Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
I have a question (several, actually) -- when a publisher releases a game, do you feel that they owe you, the players of that game, updates to the game in perpeptuity?
How many updates do they owe you for the money you paid for the original game?
Do they owe you more than a bug-free version of the game as it was originally presented?
Do they owe you continual support/updates without you paying any more for this?
Do they owe you a sequel to the game, no matter how well the original did?
Do they owe you a sequel even if the original author of the game is not interested in doing that himself?
Do they owe it to you to release the source code to the game as open source?
Should a game developer/publisher ignore financial motivations (and thus possibly face bankruptcy or at least a weak business model resulting in less captial for the next project) in order to appease their customers in the above scenarios?
I'm curious where people think the line is drawn... what you expect to get for your money.
------------------ Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
hmmm...here's what I say:
I expect to have updates for games if they are buggy...not much more than that.
If a game has been around for a while, and could use improvements (Avara) I think it should be open source...it can't be making you guys very much money, you should just let some people tinker around with it
I think a sequal should only be made if the original did fairly well and the author wants to do it...
And no, if you go bankrupt you shouldn't do it
That's my thoughts...
------------------ Kraig Hill -------------------------------- "It's better to burn out then to be forgotten" - Neil Young -------------------------------- http://www3.cybercit...lyde/index.html
Quote
Originally posted by Kraig Hill: ** If a game has been around for a while, and could use improvements (Avara) I think it should be open source...it can't be making you guys very much money, you should just let some people tinker around with it:)
**
But do you think it's your right to demmand this? Is it the publishers right to refuse (and not be painted as demonic for doing so?)?
I think you sound a little bitter Andrew. In my opinion the updates to fix the bugs are a smart thing. If a company is committed to fixing it's mistakes then the buyer feels better about the company and thus more inclined to keep a)buying more products and talking the game up to future buyers. Now being as though this is America (at least where I am) I think that you (the creators) have no obligations to create sequels (especially to unpopular games) but it is only to the advantage of the company to create a sequel if it will make them more money. If the creator is not up to the task of creating a sequel game then the company can stick by the creator or can find someone else at their discretion. Now no one here wants to see the creators of their favorite game go bankrupt and I think that most people will agree with that. Now since I believe I'm hearing a little frustration with us on this web board from Andrew I think it would be best to remember that the masses are ignorant. We don't understand everything that goes on at Ambrosia and we are definetly only looking out for ourselves. The fact that we are demanding an EVMP is merely a compliment to the great genius that was and still is the EV series. The reason we bat around ideas on here and implore you to keep creating is because we believe wholeheartedly that you can and will do better and we just can't wait to see what comes next. So I guess in short form it is your right to do whatever the heck you want with your product and it is our right (our pleasure) to keep wishing for more and the pestering just seems to be a natural outlet! The Madcap Magician
------------------ There are no stupid questions. Just stupid people.
I wouldn't say demonic...I would say it is the publishers right to refuse if they are still making good money off of the product....otherwise, since you are trying to entertain people, why not just give them the code, let them tinker with it etc...
Maybe you could open source kinda like Bungie did Marathon...you still have to have the Map Sounds Objects etc. to make it work, therefore you have to have the game to have the new improvements...
I know that I don't play Avara now, but maybe if it got a facelift (Open GL, new textures better muti support more HECTORs etc.) I would probably register it
Originally posted by Kraig Hill: **I wouldn't say demonic...I would say it is the publishers right to refuse if they are still making good money off of the product....otherwise, since you are trying to entertain people, why not just give them the code, let them tinker with it etc... **
That's one common misconception -- open sourcing a product/project isn't merely giving up the revenue from that product and giving the source code to people.
It's actually creating a support nightmare for the publisher -- when you release something to the public, despite your disclaimers, they will still often turn to you for support, and become angry if they don't get it.
People also associate the name of a product with the company that originally published it, and thus (again despite the disclaimers) new versions created by other people can be support issues for the original company.
Also simply the logistics of giving out the source code are problematic, support-wise. You can't just compress the source code and then upload it -- what happens when everyone and his brother downloads the code, and has a problem because of their inexperience or unfamiliarity with developing software?
