Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Matrix games and alienware?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:47:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi All,
I have purchased my 3rd digital download from these chaps and have one
complaint. Its not about the games, as they are fine. Its about the
downloads. I have just noticed that our downloads are extended for us
courtesy of Matrix so that they can include a 17Mbyte video advertising
Alienware! I now have three copies of this video.

I don't mind advertising, but what is the sense of including a 17Mbyte file
in a digital download which should be made as small as possible? Its not
even that you need Alienware to run wargames!

RobP

More about : matrix games alienware

Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:47:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ROBERT POLLARD" <RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_49Ld.19129$B5.12995@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi All,
> I have purchased my 3rd digital download from these chaps and have one
> complaint. Its not about the games, as they are fine. Its about the
> downloads. I have just noticed that our downloads are extended for us
> courtesy of Matrix so that they can include a 17Mbyte video advertising
> Alienware! I now have three copies of this video.
>
> I don't mind advertising, but what is the sense of including a 17Mbyte
> file in a digital download which should be made as small as possible? Its
> not even that you need Alienware to run wargames!
>
> RobP
>

Thanks, Rob. You just saved me 68 MB of HD space. I didn't see them in the
earlier games.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:47:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ROBERT POLLARD wrote:
> that they can include a 17Mbyte video advertising Alienware!

> I don't mind advertising, but what is the sense of including a
17Mbyte file
> in a digital download

eh, as an advertisement :) 

> which should be made as small as possible?

Well, that's the theory - in practice most wargames today contain a lot
of multimedia stuff that takes up space - lot's of it - so most end up
being a 300 MB+ download. Matrixgames must have figured that the extra
revenue generated by the advertisement made up for the minor (in
comparison) increase in download size and that few would complain about
it. It's one of those things I can live with - just like commercials on
tv - if that brings the total cost of games down.

> Its not even that you need Alienware to run wargames!
Can't hurt either :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Related resources
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:18:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 30 Jan 2005 10:31:36 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

> if that brings the total cost of games down.

We are talking Matrix here. Get a grip on reality, son. :-)
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 2:39:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

It's me wrote:

> We are talking Matrix here. Get a grip on reality, son. :-)

Trying ... missed again ... didn't try real hard, because reality has a
habit of biting back :) 

In a competitive environment game developers will flock to the
publisher that gives them the best deal. As Matrixgames seems to be
doing very well on the "getting developers on board" front, my guess is
they're using the extra cash generated by the advertisements on
developer's deals and not on buying ferrari's - which is 100% ok with
me

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

It's me wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2005 10:31:36 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
> <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > if that brings the total cost of games down.
>
> We are talking Matrix here. Get a grip on reality, son. :-)

Trying ... missed again ... didn't try real hard, because reality has a
habit of biting back :) 

In a competitive environment game developers will flock to the
publisher that gives them the best deal. As Matrixgames seems to be
doing very well on the "getting developers on board" front, my guess is
they're using the extra cash generated by the advertisements on
developer's deals and not on buying ferrari's - which is 100% ok with
me

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:18:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Interesting. I just went back and checked my WITP directory and found not
only the Alienware avi but also a 75MB pdf advertising the magazine
"Armchair General". Oh well, I guess I will simply regard this as the cost
levied for the convenience of not having to insert a cd to play.

Frank

"ROBERT POLLARD" <RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_49Ld.19129$B5.12995@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi All,
> I have purchased my 3rd digital download from these chaps and have one
> complaint. Its not about the games, as they are fine. Its about the
> downloads. I have just noticed that our downloads are extended for us
> courtesy of Matrix so that they can include a 17Mbyte video advertising
> Alienware! I now have three copies of this video.
>
> I don't mind advertising, but what is the sense of including a 17Mbyte
> file in a digital download which should be made as small as possible? Its
> not even that you need Alienware to run wargames!
>
> RobP
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:18:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:18:48 GMT, "F. Voros"
<fvnews@DIE.SPAM.DIE.shaw.ca> wrote:

>Interesting. I just went back and checked my WITP directory and found not
>only the Alienware avi but also a 75MB pdf advertising the magazine
>"Armchair General". Oh well, I guess I will simply regard this as the cost
>levied for the convenience of not having to insert a cd to play.
>
>Frank

75mb pdf to advertise a mag? Either they are lunatics or you are
reading the file size wrong.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:22:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <_49Ld.19129$B5.12995@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk says...

> I don't mind advertising, but what is the sense of including a 17Mbyte file
> in a digital download which should be made as small as possible? Its not
> even that you need Alienware to run wargames!

I would imagine that Alienware is paying some sort of advertising
charge, and the software would be more expensive without the additional
17MB.

The way I figure it, virtually no one who is worried about an additional
17MB is going to opt for digital download of an almost 300 MB game
anyhow.

--
Giftzwerg
***
" haven=3Ft the time or inclination to argue with people who
think 'No WMD!' is the argument equivalent of a spreading a
full house on the green felt table. It may seem so, but
unfortunately we=3Fre playing chess."
- James Lileks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:24:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <6rfrv09ep4v4d9rkjavquvb6bvlb5sjcj4@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...
>
> > if that brings the total cost of games down.
>
> We are talking Matrix here. Get a grip on reality, son. :-)

Hmmm. Given that we're talking about a game that they're selling for
$35 - considerably *less* than some competing products at <insert
company here>, I'm not sure what you mean.

>

--
Giftzwerg
***
" haven=3Ft the time or inclination to argue with people who
think 'No WMD!' is the argument equivalent of a spreading a
full house on the green felt table. It may seem so, but
unfortunately we=3Fre playing chess."
- James Lileks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

FYI, the Armchair General full-size preview was in a few releases, then
reduced in size and finally has now been removed from future digital
downloads. Similarly, the Alienware video has been converted to a
format that, without any loss in quality or video size, allows it to
use up less space in the download. We've done the same in some cases
for sound files and other game videos. For example, the initial
digital download of War in the Pacific was 463Mb zipped, whereas the
new 1.40 full digital download version (just uploaded and made live
last week) is only 316Mb. We've been listening over the whole year and
reducing size where we can while maintaining relationships that help us
promote and fund our games.

