@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Wildstar128 Amiga Inc. have never paid (at some least some of )the people that made the original "AA" games. There are some very good people on this site that have stated they never received any money for their titles like, Word Me Up, etc, etc, etc. Why would some one want to work with Amiga Inc., knowing they are just doing it for free and Bill McEwen gets all the money from their hard work? Can you answer this?

The SDA indicates that Amiga Inc. shall pay the Developer an amount of 60% of net proceeds and paid quarterly for amount no less than $100. If only one person bought your game and your prices was $1.99 and if you assume the overhead of the cost was $8. You need it to sell more then 4 copies for there to be a net-proceed. You need to sell like 51 more copies to get net proceeds up to $100. But you ain't going to get a check yet. You need the net proceeds to be $167.67 cents and Amiga will keep the $67.67 (getting their 40%) and then you get your $100. So it can be realistic to assume 84 to 85 copies need to be sold.

It is hard to say what the over head would be but I would think that you would and should expect to have to sell 100 copies in order to expect to receive a paycheck.

If you only sell a couple copies for a title... no checks. You have the option and right to distribute the titles yourself.

Making AA apps does NOT mean that you work for Bill McEwen at the same time does NOT mean that you have to distribute your AA apps (and games) through Amiga Inc. By distributing the titles yourself then you receive the proceeds directly and all of it. Using another distributor will involve some loss in proceeds BUT that is a distribution agreement between you the developer and your chosen Distributor. I won't comment on other distributors. That is your job in "shopping" for "distributors".

By signing the SDA, you give Amiga Inc. authorization to distribute software that you selectively send to them to distribute. They can't sell it unless you send them the title to sell through their online store. This doesn't bar you from using other distributors nor does it stop you from selling titles yourself and NOR do you have to send Amiga Inc. your titles so they can sell copies of it.

You can have an distribution agreement with Amiga Inc. and actually use somebody else (which whom you send all your titles). In other words, using the SDA only to receive the AA SDK and use the AA in your apps. It is a choice to send your titles to.

I intend to sell titles directly and some titles be available for download. I may choose to use another distributor. I don't have to use Amiga Inc.'s distribution house and I probably won't. So what. It isn't like you are forced.

@Pleng

Quote:

Pleng wrote: @Wildstar128 Quote: Too many AA developers are simply waiting and not doing. We're still waiting to see what exactly it is that you are doing. If you can't prove that you're working on anything significant, I don't see how you can slate the other (3 or 4) AA devs!

Really?....

ok. I'll address that when I've done the pixeling work and then put the code together for the "Pong" game. Well... I'm doing something more than just a B&W Pong. Something more in the lines of "Dynamoid" from C64.

It'll be released under Public Domain when released and NOT a game for sale and source code would be available but I can't release the AmigaAnywhere library .h files. Copyright issues. As for the executable, it will be available under Windows x86 right now. I'm addressing cross-compiling issues.

@Wildstar128

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: The SDA indicates that Amiga Inc. shall pay the Developer an amount of 60% of net proceeds and paid quarterly for amount no less than $100. If only one person bought your game and your prices was $1.99 and if you assume the overhead of the cost was $8. You need it to sell more then 4 copies for there to be a net-proceed. You need to sell like 51 more copies to get net proceeds up to $100. But you ain't going to get a check yet. You need the net proceeds to be $167.67 cents and Amiga will keep the $67.67 (getting their 40%) and then you get your $100. So it can be realistic to assume 84 to 85 copies need to be sold.

I believe Amiga Inc failed to pay just like they have failed on all their other bills and past employees. But giving them the benefit of the doubt them....


The games that people did not get paid for are in the $10 to $15 range.

So you are saying that Amiga Inc didn't fail to pay them, you're just saying AA games just don't sell more than 7 to 10 copies to the entire world?

So, either way (amiga scams you or titles just don't sell), why program in AA if you will make $0?

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@Wildstar128

You can still provide the source to what you have coded. Nobody is asking for the source to the included libraries.

