Thread: [GD-General] Compress/Uncompress
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-general
|
From: <Per...@ep...> - 2004-03-22 07:04:39
|
Hi all, don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but here goes.... We need compress/uncompress functionality in our server/client communication. I have integrated the bz2 compress/uncompress functionality in our communication so far, and are currently satisfied with it. The bz2 is freeware. I have run a few test cases and the compressing rate is very good, approx 20-25% better than WinZip .on the few files I tested. The problem is that it is more tan 5 times slower than WinZip, i.e., the performance is not acceptable (?). Do you know any compress/uncompress software that can be used ? What is the performance of the Java compress/uncompress methods compared with WinZip? Best Regards Per "Happiness is a temporary chemical imbalance of the true state of mind" |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2004-03-22 16:01:25
|
> Do you know any compress/uncompress software that can be used ? What language? What kind of data? Dynamic or static data? Without knowing anything else, a lot of people use zlib to incorporate= in-lined compression, yet others roll their own compressors (arithmetic or= huffman), etc. Brian |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2004-04-24 00:38:24
|
For those curious or interested, I did a little postmortem on Pyrogon: http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDevelopment/APyrogonPostmortem.html |
|
From: Enno R. <en...@de...> - 2004-04-27 15:00:15
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Brian Hook wrote: > For those curious or interested, I did a little postmortem on Pyrogon: > > http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDevelopment/APyrogonPostmortem.html Thank you, Brian. That was a very interesting read. Sorry that it didn't work out, but good to hear you broke even and have the chance to give it another shot. Enno. -- The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. -- Mark Twain |
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-04-27 18:25:18
|
indeed, this is a great read. i like the part about having to be independently wealthy before bothering to create a startup. so sad but true it seems. good luck with the new projects... mike w www.gekidodesigns.com Enno Rehling wrote: > Brian Hook wrote: > >> For those curious or interested, I did a little postmortem on Pyrogon: >> >> http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDevelopment/APyrogonPostmortem.html > > > Thank you, Brian. That was a very interesting read. Sorry that it didn't > work out, but good to hear you broke even and have the chance to give it > another shot. > > Enno. |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2004-04-29 05:07:50
|
2004 April 28th Wednesday The circumstances you describe in your Pyrogon article seem very familiar to me, Brian. It's sad that publishers and gatekeepers interfere with the success of an independent developer. Why can't a person or small company with a great idea and the capacity to successfully implement the idea enjoy the rewards of original thinking and hard work? I know that greedy publishers accounted for only part of the cash flow problem for Pyrogon, but I think this issue is very significant. The fact is that if independent developers received a much higher percentage of income from selling their products, such developers would have the opportunity to develop future products. As it is now, independent developers do not have the ability to survive based on the proven market success of their own products -- which is an insane condition. The high percentages demanded by gateways (web sites, BREW decks, game console publishers, store shelves), often 50% or higher of gross income, makes it nearly impossible for independent developers to sustain themselves, and, as a consequence, leads to a glut of mediocre, unimaginative products, and corresponding impoverished developers. What a crazy situation: A developer needs to make a deal with a party that controls access to consumers. All the gatekeeper does is block developers from an otherwise free market, and for this the gatekeeper is rewarded with most of the income! Many things determine the financial reward that comes from being an independent game developer, including the merits of the product concept and the quality of the implementation of the concept. When gatekeepers with their high profit demands AND their often capricious requirements (extensive product certification, content restrictions, requiring branding/licensed characters/franchises, etc) are involved, the success of the developer has little to do with actual product value or market demand. I am currently in a situation that might very well end in total loss, for no good reason. I spent four months developing an original game for the BREW platform. I thought that Qualcomm testing was the only thing that stood between me and making my product available to Verizon customers. Furthermore, I was convinced, despite being a "no-name" and giving Verizon 40% and Qualcomm 20%, that I could become rich, based on the merits of my product and the lack of credible competition. Well, Verizon artificially limits the total number of accessible products to what one can see on their "deck" -- "to avoid overwhelming the consumer with choices". This is like having limited "shelf space", but such a concept does not make sense in a virtual store! I wrote an e-mail to Verizon saying I'd be glad to help them implement a link to a page that allowed consumers to enter an arbitrary product ID, permitting an essentially infinite selection of BREW products, just like DoCoMo does in Japan with their huge catalogs of stuff. All I want to do is compete in a market. I'll pay Verizon and Qualcomm their "tribute", but I want customers to have access to my product. I can promote it myself. I can give people the product ID just like movie posters, television ads, newspaper ads, etc, feature web addresses for films, companies, and products. If Verizon doesn't allow my product on their "deck", and if they don't expand their "deck" system in the simple way I proposed, then I will have TOTALLY WASTED hundreds of hours. After reviewing my product, one of Verizon's suggestions to have a better shot at getting on their "deck" was to get my product branded by a large corporation. I am pursuing this now, but in the event that I actually succeed, this is just more profit loss for me. (Still, this scenario would be a miracle; it's sad that I'm even thinking in this desperate way. I just don't want my work to actually be worth zero at this point, so even being totally exploited seems like a blessing. Ugh!) I mention my own story just to reinforce the idea that gatekeepers, especially those who make it very difficult to link developers with eager consumers, hurt and discourage independent developers, and, on a larger scale, reduces the profit for all parties in the entire industry. Yes, I think that there is a point when demanding too much of a toll when linking consumers to products actually hurts the gatekeeper's bottom line in a big way. What a nightmare it is to develop an original product. I never would have started if the first page of the $49.95 book "Wireless Game Development in C/C++ with BREW" said: "Don't buy this book unless you already have a contract to develop a game based on licensed characters or a major franchise, and your employer has published several games with Verizon already." In fact, that should be the TITLE of the book. Instead, Qualcomm's easy download of their BREW SDK, and the fun, enticing nature of this book, lures people in to the trap of believing that they can actually succeed at something. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the article in the April, 2004, Game Developer Magazine, "The Wireless Gold Rush", when it was pointed out that while DoCoMo offered thousands of games (even printing listings in catalogs), Verizon was seeking to reduce the size of their "deck" from 300 games down to around 100. Okay, so Verizon wants to reduce the clutter of their product menu tree; that's fine. But why limit the selection to what the user can easily navigate with the phone-web interface? Okay, so Verizon wants BREW to be synonymous with "awesome quality" and "hit titles". All I'm asking is for an alternate link to select arbitrary products for educated consumers with a different set of priorities. Britney Spears, The Incredible Hulk, 50 Cent, Paris Hilton, Will Hung, American Idol, Survivor, MTV, etc, don't need to endorse every product to make it viable. (For a certain demographic such endorsements would be a big plus, but sooner or later people seek qualities beyond the brands.) I'm sure there are thousands of stories about developers being run in to the ground, and the thing that upsets me most is the fact that moderate concessions on the part of gatekeepers would have been just what was needed to sustain independent developers and ultimately help everyone in the industry. Anyhow, I wish you the best of luck on your future projects, Brian. It seems like the PC is the only real free market, especially thanks to the free(*) distribution channel of the Internet, but piracy is terrible (unless your target demographic is typically marked by honor and disposable income). (*...By "free" I mean that one does not beg a gatekeeper to make the product available to consumers, and there is no percentage of profits demanded for the privilege of access to consumers. Sure, there's credit card overhead, and bandwidth cost, but somehow such expenses seem insignificant relative to dealing with any gatekeeper/publisher.) --- Colin cp...@ea... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hook" <ho...@py...> To: <gam...@li...> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: [GD-General] Pyrogon Postmortem For those curious or interested, I did a little postmortem on Pyrogon: http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDevelopment/APyrogonPostmortem.html |
