Can we extract from/use whole ZP eps for the games or is it limited solely to the dev. pack?Spinwhiz said:The rules are set such that we are protected as much as you are. This is our brand and our copyright and we would like to keep it that way. If we did not add those rules, that means anyone could just make a ZP related game and we would have no protection at all.
Hey, it worked/works for Microsoft =PSpinwhiz said:As for the chance for "monetary compensation"...do you honestly think we would take a game that we didn't create to market? And if we did, don't you think it would be in our best interest to INCLUDE the developer? It doesn't make much business sense to leave out the person who created and grab a bunch of bad PR from the market, industry and community.
Yes I can see the community is really chuffed about this friendly competition you have here, such goodwill in the air on this forum and no mistake . People seem apprehensive about investing time in this.Spinwhiz said:Money is not a prize, that is correct and we aren't even looking into that avenue. We wanted to create a fun event for all of the ZP fans, that was the main point. The prize is to have Yahtzee himself judge your game and have it featured in an upcoming ZP. Not to mention the game will be up on our site.^Mimi said:Fairn said:The people you are referring to should learn to read all contest information (instead of assuming the info) from this point on because there's no reason anyone should be expecting monetary compensation from this contest. Like you stated, money isn't a prize here.^Mimi said:We make the game, then send it in expecting monetary compensation, but after we submitted it's already *yours*. You're legally released of any consequences.In answer to your statement. =)Friends,
The rules are set such that we are protected as much as you are. This is our brand and our copyright and we would like to keep it that way. If we did not add those rules, that means anyone could just make a ZP related game and we would have no protection at all.
As for the chance for "monetary compensation"...do you honestly think we would take a game that we didn't create to market? And if we did, don't you think it would be in our best interest to INCLUDE the developer? It doesn't make much business sense to leave out the person who created and grab a bunch of bad PR from the market, industry and community.
We are looking forward to seeing some awesome games that we and the community will enjoy playing.
Yes, the game must have something to do with ZP. I thought I had put it in the contest write-up before, so upon looking "Starting Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, The Escapist will be taking submissions for browser based Zero Punctuation games." Yup, it was there.Mr Companion said:Yes I can see the community is really chuffed about this friendly competition you have here, such goodwill in the air on this forum and no mistake . People seem apprehensive about investing time in this.Spinwhiz said:Money is not a prize, that is correct and we aren't even looking into that avenue. We wanted to create a fun event for all of the ZP fans, that was the main point. The prize is to have Yahtzee himself judge your game and have it featured in an upcoming ZP. Not to mention the game will be up on our site.^Mimi said:Fairn said:The people you are referring to should learn to read all contest information (instead of assuming the info) from this point on because there's no reason anyone should be expecting monetary compensation from this contest. Like you stated, money isn't a prize here.^Mimi said:We make the game, then send it in expecting monetary compensation, but after we submitted it's already *yours*. You're legally released of any consequences.In answer to your statement. =)Friends,
The rules are set such that we are protected as much as you are. This is our brand and our copyright and we would like to keep it that way. If we did not add those rules, that means anyone could just make a ZP related game and we would have no protection at all.
As for the chance for "monetary compensation"...do you honestly think we would take a game that we didn't create to market? And if we did, don't you think it would be in our best interest to INCLUDE the developer? It doesn't make much business sense to leave out the person who created and grab a bunch of bad PR from the market, industry and community.
We are looking forward to seeing some awesome games that we and the community will enjoy playing.
It could be because people are not so extatic about yahzee verbally assaulting them for three minuets about a game they would waste weeks or months of their personal time crafting.
Or it could be because they get minimal credit despite their lone production of the game. Or the lack of any compensation for their efforts at all, or the £500+ price mark on the creation software.. Or because they have better things to do and better lives to live. Expecting the fan base to become self sacrificial over an opportunity to have something that for all legal purposes is only very loosely connected to them touched or experienced by a man they will never meet, never talk to and know almost nothing about is beyond presumptuous.
On another note me and my brother began work on a game for this contest only to realise that the game is expected to be ZP related, and that this was not mentioned in the specifactions. Am I right in thinking that? Because we were making a game entirely unrelated to ZP. But evidence suggest that is not the objective. Are we supposed to assume it is to be ZP related? Am I dumb? An answer would be appreciated. Apologies for the wall of text.
Edit: Also "yahzee himself" Is simply delightful.
I was thinking of having some friends test a game out before I submit it, but this part of the rules implies I can't do that.All games submitted to The Escapist's Stonking Great Game Contest must be the exclusive property of the contest entrant and have never before appeared or been playable in any form anywhere.
