I keep hearing people take shots at MS and CPR because there was not a
second patch. Have any of you regulars considered any other reason except
the one which you apparently NEED to believe which is "MS could care less
about it's customers, it just wants to sell software and make a product".
I've kept very quiet the past few months with regard to CPR postings on
r.a.s. until these past few days, but apparently the regulars can't figure
things out and help the newer readers with info., so Mr. MS Kiss Ass himself
will do it.
In case no one was paying attention, during the development of CPR, near the
end I believe, TRI decided to join G.O.D. in order to have more control of
it's products (a good, smart, business move). What this did was,
understandably but unfortunately, cause it's remaining commitments to MS to
be put on a tighter and less flexible schedule. TRI still had to do MTM2 and
then work on an upcoming flight sim project of it's own, along with other
games it has in development. One patch was made for CPR. I am sure another
would have been done if the G.O.D deal with TRI was not made at the time it
was. Even a sceptic could understand that logic. As it was, TRI moved on to
MTM2, finished it, and then went on it's own.
MS is not the developer, they are the publisher. MS did not make CPR "in
house". The people at both companies worked hard and long on their projects
together, but circumstances sometimes arise which cause complications and
hard decisions need to be made, and often the ideal path can't be followed.
MS did not want to***off anyone, nor did TRI, and nobody at MS had a
meeting and said "Let's NOT do a second patch, because we are an evil empire
and we need to demoralize our peasant customers".
Instead of coming up with bullshit *** theories such as the
following, try thinking with less emotion and more common sense and logic.
The Glide patch---Outraged nonsense went on for weeks
about this. I finally had to explain to some of you that the patch actually
came from an early beta build of MTM2 which happened to also enable Glide in
CPR. It was found to work with CPR by a beta tester, stayed within a small
group for quite awhile, but eventually was shared with others and then
predictably made it's way onto the net. It was not leaked, there was no
secret dealings...blah, blah, blah.
The MTM2/Netscape Browser ***---Some peole had
trouble running MTM2 when the demo was released. Of course, it was decided
that MS wanted to***half the population and made MTM2 unable to work
with a computer with a Netscape browser. All nonsense. Tens of thousands of
Netscape users (outside of r.a.s. I guess) were running MTM2 just fine and
MS was actually developing a new GameZone which would work with it's rival
Netscape browser.
The views of some as to why there wasn't a second patch fall right into the
same ridiculous category as the above. What should be said about CPR and
patches, is that it's a shame that the circumstances unfolded as they did
with regards to the timing of the deals. Not that MS purposely abandoned it.
I could be wrong I guess, but tell me then what would be a LOGICAL
explanation for skipping a second patch other than what I have given. Money?
Yea, MS is hurting for money. It's owner is ONLY the richest man on the
planet. He makes enough money while blinking to pay for a patch.
Dave
DmndDave
Hi David,
<El Snippo stuff about business moves >
I'm a little confused. (BTW this is normal for me, but now a bit more
as usual) Does this imply that a second patch is needed?
If not, why the MS, TRI, G.O.D. story?
If it does, then the "whiners" are at least a bit right, and then I
don't understand your posts of the last three days.
Lets face it, every sim these days has its problems. GPL will raise
the bar, ondoubtly, but it 'll have its problems, too. In 2 weeks
after release you'll see posts with "GPL sucks" and a lot of threads
started with "Which sim is better, GPL or JH:GP?". Believe it or not,
but there 'll be people voting for JH:GP.
We are all human, and we are not reasonable. Think about all the
religious wars of the past and present. All the flame wars about which
sim is better, just the same taste. Live with it, it never changes.
The reason that there isn't a second patch?
It's doesn't sell more copy of CPR. The game is "to old".
You (TRI/MS) admit that the first patch was a flake. That doesn't much
good for your credibility. The fact that even R.A.S. is divided, is an
indication that it isn't totaly wrong. A business like MS is used to
people who complain. They 'll look at the sale figures, and the amount
of returns. The buying public isn't R.A.S. alone, remember.
