Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: "Mark Clayton" <spamuser1602@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:46:24 GMT
Donnie:
There may be some good reasons for him to do it. If he's going to
re-run games such as Medieval Madness, it would be to his benefit
to tweak the software, such as was done with TAF vs. TAFG. At
very least, the software should be branded as his, not WMS Industries'.
Since he has patent and other IP rights to the Pinball 2000 platform,
he could also come up with game kits and/or new Pinball 2000 games,
but a big piece of the development would be to bring up the code
to work on current motherboards. Sure, he could hire a bunch of
programmers who may or may not know anything about pinball, but
at some point he'll be resource-limited and here's a chance to take
advantage of people that would probably do the work for nothing or
next to nothing. Throwing the code out to the public domain would
probably cause a big mess, but I still think a controlled release to
an NDA'ed group with specific goals in mind *could* be a win-win.
-Mark
--
http://pinballpal.com/
"Donnie Barnes" <djbSPAMSUCKS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrndgd3g2.83f.djbSPAMSUCKS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 19 Aug, Mark Clayton wrote:
>> Me too. It would be very wise of Wayne to put together a team
>> of qualified people to work on the existing WMS code base. With
>> broadband Internet and PinMAME, it would be very easy for people
>> to work together on projects regardless of where they live.
>
> I'm not sure I see a benefit for Wayne to do it *other* than community
> goodwill (granted, that is a pretty huge one). I can't see it being very
> useful for remakes of older games...he'd have no way to control what these
> helpers were doing. I can't see any way it would make him money, either,
> unless he simply wanted in exchange for this "good will" to be the one and
> only source for upgrade ROMs. But if he put that kind of condition on it,
> few would bother doing any real work, I think (I wouldn't help).
>
> On the flip side, I don't see a reason for him *not* to do it. I'd think
> you'd want to put controls in place so no source got released outside the
> NDA and that all objects that got released were Home-Only (won't take
> money). That and a disclaimer should pretty much cover liability issues.
> Then you've got quite a lot of good will, assuming some capable folks *do*
> step up and sign the NDA and do start doing "cool stuff" (fixing
> outstanding bugs we know about, adding cool features, etc).
>
> Or he could just ignore the whole issue, I suppose. :(
>
>
> --Donnie
>
> --
> Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
.
- References:
- Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: gambit
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: Aeneas Verhe
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: llabrevlis
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: PT
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: Robert Winter
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: Donnie Barnes
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: Mark Clayton
- Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- From: Donnie Barnes
- Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- Prev by Date: Re: F*H right gangway shot - anyone mastered it?
- Next by Date: Need help from a Maverick owner
- Previous by thread: Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- Next by thread: Re: Cactus Canyon. Good or bad? Will Wayne upgrade the software?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|