Re: A89: Re: Perverted :)


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: Re: Perverted :)




Ok you are very right.  The reviewing process should not be a service. 
People would definatly look at it in the wrong way.  But i think some 
money for the "process" would be needed for the committee's overall 
survival.  I have no problem with people selling their games themselves 
but i think if this comittee is set people will feel more secure buying a 
game that has a seal on it that they trust.
	-McTwist


Justin M Bosch wrote:
> 
> > And most of I agree on your idea of a definition of excellence.  I
> >think
> >they should have a written code of excellence and requirements that
> >games
> >must pass before they can be sold.
> >       -McTwist
> 
> When you say not sold, you do mean without a "seal of approval", not
> completely banned from being sold, right?  It would be very difficult to
> prevent someone from selling a game!  And of course, some people might
> totally forgo the review system, if they believe their games are good
> enough to sell themselves.  One important thing is that the review system
> should not be marketed as a service, but instead as a process.  If it
> seen as a service, people might look at it the wrong way, such that the
> reviewers are involved for financial purposes.  And obviously, five
> reviewers writing detailed critiques for $1-$2 each are probably not in
> it for the money.
> 
> Justin Bosch
> justin-b@juno.com
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


References: