New, simple system for writing IF.
Liz
SUDS is a new easy-to-use system for playing and writing text adventures.
The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style graphical interface both
for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
More info at the SUDS site; www.sudsystem.freeserve.co.uk
Liz
Mike Snyder
news:7v1s7f$7kq$3...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> SUDS is a new easy-to-use system for playing and writing text adventures.
> The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style graphical interface
both
> for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
> Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
> sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
Your site doesn't have any screen shots. Would that be possible? I'm about
to launch a web site for SAGE (Scripted Adventure Game Engine) and would be
interested in seeing what you've done.
Mike Snyder
Prowler Productions
http://www.prowler-pro.com/
Liz
Mike Snyder <mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7v1te4$q1a$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
absence of SO. You could download the programme, in the meantime. I'd be
interested to see yours too, so please post your URL!
Liz
Mike Snyder
> Urwurble. I'm sure it would, but not until next weekend at least, due to
> absence of SO. You could download the programme, in the meantime. I'd be
> interested to see yours too, so please post your URL!
Urwurble? I guess I don't know what that is... :(
Will try to download this evening, just can't really play around with
installing stuff at work -- browsing a web site with screen shots on my
lunch break is probably ok. :)
No web site for SAGE yet, but I might work on one this evening. We're
working on the game engine with the goal of porting it to the web. I'm still
undecided about whether I want to release a "development kit" (or language
specs) or simply use it internally for our games. We're not trying to offer
it as an alternative to existing systems or anything, we mainly need a
simple system we can convert to a web-based format to help promote our
pay-for-play online games. It sounds like your system has been in
development for a very long time (ours was born this month, lol).
T Raymond
>SUDS is a new easy-to-use system for playing and writing text adventures.
>The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style graphical interface both
>for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
>Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
>sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
I checked out your site. It all looks good. The only thing that didn't
look good to me was the 20 move limitation on the player for
unregistered users.
I'm a bit of a stickler for testing and testing, which is why I
haven't released a game yet. If I can't test my own game reasonably, I
can't expect somebody else to either. And while the concept of easy
programming sounds great, it can't be foolproof. There are bound to be
programming glitches, or just changes that the programmer would want
to check out.
I understand that one would want to get some kind of return on a
system that you put time into. I think this limitation may prevent
some potential users from checking out your system.
Just one opinion :)
Tom
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tom Raymond adk @ usa.net
"The original professional ameteur."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mike Snyder
>I'd be interested to see yours too, so please post your URL!
http://www.prowler-pro.com/sage/ -- Just put it online a moment ago.
Liz
T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
news:7v2t9a$3fg...@news.northnet.org...
> "Liz" <L...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> spoke about :
> I checked out your site. It all looks good. The only thing that didn't
> look good to me was the 20 move limitation on the player for
> unregistered users.
>
> I'm a bit of a stickler for testing and testing, which is why I
> haven't released a game yet. If I can't test my own game reasonably, I
> can't expect somebody else to either. And while the concept of easy
> programming sounds great, it can't be foolproof. There are bound to be
> programming glitches, or just changes that the programmer would want
> to check out.
>
limits of our sanity and the best of our ability and will do our best to
promptly fix any bugs, solve any technical problems and incorporate
suggested improvements (within reason) free of charge to registered users.
liz
atholbrose
<L...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> wrote:
>T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
>news:7v2t9a$3fg...@news.northnet.org...
>> haven't released a game yet. If I can't test my own game reasonably, I
>> can't expect somebody else to either. And while the concept of easy
>> programming sounds great, it can't be foolproof. There are bound to be
>> programming glitches, or just changes that the programmer would want
>> to check out.
>Heck, the same is true of any bought software. We've tested it to the
>limits of our sanity and the best of our ability and will do our best to
>promptly fix any bugs, solve any technical problems and incorporate
>suggested improvements (within reason) free of charge to registered users.
I think he was talking about testing the games written with the system,
not the system itself. I imagine you might have a problem convincing your
circle of friends to test your game for you if they have to register a
program to do it...
--r.
Mike Snyder
news:slrn81bd9j....@shell.one.net...
> I think he was talking about testing the games written with the system,
> not the system itself. I imagine you might have a problem convincing your
> circle of friends to test your game for you if they have to register a
> program to do it...
As far as I can tell, only the SUDS development kit has a registration fee.
It appears that people can play and test games using the interepreter
without the need for any registration at all. At least, that's what I
understand from the info at the SUDS site. You'd only need to register to
write a SUDS game, not to play and test somebody else's.
Mike.
Liz
Succinctly put and also correct. :)
Liz
Liz
T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
news:7v2t9a$3fg...@news.northnet.org...
> >SUDS is a new easy-to-use system for playing and writing text adventures.
> >The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style graphical interface
both
> >for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
> >Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
> >sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
>
> look good to me was the 20 move limitation on the player for
> unregistered users.
>
CONSTRUCTOR, not the PLAYER part of the game, which is Freeware - playing
games by ourselves or others is free. You're right, that would be silly.
Liz
Andrew Plotkin
So, obviously I do not yet understand. What *is* a move in the
constructor? One action of creation? If they're regular IF game moves,
what prevents you from using the player and constructor together to get
around the limit?
I'm used to systems where the "constructor" is a compiler, which gloms
source code into a finished game file -- there are no "moves" within it.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Ross Presser
Plotkin).wrote.posted.offered:
Perhaps it means that games created with the unregistered constructor can
only be played by players for 20 moves. I.e., after 20 moves, a daemon
is invoked which quits the game.
--
Ross Presser
ross_p...@imtek.com
"And if you're the kind of person who parties with a bathtub full of
pasta, I suspect you don't care much about cholesterol anyway."
Roger Firth
> Liz <L...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7v1s7f$7kq$3...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > SUDS is a new easy-to-use system for playing and writing text adventures.
> > The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style graphical interface
> both
> > for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
> > Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
> > sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
>
> Your site doesn't have any screen shots. Would that be possible? I'm about
> to launch a web site for SAGE (Scripted Adventure Game Engine) and would be
> interested in seeing what you've done.
Mike, Liz,
I would encourage you both to share with us your implementations
of my very basic "Cloak of Darkness" game, intended to assist people
who are attempting to compare the various IF authoring systems.
See http://homepages.tesco.net/~roger.firth/cloak/index.html
for details.
Cheers, Roger
========================================================================
Roger Firth
Liz
Ross Presser <rpre...@NOSPAMimtek.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:8E6B8B8E...@10.4.0.21...
> alt.distingui...@netcom.com (Andrew
> Plotkin).wrote.posted.offered:
>
> >Liz <L...@liznandy.freenospamtaserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
> >> news:7v2t9a$3fg...@news.northnet.org...
> >>> "Liz" <L...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> spoke about :
> >>> >adventures. The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style
> >>> >graphical interface
> >> both
> >>> >for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
> >>> >Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
> >>> >sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
> >>>
>
> only be played by players for 20 moves. I.e., after 20 moves, a daemon
> is invoked which quits the game.
>
of 20 turns in the SUDS Player, plus only registered games will be
publicised on the SUDS web-site.
Liz
Mike Snyder
news:3815F505...@tesco.net...
> I would encourage you both to share with us your implementations
> of my very basic "Cloak of Darkness" game, intended to assist people
> who are attempting to compare the various IF authoring systems.
> See http://homepages.tesco.net/~roger.firth/cloak/index.html
> for details.
Ah, I'll check that out when mine is further along. Thanks!
Mike.
Mark J. Tilford
>Liz <L...@liznandy.freenospamtaserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
>> news:7v2t9a$3fg...@news.northnet.org...
>>> "Liz" <L...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> spoke about :
>>> >SUDS is a new easy-to-use system for playing and writing text adventures.
>>> >The two-part program uses a familiar Windows-style graphical interface
>> both
>>> >for the SUDS Player, which is entirely mouse-driven, and the SUDS
>>> >Constructor, which enables beginners and experts alike to design
>>> >sophisticated games without knowledge of program coding or language.
>>>
>>> look good to me was the 20 move limitation on the player for
>>> unregistered users.
>>>
>> But no! Having reread your post, the 20-move limitation is on the
>> CONSTRUCTOR, not the PLAYER part of the game, which is Freeware - playing
>> games by ourselves or others is free. You're right, that would be silly.
>
>So, obviously I do not yet understand. What *is* a move in the
>constructor? One action of creation? If they're regular IF game moves,
>what prevents you from using the player and constructor together to get
>around the limit?
>
>I'm used to systems where the "constructor" is a compiler, which gloms
>source code into a finished game file -- there are no "moves" within it.
>
>
Presumably, the unregistered constructor inserts code which causes the
interpreter to quit after 20 moves.
>"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
>borogoves..."
--
-----------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@cco.caltech.edu
T Raymond
>> Perhaps it means that games created with the unregistered constructor can
>> only be played by players for 20 moves. I.e., after 20 moves, a daemon
>> is invoked which quits the game.
>>
>Correct: Games created with unregistered applications only run for a maximum
>of 20 turns in the SUDS Player, plus only registered games will be
>publicised on the SUDS web-site.
I thought that is what I said in my original post. IMO, that makes it
a long-shot as to being worth the large download to check out. It
means that it is rather tedious to test my own game written to test
the system. Especially knowing that I'm a freak for testing before I
release to beta.
T Raymond
>alt.distingui...@netcom.com (Andrew
>Plotkin).wrote.posted.offered:
>Perhaps it means that games created with the unregistered constructor can
>only be played by players for 20 moves. I.e., after 20 moves, a daemon
>is invoked which quits the game.
This is what I took it to mean when I read it. Unless I"m being
pathetically dense, which does happen on ocassion, that means that if
I download both the player and the constructor, to see if it will do
what I want to do. I can code up an example game with a few rooms and
some objects, but I'll have to reload it in the SUDS shell every 20
moves to play test it.
I'd be more than happy to be shown wrong, but I thought that was
exactly what the text said on the registration page?
Ross Presser
>rpre...@NOSPAMimtek.com.invalid (Ross Presser) spoke about :
>>alt.distingui...@netcom.com (Andrew
>>Plotkin).wrote.posted.offered:
>>
>>Perhaps it means that games created with the unregistered constructor can
>>only be played by players for 20 moves. I.e., after 20 moves, a daemon
>>is invoked which quits the game.
>
>This is what I took it to mean when I read it. Unless I"m being
>pathetically dense, which does happen on ocassion, that means that if
>I download both the player and the constructor, to see if it will do
>what I want to do. I can code up an example game with a few rooms and
>some objects, but I'll have to reload it in the SUDS shell every 20
>moves to play test it.
>
>I'd be more than happy to be shown wrong, but I thought that was
>exactly what the text said on the registration page?
As shown by Liz's post, you are correct.
Neither Zarf nor I actually went to the page. Zarf misunderstood one of
Liz's statements on this newsfroup and I offered an interpretation.
Mike Snyder
> I thought that is what I said in my original post. IMO, that makes it
> a long-shot as to being worth the large download to check out. It
> means that it is rather tedious to test my own game written to test
> the system. Especially knowing that I'm a freak for testing before I
> release to beta.
I'm curious if you're able to fully test out most software before you buy
it? Most of what I (or my company) have purchased didn't include a
full-scale version of the product we could tinker around with before
deciding. The thought never really crossed my mind of walking into CompUSA
and asking a sales clerk if I could open up one of the boxes and play around
with it for a few days before I buy.
This is the great thing about shareware, you do get the chance. Do you only
purchase/use shareware though? It's been my experience that unlimited
shareware versions of a product (ones which don't expire or have no
limitations) tend to be "registered" only by people who strongly support the
shareware concept.
I've not yet downloaded SUDS, but I suspect that whatever limitations are on
the demo version of the developer's kit (a 20-move limit?) wouldn't prevent
me from evaluating the platform. Unfortunately, working days and preparing
to move this weekend will mean I can't really look at SUDS until next week.
$0.02.
Andrew Plotkin
> T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
> news:7v5ekk$1dk...@news.northnet.org...
>
>> I thought that is what I said in my original post. IMO, that makes it
>> a long-shot as to being worth the large download to check out. It
>> means that it is rather tedious to test my own game written to test
>> the system. Especially knowing that I'm a freak for testing before I
>> release to beta.
>
> I'm curious if you're able to fully test out most software before you buy
> it?
When there are well-developed freeware alternatives, you're darn tootin' I
do.
--Z
Magnus Olsson
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Mike Snyder <mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
>> news:7v5ekk$1dk...@news.northnet.org...
>>
>>> I thought that is what I said in my original post. IMO, that makes it
>>> a long-shot as to being worth the large download to check out. It
>>> means that it is rather tedious to test my own game written to test
>>> the system. Especially knowing that I'm a freak for testing before I
>>> release to beta.
>>
>> I'm curious if you're able to fully test out most software before you buy
>> it?
>
>When there are well-developed freeware alternatives, you're darn tootin' I
>do.
And we must keep in mind that there is no such thing as one monolithic
software market; rather there are different markets for different
sorts of software.
And what's important is that in *this* particular market - that for
text adventure game creation systems - the buyers are pretty darn
spoiled: not only are they allowed to fully test the major development
systems before committing to them, these systems (Inform, TADS, Hugo,
etc) are free.
Making a crippled demo version available for download may be extremely
generous in some markets; in *this* market it's a major turn-off.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Peter Seebach
Mike Snyder <mikes...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'm curious if you're able to fully test out most software before you buy
>it?
Not most, but a fair amount. The OS I work with most you can get a 60-day
trial of, I think; if you can't test out what you need to know in 60 days,
you have a problem. ;-) Also, of course, there's a lot of good free software
these days.
>This is the great thing about shareware, you do get the chance. Do you only
>purchase/use shareware though? It's been my experience that unlimited
>shareware versions of a product (ones which don't expire or have no
>limitations) tend to be "registered" only by people who strongly support the
>shareware concept.
This may well be. I'm one of those weirdos who *does* register shareware,
but I also contribute code to free software people, so I'm obviously weird.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Mike Snyder
news:7v75rt$n21$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se...
> And we must keep in mind that there is no such thing as one monolithic
> software market; rather there are different markets for different
> sorts of software.
> And what's important is that in *this* particular market - that for
> text adventure game creation systems - the buyers are pretty darn
> spoiled: not only are they allowed to fully test the major development
> systems before committing to them, these systems (Inform, TADS, Hugo,
> etc) are free.
Absolutely. What's unfortunate though is the almost non-existent possibility
that a small independent developer can create, sell, and recoup even a
fraction of the cost/time involved in doing so. Across all markets (as far
as I can tell) is an expectation (not a hope, but an expectaction) of
freeware products as an alternative to commercial ones. Anything you want is
probably available from a freeware developer, and at least one is likely to
be very very good. The message this sends to shareware developers is "don't
waste your time." Why charge a fee when somebody else will just release a
better product at no charge? I guess I envy anybody who can spend hours and
hours to develop excellent freeware. Start with a 9-5 M-F job, add in
miscellaneous responsibilities (work around the house, whatever), balance
this with a full-time relationship, figure in at least a few hours to sleep,
and then tip it over by working on "free" programs out of the goodness of
your heart. I lost my fiance last year that way. Evidently, some people have
a higher capacity for this than I do (maybe with fewer things in their daily
mix, I don't know). That's great. Now we've got freeware alternatives to
almost anything.