Regards,

- Erik
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 5:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"It's me" <me@here.noemail> wrote in message
news:8ufrv01gabavf5e6j03slds3ig34h721vs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:18:48 GMT, "F. Voros"
> <fvnews@DIE.SPAM.DIE.shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >Interesting. I just went back and checked my WITP directory and found not
> >only the Alienware avi but also a 75MB pdf advertising the magazine
> >"Armchair General". Oh well, I guess I will simply regard this as the
cost
> >levied for the convenience of not having to insert a cd to play.
> >
> >Frank
>
> 75mb pdf to advertise a mag? Either they are lunatics or you are
> reading the file size wrong.

He's not reading the file size wrong.

--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 5:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:24:00 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Hmmm. Given that we're talking about a game that they're selling for
>$35 - considerably *less* than some competing products at <insert
>company here>, I'm not sure what you mean.
>
>>

I'm talking about their other "out of this world" priced games. And my
ISP limits my downloads to 10gb per month so I certainly don't
appreciate the extra fodder added to my game download purchases.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:51:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

It's me,

I just wanted to point out that our price list is actually not out of
this world and the large ACG file was only a few initial releases
before we pared it down, based on customer feedback and our own
requests to the magazine. Here's a summary of our current titles, 2005
pricing for downloads:

Across The Dnepr (SSG) $14.99
Battles In Normandy (SSG) $49.99
Campaigns On The Danube (Adanac) $19.99
Case Blue (X1) $19.99
Firefight (O'Connor) $19.99
Flashpoint: Germany (Matrix) $34.99
Gates Of Troy (Slitherine) $19.99
Highway To The Reich (Panther) $39.99
Korsun Pocket (SSG) $39.99
Massive Assault (Wargaming.Net) $24.99
Mega-Campaign: Desert Fox (Matrix) $24.99
Mega-Campaign: Lost Victories (Matrix) $24.99
Mega-Campaign: Screaming Eagles (Matrix) $24.99
Mega-Campaign: Watchtower (Matrix) $24.99
Operation Barbarossa (X1) $19.99
Starshatter (Destroyer) $29.99
Starships Unlimited: Divided Galaxies (Apezone) $24.99
Steel Panthers: World At War General's Edition (Matrix) $69.99
The Last Days (X1) $19.99
Tin Soldiers: Alexander The Great (Koios) $29.99
Titans Of Steel: Warring Suns (Vicious Byte) $29.99
Uncommon Valor (2 by 3) $39.99
War In The Pacific (2 by 3) $69.99

You'll notice most of our titles are $40 or less, with many at the $30
or less price point, including new full game releases such as Gates of
Troy ($19.99) and Alexander the Great ($29.99) and Flashpoint Germany
($34.99).

Regards,

- Erik
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:38:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <kpvvv09du5objv9qri2alsge5sojqvi2md@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...

> >Hmmm. Given that we're talking about a game that they're selling for
> >$35 - considerably *less* than some competing products at <insert
> >company here>, I'm not sure what you mean.

> I'm talking about their other "out of this world" priced games.

Which one, specifically? The only Matrix wargame I can think of that's
priced above the middlin' point for game software ($40-%40) is WAR IN
THE PACIFIC, a true monster in every sense of the word.

I just purchased CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE and FLASHPOINT GERMANY, and in
both cases I noted that the price was entirely reasonable; lower, in
fact, than my expectations.

> And my
> ISP limits my downloads to 10gb per month so I certainly don't
> appreciate the extra fodder added to my game download purchases.

Here my suggestions would be to (a) run screaming to a reputable ISP, or
(b) opt for the game distribution on CD.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:00:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Frank E wrote:

> The operative words here being 'pricing for downloads'. ... and you
> left out some words, it should be 'pricing for a one-time download'.

Well, if you buy a game cd from a company it's also technically the
price for a one-time cd ... and given the current level of copy
protection on games I doubt many people will even manage to make a 1:1
backup of this.

Just try to get a replacement for that damaged TOAW cd ... luckily I
had a (probably illegal) 1:1 backup when it happened to me.

I gather that the $5 download insurance is what's really bugging you
and here I have to agree - I don't think the extra revenue here is
worth the bad mojo.

The printed manual, well - it would be nice - but printed manuals are
on the way out, even in the big bucks software development market. Last
$3000 product I installed at the company didn't even have the usual
short installation manual, the previous version did, and the version
before that even had all the manuals. I've actually come to prefer
pdf-based manuals. You can quickly do some key-word search, have it on
<alt><tab> stand-by while gaming and if you really want to, you can
even print it out :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 12:53:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 2 Feb 2005 08:00:08 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Frank E wrote:
>
>> The operative words here being 'pricing for downloads'. ... and you
>> left out some words, it should be 'pricing for a one-time download'.
>
>Well, if you buy a game cd from a company it's also technically the
>price for a one-time cd ... and given the current level of copy
>protection on games I doubt many people will even manage to make a 1:1
>backup of this.

True, although if I manage to screw up a preburned CD, I tend to shrug
it off as my fault and move on. Backups tend not to be that dependable
ime.

>Just try to get a replacement for that damaged TOAW cd ... luckily I
>had a (probably illegal) 1:1 backup when it happened to me.
>
>I gather that the $5 download insurance is what's really bugging you
>and here I have to agree - I don't think the extra revenue here is
>worth the bad mojo.

Yeah, that really was the part that bugged me. Charging me $70 for a
download and then telling me that you're cheap to spring for a
nickel's worth of bandwidth in case I ever need it agian seriously
rubs me the wrong way.

>The printed manual, well - it would be nice - but printed manuals are
>on the way out, even in the big bucks software development market. Last
>$3000 product I installed at the company didn't even have the usual
>short installation manual, the previous version did, and the version
>before that even had all the manuals. I've actually come to prefer
>pdf-based manuals. You can quickly do some key-word search, have it on
><alt><tab> stand-by while gaming and if you really want to, you can
>even print it out :) 

I tend to prefer online manuals for things where I have to look stuff
up while I'm using a program. Something like a C compiler would be a
good example where an online manual is 10x as useful as a printed
version.

With a wargame, I tend to be the type that will sit down and read the
manual after playing around with the program a bit. Reading a 100page
manual on the PC just isn't something I enjoy doing. But yeah, that's
not something to bash Matrix over, good wargame manuals worth reading
have gone out of style and I need to get over it <g>.

