Well, we all got old, right?

Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2024, 17:48:
Wow. It has been a while since that worked. I am legitimately surprised. At least it made BoP mildly happy for a minute. 🙂

Hey guys - been awhile. So, the bat signal went up because some of you guys apparently still have my email address memorized - or something.

I am going to keep this short and sweet so there's no ambiguity. I posted a similar response over on Steam last night when someone posted about this; obviously in a hilarious bid to "drag me out" of my otherwise nonplus slumber.

First, I haven't made any official announcement about a Web3 version of Alganon. None whatsoever.

Second, like most, yes, I too have been looking into making a game for Web3, but as I tend not to just jump into things, I've spent quite a bit of time navigating that particular sector. In fact, I have written several articles specifically about Web3 gaming. I found that, due to costs, time, and resources, there simply isn't a game like this or anything close to it, in the Web3 cash grab space. So, during the C19 pandemic, I saw an opportunity to do something different; and thus started my research. To that end, I created a completely separate startup studio specifically for this venture.

If I wanted a quick cash grab, Alganon would be back online - right now - and earning rev as it previously did. I specifically haven't done that since I bought it because that was never my goal; and aside from all the improvements that we've since done to it, primarily improving on the art assets is paramount to any re-release. For an MMORPG the size of Alganon, unless you're a dev, you have absolutely no idea what that even costs nor how long it would take. Lets put it this way, there's a reason that nobody is making MMO games any more, let alone for Web3 (in which most of the games are shameless cash grabs).

I've written several updates on the game's Steam news page.

Like every live service or MMO game, the key to adoption, engagement - and [hopefully] copious amounts of money to keep the project alive, is in third-party partnerships, licensing etc. That's why most games like this are operated by different parties outside North America. To that end, as a member of the ApeCoin DAO (which doesn't even fund games - of any kind) , my idea was to do a similar licensing with specific servers (you can read the AIP itself; click on the pencil icon on the top-right to see the updates) for that community. The only hook would be that the crypto currency of choice would be the $APE token. That's it. And as with all such licensing deals, it would require an annual renewal. I have to mention that it wasn't even my idea to on-board that community. A friend and long-time member who encouraged me to look into that community for Web3 insight, convinced me to give it a shot because most of the Web3 communities were trying to get into games. You can see some of the comments in that forum thread to get an idea of the general consensus. But alas, since DAOs are fundamentally broken, it came as no surprise to us that it didn't pass because most of those guys would rather preserve than spend the treasury. Don't even get me started on that; go read my xTwitter feed.

To be clear, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "classic" version of the game itself because, as with similar games, my entire plan revolves around maintaining the pre-existing install base (who can still access their account data - but unable to access the game because I took it off Steam after I bought it) and with no Web3 components (blockchain, NFTs, wallet). Anyone who believes that I would just up and re-release Alganon as a pure Web3 game, thus abandoning the install base that kept it going etc. knows nothing about me, let alone the reason that, 30+ yrs later I am still making games - my way.

The addition of a blockchain backend to any game isn't rocket science - and there's literally nothing special about it because, as I've written (see above), it's just another tech layer. So, for me, this was just another way to extend and expand the game, while making money off a new audience that has been conditioned to settle for crap Web3 games. Best scenario, it would be someone like me who would hopefully show that you can make a traditional game with Web3 elements and it not be a shameless cash grab ponzi scheme. Plus, as an MMORPG, Alganon already has an economy, in game currency etc. and you never have to grind to buy any in-game items in order to enjoy playing the game. I haven't changed anything about that - and I never will.

The long and short of this is simple. If there is to be a Web3 version of Alganon, with or without third-party partners, it will have zero effect on the legacy players because, worse case scenario, I can always provision a "classic" game server for those who don't want anything to do with Web3. I'm not new at this. So, yes, I do have a plan - like always.

Despite the snark (as in this news post), and all the aggro over the years, you guys - even those who don't like me - know that I am always forthcoming and that I will *never tow some party or political line just to score - something. So, hopefully with that in mind, you will better understand my motivation regarding this issue and why I have chosen this path. This isn't company speak, it's coming directly from me, and that should be good enough.

Love,

- DS

*And no, I didn't "sell my soul to Web3" because, it was barely two weeks ago that I was involved in rather public exchange (1, 2, 3) with the new CEO of Polygon.

ps. The game is actually live and in use for dev and testing. Several of our testers have access to it. If you still have it in your Steam lib, you can actually start it up, but you won't be able to connect to the migrated servers because we use client versioning to restrict access. Similarly, if you had a legacy account, you can now access it via the myalganon.com website portal (the SSL cert expired recently - we're on it). So, yeah, the migration was successful - and there was a news item on Steam about it.

wtf are you even talking about!?! Are you high? Like right now?

