A rose by any other name would still play the same

Posted By: fastlane69

A rose by any other name would still play the same - 01/29/08 00:07

There are two threads that orbit around the same topic: the public impression of the 3DGS name. In both cases, the request was for ways to strike anything 3DGS-ish from the application so that a user would not know right up front which game engine is was made with. In both cases, the post's authors state that they have lost business when their client found out the game was made with 3DGS.

As I tackle non-traditional money sources to fund my game, my experiences in pure game development publishing is very limited. For my investors, the game engine is irrelevant... results are what matter. I personally feel this is the same way in the game publishing world but HeelX and Jetpack Monkey's stories make me think maybe not.

So here is what I'm asking:

IF you have presented a game to an investor, publisher, or client
AND it was rejected...
AND the reason given was that the game was based on 3DGS...
what is the reason they stated for dismissing your project or what did they say about 3DGS that made them want to pass up your game?

Posted By: Ichiro

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the same - 01/29/08 06:32

Just my $0.02 -- I can't imagine a publisher or investor rejecting one of our titles based on the 3D Gamestudio name. I don't think it's significant to them. However, when I mention the name to colleagues and (especially) people outside the industry, they will often assume it's a hobbyist engine.

Which it is!

But by the same token, you could argue that both hobbyists and professionals use acrylics too, and that it's mostly a matter of what you do with it that counts. :) I do respond to any questioning glances with the fact that we've published three successful games using 3DGS.

Maybe we'll try our next title in GameMaker.

Posted By: ulf

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 08:11

I talked with several publishers during the last two years, a lot of them asked the question how my game was done.
From the reactions of most of them, i would say, they dont expect that anything sell-able can be done with it.

It's not that they said they wouldn't consider publishing a game made with 3dgs but you could clearly feel, they are sceptic about it. However, i think it will be the same with another name - because of conitecs marketing strategies, quote: 'make games without programming' and such... This will attract a lot of people thinking it is true. They click together 1 or 2 template games, and send it to friends, put it on websites or even send it to publishers. "Look i made a game, it plays like Half-Life!"

Now think you are a publisher or purchaser agent from one of the portal sites or a traditional publisher. They get huge ammounts of submissions each day. Bigfishgames has 1 new quality game everyday and i read somewhere those sites do get like 100 submissions a week. Most of the developers wait weeks after they submitted a game to them just to get an answer - and believe me most of those games are pretty good.
Don't you think once they reviewed 5 bad submissions where they could clearly tell it's made with 3dgs they are a bit biased against the 6th submission, even if it's a good game?

Or just from reading http://www.developia.de/developia/ wich is a german hobby developer site where you can show your works. Just from reading the comments you can feel that most think about 3dgs as a click together thingy, where nothing good comes out of it and everything coming out looks the same.
Just browse the showcase1 to see that this is probably halfway true.

So i think it's a good idea for pro users to cloak what its made with in the first place when approaching a publisher. Prejudices are part of human nature and with the ability to hide with what its made, you don't have to worry about your game beeing put in the same bin as those template shooters.

Don't get me wrong i think 3dgs is a wonderful engine and i would even show that my game is made with it, but when it comes to approaching possible partners, i can fully understand heelx and jetpackmonkey thoughts.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 08:39

Still the reputation is not made frome the name. You can call your kid Ulf but it does not make a bad reputation in the beginning.

The reputation comes from projects, demos, games. There will be tons of bad games because of the customers almost being kids. To compensate this you simply need a very good project, a modern looking game or a really good demo, showcasing quality graphics, effects, shaders, sound and a little game-play.

Unity3d and Quest3d are only sexy because of their great demos.
C4-engine has very modern rendering features but only a bad looking demo. That is a reason why some people are suspicious. They say to themselves: When even the developer is not able to make something really good - then I cannot reach something better.

We dont have to care about this. It is not our glass of beer. But there are side-effects. If Conitec has better artworks, better demo and better reputation they will have more customers and more money to hire more skilled employees.
When they make their own modern demo then they will see the problems in workflow, problems that occur when you want to use models with more than one submesh / texture / uv plus shader. They will realize that a second uv-set is missing in mdl-format and they will better justify about scene-management.

I think that making a good demo or little game is just the solution for many problems.

Posted By: ulf

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 10:20

I totally agree with you Frank, reputation comes from the demos/projects no matter what the name is.