|
From: Crosbie F. <cr...@cy...> - 2004-04-29 08:36:49
|
> From: Colin Fahey > It seems like the PC is the only real > free market, especially thanks to the free(*) distribution > channel of the Internet, but piracy is terrible (unless > your target demographic is typically marked by honor > and disposable income). (*...By "free" I mean that one > does not beg a gatekeeper to make the product available > to consumers, and there is no percentage of profits > demanded for the privilege of access to consumers. > Sure, there's credit card overhead, and bandwidth cost, > but somehow such expenses seem insignificant relative > to dealing with any gatekeeper/publisher.) So, use the free PC market because it has: 1) A free distribution channel 2) No gatekeeper, no restrictions 3) An open platform 4) Tons of open source, freeware, and freely redistributable proprietary = s/w What are its problems? Piracy???? So abandon the ridiculous idea that you can prevent players copying your = game, that the Internet, the world's greatest diffuser of digital = content ever known, is somehow going to refuse to diffuse your game. Too much choice? Marketing is your problem. Create a web site. Foster word-of-mouth/viral = marketing. Piracy? You're still stumped by that one. I can tell. So build you audience. Perhaps you need to give some stuff away first, = even if just demos. Anyway, eventually you should be able to tell your = audience that you can't go on like this, that you have to pay your = bills, that the next game they will have to pay for or they don't get = it. There is no honour involved here. Either they pay and get, or don't = pay and don't get. You can say "I will not release this game unless you = all club together and pay me 10k". The deal is so clear a kid could = understand it. And it's immune from piracy. And you can make your game out of open source components. And you still get 10k for it - or whatever the market will bear. It's a solution that I'm working on: www.digitalartauction.com And I've written about it here: http://www.digitalartauction.com/history/bcbm.htm Believe me, I feel the pain of the Indie development community. Stories = like Brian's and yours spur me on, reminding me that this solution is = sorely needed. |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2004-04-30 06:34:27
|
2004 April 29th
Thursday
Okay, I'm not psychic, but I wrote this sentence after having
written all sentences below, so I KNOW this post is long --
and potentially boring.
COMMENTS ON MY BREW EXPERIENCE:
===============================
>>> So, use the free PC market because it has: [...]
My project (which still might turn out okay) is designed to
profit based on the novelty of being able to access a
particular kind of application on a cell phone. The unusual
platform and the unusual scope of the application compared
to most others in the market were two reasons I believed the
product would ultimately be a big success, and this confidence
motivated me to put my time and energy in to the project.
J2ME could be a good platform choice, but it seemed
easier to get it to work with BREW. One tricky obstacle with
J2ME is the limit on JAR file sizes imposed by the carrier and
imposed by the different devices. Meanwhile, the apparent
simplicity of deploying my app with BREW, and collecting
money, all without the piracy levels found with J2ME, made
BREW seem like a good first platform choice.
The fact that my application is really only for a certain
demographic of people in the USA, and the fact that Verizon
covers a large fraction of the intended market, means the
choice to use BREW isn't based on technology and logistics alone.
I have yet to present my application to the one potential
corporate partner whose brand makes sense for my application.
Maybe this project won't be a total failure. But when I
learned that Verizon wouldn't just automatically approve my
application (given that my application doesn't violate any
content guidelines and has some promise of selling okay) and
in fact required a big corporate brand to give the product more
credibility or consumer appeal, I was really depressed.
How in the world am I going to get my product "branded"?
How long will that take? How much more profit loss must I
suffer? What other products will enter the market by the
time I finish getting branded? What's to stop a potential
corporate partner from cloning my application (which,
arguably, has fairly obvious features)? What guarantee do
I have that Verizon will put my product on their "deck"
even with a brand? If it takes time to build up the buzz
about my product, will Verizon pull the product from their
"deck" to make room for something stupid but with very
reliable, short-term profit, like "The Olsen Twins Pepsi
Pokemon Survivor 'You're Fired!' Idol Movie Spin-Off Game"?
So many risks! Therefore, unless the reward is something
crazy, like a million dollars, why even bother? It's
definitely not a viable business model for an independent
game developer.
THE POSSIBILITY OF SELLING PC GAMES THROUGH A WEB PORTAL:
=========================================================
Anyhow, I have had a long love for the PC, and I wrote a game
engine and game design documents. It's just that piracy made
me wonder if I would even sell more than a single copy of a
game. I wrote to a few independent game developers selling
their games online, wondering if they were making money, and
the few who I asked said that sales were really low (but
downloads of demos were high).
I contacted a game sales portal associated with
Prima Tech publishing (the publishers of the Andre LaMothe
edited series of game programming books, like "Focus on SDL",
"Focus on AI", "Beginning OpenGL Programming", etc).
(Sorry if I am confused about the relation or non-relation
of the game sales portal with the book publisher.)
Anyhow, the portal handled credit card payments, and spared
developers from the hassle of being a business, which I
thought was fantastic. But the web site wasn't very
classy (goofy, cartoonish motif, if I remember correctly),
and I wasn't sure if I would be proud to direct people
to the site for the purchasing phase of getting my product.
Also, I was concerned about the site's ability to deliver
bandwidth when serving my game download.
I have seen similar efforts that turned me off.
Here's what I would like to see:
================================
A company that would handle credit card transactions
and mail checks to developers on a monthly or quarterly
basis.
The company would have a low-key domain name.
The only purpose of the company's web site is to:
(1) Present brief product information;
(2) Accept and verify credit card information;
(3) Handle the deployment of the application
to the consumer by download and
installation verification;
(This requires having a reliable dedicated server
in a high-speed data center and plenty of monthly
bandwidth quote, on the order of 500 GB at least.)
(4) Accept and forward correspondance regarding
product issues to the developer;
So, for example, I could describe the product in
detail on my OWN web site, and then, when a visitor
is interested in buying the application, I have a
link to this hypothetical company's web site. This
hypothetical site would show a page with a brief
description of the application,
sufficient for the consumer to verify that this is
in fact the correct item, and then the consumer
advances to the payment information area.
Just as important as what the proposed company would do
are the things the company would NOT do. Here are some
principles:
(1) The proposed company will NEVER do any external marketing,
or product promotion on the portal web site itself.
No marketing will be purchased by the proposed
company on the behalf of developers (or on behalf
of the company itself, despite its own potential
benefit due to a percentage of sales).
The purpose of the site is not to
elevate products relative to its peers on
the same site. This was the mistake of the
Verizon "deck" concept. No, let the burden
of marketing and reputation fall entirely
on developers, or alternate MARKETING web
sites! Let there be no "deck" concept that
artificially prioritizes (and thus essentially
influences) relative sales of products.
