Well, they
carry four different kinds of mancala boards (plus two pocket-sized ones)
but neither of the two chains carries even a cardboard BG set! In fact,
there's only one store in my city that carries quality BG supplies.
3. Dice. People have a natural aversion to the game because they perceive it
as a game purely of chance. (though it's OBVIOUSLY not... I get good rolls
and I'm still under 1500 ;-)
Any other theories? These can't be all there are...
Donald Kahn
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry but still don't get it. Snowy starts at an "introductory" price
>of
>> $300, with a soon to be increased price of $400.
>>
>> How many people do they think are going to buy it? Couldn't they sell many
>> times more copies at $80 a pop?
>
>I have to agree. There's no way I could ever afford a piece of BG software
>over $100, and there's really a very low chance I'd ever make $400 back at
>money play as the only other BG player I know of in my town is my brother,
>who plays about exactly as well as me. But... for $60 or even $80 I'd buy
>Snowie in a heartbeat (the only reason I've not bought the JF 'Tutor' is the
>lack of rollout capability). There's a very limited market for BG products in
>the first place (compared to chess, bridge etc.) ... why limit oneself to
>such a low sales volume?
>
>I'm sure there's something I'm missing here, but does it really cost $200
>*per copy* to produce one of these programs... I'd be amazed if publishing a
>single unit even cost $100, with overhead.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
I don't exactly understand the relevance of all this. Since time
immemorial, it has been a creator's privilege to set the price at
which he offers his product. No justification is required.
Otherwise, we would all be driving Ferraris.
deekay
Dave Hart
In addition to your comments about it being the "weird game on the back of my
chess board"...
I think it's a matter of culture and attitude...
1. Most of our parents, sisters and brothers taught us how to use a chess
board by teaching us "Checkers". Hence, when we grew older, it was an easier
transition to Chess, we felt a little more familiar to begin with. Mentally,
something like "Hey, I can play checkers and it uses the same board, it can't
be all that more difficult to learn." As tapeworm said, the "other side" of
the board looked weird.
2. For the most part, Backgammon is not taught to children. Most folks I know,
myself included, learned BG from a friend or a book in their late teens or even
later. It's not one of the games 90's parents teach their kiddies. Nor has it
been for a long time, if ever.
3. In the US, we tend to have 'regions' where certain card or parlor games are
prevalent and others where they're not. Cribbage is popular on the East Coast
(especially Northeast) as where you can hardly find a native Californian who
plays (I KNOW YOU know how to play, just go with me on this post for now.)
Cribbage is one of those games "handed down" from generation to generation.
I know my Grandfather (raised in Rhode Island) was an avid Cribbage player and
he taught my Dad, then taught me. Same with Chess (I imagine Russian children
are taught Chess by their parents / grandparents). I may be all wet, but it
seems that the only area where BG is "handed down" seems to be the Middle
East and some of the Scandinavian areas.
4. The game is not at all similar to other games. Most Americans have played
board games; Monopoly, Parcheesi, Chutes and Ladders, Candy Land, etc.. ALL
of these games have the same premise: you and your opponents start in one
location, travel around a given path in the SAME direction as your opponents and
the first person to arrive at a give point wins. Chess, like BG, has the two
players traveling in opposite directions, but it's simple... just move straight
ahead. BG however does not travel in an easily recognizable path. Onlookers
find it difficult to "pick-up" backgammon, because they get confused at the
different traveling directions of the players.
5. Setup. Although we don't even think about it anymore, remember back to when
you first started playing BG. I had to keep the stupid paper that came with my
cheapo checkers way smaller than my inner board BG game so I could remember how
to
set the damn checkers up each game. And tapeworms' comment about the triangles
is
very appropriate, I too believe they "scare" off people. (A subliminal aversion
to mathematics / geometry???)
6. Attitude. Most folks I tell that I play in BG tournaments think I'm some
kind
of nerdy braniac. Most of the people I know lump BG players in with the kids
who
got picked last in P.E. or were spending their Summer playing Chess with 'Billy
the booger picking nerd boy.' BG has been classed as a 'pocket protector' game.
7. Americans don't like to lose... and BG tends to be a lose more than win
sport
for most people when learning. Especially with the cube. When I teach people
how to play, they are just fine with accepting the dice and maybe being skilled
at
moving the checkers, but they have fits when we start using the cube. I hear
"this is BS... just play straight" all the time. Essentially lazy, they don't
want
to have to 'think' about playing something, they just want Lady Luck to give
them
a divine hand in playing. Also, the cube starts pushing BG towards the 'Chess'
mentality where you have to be 'smart' to play Chess.
3. Much like Craps, which is a simple game to learn, BG uses dice and does not
have a readily familiar game strategy. Lots of people go to Vegas and play
Blackjack, because they readily grasp the objective and can handle the rules.
Not that many play Craps, because the rules are a little weird and the game is
not
readily familiar to them... like BG.
Okay, there's my two bits worth...
Dave Hart
EdmondT
>I don't exactly understand the relevance of all this. Since time
>immemorial, it has been a creator's privilege to set the price at
>which he offers his product. No justification is required.
>
>
Agreed they can set the price at any ridiculous number they want.
But isn't it also true that "since time immemorial" people have been
complaining about the price set? The fact that the makers of Snowie have the
right to set the price at any level they want does not mean that the price they
set is optimal, or even rational for the product.
Here, they have a game program for a game that few people (relatviely) play at
all. There is already a competing game that sells for $110. It is claimed, but
not proven, that this game is better than the competitor.
And they have set the price comparable to MicroSoft Office.
If we all refuse to buy the program until they set the price realistically,
what do you think will happen? They will exercise their right, held "since
time immemorial" to lower the price.
We should all do just that.
Vince Mounts
I had someone tell me once that Backgammon was a "lawyers" game. Meaning
that they percieved it as a game of "social elite" or rich people. I tried
to explain that the game was played by all types of people of varied social
status and welth but I don't think I ever got through. The stereotypes run
deep.
-----
Vince Mounts (a.k.a einniv)
E-Mail: vmo...@mindspring.com
Home Page URL: http://vmounts.home.mindspring.com
Dave Hart wrote in message <3577811C...@niteshift.com>...
Chuck Bower
(snip)
>I belive Backgammon's gambling legacy continues to harm the game and keep it
>from being as popular as it could be.
This opinion has been debated before, most memorably (for me) in a
letter to the editor in "Inside BG" a while back. SOME BG players react
to this similar to National Rifle Association members who are threatened
with gun control. I think both sides can have their way, and, in fact,
both sides ALREADY have their way!
>Why aren't there more regoinal backgammon tournaments?
Would "supply and demand" ALSO answer this question? Look at the
current attendance of weekend (~regional) events.
>Why no national organization similar to the USCF?
Joe Sylvester lamented on this topic at World Cup 1994. He also
felt that a national organization would increase BG interest. I think
the answer is: it takes time and money, and no one at the present seems
to be willing to invest both (either?) in doing so. Any volunteers?
Back in the 70's there was the "International Backgammon Association"
operated by Les and Sue Boyd. The Boyds are still around (I think
they have a part in running the Monte Carlo World Championships) but
their organization has gone by the wayside, as far as I know.
>Why no national ratings system?
Again, there WAS one (maintainted by Kent and Joanne Goulding)
which was a LOT of work for very little reward, I believe. Besides,
the servers (see more below) have supplanted the Gouldings' system
at some level.
>I think the advent of online play is the best thing to happen to
>Backgammon since the 70s. And the price of online play is right,...
Yes, I think Carl has answered his own question! For those
motivated by ratings (this is not a putdown, BTW), the servers can
provide the satisfaction. They also have money tournaments, for
those who enjoy that medium.
Backgammon has plenty of room for both (not mutually exclusive)
camps--those who want to play for money (in various forms) and those
who want to play for non-money reasons. THESE TWO GROUPS HAVE NO
REASON TO ATTACK EACH OTHER. IN FACT, I THINK THEY HAVE A SYMBIOTIC
RELATIONSHIP!
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Donald Kahn
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
>In article <6l1a04$6...@news.or.intel.com>,
>Carl Larson <Carl_F...@ccm.hf.intel.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>I belive Backgammon's gambling legacy continues to harm the game and keep it
>>from being as popular as it could be.
>
> This opinion has been debated before, most memorably (for me) in a
>letter to the editor in "Inside BG" a while back. SOME BG players react
>to this similar to National Rifle Association members who are threatened
>with gun control. I think both sides can have their way, and, in fact,
>both sides ALREADY have their way!
>
>>Why aren't there more regoinal backgammon tournaments?
>
> Would "supply and demand" ALSO answer this question? Look at the
>current attendance of weekend (~regional) events.
>
>>Why no national organization similar to the USCF?
>
> Joe Sylvester lamented on this topic at World Cup 1994. He also
>felt that a national organization would increase BG interest. I think
>the answer is: it takes time and money, and no one at the present seems
>to be willing to invest both (either?) in doing so. Any volunteers?
>Back in the 70's there was the "International Backgammon Association"
>operated by Les and Sue Boyd. The Boyds are still around (I think
>they have a part in running the Monte Carlo World Championships) but
>their organization has gone by the wayside, as far as I know.
>
>>Why no national ratings system?
>
> Again, there WAS one (maintainted by Kent and Joanne Goulding)
>which was a LOT of work for very little reward, I believe. Besides,
>the servers (see more below) have supplanted the Gouldings' system
>at some level.
