PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
GamerX, 3000AD and the corrupt web hack
October 13th 2000, 00:04 CEST by andy

Bit of a weird one, this...

Earlier this week, 3000AD announced that people could sign up for a new round of Battle Cruiser beta testing. There were a few weird stipulations, such as having to pay $15 for what was described as "try before you buy shareware". This prompted CNET's GamerX to post a little rant, looking at "the most outrageous parts" of the release and poking fun at them. And then...



The honourable, honest, widely respected and not-at-all-loopy Derek Smart of 3000AD dropped me a line today, suggesting that I post a topic about the GamerX rant. He also asked if he could write some "opening statements" for the topic, presumably to give his side of the story. I told him sure, I'd post the topic, my only request being that he keep his comments reasonably brief. (Hey, if he rambled on like he often does then some people wouldn't read the topic properly and they'd get the wrong idea, and I'd be the one who got flamed. It was a fair request.)

But -- and here's where it gets weird -- after a bit of an exchange, Derek told me "I'm not sending you shit". Why? Because I wouldn't tell him who writes the GamerX column. Apparently that meant I had "decided to impose conditions" on the topic, which he felt was "quite questionable and unethical".

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but here's the topic.

(And to avoid the inevitable 100+ posts of flames and assumptions, Derek has permission to post all of my e-mails related to this topic if he thinks I've not been honest about what was said. That should shut him up.)

Update: Derek has posted some comments about the GamerX column on the 3000AD web site.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: GamerX, 3000AD and the corrupt web hack

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-10-13 00:08:39
sbauman@cdmag.com http://www.cdmag.com
Hmm, why does it matter who writes the column? If he has a problem, it's with Gamecenter regardless who the author of the piece is.
#2 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-10-13 00:11:02
sbauman@cdmag.com http://www.cdmag.com
Oh, and I should point out that I hate anonymous columns. Not that it matters, but still... c'mon, "Gamer X?" Ick.
#3 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-10-13 00:13:10
sbauman@cdmag.com http://www.cdmag.com
Oh, and I should further point out that the "ick" was referencing anonymously written columns, not the "Gamer X" column specifically. I don't read it with any regularity, but it if were written by Fred Smith, I'd consider it more, I dunno, credible or something.

Oh, and "first", "second" and "third." So there.
#4 by "!woopie!"
2000-10-13 00:13:46
I think game-x must be speed gamer's long lost borther!
#5 by "!woopie!"
2000-10-13 00:14:17
wow I CAN type.

MAVIS BEACON SAVE ME!
#6 by "narayan"
2000-10-13 00:31:23
nope@noway.com
check out

http://www.3000ad.com/soapbox/index.shtml

for smart's soapbox reply
#7 by "Dethstryk"
2000-10-13 00:33:04
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
Andy, do you know who Gamer X is? This just seems a little bit too.. humorous.


--
Dethstryk
#8 by "Kevin"
2000-10-13 00:35:08
*UPDATE*

Derek Smarty Man himself posted a new soapbox rant about the GamerX article in question.

http://www.3000ad.com/soapbox/index.shtml
#9 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-10-13 00:36:08
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net
Well, since the beta is being distributed on CDs (due to it's size) you should add the cost of the CD itself plus shipping, and you get something close to 15$. Maybe 10, but it is close. Of course, company could pay that - people are testing their game afterall. But maybe BC has a forgiving and dedicated community which is happy to help their developer? I have no idea...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "Todd G."
2000-10-13 00:46:13
toddg@ftel.net
While I believe Derek Smart is being clear in indicating that this is a pay-to-be-a-beta-tester product for sale, I simply wouldn't call it "shareware".  Shareware is meant to be free and openly distributed.  At most you'd maybe have to pay around $5 for a shareware item to cover packaging, etc,  which is not meant to directly lead to profits.  $15 is steep for shareware!  And in Derek Smart's response to C:Net he says

<quote>
Apparently he has forgotten the concept that shareware is.
</quote>

I was under the impression that shareware is a relativly free (and finished) preview which I am free to pass around at my own will.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Mark Asher"
2000-10-13 00:55:40
marka@cdmnet.com
I think Gamer X is just a 'nym for whatever CNET writer feels like rantng a bit.
#12 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 01:04:08
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
I think Derek Smart is just a 'nym for a conglomerate of manic-depressive usenet fiends.
#13 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 01:18:52
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
Andy, thats rubbish. Here is what you said

<b>YOU:</b>
<quote>
Can you keep the opening statements reasonably brief? No offence, but if you
write a whole essay on the subject then people won't bother reading it, and
ultimately I'm the one who will get flamed.

