From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Bilestoad
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:56:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <goodman.711845868@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> goodman@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Marc Goodman) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>I do not believe that DataMost was in financial trouble when the Bilestoad
>>came out. Your assumption that piracy was a major cause is probably
>>wrong, but untestable, and therefore, not a meaningfull argument. 
>
>Datamost was in financial trouble by 1984.  My contract with them was
>signed on December 28th, 1982.  At that point the claimed to be
>getting out of the software business, because they couldn't make a go
>of it (in spite of programs like Aztec and The Bilestoad).

Were they in trouble when you signed the contract? I have seen The
Bilestoad, but never played it. I loved Aztek though. Did their problems
stem from mismanagement or lack of sales?
 
>The Bilestoad was voted one of the most popular games in 1983, in
>spite of the fact that both previous games I wrote sold about four
>times as many copies.  This was IN SPITE OF the fact that by 1982 a
>significantly larger customer base existed, since many more apples
>were out in 1983-1984 than in 1980, when the first game was published.
>This, coupled with the fact that MANY people have told me that there
>were large numbers of pirated copies indicates that piracy WAS A
>SIGNIFICANT FACTOR in reducing my income.  Since I dropped out of the
>market because I couldn't earn enough in it, we may therefore infer
>that piracy was a contributing factor to me dropping out of the
>market.

OK, point taken. Piracy was a factor. 
 
>>The
>>lost profits argument -assumes- that everyone who pirates a program could
>>afford to buy is (no lost profits otherwise). I suspect that most of the
>>time, this is not the case. And I suspect that the claimed lost profits
>>exceed the expendable cash of the American public by an order of magnitude.
>>Note, I am not defending piracy, but I am attacking the lost profits
>>argument.
>
>No, it doesn't assume that everyone who pirates a program would have
>bought it.  

The numbers I have seen figure lost profits by (pirated copies) *
(price of software). 

>            It assumes that SOME SIGNIFICANT FRACTION of the people
>who pirated the program would have bought it if they COULDN'T GET IT
>FOR FREE.  Given the sales on the first two games I wrote, I certainly
>believe this to be the case.  If The Bilestoad had sold as many copies
>as SpaceWarrior or Planetoids (and the very fact that you've probably
>never heard of either of those would seem to indicate that it SHOULD
>HAVE), then I could have at least paid off my mastercard and recouped
>my investment of time in developing the game.
>
>>None of which has any bearing on the fact that the PUBLISHER screwed the
>>programs authur, they did not pay for the copies that they sold. Or do you
>>call this piracy also?
>
>Cute rhetorical point, but I'm afraid it fails on the facts.  Softdisk
>did not begin publication until 1986 or thereabouts, long after the
>rights reverted back to me and also after ``normal'' sales of the game
>had ceased.  Datamost did default on $4000 in royalties, but even if
>they had paid those, it STILL wouldn't have been as much money as the
>previous games, nor enough to recoup the six months I spent developing
>the game in the first place.

Maybe I misunderstood. Did you get paid for most copies sold, just not
$4K at the end, or did you not get paid at all for this game? 

And it was not a rhetorical point, it was the pint which I brough
up which started this sub-thread. I know what I meant. 
 
>>You know, we are still talking about different things. Not just here,
>>but all through both posts. Probably the best thing to do is just to
>>drop the issue. Or post what you want, but not as a response to my post.
>
>Well, now that you know the facts, I can't imagine that you'd want to
>belabour your point any longer.

Thanx for the update, although I am still unclear on some points.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: thwaites@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Damien Thwaites)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:18:12 GMT
Subject: PFS still in business ?
Organization: HP Singapore Notes-Server