Remco
Really, I could care less about what the actual reasons are for no 2nd patch
for CPR. The bottom line facts are this:
(1)Microsoft/TRI released an unbelieveably flawed 1st version of CPR the
beginning of November 1997: Unplayable AI on ovals and most road courses,
poor D3D performance on all but the highest end machines(Keep in mind the
CPR box shows RECOMMENDED settings of P166, 32mb, and 3D accelerator, which
was a joke as I can attest from experience), no control of your car in the
PITS, terrible steering control and sensitivity, no full course yellows no
matter how severe the pile-up, and no tire temps settings. In its inital
release, CPR was really only good for some hot-lapping and maybe some
multiplayer on the Internet *** Zone(the only reason I actually still
have CPR to this day).
(2) Immediately upon release, Eric Straub, the producer of CPR, was in the
r.a.s. newsgroup admitting to many of these problems and even trying to
provide temporary solutions to the AI shortcomings like the following:
"You've encountered a problem that several people on RAS have also found.
The AI in CART is not great on most ovals. We're working on a patch now to
address this. In the meantime, you can try the following:
1) Racing other people at www.zone.com. Real people are better than AI
2) Race other tracks. Miami has decent AI perf. On the road courses, the AI
is much better (although still not perfect)."
Uh, keep in mind the CPR box states the following on the back "Compete
against CART cars controlled by exacting artificial intelligence. Rolling
starts, daring passes, and fully animated pit stops are all realistically
modeled."
I guess they forgot to mention that "The AI in CART is not great on most
ovals" on the back of the box. Oh yeah, and the pit stops are "realistically
modeled", but you have no control of your car once you enter the pit lane.
(3) Again in r.a.s., CPR producer Eric Straub announced, "We intend to
continously raise the bar
with future versions." Dean Lester, also of the CPR development team, asked
for feedback and reccomendations for the upcoming patch from r.a.s, and
pleaded with buyers to stick with the product as Microsoft/TRI are committed
to the product long-term. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that
2 of the CPR developers bothered to post help and info in r.a.s, and I even
received some feedback on steering control problems from Dean at 3:00am, but
much of what they were doing was actually providing damage control for a
bugged filled, unfinished product. I also beliveve that Dean and Eric did
want to make the product the best they could, and my guess is they would not
have personally released the game in such a sad state, but it sure makes a
"Microsoft says release the game for Christmas no matter what" ***
theory not to unbelieveable. In fact, a check of Deja News provides this
direct quote from Dean Lester on 11/9/1997 before the game was even
released, "The feedback from *everyone* is being considered - trial and GOLD
users.
Should have some good news for you soon. Patch is going well. fyi CPR should
be on the shelves earlier than expected - perhaps as early as this week." I
mean come on, they were working on a patch before the game was even
released. Also, don't give me the excuse that every game is released this
way and its just industry practice. That does not excuse releasing a beta or
alpha product, and having the buying public become the "unpaid" testers.
Even though Indycar 2, Nascar 2, and F1RS, have all required patches to get
them closer to perfection, each one of those titles are infinitely more
playable out of the box in their unpatched versions than CPR is.
(4) Once things got hot in r.a.s regarding the problems with CPR, Dean
posted the following, "OK guys - I think that's about it for me on ras. My
patience has run out. I'm joining the other sim publishers and leaving you
to it. Sorry." Granted, people do get pretty rude and unpolite in r.a.s, but
as far as CPR is concerned, I think much of that negativity was because of
how poor CPR was in its initial release - especially after all the hype and
press that was generated leading up to its release.
(5) However, given all the problems with CPR, and overall negative feelings
in the r.a.s. community(I know some people liked it, but I am talking about
the overall feeling. Plus, all the negatives mentioned above are really
pretty much fact. The development team recognized them, and I can personally
provide replays and benchmarks to back it up), amazingly positive reviews
began to appear on commercial *** sites and magazines. Some of the most
ridiculous are listed below:
-Computer *** World gave 5/5 stars and awarded CPR co-Sports Game of the
Year
http://www.gamespot.com/driving/cart/review_cgw.html
-PCME gave 92% http://www.pcme.com/action/cart/cart.htm
-The Adrenaline Vault gave 41/2 out of 5 stars
http://www.avault.com/reviews/cart1.asp
All these reviews failed to mention any of the major shortcomings, and in
fact all 3 praised the AI. And these were all reviews of the original
unpatched version!!
