I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically
at all Dave H.
:-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims.
Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T
code
full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do
it with
their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a
substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that
has
coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus).
If full
field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small
investment
like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right?
The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full
field
multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The
exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers
of
that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around
in
circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with
every
release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would
be fun
to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring
(to me)
auto series. It's critical to their sales. For F1 sims and other
racing
games, racing against the AI or hotlapping is fine for most buyers (I
guess
turning right and using the brake/gas has something to do with it).
Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery?
These
developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines,
but are
baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research
and ask
people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions?
They
wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit?
Ubi Soft is a perfect example. SOME want to deny the role the FIA has
played
in limiting their multplayer option in F1RC. Of course they could give
us a
full field to race against. This "only Papy can do it" crap is a joke.
Look
at this site http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ 1,100 people at the
time of
this post in multiplayer games that are from Ubi Soft. They put out
the
money for these games to be developed, and decide what goes into them.
They
can and will do excellent multiplayer if they are allowed, or their
market
research tells them it's necessary for sales of a particular type of
game. For F1RC, they WERE NOT
ALLOWED to do this. EA and ISI are likely under the same restrictions.
Enough of the complaining and speculation already. I would LOVE
excellent
full field multiplay in every auto sim I buy, but until restrictions
are
lifted, or there is a true demand for it, it's going to be slower
coming than we'd like. ABILITY has nothing to do with it. If you want
to complain, direct
your energies where they belong.
David G Fisher
What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the
right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing? Why
would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that?
Marty
David G Fisher wrote:
Quoted text (74 lines)
> I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically > at all Dave H. > :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims. > > Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T > code > full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do > it with > their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a > substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that > has > coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus). > If full > field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small > investment > like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right? > > The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full > field > multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The > exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers > of > that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around > in > circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with > every > release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would > be fun > to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring > (to me) > auto series. It's critical to their sales. For F1 sims and other > racing > games, racing against the AI or hotlapping is fine for most buyers (I > guess > turning right and using the brake/gas has something to do with it). > > Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery? > These > developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines, > but are > baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research > and ask > people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions? > They > wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit? > > Ubi Soft is a perfect example. SOME want to deny the role the FIA has > played > in limiting their multplayer option in F1RC. Of course they could give > us a > full field to race against. This "only Papy can do it" crap is a joke. > Look > at this site http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ 1,100 people at the > time of > this post in multiplayer games that are from Ubi Soft. They put out > the > money for these games to be developed, and decide what goes into them. > They > can and will do excellent multiplayer if they are allowed, or their > market > research tells them it's necessary for sales of a particular type of > game. For F1RC, they WERE NOT > ALLOWED to do this. EA and ISI are likely under the same restrictions. > > Enough of the complaining and speculation already. I would LOVE > excellent > full field multiplay in every auto sim I buy, but until restrictions > are > lifted, or there is a true demand for it, it's going to be slower > coming than we'd like. ABILITY has nothing to do with it. If you want > to complain, direct > your energies where they belong. > > David G FisherOn 23 Jan 2002 20:52:07 -0800, [email hidden] (David G Fisher) wrote:
It's obvious that the producer isn't interested in multiplayer,
they're also not interested in a decent setupmanagement
or telemetry. It's not a question of able to, but wanting to.
However, the fact that the mainstream gamer isn't aware of the
possibilties doesn't make the game any better....
The only thing what strikes me is that they (well, actually you)
claim that the FIA doesn't allow it, since the multiplayercode
what IS present in todays modern F1 games stinks...
Remco
Quoted text (9 lines)
>Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery? >These >developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines, >but are >baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research >and ask >people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions? >They >wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit?I don't know about David's sources but I seem to remember something about
FIA not being too keen on the idea of full-field online racing. Anyway, I'll
just throw a log or two on David's bonfire and ask if anyone but Papyrus has
ever made it possible to race a field of say 10+ online (ANY racing series)?
None that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thomas M�rlund
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead
channel"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Auto Sim Internet Multiplay
Quoted text (7 lines)
> What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the > right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing? Why > would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that? > > Marty > > David G Fisher wrote: a lot :o)To be honest David,
I really dont give a rats ass if it's hard to code, only wanted by a
minority, or denied by some license-owner - I *want* internet compatible
multiplayer racing. Online gaming is the future (or should i say present)
and if developers and publishers fail to see that, then it's *their* loss
as I will take my money and go elsewhere. No onlineracing = no sale -
period.