> Making a crippled demo version available for download may be extremely
> generous in some markets; in *this* market it's a major turn-off.
*This*, being a small niche market where several great, free systems are
already available, popular, and widely ported. It's a turn-off, as you said,
because we're spoiled. If it's not free, we don't need it, and if it's not
available, somebody will do it and make it free. Is this a market? No, it's
more of a "community" and I'm not saying anything is wrong with that. It's
evidently what has kept IF alive while the world marvelled at Commander
Keen, jumped for joy at Doom, and beyond. IF (as implemented here) doesn't
exist in a market unless you're re-releasing something from more than a
decade ago as a "masterpieces" collection.
However, no matter what "market" covers a particular "freeware" system I
might be using, it's unlikely that I'd go about discouraging a person who
has created a system to sell. I haven't seen that here (all that's been said
is basically "I can't evaluate the system if the system is crippled") yet.
I'm probably reading too much into a harmless thread (I'm known to do that),
but just had another 2-cents to throw in.
Marnie Parker
>From: til...@ralph.caltech.edu (Mark J. Tilford)
>Date: Tue, 26 October 1999 03:58 PM EDT
>Presumably, the unregistered constructor inserts code which causes the
>interpreter to quit after 20 moves.
20 moves isn't very much, even for evaluation purposes. I suggest they bump
that limit up to at least 50.
Especially for raifities who already have quite a few freeware systems
available to compare it to.
Doe HTH. HAND.
doea...@aol.com -------------------------------------------------
Kingdom of IF - http://members.aol.com/doepage/intfict.htm
Inform Tips - http://members.aol.com/doepage/infotips.htm
IF Art Gallery - http://members.aol.com/iffyart/gallery.htm
Andrew Plotkin
> Magnus Olsson <m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote in message
> news:7v75rt$n21$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se...
>
>> And we must keep in mind that there is no such thing as one monolithic
>> software market; rather there are different markets for different
>> sorts of software.
>
>> And what's important is that in *this* particular market - that for
>> text adventure game creation systems - the buyers are pretty darn
>> spoiled: not only are they allowed to fully test the major development
>> systems before committing to them, these systems (Inform, TADS, Hugo,
>> etc) are free.
>
> Absolutely. What's unfortunate though is the almost non-existent possibility
> that a small independent developer can create, sell, and recoup even a
> fraction of the cost/time involved in doing so. Across all markets (as far
> as I can tell) is an expectation (not a hope, but an expectaction) of
> freeware products as an alternative to commercial ones. Anything you want is
> probably available from a freeware developer, and at least one is likely to
> be very very good. The message this sends to shareware developers is "don't
> waste your time." Why charge a fee when somebody else will just release a
> better product at no charge?
I don't agree with your assessment of the situation -- but it's a subtle
disagreement. So I'll probably do a lousy job of explaining it. :-)
First, the listening audience must remember that we're talking about game
development systems, not games. I'm quite willing to look at, and possibly
buy, shareware/commercial text games. (A demo certainly helps, of course.)
However, when someone announces Yet Another Non-Free Text Game Development
System, I don't even bother going to look at the web page.
So: I agree with the objective statement: it's damn-near impossible for
anyone to create a text adventure development system, and recoup the money
(and time, which equals money) which went into it.
Is this state of affairs, as you say, "unfortunate"?
That's really hard to judge; but I don't think so.
If you want to quit your job and make a living off of IF development
tools, too bad; you can't. I guess that could be viewed as unfortunate.
But it's well-known that the world does not pay salaries commensurate with
how much you enjoy doing things.
Basically, I object to categorizing IF authors as "spoiled", as if they
(we!) are caught in some unhealthy, short-sighted behavior pattern. This
is an area where the open-source development model is *working*. We've got
lots of tools, and lots of games, and lots of contributed work (library
modules, new interpreters, etc.)
You say:
> The message this sends to shareware developers is "don't waste your
> time."
But no. The message that we're sending *to text adventure enthusiasts* is
"Your work will be more valuable if you don't ask money for it." (And even
more so if you structure it in an open way: modularization, documented
interfaces, readable source code.)
To divide the world up into shareware developers and freeware developers,
is to falsely imply that something is lost by excluding the former.
*People* contribute. Anyone who really wants to contribute will find a way
to.
(Reading back, it sounds like I'm berating you for berating *us*. I
apologize; that's not how I meant this post to go.)
> *This*, being a small niche market where several great, free systems are
> already available, popular, and widely ported. It's a turn-off, as you said,
> because we're spoiled. If it's not free, we don't need it, and if it's not
> available, somebody will do it and make it free. Is this a market? No, it's
> more of a "community" and I'm not saying anything is wrong with that.
Obviously, I think there's *nothing* wrong with it, not even an implied
"however". :-)
It *is* a market. It's an economy of available time and created wealth --
the latter in the form of games.
As you noted, available time is a critical resource! A contribution that
makes life easier for many people is more valuable than one which makes
life easier for a few. This is why I've put in some much time writing
specifications, documentation, and available source code.
> However, no matter what "market" covers a particular "freeware" system I
> might be using, it's unlikely that I'd go about discouraging a person who
> has created a system to sell.
What a great sentence! It provides me with a lovely opportunity for
response, for which I thank you. :-)
I would encourage any *person who has created a system to sell*.
But I would not encourage a person who has created a system *to sell it*.
You see the distinction in the invisible parentheses. I would instead
encourage them to upload it, without monetary restriction.
I agree with the others here: TADS was going downhill as long as it was
shareware. Now it is freeware and gaining strength; and the next version
will have a documented virtual machine and open library source. Nobody
ever told Mike Roberts to shut up and get out of IF. He's still here; only
the word "shareware" has been removed from TADS.
I see six or eight soapboxes have sprouted under my feet. Enough out of
me.
Mike Snyder
news:7v7p1c$32o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> First, the listening audience must remember that we're talking about game
> development systems, not games. I'm quite willing to look at, and possibly
> buy, shareware/commercial text games. (A demo certainly helps, of course.)
> However, when someone announces Yet Another Non-Free Text Game Development
> System, I don't even bother going to look at the web page.
Maybe this was just a good way for me to vent about shareware markets in
general. I'm working on an IF system too, but not with the goal of selling
or making money from it (at least not directly). What I've noticed here
isn't so much that a new IF system isn't welcome, but more that it's not
really necessary (and not a potential untapped source of income). I think an
IF system could make money if it were Win32 GUI and packaged in a fancy box
at your local software store (and even then, maybe not a *lot* of money).
This isn't something we're likely to see. Even though I think "selling" my
own IF engine wouldn't make sense, I don't want to discourage somebody else
who wants to.
> So: I agree with the objective statement: it's damn-near impossible for
> anyone to create a text adventure development system, and recoup the money
> (and time, which equals money) which went into it.
Independent shareware, that's what I think. If by some chance a publisher
was willing to package and sell a "fancy" IF system, it would probably make
money but maybe not enough to pay advertising, packaging, distribution, and
anything else associated with such things. Convincing a publisher it could
turn a profit would probably be impossible anyway.
> Is this state of affairs, as you say, "unfortunate"?
> That's really hard to judge; but I don't think so.
>
> If you want to quit your job and make a living off of IF development
> tools, too bad; you can't. I guess that could be viewed as unfortunate.
> But it's well-known that the world does not pay salaries commensurate with
> how much you enjoy doing things.
I wouldn't quit my job to earn a living as an IF tool developer, but I want
to believe that there *are* markets out there where shareware can succeed.
By "unfortunate," I didn't mean IF in particular, but independent
development in general. This can't always have been true, otherwise ID and
Apogee (and others) would never have gotten off the ground. What's
unfortunate is that the chances of this happening now in almost any market
seems doubtful. I've found a niche "market" in web games (people who are
limited on time and who want to play anywhere they have Internet and a
browser). It may not last. Unless I want to abandon all chances of making
money from what I like and simply commit forever to somebody else's schedule
and priorities, I have to keep looking for new possibilities. I can justify
the time spent to develop freeware IF (or an IF system) by the chance that I
can list it at several major download hotspots which will bring visitors
into my site, a few of which may try my online game. Is this costing the IF
community in terms of a registration fee for my "system?" No. Is it really
*helping* the IF community though? Probably not, except that it may draw in
a few recruits who will prompty discard my system and take up "mainstream"
IF. Is it helping my company? With luck, yes. Is it selfish? I won't
speculate.
> Basically, I object to categorizing IF authors as "spoiled", as if they
> (we!) are caught in some unhealthy, short-sighted behavior pattern. This
> is an area where the open-source development model is *working*. We've got
> lots of tools, and lots of games, and lots of contributed work (library
> modules, new interpreters, etc.)
Those things are more than the sum of their parts. You've got a community of
people who enjoy the same thing and who work together for that (I say "you"
because I haven't really contributed anything). I still would not discourage
somebody from trying to sell an IF system. That's not meant to be a
contradiction to what IF represents. It's not even about IF to me, and I
can't think of any market where I wouldn't feel the same. I think that if
somebody writes a product and wants to sell it, it's a wonderful thing. If
you don't buy it and I don't buy it and the rest of the world won't buy it,
so be it. Chalk it up to failure and later ponder whether or not it would
have met with more success if it had been free all along. Success as a
freeware program means no potential for success as a shareware one, so it
all comes down to your own objectives and which goal is most important.
> You say:
> > The message this sends to shareware developers is "don't waste your
> > time."
>
> But no. The message that we're sending *to text adventure enthusiasts* is
> "Your work will be more valuable if you don't ask money for it." (And even
> more so if you structure it in an open way: modularization, documented
> interfaces, readable source code.)
I'll rephrase then. The message this sends to shareware developers is "don't
waste your time hoping to profit financially from your product." Again, I
made a generalization which wasn't meant to apply to IF in particular. The
vocal portion of any market I've "dabbled" in to this point has always said
"don't charge for it." It's not just IF. I hoped to market a game using the
Dink Smallwood engine. Don't charge for it. I've written some CGI's (some
people *do* purchase them). Don't charge for it. Even with my online web
game which *has* been making money for my company, I was warned during the
development phase "don't charge for it." This is the message -- I'm simply
turning a deaf ear to it. Not everybody is as stubborn as I am, though, and
I wouldn't discourage somebody from selling what they create.
> To divide the world up into shareware developers and freeware developers,
> is to falsely imply that something is lost by excluding the former.
> *People* contribute. Anyone who really wants to contribute will find a way
> to.
I think something *would* be lost in a world where "freeware" and
"commercial" are the only alternatives. You've lost the possibility that the
little guy can become a big guy, and you've removed one alternative from the
hypothetical American Dream. I probably sound entirely materialistic, but
I'm really not. I just like to hope that my future hasn't been promised to
the lady from accounting that hands me a direct-deposit slip every Tuesday.
> (Reading back, it sounds like I'm berating you for berating *us*. I
> apologize; that's not how I meant this post to go.)
I *really* didn't mean to come across as berating either. Mainly I'm just
venting at an ever-shrinking shareware market.
> As you noted, available time is a critical resource! A contribution that
> makes life easier for many people is more valuable than one which makes
> life easier for a few. This is why I've put in some much time writing
> specifications, documentation, and available source code.
I've contributed to my passions as well. I've written FAQ's and free add-ons
and instructions and spent many hours answering newbie questions just to
help out (in particular, for the Dink Smallwood CRPG). This was for the
purpose of helping in something I enjoy, not for profit. I understand that
the IF community is populated by such people. I just (sorry) *still* can't
bring myself to discourage somebody who *does* hope to make a profit.
> > However, no matter what "market" covers a particular "freeware" system I
> > might be using, it's unlikely that I'd go about discouraging a person
who
> > has created a system to sell.
>
> What a great sentence! It provides me with a lovely opportunity for
> response, for which I thank you. :-)
>
> I would encourage any *person who has created a system to sell*.
>
> But I would not encourage a person who has created a system *to sell it*.
> You see the distinction in the invisible parentheses. I would instead
> encourage them to upload it, without monetary restriction.
<lol> You're welcome. I didn't mean, though, that I'd encourage somebody who
writes an IF system to SELL it, I meant that If somebody were writing an IF
system with an intent to sell it, I wouldn't discourage them from doing so.
You caught the ambiguity though.
> I agree with the others here: TADS was going downhill as long as it was
> shareware. Now it is freeware and gaining strength; and the next version
> will have a documented virtual machine and open library source. Nobody
> ever told Mike Roberts to shut up and get out of IF. He's still here; only
> the word "shareware" has been removed from TADS.
This is ideal, and this I totally support. I wasn't around then, but if this
was what happened then I "worried" for nothing. If the author of a shareware
program reevaluates his/her goals or decides to aim at a different kind of
success, then I'm all for that. I also am not against honest advice and
evaluations ("You'll be competing with several major existing IF systems
which are free"). What I *am* against (and admittedly I didn't see it, was
just speculating) is discouragement or criticism of a decision to sell a
product ("Don't bother putting a price tag on an IF system -- nobody will
use it and don't expect anybody to take you seriously").
> I see six or eight soapboxes have sprouted under my feet. Enough out of
me.
<lol> If nobody ever "debated" I might think I was always right. ;)
Mike Snyder
>>This is the great thing about shareware, you do get the chance. Do you
only
>>purchase/use shareware though? It's been my experience that unlimited
>>shareware versions of a product (ones which don't expire or have no
>>limitations) tend to be "registered" only by people who strongly support
the
>>shareware concept.
Peter Seebach wrote....
>This may well be. I'm one of those weirdos who *does* register shareware,
>but I also contribute code to free software people, so I'm obviously weird.
Weird, no! Those are great people, if a minority. Back in the "BBS" days I
wrote two similar games (similar features, similary play style, but
different settings). One had several limits (players could only advance as
far as level 5, couldn't change their name, etc) in the shareware version.
The other had no limits but required a registration as well. Several hundred
people registered the "crippled" game. Less than 10 people registered the
other. As far as I can tell, both were run on just as many BBS's. [shrug].
Offering uncrippled "shareware" seems to inspire "it works, so I'm not going
to pay" attitudes. $0.02.
Mike.
BrenBarn
general.
It seems that this is a veiled discussion of an issue that I think about a
lot: Should people do what they love to do because they love to do it, or
should they do what pays so they can get rich?
There's no way I'm going to even START to talk about this issue. It's too
huge to me. I just thought I'd put that little nugget out there and see what
happens (which will probably be nothing :-).
Thanks for reading this unfocused non-post.
From,
Brendan B. B. (Bren...@aol.com)
(Name in header has spam-blocker, use the address above instead.)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
Mike Snyder
BrenBarn wrote in message <19991027190614...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
> This is not a response to any message in particular, just to the
thread in
>general.
> It seems that this is a veiled discussion of an issue that I think
about a
>lot: Should people do what they love to do because they love to do it, or
>should they do what pays so they can get rich?
> There's no way I'm going to even START to talk about this issue. It's
too
>huge to me. I just thought I'd put that little nugget out there and see
what
>happens (which will probably be nothing :-).
> Thanks for reading this unfocused non-post.
ACK!!!! This post is one of those cartoon pies where the visible scent of it
carries through the hallway beckons at the cartoon character "this way...
this way..."
