> > Ermmm...... I have a cousin who went out and bought N4 simply because it
> was
> > NASCAR. Nothing more... you'll get a LOT of that
> Yep, and I know of plenty of people who bought N4 because of the new game
> engine. SO?
- I know many who bought it for the game engine too. Mostly people online
(like yourself) who are into that sort of thing and share the same desires
(hence my involvement in the community). My point was "I" can name 100-1
people who bought it for the NASCAR name, and because it was a sequel to N3
which they owned previously and enjoyed. I may not like that... but it is
true.
> If the people you mention bought N4 only because it was NASCAR, why is it
> still staying #5 in the PC DATA list while Nascar HEAT didn't sell as
well.
> Where is your logic for that? So you mean, they buy titles because it's
> NASCAR, but also because it's Papyrus and they are known to create nice
and
> solid simulations. So yes, they buy it because they want quality and
> serious in the game. Not because it's a "NASCAR" game on the shelves.
My reasoning is simple. Sierra/Papy have now made 4 versions. That is a long
lineage, and established loyalty. Most people I know "locally" bought it
because of that... recognition. EA has come out with how many NASCAR games?
There is no loyalty, or repeat business driving that game, so that is why
Heat was not as big of a seller. N1/2/3 was enjoyed by many, and hence the
higher sales... although driven at the core by the NASCAR name. BTW... NH
sold relatively well... dwarfed in comparison to N3/4, but it sold well,
which is all the publishers care about... recovering their investment (for
which NASCAR is a no-brainer). Keep in mind that PCData is tracking "US
Sales" please. Also, PCData only can report on those retailers who submit
numbers to them (like Walmart, EB, etc.).
> > It is true that many in our "sim world" crave realism, and hats off to
the
> > developers who try/succeed... more power to them. But do not think it
was
> > the "Sim Market" that drove N4 to #3 on the US Game Charts. That's
> certainly
> > not true (unfortunately).
> Yes, it's true. Perhaps we're 10%, but perhaps we're 30%. You do not
know.
> I do not know, but we are not 0.0000000001% either. Especially when you
> blend the line between somebody who buys N4 because he's an "hardcore sim
> freak" and somebody who buys N4 because they saw great raving reviews of
> it's realism. Those people are enormous.
Careful now... you are in fact contradicting yourself based on previous
posts from you in the past. You say that 30% of the market is driven by
ultra-realistic physics models, etc. That couldn't be further from the truth
in Game Biz. The vast majority of game buyers want 1 thing "instant
gratification". They want it to be realistic, but they also want it to be
"driveable" within 15 tries. You are combining markets here... apples to
oranges. I have managed to convert a few of my friends locally to consider
games based on the realism... but they still run out and grab NFS when the
new one arrives. They want gratification.
As for knowing... yes I do... I have the market analysis that is published
quarterly. Buying trends, fads, etc. I am on paid subscription with PCData.
Even conducted a seperate market analysis myself on the subject of game
sales, based on PCData's reports and others over period of extended time
(not just last week). "Serious Sim Racers" that frequent these boards are
very much in the minority. I may not like that (consider myself a serious
sim racer), but it is just fact of numbers.
> > Most of you will find it extremely hard to swallow... but it is those
> > "Arcade Racers" who feed the publishers.
> False false false false. MANY tytpes of game have for years lived on the
> souls of serious gamers. Remember this ain't console games, the PC market
> is made of more mature and aged gamers, who have a good income. Flight
> sims, RPG's, Space sims, racing sims, RTS, etc....
Well you have clouded the point I was making again. There are fantastic
"Simulations" out there... and they have their market, and have been
supported for years after the fact.... GREAT!. But it is not those games
that "feed the publishers". It is those like "Roller Coaster Tycoon, Diablo,
Sim City, Myst, Quake, Need For Speed, etc." that make the serious bucks
required to keep them operating. In fact... take a peek at PCData's last
week sales... 1 simulation in there isn't there. But more importantly, YOU
think it is a Sim, and that is probably what drove your buying decision.
