1  |   Order by index

Jan 4, 2001, 6:53pm

Geesh ... here we go again ...

[View Quote] > Again, this is simply incorrect. AW can VERY easily allow such dynamic
environments which include your so-called "fixed" environments of level
editors.

I believe, if you read this point properly, I say that a COMPLETED AW world
EQUATES to a predefined gaming level - i.e. AW has a broader scope than that
of the level editor. If the environment is "fixed" such as in gaming levels
(quake, half-life, etc.), then the overall rules of that "level" are fixed
and only certain, supported activities have any interactive effect. Creating
a "level" for something like a game would be the same as building your world
off-line and uploading it like a web-page. With AW, you create the
environment whilst interacting with it ... big difference.

> Why can't you? AW already DOES support its "community" while at the same
time allowing people to create worlds. <shrug>

See above. AW doesn't just allow the creation of worlds. AW allows the
real-time maintenance of the worlds, whilst everyone is interacting with it
.... a bit like having someone trying to play a quake level while you were
still creating it. If you take this feature away, then you have a level
editor, BUT this is clearly one of the core concepts of AW and therefore,
public building wouldn't be possible.

> Under Delaware Corporation Law, which AWCI is incorporated under, the
shareholders have NO power over AWCI or its management. Please learn about
things before commenting on them.

"Answer to" does NOT mean power over the running of the company. By
definition, a shareholder has the power to plummet the company into
financial ruin and therefore AWCI has a basic responsibility to them. The
corporation law covering a company is irrelevant to the effect of the
shareholders actions.

> You obviously don't pay attention to the gaming industry much. Perhaps you
missed how popular Quake, Half-Life, and other games with level editors are.
And with more and more multiuser online-only games coming in 2001, AW's
so-called "market share" will be even more stressed.

To my mind, there is no other product around at the moment that even comes
close to what AW can offer. Multi-user, online games do not combine AW's
ability for dynamic content (and lets get this straight ... dynamic meaning
TOTALLY dynamic, not just a select few supported activities pre-coded into a
"level" definition such as the destruction of a specific wall or a bridge)
with the capability for mass usage and interaction. There is no comparison.

Grims



[View Quote] > 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.

Again, this is simply incorrect. AW can VERY easily allow such dynamic
environments which include your so-called "fixed" environments of level
editors.

> 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.

Why can't you? AW already DOES support its "community" while at the same
time allowing people to create worlds. <shrug>

> 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).

Under Delaware Corporation Law, which AWCI is incorporated under, the
shareholders have NO power over AWCI or its management. Please learn about
things before commenting on them.

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

You obviously don't pay attention to the gaming industry much. Perhaps you
missed how popular Quake, Half-Life, and other games with level editors are.
And with more and more multiuser online-only games coming in 2001, AW's
so-called "market share" will be even more stressed.

1  |   Order by index