General updates and Miscellany

[Velociryx]

Every thread needs a catch-all topic, and it just dawned on me that we didn't have one here...so, if you got a question and aren't sure where to post it, this would be the place!

So....in the way of general updates....this weekend bein' Mother's Day, I didn't really get a lot accomplished, game wise...bought four new games in the name of "research" (Hey! Actually, I HAVE been studying them....specifically looking at interface design, level of detail in the art, and also, I've been dissecting various combat systems).

The games I bought for review and some notes about them were:

Majesty Gold (with the Northern Expansion...Expansion?): Cool game, but very, VERY different. You don't actually control....much of anything, really. It's RTS, but it's not a click fest, cos there's not much for you to do. You build buildings....get to pick where they go. Peasants come out all by themselves (not like Starcraft, where you gotta manually route your peons....total autopilot for both building AND repair).

Same with money. Each building generates taxes....a little tax collector guy comes out and makes the rounds periodically, dropping mo' money into your treasury at the castle.

You can build guilds and recruit heroes, but you can't tell them what to do. They train, and then....start wandering around the map. If you build an inn, some might wander over and get drunk. Build a smithy, some might go buy some weapons and armor.

You can research new spells and better armor and such, so there's always new stuff for your heroes to buy.

What you CAN do, however, is set up "bounty flags" on places you want heroes to go to.

You plant a flag (say on the graveyard that those skeleton warriors keep spawning from), offer a 200 gp reward for putting an end to this threat to your security, and voila! Some of your heroes head that direction.

From a strategy perspective, this game has NOTHING to offer. You can't directly control any of your guys....best you can hope for is that enough of the "right" kinna guys go where you want them to, and survive.

Tactically, there are some interesting options....one of the guild houses (for the warriors) has a 'call to arms' feature where you click a button on the guild house, and pay some money, and it rallies all your warriors to the building instantly, no matter where they are. That's got some potential maybe.....

And the Thieves Guild...lol...it's not on the tax man's route (and can't be added), but you can "extort the guild" from time to time....the sound effect is awesome....

So...that one was....not really anything useful or useable, but I have to admit that for not being able to exert any sort of direct control, it really IS a heckuva lot of fun to play....

*****

Next up was EtherLords....very dark game. *Beautifully* rendered....the interface was so intricate and interesting to look at that the rest of the game could have sucked wind, and it still would have gotten at least a few points.

The music was haunting, and the map graphics went hand in hand with the interface design very well. Gave the whole package a seamless look.

The trouble is, the interface BUTTONS are....confusing. It's hard to know what the hell does what (when it takes you fifteen minutes just to figure out how to move your guys, you KNOW something is up----> left click unit, left click destination, hit enter to execute, btw).

Combat is handled in a way that mirrors Magic: The Gathering, almost to a tee, so it's not gonna help us much, but I have to admit, that's one well put together package. (and whoever they got to do the voiceover for the opening movie is *outstanding!*)

I liked the gutteral, wholly unique language that my hero uttered when casting his spells....that rocked! On balance though, aside from leaning the value of sheer artistry where interface and intros are concerned, the game was not particularly helpful to me (but addicting...I gotta admit that!)

*****

Then, there was the Age of Wonders Demo (downloaded off the net) Sweet game, TBS with real time combat....trouble is, I can't STAND real time combat! Turns the game into a frantic click fest and he who has the fastest mouse and reflexes wins. That ain't strategy.

Pretty game, but not helpful.

*****

Lords of Magic - Delux Edition: On order, and en route

*****

Disciples II - *Stunning* game, visually. The interface was my second favorite (behind the cryptic but beautiful interface of EtherLords), and somewhat user friendly, tho it did have some irksome qualities to it (when I play a TBS, I wanna BY God KNOW--and I mean "know at a glance" how many resources I have. I do NOT wanna have to click through three different screens just to see how much gold I got! GRRRR....that ticked me off about the interface, and the combat model sucks wind (defend, flee, attack target....those are your options), but the art is breath stealing, the music is wonderful, and despite how *frustrating* the game can be (takes freakin forever to gain levels....that part is frustratingly slow), and the mission based campaign has been VERY draggy in the end/game for both of the first two missions I have completed. (it just got tedious).

Another thing....the combats fall into the range of either laughably easy (few and far between) or MUCH harder than they oughta be (and then, you get piddly experience for them, which is why it takes an eon to gain a level)...

Coolest part of the game - The graphic for the Witch Hunter kicks a$$....

So....some interesting things that we can draw from, but nothing exactly like what I was looking for.

*****

In other news, last night, I got a....not sure what to call it....music and video editing/mixing software package.

I know nothing about either, but this program claims to be able to let me play music from every instrument under the sun AND add funky sound effects....so...I'm gonna try my hand at composing the first Candle'Bre "movie" (Bryce3d animation), with some kinna sound track to go with it....