How do you think the "crusade" started if it wasn't after I wrote that July 2015 blog? Did you see me saying ANYTHING about the project before that? Heck I was one of the original 2012 backers and completely forgot about it.

I know you guys like revisionist history; but your summary is preposterous - even for you.

Drayth wrote on May 26, 2020, 00:13:
As far as "#6" goes Mr. Smart is not acknowledging a few facts: A large portion of the initial claims were dropped, and the remaining were pretty much slaughtered by Amazon's response to Crytek about whether CIG was breaking their license agreement by using a different engine (Lumberyard).
"“Normally we wouldn’t discuss a customer relationship — those relationships are confidential and we take that very seriously. However, given the circumstances, we have asked CIG for authorization to share, and they have given approval. We can confirm that yes, Amazon did license Lumberyard to CIG in 2016, and we included Cryengine (what you licensed to us) as part of that license to CIG.”"

Immediately after that email Skadden dropped out (gee, I wonder why) and the whole thing began to wind down with Crytek hiring a smaller set of lawyers to handle the wrap up. Unfortunately the whole thing ended in a settlement, so no definitive "winner", but it's pretty easy to work out who had the stronger arm in the lawsuit.

Here's an older, yet still telling list of Mr. Smart predictions vs reality.

None of that is true. Not even close. Like at all.

I actually followed and documented the entire lawsuit from start to finish.

1) The Crytek v RSI/CIG lawsuit was filed on Dec 12, 2017.

2) The Crytek v RSI/CIG lawsuit settlement was finalized on Mar 23, 2020 (Note: 1 day before the trial).

The conclusion was that after Crytek found out (starts on p4) - through discovery - that CIG hadn't actually switched (1, 2) to Lumberyard as CIG had claimed, they [Crytek] decided to withdraw the lawsuit until SQ42 (the main target of the lawsuit) was released so that it would be conclusive proof that it in fact use CryEngine and not Lumberyard. 1, 2, 3, 4

The issue there is that CIG was being cagey about when SQ42 would actually release (Note: Beta was scheduled for Q1/2020, but has since been pushed to Q2/2020. But it was totally coming in 2017 though). Hence the reason that Crytek decided to press pause on the lawsuit in order to be able to refile once SQ42 had released (1). CIG obviously didn't want that hanging over their head - especially since it was already proven that they didn't actually switch engines - thus putting SQ42 at huge risk.

So, after CIG tried several times (via legal files) to settle with Crytek (who rebuffed it and opted to wait until discovery was over), this final settlement did go through. And several sources have told me that it was a financial settlement in which CIG paid Crytek to drop the claims and lawsuit once and for all. All this happened less than one month to the March 24, 2020 trial date.

Drayth wrote on May 26, 2020, 00:13:
I don't argue against anyone stating this game's taking too long to come out. I'm ok with the long development time as long as SQ42 gets here in the next year or two and shows the development time made for a great game. They want to go balls to the wall with SC universe, have at it. There's no mandatory subscription, and if the demand's there to continue funding the game with the model they're using, then it is what it is.

Mr. Smart's reality bending crusade is another matter, however.

So you think the discourse is about the "game taking too long to come out"? <---- lmao!!

FYI. I don't have a crusade. I never did. They got me involved when they did this when I wrote that first blog in July 2015.

Kxmode wrote on May 25, 2020, 08:03:
One thing is certain a Star Citizen thread brings out die hard hater Derek Smart and die hard supporter theyarecomingforyou. It's like Pay-Per-View Heavyweight Boxing.

The joke's on him because nothing he posts even warrants a response. I mean absolutely NOTHING he posted is true. In fact, the facts are pretty clear and in the public view. I do have to admit that #6 made me chuckle at the sheer ignorance (either that or he's willfully lying as always) within. It's like those Trumpers - there's no saving them.

But it's nice to know that I can still bring out the rage in these guys. Like clockwork. Without fail.

Kxmode wrote on May 22, 2020, 18:10:

RedEye9 wrote on May 22, 2020, 17:31:

The Half Elf wrote on May 22, 2020, 16:12:
Actually would love to know Derek's thoughts on the current state of the game.

https://twitter.com/dsmart
He posts cig/sc stuff here

He's appears to focus his attention and ire on another person. But he did mention it, almost indifferently. "Star Citizen Video Shows First Look at Pyro I," with no snide comments. Maybe he realized in the grand scheme of things constantly going after Star Citizen isn't productive.