The web portal would not have a "latest games"
section, or any sort of "Hot Titles" concept.
All titles are simply titles in a catalog.
Yes, "overwhelm" the customer with a million
titles. The point of the portal is not to
teach consumers about what is available, but
simply to connect an educated consumer's
money to a corresponding developer.
(2) The proposed company will NEVER give/lend any money to
developers to finance their projects.
Financing projects necessarily means making
choices about which projects are viable.
Also, given that investing money is a risk,
an investor typically wants a big return on
the investment -- to more than cover the
other project investments that may have failed.
The fact that the proposed company would not
finance projects is hardly an obstacle for
game developers interested in seeking financing.
It's just not a function of the proposed company.
The benefit is that the portal company does not
have any risk, and is not beholden to other
creditors, and thus can promise a long existence
and good terms for all clients (the developers).
Gathering Of Developers (GOD) offered relatively
good royalty percentages back around the year
1999 or 2000, but since GOD actually invested
money in games, and some games flopped, ALL
clients of GOD suffered when the company essentially
vanished.
So, to assure the long-term survival of the proposed
company, and to maintain a low, flat percentage fee
for the service of selling products, the proposed
company would never invest in anything.
(3) The proposed company will NEVER pay for any form of
SELF-promotion (i.e., of the portal company itself).
Many portal-like services promote themselves.
Although not entirely wacky, it does seem like
it can be avoided.
If developers are responsible for maketing their
games (and the portal can list possible marketing
possibilities), then the portal has nothing to do
but actually handle the credit card transactions
and serve data.
Services like "Napster", "iTunes", "Amazon", etc,
promote themselves because there is a large potential
for casual browsing on the sites themselves, leading
to spontaneous purchases.
In fact, the proposed company does not preclude a
web site allowing casual browsing of games from
being created! The proposed company simply handles
the payment and delivery phases.
(4) The proposed company will NEVER impose any restrictions
on *content* that is legal. (NOTE: I am referring to
freedom of concepts, not freedom to offer applications
that are buggy or violate privacy or security.)
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Verizon all impose various
guidelines about application content and functionality.
For example, not that I'm complaining, but it is impossible
to buy and download a pornographic application for a
BREW phone with Verizon as the carrier. For many that
seems like a totally reasonable restriction, but other
restrictions are more subjective.
Content restriction need not take the form of explicit
guidelines. For example, in the case of Verizon's
"deck", it might just be that Verizon doesn't think a
product is a "smash hit". That's all it takes to make
a game or application totally inaccessible to consumers!
So, if you wanted an application with rather limited
appeal, like a Klingon text translator, or a tiny
symbolic math engine (like Mathematica on a cell phone),
FORGET IT! (...unless you have a J2ME phone!)
The proposed company is not itself concerned about
its reputation as a brand or "publisher" any more than
the phone company is worried about how "bad" phone
calls might make you think badly of telephone service.
An Internet Service Provider (ISP) does not build a
reputation on content of the Internet as a whole.
(Although it is true that AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, and
Google, profit on organizing access to the Internet,
and thus suffer the consequences of making the promise
of a sanitized or fair-and-balanced view of the
Internet.)
Just as routers on the Internet don't judge data
content (in any high-level human sense), the proposed
company will almost be a non-entity -- just a bridge
linking a consumer to a product.
(5) The proposed company will NEVER send any e-mails to
customers (except optional receipts of purchases).
The customer transaction begins and ends with
a single visit to the portal.
Customer information can *optionally* be
put on file to make future purchasing easier.
No data mining will be conducted on user data
to find correlations of purchases. I like the
efforts of Amazon to propose other products I
may be interested in -- but browsing and
suggesting is not the role of the proposed
company and associated portal. Other sites
can make these associations, inferences, and
suggestions.
(6) The proposed company will NEVER partner with other
companies.
A partnership either involves compromises or
is not balanced and mutually-beneficial.
Corporate acquisitions almost always compromise the
vision and ideals of the acquired companies --
otherwise, why not preserve the independence of
the companies?
An agreement between companies limits the freedom
of each participant company.
To maintain the integrity and principles of the
proposed company, it will not be formed with
partners and will never accept partners.
(7) The proposed company will not use any form of
Digital Rights Management (DRM).
(8) Refunds on all purchases limited to 30 days.
Most software stores do not offer refunds on
ANY purchases. Only exchanges for the identical
product is allowed in most cases (assuming the
CD/DVD is defective).
Offering a refund period frees the portal from
complaint in the event software doesn't work on
someone's computer, or has unacceptable
performance or bugs.
By limiting the refund period, cash can be
given to the developer on a monthly basis without
putting the portal company at risk of having
to pay refunds on its own.
It's tricky to differentiate between refund
requests based on actual technical and quality
complaints, and refund requests made in an
effort to acquire software for free. Perhaps
statistics for each product will be kept
for number of purchases and number of returns
and reasons for return (with checkbox for
platform). Perhaps customers will have stats
for number of purchases and number of returns.
One wants to avoid recording specific purchases,
and automatic banning from making future purchases
(given a streak of refund requests). It's a
tricky problem, where some fraction of unethical
consumers gets jumbled with some fraction of
products with compatibility problems.
(9) The proposed company will not accept products
from developers without working mailing addresses,
e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.
Each application offered by the portal will
have a developer name associated with it.
(If a developer changes names on a per-product
basis, all names and a link to a common developer
history and reputation will be provided.)
If an application is discovered to just be spyware,
or other form of virus, or just plain bad quality,
the developer can be held accountable.
The portal is not RESPONSIBLE for such things, and
does not PROMISE protection from malicious or buggy
applications. But a conscientious effort to
stop the distribution of an application that has
been established as being malicious or very broken
is, I think, acceptable.
I was tempted to launch a company and corresponding
web site to do all of this, since I think that
it's difficult for most people to attain the kind
of simplicity and integrity I am seeking. Even
large, reputable companies have banner ads and
pop-up windows! Many companies require Flash or
scripting to make their web pages work, and then
there is the temptation to make everything look cool.
No! The point is only to accept the credit card
information, verify, and handle the download.
Things like FilePlanet, etc, are really annoying
sites.
CROSBIE'S "DIGITAL ARTS AUCTION" SITE:
======================================
>>> www.digitalartauction.com
I wish you luck with your site, Crosbie, however the
mission of your site is too broad to appeal to me.
Also, the demeanor of your writing style is too informal
for a site to which I would submit credit card numbers
and personal information.
GENERAL THOUGHTS ON GAME SALES PORTAL:
======================================
A corporation and a corresponding site that simply
delivered on its core promises, and was largely without
its own character to interfere with the branding and
motifs of its various developer clients, would be
great -- and would generate its own following.
We don't hear about all of the companies that support
the infrastructure necessary for the conveniences of
daily life (for example, telephone bills don't have
logos of fiber optic and transistor manufacturers
all over them). A pizza parlor doesn't have a giant
"Powered by NCR Point-Of-Sale Systems!" sign in the
window.
Maybe there's an opportunity here.
Perhaps the design of the company could in a sense be
"open source", such that people edit a mission statement
and list of policies in an open fashion, like a virtual
board of directors. Thus, the company would be founded
on principals and an integrity that appealed to the
very people who would be interested in becoming clients.