This depends on your personal goals. I don't program to get rich, but I
would like to make a living at it (in fact, I do, just not independently). I
don't think somebody who *does* program for profit should be discouraged
from it though. With IF, it seems to make sense not to start out by
encouraging it, but if somebody has decided to do so, I won't discourage
that.
T Raymond
>I'm curious if you're able to fully test out most software before you buy
>full-scale version of the product we could tinker around with before
>deciding. The thought never really crossed my mind of walking into CompUSA
>and asking a sales clerk if I could open up one of the boxes and play around
>with it for a few days before I buy.
Many shareware programs (at least these days) give you the full-thing,
or nearly so, with registration reminders or timeouts (usually a
number of days). They give you enough to easily, and I stress that
point, test the software. I don't think that ease for testing is there
for SUDS. It's my opinion, I could be wrong.
>This is the great thing about shareware, you do get the chance. Do you only
>purchase/use shareware though?
No, I don't use shareware exclusively, but it's been my finding that
many shareware programs have many or more features and work better
than a good deal of commercial software.
Heck, I almost registered TADS way back when I first found it nearly
ten years ago, because while the manual itself wasn't included, you
could test the whole system. Ditch was enough reading material to
understand enough to test with.
I use other programs, Pegasus, PFE, Yankee Clipper, Opera, a host of
others. Some are shareware, many are freeware, all outstrip anything
I've had to compare them to that was commercially produced. I'm
sending out a few registration at the end of the month.
>It's been my experience that unlimited
>shareware versions of a product (ones which don't expire or have no
>limitations) tend to be "registered" only by people who strongly support the
>shareware concept.
Actually I've seen articles on this idea, you can find them in just
about any magazine that ever deals with computers, several times a
year. People don't mind paying for programs, they just like programs
to do what they need to do without a lot of extra junk. (Unlike most
MS software which is overly large in size. I've seen versions of
Netscape that had close to 1 meg of useless code cut out of it, it
still worked.) BTW, in case I didn't mention it yet, this is all my
opinion :)
>I've not yet downloaded SUDS, but I suspect that whatever limitations are on
>the demo version of the developer's kit (a 20-move limit?) wouldn't prevent
>me from evaluating the platform. Unfortunately, working days and preparing
>to move this weekend will mean I can't really look at SUDS until next week.
Again, merely my opinion, but I've not got a wealth of extra time, so
reloading the game every couple of minutes would tend to get annoying
to me. I hope others do try it out, and find that it's what they need,
and use it, and are happy. I don't think I'll be one of them.
Tom
Mike Snyder
>of my very basic "Cloak of Darkness" game, intended to assist people
>who are attempting to compare the various IF authoring systems.
>See http://homepages.tesco.net/~roger.firth/cloak/index.html
>for details.
FYI, I'm working on Cloak of Darkness in SAGEscript right now. Although my
engine is still a ways from complete, nothing in this example is very
complex so most of it is already working. :)
Mike.
Damien Neil
wrote:
>I wouldn't quit my job to earn a living as an IF tool developer, but I want
>to believe that there *are* markets out there where shareware can succeed.
There are such markets, but I don't think you are standing in one now.
Different communities have different values.
Shareware Unix software, for example, isn't likely to get you anywhere.
A modern Unix system (even a commercial one, such as Solaris) is built
upon several decades of freely available work. When using a system
where the C compiler, the text editors, the windowing environment, and
perhaps even the kernel are all freely available with source code,
the thought of paying money for anything less significant feels wrong.
The author may feel entitled to money for his work -- but if I'm going
to give money to people because they write something useful to me,
surely the gcc developers (for example) should come first? After all,
gcc is far more useful than any likely shareware utility.
The Windows world is a different community. (Partially, I suspect,
because the most common development tools are all commercial, creating
the perfectly natural desire for authors to recoup their costs.) I've
shelled out money for WinZip. I would never pay for a Unix equivalent.
The IF community is very cross-platform, but the attitudes more reflect
that of the Unix world. Several excellent development systems already
exist; why would anyone want to pay money for a new one? A new one
which lacks cross-platform support, no less. Meaning that games
written in it will never be able to garner accolades from many
significant members of the community. The lack of source code is
also quite damning -- look at the number of people who have contributed
to Inform for an idea of what freely-available source gains you.
Attitudes towards shareware games, as opposed to development systems,
are somewhat different. A game is a single thing; you get it, you
play it, you move on. A development system is a relationship that
will stay with you for years.
>I think something *would* be lost in a world where "freeware" and
>"commercial" are the only alternatives. You've lost the possibility that the
>little guy can become a big guy, and you've removed one alternative from the
>hypothetical American Dream. I probably sound entirely materialistic, but
>I'm really not. I just like to hope that my future hasn't been promised to
>the lady from accounting that hands me a direct-deposit slip every Tuesday.
"Shareware" software IS "commercial" software. It's not produced by a big
company, but that doesn't make it any less commercial.
There's still plenty of room for commercial software in the world.
>I *really* didn't mean to come across as berating either. Mainly I'm just
>venting at an ever-shrinking shareware market.
If the shareware market is shrinking, I suspect it is because standards
for software are rising. It's getting very hard for a program written
by a single person in his spare time to compete with the level of
quality of other packages. It's virtually impossible for such a program
to compete with a free program: a shareware program is limited by developer
salaries, while a free program draws little bits of time from many
developers.
Personally, I can see no reason to be unhappy that the supply of high-
quality free software is increasing. It makes my life better. Sure,
it means I probably can't make a living by sitting in a hole in the
ground separate from all human contact and writing little programs.
If that appealed to me, however, I'd go become a consultant doing
small programming projects. Similar lifestyle, not much more human
contact (if you don't want it), much better pay.
>I've contributed to my passions as well. I've written FAQ's and free add-ons
>and instructions and spent many hours answering newbie questions just to
>help out (in particular, for the Dink Smallwood CRPG). This was for the
>purpose of helping in something I enjoy, not for profit. I understand that
>the IF community is populated by such people. I just (sorry) *still* can't
>bring myself to discourage somebody who *does* hope to make a profit.
The thing is, I don't think anyone is going to make a profit selling
IF development environments. The competition is better and costs less.
Better than anyone hoping to do so become discouraged before they waste
time and energy on it.
Feel free to prove me wrong by selling an IF dev environment and making
money, of course. I'm not an all-knowing oracle. But I'd be dishonest
to encourage anyone to try to make a profit this way.
- Damien
Mike Snyder
>There are such markets, but I don't think you are standing in one now.
>Different communities have different values.
There are fewer and fewer markets like that and they're hard to find.
>Shareware Unix software, for example, isn't likely to get you anywhere.
>A modern Unix system (even a commercial one, such as Solaris) is built
>upon several decades of freely available work. When using a system
>where the C compiler, the text editors, the windowing environment, and
>perhaps even the kernel are all freely available with source code,
>the thought of paying money for anything less significant feels wrong.
>The author may feel entitled to money for his work -- but if I'm going
>to give money to people because they write something useful to me,
>surely the gcc developers (for example) should come first? After all,
>gcc is far more useful than any likely shareware utility.
That's great, but it has lead to an expectation that everything you want can
be obtained for free.
>The IF community is very cross-platform, but the attitudes more reflect
>that of the Unix world. Several excellent development systems already
>exist; why would anyone want to pay money for a new one? A new one
>which lacks cross-platform support, no less. Meaning that games
>written in it will never be able to garner accolades from many
>significant members of the community. The lack of source code is
>also quite damning -- look at the number of people who have contributed
>to Inform for an idea of what freely-available source gains you.
Then you begin building a new community.
>Attitudes towards shareware games, as opposed to development systems,
>are somewhat different. A game is a single thing; you get it, you
>play it, you move on. A development system is a relationship that
>will stay with you for years.
In other words, it's ok to pay for something simple, but something complex
should be free. [lol].
>"Shareware" software IS "commercial" software. It's not produced by a big
>company, but that doesn't make it any less commercial.
No it isn't.
>If the shareware market is shrinking, I suspect it is because standards
>for software are rising. It's getting very hard for a program written
>by a single person in his spare time to compete with the level of
>quality of other packages. It's virtually impossible for such a program
>to compete with a free program: a shareware program is limited by developer
>salaries, while a free program draws little bits of time from many
>developers.
This was my point.
>Personally, I can see no reason to be unhappy that the supply of high-
>quality free software is increasing. It makes my life better. Sure,
>it means I probably can't make a living by sitting in a hole in the
>ground separate from all human contact and writing little programs.
>If that appealed to me, however, I'd go become a consultant doing
>small programming projects. Similar lifestyle, not much more human
>contact (if you don't want it), much better pay.
I'm not unhappy with free software directly. I'm disappointed that the
opportunities for a small company to grow in the shareware world are slim.
Are you categorizing all programmers as people who sit in a little hole in
the ground and have no human contact? I'll ask you not to make such a
generalization, as that doesn't describe me at all.
>The thing is, I don't think anyone is going to make a profit selling
>IF development environments. The competition is better and costs less.
>Better than anyone hoping to do so become discouraged before they waste
>time and energy on it.
I'm not "selling" an IF system, but if I were, it's my time and energy to
waste. Who are you to discourage me from that? If It's free, I've earned
nothing. If it costs and nobody buys, I've earned nothing. What's the
difference from my standpoint? None, unless I *expect* to make money (and I
never "expect" it, only hope).
>Feel free to prove me wrong by selling an IF dev environment and making
>money, of course. I'm not an all-knowing oracle. But I'd be dishonest
>to encourage anyone to try to make a profit this way.
I never said somebody should be encouraged to write an IF system to sell. If
I didn't have my own doubts about making money with one, I'd do it myself.
However, and you will *never* convince me otherwise, somebody who has
already written one and plans to sell it shouldn't be criticized for that.
As Andrew Plotkin explained to me about the TADS system, the author
eventually made it freeware. This was his decision when the prospect of
income was appearently gone. Never EVER would I tell somebody "make it free,
otherwise you're just wasting time and energy." I've been told that on many
projects I hoped to sell... in fact, almost every one. Yet, my income in the
workforce has more than quadrupled in the past three years and I have a hard
time thinking that what I do for my employer is something the rest of the
world thinks should be done for free.
Mike Snyder
---- Sorry for the rant, just woke up and should know better than to be
interactive first thing in the morning.
T Raymond
>> I'm curious if you're able to fully test out most software before you buy
>> it?
>
>do.
I didn't htink I could be the only one who thought that way :)
Peter Seebach
Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>That's great, but it has lead to an expectation that everything you want can
>be obtained for free.
Yes. This may turn out to be a reasonable expectation. Economically, there's
no reason for copies of programs to cost money; it should be the development
which costs money.
Now look at, say, Cygnus, who make a lot of money selling work, and give away
most (all?) of their software. The product is the labor, not the actual
programs.
Mike Snyder
>
>Yes. This may turn out to be a reasonable expectation. Economically,
there's
>no reason for copies of programs to cost money; it should be the
development
>which costs money.
Er... so who pays for me to develop a game which the world at large wants me
to provide for free? Basically you're saying I should spend my money to make
a game, so that you don't have to spend any money to obtain it? Either I'm
misunderstanding you, or that seems really high-handed.
>Now look at, say, Cygnus, who make a lot of money selling work, and give
away
>most (all?) of their software. The product is the labor, not the actual
>programs.
I'm just not familiar with this, or I'm misunderstanding you. How is "labor"
a revenue-generating product if nobody is paying for it?
Mike.
Damien Neil
>Damien Neil wrote in message ...
>>upon several decades of freely available work. When using a system
>>where the C compiler, the text editors, the windowing environment, and
>>perhaps even the kernel are all freely available with source code,
>>the thought of paying money for anything less significant feels wrong.
>
>That's great, but it has lead to an expectation that everything you want can
>be obtained for free.
Which is, indeed, generally the case. At least in that particular domain.
More importantly, however, it has led to an expectation that anything I
do should be free. When I write a small, useful program, I build on
the work of many hundreds of other programmers who gave away their work.
Can I do any less?
>>The IF community is very cross-platform, but the attitudes more reflect
>>that of the Unix world. Several excellent development systems already
>>exist; why would anyone want to pay money for a new one? A new one
>>which lacks cross-platform support, no less. Meaning that games
>>written in it will never be able to garner accolades from many
>>significant members of the community. The lack of source code is
>>also quite damning -- look at the number of people who have contributed
>>to Inform for an idea of what freely-available source gains you.
>
>Then you begin building a new community.
Can you at least understand why the members of the current IF community
will regard the desire to construct a new, separate community revolving
around a commercial, unportable piece of software with less than full
enthusisam?
>>Attitudes towards shareware games, as opposed to development systems,
>>are somewhat different. A game is a single thing; you get it, you
>>play it, you move on. A development system is a relationship that
>>will stay with you for years.
>
>In other words, it's ok to pay for something simple, but something complex
>should be free. [lol].
"Simple" vs. "complex" is not the issue.
Hugo was initally a single-platform system. It has since been ported
to many other systems, mostly by people other than the primary author.
Would this have happened if it was commercial?
>>"Shareware" software IS "commercial" software. It's not produced by a big
>>company, but that doesn't make it any less commercial.
>
>No it isn't.
I'm sorry. I don't know if we can communicate meaningfully if we cannot
agree on a point that seems this blindingly obvious to me.
The Opera web browser is commercial. It is developed by a Norwegian
company, which makes money off of it. A limited-use trial version is
available; if you decide you like it, you send them money.
The IF authoring tool which sparked this discussion also has a limited-
use trial version. If you decide you like it, you send the authors
money. What makes it different?
Is WinZip shareware or commercial? How about GameSpy?
>I'm not unhappy with free software directly. I'm disappointed that the
>opportunities for a small company to grow in the shareware world are slim.
>Are you categorizing all programmers as people who sit in a little hole in
>the ground and have no human contact? I'll ask you not to make such a
>generalization, as that doesn't describe me at all.
No. I'm saying that if I wanted to avoid being beholden to a large
corporation, I can think of far more lucrative ways of doing so than
writing shareware.
I'm also saying that whenever free software drives out commercial
software, this is a net win for me.
>I'm not "selling" an IF system, but if I were, it's my time and energy to
>waste. Who are you to discourage me from that? If It's free, I've earned
>nothing. If it costs and nobody buys, I've earned nothing. What's the
>difference from my standpoint? None, unless I *expect* to make money (and I
>never "expect" it, only hope).
I'm referring to the people who were advertising a commercial IF
development system here, not you.
Tell me, do you believe it is wrong to offer advice in general, or only
to people who write shareware?
>I never said somebody should be encouraged to write an IF system to sell. If
>I didn't have my own doubts about making money with one, I'd do it myself.
>However, and you will *never* convince me otherwise, somebody who has
>already written one and plans to sell it shouldn't be criticized for that.
I don't believe I have heard any such criticisms here. I've heard people
complain that the 20-move limit on the demo makes it difficult to
evaluate. I've heard people say that they won't buy it, regardless of
how good it is. Are these not valid statements, and indeed valuable
market input?
- Damien
Andrew Plotkin
>>I think something *would* be lost in a world where "freeware" and
>>"commercial" are the only alternatives. You've lost the possibility that the
>>little guy can become a big guy, and you've removed one alternative from the
>>hypothetical American Dream. I probably sound entirely materialistic, but
>>I'm really not. I just like to hope that my future hasn't been promised to
>>the lady from accounting that hands me a direct-deposit slip every Tuesday.