Hints about how to go about all this, or other sugesstions will be greatly appreciated!

(Chowlett, from our team, has scripted a draft for an opening movie on the other forums...it's fantastic, but I think too advanced for my first attempt....I gotta start with something really basic and work my way up!)


-=Vel=-

[moomin]

FMV should be lowest on your scale of priorities. A single screen with some triumphant/sad music for various victory/loss conditions is more than enough.

Can anybody honestly say they thought opening movies did much for them? Even technically competent ones, like the one in HoMM3, make me wince just thinking about 'em.

[Velociryx]

Oh...no worries...I'm not going all out here...lol...I just happened to see the software and it got me thinking....set my mind wondering if I *could* do it.

Should be an interesting experiment, even if it's not something that ultimately make it "in"

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

I'm not really sure what the topic of this thread is... but I'll try to blend in.

Just for kicks, I installed ST: New Worlds that I got free with my new computer. Now, I knew it was a RTS and I'm aware ST games almost always suck... but I can't pass up something free.

So, it's not a terrible game... except it doesn't have a save option.



In a spasm of disgust, I uninstalled the game and put the CD through the garbage disposal. Well, not really, but I wish I could have.

Point of post: Putting a save option in CBR may be a good idea.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm.....a save feature? You sure?

Okay, we'll see if we can work that in...geeez tho....how picky is that!?

-=Vel=-

[BigRich]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
FMV should be lowest on your scale of priorities. A single screen with some triumphant/sad music for various victory/loss conditions is more than enough.

Can anybody honestly say they thought opening movies did much for them? Even technically competent ones, like the one in HoMM3, make me wince just thinking about 'em.

Yep - the SMAC opening movie *really* set the tone for the game for me at any rate. Completely different genre though. The Dungeon Keeper 2 one wasn't so bad either.

Incidentally IIRC, Lords of Magic was a nice idea, much potential but *completely* let down for me by the horrible combat. Think MoM style game in general but with real time combat (and very confusing real time combat at that) for battle resolution. Luckily there was an auto-combat option. Should be an instructive example of how *not* to implement combat but the game itself was very pretty.

YMMV,

Rich.

[Velociryx]

DANG! Lords of Magic has RTS combat?! ARGH!

Yeah...SMAC/X's movies rock. The Wonder Movies for the Dream Twister and Cloudbase Academy are still among my all time favorites....and SMAC's opening movie was exquisite.

Mostly though, this is just me trying to learn new stuff that may or may not be directly useful for the project. I figure...hey, we've got a need, so if I"m gonna play with it, I might as well do so with CB in mind...and if it sucks, it'll just....never see the light of day....LOL

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Lords of the Realm also had some pretty depressing RTS battles. An interesting prototype TBS game eerily similar to the one we are trying to design, but it's use of RTS was terrible and obviously a last minute addition.

Examples: Pikemen are just swordsmen that aren't as good and cost less. No actual benefits from the fact that they have a pike.

Wierd bug where units get ressurected after they died.... they just keep popping up and taking a few swings before they get pasted again.

A kind of "capture the flag" approach to castles... you could either eliminate all enemy forces or take the "flag" at the center of the castle. Why would you ever eliminate all their forces when you could just make a drive to the center and only face about 60% of their forces in close quarters?

Siege weapons and knights... just kind of disappeared when they died. Well, on the bright side, they don't suffer from the ressurection bug...

Nice ideas for TBS, terrible implementation for RTS.

Point of post: Let's not do RTS elements in CBR... it might suck, and it's been done many times anyways.

[moomin]

Originally posted by BigRich
Yep - the SMAC opening movie *really* set the tone for the game for me at any rate. Completely different genre though. The Dungeon Keeper 2 one wasn't so bad either.

The opening SMAC movie did nothing for me, but admittedly there were a few wonder movies I really liked; the merchant exchange, for instance... "Greed, as well as need, has powered us to the starts!" Pure poetry! I liked the elevator too, come to think of it.

But unless CB gets a shovelload of venture capital, putting resources into fluff simply isn't justified.

[Velociryx]

You'll get no argument from me there, Trooper! We *got* no resources at present...lol

Mostly, this is just me havin' a bit of fun and experimenting with some new toys....if it's cool, or if I see I have a knack for it....::shrug:: What the h*ll....got all the basic tools on hand....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Was doing some general cleanup on my hard drive here at work and came across a lil' essay I wrote not long ago...given that synergy is a word that gets used a good bit 'round these parts, I thought it might be applicable, sooo....here's a little somethin'....

*Slightly touched up in a couple of places to make it "fit better" with our current conversations and some specific posts made here.

****
Limitations to synergy:

Synergy….good word. Awesome mathematical concept.

In the eighties, lots of self-styled business gurus latched onto it as a means of charging too much for their services and changing both the face and the focus of the modern American corporate model.

