AMA Superbike first release is a first attempt

Sorry for the long post. I think it is important to know what position we took on the game. I know that we can not make everyone happy but we are still going to try. Also the game really likes a lot of CPU power. I have noticed that it is a better experience with a 16 plus mb card. Also this game is not going away. We are going to stay with it and keep developing it. That is the awesome part of an online sim. The design of the online game will allow the racers to: Qualify Race Determine winner Your race stats are sent to your personal web page real time for all to see. So there is a *whole* lot comming from the online side of the game! AMA Superbike is loaded with features from real life motorcycle physics. When Motorsims began creating the physics we decided to begin with a *full* 14 degree of freedom physics model. We realized immediately the difficulty in driving this model. You would have to keep the bike balanced or it would fall over. If you leaned into a turn the bike would fall. The two gyros (created by two spinning wheels) are an incredible effect to control. We made a design decision from the beginning to make the game more drivable. The game needed to be competitive to race straight out of the box. In the offline version the A.I. is at an easy level. To turn it up go the Riders/Realism menu in the U.I. Motorsims wanted to create a game for all to play (race). We are staring a large online racing community. This community will be players of all skill levels. We will have the more difficult models available throughout the end of the year. What we can tell right off is that *most* of the players testing enjoy the easier models. We wanted the players to race the track and not just be worried about crashing. It is definitely more exciting to race than to crash. I know not all will agree here but our sales will show the truth. GPL is probably the finest sim I have ever played. But its sales are short of what Motorsims is expecting. I can tell you that we will have a *World Appeal*. David Sadowski, Jamie Hacking, and Scott Russell have all played the game. Ben Bostrom, Eric Bostrum, and Tommy and Nicky Haden have all seen the game. They (and others around the track) say we have hit it on the head. At this point we decided to add limits for game play. Now it is assumed that your rider can keep the bike balanced and knows how far he/she can lean it over. This also applies to several other areas like wheelies (that you do not hit the accelerator and get tossed on your back). Do not misunderstand us here, too fast into a corner and you become a geologist (If you have low sides turned on). By default the low sides are turned off. To turn them on go to the Riders/Realism menu in the U.I. This will make the game 100% harder turned on. The whole idea here is to allow a player to advance from beginner to intermediate to expert to pro. You begin the game with the easiest model. What you will be able to realize immediately is there is an awesome physics model built into the game. Some areas to look for: (note that for the best experience you will need to ride in the***pit mode) The rider moves up and down. This is plus or minus 15% aerodynamic drag. This allows you to sit up before a corner and "catch air" (slowing you down) and tuck deep in the***pit for the straight. It can be manually configured in the "Advanced Options" screen of the U.I. The rear tire on a Superbike can spin at any time. There is about 160 hp to about 355 lbs. of total bike weight. This is about a 2 to 1 hp to weight ratio. You will need to master the art of feeding horsepower to the rear wheels. Note that in the upper left of the screen there is a tire meter (blue at first). As you ride your bike these meters turn colors. Green is the best and red is slick putty. Also notice we took the tire meter one (or three) step forward. There are three sides to a tire. We have modeled the left/center/right sides of the tire. This will tell you exactly what temperature each part of the tire is at. For instance, if you have a racetrack like The Colonel's Brainerd International Raceway, you will notice the race track turns mostly to the right. This means that after a couple of laps the right side of the tire gets nicely up to temperature. However the left side is cool. This means that your right turns get great traction and you will have to be extra careful on lefts. Extra fun! As you go into a turn your eyes (not head) look slightly into the turn. This allows for better passing and overall awareness in the turns. This is also adjustable in the Riders/Realism part of the UI. As you ride around for the first time press the number 6 key and drive around. You can see how the bike sets into the turns. Awesome! **IMPORTANT** You will quickly see that too fast into a corner and the bike does not steer well and you are off into the grass looking at all of those beautiful rocks. Some still on you face. A Superbike has two wheels. They ride on a patch of *** that is about as wide as your palm of your hand. The maximum g-force is only about 1 to 1.2 g's in the turn. The proper way to go around the racetrack is to slow for the corner, make the turn and get the bike back up and put the power down. This will take a few tries but you will quickly get the hang of it. The next step is go into the options menu and the to the advanced options. We have created a completely adjustable control options menu. The sliders represent your control's axis. You can use the three different curves or make up your own. (Warning here, you have on some axis like the steering, you will need to make sure one goes left and one goes right or it will not work) The incredible part of the controller setup is that it can support up to 8 devices for a total of 32 axis and 96 buttons! This will allow the racer to automate some of the axis while manually controlling others. You will need to experiment to find the perfect setup. Just another way to get up close and personal on the racetrack. Usually most people want to get their rider "pitch" on a separate axis. This will allow you to control your rider independently. Now you can get your rider up early before a turn and back down around the center of the apex. This will make a huge difference in lap times. Also the rider left/right lean on the same axis as your left/right steering will allow you to get more out of the turn. (Just like a real rider leans off the bike in a turn). Once you turn it on you will see the effect. You will need to adjust it to your riding style. (Also be aware this effects the physics model) Another tip is to put the rear brake on a separate axis (or even map it to a button or key). Most Superbike riders only use the front brake. You will immediately see the better control while braking. Note: save your setups before you leave and then name them. In the garage you will find the complete ability to change your bike settings as well as your gears. You will need to experiment some to find that perfect setup. Once again save your setups and name them, as you will need to load them again. You will have a different setup for each track. Note that in AMA Superbike you can change every gear in your transmission. However in the 600SS classes you can only change the front and rear sprockets. AMA Superbike also has real corner workers. Fully animated. These corner workers will follow actual AMA rules. Let's say you cut a corner. The corner worker will actually point at you and flag you for a restart! Keeps it real and will be a large part of our online series racing. It's better than going out and hiring locals to call the race. We have a series starting up. All I can ask is to give it a try. Who knows some you may like it. [link lost in import] [link lost in import] It has been known that after 10-15 laps the game becomes ***ing. Have fun and enjoy. Charles Joyner Executive Producer --

