rec.autos.simulators

> > ot...v.v.

> You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put the
dev
> in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no more
sims
> from that dev, simple.

> So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hope
they
> are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on
(eg
> to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want
> mods, there will be no mods.
> If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed.

> If the devs don't mind mods being made (or if they encourage them) then it
> doesn't matter either way. If you bite the hand that feeds you and it
> doesn't mind being bitten, it doesn't matter whether you bite it or not.
(I
> feel this is stretching the analogy somewhat, but it's still a damned
sight
> closer than some in this thread)

> The flip side of this is that if the dev who doesn't want mods doesn't
make
> a popular sim he'll be in a less robust position, so what I'm saying is
that
> you (personally you Steve) need to be attempting to influence what sport
the
> sim actually simulates rather than worrying about the little stuff like
how
> mod-friendly the sim is.

> Malc.

> > > > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make
Something
> > > > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage
modders.
> > > They
> > > > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is
> worth
> > > to
> > > > their bottom line.  You might even say they're feeding the hand that
> > bites
> > > > them (from FIRST's perspective).

> > > If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their
wishes
> > you
> > > fool.

> > > Malc.

> > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you
might
> > > like
> > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't
alter
> it
> > > to
> > > > > suit
> > > > > > > your needs.

>  but 20 years
> > ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for suggesting
> > such a radical idea.

> Was her name Anne-Marie?

> Mitch
> --
> Remove "nospam." to reply.
> SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

> > > ot...v.v.

> > You really have no idea what I'm on about do you?

> > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you
> might
> > > > like
> > > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't
> alter
> > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > suit
> > > > > > > > your needs.

> > If the mods make the game wildly popular then the devs will have a lot
> less
> > trouble finding fin backers that if they had put out a game that can't
be
> > modded, or, worse, nobody *wants* to mod.  Like Postal, which sold less
> than
> > GPL its first time out.  Somehow, I don't think Kaemmer, with the
> squillions
> > he got from selling out to Sierra, and Henry, a trader who rides herd on
a
> > $2 billion fund and who paid $700 million for the Red Sox, are going to
> have
> > to go to the vulture capitalists.

> We're talking about racing sims here, it's a specialist market. If you are
a
> dev & you want something that will be 'wildly popular' you make a good
> arcade racer, not a sim.

> Not only is it a specialist market, within that market there are a great
> deal of different racing series, even if you generalise & use terms like
> 'single seaters', or 'rallying' or 'touring cars'. You obviously realise
> that it's possible to make more than one type of racing sim from the same
> base game engine, that's what the aftermarket mods do after all. The
market
> isn't big enough to support a specialist sim in an already specialist
> market, and for EA it's solution is to make sims that out of the box
appeal
> to as wide an audience as possible (ie F1 mostly) but that can be modded
so
> people like me (who aren't interested in racing modern F1) might also buy
> it. I'm not saying that doesn't work, nor am I saying it's a bad choice.
> It's just a choice. And FIRST have made a different choice, which is
> (hopefully) to focus on multiplayer.

> > You're the one who doesn't seem to get it, Malc.  Mods are not only not
> the
> > Anti-Christ, but are instead so good for business that they have been
> > embraced by the rest of the PC games community as a source of fresh
***,
> > new ideas, reams of fawning p.r., near-infinite good will, and future
> > loyalties.  Otherwise, why would Atari be willing to spend ONE MILLION
> > DOLLARS to encourage them?  Mods are one of the few reasons left to get
> into
> > PC games, as opposed to consoles, where the h/w and s/w are as rigid as
a
> > control-freak like Herr Ing. hcF Kaemmer likes.  I'd go so far as to say
> > that if it wasn't for mods, PC games would be in even more dire straits
> than
> > they already are.

> > What planet or century are you from exactly?  Mod-friendliness isn't
> > "little."  At one point, there were 30,000 players on several thousand
> > servers every night playing Counter-Strike, far outstripping the success
> of
> > the original game.  Ghost Recon, a far better FPS, wasn't mod friendly
> (you
> > could make maps, uniforms and guns and that was about it), and it
dribbled
> > away like Duke Nukem.  Ghost Recon 2 for the PC, in the works since 2002
> > (the year after GR was released), was recently canceled for lack of
> > interest.  All that remains are the console titles.  That's where a lack
> of
> > mod-friendliness will get you.

> Once again you plough in & miss the point Steve. I'm not against mods & I
> understand & have written in this very thread about the benefits of
modding.
> What I am saying is that if the sim is what you want out of the box the
fact
> that it can't (or mustn't) be modded isn't a big deal. If the original
game
> /was/ Counter-Strike do you think it would have been as popular? Of course
> it would because that was what people wanted to play, plus the gamers
would
> have paid for the original game (if they liked that too) /and/ CS. The
only
> people that benefit from CS being 'free' are the people who would only
have
> bought one CD anyway, so they are not a factor for the devs.

> imo good online multiplayer requires a game or sim to be hard to mod so
that
> cheating is also hard. Picture a sliding scale with 'good online racing'
at
> one end, and 'adjustable physics' at the other. FIRST seem to have set
their
> priority towards the online end, EA is probably somewhere in the middle.

