Analysis of West Racing Legends

"Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Looks like the concept is everything we (well, at least I) > have wished for. It's almost scary how close it is to > the hard core niche product many have asked for in > this newsgroup. > > The phrase 'This is an entirely new project' makes > me a bit worried though... >

Note: this is more a business case analysis than game analysis. Stop reading now if you'll be bored! The great things about this potential game are the focus on the features that Sim Racers want - modularity, expansion, realistic physics, online play. It really comes across as a mouth watering temptation. However, before we get too excited, I think we need to realistically consider the business model and ask the question: Is this going to work? Are West going to be able to pull this off? I understand that West is a small (family?) outfit. Such an undertaking as their new proposal requires huge capital and a lot of risk. Can a simulation that requires a lot more work than a racing game, but appeals to a much smaller, niche market, really be viable? There are some promising signs: Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street price for the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extra for each option, and for new tracks. I would imagine that a full blown package with all options and extra tracks might cost in the vicinity of US$500, plus maybe a subscription for high level online racing. This is good thing. Sim Racers have consistantly said that they would pay for the right product - consider the recent threads about people demanding a GPL2 and saying that they'd pay $500 for it! Modular format. The creators understand that people want an evolving Sim, with new cars, new tracks, and maybe even new concepts in racing. All of this will add value to the base product and Intellecutal Property. However, don't be surprised if unlike current sims, West control the additions to their products and require all new cars/tracks to licenced from them instead of freely available from third party enthusiasts. Maybe they will encourage people by offereing a comission on new cars/tracks that are sold. Now for the bad news: Vapourware? After 2 years, WSC vanished into the vapourware cloud it had always been in. It sees that West relied on a vapourware business model, hoping that VCs or 3rd parties would take enough of an interest in their game to sponsor the development. West was too small to take this risk by themselves. Racing legends appears to be starting off the same way. We have been promised the stars, but have seen nothing in concrete except a beautifully rendered, but practically un-realistic racing car. Even with Moore's Law, it will take a decade or so before we see cars with that level detail running around the track together in real time! The web site comes across to me a VC marketing tool, more than a realistic "this is what is coming soon" type site. Risk. To get this concept into production requires a huge amount of risk taking. Not only does the game have to work, but there are issues of infrastucture for hosting online racing, marketing, and finding a top notch distribution outfit. Something of this scale is normally only taken on by large corporations prepared to take the gamble. Remember that recently Papy declined to do a GPL2, even though the Sim Racing community loved the original so much. At the end of the day, Papy made a business decision - they decided that even a very vocal niche market wasn't enough to justify the expense of doing the game. dot game boom? After the dot com crashes of the last 2 years, we have seen a resurgance in computer games, especially online gaming. A lot of people are saying its the next "big thing". In many ways I agree. Machines are get fast enough to some wonderful stuff, and broadband has really taken off, so the infrastructure is there to support a new generation of online gaming. However, have we already forgotten the lesson of the dot com boom? In the end, it was mostly the new comers like web van that did the skyrocket and fell back to earth. However, the traditional players ended up surviving and now prosper. I wonder if it will be the same for gaming? Maybe I'm being a little too cynical. If West can get this game to at least inital production, and the concept takes off, then they might be able to sell out to one of the established big players and walk away smiling. It might also drive forward the market and help create standards for wanted peripherals such as FF pedals (inc clutch), and hydraulic cockpits that simulate motion and g-forces. As for me, I'll take a wait and see. I *hope* it all works out. Tim

"Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:i3zX8.2968$[email hidden]: > Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street price > for the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extra > for each option, and for new tracks And you can bet at a $500 price point, it's going to be a huge victim of piracy. Z. -- Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

"Zonky" wrote... > <snip> > And you can bet at a $500 price point, it's going to be a huge > victim of piracy. Couldn't one argue that those who actually use piracy to aquire games are not part of the target audience to begin with? Jan. =---

Where would microsoft be today if it wasnt for piracy! oz. "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yLzX8.1395$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Zonky" wrote... > > <snip> > > And you can bet at a $500 price point, it's going to be a huge > > victim of piracy. > > Couldn't one argue that those who actually use piracy to aquire games are > not part of the target audience to begin with? > > Jan. > =--- > >

> Pricing model. See X-Plane - identical model. Low volume - high price ( 10,000 - $100 ) It works Doug

One other thing I question is the whole Legend theme. They have put themselves in a place to compete with GPL. What happened to Sports Cars? With so many great addons for GPL out there and more coming almost daily its gonna be interesting to see how many people are willing to pay that kind of coin for the software plus the surely needed hardware upgrades when GPL runs just fine on what they have and stays fresh with all the addons. MadDAWG

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:28:43 +0100, "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote: >See X-Plane - identical model. > >Low volume - high price ( 10,000 - $100 ) High price? I can walk down to EB and pick up X-plane for $10. I don't think I've ever seen it for more than $20-30. Jason

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:28:43 +0100, "Douglas Ellison" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >See X-Plane - identical model. > > > >Low volume - high price ( 10,000 - $100 ) > > High price? > > I can walk down to EB and pick up X-plane for $10. I don't think I've > ever seen it for more than $20-30.

Thats the old version 5.66 that got picked up by X-Cat V 6 is $99 from his website Doug

> With so many great addons for GPL out there The only addons we have is graphics and tracks. No new cars ( i.e. nothing but graphical patches to current ones ), physics, genres whilst GPL addons do rock - tracks especially - RL will open it up and even HELP you to create all the cars and tracks you could possibly want The X-Plane comparison continues - see the 1200 odd planes for X-plane. - granted - they're a LOT easier to make than a realistic car - but they're there all the same Doug

> No new cars ( i.e. nothing but graphical patches to current ones ),physics, > genres True but that's a long term look at WRL. Basically WRL will start out real similar to GPL. Now if WRL lives up to the hype I'm sure it will make GPL look like a game. For alot of people WRL will be a huge investment between software and hardware. I think alot of people will have a hard time spending the coin for basically GPL2. Now if it was a different genre. I know I was less than impressed with the car choices. Now if they had done say Trans Am legends with Cougars, Mustangs, Camaros, and Cudas I'd be all over it. I do like the legends vs. modern aspect of the game just so we have deal with these chicane laden versions of today's tracks. MadDAWG

