1  |   Order by index

Dec 29, 2000, 3:41pm

The main point I was making (perhaps poorly) was that the end result from a
level editor is a fixed environment ... basically a set of predefined rules
which equates ONLY to a fixed, completed world in AW (replace this wall with
this one when someone shoots it, crumble the floor when someone walks on
it). What it cannot handle, as AW can, is the scenario where one "player"
can be on the third floor of a castle when another "player" comes along and
replaces it with a rose garden. This is where I see the fundamental
difference to AW which is focussed as a real-time, muti-user, interactive
environment.

If it is used to create a world which is then baselined and published, then
yes, a comparison can be made, but I don't see how the central supports of
the AW "community" (basically AlphaWorld and other public building worlds)
could still be provided in that case.

I have to agree that there is a likelyhood of new, better alternatives
overtaking AW, but then that's how things work in the world. Its inevitable
that someone else WILL come along and steal (at least) some of AW's market
share. Its how AWCI respond to that intrusion that will decide their fate. I
doubt they are a big enough company right now to pre-empt it.

Final comment ... I know I've expressed this opinion before and I'll try to
make it the last time. What AWCI do and how they do it is their business. A
little more recognition of citizens as "customers" would be nice, but at the
end of the day, if they don't want to concentrate on placating existing
customers, then they don't have to. If they want to run the company into the
ground (which I am not saying they are doing by any means), then it is the
shareholders they answer to, not the customers (us).

When there's comparitive competition, then we'll see what happens.

Grims



[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index