|
|
Re: removing "acknex" labels I AGREE! HERE IS WHY
[Re: JustOneOldMan]
#180375
03/01/08 03:22
03/01/08 03:22
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,551
Netherlands
D3D
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,551
Netherlands
|
@ gamedup45: You can change the title in the menu bar (guess you meant titlebar) in all editions and with Professional you can also edit the splash/starter screen. I have released a little dll that let you use your own icon in the titlebar + executable. So just the splash screen is maybe a problem? To get passed that you will have to purchase professional though. Remaining problems now are the icon in acknex.dll, which shows up for few seconds (perhaps this was solved in the new beta). And renaming acknex.dll and acknex.wdf, but should that not be for Pro users? Why worry about it in Commercial? There are more important features then the starter window that I would like to get my hands on 
|
|
|
Re: removing "acknex" labels I AGREE! HERE IS WHY
[Re: bomber]
#180377
03/01/08 12:41
03/01/08 12:41
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 7,441
ventilator
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 7,441
|
Quote:
P The engine window can now display user defined icons in the task bar. If an icon named "32.ico" or "16.ico" is found in the work folder, it is automatically loaded and used for the task bar icon in stead of the default A7 icon.
i think this would also make sense for lower editions. the icon is a mess of unreadable pixels (it isn't made for 16x16). lower editions can't disable the start up window with the lite-c and a7 logo anyway so i don't really understand why the changeable icon is a pro only feature.
|
|
|
Re: removing "acknex" labels I AGREE! HERE IS WHY
[Re: D3D]
#180379
03/01/08 22:24
03/01/08 22:24
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
|
Quote:
THE FACT IS it is there is no viable business model for this
practice.
If every correspondence created with Microsoft Word or 3d model
created with 3D Studio Max or every photo touched up with Illustrator
screamed those companies brands, EVERYONE would stop using them immediately
and it WOULD make any work created with them SCREAM amateurish
like comparable kiddie programs.
True, but you can't compare a game engine to a word processor.
A better example, Eastman Kodak requires professional film-makers to give them credit when they use Kodak film for their multi-million dollar movies.
Or just look at the rest of the game industry. Every professional game made with Unreal, Valve Source, or RenderWare has to give credit. If they use a 3rd party tools like Kynapse, Havok, and SpeedTree, they have to give credit for that too.
Just my thoughts (std::disclaimer("I'm not Conitec")), but using professional games as an example, not crediting the engine appears to be "amateurish".
|
|
|
Re: removing "acknex" labels I AGREE! HERE IS WHY
[Re: Doug]
#180380
03/02/08 00:21
03/02/08 00:21
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 66
JustOneOldMan
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 66
|
Quote:
Just my thoughts (std::disclaimer("I'm not Conitec")), but using professional games as an example, not crediting the engine appears to be "amateurish".
As much as I complain about forced branding I agree with this. I've always said I had no problem with giving credit, but where possible I've paid additional money to be able to do it in my own way. My problem is in getting too carried away with forced branding. I've said in other posts that I started looking at other engines and eventually came to GS primarily because GarageGames changed their EULA to require a full screen splash up front, credits in the game, and a direct hyperlink to GG in the about box. You don't even see that with Unreal or Havok.
And you mention the big money titles. It's funny that a company will set up a business structure and tout it until someone actually does something big with their tech, then they change their business model. For instance, I paid GG for a Commercial license because they said that would allow me to give the engine credit any way I saw fit, if I even did at all. Unlike the Pro version of GS, it gave me no other benefit. Suddenly that changed, making the hundreds of additional dollars I paid for that privilege wasted money. They sold their product for a given price within a given contractual EULA until someone made good use of it, then suddenly they were "being taken advantage of" and things had to change because they had been "extremely generous" selling us their product at the price they did. One employee even stated that they were being extremely generous because if they wanted to they could even retroactively change any prior EULA currently in place. He amended that statement when I called him on it.
I'm not sure what problems some others here have with branding, but my only issue is that I'd like to see branding limited so it doesn't look like the game was made by the engine company and "marketed" by me. I have no problem with people knowing what engine I use to create a game. My other only complaint is that if I pay substantially more money to be able to do it my way, I'd really like to not be told the next week "thanks for the extra money, but now you still have to do it our way."
For me it's not the issue of branding so much as how it's done. That being said, though, I do like the idea of being able to use game specific icons rather than engine icons because I believe that's a part of the game's identity. Similar to the "Favicon" idea for websites...
|
|
|
Re: removing all "acknex" labels and stuff
[Re: Frederick_Lim]
#201930
04/12/08 01:03
04/12/08 01:03
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Can you or someone share any bad experience with publisher regarding the choice of game engine? If the publisher really interest about which engine you use, I don't think you can lie to her. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Popcap engine is not really an high-end engine but the developers made successful game and money with it.I totally agree with you Frederick_Lim. The part in italics is exactly why it doesn't matter which engine you use to make a game... it's the GAME that matters. Any publisher that thinks about engines before games is probably a bad publisher that you'd really don't want a deal with anyways. I've really had no problems at all with publishers and although most of them came to me instead of me coming to them (that is.. they saw my website and were interested in my games), they've all eventually 'asked the question' which engine I'm using and as far as I could tell from the reactions none of them really cared in a negative sense, Cheers
|
|
|
|
