rec.autos.simulators

by **Tim Paulli** » Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:50:30

What group are you reading this on?
Thanks,

Tim

by **Larr** » Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:30:02

Goy,

Your mistake is in thinking that publishers actually _care_ about their
customers or their customers wishes.

-Larry

by **Goy Larse** » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:05:52

> Goy,

> Your mistake is in thinking that publishers actually _care_ about their
> customers or their customers wishes.

Maybe, I've always thought the point was to make money, not releasing a
game that was well under way seems rather silly to me

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

by **Uwe hoover Schuerkam** » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:40:00

>> Goy,

>> Your mistake is in thinking that publishers actually _care_ about their
>> customers or their customers wishes.

> Maybe, I've always thought the point was to make money, not releasing a
> game that was well under way seems rather silly to me

it's not to *make* money, but to *maximize* it. There's a vast
difference between the two concepts which may not be obvious at
first.

I guess there are quite a few niche markets that big companies
could serve and publish titles for, even smaller ones like the
guys who created that little marvel called "live for speed",
getting maybe to a break even point in sales vs. investments.

But this would not serve to increase "shareholder value", far
from it. It may serve to keep the programmers alive with even a
couple of bucks left over for dist. and marketing, but it's not
*maximizing profit*.

So dump the title while you can, and create profits *to the max*.

Sad, but only too true in taker culture.

Cheers,

uwe

--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

by **elrik** » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:22:16

> > Goy,

> > Your mistake is in thinking that publishers actually _care_ about their
> > customers or their customers wishes.

> Maybe, I've always thought the point was to make money, not releasing a
> game that was well under way seems rather silly to me

> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy
> "goyl at nettx dot no"

I forget where, right at the moment, but I seem to remember reading that the
reason that LA cancelled the game was because it wasn't staying true to its
"adventure game" heritage and was turning into more of an action oriented
game.

Guess they figured (probably correctly) that the the fans of the original
game would be dissapointed with the change. Think getting the game assuming
a "point & click adventure" and getting "Max Payne". ;o)

Elrikk

by **Tim Paulli** » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:36:24

thank you!

tim

> On this day of our lord, Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:50:30 -0500, "Tim

> >What group are you reading this on?
> >Thanks,

> >Tim

> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports

by **Andre Warring** » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:29:19

The same thing they did to the Indiana Jones series.. Some of the best
adventures ever made and they turn it into a Tomb Raider clone :-/
The first 'action' Indy was not bad but the recently released Indy
game is simply unplayable thanks to the horrible controls.. amazing
how a game can get released in such a state.

Andre

by **Haqsa** » Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:25:00

LOL, how times have changed. When the first Tomb Raider game came out some
thought it was a cheap attempt to cash in on the popularity of the Indiana
Jones movies.

rec.autos.simulators

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?

Has it ever been better for sim-racers?