rec.autos.simulators

by **Leaky_Valv** » Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Aaah! Now -there's- a name to admire. Spectrum-Holobyte....the originators
of the "Falcon" series and also that excellent Vietnam War flight sim,
"Flight of the Intruder". Now that -was- a goodie.
Not all change is necessarily good and to have seen S-H swallowed up was
rather sad at the time.

> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:24:51 -0600, "Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me>

> >As many of you may know, Falcon 4 is made by the same company
> >which makes GrandPrix3 (Microprose). The entire F4 team along with
> >the main MPS QA and I think much of the tech support staff were let go.
> >Falcon4 and all of it's addons are canceled and no more patches are
> >going to be released.

> >Does anyone know if GP3 survived?

> Spectrum Holobyte were the real people who made F4, I think they owned

> Microprose, but when Hasbro bought them out, they sort of seperated. I
> dont think it will have any effect on GP3.

> clone

> "I refuse to be smart!"

-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

by **Jame** » Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:00:00

the best line I ever heard was from M.Butterfly (cronenberg film)

"You're nothing, you're worse than nothing... you're an accountant"

> Amen I couldnt agree more!!!!! Bean counters have no reason to exist and
> they certainly didnt make the world a better place, the dreamers did.

> >What a load of crap. Bean-counters should be annihilated.

> >Mike.

--
\\|//

| --James-- |

| --ICQ# 36334509-- |
| http://lightning.prohosting.com/~jstorie |
| -- -- |
| 'just because you have a license |

by **Chris Help** » Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:00:00

I thought it was Microprose who bought S-H. At any rate, the S-H name
disappeared, and Microprose suddenly had an office in Alameda, where S-H
used to be.

Sky

> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:24:51 -0600, "Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me>

> >As many of you may know, Falcon 4 is made by the same company
> >which makes GrandPrix3 (Microprose). The entire F4 team along with
> >the main MPS QA and I think much of the tech support staff were let go.
> >Falcon4 and all of it's addons are canceled and no more patches are
> >going to be released.

> >Does anyone know if GP3 survived?

> Spectrum Holobyte were the real people who made F4, I think they owned

> Microprose, but when Hasbro bought them out, they sort of seperated. I
> dont think it will have any effect on GP3.

> clone

> "I refuse to be smart!"

by **Greg Cisk** » Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Rest easy (for the moment anyway). I heard from a *VERY*
reliable MPS source that GP2 survived. The GP2 team is
based in the UK and were not really affected by the recent
job/project cutting.

--

Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

> Seeing as they have probably paid for a license for the game
> it would surely be daft to drop it now. Didn't they get a
> license for several years?
> --Matt

> >Frankly I don't know. MPS/Hasbro has stated that they are out of the
> >simulation market. I am not sure if it is flightsims or sims in general
> >which would effect GP3.

> >--

> >Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

> >cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

> >> At the begining of the month didn't Hasbro announce they would be
> >> porting GP3 to consoles as well. Surely they haven't changed their
> >> minds on that within 2 weeks ??? (desperate praying going on here
!!!).

> >> Please someone reassure us either way !

> >> Regards

> >> Andrew

> >> > WOW... I cant believe it. Thats just horrible.

- Show quoted text -

by **Peter Ive** » Sun, 12 Dec 1999 04:00:00

>> As many of you may know, Falcon 4 is made by the same company
>> which makes GrandPrix3 (Microprose). The entire F4 team along with
>> the main MPS QA and I think much of the tech support staff were let go.
>> Falcon4 and all of it's addons are canceled and no more patches are
>> going to be released.

>This is a total disaster for the customer and I guess a bitter taste of
>reality that high-spec sims are too expensive, too risky, and don't offer
>the immediate financial returns that a wider-appealing investment can.

>I've been reading the flight-sim newsgroup and it really is a royal
>suck-fest. I can't believe that Hasbro would take the Falcon 4 investment,
>and throw it away, just at the point where the code is pretty much working
>and can be extended forward to the future titles.

>What a load of crap. Bean-counters should be annihilated.