Rgds. Frank
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 12:53:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:51:36 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Speaking for myself, important files - as well as relatively unimportant
>stuff like my installation copy of CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE - get
>mirrored on a RAID, hot-backuped on an additional hard disk, copied to a
>server, archived to tape, archived to DVD, archived to CD, and copies of
>the tape, DVD, and CD are all stored off-site.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that's an extreme
example. :p 

I've had it happen to me where backup CDs that I'd burned worked fine
when I read them on that CD drive but when I upgraded computers I just
couldn't restore the full disks without random errors. It wasn't a big
deal at the time but if that had happened with my WitP backup after I
bought a new computer last month, there would have been a lot of
bitching and righteous indignation.

Rgds, Frank
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Frank,

>>Yeah, that really was the part that bugged me. Charging me $­70 for
a
download and then telling me that you're cheap to spring for­ a
nickel's worth of bandwidth in case I ever need it agian ser­iously
rubs me the wrong way.

Ok, understood. FYI this is entirely a Digital River thing - we don't
see even a nickel of that $5 charge. It seems like the best thing to
do would be to make more information on post-purchase support options
available up front. We had no objection to DR offering this because
it's up to the customer if they want the extra download time or not.
Personally, I would never use it - just download once, backup and done
(or order the physical copy, make a backup and done).

I can see there are some misconceptions out there on how our system
works though and I hope I've made things a bit more clear. We're
always improving the store and trying to make things more customer
friendly (actually, I believe the download insurance was part of one
such attempt by DR).

Regards,

- Erik
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:00:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <9A0BQrXbwxtaWzreUcf8gtm=Lr2R@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...

> >Speaking for myself, important files - as well as relatively unimportant
> >stuff like my installation copy of CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE - get
> >mirrored on a RAID, hot-backuped on an additional hard disk, copied to a
> >server, archived to tape, archived to DVD, archived to CD, and copies of
> >the tape, DVD, and CD are all stored off-site.
>
> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that's an extreme
> example. :p 

Perhaps. But how would you protect 55,000 digital "negatives?"

And how "extreme" is it, really? CDs and DVDs are practically free;
anyone not backing their important files up on these is brain-damaged.
Likewise, hard-disk real estate is going for about 50 cents a Gig; why
not have hot-backups? Tape backup is the most expensive, but even there
the costs are pretty low considering the nightmare scenario of a house
burned flat and every file one ever amassed up in smoke. My DAT setup
can stream 60GB a day, and a rotating system is just common sense.

To put it simply, my *business* is being sure of stuff like this. So
I'm sure.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:57:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:VRMBQtuUIeltZ1YkPDA1Jwvhp=so@4ax.com:

>>I gather that the $5 download insurance is what's really bugging you
>>and here I have to agree - I don't think the extra revenue here is
>>worth the bad mojo.
>
> Yeah, that really was the part that bugged me. Charging me $70 for a
> download and then telling me that you're cheap to spring for a
> nickel's worth of bandwidth in case I ever need it agian seriously
> rubs me the wrong way.

You're not alone - it's a psychological issue - I'm sure the "powers
that be" at Matrixgames are reading this as Erik Rutins seems to keep a
close eye on this ng - they're constantly reviewing what works and what
doesn't, so we might get a policy change.

> I tend to prefer online manuals for things where I have to look stuff
> up while I'm using a program. Something like a C compiler would be a
> good example where an online manual is 10x as useful as a printed
> version.

#1 law of printed programming manuals : the concept/word you're looking
for is not in the 2 page index of a 1000 page book.

> With a wargame, I tend to be the type that will sit down and read the
> manual after playing around with the program a bit.

Just admit you like to read wargame manuals on the toilet too :)  - the
only place where you can get some peace and quiet and you can *really*
focus.

> Reading a 100page
> manual on the PC just isn't something I enjoy doing. But yeah, that's
> not something to bash Matrix over, good wargame manuals worth reading
> have gone out of style and I need to get over it <g>.

Might I plug the strategy guide of HTTR here - a great read.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:31:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:9A0BQrXbwxtaWzreUcf8gtm=Lr2R@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:51:36 -0500, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Speaking for myself, important files - as well as relatively
unimportant
>>stuff like my installation copy of CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE - get
>>mirrored on a RAID, hot-backuped on an additional hard disk, copied to
a
>>server, archived to tape, archived to DVD, archived to CD, and copies
of
>>the tape, DVD, and CD are all stored off-site.
>
> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that's an extreme
> example. :p 

Extreme yes, but did you *really* expect something different giving
*his* track record :) 

> I've had it happen to me where backup CDs that I'd burned worked fine
> when I read them on that CD drive but when I upgraded computers I just
> couldn't restore the full disks without random errors.

As cd burners have become cheaper this problem is indeed cropping up
more and more. I've pretty much resolved it by backing up to dvd at slow
(2x) speed. At this point in time dvd's seem to be more 'compatible'
with new equipment. Your mileage may vary - no warranties :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:04:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:00:22 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <9A0BQrXbwxtaWzreUcf8gtm=Lr2R@4ax.com>,
>fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
>
>> >Speaking for myself, important files - as well as relatively unimportant
>> >stuff like my installation copy of CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE - get
>> >mirrored on a RAID, hot-backuped on an additional hard disk, copied to a
>> >server, archived to tape, archived to DVD, archived to CD, and copies of
>> >the tape, DVD, and CD are all stored off-site.
>>
>> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that's an extreme
>> example. :p 
>
>Perhaps. But how would you protect 55,000 digital "negatives?"

I don't need to. Nor, for that matter, do I have anything else of any
importance on my home PC.

>
>And how "extreme" is it, really? CDs and DVDs are practically free;
>anyone not backing their important files up on these is brain-damaged.

True.

>Likewise, hard-disk real estate is going for about 50 cents a Gig; why
>not have hot-backups? Tape backup is the most expensive, but even there
>the costs are pretty low considering the nightmare scenario of a house
>burned flat and every file one ever amassed up in smoke. My DAT setup
>can stream 60GB a day, and a rotating system is just common sense.
>
>To put it simply, my *business* is being sure of stuff like this. So
>I'm sure.

Translation: I have triple redundent backups in place with off-site
storage because my business depends on it. I have no sympathy for any
gamer who doesn't jump through the same hoops when he downloads a
game.

