Re: A89: Re: Perverted :)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: Perverted :)
Ok you are very right. The reviewing process should not be a service.
People would definatly look at it in the wrong way. But i think some
money for the "process" would be needed for the committee's overall
survival. I have no problem with people selling their games themselves
but i think if this comittee is set people will feel more secure buying a
game that has a seal on it that they trust.
-McTwist
Justin M Bosch wrote:
>
> > And most of I agree on your idea of a definition of excellence. I
> >think
> >they should have a written code of excellence and requirements that
> >games
> >must pass before they can be sold.
> > -McTwist
>
> When you say not sold, you do mean without a "seal of approval", not
> completely banned from being sold, right? It would be very difficult to
> prevent someone from selling a game! And of course, some people might
> totally forgo the review system, if they believe their games are good
> enough to sell themselves. One important thing is that the review system
> should not be marketed as a service, but instead as a process. If it
> seen as a service, people might look at it the wrong way, such that the
> reviewers are involved for financial purposes. And obviously, five
> reviewers writing detailed critiques for $1-$2 each are probably not in
> it for the money.
>
> Justin Bosch
> justin-b@juno.com
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
References: