Tim Brooks (Shrapnel) on why retail is dead

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> The model that's emerging is going to be quite different.

Checking off your points against reality I'd be even as bold to say
that the model *has* already emerged.

Schwerpunkt is the best example of this, but as you've pointed out :
there's nothing stopping Pete Programmer now from publishing his work
independantly - - all thanks to the 'net.

But I'm just wondering where the publishers fit into all of this as
they seem to be doing fine. The Big Three (Matrixgames, Shrapnell and
Battlefront) have all been signing up developers left and right in
recent months.

As I see it Pete Programmer likes to progam but in order for his game
to reach the customer there's a lot of additional work involved :

- sprucing up the game with professional artwork and sound
- having an online forum for gamers to discuss your game
- settting up a secure e-commerce website + the logistical stuff
- pr, annoucing your game to the world

There used to be a time when in order for your game to reach customers
you needed a publisher resulting in almighty publishers and developers
losing their life's work to MegaPubCorp.

But nowadays it's more like a partnership with the publisher taking
care of all the additional work/headaches - the fact that Pete
Programmer could go it alone if he wanted has leveled the playing
field.

The internet has given more power to the programmer, but the fact that
publishers have been signing up developers like crazy lately indicates
that everyone is happy with this new equilibrium. And what's more
important : customers are benefitting from it.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1109338936.115975.152310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > The model that's emerging is going to be quite different.
>
> Checking off your points against reality I'd be even as bold to say
> that the model *has* already emerged.
>
> Schwerpunkt is the best example of this, but as you've pointed out :
> there's nothing stopping Pete Programmer now from publishing his work
> independantly - - all thanks to the 'net.
>
> But I'm just wondering where the publishers fit into all of this as
> they seem to be doing fine. The Big Three (Matrixgames, Shrapnell and
> Battlefront) have all been signing up developers left and right in
> recent months.

I'd bet a buck, though, that the agreements programmers are operating
under with each of these are quite different from, say, those that
surrounded TOAW.

> As I see it Pete Programmer likes to progam but in order for his game
> to reach the customer there's a lot of additional work involved :
>
> - sprucing up the game with professional artwork and sound
> - having an online forum for gamers to discuss your game
> - settting up a secure e-commerce website + the logistical stuff
> - pr, annoucing your game to the world

Sure. All valid points. But I think this gets back to the original
issue; that in this emergent model, programmers are *only* going to sign
up for these advantages if they're not required to give up the ultimate
rights to their code. I mean, I could be wrong, but I think the days of
"sell us your game, then we own it, then we tell you to get lost" are
probably numbered, at least in a programming genre where mass-appeal is
unlikely.

> There used to be a time when in order for your game to reach customers
> you needed a publisher resulting in almighty publishers and developers
> losing their life's work to MegaPubCorp.
>
> But nowadays it's more like a partnership with the publisher taking
> care of all the additional work/headaches - the fact that Pete
> Programmer could go it alone if he wanted has leveled the playing
> field.
>
> The internet has given more power to the programmer, but the fact that
> publishers have been signing up developers like crazy lately indicates
> that everyone is happy with this new equilibrium. And what's more
> important : customers are benefitting from it.

Exactly. The relative "power" of the programmer and the publisher in
the sense of what they bring to the negotiating table has changed
forever. When programmers *needed* the whole hoo-haa of the
distribution apparatus, the publisher could come down on "take it or
leave it, bub." Nowadays, I suspect a good many developers would simply
"leave it," and explore another avenue of turning their code into $$$.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The treachery is that Doug Wead waited until after
the election [...] Another round of explosive front-
page revelations from secretly recorded phone
conversations like today's and Bush's approval will
hit 70 percent."
- Mickey Kaus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:36:13 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <1109317982.104521.142800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
>> A bit stating the obvious really, but nice that he has put down some
>> numbers as a starting point for a discussion about the alternatives to
>> retail.
>
>I'm not sure the issue is so much "retail is dead," but "why retail must
>change."

If you include e-commerce as "retail", maybe. Many commentators don't
include on-line transactions in the word. Some do. It's a moving
semantic target.