(6) Two months after the game was released(and after Christmas I might add),
the first beta patch for CPR was finally released as announced by Dean on
1/7/1998, "Please send us your feedback on this (beta) patch ASAP. In
particular we'd like to know:-
1) Frame rate changes on your system
2) AI improvements
3) Steering stability"
(7) Then on 1/10/1998, the last, final, and only patch for CPR was released
to the general public. AI improved somewhat, steering improved, frame rates
improved a little, and control in the pits was an option, but there were
still no full course yellows, or tire temp readings, and AI problems was
still the biggest complaint, even of CPR fans. In fact, the top 2 requests
for patch #2 from CPR users submitting to the excellent CPR fan site The
Apex([link lost in import] were improved AI(183 votes) and Full
Course Yellows(115 votes).
(8) On 1/15/1998 it was announced that Terminal Reality joined forces with
G.O.D. (Gathering of Developers), and everyone wondered what that would mean
for the promised contiuned support and committment to the CPR product by the
developers. However, around 1/26/1998, well after the G.O.D. announcement,
Dean Lester posted the following to The APEX([link lost in import]
message board regarding future patches:
"Hi Marc,
Thanks for your posting.
We are constantly looking for ways to bring CPR closer to the "ideal" sim
but everyone's opinions differ on what that means.
If John would like to compile a list of suggestions for a new patch we would
be happy to look into it.
The first patch was created based on the feedback we received and was
released within a month<****Editors note - Actually 2 Months****> or so of
the game coming out and I know that many people recognized their suggestions
in version 1.01. We are listening.
CPR is a strong version 1 (and has received great reviews) but we know we
can always do more. Just tell us what you want.
Best Regards,
Dean."
So, in other words, at least at that time it would seem like they were still
planning on trying to support the product with possible future patches.
(9) On 2/25/1998 the Track Editor for CPR was released. This is by far the
best thing released for CPR, but only because there are so many talented and
giving individuals out there who have developed and distributed for free all
the updates and new tracks for the game. I'll give MS/TRI points for
releasing that, but it still does not address or fix, or forgive CPR's
inherent problems.
In conclusion, given the facts above it really does not matter whether there
is a logical, rational explanation for the fact that CPR will probably never
be fixed by any more patches or support by MS/TRI. We, as the users who
spent money and time on the game, are the losers. We will never see the CPR
that was hyped by Microsoft, CART, CART drivers, and commercial ***
magazines. CPR did not even deliver what was promised on the box the game
came in. Now all we can do is wait to see what Papyrus can give us with CART
3(1999, 2000, or whatever it is going to be called). Besides, isn't it more
fun to think that all this has to do with "conspiracies"? Have you ever
noticed how Bill Gates and the Smoking Man are never in the same room at the
same time? Mulder?.........
Don Chapman
Don, thanks for reminding everyone of the real history of the CPR mess,
including my own letters to Dean Lester and his replies. You have
accurately documented what happened and I agree with you 100%.
Bottom-line: CPR is a seriously flawed and unfinished product, but one with
a ton of potential. A company with more resources than any other driving
sim. producer or publisher put their name on the title and promised us all
that they would fix the glaring and obvious problems with patches. They
failed to follow-through and left all purchasers of CPR with a seriously
flawed and unfinished product, albeit one that still has a lot of potential.
Mr. Fisher's comments are bizarre to say the least, given his personal
involvement with the title and his history here on r.a.s. I am not a
Microsoft basher, and those who were here and at the Apex will remember my
pleas to the crowd to not raise conspiracy theories regarding CPR--just to
work with Dean et al to patch the thing and make it as satisfactory as
possible to all of us. That is/was a daunting task on its own--no need to
raise the noise level for those involved by carping about some monopoly
story from 1987 that proves that today Microsoft is the most evil entity on
the planet. However, Microsoft, in its often-blundering fashion, stepped
right into the pile of shit and proved that the majority view on r.a.s. was
correct: that even before CPR was released, it was predicted that Microsoft
would not have the stomach to fix the serious flaws evident in the demo. So
long as Microsoft keeps proving their detractors right, they have no one to
blame but themselves for their woes.
