Re: Noonan converter Why not Sierra ?

I wouldn't have purchased the game if it only offered two tracks, and I think it would have been killed in the reviews for it. I don't disagree that Sierra should have done more to support it, but it should have been done by giving us MORE (as in a FREE track converter), not less. What I want is the GPL engine with some modern sports cars. I wasn't real big on 67 GP cars to begin with, so even with the superb modelling, it didn't hold my attention for as long as SODA or Viper. Tim On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:02:41 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first. They had >all the resources available to them. Personally if I was in charge of >marketing I would have released GPL with just a couple cars > ( Coventry easier to drive) and a couple simplier tracks (monza). I >would have released an add-on disk (Ferarri, Lotus) and a couple more >of the premier tracks (Monaco , Spa) at a later date. A year later the >converter for the Oval tracks and other N2 & IRC2 tracks). Reasoning >be >1) Earlier release of GPL to public >2) Majority not overwhelmed by more difficult cars & tracks >3) Leave the public wanting for more >4) Keeps developement team intact for future projects

Well I dont think the physics were the main reason. But the fact that alot of game reviewers said the physics were incredibally complicated and hard to master probaly scared some people away. Now I bought the game because it was 1967 GP cars. I didnt care about the physics...they coulda been the original ICR1 physics and I still would have bought it. The fact that i got the best physics ever in any PC based simulation was a plus...but mostly I wanted the historic cars and driver. I wasnt fortunate enough to have been alive then but I am totally in love with vintage racing (pretty much anything before 1987 since thats about the first I can remember with any reasonable clarity). For me GPL did what WW2 flight sims do for airplane fanatics. So IMO there wasnt any one thing that caused GPL to sell poorly. It was a combination of things that eventually hurt sales. Unfortunate too because I'm sure other sims based on the GPL physics engine would sell quite well. But the sales of GPL I think scared the Sierra front office into not wanting more sims based on this physics engine. Well thats my 2 cents worth... Chris "Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass."--Mark Twain

Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first. They had all the resources available to them. Personally if I was in charge of marketing I would have released GPL with just a couple cars ( Coventry easier to drive) and a couple simplier tracks (monza). I would have released an add-on disk (Ferarri, Lotus) and a couple more of the premier tracks (Monaco , Spa) at a later date. A year later the converter for the Oval tracks and other N2 & IRC2 tracks). Reasoning be 1) Earlier release of GPL to public 2) Majority not overwhelmed by more difficult cars & tracks 3) Leave the public wanting for more 4) Keeps developement team intact for future projects

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first. They had > all the resources available to them. Personally if I was in charge of > marketing I would have released GPL with just a couple cars > ( Coventry easier to drive) and a couple simplier tracks (monza). I > would have released an add-on disk (Ferarri, Lotus) and a couple more > of the premier tracks (Monaco , Spa) at a later date. A year later the > converter for the Oval tracks and other N2 & IRC2 tracks). Reasoning > be > 1) Earlier release of GPL to public

Add-on paks sell poorly compared to originals > 2) Majority not overwhelmed by more difficult cars & tracksno...even the easiest gpl car is more difficult than a casual simmer can drive. GPL was a flop sales wise, what if after the first release, no more track/car paks could clear the bean counters? > 3) Leave the public wanting for moreThe 250 odd gpl'ers have been wanting more for the past two years. > 4) Keeps developement team intact for future projectstoo late! If Papy coulda/woulda made the phyics and ai adjustable, then gpl "might" have stood a chance. If they had ADVERTISED on speedvision when Grand Prix was shown... If they worked on a track convertor, it would be a monsterous project and would probably cost the same as any other current released product.! Do you think CompUSA is gonna make room on a crowded shelf for a track-convertor product add-on for something that is only taking up shelf space now? I have to commend you though for offering possible solutions. It seems there "might" have been lots of possibilites...but GPL's inherrant high learning curve, doomed it from the start. dave henrie