I do threads on it from time to time. But only on my Twitter feed now because I stopped writing blogs back in May 2019 once their financials revealed that they were in the Red several years in a row and got an investor bailout back in Summer 2018; and which they didn't disclose to backers until Dec 2018.

My latest threads

CIG confesses (via Crytek lawsuit) to not having switched to Lumberyard after all

CIG sells more shares to pay Crytek

Star Citizen Scope Creep in 3.9

Star Citizen, the next gen disaster that is 3.9

Star Citizen Invictus Launch & the F8 fighter debacle

And I followed the Crytek lawsuit from start to finish - with commentary

Though I do follow it from time to time, my interest has waned over time because, well, basically everything that I stated back in my first blog of July 2015, has come true. So all I'm doing now is just commenting on important events while waiting for the looming end game which appears to be in the long term rather than the short term because we should never underestimate the power of sunk cost fallacy - the only explanation for why in 2020 (if current funding keeps up) they would have received over 30% of their entire 8 yr rev - in one year. It's uncanny (assuming the funding chart is real).

Cutter wrote on Mar 20, 2019, 21:09:
Is it really a grant when they have to use Epic's software and platform exclusively?

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq?active=devgrants

Is my non-UE4 project eligible?

Yes. If your project is built in another engine or toolset and you want to move it to UE4, you are eligible to apply for an Epic MegaGrant. If you want to develop a project that enhances open-source 3D content creation, whether or not it integrates with or relates to UE4, you are also eligible.

WaltC wrote on Mar 20, 2019, 18:27:
Give me a list of grant recipients that can be verified, and then I shall believe this...;)

List of recipients from the previous grant

https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/epic-games-unreal-dev-grant-1203165517/

Orogogus wrote on Mar 20, 2019, 03:30:

I can't speak to software, but in manufactured goods, if you don't have feature parity or a pricing edge, you're often not viable. Why would I buy a non-exclusive game from the Epic store? Steam has streaming and broadcasting, global controller rebinding, the mods workshop, gifting, wishlists and sale notifications, tags, gift cards, a shopping cart, DLC, remote access, VR support, family sharing, family view, a music player, the ability to add non-Steam games, and cloud saves. Epic's big customer-facing features are not having forums or reviews. I feel like I'd have to be stupid to buy from them if I have a choice.

Amen. And as I said in my tweet threads, despite the fact that Tim Sweeney has clearly stated why they're doing exclusives; even acknowledging that EGS is still not on par with Steam in terms of features let alone content, some people still don't get it.

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 19, 2019, 09:21:

dsmart wrote on Mar 19, 2019, 08:26:

Bit out of the loop old man?

You didn't prove a single one of your points; let alone disprove any of mine. All you did was post out of context references to...nuthin'.

Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them

dsmart wrote on Mar 19, 2019, 08:26:
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 19, 2019, 11:49.

I have no idea why my post was removed. I didn't divulge any trade secrets or contractual info. All I stated was that free games is paid for similar to how bundles (cheap) are priced. It's not a secret.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 19, 2019, 11:49.

HorrorScope wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 23:01:

Kxmode wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 22:51:
That's why people are angry here. If third-party publishers want to go exclusive on Epic Game Store, that's fine,

No they are pissed for all the reasons in this thread no matter where you go. The having it on Steam and then pulled off, that was just another scoop of rage added.

I agree. And another scoop of rage was the recent Steam user data mining issue that surfaced last week, and which I wrote about here.

Kain wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 22:02:
I didn't think Discord really had much of a store anymore. They let you subscribe to "Nitro" to support development and throw in some games if you do so. It's like a poor mans Origin Access. Beyond that they let developers sell directly to consumers if they pay to unlock a merchant account. The scuttlebutt from some devs on reddit was that the company was diluting their resources too much and didn't feel they could compete with the larger players in the industry.

EGS and Steam on the other hand seem like more direct competitors. I just wish EGS would expand its feature set instead of focusing on buying content deals. Price and features are what draws me to platforms.

Discord found out pretty quickly that they simply couldn't compete with ANY already established store. People don't use Discord to buy games. All they did was add bloat. We've seen this with Xfire and others which died as a result of forgetting what they were created for.