>
> company, but that doesn't make it any less commercial.
>
Yes, I should have been clearer about that. When I said "shareware", I was
simplifying the argument, but I really meant all pay-money-to-use-it
software.
And yes, there's plenty of room for commercial software. But not
(obviously) for every task.
Mike Snyder
>This could just be me spinning my mental wheels here, but I also wonder
>how much if raif's freeware slant is influenced by raif's very academic
>community mix. Certainly some IF fans have jobs, but a good portion
>of the active community is students/grad students/professors/recently
>out-of-college professionals, etc--groups that aren't know for having much
>spare cash. Personally, I would love to register more shareware (there's a
>web editor I love to death, but which costs $70 to register) but I almost
>never have the money. Same with why I love IF so much in the first place.
>I can't often spare $40 for the latest graphic game, but I can always raid
>GMD for toys.
This is something I feel mixed about. I do understand how lofty price tags
make a product undesirable (even small price tags, depending on your
situation). I've certainly been there. At the same time, I can't ever
remember feeling that my personal situation was justification to tell a
software developer "I can't afford it... make it free." Instead, talent
rises up to write a similar product as service to the community. If free
products capture the market (as is the case here) then releasing something
as shareware (or even commercial) can be considered a bad business move but
should *not* be considered a right the developer doesn't have. It's possible
that such a product *might* be unique or "cool" enough to get attention and
make a little money, despite the "way things are."
>(Just a thought, and in no way meant to discourage shareware/commercial
>developers. If I were going to spend hundreds of hours developing a
>product, I can certainly see wanting some kind of monetary compensation.)
I've written freeware. I do it because I want to, because I'm stretching my
"muscles," or because I'm trying to help a group of people. More recently, I
do it because it's a neat way attracting website visitors. I've written
shareware. I do it because the project is so large I want to at least *try*
for a little return on the time, or because I think I've stumbled on
something which isn't beaten to death already by freeware. More recently, I
do it because I co-own a software company and our goal is not to work as a
charity, but to make a profit as most companies attempt. I've also written
commercial software. I do it because there are companies which think my
skills are worth $$$. I do it because it pays for my lifestyle. I do it
because (for example) Sprint PCS is willing to pay big bucks to my employer.
My intent was not to bring the wrath of the IF Gods down upon me. I have
*no* idea why, by Andrew Plotkin is able to disagree with me without making
me feel like an idiot. <shrug>
Andrew Plotkin
> Peter Seebach wrote in message ...
>>
>>Yes. This may turn out to be a reasonable expectation. Economically,
> there's
>>no reason for copies of programs to cost money; it should be the
> development
>>which costs money.
>
> Er... so who pays for me to develop a game which the world at large wants me
> to provide for free?
I was careful to specify, in my long rant, that I was talking about
development systems and *not* games.
Games are different -- maybe not in an absolute qualitative sense, but
very different in practice. Because they're art, and every artist has (if
you want to think of it this way) a natural, unbreakable monopoly on
his/her own work.
If I release IF games for free (which I do), and other people release IF
games for money (which they do), am I helping drive them down into the
dirt? The situation is complicated, but at root, my games *aren't the
same* as theirs. If you want to play _Once and Future_, because you like
Whizzard's writing, no amount of _Spider and Web_ will satisfy that urge.
Even if you think I'm a better writer -- which is subjective, and there
will always be people who disagree :-) -- that doesn't mean you stop
caring about _Once and Future_.
(And this may work in reverse. Just because I've never asked money for a
text game, doesn't mean I never will. I think I'd sell a fair number of
copies, even though there would still be free IF out there.)
I am *much* less happy about paying money for tools and utilities, in
general.
Mike Snyder
>(And this may work in reverse. Just because I've never asked money for a
>text game, doesn't mean I never will. I think I'd sell a fair number of
>copies, even though there would still be free IF out there.)
>
>I am *much* less happy about paying money for tools and utilities, in
>general.
Applying my frustration about shareware in general to an IF authoring system
was a bad attempt at solidifying a problem which to me is very general. I
never meant to imply that I think the IF community is obligated to embrace
and buy a "for money" system. I only meant to say that I don't think it's
fair to say "you CAN'T try to sell," and I'm frustrated in general that it's
hard to "compete" against free stuff.
I'm pretty sure any additional comments I have are just rehashed ways of
saying the above :-)
Mike.
Mike Snyder
>>Damien Neil wrote in message ...
>More importantly, however, it has led to an expectation that anything I
>do should be free. When I write a small, useful program, I build on
>the work of many hundreds of other programmers who gave away their work.
>Can I do any less?
When I write a small, useful program, I use an operating system which was
not "given" to me using programming languages which were not "given" to me
(usually -- Perl is an exception), using graphics renderning software which
was not "given" to me, on a computer that was definitely not "given" to me.
Windows 98... $100. VB... $450... Bryce4... $199, Poser3... $199, PSP...
$85. In the past I've developed Worldgroup BBS games -- Worldgroup BBS
6-user... $500, Borland C++... $175, Pharlap... $400, WG developer's kit...
$500. I respect your decision and your right to create software and not
charge for it. I do not, however, believe it's fair to *expect* software to
be free (though this seems to be the case).
>>Then you begin building a new community.
>
>Can you at least understand why the members of the current IF community
>will regard the desire to construct a new, separate community revolving
>around a commercial, unportable piece of software with less than full
>enthusisam?
I didn't say "Then you begin building a new community which the existing one
will embrace with open arms." I'm also not seriously proposing such a thing.
>>In other words, it's ok to pay for something simple, but something complex
>>should be free. [lol].
>
>"Simple" vs. "complex" is not the issue.
>Hugo was initally a single-platform system. It has since been ported
>to many other systems, mostly by people other than the primary author.
>Would this have happened if it was commercial?
I'm *not* disputing that making money with *any* aspect of IF is probably
futile. I'm disputing the insistence that writing software *must* mean
giving it away free. Can you just not understand this?
>>>"Shareware" software IS "commercial" software. It's not produced by a
big
>>>company, but that doesn't make it any less commercial.
>>
>>No it isn't.
>
>I'm sorry. I don't know if we can communicate meaningfully if we cannot
>agree on a point that seems this blindingly obvious to me.
Shareware is available in a form (often crippled) which you can "try before
you buy". This is not true of commercial software. The best you can hope for
is a review somewhere, a features list maybe, or with luck some kind of
limited demo. In your mind, you can consider Shareware and Commercial
Software the same thing, but they simply *are not*. Most "free" software you
can download (especially, in my experiences, CGI scripts, code snippets or
tools, graphics, music) states that it can be used freely in shareware and
freeware products, but not commercially without consent from the author.
Does the rest of the world simply have the wrong idea about the line between
the two?
>The Opera web browser is commercial. It is developed by a Norwegian
>company, which makes money off of it. A limited-use trial version is
>available; if you decide you like it, you send them money.
That's shareware. If it's sold in stores, it's either fully functional
(commercial) or it's a low-priced shareware version (typically $10 CD's
around here). I'm not aware of Opera being sold in any stores, but I'm not
that familiar with it in general.
>The IF authoring tool which sparked this discussion also has a limited-
>use trial version. If you decide you like it, you send the authors
>money. What makes it different?
Both are shareware. I see no difference.
>Is WinZip shareware or commercial? How about GameSpy?
WinZip is shareware. Maybe a commercial version is available, I'm not sure.
I have no idea what GameSpy is, so I can't comment.
>No. I'm saying that if I wanted to avoid being beholden to a large
>corporation, I can think of far more lucrative ways of doing so than
>writing shareware.
Writing shareware is a means of *not* being tied to a large corporation and
this is where my frustration comes into play. With such a mindset toward
freeware-or-nothingware, the chances of successful shareware is very very
slim.
>I'm also saying that whenever free software drives out commercial
>software, this is a net win for me.
And a net loss for software developers. Your goal must be to convince
everybody with any programming talent that their time is best spent working
for you, for free. Commercial software exists because people will buy it.
The less people who buy it and the less people who *need* it, the fewer
commercial products you will see with any success. This is a point you may
adamantly refute, but when there is no longer money to be made in writing
software, you may find fewer people possess the skills at doing it. When
picking my college major I certainly would have considered something else if
somebody told me "hey, everybody these days expects freeware. You can take a
CS major but you'll be eating raman noodles for the rest of your life."
>I'm referring to the people who were advertising a commercial IF
>development system here, not you.
Admittedly I put myself in the line of fire on this, but it's not because I
plan to sell commercial IF development systems. It's because I
wholeheartedly disagree with the opinion that people are *obligated* to
release their work for free.
>Tell me, do you believe it is wrong to offer advice in general, or only
>to people who write shareware?
Advice is different than rejection, and I've already mentioned this.
>I don't believe I have heard any such criticisms here. I've heard people
>complain that the 20-move limit on the demo makes it difficult to
>evaluate. I've heard people say that they won't buy it, regardless of
>how good it is. Are these not valid statements, and indeed valuable
>market input?
I've already stated that my original comment stems from "suspecting" this
attitude rather than seeing evidence of it. This IF community, as has been
pointed out, is very freeware-oriented. Although nobody has openly stated
"Do not charge for an IF system" (to my knowledge) the sentiment seems to be
just below the surface.
Peter Seebach
Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>Er... so who pays for me to develop a game which the world at large wants me
>a game, so that you don't have to spend any money to obtain it? Either I'm
>misunderstanding you, or that seems really high-handed.
Well, that's been the historical problem with games as open source. ;)
Let's look at how it works in an industry where it is, in fact, working. Take
the canonical success story, gcc. gcc is a C compiler. It's an excellent C
compiler. Individual vendors can beat it for their own processors, but it's
the most widely-ported C compiler in the world, by a large margin.
I use gcc.
I have never paid a penny for gcc.
People pay, not to get the compiler, but to get features added to it. Those
features are given to everyone else.
The reason this works is that, with so much of the basic work on the compiler
already available, and free, the marginal cost of adding a feature is often
low enough that it is more cost-effective to pay someone to add the feature to
gcc, than to get something else which provides that same feature.
>>Now look at, say, Cygnus, who make a lot of money selling work, and give
>away
>>most (all?) of their software. The product is the labor, not the actual
>>programs.
>I'm just not familiar with this, or I'm misunderstanding you. How is "labor"
>a revenue-generating product if nobody is paying for it?
They are paying for it. They pay *directly* for it. They say "Hello, Cygnus.
I want gcc to provide this feature. How much would it cost to add this
feature?" Cygnus gives them a quote. If they like it, they hire Cygnus to
perform exactly that labor. Cygnus then gives away the resulting version of
gcc to everyone.
In addition, because the margins on consulting work can be fairly good, Cygnus
does some "pro bono" work - but this work is targeted at improving the number
of consulting jobs that Cygnus can take on and make money.
How would this work for a game? Imagine that you're doing a 3D engine.
Imagine that your engine is pretty good, but doesn't have some useful feature
I want. I can get your engine for free, and so can everyone else. I expect
to sell a lot of copies of my game. You tell me that you can add the feature
I want for $75,000. I evaluate my options:
* your engine, for free, plus $75,000 of work
* someone else's engine, which already does this, for $100,000
and you're a better deal. You get paid $75,000 for development work, *even
though you give your product away*.
Furthermore, maybe you say "by the way, you can have a support contract for
$10,000 a year", and then you can make money from bug fixes, too. :)
Now, the hard part is, how do you make money doing the *hard* part - the
content?
We don't have a good answer yet. Lots of things have been proposed - e.g.,
micropayments, etcetera - but no one's got a good model. Yet. If you find
one, you'll be making a *LOT* of people very happy, because all creative
workers would benefit from a way to do this.
Think about books. Wouldn't it be great if you could sell any book just as
content, without having to convince someone that it'll sell enough copies (at
$7/copy) to justify printing costs for thousands of copies sent to sit on
shelves in thousands of stores? Same problem.
To a certain extent, the whole thing depends on the realization that, in the
end, the competition isn't other people, it's entropy. Anything that makes us
(as a species) more effective is good for everybody. Eventually.
Peter Seebach
Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>Applying my frustration about shareware in general to an IF authoring system
>was a bad attempt at solidifying a problem which to me is very general. I
>never meant to imply that I think the IF community is obligated to embrace
>and buy a "for money" system. I only meant to say that I don't think it's
>fair to say "you CAN'T try to sell," and I'm frustrated in general that it's
>hard to "compete" against free stuff.
It is indeed. As a data point, as an experiment, I solicit donations on my
web page.
So far, I've gotten:
$10
a handful (~$4 worth) of arcade machine tokens
a beautiful little folded picture book
a dozen or so photographs less than an inch on a side
I can't honestly tell you whether this is a good deal or not, but, for what
it's worth, I still try to make time to write material for my page.
Mike Snyder
>content?
>
>We don't have a good answer yet. Lots of things have been proposed - e.g.,
>micropayments, etcetera - but no one's got a good model. Yet. If you find
>one, you'll be making a *LOT* of people very happy, because all creative
>workers would benefit from a way to do this.
>
>Think about books. Wouldn't it be great if you could sell any book just as
>content, without having to convince someone that it'll sell enough copies
(at
>$7/copy) to justify printing costs for thousands of copies sent to sit on
>shelves in thousands of stores? Same problem.
>To a certain extent, the whole thing depends on the realization that, in
the
>end, the competition isn't other people, it's entropy. Anything that makes
us
>(as a species) more effective is good for everybody. Eventually.
If everybody began releasing "free" books (in whatever form) though,
wouldn't it hurt the industry overall? I really think the day would come
when nobody writes because they can't earn a living. The same is true of
anything, and I'm sometimes surprised how software seems to be considered
"different". I want my meals to be prepared for free, I want a free car and
a free house and free "things" to put in it. I wonder if software is
considered "different" because the largest investment is usually Time. In my
mind, a McDonald's clerk who expects my $5 program to be free should be
equally willing (if it were within their power) to give me an Extra Value
Meal for free. If something like this were to happen, I think it would be
horrible for the world. Why, then, does this expectation exist in the
software industry? I'll never ever know.
I'm glad you explained it (the Cygnus thing) because I didn't know what the
original poster meant. This is still an approach where Cygnus has determined
they can make more money by making GCC free because there is additional work
involved. Nobody told Cygnus "you MUST make it free" -- this is a decision
they probably made in an attempt to reach whatever goals they have. Part of
the reason I've written free CGI scripts (a chat room, a poll) is because
it's more likely to be picked up by more people than if I charged a fee
across the board. I recoup my time investment 2 ways -- people can register
(and have) in order to remove my info and customize with their graphics. Or,
people will be pointed to my site because the free scripts contain our
links. I never meant to imply that charging for software should be the rule,
only that no developer should be flogged for their decision to charge, not
charge, or use a free program as an indirect means of revenue.
Mike Snyder
>wouldn't it hurt the industry overall? I really think the day would come
>when nobody writes because they can't earn a living. The same is true of
Although, when I think about it, it would be great to have a world where
everybody does what they enjoy without regard to profit because everybody
else is doing the same thing. I think that's part of the definition of
"Utopia" though.
Peter Seebach
Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>If everybody began releasing "free" books (in whatever form) though,
>wouldn't it hurt the industry overall?
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
>I really think the day would come
>when nobody writes because they can't earn a living.
