Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!news.th-darmstadt.de!zib-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!doc.ic.ac.uk!cs.city.ac.uk!city!KingsX!bb500
From: bb500@city.ac.uk (BENJAMIN I D)
Subject: Re: IF Business venture?
Message-ID: <bb500.766772096@KingsX>
Sender: news@city.ac.uk (Unix Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: kingsx
Organization: The City University
References: <2ok6mgINN23q@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Apr 94 16:14:56 GMT
Lines: 53

bnewell@delphi.com (Bob Newell) writes:

>>First of all, your example is not a useful data point.  You have no idea
>>how much money you would have gotten had you made the game shareware.
>>Perhaps you, like Graham Cluley, would have gotten thousands of
>>registrations for your text adventure.  I'm all too familiar with this: I

>Is this a fact?  Did Humbug and J.Jim do THAT well?  Never would have
>imagined it.....fine games, mind you, but THOUSANDS of registrations?

>>Second, despite the feeling or moral superiority you may get from the
>>decision, I think making things free or shareware hurts you in the long
>>run.  In the 7 or so years I've been writing and releasing computer games
>>on the net, I've noticed that people (perhaps subconsciously) equate
>>"free/shareware" with "less than commercial quality".  A side effect of
>>this is that many people will dismiss your game out of hand without even
>>downloading it.

>If this is true, it's unfortunate.  The best of freeware, the best of
>shareware, and the best commercial stuff is all quite good.  Each category
>has its losers, too.  Commercial is no exception.

>I've released a certain amount of freeware and have seen it propagate to BBS
>and CD collections all over the place.  Of course I have no idea how it was
>received since there is no feedback..it's free, after all.  Had it been NOT
>free I doubt if it would have made much, though.  In fact, how much true
>shareware does well at all?  How well did UU1 and UU2 fare?  I suspect it
>fell short of thousands of registrations.  And not for lack of quality.

>>How many times have you heard the phrase "it's great ... for a shareware
>>game"?  In other words, "shareware games generally suck, which is why I'm
>>doubly impressed with this particular game".  I don't think you want that
>>stigma on top of the already severe text-only "problem".

>Isn't the text-only problem a lot larger than the shareware problem?
>
>>Final example: try getting a major magazine to review a shareware or
>>freeware program (in a real review, not in the cheesy "shareware picks"

>I wonder if this is linked more to paid advertising?

And etc.
Surely DOOM is a perfect example of commercial shareware making good -
especially considering the pedigree (Wolfenstein et al). I agree - the text
only problem is the killer, esp. as the visuals takeover. The answer is
shareware graphic game editors, like the kind of thing being cobbled together
to manipulate the DOOM engine. At the moment, the limited interaction (move,
take, shoot, kill, die) is well behind text-based IF - but for how long....?

Ivor Benjamin
Centre for HCID
City Uni.
London UK