Them and shareholders. Shareholders are only interested on how much
profit they are making now. They force companies to keep having to
maximise their profit margins - at the expense of future gains in my
opinion - just so they can keep those shareholders from bailing out.
--
Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington)

No person's opinions can be said to be
more correct than another's, because each is
the sole judge of his or her own experience.

by **Mike Laske** » Sun, 12 Dec 1999 04:00:00

I agree entirely. The whole business economy "measurement" of success or
failure these days is based upon short term goals.... companies with a
public shareholding model look shy to invest in longer term goals.
Everybody "requires" instant gratification with minimal risk, immediate
results and high impact headlines. I guess the folks at Hasbro just weren't
even willing to spend 12 or 24 months on the proposed F15 sim and F4
add-ons. It still seems inconceivable to me that just at the point where F4
becomes an advanced working technology (and in patch 1.08 is frankly no
less than amazing), that the massive $ potential of future products sharing
that technology is ignored.

Mike.

by **Joel Willstei** » Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:00:00

> Them and shareholders. Shareholders are only interested on how much
> profit they are making now. They force companies to keep having to
> maximise their profit margins - at the expense of future gains in my
> opinion - just so they can keep those shareholders from bailing out.
> --
> Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington)

Peter,

Wow !! You guys are living in a dream world. Companies issue stock to
increase their net worth. Stockholders purchased those shares to earn money
payable as a dividend per share per quarter. Not years from now. Companies
that don't look for ways to max their profit margins will end up going out
of business from lack of capital. Just how do you think they're going to pay
the bills?
.
Joel Willstein

by **ssra** » Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:00:00

On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:48:55 -0400, "Joel Willstein"

>> Them and shareholders. Shareholders are only interested on how much
>> profit they are making now. They force companies to keep having to
>> maximise their profit margins - at the expense of future gains in my
>> opinion - just so they can keep those shareholders from bailing out.
>> --
>> Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington)

>Peter,

> Wow !! You guys are living in a dream world. Companies issue stock to
>increase their net worth. Stockholders purchased those shares to earn money
>payable as a dividend per share per quarter. Not years from now. Companies
>that don't look for ways to max their profit margins will end up going out
>of business from lack of capital. Just how do you think they're going to pay
>the bills?
>.
>Joel Willstein

Well there is an easier way to do it- split the company in half,
call it an internet company release an IPO at 30 and watch go to 298
in less than a day.
No one expects profit from an online company for a couple of years
anyway.
(dont believie the 30-300 jump? look at the Linux company this week,
I wish I had a thou to put in at opening).

by **Alexander J Rhode** » Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:00:00

> Wow !! You guys are living in a dream world. Companies issue stock to
> increase their net worth. Stockholders purchased those shares to earn money
> payable as a dividend per share per quarter. Not years from now. Companies
> that don't look for ways to max their profit margins will end up going out
> of business from lack of capital. Just how do you think they're going to pay
> the bills?

I guess producing a good quality product is too much to ask?
--

|_
Oo\ Alex | Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si

by **Peter Ive** » Wed, 15 Dec 1999 04:00:00

>> Them and shareholders. Shareholders are only interested on how much
>> profit they are making now. They force companies to keep having to
>> maximise their profit margins - at the expense of future gains in my
>> opinion - just so they can keep those shareholders from bailing out.
>> --
>> Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington)

>Peter,

> Wow !! You guys are living in a dream world. Companies issue stock to
>increase their net worth. Stockholders purchased those shares to earn money
>payable as a dividend per share per quarter. Not years from now. Companies
>that don't look for ways to max their profit margins will end up going out
>of business from lack of capital. Just how do you think they're going to pay
>the bills?
>.
>Joel Willstein

Aaww, Joel, I'm all filled up for those poor companies, struggling to
make as much money as they possibly can as quick as they can. However
it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. Did they really just have
to float, or was it more because of greed that they decided to do so?

Yes, it's an unfortunate situation these days that everyone wants to
pray at the temple of 'The Biggest Profit Margin' and, that in order to
do so, they have to put their control in the hands of those who have a
complete disregard for any other aspect or potential that the company
may have.

So who pays for all these profits they are trying to make? Well, we do
of course, with lower wages or fewer workforce, goods made out of
cheaper materials that don't seem to last five minutes or that you can't
get replacements for when they do break, and of course in our case
products that come out before they are ready or no longer see the light
of day because they just don't look like they can bring in the bacon.

Yeah, a dream world, which by its own meaning constitutes a world better
than the current one. Here's to dreaming.
--
Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington)

No person's opinions can be said to be
more correct than another's, because each is
the sole judge of his or her own experience.

rec.autos.simulators

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...

GP3: Did it survive? Falcon4 didn't...