Site requests

Post suggestions, correct errors or omissions, or anything else about the site
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

Site requests

Post by DOSGuy »

The site has been around for a while now and had thousands of visitors and downloads, but no one has posted in the forum. Usually when a site gets as big as this one, it tries to add "extra value" by adding little gimmicks that don't really improve the user experience. There are lots of little things I could do, but I'd rather ask my visitors what they actually want from the site.

What would you like to see on this site? What would make you want to return once you had been to the site? What projects and initiatives should Classic DOS Games support?
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

If I could change one thing...

Post by DOSGuy »

If you could change one thing about Classic DOS Games, what would it be?
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article.
User avatar
leilei
File Contributor
Posts: 465
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 2:45 pm

Re: If I could change one thing...

Post by leilei »

i'd make it entirely php based (and I don't mean a wiki). Eases up on the needing-to-manually-edit-every-related-html-file tiring syndrome needed.
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: If I could change one thing...

Post by DOSGuy »

The site is (almost) entirely PHP based. I use a .HTML extension for the page names because that's what I used when I started the site, and they had been linked to and indexed by search engines that way, but they're actually just a bunch of PHP scripts.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article.
User avatar
Qbix
DOSBox Programmer
Posts: 45
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 7:43 am

Re: If I could change one thing...

Post by Qbix »

I mostly visit the forum and then sometimes it would be handy if a topic of a new game somehow linked to the page where the game is.
(I usually find them via all games as I don't know the genres of each game, this is a very minor point though)
User avatar
MrFlibble
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1798
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 7:19 am

Re: Are the latest changes to the site good or bad?

Post by MrFlibble »

Another idea that occurred to me is to add, where possible, links to some in-depth material about games on their pages. The obvious choices are MobyGames and GameFAQs, and also most popular games and series have their own Wikia sites as well. In fact, I think something can be found for every game: an archived copy of the official website, a more or less informative fan site or forum, or an interview with the developers.
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Are the latest changes to the site good or bad?

Post by DOSGuy »

I try not to link to external sites (other than the copyright owner's website to help people buy the game from them) because the internet changes. I hate having dead links (I just think it's unprofessional), and maintaining a list of 440+ external links could become burdensome.

I do really like the idea of linking to the game's official page, but I expect that people would be able to find the game's official page when they visit the publisher's website through the link on the publisher's company page. The company's domain name is unlikely to ever change, but game company web pages change A LOT. Once a game is no longer sold, the page for it tends to disappear, and many larger companies (Activision, EA, etc) don't provide any information about their discontinued games. Companies tend to only have a "legacy" page listing their discontinued classics if they have a relatively small library of games. I love Blizzard's website, for instance, for continuing to list and acknowledge the games that they no longer sell.

Anyway, most commercial games used to have an official page, which is where a link through Archive.org might be valuable. I'm almost fully on board with providing links to official game pages that are no longer online since an Archive.org URL is never going to change. Still, I'm a bit concerned about causing confusion. Pages on Archive.org take forever to load, often don't include images and revert to simple text-only pages, and very often don't archive downloads because they don't archive any FTP objects. Unless you're used to Archive.org, linking to their pages could cause a WTF reaction.


I hope this is okay, but I'd like to split this thread off (and merge some other related threads) because the old one was really about feedback about changes that have already been made, rather than requests for new changes.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article.
User avatar
MrFlibble
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1798
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 7:19 am

Re: Are the latest changes to the site good or bad?

Post by MrFlibble »

DOSGuy wrote:I try not to link to external sites (other than the copyright owner's website to help people buy the game from them) because the internet changes. I hate having dead links (I just think it's unprofessional), and maintaining a list of 440+ external links could become burdensome.
I see. Well, what I had in mind was first of all unofficial sources dedicated to a game, which are in many cases more informative than any official site, but often require some search to locate. Providing links would somehow simplify this, and at the same time allow the visitors to get some in-depth info about the game. But of course you're right that it would be a demanding task to maintain all of the links.
DOSGuy wrote:I love Blizzard's website, for instance, for continuing to list and acknowledge the games that they no longer sell.
It's a pity they don't have some of the demo versions anymore. The same situation is with Bitmap Brothers' website: they have separate pages for their legacy games, even with screenshots, but not all of them have demo downloads available, even though the demos themselves do exist.
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Site requests

Post by DOSGuy »

Yes, it's a bummer that they don't provide downloads, but they don't want to provide support for these games. When people download something from the company website, they're likely to assume or hope that support is provided, and they don't want a bunch of emails that go "Your great DOS/Amiga game doesn't run on my shiny new Win64/Mac. What can I do?"
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article.
User avatar
MrFlibble
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1798
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 7:19 am

Re: Site requests

Post by MrFlibble »

Yep, that's what I thought, actually. On the other hand, they could just as well place a notification that goes like "we no longer provide support for this product", as 3D realms does with their games that are released as freeware.
User avatar
MrFlibble
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1798
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 7:19 am