> If Papy coulda/woulda made the phyics and ai adjustable, then gpl >"might" have stood a chance I still have no idea why the physics model has anything to do with sales? Who buys game or Racing Sims because of the physics model? The only ones I can think of are those that frequent this group. Last figures were about 2,000 people mentioned in another post. That leaves out 3800 that never read the group. again, according to another post about the number of GPL copies sold. I would assume that most everyone that grabbed a copy grabbed it because it was on the shelf and the era of the cars were what those people were after(?) I would also assume that it didn't do well in sales because of the same reason... that type of racing.. I.E. 1967 cars. I don't think anyone who doesn't have a copy and doesn't read this group didn't buy it because the physics or the AI were too hard. I think the only way you can say that it didn't sell is if you had the figure for how many were returned. even then, some of those could be returned for other reasons. basically, I don't think the physics or the AI had anything to do with the sales figures. Just my opinion, Mike

Folks other than those who frequent this group may not base their buying decision on a physics model, but after reading the reviews that GPL got or even listening to the buzz (or lack of it) around the title, they may have decided it was a little more of a commitment than they were willing to make. Other than the few, the proud, the etc., who wants to put a sim on their hard drive that captures just why it was that the 1967 season was so deadly? The insistence on a Rendition or 3DFX card probably didn't help, either. It's also possible that this type and era of racing is simply not sufficiently mass market (unlike NASCAR) to make a sim economically viable. If we can assume that the free market actually works, GPL probably sold about as many copies as there were people willing to make the attempt to master it. Come to think of it, it probably sold more copies than there were people willing to master it. On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:01:33 GMT, "Mike Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> >> If Papy coulda/woulda made the phyics and ai adjustable, then gpl >>"might" have stood a chance > > I still have no idea why the physics model has anything to do with >sales? Who buys game or Racing Sims because of the physics model? The only >ones I can think of are those that frequent this group. Last figures were >about 2,000 people mentioned in another post. That leaves out 3800 that >never read the group. again, according to another post about the number of >GPL copies sold. > > I would assume that most everyone that grabbed a copy grabbed it because >it was on the shelf and the era of the cars were what those people were >after(?) I would also assume that it didn't do well in sales because of the >same reason... that type of racing.. I.E. 1967 cars. I don't think anyone >who doesn't have a copy and doesn't read this group didn't buy it because >the physics or the AI were too hard. I think the only way you can say that >it didn't sell is if you had the figure for how many were returned. even >then, some of those could be returned for other reasons. > > basically, I don't think the physics or the AI had anything to do with >the sales figures. > >Just my opinion, >Mike > >

Remove "hi" from address or it will bounce....

Just as a matter of curiosity, how successful was viper racing? How many copies are we talking here? It's also worth noting that it was a lot cheaper way to get a Viper than visiting your Dodge dealer. :) On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:02:52 +0100, "Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (45 lines)

>Bullshit. > >The success of viper racing is solely attributed to AI and physics, because >the choice of cars is low, i.e. 1, and the range of tracks is limited, i.e. >8. > >Chris > >-- >-------------------------------------------------- >http://www.the.saints.btinternet.co.uk > >Mike Barlow wrote in message ... >| >|> If Papy coulda/woulda made the phyics and ai adjustable, then gpl >|>"might" have stood a chance >| >| I still have no idea why the physics model has anything to do with >|sales? Who buys game or Racing Sims because of the physics model? The >only >|ones I can think of are those that frequent this group. Last figures were >|about 2,000 people mentioned in another post. That leaves out 3800 that >|never read the group. again, according to another post about the number of >|GPL copies sold. >| >| I would assume that most everyone that grabbed a copy grabbed it >because >|it was on the shelf and the era of the cars were what those people were >|after(?) I would also assume that it didn't do well in sales because of >the >|same reason... that type of racing.. I.E. 1967 cars. I don't think anyone >|who doesn't have a copy and doesn't read this group didn't buy it because >|the physics or the AI were too hard. I think the only way you can say that >|it didn't sell is if you had the figure for how many were returned. even >|then, some of those could be returned for other reasons. >| >| basically, I don't think the physics or the AI had anything to do with >|the sales figures. >| >|Just my opinion, >|Mike >| >| > >

Remove "hi" from address or it will bounce....