>
>>I think the advent of online play is the best thing to happen to
>>Backgammon since the 70s. And the price of online play is right,...
>
> Yes, I think Carl has answered his own question! For those
>motivated by ratings (this is not a putdown, BTW), the servers can
>provide the satisfaction. They also have money tournaments, for
>those who enjoy that medium.
>
> Backgammon has plenty of room for both (not mutually exclusive)
>camps--those who want to play for money (in various forms) and those
>who want to play for non-money reasons. THESE TWO GROUPS HAVE NO
>REASON TO ATTACK EACH OTHER. IN FACT, I THINK THEY HAVE A SYMBIOTIC
>RELATIONSHIP!
>
>
> Chuck
> bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
> c_ray on FIBS
>
As a matter of fact, I do as much of both as I can.
deekay
Dan Frank
> This isn't a program -- it's a joke. $600 for a game?
> .......
> Yes, that's right. You could buy Jellyfish and fly from the US to Paris with
> the difference. Snowie is just a joke at this price.
That makes sense, only if you can afford a Snowie (or at least a JF) a day for
your stay...
Seriously:
if you see it as a game, even JF is to expensive. But they are both tools, especially
for those who play backgammon for high stakes.
For a sensible price the programming effort and the number of sold copies are
important. From this pov JF is much too expensive. And if you consider JF's price
correct, then Snowie's price may be quite correct too.
PS: Snowie has a further advantage: after i rolled a destructive 55 it rolled:
66, 66, 33, 44, 33, 11, 44, 33 - 8 doublets in row, none of them destructive,
and i could double it out on 16! JF would have won at least a 8x gammon .. :-)>
--
Dan Frank
editor & publisher of ESSENTIAL BACKGAMMON
EdmondT
>PS: Snowie has a further advantage: after i rolled a destructive 55 it
>rolled: 66, 66, 33, 44, 33, 11, 44, 33 - 8 doublets in row, none of them
destructive,
>and i could double it out on 16! JF would have won at least a 8x gammon ..
>:-)>
>-
you can beat it anyway?
EdmondT
We have been talking about the price of Snowie for awhile now, and I'd like to
address certain points that have been made.
By now its clear that my position is that the owners of this software have
grossly overpriced the program. While as a BG player of 40 years (I still have
weekly matches with my father, who is 84 and who still beats me regularly) I
appreciate the effort to make such a program, and also to provide much needed
competition for JellyFish.
But at $500 or $600, I view the price as really off the wall. The responses to
this have been of several types:
1. "It cost the developers a lot to create the program." Note that this is
totally irrelevent to the issue. Price is determined by supply and demand, not
cost. Seeing a $200 million dollar move like Titanic, costs the same as an $20
million Woody Allen movie. The way to get repaid the costs is to sell ALOT of
the item.
2. "The owner has the right to charge whatever he wants." Certainly true.
But it is true also that consumers have the right to reject the price. And the
fact that the developer chooses the price (as is his right) does not mean it is
set properly. Numerous companies go out of business as a result of their
pricing policies.
3. "The money is worth it for those who play backgammon for high stakes."
This is a "designer" or "status" argument, essentially saying that those who
choose to pay this price are better or more attractive than the rest of us
smucks. Ignoring the self serving aspect of this argument, the problem with
the argument is that backgammon is ALREADY a game that is played by a
relatively few people. If the game is designed (or a practical purchase) only
for that subset of us that plays for "high stakes" then how many copies of the
program is that going to be?
Remember, we have already identifed some bugs in the program. (High stakes
players would, I am sure, be concerned that Snowie confuses which side its on
when it suggests a double.)
Bottom line: Snowie should be priced BELOW JellyFish to be smart -- around $80.
The market should be ALL backgammon players. If Snowie is better than
JellyFish, this pricing would force JellyFish to improve significanlty and
soon, or be out of the market. If it is as good as the hype, it would be the
required purchase for all backgammon players, and almost immediately.
dave magyar
after all these comments i picked one at random (yes random - did anyone
ever think they would hear me say that?) and decided to comment.
as you all you loyal readers know by now.. i have not been playing all
that long. i bought jf about 8 months ago. my game went from (1600's -
1700's) to high (1700's to low 1800's)
what was my investment for? at first, i thought it was for the rating,
but i realized just last night (will explain in a second) that it was
about being a better player. was it worth the money i invested? with
out a doubt, yes. i read that one of you doesn't play on gamesgrid
because you cannot afford it. you also mentioned that it was $100 a
year. to my knowledge it is $80 when you pay for the year in advance, or
you can pay as little as $10 a month ($120 a year). just wondering if
you are aware of that?
now, back to the question of money and snowie. why do i think it is
worth every dollar? last night i was playing my round 6 tournament
match with one of the better players on gg (see the results at:
http://www.cyberarts.com/cgi-bin/brackets.pl?10000consol) :). well, to
keep a long story short, i won. why did i win? because i not only have
an excellent teacher, but i practice with jf every day at lunch at
work... i hope none of my colleagues are here :)). as i have told all
of you before, if it can help me i know it can help all of you. oh yea,
one more thing, i am not sure about this, but if i win one more round in
the tournament, i will be able to capture my investment for jf, with
some extra left over to go towards snowie :)
i look forward to snowie. i am still trying to figure out a way to hide
the money to pay for it from my lovely wife (don't tell her she will
kill me). she knows i love the game, but thinks that anything over $5
in my wallet is a bad thing.
i want to comment on this message for just one second...
listen, if the price was lowered to $80 i am sure a couple of things
would happen. one, yes there would be a few more sales, but i doubt it
would still be enough to cover the initial projected investment. and
two (which ties in with one) there would be people still complaining
about the price. what will it take for everyone to be happy? give it
away for free? i doubt that would even satisfy everyone. one other
thing, for those of you who try to equate the cost of developing a
product with the cost of production of that product, you have not worked
in the software industry for very long and if you have it has been as a
vendor, not a developer. so, to say it only cost $0.50 to reproduce the
product is a falacy, sorry. i have been on the developing side for a
long time now and i can tell you this. i cleary understand why rates go
up every year and not down. if you want me to go into that, just give
me a call or email me and i will explain it to you in detail. no, i am
not posting my phone number here :)) those of you who know me know it.
ok, that is it from me for now. once again, i have gone on far too long
and have no idea what i just said. i refuse to spell check this or
check the grammar so please just accept it.
thanks for staying awake long enough to get to here!
sincerely
dave magyar
ps - my little girl just turned 4 last week. i will be posting party
pictures soon so keep checking my web site magyars.com ... :)
dm/davey on gamesgrid
dmagyar on fibs
email:
da...@magyars.com
dave....@wl.com
In article <199806021651...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edm...@aol.com says...
>
>I'm sorry but still don't get it. Snowy starts at an "introductory"
price of
>$300, with a soon to be increased price of $400.
>
>How many people do they think are going to buy it? Couldn't they sell
many
>times more copies at $80 a pop?
>
Chuck Bower
In article <199806061152...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
EdmondT <edm...@aol.com> wrote:
(snip)
In reference to the soon to be released Snowie software:
>But at $500 or $600, I view the price as really off the wall.
I think the last I saw it was $300 for an introductory time
period and $400 after that.
>The responses to this have been of several types:
>
>1. "It cost the developers a lot to create the program." Note that this is
>totally irrelevent to the issue. Price is determined by supply and demand,...
Very good, and I'll discuss this more below.
>2. "The owner has the right to charge whatever he wants." Certainly true.
>But it is true also that consumers have the right to reject the price. And
>the fact that the developer chooses the price (as is his right) does not mean
>it is set properly. Numerous companies go out of business as a result of
>their pricing policies.
Again a good point. But some companies go out of business because
their price is set too low. What makes you think that your pricing
plan is the right one? The makers (and backers) of Snowie have
considerable time and money already risked in the product. If they
make a decision and it is wrong, they suffer. If it is right, they
are rewarded. If they take your advice, and it is wrong (or right)
who suffers (or is rewarded)?
(snip)
>Remember, we have already identifed some bugs in the program.
(snip)
Oh, WE have, have WE?? Are you SURE about that?
While we are summarizing ideas, here's one I haven't seen yet:
why doesn't anyone argue that a price is too low? I can hazard an
answer: because a consumner always wants the lowest possible price.
Nothing wrong with that, on the surface. But there is a certain,
crystal clear bias in all of those who give logical arguments about
why supply and demand should make Snowie's (or JF's) price lower--
so they can save money (or be able to afford it).
In simple terms, supply and demand should (does?) determine the
price. But I doubt if there is any magic formula that easily measures
supply and demand. It's a trial and error thing (and sometimes the
errors have serious consequences...).
I'll emphasize a point made earlier: the developers have put
time and money into their product, and they will sink or swim on
their decisions. If they screw up and set the price incorrectly,
or worse, don't correct their (pricing) errors if and when they
occur, they will be duly punished. They've paid (in time and money)
for the chance to play this game. But it is THEIR decision and I
for one don't think they should take seriously the idle opinions of
those (including me!) who have very little stake in this. At the
risk of taking a naive stance, I'd rather trust capitalism/free
enterprise to sort this one out.
Patti Beadles
The market for sophisticated backgammon anlysis tools is fairly small.
Face it, there aren't all that many serious backgammon players in the
world.
