Stand Alone - Axe Software Forums

  Axe Software Forums
  Quest Developer Forum
  Stand Alone

Author Topic:   Stand Alone

Dr_Snark posted 07-07-2001 19:58 GMT
Are there any Plans in making "stand Alone" Games?
Computer Whizz posted 07-07-2001 20:11 GMT
I doubt it alot!
why would he go to the trouble of making all of these different Quest versions just to make an independant game maker?
If you want one of those there is klick and play and stuff like that. I'd rather have it this way though, it saves on space and saves the consumer time and money overall!
--CW
carlii posted 08-07-2001 10:24 GMT
I disagree.
I think people will think of Quest as a more convinent option if a stand-alone "feature" is created.
The feature could be added with the QuestPro upgrade, therefore making it more worth-wild.
Computer Whizz posted 08-07-2001 17:34 GMT
Well, I still don't agree that it would be more convenient. With OUR computer's turning the code from ASL into binary would mean he code's more and it take's longer for us to release them. Also having the interface and the neccisary files for the stand-alone to work then it would be almost as big as Quest is now, if not even larger! This means the people would have to download about 2Mb (is it?) every time they would like to play 1 game! That to me is FAR too unacceptable!
I'd rather them download 500Kb, with an optional graphics/sound package and have Quest that run's say 20 games, all taking up 12Mb's, rather then 20 stand alone games that would take up 40Mb. This is still without any sound (maybe the odd beep command or something) or graphics!
The stand alone is a good idea for one-off's but nothing like this.
--CW
Dr_Snark posted 08-07-2001 21:17 GMT
Ok Thanks, This is the Far Bast Program I've used, ADRIFT sucks and Im sticking to this program,
Alex posted 09-07-2001 12:43 GMT
Having a stand-alone feature is only half possible anyway. I can make a program to stick both the Quest runtime and the game data into one EXE file fine, but the runtime still requires all the DLL and OCX files that any other VB app would. The only way around this would be to completely recode Quest in some other system - not something I have the time, money, resources or willpower to do.
However with a combined gamedata/runtime EXE file, your game could then be packaged nicely into one fat setup EXE using something like the freeware InnoSetup (which is what I'm creating all Quest install files with from now on). So a solution to the problem might be for QCompile to be able to output a "semi-stand-alone" EXE along with an InnoSetup script which you could then load into InnoSetup to create a single setup file.
You could then make this available for download or stick it on a CD-ROM or similar.
It's on the planned features list but please don't hold your breath... <plug>(but don't forget if you upgrade to Quest Pro today you'll receive free upgrades which means you'll get this wonderful feature as soon as it's available!)</plug>
willwinuk posted 13-07-2001 19:13 GMT
I think there should be two one stand alone and one not so people can pick.
Wizard posted 16-07-2001 18:41 GMT
Topic: Should a runtime version of Quest be compiled into the game code to produce a single EXE file? Thereby creating a stand-alone game.
First off I�m going to make some assumptions as to what people are trying to accomplish.
Axe Software � It�s a company. It needs to make money. Its customers are developers.
Developers � This is a question that each developer needs to answer for him/her self. Starting with is this just a hobby or do you want to sell something? To those interested in selling a game developed in Quest, the �game player� is the customer. They want to sell the game to as many customers as possible. They need to establish a reputation for putting out a quality product.
That being said here is my view.
Really what this boils down to, is quest to become a tool that professional game developers use to put out commercial products? IF is making a huge comeback and the market for selling IF games is growing.
Points we made about keeping the size small, and not having multiple copies of the needed run-time code. For my customers (the game players) when purchasing a game, size is not a major consideration. Content, developer reputation, and interface all rank must higher on my customers scale when it comes time to making a game buying decision.
As for Axe Software�s customers (the developers) size is important. Obviously putting the runtime code in every compiled version during development could eat a lot of space. However, once a complier has been modified to have the ability to add the runtime code, it should be easy to add a statement (possibly right after a include statement) that tells the compiler to add or not to add. This would give the developers the ability to use the separate run time during development.
Why would a developer want the run-time included?
� Commercial software is not distributed in a format that requires a host program. Hobby software is.
� Distributing the game with host software does not make the statement to the customer that I want my product to make. I want my customer to feel that my company puts out a professional quality product.
� Any extra layer of complexity for the customer will result in decreased sales. Requiring the customer to understand how to use host software with a game file will result in decreased sales.
� Requiring the customer to decide if the version of the host they already have will work with the game file they are considering, will result in decreased sales.
� I have found that customers are more likely to buy larger games than smaller. They feel that they are getting more.
� I need to build a relationship with my customer. Axe Software does not need to develop a relationship with my customer.
� In the non-stand alone version, a percentage of the game playing population will not realize that the people that wrote the game and the people that wrote the host are not the same. This presents other problems. If someone puts out a bad game, it could result in loss of sales to my company by association. Even if the customer realizes the separation between Axe and developer, if the first Axe game they try is junk then will be reluctant to buy another.
Conclusion � I think that Quest is great! I like being able to share my views with Axe Software. I feel that the including runtime and the game file in a stand-alone EXE would be a great benefit. If the amount of work to produce this feature is significant, you may want to offer it as the Commercial Compiler at a higher price that the Pro version.
Thanks for listening, Wizard

