Thanks for a well-reasoned post. And I expected nothing but flames this
morning! :)
(although not in the computing business).
Yeah I realize I probably overstated my point. But I do think that the
software business is a lot different than most other business. Most of the
products you buy are not products which can be patched or updated or have a
Version 2 released on them. Also, most products you buy don't have to work
with gazillion other combinations of products. As such, the margin for error
is much larger for a piece of software than it is for, say, a toaster. (Now if
Microsoft gets its way and sticks Windows CE in toasters, that'll be a
different story!)
As a result, the communication lines between customer and developer are more
strained. People also tend to invest a lot more into their software than they
do most other things they buy. Again, with the toaster if that new Black &
Decker fails you, you take it back and get it replaced or get a refund and buy
a different brand. You're not going to go up on Usenet and flame Black &
Decker for releasing a toaster before it was ready (well at least I haven't
seen that particular thread yet, but this is Usenet..anything could happen!).
So there is a very different dynamic at work here. Its valid in some senses to
compare the two business models, but not in others. The other interesting
issue is whether Microsoft is requiring its employees to be online helping out.
The software business itself has changed a lot in the past 5 years. For
instance, you used to pay $300-$500 for a Windows database product and get free
technical support. Today the same database might cost you $99 and in exchange
you pay for your support. Similarly, Microsoft is selling a $50 game here, and
the question is, is Microsoft obligated to provide free support for that $50
product or just offer refunds to the people who are unhappy with it? I don't
know. I'm not a MS bean counter and couldn't tell you. Ideally, yeah they
should support everything they have with all the resources they have and it
should be free. But as we've discovered, its not an ideal situation we have
here. If Dean is volunteering his own personal, private time to helping out
here and is not required to do so from Microsoft, he should be thanked for
doing so, not flamed. It goes to whether an employee is trying to go the extra
mile for a company or product he believes in. But if he's not required to be
here, then perhaps our complaints are better directed at Microsoft itself,
demanding that they be here if they want the people in this newsgroup to
purchase their products. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out here, its
unknown exactly what small % of their market we make up. We're obviously very
vocal, but are we enough numerically to justify required free support here? I
doubt it.
I'm also amused by those who think MS will suffer for not being here. Again, I
doubt it. Maybe if MS was a small, one or two -product company, but being the
behemoth that it is...well..I don't think so. I think ultimately we the
customers lose out. Microsoft won't go belly-up if Bill cancels the CART
project, but we won't be getting a great CART sim anytime soon because of the
effort and licensing requirements it takes to build one. Papyrus has gone the
way of the stock car (and you can't blame them monetarily), and Microprose
looks like they aren't going to be following up on GP2, so what have we got?
I've been accused of sucking up to Microsoft for defending Dean, and a few
other posts have attacked my motives, but let me clear up the mystery. I'm a
CART fanatic. I go to Laguna Seca every year. I'm a big Michael Andretti fan.
I want the end-all, be-all CART sim. Microsoft has the resources to do
it....but my feeling is that I'd rather work WITH them to get what I want than
flame them into oblivion and have them blow off my complaints and suggestions.
Because ultimately what I'm interested in is what *I* want, which is a great
CART sim. Anyone reading anything else into my motives is sadly off-base. If I
thought I could flame Microsoft into giving me the features and fixes I want,
I'd probably do it :). I just don't think its the most effective way to
persuade them to make things right, as they certainly need to be based upon the
problems with CPR 1.0.
One final note (and I hope anyone replying to this has read the whole of this
post before hitting reply and flaming away): I think Dean did cross the line
with Alison by implying that she didn't have the problem she had, and I also
think Alison raised valid points in her review, and I really liked her diagrams
of the steering null zone. I shared some of her frustrations with this title.
Randy
Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/