At the core, the idea behind synergy is a beautiful one. As it relates to business, synergy is a spiffy buzzword with some inherent advantages….to a point.

As with anything in business, there is a point of diminishing returns where synergy stops being quite so grand, and in some cases, can actually be a bad thing.

The closest thing synergy has to a polar opposit in the business world would be diversity, and while it’s true that diversity lacks some of synergy’s advantages, it’s also true that diversity lacks synergy’s main weakness, and has some fine strengths in its own right.

Some examples of synergy…the good, the bad, the ugly:

Earlier, I pointed to wireless communications companies as an excellent example of synergy. Here’s a company (or rather, an entire collection of companies) that has this satellite access…they use it to support their cell phone business, their paging business, and their wireless ‘net connection business. Three different businesses with a high degree of synergy, bundled together inside companies like Verizon, Alltel, Cingular, and Skytel (to name but a few).

So…what happens to these highly synergistic businesses if…say, there’s some anomalous sunspot activity that creates a HUGE surge in the solar wind constantly buffeting our planet, and said activity knocks out satellite communications worldwide?

People…customers are not going to pay much for a service that’s down indefinitely on a global scale…I think that’s a point that no one would argue.

And if such an event were to occur, what do you suppose would happen to the revenue stream of Verizon, Alltel, Cingular, Skytel, and the others? What would happen to their stock price? How likely would it be that any of those companies would even still exist when we finally replaced or repaired all the satellites in orbit around the earth?

Probably none.

Probably none at all, because their entire business revolves around that one thing. Lose that, you don’t just lose part of the ship, you lose the whole thing, game, set, match.

If you find that example unrealistic (it’s not actually, but since not many people spend much time thinking about sunspot activity and solar wind, we can shift gears), let’s use something that strikes a bit closer to home.

Airlines.

Another business with a high degree of synergy….all they do is move people (and stuff) from point A to point B with…airplanes, and they've focused their businesses almost exclusively around airPORTS.

But what if someone grabbed a couple of airplanes and…say, smashed them into a pair of big buildings here in America, and suddenly nobody wanted to fly anymore? What would happen to the income streams of those companies? Would they maybe go whining to the Federal Government begging for a bailout to keep them in the game?

The answer is…of course they would. That’s precisely what happened.

And it didn’t have to be like that….here’s how and why.

Same two situations, but let’s say that one of the wireless companies decided to use their wide profit margins to start buying up other stuff. Radio stations, buildings in downtown Dallas, hotel chains….just different stuff. And let’s say that one of the airlines in question started doing the same kinda thing when times were good and before priceline.com started making it possible to buy a $600 overpriced Delta ticket for $200. So the airline buys up hotels and rail lines, bus companies, buildings, convention halls…all sorts of crazy stuff.

What happens now? Well, yeah, it sucks that all the satellites went kaput, and it sucks that nobody trusts flying anymore, but you know what? It doesn’t kill them, cos they are diversified. They can weather those storms thanks to the presence of their other interests, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll be in a position to buy up one or more of their less-prepared, less diversified competitors, so when the dust settles, they’re even stronger than before.

Another example, pulled down to a personal level. The year is 1996, and you start investing all your money in hot new internet companies. Every dime you have, you pour into dot coms.

You do really, really well.

Your portfolio looks awesome (and has lossa synergy….investing in businesses with lots in common).

Fast forward to 2002. Witness the death of a never-ending stream of dot coms, almost certain to include many of the companies you invest heavily in.

Now what’s the value of your portfolio?
Could you have protected yourself…insulated yourself from that turn of events?

Certainly, but the answer does not lie in seeking ever increasing synergy, the answer lies in diversifying your portfolio.

Or, how 'bout a societal take – Synergy at the societal level can be best described as a homogenous society. Again, the opposite of that is a diversified society. Now, take Japan, for example. Pretty doggone homogenous society, and it gives them lots of important advantages. Since there’s a high degree of homogeneity in their society, they tend to differ less widely in terms of views, social mores and folkways, which leads to things like, lower crime, the expectation of lifelong employment in a given company, a high degree of protectionism (witness the difficulty of ANY foreign company making significant headway on that lil’ island).

In the 80’s (interestingly enough, about the same time that synergy became such a prominent buzzword in corporate circles…a non-accident, IMO), it seemed that diversified societies like the United States could not hope to compete with the precision of highly homogenous societies like Japan.

Look at them now.

Still mired in a seemingly unending recession after what? Seven…ten years, and still no end in sight?

The advantages of a diversified society are rampant creativity and constant honing of competitive skills. Why? Because there’s a lot more strife IN diversified societies. There’s a lot more discord (which also means we have to tolerate more crime, etc). But the advantages of Diversification are powerful indeed.

Synergy can serve you well, and do wonders for a company or a people.

To a point.