> If your big selling point is the online code then it's mod-friendliness
has
> to take a back seat, and vice versa. Life is full of compromise and this
> just looks like a way for FIRST to differentiate themselves from EA so
they
> aren't competing head-on. If FIRST compete directly with EA then the one
> with more money wins (ie probably not FIRST) so FIRST aren't particularly
> losing sales, but they will hopefully fill a gap in the market that
> currently only lfs fills imo.

> > --Tom Clancy

> Tom Clancy writes plausable fiction Steve, you don't.

> Malc.

> > > > ot...v.v.

> > > You really have no idea what I'm on about do you?

> > > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you
> > might
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't
> > alter
> > > it
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > suit
> > > > > > > > > your needs.

> I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm objecting
> to
> their prior restraint of what others have produced.  The rights you seem
> so
> eager to protect here are not being violated.  There is no commercial
> intent.  F1RST would have to prove that TR's mod (or BR's or C'One's or
> anybody's) are hurting the sales of that which they undeniably own the
> rights to, namely, NASCAR Racing 2003.  But...N2003 isn't being sold (at
> least not by F1RST), so they would have to prove that these mods would
> hurt
> *future* sales of some as-yet-undefined F1RST product, which obviously
> can't--or won't--be done.

> I smell a rat when F1RST jumps in to not only protect their rights, but
> when
> they also force TR to remove references to Sauber/Mercedes, Jaguar, Mazda
> and Toyota.  Is F1RST the agent, assign, counsel, heir, or party to any of
> these manufacturers?  No, they are, IMO, just throwing their weight around
> to show they "mean business."

> I know all about property rights.  I introduced a property called the
> Swiss
> Army Watch here in the U.S.  I was contacted by the bullies, thugs, and
> goons of Forschner, who distibuted the Swiss Army Knife in this country.
> They told me, among other things, that I could not sell a watch with a red
> dial (!) and that I could not claim that the watch was made in Switzerland
> (which it was, in the hamlet of Porrentruy).  This kind of intimidation is
> standard in this business.  I forced them to change their name to Swiss
> Army
> *Brands* (their product had never been endorsed by the Swiss Army), but
> they
> forced me out of business because I could not afford to defend my little
> company against the onslaught of their mighty legal brigade.  After I quit
> the field, they gobbled up my idea and profited from it to the tune of
> several million dollars a year.  And still do.

> If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on
> the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner
> of
> the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for
> the
> love of the game.  Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very
> people
> he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, if
> he
> ever gets a product out the door that these people might actually
> otherwise
> want.

>> > > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find
> an
>> > > analogy even worse than Tonys.

>> > Thanks Malc :)

>> > Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too*
>> good
>> > a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense!

>> I take it all back, Steve found an analogy even worse than DK's then.

>> Steve, This thread was started to offer an explanation of the thought
>> process behind sim designers allowing people to create what is
>> essentially
> a
>> second complete sim that can double the value of their original sim -
>> this
>> has the benefit of making the sim potentially appeal to a wider audience
> but
>> the downside that the need to buy new sims may be reduced.

>> It should be pretty clear to most that the intellectual rights belong to
> the
>> original design team & there is a gentlemen's agreement that it's broadly
>> okay to mod a sim even though usually the EULA will specifically prohibit
>> it. If the designer chooses not to look the other way the community can't
>> really do anything other than accept that.

>> If it ended up in court the designer would win every time, so I don't
> really
>> see how case law has anything to do with this situation. If the situation
>> reaches the point where case law history is required the modders have
>> already lost, and nobody likes a poor loser. Just accept and respect
> FIRST's
>> decision & aim to influence the genres they simulate rather than getting
>> hung up on the modding. There are plenty of other sims to mod.

>> Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like
>> straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to
>> suit
>> your needs.

>> Malc.

> Agreed.  Corporate greed and myopia go hand in hand.  A friend of mine
> makes
> die-cast model cars.  He wanted to make a 1:18 of the Lotus-Ford that ran
> at
> Indy.  He reasoned that since Ford had spent millions of dollars 40 years
> ago for the p.r. (to influence peep's perception of Ford as a
> performance-minded company), they'd be happy to have a reminder of their
> glory days.  But no, they gave him the run-around and finally told him it
> would cost him $50,000 to put the Ford "bug" (logo) on the model.  My
> friend
> pointed out that the development cost of the model was around $100,000 and
> he'd be lucky to sell a thousand of them (unlike 1:43 models, 1:18s don't
> exactly fly off the shelves) to break even.  He put the model on the
> market
> without the Ford logo, thus diluting the impact of the millions that Ford
> had already spent and gaining no additional impact.  What would the $50K
> have done to their bottom line?  That's probably less than they would have
> made selling a couple of extra Expeditions.