>The model we've seen for the last 20 years is:
>
>(1) Pete Programmer builds game.
>(2) Pete sells[1] his game to OmniMegaCorp, the publisher.
>(3) Omni dresses Pete's game up with Omni's bullshit, and markets it.
>(4) The public buys the game for three months.
>(5) Pete gets money.
>(6) After three months, the game goes in the bargain bin.
>(7) After six months, the game is entirely forgotten...
>(8) ...unless it's popular enough for a sequel. GOTO (1).

Based on the book publishing model, which is successful. I have
experience in that market and late-90s predictions of radical
changed/adoption of e-books are dead-in-the-water right now. It may
happen, but nowhere near as rapidly as early-adopters thought.

>The model that's emerging is going to be quite different.
>
>(1) Pete Programmer builds game.
>(2) Pete Programmer builds website, or partners with Joe Wargamer, who
>already has a website.
>(3) The game is downloaded by fans, who pay Pete directly.
>(4) Pete incures no particular cost in keeping the game on his
>"shelf," so he keeps selling it.
>(5) Pete improves his game over time and as hardware changes, so that
>he *can* keep selling it.
>(6) When Pete is good and righteously sick of screwing with his game,
>what does he do with it? If Pete's a smart fellow, and has other games
>he wants to sell, he might just post the code in the public domain, or
>license it off to someone else who wants to run with it. What probably
>doesn't happen is that Pete buries his game. Why do this?

All of this is fine and good for Pete. But that's only one end of the
snake (and not the mouth end.) A new model has to serve customers as
well or better than the current model. Publishers, despite your
seeming distaste for them, perform a basket of services that are
important to consumers. In a nutshell they ameliorate risk. This has
economic value.

>Some of the advantages of this are obvious, such as Pete getting to keep
>a better percentage of the money, but there are more subtle points which
>are already emerging in parts of our niche.
>
>For one thing, games are going to have a *far* greater shelf-life.
>Instead of being marketed over the short term and then being forgotten,
>games are going to be updated and improved *and sold* over a much longer
>timespan. We're already seeing this. TACOPS. HPS <anything>.

This is a good thing. Technology is improving fast enough (broadband,
media burners) that some former roadblocks are less serious. But it's
not the only thing keeping on-line distribution from exploding, and
not only in niche markets. If it was a home run, if all those nasty
intermediate costs could be taken out with no loss of volume, EA would
be doing it. Independent designers would be doing it without the EAs
(or Shrapnels.) But it's not an even trade. Those intermediate costs
buy intermediate services that lower consumer risk.

>For another thing, with the programmers directly involved in ownership
>issues - instead of soulless suits -

As a former suit (checks for my soul--yep, still there) I know that so
long as this is the attitude there will be jobs for suits. Suits do
numbers. Business is about numbers, soulful or not.

A very successful businessman (you've probably heard his name) once
told an audience of my peers and I, "I know only two truths about
business. One, I'm 206 quarters old. And two, you very rarely get
invited to the nice places if there are brackets around your numbers."

>These two points are crucial because there are any number of games which
>are perfectly good, but are sunk because the computing environment has
>moved on. I mean, how many DOS games would I still be playing if I
>didn't have to spend two days hunting up working VESA drivers for my
>SuperZapCo 256TB MegaSLI Card-Array - only to find myself squinting into
>a 640x480 postage stamp in the middle of an enormous LCD panel? When
>games are owned by their developers, and sold and improved over longer
>periods of time, there will be less impetus towards this "make a killing
>and then disappear" model which too many folks have been enthralled by.

I also have lots of DOS games I'd pay for a re-do on. But are
licensing deals the hold-up? Or low potential pay-outs for the effort?

>[1] Yes, yes, I know "sells" isn't the word that's wanted, but let's
>not wander into the fever-swamps of copyright and the like. Keeping
>terminology simple, "his" game isn't "his" any more.

When he takes money from the publisher to pay for services he can't or
won't do for himself a portion of the risk goes with the transaction.
Of course it's not all "his" anymore. Markets don't work that way.