Let's say you download the source code to product X, which was developed using CodeWarrior Pro 2. You have a more recent version of Code Warrior, and the source code doesn't compile. Many people will (they think reasonably) complain to the publisher who put the source code out there.
Do we hire a full-time developmental-savvy tech support person to handle such inquries/problems? Do we simply ignore people who write to us with problems compiling the code or using versions of the product others have compiled (doing so is a sure way to piss people off, and not exactly a wise thing to do).
These are just a few scenerios; I can tell you from experience that it is by no means a matter of "just releasing the code" -- it doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
Originally posted by The Madcap Magician: **I think you sound a little bitter Andrew. In my opinion the updates to fix the bugs are a smart thing. If a company is committed to fixing it's mistakes then the buyer feels better about the company and thus more inclined to keep a)buying more products and talking the game up to future buyers. **
Oh, I agree with you there -- I think we do better than most publishers do in terms of issuing bug fix updates. Many publishers don't even bother.
I was speaking more long-term, about what people expect. Some people seem bitter if we decide to not work on a particular game anymore, as if we are committing some attrocity by not coming out with, say, version 2.0 of Bubble Trouble.
That's more along the lines of was I was asking about...
Well, andrew my boy, I don't believe that a company owes a consumer anything more than what they buy, but, there is a level of courtesy that is expected, for a company to be given a good name. i'll use for example blizzard... when they created warcraft II, they came out with some updates, and other crap, not much eh? well, when they made starcraft they came out w/ b.net, updates, constant support, etc. in other words, the standards have raised quite high. i'll answer those questions as exact as possible.
"I have a question (several, actually) -- when a publisher releases a game, do you feel that they owe you, the players of that game, updates to the game in perpeptuity?"
---There isn't a certain amounts of updates, you can't put a number on it, the amount of updates is the amount needed. definition of needed: when it costs your company money, or, when the consumer is pissed, or, the consumers are loyal, and honestly want a reasonable update. How many updates do they owe you for the money you paid for the original game?
"Do they owe you more than a bug-free version of the game as it was originally presented?"
---Kinda goes hand-in-hand with the previous question/answer, but, i personally do feel if the consumer in general feels a certain update is needed, it should be done (ie. multi-player ev, which i know is in production)
"Do they owe you continual support/updates without you paying any more for this?"
---This question is kind of general, but I'll do my best. It depends on how big the update, if it's a really unneccesary update, then maybe should be charged (reduced for already purchased)
"Do they owe you a sequel to the game, no matter how well the original did?"
---no
---don't get crazy on us andrew, but in a way, yes. depends on your motives. are you in it for the money, or the satisfaction of happy people? i'll tell you, anything and everything i do that concerns the internet in any way, is only for the benefit of others (well, kinda untrue, because i'm happy when i make others happy, which is selfish, but in the most part).
---i expect to get what is sold, anything extra is up to the company
------------------ Jeremy Woodruff as, THE WHITE SHADOW
All legitimate questions, and not ones that players (like myself) are likely to consider often. Here's my two cents:
For whatever price the publisher decides to charge for a game, the buyer is owed, well, a game.
The buyer is owed a bug-free game for the initial purchase price. So free bug fixes to a given version of the game is a reasonable expectation on the buyer's part, certainly to the point where a game will perform according to specs during normal play.
A certain level of free tech support from the publisher is precedented, and reasonably expected by the buyer. Charging for more advanced support is precedented, and is a reasonable act by the publisher.
Minor updates being made available for free is precedented, and, again, a reasonable expectation on the buyer's part. Bug fixes fall into this category. It is just as reasonable that major updates, short of full-fledged revisions or sequels, should cost money.
The buyer is not owed a sequel. The buyer is not owed the source code. The buyer should not expect the publisher to risk financial ruin (or, at the least, to ignore prudent business practices) to appease its customers.
The buyer reserves the right to want and to ask, balanced against the publisher's right to make sound decisions.