However if the publishers are fed up with templateshooters and get a good game submission with acknex.dll in it, it's more likely, that the submission gets a warm place in the recycle bin next to the 10 other template games - without beeing noticed at all. Shure thats the publishers fault then, but prejudices is as i said part of human nature.

Making a good demo for the engine would be a very nice idea, this could raise the reputation and show what the engine can be used for! Just look at the old car demo wich is still at the downloadpage and looks so outdated.

Posted By: William

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 10:39

Quote:

When they make their own modern demo then they will see the problems in workflow, problems that occur when you want to use models with more than one submesh / texture / uv plus shader. They will realize that a second uv-set is missing in mdl-format and they will better justify about scene-management.

Exactly, this couldn't be more true. And Conitec cannot make it out of WED blocks, it has to be from a complex scene in one of the leading programs(Max, Maya, Lightwave, ect.). I hope the new scene importer will bring such a complex scene into WED easily. But usually the only way to really figure out how to make a proper importer is to actually be making a level alongside it.

Posted By: James_Burke

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 13:53

I've come up on this so called problem a few times. A few years ago I was at AGDC with a demo, people were asking what engine it was and I wouldn't say 3DGS, it does terriable. I'd always call it Acknex 6 (or 7 now) or A7. This is the engine, and then one person from a uni wanted to know more about it and I replied saying that the engine comes with a package titled '3D GameStudio'. Really, 3D GameStudio is the package and A7 the engine and only people in the indie industry are going to connect the two so it is a fairly decent get-around.
Just my two cents on it

Posted By: Ichiro

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 17:20

As a sidenote, having re-read what I wrote, I didn't mean to imply that nobody else would run into such a problem -- more that if you do, you can probably bop 'em in the head and say, "Hey, we have a great game here -- do you want it, or should we take it elsewhere?" :)

So, count me in agreement with y'all.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 17:31

All I can say is I've had a producer from a well known company try to talk me into switching to Torque, if their company were to produce it, even after seeing and being impressed with my demo made in 3DGS. It's illogical but the bias is that strong.

I had a very important job interview suddenly run into a weird awkward silence when the words "Gamestudio" were spoken. They were inially very enthusiastic about what they saw in my demo video, they actually really loved it, but when they asked about the engine, I skirted it originally and said "ah I used a middleware engine, sort of like Torque". They wanted more info, and when I finally got around to saying "Gamestudio" the interviewer went
"....
....

oh..

..."

And all that enthusiasm about how impressed they were sort of dropped like a stone. "So you used a game maker program" me: "well no, it's more powerful than that." Now, i can't blame gamestudio for not getting the job, because it is more complicated than that, but it put one heck of a bump in the interview and certainly didn't have them impressed.

It's bizarre-- they were really excited about the demo one moment, and then the word "gamestudio" completely shattered that. I can't explain why. It just went from "WOW your demo is great!" to "..... oh...."

This is why I can't really agree with the people who say "make a great game and it will be okay!" and "producers don't care!".

It's truly amazing how the word can just knock an initial good impression to pieces, because the assumption is "well, you didn't really make this" or "hm this person is using a game maker, they're an amateur" EVEN IF THE DEMO LOOKS GREAT.

DavidLancaster's Axys Adventures is brilliant, professional and made by a talented and dedicated team. But I found one review of the game which surprised me, by mentioning in the first paragraph "This game was made with gamestudio, but it's pretty good in spite of that." (paraphrased) And although this is somewhat positive, it also reflects the bias against the engine, if they have to write "although it's pretty good in spite of (the engine). I wouldn't want to see that in a review of my game (if I finish the thing). Would you?

That's why Pro users should have this option, in the full expression, rather than just not being required to show the splash screen. With the startup window reading "3D Gamestudio", it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway, not having to show the splash screen doesn't cut it, let alone the task bar, or acknex.wdf and acknex.exe in the task manager. Sorry, that's the way it goes.

Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 17:59

Quote:

They wanted more info, and when I finally got around to saying "Gamestudio" the interviewer went
"....
....

oh..

..."

From what you tell, the problem remains even when you don't _see_ that it is made with GameStudio, because they will _ask_ you...

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 18:07

Quote:

From what you tell, the problem remains even when you don't _see_ that it is made with GameStudio, because they will _ask_ you...

