Thanks, John, for a great thread, and thanks to the rest of the guys
who have contributed! Very helpful info for me. I've considered
getting a copy of "Sprinters" late in August (I HOPE that is when it
hits the shelves!) and just letting GP3 cool out a bit; I like the
Ratbag pricing structure LOTS, and could stand to wait til the price
drops on GP3.Hope this note hits the ether; I'm finding my messages
are NOT going out. (I know, I know... Who cares??? :-))) )Priest
> <SNIP>
> > I played a early demo of Leadfoot about 4 months ago at a time
> when
> > negotiations were on with Toyota (or whomever) to underwrite
> Leadfoot
> > in exchange for.. well for whatever they managed to pay for.
> > Leadftoot=Toyota Offroad Challenge??? If Ratbag stopped working
> on it
> > for whatever reason then my mistake, but I remember clearly
> being told
> > that the ideal would be to have corporate sponsorship of the
> game, and
> > that the person I knew at Toyota Racing could be told that the
> game
> was
> > quite nearly finished (this was about 4 months ago.) But you
> (John
> > Bodin) are very involved in that process, so you know.. its not
> like
> I
> > have the inside scoop :-)
> Hey, Mark -- didn't realize that post came from you! Long time no
> communicate with! <G>
> Regarding the negotiations on Leadfoot, there are hopes for a game
> sponsor, but nothing solid has been established yet -- so if you
> have
> any contacts at Toyota, send 'em our way!
> ;-)
> > As for the rest of your comments about advertising: the gamer
> 'wins
> > overall' only if the game is a good one. Whether a game is good
> or not
> > is not related (as far as I can figure) to the amount of in-game
> > advertising that is sold to companies that sell different real
> world
> > parts or services. The strength of your argument/idea is that in
> game
> > advertising doesnt hurt.. so why should it matter? BUT- with
> the
> > latest Ratbag games we're talking about advertising in the game
> menus
> > and in the frontend of the game.. and probably any other place
> (if
> the
> > money is right.) Are WE the gamers the winner there too?
> I personally think the advertising in the in-game menus shouldn't
> be
> any more intrusive than the graphics in the menus themselves.
> Imagine
> something like the graphics that appear on the sponsorship menu
> screens
> in DTR, when a sponsor makes you an offer in career mode -- the
> in-game
> ads elsewhere shouldn't be any more intrusive than that, and they
> will
> be pertinent, hopefully. For example, if you buy a suspension
> upgrade,
> you will see a shock/spring manufacturer's name displayed on that
> screen (possibly more than one, in a "Goodyear/Firestone" sort of
> manner where possible). The idea is to make the in-game graphics
> no
> more intrusive than the trackside billboards, if possible. Is
> someone
> gets used to buying a certain product in DTR for their Late Model
> in
> the game, there's a fair chance that they will think of that
> product
> when it comes time to buy similar items for their own car in real
> life,
> and that's where the value comes in. You want to hook the player
> without kicking them out of the game -- not poke them in the eye
> and
> make it an annoying experience! <G>
> > By the way, Ratbag was DESPERATE to get DTR distributed when they
> > signed with WizardWorks, and WW only distributes budget titles.
> So the
> > idea that spending $20 on a WizardWorks game is offset by
> anything
> > (selling advertising) is not a correct argument. WizardWorks
> *has* to
> > sell the game at $20. Its Ratbag that got screwed in all of
> this.
> > Anyway. No big deal. But I certainly dont like the sound of
> having
> > advertising in the menus become a common thing! I think that
> would
> suck.
> When they did DTR, Ratbag had not yet achieved their current level
> of
> notoriety and their reputation for their ability to develop a
> solid sim
> product when they signed on with WizardWorks, so their return on
> investment was definitely smaller than what Papy makes off of their
> NASCAR titles, I would guess. Also, the DTR concept seemed to be
> VERY
> much a "niche" title, which made it the kind of risk that larger
> publishers most were unwilling to speculate on, which made it an
> ideal
> title for WizardWorks. And, actually, I believe the WizardWorks
> tie-in
> came from the fact that WW is (was?) a subsidiary of GT Interactive
> (before they were both absorbed by Infogrames, I believe), and
> since GT
> published Ratbag's Powerslide, I believe that it was GT's decision
> to
> publish DTR as a budget WW title, in order to reach the dirt track
> fans
> at Wal-Marts across the country. Ratbag may not have gotten as
> good of
> a deal as they would have with a NASCAR license, I don't think,
> but on
> the other hand, I don't think they necessarily got "screwed" in the
> deal, either.
> Anyway, that's my addition $0.02! <G>
> -- John Bodin
> VP Communications, Games-Advertising
> http://www.games-advertising.com/
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!