I don't. I think people would find other ways to sell things. Keep in
mind, free IF doesn't mean I won't pay for IF, it means I won't pay $50 for
a game, unless I *really* like the author.
"free" books might drive prices down to $.25 or $1.00 - but if it were easy
enough to buy books, and enough of the distribution costs were eliminated,
authors would be no worse off.
>The same is true of
>anything, and I'm sometimes surprised how software seems to be considered
>"different".
It's different because, with books, the majority of the cost you pay is
reproduction and distribution of physical media, but with software, it's
development.
>horrible for the world. Why, then, does this expectation exist in the
>software industry? I'll never ever know.
Because the physics really are different.
>I'm glad you explained it (the Cygnus thing) because I didn't know what the
>original poster meant. This is still an approach where Cygnus has determined
>they can make more money by making GCC free because there is additional work
>involved.
No!
THEY DID NOT INVENT IT!
They came along and found something, free, and decided to make money making
it better. ;)
>Nobody told Cygnus "you MUST make it free" -- this is a decision
>they probably made in an attempt to reach whatever goals they have.
Actually, the original author said "you can charge as much as you want, but
you can never prevent anyone else from taking what you give them and giving it
away".
It's a weird license. I can charge $25,000 for a copy of gcc, but it's
unlikely that anyone will pay me, because someone else can give it to them for
free. Even if I do succeed, once, the person I sold it to can sell it for
$100, or give it away, and compete with me.
>Part of
>the reason I've written free CGI scripts (a chat room, a poll) is because
>it's more likely to be picked up by more people than if I charged a fee
>across the board. I recoup my time investment 2 ways -- people can register
>(and have) in order to remove my info and customize with their graphics. Or,
>people will be pointed to my site because the free scripts contain our
>links.
And there's another way, you might some day have someone say "hey, I want this
feature added, how much would it cost for you to do this".
>I never meant to imply that charging for software should be the rule,
>only that no developer should be flogged for their decision to charge, not
>charge, or use a free program as an indirect means of revenue.
I tend to agree. I encourage people to find ways to make money at this - but
I believe that the natural structure of the industry is going to favor free
distribution, and paying for development when you want a specific thing
developed, over paying a whole bunch for a copy of something, and having no
mechanism for buying features.
Suzanne Skinner
>I have *no* idea why, but Andrew Plotkin is able to disagree with me without
>making me feel like an idiot. <shrug>
Indeed. I suspect that's because he put a fair bit of effort into doing so.
It seems that the longer one has been part of a net community--especially a
usenet group--the harder it becomes to avoid condescending to
newcomers. Not so much out of arrogance, as impatience with questions that
have been asked before and arguments that have been hashed out before. But
at some point, one gets beyond that. I think the truest sign of a grizzled
veteran is his/her persistent graciousness towards the uninitiated.
(I'm working on it ;-])
Just a thought for the day.
-Suzanne
--
tr...@igs.net http://www.igs.net/~tril/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
McCoy: "Well, this looks like a safe enough place."
(A huge hole opens up in the ground and swallows one of the men in
red shirts.)
- Peter Anspach, "Who Shall Bring Us Light?"
Peter Seebach
Suzanne Skinner <tr...@host.ott.igs.net> wrote:
>I think the truest sign of a grizzled
>veteran is his/her persistent graciousness towards the uninitiated.
Often. But sometimes we have to understand that the newbies are a special
breed of clay pigeon. Pull!
I really do try, very hard, to be gracious and kind to people who need help
with C, are really trying to learn it, and are rank newbies, no matter how
funny they are. I may tell friends about their stupid questions over dinner,
but I'll treat them with respect.
Homework questions, asked with no effort on the poster's part to solve the
problem, I answer with, uhm, "creative" solutions. I try to go for something
you could test and have it work, so the student will hand it in without
realizing that the code *screams* "I was written by an experienced guru who
was intentionally joking". I doubt anyone has ever gotten a passing grade by
handing in homework I "did" for them. (Actually, one exception, I helped
someone rather more than I originally planned to once in '93, but that was
RL.)
Andy Elliot
T Raymond <ar...@see.the.sig> wrote in message
news:7v2t9a$3fg...@news.northnet.org...
> I checked out your site. It all looks good. The only thing that didn't
> look good to me was the 20 move limitation on the player for
> unregistered users.
>
> I'm a bit of a stickler for testing and testing, which is why I
> haven't released a game yet. If I can't test my own game reasonably, I
> can't expect somebody else to either. And while the concept of easy
> programming sounds great, it can't be foolproof. There are bound to be
> programming glitches, or just changes that the programmer would want
> to check out.
>
> I understand that one would want to get some kind of return on a
> system that you put time into. I think this limitation may prevent
> some potential users from checking out your system.
>
Hopefully, this posting will explain the Registration and "20 move"
business. Here are the main points :
Only the SUDS Constructor has a registration fee.
Anybody can use the SUDS Player for free. It is a fully-featured product.
It does not require registration.
The Constructor is also a fully-featured product. An unregistered
Constructor has no time limit or functionality restriction. You can take as
long as you like to develop your game - this is your evaluation of the
product. You will be hassled periodically with a nag message.
Games produced by a registered Constructor are registered games.
The Player plays any registered games with no restrictions.
Games produced (at any stage of development) by an unregistered Constructor
are unregistered games.
The SUDS Player plays an unregistered game for 20 turns i.e. 20 player
actions. On the 20th turn it quits and uninstalls the game. However, on
the 19th turn you can save your position. You can then re-run the Player,
load your position and play another 19 turns before saving again. So the
game is playable - just inconvenient.
I am sympathetic to the perfectionist viewpoint that wants to build a
complete game and play-test it thoroughly amongst friends, before
registering. But get real, guys! You can see how the SUDS Player works
from the sample games provided. You can evaluate the Constructor until
you're blue in the face. If there was no pain attached to running an
unregistered game, why would anyone ever register?
Remember that you're evaluating whether or not to buy the DESIGN program.
If you don't like it, you'll know long before you're ready to play-test an
entire game. And if you do produce a full game ready for mass testing, $25
is a fair one-off price for an easy life - less than the price of a single
good meal out, or a single round of drinks for all your friends.
I hope this deals with the questions, and my apologies if you don't like the
answer. ;)
Andy Elliot (SUDS author)
Andy Elliot
Andy Elliot <An...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7vags6$962$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> I am sympathetic to the perfectionist viewpoint that wants to build a
> complete game and play-test it thoroughly amongst friends, before
> registering. But get real, guys! You can see how the SUDS Player works
> from the sample games provided. You can evaluate the Constructor until
> you're blue in the face. If there was no pain attached to running an
> unregistered game, why would anyone ever register?
>
> Remember that you're evaluating whether or not to buy the DESIGN program.
> If you don't like it, you'll know long before you're ready to play-test an
> entire game. And if you do produce a full game ready for mass testing,
$25
> is a fair one-off price for an easy life - less than the price of a single
> good meal out, or a single round of drinks for all your friends.
>
OK guys, that last post does not capture the spirit of the thread very well,
so apologies! Due to my job I don't get to read the newsgroups very often
so I can't keep up with developments in this discussion (though Liz can, of
course).
I'd just like to say that I DON'T code for a living,and am not expecting to
support my family on the back of SUDS or any other software product. SUDS
was created whilst maintaining all those good things that Mike Snyder
mentions - wife, child, full-time job, sanity... it's kind of hard to put
all the work in, and then just give it away to the world. I genuinely
believe that SUDS brings something new not just to text adventures but to
graphical programming. The existing group seems to made up of people with
the time and smarts to code in 'C'-like languages. Well, not everyone can
do that (I certainly can't!), so SUDS offers something to non-coders too.
But I'm no altruist. If you like the product, say thanks by giving me a bit
of cash in recognition of the work that went into it. If you don't want
to - OK.
From that point of view, SUDS is not a targetted product launch at a niche
market, hoping to clean up. It's an enthusiasm I'm able to share with other
like-minded beings.
Has anyone actually tried USING it yet? ;)
Andy Elliot
Mike Snyder
>...was created whilst maintaining all those good things that Mike Snyder
>mentions - wife, child, full-time job, sanity... it's kind of hard to
put...
Hehehe sanity? I knew I was missing *something* in that list. :)
Mike.
Joe Mason
>Er... so who pays for me to develop a game which the world at large wants me
>to provide for free? Basically you're saying I should spend my money to make
>a game, so that you don't have to spend any money to obtain it? Either I'm
>misunderstanding you, or that seems really high-handed.
Yep.
And if you don't like it, I'll just play somebody else's game who's willing
to do the work for free.
Now, if EVERYBODY started charging for their games, I'd be SOL. But why
should I pay for your game when I can't keep up with all the free ones
coming out now anyway?
Joe
Neil K.
> The SUDS Player plays an unregistered game for 20 turns i.e. 20 player
> actions. On the 20th turn it quits and uninstalls the game. [...]
Er. *Uninstalls* the game? Not just quits? Isn't that sort of
counter-productive? I mean, if you inconvenience the player to that degree
there's a good chance they may give up the game in irritation.
Please consider reading this thread and see what some of the raif
regulars have to say about charging for IF development tools. I realize
it's a cultural issue (the pre-Internet PC market vs: the open-source UNIX
crowd) in a sense, but you may find it of interest. Best of luck with your
product.
- Neil K.
--
t e l a computer consulting + design * Vancouver, BC, Canada
web: http://www.tela.bc.ca/tela/ * email: tela @ tela.bc.ca
John West McKenna
>Applying my frustration about shareware in general to an IF authoring system
>was a bad attempt at solidifying a problem which to me is very general. I
>never meant to imply that I think the IF community is obligated to embrace
>and buy a "for money" system. I only meant to say that I don't think it's
>fair to say "you CAN'T try to sell," and I'm frustrated in general that it's
>hard to "compete" against free stuff.
People aren't saying "you CAN'T try to sell". They are just warning you that
if you try, you are probably going to be disappointed. An attempt at sharing
a little friendly advice.
Your frustration (to be honest) is your own problem. The state of the market
is a reality that you have to deal with, and a touch of market research makes
a big difference. Would you set up a business making gas street-lamps? It's
the same thing - there's no market for gas street-lamps and there's no market
(in the opinion of the raif regulars, who generally know what they're talking
about) for IF development systems that cost money.
There are people making money from free software. I have no idea how, but if
you think the shareware market is dead, maybe you could investigate another a
different business model. Have a close look at how Cygnus works.
John West
Gene Wirchenko
>In article <7vabur$9rb$1...@news.igs.net>,
>Suzanne Skinner <tr...@host.ott.igs.net> wrote:
>>I think the truest sign of a grizzled
>>veteran is his/her persistent graciousness towards the uninitiated.
>
>Often. But sometimes we have to understand that the newbies are a special
>breed of clay pigeon. Pull!
<BANG!> <crack!>
What did I hit?
>I really do try, very hard, to be gracious and kind to people who need help
>with C, are really trying to learn it, and are rank newbies, no matter how
>funny they are. I may tell friends about their stupid questions over dinner,
>but I'll treat them with respect.
Which is good.
>Homework questions, asked with no effort on the poster's part to solve the
>problem, I answer with, uhm, "creative" solutions. I try to go for something
Which is good, too, even if it's evil.
>you could test and have it work, so the student will hand it in without
>realizing that the code *screams* "I was written by an experienced guru who
>was intentionally joking". I doubt anyone has ever gotten a passing grade by
>handing in homework I "did" for them. (Actually, one exception, I helped
>someone rather more than I originally planned to once in '93, but that was
>RL.)
<snickers into hand>
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
earlo...@my-deja.com
> Think about books. Wouldn't it be great if you could sell any book
> just as content, without having to convince someone that it'll sell
> enough copies (at $7/copy) to justify printing costs for thousands of
> copies sent to sit on shelves in thousands of stores? Same problem.
About six weeks ago, Fat Brain started doing this. Any author can
upload any work (with some limitations on pornography, hate
literature, etc.) to their website, for free, and anyone can download
that work, for a price determined by the author; Fat Brain splits that
price with the author. (It's under the E-Matter section:
http://www.fatbrain.com/ematter/home.html.)
NPR did a great story on this last week; you can find it (and listen to
it) at
http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=10/20/1999&PrgID=2
under the article "Online Publishing".
Earl of Kent
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
T Raymond
>Applying my frustration about shareware in general to an IF authoring system
>was a bad attempt at solidifying a problem which to me is very general. I
>never meant to imply that I think the IF community is obligated to embrace
>and buy a "for money" system. I only meant to say that I don't think it's
>fair to say "you CAN'T try to sell," and I'm frustrated in general that it's
>hard to "compete" against free stuff.
Well if it's any help Mike, as I mentioned before, I'll purchase
software if it works as I need it to. Good example is web browsers:
Netscape and IE are free, but Opera does just about everything those
two do, in a smaller and faster package. Registration is going out
next month for that.
I think a few of my comments led into this discussion, they were about
limits and how they might affect testing, not about the software or
cost of it.
>I'm pretty sure any additional comments I have are just rehashed ways of
>saying the above :-)
Ditto ;)
earlo...@my-deja.com
> I really think the day would come when nobody writes because they
> can't earn a living.
Um, no.
If the day came when _nobody_ could make money writing, the only ones
who would stop would be those that are doing it _only_ for money. I've
been writing for twenty years, and I've never earned enough to make a
living at it. I'm not trying to sound high-minded here, like I wouldn't
give up my day job if I thought I could earn a living from writing
full-time; but at the same time, if someone told me tomorrow that I
could never earn a dime from writing, that doesn't mean that I would
stop.
> The same is true of anything, and I'm sometimes surprised how software
> seems to be considered "different". I want my meals to be prepared for
> free, I want a free car and a free house and free "things" to put in
> it. I wonder if software is considered "different" because the largest
> investment is usually Time.
My guess (I'm not involved in the software industry at all, so I'm
speaking from a position of nearly complete ignorance) is that this
isn't necessarily true. In fact, I would bet that of the commercial
software I've paid money for, mostly games, Time (and the wages paid for
it) is the _smallest_ investment. I'd bet much more was spent on
marketing, packaging, distribution, and wholesale and retail mark-ups
than on developers' wages.
The last piece of commercial software I bought was "Baldur's Gate"; I
paid $39.95 for it, plus tax, at a retail store in the local mall. I'm
not sure of the mark-up on games, but I'd bet that the store probably
paid $20-25 for the game to their distributor, who probably paid $15-18
to the software publisher. Take away about half that for promotion and
packaging costs, and you're left with about $7-9 spent actually
_developing_ the game. Please feel free to correct me if you think my
figures are wrong.
> In my mind, a McDonald's clerk who expects my $5 program to be free
> should be equally willing (if it were within their power) to give me
> an Extra Value Meal for free. If something like this were to happen,
> I think it would be horrible for the world.
I think this would be a _great_ thing for the world. But make no
mistake: it's not free, for either one of you. It's called _bartering_.
You give the clerk your $5 program, and he gives you a Big Mac and
fries. What's wrong with that?
> Part of the reason I've written free CGI scripts (a chat room, a poll)
> is because it's more likely to be picked up by more people than if I
> charged a fee across the board. I recoup my time investment 2 ways --
> people can register (and have) in order to remove my info and
> customize with their graphics. Or, people will be pointed to my site
> because the free scripts contain our links.