A couple of closing points: any discussion of TRI is useless. They were
contractors who were paid to do something--if they didn't do it, Microsoft
has lots of legal help at its disposal to make sure they get what they
contracted for. They could have done some of the work themselves or paid
someone else to do it if TRI was unavailable (for whatever reason). (Arne
Martin has managed to single-handedly improve the accuracy of almost every
track in CPR with virtually zero resources other than his own
brain-power--Microsoft could have hired a couple of people in that capacity
and polished the game 200% for about 20 seconds worth of their profits).
We are the stupid ones: everyone who purchased CPR got seriously ripped-off
and we are here blathering to each other. Remember my attempt to get Dean
Lester to agree that refunds would be given to purchasers if Microsoft
failed to deliver what was advertised on the outside of the box? Of course
they failed and of course Mr. Lester would not commit to that--he cleverly
ignored that issue each time it was raised. Instead of talking here, demand
your money back (the full, original price) from Microsoft. Why would a
company bother to do what they say or produce a good product when even the
most sophisticated and dedicated fans are capitalistic pansies? Caveat
emptor. (I have kept my copy solely for the enjoyment of the new tracks
being produced by a couple of fan-geniuses--MS can thank them for my $50).
Speaking of new tracks: the joke of advertising a track editor--something
that some of us have been dying for--and then releasing a virtually
incomprehensible, buggy, as user-unfriendly-as you-could-get "editor" was
just the icing on the stale cake.
Yes Mr. Fisher there were people here who were unfairly and unreasonably
(off-topic) bashing Microsoft regarding CPR, but they turned out to be
right, didn't they. No one is more dissappointed about that than me, but
they were right, weren't they.......
Marc.
Don Chapman wrote in message <6rh46a$[email hidden]>...
patch
>for CPR. The bottom line facts are this:
>(1)Microsoft/TRI released an unbelieveably flawed 1st version of CPR the
>beginning of November 1997: Unplayable AI on ovals and most road courses,
>poor D3D performance on all but the highest end machines(Keep in mind the
>CPR box shows RECOMMENDED settings of P166, 32mb, and 3D accelerator, which
"realistically
committed
>to the product long-term. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that
>2 of the CPR developers bothered to post help and info in r.a.s, and I even
>received some feedback on steering control problems from Dean at 3:00am, but
>much of what they were doing was actually providing damage control for a
>bugged filled, unfinished product. I also beliveve that Dean and Eric did
>want to make the product the best they could, and my guess is they would not
>have personally released the game in such a sad state, but it sure makes a
>"Microsoft says release the game for Christmas no matter what" conspiracy
>theory not to unbelieveable. In fact, a check of Deja News provides this
>direct quote from Dean Lester on 11/9/1997 before the game was even
>released, "The feedback from *everyone* is being considered - trial and GOLD
>users.
>Should have some good news for you soon. Patch is going well. fyi CPR should
>be on the shelves earlier than expected - perhaps as early as this week." I
>mean come on, they were working on a patch before the game was even
>released. Also, don't give me the excuse that every game is released this
>way and its just industry practice. That does not excuse releasing a beta or
but
personally
add),
...