Steve

--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"eddysterckx@hotmail.com" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1109317982.104521.142800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> A bit stating the obvious really, but nice that he has put down some
> numbers as a starting point for a discussion about the alternatives to
> retail.

Not bad as a conversation starter. Facts and subject matter.

Of all of the different directions being tested for game distro I think
that Shrapnel as the developer-turned-publisher offering web-based
purchasing is a good example of the most stable model in the last couple of
years.

Retail stores and mass advertising is definetly having bumps so the large
publisher corporations I dont think I would invest in at the moment. Direct
Download, online-only, web based, phone games, console market... anything
else being watched as an alternative that Ive missed? Nothing strikes me as
ready to invest in IMHO

Gandalf Parker
-- no longer representing any gaming concern. Resume at
www.community.net/~gandalf/resume.txt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <vu0v11tarkk7uvqf8lpsh7vlhn8oc32mo7@4ax.com>,
sbartman@visi.com says...

> >The model we've seen for the last 20 years is:
> >
> >(1) Pete Programmer builds game.
> >(2) Pete sells[1] his game to OmniMegaCorp, the publisher.
> >(3) Omni dresses Pete's game up with Omni's bullshit, and markets it.
> >(4) The public buys the game for three months.
> >(5) Pete gets money.
> >(6) After three months, the game goes in the bargain bin.
> >(7) After six months, the game is entirely forgotten...
> >(8) ...unless it's popular enough for a sequel. GOTO (1).
>
> Based on the book publishing model, which is successful. I have
> experience in that market and late-90s predictions of radical
> changed/adoption of e-books are dead-in-the-water right now. It may
> happen, but nowhere near as rapidly as early-adopters thought.

I would argue that the book publishing model is irrelevant to software.
Simply put, computers bring *nothing* to books, so it's wholly
unsurprising that "ebooks" failed so miserably. Game software, on the
other hand, offers concrete and profound advantages over paper-based
games.

> All of this is fine and good for Pete. But that's only one end of the
> snake (and not the mouth end.) A new model has to serve customers as
> well or better than the current model. Publishers, despite your
> seeming distaste for them, perform a basket of services that are
> important to consumers. In a nutshell they ameliorate risk. This has
> economic value.

What "risk" is "ameliorated" by my purchasing games that are marketed by
traditional publishers, as opposed to my purchasing games that are
marketed directly by the development team? I guess you'll have to
define and explain this "basket of services" I'm getting from a
traditional publisher that I couldn't get directly from the developers.

> >For one thing, games are going to have a *far* greater shelf-life.
> >Instead of being marketed over the short term and then being forgotten,
> >games are going to be updated and improved *and sold* over a much longer
> >timespan. We're already seeing this. TACOPS. HPS <anything>.
>
> This is a good thing. Technology is improving fast enough (broadband,
> media burners) that some former roadblocks are less serious. But it's
> not the only thing keeping on-line distribution from exploding, and
> not only in niche markets. If it was a home run, if all those nasty
> intermediate costs could be taken out with no loss of volume, EA would
> be doing it. Independent designers would be doing it without the EAs
> (or Shrapnels.) But it's not an even trade. Those intermediate costs
> buy intermediate services that lower consumer risk.

Hmmm. Risk again. I'm not seeing it. Explain.

> >These two points are crucial because there are any number of games which
> >are perfectly good, but are sunk because the computing environment has
> >moved on. I mean, how many DOS games would I still be playing if I
> >didn't have to spend two days hunting up working VESA drivers for my
> >SuperZapCo 256TB MegaSLI Card-Array - only to find myself squinting into
> >a 640x480 postage stamp in the middle of an enormous LCD panel? When
> >games are owned by their developers, and sold and improved over longer
> >periods of time, there will be less impetus towards this "make a killing
> >and then disappear" model which too many folks have been enthralled by.
>
> I also have lots of DOS games I'd pay for a re-do on. But are
> licensing deals the hold-up? Or low potential pay-outs for the effort?

Maybe we should ask Norm Koger.

