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.

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!

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

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

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...)

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.

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.

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.