rec.autos.simulators

I understand that, but they have the rights to produce anything relating to
the SCCA and well Dennis Dean made the very very clear to me late last year
when we were searching for more info on autocross courses.  WE are still
running the series, but we are careful not to use any SCCA trademarked
names for our little series.

Dave

Stinking Capitalists.  It's all about legalized theft of people's
money...

--

Fester

Certainly. And I have no doubt that for some reason Motorsims still
considers itself a viable and going concern and would defend its license
vociferously.

The solution has always been to find a name far enough away from the
trademark to avoid legal conflict, but evocative enough so that everyone
knows what you're really talking about anyway.

Traditionally though, *sponsors* have never objected to their logos being
distributed to the masses. That is, after all, what the logos are FOR!

In this day and age when the consumer will pay *extra* to have someone elses
name embroidered across their arse or a Pepsi logo on their T-shirt the
advertising logo itself has become an actual marketable commodity. The
consumer is now willing to PAY to advertise someone else's company and Pepsi
is compelled to defend their right to collect the proceeds of distributing
their promotional items that they used to give away or sell at a loss.

This is bizarre. This is, like, way out there weird. This is a sign that the
four hor*** of social implosion are about to take a little ride.

KFG

Me thinks you got a very good 'connection' with Ubi Soft...
Perhaps a too good one....

ed_

David G Fisher

David G Fisher

Ben

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.ymenard.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

  The way I see it, Pepsi might pay racing teams to put its logo on their cars
because it's advertising for Pepsi.  The logo itself won't make the real car
faster or have any value in itself obviously, except to Pepsi, because if we
see enough Pepsi logos in one day, we get thirsty and the first thing that pops
into our minds is "Pepsi".  Pepsi would pay a TV station to air a commercial
for advertising for the same reason.  The TV station wouldn't want to do it for
free because then we switch the channel, causing their commercial slots to lose
value.  Basically, they pay the TV station to do it because it's valuable
enough to Pepsi to kick out $xxxx.  You know that already, I'm sure.

  What about computer game manufacturers?  What if a game company released a
game entitled "Really Fast Racecars" with a bunch of American looking "stock"
cars that you've never seen on TV before, had no idea where the cars are from
or what kind they are, nor had any other reason to get e***d about it because
you've never heard of them, while another game company releases a game entitled
"Nascar Racing", with all the real race tracks, real drivers, etc., from the
Nascar series?

  I'd bet that the "Nascar Racing" title would make TONS more money, even
though it really didn't cost substantially more to actually produce.  If you
stood to make $5 million more by licensing your company's game as "Nascar
Racing", and Nascar's marketing department figured that out as well, would you
pay them maybe a cool million for the rights if they "asked"?  I sure would if
I could (not anytime this millenium :-))  

 Sure, the Nascar series would probably get slightly more viewers and ticket
sales because of the "promotional advertising", but let's face it, the reason
the "Nascar Racing" title would be so popular is because the Nascar series is
already famous among the people that are purchasing the game.  There are people
all over r.a.s. screaming for a CART game.  The "advertising" is wasted on them
because they're already avid CART fans.  That's the reason they'll buy the next
CART game in the first place.  Not too many people were probably first exposed
to the CART series AFTER having bought a game, resulting in millions of new
money spending, TV-adverti***t-during-a-race watching fans.

  I'm sure you'd agree that Nascar (or whatever car team, racing series, track
owner, etc.,) has a marketing team that looks at sales figures and decides
whether it's worth it to pay the game company for their "promotional
advertising", or whether they could attempt to charge them instead.  However,
as Tom Pabst pointed out in another post, this might be the way it is today
primarily because of the first couple of game companies that approached a track
or racing series about including their stuff in a game, perhaps foolishly
neglecting to make a good sales presentation and offering them a check instead
(probably knowing full well that the game's sales would increase *dramatically*
because of the series or track inclusion).  However, I find it difficult to
believe that it would have continued this way.  I'm no marketing expert and
don't have much experience here, so I'm open to reading other views on this,
but I think eventually racing series and track owners would have figured out
how much more money a game makes when it has the Laguna Seca raceway in it, and
all the cars are Champ cars :-)

  On the other hand, perhaps a small, unheard-of racing series or track might
benefit from the "advertising" created by including the series or track in a
game.  You could go to the store and think, "Hmmm..  This looks kinda neat.
Never heard of this series before and those tracks, although I've never seen
them on TV or anything, look fun to drive on.  I think I'll try the game,"  
Then, you might try it, fall in love, and dart out to the game track or turn on
the ***-tube and check out a rerun race at 2am, then buy the T-shirt for
$19.95 and tell all your friends about the Speedo-BOB racing series that's
running this weekend at the Shakopee 3/8th mile raceway.  In that case, it
would be financially in the best interest of the "unheard-of" series or track
to pay the game company for the advertising, since they really aren't producing
as much money in sales for the game company as they receive as a result of the
"advertising".

  It think the deciding factor in the end of all this is really, who is making
more money for whom?  Is the game making more money because the racing series
is included in it, or is it the other way around?  Apparantly, even though we
don't like it, the game title makes the truckload of cash because of the
inclusion of a big racing series, set of teams from one particular year or
another "that we all want" and will pay the series a chunk of it.  After all,
the Nascar series would STILL get their "promotional advertising", but now they
get paid, too :-)

 Just my theory on why it is the way it is.  I don't think a clever sales pitch
to a track early on would have made things stick one way or the other.  It's
just a matter of time before everyone knows how much $ the other side is
making.  Maybe it'll change though, I'd be a happier person too :-)

Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Can you say, Mercedes-Benz Truck Racing?  I never really cared to watch
it(truck racing), until I played the demo.  Now I *want* to watch it, but it
doesn't air in the US... :(

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.racesimcentral.net/~epickett
F1 hcp. +27.07...F2 +151.26...

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

  Good example.  Same thing goes for me on this one except I've never played
the demo, only read about it here.

Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://www.racesimcentral.net/