Beyond that point, you need something else to keep pushing the limits. To keep expanding. To weather storms.

Diversity has gotten a bad rap since the concept of Synergy hit the business scene, but it’s a good concept. Older, in terms of business application, and very, very durable.

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
FMV should be lowest on your scale of priorities. A single screen with some triumphant/sad music for various victory/loss conditions is more than enough.

Can anybody honestly say they thought opening movies did much for them? Even technically competent ones, like the one in HoMM3, make me wince just thinking about 'em.

I have mixed feelings on this issue.

1. The most important thing to do with the porject is see it to fruition. I.e. actually get something done. So that means FMV is out. At least for now. Granted.

2. I do like FMV. I really liked the wonder movies and advisor movies in Civ2. They were good player reward mechanisms and comic releif. Some hard core gamers may not need them. but alot of the market likes them. Especially for a fantasy game.

3. Not sure if this is related, but the articles I referenced have comments about "cut scenes" and how important they are for submission. Basically said, publishers prefer to look at a cut scene rather than a beta (to decide if they even want to bother playing the game) and also said that it is better to have one KILLER cut scene to iuse for marketing than to have several mediocre ones.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Was doing some general cleanup on my hard drive here at work and came across a lil' essay I wrote not long ago...

-=Vel=-

Vel, better to stick to the right brain stuff. I want to see an awesome, fun game that rawks my world. Leave the corporate restructuring to the MBA weenies.*

You are spouting the conglomerate party line of the 1970s. Read some books on financial theory. Brealey and Myers is a good start. Once you understand the Capital Asset Pricing Model, you will better understand the faults in your logic.

Internal diversification for companies is not something the stockholder values. He can diversify his portfolio more simply and more effectively by buying what he wants of focused stocks, HIMSELF! In most cases, he just buys a mutual fund and gets this deiversification (which can be mathematically measured).

The benefit of focus is that most companies will work harder if the managers feet are held to the fire. I.e. if they have to keep it afloat. (no fallback option to another division.) Also, the corporate culture and even the expertise for different businesses vary widely. Pharma companies need to make big R/D bets. Chemical companies need to shave every penny and be efficient. It's hard to have these two cultures co-existing in the same company. That's why most chemm/pharma companies have been split apart. Only the stodgy German ones remain (Bayer and one other...can't remember) and that probably not for long.

The point is that unless there are clear synergies present (sharing a sales force perhaps) than conglomerates are worth more in pieces than together. Managers may not like this...it's a harder way to live. And top managers may not like losing their empires...but that is the way the market is driven. To compensate them for increased risk, shareholders can give them stock options. This has a further benefit in terms of motivation to succeed and to stay alive.

*MBA weenies are not perfect either. Actually a lot of them might fall prey to some of the errors in your essay.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Synergy vs Diversity

Interesting interpretation of the synergistic model vs. the diverstic model. As always explained to me in laymans terms synergy meant capitalizing on inherent strengths/competancies you can bring to bear.

So from a strategic POV one looks as objectively as possible to the strengths and weaknesses of the individual/organization and attempts to maximize their strength and potentially downplay or not emphasize the weaknesses (perhaps not even particpate in activities/market where one is weak)

On the flip side diversification looks to hedge the weaknesses. So in terms of say SMAC and Social Engineering choices one could play certain SE choices that allow no negative SE attibutes. Or one could attempt to mazimize certain SE attributes and say the heck with the weaknesses.

All these come into play tho' once you've hit a critical mass IMHO. (Again a SMAC analogy you need to achieve a certain critical mass or tech level in order to allow certain SE choices)

Complete the first step (i.e. CB is released for demo and DL's and feedback shows that interest warrants the commercial release.)

At that point is the time to reflect and understand what your risk/reward tolerance is. If high then look to a synergistic model. If low then a diverstic model is more appropriate.

Interesting but as a genreal rule most older stodgier blue chip style companies follow a diverstic approach. While younger growth companies look to a synergistic "eggs in one basket", "shoot the moon" approach.

Anyhoo, just my ramblings. At some point tho' an objective reflection on oneself and ones organization will need to be completed. But for now, immediate priorities lie before you and team CB.

Og

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GP


The benefit of focus is that most companies will work harder if the managers feet are held to the fire. I.e. if they have to keep it afloat. (no fallback option to another division.) Also, the corporate culture and even the expertise for different businesses vary widely. Pharma companies need to make big R/D bets. Chemical companies need to shave every penny and be efficient. It's hard to have these two cultures co-existing in the same company. That's why most chemm/pharma companies have been split apart. Only the stodgy German ones remain (Bayer and one other...can't remember) and that probably not for long.

The point is that unless there are clear synergies present (sharing a sales force perhaps) than conglomerates are worth more in pieces than together. Managers may not like this...it's a harder way to live. And top managers may not like losing their empires...but that is the way the market is driven. To compensate them for increased risk, shareholders can give them stock options. This has a further benefit in terms of motivation to succeed and to stay alive.