However, I assure you the real numbers that drove N3 to #3 was not the
"hardcore simulation buyers". True we have contributed, and every little bit
helps... but if TRUE SIMS where driving the market, GPL woulda smashed the
top 10.. don't ya think? Instead it has sold a little over 50,000 copies. A
HUGE loss for the publishers, especially considering wages were paid for 5
years to develop it... not to mention marketing, packaging, etc. that the
publisher doled out. Hence why that "suit" from Havas reportedly said what
he said to Papy at the time. Not because it was "too realistic" that is
actually a residual effect on what happened there. It simply didn't make
money, in fact lost a ton... that is what made the new publisher say "what
the heck!?!?" The fact that it was also ultra-realistic hurt it on the
reviewer end (unfortunately 90% of them out there don't have a CLUE what
they are writing about). Bottom line is, many reviewers couldn't play it,
and they gave it a bad review. The fact that those same reviewers have
subsequently "revisited GPL" and then loved it had VERY little impact on the
sales figures 2 years later. A lost opportunity, and the publisher reads the
first reviews, and assumes "realism doesn't drive the market" what else are
they to assume? The graphics were great, online play is great, its just got
a serious learning curve, for which the "vast majority" of game players have
neither the time/energy/patience to take that on. They want "instant
gratification" not a "you just ain't cut out to be a real race car driver
unless you practise" experience. Gamers are a flakey bunch. They hop from
game to game... looking for instant gratification, and then move onto the
next one. That is the driving force behind the game industry that makes it
larger in size than the Movie industry. Lots of people are being flipped to
new games regularly... which equals more revenues for the publishers.
Think about it...
Are you any good at say... Golf? I am not very good at it although I enjoy
the game very much. I may go out every now and again to hack around the
course, but I don't wake up every morning and say "I'm gonna master this
game, and play everyday until I do..." Instead I go play baseball, something
I am MUCH better at. Why? Simple... I get more gratification from play
baseball than I do Golf. I like golf, and play it irregularly... but
baseball is my game, and what I spend most of my time on. Simply because of
gratification. The game industry is no different (it is humans after all who
buy these games).
> > During their visit to Papy, a "suit" walked in, grabbed the GPL box and
> > exclaimed "What the [heck] were you people thinking when you made this!"
> The
> > reason is simple. Financially it was a bigtime FLOP. Tack on the years
it
> > took to develop it, and the flop becomes bigger (financially speaking),
in
> > comparisons to normal game failures.
> Why do you judge a game only on it's sales? That is the pathetic
capitalist
> wheel that is squeeling you of your blood.
Ahem... please reread what I wrote. I said "The Publisher" made that
comment. But the point is that those publishers are indeed 100%
capitalists... JUST LIKE YOU. They are in the biz to make money... simple.
As much as that may rain on our parade (keep in mind please that I share
your enthusiasm for simulations for their merit), we are still left to tag
along behind the arcade racing market to feed ours.Why did you work 40 hours
last week? I bet it wasn't to make your co-workers happy, or to make your
friends like you, or to feel good about yourself. You did it to earn that
paycheck at the end of the week. Why do you suddenly assume that publishers
are in business to lose money? Does the fact that the venerable Francois
Menard will like them and speak highly about them hold any consellation to
the bankers beating down the door demanding their money? I think not.
> > It left a big fat "Realism is not what is being bought... and GPL
numbers
> show
> > that".
> False false false false. People did not buy GPL because nobody could
> associate themselves with it. It had it's own market, it was NOT made for
> the mainstream people, like FALCON 4 was not made for the mainstream
gamers.
> Geeze.
Wow... you you gotta lay off that glue. GPL was made to make money... it
didn't. The developers spent a lot of time on it, and wanted to make the
ultimate racing sim... they did for the time... fantastic, and all the power
to them... bring more GPLish games on please. However, my point AGAIN was
that in terms of the "publisher's view" it was a HUGE mistake. You seem to
be associating my "observations" as my "opinions" which is not the context
the last post was written in. Except for the last part about RC. If you
think that the publishers are consciously authorizing 4 million bucks in
marketing, etc. to make a game that caters to a minuite portion of the
market, you're silly. Publishers are businesses. They are in it to make
money. Period. If you think it's otherwise, give them a call and ask them if
they will pay you and support your new game you want to build targetted at a
very small market. They'll tell you to try somewhere else, unless you can
show them the "potential" to break into the mainstream market.
> <snip rest of pro-capitalist boring babble>
You gotta learn how to read in context my friend. I was quoting as a
...
read more »