@Arko

Quote:

Arko wrote: @Wildstar128 Quote: Wildstar128 wrote: @Arko Read again - AA SDK is *currently* only available for Windows and the stock compiler only compiles to x86 or ARM. Use another compiler that compiles to the target cpus .... .... All I need is a Windows cross-compiler for those target platforms above. A PLATFORM CONSISTS OF MORE THEN A CPU Without OS support AA2 is no use, for every Platform that is not supported. READ IT AGAIN: There is no AA2 for Linux, AROS, MorphOS AmigaOS4, AmigaOS3, Symbian, MacOSX or iPhone. There is nothing in AA2 that would make it more useful than SDL, a cheaper and better system that is available on more platform than AA2 was announced for.

Define "cheaper" in your statement? How is it cheaper then $0.

Without OS suppoort, the program would be compiled and running like a Nintendo. Of course, there would be some direct hw coding on this regard. However, there is the approach of sending to a VM level and let the VM program (whether it is an embedded Java JIT, Tao intent VM, a custom VM, or some other mechanism but then I have the choice of VMs and not be locked to intent.

If you have AA1 SDK, then I can use the Tao intent engine and compile my app/game that is using AA2 and use the intent VM. If I find another VM engine using a virtual processor system, I can compile it to that with appropriate processor.

If I was compiling an app down to be used on say a Super Nintendo, then I would need to provide a few includes files for plugging direct communication to the chipset built inside. There be some work involved but still.

If you want to use SDL, then use it. If you have no desire to use AA then what is your problem with someone wanting to use AA and not once did I say that I "want" you to use AA nor did I ever demanded you to. You decide what you want to use. If you are undecided, then you decide. But what do you want to do? If you want to make 2D games then AA would be a reasonably simple API to use. If you want to do 3D, it is possible depending on your game engine approach. You could throw a few stuff from other APIs like OpenGL if you are interested in doing heavy duty 3D desktop gaming kinds of stuff.

OpenGL is a 3D graphics API mechanism and would augment something like AA.

I'm not too interested in doing those types of games when I have to do all the work and not just the programming. 3D modeling/Rendering and Animation stuff is very time consuming work and when you step into that arena you must do 100% Major Corporations level work or be laughed off the block because gamers when they see OpenGL or Direct3D - they expect to see World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Bioshock, Halo3, Assassins Creed or Assassins Creed II kind of level production. If it falls short of that standard, it would be laughed off as the most ridiculous game ever produced. One man or even a small team development will not come close to that kind of development.

Just being brutally honest. If it takes a crew of over 100 people 9 to 18 months to produce the title - would do you think it would take "me" to produce that kind of game by myself?

I'm looking at 1000 to 2000 months which amounts to how many years?

Anything that I (and most individuals) would want to do and would be able to produce in 9 months time - AA would be able to do sufficiently.

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Wildstar128 Quote: Wildstar128 wrote: The SDA indicates that Amiga Inc. shall pay the Developer an amount of 60% of net proceeds and paid quarterly for amount no less than $100. If only one person bought your game and your prices was $1.99 and if you assume the overhead of the cost was $8. You need it to sell more then 4 copies for there to be a net-proceed. You need to sell like 51 more copies to get net proceeds up to $100. But you ain't going to get a check yet. You need the net proceeds to be $167.67 cents and Amiga will keep the $67.67 (getting their 40%) and then you get your $100. So it can be realistic to assume 84 to 85 copies need to be sold. I believe Amiga Inc failed to pay just like they have failed on all their other bills and past employees. But giving them the benefit of the doubt them.... The games that people did not get paid for are in the $10 to $15 range. So you are saying that Amiga Inc didn't fail to pay them, you're just saying AA games just don't sell more than 7 to 10 copies to the entire world? So, either way (amiga scams you or titles just don't sell), why program in AA if you will make $0?

If a game is a ####TY game, then it isn't going to sell and a ####ty game won't sell whether you use SDL, AA, or any API.