Tim, Your points are well taken. The Wests don't exactly have what one could call by any stretch of the imagination a good track record. I don't see any difference between this concept and WSC other then they're starting with open wheel cars verses sport cars. They didn't have the capital to produce and complete WSC, hense the association with Empire that ended in a messy divorce. Why should we now believe that this time is any different? As previously stated in another thread, I'm one of the famed & named "Vaporware" posters. So until we have a workable demo which is at min. few fully funtional cars on a completely finished track, I shall continue to label all Wests claimed efforts as Vaporware. Let them prove us doubters wrong. All the posts claiming otherwise is pure BS. They mean nothing. A demo is the only proof. Joel Willstein -- "If you can leave black marks on a straight from the time you exit a corner till the time you brake for the next turn , then you have enough horsepower." Mark Donohue "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:i3zX8.2968$[email hidden]... > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Looks like the concept is everything we (well, at least I) > > have wished for. It's almost scary how close it is to > > the hard core niche product many have asked for in > > this newsgroup. > > > > The phrase 'This is an entirely new project' makes > > me a bit worried though... > > > > Note: this is more a business case analysis than game analysis. Stop reading > now if you'll be bored! > > The great things about this potential game are the focus on the features > that Sim Racers want - modularity, expansion, realistic physics, online > play. It really comes across as a mouth watering temptation. > > However, before we get too excited, I think we need to realistically > consider the business model and ask the question: Is this going to work? Are > West going to be able to pull this off? > > I understand that West is a small (family?) outfit. Such an undertaking as > their new proposal requires huge capital and a lot of risk. Can a simulation > that requires a lot more work than a racing game, but appeals to a much > smaller, niche market, really be viable? > > There are some promising signs: > > Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street price for > the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extra for each > option, and for new tracks. I would imagine that a full blown package with > all options and extra tracks might cost in the vicinity of US$500, plus > maybe a subscription for high level online racing. This is good thing. Sim > Racers have consistantly said that they would pay for the right product - > consider the recent threads about people demanding a GPL2 and saying that > they'd pay $500 for it! > > Modular format. The creators understand that people want an evolving Sim, > with new cars, new tracks, and maybe even new concepts in racing. All of > this will add value to the base product and Intellecutal Property. However, > don't be surprised if unlike current sims, West control the additions to > their products and require all new cars/tracks to licenced from them > instead of freely available from third party enthusiasts. Maybe they will > encourage people by offereing a comission on new cars/tracks that are sold. > > Now for the bad news: > > Vapourware? > > After 2 years, WSC vanished into the vapourware cloud it had always been > in. It sees that West relied on a vapourware business model, hoping that VCs > or 3rd parties would take enough of an interest in their game to sponsor the > development. West was too small to take this risk by themselves. Racing > legends appears to be starting off the same way. We have been promised the > stars, but have seen nothing in concrete except a beautifully rendered, but > practically un-realistic racing car. Even with Moore's Law, it will take a > decade or so before we see cars with that level detail running around the > track together in real time! > > The web site comes across to me a VC marketing tool, more than a realistic > "this is what is coming soon" type site. > > Risk. To get this concept into production requires a huge amount of risk > taking. Not only does the game have to work, but there are issues of > infrastucture for hosting online racing, marketing, and finding a top notch > distribution outfit. Something of this scale is normally only taken on by > large corporations prepared to take the gamble. Remember that recently Papy > declined to do a GPL2, even though the Sim Racing community loved the > original so much. At the end of the day, Papy made a business decision - > they decided that even a very vocal niche market wasn't enough to justify > the expense of doing the game. > > dot game boom? > > After the dot com crashes of the last 2 years, we have seen a resurgance in > computer games, especially online gaming. A lot of people are saying its the > next "big thing". In many ways I agree. Machines are get fast enough to some > wonderful stuff, and broadband has really taken off, so the infrastructure > is there to support a new generation of online gaming. > > However, have we already forgotten the lesson of the dot com boom? In the > end, it was mostly the new comers like web van that did the skyrocket and > fell back to earth. However, the traditional players ended up surviving and > now prosper. I wonder if it will be the same for gaming? > > Maybe I'm being a little too cynical. If West can get this game to at least > inital production, and the concept takes off, then they might be able to > sell out to one of the established big players and walk away smiling. It > might also drive forward the market and help create standards for wanted > peripherals such as FF pedals (inc clutch), and hydraulic cockpits that > simulate motion and g-forces. > > As for me, I'll take a wait and see. I *hope* it all works out. > > Tim > > > > > >

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:32:23 -0400, "Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Tim, > > Your points are well taken. The Wests don't exactly have what one >could call by any stretch of the imagination a good track record. I don't >see any difference between this concept and WSC other then they're starting >with open wheel cars verses sport cars. > > They didn't have the capital to produce and complete WSC, hense the >association with Empire that ended in a messy divorce. Why should we now >believe that this time is any different? > > As previously stated in another thread, I'm one of the famed & named >"Vaporware" posters. So until we have a workable demo which is at min. few >fully funtional cars on a completely finished track, I shall continue to >label all Wests claimed efforts as Vaporware. > > Let them prove us doubters wrong. All the posts claiming otherwise is >pure BS. They mean nothing. A demo is the only proof.

IMO WSC wasn't vaporware. It was an unfinished product, since I know a few people who actually drove it. But the most important thing is that the West brothers are producing RL themself. No marketing suits will dictate what should, or should not be in the sim. Since the distance between the community and the producers is as short as possible, the attitude of this community is more important as usual. I think it's time to stop being pessimistic, and only say something if you can contribute to the product itself in the form of constructive feedback. Of course there is no warranty it will be released. Of course we can only be sure we actually got it when it's installed and running on our own computer. There is no need to repeat that over and over again. Let's just be glad we got information (again), and hope for the best sim possible. And do whatever we can to create an atmosphere so this can happen. Cheers. Remco

MadDAWG wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> One other thing I question is the whole Legend theme. They have put > themselves in a place to compete with GPL. What happened to Sports Cars? > With so many great addons for GPL out there and more coming almost daily > its gonna be interesting to see how many people are willing to pay that > kind of coin for the software plus the surely needed hardware upgrades > when GPL runs just fine on what they have and stays fresh with all the > addons. > > MadDAWG

How is it competeing with GPL? Just because they both have the word legend in the title? Apart from that they are two completely different kinds of products. And I don't think GPL's physics are as realistic as some of you would have us believe anyway. I'm very excited by what the West brothers are trying to pull off and wish them the best of luck. My wallet is ready to purchase - the sooner the better.

MadDAWG wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>> No new cars ( i.e. nothing but graphical patches to current ones ), > physics, >> genres > > True but that's a long term look at WRL. Basically WRL will start out real > similar to GPL. Now if WRL lives up to the hype I'm sure it will make GPL > look like a game. For alot of people WRL will be a huge investment between > software and hardware. I think alot of people will have a hard time > spending the coin for basically GPL2. Now if it was a different genre. I > know I was less than impressed with the car choices. Now if they had done > say Trans Am > legends with Cougars, Mustangs, Camaros, and Cudas I'd be all over it. I > do like the legends vs. modern aspect of the game just so we have deal > with these chicane laden versions of today's tracks. > > > MadDAWG

Where does it say the initial release will be 1967 F1GP cars and tracks?