.... this would be one of those (rare <g>) times when I'm quite willing
to just walk away from the discussion without further comment and let
people draw their own conclusions.

Rgds, Frank
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:04:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 2 Feb 2005 12:30:45 -0800, "ERutins" <erikr@matrixgames.com> wrote:

>Regarding your complaint about re-downloading, I can say several
>things. First, you can download the game multiple times in the first
>30 days if you lose your copy (we do advise putting a backup in a safe
>place once you download it). If you lose it after that, as long as you
>have your order number and/or customer info, e-mail us at
>support@matrixgames.com and we can allow a one time re-download.

Ya know, if that had been made plain to me when I downloaded WitP, I
would have had a different attitude about the whole thing. I did look
at the options at the time because I didn't have a CD burner in my PC
when I downloaded it so there was some concern on my part as to what
would happen if something screwed up.

No mention was made about contacting Matrix, no mention was made about
having 30 days in case something went wrong. As a matter of fact, I'm
pretty sure you're wrong about that one, seems like the people I
downoladed from went out of their way to explain that I couldn't
download more than once unless I paid the $5.

>The manuals that come with the game in PDF format are top notch and
>include both printer friendly versions and e-book version that have a
>searchable index, an advantage print manuals don't have.

My main beef with the manual is that I never could alt-tab out of WitP
because there was about a 50/50 chance that my map will be corrupted
when I went back to the game. There's few things more annoying than
an online manual that you can't look at while running the program.

>> That last point is the one that really bugs me, btw. Paying $70 for a
>> download only version of WitP and then being asked if I want to spend
>> $5(?) for download insurance.
>
>I'm not sure what the affront here is - that's a service offered by our
>online store, Digital River, to allow unlimited downloads (IIRC) up to
>one year after purchase.

It's annoying in the way that the salesman at Best Buy was annoying
when he offered me an $50 extended service plan on a $40 DVD player.
My inital reaction was "Do they really think I'm that big of an
idiot?". In other words, I find it insulting.

Also, it rubs in the fact that Matrix felt the need to charg $5 for
the nickel's worth of bandwidth required to download the files again.

I'll try to explain why I found it so annoying. At around the same
time I ordered WitP, I also ordered two other games online from small
publishers/developers.

The first was Dominions 2 (from shrapnel?). I log onto their website,
pay the list price, and it's in the mail to me. ... even came with a
useful printed manual. No fuss, no hassles, no problems.

Second was GalCiv from Stardock. I log onto their website to buy the
game and find out that I can download and play the game immediately
and included in the price is a CD that they'll mail to me.

Now I get to Matrix. I know ahead of time that the price of WitP is
$20 or $30 higher than the other two I bought. Not really a problem
but there;s still some degree of sticker shock.

Log onto the website to buy the game Now I'm greeted by a list of
options:
Want a physical disk? KACHING!, $10 please
Do you think you might ever need to download the files again? KACHING!
$5 please
I want to say there was one more item along those lines to but now I
can't remember it.

Rightly or wrongly, I walked away from that purchase with the feeling
that Matrix was one of those annoying companies that spends a lot of
time playing all the angles, trying to squeeze the last dollar out of
my wallet. In other words, a company that I tend to view very
sceptically whenever I deal with them.

Rgds, Frank
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:01:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Frank,

> Ya know, if that had been made plain to me when I downloaded WitP, I
> would have had a different attitude about the whole thing.

Yeah, we need to make that more clear. FYI, I don't know when you had
this experience, but we have added more explanation to the store since
and I know that the 30 day limit is explained now.

> No mention was made about contacting Matrix, no mention was made
about
> having 30 days in case something went wrong. As a matter of fact, I'm
> pretty sure you're wrong about that one, seems like the people I
> downoladed from went out of their way to explain that I couldn't
> download more than once unless I paid the $5.

With respect, I know I'm right about that and that has always been the
case, but it was no doubt not explained clearly.

> My main beef with the manual is that I never could alt-tab out of
WitP
> because there was about a 50/50 chance that my map will be corrupted
> when I went back to the game. There's few things more annoying than
> an online manual that you can't look at while running the program.

I've never had that problem here - I can alt-tab all day long without
map corruption. As long as your video drivers are up to day, the other
thing you can try is running it in windowed mode by adding a "-w" to
the command line in the quick start shortcut.

> It's annoying in the way that the salesman at Best Buy was annoying
> when he offered me an $50 extended service plan on a $40 DVD player.
> My inital reaction was "Do they really think I'm that big of an
> idiot?". In other words, I find it insulting.

I don't think this is an issue we can really make an entirely right
decision on. We are bound by certain rules when dealing with Digital
River. One is that if we want our customers to have the _option_ to
download on their own after 30 days, DR requires a $5 charge. Again,
we don't see any of that and it's not something we can change. We felt
it was better to offer the option than not.

> The first was Dominions 2 (from shrapnel?). I log onto their
website,
> pay the list price, and it's in the mail to me. ... even came with a
> useful printed manual. No fuss, no hassles, no problems.

I've also bought that title from them, also had no problems. But I've
also "test bought" titles from us and had a similarly smooth
experience.

> Second was GalCiv from Stardock. I log onto their website to buy the
> game and find out that I can download and play the game immediately
> and included in the price is a CD that they'll mail to me.

Stardock has a unique, proprietary system that they spent (IIRC) 2
years developing in a somewhat open beta. We don't have that option,
unfortunately. I agree that it's very nice setup and I haven't had any
problems with them either.

> Now I get to Matrix. I know ahead of time that the price of WitP is
> $20 or $30 higher than the other two I bought. Not really a problem
> but there;s still some degree of sticker shock.

Keep in mind WitP is a unique product. It's priced at that level
because we couldn't justify development otherwise. As I've posted in
this newsgroup, WitP is our _only_ game priced at that level. The only
other product at that price is the collection of four mega-campaigns
that normally sell separately for $25 each, available in the General's
Edition for $70. The vast majority of our games are $40 or less.

> Log onto the website to buy the game Now I'm greeted by a list of
> options:
> Want a physical disk? KACHING!, $10 please
> Do you think you might ever need to download the files again?
KACHING!
> $5 please
> I want to say there was one more item along those lines to but now I
> can't remember it.

