Re: A89: Re: Perverted :)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: Perverted :)
The problem is that a few people start trying to charge for games, and next
thing you know, all games cost money, unless you want to play a cheap version
of "Pong 89". I would only pay for a calculator program if it was extremely
inexpensive ($5 MAX, for a TOTALLY AWESOME game) and it was something that I
really wanted- like an RPG that took hours to complete. However, when I can go
to Target and get Pokemon for $27, which takes about 50 hours to get to the
end, (Nevermind getting all the Pokemon), it's hard to justify spending money
on a program that just doesn't have potential to be anywhere near as cool as a
commercially-available game. Our biggest bottleneck is storage space- there's
not much to work with. Game Boy Color can read 64 MBit cartriges, while the
TI-89 has little more than 1/10 of 1 meg. While, yes, I might buy a really
super RPG or some kind of ingenious program for a couple dollars, just
remember that it's going to be really hard to make something that can even
compare to what's available, or what will be available on the Color Game Boy.
I won't even get into the greedy pigs that see some people making a few bucks
on ASM games, then go and make some piece of CRAP and try and sell it for more
money. Do you honestly think that in 1979 that anyone in the software industry
thought that in the future, a company named Microsoft would be selling, for
$90, and Operating System that's so bad that it could almost be considered a
virus?
In a message dated 12/4/98 10:51:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, shaggy@popi.net
writes:
> Nobody is saying that you will have to pay for a calculator game. You
> dont have to buy them if you dont want to. This whole Orginazation or
> comittee or whatever would not sell games it only selects few games to
> be "aproved" and if that programmer/group wants to sell it they can. I
> figure that if this comittee has a very high standard of excellence
> people will strive to make the best game possible for the calc. If we
> set the standards high enough I have no problem paying a few bucks to
> reward the programmers for a job well done.
> -McTwist
>
> TurboSoft@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 12/4/98 8:19:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, justin-
b@juno.
> com
> > writes:
> >
> > > The organization idea is very intriguing, but how will the reviewers be
> > > compensated for their efforts? Why might they work for free when the
> > > programmers whose games they are approving are making money? To
> account
> > > for this, I propose that any programmers submitting thieir games for
> > > approval should pay some sort of fee, but no more than $5 or $10.
Also,
>
> > > this committee shouldn't be greater than five people, who each review
> it
> > > based on a clear and meaningful definition of excellence.
> >
> > When people have to pay for games play on the calculator is the day that
l
> > quit.
> > --TurboSoft