Let's say, for example, that the market for Snowie saturates at 300
copies. If so, that's a gross market of $90,000 at $300/copy.
Of that $300, probably 15% or $13,500 goes to distributors, leaving
$76,500. Just to make the numbers round, let's say $6500 goes to
marketing efforts such as advertising, website development, etc.
It probably costs $10/copy for production, since the quantity is
relatively small. We're down to $67000. It would take a minimum of
two high-end computer systems to develop such a program, figure $7000.
That leaves $60,000 for the author of Snowie. Assuming it's one
person, it probably took a good solid year of basically full-time work
to develop the program. And $60K/year isn't exactly a spectacular
salary for a good software developer. In fact, anybody in silicon
valley with five years of experience is making a lot more than that.
And I haven't even factored in support costs, which are nontrivial.
The thing about Snowie and Jellyfish is that they aren't game playing
programs. They're extremely sophisticated high-end analysis and study
tools. As such, the market is very limited. Cutting the price in
half wouldn't double the market, IMHO.
-Patti
(specialist, envelope backs)
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | Try to relax
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | and enjoy the crisis
John Graas
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
>In article <6l1a04$6...@news.or.intel.com>,
>Carl Larson <Carl_F...@ccm.hf.intel.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>Why no national organization similar to the USCF?
>
> Joe Sylvester lamented on this topic at World Cup 1994. He also
>felt that a national organization would increase BG interest. I think
>the answer is: it takes time and money, and no one at the present seems
>to be willing to invest both (either?) in doing so. Any volunteers?
>Back in the 70's there was the "International Backgammon Association"
>operated by Les and Sue Boyd. The Boyds are still around (I think
>they have a part in running the Monte Carlo World Championships) but
>their organization has gone by the wayside, as far as I know.
>
>>Why no national ratings system?
>
> Again, there WAS one (maintainted by Kent and Joanne Goulding)
>which was a LOT of work for very little reward, I believe. Besides,
>the servers (see more below) have supplanted the Gouldings' system
>at some level.
<snip>
I've wondered about the lack of a national BG organization also. I
think this could work with BG.
When you join the USCF, you get on their rating lists whenever you
play in a rated tourney (practically all are), and you get a magazine
subscription. The magazine is half "chess" stuff and half "tournament
news" stuff.
The trick is that you don't get a rating unless you are a member. So
instead of KG charging for each list he sells, the members pay for the
list up-front as part of their membership.
The best shot at this would seem to be a joining of KG's list and
"Inside BG," the magazine. Add in some pages on tourney results --
ala Chicago Point/Flint -- and we would have a single source of BG
general knowledge and ratings. This would also be the main vehicle
for BG advertising for tourney's, books and software.
jdg
**** Remove _nospam_ from e-mail address to respond. ****
Dan Frank
Donald Kahn, don...@easynet.co.uk wrote
>Subject: Re: Snowie vs JellyFish
>I don't exactly understand the relevance of all this. Since time
>immemorial, it has been a creator's privilege to set the price at
>which he offers his product. No justification is required.
>Otherwise, we would all be driving Ferraris.
>deekay
Donald seems not to have heard yet about the basic market law of offer
and demand, instead he uses to attend >1,000$-tournaments where his chances
are as slim as an asparagus.
Of course his good right, but it is a matter of good sense to keep the mouth shut
when guys, who can't afford 100$ for a programm complain about the high price.
PS:
But of course that's senseless:
edm...@aol.com (EdmondT) wrote:
> After all, they have already spent the development money. Having spent it, it
> only costs them maybe $0.50 to make one more copy of the program.
Because the development money has been already spent - and in Snowie was put
indeed a lot of work - one shouldn't think, that only the copying costs (and
perhaps shipping & handling) should make the price of the product.
John S Mamoun
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: I think that you're very right that backgammon's label (some might say
: stigma) as a gambling game has tended to reduce its popularity somewhat,
: however, I think that there are other factors.
: 1. Backgammon has always been, well, that weird-looking thing with the
: triangles on the back of my checkers board. Freaky. Let's not play it.
: Besides, the rule book says things like "tables" and "stones" in it.
That's the way I used to look at it. I remember when I first tried
to learn the rules, I was 6 or 7 years old. I had no idea what was
going on, so I quickly forgot the rules, and in my subconsious
memory the notion that this was a mysteriously abstract game, not
comprehensible, remained. But there is nothing particularly
complicated about learning it; it just wouldn't be very easy
for a seven year-old to understand. The physical appearance of a
backgammon board seems rather counter intuitive when compared
to that of a checker or chess board. One's immediate impulse
upon first seeing a BG board might well be, "how can a game exist
using a board like this whose rules are rational and simple to
understand?"
Other factors that might hinder people from learning it: the
phonetics of the word "Backgammon" sound rather harsh on the
ears, the game can be extremely nerve-wracking and frustrating,
and the game requires heavy, albeit basic, math skills.
MJR
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <6l1a04$6...@news.or.intel.com>,
> "Carl Larson" <Carl_F...@ccm.hf.intel.com> wrote:
> >it from
> > being as popular as it could be. Why aren't there more regoinal backgammon
> > tournaments? Why no national organization similar to the USCF? Why no
> > national
> > ratings system? I think the advent of online play is the best thing to
>
I agree that online play is a wonderful thing for backgammon. I'd have
never become involved with BG without it because there just isn't any
other way for me to play.
I'm not cartain how much the gambling aspect of the game affects its
popularity. I learned the game from joining FIBS, so it wasnt until
later on that I was introduced to the gambling side. Besides, other
games like poker and blackjack are solely gambling games and people play
these for leisure all the time.
> I think that you're very right that backgammon's label (some might say
> stigma) as a gambling game has tended to reduce its popularity somewhat,
> however, I think that there are other factors.
>
> 1. Backgammon has always been, well, that weird-looking thing with the
> triangles on the back of my checkers board. Freaky. Let's not play it.
> Besides, the rule book says things like "tables" and "stones" in it.
>
You're right, backgammon is very different from other games, with its
setup and terminology. But then again, so is chess. You have to
remember how to set up chess pieces, and how often do you use the words
"rook" and "castling" except as chess references. Yet, there are an
untold number of chess sets in the living rooms of people who NEVER
play. Small towns will have large, human size chess pieces. And almost
every area in the country (world?) has a chess club. Not to mention the
amount of literature which is available.
I started studing chess a little bit when I was in college, and I even
went to a local club every once in a while. It was fun. But I dont
find anything intrinsic about chess which would make it more popular
than backgammon. For one thing, a beginner hardly wins. Atleast in
backgammon you can get lucky. Without making a case for which game is
harder to learn, I know I enjoyed backgammon much more, because when I
was a beginner I could still accomplish a win or two if I just kept
playing. And I kept playing without knowing how difficult the game
really was.
> 2. Supplies are impossible to find. Have you ever gone to Target or Wal-Mart,
> and just for the hell of it, looked for a backgammon board? Well, they
> carry four different kinds of mancala boards (plus two pocket-sized ones)
> but neither of the two chains carries even a cardboard BG set! In fact,
> there's only one store in my city that carries quality BG supplies.
>
You're right...there are lots of stores which have nothing. But, sooner
or later, you will eventually run across a backgammon set. I'll
sometimes "check up" on stores to see if they have any backgammon stuff
at all. (Hey, games deserve equal opportunity too, right?) You can
usually find a checker board with extra checkers to let you play
backgammon on the back. Or a travel game. Toys-R-Us has a decent
looking board.
But, its not the stores' fault. Their stock is just a reflection on
demand. That no stores carry it probably indicates that people dont
want it. And why people dont want it is what we are trying to discover.
> 3. Dice. People have a natural aversion to the game because they perceive it
> as a game purely of chance. (though it's OBVIOUSLY not... I get good rolls
> and I'm still under 1500 ;-)
>
> Any other theories? These can't be all there are...
>
Ask yourself this: What makes chess so much more popular than BG? Or,
what makes football more popular in the US than soccer, but the other
way around almost everywhere else? I'd have to say its just a matter of
culture. Chess is everywhere, and it would be hard to grow up without
being exposed to it. Fathers play chess with their kids. Grandfathers
play chess with their kids. Teachers in high school form chess clubs
and play chess with kids. Kids dont play as much backgammon.
When I was a kid, we played baseball every day during the summer, and
football when we could in the fall and winter. We never played soccer.
No one did. But now when I drive around, I see kids playing soccer. And
I read alot more in the local sports section about school teams playing
soccer. Its growing in popularity. What caused it?
I think the best thing for making BG more popular would be to introduce
it to schools. Once kids start playing the game, they'll grow up and
teach their kids to play. Not to mention my personal opinion that BG is
a much better game for a kid to learn than chess, because it's centered
around "positions" which can "really go either way", and this type of
thinking can be applied to regular life. And just like in life, you can
play it wrong and still win, but that doesnt mean you made the right
plays. (and vica-versa)
---Matt Reklaitis
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com
> I don't exactly understand the relevance of all this. Since time
> immemorial, it has been a creator's privilege to set the price at
> which he offers his product. No justification is required.
Don't get me wrong... I'm one of the biggest *supporters* of capitalism there
ever was... but I'm one of the biggest supporters of *capitalism* there ever
was, and in the shoes of the marketer of one of these world-class programs,
I'd certainly try to sell as many copies as possible.