All I can say is that we provide as many options as we can, with
declared prices on each option. War in the Pacific is our most
expensive product, but many gamers feel that it is still a bargain at
that price.

> Rightly or wrongly, I walked away from that purchase with the feeling
> that Matrix was one of those annoying companies that spends a lot of
> time playing all the angles, trying to squeeze the last dollar out of
> my wallet. In other words, a company that I tend to view very
> sceptically whenever I deal with them.

I hope that's not still the impression that you have, as it could not
be further from the truth. Wargaming is a niche hobby and no one's
getting rich doing this. For companies like you describe, in my
opinion you need to look again at some of the more mainstream cookie
cutter games.

If you have any questions regarding our store options in the future,
please drop us an e-mail to support@matrixgames.com and we'll be happy
to answer.

Regards,

- Erik
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1107453663.586665.176720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
erikr@matrixgames.com says...

> > Rightly or wrongly, I walked away from that purchase with the feeling
> > that Matrix was one of those annoying companies that spends a lot of
> > time playing all the angles, trying to squeeze the last dollar out of
> > my wallet. In other words, a company that I tend to view very
> > sceptically whenever I deal with them.
>
> I hope that's not still the impression that you have, as it could not
> be further from the truth. Wargaming is a niche hobby and no one's
> getting rich doing this. For companies like you describe, in my
> opinion you need to look again at some of the more mainstream cookie
> cutter games.

Let me just put in my strong vote of preference *for* digital download,
for the following reasons:

(a) Digital download means no physical copy protection[1], which means
I can back up my software appropriately[2] and don't suffer a brain-
damaged performance hit. Oh, and I don't have to *pay* for the
privilege of not backing up the software.

(b) Digital download means no CD to drag around with my laptop; for
someone who goes on the road even seldomly, the importance of this is
incalculable.

(c) Digital download means I can buy the games I want when I want, and
play them immediately - rather than waiting for the UPS man ... or
praying that the game is ever available in the shitty outlets here in
Podunk.[3]

The main question I would ask those who prefer CD-based distos is, "What
- *exactly* - do you get with your CD that I don't get with my file?"
Manual? Nope, a .pdf with both, almost every time. A *box*? Whoopie,
another box to put in the attic. A little silvery CD? That's worth
exactly 10 cents, and it took me two minutes to produce this with the
same CDRW that everyone has.

The only possible reason I can think of to prefer a CD is if you're one
of those poor wretches who's stuck with a modem. To them I would say,
"Take your modem, put it with your 386, and join us in the 21st
century."


[1] License-based protection is fine, and untroubling to anyone who's
playing by the rules. Like me.

[2] Or extremely, if you're Frank. <g>

[3] I actually bought CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE as a digital impulse-buy;
I was only marginally interested in the topic, but (a) the game was
inexpensive, (b) it was from a publisher I trusted, and (c) I could have
it in my hot little hands and be gaming in five minutes, on a weekend
when I needed a new game. So Matrix got $20 of my money *only because
of digital download*, and never would have made that Jackson with a CD.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:57:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 1 Feb 2005 18:51:23 -0800, "ERutins" <erikr@matrixgames.com> wrote:

>War In The Pacific (2 by 3) $69.99

Ding! Ding! Ding!
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:00:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:53:07 -0800, Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that's an extreme
>example. :p 
>
>I've had it happen to me where backup CDs that I'd burned worked fine
>when I read them on that CD drive but when I upgraded computers I just
>couldn't restore the full disks without random errors. It wasn't a big
>deal at the time but if that had happened with my WitP backup after I
>bought a new computer last month, there would have been a lot of
>bitching and righteous indignation.
>
>Rgds, Frank

Yea, CDR's go bad over time.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 11:38:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ERutins" <erikr@matrixgames.com> wrote in news:1107453663.586665.176720
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Frank,
>
>> Ya know, if that had been made plain to me when I downloaded WitP, I
>> would have had a different attitude about the whole thing.
>
> Yeah, we need to make that more clear. FYI, I don't know when you had
> this experience, but we have added more explanation to the store since
> and I know that the 30 day limit is explained now.
>
>> No mention was made about contacting Matrix, no mention was made
> about
>> having 30 days in case something went wrong. As a matter of fact, I'm
>> pretty sure you're wrong about that one, seems like the people I
>> downoladed from went out of their way to explain that I couldn't
>> download more than once unless I paid the $5.
>
> With respect, I know I'm right about that and that has always been the
> case, but it was no doubt not explained clearly.

This once again shows how important communication is - it's not enough
having the right product, it's equally important to make sure your
customers have a smooth buying experience - that is, one where every
doubt or question that could arise is answered right then and there.

Erik, thanks for taking the time to clear this matter up (1) - it's very
nice to see the big publisher listening to the concerns of the little
grunts down in the trenches (2) - much appreciated.

Ok, guys, time to lower the 88mm flak gun (3)

[we may be little grunts, but we pack heavy gear in case publishers
*aren't* listening]


Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(1) - I always wanted to footnote one of my posts - looks nice from here
(2) - look mum, did it again !
(3) - in reference to the thread a couple months ago on
"developers/publishers not visiting war-historical for fear of getting
caught in the flak" - boy, was I wrong back then ...
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:09:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <g6b5011u27r132d6mic78tmn1aat5r7vv9@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...

> Yea, CDR's go bad over time.

Hmmm. You're going to "go bad" at some point, you know[1].

Studies on CDR longevity have been somewhat equivocal, but data and
personal experience suggest that a reasonable figure for good-quality
dyes with careful storage and minimal tending is somewhere between 10
and 100 years.

Given the constant motion of the state of the art in computer hardware,
the true threat to the viability of a backup medium isn't the longevity
of the media, but the likelihood of having the hardware around to read
that CDR that survives for 50 years in 2055.

What this means is that backup is an ongoing, evolving process. We
don't need the CDR to survive any longer than the drive that reads it.
We won't need the DVR to extend beyond its hardware viability. What we
do need to do is continually update our backup strategies such that our
backups are always being written to media with *sufficient* longevity in
a medium with *sufficient* viability.

In other words, I really don't care if the 150MB cartridge tapes locked
in a media closet at work will work, because I transferred the
information on them to DAT six years ago. Down the road, I won't care
if I can read the DATs, because I'll have transferred the information to
<fancy new backup tech here>.

