🚀 go-pugleaf

Original to: dmb@xbar.ai.mit.edu
[Firstly I'd just like to register a vote of minor annoyance at this thread
-to me it seems dave has been badgered into a posture he is not really
comfortable defending wrt 'machine superiority'.  

I'd just like to point out that I have a great deal of respect for his (your
8) abilities & skills - despite feeling that you may be short on hard data
in  a few places.]

In a message of <06 Dec 1992 17:01:0>, dmb@xbar.ai.mit.edu (3:713/602)
writes:

[...stuff...]

 d> 3) DC's going bankrupt made it awfully hard for GW to come out, eh?
 d> It needs a ~500 manual.  It needs good user support.  Or have you
 d> totally failed to make the connection between GW's not coming out
 d> and my frustration with an Atari community that just wants to grub
 d> up DC's software for free now that they've gone under?
 d> 
 d> 4) GW is real and some people reading this group have used it
 d> extensively.  (You've already read a post that gave a first-hand
 d> account.)  You may not ever use it yourself, but that will only be
 d> because the market you defend like a religion isn't healthy enough
 d> to support a several hundred dollar development tool any more, and
 d> I'll be damned if you get 4+ years of my work for free given the
 d> kind of backstabbing "milk the developers for all their worth and
 d> them bust 'em in the chops" attitude I've seen here lately.

This is the first real indication we (I??) have seen of the size & scale of
the GW -and to be honest it saddens me a little. 

Not that you have produced a lemon - quite the opposite - I fear you may
have created a product vastly too large for, what I see anyway as, your
market.

Most of the people I know of who have expressed interest in writing games,
and who had far and away the best & most original ideas, were teenagers or
in their early to mid 20's.  Old enough to understand C, but not enough to
have the sort of financial footing required for such a comprehensive
package.

As a "highly placed" (*giggle*) 'official' in the local atari user group,
I've been approached by several young (hey, my age, okay? 8) programmers who
have asked about the existence of a toolset like the GW.  I have told them
what I knew - and listened to their ideas.

Now, I know for a fact that they wouldn't be able to afford the GW.  They
might not be able to produce all of the necessary glue code - but there are
others like myself that they know, with zero imagination but good
problem-solving skills, who could.

People like that would be a perfect target for the GW... except that they
cannot afford it.

And, understandably, you couldn't afford to sell it to them for what they
could pay - hence my sorrow.

Thus, I pray that some software house, one that might actually still be
bothering with the atari, may licence GW from you and earn you some of what
it owes you.

 d> 5) You've "seen and heard how many people want to get their hands on
 d> [Game Workench]."  OK, do you think they're willing to pay the
 d> several hundred dollars it's worth to "get their hands on it?"  If
 d> not, then this overwhelming demand you cite is utterly uninteresting.

Not so much willing, but capable.  One guy I know of has been trying to find
a platform supporting such a toolset to write his 'killer game' on.
(personally I think the idea sucks, but then it's amazing what people will
buy... 8)  To my knowledge, he is still looking.

 d> Dave Baggett

(thanks for the input)

\`miff`                                                       /|\

--- ScanMail 0.68 X0501
 * Origin: That Which Is Not, ST in SA. 61-8-232-5722 (3:800/842)