Charles Joyner <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Sorry for the long post. I think it is important to know what > position we took on the game. I know that we can not make > everyone happy but we are still going to try. Also the game > really likes a lot of CPU power. I have noticed that it is a better > experience with a 16 plus mb card. Also this game is not going > away. We are going to stay with it and keep developing it. > That is the awesome part of an online sim.

Or another way of saying more patches may follow. > So there is a *whole* lot comming from the online side of > the game! When? Quite honestly why should we believe you? AMA Superbike was announced at Bike Week '99 with an initial ship date of Spring. That quickly became summer and then fall. Fall has come and a boxed version is indeed out but the overall quality of it suggests a rushed product. Major promised features are missing. Tracks are missing, bikes are missing. Now we have promises of more to come, do you see the pattern? > AMA Superbike is loaded with features from real life motorcycle > physics. When Motorsims began creating the physics we decided > to begin with a *full* 14 degree of freedom physics model. We > realized immediately the difficulty in driving this model. You would > have to keep the bike balanced or it would fall over. Then your initial model was flawed to begin with. I've got tape of at least a half dozen crashes where a motorcycle ejects the rider only to carry on upright without him into the nearest stationary object. Rotating wheels have a strong tendency to remain upright, your model should have reflected this. > We made a design decision from the beginning to make the game > more drivable. I have a few problems with this: 1) A better approach would have been to more accurately capture the physics involved. 2) Drivability can be accomplished independent of scaling back the underlying physics model. > In the offline version the A.I. is at an easy level. To turn it up go > the Riders/Realism menu in the U.I. I did, they have a strong desire to cut corners without consequence when another bike is near them. This makes any attempt to take their line away for the next corner an exercise in futility. This is a basic passing strategy that is sorely missed in the offline version and completely shatters the suspension of disbelief. > Motorsims wanted to create a game for all to play (race). Are you saying that not everyone can learn how to race a motorcycle when the risk of injury due to crash is removed? I reject this notion completely. It is also at odds with the title of the game - AMA Superbike Racing. If you wanted to craft a game that was easy for beginners then why did you pick a subject to model that requires some degree of skill? Why not just call it Need For Speed Bikes? > We will have the more difficult models available throughout the > end of the year. Can you be more specific? > What we can tell right off is that *most* of the players testing > enjoy the easier models. I don't think you have been reading your beta test message boards then. The positive/negative messages under the physics folder seem split rather evenly. > We wanted the players to race the track and not just be worried > about crashing. Don't you think that is a somewhat irresponsible attitude? Motorcycling is dangerous, very dangerous, it should be portrayed as such in any product that claims to be a simulation. Your product simply does not do that. The only real way to crash in AMA Superbike Racing is to go offtrack while leaned over with lowsides on. Once you do crash you are immediately put back into the fray. There is no damage to the bike, there is no damage to the rider, it is nothing but a minor inconvience and having raced online in other games where that is the case I can tell you firsthand that races quickly degenerate into entities that bear no resemblence to the real thing. > It is definitely more exciting to race than to crash. Well, for a few days at least until the initial novelty wears off (and yes I have run a 1:36 at Brainerd). > GPL is probably the finest sim I have ever played. But its sales are > short of what Motorsims is expecting. What percentage of the people that did buy GPL would call themselves satisfied customers? What percentage would buy a GPL2 or a GPL track pack? What percentage of the GPL physics engine will make it's way into future Papyrus products? There is more to the success of a game than initial sales. As a company whose core comes from the flight sim side of gaming I would think that you would have grasped that by now. > At this point we decided to add limits for game play. Now it is assumed > that your rider can keep the bike balanced and knows how far he/she > can lean it over. This also applies to several other areas like wheelies > (that you do not hit the accelerator and get tossed on your back). So what then would you say the challenge is? Learning the racing line? That only holds my attention for a few days. > Do not misunderstand us here, too fast into a corner and you become > a geologist (If you have low sides turned on). You are incorrect here, one cannot lowside on the tarmac in your game. It only seems to apply to the grass, gravel, and sand and strangely it only occurs when transitioning from tarmac to either of the above. Once successfully in the grass it becomes rather hard to provoke a crash. > By default the low sides are turned off. To turn them on go to the > Riders/Realism menu in the U.I. This will make the game 100% > harder turned on. I failed to see any increase in difficulty when keeping to the racing line. > The whole idea here is to allow a player to advance from beginner to > intermediate to expert to pro. You begin the game with the easiest > model. You have already told me that they only thing I can do is turn on lowsides. Where are the remaining levels of difficulty coming from? > What you will be able to realize immediately is there is an awesome > physics model built into the game. I fail to see this in your product: The bike wheelies under normal acceleration far too easy when the rider has his weight shifted all the way forward. They can also be provoked to last indefinitely in any gear you like at nearly any constant speed you like. When a wheelie finally does end the rear tire raises up off the ground as the front touches down. It is also possible to steer with the front wheel off the ground with the rider perfectly centered on the bike. Lastly is is possible to wheelie with the rear tire spinning wildly (yet in a perfectly straight line). There is no bar shake under heavy front braking nor does there appear to be any consequence of locking the front brake up regardless of what type of steering input one provides. Indeed one can push a locked front tire with a spinning (yet once again not sliding) rear while turning in a rather tight radius circle at low speed (with lowsides on). There is no tail wag when the rear is locked once again regardless of steering input. With the bike at a dead stop, engage the rear brake completely and then pin the throttle - watch the bike slowly creep forward despite the rear wheel not moving (my personal favorite example of Motorsims physics gone badly wrong). Is the rear brake stronger than the motor? <Warning - DO NOT try this at home> The rear doesn't squirm under hard acceleration including when done so in dirt, grass, or sand. High sides are completely nonexistant. The rear will step out and remain hung in a spinning position for as long as one likes. Engine braking appears nonexistant. Premature downshifting doesn't cause wheel hop either when using the clutch or when not. The clutch itself isn't very progressive, yet when you drop the clutch into first from a standing start with the bike redlined the rear doesn't start spinning nor does the bike jump. When you do the same with the bike in sixth the bike doesn't stall, lurch, or otherwise indicate any disatisfaction with your stupidity. Pulling the clutch in while cornering (shutting the bike down) doesn't gain you any result either. There is no neutral, there is no danger of getting a false neutral. The bikes tend to bounce off of curbs, the bikes bounce off of each other. The bikes suffer no mechanical breakdown nor any damage during crashes. Flag marshalls hang their flags over apexes provoking odd crashes. There is absolutely no resemblence to real motorcycle racing with respect to the sheer 'violence' of the sport. It is hard if not impossible to get a bike onto the ragged edge of control - everything has been smoothed out to such a degree as to take away the challenge and fun. The list of physics related errors goes on and on. Add to the above the lack of feautres that would make this a truly full featured game: There is no weather, there is no debris, there is no oil, radiator fluid, or any other substance that reduces the available amount of grip. The is no tire smoke. There are no pits stops (no Daytona pretty much assures this though), there are no red flags or race restarts. There are no sighting laps, there is no warm-up lap, there is no danger of jumping the start. Race weekends aren't properly simulated, the Big Kahuna national isn't properly simulated either. There are informational errors in the game (the info for Supersport machines is wrong, a couple of the factoids are wrong). The game allows you to choose the tire compound for Supersport bikes despite the class running on D.O.T tires (there are no hard/soft/medium Dunlop D207 GP variants). The Harley has come up missing. There is no replay facility. There is no telemetry. > The rider moves up and down. This is plus or minus 15% aerodynamic drag. > This allows you to sit up before a corner and "catch air" (slowing you down) > and tuck deep in the cockpit for the straight. It can be manually configured > in the ... read more »