Re: Site requests

Post by MrFlibble »

A little idea that had occurred to me is that maybe you would add colour coding for the visitors' convenience to the thumbnail view mode to distinguish between freeware titles, shareware episodes, and possibly also demo versions that have one or more levels. Since the site is focused on playing games, this could help people pick titles that are more (re)playable, with the full versions and shareware episodes being the obvious choices. There's already different background in detailed view mode to highlight freeware games (which, however, does not indicate if the full version is available on the site), but I was thinking about different font styles and maybe also font colours for the thumbnail view mode.
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Site requests

Post by DOSGuy »

That's a good idea. I've changed the link color to reflect the legal status of the game. Does that work, or should I try something different?
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article.
User avatar
MrFlibble
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1798
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 7:19 am

Re: Site requests

Post by MrFlibble »

I've already noticed :D Cool :)

Yet I'm still thinking about categorizing the content in regard to (re)playability value, or, in other words, reflecting how well a demo or a shareware episode can act as a stand-alone game. In many cases, the useful heuristic is that shareware episodes are, in fact, complete games, albeit short (as someone somewhere said, titles released through the Scott Miller shareware model are like free games with commercial add-ons), yet on the other hand, there are demo versions that are much like shareware episodes in that they present a considerable part of the full game (usually several levels) and have such features as noticeable player progression, increasing difficulty, and a sense of completeness, often with a final, most difficult obstacle (like a boss battle, but not necessarily that) to surmount just before the game ends. Strife and Powerslave demo versions are good examples of this, both not being shareware episodes in the name, but having all the features to qualify.

On the other hand, there are demo levels designed to showcase the full game's features, like a short tour of the game, and those demo versions that have been deliberately made to offer limited playability either by disabling certain features relevant to game play and/or actions the player can take (i.e. you can't build castles in the Lords of the Realm demo, and neither can you manipulate the happiness of the population in the demo of its sequel), or by imposing general restrictions like a time/turn limit of a game session, or disabling the ability to save and load games.

There are also many other factors that affect replayability value, such as the presence or absence of various game modes, difficulty level settings and so on. Strategy game demos that offer skirmish battles (Heroes of Might and Magic II demo being a notable example) obviously possess of more replaying potential than those that only have several single-player missions, and so on.

On another note, I've got a question about terminology. Most game files I've encountered so far are designated either as "Shareware Episode", "Shareware Demo" or simply "Shareware". However, in many cases this does not correspond to the definitions you can find in the supplied documentation of the games. For example:

CyberMage: Darklight Awakening Shareware v2.03 is referred to as "CYBERMAGE(tm) DEMO v2.03p" in the readme.
Descent II v1.0 Shareware Demo is called "DESCENT 2 INTERACTIVE DEMO v1.0" both in the readme file and in the FILE_ID.DIZ.
Hexen: Beyond Heretic Shareware Demo is called "Hexen: Beyond Heretic DEMO" in the readme file, with an additional note that says: "Hexen is NOT a shareware product."
Spear of Destiny v1.0 Shareware Demo is called "playable demo" in FILE_ID.DIZ and "demo" in the readme file.
Star Wars: Dark Forces v0.163D Shareware Demo is called "Dark Forces demo" (or simply "demo") throughout the readme file and in the installation programme.
Strife: Quest for the Sigil v1.1 Shareware Episode is called "STRIFE: Quest for the Sigil v1.1 DEMO" on the loading screen.

It is my understanding that none of these are called "shareware" in the original documentation because "shareware" refers to the distribution method (order-per-mail), and none of the above seem to have been distributed that way, instead having been sold in retail stores. Also, apparently, it was possible to sell shareware episodes through shareware vendors for the cost of shipping and handling only (with the game itself remaining fee of charge), while selling demo versions was neither allowed nor practised (except maybe on demo disks).

So I was thinking that maybe it's be a good idea to use the "native" definition of the distribution type (i.e. that which is indicated in the documentation) for each title, rather than a generic definition?
User avatar
DOSGuy
Website Administrator
Posts: 1063
Joined: September 2nd, 2005, 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Site requests

Post by DOSGuy »

There may be a few cases where I could have described the download better, and I'll look into the examples you brought up, but let's be clear about the definition of shareware.

"Shareware" is a general term for any software that can legally be shared, but is not free. There are games that are completely unlocked -- not crippled in any way -- and the author asks you to send money if you find the program useful. There are games that follow the "Apogee model", where the game is divided into episodes, and one of the episodes can be freely shared. There are games that don't use an episodic format, but just let you play some of the levels, or are time-limited, feature-limited, can only be played a certain number of times, or any combination of these limitations. Some of these games call themselves a "demo", which I (try) to call a "shareware demo" for clarity. A demo is absolutely shareware because the author wants people to play and share the demo and then buy the game. I believe that all of the demos on this site are legal to redistribute, but if I'm wrong, let me know and I'll remove them.