Having been racing online since '96 or so - I've given up on offline racing
years ago..... it's just dont cut it for me anymore... (Rally being the
exception here - since you're basicly on your own... )
It's like when you first started to walk on 2 feet.... all of a sudeen
crawling around on the floor lost it's appeal...
--
ed_
"David G Fisher" :
> I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically
> at all Dave H.
> :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims.
>
> Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T
> code
> full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do
> it with
> their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a
> substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that
> has
> coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus).
> If full
> field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small
> investment
> like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right?
>
> The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full
> field
> multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The
> exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers
> of
> that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around
> in
> circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with
> every
> release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would
> be fun
> to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring
> (to me)
> auto series. It's critical to their sales. For F1 sims and other
> racing
> games, racing against the AI or hotlapping is fine for most buyers (I
> guess
> turning right and using the brake/gas has something to do with it).
>
> Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery?
> These
> developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines,
> but are
> baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research
> and ask
> people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions?
> They
> wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit?
>
> Ubi Soft is a perfect example. SOME want to deny the role the FIA has
> played
> in limiting their multplayer option in F1RC. Of course they could give
> us a
> full field to race against. This "only Papy can do it" crap is a joke.
> Look
> at this site http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ 1,100 people at the
> time of
> this post in multiplayer games that are from Ubi Soft. They put out
> the
> money for these games to be developed, and decide what goes into them.
> They
> can and will do excellent multiplayer if they are allowed, or their
> market
> research tells them it's necessary for sales of a particular type of
> game. For F1RC, they WERE NOT
> ALLOWED to do this. EA and ISI are likely under the same restrictions.
>
> Enough of the complaining and speculation already. I would LOVE
> excellent
> full field multiplay in every auto sim I buy, but until restrictions
> are
> lifted, or there is a true demand for it, it's going to be slower
> coming than we'd like. ABILITY has nothing to do with it. If you want
> to complain, direct
> your energies where they belong.
>
> David G Fisher
Ed Solheim wrote:
I agree, no matter how hard it may be to code, it is essential these
days. I really like F1 2001, but because of poor multiplayer I just
don't play it at all.
Its priority number 2 in my sim (sorry that doesn't sound convincing :D
- but Physics must be priority one for me). I have (well my friend who
would like to help) begun a little network already (my game is in true
infancy).
Ash
(bugger...i have entered one of these "debate to death" threads, i must
stop doing this)
http://www.siroccoracing.com - the beginnings
Quoted text (18 lines)
> To be honest David, > I really dont give a rats ass if it's hard to code, only wanted by a > minority, or denied by some license-owner - I *want* internet compatible > multiplayer racing. Online gaming is the future (or should i say present) > and if developers and publishers fail to see that, then it's *their* loss > as I will take my money and go elsewhere. No onlineracing = no sale - > period. > > Having been racing online since '96 or so - I've given up on offline racing > years ago..... it's just dont cut it for me anymore... (Rally being the > exception here - since you're basicly on your own... ) > > It's like when you first started to walk on 2 feet.... all of a sudeen > crawling around on the floor lost it's appeal... > > -- > ed_ >With a T1 server, we run 20+ in TPTCC all the time using the NASCAR Heat DTM
mod. Other than that, I don't know of any that support more than 8.
Scott Moore
The Pits Touring Car Championship
http://www.theuspits.com
"Thomas M�rlund" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3c503371$0$14051$[email hidden]...
> I don't know about David's sources but I seem to remember something about
> FIA not being too keen on the idea of full-field online racing. Anyway,I'll
> just throw a log or two on David's bonfire and ask if anyone but Papyrushas
> ever made it possible to race a field of say 10+ online (ANY racingseries)?
Quoted text (23 lines)
> None that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Thomas M�rlund > "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead > channel" > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marty" <[email hidden]> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:11 PM > Subject: Re: Auto Sim Internet Multiplay > > > > What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the > > right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing? Why > > would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that? > > > > Marty > > > > David G Fisher wrote: a lot :o) > > Agree completely.