That's true, And this is exactly why Gamestudio A7 needs a new brand identity. This bias against the engine is absolutely a misunderstanding of people who hear the name. There is nothing to suggest how powerful a tool it has become, so the name will always bring A5 and "Big Rigs" (not even 3sgs) to mind.

Give it a new name, at least for A7 Pro, so that people won't make the association with the older versions. The changes between the two _engines_ (not editors) are so vastly different, there is no comparison. They're completely different products under the hood.

At least with Lite-C, you can simply answer "it was made with C and a middleware rendering engine" and leave it at that.

This is why Ray Dream Designer (with a poor, outdated reputation) is now called Cararra (up to date, greatly improved over RDD, better reputation), and why numerous products are re-branded after significant changes.

Posted By: Nems

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 20:54

Good arguments all round and will certainly go with the call for A7 as it is superior in more ways than is currently obvious.

But then again, I have no intention of going the Publisher route.

Posted By: fastlane69

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 21:22

Quote:

"Hey, we have a great game here -- do you want it, or should we take it elsewhere?"

It is this thought more than any other that motivated this thread. I mean if a publisher doesn't want your game because they are biased against the engine, the easy path is to go to a different publisher and NOT change the engine!

Quote:

loved it, but when they asked about the engine, I skirted it originally and said "ah I used a middleware engine, sort of like Torque". They wanted more info, and when I finally got around to saying "Gamestudio" the interviewer went
"....
....

oh..

This is what I meant in another post about "it's not what you say but how you say it". Let's face it, if YOU don't have faith in your engine, then why would you expect your publisher to have any? The way you present the scenerio, with you actively avoiding the gamestudio moniker, would make anyone think "Why is he trying to hide that?". They may have never heard of gamestudio but the second you try to obfuscate the engine (any engine), red flags come up. This is why I take an aggressive approach and state "I use the 3D Game Studio engine" and if I get raised eyebrows, I follow up with "... the number 3 game engine on devmaster.net" and/or "... it's been around, active, and refined for 10+ years". Let's face it, if you publisher isn't impressed by an engine that is 3rd rated of ALL commercial engines on devmaster AND it is more likely than not to be around for the entire lifetime of the project, then you DO NOT want that publisher!

Quote:

write "although it's pretty good in spite of (the engine). I wouldn't want to see that in a review of my game (if I finish the thing

Get it in your head Jetpack... there will ALWAYS be this kind of review no matter WHAT game or engine you use. It is impossible to get 100% acceptance of your game unless your last name is Wright! The masses will ALWAYS find a weak link to exploit and in our case it's the hobbyware label our engine has. Big deal! If that's the worst they can do, bring it on!

Quote:

It's truly amazing how the word can just knock an initial good impression to pieces, because the assumption is "well, you didn't really make this" or "hm this person is using a game maker, they're an amateur" EVEN IF THE DEMO LOOKS GREAT

Quote:

re fed up with templateshooters and get a good game submission with acknex.dll in it, it's more likely, that the submission gets a warm place in the recycle bin next to the 10 other template games

Harsh Reality Check (aka: another Fastlane69 rant)

If you make a game that looks like a template shooter, acts like a template shooter, and PLAYS like a template shooter, what do you expect? I'm not going to deconstruct your games or submissions to see if that was your problem; that's not my point. But I have no doubt that this happens: that someone clicks together a zombie game and then goes to Activision to try to sell it! Yeah, I'm sure it happens a lot and sets up a reputaion for "Kiddyware".

So is the solution trying to hide? Should we bury our collective 3DGS heads and hope that no one notices our engine? NO! We make better games! Sorry mate, I know that you are sick of hearing that from me but there is no more basic truth or easier solution to your problem. Make a game that DOESN'T look template and people will not care that it was built with 3DGS. I mean honestly I don't know of another way to get what you want since I'm convinced that the root problem is not the 3DGS name (ohterwise there would be no success stories whatsoever to report) but the presentation of our products.

Quote:

Making a good demo for the engine would be a very nice idea, this could raise the reputation and show what the engine can be used for! Just look at the old car demo wich is still at the downloadpage and looks so outdated.