CR
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com
> I'll emphasize a point made earlier: the developers have put
> time and money into their product, and they will sink or swim on
> their decisions. If they screw up and set the price incorrectly,
> or worse, don't correct their (pricing) errors if and when they
> occur, they will be duly punished. They've paid (in time and money)
> for the chance to play this game. But it is THEIR decision and I
> for one don't think they should take seriously the idle opinions of
> those (including me!) who have very little stake in this. At the
> risk of taking a naive stance, I'd rather trust capitalism/free
> enterprise to sort this one out.
To use capitalism and free enterprise as a standard for silencing the
discussion is contradictory. Part of the capitalism and free enterprise that
you would like us to use as a standard in this discussion is the feedback
which the discussion provides. What's sad is that from what I've seen (fibs
ratings, the oasya website previews, etc.), Snowie is an excellent program
and I'd hate to see it sink because few can afford it. I'd *love* to be able
to afford it, as I am sure others would, however, I cannot, and so I am
forced to try to grab a quick 1 pointer on fibs.
EdmondT
I agree that the problem for backgammon is the culture, which does not include
backgammon as a game you just learn as a kid.
I honestly don't think most people think of backgammon as a gambling game, so I
don't see that as a reason.
Patti Beadles
In article <6ldcbs$cqd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<tapewo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>and in the shoes of the marketer of one of these world-class programs,
>I'd certainly try to sell as many copies as possible.
Would you really? Personally, I'd try to make as much money as
possible. They aren't the same thing.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles | Not just your average purple-haired
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com | degenerate gambling adrenaline
http://www.gammon.com/ | junkie software geek leatherbyke
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | nethead biker.
tapewo...@my-dejanews.com
> I think the best thing for making BG more popular would be to introduce
> it to schools. Once kids start playing the game, they'll grow up and
> teach their kids to play. Not to mention my personal opinion that BG is
As someone who is currently *in* high school and who *has* tried to get his
friends to learn the game, I can tell you: that's not going to be easy! ;-)
I've managed to teach it to two people, neither of whom enjoy it. So I play
against my brother and on FIBS.
> a much better game for a kid to learn than chess, because it's centered
> around "positions" which can "really go either way", and this type of
> thinking can be applied to regular life. And just like in life, you can
> play it wrong and still win, but that doesnt mean you made the right
> plays. (and vica-versa)
I've always thought it a better simulation of a "war" than chess (besides,
aren't most board games just little wars between two armies anyway? ;-)
because of the random element -- Sun Tzu would call the dice in BG the
"weather" element of a war -- the unpredictable element which nevertheless
must be considered.
EdmondT
Backgammon a "war" game? I don't get this: since when are wars fought where
the idea is to get through the enemy, without being hit, and get home, followed
by voluntarily taking your whole army apart?
Backgammon is more an "escape" game than a war game.
Carl Larson
I strongly object! In order to play any traditional game well, a
computer program needs to analyze at a very high-level. So why not
make that analysis available to the player as a learning tool?
Most quality chess programs have analysis features -- show thinking,
hints, move explainations, import/export of games, some sort of
equity measurement (in chess usually based on a points/piece system)
etc. The biggest weakness in most computer versions of traditional
games is the lack of good learning tools.
The only reason Jellyfish and Snowie's learning tools are
"sophisticated" is because both are not user friendly enough.
It's "sophisticated" to show a list of best moves? An estimate of
who's winning and by how much (equity)? A means to find out the
best move (rollouts)?
There isn't a single feature in Jellyfish/Snowie that doesn't have
an equivalent in any $40 chess program you can buy at Software Etc.
And those features are written into the programs so they are more
usefull to newbies and experienced players alike. And often
contain many other features of benefit for newbies that
Jellyfish/Snowie lack -- illustrated rules, tutorials, english
language explainations of moves, programmable personailties for the
computer player, etc.
Carl
Patti Beadles wrote in message ...
>
> (snip)
>
>The thing about Snowie and Jellyfish is that they aren't game playing
>programs. They're extremely sophisticated high-end analysis and study
>tools. As such, the market is very limited. Cutting the price in
>half wouldn't double the market, IMHO.
>
>-Patti
>(specialist, envelope backs)
>--
> Patti Beadles |
>pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
> http://www.gammon.com/ | Try to relax
> or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | and enjoy the crisis
Carl Larson
Actually, they are.
One of the biggest marketing mistakes that can be made is to price too
high in a vain attempt to maximize profits. Lowering price, increasing
value, driving volume, and building market share and a loyal customer
base are the keys to making as much money as possible. Especially for
a product like software that has a negligable variable cost.
Carl
Patti Beadles wrote in message ...
> or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | nethead biker.
Kieran Cagney
EdmondT wrote:
> Backgammon a "war" game? <snip>
A bit off-topic, I know... From the dim recesses of my (probably unreliable)memory
I recall reading something about the etymology of the word "backgammon" that
said it was derived from Welsh and meant something like "little war". Does this
ring a bell with anyone else?
Donald Kahn
"Carl Larson" <Carl_F...@ccm.hf.intel.com> wrote:
>Actually, they are.
>
>One of the biggest marketing mistakes that can be made is to price too
>high in a vain attempt to maximize profits. Lowering price, increasing
>value, driving volume, and building market share and a loyal customer
>base are the keys to making as much money as possible. Especially for
>a product like software that has a negligable variable cost.
>
>Carl
>
Thanks for the instruction. In that case I suggest the YOU devise a
program and then price it to suit yourself, and make plenty of gelt
with it.
DK
Patti Beadles
Yes, but...
In the case of backgammon analysis software, the potential market is
pretty damned limited. At $300, you might sell (making up numbers) a
maximum of 500 copies. If you drop the price to $30, you won't sell
5000 copies, becuase there just aren't 5000 people in the world who
would use the software.
The cost of backgammon analysis software is high because the market is
so small.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | The deep end isn't a place
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | for dipping a toe.
David D. Wright
don't understand what costs go into the making of a software product or
in its' marketing effort. If backgammon had a bigger following like chess
or go it would be feasible to offer a BG analysis package at a lower price.
I am curious as to just how many copies of JF have been sold to date and
just how much money EFFECT Software has made; I am willing to guess not
a large amount and that JF has been more valuable as a item in this
companies resume. Just look at what JF has done for backgammon, it has
offered up invaluable analysis and commentary to the BG community. All
I can say is THANKS to JF for the technical stimulation and I am looking
forward to more of the same from Snowie.
I hope the writers of Snowie get what they need to be profitable
and are
compensated --if they don't, you will never see a significant upgrade,
pushing the product to its limits. You get what you pay for!
Marina Smith
Yes, this is from a book I read, sorry can't remember which one. But
it is held to be unreliable. It may well be true, but is probably
co-incidental.
Marina / mas on fibs
--
Marina Smith - Reading, UK. To email me, remove XX from my address.
John S Mamoun
EdmondT (edm...@aol.com) wrote:
: Backgammon is more an "escape" game than a war game.
Is it really? The point is debatable, since maybe it
is more of a blocking game than an escape game. The
ultimate objective is to escape, true, but the
overriding tactic in the game is to put obstacles
in the path of the opponent.
EdmondT
When you say that a game is an "escape" game, that implies that there is some
obstacle to escape, ie "blocking." In other words, when you say the point of
the game is to try to escape, that necessarily suggests that there is something
preventing the escape.
GLC1173
David wrote:
>If backgammon had a bigger following
>like chess
I'm not sure how much of a willing-to-spend following chess has compared to
backgammon.
Fidelity Electronics - whose main product line was a series of electronic
chess opponents - went broke.
How many chessplayers are willing to pay the entry fees for tournaments that
we see advertised for backgammon tournaments?
================================================
1 of every 83 students from kindergarten through 12th grade
is *currently* on probation in Maryland for crimes ranging from
car theft to sex offenses.
WONDER WHY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE VIOLENT?
Michael Baumgartner
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Kieran Cagney wrote:
>
> > Backgammon a "war" game? <snip>
>
> A bit off-topic, I know... From the dim recesses of my (probably unreliable)memory
> I recall reading something about the etymology of the word "backgammon" that
> > said it was derived from Welsh and meant something like "little war". Does this
> ring a bell with anyone else?
>
Crawford give in their book "Backgammon". The book itself is from the
early 70ies, and though a bit outdated, it has a couple of nice pictures
about the history of Backgammon in Europe.
Michael Baumgartner
Jim Peplow
The other day I went to Barnes and Noble to see if by somechance they might
have a copy of Magriel's BACKGAMMON. And as I suspected, they didn't. But
what REALLY took me by surprise was that in the entire store they did not
have even ONE book on backgammon!!! In the games section there were four
full rows of chess books, and lots of other books on lots of other games,
but nothing on BG. Amazing!
Rodrigo Andrade
: Cutting the price in
: half wouldn't double the market, IMHO.
Yes, I believe it would. Dammit, this happens with calculators among high
school students!! How many kids do you know that own a TI-85 just to play
Tetris and make some elementary calculations?? Why do they buy these
electronic Ferraris??? Do they really need that power??? Obviously not, but
since the product is kind of underpriced, they had the cash to go out and
buy them. These TI's are, as well, highly sophisticated tools that high
school kids definitely don't need. Had TI decided to charge $200 a piece,
most people wouldn't buy their calculators, and go after a cheap Sharp, or
Casio, leaving only the serious statisticians, engineers, and
mathematicians as a potential market. Therefore, cutting the price in half
does double, or at least increase, the market.