-John
Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> To be honest David,
> I really dont give a rats ass if it's hard to code, only wanted by a
> minority, or denied by some license-owner - I *want* internet compatible
> multiplayer racing. Online gaming is the future (or should i saypresent)
> and if developers and publishers fail to see that, then it's *their* loss
> as I will take my money and go elsewhere. No onlineracing = no sale -
> period.
>
> Having been racing online since '96 or so - I've given up on offlineracing
Quoted text (88 lines)
> years ago..... it's just dont cut it for me anymore... (Rally being the > exception here - since you're basicly on your own... ) > > It's like when you first started to walk on 2 feet.... all of a sudeen > crawling around on the floor lost it's appeal... > > -- > ed_ > > > "David G Fisher" : > > > I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically > > at all Dave H. > > :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims. > > > > Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T > > code > > full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do > > it with > > their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a > > substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that > > has > > coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus). > > If full > > field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small > > investment > > like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right? > > > > The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full > > field > > multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The > > exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers > > of > > that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around > > in > > circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with > > every > > release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would > > be fun > > to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring > > (to me) > > auto series. It's critical to their sales. For F1 sims and other > > racing > > games, racing against the AI or hotlapping is fine for most buyers (I > > guess > > turning right and using the brake/gas has something to do with it). > > > > Do some of you people really think multiplay code is a huge mystery? > > These > > developers can give us physics models and stunning graphics engines, > > but are > > baffeled by multiplay code? You don't think they do market research > > and ask > > people how important multiplayer is in their purchasing decisions? > > They > > wouldn't invest a little extra money for big profit? > > > > Ubi Soft is a perfect example. SOME want to deny the role the FIA has > > played > > in limiting their multplayer option in F1RC. Of course they could give > > us a > > full field to race against. This "only Papy can do it" crap is a joke. > > Look > > at this site http://www.ubi.com/US/GamingZone/ 1,100 people at the > > time of > > this post in multiplayer games that are from Ubi Soft. They put out > > the > > money for these games to be developed, and decide what goes into them. > > They > > can and will do excellent multiplayer if they are allowed, or their > > market > > research tells them it's necessary for sales of a particular type of > > game. For F1RC, they WERE NOT > > ALLOWED to do this. EA and ISI are likely under the same restrictions. > > > > Enough of the complaining and speculation already. I would LOVE > > excellent > > full field multiplay in every auto sim I buy, but until restrictions > > are > > lifted, or there is a true demand for it, it's going to be slower > > coming than we'd like. ABILITY has nothing to do with it. If you want > > to complain, direct > > your energies where they belong. > > > > David G Fisher > >We run 32 cars all the time and this is on a server with multiple sessions
of N4 going at once..........
"Scott Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> With a T1 server, we run 20+ in TPTCC all the time using the NASCAR HeatDTM
about
Why
Quoted text (9 lines)
> mod. Other than that, I don't know of any that support more than 8. > > Scott Moore > The Pits Touring Car Championship > http://www.theuspits.com > > "Thomas M�rlund" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c503371$0$14051$[email hidden]... > > I don't know about David's sources but I seem to remember somethingQuoted text (22 lines)
> > FIA not being too keen on the idea of full-field online racing. Anyway, > I'll > > just throw a log or two on David's bonfire and ask if anyone but Papyrus > has > > ever made it possible to race a field of say 10+ online (ANY racing > series)? > > None that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > Thomas M�rlund > > "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead > > channel" > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marty" <[email hidden]> > > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: Auto Sim Internet Multiplay > > > > > > > What evidence do you have that any game publisher has been denied the > > > right to include multiplayer under intellectual property licensing?Quoted text (10 lines)
> > > would anyone licensing their intellectual property want to do that? > > > > > > Marty > > > > > > David G Fisher wrote: a lot :o) > > > > > > >Nice post, David.
I'm sorry. I just buy the "sure they can do it" argument. Coding a
lousy/mediocre/good/excellent physics model or ugly/so-so/stunning graphics does
not mean that you (the company) can have the same people do good internet-based
network play. Different skills and talents are required. Just because the tool
is the same (eg. C++) they are different disciplines. I have seen very skilled
programmers choke on the requirements of Internet based computing/data exchange,
where you can't just throw more hardware at the problem.
It's a bit like AI-work. Some people can do it, some simply can't. Sure, you can
learn how to do network stuff and AI, but it is not sexy. Graphics are sexy -
just see how people go WOW when they see screenies from a new game or mod,
before they have tried it. Programmers love praise - they are vain! (At least I
am). So the new guys go for the praise and not the other, boring stuff.
