rec.autos.simulators

by **Griffin, the Slay** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

>>On Wed, 19 May 1999 08:34:27 GMT,

>>>The expectation of revenues from GPL was much lower than for a NASCAR
>>>or even a CART title. The problem is that GPL has not met even these
>>>reduced expectations

>>Michael, how do you know? Be specific, please.

>>> and had a high return rate for Papyrus titles (ask
>>>Sierra about the return rate - the only higher was the FBPro 99 fiasco as a
>>>percentage of original sales).

>Interesting. I assume because of the ***software rendering, and the lack of
>Broad 3D card support?

>Z.

>Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

I agree with you about the software rendering. Terrible is an
understatement!

Griffin, the Slayer

by **Magnus** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

I think it is very nice that this "not completed" sim could give so much joy
to so much demanding sim racers still, what is it now, 6-7 months after its
release, without a single patch. How many games do that? Is any PC game today
completed when it is released?

/Magnus

by **Griffin, the Slay** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

>>Except for the lack of decent profit which Papy' made, GPL hasn't
>>suffered.

>LOL...oh my, can it get any more ignorant? That's exactly the point
>why we won't see any other games of that type in the foreseeable
>future... With that attitude you're just going to kill the genre.

>--Tel

Actually, you're wrong about this.

Check out this months edition of Ultimate PC. There's a review of an
upcoming game called _Spirit of Speed_. It's not too long, but here's
what it says - watch out for the highlights...

[SPIRIT OF SPEED]

Hasbro Interactive have hit top gear with news of a pre World War II
racing game tiled 'Spirit of Speed'. This vintage car simulation will
feature cars from the late thirtes such as the Bentley Blower, Bugatti
and Mercedes. Big lumbering cars wit huge engines, ineffetive brakes
and doggy handling, these vehicles are a world apart from the
relitively safety of the Formula 1 vehicles of today.
_The success of Grand Prix Legends_ seems to have sparked an
explosion of 'classic' car racing games, but Sprit of Racing will push
the years back further than all others. Whether this will work remains
to be seen. The cars of the era were not particularly quick, nor easy
to control. Of Broadsword attempt a strict simulation they could end
up producing a game that deters more games than it attracts.

My point exactly. :)

Griffin, the Slayer

by **Michae** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

It is because of the way investors react. Most expect occasional losses,
especially in ground breaking industries, and continue to invest in that
industry even when they occur. However, when something does generate a
return, but that return is lower than desired, they typically move their
investment to other areas.

Why? Most companies that have a true failure often follow it with a good
success - they learn from the failure and redesign. A marginal success is
usually followed by more marginal successes as the company only tries to
tweak what they have done rather than really stepping back and evaluating
their product.

Michael

----- Original Message -----

> >It is not that GPL hasn't made a profit, simply that it didn't meet
> >minimum projected profit - which is often more damaging in the business
> >world than abject failure.

> I agreed with you all the way up to the "abject failure" being better
> than the "meeting minimum projected profit". How would meeting your
> required profit be worse than making a huge loss?

by **Kurt Steinboc** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

Michael, that is the silliest generalization about the nature of business I
have ever read here. And there've been some silly ones!

I suggest we all get back to simulated racing and leave all this
"business-related" speculation behind.

Kurt Steinbock

(some clipped)>

by **John Walla** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

>It is because of the way investors react. Most expect occasional losses,
>especially in ground breaking industries, and continue to invest in that
>industry even when they occur. However, when something does generate a
>return, but that return is lower than desired, they typically move their
>investment to other areas.

Hmmm...

Take a look at the modest success of some Japanese semiconductor
companies this year versus the abject failure of some U.S. ones.
Observe the stampede away from those U.S. stocks while the Japanese
ones hit new record highs.

Really don't agree with that at all. It could happen in occasional
cases, but as a generalisation it's way off the mark.

Cheers!
John

by **Griffin, the Slay** » Thu, 20 May 1999 04:00:00

On Wed, 19 May 1999 17:25:11 -0400, "Kurt Steinbock"

>I suggest we all get back to simulated racing and leave all this
>"business-related" speculation behind.

Might be wise, as everybody seems to have their own opinions on how a
good business is run.

Griffin, the Slayer

by **Michael E. Carve** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

% Well said Jack,

% about 2 months after buying GPL I also bought "Grand Prix". Packaging
% them together would be a great idea...they're made for each other.
% I'd also suggest that your GPaL should be in that bundle too :)

% My enjoyment of GPL went through the roof after I discovered an AI Tweak
% package on the web...

While we are bundling, let's not forget VROC. I know that I would still
be driving GPL without VROC, but I am positive I wouldn't be enjoying it
half as much without VROC!

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

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

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

Huh?
We *HAVE* to accept any compromise that a software producer feeds us!!
*WE* don't design, program and deliver the product.....*THEY* do!!