bunch o' stuff snipped You summed up my feelings very well.I'm extremely disappointed with AMA SB,I gave it a fair chance these past couple of months,but it seems GPL scared the hell out of some developers from doing a true simulation,instead we get dumbed down arcade racers. :((

Hey, it's a new company and a new game, give it a chance. Also, you can try the game for free and decide if you want to buy it or not. Also, the people of Motorsims have stated time and time again that upgrades would be available often. How many times have you seen people from the game companies actually reading what you post here? Philster

I have only one thing to say to Motorsims, GP500 !

Quoted text (12 lines)

>bunch o' stuff snipped >> Sorry, GPL has spoiled me, after 10 - 15 laps I was pretty much bored >> with AMA Superbike Racing. Fortunately I didn't have to spend any >> money to reach this conclusion. >> - George >You summed up my feelings very well.I'm extremely disappointed with AMA SB,I >gave it a fair chance these past couple of months,but it seems GPL scared the >hell out of some developers from doing a true simulation,instead we get dumbed >down arcade racers. :((

Somehow, I think you probably said the same thing about GPL initially.

>> Sorry, GPL has spoiled me, after 10 - 15 laps I was pretty much bored >> with AMA Superbike Racing. > Somehow, I think you probably said the same thing about GPL initially. Actually I played GPL all night, called in sick the next morning and proceeded to play it the entire next day with very little in the way of breaks. Since then I play it nearly everyday, online and offline. I've won the drivers championship twice at the GP level and now that my cable modem has settled down I'm starting to do some league racing. The only bad thing I've ever had to say about GPL was the Banshee texture corruption feature which I fixed on my own at a considerable expense of time (later making the fix available to all 3dfx GPLers). Many months later Papyrus contacted me about the the patch and I spent another day of my time helping them sort it out in the GPL 1.1 patch. Currently I'm working on my own version of GPal, but with Jack Rambo apparently alive and kicking that side project may give way to more racing. Interesting work though. So, I guess my point is my GPL 'rapture' knows no bounds. As for AMA Superbike, I have been taking part in their second closed beta again at expense of my own personal time and everything I wrote in my previous post I wrote to them on their beta feedback boards months before the game actually shipped. I've been there from RC1 to the current RC8, providing feedback on what they have as well as being critical when it comes to what they don't have. Those that are willing to accept what they have on the promise of more to come should be damn sure they like what they have. - George

Hi, Yes Im sorry but I didn't mean post such as yours. As I said there is constructive criticism & there is childish whining that doesn't help at all. What I was trying to get across is this........... If a company take the time to make a sim for us & take the time to monitor the sim community then the LEAST we simmers could do is be somewhat objective & polite. I sometimes feel that if other developers took a look at what goes on here they would feel who needs this and not even try to make simulations. Or worse yet make a poor product & then not ask for feedback. Then who will be the losers? As you say below the way you went about it is fine. I should have mentioned in my previous post that not all posters here are whiners. Thanks, Mike http://www.aloha.net/~flying/ P.S. Sorry about the fake reply address ;-) Just tired of SPAM Real folks can reach me at....... flying<at>aloha<dot>net