Having said all that, I will also say, that I have read and heard stuff about
the FIA and their hefty licencing costs.
Cheers,
Jens, network coder. ;-)
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (16 lines)
> I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically > at all Dave H. > :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims. > > Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T > code > full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do > it with > their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a > substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that > has > coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus). > If full > field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small > investment > like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right?I didn't really say that the same people who do the graphics or physics can
do the multiplay. What I did say was that the developer or publisher can
hire people who have already done it sucessfully in other games. Pretty
simple, basic solution to the problem.
David G Fisher
"Jens H. Kruuse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:T4148.4733$[email hidden]...
> Nice post, David.
>
> I'm sorry. I just buy the "sure they can do it" argument. Coding a
> lousy/mediocre/good/excellent physics model or ugly/so-so/stunninggraphics does
> not mean that you (the company) can have the same people do goodinternet-based
> network play. Different skills and talents are required. Just because thetool
> is the same (eg. C++) they are different disciplines. I have seen veryskilled
> programmers choke on the requirements of Internet based computing/dataexchange,
> where you can't just throw more hardware at the problem.
>
> It's a bit like AI-work. Some people can do it, some simply can't. Sure,you can
> learn how to do network stuff and AI, but it is not sexy. Graphics aresexy -
> just see how people go WOW when they see screenies from a new game or mod,
> before they have tried it. Programmers love praise - they are vain! (Atleast I
> am). So the new guys go for the praise and not the other, boring stuff.
>
> Having said all that, I will also say, that I have read and heard stuffabout
Quoted text (26 lines)
> the FIA and their hefty licencing costs. > > Cheers, > Jens, network coder. ;-) > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > news:[email hidden]... > > I't's getting a little tiring hearing complaints (not you specifically > > at all Dave H. > > :-) ) and myths about why there isn't better multiplay in auto sims. > > > > Apparently there are SOME people who think that the developers CAN'T > > code > > full field multiplay in an auto sim. They're too dumb. They can't do > > it with > > their development team, and it NEVER occurs to them to simply offer a > > substantial pay raise to someone from another development team that > > has > > coded great multiplayer for another game (flight sim, fps, Papyrus). > > If full > > field multiplay is so important to the sales of a sim, a small > > investment > > like I mention above would yield them huge profits. Right? > > >>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> What I did say was that the developer or publisher can
> hire people who have already done it sucessfully in other games.
I don't think anybody could "clearly" deny with that. I think it's more
that we disagree that it's either because of FIA-problems (in the case of a
modern F1 sim) or because of not having any kind of good customer base ready
for it. I still stand on my own that creating a serious multiplayer
platform for a full-field of human beings is incredibly difficult. It took
Papyrus years of modelling, they started in beta stage a decade ago and it's
still not perfect. You not only need some incredible programming, of course
at the cost of several workers that aren't a dime a dozen, and some very
planned community tools to globalise the racing. Just throwing 8-player
TCP/Ip is an easy escape route.
Other company don't do it simply because it takes too much time and
money for the reward. Everybody wants it, but developers are unable to give
it to the customers as it's too important to have a nice shiny tracks with
corporate logos and all that blahblah EA-type shiny graphics and other
non-important aspects of simulators to appeal to the ADD mass. Multiplayer
is #2 in the list of many here after physics, but the mass market is not
ready for it. No wait, they *are* ready, but they just don't care. They
want to plow into people and have some nasty wrecks for fun. So why should
developers waste their time for something they will never achieve correctly
as it's incredibly difficult?
Those people aren't the real market for what we want, but we are going
into another problem here, the mass-marketing of specialised simulators. I
still say that simracing will never advance much further unless game
developers and producers understand the fact of diminuend the cost of
creating a simulators versus. We are quite big in numbers, just look at the
serious community base for Nascar Racing 4, with dozens and dozens of
leagues, websites with updated cars, setups, etc...
We don't need to license drivers, we don't need to license sponsors and
car paints. It's a waste of developing time and a waste of precious money
that would go elsewhere. A week after they are all changed and updated by
various people in teh community.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
In article <[email hidden]>, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]>
writes:
I agree with you for the most part. I still occasionally run against the
AI.<g> Those of us on this group are a very small percentage of people who buy
the games. Say total sales for a game are 100K units. The 200 or so of us
'diehard' players isn't even a drop in the bucket. Even if ALL of us refuse to
buy a program because it doesn't have multiplayer, there are still 99,800
people who will..
Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (12 lines)
>To be honest David, >I really dont give a rats ass if it's hard to code, only wanted by a >minority, or denied by some license-owner - I *want* internet compatible >multiplayer racing. Online gaming is the future (or should i say present) >and if developers and publishers fail to see that, then it's *their* loss >as I will take my money and go elsewhere. No onlineracing = no sale - >period. > >Having been racing online since '96 or so - I've given up on offline racing >years ago..... it's just dont cut it for me anymore... (Rally being the >exception here - since you're basicly on your own... ) >In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
(David G Fisher) writes:
Plus, Papy had the advantage of seeing the interest in MP gaming with their
Hawaii servers. Do the other game manufacturers have such a thing setup as a
testbed?
Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (14 lines)
>The truth is that developers do market research and apparently full >field >multiplay in auto sims is not a high priority at all. The >exception is the Papyrus NASCAR series because a large % of the buyers >of >that game wouldn't bother with it if all they could do was go around >in >circles for hours againt AI that seems to have serious problmes with >every >release. I don't like NASCAR at all, but even I can see how it would >be fun >to race live against a large field of drivers in an otherwise boring >(to me) >auto series. It's critical to their sales.Can I add to ymenard's points the following MAIN point is M O N E Y.
There is very little reward for the company which has to somehow provide the
multiplayer servers and all that. Crap have you ever been online when A.
someone who's papyrus's admin is on? for the entire time, either they're
being bitched at or asked stupid questions like 'Why did I get booted,
'BUFO29 is a wrecker and needs to be banned' or 'why is my ping so bad to
serv...' on and on. Sure Microsoft makes enough money to create or pay
for/steal its own Online Multiplayer setup (ZONE) and pay staff, and give
freebies to volunteer admins.
The 2nd biggest problem online is everyone's perception still seems to
be that the internet is Free or can be hijacked for whatever use is felt to
be wanted. I can see that papy could need to re-price its games to
compensate for online gameplay to match like Microsoft in that regards, to
price say Nascar2002 to like $150. or collect a monthly fee like Motorcity
Online. When you think about it Microsoft gets a lot of money from me even
before I goto the 'ZONE' (just an example) to play a game. plus there are
thousands of people that 'contribute to the coffer' and never goto church'
so to speak. Im talking about having to pay for Windblows, and never even
go online... Think about how much a server costs, and then the software and
the high-dollar tech. then cost of a good internet pipeline...
So IMHO everyone except FOR Papyrus! gets rich off of the sales of Nascar,
if you look at expenses...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ap848.21452$[email hidden]...
> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > What I did say was that the developer or publisher can
> > hire people who have already done it sucessfully in other games.
>
>
> I don't think anybody could "clearly" deny with that. I think it'smore
> that we disagree that it's either because of FIA-problems (in the case ofa
> modern F1 sim) or because of not having any kind of good customer baseready
> for it. I still stand on my own that creating a serious multiplayer
> platform for a full-field of human beings is incredibly difficult. Ittook
> Papyrus years of modelling, they started in beta stage a decade ago andit's
> still not perfect. You not only need some incredible programming, ofcourse
give
> it to the customers as it's too important to have a nice shiny tracks with
> corporate logos and all that blahblah EA-type shiny graphics and other
> non-important aspects of simulators to appeal to the ADD mass.Multiplayer
> is #2 in the list of many here after physics, but the mass market is not
> ready for it. No wait, they *are* ready, but they just don't care. They
> want to plow into people and have some nasty wrecks for fun. So whyshould
> developers waste their time for something they will never achievecorrectly
> as it's incredibly difficult?
>
>
> Those people aren't the real market for what we want, but we are going
> into another problem here, the mass-marketing of specialised simulators.I
> still say that simracing will never advance much further unless game
> developers and producers understand the fact of diminuend the cost of
> creating a simulators versus. We are quite big in numbers, just look atthe
> serious community base for Nascar Racing 4, with dozens and dozens of
> leagues, websites with updated cars, setups, etc...
>
>
> We don't need to license drivers, we don't need to license sponsorsand