Theye didnt split from empire because of any probs with capital.. They split because empire wanted to do a crappy arcade game and the wests wanted to do.. well RL dan "Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DMBX8.18403$[email hidden]... > Tim, > > Your points are well taken. The Wests don't exactly have what one > could call by any stretch of the imagination a good track record. I don't > see any difference between this concept and WSC other then they'restarting

Quoted text (8 lines)

> with open wheel cars verses sport cars. > > They didn't have the capital to produce and complete WSC, hense the > association with Empire that ended in a messy divorce. Why should we now > believe that this time is any different? > > As previously stated in another thread, I'm one of the famed & named > "Vaporware" posters. So until we have a workable demo which is at min.

few

Quoted text (12 lines)

> fully funtional cars on a completely finished track, I shall continue to > label all Wests claimed efforts as Vaporware. > > Let them prove us doubters wrong. All the posts claiming otherwise is > pure BS. They mean nothing. A demo is the only proof. > > Joel Willstein > > -- > > > "If you can leave black marks on a straight from the time you exit a

corner

Quoted text (32 lines)

> till the time you brake for the next turn > , then you have enough horsepower." > Mark Donohue > > > "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:i3zX8.2968$[email hidden]... > > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Looks like the concept is everything we (well, at least I) > > > have wished for. It's almost scary how close it is to > > > the hard core niche product many have asked for in > > > this newsgroup. > > > > > > The phrase 'This is an entirely new project' makes > > > me a bit worried though... > > > > > > > Note: this is more a business case analysis than game analysis. Stop > reading > > now if you'll be bored! > > > > The great things about this potential game are the focus on the features > > that Sim Racers want - modularity, expansion, realistic physics, online > > play. It really comes across as a mouth watering temptation. > > > > However, before we get too excited, I think we need to realistically > > consider the business model and ask the question: Is this going to work? > Are > > West going to be able to pull this off? > > > > I understand that West is a small (family?) outfit. Such an undertaking

as

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > their new proposal requires huge capital and a lot of risk. Can a > simulation > > that requires a lot more work than a racing game, but appeals to a much > > smaller, niche market, really be viable? > > > > There are some promising signs: > > > > Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street price

for > > the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extra for > each > > option, and for new tracks. I would imagine that a full blown packagewith > > all options and extra tracks might cost in the vicinity of US$500, plus > > maybe a subscription for high level online racing. This is good thing.Sim > > Racers have consistantly said that they would pay for the rightproduct - > > consider the recent threads about people demanding a GPL2 and sayingthat > > they'd pay $500 for it! > > > > Modular format. The creators understand that people want an evolvingSim, > > with new cars, new tracks, and maybe even new concepts in racing. All of > > this will add value to the base product and Intellecutal Property. > However, > > don't be surprised if unlike current sims, West control the additions to > > their products and require all new cars/tracks to licenced from them > > instead of freely available from third party enthusiasts. Maybe theywill

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > encourage people by offereing a comission on new cars/tracks that are > sold. > > > > Now for the bad news: > > > > Vapourware? > > > > After 2 years, WSC vanished into the vapourware cloud it had always

been > > in. It sees that West relied on a vapourware business model, hoping that > VCs > > or 3rd parties would take enough of an interest in their game to sponsor > the > > development. West was too small to take this risk by themselves. Racing > > legends appears to be starting off the same way. We have been promisedthe > > stars, but have seen nothing in concrete except a beautifully rendered, > but > > practically un-realistic racing car. Even with Moore's Law, it will takea > > decade or so before we see cars with that level detail running aroundthe > > track together in real time! > > > > The web site comes across to me a VC marketing tool, more than arealistic

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "this is what is coming soon" type site. > > > > Risk. To get this concept into production requires a huge amount of risk > > taking. Not only does the game have to work, but there are issues of > > infrastucture for hosting online racing, marketing, and finding a top > notch > > distribution outfit. Something of this scale is normally only taken on

by > > large corporations prepared to take the gamble. Remember that recently > Papy > > declined to do a GPL2, even though the Sim Racing community loved the > > original so much. At the end of the day, Papy made a business decision - > > they decided that even a very vocal niche market wasn't enough tojustify

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > the expense of doing the game. > > > > dot game boom? > > > > After the dot com crashes of the last 2 years, we have seen a resurgance > in > > computer games, especially online gaming. A lot of people are saying its > the > > next "big thing". In many ways I agree. Machines are get fast enough to > some > > wonderful stuff, and broadband has really taken off, so the

infrastructure > > is there to support a new generation of online gaming. > > > > However, have we already forgotten the lesson of the dot com boom? Inthe > > end, it was mostly the new comers like web van that did the skyrocketand

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > fell back to earth. However, the traditional players ended up surviving > and > > now prosper. I wonder if it will be the same for gaming? > > > > Maybe I'm being a little too cynical. If West can get this game to at > least > > inital production, and the concept takes off, then they might be able to > > sell out to one of the established big players and walk away smiling. It > > might also drive forward the market and help create standards for wanted > > peripherals such as FF pedals (inc clutch), and hydraulic cockpits that > > simulate motion and g-forces. > > > > As for me, I'll take a wait and see. I *hope* it all works out. > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > No new cars ( i.e. nothing but graphical patches to current ones ), > physics, > > genres > > True but that's a long term look at WRL. Basically WRL will start out real > similar to GPL. Except the tools and help to make any car and any venue you want will be publicly available and tutorials given by Chris and Tony. Thats makes the WORLD of diffrence. Think how long it took for the first GOOD GPL tracks to appear. >Now if they had done say Trans Am legends with Cougars, Mustangs, Camaros,and Cudas I'd be all over it. It'll happen. I know that Scott P's been doing such things - and it's quite likely that Chris and TOny will follow up with an addon for these. You're making the best race sim ever and want it to be demonstrated as such - so you make the same cars as seen in the current champion of race sims - what better way to prove the quality and excellence of a title than by de-throning it's predecessor? Doug