I know Debian Linux has a mission statement that is
voted upon by developers according to some sort of
reputation system.
I think it's very important to be very up front about
all aspects of the company operation, like: (1) Who
is doing the data hosting? (2) Who is handling credit
card transactions? (3) How is customer data stored and
handled? (4) Who is running the company? (5) What are the
sales figures? (6) Having largely-unmoderated forums for
customer feedback (moderation only to eliminate spam
and to demote off-topic threads).
Creating a portal would be a win-win situation,
generating some income for the portal manager, and creating
income for independent developers who are not interested in
starting businesses and who are not capable of handling
credit card transactions and managing customer data.
One big bullet-point for the portal: Software acquired
from the portal comes directly from developers and is
thus far less likely to contain viruses -- unlike
cracked or hacked versions floating around on KaZaA,
DC, and other P2P file-sharing apps. Also, a portal
formalizes a method for rewarding software developers,
as opposed to random donations (via PayPal or micro-
payment methods).
MY IGNORANCE; PORTAL MAY EXIST ALREADY:
=======================================
For all I know I am describing an existing service,
like "iTunes", but for games. I'd actually be surprised
if something very close to what I want didn't already
exist -- but not extremely surprised, since there are
many ways to screw up the execution. Even little things,
like having a banner ad, greatly adulterate the web
experience in my mind... Anyhow, I'm just ignorant,
listing principles I'd like to see in such a service.
It's tempting to create the proposed portal company,
but it's also tempting to avoid distractions from the
fun of computer programming!
--- Colin
|
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-04-30 06:59:27
|
www.plimus.com www.esellerate.net both do exactly what you want www.swiftcd.com print on-demand cd's as your customer orders them, no up-front fees. it works for gamespy, we've been selling our game engine through these sites for 10 months now have been 100% rock-solid. no crap-ass publisher, no 'middle man'. the 10% ecommerce fee and that's it. no bs. cheers mike w www.realityfactory.ca > THE POSSIBILITY OF SELLING PC GAMES THROUGH A WEB PORTAL: > ========================================================= > > Anyhow, I have had a long love for the PC, and I wrote a game > engine and game design documents. It's just that piracy made > me wonder if I would even sell more than a single copy of a > game. I wrote to a few independent game developers selling > their games online, wondering if they were making money, and > the few who I asked said that sales were really low (but > downloads of demos were high). > > I contacted a game sales portal associated with > Prima Tech publishing (the publishers of the Andre LaMothe > edited series of game programming books, like "Focus on SDL", > "Focus on AI", "Beginning OpenGL Programming", etc). > (Sorry if I am confused about the relation or non-relation > of the game sales portal with the book publisher.) > Anyhow, the portal handled credit card payments, and spared > developers from the hassle of being a business, which I > thought was fantastic. But the web site wasn't very > classy (goofy, cartoonish motif, if I remember correctly), > and I wasn't sure if I would be proud to direct people > to the site for the purchasing phase of getting my product. > Also, I was concerned about the site's ability to deliver > bandwidth when serving my game download. > > I have seen similar efforts that turned me off. > > > Here's what I would like to see: > ================================ > > A company that would handle credit card transactions > and mail checks to developers on a monthly or quarterly > basis. > > The company would have a low-key domain name. > > The only purpose of the company's web site is to: > > (1) Present brief product information; > > (2) Accept and verify credit card information; > > (3) Handle the deployment of the application > to the consumer by download and > installation verification; > > (This requires having a reliable dedicated server > in a high-speed data center and plenty of monthly > bandwidth quote, on the order of 500 GB at least.) > > (4) Accept and forward correspondance regarding > product issues to the developer; > > So, for example, I could describe the product in > detail on my OWN web site, and then, when a visitor > is interested in buying the application, I have a > link to this hypothetical company's web site. This > hypothetical site would show a page with a brief > description of the application, > sufficient for the consumer to verify that this is > in fact the correct item, and then the consumer > advances to the payment information area. > > Just as important as what the proposed company would do > are the things the company would NOT do. Here are some > principles: > > > (1) The proposed company will NEVER do any external marketing, > or product promotion on the portal web site itself. > > No marketing will be purchased by the proposed > company on the behalf of developers (or on behalf > of the company itself, despite its own potential > benefit due to a percentage of sales). > > The purpose of the site is not to > elevate products relative to its peers on > the same site. This was the mistake of the > Verizon "deck" concept. No, let the burden > of marketing and reputation fall entirely > on developers, or alternate MARKETING web > sites! Let there be no "deck" concept that > artificially prioritizes (and thus essentially > influences) relative sales of products. > > The web portal would not have a "latest games" > section, or any sort of "Hot Titles" concept. > All titles are simply titles in a catalog. > Yes, "overwhelm" the customer with a million > titles. The point of the portal is not to > teach consumers about what is available, but > simply to connect an educated consumer's > money to a corresponding developer. > > > (2) The proposed company will NEVER give/lend any money to > developers to finance their projects. > > > Financing projects necessarily means making > choices about which projects are viable. > Also, given that investing money is a risk, > an investor typically wants a big return on > the investment -- to more than cover the > other project investments that may have failed. > > The fact that the proposed company would not > finance projects is hardly an obstacle for > game developers interested in seeking financing. > It's just not a function of the proposed company. > > The benefit is that the portal company does not > have any risk, and is not beholden to other > creditors, and thus can promise a long existence > and good terms for all clients (the developers). > > Gathering Of Developers (GOD) offered relatively > good royalty percentages back around the year > 1999 or 2000, but since GOD actually invested > money in games, and some games flopped, ALL > clients of GOD suffered when the company essentially > vanished. > > So, to assure the long-term survival of the proposed > company, and to maintain a low, flat percentage fee > for the service of selling products, the proposed > company would never invest in anything. > > > (3) The proposed company will NEVER pay for any form of > SELF-promotion (i.e., of the portal company itself). > > Many portal-like services promote themselves. > Although not entirely wacky, it does seem like > it can be avoided. > > If developers are responsible for maketing their > games (and the portal can list possible marketing > possibilities), then the portal has nothing to do > but actually handle the credit card transactions > and serve data. > > Services like "Napster", "iTunes", "Amazon", etc, > promote themselves because there is a large potential > for casual browsing on the sites themselves, leading > to spontaneous purchases. > > In fact, the proposed company does not preclude a > web site allowing casual browsing of games from > being created! The proposed company simply handles > the payment and delivery phases. > > > (4) The proposed company will NEVER impose any restrictions > on *content* that is legal. (NOTE: I am referring to > freedom of concepts, not freedom to offer applications > that are buggy or violate privacy or security.) > > Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Verizon all impose various > guidelines about application content and functionality. > For example, not that I'm complaining, but it is impossible > to buy and download a pornographic application for a > BREW phone with Verizon as the carrier. For many that > seems like a totally reasonable restriction, but other > restrictions are more subjective. > > Content restriction need not take the form of explicit > guidelines. For example, in the case of Verizon's > "deck", it might just be that Verizon doesn't think a > product is a "smash hit". That's all it takes to make > a game or application totally inaccessible to consumers! > So, if you wanted an application with rather limited > appeal, like a Klingon text translator, or a tiny > symbolic math engine (like Mathematica on a cell phone), > FORGET IT! (...unless you have a J2ME phone!) > > The proposed company is not itself concerned about > its reputation as a brand or "publisher" any more than > the phone company is worried about how "bad" phone > calls might make you think badly of telephone service. > An Internet Service Provider (ISP) does not build a > reputation on content of the Internet as a whole. > (Although it is true that AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, and > Google, profit on organizing access to the Internet, > and thus suffer the consequences of making the promise > of a sanitized or fair-and-balanced view of the > Internet.) > > Just as routers on the Internet don't judge data > content (in any high-level human sense), the proposed > company will almost be a non-entity -- just a bridge > linking a consumer to a product. > > > (5) The proposed company will NEVER send any e-mails to > customers (except optional receipts of purchases). > > The customer transaction begins and ends with > a single visit to the portal. > > Customer information can *optionally* be > put on file to make future purchasing easier. > > No data mining will be conducted on user data > to find correlations of purchases. I like the > efforts of Amazon to propose other products I > may be interested in -- but browsing and > suggesting is not the role of the proposed > company and associated portal. Other sites > can make these associations, inferences, and > suggestions. > > > (6) The proposed company will NEVER partner with other > companies. > > A partnership either involves compromises or > is not balanced and mutually-beneficial. > > Corporate acquisitions almost always compromise the > vision and ideals of the acquired companies -- > otherwise, why not preserve the independence of > the companies? > > An agreement between companies limits the freedom > of each participant company. > > To maintain the integrity and principles of the > proposed company, it will not be formed with > partners and will never accept partners. > > > (7) The proposed company will not use any form of > Digital Rights Management (DRM). > > > (8) Refunds on all purchases limited to 30 days. > > Most software stores do not offer refunds on > ANY purchases. Only exchanges for the identical > product is allowed in most cases (assuming the > CD/DVD is defective). > > Offering a refund period frees the portal from > complaint in the event software doesn't work on > someone's computer, or has unacceptable > performance or bugs. > > By limiting the refund period, cash can be > given to the developer on a monthly basis without > putting the portal company at risk of having > to pay refunds on its own. > > > It's tricky to differentiate between refund > requests based on actual technical and quality > complaints, and refund requests made in an > effort to acquire software for free. Perhaps > statistics for each product will be kept > for number of purchases and number of returns > and reasons for return (with checkbox for > platform). Perhaps customers will have stats > for number of purchases and number of returns. > One wants to avoid recording specific purchases, > and automatic banning from making future purchases > (given a streak of refund requests). It's a > tricky problem, where some fraction of unethical > consumers gets jumbled with some fraction of > products with compatibility problems. > > > (9) The proposed company will not accept products > from developers without working mailing addresses, > e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. > > Each application offered by the portal will > have a developer name associated with it. > (If a developer changes names on a per-product > basis, all names and a link to a common developer > history and reputation will be provided.) > > If an application is discovered to just be spyware, > or other form of virus, or just plain bad quality, > the developer can be held accountable. > > The portal is not RESPONSIBLE for such things, and > does not PROMISE protection from malicious or buggy > applications. But a conscientious effort to > stop the distribution of an application that has > been established as being malicious or very broken > is, I think, acceptable. > > > I was tempted to launch a company and corresponding > web site to do all of this, since I think that > it's difficult for most people to attain the kind > of simplicity and integrity I am seeking. Even > large, reputable companies have banner ads and > pop-up windows! Many companies require Flash or > scripting to make their web pages work, and then > there is the temptation to make everything look cool. > No! The point is only to accept the credit card > information, verify, and handle the download. > Things like FilePlanet, etc, are really annoying > sites. > > > CROSBIE'S "DIGITAL ARTS AUCTION" SITE: > ====================================== > > >>>>www.digitalartauction.com > > > I wish you luck with your site, Crosbie, however the > mission of your site is too broad to appeal to me. > Also, the demeanor of your writing style is too informal > for a site to which I would submit credit card numbers > and personal information. > > > GENERAL THOUGHTS ON GAME SALES PORTAL: > ====================================== > > A corporation and a corresponding site that simply > delivered on its core promises, and was largely without > its own character to interfere with the branding and > motifs of its various developer clients, would be > great -- and would generate its own following. > > We don't hear about all of the companies that support > the infrastructure necessary for the conveniences of > daily life (for example, telephone bills don't have > logos of fiber optic and transistor manufacturers > all over them). A pizza parlor doesn't have a giant > "Powered by NCR Point-Of-Sale Systems!" sign in the > window. > > > Maybe there's an opportunity here. > Perhaps the design of the company could in a sense be > "open source", such that people edit a mission statement > and list of policies in an open fashion, like a virtual > board of directors. Thus, the company would be founded > on principals and an integrity that appealed to the > very people who would be interested in becoming clients. > I know Debian Linux has a mission statement that is > voted upon by developers according to some sort of > reputation system. > > I think it's very important to be very up front about > all aspects of the company operation, like: (1) Who > is doing the data hosting? (2) Who is handling credit > card transactions? (3) How is customer data stored and > handled? (4) Who is running the company? (5) What are the > sales figures? (6) Having largely-unmoderated forums for > customer feedback (moderation only to eliminate spam > and to demote off-topic threads). > > Creating a portal would be a win-win situation, > generating some income for the portal manager, and creating > income for independent developers who are not interested in > starting businesses and who are not capable of handling > credit card transactions and managing customer data. > > One big bullet-point for the portal: Software acquired > from the portal comes directly from developers and is > thus far less likely to contain viruses -- unlike > cracked or hacked versions floating around on KaZaA, > DC, and other P2P file-sharing apps. Also, a portal > formalizes a method for rewarding software developers, > as opposed to random donations (via PayPal or micro- > payment methods). > > > MY IGNORANCE; PORTAL MAY EXIST ALREADY: > ======================================= > > For all I know I am describing an existing service, > like "iTunes", but for games. I'd actually be surprised > if something very close to what I want didn't already > exist -- but not extremely surprised, since there are > many ways to screw up the execution. Even little things, > like having a banner ad, greatly adulterate the web > experience in my mind... Anyhow, I'm just ignorant, > listing principles I'd like to see in such a service. > > It's tempting to create the proposed portal company, > but it's also tempting to avoid distractions from the > fun of computer programming! > > --- Colin > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g > Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. > Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > > |
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-04-30 07:09:35
|