> OTOH, I told Kaemmer years ago that instead of going to corporations, hat
> in
> hand, and begging for their permission to use their products in games,
> that
> he should go to them like a movie company and ask for money for "product
> placement."  Ford will pay movie producers up to $100,000 per vehicle to
> get
> a Ford Expedition, say, in a film (even if it's irrelevant to the plot).
> What exposure do they get out of this?  Usually no more than one
> "impression" (viewing) per customer.  I used to work as a marketing
> consultant.  Marketeers pay per impression.  Now take, say, Firestone.  If
> one of their billboards appears trackside in, say, NASCAR Racing, they
> reap
> the benefit of THOUSANDS of impressions per viewer over the life of the
> game.  In any marketing research, this would be worth thousands to
> Firestone, and they should be willing to pay the developer multiple
> thousands of dollars for such free advertising.  Nowadays, of course, this
> is becoming the norm (and will only get more instrusive), but 20 years
> ago,
> Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for suggesting such a
> radical idea.

>> > If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not
> on
>> > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the
> owner
>> > of the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade
> for
>> > the love of the game.  Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the
>> > very
>> > people he is stomping on here are the core of his future
>> > audience...that
>> > is, if he ever gets a product out the door that these people might
>> > actually otherwise want.

>> I agree. In reality the niche group who mod and play mods probably isn't
>> going to make a difference to John Henry's bottom line so embracing the
>> modders or eliminating them "just in case" doesn't really matter.

>> However, it doesn't feel like the developers playing nicely with their
>> greatest fans does it nor come across particularly well in demonstrating
>> Henry as an "avid participant in the auto racing simulation community"?

>> It seems a bit like a car manufacturer going after one of its enthusiast
>> owners clubs members for modifying their engines, a tiny percentage of
>> customers but hardly good PR.

>> Quite how the developer run "Federation of International Racing and
>> Sanctioning Trust" will work remains to be seen.

> If the mods make the game wildly popular then the devs will have a lot
> less
> trouble finding fin backers that if they had put out a game that can't be
> modded, or, worse, nobody *wants* to mod.  Like Postal, which sold less
> than
> GPL its first time out.  Somehow, I don't think Kaemmer, with the
> squillions
> he got from selling out to Sierra, and Henry, a trader who rides herd on a
> $2 billion fund and who paid $700 million for the Red Sox, are going to
> have
> to go to the vulture capitalists.

> You're the one who doesn't seem to get it, Malc.  Mods are not only not
> the
> Anti-Christ, but are instead so good for business that they have been
> embraced by the rest of the PC games community as a source of fresh ***,
> new ideas, reams of fawning p.r., near-infinite good will, and future
> loyalties.  Otherwise, why would Atari be willing to spend ONE MILLION
> DOLLARS to encourage them?  Mods are one of the few reasons left to get
> into
> PC games, as opposed to consoles, where the h/w and s/w are as rigid as a
> control-freak like Herr Ing. hcF Kaemmer likes.  I'd go so far as to say
> that if it wasn't for mods, PC games would be in even more dire straits
> than
> they already are.

> What planet or century are you from exactly?  Mod-friendliness isn't
> "little."  At one point, there were 30,000 players on several thousand
> servers every night playing Counter-Strike, far outstripping the success
> of
> the original game.  Ghost Recon, a far better FPS, wasn't mod friendly
> (you
> could make maps, uniforms and guns and that was about it), and it dribbled
> away like Duke Nukem.  Ghost Recon 2 for the PC, in the works since 2002
> (the year after GR was released), was recently canceled for lack of
> interest.  All that remains are the console titles.  That's where a lack
> of
> mod-friendliness will get you.

> --Tom Clancy

> Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n
>> > ot...v.v.

>> You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put the
> dev
>> in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no more
> sims
>> from that dev, simple.

>> So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hope
> they
>> are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on
> (eg
>> to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want
>> mods, there will be no mods.
>> If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed.

>> If the devs don't mind mods being made (or if they encourage them) then
>> it
>> doesn't matter either way. If you bite the hand that feeds you and it
>> doesn't mind being bitten, it doesn't matter whether you bite it or not.
> (I
>> feel this is stretching the analogy somewhat, but it's still a damned
> sight
>> closer than some in this thread)

>> The flip side of this is that if the dev who doesn't want mods doesn't
> make
>> a popular sim he'll be in a less robust position, so what I'm saying is
> that
>> you (personally you Steve) need to be attempting to influence what sport
> the
>> sim actually simulates rather than worrying about the little stuff like
> how
>> mod-friendly the sim is.

>> Malc.

>> > > > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make
> Something
>> > > > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage
> modders.
>> > > They
>> > > > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is
>> worth
>> > > to
>> > > > their bottom line.  You might even say they're feeding the hand
>> > > > that
>> > bites
>> > > > them (from FIRST's perspective).

>> > > If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their
> wishes
>> > you
>> > > fool.

>> > > Malc.

>> > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you
> might
>> > > like
>> > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't
> alter
>> it
>> > > to
>> > > > > suit
>> > > > > > > your needs.

> Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n
>> ot...v.v.

> You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put the
> dev
> in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no more
> sims
> from that dev, simple.

> So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hope
> they
> are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on
> (eg
> to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want
> mods, there will be no mods.
> If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed.

> This whole mess just took a very serious turn I guess...

> http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/legal/