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
From these lines, should I understand that Snowie is a mediocre player, and
a great cheater, or what????????
Rodrigo
Elliott Winslow
In article <199806090551...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> I'm not sure how much of a willing-to-spend following chess has compared
> to backgammon.
> Fidelity Electronics - whose main product line was a series of electronic
> chess opponents - went broke.
I believe that they declared bankruptcy, but that the principal's son is,
surprise, in the chess computer business. I am not making any accusation,
but I'd like to see the particulars before I say "they went broke."
In any case, the two worlds really aren't compatible. IMHO.
=e
Paul Ferguson
In article <6lkccp$m...@enews1.newsguy.com> Jim Peplow, jpe...@bcag.org writes:
>The other day I went to Barnes and Noble to see if by somechance they might
>have a copy of Magriel's BACKGAMMON. And as I suspected, they didn't. But
>what REALLY took me by surprise was that in the entire store they did not
>have even ONE book on backgammon!!! In the games section there were four
>full rows of chess books, and lots of other books on lots of other games,
>but nothing on BG. Amazing!
>
No, it's pretty typical. I always check out the games
section of bookstores, just to see if there might be
something unusual like a copy of Magriel. You're lucky to
find one or two outdated paperbacks on backgammon,
occasionally a copy of Heyken & Fischer. It's a sad
reminder of backgammon's status in the game world (or
at least in the publishing world).
While we're on the subject of backgammon vs chess, you
might enjoy one of my favorite quotes, from Steven
Pinker's recent book "How the Mind Works":
"Life is not chess but backgammon, with a
throw of the dice at every turn."
//fergy
BG Lover
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:05:44 GMT, pat...@netcom.com (Patti Beadles)
wrote:
>The market for sophisticated backgammon anlysis tools is fairly small.
>Face it, there aren't all that many serious backgammon players in the
>world.
I believe there are more out there than you think.
[snip]
>The thing about Snowie and Jellyfish is that they aren't game playing
>programs. They're extremely sophisticated high-end analysis and study
>tools. As such, the market is very limited. Cutting the price in
>half wouldn't double the market, IMHO.
I agree with everything you've said Patti with the exception of the
above paragraphs. I started playing on Fibs 5 years ago when it was
the only game in town and now look at how many BG servers & players
there are. While there may be some that play on multiple servers, I
doubt that number is significantly high. I'd almost be willing to bet
that a good bg tutor program priced at less than $100 (say $75) would
sell like hotcakes. Even an analyzer version priced at $150-$175
would be a good price.
Over the years, software prices have dropped markedly. Why make the
price of the product so expensive that those who really need and want
it can't afford it?
---
chrisw @ iftech . net
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 09-jun-98 00:55:25, Patti Beadles wrote:
PB> Yes, but...
PB> In the case of backgammon analysis software, the potential market is
PB> pretty damned limited. At $300, you might sell (making up numbers) a
PB> maximum of 500 copies. If you drop the price to $30, you won't sell
PB> 5000 copies, becuase there just aren't 5000 people in the world who
PB> would use the software.
At $30 you would easily sell tens of thousands of copies of Snowie
Professional I'm sure! Simply because $30 is affordable for almost
everyone and Snowie is interesting for almost every bg player.
BTW Imagine the horror for professional bg players if this actually
happened...
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Donald Kahn
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen <veld...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>On 06-jun-98 18:05:44, Patti Beadles wrote:
>
> PB> The market for sophisticated backgammon anlysis tools is fairly small.
> PB> Face it, there aren't all that many serious backgammon players in the
> PB> world.
>
>How about the latter being the *cause* for the first? It takes at least
>$300 to be taken "seriously" nowadays!
>
> PB> Let's say, for example, that the market for Snowie saturates at 300
> PB> copies. If so, that's a gross market of $90,000 at $300/copy.
>
>300 copies??? I think at a low price tag Snowie would easily sell 10,000
>copies.
>
> PB> Of that $300, probably 15% or $13,500 goes to distributors, leaving
> PB> $76,500. Just to make the numbers round, let's say $6500 goes to
> PB> marketing efforts such as advertising, website development, etc.
>
> PB> It probably costs $10/copy for production, since the quantity is
> PB> relatively small. We're down to $67000. It would take a minimum of
> PB> two high-end computer systems to develop such a program, figure $7000.
>
> PB> That leaves $60,000 for the author of Snowie.
>
>Now let's say it sells at $50/copy and that 6,000 people would buy.
>That's $300,000. Distrubution would be less now than 15%, let's say 10%:
>$30,000. Let's say marketing costs increase to $15,000. $5/copy for
>production is $30,000. Computers are still $7,000.
>
>That's $218,000 for the author of Snowie.
>
>Now he *is* making a decent salary.
>
> PB> The thing about Snowie and Jellyfish is that they aren't game playing
> PB> programs. They're extremely sophisticated high-end analysis and study
> PB> tools. As such, the market is very limited. Cutting the price in
> PB> half wouldn't double the market, IMHO.
>
>As such the market is limited? A product which has got *more* features
>than just playing a (terrific) game, only *increases* the market; the
>program is now interesting for almost *every* backgammon player. At $50
>lots of advanced beginners/intermediates would buy it I'm sure.
So why don't you write one and make a fortune?
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 14-jun-98 00:19:30, Donald Kahn wrote:
DK> Robert-Jan Veldhuizen <veld...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
[unnecessary full quote]
DK> So why don't you write one and make a fortune?
Because I don't want to and maybe even can't write such a program.
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
EdmondT
I think people are missing an important point in this Snowie versus JellyFish
discussion. One issue is how much to charge for Snowie, itself. The other is
how much to price Snowie, relative to its competition.
Right now, for $110, you can buy a very fine BG program -- Jellyfish. If
Snowie is better than JellyFish, the difference in quality of play is
insignificant for the vast majority of players. Apparently, though, Snowie has
a much nicer interface than does Jellyfish.
To be smart, Snowie should ship at a price slightly below Jellyfish. It would
then be a slightly better program, with a much better interface -- at a better
price. There would be no question but that it would be the choice. Unless
Jellyfish could drastically improve its quality, or drastically improve its
interface, it would be gone, and fairly soon.
By charging an astounding amount for Snowie, the makers are giving Jellyfish
nothing significant to compete with. Since 99.99 percent of the players out
there can't beat Jellyfish, the only people who will buy Snowie are: (i) the
0.01 percent who can -- a very small market; or (ii) those who will pay
dramatically more money for the interface.
This makes no sense to me as a marketing strategy.
JDPeh
>>The market for sophisticated backgammon anlysis tools is fairly small.
>
>I believe there are more out there than you think.
>
>
Surely, BG players can figure out an equitable settlement!
How about starting the price "high", and dropping it by some
fixed, well-known percentage every week/month/year. That
way, all those who know about the program will be able to figure
out their own "buy" point?
-Dan Pehoushek
David D. Wright
"More out there than you think", more what? people who play backgammon or
people who are serious about it. There is a big difference! Take for
example how many books are available today on backgammon (by Magriel,
Robertie, Woolsey, ...), great books at about $35 a read. If you would poll
all the current backgammon players on all of the servers, what percent do
you think even owns one of these book, "Less out there than you think".
So why in the world do you think players are going to come out of the wood
work in droves to by a low cost backgammon software package. THEY'RE NOT!
Jelly Fish, Snowie, Games Grid, and all the new servers and books, all have
done more for the game than any price whiners. The game will grow and take
its' rightful place in popularity, if entrepreneurs keep expanding what is
available for it. If creation gets to be cost prohibitive, you will never
get anything new in the game and it will sink back to its old
static/stagnate popularity level.
Maybe some of the Whiners are afraid these new products will bring in and
educate new talent which will displace the "Old Guard". I am sure most
people are paying about $250 a year to their ISP and have invested around
2K on their PCs. (and some living on the cheep totally, using capital
equipment at work; they are the ones who should keep their mouths shut).
So why the whiner price outrage! I say before anyone bitches about it, ask
yourself just what have you done for the game; how many new players have
you brought in, have you started a local live backgammon club or
participate in ones function?
Kit Woolsey
EdmondT (edm...@aol.com) wrote:
: I think people are missing an important point in this Snowie versus JellyFish
: discussion. One issue is how much to charge for Snowie, itself. The other is
: how much to price Snowie, relative to its competition.
: Right now, for $110, you can buy a very fine BG program -- Jellyfish. If
: Snowie is better than JellyFish, the difference in quality of play is
: insignificant for the vast majority of players. Apparently, though, Snowie has
: a much nicer interface than does Jellyfish.
I think you are missing a very important point. Snowie has one very
valuable feature which the Jellyfish Tutor to which you are referring
does not have. That is the capability to do rollouts. This feature
probably isn't too useful to the average player, and that person would
do better sticking to the less expensive Jellyfish tutor. For the serious
student of the game the rollout feature is extremely valuable, and well
worth the extra money.
It should be noted that the Jellyfish Analyzer, which does have a rollout
feature, is priced about the same as Snowie.