This is still a good idea but one that fails for the same reason: Conitec can balance spending money on Development, Advertising, or Demos. I wouldn't "mind" a demo or advertising, but what does that advertising and demo do for my game? Does it make it faster, easier, better? If Conitec spent 100 Million on advertising this year, do you think that the publishers that rejected you will call you back or suddenly see the engine in a new light? I serious doubt it.

So once again, work on those things that you have control over -- the game, the game, the game -- and eventually it will be good enough and you will be savvy enough that no publisher would DARE turn you down!

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 21:59

Quote:

I wouldn't "mind" a demo or advertising, but what does that advertising and demo do for my game?

This is simple. Conitec will find issues while making the demo. They will see where they can improve workflow. The conitec artist will tell them why it is impossible to do certain things (e.g. a second uv-set in MDL models or a set of textures for each submesh and not one for entire model, an important shader or whatever).
They would see that FBX models are rotated after import, they would see that 3ds import often crashes MED and they would see that the display of WED / MED vanishes often after starting the engine. They would realize that WED needs a real-time preview rendered with the engine.
And maybe they would improve the engine.

While making such a demo they would polish the engine on the right spots because they find them more easily.

This will help your game in the end through improving the engine.

If you are not interested in 3d-games and 3d-applications then it will be hard to maintain a 3d-engine.

Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 23:14

if someone thinks you used a "gamemaker" just tell them "no, i used the engine." with A7 you can even say "i used the engine, and i programmed the game myself in C" (and if you made any C++ plugins) "C and C++". surely there's some cred in that?

besides. telling them "it is powered by the A7 engine and tools x, y, and z to develop the content" is much better sounding and better forward-thinking than "i used 3D GameStudio to make this game!".

everyone uses engines. naming the engine instead of the whole studio will do you no damage.

julz

EDIT: btw, this isn't "Re: Father_Frank", i just used quick reply. it is mainly directed at Jetpack_Monkey or whatever her username is at the moment

Posted By: Nardulus

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/29/08 23:16

Hi Fastlane,

Geez I love reading your post's lately.... "You are on fire" in my best NBA JAM jargon...

Man I could write a book on this, but lets cut to the quick for now.

Hiding the name of the middleware or even changing it is not going to help.

When you sign a publishing deal with a real publisher, you have to disclose all middleware, engines, etc that you are using in the game. You must also be able to prove you have a valid license and right to use and distribute such technologies.

No publisher will publish a game with out that confirmation. So if you have been hiding something, it will come to light very quickly, and could cost you a deal.

OK, if you come to a publisher with a finished game, you are very correct, they will not really care what the engine is. BUT, there are concerns over support history of the engine. Does the engine run properly on all the machines and video boards. If that is not the case, then you may have trouble. Perceptions of publishers on the hobbiest engines is they do not function well on an acceptible amount of computer configuratiobns. If ture, this means there could be a huge support burden to the Publihser. Thus phone calls to support staff at the publisher, returns from the stores, and eventually no one carries the precieved buggy game. IMHO 3DGS does not run well on a wide range of machines, if anything needs to be done to help make 3DGS a more professional engine that would be making the renderer consistent across systems. I digress...

If you are taking dev money from a publisher, they usally have a rough budget you need to follow. X $'s for Programming Y $'s for Art and Z $'s for the tech / middleware. Please be aware that if you go cheap on the tech / engine you will need to justify that to your publisher who is giving you $'s to create a game. A 100K budget will mean you should be using a 10K to 20K engine. This is something they are very aware of.

So make finished games and you will be fine as far as your tech and middleware, other than historical support burden costs.

If you take money in a development budget, you will have the publisher up your butt wanting to know where the $'s are being spent. Be prepared to justify all costs and results....

Follow Ichiro's advice make small games, that have little risk and life will be good.

Fastlane, your large project may be better served by another engine, if you can afford it. That's entirely your call.

Agian "You are on Fire" here on the forums, good stuff...

Ken

Posted By: fastlane69

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 05:11

Quote:

Fastlane, your large project may be better served by another engine, if you can afford it.

If I were starting this project today, I would agree. With MultiVerse up and running, I would not have come near 3DGS and instead would have jumped right in there. Of course, I would have had all the headaches that come with a bleeding edge offerings and it is debatable if my project would be better or worse for leaving the development in someone else hand, but it is true that MMP offerings are better than they were 5 years ago.

