rec.autos.simulators

by **Scott B. Huste** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

David,

The problem is that GPL did not sell like N2/N99 did. The reason is that
particularly here in the States, more people relate to NASCAR than 1967 Grand Prix
cars. Although I absolutely love GPL as a majority of us here do.... we are a
minority interested in the total sales of racing software. Now, Im willing to bet
that we are a majority of the sales for GPL, but think of all the people who
purchased N2/N99 for their husbands, children, etc simply because it was NASCAR.
They wont be doing that if they hear that its "too hard". Justified in our eyes or
not.

Sierra has nothing but $$$$ in their interest in this. They are a business and they
are going to do whatever brings them the most return on their investment, not what we
*** sim racers think they should do. =(

Im willing to bet that the next release of NASCAR Racing is NOT the N3 we all were
expecting. It will either be an "upgraded" N2 physics engine or a very dumbed down
GPL Physics-like engine.

IMHO

Scott
PA-Scott
G.T.S. Racing - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> Hardest "game" to some, and most realistic "simulation" others...

--
Scott B. Husted
PA-Scott on TEN
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~sbhusted
ICQ# 4395450

by **Adam** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

I am 100%, without a doubt 180 degrees OPPOSITE of your opinion.

I say***eye-candy, and give me GPL-style physics in N3. I could CARE
LESS about eye candy.

> GPL physics in N3 are not quite as important to me as making the game
> more graphically pleasing to the eye. I don't care to have cars go
> flying through the air, as much as I want top be able to read the small
> contingency decals on the sides of the cars

Ridiculous comment. Ludicrous.

by **Adam** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

I don't think the lackluster sales (if they were truthfully lackluster, who
knows?) were NOT due to it being a hard game......I think the lackluster
sales were due to it being a 60's F1 game. NASCAR sells in America......big
time. I think if they released N3 with the *** GPL physics engine, it
would sell very, very well.....simply because it's a NASCAR game.

> I think the lackluster sales of GPL are probably at the bottom of this.
The
> suits at $ierra are scared that N2000 won't be the success that N1 & 2
> were.The size of the *** simmer market is much smaller than the
> "Deerhunter" market, so who do you think they would alienate first? I
don't
> understand why they can't make it just as challenging and realistic as GPL
> and throw in an arcade mode to appease the people that just want to race
to
> win. I hope I am wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

> Kyle

> > http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > Remember nothing here is official PR... only speculation, but at least
> > stirring up the whole deal will help us get a straight answer hopefully

> > ===============
> > Nascar 3/2000

> > Ok, NASCAR fans, it's on its way. I talked to PR from Papyrus about
NASCAR
> > 3, and here's the skinny:
> <snipped>

by **UnserFan** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

Where the hell is the next CART racing sim?!

Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited

by Jo » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

>Naturally N2000 will support the popular 3D accelerators out of the box, so
>you N2 guys with Rendition cards may have to go shopping finally.

What about grahpical quality, have the re-written the graphics engine?
Because they should. N2000 looks pretty bad compared to modern
graphics engines.

Joe

by **Chris Schlette** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

I care quite a bit about both. As long as its not worthless eye-candy, aka
lens flare, and it gives me a better view and more situational awareness of
whats going on in and around my car, I'm all for graphics. :)

by **Marc J. Nelso** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

> I would bet money that N3 will
> still be released this fall with the GPL physics engine...

I'll take that bet.

--
Marc J. Nelson
SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com

* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

by **Frank Koeni** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

I think the point has to be made: Even if GPL had enjoyed great reviews, the
sales would have been lackluster because here in the states, 1967 F1 is
little more than trivia. Don't get me wrong, as a rabid fan of F1, I was
intrigued by the title. But you have a slim chance of finding many people on
the street here who even know what modern day F1 is, muchless its 1967
incarnation. Even in Europe where everyone knows what F1 is, the title
apparently didn't sell well. If there had been a modern day F1 Sim chosen as
the vehicle for the initial release of the GPL Engine, I'm convinced that it
would have been an overwhelming commercail sucess. By choosing 1967 which
many computer game players have no memory of, Papy shot themselves and the
GPL Engine in the foot. Now they are dealing with the market reality of
their choice and Sierra gets to play the heavy.

Papy had better find some modern day implementation of the GPL Engine and
try to recover from there mistakes of the past or the GPL Engine is doomed
to never reach the market it deserves. They had a chance with N3. They have
given up. They and the GPL Engine may never recover unless they FORGET about
historical titles for the next implementation!!

> David,

> The problem is that GPL did not sell like N2/N99 did. The reason is that
> particularly here in the States, more people relate to NASCAR than 1967
Grand Prix
> cars. Although I absolutely love GPL as a majority of us here do.... we
are a
> minority interested in the total sales of racing software. Now, Im
willing to bet
> that we are a majority of the sales for GPL, but think of all the people
who
> purchased N2/N99 for their husbands, children, etc simply because it was
NASCAR.
> They wont be doing that if they hear that its "too hard". Justified in
our eyes or
> not.

> Sierra has nothing but $$$$ in their interest in this. They are a
business and they
> are going to do whatever brings them the most return on their investment,
not what we
> *** sim racers think they should do. =(

> Im willing to bet that the next release of NASCAR Racing is NOT the N3 we
all were
> expecting. It will either be an "upgraded" N2 physics engine or a very
dumbed down
> GPL Physics-like engine.

> IMHO

> Scott
> PA-Scott
> G.T.S. Racing - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > Hardest "game" to some, and most realistic "simulation" others...

> --
> Scott B. Husted
> PA-Scott on TEN
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/~sbhusted
> ICQ# 4395450

by **Marty U'Re** » Mon, 17 May 1999 04:00:00

You just gave me an idea. While I'm no marketing whiz, I do know $$$ makes the world go
round. When it comes to dealing with the 'suits', it's always about balancing product
quality with profitability.

Sierra could take a page from Intel's book on how to take an advantage in product
technology and sell it to both ends of the market. The Intel Celeron is the same core
product as the PII, but rated for lower clock speed and sold at a big discount to capture
the mass market at the low end while the PII ( and now PIII) gets a premium price from
those who can justify the cost for the higher performance.

Seems to me N3 could be based on the GPL engine and sold at a premium price ( a la PII )
to the hard-core sim fanatic who will pay for it, and take the same technology and dumb
it down for the mass market as a different product, making it the successor to N99 at the
lower price that currently moves product and makes money. The one would even act as an
upgrade path to the other for the sim racing novice who gets the bug.

Us hard-core sim fanatics would continue to beat the drum for Papy's reputation as the
industry leader which would help sell product aimed at the mass market. Seems like a
classic win-win to me.

I can see why this strategy might have been over looked when Sierra wants to make money
and Papy wants to make the best sim. They're looking at different and conflicting
targets. What about it Sierra?

Marty

> David,

> The problem is that GPL did not sell like N2/N99 did. The reason is that
> particularly here in the States, more people relate to NASCAR than 1967 Grand Prix
> cars. Although I absolutely love GPL as a majority of us here do.... we are a
> minority interested in the total sales of racing software. Now, Im willing to bet
> that we are a majority of the sales for GPL, but think of all the people who
> purchased N2/N99 for their husbands, children, etc simply because it was NASCAR.
> They wont be doing that if they hear that its "too hard". Justified in our eyes or
> not.

> Sierra has nothing but $$$$ in their interest in this. They are a business and they
> are going to do whatever brings them the most return on their investment, not what we
> *** sim racers think they should do. =(

> Im willing to bet that the next release of NASCAR Racing is NOT the N3 we all were
> expecting. It will either be an "upgraded" N2 physics engine or a very dumbed down
> GPL Physics-like engine.

> IMHO

> Scott
> PA-Scott
> G.T.S. Racing - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > Hardest "game" to some, and most realistic "simulation" others...

> --
> Scott B. Husted
> PA-Scott on TEN
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/~sbhusted
> ICQ# 4395450

by **'John' Joao Sil** » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

Nascar3 with No GPL physics = no sale for me.

Not really a fan of Oval racing but was going to pick up Nascar3
based on the *great* feel in GPL, now there's no real reason to
buy it.

Oh well, still thankful that Papyrus had the courage to put out GPL,
I guess a dumbed down Nascar3 will probably sell better and help them
to pay the bills, hopefully this new Sierra "arcade" focus will not carry over
into CART3, where GPL's physics engine would be amazing.

Probably a good move on their part as far as money goes, but they will
have lost a lot of sales to diehard sim fans like myself, although
admittedly we probably make up less than 10% of their sales.

Sad news.

Seeyas on the track.

--John (Joao) Silva

>http://www.gamers.com/industry/e3-1999/nascar.as>
>===============
> Nascar 3/2000
SNIP
>As you may have heard, N2000 will no longer be using the Gran Prix Legends
>physics engine. Papyrus has decided that theyre going to try to make the
>game appeal to a more mass audience, not just the 1% who will actually try
>to adjust all 200 engine and chassis tweaks. The physics engine will be the
>same as that from NASCAR 1999, which was the same as that from NASCAR 2.

by **John Simmo** » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

says...