Kit
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 14-jun-98 20:35:41, David D. Wright wrote:
DDW> "More out there than you think", more what? people who play backgammon
DDW> or people who are serious about it. There is a big difference! Take
DDW> for example how many books are available today on backgammon (by
DDW> Magriel, Robertie, Woolsey, ...), great books at about $35 a read. If
DDW> you would poll all the current backgammon players on all of the servers,
DDW> what percent do you think even owns one of these book, "Less out there
DDW> than you think".
I think you can easily find thousands of them. Almost everyone I know
playing bg with some regularity owns at least one book about it.
Then again, some just say "ola oog, boog" and roll their game winning
66.
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Carl Larson
Kit Woolsey wrote in message ...
>EdmondT (edm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Right now, for $110, you can buy a very fine BG program -- Jellyfish. If
>: Snowie is better than JellyFish, the difference in quality of play is
>: insignificant for the vast majority of players. Apparently, though,
Snowie has
>: a much nicer interface than does Jellyfish.
>
>I think you are missing a very important point. Snowie has one very
>valuable feature which the Jellyfish Tutor to which you are referring
>does not have. That is the capability to do rollouts. This feature
>probably isn't too useful to the average player, and that person would
>do better sticking to the less expensive Jellyfish tutor. For the serious
>student of the game the rollout feature is extremely valuable, and well
>worth the extra money.
>
>It should be noted that the Jellyfish Analyzer, which does have a rollout
>feature, is priced about the same as Snowie.
>
>Kit
You are absolutely correct! So Snowie should offer a version with the
rollout feature stripped out for a more reasonable price.
Carl
EdmondT
Kit, I think your status as a top player is making you blunder here. You point
out that Snowie has a rollout featue which Jellyfish Tutor does not. The error
you make is contained in the following sentence: >This feature
probably isn't too useful to the average player ...<
Remember, we are talking marketing here. There are mainframe computers that
can run rings around the typical PC, yet PCs outsell mainframes by a million to
one. Why, because the differences "probably isn't too useful to the average
user."
In short, a rational marketing strategy is not designed to get the Kit
Woolsey's of the world to buy, but rather the EdmondT's.
I double the argument.
Rodrigo Andrade
I think I missed the boad on this one, but let's see if I can just stick
this reply right here... I was talking to a friend over the phone yesterday
about this Snowie vs. Jellyfish crap, and it just came to mind the
following:
The world-class Othello computer player Brutus, which's ranked among the
top 6 othello computer players and is the only one commercially available
to the masses, sells for mere $20. If it were called Effect Brutus, or
Osaya Brutus, it probably would have some excuse to sell for $300!!!
Well, I happen to own it. Would I have bought it if it cost $300??? NO
WAY!!!!!!!! I'm not a pro, or anything. I just wanted to play a nice game
of Othello against a decent computer opponent.
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
Thanks for sharing the .txt file. So that's the so called rollouts thing...
I thought it was a heck of a big deal, but I've seen that before on
analyzed matches I get off the Net.
Does JF do an easy-to-read analysis too??? That's a pretty damn cool thing
to have!!!!!
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
Ha, that's a funny one. Not satisfied for charging $300 per copy, they
still won't let you copy the program, in an effort to deter piracy. Damn,
for that price it's definitely okay to get a cheap copy of that...
Rodrigo
News1
Rodrigo Andrade wrote in message <01bd99fa$8987e420$23998bce@candrade>...
>Thanks for sharing the .txt file. So that's the so called rollouts thing...
no...that is the analysis. The method by which it is arived at can be done
several different ways.
I'm sure someone out there can probably explain a rollout much more
effectively than myself...
The major advantage to rollouts is accuracy. An analysis based on rollouts
is far more accurate than those based on a 3- ply analysis.Why should anyone
try to learn from a sometimes seriously flawed analysis? 3-ply is good for a
quick and dirty approch to analyzing a position but to really know what is
right, rollouts are essential.
Snowie will rollout your entire match with a few mouse clicks and have the
results in several hours (depending on the speed of your processor).
>
>Does JF do an easy-to-read analysis too??? That's a pretty damn cool thing
>to have!!!!!
Jelly can't compare when it comes to the output snowie can produce. Snowie's
output options are far superior.
>
>Rodrigo
Vince Mounts
>>
>>
>Thank you for a very sensible post.
>
>One question. I have heard that Snowie can be installed on one
>computer only.
>
>Is there any provision for un-install so that the program can be
>reinstalled on a different computer (in case the owner has location in
>two different countries or wants to put it on his portable when
>travelling)?
>
Is that true? and if so how can the CD know if you are installing it on a
second system. I would assume that you could have it on 2 systems as long as
you are never using both at the same time like most software agreements.
Plus what happens if your system goes down or you buy a new one? You can't
reinstall without a new $300 purchase.... this doesn't make any sense to me
and doesn't even sound possible to do...
Vince Mounts
>I think I missed the boad on this one, but let's see if I can just stick
>this reply right here... I was talking to a friend over the phone yesterday
>about this Snowie vs. Jellyfish crap, and it just came to mind the
>following:
I think most of the price defenders are the ones missing the boat.
>
>The world-class Othello computer player Brutus, which's ranked among the
>top 6 othello computer players and is the only one commercially available
>to the masses, sells for mere $20. If it were called Effect Brutus, or
>Osaya Brutus, it probably would have some excuse to sell for $300!!!
The question to ask is why this strong othello player costs _less_ than most
good chess playing software. Comes down to supply and demand. Low demand for
othello program equals lower cost. The arguments about low demand for
backgammon software equals higher price is not logical and is actually the
opposite of what anyone will learn in their local university's Economics
101. One basic circumstance that can alter this basic economic rul however
is lack of competition. That is why there are anit-trust laws and the like
and I think that is what is happening here. While there are 100 companies
producing top-quality chess software from which you can improve your game,
there are only 2 in the backgammon arena so they charge pretty much whatever
the hell they want. In comparison to good chess programs retailing for
$50-$60 snowie is not so feature rich as to blow them away. Chessmaster for
instance has features too numerous to list but which include very deep ply
searches (like a rollout), english translation of principles that lead to
selection of a move as a top candidate, ability to alter the player's style
to be agressive or passive (trying to draw). Snowie obviously has some rich
features but so does other top game software.
>
>Well, I happen to own it. Would I have bought it if it cost $300??? NO
>WAY!!!!!!!! I'm not a pro, or anything. I just wanted to play a nice game
>of Othello against a decent computer opponent.
>
I'm sure snowie player will not be so outrageously priced so you will
eventually get your wish once that comes out,,, but.... why should the maker
strip out all the learning tool functionality to sell at a lower price when
again software like chessmatser have the many many many learning features
built into the reasonably proced base software.
I was very much looking forward to Snowie's release. I enjoyed playing it on
FIBS when it used to log in. I made the bad assumption that when it was
release it would be reasonably priced in order to steal the market from
Jellyfish. Now I see that I was wrong. Its a shame that such a great tool
cannot be available to more people to improve the game as a whole.
Claes Thornberg
"Rodrigo Andrade" <candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> writes:
I can understand that people have different views on how to price a
product like Snowie Professional. But what really gets at me is that
some people seem to be whining about it. Either you think the price
is too high in which case you don't buy it, or you think the price
isn't too high and buy it. And if the price is too high to attract
the number of customers Oasya expects, I guess they will either 1)
lower the price, 2) stop selling, or 3) add even more features and
thereby making it an even more attractive product.
To me it seems that $300 for Snowie Professional is quite a reasonable
price. I believe it is a bit more than I have payed for Jelly 2.0 +
plus upgrade to Jelly 3.0, but the features that Snowie has and Jelly
doesn't are worth it. I hope I can buy it for this so called
"introductory price", $500 is a bit too much in my opinion.
For the casual player, I see no reason to buy the Professional
version, so why complain about its pricing. However, it will be
interesting to see how much Oasya will charge for the player version.
As for not being able to copy the program, well, it's up to Oasya to
impose any copy protection scheme they like on their product. If
prospective customers believe it's to much of an inconvenience, they
won't buy it. Remember that the "copy protection scheme" of JellyFish
was changed in version 3.0, probably because of user complaints. I
only hope that the majority of JF users are not like Rodrigo Andrade
who seems to think that just because something is expensive, you have
the right to "steal" it. The people behind JF are, in my opinion,
worth every dollar they can make out of their product, and I hope that
the competition of Snowie will result in new upgrades of JF with lots
of useful feature.
And, maybe this could get Harald Wittman going and make a commercial
product of mloner/loner. That's a piece of software I'd really like
to see available.
Claes
--
______________________________________________________________________
Claes Thornberg Internet: cla...@it.kth.se
Dept. of Teleinformatics URL: NO WAY!
KTH/Electrum 204 Voice: +46 8 752 1377
164 40 Kista Fax: +46 8 751 1793
Sweden
pstr...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bd99fb$1cebd320$23998bce@candrade>,
"Rodrigo Andrade" <candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> wrote:
>
> Ha, that's a funny one. Not satisfied for charging $300 per copy, they
> still won't let you copy the program, in an effort to deter piracy. Damn,
> for that price it's definitely okay to get a cheap copy of that...
It's strictly a supply and demand issue. If the software seller thinks it's
in his best interest to sell it for $300, it's his right to do so. If he
prices people out of the market, it's his own fault.
If I sell 10 copies at $300, I've made three grand. If I sell 100 copies at
$20, I've only made two grand. The business-saavy software developer will do
market research in advance and figure out what the economies of scale dictate
the optimal price to be. And "optimal" means whatever puts the most money
in the software developer's pocket.
