PSYLONE@UOGUELPH.BITNET (Brian Taylor) (08/29/89)
In response to messages regarding EMPIRE on this list, I sent the following message to Mark Baldwin (the person who wrote the ST version of EMPIRE) on BIX: > ========================== > interstel/the.pub #79, from btaylor, 434 chars, Mon Aug 28 12:36:12 1989 > There is/are comment(s) on this message. > -------------------------- > TITLE: Empire v3.0/II > I am a subscriber to the USENET comp.sys.atari.st conference, and one of the > topics of late is the release of these products for the ST computer. Much of > the talk may be described as "discouraged" by it being "put on hold" et. al.. > I have read here that these products ARE in fact being worked on > (MS-DOS platform anyway) and would like some info to take back and submit to > the list. > > Thanks greatly, > - Brian To which his response was: ========================== interstel/the.pub #80, from mbaldwin, 433 chars, Tue Aug 29 10:10:31 1989 This is a comment to message 79. -------------------------- There is a Version 3.0 in development. The original target machine is the IBM, however, there MAY be conversions to the other machines. The big problem is how to financially justify the work. There is also an Empire II in development. It is currently on hold due to other projects but work should be resumed early next year. A guess might be that it'll be available on the IBM for Christmas 90. But that's only a guess. Mark ------------------- Seems pretty "vague" regarding the ST situation to me ... what exactly is "financial justification"? I, for one, would like to have this excellent program in its updated version(s)! I'll save any replies I get personally or via the list and upload them to Mark, for whatever they're worth :-). - Brian
danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) (08/31/89)
in article <8908291701.AA18947@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, PSYLONE@UOGUELPH.BITNET (Brian Taylor) says: > ========================== > interstel/the.pub #80, from mbaldwin, 433 chars, Tue Aug 29 10:10:31 1989 > This is a comment to message 79. > -------------------------- > There is a Version 3.0 in development. The original target machine is > the IBM, however, there MAY be conversions to the other machines. The big > problem is how to financially justify the work. > > There is also an Empire II in development. It is currently on hold due to > other projects but work should be resumed early next year. A guess might > be that it'll be available on the IBM for Christmas 90. But that's only > a guess. > > Mark > > ------------------- > > Seems pretty "vague" regarding the ST situation to me ... what exactly is > "financial justification"? I, for one, would like to have this excellent > program in its updated version(s)! I'll save any replies I get personally > or via the list and upload them to Mark, for whatever they're worth :-). > > - Brian To me "financial justification" reads "we expect to make boatloads of money in the IBM arena, and we will port it to the ST (and other platforms) if we see that a good number of people will buy this program (enough to pay for porting costs etc)." Dan
dlm@druwy.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) (08/31/89)
in article <8908291701.AA18947@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, PSYLONE@UOGUELPH.BITNET (Brian Taylor) says: > [ deleted message to Mark Baldwin] > ========================== > interstel/the.pub #80, from mbaldwin, 433 chars, Tue Aug 29 10:10:31 1989 > -------------------------- > There is a Version 3.0 in development. The original target machine is > the IBM, however, there MAY be conversions to the other machines. The big > problem is how to financially justify the work. > [...] > Mark > ------------------- > Seems pretty "vague" regarding the ST situation to me ... what exactly is > "financial justification"? I, for one, would like to have this excellent > program in its updated version(s)! I'll save any replies I get personally > or via the list and upload them to Mark, for whatever they're worth :-). > - Brian "Financial justification" means it may not be worth trying to sell either version 3.0 or Empire II on the ST. The last time I talked to Mark about sales the ST was the lowest of the three machines it is currently out on (ST, Amiga and PClones). That's pretty bad when the ST version came out about a year before the Amiga and PC versions. Given the limited programmer resources of a small company (Interstel isn't very big) they may not be able to afford to port a program to a machine where sales will be relatively low (less than 10,000 copies). Instead they will spend time porting the program to a machine where they expect high sales or developing new programs for a machine where software sales are high. Mark and the other programmers that work with or for Interstel have to make a living. Spending 3 to 6 months porting a program to a machine where less than 10,000 copies will sell isn't how you do it. (10,000 copies means about $15,000 to $20,000 to the author, which sounds good till you realize that it may take 2 years for that many copies to sell.) Mark and I both used to write software for the ST and 8 bit Atari's, and neither one of us could afford to continue. Mark started writing games for more profitable computers (PClones), I got a real job where I'm paid every 2 weeks instead of every 3 to 9 months. Dan Moore AT&T Bell Labs Denver dlm@druwy.ATT.COM
rona@hpdml93.HP.COM (Ron Abramson) (09/07/89)
Dan Moore writes: > "Financial justification" means it may not be worth trying to >sell either version 3.0 or Empire II on the ST. The last time I talked >to Mark about sales the ST was the lowest of the three machines it is >currently out on (ST, Amiga and PClones). That's pretty bad when the >ST version came out about a year before the Amiga and PC versions. > Given the limited programmer resources of a small company >(Interstel isn't very big) they may not be able to afford to port a >program to a machine where sales will be relatively low (less than >10,000 copies). Instead they will spend time porting the program to a >machine where they expect high sales or developing new programs for a >machine where software sales are high. Mark and the other programmers >that work with or for Interstel have to make a living. Spending 3 to 6 >months porting a program to a machine where less than 10,000 copies >will sell isn't how you do it. (10,000 copies means about $15,000 to >$20,000 to the author, which sounds good till you realize that it may >take 2 years for that many copies to sell.) Mark and I both used to >write software for the ST and 8 bit Atari's, and neither one of us >could afford to continue. Mark started writing games for more >profitable computers (PClones), I got a real job where I'm paid every 2 >weeks instead of every 3 to 9 months. If you were trying to port Empire to some machine that was strange and new, I would agree. Porting Empire II wouldn't make sense considering the low volume of sales in the Atari arena. However, the Atari is Mark's "ole stompin' grounds." Will it really take more than 2 or 3 months to port it over? I don't know about the rest of you Atari guys, but I'm beginning to look just a little bit closer at those clones. I'll be walking around the electronics section at some department store and there's some "Clones 'R' Us" computer for $799.99999999999... and I start thinking "Gee, imagine having a choice of 14,000 games without driving more than a mile from my home. Imagine getting on any one of 17,000 BBS's with programs for my machine without dialing long distance..." Well, I'm still hangin' in there with my old Atari but Dan's analysis makes you wonder if its just a matter of time before the Atari ST finds itself in that special place reserved for obsolete computers whose architecture was left behind. There you'll find the TRS-80, the Commodore 64 and many other fine machines. Ron Abramson rona@hpdml92!hpdml93!hplabs "Does anyone remember the Atari ST computer?" "Yeah, my uncle used to have one. That was the one with the times...