Again, it's not free. You may not be charging money for it, in the case
of unregistered versions of the script, but you are receiving a service,
in the form of a link back to your page. That's _bartering_.
> I never meant to imply that charging for software should be the rule,
> only that no developer should be flogged for their decision to charge,
> not charge, or use a free program as an indirect means of revenue.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but the impression I'm getting is
that people aren't "flogging the developer" (that kind of sounds like a
sexual euphemism) for charging for the program, just warning that most
other I-F development systems are free. The only real complaint I've
seen is from someone who was wondering if it would be worth the time to
download the evaluation version of the program, given the fact that he
can get TADS or Inform (plus a few megs worth of libraries) for free.
And in the case of someone paying a per-minute access charge, it really
isn't free to download, anyway. My guess is that he was just looking
for more information before he committed his phone line and the hard
drive space to a program he may or may not use.
T Raymond
>I am sympathetic to the perfectionist viewpoint that wants to build a
>complete game and play-test it thoroughly amongst friends, before
>registering. But get real, guys! You can see how the SUDS Player works
>from the sample games provided. You can evaluate the Constructor until
>you're blue in the face. If there was no pain attached to running an
>unregistered game, why would anyone ever register?
Actually I wouldn't write an entire game, one because I've never
managed to do that yet in any system, and two because it would be
overkill for a test. As to getting real, it's my personal opinion that
the 20 move limit is too low.
Now on to your other point, why register a game, system, whatever?
Well, way back in my BBS days, there was a game called Legend of the
Red Dragon. I'm sure some people here have heard of it, maybe played
it. The unregistered version worked fine but didn't allow you to
customize everything. There was a level limit on your characters if it
wasn't registered. You could play for almost a week, if not more,
before reaching that limit. I registered this game in my name for a
BBS that I used frequently. When they closed up shop, I ran it locally
on my own machine. Why? Because I liked it. It was good. It wasn't
limited too severely that I couldn't see if I liked it.
>Remember that you're evaluating whether or not to buy the DESIGN program.
>If you don't like it, you'll know long before you're ready to play-test an
>entire game. And if you do produce a full game ready for mass testing, $25
>is a fair one-off price for an easy life - less than the price of a single
>good meal out, or a single round of drinks for all your friends.
Of course, I never questioned that. I change things as I program,
refine them, make it a little better as I go. Regardless of the fact
that you can save before the restart, and I'm going to stree this, *it
is my OPINION that the 20 move limit is too low.
>I hope this deals with the questions, and my apologies if you don't like the
>answer. ;)
I have no problem with the questions or the answer. I just offered
some feedback from a potential user of the programs. I hope my answers
and comments added some useful consideration, and I hope that Liz does
well with SUDS. 'nuff said from me about this.
Tom
Mike Snyder
>Now on to your other point, why register a game, system, whatever?
>Well, way back in my BBS days, there was a game called Legend of the
>Red Dragon. I'm sure some people here have heard of it, maybe played
>it. The unregistered version worked fine but didn't allow you to
>customize everything. There was a level limit on your characters if it
>wasn't registered. You could play for almost a week, if not more,
>before reaching that limit. I registered this game in my name for a
>BBS that I used frequently. When they closed up shop, I ran it locally
>on my own machine. Why? Because I liked it. It was good. It wasn't
>limited too severely that I couldn't see if I liked it.
Legend of the Red Dragon had sold 20,000 copies at $15 each by 1995 I
believe. It continued to do well but I don't know the counts after that.
Seth Robinson (the author) and I have become friends through email and on a
few occasions we've traded codes for each other's games (T-Lord for WG
Lunatix, in one case). Good guy. His Dink Smallwood RPG seemed to do pretty
well independently although he recently released it as freeware. I helped
support it by releasing free D-Mods (Dink Modules, a term I accidentally
coined myself) and providing a message forum and web site with information
for Dink authors/players. If anybody cares, his site is at
http://www.rtsoft.com/.
Sorry for straying, just thought it was cool that you mentioned it. :)
earlo...@my-deja.com
<snip>
> but I also contribute code to free software people ...
To free software people? Is there some kind of Underground Railroad I
don't know about, leading poor programmers out of the bondage of their
dank development dungeons and towards freedom?
Sorry, it's late, and I couldn't resist. ;)
Andrew Plotkin
>>making me feel like an idiot. <shrug>
>
> veteran is his/her persistent graciousness towards the uninitiated.
Graciousness, hell. It's just too much effort to beat up on the newbies
with our canes -- we keep tripping over our long snowy beards.
earlo...@my-deja.com
> There are people making money from free software. I have no idea how,
> but if you think the shareware market is dead, maybe you could
> investigate another a different business model. Have a close look at
> how Cygnus works.
I don't know about Cygnus, but take a look at how Pogo.com works: they
provide all their online games for free. The derive their income from
(I assume) two sources: click-through advertising, and from the sale of
their services to web portals like Netscape and Excite. I would guess
that they're not making a _lot_ of money on the banner ads (is anyone),
but I do know that web portals _are_ paying a lot of money for services
that drive consumers to their websites. I heard something this
week about Excite paying an obscene amount of money for Blue Mountain, a
company which provides web-based greeting cards for free. (How
companies like Excite make their money, I have no idea.)
earlo...@my-deja.com
earlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Any author can upload any work (with some limitations on pornography,
> hate literature, etc.) to their website, for free, and anyone can
> download that work, for a price determined by the author; Fat Brain
> splits that price with the author.
My mistake. After listening to the story again, I see that they charge
a buck a month to host your work. (That's what I get for relying
strictly on my memory.)
Gene Wirchenko
>Suzanne Skinner <tr...@host.ott.igs.net> wrote:
>> Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have *no* idea why, but Andrew Plotkin is able to disagree with me without
>>>making me feel like an idiot. <shrug>
>>
>> I think the truest sign of a grizzled
>> veteran is his/her persistent graciousness towards the uninitiated.
>
>Graciousness, hell. It's just too much effort to beat up on the newbies
>with our canes -- we keep tripping over our long snowy beards.
It's even worse when you get all set for a roundhouse-style swing
and then find that your cane got caught in your beard. Go bald even
faster.
Mike Snyder
>I don't know about Cygnus, but take a look at how Pogo.com works: they
>provide all their online games for free. The derive their income from
>(I assume) two sources: click-through advertising, and from the sale of
>their services to web portals like Netscape and Excite. I would guess
>that they're not making a _lot_ of money on the banner ads (is anyone),
>but I do know that web portals _are_ paying a lot of money for services
>that drive consumers to their websites. I heard something this
>week about Excite paying an obscene amount of money for Blue Mountain, a
>company which provides web-based greeting cards for free. (How
>companies like Excite make their money, I have no idea.)
We run an online game as well and chose to fund it through player
subscriptions instead of banner ads (which seems to be the most popular).
For one, I didn't really want ads inside the game. For two, it seems unfair
to the advertiser that players may tend to "click" the ads as a means of
getting extra turns (a common thing in other online games) without really
"visiting" the advertiser.
It's working ok for us. We're lucky that our game is addictive and tends to
gather loyal players. We're also lucky to have several dozen subscribers
already who help make the game more fun for "newbies" which gives them a
reason to stick around past their free trial and subscribe. As a result,
we're able to pay a web host ($120 a month), cable modem service ($45 a
month), miscellaneous other expenses, and still have some money left over
each month. The game is done and the time we have to "invest" in it now is
almost nothing. Anna spends a few minutes a day posting payments to various
accounts. I spend a few minutes answering questions. That's about it. Every
month it grows by more subscribers. We've even "franchised" it to other
sites (only a couple so far because we've had problems with one and backed
off from actively promoting that) at $650.00 for a 150-user license.
During development, we were constantly warned that nobody would play if it's
not free (even though there is a 2-week free trial). We were urged to make
it free for various reasons (other web games are free, for instance, or "I
can't afford to subscribe"... some people just insisted that the entire web
should be free and nothing should be charged for). We chose to disregard
this advice, and it's working for us.
I think Excite (and most of the search engines) make money from advertisers.
For example, you might pay $2,000 for 5,000 banner "impressions" or
something (just guessing numbers, I don't know offhand).
Eric Mayer
> "Mike Snyder" <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>
>> I really think the day would come when nobody writes because they
>> can't earn a living.
>
>Um, no.
>
>If the day came when _nobody_ could make money writing, the only ones
>who would stop would be those that are doing it _only_ for money. I've
>been writing for twenty years, and I've never earned enough to make a
>living at it.
I seem to have missed some of this thread but what I've read struck a
chord and I wanted to make a general comment. My wife and I have just
had our first novel published, a mystery from a small publisher.
Through the wonders of the internet you can purchase it through the
publisher's own web sit, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble (and others) or
even order it in most book stores. We even got a decent review in
Publisher's Weekly. This comes after, on my part, thirty years of
writing -- for virtually no pay. And, so far we haven't seen a cent
from our novel either. If, eventually, it sells well for a first
novel, we might get paid enough to reimburse us for the effort that
went into, say, two chapters! As far as making a living
writing...well, some people do and then too some people win the
lottery.
So I have to sympathize with Mike and Earl both. It seems to me that
whatever sort of art you're talking about there are a lot more
talented producers than there are consumers, so usually you end up
doing what you love for free and wondering what it would be like if
what you loved to do was something you could make a living at.
I've been playing the Comp games. There are some very good, talented,
imaginative writer/programmers around. Not to name names and get into
verboten evaluations but when you're in the middle of one or another
particularly intriguing game you might ask yourself -- if this author
had the same talent for, say, accounting, or practicing law as he or
she has for writing IF wouldn't they be making a good living in those
fields? Unfortunately there's a lot bigger market for accountants and
lawyers than for authors of IF, or authors of novels for that matter.
Of course, I would guess most here can luckily make a living as
programmers of some sort. And I don't know how they would rate the
difficulty/creativity/fulfillment of what they do for a living as
compared to writing IF.
And Mike is not entirely off-base when he wonders about people
continuing to write if they know they can't make a living. Some of us
do, sure, but not everybody keeps plugging away and not everybody can
afford to either. I'm sure I would've written ten times what I have
over the years had I been able to devote my full time to it! (I am not
saying this would have been a good thing, mind you...)
Anyway, that is my lengthy rant on the topic.
--
Eric Mayer
Web Site: <http://home.epix.net/~maywrite>
=====================================================
co-author of ONE FOR SORROW
A "John the Eunuch" mystery from Poisoned Pen Press
<http://www.poisonedpenpress.com/html/sorrow.html>
=====================================================
"The map is not the territory." -- Alfred Korzybski
Peter Seebach
>About six weeks ago, Fat Brain started doing this.
Unfortunately, about a year or two ago, they started spamming.
The great thing is, *anyone* can do it.
Peter Seebach
>To free software people? Is there some kind of Underground Railroad I
>don't know about, leading poor programmers out of the bondage of their
>dank development dungeons and towards freedom?
In a way, yeah. Imagine being required, for every story you want to write,
to rethink from scratch the entire Inform library. Now imagine if an entire
industry used to run that way...
Mike Snyder
>In a way, yeah. Imagine being required, for every story you want to write,
>to rethink from scratch the entire Inform library. Now imagine if an
entire
>industry used to run that way...
(This is in part a reply to the above, but mostly just a general comment.
:-)
Building on existing work is something almost everybody *must* do (for
example, I'm not going to create my own Visual Basic in machine language so
I have a powerful tool to code with). However, not all tools are free. It
makes more sense to write free stuff if you're using free tools and not
looking for a monetary profit. It makes less sense (for me) to write free
stuff using expensive tools if I'm hoping to earn a monetary profit. I see
things from a business standpoint, which seems to be in opposition to a
typical consumer or hobbyist standpoint. I think that's what drives
business -- "What do I have to sell? How can I make it pay off for me? Can I
reach a market of buyers?"
Sometimes I've come across usenet posts (not in r.*.if, but in general)
where a product or service is mentioned in a newsgroup which deals with such
issues. The post is sometimes followed by irate newsgroup regulars shouting
"spam! spam! They forgot to mention you have to PAY for this." I look at the
post and I scratch my head. That's not spam. That's an on-topic post which
is only chastised because it (gasp) has a price tag. For instance, one of
the sites to which we licensed Lunatix Online posted in rec.games.pc.rpg (or
something similar to that, whatever it is). The first reply was criticizing
the game for requiring a $5/month subscription to keep playing (if you
*want* to keep playing) after the first 2 weeks.
I hope nobody here thinks I'm against the freeware and public domain
concepts. I'm definitely not. I've used freeware code (most recently, in my
competition entry). I've created and released freeware code. The only thing
I would object to is being told I have no right (or am otherwise doing
something "wrong") by asking a fee for a program. Many (most?) of you
believe an IF engine, regardless cost or time to develop, should be free.
That's fine. After reading these replies though, I don't think anybody here
thinks such an engine has no right to *be* sold. I think the common
sentiment (although I don't personally share it) is that such a system isn't
worth the time it takes to download due to the high availability of good,
free systems already. I don't think anybody disagrees that they have the
"right" to sell it if they choose.
I think I've probably stirred up most of the "debate" because I either
assumed or suspected that the general consensus was that SUDS has no right
to sell. I've never said (or even thought) that the IF community has an
obligation to buy. I don't think we disagree on any points really, except
that I'm willing to look at a shareware system where some of you are not --
and there's nothing wrong with that. :-)
Mike.
Mike Snyder
I do, though, want to apologize to the IF community at large if it seems I
was attacking you -- and for causing the question "is 20 turns enough to
evaluate it?" to become a debate about shareware vs. freeware development.
Thanks,
Ross Presser
Snyder).wrote.posted.offered:
>However, not all tools are free. It
>makes more sense to write free stuff if you're using free tools and not
>looking for a monetary profit. It makes less sense (for me) to write
>free stuff using expensive tools if I'm hoping to earn a monetary
>profit. I see things from a business standpoint, which seems to be in
>opposition to a typical consumer or hobbyist standpoint. I think that's
>what drives business -- "What do I have to sell? How can I make it pay
>off for me? Can I reach a market of buyers?"
>
(Warning: my comments below are very off-topic and have no relation to IF.)
The problem I see with this attitude is that companies can hijack it into
(semi-permanently) inflating the value of a particular submarket. The
example that comes to mind (and raises my ire to a billowing black cloud of
bile) is Xerox.
Long before Postscript, Xerox was producing high-speed color print devices.
The data stream was generally produced by a mainframe or mini, and since
Xerox was the only one making these machines (or at least the only one
Xerox cared about), they designed a proprietary page definition language
called MetaCode.
MetaCode is obscure. It is convoluted and tangled. It is proprietary. It
*remains* proprietary, and Xerox still makes you sign an NDA and pay
tens of thousands of dollars in training fees before they will educate you
on how it works.
Now there is Postscript. There is a genuine need for translation between
Postscript and MetaCode, in both directions: you might have an older Xerox
print device that only accepts MetaCode, or you might have a mainframe app
that only generates MetaCode.
Xerox will sell you, for $40,000, a device they call an "Interposer" which
can do these conversions in either direction. It is a classic Black Box:
you are not allowed to know what goes on inside it.