Hi Joe, Well thanks but I should have also mentioned that not all simmers here post useless whining. Many like yourself do post useful critisisms were due. I hope all here didnt take my post to imply otherwise ;-) Btw: awhile back you & I had discussed EA Superbike & GP500 after your comments I finally got a copy of EA SBK. You were right it is a fine sim with excellent track representation. Overall I enjoy it very much. Thanks for the tip! -- Mike [link lost in import: /~flying/] P.S. Sorry about the fake reply address ;-) Just tired of SPAM Real folks can reach me at....... flying<at>aloha<dot>net

Thats a shame. I can think of many things wrong in GPL. Shall we start with collision detection both in single player and online modes? Yeah, pretty bad. How about the way GPL handles crashes? Kinda like AMA at this point, not very well at all. Lets see. Oh yeah, lets talk about the fact that the graphics engine is prone to literally drawing two cars over the top of each other. An example is when racing side by side, the engine sometimes overlaps a right/left front wheel and paints it on top of the chassis of my car. Whats the point? Its not to critisize GPL at all. I love GPL, drive it as much as I can. Yet, rather, if you look, not even that hard, you can find bad points about everything. Well, thats at least positive news as far as GPal and GPL goes. Got his email address?

I don't think this was called for at all. You're assuming that just because we haven't updated the game withing 48 hours of hitting the shelves that we never will. As for some of your other comments. I've said several times in several places that Harley wouldn't grant us a license for the VR. We built the bike, modelled it's performance, sampled the engine sound, everything. But in the end they said "no." Same kind of deal on Daytona. They simply wouldn't offer licensing terms that made financial sense to us. Not even for Phoenix (which ISC also owns). Unlike other game companies who have no ties to the racing community, we *have to* do things by the book because we are partners with the AMA. So I'm sorry if you're disappointed that those items aren't in the game but these were issues that were simply beyond our control. -MSM -- __________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller "Be regular and orderly in your life, Director of Design that you may be *** and original Motorsport Simulations in your work." [link lost in import]

> Well thanks but I should have also mentioned that not >all simmers here post useless whining. Absolutely! And contructivbe criticism is even more valubale with a company like Motorsims that is here responding to poeple, and with a solid plan in place to improve things over time. It is good eh? Too bad the AI wasn't a bit more challenging, that's why I eventually stopped playing it. Joe McGinn ========================================== Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network [link lost in import: /***.com/] ==========================================

No I'm not assuming anything other than we live in a world were marketing claims should be meet with a large amount of skepticism. Please tell me why you think that assumption is incorrect both in general and with respect to your company. Very well, I can certainly grant that any endeavor that requires lawyers is prone to end up in disappointment. Unfortunately, you have done little to answer the many comments/questions I have made/raised about things that are directly under your control. - George

> How about the way GPL handles crashes? Kinda like AMA at > this point, not very well at all. Not really, the AMA model is very much bounce orientated without any damage. In GPL a crash can and will end your day (host willing) as in real life. Big difference there. But of course. Unfortunately it wasn't much a challenge to dig deep and find faults with AMA Superbike Racing. The problems with the physics (the bulk of my post) are readily apparent. I listed them, if you find them in error please comment on them, if you think they aren't requisites for a game claiming 'realistic physics' then please say so. However comparing AMA Superbike to GPL or AMA Superbike to WSBK of GP500 isn't something I'm interested in doing. Comparing AMA Superbike Racing to the actual AMA Superbike series is. In that comparison (for me at least) the game currently fails. - George

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I don't think this was called for at all. You're assuming that just > > because we haven't updated the game withing 48 hours of hitting > > the shelves that we never will. > No I'm not assuming anything other than we live in a world were > marketing claims should be meet with a large amount of > skepticism. Please tell me why you think that assumption is > incorrect both in general and with respect to your company.

First of all ... I'm *not* a marketing person. I'm not new to online ***. I'm not new to technology. I'm not new to the joys of newsgroups. All I ask is you consider the source before making assumptions. I understand where you're coming from, but you're dealing with development here - not marketing. If you and I met offline I'd probably agree with most of your comments, and could explain in detail why a lot of things ended up as they did. In this forum, though, I must exercise "restrained candor." I hope you can read between the lines here. -MSM -- __________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller "Be regular and orderly in your life, Director of Design that you may be *** and original Motorsport Simulations in your work." [link lost in import]