Dan, I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other way around. Joel Willstein -- "If you can leave black marks on a straight from the time you exit a corner till the time you brake for the next turn , then you have enough horsepower." Mark Donohue "Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:agmr9p$n0o5r$[email hidden]... > Theye didnt split from empire because of any probs with capital.. They split > because empire wanted to do a crappy arcade game and the wests wanted to > do.. well RL > dan > "Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DMBX8.18403$[email hidden]... > > Tim, > > > > Your points are well taken. The Wests don't exactly have what one > > could call by any stretch of the imagination a good track record. I don't > > see any difference between this concept and WSC other then they're > starting > > with open wheel cars verses sport cars. > > > > They didn't have the capital to produce and complete WSC, hense the > > association with Empire that ended in a messy divorce. Why should we now > > believe that this time is any different? > > > > As previously stated in another thread, I'm one of the famed & named > > "Vaporware" posters. So until we have a workable demo which is at min. > few > > fully funtional cars on a completely finished track, I shall continue to > > label all Wests claimed efforts as Vaporware. > > > > Let them prove us doubters wrong. All the posts claiming otherwise is > > pure BS. They mean nothing. A demo is the only proof. > > > > Joel Willstein > > > > -- > > > > > > "If you can leave black marks on a straight from the time you exit a > corner > > till the time you brake for the next turn > > , then you have enough horsepower." > > Mark Donohue > > > > > > "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:i3zX8.2968$[email hidden]... > > > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Looks like the concept is everything we (well, at least I) > > > > have wished for. It's almost scary how close it is to > > > > the hard core niche product many have asked for in > > > > this newsgroup. > > > > > > > > The phrase 'This is an entirely new project' makes > > > > me a bit worried though... > > > > > > > > > > Note: this is more a business case analysis than game analysis. Stop > > reading > > > now if you'll be bored! > > > > > > The great things about this potential game are the focus on the features > > > that Sim Racers want - modularity, expansion, realistic physics, online > > > play. It really comes across as a mouth watering temptation. > > > > > > However, before we get too excited, I think we need to realistically > > > consider the business model and ask the question: Is this going to work? > > Are > > > West going to be able to pull this off? > > > > > > I understand that West is a small (family?) outfit. Such an undertaking > as > > > their new proposal requires huge capital and a lot of risk. Can a > > simulation > > > that requires a lot more work than a racing game, but appeals to a much > > > smaller, niche market, really be viable? > > > > > > There are some promising signs: > > > > > > Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street price > for > > > the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extra for > > each > > > option, and for new tracks. I would imagine that a full blown package > with > > > all options and extra tracks might cost in the vicinity of US$500, plus > > > maybe a subscription for high level online racing. This is good thing. > Sim > > > Racers have consistantly said that they would pay for the right > product - > > > consider the recent threads about people demanding a GPL2 and saying > that > > > they'd pay $500 for it! > > > > > > Modular format. The creators understand that people want an evolving > Sim, > > > with new cars, new tracks, and maybe even new concepts in racing. All of > > > this will add value to the base product and Intellecutal Property. > > However, > > > don't be surprised if unlike current sims, West control the additions to > > > their products and require all new cars/tracks to licenced from them > > > instead of freely available from third party enthusiasts. Maybe they > will > > > encourage people by offereing a comission on new cars/tracks that are > > sold. > > > > > > Now for the bad news: > > > > > > Vapourware? > > > > > > After 2 years, WSC vanished into the vapourware cloud it had always > been > > > in. It sees that West relied on a vapourware business model, hoping that > > VCs > > > or 3rd parties would take enough of an interest in their game to sponsor > > the > > > development. West was too small to take this risk by themselves. Racing > > > legends appears to be starting off the same way. We have been promised > the > > > stars, but have seen nothing in concrete except a beautifully rendered, > > but > > > practically un-realistic racing car. Even with Moore's Law, it will take > a > > > decade or so before we see cars with that level detail running around > the > > > track together in real time! > > > > > > The web site comes across to me a VC marketing tool, more than a > realistic > > > "this is what is coming soon" type site. > > > > > > Risk. To get this concept into production requires a huge amount of risk > > > taking. Not only does the game have to work, but there are issues of > > > infrastucture for hosting online racing, marketing, and finding a top > > notch > > > distribution outfit. Something of this scale is normally only taken on > by > > > large corporations prepared to take the gamble. Remember that recently > > Papy > > > declined to do a GPL2, even though the Sim Racing community loved the > > > original so much. At the end of the day, Papy made a business decision - > > > they decided that even a very vocal niche market wasn't enough to > justify > > > the expense of doing the game. > > > > > > dot game boom? > > > > > > After the dot com crashes of the last 2 years, we have seen a resurgance > > in > > > computer games, especially online gaming. A lot of people are saying its > > the > > > next "big thing". In many ways I agree. Machines are get fast enough to > > some > > > wonderful stuff, and broadband has really taken off, so the > infrastructure > > > is there to support a new generation of online gaming. > > > > > > However, have we already forgotten the lesson of the dot com boom? In > the > > > end, it was mostly the new comers like web van that did the skyrocket > and > > > fell back to earth. However, the traditional players ended up surviving > > and > > > now prosper. I wonder if it will be the same for gaming? > > > > > > Maybe I'm being a little too cynical. If West can get this game to at > > least > > > inital production, and the concept takes off, then they might be able to > > > sell out to one of the established big players and walk away smiling. It > > > might also drive forward the market and help create standards for wanted > > > peripherals such as FF pedals (inc clutch), and hydraulic cockpits that > > > simulate motion and g-forces. > > > > > > As for me, I'll take a wait and see. I *hope* it all works out. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Zardoz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Where does it say the initial release will be 1967 F1GP cars and tracks? I nor them said it was gonna be 1967 F1GP. what I said was GPL2 aka "old open wheel cars". That better? MadDAWG

Dan Leach wrote: > Theye didnt split from empire because of any probs with capital.. They > split because empire wanted to do a crappy arcade game and the wests > wanted to do.. well RL > dan Yea, and I posted that Empire would do this to them about two years ago (using a different user name). Maybe I should change my name to Nostradamus. P.S. Don't post 177 lines of quoted text to post four lines of your own text. Select the garbage text and delete it before posting.

where did u here that? "Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mmCX8.18419$[email hidden]... > Dan, > > I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other wayaround.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Joel Willstein > > -- > > > "If you can leave black marks on a straight from the time you exit a

corner

Quoted text (17 lines)

> till the time you brake for the next turn > , then you have enough horsepower." > Mark Donohue > > > "Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:agmr9p$n0o5r$[email hidden]... > > Theye didnt split from empire because of any probs with capital.. They > split > > because empire wanted to do a crappy arcade game and the wests wanted to > > do.. well RL > > dan > > "Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:DMBX8.18403$[email hidden]... > > > Tim, > > > > > > Your points are well taken. The Wests don't exactly have what

one

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > could call by any stretch of the imagination a good track record. I > don't > > > see any difference between this concept and WSC other then they're > > starting > > > with open wheel cars verses sport cars. > > > > > > They didn't have the capital to produce and complete WSC, hense

the > > > association with Empire that ended in a messy divorce. Why should wenow > > > believe that this time is any different? > > > > > > As previously stated in another thread, I'm one of the famed & > named > > > "Vaporware" posters. So until we have a workable demo which is atmin. > > few > > > fully funtional cars on a completely finished track, I shall continueto > > > label all Wests claimed efforts as Vaporware. > > > > > > Let them prove us doubters wrong. All the posts claimingotherwise

Quoted text (56 lines)

> is > > > pure BS. They mean nothing. A demo is the only proof. > > > > > > Joel Willstein > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > "If you can leave black marks on a straight from the time you exit a > > corner > > > till the time you brake for the next turn > > > , then you have enough horsepower." > > > Mark Donohue > > > > > > > > > "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:i3zX8.2968$[email hidden]... > > > > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Looks like the concept is everything we (well, at least I) > > > > > have wished for. It's almost scary how close it is to > > > > > the hard core niche product many have asked for in > > > > > this newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > The phrase 'This is an entirely new project' makes > > > > > me a bit worried though... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: this is more a business case analysis than game analysis. Stop > > > reading > > > > now if you'll be bored! > > > > > > > > The great things about this potential game are the focus on the > features > > > > that Sim Racers want - modularity, expansion, realistic physics, > online > > > > play. It really comes across as a mouth watering temptation. > > > > > > > > However, before we get too excited, I think we need to realistically > > > > consider the business model and ask the question: Is this going to > work? > > > Are > > > > West going to be able to pull this off? > > > > > > > > I understand that West is a small (family?) outfit. Such an > undertaking > > as > > > > their new proposal requires huge capital and a lot of risk. Can a > > > simulation > > > > that requires a lot more work than a racing game, but appeals to a > much > > > > smaller, niche market, really be viable? > > > > > > > > There are some promising signs: > > > > > > > > Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street

price > > for > > > > the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extrafor > > > each > > > > option, and for new tracks. I would imagine that a full blownpackage > > with > > > > all options and extra tracks might cost in the vicinity of US$500, > plus > > > > maybe a subscription for high level online racing. This is goodthing.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Sim > > > > Racers have consistantly said that they would pay for the right > > product - > > > > consider the recent threads about people demanding a GPL2 and saying > > that > > > > they'd pay $500 for it! > > > > > > > > Modular format. The creators understand that people want an evolving > > Sim, > > > > with new cars, new tracks, and maybe even new concepts in racing.