BTW, you know who wrote that GamerX column, don't you?
</quote>

<b>ME:</b>
<quote>
Sure thing. When do you need it by?

No, I've heard rumours. who? (I'll keep this info confidential)

</quote>

<b>YOU:</b>
<quote>
Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the
topic about who GamerX is. :-)
</quote>

<b>ME:</b>
<quote>
No. Tell me first. I don't have time for your controversial bullshit. I can
do that quite well on my own, without your help, thanks. :-)
</quote>

<b>YOU:</b>
<quote>
Derek, if you want me to include your comments in the topic, please send
them.
</quote>

<b>ME:</b>
<quote>
I'm not sending you shit. Am posting it elsewhere.
</quote>

<b>YOU:</b>
<quote>
Okay, please don't waste my time in future.
</quote>

<b>ME:</b>
<quote>
Look whose talking. I asked you a question, you decided to impose conditions
instead of answering my question. That is quite questionable and unethical, you jackass.
</quote>

By the time of your unethical email response, I was already doing the soapbox article. When I finished it, I sent it out to everyone in my press address book - which you happened to be in, which is how you even knew it was up, in order for you to link it in your opening statements in this topic.

Andy, Andy, Andy. You <b>never</b> cease to amaze me, you know that?








<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 01:19:30
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#1</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote...
<QUOTE>Hmm, why does it matter who writes the column? If he has a problem, it's with Gamecenter regardless who the author of the piece is. </QUOTE>

Exactly.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 01:22:20
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#10</b> "Todd G." wrote...
<QUOTE>$15 is steep for shareware! </QUOTE>

Yes, but when was the last time you saw commercial grade gaming shareware? Further, I have to pay for the billing and fulfillment costs. And if you read my post closely, you will see that a portion of that $15 is credited toward the final product purchase. I urge you to do the math.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 01:34:08
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
If what Derek posted is an actual transcript of the exchange between him and Andy... well then Andy really misrepresented what occurred.

Andy, did you really dangle GamerX's identity in front of Derek in exchange for his comments?

IF that's true, I don't think it's unethical, but neither is Derek's decision not to send you comments for this topic the result of some totally unexplicable mood swing.
#17 by "Nightcloud"
2000-10-13 01:36:08
mimirjohnd@yahoo.com http://idonthaveaurl.com
Ok I read the article and the topic and I still do not understand why it is a priveledge for any type of gamer, whether they are a part of your community or some guy who sees info about your game on a news site, to pay to play the game for beta testing purposes.

You explain that the money is to covery operation costs that is later on applied towards the purchase of the final copy.  You also explain that the goal was never to create an open beta test.  The problem is, you are acting on the assumption that every tester will like the game they are testing.

If a tester does not wish to purchase the game then they are stuck going through channels to get their money back.
#18 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 01:38:09
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#13</b>, Derek Smart:
<QUOTE>
Andy, thats rubbish. Here is what you said
</QUOTE>
Thanks for posting the e-mails. People can now see for themselves that what I said in the topic was accurate.
<QUOTE>
By the time of your unethical email response, I was already doing the soapbox article.
</QUOTE>
Explain why it's unethical not to tell you who wrote the column.
<QUOTE>
When I finished it, I sent it out to everyone in my press address book - which you happened to be in, which is how you even knew it was up, in order for you to link it in your opening statements in this topic.
</QUOTE>
It was linked at the end of the topic, in an update posted later.
#19 by "None-1a"
2000-10-13 01:40:02
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#15</b> "Derek Smart" wrote...
<QUOTE>Yes, but when was the last time you saw commercial grade gaming shareware? </QUOTE>

Derek just one question if say some one where to get the beta and give it to some one else as well would you mind? Calling it shareware is asking for this to happen (and for it to show up on every warez site with in a week).

O yeah if the GamerX stuff about the NDA is ture I think your lawyer is buying booze rather the building a deck.
--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 01:43:15
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#16</b>, Illbuddha:
<QUOTE>
Andy, did you really dangle GamerX's identity in front of Derek in exchange for his comments?
</QUOTE>
Huh? No!