I only made one assumption and that assumption was in reference to a conversation I had with the V.P. of your company - a person I'm far more likely to associate with marketing than I am development. Additionally, you seem to be living in a perfect world where marketing has little to no impact on the work developers do (yet you hint the very opposite at the end of your reply). As a customer I am not dealing with one or the other, I am dealing with more than both. In the reality of that arrangment your game is on the shelf selling for $39.95 and my comments were made about the contents of that game independent of whether it may or may not improve in the future with promised upgrades. If it does, great - I'll amend my 'review' of AMA Superbike Racing. If not I won't. Regardless, that is the future and I can only deal with the present and past. Likewise a customer who buys the boxed version has a limited amount of time he/she can take it back to the store for a refund, in light of that waiting for an upgrade may not be the best thing for that customer to do. I'm not looking for explanations, I'm looking for acknowledgement. So far the only responses I have heard are along the lines of we like are physics, our physics are better than game X, our suberb physics are hamstrung by a player friendly input model, and so on. Can't you see how these defensive responses are disheartening to someone who is looking for improvement? To that person, the promise of change is rather empty since the problems they perceive as being there aren't even being openly acknowledged. There are problems in your physics model, they are real, I have listed them in great detail, in my opinion fixing them will do nothing in the way of making the game truly harder for the neophyte who just wants to race online against his buddies It isn't an attack on your company, it isn't meant to defame you or your abilites. I simply want to see a product out there that does the AMA series justice. - George

Would you prefer that we insist that the game is perfect and any slight problems will be addressed in a version update some number of months down the road? I don't think so. We're being very direct about what's going on here. As direct as is possible, I think. We have a version update coming for the weekend which addresses a bunch of stuff you mentioned earlier. More will come later. I merely took exception to the assumption that we weren't committed to the product long-term. We spent big bucks on this T3 line to support our online players. We spent big bucks on Castanet technology to allow us to update our customers as frequently as possible. So, sitting from my seat it's kind of hard to accept your statement - because I see all the work that went into building the infrastructure to *constantly* improve the game. I understand why you'd be skeptical. More than you know. Well, until you see what our "full difficulty" model felt like, it's kind of hard to make that call. Seriously - people would have freaked and been frustrated very quickly. If you think GPL has a razor's edge, you ain't seen nothing. It was *not* easy for us to put limits on things, or disable other things. We didn't want that. Same here. -MSM -- __________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller "Be regular and orderly in your life, Director of Design that you may be *** and original Motorsport Simulations in your work." [link lost in import]

email address?< I think I have it... ;)

I think it was pretty hard for the guys working on Trans Am Racing to accept that their project was cancelled and that they could now look forward to working on The Dukes Of Hazzard. Likewise I'm pretty sure the guys working on Babylon 5 really had a hard time accepting that their game will never see the light of day and their services were no longer required. Certainly it would be hard for you to accept that the game could fail and all that spent money could add up to nothing - your job depends on it. Mine doesn't though, so I'm free to take such unpleasant realities into account. Not that I wish such a fate on Motorsims nor am I advocating it. I'm just pointing out that from the perspective of a consumer promises of upgrades and continual improvement should be meet with skepticism regardless of the source. Looking forward to an upgrade, - George

Hallelujah George! Finally a rational customer voice with the understanding that the customer is king. MSM, I think we're all impressed with you're efforts here on RAS. However, the harsh buisiness reality is that I and many other motorcycle race fans purchased a Motorsims product for $39 which promised a "State-Of-The-Art Realistic Physics Model" which sure doesn't feel very realistic. You're in a tough position here having to be a company rep and an objective developer but I've heard enough "restrained candor" and defensive explanation. It's time to acknowledge, fix and deliver. The main thing I would like to see acknowledged is that Motorsim's current development process involves the customer after the sale way to much. There's nothing wrong with a company using the customer to help develop - it's called a DEMO... with a "use at your own risk" readme and a request for feedback. The expectation that people will provide constructive criticizm after the box is opened will put Motorsims into the wall faster than Matt Waite at the RA kink (sorry Matt). Your marketing dpt is sawing through the limb your standing on - stop bouncing up and down. Rich

Quoted text (50 lines)