I agree this is the way the market is driving things but.... I also think it reinforces a short term approach. Lump me in with the managers hating this approach I guess. But it is my opinion that the market driven cycle needs to end in order to allow meaningful growth. Large caps are being splintered in order to achieve the comparable growth of small caps. Whats lost is the ability of large cap companies to leverage their resources and fund this division by that cash cow division anymore, thus the result is a lost long term opportunity.

I point to companies like Dupont who until recently were known for the ability to empire build due almost exclusively b/c of their ability to innovate and invent new technologies. A cut in R&D about 8 years ago has ensured the slow death spiral and splintering effects the short term market dictates. On the docket for new products is nothing. Mature markets and no long term growth potential.

Every word today empahisizes a survivalist approach to enduring the market forces. Real growth and long term empire building appear to be a thing of the past.

Fortunately, a very small handful of small caps not kow-towing to the market still exist. Usually inthe form a family business wherein the patriarch/matriarch wouldn't ever sell a controlling share and thus mortgaging the future for a short term gain. Somehow I see Vel in that same role.

Og

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I agree this is the way the market is driving things but.... I also think it reinforces a short term approach. Lump me in with the managers hating this approach I guess. But it is my opinion that the market driven cycle needs to end in order to allow meaningful growth. Large caps are being splintered in order to achieve the comparable growth of small caps. Whats lost is the ability of large cap companies to leverage their resources and fund this division by that cash cow division anymore, thus the result is a lost long term opportunity.

Wrong. They can finance growth with equity or with venture capital. The good thing here is to stop companies using the cash cow to finance crappy other businesses, that they don't run that well.

I point to companies like Dupont who until recently were known for the ability to empire build due almost exclusively b/c of their ability to innovate and invent new technologies. A cut in R&D about 8 years ago has ensured the slow death spiral and splintering effects the short term market dictates. On the docket for new products is nothing. Mature markets and no long term growth potential.

Every word today empahisizes a survivalist approach to enduring the market forces. Real growth and long term empire building appear to be a thing of the past.

The market is shifting research away from megaliths like Dupont to smaller startups. This is a good thing in my opinion. The smaller startups are cheaper and more nimble. It's like Civ: who cares if the megacities suffer, if it is more efficient to ICS. Think strategic, not tactical. Who CARES about the corporate entity of Dupont. If they dissapeared, it would just mean that their factories were sold to different people. Kevlar and Teflon would continue to be available.

Fortunately, a very small handful of small caps not kow-towing to the market still exist. Usually inthe form a family business wherein the patriarch/matriarch wouldn't ever sell a controlling share and thus mortgaging the future for a short term gain. Somehow I see Vel in that same role.

Yes. And family owned businesses tend to have crappy returns. That is fine...as long as you are honest with yourself and admit that you are doing that. Just don't try to dress it up in a bunch of boioshwa about the value of a conglomerate.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GP


Wrong. They can finance growth with equity or with venture capital. The good thing here is to stop companies using the cash cow to finance crappy other businesses, that they don't run that well.

I point to companies like Dupont who until recently were known for the ability to empire build due almost exclusively b/c of their ability to innovate and invent new technologies. A cut in R&D about 8 years ago has ensured the slow death spiral and splintering effects the short term market dictates. On the docket for new products is nothing. Mature markets and no long term growth potential.

Every word today empahisizes a survivalist approach to enduring the market forces. Real growth and long term empire building appear to be a thing of the past.

Fortunately, a very small handful of small caps not kow-towing to the market still exist. Usually inthe form a family business wherein the patriarch/matriarch wouldn't ever sell a controlling share and thus mortgaging the future for a short term gain. Somehow I see Vel in that same role.

Og

The market is shifting research away from megaliths like dipont to smaller startups. This is a good thing in my opinion. The smaller startups are cheaper and more nimble. [/QUOTE]

I disagree. Small companies tend to develop evolutionary products and services. One of megaliths main purpose in society is to provide revolutionary advances. Its all about the level of funding required. Small caps will no doubt be more nimble and will allow niche markets to be grown and niche products to be developed.

But they will be very unlikely to produce a new cold fusion technology, room temperature superconductors, etc. or other such product or service. We've as a society settled for incrementals instead of dramatic changes. Megaliths do serve a purpose even if the market looks unfavorably towards their purpose. Point being is the megaliths are now in a position that they can't even serve that same purpose for fear of missing this quarters expected earnings.

Plus after the balloon popped on the dotcoms venture capital is a bit more difficult to lay ones hands on making the small companies even less likely to develop the next whiz-bang-wow product/service.

Anyhoo thats just how I see it from my muddied glasses.

Og

P.S. Looks like I cross posted whilst you editted. Your second point on who cares if the megaliths exist and it being a good thing the small caps will do the innovation, think strategic not tactical etc.