I don't know exactly how many they sold through Amiga Inc. Maybe they sold more directly because some people will rather get the game directly then deal with Amiga. You would rather spend $2 to get a decent game from me directly then get my game through Amiga Inc. and pay $2. Some folks have a negative sentiment with Amiga Inc. and not so much the AA API as any sentiment against AA is mostly because they have a negative sentiment with Amiga Inc. Sure there are reasons behind the sentiment. Amiga Inc. needs o do some real work to rebuild its image.

I have no numbers exactly as to how many sales were made for a given title through Amiga Inc. as well as as sales made directly to the game developer from the game developer's website. So the bottom line, business wise - if you make a title with AA - don't use Amiga Inc.'s store. Use another distributor or sell directly yourself and make the game a good game that people will want to spend money on.

APIs don't sell the title. The game itself sells the game. A good games that uses AA's API written for Windows has a market of users of 500+ Million users if I remember.

A good game will sell on Windows and you can use AA. It won't make a difference, really. Gamers don't really care. They want something fun and entertaining to them with good graphics not something corny like Snowman Maker....

@Pleng

Quote:

Pleng wrote: @Wildstar128 You can still provide the source to what you have coded. Nobody is asking for the source to the included libraries.

Sure thing but I been busy on a variety of things and not all things are software development related.

If I'm releasing something as PD, I'm releasing the source code of the game itself and whatever libraries I produce or is not under a copyright protection and the gfx/sound files and whatever data files. (This doesn't mean just the "Pong" game.)

Of course, when I completed it and is satisfied with the results.

Last edited by Wildstar128 on 12-Jul-2009 at 10:36 PM.

@Wildstar128

Quote:

APIs don't sell the title. The game itself sells the game. A good games that uses AA's API written for Windows has a market of users of 500+ Million users if I remember. A good game will sell on Windows and you can use AA. It won't make a difference, really. Gamers don't really care. They want something fun and entertaining to them with good graphics not something corny like Snowman Maker....

So you can sell your AA games on your own? I thought you had to sell AA games through Amiga Inc. ?? Am I wrong on that?

Last edited by AmigaHeretic on 12-Jul-2009 at 11:15 PM.

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@AmigaHeretic

Yes you can.

Especially with AA2 not being tied explicitly to the Tao intent VM, you don't need a special player for the app to run if you compile the code down to your target binary.

Yes Amiga Inc. loves to have more apps through their store but NOTHING in law or contract prohibits you from selling your games yourself.

Most of the developers may have made the impression of that because they sold their games through them (or it just sat on the website collecting dust).

There has been apparently misconception on that part. Remember, you are the copyright holder of the games themselves.

So you were wrong about it but I don't blame you for that misconception or reaching that conclusion.

Last edited by Wildstar128 on 13-Jul-2009 at 12:57 AM.
Last edited by Wildstar128 on 13-Jul-2009 at 12:56 AM.

@Wildstar128

Quote:

Of course[i'll release an AA game], when I completed it and is satisfied with the results.

Fine. At that point we can start to give AA and yourself some credit.

Until then, myself and most of the thread/form believe two things:

1 - AA is cr*p
2- You are full of it

The only way to prove us wrong is produce something. None of your babble will do it. So if you're a busy man I suggest you stop posting drivel on this forum, and tart producing something to back up all the rubbish you've been spouting.

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: AA isn't dead, because Amiga Inc. is still doing work on it.

How do you know Amiga Inc. is still working on AA or AA2 ?
There are no visible updates on AA or AA2.

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: The problem here is that people are waiting instead of doing. Too many AA developers are simply waiting and not doing.

How do you know they are 'waiting' ?
As far as i know you must register as a developer to take a look to AA2, registering is free, so everyone who is just curious enough to take a look to AA2 has to be registered as developer.

I consider the most 'developers' where just curious, they got access to AA2 and decided not to waste their time with AA2.