All > of > > > > this will add value to the base product and Intellecutal Property. > > > However, > > > > don't be surprised if unlike current sims, West control theadditions > to > > > > their products and require all new cars/tracks to licenced fromthem > > > > instead of freely available from third party enthusiasts. Maybe they > > will > > > > encourage people by offereing a comission on new cars/tracks thatare

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > sold. > > > > > > > > Now for the bad news: > > > > > > > > Vapourware? > > > > > > > > After 2 years, WSC vanished into the vapourware cloud it had always > > been > > > > in. It sees that West relied on a vapourware business model, hoping > that > > > VCs > > > > or 3rd parties would take enough of an interest in their game to > sponsor > > > the > > > > development. West was too small to take this risk by themselves. > Racing > > > > legends appears to be starting off the same way. We have been

promised

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > the > > > > stars, but have seen nothing in concrete except a beautifully > rendered, > > > but > > > > practically un-realistic racing car. Even with Moore's Law, it will > take > > a > > > > decade or so before we see cars with that level detail running

around

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > the > > > > track together in real time! > > > > > > > > The web site comes across to me a VC marketing tool, more than a > > realistic > > > > "this is what is coming soon" type site. > > > > > > > > Risk. To get this concept into production requires a huge amount of > risk > > > > taking. Not only does the game have to work, but there are issues of > > > > infrastucture for hosting online racing, marketing, and finding a

top > > > notch > > > > distribution outfit. Something of this scale is normally only takenon > > by > > > > large corporations prepared to take the gamble. Remember thatrecently > > > Papy > > > > declined to do a GPL2, even though the Sim Racing community lovedthe

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > > > original so much. At the end of the day, Papy made a business > decision - > > > > they decided that even a very vocal niche market wasn't enough to > > justify > > > > the expense of doing the game. > > > > > > > > dot game boom? > > > > > > > > After the dot com crashes of the last 2 years, we have seen a > resurgance > > > in > > > > computer games, especially online gaming. A lot of people are saying > its > > > the > > > > next "big thing". In many ways I agree. Machines are get fast enough > to > > > some > > > > wonderful stuff, and broadband has really taken off, so the > > infrastructure > > > > is there to support a new generation of online gaming. > > > > > > > > However, have we already forgotten the lesson of the dot com boom?

In > > the > > > > end, it was mostly the new comers like web van that did theskyrocket

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > and > > > > fell back to earth. However, the traditional players ended up > surviving > > > and > > > > now prosper. I wonder if it will be the same for gaming? > > > > > > > > Maybe I'm being a little too cynical. If West can get this game to

at > > > least > > > > inital production, and the concept takes off, then they might beable > to > > > > sell out to one of the established big players and walk awaysmiling.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> It > > > > might also drive forward the market and help create standards for > wanted > > > > peripherals such as FF pedals (inc clutch), and hydraulic cockpits > that > > > > simulate motion and g-forces. > > > > > > > > As for me, I'll take a wait and see. I *hope* it all works out. > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> Except the tools and help to make any car and any venue you want will be > publicly available and tutorials given by Chris and Tony. This seems at odds with their distribution model, which appears to depend heavily on sales of cars and tracks they have produced themselves, so I suspect making everything publically available will be a pretty low priority. rms [email hidden]

"Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mmCX8.18419$[email hidden]... > Dan, > > I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other wayaround. For someone who's clearly not spoken to chris and tony, who clearly doesnt know whats been going on ( looking at you numerour threads that seem to rubbish the project and Chris and Tony) - how on EARTH are we suppoed to believe a word you say? Doug

"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GNCX8.286$[email hidden]... > > Except the tools and help to make any car and any venue you want will be > > publicly available and tutorials given by Chris and Tony. > > This seems at odds with their distribution model, which appears to > depend heavily on sales of cars and tracks they have produced themselves,so > I suspect making everything publically available will be a pretty low > priority. You suspect it's a low priority I KNOW that it's high priority. FACT Doug

"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GNCX8.286$[email hidden]... > > Except the tools and help to make any car and any venue you want will be > > publicly available and tutorials given by Chris and Tony. > > This seems at odds with their distribution model, which appears to > depend heavily on sales of cars and tracks they have produced themselves,so > I suspect making everything publically available will be a pretty low > priority. > You also presume to know the details of their distribution model. Short of being self -published, and being an iterative modular design - you, I, anyone else - we dont KNOW what format/structure of buying it there will be. A one off with free updates, a subscription - could be all manor of difference distrib. models Doug

"Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:agms5d$n0oeu$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Dan, >> >> I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other way > around. >> >> Joel Willstein > where did u here that?

I think you're both probably right. Here's my authentic reconstruction of the conversation: Empire Corporate Shill (ECS) West Brothers (WB) ECS: So guys, this racing game. we want it to have rumble-pad compatibility and a simultaneous PS2 and XBox release. Don't bother with PC for now. WB: Erm, we don't think a thoroughbred racing simulation will work too well on a games console. ECS: Neither do I. Do you have the cheat codes laid out? WB: We're not making an arcade racing "game" for anyone, or any amount of money. ECS: You're fired. ;o) cheers John

LOL :) nice one "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "Dan Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:agms5d$n0oeu$[email hidden]: > > > >> Dan, > >> > >> I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other way > > around. > >> > >> Joel Willstein > > > where did u here that? > > I think you're both probably right. > Here's my authentic reconstruction of the conversation: > > Empire Corporate Shill (ECS) West Brothers (WB) > > ECS: So guys, this racing game. we want it to have rumble-pad

compatibility > and a simultaneous PS2 and XBox release. Don't bother with PC for now. > > WB: Erm, we don't think a thoroughbred racing simulation will work toowell

Quoted text (14 lines)

> on a games console. > > ECS: Neither do I. Do you have the cheat codes laid out? > > WB: We're not making an arcade racing "game" for anyone, or any amount of > money. > > ECS: You're fired. > > > ;o) > > cheers > John

"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:agmjm0$mtgnd$[email hidden]... > whilst GPL addons do rock - tracks especially - RL will open it up andeven > HELP you to create all the cars and tracks you could possibly want We'll see...

