tracks and cars. I would even go so far as to suggest charging for online
Big risk for little payoff. Reality is why bother. The niche is small and
very hard to win over. it is much easier to make a mass market arcade title
for a console. Even if it does poorly it will still outsell a pure sim in
volume.
>> The thing is: Internet is a tremendous resource, but it requires a great
>> deal of management for anything good to come out of it.
>> I am absolutely sure RAS, as a group, has the best beta test capabilities
>> on the planet since we combine sim racing, real racing and computer
>> knowledge to great extents.
>> However, this group is also some of the most anarchistic and chaotic
>> group imaginable, and in order to include RAS in *any* communication
>> strategy, you'll have to set aside the resources to filter, massage, and
>> write messages to the group.
> I agree with you that the skills within this group would make for a fine
> technical beta feedback group. However, this is not the type of group that
> I would approach if I were seeking feedback for commercial success. This
> group is highly atypical when compared with the typical purchaser of
> computer games/sims.
> 1. The people here tend to be highly technically skilled, whilst most
> games require simplicity and ease of use as prime criteria for commercial
> success.
> 2. The peple here tend to be of a older mean age group that the typical
> gamer or even sim racer. This is purely speculation, but is based on what
> I feel is a solid argument. Newsgroups are ancient technology in the
> Internet era, and most people using them have been doing so for more than
> 10 years (i.e. prior to the web revolution).
> 3. Eye candy and great marketing, combined with retail penetration is a
> better selling point than technical superiority - compare RBR with CMR for
> example. I don't know the numbers but expect that CMR has outsold RBR at
> least 10 fold - probably more like 100 fold.
> The reality is that hard core sim racing is and will remain niche for the
> considerable future, thus severely restricting the number of titles
> available. Why was there no GPL 2 considering the overwhelming cries from
> the sim community? The short answer is that it wasn't commercialy viable,
> and the voices heard were the very loud minority.
> I expect that many people here earn decent money, or are prepared to spend
> considerably more on their hardware in terms of percent of disposable
> income compared to the casual gamer, as they conisder sim racing to be a
> primary "hobby" more than entertainment. As such, why not spend more on
> software? I think that the Wests had a good idea when it came to charging
> a premium for their product, as well as additional charges for each new
> track and/or car.
> Maybe the powers that be in the commercial *** world should be lobbied
> to introduce a new business model for racing sims: forget the standard
> shop price for sims and charge at least $100 per title and more for
> additional tracks and cars. I would even go so far as to suggest charging
> for online racing.
> Tim
>> And this is a resource development teams don't see worthwhile, because
>> they're already on the edge budgetwise. And a developer cannot take on
>> the chore, since the last thing a developer wants is noise, constant and
>> loud.
>> But I still firmly believe that the very nature of internet makes RAS the
>> ultimate beta team. And the very nature of internet makes the same
>> resource void. Much like us humans, innit? Full of contradictions.
>> Internet has it's best chance of success when you gather committed
>> persons, and block out all the noise, like sourceforge.
>> ---A---
>>>>>.... It is not surprising the developers huddle with their private
>>>>>groups behind their NDAs until they are ready to go public with the
>>>>>finished article..
>>>>What a shame that Messrs West didn't do the same.
>>>>(They probably wish that they HAD done so!)
>>> I guess the point is I believe they are now. Once burnt and all that...
