Very interesting thread. Let me just throw my 2 cents in...

I too concur with the concerns of a lot of the posters in this thread and, from my own experience, they are not unfounded. I don't know what JetpackMonkey said in his last (deleted) post - but until then his comments are pertinent.

I longer work in the games industry, but I did do as a Software Engineer for 5 years (for such companies as EA, Psygnosis/SCEE and Take 2) - and I can tell you that there is a good degree of prejudice on what sort of middleware you use - at least when you pitch to a big/non-casual game publisher.

Now, I will not argue on the merits of 3dgs and its stability. But it does not carry the sort of "hardcore developer" vibe that expensive engines do. And like it or not, gamedev still is a very macho type industry.

Of course you will eventually need to let the publisher know what technology you are using, if not before, during technical dilligence. But you certainly could benefit from the time you buy by 3dgs _not_ being the first thing those guys see! It's a bit like not wanting to sport your best studio Casio keyboard when you go play live in front of a crowd, but rather covering the back of your synth or pasting a KORG sticker on it.

So, really, we can discuss if JetpackMonkey or HeelX or anyone else will ever _really_ get to pitch to company A or big wig B and use that to dismiss these concerns. But assuming they ever get the foot in the door, if my experience when I was "on the other side of the table" is anything to go by, the same demo with no obvious 3dgs hints will work to their advantage.

Cheers,

Miguel