the beauty of these providers is that they have ZERO affiliation/partnership with the game industry sure they provide services to the game industry (swiftcd fulfills cd's on demand for gamespy etc) but it is in their best interest to be 'unbiased' in respect to selling software i would definitely check out plimus at least - the storefront is customizeable and the whole system is VERY powerful. integrates with armadillo copy-protection and other serial generators for those of you that use copy protection in your games. mike w www.realityfactory.ca Mike Wuetherick wrote: > www.plimus.com > > www.esellerate.net > > both do exactly what you want > > www.swiftcd.com > > print on-demand cd's as your customer orders them, no up-front fees. > > it works for gamespy, we've been selling our game engine through these > sites for 10 months now have been 100% rock-solid. > > no crap-ass publisher, no 'middle man'. the 10% ecommerce fee and that's > it. no bs. > > cheers > mike w > www.realityfactory.ca > > >> THE POSSIBILITY OF SELLING PC GAMES THROUGH A WEB PORTAL: >> ========================================================= >> >> Anyhow, I have had a long love for the PC, and I wrote a game >> engine and game design documents. It's just that piracy made >> me wonder if I would even sell more than a single copy of a >> game. I wrote to a few independent game developers selling >> their games online, wondering if they were making money, and >> the few who I asked said that sales were really low (but >> downloads of demos were high). >> >> I contacted a game sales portal associated with Prima Tech publishing >> (the publishers of the Andre LaMothe edited series of game programming >> books, like "Focus on SDL", >> "Focus on AI", "Beginning OpenGL Programming", etc). >> (Sorry if I am confused about the relation or non-relation >> of the game sales portal with the book publisher.) >> Anyhow, the portal handled credit card payments, and spared >> developers from the hassle of being a business, which I >> thought was fantastic. But the web site wasn't very classy (goofy, >> cartoonish motif, if I remember correctly), >> and I wasn't sure if I would be proud to direct people >> to the site for the purchasing phase of getting my product. >> Also, I was concerned about the site's ability to deliver >> bandwidth when serving my game download. >> >> I have seen similar efforts that turned me off. >> >> >> Here's what I would like to see: >> ================================ >> >> A company that would handle credit card transactions >> and mail checks to developers on a monthly or quarterly >> basis. >> >> The company would have a low-key domain name. >> >> The only purpose of the company's web site is to: >> >> (1) Present brief product information; >> >> (2) Accept and verify credit card information; >> >> (3) Handle the deployment of the application >> to the consumer by download and installation >> verification; >> >> (This requires having a reliable dedicated server >> in a high-speed data center and plenty of monthly >> bandwidth quote, on the order of 500 GB at least.) >> >> (4) Accept and forward correspondance regarding >> product issues to the developer; >> >> So, for example, I could describe the product in detail on my OWN >> web site, and then, when a visitor >> is interested in buying the application, I have a >> link to this hypothetical company's web site. This hypothetical >> site would show a page with a brief description of the application, >> sufficient for the consumer to verify that this is >> in fact the correct item, and then the consumer advances to the >> payment information area. >> >> Just as important as what the proposed company would do >> are the things the company would NOT do. Here are some >> principles: >> >> >> (1) The proposed company will NEVER do any external marketing, >> or product promotion on the portal web site itself. >> >> No marketing will be purchased by the proposed >> company on the behalf of developers (or on behalf >> of the company itself, despite its own potential >> benefit due to a percentage of sales). >> >> The purpose of the site is not to >> elevate products relative to its peers on >> the same site. This was the mistake of the >> Verizon "deck" concept. No, let the burden >> of marketing and reputation fall entirely >> on developers, or alternate MARKETING web >> sites! Let there be no "deck" concept that >> artificially prioritizes (and thus essentially >> influences) relative sales of products. >> >> The web portal would not have a "latest games" >> section, or any sort of "Hot Titles" concept. >> All titles are simply titles in a catalog. >> Yes, "overwhelm" the customer with a million >> titles. The point of the portal is not to >> teach consumers about what is available, but >> simply to connect an educated consumer's money to >> a corresponding developer. >> >> >> (2) The proposed company will NEVER give/lend any money to >> developers to finance their projects. >> >> >> Financing projects necessarily means making >> choices about which projects are viable. >> Also, given that investing money is a risk, >> an investor typically wants a big return on >> the investment -- to more than cover the other >> project investments that may have failed. >> >> The fact that the proposed company would not >> finance projects is hardly an obstacle for game >> developers interested in seeking financing. >> It's just not a function of the proposed company. >> >> The benefit is that the portal company does not >> have any risk, and is not beholden to other >> creditors, and thus can promise a long existence >> and good terms for all clients (the developers). >> >> Gathering Of Developers (GOD) offered relatively >> good royalty percentages back around the year >> 1999 or 2000, but since GOD actually invested >> money in games, and some games flopped, ALL clients of GOD >> suffered when the company essentially >> vanished. >> >> So, to assure the long-term survival of the proposed >> company, and to maintain a low, flat percentage fee >> for the service of selling products, the proposed >> company would never invest in anything. >> >> >> (3) The proposed company will NEVER pay for any form of >> SELF-promotion (i.e., of the portal company itself). >> >> Many portal-like services promote themselves. >> Although not entirely wacky, it does seem like >> it can be avoided. >> >> If developers are responsible for maketing their >> games (and the portal can list possible marketing >> possibilities), then the portal has nothing to do >> but actually handle the credit card transactions >> and serve data. >> >> Services like "Napster", "iTunes", "Amazon", etc, >> promote themselves because there is a large potential >> for casual browsing on the sites themselves, leading >> to spontaneous purchases. >> >> In fact, the proposed company does not preclude a >> web site allowing casual browsing of games from >> being created! The proposed company simply handles >> the payment and delivery phases. >> >> >> (4) The proposed company will NEVER impose any restrictions >> on *content* that is legal. (NOTE: I am referring to >> freedom of concepts, not freedom to offer applications >> that are buggy or violate privacy or security.) >> >> Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Verizon all impose various >> guidelines about application content and functionality. >> For example, not that I'm complaining, but it is impossible >> to buy and download a pornographic application for a >> BREW phone with Verizon as the carrier. For many that >> seems like a totally reasonable restriction, but other >> restrictions are more subjective. >> >> Content restriction need not take the form of explicit >> guidelines. For example, in the case of Verizon's >> "deck", it might just be that Verizon doesn't think a >> product is a "smash hit". That's all it takes to make >> a game or application totally inaccessible to consumers! >> So, if you wanted an application with rather limited >> appeal, like a Klingon text translator, or a tiny >> symbolic math engine (like Mathematica on a cell phone), >> FORGET IT! (...unless you have a J2ME phone!) >> >> The proposed company is not itself concerned about >> its reputation as a brand or "publisher" any more than >> the phone company is worried about how "bad" phone >> calls might make you think badly of telephone service. >> An Internet Service Provider (ISP) does not build a >> reputation on content of the Internet as a whole. >> (Although it is true that AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, and >> Google, profit on organizing access to the Internet, >> and thus suffer the consequences of making the promise >> of a sanitized or fair-and-balanced view of the >> Internet.) >> >> Just as routers on the Internet don't judge data >> content (in any high-level human sense), the proposed >> company will almost be a non-entity -- just a bridge >> linking a consumer to a product. >> >> >> (5) The proposed company will NEVER send any e-mails to >> customers (except optional receipts of purchases). >> >> The customer transaction begins and ends with >> a single visit to the portal. >> >> Customer information can *optionally* be put on >> file to make future purchasing easier. >> >> No data mining will be conducted on user data >> to find correlations of purchases. I like the >> efforts of Amazon to propose other products I >> may be interested in -- but browsing and >> suggesting is not the role of the proposed company and >> associated portal. Other sites >> can make these associations, inferences, and >> suggestions. >> >> >> (6) The proposed company will NEVER partner with other >> companies. >> >> A partnership either involves compromises or >> is