Author	Topic: Stand Alone
Dr_Snark	posted 07-07-2001 19:58 GMT Are there any Plans in making "stand Alone" Games?
Computer Whizz	posted 07-07-2001 20:11 GMT I doubt it alot! why would he go to the trouble of making all of these different Quest versions just to make an independant game maker? If you want one of those there is klick and play and stuff like that. I'd rather have it this way though, it saves on space and saves the consumer time and money overall! --CW
carlii	posted 08-07-2001 10:24 GMT I disagree. I think people will think of Quest as a more convinent option if a stand-alone "feature" is created. The feature could be added with the QuestPro upgrade, therefore making it more worth-wild.
Computer Whizz	posted 08-07-2001 17:34 GMT Well, I still don't agree that it would be more convenient. With OUR computer's turning the code from ASL into binary would mean he code's more and it take's longer for us to release them. Also having the interface and the neccisary files for the stand-alone to work then it would be almost as big as Quest is now, if not even larger! This means the people would have to download about 2Mb (is it?) every time they would like to play 1 game! That to me is FAR too unacceptable! I'd rather them download 500Kb, with an optional graphics/sound package and have Quest that run's say 20 games, all taking up 12Mb's, rather then 20 stand alone games that would take up 40Mb. This is still without any sound (maybe the odd beep command or something) or graphics! The stand alone is a good idea for one-off's but nothing like this. --CW
Dr_Snark	posted 08-07-2001 21:17 GMT Ok Thanks, This is the Far Bast Program I've used, ADRIFT sucks and Im sticking to this program,
Alex	posted 09-07-2001 12:43 GMT Having a stand-alone feature is only half possible anyway. I can make a program to stick both the Quest runtime and the game data into one EXE file fine, but the runtime still requires all the DLL and OCX files that any other VB app would. The only way around this would be to completely recode Quest in some other system - not something I have the time, money, resources or willpower to do. However with a combined gamedata/runtime EXE file, your game could then be packaged nicely into one fat setup EXE using something like the freeware InnoSetup (which is what I'm creating all Quest install files with from now on). So a solution to the problem might be for QCompile to be able to output a "semi-stand-alone" EXE along with an InnoSetup script which you could then load into InnoSetup to create a single setup file. You could then make this available for download or stick it on a CD-ROM or similar. It's on the planned features list but please don't hold your breath... <plug>(but don't forget if you upgrade to Quest Pro today you'll receive free upgrades which means you'll get this wonderful feature as soon as it's available!)</plug>
willwinuk	posted 13-07-2001 19:13 GMT I think there should be two one stand alone and one not so people can pick.
Wizard	posted 16-07-2001 18:41 GMT Topic: Should a runtime version of Quest be compiled into the game code to produce a single EXE file? Thereby creating a stand-alone game. First off I�m going to make some assumptions as to what people are trying to accomplish. Axe Software � It�s a company. It needs to make money. Its customers are developers. Developers � This is a question that each developer needs to answer for him/her self. Starting with is this just a hobby or do you want to sell something? To those interested in selling a game developed in Quest, the �game player� is the customer. They want to sell the game to as many customers as possible. They need to establish a reputation for putting out a quality product. That being said here is my view. Really what this boils down to, is quest to become a tool that professional game developers use to put out commercial products? IF is making a huge comeback and the market for selling IF games is growing. Points we made about keeping the size small, and not having multiple copies of the needed run-time code. For my customers (the game players) when purchasing a game, size is not a major consideration. Content, developer reputation, and interface all rank must higher on my customers scale when it comes time to making a game buying decision. As for Axe Software�s customers (the developers) size is important. Obviously putting the runtime code in every compiled version during development could eat a lot of space. However, once a complier has been modified to have the ability to add the runtime code, it should be easy to add a statement (possibly right after a include statement) that tells the compiler to add or not to add. This would give the developers the ability to use the separate run time during development. Why would a developer want the run-time included? � Commercial software is not distributed in a format that requires a host program. Hobby software is. � Distributing the game with host software does not make the statement to the customer that I want my product to make. I want my customer to feel that my company puts out a professional quality product. � Any extra layer of complexity for the customer will result in decreased sales. Requiring the customer to understand how to use host software with a game file will result in decreased sales. � Requiring the customer to decide if the version of the host they already have will work with the game file they are considering, will result in decreased sales. � I have found that customers are more likely to buy larger games than smaller. They feel that they are getting more. � I need to build a relationship with my customer. Axe Software does not need to develop a relationship with my customer. � In the non-stand alone version, a percentage of the game playing population will not realize that the people that wrote the game and the people that wrote the host are not the same. This presents other problems. If someone puts out a bad game, it could result in loss of sales to my company by association. Even if the customer realizes the separation between Axe and developer, if the first Axe game they try is junk then will be reluctant to buy another. Conclusion � I think that Quest is great! I like being able to share my views with Axe Software. I feel that the including runtime and the game file in a stand-alone EXE would be a great benefit. If the amount of work to produce this feature is significant, you may want to offer it as the Commercial Compiler at a higher price that the Pro version. Thanks for listening, Wizard