no, just saying there is a great opportunity now, that did not exist several years ago, to create your own. So, for those who think they can do better, that they can create a great layout or great set of rules, you can go for it. That is what I did, when I realized I could now do something I had dreamed about since being a kid. TNA would not exist if not for that, and in a likelihood Iron Maiden as well (which was originally the custom game Archer), nor would TBL. The options are many, whether expanding rules, like epthegeek did on CCC, or a game from scratch like TNA, NBX, Doom or a re-theme of an existing game, with all new rules like Buffy The Vampire Slayer or even just re-theming an EM, where it just about an art package (which was my first step in doing this). Doing any of these kind of things will give you a different perspective on things.
Quoted from Dr_Smith:
That's not the way it usually comes off in my view, it usually makes me feel like "hey, we already have your $, so we are not in any rush to fix/finish anything". It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be left feeling like I'm being put off to the back burner while their time is being spent on the next latest/greatest game instead of fulfilling their obligation to people who have already paid for something that is left unfinished.
Some are trying to twist my words, the case I was referring to was AC/DC, where Lyman at one point explained inserts were not being used since the code went a different direction. We have seen more than one game get a major code refresh that took the game to new heights and in different direction. I think that it is better to do that (and possibly have an unused insert, that some find beyond appalling), then stick to a path that will result in a game not living up to its potential.
Games should absolutely get finished, and ideally a developer should be able to finish a game before being pulled in another direction. It is one of the reason we brought Joe "Ferret" Schober on board, so I could continue to spend some of my time on Houdini while we were bringing Oktoberfest to life. It is also great to have a partner who sees things a little different, and we are able to challenge each other to make things better.
Just because game does not sell one, does not mean it should not be finished. I think the changes in the marketplace are having the positive impact in changing that. The opposite is true as well, there is nothing wrong with a real selling game to get some updates to make it even better. I think when you look at the manufacturers today, some are forced to keep feeding the production line differently than others, which then forces them to move resources to feed the line. So for some companies putting out games a slower pace, the developers are able to get it to where they want and not cut corners and be able do things they had planned.
Quoted from Whysnow:
I hope you can step back and realize how ludicrous it is to have any insert on a playfield not coded into a game. If the coder has decided to go a different way then the obvious answer is that the company needs to figure out their cycle time better and ensure they actually have the basic code framework fully mapped BEFORE they release the damn game and before they build out 1000 blank playfields.
Quoted from Whysnow:
Sorry but to most of us, if a game comes out with an insert... it damn well better have some code associated with it, or we are going to rightfully see the game as unfinished (or in your case I guess just the cop out that things went in a different direction).
based on comments here and the dozen or so PMs I got since yesterday, not sure that 'most of us' find this 'ludicrous'. There is no way a company is going to go back and re-engineer a playfield, art, light loads, wiring harnesses because a programmer decided the rules would be better in a different way and there is an insert that no longer make sense. So the choice would become, stick to the original rules concept or have an insert not used, I'm betting far more here would prefer the latter, again AC/DC being the prime example. Of course the other option is to find some way to use it, that is not really a fit, but too make people happy that all the inserts are used.
Just to be clear, Houdini and Oktoberfest have no unused inserts. Regardless, calling it a cop out is silly. You are trying to stick to a position that makes little sense, as I believe the majority would rather have great rules and an unused insert, then mediocre ones where every insert has a purpose. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but seems AC/DC sold pretty darn well when there still inserts not being used. Obviously there are some here with extreme views on many of these things, and some might find it ludicrous, and that is their right, but I don't think they speak for the majority.
Quoted from Whysnow:
It will be interesting to see if you really do that the constructive feedback the community has given about your code. I think it could be a great game (I like the layout and think the them could be fun), but it will firmly reside on how well the code gets "polished" that decides the fate of your sophomore attempt.
If you followed along on Houdini you would know this has been the case. Recently had one of the top players in the world give a dozen different ideas and comments about Houdini. Some were ideas I thought were great and I implemented them, some where areas he felt scoring was too low relative to other game play, some were bugs, and some were ideas I felt were not a fit. Ferret and I every day debate things, give each other feedback on the parts of the game they are working on, brainstorm new ideas, in order to make the game as good as possible. We listen to all feedback, sometimes we will take action and sometimes we won't.
I'll move on now, since I have bunch of PMs to respond to, since just like I listen to feedback, I will respond to everyone who reaches out to be share ideas and thoughts.