Alternatively, you can turn to a service bureau, who will charge you
something like twenty-five cents "per click" (that is, per page of output)
to do the file conversion. Or, you can pay a third-party software firm
$10,000 per quarter for the license rights to their software which will let
you do your own conversions (maximum one million clicks per quarter, or you
pay more).
Xerox has thus created a submarket which costs millions of dollars per
year. Because of software inertia, this submarket will persist well into
the next decade EVEN THOUGH A SUPERIOR AND FAR FAR CHEAPER SOLUTION
(Postscript) ALREADY EXISTS. The submarket will persist because no one can
do the conversions without spending a lot of money, and no one will spend a
lot of money unless they can get it back.
If this is the "business standpoint" you are speaking of, Mike, then I
decry its effects. There was once a very good reason for MetaCode, but
there no longer is, thanks to the efforts of Adobe in creating PostScript.
But Xerox will never let go its hold, and companies will continue to spend
millions of dollars per year rather than spend a few million upfront to
convert.
This is what Stallman hated, and why he created the FSF.
--
Ross Presser
ross_p...@imtek.com
"And if you're the kind of person who parties with a bathtub full of
pasta, I suspect you don't care much about cholesterol anyway."
Mike Snyder
>If this is the "business standpoint" you are speaking of, Mike, then I
>decry its effects. There was once a very good reason for MetaCode, but
>there no longer is, thanks to the efforts of Adobe in creating PostScript.
>But Xerox will never let go its hold, and companies will continue to spend
>millions of dollars per year rather than spend a few million upfront to
>convert.
First, I shouldn't have to justify the desire to make money. That *should*
be self evident.
Second, I'm not proposing a $40,000 system of any kind.
Third, you're talking about something at the far far end of what I'm talking
about. I'm talking about charging $5 a month for an online game, $25 for an
IF authoring tool, $15 for a BBS game, and so forth. While it's fair to some
extent make a comparison between this multi-million-dollar Xerox fiasco and
my own business, it's not fair to classify me as an evil-minded corporate
greed machine. It's just as fair for me to say that a freeware-only mindset
will ultimately kill the shareware market as it is for you to say a
commercial market will doom us all. You see a fatal flaw in my mindset, I
see a fatal flaw in yours.
So be it.
Peter Seebach
Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
True enough. Still, the point is, the more free code there is, the less time
developers waste duplicating old results.
>something "wrong") by asking a fee for a program. Many (most?) of you
>believe an IF engine, regardless cost or time to develop, should be free.
I never said anything of the sort. I just think it'll be hard to compete
against free ones. :)
There's a historical sense that Usenet is an inappropriate place for
commercial postings. This is not really true anymore, but I think it's a
healthy response, because it keeps things from getting out of hand. :)
Peter Seebach
Ross Presser <rpre...@NOSPAMimtek.com.invalid> wrote:
>(Warning: my comments below are very off-topic and have no relation to IF.)
But very true.
>MetaCode is obscure. It is convoluted and tangled. It is proprietary. It
>*remains* proprietary, and Xerox still makes you sign an NDA and pay
>tens of thousands of dollars in training fees before they will educate you
>on how it works.
I used to work for a subset of Xerox that did some limited transforms, mostly
some *awful* page layout software that could write metacode. It was
successful, simply because it was cheaper than any other way of driving some
of those printers.
Xerox was offered a chance to produce a cheap Java program to turn Metacode to
and from other formats. They never did much with it. :)
Ross Presser
Snyder).wrote.posted.offered:
>From: Ross Presser <rpre...@NOSPAMimtek.com.invalid>
>
>>If this is the "business standpoint" you are speaking of, Mike, then I
>>decry its effects. There was once a very good reason for MetaCode, but
>>there no longer is, thanks to the efforts of Adobe in creating
>>PostScript. But Xerox will never let go its hold, and companies will
>>continue to spend millions of dollars per year rather than spend a few
>>million upfront to convert.
>
>First, I shouldn't have to justify the desire to make money. That
>*should* be self evident.
Explain it, no. Justify it, maybe. Forgive it? Who said "money is the
root of all evil"? :)
>Second, I'm not proposing a $40,000 system of any kind.
>Third, you're talking about something at the far far end of what I'm
>talking about. I'm talking about charging $5 a month for an online game,
>$25 for an IF authoring tool, $15 for a BBS game, and so forth. While
>it's fair to some extent make a comparison between this multi-million
>-dollar Xerox fiasco and my own business, it's not fair to classify me
>as an evil-minded corporate greed machine. It's just as fair for me to
>say that a freeware-only mindset will ultimately kill the shareware
>market as it is for you to say a commercial market will doom us all. You
>see a fatal flaw in my mindset, I see a fatal flaw in yours.
Ack! I didn't mean to sound so antagonistic. *rereads own post* Yikes.
I guess my frustration spilled over (my company is currently *in* this
Xerox bind).
Even $40K isn't an unreasonable price for some vertical-market software.
My anger at Xerox is that this particular vertical market was created and
is being perpetuated by Xerox itself, without any real reason.
If I had the startup capital of a Cygnus-type company, I think this would
be an *ideal* place for me to apply their philosophy.
However, I've been reading (and rereading) your own arguments carefully,
and I find I actually lean more towards agreeing with you than disagreeing.
I'm just mad at Xerox and wanted to point out that the far end of your
reasoning about "making money because tools cost money" can run awry.
>So be it.
The world will be what it is, regardless of our desires.
okbl...@my-deja.com
"Mike Snyder" <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
>
> Shareware is available in a form (often crippled) which you can "try
before
> you buy". This is not true of commercial software. The best you can
hope for
> is a review somewhere, a features list maybe, or with luck some kind
of
> limited demo.
Don't most buy-in-the-store packages software these days have demo
versions? Especially the big apps? Some of the niche products seem
more reluctant and you still have to rely on reviews or word-of-mouth,
but I believe I could get a fully-functioning demo of, for example, any
of the big three software suites, any of the major development suites,
almost any HTML editing/Web design program, etc. etc. etc.
What's the difference between id/Apogee releasing the first level of
Doom (available in stores and through direct registration) and 3D0
releasing a level of Heroes of Might and Magic?
I think shareware has been successful enough to create an *expectation*
that "I should be able to try-before-I-buy", especially given the
uncertainties of the Windows world, where the multitude of loosely
adhered to standards make every software purchase a crapshoot.
I'm a little surprised that no one's brought up the more cynical side of
free software: It creates an expectation that software should be free
and thereby encourages people to steal software. People have always
pirated software in the micro world, but a good case could be made that
free software *encourages* it. ("If I can get Star Office for free, why
shouldn't I get Microsoft Office for free, too?")
I actually think that people would pay for an IF authorship system--but
it would have to be dramatically better than TADS and Inform and co.
You'd have to release some games that really impressed with, say, their
ability to parse input or their ability to handle NPC interaction, or
something dramatic like that.
Of course, some wouldn't be able or interested in paying no matter what.
But if it were, again, *dramatically* better, they'd ultimately find a
way just out of peer pressure. :-)
And I do mean *dramatically*, like Inform and TADS started to look like
AGT.
--
[ok]
okbl...@my-deja.com
"Andy Elliot" <An...@liznandy.freeNOSPAMTAserve.co.uk> wrote:
> [stuff about SUDS]
(No, I haven't tried it yet.)
The reference to Delphi kind of twigged in my head. Have you thought
about doing "Delphi-style" shareware? You make the interpreter part of
the development environment and allow the developer to do whatever he
wants within the environment--but the game won't run outside the
environment.
Just a thought. You could develop an entire game, debug it, take it
right up to the beta-testing level and then you'd have to decide whether
you wanted to throw it all away or pay $25. You couldn't get much
fairer than that.
earlo...@my-deja.com
> It makes more sense to write free stuff if you're using free tools and
> not looking for a monetary profit. It makes less sense (for me) to
> write free stuff using expensive tools if I'm hoping to earn a
> monetary profit.
It doesn't even make sense to write free stuff with free tools if you're
hoping to earn a profit.
> I see things from a business standpoint, which seems to be in
> opposition to a typical consumer or hobbyist standpoint. I think
> that's what drives business -- "What do I have to sell? How can I make
> it pay off for me? Can I reach a market of buyers?"
And the developers of SUDS should be glad they're getting those
questions answered here, gratis. Some businesses pay beaucoup bucks in
consulting fees to have these questions answered.
> Sometimes I've come across usenet posts (not in r.*.if, but in
> general) where a product or service is mentioned in a newsgroup which
> deals with such issues. The post is sometimes followed by irate
> newsgroup regulars shouting "spam! spam! They forgot to mention you
> have to PAY for this." I look at the post and I scratch my head.
> That's not spam. That's an on-topic post which is only chastised
> because it (gasp) has a price tag. For instance, one of the sites to
> which we licensed Lunatix Online posted in rec.games.pc.rpg (or
> something similar to that, whatever it is). The first reply was
> criticizing the game for requiring a $5/month subscription to keep
> playing (if you *want* to keep playing) after the first 2 weeks.
Look, I'm new to the Usenet, but one of the things I picked up quickly
is that it's fairly community-based and _not_ a commercial forum. If
a post mentioning a commercial interest is made by a third person, a
consumer, someone who receives no compensation from that commercial
interest, that's generally acceptable. If you're promoting your product
or service, or you receive compensation for promoting someone else's,
that's _by definition_ a commercial post, which, if I'm not mistaken,
is the definition of spam.
If I really, really like Amazon.com, and I post a message saying so, and
providing a link to their website, that's not spam. If, however, I'm
receiving a 5% commission on everything sold through that link, that's
spam.
Thus, if my definition is correct, if a website which has licensed your
game posts to a Usenet group in the hopes of generating revenue, that's
spam. If, however, a _player_ posts to the group, and receives no
compensation for doing so (whether in the form of cash, or a waiver of
subscription fees), that's not spam.
The RL equivalent would be handing out your business card at church, or
selling cigarettes at an AA meeting; these are non-commercial forums,
and it's generally not acceptable to pursue commercial interests. In
the same vein, it would be equally inappropriate to preach the Gospel
at a Chamber of Commerce meeting.
> The only thing I would object to is being told I have no right(or am
> otherwise doing something "wrong") by asking a fee for a program.
I haven't read anything in this thread that would suggest that in any
way. If I've misunderstood, please correct me, but from what I read,
people aren't complaining about the fact that someone is charging for
an I-F engine; they're just saying that they can't fairly evaluate it
with the limitations placed on the shareware version, and hence they
won't download and try the program since they have other alternatives.
Likewise, I don't think you'll hear any complaints from anyone about you
wanting to charge for your programs. But keep in mind that others are
charging nothing; hence many won't bother to try your program, since
other alternatives are available.
> Many (most?) of you believe an IF engine, regardless cost or time to
> develop, should be free.
Again, I think you're jumping to conclusions. I think most people here
want to fairly evaluate an I-F engine before they're willing to plunk
down twenty-five bucks for it. And especially if they're paying per-
minute access fees, they don't want to download an engine that's going
to uninstall itself the first time they get to twenty moves. I _don't_
think anyone here has any objection to someone attempting to recoup
their costs, or even generate a profit; I think they're just expressing
their opinion that it's not worth their time and money to do so, when
free alternatives are available.
Think of it this way: in many school districts, students ride a bus to
school for free. Now, if someone wants to start up a private, for-
profit shuttle system, taking kids to and from school in a plush mini-
van, that's their right; I don't think many people would complain, but
I do think that most would question the wisdom of the idea. But if the
shuttle service offered a "free trial" ride, and then dropped the kids
off halfway between their house and the school, you'll not only get a
few complaints, but the shuttle service would quickly find itself
without many customers.
Earl of Kent
J. Robinson Wheeler
Ross Presser wrote:
>Mike Snyder wrote:
>>
>>First, I shouldn't have to justify the desire to make money. That
>>*should* be self evident.
>
>Explain it, no. Justify it, maybe. Forgive it? Who said "money is the
>root of all evil"? :)
Lots of people, but it's a misquote. The full quote (as
translated into English, so it's still not original) is
"Love of money is the root of all evil."
This digression has been brought to you by the letter "L."
--
J. Robinson Wheeler http://raddial.com
whe...@jump.net
Peter Seebach
Ross Presser <rpre...@NOSPAMimtek.com.invalid> wrote:
>Explain it, no. Justify it, maybe. Forgive it? Who said "money is the
>root of all evil"? :)
Someone misquoting. It's *the love of money* that is allegedly the root of
all evil.
(Pedantry, BTW, is *not* the root of any evil.)
>If I had the startup capital of a Cygnus-type company, I think this would
>be an *ideal* place for me to apply their philosophy.
Agreed.
>However, I've been reading (and rereading) your own arguments carefully,
>and I find I actually lean more towards agreeing with you than disagreeing.
>I'm just mad at Xerox and wanted to point out that the far end of your
>reasoning about "making money because tools cost money" can run awry.
Fair enough. All the extremes have problems.
>The world will be what it is, regardless of our desires.
No, the world will be what we make of it. You and I individually only get one
vote each, but if you make a change in a small enough area of the world, you
can make enough of a change that an awful lot of things happen...
kar...@yale.edu
things. In fact, it seems by now that Mike was just arguing about his
*right* to sell things, ("I want the *right* to have a baby!"--MP), which
noone else was arguing about, so that's not really what I'm addressing...
Mike Snyder <wy...@prowler-pro.com> wrote:
: Peter Seebach wrote in message ...
:>Now, the hard part is, how do you make money doing the *hard* part - the
:>content?
:>
:>Think about books. Wouldn't it be great if you could sell any book just as
:>content, without having to convince someone that it'll sell enough copies
:>(at :>$7/copy) to justify printing costs for thousands of copies sent to
:>sit on shelves in thousands of stores? Same problem.
Welcome to the world wide web. This is the idea behind fatbrain, and
recent proposals to have "electronic" science journals. If the cost of
publishing goes way down, then people don't mind paying for it.
See also MP3's. They're only in their infancy, but already lots and lots of
bands---who haven't perfected the art of writing a "hit" which will impress
a record executive---are able to get groups of fans by putting MP3's on
their web sites. The truth is, these bands might not be good enough, or
mainstream enough, to be worth a nationwide marketing effort. But if 1000
bands have 1000 fans each, that's 1e6 people who are happier. The best part
is that many of these fans won't mind paying, say, $5 for an album-worth of
MP3's from these bands, if they can download them from the band's website.
Because they know the money is going to the band, not the Big Bad Corporate
Interests. (Note that this can work whether or not the record companies
manage to make mainstream MP3's uncopyable.)
Now expand this to software, art, books.... The web can provide an amazing
opportunity for the small guy. Why should I care whether a writer sells a
million or a thousand copies of a book? If I like it, that's good enough.
Yet only authors whom the publishing companies decide will be able to sell x
copies ever get published.
Now admittedly, there will be a big problem when a gazillion people put
their books online. How do you know which are the good ones? But there are
answers to that. First, word of mouth. Second, music/movie/art critics will
become that much more important, and will have to filter that much more
stuff. But you won't have this artificial filter of publishing companies
whose only motive is Profit.
Note that I'm not really coming down on either side of the shareware vs.
free(beer)ware debate here. The point is just that the web gives you the
opportunity to give or sell your stuff. And hopefully, the good stuff will
rise to the top.
: If everybody began releasing "free" books (in whatever form) though,
: wouldn't it hurt the industry overall? I really think the day would come
: when nobody writes because they can't earn a living.