In article <8cggnt$r39$[email hidden]>, "Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote: Status: N

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Bullshit. > >The success of viper racing is solely attributed to AI and physics, because >the choice of cars is low, i.e. 1, and the range of tracks is limited, i.e. >8. > >Chris

can you say "scalable physics"? Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

Bullshit. The success of viper racing is solely attributed to AI and physics, because the choice of cars is low, i.e. 1, and the range of tracks is limited, i.e. 8. Chris -- -------------------------------------------------- http://www.the.saints.btinternet.co.uk Mike Barlow wrote in message ... | |> If Papy coulda/woulda made the phyics and ai adjustable, then gpl |>"might" have stood a chance | | I still have no idea why the physics model has anything to do with |sales? Who buys game or Racing Sims because of the physics model? The only |ones I can think of are those that frequent this group. Last figures were |about 2,000 people mentioned in another post. That leaves out 3800 that |never read the group. again, according to another post about the number of |GPL copies sold. | | I would assume that most everyone that grabbed a copy grabbed it because |it was on the shelf and the era of the cars were what those people were |after(?) I would also assume that it didn't do well in sales because of the |same reason... that type of racing.. I.E. 1967 cars. I don't think anyone |who doesn't have a copy and doesn't read this group didn't buy it because |the physics or the AI were too hard. I think the only way you can say that |it didn't sell is if you had the figure for how many were returned. even |then, some of those could be returned for other reasons. | | basically, I don't think the physics or the AI had anything to do with |the sales figures. | |Just my opinion, |Mike | |

Hahaha ... wait ... that wasn't funny Joel Eric Busch wrote in message <8cgl11$fl8$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Two words: LISCENSING > >Oh wait, that's just one word... > >Eric > ><[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first... > >

> Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first. I have a nasty feeling there would be huge licensing problems. Andrew McP

Eric Busch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cgl11$fl8$[email hidden]... > Two words: LISCENSING > > Oh wait, that's just one word... > > Eric > Also, how do you market it? The concept makes sense to the GPL diehards here, but the release of converted tracks as a "product" doesn't fit with the original market of GPL, those seeking a sim true to the era, or to the market familiar with the tracks being converted; they might expect a more modern car to drive the tracks with. It's a great product, but the target audience is what you see here - r.a.s. Wonder how many orders Noonan has? Stephen

Two words: LISCENSING Oh wait, that's just one word... Eric <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first...

"Mike Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote > I would assume that most everyone that grabbed a copy grabbed itbecause > it was on the shelf and the era of the cars were what those people were > after(?) I would also assume that it didn't do well in sales because ofthe > same reason... that type of racing.. I.E. 1967 cars. I don't thinkanyone > who doesn't have a copy and doesn't read this group didn't buy it because > the physics or the AI were too hard. I think the only way you can saythat > it didn't sell is if you had the figure for how many were returned. even > then, some of those could be returned for other reasons. Exactly Mike, and it's why Nascar Legends flopped also. It's legend cars, and Im sorry but the mass public doesn't give an arse about such old cars. They want new stuff, fast stuff, cars that stick on the road and are easy to drive. NL also flopped for other reasons, still (such as the over-saturation of the NASCAR license on the shelves imho). Let's hope Papyrus soon will stop developping Nascar products for the greedy Sierra. They released another one <shudder> this week. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first. They had > all the resources available to them. If Papy had done it "right" Dave wouldn't have needed to make a converter, and neither would Papy. The game, from the strictly good design standpoint, should have been fully modular. Any track would than "pop" into any of their games. To a large extent the same goes for the cars. Look at what people have done with SCGT. There are new cars, open wheel cars, even a KART ferchrisakes. It ain't easy, but it can be done and dozens of people are doing it. Look at what it took to get closed bodies into ICR2. Just try to get open bodies into N3. How about closed wheel sports cars and wings in GPL. Only a handful of wizards even consider the idea viable. Driving sims should be just as open as Doom and Quake, with end user track and car editors. They think they can't make as much money that way. Well, people STILL buy Doom! Why, because of all the add ons available.

"Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: 8che5j$6budl$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > Eric Busch <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8cgl11$fl8$[email hidden]... > > Two words: LISCENSING > > > > Oh wait, that's just one word... > > > > Eric > > > > Also, how do you market it? The concept makes sense to the GPL diehards > here, but the release of converted tracks as a "product" doesn't fit with > the original market of GPL, those seeking a sim true to the era, or to the > market familiar with the tracks being converted; they might expect a more > modern car to drive the tracks with. It's a great product, but the target > audience is what you see here - r.a.s. > > Wonder how many orders Noonan has? > > Stephen > >

Well you market it through the internet, why can noonan market it and not sierra ? Can't they make propoer online sales ?

Hahaha ... wait ... that wasn't funny Joel

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Two words: LISCENSING >Oh wait, that's just one word... >Eric >> Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first...

I have a *** feeling there would be huge licensing problems. Andrew McP

Status: N can you say "scalable physics"? Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

First, Sierra can't make a converter because of licensing issues. And the only reason there's licensing issues is that the track owners and event promotors, and governing bodies (NASCAR, CART, IRL) are a greedy bunch of bastards who can only see today's money instead of being forward-seeing visionaries that might assume that if someone drives a sim on their track, that same someone just might want to visit the real track. Second, Sierra has to find a new advertising agency and be willing to make some commercials and pay for air time. - A great commercial for GPL would be seeing a hell-bent-for-leather race from the driver's cockpit (careful not to show the edge of the monitor), and have a disastrous crash occur. While the sounds of metal twisting and other crash sounds are occuring, zoom in on people's faces and have them all appear start running towards the sounds. Then, a bedroom door opens and they find their son with oil and grease smears all over his face and clothes lying in a heap on the floor. He looks up at everyone and smiling says "WOW! Great physics model!" Closing scene, is the cover art for the GPL box with an offscreen voice saying "Grand Prix Legends by Sierra Sports - Racing as real as it gets..." - A great commercial for Nascar Legends or Nascar racing 3 would be for the same kid to be shown driving in a race using one of those sims (showing the computer this time), with the scene switching between the screen and his face being illuminated by the screen. As he drives, you hear (offscreen) the spotter voices and the TV commentators doing their usual thing, and suddenly the kid wrecks. Zoom out to see Junior Johnson, Ned Jarrett, and Darryl WQaltrip all standing their with Mr. Microphones expouding on what a stupid move the kid made and blah blah blah. The kid turns around and asks the guys to "...give me a break - it's just a computer game". Closing scene, is the cover art for the Nascar sim box with an offscreen voice saying "Nascar Racing 3 (or Nascar Legends) by Sierra Sports - Racing as real as it gets..." If I can think of this stuff, so can someone else... -- ========================================================= Redneck Techno-Biker (Zerex12) http://www.members.home.net/jms1/index.html Barbarian Diecast Collector (420+ cars and counting) http://members.home.net/jsimm/diecast_index.html DeMONS Scheduler for N3 and NL http://www.paddedwall.org/demons If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

What other company designs their games this way? None. We are lucky the tracks are as portable from one version to another as they are. And I have a feeling that the only reason they are is because Papy did a good enough job at the outset that they have been able to incrementally improve their track model--not throw it in the garbage like every other track model from that era has been by now. By the way, look outside racing sims. to things like Quake levels, flight sims or anything else you can buy--no one uses a modular design that spans generations of their game engine. Marc. "Kevin Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cgoho$278$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Why in the world didn't Sierra Papyrus think of this first. They had > > all the resources available to them. > > > If Papy had done it "right" Dave wouldn't have needed to make a converter, > and neither would Papy. > > The game, from the strictly good design standpoint, should have been fully > modular. Any track would than "pop" into any of their games. > > To a large extent the same goes for the cars. Look at what people have

done > with SCGT. There are new cars, open wheel cars, even a KART ferchrisakes.It > ain't easy, but it can be done and dozens of people are doing it. > > Look at what it took to get closed bodies into ICR2. Just try to get open > bodies into N3. How about closed wheel sports cars and wings in GPL. Onlya

Quoted text (9 lines)

> handful of wizards even consider the idea viable. > > Driving sims should be just as open as Doom and Quake, with end user track > and car editors. > > They think they can't make as much money that way. Well, people STILL buy > Doom! Why, because of all the add ons available. > >

Marc Collins wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > What other company designs their games this way? None. We are lucky the > tracks are as portable from one version to another as they are. And I have > a feeling that the only reason they are is because Papy did a good enough > job at the outset that they have been able to incrementally improve their > track model--not throw it in the garbage like every other track model from > that era has been by now. > > By the way, look outside racing sims. to things like Quake levels, flight > sims or anything else you can buy--no one uses a modular design that spans > generations of their game engine.