However I am in the middle of the project with a successful (if not always stable) architecture. I have learned SO much about every facet of game development using it and continue to do so. I like to think of my project as a loooonnnngggg Proof Of Concept. And once it's proven, we can see what the other engines have to offer. But for now, switching engines would mean at least a 1 year setback and that will kill my nascent company. Instead, I'm going after VC and AI monies here in about 6 months and all I need is a version stable enough to demo... then I get the thousands and make a decision to stay or not. And who knows? 3DGS may yet surprise both of us!

So for me, the decision to jump ship still rests on the adage: "The devil you know is better than the one you don't."

But, like you, I digress.

Quote:

Geez I love reading your post's lately.... "You are on fire" in my best NBA JAM jargon...

I know.

I don't know what got into me on these threads yesterday. It's like I was channeling the old Fastlane69... you rememeber him, the "in your face" annoying squirt that I was.

But I could sense that a bandwagon was forming and headed in the wrong direction and just felt I had to do something to reign it in.

Thanks for the insight into what happens during and AFTER the publishing deal. I think you have hit upon a very important point and that is that 3DGS DOES have it's weaknesses and we should recognize them and work with them. Take cross-platforming: If cross platform isn't your thing, then the fact that 3DGS doesn't offer it doesn't matter a bit! But the video card issue you mention IS a big deal and something that a publisher would understanably be weary of. Then again, AFAIK we know which cards are the problem and that is why the side of the box will recommend one card over another... we've all seen this done too many times to think it would be weird for a 3DGS game to come with a recommended card list and if your card isn't on the list, "player beware".

Bottom line folks, if you don't care for what I'm saying, then listen to Nard... he's been in it and deeper than most of us and he is telling us unmistakenly that if you plan on using this engine and going for publishing deals, trying to hide it won't do any good. Rather, there are more pressing issues with the engine (such as the video card support) than the name and so let's focus on those in an attempt to get more pub. deals instead of name-calling (or name-finding or name-destroying... whatever you want to call losing acknex from your files...)

Posted By: fogman

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 07:41

You can try to whitewash the problem, but even when I told the people in an enthusiastic manner that
my projects are made with GS, it goes like this:

Quote:

It just went from "WOW your demo is great!" to "..... oh...."

Well actually it�s "ok...." rather than "oh....", but the vacant expression counts.

Posted By: fastlane69

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 08:09

The point of this thread is identifing WHO these people are.
Who are you refering to Fogman? Publishers, friends, other... the more specific you can be with your experience, the more we can work to minimize or eliminate the bias that exists.

Posted By: fogman

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 08:15

Publishers, producers, hobby developers, projectleaders, developers, designers, journalists -
as I�ve said I�ve had this experience at the GC 2007 -
you won�t find a lot of "friends" there, but a lot of business men.

My friends are just amazed how far you can get with A6 / A7, so am I.

Posted By: Nardulus

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 14:46

Good Luck Fastlane, I wish you well on your project.

Could you implement your concept on DS's using WFC? Check out what Disneyworld is doing with DS's for people waiting in line..

See Gamasutra article below.....

Hi Fogman,

You have uncovered a deep dark secret. 'There is an incredible amount of bias in the video game industry'. I have had simular reactions when we told them we used the FEAR engine...

In my experience the easist thing to find fault with is the engine. It can not defend itself and this comment spares the presenting parties any hard feelings...

In the future ask questions that may help you in the future. I.E. If we were to change the engine, what else can we do to improve the game. You may actually get to the core of what the publisher finds is the biggest faults, now you have the proper information to correct the real problem.

There are a thousand reasons a game will get turned down, many of these reasons will upset the people that made the game. So it's easy to pick on something that can not defend itself... Hey, the publisher does not want to offend you, who knows next time you may bring in a winner.

Real reasons games get turned down are as follows.

The publisher thinks:

1) It's a piece of crap.
2) It plays like crap.
3) It looks like crap.
4) It runs like crap.
5) It sounds like crap.
6) Your team is crap.
7) It's a crappy idea.

See where I am going....

Many publishers love to get pitched even though they do not have a budget. It allows them to monitor what their competition may be seeing. They can borrow a cool concept from you. They may get suprised and discover the game is not crap, decide to move to a next step.

Now since the publisher will want you to comeback in the future so they can see what you are up to, they will find fault with something that will not piss you off.

The other thing is, does the game fit in with the portfolio of the publisher. Not all genres work for all publishers.