Nobody will buy it at that price. No one will by it at $100. -Larry "Zonky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:i3zX8.2968$[email hidden]: > > > Pricing model. The casual gamer will pay little more than street price > > for the standard game. However, the dedicated Sim Racer will pay extra > > for each option, and for new tracks > > And you can bet at a $500 price point, it's going to be a huge victim of > piracy. > > Z. > > -- > Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> But the most important thing is that the West brothers are producing > RL themself. No marketing suits will dictate what should, or should > not be in the sim. Since the distance between the community and the > producers is as short as possible, the attitude of this community is > more important as usual. I think it's time to stop being pessimistic, > and only say something if you can contribute to the product itself > in the form of constructive feedback.

Hmm.. That's smaller than even I imagined. I've got many years corporate I.T. project management experience, as well as doing consulting work with highly motivated individuals who have had a "vision", started a company, and started programming by themselves, hoping to start on a solution and find the funding to make it "big" on the way. The problem here is that the scope of the Racing Legends project fits into the first category, but the reality of the "company" fits into the second. My experience with the gifted individuals who made a start on their own is that most of them ended up severely under-estimating what it would take to get their vision converted into a product, or ended up with a failed company due to poor management, even though their idea was sound. The most successful individuals got their idea into Alpha stage and started attracting a lot of attention, only to find themselves snapped up as highly paid developers by head hunters for one of the "big three" games companies, where they could at least have the resources to put some of their ideas into production. For a project of this scale to work requires as much management, business and marketing acumen as vision, dedication, and programming skills. Assuming they have 2 years experience behind them doing preliminary WSC work, and want to get a solid business model and alpha demonstration out the door by early next year, with completed product by end of next year, they'lll need to burn through at least US$1M to make a start. This is assuming they cut out the middleman and sell directly, have unpaid volunteer beta testers, and can negotiate licencing of cars/drivers/tracks on a commission basis. If this was a fully commercial/corporate operation, I would multiply that figure by five. Sorry if I sound negative - 10 years ago I would have flamed the crap out whomever wrote this message. But now I'm 37, and have almost 20 years I.T. experience behind me, and know the success rate for small startups wanting to do grand projects (about 2%). Those that do succeed do so because they find themselves a mentor at an early stage that can convert their brilliant ideas into commercial reality, even if this means coming out with a solid first product that only offers 10% of the bells and whistles originally planned, but 100% of the phsyics realism, reliability and online gameplay. I just don't see that type of disipline in place with West. If their new web site had promised a simple first product, but with the essential features such as brilliant physics and online play, then I would be more excited. Instead I see big money being spent on non-essential first release stuff like leather wallets and glossy manuals. Rather than a carefully orchestrated 5 year plan, with new features kept secret at first, then demonstrated and finally released in a timely manner, they've taken a scattergun approach and spilt all their beans. This doesn't make any commercial sense at all. Instead they've created even more hype and pressure to live up to, and will have an endless queue of messages asking when add-on x will finally be released. They're already talking instance about an add-on rally genre. This is huge undertaking to do properly, as anyone who has had much experience with Rally Trophy (the closest thing to a Sim at the moment) will know. Wouldn't it have been great if having released Racing Legends on its own merits, without mention of the rally add-on, they progressed with work on it over the next year or two, and then suddenly announced the add-on in a blaze of glory with screen shots, video clips and a firm release date!!! Anyway - enough from me - I need to get a life. Tim

> Nobody will buy it at that price. > > No one will by it at $100. Why not? How could anyone justify a steering wheel for their PC in this case? GPL has outlasted more than one wheel here. The software will contribute more to the feel of driving than adding any piece of hardware will. Hence justifying the cost. We are racing sim enthusiasts. The software is the core. Tony

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GIEX8.1302$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Nobody will buy it at that price. > > > > No one will by it at $100. > > Why not? > > How could anyone justify a steering wheel for their PC in this case? GPL > has outlasted more than one wheel here. > > The software will contribute more to the feel of driving than adding any > piece of hardware will. Hence justifying the cost.

Can you prove this at the present time? - Isotrip�

WOW! And because you say "FACT" it must be true.... Care to PROVE it is a "fact", right now? :oP - Isotrip� "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:agmtj5$n7g46$[email hidden]... > > "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GNCX8.286$[email hidden]... > > > Except the tools and help to make any car and any venue you want willbe > > > publicly available and tutorials given by Chris and Tony. > > > > This seems at odds with their distribution model, which appears to > > depend heavily on sales of cars and tracks they have producedthemselves,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> so > > I suspect making everything publically available will be a pretty low > > priority. > > You suspect it's a low priority > > I KNOW that it's high priority. > > FACT > > Doug > >

"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> True but that's a long term look at WRL. Basically WRL will start out real > similar to GPL. Now if WRL lives up to the hype I'm sure it will make GPL > look like a game. For alot of people WRL will be a huge investment between > software and hardware. I think alot of people will have a hard time spending > the coin for basically GPL2. Now if it was a different genre. I know I was > less than impressed with the car choices. Now if they had done say Trans Am > legends with Cougars, Mustangs, Camaros, and Cudas I'd be all over it. I do > like the legends vs. modern aspect of the game just so we have deal with > these chicane laden versions of today's tracks.

Yes, but the point is that if you want to see something made for WRL, it can be done, and the West's will be providing all the tools for car/track modelling that would be needed. You can be damn sure that if the West's don't include something like Trans-Am or Can-Am, it will be at the top of the list of user-made mods. Little chance of it only being GPL2. My biggest concern is with the "shoot for the moon" aspect of the whole thing. If the West's are committed to getting a basic, expandable product out soon, it may just emerge from the vapours. If they insist on including everything right away, then we're in for another long wait. Stuff like internal engine wear is cool, but it is *not* something that's going to make me pony up $100+ for WRL. Give me any classic series, with a good selection of tracks/cars, and tools for expansion and I'll be sold. Oh yeah - and really good AI. Still no broadband where I live, but by the time WRL comes out, who knows ;)? Any word if the West's have changed thier opinion of FF? They were once quoted as saying it made things *less* realistic since it couldn't be done properly. Not going to argue the point, but lack of FF would be another thing that would keep me from buying WRL. Kendt Just upgraded my game PC to an AMD XP2100, MSI KT3 Ultra, 512mb PC2700 Ram, and have a Ti4200 on order - maybe it will handle WRL OK ;).

