People are still creating new interactive fiction on range of old to modern engines. See "The Interactive Fiction Competition" http://www.ifcomp.org/ and look at past winners for a taste.
(warning: Requires a somewhat-sketchy-seeming-but-harmless-i-think Java applet. Chrome gives you a hard time about it, but if you create an exception for the site in the java control panel (on OS X: settings->Java->security), then you can play it in Safari)
It's also not that hard to get your hands on the Z-Code files of Infocom games and run them in a Z-Code interpreter. (Note, however, that they are still under copyright. Also, for some games, you'll also need a copy of the original docs or other material from the packaging as Infocom sometimes used info in the docs, decoder wheels, etc. as a low-grade anti-piracy technique.)
Agree that Planetfall is one of the better ones. Steve Meretzky also wrote A Mind Forever Voyaging which I really enjoyed although it's somewhat atypical of Infocom games in a few ways.
Much of the relevant copy protection information has been merged with information from the Encyclopedia Frobozzica (included as a printed feelie with Return to Zork) and replicated to various sites in wiki form.
For instance, the infotater from Sorcerer had a color code mapped to various creatures that was required to progress past the intro area of the game. The copy-protection sewer map for Leather Goddesses of Phobos is the most annoying thing ever.
There are also deprotection patches available.
As I bought most of the original games the first time around, and the two Lost Treasures of Infocom CD compilations, and never resold them, I don't have any qualms about downloading the game data files, with the exceptions of BattleTech Crescent Hawk 1&2 and Leather Goddesses 2.
But now you can get Lost Treasures of Infocom as a free iOS app. So downloading the app is granting license for the included games, at least for that device.
>But now you can get Lost Treasures of Infocom as a free iOS app.
That apparently just includes Zork but you can buy the rest of the Z-Code games (except for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--I assume for rights reasons related to Douglas Adam's estate) for just $9.99 which is still quite a deal. I'd have to try it out and see how playable it is without a keyboard though.
iOS devices that are jailbroken may have the means to access additional app content without paying the normal in-app purchase price.
I am not recommending this for the LToI app unless you, like myself, have already purchased legitimately licensed copies of those games at least once already.
and you'll find z-code interpreters for pretty much any device you can think of. I like in particular Gargoyle [1][2] which stands out as the only one with great font rendering/typography.
One of the coolest/ridiculous things about infocom games were the feelies [3] (a term they coined) There is a great collection [4] of photographs of all the packages and extras, some of which were including necessary clues to solve the games.
I think a lot of early game companies suffered from not really believing in the market for games, that they were a placeholder until they could make something more 'serious'. Even non-computer game companies like SPI and Avalon Hill spent a lot of effort chasing corporate and military uses when in retrospect they underserved their fans and customers.
> The company made the decision to create business software long before the games business took off. From the start, Infocom’s founders had intended to do more than just computer games; they wanted to be the leading software developers for personal computers. They tossed around various ideas for their first product, which included medical, database, office, and educational software. However, Zork seemed like the most viable option at the time because a working prototype already existed, and Berez and Blank were willing to work for IOUs to make it run on personal computers.
> The decision to move beyond games was also driven by the higher profit margins in business software. The customers of business software were typically willing to spend more money than mass consumers. Infocom could therefore charge significantly more for its products. Whereas a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 listed for $495, each of Infocom’s games sold for $30 to $50. The profitability of business software had even directly affected Infocom: when Personal Software pulled out of the games publishing business to focus on VisiCalc and sold back the rights of Zork, it told Infocom, “…games have a limited market (6000 units average) and at a limited price (under $100), while business software sells regularly and more profitably.”
> Infocom’s employees strongly believed that the same talent and skills that had made them successful in the games business could be applied to making successful business software. Many employees had experience at LCS tackling and solving tough problems. They had made Zork to show that they could make a better parser and improve various aspects of Adventure. In a memo dating back to spring of 1978, Blank talks about office automation systems and remote data entry. Showing confidence in the company’s versatility, he wrote, “We have accumulated a great deal of expertise in these areas, having already implemented systems in each of these areas,and probably have a good idea of how to implement anything we choose along these lines.”
> Many of the founders also believed that Infocom needed to diversify its product line to continue to grow. In particular, Vezza believed that while the games made money, they would“ not last forever.” Vezza believed that consumers had fickle tastes. At any point, people might cease to enjoy Infocom’s games, abandoning them in favor of something else. The business products market, however, differed in that respect. Customers of business software tended to invest heavily into applications and stick with them for a relatively long period of time.
> Additionally, many Infocom employees believed that some of Infocom’s founders, and particularly Vezza, felt embarrassed to be part of a company that made computer games. Zork was just a way to raise enough money to get started. No one had intended it to become the centerpiece of Infocom’s business, nor did anyone expect it to take off and spawn so many titles. The embarrassment over the games made some employees eager to forge ahead with Infocom’s original goals.
If you find this interesting, I recommend the digital antiquarian: http://www.filfre.net/
I look forward to his post each week. They are detailed, conversational, historical, and insightful. His series on Trinity was simply fantastic, a beautiful blend of game and actual history.
He covers more than just infocom games of the era, but one can tell he has a great deal of fondness for their games. He has recently begun detailing the end of infocom.
Some things that jumped out at me while reading this article:
Stata offered to secure a $2 million three-year subordinated loan from the Bank of Boston in exchange for options to buy $2 million in stock and a position on the
Board.52
In 1983 2 million was a shit ton of money. By comparison, in 2015, it would be around 5 million.
Infocom hired three product managers, who each had assistants and secretaries under them
A marketing manager with assistants and a secretary? Oh how things have changed. If you were this guy in 1983, you had effectively made it. Today, if you're a marketing manager, you'd be lucky if you weren't still stuck in a cube.
>A marketing manager with assistants and a secretary? Oh how things have changed.
(Assuming that description is accurate) it really wasn't typical for the time. That said, compared to today, there were still a lot more secretaries and assistants floating around given the (mostly) lack of email/calendaring, web-based information of any kind, and general friction associated with just about everything. I sometimes half-joke that if I went back to my product manager job starting in 1986, I'd quit in a week out of complete frustration at the lack of tools and information to do my job.
Current data is only available till 2014. In 2014, the relative worth of $2,000,000.00 from 1983 is:
$4,750,000.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$4,060,000.00 using the GDP deflator
$4,660,000.00 using the unskilled wage
$5,240,000.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$7,000,000.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$9,540,000.00 using the relative share of GDP
1983 slips into the very tail-end of a high US inflationary period. Inflation has mostly been relatively low since. You can use any of the many online CPI calculators to calculate value of money. (Of course, it's only one measure of spending power change but, in this case, it's probably the most relevant one.)
But in 1985, dBase and its clones were ascendant, and they were plentiful and programmable and somewhat language-compatible. Lots of people were employed hacking on dBase code for small businesses. (I also wonder if piracy made dBase more ubiquitous...)
Essentially Cornerstone. They made large investments in developing, marketing, and selling it and it basically flopped although it had a variety of innovative features from a technology perspective.
Arguably they were also slow to branch beyond pure text adventure games but the investments in business software were the bigger near-term problem.