Derek wrote to me and *asked* me to post his comments. (He didn't quote that e-mail for some reason.) I said I'd post them.
#21 by "ThePaladin"
2000-10-13 01:45:44
TheTiger15@aol.com
Just as a background, I actually played V1.7 (I think...I know it wasn't 2.0), and I thought it was very good....for freeware/shareware. Onto the main topic:

Mr. Smart, as a beta tester, I am appaled. beta testing is a service good testers render. We sit through hours of manipulating and mutilating the software, sifting through source code (if we're given), and then spend time writing up a detailed bug report, so you can fix your software. Now, I admit, beta testing games may be fun, but we do render you a service, and we should not have to pay you for that service.


-"Butt Kicking for Goodness!"
(Minsc in <i>Baldur's Gate</i>)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 01:47:15
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
Oops, I just noticed that Derek misquoted one of my e-mails.

When he said this:
<quote>
Sure thing. When do you need it by?
</quote>
I replied:
<quote>
As soon as you want to send it.
</quote>
He missed that bit out.

The way Derek quoted it, I can see why Illbuddha got the wrong impression.
#23 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-10-13 01:58:22
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
<b>#20</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE><quote>
Andy, did you really dangle GamerX's identity in front of Derek in exchange for his comments?
</quote>
Huh? No!</QUOTE>
OK, but assuming you actually said this, how are we supposed to interpret:

<quote>Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the topic about who GamerX is. :-) </quote>
It reads to me like you were offering to drop a hint to the identity of GamerX if he sent you the intro.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:04:04
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#19</b> "None-1a" wrote...
<QUOTE>Derek just one question if say some one where to get the beta and give it to some one else as well would you mind? Calling it shareware is asking for this to happen (and for it to show up on every warez site with in a week). </quote>

I didn't say it was shareware. Here is what I said and perhaps my statement is
cloudy? <i>"If this sounds familiar, it is. Back to the good old days of try before you buy shareware"</i>

Now you know why I had section 11 put in the NDA. Further, the issue of Warez (<i>yes, I know, you can't beat them all</i>) are the reasons I'm doing a security CD-ROM. I don't want to cripple the Beta in any way, because people are going to be paying for it. For that, I could just do a demo, couldn't I?

<quote>O yeah if the GamerX stuff about the NDA is ture I think your lawyer is buying booze rather the building a deck. </QUOTE>

LOL!! Nah, its rubbish really. While I may not be the best there is at grammer or any such writings, I would immediately see that the name of my product has the incorrect spelling. I mean, c'mon. Even that Russian site that I sent exclusive shots to the other day, had <i>Millenium</i> and I had them then change it, which led to them changing the entire URL. Everyone knows that I don't take stuff like that lightly. So, it would be ludicrous to assume that I would allow the name of the product, in the first few paragraphs, to have the incorrect spelling.

And for the record, I asked Andy to open up a topic here, so that I could get a general feeling for what you guys thought, seeing that press, gamers and developers, also came here. Had the topic been opened, I wouldn't have wasted my time on a soapbox. I didn't like the tone of Andy's (<i>that rat bastard</i>) response, so I pretty much told him to go fuck himself. Hence the sarcastic comments you see him making in the topic...which in fact, he ended up opening anyway. But then again, thats Andy, ain't it?


<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 02:05:55
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
Ok. Let me get this straight:

Derek asks when you need the comments and you say:

<QUOTE>As soon as you want to send it.</QUOTE>

while Derek claims you said:

<QUOTE>Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the
topic about who GamerX is. :-)</QUOTE>

That's not misquoting... that's an outright lie.

It's not really that hard for me to believe that Derek would make something like that up, but imagine my face like Spock's, with one eyebrow raised.
#26 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:07:24
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#20</b> "Andy" wrote...

<quote>
Huh? No! </quote>

Yes you did, you liar. How can your email possibly be open to misinterpretation? Why do you think I was pissed and decided to do the soapbox?

<quote>
Derek wrote to me and *asked* me to post his comments. (He didn't quote that e-mail for some reason.) I said I'd post them. </QUOTE>

I must have forgotten that one. Here it is:

<quote>
Hi Andy

you've probably seen my Beta announcement at www.3000ad.com/gnn/index.shtml

and probably not this: www.gamecenter.com/Opinions/Gamerx/101100/?st.gc.fd..gx

Is it possible to open a topic on this, with opening statements from me?

