Norm Koger's Distant Guns: Russo-Japanese War sets sail

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
This "version #50" has been used maliciously by Koger haters and enemies with no reason whatsoever.

If I didn't know better, I'd assume that you were an American politician. Why would anyone hate Norm Koger? His partner is a bit more controversial, at least among folks that have served with him in the workplace, but I've never had any dealings with the man, apart from four or five messages that I posted at the SZO forums, the last one of which reads as follows:

Thanks Jim.

I know that everyone appreciates the work that you are doing with the patches.

Good luck with the game,

Pretty provocative stuff, huh Oleg?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
It is merely v1.050. Patch version. No big deal. Some other games use v.1.1 for the first patch, and get to 1.75 or something by the time patching is over. Matrix Games WITP is currently at 1.804 and it's *still* being developed and patched further. That for me is a sign of dedication to the game.

Koger used his (much criticised) server based method of game distribution to make patches available to users immediatelly after they were released. Traditional publisher using traditional methods of distribution would perhaps release every 5th patch, making it seem the game "needed only 2 patches".

With the above, you are in fact contradicting yourself in this regard, having previously made this comment about the game:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
While I agree that everything about this game except the binary code - marketing, distribution, price, patching policy, community services etc etc . - seems to be taken from some imaginary book named "How NOT to make games"...

The highlighting and bold print are mine, but the words are Oleg's and are contained in post #17 from this thread:

tm.asp?m=1452576&mpage=1&key=

But, I don't need Oleg's words to validate this criticism of Distant Guns. Some of you may be unaware of how software testing works, but the proess employed by SES as the cornerstone of their "tech support" regime, is EXACTLY what I did for years as a playtester. Oleg knows that by the way, and if he claims he doesn't, he's...being...disingenuous. [:-]

PoE

[Monkeys Brain]

Hardly. How long has e-licensing been around? Just because no company using it has gone tits-up yet is no argument that one won't.

As has been stated previously any claims that there will be alternatives in that event (i.e releasing an unprotected executable) are so much hot air.. the right to do so will not vest in the people making those claims, and as long as there is any possibility of those games making money for somebody else in the future following any bankruptcy/liquidation it will not happen.

You are talking fantasies, as always. [:'(]
It goes then both ways, Hertson, isn't it?
Until you have hard evidence ie. JUST ONE company that went's to receive Allah's Mercy [8D] your talking is empty like empty Coca Cola can.
Old Chinese saying says "those who speak don't know and those who don't speak, know" [8D] so I will put myself in first category as well. But you guys with future telling are something. Double standards, hipocrisy and divide et impera of human nature at it's best. [:-]

At that point it will make little difference to those concerned whether they have any 'credibility' or not. The only credibility at risk will be that of those businesses using the same system. You seem to be implying that in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation they would have some sort of choice.

Again empty words. See above.

Firstly, you would be unlikely to be investing "big money", at least in EA's terms. It will be whatever the liquidator (or US equivalent) can get. Secondly, you will only invest in patches if you think you will get the money back and more in terms of the games concerned and future games (through customer goodwill). In the case of games more than a few months old there isn't a prayer of that happening, the dev team has almost certainly been scattered and 90% of lifetime sales have already been made.

And what if nobody is interested into any IP at Battlefront.com when main people are gone that in fact developed best franchise there, Combat Mission?
What then? Then it's up to them (BF.com).
And if that property doesn't cover the expense of the bancrupcy and credit loans bank would take their houses.
[;)]

After that do you think that they would hold on patches after their property went to a "drum" sellout [:)]


Mario

[Erik Rutins]

Allright, sorry to hijack this thread a bit again, but I'll throw in my $.02 on copy protection and such. This is not specific to SES or Distant Guns, but a phenomenon that covers the entire spectrum of game companies, titles and online stores.

I believe the folks at wargame companies using these e-licensing systems when they say that they intend to release their customers of them if they ever go under However, people do have a point that a company's destiny is not always its own when that happens. Still, these are generally privately owned independent companies so the most important thing comes down to whether you trust the word of those in charge. I generally trust them a lot more than I would a larger public company with much more separation from its customer base.

So, in general, I think it's fair to do so and I beleive in most cases where such a company might go out of business, they would have a chance to "unlock" previous purchases if they chose to do so and I think most would. In the case of games with ongoing value, I would also say there's a very good chance another company might assume the rights to that property and continue supporting it, which would hopefully also keep customers from being out in the cold without a working license. Nevertheless, in the end this is all based on trust and optimism.

Now, given the history of wargame companies, assuming that none of them will go under is a very bad bet to make. The history of wargaming is filled with many, many bankrupt or just abandoned companies. You have to assume that will continue, which is why sensible customers are concerned about the effects on their electronically licensed games, since their continued installation depends on the company's existence. That is the only real guarantee you have that you won't run into a problem in the future.