But that wouldn't happen! If anything like that started to happen, people
would voluntarily support writers, don't you think? Because people want to
buy books! It's just that I don't necessarily feel that, say, 1% of my
purchase price should go to the author. I'm not trying to put down the
people who work at publishing companies, here. And for example
proofreaders/editors will still be very important and deserve to be paid for
their work. But the web means that property that's mostly intellectual,
rather than solid *matter*, is much cheaper to distribute. And IMO,
marketing becomes less important. (At least I hope so. I hate marketing.)
: The same is true of
: anything, and I'm sometimes surprised how software seems to be considered
: "different". I want my meals to be prepared for free, I want a free car and
: a free house and free "things" to put in it. I wonder if software is
: considered "different" because the largest investment is usually Time. In my
: mind, a McDonald's clerk who expects my $5 program to be free should be
: equally willing (if it were within their power) to give me an Extra Value
: Meal for free. If something like this were to happen, I think it would be
: horrible for the world. Why, then, does this expectation exist in the
: software industry? I'll never ever know.
An extra value meal is stuff. It's actual molecules. Software, art, that's
ideas. You can still argue about whether one or the other should be free,
but they're definitely different. Read Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and the
Bazaar". I don't agree with everything he says (for example, I'm not a
gun-toting libertarian.) but he's got some interesting points about when
things should be free. Copying a book used to cost a lot of money; now it
takes a few seconds (if the book is Gutenberged). Should that book still
cost the same amount?
500 years from now, when we've got star trek replicators, I'm not sure
whether happy meals will cost money.
I think the goal of the freeware folks is that in a perfect world,
things will be free, but people will choose to support things that they
like. Not because they're forced to by feature-poor demos, but because they
genuinely like something and want its creator to continue making good
things. Which is basically shareware, but not quite.
Cygnus is an excellent example. They give their software free to
individuals, who are poor (compared to corporations). This increases the
popularity of their product (and is, by the way, also nice). They take money
from corporations. The corporations don't mind spending money, because
they're rich. And because they'd have to spend more money to do something
in-house than they're spending paying Cygnus, especially since Cygnus is an
expert at modifying gcc. The free software folks often talk about how a
large percentage of software today is in-house stuff from banks, etc.
They'll continue to pay for software even if it's available free to
individuals.
Of course, Mike gave the example that when he posted two games, one of which
was fully featured but requested donations, only the feature-poor one got
registrations. I think the hope is that the *idea* of money will change.
Right now, money is hoarded, because everyone's trying to take it. In a true
shareware world, money would be spent to reward those things that you felt
deserved it. (cf. philanthropists, and Dolly Levi--- "Money's like
fertilizer. It's best when it's spread around.")
I realize that this is outrageously idealistic. But then, I do read sci fi
and fantasy, so what do you expect.
-Amir
Peter Seebach
>I think shareware has been successful enough to create an *expectation*
>that "I should be able to try-before-I-buy", especially given the
>uncertainties of the Windows world, where the multitude of loosely
>adhered to standards make every software purchase a crapshoot.
Yes. It's done a lot of good.
>I'm a little surprised that no one's brought up the more cynical side of
>free software: It creates an expectation that software should be free
>and thereby encourages people to steal software.
This, I believe, is occasionally brought up as FUD, but there's no evidence
to support it. YMMV; there certainly are people who use the existance of free
software as an excuse, but I doubt they'd have had any trouble finding an
excuse otherwise. Most of the free software people are adamant in their
defense of the right of developers to set *ANY* terms they want on the use of
their software - including "you must pay for this", or "if you use this, you
have to promise to smile at someone today".
>People have always
>pirated software in the micro world, but a good case could be made that
>free software *encourages* it. ("If I can get Star Office for free, why
>shouldn't I get Microsoft Office for free, too?")
I do not believe even a *plausible* case can be made.
"If I can get Star Office for free, it's a better deal than Microsoft Office"
makes sense, but the thought process you describe is not one I've seen. You
get people who start saying "gee, why is MS Office $300 then", but mostly,
they just decide not to use it.
>I actually think that people would pay for an IF authorship system--but
>it would have to be dramatically better than TADS and Inform and co.
>You'd have to release some games that really impressed with, say, their
>ability to parse input or their ability to handle NPC interaction, or
>something dramatic like that.
Yup. I'd like to see a really good one. Of course, it won't impress *me*
unless it's fairly portable - I like the Z-machine games because I can run
them on my Psion or on my laptop.
Dylan O'Donnell
> Look, I'm new to the Usenet, but one of the things I picked up quickly
> is that it's fairly community-based and _not_ a commercial forum. If
> a post mentioning a commercial interest is made by a third person, a
> consumer, someone who receives no compensation from that commercial
> interest, that's generally acceptable. If you're promoting your product
> or service, or you receive compensation for promoting someone else's,
> that's _by definition_ a commercial post, which, if I'm not mistaken,
> is the definition of spam.
You are mistaken. The definition of spam is "the same thing lots and
lots of times"; excessive multi-posting or crossposting. (The term
"velveeta" has pretty much fallen out of use.)
Commercial postings may or may not be welcome depending on the tenor
of the group; they're often acceptable as part of discussions, but not
as blatant unsolicited plugs (for example, if someone says "where can
I get an Arthurian IF game" and Mike Berlyn pops up saying "well,
actually, CMP sell Once and Future at such and such a URL...", few
people are going to object, largely because Mike is seen as _also_
being a member of the community, and not an interloper). However,
different groups develop different attitudes to commercialism.
--
: Dylan O'Donnell : "Nothing matters very much, and few :
: http://www.fysh.org/~psmith/ : things matter at all." -- A.J. Balfour :
Peter Seebach
Dylan O'Donnell <dyl...@demon.net> wrote:
>Commercial postings may or may not be welcome depending on the tenor
>of the group; they're often acceptable as part of discussions, but not
>as blatant unsolicited plugs (for example, if someone says "where can
>I get an Arthurian IF game" and Mike Berlyn pops up saying "well,
>actually, CMP sell Once and Future at such and such a URL...", few
>people are going to object, largely because Mike is seen as _also_
>being a member of the community, and not an interloper). However,
>different groups develop different attitudes to commercialism.
As an example, I've gotten about two complaints in the last two years about
the "commercial" nature of my .signatures - out of thousands of articles I've
posted, and in both cases, I think they were from newbies.
I betcha that if the original Infocom staff got together and one of them
posted an announcement that there would soon be a handful of brand new text
adventures, no one would complain that it was "commercial". I sure wouldn't.
Assuming they posted it in relevant places, of course. If they posted it once
in every newsgroup I read, I'd have their heads for pickle jars.
David Samuel Myers
stick in my two cents worth.
There's more to it than just the fact that people are cheap (which, by
golly, they are).
After investing some time learning some IF system like TADS for a while,
people don't have a burning desire to shell out any money for a new system
which might be different- even if that system might be a lot better.
Witness MS dominance over Mac. Dvorak failure against the qwerty, etc.
This is the reason why RedHat can't afford to sell their product for more
than like $50, despite the fact that a lot of people would like to switch.
At a deeper level I think there is something that comes out of open source
development that is unexpected in the end. When you have some freeform
evolving project that is moving along in the method like Cygnus is with
gcc, for instance, or like linux is with unix in general - it takes a
really pretty big critical mass to make a product that is good enough to
make money for the developer. Once it pokes thru, it will be very
profitable if people decide that it is something they can't live without.
And there's the rub. The large scale development of thousands upon
thousands of useful, fun, interesting, and well-done programs is not very
profitable. It is really only when you make something that people can't
live without that things change.
This is the same reason "midlist" authors have a hard time. It's
altogether too Darwinian when open source people get ahold of a project,
which might be counterintuitive for some people, but it's true that if you
have a lot of little imporvements in a system competing for people's
attention, it's really tough to get noticed, much less make any money.
That's why shareware people don't really care about the people that don't
register. What they care about is how many people will decide that they
can't do without their product. Not the same thing to try to convince
people that they should register out of guilt ... too late for that these
days. You have to convince people other ways.
In a way, it comes from not being attached to a big company that can take
risks without fear of folding due to failure in a certain area. If you've
made the life decision to work for yourself and try to make it by the
virtue of your great products alone, it is really really risky. No big
business EXPECTS not to fail in at least some of their ventures over time.
It just isn't possible to win every time.
And I don't believe it for a minute that there aren't thousands of people
writing shareware in their incredibly small amount of free time, living
under a lot of pressure due to family and work, etc. People will do an
amazing amount of work knowing that it will never get "paid back", just
for the adulation. And this is not so different than the way it has been
for decades and decades in other human endeavours other than just
software.
Ok enough.
John Elliott
>If you're promoting your product
>or service, or you receive compensation for promoting someone else's,
>that's _by definition_ a commercial post, which, if I'm not mistaken,
>is the definition of spam.
You are mistaken. The ususal definition of spam is "posted to 20 or more
newsgroups". It has nothing to do with the content; there have, for example,
been non-commercial spams such as "Global alert for all: Jesus is coming
soon".
When I first came onto the Net (on about 50th September 1993 [*]) there were
fairly strict conventions about not making commercial postings in groups
outside the biz.* heirarchy. In many of the groups I read, that still seems
to be the case - but that may be a reflection on my choice of groups. In
others, the consensus seems to be that a company can mention its product if
i) It's on topic (eg: if someone wants to read discs in a rare format, then
a disc conversion bureau is welcome to offer its services);
ii) It confines itself to the facts of the matter and refrains from
talking in the language of the glossy brochure.
[*] By my reckoning, today is 2250th September 1993.
--
John Elliott
BrenBarn
>never meant to imply that I think the IF community is obligated to embrace
>and buy a "for money" system. I only meant to say that I don't think it's
>fair to say "you CAN'T try to sell," and I'm frustrated in general that it's
>hard to "compete" against free stuff.
I don't mean to be rude, but it seems obvious to me that free things will
be more popular than equally good things which cost money. Thus, the idea that
"it's hard to 'compete' against free stuff" seems like an obvious fact.
I'm not saying that I WANT al software to be free. I'm saying that
bemoaning the fact that free products are more popular won't change it. There
is one reason I, personally, might buy a product when I could get another for
free: the free one isn't as good. Thus, if you want to make money, make your
product better, and people may well pay for the quality. If you can't make
your product better than the competition, then you must sell yours for less.
In short: You can either make your product better or cheaper (or both).
In the IF world, most people seem to be pretty happy with the tools they've got
(which means you have to try hard to be better), and those tools are free
(which means you'd have to pay the user to be cheaper :-).
From,
Brendan B. B. (Bren...@aol.com)
(Name in header has spam-blocker, use the address above instead.)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
BrenBarn
>wouldn't it hurt the industry overall?
to earn money by writing?" then I'd say yes. If you mean "would it make people
read less books?" then I'd say no.
The crucial point that I've been mulling over is the distinction between
what I want (or would theoretically want) as an artist/producer and what I want
as a reader/consumer. As you said:
>I want my meals to be prepared for free, I want a free car and
>a free house and free "things" to put in it.
the man on the Ford assembly line, the carpenter, and the home decorator, I
want you to pay me for my work.
Essentially I'm stating the obvious: Everyone wants to be given free
stuff, but no one wants to give stuff away for free.
I think what you do depends on your goals. If I were writing a book to
make money, then it would be self-defeating for me to give it away for free.
But if I were writing so that people would read and possibly admire my work,
then it wouldn't matter so much.
>In my
>mind, a McDonald's clerk who expects my $5 program to be free should be
>equally willing (if it were within their power) to give me an Extra Value
>Meal for free. If something like this were to happen, I think it would be
>horrible for the world.
Why? Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had everything they wanted? You get
your Value Meal, he gets his program. What's the problem?
Obviously, this is a small-scale example, but I don't see the problem with
trading what you have for what you want. Some might say that this returns us
to the "caveman-style" barter system, but as long as everyone's happy with it,
who cares? If it turns out that more people are satisfied when you trade
programs for burgers, then why shouldn't it be that way?
BrenBarn
>everybody does what they enjoy without regard to profit because everybody
>else is doing the same thing.
That would be great :-). As someone else mentioned, it would be nice if
people were paid for CONTENT, not MARKETABILITY. Alas, very few people are
willing to pay money just for words on paper without an expectation of a return
on the investment.
I was going to insert a ramble here, but I think I'm going to think about
this a little more before I start tambling. . .
BrenBarn
>things will be free, but people will choose to support things that they
>like. Not because they're forced to by feature-poor demos, but because they
>genuinely like something and want its creator to continue making good
>things.
>I think the hope is that the *idea* of money will change.
>Right now, money is hoarded, because everyone's trying to take it. In a true
>shareware world, money would be spent to reward those things that you felt
>deserved it.
>I realize that this is outrageously idealistic. But then, I do read sci fi
>and fantasy, so what do you expect.
I read sci-fi too. Isn't idealism uplifting? :-)
BrenBarn
>>company, but that doesn't make it any less commercial.
>
>
>No it isn't.
Why not? Some guy makes it, and you pay him for it. The
"try-before-you-buy" idea is no less commeerical than that of test-driving a
car.
Keep in mind that the only thing you get FREE is the thing you download --
with whatever limitations it comes with. This is not getting the product for
free; it's getting SOME of the product for free. Just like those publishing
houses that will send you a book for free and then you have to pay if you want
the rest of the set.
Games that are fully-featured but still require registration are
different. I don't recall, however, ever having played a game in which there
was NO incentive for registration. Even fully-featured games offer extra
levels, more sounds, or some other goodies.
BrenBarn
>waste. Who are you to discourage me from that? If It's free, I've earned
>nothing. If it costs and nobody buys, I've earned nothing. What's the
>difference from my standpoint? None, unless I *expect* to make money (and I
>never "expect" it, only hope).
You seem to be saying (and seem to have been saying throughout the thread)
that what you object to is people telling you not to charge for your product.
Here's my opinion:
As you say, it's YOUR time and energy to waste. If you want to charge for
it, just go ahead and charge for it and ignore all the naysayers! It seems odd
to me that you are defending your right to charge for a product when no one has
denied that right. Just as as you are allowed to charge or not charge for a
product, so is anyone allowed to say whether they think you should charge for
it or not -- and so are you allowed to listen to them or not.
In other words, don't listen to me! :-)
BrenBarn
>At the same time, I can't ever
>remember feeling that my personal situation was justification to tell a
>software developer "I can't afford it... make it free."
I disagree. I see no problem whatsoever with TELLING anybody anything.
The problem comes when you somehow try to FORCE them to do something -- a
situation of which I see no evidence anywhere in this discussion.
I seem to see in your posts a common motif: You object to people giving
you advice (or perhaps even giving advice in general). (A case in point is the
quote above.) Is this true, or am I wrong?
BrenBarn
>charge for it. I do not, however, believe it's fair to *expect* software to
>be free (though this seems to be the case).
Why do you deny people the right to EXPECT whatever they want? Expecting
doesn't hurt anybody! (Heck, I don't care if the whole world goes ahead and
expects till the cows come home. :-)
Joe Mason
>
>I seem to have missed some of this thread but what I've read struck a
>chord and I wanted to make a general comment. My wife and I have just
>had our first novel published, a mystery from a small publisher.
Congratulations!
Joe