I have no love for megalith's personally. I find the culture dry and boring, arrogant, and ponderous. I do think tho' that there is a purpose for both the small caps and the large caps. Small caps are serving their intended functions that being seizing the moment. Some entity either large caps, government (shudder), or academia (double shudder) is responsible for long term R&D and providing opportunities for long term growth. As I see it, our long term growth is very much at risk in favor of short term thinking.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GP



Yes. And family owned businesses tend to have crappy returns. That is fine...as long as you are honest with yourself and admit that you are doing that. Just don't try to dress it up in a bunch of boioshwa about the value of a conglomerate.

Perhaps. 'course being honest to yourself and being totally honest to the potential venture capital providers is a different story.

The project has to be a bit sexy afterall (buzzwords included) in order to lure in the investors. No one wants to put money into a semi-risky 5% return.

OTOH you don't want to sell your soul to the devil (i.e. those same venture capital providers). And considering Vel's adamant stance on game development and quality of product offerings, I doubt highly he's the kind of individual that will give up control of the company and allow it to become a soley profit driven machine.

Gaming design with quality in mind first and foremost. Hey you got to admit its a novel concept.

[Velociryx]

All of this assumes that profit maximization and the drive for profits are the ONLY reasons one can be in business. Certainly that's the mantra taught to the MBA's mentioned a few posts ago, but there are other ways, and that must just scare the hell outta those aforementioned MBA's now and again. To realize that there are some workable business theories that simply don't fit into their known formulae and neat boxes....that can't be defined by classic business theory.

I admire GP's strict adherance to the A#1 tenant of every theory he's preachin'...the drive to profits.

And I'll be the first in line to admit that if that was the road I was on, he'd be spot on.

But that's not the road I'm on, and there are other ways of doing business.

Again, for me, it's not about the money. Money's not even a terribly good way to keep score, IMO. I got all the money I need, and if I need more...I'll go make more.

It's about making good games, and finding ways to do that, regardless of the current state of the gaming market. Regardless of the wishes and desires of the retailers and the publishers. The ONLY thing I want us focused on are the fans.

The retailers don't matter to me.

The publishers don't matter to me.

The Christmas selling season doesn't matter to me.

I'm not....WE are not making games for them. We're making games for the fans (and turning out a product they'll be proud of and impressed with....one that they had a voice in helping create and shape), and isn't it about time?

-=Vel=-
PS: Thanks for the nod, Og!




-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Just had another thought:

Whoever came up with the conclusion that stockholders don't value internal diversification in companies sure didn't hit me up when they did their survey or whathaveyou, cos as a future stockholder in Velocigames, I value internal diversification very much! Whatever form it takes (real estate, a chain of McDonalds, a chain of SHI Thursday's (So Happy It's....) opened all across America, 'cross the street from every TGI Friday's in the nation (that's my business idea for a sports bar..lol...more on it as the rest of the world domination plan comes to the fore), it's gonna be the thing that makes it possible to develop coolio games while essentially thumbing our noses at the prime powers in the market as it exists today.

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just had another thought:

Whoever came up with the conclusion that stockholders don't value internal diversification in companies sure didn't hit me up when they did their survey or whathaveyou, cos as a future stockholder in Velocigames, I value internal diversification very much! Whatever form it takes (real estate, a chain of McDonalds, a chain of SHI Thursday's (So Happy It's....) opened all across America, 'cross the street from every TGI Friday's in the nation (that's my business idea for a sports bar..lol...more on it as the rest of the world domination plan comes to the fore), it's gonna be the thing that makes it possible to develop coolio games while essentially thumbing our noses at the prime powers in the market as it exists today.

-=Vel=-

The "who" was Miller and Modigliano. And they won the Nobel prize in economics, mistah econ majow! Leave the corporate finance to the MBA weenies, Vel. You don't even know what you're arguing against. Stick to making a great game.

I have no problem with making your market niche based on uncompreomising high standards. That may even be a winning strategy.

I have no problem with you spending your savings on the game. No problem with minimizing profits because you won't compromise on quality. (Quit mixing in side issues will ya!)

BUT, if you think that dumping your savings into real estate and than funding the venture off of the RE is better than just putting it in a savings account and drawing down the savings, you are kidding yourself. The 2 will be distractions to each other and will prevent you from pushing the project through.

Also, a RE venture will not return that much to keep you going, unless it is quite risky...and in that case....well its risky. You could blow it all when it would have been so much easier to invest it directly in the project.

[TCO]

Og,


Just a couple comments. (It's not worth my time to do Finance 101 any longer here.)

-innovation is moving from large companies to small ones in the pharma industry. Look at the biotechs. They really are a cheaper and more effective way to innnovate

-venture capital funding has NOT dried up. It just went back to the pre-.com state.