[1] I liked the phrase my ophthalmologist used; "Our goal here is for
you to die with the vision you have now." It's perfectly applicable to
data backups.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So these Sunnis complain that the [Iraqi] election is illegitimate
because they boycotted it. The obvious comparison is to the child
in the classic definition of *chutzpah*, who kills his parents and
pleads for mercy because he's an orphan."
- James Taranto
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:32:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <53b5019rfp8gh1p4aqrpav70c3koavfe65@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...

> >War In The Pacific (2 by 3) $69.99
>
> Ding! Ding! Ding!

More like "ding-dong," to cherry-pick a single title - and one
manifestly *not* characteristic of the other titles - as interesting in
any way.

A better way to approach this list of titles and prices is the obvious
one, and we find that the average price for a Matrix product is $31.29,
really rather a reasonable and supportable figure, by anyone's
yardstick.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"So these Sunnis complain that the [Iraqi] election is illegitimate
because they boycotted it. The obvious comparison is to the child
in the classic definition of *chutzpah*, who kills his parents and
pleads for mercy because he's an orphan."
- James Taranto
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:09:32 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Studies on CDR longevity have been somewhat equivocal, but data and
>personal experience suggest that a reasonable figure for good-quality
>dyes with careful storage and minimal tending is somewhere between 10
>and 100 years.

I've seen CDR's go bad after only a few months of use, The surface of
CDR's and CDRW's is quite delicate.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:14:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:32:22 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:


>More like "ding-dong," to cherry-pick a single title - and one
>manifestly *not* characteristic of the other titles - as interesting in
>any way.
>
>A better way to approach this list of titles and prices is the obvious
>one, and we find that the average price for a Matrix product is $31.29,
>really rather a reasonable and supportable figure, by anyone's
>yardstick.

Most of them are budget fodder not worth ten bucks.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:20:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

It's me wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:32:22 -0500, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >More like "ding-dong," to cherry-pick a single title - and one
> >manifestly *not* characteristic of the other titles - as interesting
in
> >any way.
> >
> >A better way to approach this list of titles and prices is the
obvious
> >one, and we find that the average price for a Matrix product is
$31.29,
> >really rather a reasonable and supportable figure, by anyone's
> >yardstick.
>
> Most of them are budget fodder not worth ten bucks.

LOL - really ? - how strange - you're probably in a minority on this,
but don't let that stop you in giving us the full list of Matrixgames -
remember you said "most" :)  that you consider not worth $10. I sure
hope BiN and HTTR are not on that list because that would really be a
howler.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:42:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <aps7011ss8tpv6hels0thgrhubiue0fakh@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...

> >Studies on CDR longevity have been somewhat equivocal, but data and
> >personal experience suggest that a reasonable figure for good-quality
> >dyes with careful storage and minimal tending is somewhere between 10
> >and 100 years.
>
> I've seen CDR's go bad after only a few months of use, The surface of
> CDR's and CDRW's is quite delicate.

So what? Nobody *uses* a backup. Backups are carefully stored in case
they're needed.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So these Sunnis complain that the [Iraqi] election is illegitimate
because they boycotted it. The obvious comparison is to the child
in the classic definition of *chutzpah*, who kills his parents and
pleads for mercy because he's an orphan."
- James Taranto
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:48:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <6ts701dph57ae0eq9j0t2e99tbtu46ra6s@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...

> >More like "ding-dong," to cherry-pick a single title - and one
> >manifestly *not* characteristic of the other titles - as interesting in
> >any way.
> >
> >A better way to approach this list of titles and prices is the obvious
> >one, and we find that the average price for a Matrix product is $31.29,
> >really rather a reasonable and supportable figure, by anyone's
> >yardstick.
>
> Most of them are budget fodder not worth ten bucks.

After a statement like this, your argument isn't worth ten cents.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So these Sunnis complain that the [Iraqi] election is illegitimate
because they boycotted it. The obvious comparison is to the child
in the classic definition of *chutzpah*, who kills his parents and
pleads for mercy because he's an orphan."
- James Taranto
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:05:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <6ts701dph57ae0eq9j0t2e99tbtu46ra6s@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:32:22 -0500, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >More like "ding-dong," to cherry-pick a single title - and one
> >manifestly *not* characteristic of the other titles - as interesting in
> >any way.
> >
> >A better way to approach this list of titles and prices is the obvious
> >one, and we find that the average price for a Matrix product is $31.29,
> >really rather a reasonable and supportable figure, by anyone's
> >yardstick.
>
> Most of them are budget fodder not worth ten bucks.

I think Matrix has some very good wargames. They're my favorite wargame
company.

You know, they don't do any different than any other company on this
earth. They set the price where they think they'll make the most money.
Whether that's a high price or low.
--
Epi

Armstrong Williams was just the tip of the iceberg,
Rush is the iceberg.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:41:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <aps7011ss8tpv6hels0thgrhubiue0fakh@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
> says...
>
>
>>>Studies on CDR longevity have been somewhat equivocal, but data and
>>>personal experience suggest that a reasonable figure for good-quality
>>>dyes with careful storage and minimal tending is somewhere between 10
>>>and 100 years.
>>
>>I've seen CDR's go bad after only a few months of use, The surface of
>>CDR's and CDRW's is quite delicate.
>
>
> So what? Nobody *uses* a backup. Backups are carefully stored in case
> they're needed.

I remember some test about CDRs and according to that some disks lost
data quite fast without anyone physically damaging them. I understood
that disks were stored away and when they were taken out for new test
some were totally gone, some had little problems reading data. I think
proble was with dye used in them or something?

For this some hobby digital photographers take two or three copies of
their photos to different brands of disks. Same can be used for all kind
of data.

I have my backups so that I have one 160GB USB drive that I use just for
backup, then somewhat current stuff stays on my laptop until I need more
space, and then for downloaded games etc. I burn them to CDs also. And
as extra I have copy also on my brothers machine where I need to copy
photos anyway because many of them are about his daughter :) 

But I don't feel any sympathy for person who doesn't have their
downloaded games or other valuable data at least on two different media.
USB disks area easy and quite cheap. CDRs are also cheap, but I wouldn't
rely on them only ..or at least single copy and/or single brand.