I think you're taking that statement farther than it was intended. Saying it's "never before appeared" (my interpretation) really just means that it has never been a publicly available game. Having someone else play it is fine, provided they cannot distribute it in any form. I understand trying to follow the exact letter of the law, but give the Escapist a little credit in discouraging any "cheating" while not trying to screw you out of any opportunity to fairly improve your chances of winning.harryjre said:I was thinking of having some friends test a game out before I submit it, but this part of the rules implies I can't do that.
I'd probably be fine as long as long as no one downloads it and distributes it to other sites. You'd be held accountable and your entry would be null and void.harryjre said:Hey all, I was skimming through the thread, and I didn't see this addressed.
This is the part of the rules I want to ask about:
I was thinking of having some friends test a game out before I submit it, but this part of the rules implies I can't do that.All games submitted to The Escapist's Stonking Great Game Contest must be the exclusive property of the contest entrant and have never before appeared or been playable in any form anywhere.
Thoughts?
To avoid the possibility of having your half-finished game published all over the internet (which I assume this rule is here to prevent) you could simply code in a block that doesn't allow the current build to be played on any other date, or if you have your own website and know some server-scripting language, you could build a simple password-protected version that changes every time someone logs in, which only you have access too.harryjre said:Hey all, I was skimming through the thread, and I didn't see this addressed.
This is the part of the rules I want to ask about:
I was thinking of having some friends test a game out before I submit it, but this part of the rules implies I can't do that.All games submitted to The Escapist's Stonking Great Game Contest must be the exclusive property of the contest entrant and have never before appeared or been playable in any form anywhere.
Thoughts?
I might be making an assumption and taking the statement too literally, but it was enough of a possibility to ask for clarification. I don't think the Escapist is out to get me, but I don't want to screw myself either.aamesxdavid said:I think you're taking that statement farther than it was intended. Saying it's "never before appeared" (my interpretation) really just means that it has never been a publicly available game. Having someone else play it is fine, provided they cannot distribute it in any form. I understand trying to follow the exact letter of the law, but give the Escapist a little credit in discouraging any "cheating" while not trying to screw you out of any opportunity to fairly improve your chances of winning.harryjre said:I was thinking of having some friends test a game out before I submit it, but this part of the rules implies I can't do that.
This is helpful info, thanks!Bringer of information said:To avoid the possibility of having your half-finished game published all over the internet (which I assume this rule is here to prevent) you could simply code in a block that doesn't allow the current build to be played on any other date, or if you have your own website and know some server-scripting language, you could build a simple password-protected version that changes every time someone logs in, which only you have access too.
And now it occurs to me that this may not be the proper "forum" (haha) for this specific kind of advice, so if you have any to offer on testing flash games, please send me a private message. I will use my Google-fu to look for this information on my own.harryjre said:Does anyone have any experience with putting a game up for testing and preventing distribution without permission? From what (little) I know, it seems like putting it on any web page means anyone could download and distribute it. That limits me to only allowing people I trust to access the game web page or testing the game offline.
I completely agree, which is why I commended your response. In no way did I mean to take anything away from your question by saying it was based on an assumption; I'm sure other people made the same assumption, and it's always good to have clarification for that.harryjre said:I might be making an assumption and taking the statement too literally, but it was enough of a possibility to ask for clarification. I don't think the Escapist is out to get me, but I don't want to screw myself either.
That sounds like a lot of work, but certainly a plausible solution. There's also the issue of how ZP-related your game is - if anything beyond some graphics make reference to ZP/The Escapist, they'd have to be stripped as well (presumably). Personally, I'd prefer to only let people I trust to play it, or only let people play it on your computer with you present, so they don't actually have a copy of it to distribute.harryjre said:I actually was thinking about using a different "skin" for testing, then throw in the ZP bells and whistles after the game play is tested and submit that.
I'm no authority on Flash, but I'd say putting it up (in ZP form) is dangerous under any circumstances. AAA titles are hacked all the time, I'm sure a Flash game is subject to the same vulnerabilities. It's more a question of someone being willing to put the time into it. I don't really think it's a wise chance to take. I think for a Flash game, it's not necessary to go beyond you and a couple of friends playing it, for playtesting purposes. If you want to do something with it after you enter the contest, that's when I'd go through the trouble of stripping out all the ZP stuff and releasing it. Just my thoughts.harryjre said:Does anyone have any experience with putting a game up for testing and preventing distribution without permission? From what (little) I know, it seems like putting it on any web page means anyone could download and distribute it. That limits me to only allowing people I trust to access the game web page or testing the game offline.