Focus on something small, make sure it has market appeal, and make sure it's not crap.....

Ken

Quote:

Industry News

January 22, 2008

Report: Disney World Begins Testing Of DS Tour Guide
Reports have emerged that the Walt Disney World resort in Florida has begun testing an interactive tour guide designed for use only with the Nintendo DS. In Japan the console has been used by a number of organisations as an interactive guide at museums, art galleries and amusement parks.

According to fan website WDWMagic.com the �Disney Magic Connection� system has already begun trials, with scan of the instruction guide appearing online. As the website points out, during 2007 the Walt Disney World resort already offered customized, downloadable content for the DS at its Pirates of the Caribbean ride, although this new system is far more complex.

The system offers wireless downloads that include interactive maps, indications of wait times for rides around the resort, menus at restaurants, characters in parades and other dynamic information. A number of exclusive mini-games are also made available for download.

The WDWMag.com speculates that full public rollout of the system could begin in the next few months, although makes no mention of uses of the same technology at other Disney resorts.

POSTED: 05.50AM PST, 01/22/08 - David Jenkins - LINK

Posted By: fastlane69

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 18:38

Quote:

Could you implement your concept on DS's using WFC?

No. Unlike almost all other educational games out there, mine doesn't rely on "mini-games" to transfer the knowlege but rather the experience of moving and working in a physical virtual world. The DS, while great for "mini-game" style edu-brain-ware, is not set up for my Virtual World.

Quote:

In my experience the easist thing to find fault with is the engine. It can not defend itself and this comment spares the presenting parties any hard feelings...

Now that is a great line I would have never thought of! Publishers, as people with feelings! LOL This makes a lot of sense to me now that I think about it. If the publishe says "it's the engines fault", it may be their way of saying "No thanks, but try again and this time try something different".

Quote:

1) It's a piece of crap.
2) It plays like crap.
3) It looks like crap.
4) It runs like crap.
5) It sounds like crap.
6) Your team is crap.
7) It's a crappy idea.

Would you agree that number 6 is really number 1? That even if the game idea or prototype is fantastic, if the team is crap the game will not likely get any outside investment? That if you are a one person operation and you go to EA or Ubi or other big publishers, they will dismiss you very quickly because you lack to team to make the game to their specs?

Posted By: Nardulus

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 18:54

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you implement your concept on DS's using WFC?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Unlike almost all other educational games out there, mine doesn't rely on "mini-games" to transfer the knowlege but rather the experience of moving and working in a physical virtual world. The DS, while great for "mini-game" style edu-brain-ware, is not set up for my Virtual World.

Ping me later this year. We are working on a Hospital Simulator using DS's for a University here in Minnesota....

We have been able to put a 3D Air Combat simulator onto a DS. We have 4 player wireless support. It really works pretty damn good.

Our Press Release is coming out early next week.

http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=180738

Ken

Posted By: fastlane69

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 19:13

Quote:

We are working on a Hospital Simulator using DS's for a University here in Minnesota....

That's fantastic! Do you know Ben Sawyer and his Games for Health initiative?

Quote:

We have been able to put a 3D Air Combat simulator onto a DS. We have 4 player wireless support. It really works pretty damn good.

I have no doubts on that. It's just that my idea requires a stronger fidelity to the simulation than a DS can offer. However, the NSF project that I'm on IS using mini-games and thus the DS might be an interesting future option for that project.

Quote:

http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=180738

Destineer? What happened to "Big John Games"?

Posted By: Nardulus

Re: A rose by any other name would still play the - 01/30/08 20:24

Quote:

Do you know Ben Sawyer and his Games for Health initiative?

I have spoken with Ben. We actaully were consulting together on a project with WB late last year.

Like I said ping me later this year.

We are co-publishing with Destineer. I am moving out of the developer for hire gigs and starting to retain IP ownership Spitfire is the first and another DS property coming out in March is our second. 3PM is my IP holding company.

We are certified as Nintendo DS and Wii developers, becoming a Nintendo publisher takes a little more bank account effort.

So the next step from developer is doing a co-pub deal then you can become a full fleged publisher.

Destineer has the sales and marketing along with the QA people I do not have to hire. They in turn get a game with out spending any dev $'s. I fund the development. So I take on the development risk / burden.

Ken