Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!gatech!udel!mmdf
From: jmoore@dtix.arpa (Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Falcon
Message-ID: <6250@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 5 Jan 89 21:20:10 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 34


  In his 5 Jan 89 message, Carlos Smith writes :

 >There have been some harsh and unfair words said here about Falcon, all of
 >them by people who have apparently never even played the game. Falcon WAS
 >released with bugs, it doesn't work with 68020's, you must re-kickstart an
 >A1000 if you want to play it again after you have played previously (though 
 >1.3 boots OK), the joystick has a bug (you can't pull back and turn at the
 >same time), and there are some minor display glitches. But there are many
 >companies who have released "professional" software with more bugs and
 >problems than Falcon has who have received fairer treatment here.

  But isn't the point to discourage the release of BETA software
  as the final product?  What if someone sold you an editor, or
  compiler that required rebooting after use?  Or a car whose
  doors open from the outside handles but the inside handles 
  don't work?  How many people would have bought the game if it 
  said "known bugs included!!!" ??  Also, what is the definition
  of "professional" software?  Are you saying that you should
  be more tolerant of bugs in "non-professional" software that
  you buy as opposed to "professional"?  Come on now!  

  Also, another message said that they did the same type thing
  with their Mac product.  This isn't a one time thing..sounds
  like they do this as everyday practice.  I am not trying
  to slam them, just to test their software before releasing
  it and not release buggy software as the final product.
 
  Jim Moore
  jmoore@dtrc.arpa

  I have opinions, the Navy downs MiGS.

-------