>I am 100%, without a doubt 180 degrees OPPOSITE of your opinion.

>I say***eye-candy, and give me GPL-style physics in N3. I
>could CARE LESS about eye candy.

>>GPL physics in N3 are not quite as important to me as making the game
>>more graphically pleasing to the eye. I don't care to have cars go
>>flying through the air, as much as I want top be able to read the small
>>contingency decals on the sides of the cars

>Ridiculous comment. Ludicrous.

To each his own... With very very few exceptions (translated - freak
accidents), not many stock cars leave the ground now-a-days, and
certainly not to the extent that the GPL cars have been seen to launch.

I want photo-realism, not that cheesy ***like lense flares and dirty
windshields. I just want to enjoy the experience a lot more as far as
eye-candy is concerned. Sure, I'll take an improved physics model too,
but it doesn't need to be anywhere near as difficult to drive as GPL is.
I think a few more car setup options would be good too.

As long as I'm talking about this again, I'd like to see them put in a
crew chief that can make appropriate changes for those of us not quite as
adept at car setups as others are. For instance, I want to be able to
tell the crew chief that it's pushing going into turn 4, and have him
automatically make adjustments for me without concerning me about the
details. If it ain't right, I'll come back into the pits and have 'em
fix it some more. Now THAT would be a cool feature.

Of course, I'll reiterate my desire for multi-player and online league
support...

In closing, if you wanna do flips in a car, go find an appropriate game,
or continue driving (and abusing) GPL.

--
=========================================================
John Simmons - Redneck Techno-Biker (Zerex12)
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

John Simmons - Barbarian Diecast Collector
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

IGPS (Season 2) Director
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

If you want to send me email, go to either of the URL's
shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame.
=========================================================

by **David L. Co** » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

John,

N3 with the GPL physics was not about getting airborne. Have you seen
the AVI? Did you see how the AC Delco car's suspension moved when it
came down off the curb at Watkins Glen? Did you see the Valvoline car
moving on it's suspension as it got sideways?

You can tell that these cars are handling realistically. With moving
suspension below, you can FEEL the car - and the speed. Graphics are not
what make a sim. It seems as though the word simulator is being reduced
though, by corporate suits...

David L. Cook

> says...
<snip>
> In closing, if you wanna do flips in a car, go find an appropriate game,
> or continue driving (and abusing) GPL.

by **buzar** » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

GPL the hardest game in the world? I take it he never tried to play
any of the Quake games on-line? Talk about some one tearing you
a new ***!!!!!

If GPL is the hardest game I must be pretty damn good! I can keep
the car on the on the track!

buzard

> >I think the lackluster sales of GPL are probably at the bottom of this. The
> >suits at $ierra are scared that N2000 won't be the success that N1 & 2
> >were.

> I found this quote from http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Gamer.com's E3 coverage that perhaps give insight to Sierra's reasoning in that
> GPL is "known in some circles as the hardest game in the world.".

by **patrick dal** » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

Hi John,

Absolutely spot on with all points in your post. It is all too rare that we
see a project that clearly reflects the passion of the designer (GP2 & GPL
spring to mind). It's really a shame for all involved that GPL bombed. Can
you imagine how DK and the rest must have felt to have their work stolen by
the Warez guys and buried by the masses before it was even out of the
starting gate? I'm afraid we may lose the opportunity to experience a sim
like GPL in the future unless we are prepared to pay 3-4 times as much for
it in a niche market scenario. Which I would do in a heartbeat by the way.

regards,
Patrick

>Nascar3 with No GPL physics = no sale for me.

>Not really a fan of Oval racing but was going to pick up Nascar3
>based on the *great* feel in GPL, now there's no real reason to
>buy it.

>Oh well, still thankful that Papyrus had the courage to put out GPL,
>I guess a dumbed down Nascar3 will probably sell better and help them
>to pay the bills, hopefully this new Sierra "arcade" focus will not carry
over
>into CART3, where GPL's physics engine would be amazing.

>Probably a good move on their part as far as money goes, but they will
>have lost a lot of sales to diehard sim fans like myself, although
>admittedly we probably make up less than 10% of their sales.

>Sad news.

>Seeyas on the track.

>--John (Joao) Silva

by **Michael E. Carve** » Tue, 18 May 1999 04:00:00

% There are also supposed to be 3 development teams within Papyrus working on
% different titles...so...who knows whats actually going on. :)

1) NASCAR 2000

2) NASCAR Legends

3) NASCAR III

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

rec.autos.simulators

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)

Different situation about Papyrus software (E3 article)