Thunder? You're kidding, right? I doubt Papyrus is concerned about that
game.
NR2003 is the better game (or will be the better game) by far, IMO.
Alanb
> > Think Papy is trying to say something....
> Thunder? You're kidding, right? I doubt Papyrus is concerned about that
> game.
> NR2003 is the better game (or will be the better game) by far, IMO.
> Alanb
Other than they're confident they can officially release the patch, you
mean?
Jan. ;-)
=---
Bruce.
> Bruce.
> > Thunder? You're kidding, right? I doubt Papyrus is concerned about
that
> > game.
--
Joe M.
> > Bruce.
> > > Thunder? You're kidding, right? I doubt Papyrus is concerned about
> that
> > > game.
Get the idea now? :)
Bruce.
--
Steve
"To put it in gentleman's terms -
if you've been out for a night and you're looking for a young lady and you pull one,
some weeks they're good looking and some weeks they're not the best.
Our performance today would have been not the best looking bird but at least we got her in the
taxi."
Ian Holloway describing a recent win.
Such as...
"Hey! We released this game 7 months ago - now here's the patch... Go
download our patch and install it into the product you *bought* from us 7
*months ago* - and that we've *allready* earned money on. Don't go and buy
that new game cause that really dont mean a damn thing for our business!"
??
--
ed_
N ascar
A lways
S hould
C are
A bout
R evenue
Just out of curiosity, shouldn't that be a "sellable" product as in "to sell
computer games"?
Jan.
=---
By releasing a patch for a product they're not really making money on
anymore for a series that has been discontinued?
Jason
First "Bruce Kennewell" wrote...
I thought so too Jan. But since Bruce used the term, I now know I was
wrong. It MUST be "saleable". I've never seen Mr Kennewell say
anything that was incorrect.
<BG>
Possibly local dialect, saleable product is perfectly valid to
describe a product suitable for sale. At least 'round my parts.
Cheers,
Rod.