rec.autos.simulators

by **Jlarson** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

James

by **Chris Schlette** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
"disaster".

by **Adam** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

How do you know?

> No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> "disaster".

> > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > James

by **Neil Rain** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

> > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > "disaster".

> How do you know?

Depends whether (a) you believe the figure of 36,000 we've been given
and (b) whether they could break even on those sales.

Seems unlikely, looking at the huge list of people involved in writing
the game and the time it must have taken them.

Back in the 80's when I was writing games those sorts of sales figures
would have been pretty respectable, but then again all the games I wrote
had exactly one person working on them - me. Well, OK, someone had to
do the box artwork and distribution etc., but the development costs were
way lower, and I didn't have to share the royalties with anyone else,
hehe... it's mine, all mine, I tell you, you fools etc. ;-)

Anyway, I suspect that Papy aren't too worried about the sales - they
are probably thinking long-term with this project: even if they won't be
using the physics engine in Nascar 3, it's sure to form part of a more
mainstream product sooner or later.

Not sure what Sierra thinks of the sales though! ;-)

by **rubini** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

they didnt get back the money they had hoped to make on gpl
probably due to very very bad advertising stratagies.

> How do you know?

> > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > "disaster".

> > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > > James

by **Jerry Moreloc** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

Plus I tend to agree with Alison Hines' assessment that word-of-mouth would
have sold a ton of copies and cut way down on returns had the default setups
been easier. With the advent of FF support and her Ferrari setups, perhaps
a remarketing campaign for GPL is in order?

Jerry Morelock

by **Schumache** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

They didn't make the money they excepted cause they didn't think Sports Car
GT was going to be so awesome, and whoever makes GPL made the same mistake
McLaren did with Ferrari, to under value their competition's potential.

Schumacher

> they didnt get back the money they had hoped to make on gpl
> probably due to very very bad advertising stratagies.

> > How do you know?

> > > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > > "disaster".

> > > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > > > James

by **drbo..** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

Aarrgh. "NASCAR is popular because of advertising." "GPL
didn't sell a lot because of advertising."

Give me a break. The market isn't that irrational. NASCAR is
popular because people like the close racing. Otherwise they wouldn't
spend the incredible $/time they do. GPL is not a major commercial
success because most people want something easier to drive. In both
cases there are plenty of widely known alternatives.

But I will admit advertising sells plenty of Splitfires :-).

bob

by **Bob Curti** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

I agree. It's not like this game is going to get old quickly.

> Plus I tend to agree with Alison Hines' assessment that word-of-mouth would
> have sold a ton of copies and cut way down on returns had the default setups
> been easier. With the advent of FF support and her Ferrari setups, perhaps
> a remarketing campaign for GPL is in order?

> Jerry Morelock

> > they didnt get back the money they had hoped to make on gpl
> > probably due to very very bad advertising stratagies.

--
Bob Curtin
Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/
"If God had intended man to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy
skin"

by **Bob Curti** » Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:00:00

Well, SCGT is certainly fun, but "awesome" is not exactly the word I'd use to
describe the game. If you ever in your life get an automobile up to racing
speeds, you'll know instantly why GPL is so far ahead of SCGT in the "realism"
dept. that there's really no comparison.

Unfortunately, that in itself is not enough to make it a best seller in a
country which loves Jerry Springer, the WWF and "Titanic."

> They didn't make the money they excepted cause they didn't think Sports Car
> GT was going to be so awesome, and whoever makes GPL made the same mistake
> McLaren did with Ferrari, to under value their competition's potential.

> Schumacher

> > they didnt get back the money they had hoped to make on gpl
> > probably due to very very bad advertising stratagies.

> > > How do you know?

> > > > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > > > "disaster".

> > > > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > > > > James

--
Bob Curtin
Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/
"If God had intended man to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy
skin"

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00:00

He counted up he number of GPL posts here over a 6-month period, divided
them by pi, took away the few posts that complained about the sim, then
multiplied that number by the entire population of New Zealand (because it's
as good a number as any), and Hey Presto!......as the number was a positive
and not a negative, proof that it was not a commercial disaster!! :o)

> How do you know?

> > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > "disaster".

> > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > > James

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00:00

WH-A-A-A-T????

> They didn't make the money they excepted cause they didn't think Sports
Car
> GT was going to be so awesome, and whoever makes GPL made the same mistake
> McLaren did with Ferrari, to under value their competition's potential.

> Schumacher

> > they didnt get back the money they had hoped to make on gpl
> > probably due to very very bad advertising stratagies.

> > > How do you know?

> > > > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > > > "disaster".

> > > > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > > > > James

by **Marc Merce** » Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00:00

GPL was not a sales success because:

Americans hate realism!!!

Marc Mercer

by **rubini** » Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00:00

population of newzealand, a farmer, his wife, four other people and
4000,0000 sheep!

> He counted up he number of GPL posts here over a 6-month period, divided
> them by pi, took away the few posts that complained about the sim, then
> multiplied that number by the entire population of New Zealand (because
it's
> as good a number as any), and Hey Presto!......as the number was a
positive
> and not a negative, proof that it was not a commercial disaster!! :o)

> > How do you know?

> > > No. It may have not been the best selling software, but it wasn't a
> > > "disaster".

> > > > In terms of low sales? Does anybody know?

> > > > James

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:00:00

Don't bother Bruce... he's just fishing for flames.

Sorry 'bout setting this guy off in another thread... it's him against the
world now.

Jan.
------

>WH-A-A-A-T????

><snip>

rec.autos.simulators

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?

Was GPL a commercial disaster?