Philip
Send me email at pstr...@SPAMSUCKShotmail.com (remove the capital letters).
I do not read the Deja News email; it's reserved for spam.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Patti Beadles
One point that you're missing is that unlike othello, chess, etc.,
backgammon is primarily a backgammon game. So in theory, by studying
with Snowie/Jellyfish/whatever, you have a high likelihood of reaping
your investment many times over as you win more in chouettes and
tournaments.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | If it wasn't for the last minute
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | I'd never get anything done!
David desJardins
Patti Beadles <pat...@netcom.com> writes:
> One point that you're missing is that unlike othello, chess, etc.,
> backgammon is primarily a backgammon game.
Maybe you mean "a money game"?
> So in theory, by studying with Snowie/Jellyfish/whatever, you have a
> high likelihood of reaping your investment many times over as you win
> more in chouettes and tournaments.
Actually, I have zero lilkelihood of that, since I don't play backgammon
for money. The fact that someone else does is rather irrelevant to me.
Maybe I should be able to buy the "non-commercial" version of Snowie at
a lower price, if I promise not to use my new knowledge to make money?
David desJardins
Patti Beadles
In article <vohyauv...@bosco.berkeley.edu>,
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>Patti Beadles <pat...@netcom.com> writes:
>> One point that you're missing is that unlike othello, chess, etc.,
>> backgammon is primarily a backgammon game.
>Maybe you mean "a money game"?
Actually, I meant to say "a gambling game", and didn't proofread
before I hit send. Sorry.
pstr...@my-dejanews.com
In article <pattibEu...@netcom.com>,
pat...@netcom.com (Patti Beadles) wrote:
>
>
> unlike othello, chess, etc., backgammon is primarily a backgammon game.
How profound.
Phill Skelton
Claes Thornberg wrote:
> And, maybe this could get Harald Wittman going and make a commercial
> product of mloner/loner. That's a piece of software I'd really like
> to see available.
Definitely. IIRC mloner was rated higher than JF on FIBS when it
played, and about as high as Snowie has been. I would love to
see mloner on the market at a reasonable price with a good interface
(and an easy to use rollout feature like Snowie)
Phill
Rodrigo Andrade
I've seen softwares, mostly games, that can be installed only once. Even if
you try to install it on a different system it won't work. I have no idea
how they do it, but it works (or doesn't work, depending on your point of
view :-)
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
Oops, you slipped really bad here!
Chess is also played for high stakes (on money tournaments, that is) and
the all-powerful chess software Fritz sells for $110. Also Chessmaster is a
great game that sells for $50. These are fine learning tools that will do
wonders for your game too. Once you learn from them, you'll get paid off
much quicker, considering that price gap between Snowie and Fritz.
RODRIGO
News1
if the software is CD only...there is no possible way of limiting
installation to one computer...short of using a dongle (a peice of hardware
that attaches to your printer port) The usage of dongles is very rare and I
can't see snowie implimenting this technology.
If the software is diskette based, back up the disks BEFORE installing. This
will give you a extra set of installation disks .
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT RECOMMENDING PRIRACY OF THIS SOFTWARE!!!
But I hope the liciencing agreement includes allowing installation of more
than one machine, if they are both owned and solely used by one person.
Julian
Rodrigo Andrade wrote in message <01bd9b9a$7d547dc0$28998bce@candrade>...
Rodrigo Andrade
: Actually, I meant to say "a gambling game", and didn't proofread
: before I hit send. Sorry.
I was gonna call you a backgammon nut, but I realized soon enough that
"backgammon is primarily a backgammon game" is not the most profound
Aristotelian thought :-)
I just wish more casinos had backgammon too.
Rodrigo
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 16-jun-98 06:30:11, Rodrigo Andrade wrote:
RA>: So why don't you write one and make a fortune?
RA> So, if you think Snowie and JF are not ABSURDLY overpriced, why don't you
RA> buy me a copy for Xmas???
Me too! :-)
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan(finally, an opportunity to post that one!)
David D. Wright
You can have programs that will only execute only if the CD is in the machine.
The CD contains some support data that is not readable with a copy. Hence, have
CD will travel.
EdmondT
This is another major problem with Snowie. I have Jellyfish, and I can install
in on all three computers I use (home, work, notebook.)
It would now effectively cost me $900 to buy Snowie to replace JF.
Nuts.
News1
FYI...the beta copies did NOT use any type of protection scheme...
also you con alway may a BACKUP copy of the CD with a CD-ROM burner...they
are quite common and you should be able to find a friend with one...I
personally have no friends, so i had to buy one for myself ;-)
Julian
EdmondT wrote in message
<199806200220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Chuck Bower
In article <6m8sn9$jue$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
Vince Mounts <vmo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The question to ask is why this strong othello player costs _less_ than most
>good chess playing software. Comes down to supply and demand. Low demand for
>othello program equals lower cost. The arguments about low demand for
>backgammon software equals higher price is not logical and is actually the
>opposite of what anyone will learn in their local university's Economics 101.
(snip)
Oh, really? Did your local university also teach the "360 days in a
year" idea? I would like to know the names of these schools. If what you
say is true, I believe it may be a candidate for DE-creditation. I don't
remember the course number of the Econ I took in college. I also don't
remember the course number of the Econ I took in high school. But I'm
pretty sure I do remember that low demand led to a high price; high demand
led to a low price. High supply led to a low price and low supply to a
high price. Where the cost vs. supply curve (a decreasing function)
intersected the cost vs. demand curve (an increasing function), the proper
pricing was the result.
This week I have been attending a meeting at a small Northeast Minnesota
college. (Maybe I should look for their economics professor and enroll in
a brush-up course. ;) In my living quarters is a PC with internet access.
Tonight I was alone with not much to do and decided to try and download
Jellyfish Player. After a few minutes of fumbling around (not unusual for
an unsophisticated computer user like me) I was successful. I played it
a few games and found it making plays I never thought of, just like at home
on my JF Analyzer. It wupped me aside the head, too. (Do you
think it was the dice generator?)
For the cost of an internet connection (which was buried somewhere in
my room fee) I was able to play one of the top players (human or robot) in
the world from the remote north woods. Of course if I continued to play
I would be obligated to send Effect Software $30 to keep this privelege.
I seem to recall that I've heard arguments (actually the more rational
ones on this thread) lamenting the fact that high software costs keep new
players from learining the game. Is $30 too much to attract the masses?
(Now I'm talking 'honest' masses, since the dishonest ones can play JF
forever, I believe, without sending in their reg. fee.) If a new player
gets hooked and wants to take the next step, there is JF-tutor (for about
$100). Later, if s/he is really addicted, JF-analyzer and/or Snowie can
be purchased. If the person decides BG is not for him/her, then either
$30 (or nothing) has been "wasted".
Am I too tired or have I had a couple too many beers? What logic
am I missing???
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, jeib...@revolver.nomed.co.uk (James Eibisch) crafted the following
words:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:30:23 -0700, "David D. Wright"
><vigo...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>What are you smoking! Sure any competent automotive engineer with the right
>>motivation and time can build a high end technical racing car that is comparable to
>>the best and biggest name machines in the race car industry; while he is on
>>sabbatical with a broken leg no less. Best of all, he will be manufacturing and
>>giving them all away free to who ever needs one.
>
>That's hardware, I'm talking about software ;-)
How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
None. That's a hardware problem.
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
Donald Kahn
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
>In article <6m8sn9$jue$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
>Vince Mounts <vmo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>The question to ask is why this strong othello player costs _less_ than most
>>good chess playing software. Comes down to supply and demand. Low demand for
>>othello program equals lower cost. The arguments about low demand for
>>backgammon software equals higher price is not logical and is actually the
>>opposite of what anyone will learn in their local university's Economics 101.
> (snip)
>
> Oh, really? Did your local university also teach the "360 days in a
>year" idea? I would like to know the names of these schools. If what you
>say is true, I believe it may be a candidate for DE-creditation. I don't
>remember the course number of the Econ I took in college. I also don't
>remember the course number of the Econ I took in high school. But I'm
>pretty sure I do remember that low demand led to a high price; high demand
>led to a low price. High supply led to a low price and low supply to a
>high price. Where the cost vs. supply curve (a decreasing function)
>intersected the cost vs. demand curve (an increasing function), the proper
>pricing was the result.
>
Mounts is not talking about "low demand" actually, but small total
market, which is quite a different thing. Within that small market,
demand is quite intense, I think, therefore the price makes sense.
One aspect stands out. People who don't have $300 to spare are all
hot to give advice on running a business. Weird.
deekay
EdmondT
>One aspect stands out. People who don't have $300 to spare are all
>hot to give advice on running a business. Weird.
>
>
I think you are missing the point. Many of us have plenty of money to spend
and can easily "afford" to spend $300 on a program if we wanted to. The fact
that we can afford to spend $300 on a game does NOT mean that we will.
People with a lot of money still use judgment to decide how to spend it. Thats
one of the reasons they HAVE a lot of money.
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
Donald specializes in posting childisch arrogant remarks with no other
intent than putting other people down, don't take the spoilt boy
seriously.
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Patti Beadles
In article <199806201122...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
EdmondT <edm...@aol.com> wrote:
>The fact
>that we can afford to spend $300 on a game does NOT mean that we will.