While I am not adamantly opposed to any licensing system and in fact have purchased a few electronically licensed titles, I also vastly prefer a system like the one we use, where there need not be any ongoing trust or optimism after the sale... since you own the game fully and can do with it what you want once you've paid for it, regardless of whether our company exists in ten years or not. With mainstream titles, you are generally not going to care one bit whether a game you bought even five years ago still works, but good wargames tend to have a longer life on most people's systems, so the concern beomes more significant. Therefore, I prefer the traditional way to "sell" something and I think it's still the most straightforward and customer-friendly.

I understand why other companies use such systems though - software piracy is real and unfortunately, wargamers do participate. I'm sure that some folks think that low sales may be partly due to piracy, whereas generally they're due to other issues with a title. I don't think there's good data to show that using such a system really results in any net gain in sales, while it certainly does alienate some customers and inconveniences (to some degree) those that honestly purchase your products. In fact, I've yet to see any kind of copy protection that isn't broken in short order and thus rendered pointless (though law abiding customers still have to deal with it). The upshot is that I think that trusting your paying customers builds a better relationship than inconveniencing them. Those who illegally copy a game were frankly, in my experience, unlikely to buy it anyway.

A customer-friendly system such as ours discourages casual piracy without inconveniencing customers and while recognizing that there is no current copy protection system that can really stop professional piracy. Even the most draconian systems that are actually usable for online distribution fall short of any real protection and cause plenty of customer annoyance. That's why we chose the route we took and plan to stick with it.

Regards,

- Erik

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
A customer-friendly system such as ours discourages casual piracy without inconveniencing customers and while recognizing that there is no current copy protection system that can really stop professional piracy. Even the most draconian systems that are actually usable for online distribution fall short of any real protection and cause plenty of customer annoyance. That's why we chose the route we took and plan to stick with it.

Regards,

- Erik

It ought also encourage folks to be more willing to part with a few extra bucks to purchase a download and/or disk, knowing that the game is theirs, it belongs to them, and they can't be deprived of that for which they've paid. A decade ago, that was a given in all such sales, but, regrettably, this is no longer the case.

PoE

[Monkeys Brain]

Erik,

Fair points and with most of it I agree. Of course your view is a little bit biased but understandably and no problem with that.

While I agree that your copy protection is really more user friendly I don't agree that activation based copy protection not work or don't bring more sales.

Well, can somebody download pirated copy of Distant Guns please? is it cracked? [8D]

About the second point, I don't know on which experience you are saying that sales would be lower with activation copy protection?

BF.com have sould out initial print of Theatre of War for example. Like Shrapnel did well with Dominions 3.
So if game is good those 10 scarecrows on the Usenet that are so wildly and loudly against activation copy protection cannot do much to damage those sales.

Human are like hungry birds they make noise when they are not satisfied. But majority of gaming public:

a) don't even care to write on Usenet or forums like this
b) don't give a damn about copy protection
c) care a little bit but accept it with a grumble
etc...

So we cannot base public opinion on those few posters on Usenet or here etc... It is not general uproar in my book.


Mario

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

You are talking fantasies, as always. [:'(]
It goes then both ways, Hertson, isn't it?
Until you have hard evidence ie. JUST ONE company that went's to receive Allah's Mercy [8D] your talking is empty like empty Coca Cola can.

Thousands of companies go under every year... that is no 'fantasy'. Unless you can prove that software companies who use e-licensing are somehow immune from the commercial realities that effect everybody else you are just waffling. Mate, it really is painfully obvious you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

Well, can somebody download pirated copy of Distant Guns please? is it cracked?

Can you give me an honest answer to three questions? How many 'pirates' do you think would be spending time cracking a naval wargame set in the Russo-Japanese war? How many people do you think would have downloaded a cracked version? And how many of those who did would have bought the game otherwise?

Like Shrapnel did well with Dominions 3

Dominions 3 does not use e-licensing or any form of online "activation copy protection". Please don't waste time arguing otherwise; I own a copy and it is obvious you do not.

[Procrustes]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

...

Thanks, Erik - well said. I really appreciate the Matrix Games dedication to it's customers, and am very glad you have taken the licensing philosophy you have.

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

...

About the second point, I don't know on which experience you are saying that sales would be lower with activation copy protection?

...

But majority of gaming public:

a) don't even care to write on Usenet or forums like this
b) don't give a damn about copy protection
c) care a little bit but accept it with a grumble
etc...