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: Define "cheaper" in your statement? How is it cheaper then $0.

Total costs of SDL:

Windows32 = $0
WindowsCE = $0
Linux = $0
AROS = $0
MorphOS = $0
AmigaOS4 = $0
AmigaOS3 = $0

Total costs of AA2:

Windows32 = $0
WindowsCE = $0
Linux = priceless
AROS = priceless
MorphOS = priceless
AmigaOS4 = priceless
AmigaOS3 = priceless

So developing a SDL application for all this platforms costs $0 developing a AA2 application for all this platform is priceless-

A PLATFORM CONSISTS OF MORE THEN A CPU

Without OS support AA2 is no use, for every Platform that is not supported.

READ IT AGAIN:

There is no AA2 for Linux, AROS, MorphOS AmigaOS4, AmigaOS3, Symbian, MacOSX or iPhone. There is nothing in AA2 that would make it more useful than SDL, a cheaper and better system that is available on more platform than AA2 was announced for.



Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: If you have AA1 SDK, then I can use the Tao intent engine and compile my app/game that is using AA2 and use the intent VM. If I find another VM engine using a virtual processor system, I can compile it to that with appropriate processor.

READ IT AGAIN:

A PLATFORM CONSISTS OF MORE THEN A CPU

Without OS support AA2 is no use, for every Platform that is not supported.


Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: Without OS suppoort, the program would be compiled and running like a Nintendo.

This is not true

If I look for the software support of the Nintendos I see more software support and more libraries for Nintendo than everfything on AA2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS_homebrew

Last edited by Arko on 13-Jul-2009 at 08:41 AM.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

@Arko

Quote:

Quote: Wildstar128 wrote: Without OS suppoort, the program would be compiled and running like a Nintendo. This is not true If I look for the software support of the Nintendos I see more software support and more libraries for Nintendo than everfything on AA2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS_homebrew

Ok, then compile to a VM level. The VM would handle the abstracted hw layer to real hw layer.

I could compile it to Tao intent for example. The point of compilization is that all the abstracted hw would be translated into real hw communication calls. At least that is the idea of picking the VM. Tai intent served as the OS when it isn't sitting on top of say Linux.

Quote:

Wildstar128 wrote: Ok, then compile to a VM level. The VM would handle the abstracted hw layer to real hw layer. I could compile it to Tao intent for example. The point of compilization is that all the abstracted hw would be translated into real hw communication calls. At least that is the idea of picking the VM. Tai intent served as the OS when it isn't sitting on top of say Linux.

There is no AA2 for:

Linux, AROS, MorphOS AmigaOS4, AmigaOS3, Symbian, MacOSX or iPhone. There is nothing in AA2 that would make it more useful than SDL, a cheaper and better system that is available on more platform than AA2 was announced for.

There is also no AA /TAO for:

ARM-Linux, AROS, MorphOS AmigaOS4, AmigaOS3, Symbian, MacOSX, iPhone or Nintendo. Nothing AA could be used for on this platform.

Last edited by Arko on 13-Jul-2009 at 09:52 AM.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

@Wildstar128

I>f you have AA1 SDK, then I can use the Tao intent engine and compile my app/game that is using AA2 and use the intent VM. If I find another VM engine using a virtual processor system, I can compile it to that with appropriate processor.

Yes: IF. But you can´t do it with AA2, so it´s pointless. And AA2 has nothing to do with AA1 (which is in beta staus and simply dead).

_________________
AmigaOne X5000/40, 2.2 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, Radeon R9 280X, M-Audio Revolution 5.1, 240 GB SSD

@Wildstar128

AA once made sense to me, back in the days when Amiga Inc first tried to convince everyone it was the new "AmigaOS" and that everyone should stop coding for OS3.x and code for AA instead. They claimed it would run on just about anything, and atleast I got the impression Amiga Inc would create backends for whatever new device and/or operating system that became available. However, for some reason Amiga Inc decided to more or less reduce AA to a pointless CPU consuming abstraction layer for Windows mobile devices, which made me loose all interest.