Aha! Herein lies the crux of the issue. I don't think of Snowie or
Jellyfish tutor/analyzer as games at all... I think of them as
educational tools, very much like classes and textbooks.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | Try to relax
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | and enjoy the crisis
Sam Pottle
>Vince Mounts wrote:
>> The arguments about low demand for
>>backgammon software equals higher price is not logical and is actually the
>>opposite of what anyone will learn in their local university's Economics 101.
This is true, as far as it goes. You may need to take Econ 102 to learn
about economies of scale.
Chuck Bower wrote:
> But I'm
>pretty sure I do remember that low demand led to a high price; high demand
>led to a low price. High supply led to a low price and low supply to a
>high price. Where the cost vs. supply curve (a decreasing function)
>intersected the cost vs. demand curve (an increasing function), the proper
>pricing was the result.
Hmm. If lower demand leads to a higher price, then the demand curve
can't very well be an increasing function.
Supply and demand curves are usually regarded as functions of price, not
the other way around. The demand curve reflects the answer to the
question, "How many copies of this product could be sold if the price
were fixed at $X?", for all values of X. If the price is high, fewer
people will be willing to buy it than if the price were low. So demand is
generally a decreasing function of price. Conversely, supply is generally
an increasing function of price. If the price of corn mysteriously doubled
tomorrow, and stayed there, corn production would eventually rise because
more farmers would find it worth their while to grow it.
Basic microeconomic theory says that with perfect competition, Adam's
invisible hand will result in the price (and production, and consumption)
arriving at the point where the supply and demand curves intersect.
But. Consider this: you can buy a basic new car for around $12K-15K.
This reflects (in part) the willingness of various automobile
manufacturers to manufacture this product, at this price, in the
quantities they do (lots and lots). Now suppose there are only a
hundred people in the world who have any interest in buying a new car.
These hundred will have to pay a lot more to get a new car, because the
fixed costs involved in developing and manufacturing a new car are so
large that no single manufacturer can afford to price cars in the low
five figures unless it expects to sell a lot more than a hundred units.
This is the economy of scale, which is not modeled by basic supply-and-
demand theory.
So it is with niche software. If I'm thinking about embarking on a
Jellyfish-sized development effort, and I estimate that I can sell 100
copies at $25 a pop, that software will never get written, except
perhaps as a labor of love. If I think I can sell 100,000 copies, it
just might.
Now then, what was the original question? :-) Oh, yes, Rodrigo Andrade
pointed out that world-class Othello-playing software sells for $20. I
would imagine that the supply curves (/development effort) for Othello
software and backgammon software are roughly comparable. But the demand
curves look quite different.
What is the worldwide demand for a $300 Othello analysis tool?
Approximately zero. For backgammon? Well, it's pretty significant, if
the success of Jellyfish Analyzer is any indicator.
I think the Jellyfish pricing structure is brilliant. It skims the cream
off the tail of the demand curve, reaping $250 each from the hardcore
players, while still getting the $30's from the rest of the crowd. If
you want to argue that its makers could increase profit by simply selling
the Analyzer for $30, you'll have to make the case that there are *lots*
of people who will buy Analyzer at $30 who won't buy Player at $30. I
think that's a pretty tough case to make. I think the Jellyfish pricing
structure makes so much sense that I'll be surprised if the makers of
Snowie don't eventually do something similar.
I'd also like to emphasize a point that Chuck alluded to. If you haven't
tried it, you might be surprised at how much Jellyfish Player can improve
your game. You don't have to dance forever against a five point board very
many times before you get the idea that you need to leave fewer blots
around in certain situations. (Most of what I know about blitzing I
learned by losing 4 points at at a time to Jellyfish.) And when Jellyfish
makes a move that wouldn't have occurred to you, it's probably worth your
while to study the position and figure out why. The Analyzer won't tell
you why, and finding out why is more important than knowing exactly how
much better Jelly's move is than yours.
> Am I too tired or have I had a couple too many beers?
Too many beers? I don't understand this concept. :-)
Sam (starbird on FIBS)
Disclaimer: I'm not a professional economist, but I'm just as dull at parties.
David D. Wright
I was intending to make an absurd comparison. If someone is talented and has vision, I
think it would be reflected in a true entrepreneurial spirit. You need profitability to
sustain a product supporting infrastructure. Otherwise, someone with an entrepreneurial
spirit will take it, improve it, and sell it. How much public domain software is out
there that has become out dated and overcome by commercial products --lots and that is
because the life span of a product that does not generate income is short.
...
> How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
>
> None. That's a hardware problem.
...
Chuck Bower
In article <6mffi4$9lo$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Chuck Bower <bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <6m8sn9$jue$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
>Vince Mounts <vmo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>The question to ask is why this strong othello player costs _less_ than most
>>good chess playing software. Comes down to supply and demand. Low demand for
>>othello program equals lower cost. The arguments about low demand for
>>backgammon software equals higher price is not logical and is actually the
>>opposite of what anyone will learn in their local university's Economics 101.
> (snip)
>
> Oh, really? Did your local university also teach the "360 days in a
>year" idea? I would like to know the names of these schools. If what you
>say is true, I believe it may be a candidate for DE-creditation. I don't
>remember the course number of the Econ I took in college. I also don't
>remember the course number of the Econ I took in high school. But I'm
>pretty sure I do remember that low demand led to a high price; high demand
>led to a low price. High supply led to a low price and low supply to a
>high price. Where the cost vs. supply curve (a decreasing function)
>intersected the cost vs. demand curve (an increasing function), the proper
>pricing was the result.
>
> This week I have been attending a meeting at a small Northeast Minnesota
>college. (Maybe I should look for their economics professor and enroll in
>a brush-up course. ;)
(snip)
How little did I realize that this last (sarcastic) remark held much
truth. What I actually argued was, in fact, consistent with Vince's
statement; not contradictory. If the cost curve is an increasing function
of demand, then low demand should lead to low cost. In my zeal to refute
his conclusion, I got things twisted.
Everyone makes mistakes, though. I'm not ashamed of being wrong.
It's not the first time and it won't be the last. But the pompous manner
in which I began my reply was clearly inappropriate. And that is true
whether or not either of us was right or wrong. It took my mistake to
open my eyes to this, however. Vince, I apologize. I resolve that this
manner of behavior will be eliminated from my newsgroup contributions.
Rodrigo Andrade
Yep, that's right. I've seen that too. Even though the game will be
entirely copied to your harddrive, it still needs the CD to run. Dark
Forces, for one, does that. You can still install it in other harddrives,
but you'll need the CD to make those copies work. Does Snowie come on a CD,
or simple 3 1/2-inch disks????
Rodrigo
John Greenwood
a...@xyz.com (BG Lover) wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:05:44 GMT, pat...@netcom.com (Patti Beadles)
>wrote:
>>The market for sophisticated backgammon anlysis tools is fairly small.
>>Face it, there aren't all that many serious backgammon players in the
>>world.
>I believe there are more out there than you think.
>[snip]
>>The thing about Snowie and Jellyfish is that they aren't game playing
>>programs. They're extremely sophisticated high-end analysis and study
>>tools. As such, the market is very limited. Cutting the price in
>>half wouldn't double the market, IMHO.
>I agree with everything you've said Patti with the exception of the
>above paragraphs. I started playing on Fibs 5 years ago when it was
>the only game in town and now look at how many BG servers & players
>there are. While there may be some that play on multiple servers, I
>doubt that number is significantly high. I'd almost be willing to bet
>that a good bg tutor program priced at less than $100 (say $75) would
>sell like hotcakes. Even an analyzer version priced at $150-$175
>would be a good price.
>Over the years, software prices have dropped markedly. Why make the
>price of the product so expensive that those who really need and want
>it can't afford it?
One aspect of the pricing that doesn't seem to have been raised in
this series of postings is that the differential price of JF and
Snowie becomes a factor for those that already have JF.
If Jf came out with all the features of Snowie but at an upgrade price
from JF analyser set at the Snowie cost it would look crazy! But that
is the position JF analyser owners face. The absolute cost of Snowie
may seem OK given the competition's game features but it seems a lot
for an "upgrade" for a current JF owner.
If a lot of Snowie's market are such JF owners a high price must have
a marked affect on sales.
Maybe they are following the Brittanica pricing wheeze: launch the CD
at 400 pounds sterling (whatever it was ) and when those prepared to
pay the high price have done so, reduce the price successively to pick
up sales from those with less reason or ability to pay a high cost.
And to echo the start of this post, the price paid imay not be
reflected in the support documentation and devalue its usefulness to
newbies to full analysis techniques.. The base 30 dollar JF doesn't
even tell you how to play the damn game!! The analyser gives scant
information on the theory behind rollouts but no good tutorials or
guidance on how to get the most out of the software. It assumes the
user knows virtually all the theory and lets them get ion with it. A
6 pound calculator has more information! Hobson's choice but getting
better, I hope! maybe Snowie has comprehensive guidance: anybody
know?
---
John Greenwood
Rodrigo Andrade
>Maybe they are following the Brittanica pricing wheeze: launch the CD
>at 400 pounds sterling (whatever it was ) and when those prepared to
>pay the high price have done so, reduce the price successively to pick
>up sales from those with less reason or ability to pay a high cost.
Not only Britannica does that. All software developers, except for
Microsoft, do that. I don't know if they think like you, but for some reason
or another their software price, in fact, does fall over time.
Rodrigo