"Isotrip�" wrote... > <snip> > Can you prove this at the present > time? Sure... play Williams F1 Racer (or somesuch), which also requires a pretty beefy PC, ditto graphics card and supports FF wheels. At no point will this trick you into believing you're driving a car on a virtual racetrack. On the other hand, Nascar Racing 2 managed to immerse players before 3D cards, FF wheels while running fairly well on a P200. Ergo: "the software" is the deciding factor in producing immersion for the player. Jan. =---

Just wanted to say ditto to all your points of the day, Tim. Lots of questions and puzzle-pieces that don't quite seem to fit together on the business side of this project, all lovely bits aside. I have to doubt whether the direct distribution model can work well enough here to float RL as envisioned. Where's a good VC when you need one? ;-) Plus, as a premium-price specialty product, they have a VERY high quality hurdle to jump in what Papy/Sierra already offer on the mass market for $35-$40. Just imagine the howls over (inevitable) bugs at $100+ a copy, and the importance of goodwill to net-only distribution. Sheesh. Still, I can't say I've seen a sim project I'd rather see work. Best wishes to 'em! Fingers crossed & Visa card at the ready, SB

"Isotrip�" wrote: > > The software will contribute more to the feel of driving than addingany > > piece of hardware will. Hence justifying the cost. > > Can you prove this at the present time? Prove that RL will contribute to an enhanced driving feel? - no Prove software is the overriding factor in simulating driving feel? - an opinion I would most definitely stand by. Tony

Larry schrieb: > Nobody will buy it at that price. > > No one will by it at $100. I would, but this would have to be the complete package. I'm especially worried about the packs like "damage", etc. These features are basic elements of a racing sim. If none of those are in the basic game, who would want it? In that case those "optional" packs are anything but optional. -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

I think we must use logic, context and common sense when analyzing the add-on packs. I suspect the add-ons will be ultra-realistic features that take the basic options in the base game and bring them to state of the art standards (damage, vehicle set-up, etc.). Do you really think West Racing release a sim without any damage model? Hell no. Would an ADVANCED damage module that calculates real-time damage to everything from a tire rim to a quarter-panel be a worthy add-on? Hell yes. I know I'm speculating but think about it, how could they call the base package a sim without ANY damage model? -- Joe Marques "Ronald Stoehr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Larry schrieb: > > Nobody will buy it at that price. > > > > No one will by it at $100. > > I would, but this would have to be the complete package. > > I'm especially worried about the packs like "damage", etc. > These features are basic elements of a racing sim. If none of > those are in the basic game, who would want it? In that > case those "optional" packs are anything but optional. > > -- > l8er > ronny > > Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change > to take effect. Reboot now? >

"Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NCJX8.54157$[email hidden]... > I think we must use logic, context and common sense when analyzing the > add-on packs. I suspect the add-ons will be ultra-realistic features that > take the basic options in the base game and bring them to state of the art > standards (damage, vehicle set-up, etc.). You have heard what happens when you assume, right? The only thing I can go by is their website. They are pushing a design concept with no real product and that the product they are pushing is woefully incomplete for a "core game." I agree totally with the original poster. As listed on THEIR own website, the "core game" is not even a core, just a basic physics engine that will require half of the "expansion packs" to even function as an accepted racing sim. We'll see from the demo/beta. These guys remind me of Derek Smart and Funcom (makers of AO) - they promise the world and deliver a steaming pile of crap. Although to date, the West brothers have not delivered even that. -- --------------------- Rob Berryhill

Joe Marques schrieb:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I think we must use logic, context and common sense when analyzing the > add-on packs. I suspect the add-ons will be ultra-realistic features that > take the basic options in the base game and bring them to state of the art > standards (damage, vehicle set-up, etc.). > > Do you really think West Racing release a sim without any damage model? > Hell no. Would an ADVANCED damage module that calculates real-time damage > to everything from a tire rim to a quarter-panel be a worthy add-on? Hell > yes. > > I know I'm speculating but think about it, how could they call the base > package a sim without ANY damage model?

Regarding software products in any context I gave up logic, context and common sense about 15 years ago... ;) There are games/sims without a damage model. Of course, a simple model could be put in the base game and a complex model is optional. Now, if the simple one doesn't equal N2002's damage model, I'd be disappointed with it already. -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

In article <GIEX8.1302$[email hidden]>, "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> Nobody will buy it at that price. >> >> No one will by it at $100. > >Why not? > >How could anyone justify a steering wheel for their PC in this case? GPL >has outlasted more than one wheel here. > >The software will contribute more to the feel of driving than adding any >piece of hardware will. Hence justifying the cost. > >We are racing sim enthusiasts. The software is the core.

The $100 wheel can be used for a multitude of programs... The $100 game is just ONE application. Perceived value. I'm sure SOME would pay $100 for a game, but not a lot - unless the program is *spectacular*. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett My .sig file is in the shop for repairs... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Zardoz wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Dan Leach wrote: > > >>Theye didnt split from empire because of any probs with capital.. They >>split because empire wanted to do a crappy arcade game and the wests >>wanted to do.. well RL >> dan > > > Yea, and I posted that Empire would do this to them about two years ago > (using a different user name). Maybe I should change my name to Nostradamus.

Is that what Nos was short for? -- Fester

"Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5oKX8.9054$[email hidden]... > "Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:NCJX8.54157$[email hidden]... > > I think we must use logic, context and common sense when analyzing the > > add-on packs. I suspect the add-ons will be ultra-realistic featuresthat > > take the basic options in the base game and bring them to state of theart > > standards (damage, vehicle set-up, etc.). > > You have heard what happens when you assume, right? The only thing I cango > by is their website. They are pushing a design concept with no realproduct > and that the product they are pushing is woefully incomplete for a "core > game." I agree totally with the original poster. As listed on THEIR own > website, the "core game" is not even a core, just a basic physics engine > that will require half of the "expansion packs" to even function as an > accepted racing sim. Please list this "woefully incomplete core game". Where did you see such an incomplete feature set? You're assuming the worst, I'm assuming much better, we're both assuming so who will be the "ass"? ;0) > We'll see from the demo/beta. These guys remind me of Derek Smart and > Funcom (makers of AO) - they promise the world and deliver a steaming pile > of crap. Although to date, the West brothers have not delivered eventhat. Derek Smart is an idiot, these guys seem to have class and passion for racing sims. Apples to oranges. -- Joe Marques

"Ronald Stoehr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Joe Marques schrieb: > > I think we must use logic, context and common sense when analyzing the > > add-on packs. I suspect the add-ons will be ultra-realistic featuresthat > > take the basic options in the base game and bring them to state of theart > > standards (damage, vehicle set-up, etc.). > > > > Do you really think West Racing release a sim without any damage model? > > Hell no. Would an ADVANCED damage module that calculates real-timedamage > > to everything from a tire rim to a quarter-panel be a worthy add-on?Hell

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > yes. > > > > I know I'm speculating but think about it, how could they call the base > > package a sim without ANY damage model? > > Regarding software products in any context I gave up logic, context and > common sense about 15 years ago... ;)

Point taken. ;0) > There are games/sims without a damage model. Of course, a simple model > could be put in the base game and a complex model is optional. Now, if > the simple one doesn't equal N2002's damage model, I'd be disappointed > with it already. > I know it could very well ship with no damage model or a disappointing damage model. If it does than I think West Racing would lose credibility and jeopardize the future of their product. A sim is not a sim without some decent damage model. -- Joe Marques

"Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DMBX8.18403$[email hidden]... > Tim, > > Your points are well taken. The Wests don't exactly have what one > could call by any stretch of the imagination a good track record. I don't > see any difference between this concept and WSC other then they'restarting > with open wheel cars verses sport cars. > > They didn't have the capital to produce and complete WSC, hense the > association with Empire that ended in a messy divorce. Why should we now > believe that this time is any different? You assume their ties to Empire were for capital, what is this based on? It seems entirely reasonable that their association was based on a classic distribution model that REQUIRED the capabilities of a company like Empire. Their current distribution model does not require Empire or EA or Ubisoft or any global distribution network. Developing a racing sim is hardly de jure capital intensive, your claim is nothing more than conjecture. Of course I wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of your point. ;0) > As previously stated in another thread, I'm one of the famed & named > "Vaporware" posters. So until we have a workable demo which is at min.few > fully funtional cars on a completely finished track, I shall continue to > label all Wests claimed efforts as Vaporware. > > Let them prove us doubters wrong. All the posts claiming otherwise is > pure BS. They mean nothing. A demo is the only proof. Your reluctance to accept testimonials from those who have driven WSC beta doesn't prove anything other than your stubborness in the face of reasonable proof. Stubborness never changes facts and you have no proof beta code doesn't exist. What makes your claim MORE credible, because you say it is so? Pounding your chest hardest doesn't mean you're right. -- Joe Marques

"Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mmCX8.18419$[email hidden]... > Dan, > > I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other wayaround. "I believe" is another form of "I guess". "I know" precedes facts. -- Joe Marques

"Joel A. Willstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mmCX8.18419$[email hidden]... > Dan, > > I believe that Empire terminated them, it wasn't the other wayaround. "I believe" is another form of "I guess". "I know" precedes facts. -- Joe Marques

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Any word if the West's have changed thier opinion of FF? They were > once quoted as saying it made things *less* realistic since it > couldn't be done properly. Not going to argue the point, but lack of > FF would be another thing that would keep me from buying WRL. > > Kendt

I have an old(?) Act-labs force RS with shifter and with the three sims I've raced with it (GPL, N4, RT) I have to agree 100% with the West's... It's not good enough yet to be anything more then a novelty. After tweaking and tweaking I could not bring my self to getting in to the sims. In fact I'd say it took away more then it gave. Any case, I ended up going back to my home made rig. Maybe in another five years FFB systems and software will be usable(?). Just my opinion on FFB -- DAMN IT! Someone set up a LAN event in or near the Fingerlakes region of NY

Damn news service! -- Joe Marques

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:16:02 -0400, "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> blabbed:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I nor them said it was gonna be 1967 F1GP. what I said was GPL2 aka "old >open wheel cars". > >That better? > >MadDAWG >

Not really, you are implying that this is a bad thing. It's not.

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:16:02 -0400, "MadDAWG" Not really, you are implying that this is a bad thing. It's not.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 02:10:54 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> blabbed: >Is that what Nos was short for? Who be dat?

Zardoz schrieb:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 02:10:54 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > blabbed: > > > >>Is that what Nos was short for? > > > Who be dat?

So you just got your usenet account last week? ;) -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

"Michael Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<i0XX8.124166$[email hidden]>... > > I have an old(?) Act-labs force RS with shifter and with the three sims > I've raced with it (GPL, N4, RT) I have to agree 100% with the West's... > It's not good enough yet to be anything more then a novelty. [snip] Damn it, I said I wasn't going to argue the point ;)! I think it would be hard to argue that any FFB so far could be said to model 100% of the feedback a driver is going to feel in RL (real life, not racing legends!), but clearly *some* amount of the vehicle dynamics can be communicated to the driver in a good FFB setup. GPL was the first to show what's possible, and I think F1-2001/2 have to be considered king of the hill right now - have you actually seen the sheer number of adjustable factors that ISI use to generate FFB effects? Remember that the West's made that comment some time ago. If they're still sticking to it today, I think it's the kind of tunnel vision that will help make sure WRL never sees the light of day. Hell, could you imagine a "Rally Legends" sim without good FFB? Kendt

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 01:01:23 +0200, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> blabbed: >So you just got your usenet account last week? ;) I've had so many I forget when I got this one.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 01:01:23 +0200, Ronald Stoehr I've had so many I forget when I got this one.

"Tim Epstein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kCEX8.401$[email hidden]... > Hmm.. That's smaller than even I imagined. I've got many years corporate > I.T. project management experience, as well as doing consulting work with<snip - a bunch of corporate brainwashing> I hope for the sake of humanity that the Wests, and others like them, succeed. Once the world is like you see it, nothing will be worth being here for. Got any thing to say about how they might actually succeed without the help of nothing vendors? -- "Boy! You've got to have really big attachments to try a pass there... and make it." - David Hobbs mark

no offense but "We are racing sim enthusiasts" .. I would say suckers would be the correct word. DC Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GIEX8.1302$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > Nobody will buy it at that price. > > > > No one will by it at $100. > > Why not? > > How could anyone justify a steering wheel for their PC in this case? GPL > has outlasted more than one wheel here. > > The software will contribute more to the feel of driving than adding any > piece of hardware will. Hence justifying the cost. > > We are racing sim enthusiasts. The software is the core. > > Tony > > >

"David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aAQ79.3672$[email hidden]... > no offense but "We are racing sim enthusiasts" .. > I would say suckers would be the correct word. So people who buy a Ferrari for �100k are suckers because they buy a ferrari for �100k instead of a Ford Fiesta for �7k? Doug

"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wLQ79.1222$sE1.137356@stones...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "David Ciemny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aAQ79.3672$[email hidden]... > > no offense but "We are racing sim enthusiasts" .. > > I would say suckers would be the correct word. > > So people who buy a Ferrari for �100k are suckers because they buy a

ferrari > for �100k instead of a Ford Fiesta for �7k? > > Doug > > Apples and oranges dude. Ford Fiestas are commuter cars, Ferraris are collectable cars. A car simbe it bad, good or great, is a car sim. Just because you want to overpay for a computer program and some sensable people are calling the Wests on this certain bankruptcy move, don't mean you gotta reach for justification. Just say, 'Its worth it to me' and let everyone else go their own way.

> A car simbe it bad, good or great, is a car sim. You stick with your �30 F12k2 then. DOug

> You stick with your �30 F12k2 then. Why not? It's the best sim in existance...

Cant be.. I dont own it yet. <g> seriously though.. GPL is the best sim in existance. <vbg> Charlie "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ajpbq7$1crqgm$[email hidden]... > > You stick with your �30 F12k2 then. > > Why not? It's the best sim in existance... > > >

> Cant be.. I dont own it yet. <g> seriously though.. GPL is the best simin > existance. <vbg> Right now I'm starting to think that Live For Speed is the best sim in existance - and it's only an alpha demo.

"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Y4U79.1261$sE1.142409@stones...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > A car simbe it bad, good or great, is a car sim. > > You stick with your �30 F12k2 then. > > DOug > >

LOL! I don't even own an open wheel sim. With the Racing Legends deal amounting to the amount of a real car purchase by the time you get everything, I won't be owning it either. Just because you know these guys, don't let their bad business decision/model get you into such a funk.

"SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ap889.11584$[email hidden]... >don't let their bad business decision/model What model is this then? Do you know their plans? Millions of people dont blink twice paying �70 for Flight Sim 2002 Pro Tens of Thousands will pay $100 for X-Plane so whats the problem? Do you have a problem paying for quality? DOug