not balanced and mutually-beneficial. >> >> Corporate acquisitions almost always compromise the >> vision and ideals of the acquired companies -- >> otherwise, why not preserve the independence of >> the companies? >> >> An agreement between companies limits the freedom >> of each participant company. >> >> To maintain the integrity and principles of the >> proposed company, it will not be formed with partners and >> will never accept partners. >> >> >> (7) The proposed company will not use any form of >> Digital Rights Management (DRM). >> >> >> (8) Refunds on all purchases limited to 30 days. >> >> Most software stores do not offer refunds on >> ANY purchases. Only exchanges for the identical >> product is allowed in most cases (assuming the >> CD/DVD is defective). >> >> Offering a refund period frees the portal from >> complaint in the event software doesn't work on >> someone's computer, or has unacceptable >> performance or bugs. >> >> By limiting the refund period, cash can be given >> to the developer on a monthly basis without >> putting the portal company at risk of having >> to pay refunds on its own. >> >> It's tricky to differentiate between refund >> requests based on actual technical and quality >> complaints, and refund requests made in an >> effort to acquire software for free. Perhaps >> statistics for each product will be kept >> for number of purchases and number of returns >> and reasons for return (with checkbox for >> platform). Perhaps customers will have stats >> for number of purchases and number of returns. >> One wants to avoid recording specific purchases, >> and automatic banning from making future purchases >> (given a streak of refund requests). It's a >> tricky problem, where some fraction of unethical >> consumers gets jumbled with some fraction of >> products with compatibility problems. >> >> >> (9) The proposed company will not accept products from >> developers without working mailing addresses, >> e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. >> >> Each application offered by the portal will have a >> developer name associated with it. >> (If a developer changes names on a per-product >> basis, all names and a link to a common developer >> history and reputation will be provided.) >> >> If an application is discovered to just be spyware, >> or other form of virus, or just plain bad quality, >> the developer can be held accountable. >> >> The portal is not RESPONSIBLE for such things, and >> does not PROMISE protection from malicious or buggy >> applications. But a conscientious effort to stop >> the distribution of an application that has >> been established as being malicious or very broken >> is, I think, acceptable. >> >> >> I was tempted to launch a company and corresponding >> web site to do all of this, since I think that it's difficult for >> most people to attain the kind >> of simplicity and integrity I am seeking. Even large, reputable >> companies have banner ads and pop-up windows! Many companies >> require Flash or >> scripting to make their web pages work, and then >> there is the temptation to make everything look cool. >> No! The point is only to accept the credit card >> information, verify, and handle the download. >> Things like FilePlanet, etc, are really annoying >> sites. >> >> >> CROSBIE'S "DIGITAL ARTS AUCTION" SITE: >> ====================================== >> >> >>>>> www.digitalartauction.com >> >> >> >> I wish you luck with your site, Crosbie, however the >> mission of your site is too broad to appeal to me. >> Also, the demeanor of your writing style is too informal >> for a site to which I would submit credit card numbers >> and personal information. >> >> >> GENERAL THOUGHTS ON GAME SALES PORTAL: >> ====================================== >> >> A corporation and a corresponding site that simply delivered on >> its core promises, and was largely without >> its own character to interfere with the branding and >> motifs of its various developer clients, would be >> great -- and would generate its own following. >> >> We don't hear about all of the companies that support >> the infrastructure necessary for the conveniences of >> daily life (for example, telephone bills don't have >> logos of fiber optic and transistor manufacturers all over them). >> A pizza parlor doesn't have a giant >> "Powered by NCR Point-Of-Sale Systems!" sign in the window. >> >> Maybe there's an opportunity here. Perhaps the design of the >> company could in a sense be >> "open source", such that people edit a mission statement >> and list of policies in an open fashion, like a virtual >> board of directors. Thus, the company would be founded >> on principals and an integrity that appealed to the >> very people who would be interested in becoming clients. >> I know Debian Linux has a mission statement that is >> voted upon by developers according to some sort of reputation system. >> >> I think it's very important to be very up front about >> all aspects of the company operation, like: (1) Who >> is doing the data hosting? (2) Who is handling credit >> card transactions? (3) How is customer data stored and >> handled? (4) Who is running the company? (5) What are the >> sales figures? (6) Having largely-unmoderated forums for >> customer feedback (moderation only to eliminate spam >> and to demote off-topic threads). >> >> Creating a portal would be a win-win situation, generating some >> income for the portal manager, and creating >> income for independent developers who are not interested in >> starting businesses and who are not capable of handling >> credit card transactions and managing customer data. >> >> One big bullet-point for the portal: Software acquired >> from the portal comes directly from developers and is >> thus far less likely to contain viruses -- unlike cracked or >> hacked versions floating around on KaZaA, >> DC, and other P2P file-sharing apps. Also, a portal >> formalizes a method for rewarding software developers, >> as opposed to random donations (via PayPal or micro- >> payment methods). >> >> >> MY IGNORANCE; PORTAL MAY EXIST ALREADY: >> ======================================= >> >> For all I know I am describing an existing service, >> like "iTunes", but for games. I'd actually be surprised >> if something very close to what I want didn't already >> exist -- but not extremely surprised, since there are >> many ways to screw up the execution. Even little things, >> like having a banner ad, greatly adulterate the web >> experience in my mind... Anyhow, I'm just ignorant, >> listing principles I'd like to see in such a service. >> >> It's tempting to create the proposed portal company, >> but it's also tempting to avoid distractions from the >> fun of computer programming! >> >> --- Colin >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g >> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle >> 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. >> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click >> _______________________________________________ >> Gamedevlists-general mailing list >> Gam...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general >> Archives: >> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g > Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. > Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > > |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2004-04-30 09:05:28
|
> www.plimus.com > www.esellerate.net Fantastic! This world is not all crazy! Thanks, Mike, for pointing out those companies. Honestly, just seeing these sites, and seeing your comment ("we've been selling our game engine through these sites for 10 months now have been 100% rock-solid"), is like a breath of fresh air. Wow, I kind of wish I spent the past four months trying to bring a PC game to market instead of the BREW game with a giant question mark about whether or not I'll see a single penny for my efforts. My next game will be for the PC, that's for sure... Again, thank you for the links, Mike. As you say, "no crap-ass publisher, no 'middle man'. the 10% ecommerce fee and that's it. no bs." I'm amazed how closely those sites come to what I was imagining. Awesome. Not many things go in my anti-cynicism column, but this is definitely going to cancel out a lot of stuff in the other half of the karmic spreadsheet. --- Colin P.S.: However, don't you find the "Realtime-Spy" product featured on the home page of http://www.plimus.com to be a little creepy? :-) I guess the product description proves that this site is not biased about products they carry: Spytech Realtime-Spy is the latest in cutting-edge computer monitoring spy software technology that allows you to monitor ANY PC from ANYWHERE. Realtime-Spy is remotely deployable (no physical installation needed), and its activity logs are accessible from anywhere - regardless if the remote PC is online or not. Realtime-Spy logs all keystrokes, websites, applications ran, e-mails sent, and more. Claims like these make me chuckle. Why not just monitor the PCs of CEOs and make a killing on the stock market? I'm waiting for the day when everyone just watches everyone else, and it just confirms that we are all human beings. The product might as well be called "Spy on Yourself!" -- it would come with a mirror, an echo box so you would hear your own speech repeated moments later ("Real Time!"), and would include software that would monitor your keystrokes and even highlight/underline spelling errors in red and grammatical errors in green, and pop up an "Assistant" to even help you compose a letter...No, dammit, I'm not writing a letter! Go away!...Then you'll look in the supplied mirror and laugh at your victim, who is totally being spied upon, and being harassed and humiliated by automated spelling and grammar checking. Poor fool -- I see and hear everything he (or she) does, and I have total access to everything the guy (or girl) owns. Hee, hee! |