> >[1] Yes, yes, I know "sells" isn't the word that's wanted, but let's
> >not wander into the fever-swamps of copyright and the like. Keeping
> >terminology simple, "his" game isn't "his" any more.
>
> When he takes money from the publisher to pay for services he can't or
> won't do for himself a portion of the risk goes with the transaction.
> Of course it's not all "his" anymore. Markets don't work that way.

Well, they didn't use to. Now they do.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The treachery is that Doug Wead waited until after
the election [...] Another round of explosive front-
page revelations from secretly recorded phone
conversations like today's and Bush's approval will
hit 70 percent."
- Mickey Kaus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <ei0v11hmbc0t0dkm16fjng1n9c0ifme3db@4ax.com>,
sbartman@visi.com says...

> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions, and
> capital is not stupid.

New Coke.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The treachery is that Doug Wead waited until after
the election [...] Another round of explosive front-
page revelations from secretly recorded phone
conversations like today's and Bush's approval will
hit 70 percent."
- Mickey Kaus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <ei0v11hmbc0t0dkm16fjng1n9c0ifme3db@4ax.com>,
> sbartman@visi.com says...
>
> > I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions,
and
> > capital is not stupid.
>
> New Coke.


new coke was a misdirection play. coke changed the formula of old coke
substituting high frutcose corb syrup for cane sugar, they introduced
new coke and removed old, they waited for the outcry and reintroduced
the new"old" coke, none of the coke drinkes really noticed the slight
flavor change, new coke was killed off and it was mission completed
with no one the wiser at first.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:
>

>>>and capital is not stupid.
>>
>>New Coke.
>
> new coke was a misdirection play. coke changed the formula of old coke
> substituting high frutcose corb syrup for cane sugar, they introduced
> new coke and removed old, they waited for the outcry and reintroduced
> the new"old" coke, none of the coke drinkes really noticed the slight
> flavor change, new coke was killed off and it was mission completed
> with no one the wiser at first.


They haven't used cane sugar in soft drinks since the early 1970s.
Fructose is a lot cheaper than sucrose.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1109401191.533603.194400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
reoh@comcast.net says...

> > New Coke.
>
>
> new coke was a misdirection play. coke changed the formula of old coke
> substituting high frutcose corb syrup for cane sugar, they introduced
> new coke and removed old, they waited for the outcry and reintroduced
> the new"old" coke, none of the coke drinkes really noticed the slight
> flavor change, new coke was killed off and it was mission completed
> with no one the wiser at first.

As usual, you're full of rich, brown dung:

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The treachery is that Doug Wead waited until after
the election [...] Another round of explosive front-
page revelations from secretly recorded phone
conversations like today's and Bush's approval will
hit 70 percent."
- Mickey Kaus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:46:59 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <ei0v11hmbc0t0dkm16fjng1n9c0ifme3db@4ax.com>,
>sbartman@visi.com says...
>
>> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions, and
>> capital is not stupid.
>
>New Coke.

A flippant answer to a complex situation. Whole books have been
written about New Coke. I've read some of them. Have you?

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Briarroot wrote:
> ray o'hara wrote:
> >
>
> >>>and capital is not stupid.
> >>
> >>New Coke.
> >
> > new coke was a misdirection play. coke changed the formula of old
coke
> > substituting high frutcose corb syrup for cane sugar, they
introduced
> > new coke and removed old, they waited for the outcry and
reintroduced
> > the new"old" coke, none of the coke drinkes really noticed the
slight
> > flavor change, new coke was killed off and it was mission completed
> > with no one the wiser at first.
>
>
> They haven't used cane sugar in soft drinks since the early 1970s.

coke was still using sugar,

> Fructose is a lot cheaper than sucrose.


hence the change.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:46:59 -0500, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ei0v11hmbc0t0dkm16fjng1n9c0ifme3db@4ax.com>,
> >sbartman@visi.com says...
> >
> >> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions,
and
> >> capital is not stupid.
> >
> >New Coke.
>
> A flippant answer to a complex situation. Whole books have been
> written about New Coke. I've read some of them. Have you?

in the 1970s i read a book on the glomar explorer, it went into great
detail on the mohole project, books arn't always the truth.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <4eb1215ph3b6hnd58aavcqdotidmsbr7sr@4ax.com>,
sbartman@visi.com says...

