Ok, I don't want to sound condescending, but since you're not "in the biz" I feel I should point a few things out.
>I appreciate your other perspectives...but if their internal
>development is so limited, how are they able to turn out six
>new titles since the last quarter, and have another set to
>go next year?
Internal development is limited because they have no software systems engineers working for them. Turning out 6 titles on Director or M-Tropolis is relatively easy from a programming standpoint. But, as has been duly noted, the performance of these products suffers as a result. It's hard enough to get decent performance using proprietary technology let alone using an aging "multi-purpose" presentation tool. I'll admit that Director has gotten better over the years, but it still has too much overhead to perform acceptably (in my opinion.)
> Next, isn't Mario 64 an entertainment title?
>What does that have to do with education. Are you suggesting
>that education will fall to entertainment? Or does Sanctuary
>Woods represent a merging of the two that makes learning fun.
>How does Mario 64 teach children about Math and Reading?
Yes, Mario 64 is an entertainment title. But the market does not discern between entertainment and edutainment software. It's all software. People have X amount of dollars to spend on software and if you want a piece of that X amount of dollars, you're in competition with Mario 64. I know that you think people walk into the software store saying, "I'm going to buy educational software for my child" but when little Billy starts whining for Mario 64, you get to see market forces at work. The kids ultimately decide what they will get-- the same as in the toy market and the retail clothes market. Those TV commercials for G.I. Joe aren't aimed at you, Kent. They're aimed squarely at little Billy. Ultimately, little Billy decides between NFL Reading and Mario 64 and the last time I checked, Mario 64 was winning.
>Finally, I know next to nothing about mistreatment of internal
>developers. Thus, I am not able to comment on whether this is
>fact of just some former employee who is upset with a personal
>axe to grind.
Again, since you're not in the biz, I suggest you do some research. Talk to a programmer for a big software company and see what the word is on Sanctuary Woods.
>Earlier you or others suggested that this company was a "bad" >investment for people to make, and that the recent investees
>were really making a mistake (suckers). However, those
>"suckers" appear to be large investment groups who typically
>don't invest the way they did without some idea of what they >are getting into.
You mean like the Wisconsin State Investment board? :)
Bart. |