Thanks</quote>

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "Chris Johnson"
2000-10-13 02:08:00
Derek:
<quote>Yes, but when was the last time you saw commercial grade gaming shareware? </quote>

Well the purpose of shareware is to see it before putting a cent on it, in the hopes that it will be professional grade to the prospective buyer (see Quake, Duke3d, Wolf3d, etc etc etc ofr examples)  

In this case, we're (well the people whoa re spending the money, not me personally) sending in 15 bucks sight unseen except for some screenshots basically.  It's not exactly the same thing.  

If this were shareware, professional grade or not, we'd actually get some taste of it before shelling out.  In this case, we're supposed to take your word for it that it is pro stuff.  And I personally am too damn cynical to take anyone at face value when it's my greenbacks in the lurch.

Andy:

Regardless of whether ot not Derek left out the part of you saying "As soon as you want to send it" you DO say hey, send me this and I'll tellyou who it is.  That's dangling a bit of a carrot out there to get your exclusive comments.  Perhaps not unethical, but you certainly aren't pristene and squeaky-clean on this either.

As for Derek having a hissy-fit about it.  Eh.  I mean, he was going to find out who wrote it anyways (if you do actually know who it was, and weren't just blowing smoke in order to get a response), so I don't see why he was so worried anyways.

In any event, the author him/herself shouldn't matter, except that whole being an anonymous person thing.  You'd expect something a slight bit above Evil Avatard "journalism" on Gamecenter, or so you'd think.

By the way Andy, do you actually know who it was or was that just a smokescreen?  Derek HAS made a rebuttal, and he notified you of it.  So are yougoing to reveal your amazing knowledge of the author, or was that just a load of crap?

(And though that sounds harsh, it's not really intended to be so much.  I just have little patience for games of this sort)
#28 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:10:54
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#21</b> "ThePaladin" wrote...
<QUOTE>Mr. Smart, as a beta tester, I am appaled. beta testing is a service good testers render. We sit through hours of manipulating and mutilating the software, sifting through source code (if we're given), and then spend time writing up a detailed bug report, so you can fix your software. Now, I admit, beta testing games may be fun, but we do render you a service, and we should not have to pay you for that service.
</QUOTE>

Ah yes, but I <b>have</b> my own testers. My Beta test app is invitation to those who want to get in on the product and not have to wait. They are under <b>no</b> obligation to test. I quote from the private Beta forum.

<quote>
The way I see it, not everyone has to be part of a Beta test team, after all, most are paying their $15 for the CD-ROM for the priviledge of actually getting in early and are NOT bound by ANY obligation to do ANYTHING.
That said, testing, reporting, being part of the testing effort, is strictly by volunteer only.

And if someone who is not part of any testing group finds something that is not in the currently logged list (we will maintain a database of known issues on the Beta Test Home page bulletin area), they can make us aware of it by posting here. Then, someone who is part of the stringent testing effort can investigate and go from there.

As far as what areas need to be testing, right now, I can tell you for free that it will be mostly graphics and drivers related.

Because BCM is predominantly freeform and am not likely to even release an ACM campaign for it until sometime in Jan 2001, gameplay testing would be restricted to the game's many, many computer systems. In fact, I was going to upgrade the 20 ACM missions from BC3K v2.0 and enable them in the Beta, but am not going to because it will just cause more destractions during the testing phase.

When the multiplayer test is released sometime in the Nov/Dec timeframe (depending on the Microsoft release schedule for their DX8 drivers), the focus will be on multiplayer performance over the Internet or LAN and from all parts of the world (which is why I have been approving applicants geographically).

Testing means looking for bugs, not looking for something that you think should work a certain way. e.g. the first report I see that the flight model is not accurate, I'm kicking the person who reported it and the person who logged it, off the Beta program. No questions asked. No exceptions.
</quote>

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:12:02
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#23</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote...
<QUOTE>It reads to me like you were offering to drop a hint to the identity of GamerX if he sent you the intro.
</QUOTE>

And just to <b>confirm</b> that this was his intent, do you see anything in his opening comments as to the identity of Gamer-X? Nope.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:13:14
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#25</b> "Illbuddha" wrote...
<QUOTE>Ok. Let me get this straight:

It's not really that hard for me to believe that Derek would make something like that up, but imagine my face like Spock's, with one eyebrow raised.