------------------ PlanetPhil now welcoming tourists
<complain> This discussion reminds me of the game 'Out of this World'. For years I wasn't able to play it with sound. And now on my New iMac, I can't even start it up. Yet, Interplay has never offered any sort of update or patch. I know it's an old game now, but how hard would it be for them to at least make it playable? </complain>
------------------ The Jazzman
I think everything has been covered pretty well -The company pretty much owes the public bug fixes, otherwise it owes zilch- but I would like to throw in my two cents on the subject of making people unhappy. Well, three cents, MY cents are more valuable ;)! Andrew, you made a great point concerning the release of open source code; namely, that a lot of people out there are morons, and will demand help despite the fact you told them you can't give it. Well, too bad, I say. You figure, if point out what this code needs to work, and make it abundantly clear that no help is forthcoming by saying as much just about everywhere you can, then the only jerks who are going to complain are going to be just that - jerks. As long as you continue doing what you do now the majority are going to stay happy. This doesn't mean that you get arrogant and decide "Hey, we are the best. Whatever we make people will buy. Who cares what they think!" Rather, you continue doing the best that you possibly can, and in doing that you will automatically gain a loyal customer base who know that they can always expect the best possibel effort. If you tick a few people off, that is there problem, not yours, and just hang up on them. The amount of good rap you will have going around will FAR outwiegh the bad. So let them be pissed. I just hope they forget to lower their pants. . . .
------------------
I think that it's not owed, but updates making a game more playable are in a company's intrest, ie more people will buy the product if it's better. Plus you can advertise it as the "All New!!" version.
------------------ "Are you SURE you cant fit any more rocket launchers on here?" Lothe Lan
"How can i make it go faster?" -my previous incarnation-
One thing i forgot to metion, a good example of my philosiphy is Realmz by fantasoft. I started playing it at 1.0.5 and it was crap but fun. Now it's at something like 8.0.2 and it rocks.
There will always be people who want something for nothing. You can't organize your business to please them because they will never be pleased.
I expect software that works on MY computer and with a game I hope that it will hold my interest.
Bug-fix and minor enhancements ought to be given to registered users as a courtesy; major enhancements would (IMNSHO) justify a reasonable fee.
I registered EV years ago. On the basis of my experience with EV, I registered EVO as soon as I downloaded the first version. I have not been disappointed.
$20 - $25 is dirt cheap for the years of entertainment provided. Some days I spend that much on lunch.
I will register EV3 (by whatever name) when it becomes available.
T.O.P.
I've played EV for over 4 years, It's an awesome game.
It is also bug free! (as of now) Unlike microsoft, :rolleyes: it's ok for games to be released with non-serious bugs, like that neutron blaster bug in the first EV release, but nothing serious, (like unreal, GRRRRRRERRRR!). You don't owe us anything, but non-commercial, shareware, great games. That's why I buy.
------------------ "...Cotton Mouse... to say that the plug is royally messed up is an understatement. I'm taking a look at it with Plug Checker, and some of these errors I have just never seen before..."-Obormot, debugger
ERA for EV: www.geocities.com/rhysmctharin/erahome.html
(still in alpha stages)
Escape Velocity has lasted so long for mainly three reasons. At least I think so.
*1/ It's continually changining
The fact that Escape Velocity can be manipulated easily by the common ten-year old gives it the attribute of change. People have continued the original universe, edited the present universe, and created their own little worlds just through the use of plug-ins. This flexibility has made Escape Velocity a long-favored, 5 year-old, shareware game that people are still playing even though it's been around for half a decade. Most high-quality games don't even last three years (not to say EV isn't high-quality but you do understand my point) because people have no reason to go back to it. It was the exact same way it was when it was first released. EV, however, constantly moving, churning, never ending.
*2/ It's simplistic
Making something almost stupidly simple is a very good thing. Escape Velocity is complex, but in a simplistic way (if such a thing is possible). This "simple" element makes you feel at home whenever you double-click on EV's icon. Just as Robert Jaansen (or "Scumdog", as people would know him as) said in the EV documentation, "Flying a starship is like riding a bicycle, you never forget it." Very true. I myself learned to play Escape Velocity by one way: playing it. And once I did learn it, I never had to have the controls printed out so I could see them all the time. Another good factor in EV's success.