[Velociryx]

No worries GP...I have no wish or desire to debate anything, really.

I'm focused and committed to one thing...making sure the team and I make Candle'Bre the best game it can be.

And Miller and Modigliano have much cause to be proud of their Nobel Prize and their economic thinking.

Doesn't change the fact that I don't fit their profile tho.

Doesn't change the fact that the rules of the game they're focused in on see the drive to profits as the prime motivator.

Remove that from the equation and much of business and economic theory simply falls apart, because it's all designed around the frantic race for profits.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GP
Og,


Just a couple comments. (It's not worth my time to do Finance 101 any longer here.)

-innovation is moving from large companies to small ones in the pharma industry. Look at the biotechs. They really are a cheaper and more effective way to innnovate

-venture capital funding has NOT dried up. It just went back to the pre-.com state.

GP,

Innovation exists in certain industries only. Pharma industries are expected to have long time to market products with paybacks coming from new drugs protected by patents. Its an expectation so anything that shortens the product development cycle time is a god send. I Refer to the articles from Time and others that speak to the use of computers for small Biotechs to shorten development in a rather cheap investment. In the grand scheme of things tho' that is not a large barier to entry for the market.

They're investing a couple hundred mill. We're not talking the grand scheme of things like Microsoft going for the Iridium sattelite project talking 100's of billions. Orders of magnitude and again evolutionary vs. revolutionary business approaches.

I still contend large caps need to exist if only to be able to look at more strategic business ventures that include a 10 year plan. Nowadays thats practically unheard of. Course I say that knowing this is the same stodgy, dry culture that foster no risk taking whatsoever. So whatcha gonna do. Regardless small caps ain't gonna be able to fund the real big dollars required to be truly revolutionary.

As for venture cap drying up, I didn't say that. I said it was difficult to get a hold of. Saying the same thing I believe.

Finally, regardless of the views of Profit now vs Growth later, one thing we both agree on whole heartedly is Vel and company are best suited to be focussed on the immediate task ahead anything else is a distraction at this early juncture.

Og

[Velociryx]

Dang it...why is it that I always thing of other stuffages to write after I submit the post...ARRGH! LOL

Anyway, to GP: I think you do not understand me so well, partnero. I'm the sort of guy who simply HAS to have at least 2-3 big projects cooking at the same time.

For example, I write my novels two at a time (or more), and I do it without crossing the writing styles, characters, or plot lines.

Real Estate is something that's long held a fascination for me, and it's something I'm planning to experiment with...that plan is, in fact, far older than the Candle'Bre plan.

The notion that Real Estate investing is no better than the paltry 2% (or less) returns you get from a savings account, is, by the way, untrue. If that were the case, there would BE no real estate market.

So...it's something that interests me personally, it's something I intend to experiment with, a) because I'm curious to see if I know as much as I think I do, and b) because I like it. If I meet with failure...::shrug:: it won't be the first time...won't be the last, and it won't hurt the Candle'Bre project in the least.

If I meet with success, I just might try it again. Don't know.

One thing though....I plan by thinking, and I learn by doing. Sometimes action is a harsh task master, cos if you screw up, it can hurt (and lead to such memorable experiences as sliding down a large hill on the hood of your car, or sliding down the side of a mountain on your a$$...stuff like that...lol..but hey! They make for good stories later!)



-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Gaaaa! It's an economics thread! Get out while you still can...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Dang it...why is it that I always thing of other stuffages to write after I submit the post...ARRGH! LOL

Maybe you're a post count slut like me?* A slow thinker like me?

*Actually neither of us is really a pc slut. We post a lot. But our posts are usually long. Well this one isn't....but usually they are. Umm...and we know who the real slut is. I won't say his name, but the initials are S...K...A...N...K...Y!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


GP,

Innovation exists in certain industries only. Pharma industries are expected to have long time to market products with paybacks coming from new drugs protected by patents. Its an expectation so anything that shortens the product development cycle time is a god send. I Refer to the articles from Time and others that speak to the use of computers for small Biotechs to shorten development in a rather cheap investment. In the grand scheme of things tho' that is not a large barier to entry for the market.

They're investing a couple hundred mill. We're not talking the grand scheme of things like Microsoft going for the Iridium sattelite project talking 100's of billions. Orders of magnitude and again evolutionary vs. revolutionary business approaches.

I still contend large caps need to exist if only to be able to look at more strategic business ventures that include a 10 year plan. Nowadays thats practically unheard of. Course I say that knowing this is the same stodgy, dry culture that foster no risk taking whatsoever. So whatcha gonna do. Regardless small caps ain't gonna be able to fund the real big dollars required to be truly revolutionary.

As for venture cap drying up, I didn't say that. I said it was difficult to get a hold of. Saying the same thing I believe.

Finally, regardless of the views of Profit now vs Growth later, one thing we both agree on whole heartedly is Vel and company are best suited to be focussed on the immediate task ahead anything else is a distraction at this early juncture.