</QUOTE>

You <b>still</b> didn't get it straight, fool. Do try to keep up.


<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-10-13 02:13:29
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
<b>#14</b> "Derek Smart" wrote...
<QUOTE>Exactly. </QUOTE>
I do have a question for you. In your response on your site, you say:

<quote>He further goes on to talk about people who paid me $50 to Beta test my first game. He is obviously (a) talking about the original 1996 Take 2 fiasco, for which I was NOT paid any royalties - and further, the gamers paid Take 2 and Gametek, not 3000AD.</quote>
OK, so you didn't get any royalty payments. Was the game entirely self-funded or were you given an advance (or advances) from Take 2 to complete the game?

If it's the latter, then it's not entirely accurate to say gamers didn't give you money, since their purchases of your game, or other Take 2 games, put them in a position to pay you that advance. I'm sure in a bookkeeping sense, their purchase of Battlecruiser offset Take 2's advance payment.

(I realize you mention something about being independent and self-funded, but I can't tell if the "development funding" you're referring to is Battlecruiser Millennium or the original game.)

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:14:43
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#27</b> "Chris Johnson" wrote...
<QUOTE>If this were shareware, professional grade or not, we'd actually get some taste of it before shelling out. In this case, we're supposed to take your word for it that it is pro stuff. And I personally am too damn cynical to take anyone at face value when it's my greenbacks in the lurch.
</QUOTE>

I see your point and I agree. So, shareware is the incorrect terminology then? At any rate, the invite and the NDA, are both clear as to the premise of the release. Terminology or not.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 02:17:25
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
Derek,

You're the fool. I'm trying to get Andy's story straight. Your position is always perfectly clear: from atop Smart mountain the view is perfect.
#34 by "BloodKnight"
2000-10-13 02:17:58
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
Derek, I don't think you ever been a beta tester before.  I beta test Tactical Ops for UT and for the record, it's a pain in the ass.  I would have to check every little setting, from time limit to switching weapons.  I also have a detailed bug list for the mod.  When a new version comes out internally, I would have to recheck all my bugs to see what lives and what doesn't, then find new bugs.  I been doing this for quite a few months, and I believe that 15 bucks seems to be a rip from the services you get in return.  I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of people just play for a free preview

In the postive note, I am quite interested in how this BC will come out in the end
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 02:19:00
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
Oh now this is too damn funny!

Derek *asked* me to include his comments.

Why would I try to bribe him?
#36 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 02:20:13
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
It's pretty simple here Andy.

Did you or did you not write:

<QUOTE>Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the
topic about who GamerX is. :-)</QUOTE>
#37 by "Dark Messiah"
2000-10-13 02:22:11
Sabre17394@aol.com http://www.opnation.com
Yay, more unwanted backstage info from PlanetCrap... Sorry, but I'm getting semi-tired of this.

-Dark Messiah
#38 by "crash"
2000-10-13 02:22:36
crash@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<i>#include "disclaimer.h"</i>

<quote>LOL!! Nah, its rubbish really. While I may not be the best there is at grammer or any such writings, I would immediately see that the name of my product has the incorrect spelling.... Everyone knows that I don't take stuff like that lightly. So, it would be ludicrous to assume that I would allow the name of the product, in the first few paragraphs, to have the incorrect spelling.</quote>
nice dance. no outright lies, but deceptive in the extreme. well done.

the fact is this:

at the time that piece was posted, the text in the NDA was as quoted in the article in question, and was since changed. that's a statement of fact. not a dance, not an "everyone knows", not a "ludicrous to assume". fact. the misspelling was as quoted when the piece was posted at 4.30pm PST, october 11th, 2000.

on a side note, it's also ludicrous to assume anyone would publicly claim credentials they don't have. everyone knows that if someone says they have certain creds, well then, by gum, they do. right?

and to quote Forrest Gump: "And that's all I have to say about that."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "BloodKnight"
2000-10-13 02:26:18
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
"I spent a lot of time in arcades in the '80s: I played Gauntlet for over 27 hours straight. I managed to lock up a Robotron 2084 machine because I had too many extra lives. 720 nearly gave me carpal tunnel (and definitely gave me blisters), and Major Havoc is an unappreciated classic. Friends refuse to play Capcom fighting games with me. I developed a thick callus on my right hand from trackball games. The first time I swore aloud was at a Roadblasters machine. I made friends with a neighborhood kid just because his dad owned a Tempest standup. The first time I heard "Peter Gunn," I said, "It's the theme from Spy Hunter!" I was the one that explained what a "palette swap" character was to people in arcades. Dragon's Lair knocked me flat on my ass when I first saw it; since I worked in an arcade at the time, I opened the cabinet after hours, hooked a VCR right to the laser disc player, and dumped the entire disc to tape. Did it with Space Ace as well. I still have the tape."