MS Flight Simulator ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Eric Busch wrote: > > Two words: LISCENSING > > Oh wait, that's just one word... > > Eric I believe the second word is MONEY..... =-) -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at: http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun! They'll call you names And spit in your face, But legends never die. --Gene Simmons

On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:01:33 GMT, "Mike Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > I still have no idea why the physics model has anything to do with >sales? Who buys game or Racing Sims because of the physics model? The only >ones I can think of are those that frequent this group. Last figures were >about 2,000 people mentioned in another post. That leaves out 3800 that >never read the group. again, according to another post about the number of >GPL copies sold. > > I would assume that most everyone that grabbed a copy grabbed it because >it was on the shelf and the era of the cars were what those people were >after(?) I would also assume that it didn't do well in sales because of the >same reason... that type of racing.. I.E. 1967 cars. I don't think anyone >who doesn't have a copy and doesn't read this group didn't buy it because >the physics or the AI were too hard. I think the only way you can say that >it didn't sell is if you had the figure for how many were returned. even >then, some of those could be returned for other reasons. > > basically, I don't think the physics or the AI had anything to do with >the sales figures. >

I see several replies that tend to agree with the physics not being the reason they purchased GPL - put me down as the physics very much being the reason.... The first hint of GPL I read had me giddy with anticipation reading the detail and accuracy that was being put into the physics - that's where a racing simulation is for me. The era was also a big part of why I bought it close to 6 months before I had a system that could even think of running it. The fact that its goal was to recreate the characteristics of cars so dangerous in as much detail as possible put it in the "WILL have" column... It wasn't as much the Grand Prix aspect as it was the attention to detail, the power, the shear violence of the cars, the idea of trying to drive an engine with wheels....

"Mike Barlow" wrote > > I still have no idea why the physics model has anything to do with > sales? Who buys game or Racing Sims because of the physics model? Theonly > ones I can think of are those that frequent this group. Last figureswere > about 2,000 people mentioned in another post. That leaves out 3800 that > never read the group. again, according to another post about the number of > GPL copies sold. >The physics got me hooked on GPL - not from reading about it on RAS or anywhere else - but from driving the demo. Personally prior to GPL I had little interest in 60's F1. I was disappointed when I heard Papy were making a historical sim - I doubted I would even buy it. When I drove the demo I was hooked - it wrecked sim racing cos I had no AI to race against but other sims just didn't feel right anymore. This was the closest I had ever felt to truly driving a car on a computer. I didn't need to know it was because it had the best physics model - just that it felt the best. If racing sims are aimed at wannabe racing drivers then the physics need to feel close to the perception of driving a powerful car. Each sim seems to claim this even if it doesn't deliver. If it is a sim not an arcade game then physics has to be an important element. Tony

"Kevin Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote > If Papy had done it "right" Dave wouldn't have needed to make a converter, > and neither would Papy. > > The game, from the strictly good design standpoint, should have been fully > modular. Any track would than "pop" into any of their games. Even if the file architecture has similar elements, we need to remember that GPL is on the new Papyrus game engine, compare to the old one for everything else they have made. It is clearly not an easy task. It would be like taking a map file for Quake and modifying it so it can play on Half-Life. We can't expect Papyrus to give us such a thing... -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

> The first hint of GPL I read had me giddy with anticipation > reading the detail and accuracy that was being put into > the physics Agreed. You learn to be cynical in this hobby, but GPL taught me it's ok to dream. While this statement will make many throw up <g> it's true. 67 means nothing to me. I was 4 and more interested in Lego. But this level of dynamic modelling is a work of art. Andrew McP... preaching to the converted