read more »
Quoted text (8 lines)
>David G Fisher wrote in message ><6rgm9o$[email hidden]>... >>I keep hearing people take shots at MS and CPR because there was not a >>second patch. Have any of you regulars considered any other reason except >>the one which you apparently NEED to believe which is "MS could care less >>about it's customers, it just wants to sell software and make a product". >Really, I could care less about what the actual reasons are for no 2ndQuoted text (25 lines)
>was a joke as I can attest from experience), no control of your car in the >PITS, terrible steering control and sensitivity, no full course yellows no >matter how severe the pile-up, and no tire temps settings. In its inital >release, CPR was really only good for some hot-lapping and maybe some >multiplayer on the Internet Gaming Zone(the only reason I actually still >have CPR to this day). >(2) Immediately upon release, Eric Straub, the producer of CPR, was in the >r.a.s. newsgroup admitting to many of these problems and even trying to >provide temporary solutions to the AI shortcomings like the following: >"You've encountered a problem that several people on RAS have also found. >The AI in CART is not great on most ovals. We're working on a patch now to >address this. In the meantime, you can try the following: >1) Racing other people at www.zone.com. Real people are better than AI >2) Race other tracks. Miami has decent AI perf. On the road courses, the AI >is much better (although still not perfect)." >Uh, keep in mind the CPR box states the following on the back "Compete >against CART cars controlled by exacting artificial intelligence. Rolling >starts, daring passes, and fully animated pit stops are all realistically >modeled." >I guess they forgot to mention that "The AI in CART is not great on most >ovals" on the back of the box. Oh yeah, and the pit stops areQuoted text (7 lines)
>modeled", but you have no control of your car once you enter the pit lane. >(3) Again in r.a.s., CPR producer Eric Straub announced, "We intend to >continously raise the bar >with future versions." Dean Lester, also of the CPR development team, asked >for feedback and reccomendations for the upcoming patch from r.a.s, and >pleaded with buyers to stick with the product as Microsoft/TRI areQuoted text (9 lines)
>alpha product, and having the buying public become the "unpaid" testers. >Even though Indycar 2, Nascar 2, and F1RS, have all required patches to get >them closer to perfection, each one of those titles are infinitely more >playable out of the box in their unpatched versions than CPR is. >(4) Once things got hot in r.a.s regarding the problems with CPR, Dean >posted the following, "OK guys - I think that's about it for me on ras. My >patience has run out. I'm joining the other sim publishers and leaving you >to it. Sorry." Granted, people do get pretty rude and unpolite in r.a.s,Quoted text (8 lines)
>as far as CPR is concerned, I think much of that negativity was because of >how poor CPR was in its initial release - especially after all the hype and >press that was generated leading up to its release. >(5) However, given all the problems with CPR, and overall negative feelings >in the r.a.s. community(I know some people liked it, but I am talking about >the overall feeling. Plus, all the negatives mentioned above are really >pretty much fact. The development team recognized them, and I canQuoted text (18 lines)
>provide replays and benchmarks to back it up), amazingly positive reviews >began to appear on commercial gaming sites and magazines. Some of the most >ridiculous are listed below: >-Computer Gaming World gave 5/5 stars and awarded CPR co-Sports Game of the >Year >http://www.gamespot.com/driving/cart/review_cgw.html >-PCME gave 92% http://www.pcme.com/action/cart/cart.htm >-The Adrenaline Vault gave 41/2 out of 5 stars >http://www.avault.com/reviews/cart1.asp >All these reviews failed to mention any of the major shortcomings, and in >fact all 3 praised the AI. And these were all reviews of the original >unpatched version!! >(6) Two months after the game was released(and after Christmas I mightQuoted text (12 lines)
>the first beta patch for CPR was finally released as announced by Dean on >1/7/1998, "Please send us your feedback on this (beta) patch ASAP. In >particular we'd like to know:- >1) Frame rate changes on your system >2) AI improvements >3) Steering stability" >(7) Then on 1/10/1998, the last, final, and only patch for CPR was released >to the general public. AI improved somewhat, steering improved, frame rates >improved a little, and control in the pits was an option, but there were >still no full course yellows, or tire temp readings, and AI problems was >still the biggest complaint, even of CPR fans.>You (TRI/MS) admit that the first patch was a flake. That doesn't much
>good for your credibility.
I'm not an employee of MS or TRI.
Dave
DmndDave
>>You (TRI/MS) admit that the first patch was a flake. That doesn't much
>>good for your credibility.
>I'm not an employee of MS or TRI.
I know. With "You" I ment (TRI/MS). That's why I add the brackets.
Didn't work, though. BTW, I do respect you, for defending your
opinion.
Remco
Well, you are at least a beta tester. To be honest, I have as much faith in your claim
as I do in MS's words!
> I'm not an employee of MS or TRI.
Don, thanks for reminding everyone of the real history of the CPR mess,
including my own letters to Dean Lester and his replies. You have
accurately documented what happened and I agree with you 100%.