-Gamer X
Behind the Mask



Is it more or this guy is full of it?
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "ThePaladin"
2000-10-13 02:26:28
TheTiger15@aol.com
<b>#28</b> "Derek Smart" wrote...
<QUOTE>Ah yes, but I have my own testers. My Beta test app is invitation to those who want to get in on the product and not have to wait. They are under no obligation to test. I quote from the private Beta forum</QUOTE>

OK, you post for beta testers, but you really don't want beta testers? Is anyone else here confused, or am I just stupid? If you already had beta testers, why did you open it up to the public in the first place? Just keep it private!

<b>-"Butt Kicking for Goodness!" </b><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#41 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:26:31
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#31</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote...
<QUOTE>OK, so you didn't get any royalty payments. Was the game entirely self-funded or were you given an advance (or advances) from Take 2 to complete the game?
</QUOTE>

It was and always was, self-funded. While Take2 did pay expenses, especially when they had me go up to Latrobe, they were mostly non-recoupable. Further, like most indie developers who have worked with Take2, I never, ever saw a royalty statement. Ever. As to the nature of Take2's expenditure, here is their, a tad inaccurate, SEC filing about a year later. Most of their expenditure was in marketing, licensing fees (<i>they bought the rights from Mission Studios</i>) etc, all of which I was liable for.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/946581/0000891554-98-000123.txt

<quote>
If it's the latter, then it's not entirely accurate to say gamers didn't give you money, since their purchases of your game, or other Take 2 games, put them in a position to pay you that advance. I'm sure in a bookkeeping sense, their purchase of Battlecruiser offset Take 2's advance payment. </quote>

Yes, in a bookkeeping sense, even the apartment Take2 rented for me to stay while I was up in Latrobe for those few months, could be considered paying me as far as the argument goes.

<quote>
(I realize you mention something about being independent and self-funded, but I can't tell if the "development funding" you're referring to is Battlecruiser Millennium or the original game.) </quote>

In that section, I was talking about, in part, the original BCK and mostly about BC3K v2.0x and BCM, both of which I got <b>zero</b> funding for. Every penny from BC3K v2.0x, came from royalty based sales from Interplay, GTi and JOAG. And for BCM, not a dime because I never asked for it. As I have said here before, I have my doubts about doing publishing deals for this title and that even if I did sign with anyone, it would be closer to completion, this way, I get a better deal and don't run the risk of someone telling me how to make my game.

Steve, you're not Gamer-X are you? Just wait'll I find out who that bastard is :-)
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#42 by "Derek Smart"
2000-10-13 02:32:42
dsmart@3000ad.com http://www.3000ad.com
<b>#40</b> "ThePaladin" wrote...
<QUOTE>OK, you post for beta testers, but you really don't want beta testers? Is anyone else here confused, or am I just stupid? If you already had beta testers, why did you open it up to the public in the first place? Just keep it private!
</QUOTE>

I think my invite was clear and not open to misinterpretation. Was it? Now I'm confused. Thanks a lot!

And judging from the insance amount of registrations, I'd say it couldnt' have been that confusing.

Besides, if Microsoft asked people to pay $15 to get in early on Halo, how many would bitch about it? You guys bitch and moan about having to wait for products, burn effigies in developers' honor when products are pushed back, then, I decide to quench the thirst of <b>of those who really don't give a shit about the premise but just want to get their hands on the product</b> and I get this crap. Now you know what this statement in the first paragraph was meant to convey.

<quote>
Not everyone from the general public will be approved. If you are not a member
of the existing BC community or the press, your chances of getting approved are
significantly reduced. But, you are welcome to try - we can do with a bunch of
Red Shirts on the multiplayer servers, from time to time.
</quote>




<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "mrbloo"
2000-10-13 02:33:08
mrbloo2000@hotmail.com http://NA
<b>#36</b> "Illbuddha" wrote...
<QUOTE>

It's pretty simple here Andy.