Hi Monkeys Brain,

I have no empirical evidence or professional experience to back me up, but it does seem reasonable that I'm not the only wargamer who avoids games with copy protection. The fact that it is a recurring topic on such forums as these is more evidence. I suspect that wargamers as a whole may even be a little more averse to complicated copy protection/licensing schemes, as I suspect that on average we are older, have a few more resources (i.e. are willing to pay for an un-cracked copy), and hope to be playing the game for years (not just the few weeks it takes us to burn through all the levels on some console game or FPS.)

Again, I'm just trying to work the averages - I have no doubt that there are exceptions to any generalities I have made.

Best

[Monkeys Brain]

I own Dominions 3 Hertson you
I just said that this game was sold out well. My sentence was not constructed well.
If you don't believe me why don't you ask Annete Brooks did I purchased D3? LOL I have Dominion 2 as well. I didn't played D3 too much - I will later.

For responding to other things you said is pointless.

So bye bye!


Mario

[Monkeys Brain]

Hi Monkeys Brain,

I have no empirical evidence or professional experience to back me up, but it does seem reasonable that I'm not the only wargamer who avoids games with copy protection. The fact that it is a recurring topic on such forums as these is more evidence. I suspect that wargamers as a whole may even be a little more averse to complicated copy protection/licensing schemes, as I suspect that on average we are older, have a few more resources (i.e. are willing to pay for an un-cracked copy), and hope to be playing the game for years (not just the few weeks it takes us to burn through all the levels on some console game or FPS.)

Again, I'm just trying to work the averages - I have no doubt that there are exceptions to any generalities I have made.

Best

I have no problems with your reasoning. But I don't like ghettoing wargames and saying that some things are exclusive there. There are many wargamers who would download pirated copy and I know some. He always put's his wife and kids on first place so if he can "save" some $ by downloading some game for free he will do it.
Yes, that makes him a crook but I don't think that he look it that way (although I have tried to explain him some things that pirating is not good).



Mario

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
His partner is a bit more controversial, at least among folks that have served with him in the workplace

Gossips man, we want juicy GOSSIPS!

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
While I agree that everything about this game except the binary code - marketing, distribution, price, patching policy, community services etc etc . - seems to be taken from some imaginary book named "How NOT to make games"...

The highlighting and bold print are mine, but the words are Oleg's and are contained in post #17 from this thread:

tm.asp?m=1452576&mpage=1&key=

But, I don't need Oleg's words to validate this criticism of Distant Guns. Some of you may be unaware of how software testing works, but the proess employed by SES as the cornerstone of their "tech support" regime, is EXACTLY what I did for years as a playtester. Oleg knows that by the way, and if he claims he doesn't, he's...being...disingenuous. [:-]

Nothing controversial there. I don't mind DG patching policy too much myself, but from the number of times the "50 patches" quasi-argument was used on various forums, yes, it is obvious it would be smarter for Norm from a business standpoint if he released only a couple patches instead of "50" (in fact, the correct number is I believe dozen or so).

So yes, again, I stand by my words and would include advice not to make every mini-patch publicly available in the book "How NOT to make games", so that malicious and ungrateful people can't use that against you [:'(]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
His partner is a bit more controversial, at least among folks that have served with him in the workplace

Gossips man, we want juicy GOSSIPS!

PoE

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
His partner is a bit more controversial, at least among folks that have served with him in the workplace

Gossips man, we want juicy GOSSIPS!

If you missed those episodes, you really missed likely the biggest drama of PC wargaming to date. With such baggage, I was surprised at how SES was so aggressive toward likely customers.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
it would be smarter for Norm from a business standpoint if he released only a couple patches instead of "50"

How's SES gonna test a fix in the "patches" if it doesn't release them to the public? That's how they identify bugs in the game!

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
(in fact, the correct number is I believe dozen or so).

Well, let's hear from an owner of the game in a recently posted message at the unofficial-official SES/Distant Guns forums:

I'd like to see this fixed ASAP. DG should be made as bug free as possible before they release Jutland. And I really hope it doesn't take dozens of patches to make the new game playable, as happened with DG...

Kindly take note of the "s" on the end of dozen, Oleg. The gentleman is writing in reference to a bug that was introduced in version #50. His point appears to be that the game, as originally shipped, was essentially unplayable. With every patch, something else has been broken. I'm not gonna identify the poster or put up a link to his comment because I don't want to drag a "civilian" into this. If anyone wants to confirm/authenticate the comment, it's part of what is/was the lead thread over-there this morning, one titled "Update for DG soon?"

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
So yes, again, I stand by my words and would include advice not to make every mini-patch publicly available in the book "How NOT to make games", so that malicious and ungrateful people can't use that against you [:'(]

Me thinks you're on shaky ground here, Oleg. What you're implying is that ALL game developers/publishers operate this way. Once again, YOU KNOW THATS NOT TRUE. And to consign customers, like the one quoted above, to the ranks of the "malicious and ungrateful" paints a mighty dark portrait of the business, one that would have me heading toward the professional exit, were I routinely called upon to publicly endorse their products. Are things really that bad, Oleg?

