Forced release NOW!

category: general [glöplog]
I'm reasonably fed up with various parties' release policy. Party after party, vital prods (usually high placing ones) are not released for many days or even weeks after the party.

I realise that people are generally busy and have to work close up to deadline. But if you contribute, you release.
I hope that organisers will run a tighter shift from now on and release the prods anyway.

Have you tried laxatives? They can help speed up release.
take a cue from this guy: shut up and dance!

added on the 2004-09-20 03:45:50 by Shifter Shifter
Even in the history parties let people work on their final versions, which is ok.
Example 1: Anruf aus Schweden, the final version is _much_ better than the party version. "There is no nead to release this buggy version, we will release the final soon."
Example 2: downside by black maiden, 1st presented at Evoke Z003, still no final. What you can do is kick their ass to make one, ... like I do now. :)
imo demomakers are right to use their right to control the distribution of their works.

and especially when they promise us final versions soon after parties :)
added on the 2004-09-20 05:31:14 by Zest Zest
i believe parties should listen to the wishes of the demomakers to some extent. if the group/people in question have a trackrecord of delivering release/final-versions of their productions shortly after the party, they should be given some slack. if they are well known for rarely/never living up to their promise, they should be given a timelimit to release their production - if they don't stick to it, the party organizers should be allowed to release it.

in fact; that should become the defacto standard for party organizers, include it in the rules: if the demomakers request that you do not release their prod - give them a deadline to deliver a new version or else; release the partyversion.
added on the 2004-09-20 09:33:37 by gloom gloom
Agree with gloom. Maybe it should be 1 month or so to release either a final or (seeing as a final might take a long time if the original plans were big...) at least a fixed version.

And remember, if that final you've been waiting for is taking too long, you can always "politely remind" the coder (whilst hoping that they haven't moved onto the next project or lost the source code).

Still waiting for the Moppi ASM release,

added on the 2004-09-20 10:43:29 by psonice psonice
I don't see the problem here. I'd rather spend some time fixing a release version instead of sending out a party version that I know is buggy.

IMHO downloading a demo that doesn't work on my machine is more annoying than waiting a week for a proper version. And, as a demomaker I'd rather people see my demos as they were meant to look (fix a detail here and there, test on different hw). And if that takes an extra week or two - so be it.
added on the 2004-09-20 12:42:41 by samwise samwise
Waiting a week is alright.
Waiting over a year is not. (BM anyone?)
added on the 2004-09-20 12:52:51 by Nezbie Nezbie
samwise: very good point about the "non-working prods are more annoying" - you're right on the money there, that's for sure. :)

i'd also like to take this opportunity to spank my own excess-ass and refer to sesse's comment this prod. attending kg this weekend made it more or less a 3-year anniversary for not releasing a final (even though we should - that prod sucks, but as far as i know we don't even have the sources anymore :)
added on the 2004-09-20 13:06:31 by gloom gloom
I like to get the chance to remove partycoding-bugs and such, but a week should be sufficient for that at all times. there are deadlines for a reason ;)

gloom: well, lets just leave that demo crappy. it's not like it's really worth saving. and the party-version IS out there... if some actually would WANT to see it, that is ;)
added on the 2004-09-20 14:09:04 by kusma kusma
kusma: i see i used the world "should", though what i ment to write was "shouldn't" - that demo is really bad and if people don't see it; good! :)
added on the 2004-09-20 14:16:18 by gloom gloom
I don't resent the idea of spending some time making a final, I resent the idea of not releasing the party version immediately. Go ahead, make your bugfree version, but I for one want the one with bugs too. It is the party version that was contributed to the actual compo, not the final.
agree with dominator
added on the 2004-09-20 14:34:49 by quisten quisten
the compo version should always be released.
if the compo version is fit to be entered and reach the big screen, and even win the compo, it should certainly be fit to release.

added on the 2004-09-20 15:29:29 by smash smash
smash: you can still save people from being a bit annoyed by fixing non-visual bugs. like crashes and stuff.
added on the 2004-09-20 15:40:14 by kusma kusma
kusma, but you can do that afterwards and let people see your production immediatly. I'm way more annoyed by non-released productions than by productions that crash.
added on the 2004-09-20 15:44:02 by Preacher Preacher
As i see it 90% of the demos shouldn`t have been released to the public :)
added on the 2004-09-20 16:17:33 by Zplex Zplex
So you actually think they deserve an exclusive audience? :P
agree with dominei. plenty party orgas don't at all feel like measuring some deadlines and all that. they just want the damn job to be over and done with.

if you feel your demo is not yet good enough for the public, don't release it yet, damnit. if you know it doesn't run on any frigging platform but the compomachine, put that in the infofile.

entering a compo means releasing. period.
added on the 2004-09-20 16:31:22 by skrebbel skrebbel
i want pioneers+hiteksounds by Matt Current :/
hey, all of us want that.
added on the 2004-09-20 16:56:29 by skrebbel skrebbel
sir RICHARD kbab: I dont...
this might be a good time to point out that the subject of this thread might attract some rather dubious people.
added on the 2004-09-20 18:18:11 by gloom gloom
yep. like people who post a random array of shit like this: BB Image
added on the 2004-09-20 18:50:28 by Shifter Shifter