So at the most general level, I can see only three types of software: software that is free to share but expects/requests payment (shareware), software that is completely free, but the author retains some rights or places limits on what can be done with the game (freeware), and software where the author has abandoned all rights to the game, and you can do absolutely whatever you want with it (public domain).
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article.
User avatar
MrFlibble
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1798
Joined: December 9th, 2010, 7:19 am

Re: Site requests

Post by MrFlibble »

DOSGuy wrote:"Shareware" is a general term for any software that can legally be shared, but is not free. There are games that are completely unlocked -- not crippled in any way -- and the author asks you to send money if you find the program useful. There are games that follow the "Apogee model", where the game is divided into episodes, and one of the episodes can be freely shared. There are games that don't use an episodic format, but just let you play some of the levels, or are time-limited, feature-limited, can only be played a certain number of times, or any combination of these limitations. Some of these games call themselves a "demo", which I (try) to call a "shareware demo" for clarity. A demo is absolutely shareware because the author wants people to play and share the demo and then buy the game.
Well, having started as completely unfamiliar with the notion of shareware, I did some research and it appears that the actual use of the term has undergone changes as the situation itself has changed with new media types having emerged throughout the nineties and the 2000s.

It is my understanding that part of the innovation brought by the Scott Miller model was that (correct me if I'm wrong on this) game demo versions of the time were mostly unplayable and acted like movie trailers that showed the playing process. With the emergence of interactive demos the distinction between shareware and demos became to get blurred, although I'm pretty certain that the special note about Hexen not being shareware that I quoted above is quite telling that the difference existed back then.

There is also the difference that the shareware distribution of games (episodes or not, e.g. Vikings: Fields of Conquest shareware can hardly qualify as an "episode" being only 7 turns long) allowed the authors to avoid or greatly reduce the marketing, advertising and publishing costs that they'd have to face if their game was sold in retail stores. Henceforth, the Scott Miller model acted as a sort of "viral marketing" scheme in that it was easier to make the customers aware of the product if a significant part of it was freely distributed among users. I assume that demo versions of games from the nineties that were not distributed via the shareware model are not labelled "shareware" exactly for this reason.

There are also cases when the same product would change labels due to a difference in distribution method, e.g. Tyrian up to v2.x was called "shareware", while Tyrian 2000, being almost exactly the same (the first episode of the full game) is called a "demo", and all ordering information has been removed from the documentation supplied with the demo. Conversely, the game Rex Blade went from a commercial retail product to shareware when it was re-released by the developers themselves, and the first instalment in the trilogy attained the status of a shareware episode.

With the development of the Internet the traditional means of shareware distribution (delivery per mail or its equivalent) are being replaced by paid downloads, as can be observed at 3D Realms' website. Yet on the other hand, it is perfectly possible to buy commercial games that are sold in retail stores as an Internet download (and I assume also per regular mail too, in some cases at least). This has undoubtedly contributed to the blurring of the demarcation line between the two types of distribution.

Another difference, according to Wikipedia at least, lies in the compatibility with the full version of the game:
There is a technical difference between shareware and demos. Up to the early 1990s, shareware could easily be upgraded to the full version by adding the "other episodes" or full portion of the game; this would leave the existing shareware files intact. Demos are different in that they are "self-contained" programs which are not upgradable to the full version. A good example is the Descent shareware versus the Descent II demo; players were able to retain their saved games on the former but not the latter.
Indeed, many demo versions are based on a pre-release version of a game and never get updated to the latest version after release. Conversely, shareware episodes often maintain compatibility with the full versions (i.e. allowing multiplayer sessions between owners of registered and shareware versions). Of course, this can be said of some demo versions as well, but I've got the impression that it is quite rarely that a demo would be kept updated along with the full version of the same game for purposes of compatibility.

I've also mentioned the possibility of selling shareware episodes at a minimal price, and some shareware episodes were even turned into commercial products, like the Deluxe Edition of Rise of the Triad: The Hunt Begins. I'm not sure if anything comparable happened to any game demo.

Another aspect of the terminological question is that the term "shareware episode" forms a binary opposition with the related term "registered episode", while the term "demo version" is opposed to "full version" and "trial version" to "retail version" (the latter two pars being just terminological duplicates IMO). However, it is not very clear what the term "shareware demo" is opposed to, and if both "shareware" and "demo" refer to a freely distributable part of a commercial product, then using them both may be redundant. I'm also not sure which of the two terms is more general, but I'm inclined to think that "shareware" is probably more specific as it also indicates a type of distribution in addition to the fact that it denotes demonstration type software.

In conclusion, I guess it is up to the authors or publishers to give a label to their product that they deem fit, so I'd think it would be most safe to use the original definition found in the supplied documentation or in the game executable, if present, to maintain accuracy.
Post Reply