--
jari k

remove unnecessary parts of address to make it work
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <cu24cj$1pj$1@epityr.hut.fi>, jari k
<email.is:Jari.Kujansuu@hut.fi.invalid> says...

> >>I've seen CDR's go bad after only a few months of use, The surface of
> >>CDR's and CDRW's is quite delicate.
> >
> >
> > So what? Nobody *uses* a backup. Backups are carefully stored in case
> > they're needed.
>
> I remember some test about CDRs and according to that some disks lost
> data quite fast without anyone physically damaging them. I understood
> that disks were stored away and when they were taken out for new test
> some were totally gone, some had little problems reading data. I think
> proble was with dye used in them or something?

I've heard that, too. Specifically, there used to be a silver foil with
a sort of greenish dye-cast to it, and this was notorious for failing.
My understanding is that this isn't used any longer.

I'd also heard that some stick-on paper labels were found to react with
the foil and cause lossage. I always just use a Sharpie to write on the
disks, so I have no experience with this.

> But I don't feel any sympathy for person who doesn't have their
> downloaded games or other valuable data at least on two different media.
> USB disks area easy and quite cheap. CDRs are also cheap, but I wouldn't
> rely on them only ..or at least single copy and/or single brand.

Agreed. In times past, backing up home systems was a nightmare;
floppies were too small and failed at the drop of a hat, hard disks were
expensive, tape systems were out-of-control expensive, and networking
was something for Big Iron.

But now? It's never been so cheap or so convenient for even the
lowliest home user to implement an effective backup scheme. The last
external hard disk I bought even had a "one-touch" backup routine
accessible from the single Big Button on the front of the case. Five
minutes of setup, and you can back up all your data files just by
pressing a button. Even if you want to go with tape, you can pick up a
nice Sony DAT for about $350.

There's just no excuse anymore.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So these Sunnis complain that the [Iraqi] election is illegitimate
because they boycotted it. The obvious comparison is to the child
in the classic definition of *chutzpah*, who kills his parents and
pleads for mercy because he's an orphan."
- James Taranto
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 5:08:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:42:19 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:


>So what? Nobody *uses* a backup. Backups are carefully stored in case
>they're needed.

"CDRs are also cheap, but I wouldn't
rely on them only ..or at least single copy and/or single brand."

Ditto.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 5:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 4 Feb 2005 15:20:38 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:


>LOL - really ? - how strange - you're probably in a minority on this,
>but don't let that stop you in giving us the full list of Matrixgames -
>remember you said "most" :)  that you consider not worth $10. I sure
>hope BiN and HTTR are not on that list because that would really be a
>howler.
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx

No, those two are not on the list, nor Uncommon Valor. WIP is too rich
for my wallet and I doubt I would like it any way. The rest of their
stable don't interest me.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 10:27:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <c1ha015v239lcv0p9m4beu8f9oqj1h6nuj@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...

> >LOL - really ? - how strange - you're probably in a minority on this,
> >but don't let that stop you in giving us the full list of Matrixgames -
> >remember you said "most" :)  that you consider not worth $10. I sure
> >hope BiN and HTTR are not on that list because that would really be a
> >howler.

> No, those two are not on the list, nor Uncommon Valor. WIP is too rich
> for my wallet and I doubt I would like it any way. The rest of their
> stable don't interest me.

Hmmmm. What is your point, again?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around
for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys
like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of
a lot of fun to shoot them."
- Lieutenant General James Mattis, USMC
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:12:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <c1ha015v239lcv0p9m4beu8f9oqj1h6nuj@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
says...
> On 4 Feb 2005 15:20:38 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
> <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >LOL - really ? - how strange - you're probably in a minority on this,
> >but don't let that stop you in giving us the full list of Matrixgames -
> >remember you said "most" :)  that you consider not worth $10. I sure
> >hope BiN and HTTR are not on that list because that would really be a
> >howler.
> >
> >Greetz,
> >
> >Eddy Sterckx
>
> No, those two are not on the list, nor Uncommon Valor. WIP is too rich
> for my wallet and I doubt I would like it any way. The rest of their
> stable don't interest me.

So, don't buy them then. Is someone holding a gun to your head? If so,
that's probably a pretty good marketing strategy.

--
Epi

Armstrong Williams was just the tip of the iceberg,
Rush is the iceberg.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6dd2628d1d784298a172@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <aps7011ss8tpv6hels0thgrhubiue0fakh@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
> says...
>
> > >Studies on CDR longevity have been somewhat equivocal, but data and
> > >personal experience suggest that a reasonable figure for good-quality
> > >dyes with careful storage and minimal tending is somewhere between 10
> > >and 100 years.
> >
> > I've seen CDR's go bad after only a few months of use, The surface of
> > CDR's and CDRW's is quite delicate.
>
> So what? Nobody *uses* a backup. Backups are carefully stored in case
> they're needed.

I didn't backup install cd's until I dropped and then stepped on one. Since
then I use an install disk once, to install a game and make a backup. If the
game needs the cd in the drive the backup is the one I use. The original is
the one safely packed away. For those games that I can't make backups of, I
expect to wear out the disk after so many hundreds of hour of use, and
either have mutilple copies that I bought or expect to stop playing it
eventually.

I currently backup to dvd+R and am testing how well they stand up to
storage. CDR's have already failed here in less than 5 years of storage. In
the past I have used thru the years:
audio cassettes
8 in floppy
51/4 in floppy
3.5 in floppy
qic tapes
zip disks
cdr
cdrw
dvdr
dvdrw

For ease of use nothing beats a dvdrw, I can just drag and drop files across
my network to the comp with the dvdwriter and back up files as needed. The
current leader in price/storage is dvdr.

Despite the claims that it is long term storage the only drive I don't still
have hooked up anymore is the qic drive, too slow, too expensive and I never
liked how they worked under win9x instead of dos.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6d21f55dd07e7e98a16b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <g6b5011u27r132d6mic78tmn1aat5r7vv9@4ax.com>, me@here.noemail
> says...
>
> > Yea, CDR's go bad over time.
>
> Hmmm. You're going to "go bad" at some point, you know[1].
>
> Studies on CDR longevity have been somewhat equivocal, but data and
> personal experience suggest that a reasonable figure for good-quality
> dyes with careful storage and minimal tending is somewhere between 10
> and 100 years.
>
> Given the constant motion of the state of the art in computer hardware,
> the true threat to the viability of a backup medium isn't the longevity
> of the media, but the likelihood of having the hardware around to read
> that CDR that survives for 50 years in 2055.
>
> What this means is that backup is an ongoing, evolving process. We
> don't need the CDR to survive any longer than the drive that reads it.
> We won't need the DVR to extend beyond its hardware viability. What we
> do need to do is continually update our backup strategies such that our
> backups are always being written to media with *sufficient* longevity in
> a medium with *sufficient* viability.