> >> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions, and
> >> capital is not stupid.
> >
> >New Coke.
>
> A flippant answer to a complex situation. Whole books have been
> written about New Coke. I've read some of them. Have you?

A flippant answer is all a silly generalization like "capital never
flows to such propositions and is not stupid." Capital has flowed to
the most insane propositions and is exactly as stupid as the people who
manage it.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The treachery is that Doug Wead waited until after
the election [...] Another round of explosive front-
page revelations from secretly recorded phone
conversations like today's and Bush's approval will
hit 70 percent."
- Mickey Kaus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:
>
> in the 1970s i read a book on the glomar explorer, it went into great
> detail on the mohole project, books arn't always the truth.
>

ROTFLMAO!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 26 Feb 2005 12:14:09 -0800, "ray o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:


> in the 1970s i read a book on the glomar explorer, it went into great
>detail on the mohole project, books arn't always the truth.

If you can show that New Coke was a CIA-funded project you'd have a
point. You can't so you don't.

Try this, for one, if you're interested:

http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?btob=Y&endeca=y&cds2Pid=309&isbn=0375505628&endeca=1&linkid=362231

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:19:18 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <4eb1215ph3b6hnd58aavcqdotidmsbr7sr@4ax.com>,
>sbartman@visi.com says...
>
>> >> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions, and
>> >> capital is not stupid.
>> >
>> >New Coke.
>>
>> A flippant answer to a complex situation. Whole books have been
>> written about New Coke. I've read some of them. Have you?
>
>A flippant answer is all a silly generalization like "capital never
>flows to such propositions and is not stupid."

See, you add a word I didn't use ("never") and then proceed to
disagree with my saying it.

I didn't say never, nor would I. I would say that capital does not
flow to such propositions 94% of the time across a broad span of time,
as the OP asserted.

Capital has flowed to
>the most insane propositions and is exactly as stupid as the people who
>manage it.

Can I ask if your employer lets you near the capital? No?

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 12:14:09 -0800, "ray o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > in the 1970s i read a book on the glomar explorer, it went into
great
> >detail on the mohole project, books arn't always the truth.
>
> If you can show that New Coke was a CIA-funded project you'd have a
> point. You can't so you don't.
>
> Try this, for one, if you're interested:
>
>
http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?btob=Y&endeca=y&cds2Pid=309&isbn=0375505628&endeca=1&linkid=362231
>
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com

coke rivals and in fact surpasses the cia in keeping its secrets
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Gandalf Parker wrote:

> Of all of the different directions being tested for game distro I
think
> that Shrapnel as the developer-turned-publisher offering web-based
> purchasing is a good example of the most stable model in the last
couple of
> years.

Well, last time I looked they *all* had web-based purchasing :) -
Direct Download is also web-purchasing, only with a different physical
distribution.

> Retail stores and mass advertising is definetly having bumps

Understatement of the year - as far as wargames are concerned retail is
dead and mass advertising was never alive to begin with.

> Gandalf Parker
> -- no longer representing any gaming concern. Resume at
> www.community.net/~gandalf/resume.txt

I was intrigued at this point - read your resume just to find out who
you were representing in the past and you left out this most
interesting bit :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx -- only representing myself
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <bti421hbtja9fcukto0ur4mno99b8ohini@4ax.com>,
sbartman@visi.com says...

> >> >> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions, and
> >> >> capital is not stupid.
> >> >
> >> >New Coke.
> >>
> >> A flippant answer to a complex situation. Whole books have been
> >> written about New Coke. I've read some of them. Have you?
> >
> >A flippant answer is all a silly generalization like "capital never
> >flows to such propositions and is not stupid."
>
> See, you add a word I didn't use ("never") and then proceed to
> disagree with my saying it.

You said, "capital does not flow to such propositions."