Bottom-line: CPR is a seriously flawed and unfinished product, but one with
a ton of potential. A company with more resources than any other driving
sim. producer or publisher put their name on the title and promised us all
that they would fix the glaring and obvious problems with patches. They
failed to follow-through and left all purchasers of CPR with a seriously
flawed and unfinished product, albeit one that still has a lot of potential.
Mr. Fisher's comments are bizarre to say the least, given his personal
involvement with the title and his history here on r.a.s. I am not a
Microsoft basher, and those who were here and at the Apex will remember my
pleas to the crowd to not raise conspiracy theories regarding CPR--just to
work with Dean et al to patch the thing and make it as satisfactory as
possible to all of us. That is/was a daunting task on its own--no need to
raise the noise level for those involved by carping about some monopoly
story from 1987 that proves that today Microsoft is the most evil entity on
the planet. However, Microsoft, in its often-blundering fashion, stepped
right into the pile of shit and proved that the majority view on r.a.s. was
correct: that even before CPR was released, it was predicted that Microsoft
would not have the stomach to fix the serious flaws evident in the demo. So
long as Microsoft keeps proving their detractors right, they have no one to
blame but themselves for their woes.
A couple of closing points: any discussion of TRI is useless. They were
contractors who were paid to do something--if they didn't do it, Microsoft
has lots of legal help at its disposal to make sure they get what they
contracted for. They could have done some of the work themselves or paid
someone else to do it if TRI was unavailable (for whatever reason). (Arne
Martin has managed to single-handedly improve the accuracy of almost every
track in CPR with virtually zero resources other than his own
brain-power--Microsoft could have hired a couple of people in that capacity
and polished the game 200% for about 20 seconds worth of their profits).
We are the stupid ones: everyone who purchased CPR got seriously ripped-off
and we are here blathering to each other. Remember my attempt to get Dean
Lester to agree that refunds would be given to purchasers if Microsoft
failed to deliver what was advertised on the outside of the box? Of course
they failed and of course Mr. Lester would not commit to that--he cleverly
ignored that issue each time it was raised. Instead of talking here, demand
your money back (the full, original price) from Microsoft. Why would a
company bother to do what they say or produce a good product when even the
most sophisticated and dedicated fans are capitalistic pansies? Caveat
emptor. (I have kept my copy solely for the enjoyment of the new tracks
being produced by a couple of fan-geniuses--MS can thank them for my $50).
Speaking of new tracks: the joke of advertising a track editor--something
that some of us have been dying for--and then releasing a virtually
incomprehensible, buggy, as user-unfriendly-as you-could-get "editor" was
just the icing on the stale cake.
Yes Mr. Fisher there were people here who were unfairly and unreasonably
(off-topic) bashing Microsoft regarding CPR, but they turned out to be
right, didn't they. No one is more disappointed about that than me, but
they were right, weren't they.......
Marc.
Don Chapman wrote in message <6rh46a$[email hidden]>...
patch
>for CPR. The bottom line facts are this:
>(1)Microsoft/TRI released an unbelieveably flawed 1st version of CPR the
>beginning of November 1997: Unplayable AI on ovals and most road courses,
>poor D3D performance on all but the highest end machines(Keep in mind the
>CPR box shows RECOMMENDED settings of P166, 32mb, and 3D accelerator, which
"realistically
committed
>to the product long-term. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that
>2 of the CPR developers bothered to post help and info in r.a.s, and I even
>received some feedback on steering control problems from Dean at 3:00am, but
>much of what they were doing was actually providing damage control for a
>bugged filled, unfinished product. I also beliveve that Dean and Eric did
>want to make the product the best they could, and my guess is they would not
>have personally released the game in such a sad state, but it sure makes a
>"Microsoft says release the game for Christmas no matter what" conspiracy
>theory not to unbelieveable. In fact, a check of Deja News provides this
>direct quote from Dean Lester on 11/9/1997 before the game was even
>released, "The feedback from *everyone* is being considered - trial and GOLD
>users.
>Should have some good news for you soon. Patch is going well. fyi CPR should
>be on the shelves earlier than expected - perhaps as early as this week." I
>mean come on, they were working on a patch before the game was even
>released. Also, don't give me the excuse that every game is released this
>way and its just industry practice. That does not excuse releasing a beta or
but
personally
add),
...
read more »