Did you or did you not write:


<quote>Well, tell ya what... send me the intro, and I'll mention something in the
topic about who GamerX is. :-)</quote>




</QUOTE>

He also mentioned it in the first email Derek posted:

"BTW, you know who wrote that GamerX column, don't you? "

Seems a bit like a tease to me, although I wouldn't say it was a precondition or anything.  Derek seemed a bit touchy when he immediately called it "controversial bullshit" and withdrew the comments.  Seemed quite out of character ;)

What's wrong with charging them money, btw?  The terms seem fairly clear to me and nobody is actually forcing anyone to 'buy' the beta. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "Chris Johnson"
2000-10-13 02:33:46
Andy:

Perhaps not a bribe,but definitely an attempt at a big incentive, at least in Derek's POV.

Nice job avoiding the question at hand by the way, which was, did/do you really have that information, or was it a bluff in order to get your precious exclusive?  And if you really do have the info, are you willing to prove it, or claim that you don't need to prove nothing to us proletariat?
#45 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 02:34:24
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#41</b>, Derek Smart:
<QUOTE>
Steve, you're not Gamer-X are you? Just wait'll I find out who that bastard is :-)
</QUOTE>
Uhm, hello? Earth calling Derek, anybody home?

BTW, I think the GamerX column was bang on the money. The person who wrote it, I don't often agree with his/her viewpoint, but with that column it was as if they'd reached into my mind and pulled out my own thoughts.



/me calls lawyer. "<i>Yeah, hi. Just be ready.</i>"
#46 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 02:34:36
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
<QUOTE>Besides, if Microsoft asked people to pay $15 to get in early on Halo, how many would bitch about it?</QUOTE>

The main difference here being that Bungie is Bungie and you are Derek Smart.
#47 by "Illbuddha"
2000-10-13 02:42:05
colin_kawakami@bossgame.com http://www.bossgame.com/
mrbloo said:

<QUOTE>Seems a bit like a tease to me, although I wouldn't say it was a precondition or anything.</QUOTE>

Sure. I don't have even have a problem with it being a precondition. That type of tit for tat happens all the time, at all levels of business.

However, the fact that there was no mention in the topic of using the identity of Gamer-X as a playing card in this game of liar's poker makes it seem like Derek forgot to take his meds and pulled his involvement in some frothing and unprovoked rage.
#48 by "ThePaladin"
2000-10-13 02:44:58
TheTiger15@aol.com
<b>#42</b> "Derek Smart" wrote...
<QUOTE>Besides, if Microsoft asked people to pay $15 to get in early on Halo, how many would bitch about it? </QUOTE>

But I would know I would be paying $15 to get in early on some software-not to beta. Also I wouldn't be obligated to file bug reports and such. Anyway, from what I gather, it breaks down to this: You don't want beta testers-you want money.

<b>"Butt Kicking for Goodness"</b><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Andy"
2000-10-13 02:49:15
andy@nospam.planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#44</b>, Chris Johnson:
<QUOTE>
Perhaps not a bribe,but definitely an attempt at a big incentive, at least in Derek's POV.
</QUOTE>
Okay, guilty as charged, it was a bribe. Or an incentive. Whatever.

He wrote to me and asked me to post his comments, so of course I knew I had to bribe him. Otherwise why would he send them? I mean, it's not like he'd asked me to post them, is it?

Your logic has exposed me as the corrupt liar that I am.
<QUOTE>
Nice job avoiding the question at hand by the way, which was, did/do you really have that information, or was it a bluff in order to get your precious exclusive?
</QUOTE>
Oops, remember the three steps:

1. Read.
2. Understand.
3. THEN Respond.

Never forget that crucial second step!
<QUOTE>
And if you really do have the info, are you willing to prove it, or claim that you don't need to prove nothing to us proletariat?
</QUOTE>
I think I know who it is, but I can't prove it, which is why in the end I didn't mention it in the topic. (I'm not into starting/spreading rumours.) And as the person who I thought it was, and who I still think it is, just told me by e-mail that it isn't them, I think that was the right decision.

So there's your answer. Clear?

I THINK I know who it is. I don't KNOW who it is.

And I'm corrupt.

Happy?
#50 by "brennan"
2000-10-13 02:50:35
scottsyoen@home.com
We paid for bloooooood...



-brennan
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: GamerX, 3000AD and the corrupt web hack

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]