And what's this "demanding" got to do with it? We can demand until we are
blue in the face and it won't matter one iota if the developer/publisher
wishes to cater for the mass market...........which just happens to *NOT*
subscribe to this newsgroup!

--
Best regards,
Bruce.
======
The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff!
http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet
===============================================

>Umm...of course. But I think there's a difference between 'asking' or
>'suggesting' and 'demanding'...
>If certain people are not willing to make compromises (i.e. optional
>easier modes etc.), they will have to accept the consequences too -
>what means in the end no complex simulations at all.

>--Tel

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

They were certainly "home computer" state-of-the-art when the sim was in
development and when the demo (Watkins Glen) was first made available.

And not everybody plays this game on-line, either.
--
Best regards,
Bruce.
======
The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff!
http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet
===============================================

>> c) The hardware requirements for GPL are almost state of the art
>> and many folks just can't justify upgrading for a simple
>> past-time.

>The hardware requirments for GPL are hardly state of the art.

>They are however, narrow-banded.

by **Tim (fusio** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

[snip]

From the mouths of Papyrus themselves at
http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/articlesfull.asp?featureid=26

[begin quote]

Q. Dan - Why not use the Grand Prix Legends engine for NASCAR? Racing
2000?
A. Papyrus has always been the leader in developing products with the
highest degree of racing simulation realism available, and we intend
to maintain that leadership. Last years release of Grand Prix Legends
is widely regarded as the most stunningly accurate and rigorous
vehicle simulation ever created in a consumer package. However, given
the limited commercial success of Grand Prix Legends, its clear that
we would be doing a disservice to our core NASCAR? Racing fans if we
released NASCAR? Racing 3 with the same degree of difficulty and steep
learning curve. The average customer shouldnt be expected to have
real world racecar driving skills to enjoy the game. In addition, a
NASCAR? simulation based on the same engine at GPL would have even
steeper system requirements. Add to that a higher graphics load and a
system that will run the game smoothly is out of reach to the vast
majority of our customers.

[end quote]

Get that "limited commercial success" part?
I think your source is mistaken.

--

http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1
(dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

completed.

Well, Michael, all I can say is thank *GOD* it was delivered before
completion because, as my driving enjoyment is almost ***ic, I shudder to
think what the completed version would have done to me!!! :o)

--
Best regards,
Bruce.
======
The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff!
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
================================================-=-=-=

by **Zonk** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

>Path:

>They were certainly "home computer" state-of-the-art when the sim was in
>development and when the demo (Watkins Glen) was first made available.

>And not everybody plays this game on-line, either.

They certainly were not bruce. All you needed was a mid spec PII and a plain
old Voodoo graphics card for a decent frame rate. I even had it working fine
on a P166 with 32mb and a Voodoo Graphics!.

Even he full release just needs a mid-spec PII and a Voodoo2 or the like.

Software mode is bad, though, and the 3D hardware supported in laughable- i'm
not really counting the poor opengl patch released.

But at the end of the day, next to FPS, or heavy Flight Sim, the hardware
requirements are not that over the top.

Z.

Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

by **Michael E. Carve** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

% From the mouths of Papyrus themselves at
% http://www.operationsports.com/reviewvault/articlesfull.asp?featureid=26

% [begin quote]

% Q. Dan - Why not use the Grand Prix Legends engine for NASCAR? Racing
% 2000?

"Marketing Hype" -- "Double Speak" -- "Spokesman" --

Come on folks.... Unless we are really in the head of Dave K. we are
never ever going to know exactly what is going on. I have a feeling
that even those close to him in the biz don't know exactly what is going
on. We are going to be told various stories (spins) by every spokesman,
contact in the Sierra/Papy kingdom. The proof will be in the pudding.
Besides, what is being said now is more than likely something based on a
decision or conversation that took place months ago. Things change in
the business daily and sometimes hourly. As it comes time for the
products to be released we will know more about what is going on, but we
will never ever know exactly why/how they came about.

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

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

by **Michael E. Carve** » Fri, 21 May 1999 04:00:00

% Huh?
% We *HAVE* to accept any compromise that a software producer feeds us!!
% *WE* don't design, program and deliver the product.....*THEY* do!!

Nope, we don't "have" to accept it. We contribute to the design of a
product where it counts the most, with our pocketbook.

% And what's this "demanding" got to do with it? We can demand until we are
% blue in the face and it won't matter one iota if the developer/publisher
% wishes to cater for the mass market...........which just happens to *NOT*
% subscribe to this newsgroup!

True, but again we voice or demands (and they are heard) via our
pocketbooks. As the "driving" game/sim market gets more crowded and
glutted with schlock, the winners will be the ones that find a "niche"
that will reward them. In the past Papyrus has found that niche by
providing some of the most acurate simulations available at the time
they are released. And the succeeded, because we helped with the design
by demanding such degrees of realism with our pocketbooks.

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

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

rec.autos.simulators

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem

The GPL Engine wasn't GPL's problem