I think a port to a more modern language is a more likely outcome than getting the code to compile as it is.
Besides, even if the game is never compiled or ported, being able to see the inner workings will be of huge interest to a lot of fans, will likely get a lot of them playing it again, which in turn will draw more new people into playing it.
> Convince me that you WILL complete the project, not
> that someone else MIGHT.
>
This I just find a bit puzzling - why does it matter even if nothing (i.e. no rewrite or port or whatever) comes of it? And it sounds like a bit of a Catch 22 situation. Nobody is planning to port it because it isn't open source, and you won't make it open source because you don't think anyone will port it? Its kind of down to you to make the first move.
>
> "Wafer"
>
> >you open the code up to a huge pool of talent who will improve your
> >product for you, for free
>
> Keep in mind that most successful open source projects (e.g. Apache
> or WebKit) are actually written by paid coders.
> --
>
> David Dunham A Sharp, LLC
> Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 http://a-sharp.com
> Efficiency is intelligent laziness.
>
I don't think Apache or WebKit are really analogous to the situation here - they are not even games, so the reason people develop them is starkly different. MegaMek (http://megamek.sourceforge.net/idx.php?pg=main) is a much better comparison, and that exists purely through the love of Battletech, no paid coders there. Or The Urquan Masters (http://sc2.sourceforge.net/) might be an even better example, as it is a once commercial, now open source game.
I can see that you might be dubious about the upsides, I just really don't see any downside at all. In a cost benefit analysis surely the benefit outweighs the cost, even if you take a pessimistic view on the benefit?
As an aside, I hope you don't feel we are badgering you. It is only because we love your game so much that we trying, and we would love to see it have a new lease of life.
James Casey
Powered by hypermail