Or you mothball equipment along with your media so that both are available
when needed. I still have 8 in floppy drives here to handle the boxes of 8
in disks I have stored away.
>
> In other words, I really don't care if the 150MB cartridge tapes locked
> in a media closet at work will work, because I transferred the
> information on them to DAT six years ago. Down the road, I won't care
> if I can read the DATs, because I'll have transferred the information to
> <fancy new backup tech here>.

This strategy might work if there is no loss of information in the transfer
and you complety migrate the data before you hardware fails. Ask me sometime
about the beta format tapes I still have packed away somewhere waiting for
the day that I can find a cheap beta format vcr to move them over to digital
video. Note I didn't say to vhs video, currently I use a video cap card to
function as my vcr, I no longer use video tape (except to store the 1000's
of hours of video I already have).
>
> [1] I liked the phrase my ophthalmologist used; "Our goal here is for
> you to die with the vision you have now." It's perfectly applicable to
> data backups.

You might be surprised at the retro computer fans that go so far as build
their own paper tape readers to read 1960's era paper tape and users of
audio cassette storage who create .wav files of their tapes and use sound
cards to simulate cassette players.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 4:11:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> A dozen years ago, the IRS imperiously[1] summoned me for an audit.
> When I arrived at the appointed hour, bright as a new penny, the
auditor
> gruffly demanded that I produce any and all records pertaining to my
> 19xx tax filings.
>
> I told him, "You have them, already."
>
> He replied, "Apparently you don't understand. You're being audited."
>
> To which I responded, "I was working as a cop that year, and you have
my
> W-2. I didn't itemize a single deduction. I filed Form 1040-EZ.
> That's my 'documentation.' All. Of. It. Are we about done here?"
>
> We were.

I'll up you one here :) 

On our tax forms you can leave a telephone number where the IRS can
reach you during business hours - one day they phoned and a young
female voice asked me why I hadn't provided a certain item while I had
put in a specific deduction.

I carefully explained to her the tax-law governing that item didn't
require it in this particular instance - she was mighty pleased that
someone actually took the trouble of carefully explaining the tax-laws
to her and asked a bunch of other questions unrelated to my tax return.
She confessed that she was too scared to tell her boss she didn't
understand any of it ... and she was supposed to audit people ... and
you wonder why we have a budget deficit ...

[and yeah, I nearly asked her out - but she never called back - sniff]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 5:04:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6ac1163043c69498a162@news-east.giganews.com...
> Speaking for myself, important files - as well as relatively unimportant
> stuff like my installation copy of CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE - get
> mirrored on a RAID, hot-backuped on an additional hard disk, copied to a
> server, archived to tape, archived to DVD, archived to CD, and copies of
> the tape, DVD, and CD are all stored off-site. I'm not sure what kind
> of cataclysm it would take to simultaneously destroy all the copies of
> my 2002 tax records ... and I don't intend to find out.
>

You know, that actually sounds like a pretty interesting game idea:

Destroy Giftzerg's Tax Returns -- a new game from Matrix Games!

Maybe "Return Raiders"?? "CPA Commandos"?? "Tax-Time Terror"???

:-)

Tom
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 5:21:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <110i39edeie4kce@corp.supernews.com>, ruschak@wintek.com
says...

> > Speaking for myself, important files - as well as relatively unimportant
> > stuff like my installation copy of CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE - get
> > mirrored on a RAID, hot-backuped on an additional hard disk, copied to a
> > server, archived to tape, archived to DVD, archived to CD, and copies of
> > the tape, DVD, and CD are all stored off-site. I'm not sure what kind
> > of cataclysm it would take to simultaneously destroy all the copies of
> > my 2002 tax records ... and I don't intend to find out.
> >
>
> You know, that actually sounds like a pretty interesting game idea:
>
> Destroy Giftzerg's Tax Returns -- a new game from Matrix Games!

> Maybe "Return Raiders"?? "CPA Commandos"?? "Tax-Time Terror"???

A dozen years ago, the IRS imperiously[1] summoned me for an audit.
When I arrived at the appointed hour, bright as a new penny, the auditor
gruffly demanded that I produce any and all records pertaining to my
19xx tax filings.

I told him, "You have them, already."

He replied, "Apparently you don't understand. You're being audited."

To which I responded, "I was working as a cop that year, and you have my
W-2. I didn't itemize a single deduction. I filed Form 1040-EZ.
That's my 'documentation.' All. Of. It. Are we about done here?"

We were.

[1] Redundant, I realize...

--
Giftzwerg
***
"This really is the future I wanted. Although I expected
longer battery life."
- James Lileks
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:06:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:09:26 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The only possible reason I can think of to prefer a CD is if you're one
>of those poor wretches who's stuck with a modem. To them I would say,
>"Take your modem, put it with your 386, and join us in the 21st
>century."

Aww, now that's just cruel - kinda like every month when I go to the
Sprint website to pay my phone bill online, and they have this little
button that says, "Click here to see if Sprint DSL is available where
you live," but whenever I click it the answer is always, "Not yet!"

John

yeah, so I'm catching up on reading old posts, so sue me
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:07:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

John Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:09:26 -0500, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The only possible reason I can think of to prefer a CD is if you're
one
> >of those poor wretches who's stuck with a modem. To them I would
say,
> >"Take your modem, put it with your 386, and join us in the 21st
> >century."
>
> Aww, now that's just cruel - kinda like every month when I go to the
> Sprint website to pay my phone bill online, and they have this little
> button that says, "Click here to see if Sprint DSL is available where
> you live," but whenever I click it the answer is always, "Not yet!"

You could always move :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

> yeah, so I'm catching up on reading old posts, so sue me

It took the posts *that* long to get through your modem ??? - man, I
pity you :) 
!