Having a quick look at the Amiga Inc shop reveals that even the "Anywhere" compiled apps may require a specific Windows version (and thus device) to run...

@AmiDog

Maybe there is some things technical misunderstanding.

AA was and always been an API.

The SDK package setup may have been different.

AA1 (I have AA 1.5 but is basically AA1 generation but last model of that AA generation.

Amiga Inc. built some API classes but it was much tightly built around Tao intent's API classes and you would require an AA Player (which was an Tao intent Player) which is a VM/interpreter to interpret C/C++ (and apparently Java stuff too) to Tao intent VP code (equivelent to Java bytecode) at compile time (well the SDK did that) and then during run-time (execution time), the Player/interpreter would interpret the VP code to the underlying machine language of the system.

AA2 is an expanded AA API but does not rely on intent but the idea of compiling using any intent like VM like Antics and some others, will allow you to distribute a non-source code distribution of your game to any platform because it is compiled at a level higher then the lowest level language (machine language) of the CPU. AA2 implements a fat binary system of which I personally do not know enough about to really comment on.

My approach would be to use the AA2 level API but use either native level compile to target CPU/OS or target to a virtual machine's 'pseudo-machine language' in which you need a player for that VM.

Just like you need a Java player (they call it Java interpreter/compiler/ect.) for each platform to use Java on that platform.

I'm working on re-setting up my Wavestar Interactive website. I currently have a LAME fill-in file.

I'll be rebuilding the site completely and it will be the location in which I'll be distribute my software through.

URL: http://www.wavestarinteractive.co.cc

Last edited by Wildstar128 on 14-Jul-2009 at 04:44 AM.
Last edited by Wildstar128 on 14-Jul-2009 at 04:40 AM.

Richard Balkins ( AKA wildstar ) lives in Astoria ... he must be Rick Astoria ... that explains a lot.


upadete:

I looked back into the thread, wildstar already told it.

@Wildstar,

you can try to translate some AA2 examples for Windows to x86 Linux and x86 AROS.

If using AA2 for x86 windows gives code that runs on x86 Linux or x86 AROS I will probably change my mind.

If not, you may understand why no one in the Pandora community might be interested on AA2.

Last edited by Arko on 16-Jul-2009 at 08:00 AM.
Last edited by Arko on 14-Jul-2009 at 02:50 PM.
Last edited by Arko on 14-Jul-2009 at 02:49 PM.
Last edited by Arko on 14-Jul-2009 at 02:48 PM.
Last edited by Arko on 14-Jul-2009 at 02:46 PM.
Last edited by Arko on 14-Jul-2009 at 02:42 PM.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

@Wildstar128

Quote:

The SDA indicates

I do not know the SDA, so I can't comment on it. But I have access to the SDK at a friend's place, and here's what the Readme of the AA 2.0.0 SDK distribution says:

Quote:

The beta version of the Amiga Anywhere SDK has special restrictions on how it may be used. In general, no redistribution of this SDK or any products created using this SDK is allowed except where otherwise specified. Please consult your Amiga representative for further details.

(I couldn't find any other document dealing with the distribution of content created with the 2.0 SDK).

Apparently, you didn't notice this paragraph. Somehow, this tells me that we should rather wait for someone else to come along and explain the AA 2.0 SDA to us.

Last edited by cgutjahr on 14-Jul-2009 at 03:43 PM.

@cgutjahr

Quote:

Somehow, this tells me that we should rather wait for someone else to come along and explain the AA 2.0 SDA to us.

SDA says nothing about other sorts of distribution (other than Amiga.Inc).

Quote:

In general, no redistribution of this SDK or any products created using this SDK is allowed except where otherwise specified. Please consult your Amiga representative for further details.

I think they only want to force developers to use their (A.Inc) distribution for commercial applications. But clear word can say only an "Amiga representative". I will ask them about this topic when I will send them my SDA.