*3/ It's easily accesible
None of the above would realy matter if there was no accessibility. You would not have to go hunting through CompUSA to find Escape Velocity. All you would have to know is the address for Ambrosia's website to get to the game. I have downloaded EV numerous times because I had thrown some vital file out, ruined the game by using a buggy plug-in, and so on. All I had to do was redownload it, install, and punch in the shareware code (to calm your anxiousness Andrew, I have payed the Shareware fee ;)).
Now, Andrew, I am assuming that you posted this topic because you wanted to know what your customers expected of your games, and, in specific, EV3. And this is my advice to you in making EV3:
General play: keep it interesting
General plot: keep it exciting
General graphics: eye candy (need I say more?)
General game: keep it the same as it was before
I suspect that you have gone through this whole schpeal before in the pre-production of EV3, but I have one more suggestion:
Obtain a completly untouched, untampered version of Escape Velocity (orginal, not Override), find a specific plug-in on your website called "Alpha Console" (small general graphic editor plug-in). Start Escape Velocity, and anylize the graphics as well as the original game play. That, in my mind, is essentialy EV3.
Oh, one more thing: the post above has realy nothing to do with your original question, but I wanted to make it anyway. Also, if the suggestions I have made and speech in general is nothing new to you, just ingore it.
"It is also bug free! "
---hehe, it's close, but not bug free
As usual, I must say that T.O.P. has hit the nail SQUARE on the head as far as I am concerned. I registered EV after about 6 months(sorry for the delay ;-(), and my family sometimes wishes I hadn't. As a consumer, I hope you keep updating your games(not just EV or EV:O), but please do not do so at the cost of the company. I would rather pay for bigger updates than lose Ambrosia! PC users wish they had a company like you! (All Hail MicroSloth? ;-D ) Mike PS-Keep up the GREAT work Andrew and company
My Machiavellian 2 cents...
Customer relations and marketing boil down to two things.
Perceived value
Managing expectations
In truth, all an game publisher owes a customer is the game as advertised. Part and parcel of this is that the game runs on the range of machine configurations promised. This assumes that the game is free of bugs that either crash the game or bugs that somehow detract from gameplay. If such bugs are present in the release (or subsequent patches) there is a moral and even legal obligation to fix them ASAP.
Now things get murky.
The games market is one of competition. Competition for a buyer's dollars. Competiton for 'buzz'. Competition for loyalty and community. These are why companies should and do go above an beyond what they 'owe' to their customers.
Unfortunately, some customers start thinking that these are a part of what is owed them. Most of Andrew's initial post, to me at least, seem to be issues from this murky part of the games industry.
Ultimately, the company itself has to weigh each possible 'perk' and decide what they can and cannot add to a given game. Source code releases, sequels, patches for new features, etc are all things that have costs. No one but you (Ambrosia) can decide what perks you add. But how you add them and how you communicate (this is the managing expectations part) them has a lot to do with how well they are appreciated.
=====
Now. Here is a suggestion. I have not seen anyone use this to good effect yet, but the time may be ripe. The games industry is HUGE now. Companies curently use music and (especially) movies this way... why not games?
When EV3 loads up, imagine a space across the bottom that says EV3 brought to you by... and a number (3-5) of advertiser logos appear there.
Within the game (say in the bar graphics, space billboards, product placemement in landing graphics, etc) you pimp the sponsor a little. Keep it gentle but persistent enough to remind you that this game is cheaper and/or better because Coke or Apple or Goodyear tossed some cash at Ambrosia. If a moderate initial sponsorship with registration $ matching deal were inked.. you could have more dev cash and more funds for those 'perks'.
I seriously doubt that, if done properly, any EV3 registrar would mind the prescence of the sponsorship/ads.
Heck this could even easily provide the funding to do EV: the Massively Multiplayer Online Universe. heheheh