If it does *not* flow to such propositions, does it *ever* flow to such
propositions?

Or never?

> I didn't say never, nor would I. I would say that capital does not
> flow to such propositions 94% of the time across a broad span of time,
> as the OP asserted.

Well, that would be inserting a major qualification; that capital *does*
flow to such stupid propositions ... uh, six percent of the time.

> Capital has flowed to
> >the most insane propositions and is exactly as stupid as the people who
> >manage it.
>
> Can I ask if your employer lets you near the capital? No?

<shrug>

Well, not being a marketing Brainiac, I probably *wouldn't* have green-
lighted New Coke.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The Islamists have been clear all along about their plans to form
an Islamic caliphate and inhabit the entire world with burqas,
stonings, amputations, honor killings and a lack of religious and
political freedom. Whether or not to oppose such a movement should
have been a no-brainer, especially for self-proclaimed 'progressives.'
Instead, they have extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants
and terrorists."
- Cinnamon Stillwell
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1109560219.15881@news.queue.to>, hgoldste@mpcs.com says...

> Assuming e books won't become near free where they'll offer a cost
> advantage offsetting the serious inconvenience, it's difficult to see
> how they'll displace paper anytime soon other than in some narrow apps
> until such time as they arrive with a throwaway reader with a nice
> interface. I know technology and mass production *are* going to
> obsolete my criticisms, but when?

When the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

The biggest stumbling block to "epaper" is going to be copyright.
Simply put, the publishing industry isn't in any hurry to find
themselves in the same fix the RIAA is in, so I doubt even the marketing
geniuses at Random House are in a lather to get rid of dead-tree.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The Islamists have been clear all along about their plans to form
an Islamic caliphate and inhabit the entire world with burqas,
stonings, amputations, honor killings and a lack of religious and
political freedom. Whether or not to oppose such a movement should
have been a no-brainer, especially for self-proclaimed 'progressives.'
Instead, they have extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants
and terrorists."
- Cinnamon Stillwell
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:51:47 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <bti421hbtja9fcukto0ur4mno99b8ohini@4ax.com>,
>sbartman@visi.com says...
>
>> >> >> I don't believe him. Capital does not flow to such propositions, and
>> >> >> capital is not stupid.
>> >> >
>> >> >New Coke.
>> >>
>> >> A flippant answer to a complex situation. Whole books have been
>> >> written about New Coke. I've read some of them. Have you?
>> >
>> >A flippant answer is all a silly generalization like "capital never
>> >flows to such propositions and is not stupid."
>>
>> See, you add a word I didn't use ("never") and then proceed to
>> disagree with my saying it.
>
>You said, "capital does not flow to such propositions."
>
>If it does *not* flow to such propositions, does it *ever* flow to such
>propositions?

Of course. It's trivial to find examples. On the whole it does not,
else it would behave differently than it does. Markets have feedback
loops.

Snip further juvie insults.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:10:19 GMT, hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein)
wrote:

>I think this is a very interesting thread and touches on so many
>things...alas the only one I'll comment on is OT, having to do with
>dead tree stuff vs. E-books. ISTM paper has too many user advantages
>over ebooks, perhaps the most important being that a dead tree
>publication doesn't need an 'E' device to interface with the human.
>In that epublications lack any countervailing usability benefits to make
>it worth giving up the ink-on-rolled-plant, why bother?

Being able to buy every book published in the past ten years versus
not being able to buy every book published in the past ten years.

Not to mention air and water pollution savings.

>Assuming e books won't become near free where they'll offer a cost
>advantage offsetting the serious inconvenience, it's difficult to see
>how they'll displace paper anytime soon other than in some narrow apps
>until such time as they arrive with a throwaway reader with a nice
>interface.

Or a cheap, permanent, flexible reader the size of your wallet that
takes any and all media off the broadband streaming through your
house.

I know technology and mass production *are* going to
>obsolete my criticisms, but when?