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (09/07/89)
In article <480025@hpdml93.HP.COM> rona@hpdml93.HP.COM (Ron Abramson) writes: >Dan Moore writes: > > If you were trying to port Empire to some machine that was >strange and new, I would agree. Porting Empire II wouldn't make sense >considering the low volume of sales in the Atari arena. However, >the Atari is Mark's "ole stompin' grounds." Will it really take more >than 2 or 3 months to port it over? From looking at the IBM PC version of Empire, it would seem that Mark wrote GEM emulation routines for the PC so that it would look more like the ST ;-). It shouldn't take anywhere near 2 to 3 months to port Empire II. However, if they aren't going to also sell to the British market, it might not be worth their while. Time for me to write them a letter telling them how much I want to buy Empire II. Empire is the only commercial game I've ever purchased. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (09/08/89)
In article <480025@hpdml93.HP.COM>, rona@hpdml93.HP.COM (Ron Abramson) writes: > > I don't know about the rest of you Atari guys, but I'm beginning > to look just a little bit closer at those clones. I'll be walking > around the electronics section at some department store and there's > some "Clones 'R' Us" computer for $799.99999999999... and I start > thinking "Gee, imagine having a choice of 14,000 games without driving > more than a mile from my home. Imagine getting on any one of 17,000 > BBS's with programs for my machine without dialing long distance..." > It's all in what you like to do. I've gotten pretty friendly with the owners of a PC-Mac type computer store. I'll eliminate the Mac as a hobby machine because of price and bizarre programming rules. PC clones give you a very decent level of performance per dollar now, and there are a lot of good programs, some of them at reasonable prices. For a developer with a unique product, it's the ONLY ballpark to play in. But for a guy who likes to write the odd bit of useful code, maybe modify some PD source to bring it closer to the heart's desire, the ST is still a very good choice. You have a complete jungle of OS calls at various levels on PC clones, and then there are memory models to worry about. Even in 80386 'tiny' memory model, it's hard to -ignore- the segmentation. And if you want to write graphics oriented stuff, YIKES! The various not-real-comparable graphics modes! The developers kits that cost more than the computer! Not fun. And heaven help the developer with a better program that isn't alone in its niche. A genuine publisher of an outstanding ST program that would be the best (but not only) in its category if ported to the PC commented on the obstacles in my hearing--nothing that a million dollars front money couldn't fix. The 68000 is near as doesn't matter a ripoff of the PDP 11 architecture. The PDP 11 is doing something unheard-of for a computer this year: passing the 20-years-in-production mark. It's lasted because a lot of right tradeoffs were made. The ST, and the successors-to-ST should remain as platforms for a lot of adventurous and experimental programming, because they're based on a good processor architecture and because good development tools are affordable. Steve J.
ritchie@hpldola.HP.COM (Dave Ritchie) (09/09/89)
> I don't know about the rest of you Atari guys, but I'm beginning >to look just a little bit closer at those clones. I'll be walking >around the electronics section at some department store and there's >some "Clones 'R' Us" computer for $799.99999999999... and I start >thinking "Gee, imagine having a choice of 14,000 games without driving >more than a mile from my home. Imagine getting on any one of 17,000 >BBS's with programs for my machine without dialing long distance..." > > Well, I'm still hangin' in there with my old Atari but Dan's >analysis makes you wonder if its just a matter of time before the >Atari ST finds itself in that special place reserved for obsolete >computers whose architecture was left behind. There you'll find >the TRS-80, the Commodore 64 and many other fine machines. > > Ron Abramson > rona@hpdml92!hpdml93!hplabs This must be the time to announce the ultimate ST accessory - ST Ditto, the plug in card that allows you to emulate the ST on your AT/XT. Coming soon to a store near you. ;^> Dave Ritchie
kllove@uokmax.UUCP (Kenneth L Love) (09/11/89)
I missed something here. Namely the description of 3.0 and Empire II. Can
someone e-mail the original article (if it appeared here)? What improvements
does 3.0 have over 2.05C? What are the new features (if any)?
Thanks in advance,
Kenneth Love