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-04-30 09:16:42
|
no prob, they've been our 'hidden secret' for a while ;} i do agree about the idea of a portal for indie games though - this is what i was trying to do with a publishing arm of our company (basically a front end for a plimus storefront), but being a 2 person company, we had to prioritize - and we chose to focus on our game engine (seeing as it's our main revenue source at this point). but i'd definitely say that the idea is a valid one judging from the responses we got when asking around about the feasibility of the project. maybe once the E3 madness dies down around here i'll have a spare moment to finish up the portal idea i was workin on - we have the domain for the concept (www.gamingzone.ca) - just have to clone myself a few times so i can finish getting the games online mike w www.realityfactory.ca Colin Fahey wrote: > >>www.plimus.com >>www.esellerate.net > > > Fantastic! This world is not all crazy! > > Thanks, Mike, for pointing out those companies. Honestly, just > seeing these sites, and seeing your comment ("we've been selling > our game engine through these sites for 10 months now have been > 100% rock-solid"), is like a breath of fresh air. > > Wow, I kind of wish I spent the past four months trying to > bring a PC game to market instead of the BREW game with a > giant question mark about whether or not I'll see a single > penny for my efforts. > > My next game will be for the PC, that's for sure... > > Again, thank you for the links, Mike. As you say, > "no crap-ass publisher, no 'middle man'. the 10% ecommerce > fee and that's it. no bs." I'm amazed how closely those > sites come to what I was imagining. > > Awesome. Not many things go in my anti-cynicism column, > but this is definitely going to cancel out a lot of stuff > in the other half of the karmic spreadsheet. > > --- Colin > > P.S.: > > However, don't you find the "Realtime-Spy" product featured > on the home page of http://www.plimus.com to be a little > creepy? :-) I guess the product description proves that > this site is not biased about products they carry: > > Spytech Realtime-Spy is the latest in cutting-edge > computer monitoring spy software technology that > allows you to monitor ANY PC from ANYWHERE. > Realtime-Spy is remotely deployable (no physical > installation needed), and its activity logs are > accessible from anywhere - regardless if the remote > PC is online or not. Realtime-Spy logs all keystrokes, > websites, applications ran, e-mails sent, and more. > > Claims like these make me chuckle. Why not just monitor > the PCs of CEOs and make a killing on the stock market? > > I'm waiting for the day when everyone just watches everyone > else, and it just confirms that we are all human beings. > The product might as well be called "Spy on Yourself!" -- > it would come with a mirror, an echo box so you would > hear your own speech repeated moments later ("Real Time!"), > and would include software that would monitor your keystrokes > and even highlight/underline spelling errors in red and > grammatical errors in green, and pop up an "Assistant" to > even help you compose a letter...No, dammit, I'm not writing > a letter! Go away!...Then you'll look in the supplied > mirror and laugh at your victim, who is totally being > spied upon, and being harassed and humiliated by automated > spelling and grammar checking. Poor fool -- I see and hear > everything he (or she) does, and I have total access to > everything the guy (or girl) owns. > > Hee, hee! > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g > Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. > Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > > |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2004-04-30 13:38:06
|
> www.esellerate.net I use esellerate.net for e-commerce and I've been very happy with them (especially after I went through a couple others with poor luck). Brian |
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-05-01 20:02:34
|
cool article on the hollywood report about online distribution and it's=20 use in the game industry. good read. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/tech_reporter_display.jsp?vn= u_content_id=3D1000501222 mike w Brian Hook wrote: >>www.esellerate.net >=20 >=20 > I use esellerate.net for e-commerce and I've been very happy with them=20 > (especially after I went through a couple others with poor luck). >=20 > Brian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g > Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g= .=20 > Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=8166&op=CCk > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU7 >=20 >=20 |
|
From: Brian H. <ho...@bo...> - 2004-05-19 15:04:46
|
I spent some time writing an essay trying to compare to the production= models of the movie and game industries and seeing where elements of the= former can apply to the latter. Forgive the fractured nature of some of= the structure, it's well over 7000 words and I got burned out on it on my= third revision. That said, some might like the comparison and contrast of= the two industries. http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDevelopment/GameandMovieProductionCom.= html |
|
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-04-30 07:04:09
|
> (8) Refunds on all purchases limited to 30 days. hate to tell you but for online credit card purchases it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent chargebacks. the billing company will NEVER side with you. they can't afford to or they lose their 'in' with visa/mastercard. most billing companies force you to pay the bs 'visa tax' that was recently imposed (as a result of the adult industry's abuse of credit card billing), but both plimus.com and esellerate.net do not charge you the $750 USD/year that other billing companies do and are very legit. > (9) The proposed company will not accept products > from developers without working mailing addresses, > e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. how would you propose getting your monthly check then? either way the billing companies i've mentioned will let you sign up and start taking purchases from day one, no bs. enjoy ;} mike w www.realityfactory.ca |
|
From: <ma...@ch...> - 2004-03-22 16:34:17
|
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Per Løvmo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but here goes....
>
> We need compress/uncompress functionality in our server/client
> communication.
The book "Small Memory Software", by James Noble and Charles Weir have
some good chapters on compression. You may find inspiration there.
Mads
--
Mads Bondo Dydensborg. ma...@ch...
Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your
life.
- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson for a
federal anti-smoking campaign.
|
|
From: tweety <mi...@sy...> - 2004-03-22 23:33:30
|
Use gz instead of bz2. it's faster ---------------------------------- Peace and love, Tweety mi...@sy... - twe...@us... YahooID: tweety_04_01 =20 -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...] On Behalf Of = Per L=F8vmo Sent: March 22, 2004 2:05 AM To: gam...@li... Subject: [GD-General] Compress/Uncompress Hi all, don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but here goes.... We need compress/uncompress functionality in our server/client communication.=20 I have integrated the bz2 compress/uncompress functionality in our communication so far, and are currently satisfied with it. The bz2 is freeware. I have run a few test cases and the compressing rate is very = good, approx 20-25% better than WinZip .on the few files I tested. The problem = is that it is more tan 5 times slower than WinZip, i.e., the performance is = not acceptable (?). Do you know any compress/uncompress software that can be used ? What is the performance of the Java compress/uncompress methods compared with WinZip? Best Regards Per "Happiness is a temporary chemical imbalance of the true state of mind" ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux = tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. = Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D1470&alloc_id=3D3638&op=3Dcli= ck _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D557 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X