The only way that any store can meaningfully compete with Steam, instead of being just another key seller, is by doing what Epic is doing. There is simply no other way. I mean, GreenManGaming tried that, but they don't have the financial war chest to even compete in terms of getting meaningful games to publish exclusively. GoG tried that with Witcher3, failed spectacularly, and had to put the game back on Steam.

Kxmode wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 20:42:
But it's not a store. It's a chatting app. It's not the same thing.

It is a store, just like GoG, Humble, GreenManGaming etc

And just last week, they announced that devs can now also sell their games directly from their channel.

Kxmode wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 20:23:
Deep Silver made an obligation to customers that the game would be available for sale on Steam (until it wasn't). Phoenix Point had an obligation to backers to be available on Steam and GOG (now, it's not). That's why people are reasonably angered. If third-party publishers want to go exclusive, then do it from the beginning not after the fact. Nothing angers people more than changing expectations.

Ah yeah, those are valid but completely different issues (which I've also written about in my Twitter threads). Epic offered them money for exclusives. Couple that with the higher royalty rates, and the fact that discovery (aside from the toxicity) issues on Steam have gone from bad to worse, I don't know any dev who wouldn't take that deal. I know I would (I've done exclusives before).

That's not Epic's fault. They're using their financial war chest to get exclusives in order to seed their store. Gamers should be upset at the devs; especially at the Phoenix Point devs because that game was crowd-funded (47K people) with the promise that it would be coming to two stores; and now it's not.

As I said in my thread, there are more (most of them at AA or AAA) exclusives coming this year and which are yet to be announced. A lot of people are going to be very upset all over again. Especially since Epic isn't interested in games that are a long way off. They are looking for games are almost finished and due out in few months only.

Kxmode wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 18:42:
It's an established fact that consoles have exclusives and people expect it when they buy an Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo device.

That's not a robust comparison. If you took Xbox and Playstation, it levels the playing field because they both have explicit exclusives - and not because of the platform. Especially where it pertains to first (developed by the console owners) party games.

It's only an "established" fact because consoles made it happen due to 1) architectural differences which made it costly to develop for multiple consoles 2) exclusivity used to sell console hardware

There is nothing special about the PC that says the same business model can't be used. Except it's more about money, than it is about architecture.

Conversely, PC Gaming has never had exclusives beyond Windows versus Apple.

That's not true - at all. In fact, remember how CD Project tried to make Witcher 3 an exclusive on GoG? Guess how that went. What about how Stardock used its own titles and made them exclusive to it's now-defunct Impulse store (sold to GameStop)?

The only exclusives that exist today are top-tier publisher titles on the publisher's store. That's been around since '00s.

That doesn't make them any less exclusive to the store they are sold on.

Third-party store exclusives is a NEW thing that Epic has done and is trying to make a thing

That's not true at all. You have Activision, Ubisoft, EA and some others (e.g. Epic with Fortnite) all doing exclusive titles. As I mentioned in my Twitter thread, even Discord is doing exclusives (of games nobody cares about or heard of)

This comment was edited on Mar 18, 2019, 19:40.

Simon Says wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 18:18:
Done reading and while I agree on a lot of the points, I disagree that signing exclusives is a competitive move.

Competition is by definition multiple platforms fighting over the consumer's money. Which leads to better prices and services.

Competition:

"the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms"

The context is that EGS uses exclusives in order to compete with Steam. If it didn't, then it would be just another storefront key seller like GoG, Humble Bundle, GreenManGaming etc. Heck, even Discord is now offering exclusives (mostly for games nobody cares about or even heard of).

It's a perfectly valid competitive move which is no different from console games, movies and similar exclusive content.

I'm surprised you went for the easy and often fallacious tribalism stereotype. Altho it is true for some, it ain't true for all.

Obviously I wasn't speaking for all.

Simon Says wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 17:14:

dsmart wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 17:05:
I have written extensive threads about this fiasco. My latest was today. Enjoy!

Appreciate your input Derek, but reading stuff on twitter that is 56 messages long just leads to a TL&DR case wherehas I would've gladly read it all if it was the same content in a concise article on 1 page. Sorry mate.

Anyone can resume it for our sanity's sake here please? Thanks.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But it's a pretty long thread of tweets - all fit on one page. However, try this link if it makes it more readable for you

Kxmode wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 17:10:

dsmart wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 17:05:
I have written extensive threads about this fiasco. My latest was today. Enjoy!

Wait a second. We didn't do the chant!

DEREK SMART
DEREK SMART
DEREK SMART

Okay, we're good now.

Someone did it silently.