Og

Yeah I know we agree. So does everybody else (except Vel, but maybe he will listen to the team.) In any case, it doesn't matter for a while, since the team has no cash needs and won't for a while. Discussing the financing schemes therefore becomes pretty theoretical.

That said...if Vel will let us continue the off topic discussion:

-You think that companies are not investing enough in R/D. Do you think that they are making an irrational choice? Or a rational choice? I mean if you look at the returns that somebody like Dupant expects from innovation. Is your complaint from a societal point of view. (In which case you probably should be an advocate of government funding for research and to moving more of that funding to basic research rather than applied research.) Or is your complaint from a shareholder point of view. Shareholders often want to force management to be more risky. managers don't like this...since they are human beings. But stock options are a help here. If anything, I think that removing diversification helps here, since it lets the cash cow be managed as a cash cow and the venture parts of the company be managed as a venture.

-There have been several big infrastructure investments (irridium, global crossing, scratching my head for a succesful one). Why do you think the market is incapable of making infrastructure bets? If anything recent events would suggest that the market was not skeptical enough about these types of investments.

-WRT venture funding: The US has always had an incredible system of venture funding and hige amounts of innovation. During the .com era, we went opverboard with many very stupid ventures being funded (I never beleived in crap like "indiangrocer.com") There was a lot of pyramid schem investing going on and a lot of money chasing to few good investments. Now we are back to a more reasonable regime where money is avialable but only for good ideas with high payback possibilities.

[Velociryx]

@ GP's comments!

Agreed, 'tis too early in the game to do much more than make lists of possibilities until we have a clearer understanding of where we are, which can and will only happen as the free version begins to take on the shape I see in my head.

Because we're some distance from that point at present, the talking we do here about where the money's gonna come from is about like my attempts to plan strategy before the game exists in playable form. I can talk about it till I'm blue in the face, but until I can sit down and immerse myself in the game, about all I can do is make lists of possibilities.

That said, carry on with the side conversation!

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Dang it...why is it that I always thing of other stuffages to write after I submit the post...ARRGH! LOL

Anyway, to GP: I think you do not understand me so well, partnero. I'm the sort of guy who simply HAS to have at least 2-3 big projects cooking at the same time.

For example, I write my novels two at a time (or more), and I do it without crossing the writing styles, characters, or plot lines.

Real Estate is something that's long held a fascination for me, and it's something I'm planning to experiment with...that plan is, in fact, far older than the Candle'Bre plan.

The notion that Real Estate investing is no better than the paltry 2% (or less) returns you get from a savings account, is, by the way, untrue. If that were the case, there would BE no real estate market.

So...it's something that interests me personally, it's something I intend to experiment with, a) because I'm curious to see if I know as much as I think I do, and b) because I like it. If I meet with failure...::shrug:: it won't be the first time...won't be the last, and it won't hurt the Candle'Bre project in the least.

If I meet with success, I just might try it again. Don't know.

One thing though....I plan by thinking, and I learn by doing. Sometimes action is a harsh task master, cos if you screw up, it can hurt (and lead to such memorable experiences as sliding down a large hill on the hood of your car, or sliding down the side of a mountain on your a$$...stuff like that...lol..but hey! They make for good stories later!)



-=Vel=-

Vel, I understand you have your personal needs, but hopefully you can get enough stimulation out of this project plus the writing (plus maybe a day job...or just keeping your wife/gf happy if she is the breadwinner). The more you devote yourself to the game, the higher the likelihood of succes. Maybe you think that doing RE gives you a cushion in case the game tanks, but it also increases the likelihood of the game tanking.

Yes RE will give you higher returns than a money market. But it is not a magic money multiplier. The higher the return the higher the risk. You could invest the money in a real risky stock, too if you wanted to. I think you are way better investing directly into the venture (only when you need to...and you are FAR away from that time. Right now, you should keep cash costs down as low as you can.)

I really can't say much more. Cause you're going to come back with some comment about how the rules of finance and econmics don't appy to you...and how you don't mind piling failure on faulure and why do things the way that is most likely to succeed...since even if you do them in a silly way, you still might succeed.

But seriously Vel, you ought to listen to me. I've dealt with a lot more VC's and seen a lot more entrepenuerial ventures than you have.

I respect your expertise in 2 areas: creative design (games, stories) and in leading a team of volunteers (keeping people happy, getting them excited). You ought to respect my expertise on business issues. You know WAY more than me about your 2 areas. I know WAY more than you about my area.

Papa GP out.

Oh and beleive me, if we were in a bar with drinks in hand...I would drill this stuff into you...while pouring beers down you and drinking like a fish myself. I can get quite intense about this stuff. I've got gret business training, experience and have been right on a great portion of my reccomendations. (IMHO a lot better than the average strat weenie management consultant.)