PoE

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
His partner is a bit more controversial, at least among folks that have served with him in the workplace

Gossips man, we want juicy GOSSIPS!

If you missed those episodes, you really missed likely the biggest drama of PC wargaming to date.

D*r*k Sm*rt anyone ? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
With such baggage, I was surprised at how SES was so aggressive toward likely customers.

"Bullish" is the word you're looking for. JR thought they were going to take the wargaming world by storm (ahum) again with their Distant Guns game, just like they managed with TOAW and TalonSoft a decade ago. Times have changed though. And he managed to alienate a lot of people back in those days - people with long memories.

But he's still bullish about the prospects of their new Jutland game and attributes the low sales of DG to :

"Alot of people passed over DG:RJW becasue of past RJW games from other companies"

Yeah, right [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Prince of Eckmühl]

DISCLAIMER:

I own two Norm Koger games, Wargame Construction Set II:TANKS!, and TOAW. If I was indifferent to the titles, it's largely because they were contemporaries of Close Combat and Sid Meier's Gettysburg, games that really captured my imagination. When I make mention of my playtest work, I'd note that ALL of it has been on non-hex-based, games. I've never posted in reference to any of Mr. Koger's work until Google led me to this thread at the AG forums:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... ht=ivanmoe

My criticism of Distant Guns falls into three areas:

1) The failure of the developer/publisher to provide proper support for the game via common tools such as company-based forums.

2) The developer/publisher's use of the public as beta-testers for a piece of software that was notable in it's lack of even the most rudimentary of QA.

3) The failure of the developer/publisher to deliver a full-featured game, one for instance that included a 2D-map for plotting moves, a long-established standard in Naval wargames and simulations.

My comments about this game have nothing to do with what went on at a game forum, YEARS AGO. Rather, they are the product of my experience dealing with the Distant Guns demo, it's developer/publisher and representatives of gaming publications that have served to promulgate an image of DG that's so starkly at odds with my own. And that's all there is to it, long memories, notwithstanding.

PoE

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Kindly take note of the "s" on the end of dozen, Oleg. The gentleman is writing in reference to a bug that was introduced in version #50. His point appears to be that the game, as originally shipped, was essentially unplayable. With every patch, something else has been broken. I'm not gonna identify the poster or put up a link to his comment because I don't want to drag a "civilian" into this. If anyone wants to confirm/authenticate the comment, it's part of what is/was the lead thread over-there this morning, one titled "Update for DG soon?"

I'm the user, or the gentleman if you prefer, who replied to his post with an agreement. I must point out though, that when I bought the game, it was patched to 1.02 or 1.03 (IIRC), and never was unplayable for me. There were problems which made the campaign game (not single scenarios or generated battles) not so desirable at first, but I have never seen a game updated so quickly before. Now the main problems are 1) It seems that the code is so twisted (for lack of a better word), that every fix causes a new bug (explains the need for a lot of patches) and 2) the support has diminished to nothing when DG2 is in works. Nobody can be totally happy with that, but I've seen much worse.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Thanks for your comments, Keke.

Not to one up you, but I have in fact seen a game patched faster. I witnessed it during the course of high-tempo playtesting as a beta version was prepared to be sent to the publisher. I've downloaded as many as four EXE in a single day from a company server, EXE that were generated in response to SAV game files that I was uploading to the project programmer. That's what you guys were doing for SES, BTW, albeit it in a very slap-hazard fashion. Were the game tested before it was released, none of that would have been necessary.

PoE

[showboat1]

So.....  basically most everyone is disappointed with this game?  Too bad, because I had been thinking of buying it. I was a big fan of Fighting Steel, but I always wanted a game that covered the Spanish-American War through World War I period of time.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: showboat1
So.....  basically most everyone is disappointed with this game?  Too bad, because I had been thinking of buying it. I was a big fan of Fighting Steel, but I always wanted a game that covered the Spanish-American War through World War I period of time.

How did you reach this conclusion? This game is highly specific, it's pricey, if it does not work for you - too bad (don't count on first class tech support), campaign is in my opinion badly designed (opinions on this vary though - some think that campaign is excellent), comes with a limited number of standalone scenarios and it's impossible to find MP opponents, but in it's core it's an excellent naval tactical sim, even the limited number of standalone scenarios can give you fun for a long time, and for the period in question there is no other game that comes even close....

IMO, it comes to this - is playing 7-8 historic period scenarios in most detailed commercially available naval tac engine, worth 65$ for you? Yes it's a lot of money for *very* limited content, but everyone has to answer the above question for himself.