Let me know and I'll buy stock. <g>

I expect to be reading mostly eBooks before I die and I'm 46. Other
than that, who knows? It's twenty-five years since I could first watch
a movie on demand at home. My first VCR cost $800, was the size of a
suitcase, and had a 3-function remote that ran a cord across the room
to the box. At the time that seemed like the limits of possible
technology.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:53:26 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>>If the suits at the publishing houses could figure out how to sue
>>libraries without having the American public squash them like roaches,
>>they'd be all over it. But hey, maybe the "ebook" can change all that.]
>
>eBooks work for libraries better than paper for all the previous
>reasons IF technology is in place to prevent copying. Evaporating
>eBooks that poof themselves in 96 hours like those new evaporating
>DVDs. Or code. Or something else the smart technologists will do. It's
>trivial to write copy quantity limits into eBooks purchase contracts
>with libraries that would allow home d/l and save the gas/time while
>still maintaining sufficient individual purchase demand to make the
>publishers money. The trick is preventing copying by readers.

If we substituted movies for books in the above paragraph, you just
described DIVX. I'm sure that idea sounded great to the marketing
'gurus' too. After all, consumers are sheep, right?

<snippage>

>>> More importantly, your constant use of the "I" pronoun tells me more
>>> than you think about your attitude in discussions of markets. What you
>>> think is irrelevant. What any individual thinks is irrelevant.
>>
>><laughter>
>>
>>Individuals *are* the market.
>
>No, the market is the market.

One wonders how many software publishers would still be around if
someone had had the balls to call bullshit at that type of
marketing-speak.

It will work with something like detergent where the consumer views
the different products as essentially equal but it starts to fall
apart when you're talking about things like books, movies and computer
games.

For every company that went under after making quality games
(Sir-Tech) I can name you 10 that went under because they started to
treat their customers like sheep that would buy any piece of garbage
that they put out (Microprose, Talonsoft, NWC).

>
>>EBooks went *nowhere* for the simple reason that all us dumb,
>>unschooled, ignorant-of-marketing individuals looked at those ditzy
>>"ebook readers" and said, "Why the hell do I want/need a $300 gizmo to
>>*read a friggin' book*?"
>
>Enough said on eBooks. They're available, they can be read on laptops,
>the most popular PC format currently and the foreseeable future. They
>have ads, they have disads. The disads can be dealt with by better
>tech without removing the current ads. Give them time.

Until the publishing figures out why consumers don't like e-book it's
not gonna happen. And judging from your posts, they're a long way from
figuring that out.

Rgds, Frank
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"eddysterckx@hotmail.com" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1109582978.828298.310400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>
>> Of all of the different directions being tested for game distro I
>> think that Shrapnel as the developer-turned-publisher offering
>> web-based purchasing is a good example of the most stable model in
>> the last couple of years.
>
> Well, last time I looked they *all* had web-based purchasing :) -
> Direct Download is also web-purchasing, only with a different physical
> distribution.

Thats like saying that web-based purchasing is just shareware with a
different pay system. :) True enouigh but the differences are major when
it comes to actually implementing it successfully.

> I was intrigued at this point - read your resume just to find out who
> you were representing in the past and you left out this most
> interesting bit :)

Im sorry. I should have mentioned since it might be considered
particularly important here. My last actual "declare your connection" to
the gaming industry was with Shrapnel Games. Nothing at the level of
decision making or official statements of the company. I was sub-
contracted for abit to join some discussions on servers and a
migration/managment project involving their forums. I followed the
developers of one of my favorite strategy games (Dominions 1, 2, and soon
3) when they went to Shrapnel.

I mostly do "fill in" or temp work as system admin on internet servers,
or as "live active presence" in customer support emails, web forums,
newsgroups, etc. Shrapnel was a short run but its nice to be able to add
"game publishing company" to my resume since I found that much more fun
than doing ISP support forums. :) I have just received a staff position
on one of the free-play Ultime Online shards (Shazzy's) but Im guessing
that doesnt apply here.

I think my wife made me take out the part that said my rates can be
highly negotiated based on fun and barter. :)

Gandalf Parker
-- My work clothes includes a Tshirt which says
"I only work here because they have better toys than I do."