> > First of all ... I'm *not* a marketing person. I'm not new to online > > ***. I'm not new to technology. I'm not new to the joys of > > newsgroups. All I ask is you consider the source before making > > assumptions. I understand where you're coming from, but you're > > dealing with development here - not marketing. > I only made one assumption and that assumption was in reference > to a conversation I had with the V.P. of your company - a person I'm > far more likely to associate with marketing than I am development. > Additionally, you seem to be living in a perfect world where marketing > has little to no impact on the work developers do (yet you hint the > very opposite at the end of your reply). As a customer I am not > dealing with one or the other, I am dealing with more than both. In > the reality of that arrangment your game is on the shelf selling for > $39.95 and my comments were made about the contents of > that game independent of whether it may or may not improve in > the future with promised upgrades. > If it does, great - I'll amend my 'review' of AMA Superbike Racing. > If not I won't. Regardless, that is the future and I can only deal > with the present and past. Likewise a customer who buys the > boxed version has a limited amount of time he/she can take it > back to the store for a refund, in light of that waiting for an > upgrade may not be the best thing for that customer to do. > > If you and I met offline I'd probably agree with most of your > > comments, and could explain in detail why a lot of things ended > > up as they did. In this forum, though, I must exercise "restrained > > candor." I hope you can read between the lines here. > I'm not looking for explanations, I'm looking for acknowledgement. > So far the only responses I have heard are along the lines of we > like are physics, our physics are better than game X, our suberb > physics are hamstrung by a player friendly input model, and so > on. > Can't you see how these defensive responses are disheartening to > someone who is looking for improvement? To that person, the > promise of change is rather empty since the problems they > perceive as being there aren't even being openly acknowledged. > There are problems in your physics model, they are real, I have > listed them in great detail, in my opinion fixing them will do > nothing in the way of making the game truly harder for the > neophyte who just wants to race online against his buddies It > isn't an attack on your company, it isn't meant to defame you > or your abilites. I simply want to see a product out there that > does the AMA series justice. > - George

Whoa. Our intent was *never* to have customers test the box they paid for. You think I'm *happy* that we shipped without replays? You think I'm enjoying these kinds of discussions? Look, here's the way we work. With most companies, you go buy a racing game and there it is. There are *always* problems ... be they bugs, be they eye candy that doesn't measure up, be they whatever. Always. No one makes a perfect game (GPL came as close as I've seen in this genre, but we all know it's shortcomings by now). So you ... the customer ... have to wait. Wait for a patch. Wait for the next version ... which you have to pay for. And most game companies you buy racing games from these days have been around a while. Now then, our model says you buy *or* download one of our games and you're in. Period. You get upgrades forever for free. We have in place the best of breed online update technology to make this so. We did this because we know up front that game technology does not stand still. That good ideas are always available. No matter how much we do right, there will always be things to improve or add. *That's* what we mean by "work in progress." We had to make some very, very difficult decisions coming down to the wire - some made people here very unhappy too. Now I've stated right up front that we f'ed up by not getting the demo out in time. I've also said up front that I wasn't going to argue with anyone who returned the game, or who would wait until they could download it first. You think I *don't* want us to have good box sales? Of course I want Motorsims to make money. But because the customer *is* king, my position here has been that if you folks aren't happy we'll try to fix it. The most I've asked for is that people not give up on us right away. But please, do not buy into the *** theory that these posts are some bizarre marketing strategy. Or that we intended to deceive anyone. That just ain't so. -MSM -- __________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller "Be regular and orderly in your life, Director of Design that you may be *** and original Motorsport Simulations in your work." [link lost in import]

What recourse does a boxed version customer have if after 30, 60, 90, 120 days the upgrades still do not bring the level of the game up to what they were expecting? I realize your business model is slanted towards a pay-per-play online service where the downloadable online only version of the game is free but it seems to me that that strategy has some fairly serious downsides to a boxed version customer. - George

And George, what recourse does one have after 30, 60, 90, 120 days of N3? When N3 is STILL based on an old driving engine of N1? At least AMA...after 120 you have a much better chance of getting an revised driving model or an improved one thats been tweaked.

>> What recourse does a boxed version customer have if after 30, >> 60, 90, 120 days the upgrades still do not bring the level of the >> game up to what they were expecting? > And George, what recourse does one have after 30, 60, 90, 120 days > of N3? When N3 is STILL based on an old driving engine of N1? N3 is sold as a finished product, i.e. what you buy is all that you are promised to get therefore I fail to see the relevance of your question. Maybe, maybe not, my question still remains - what recourse is left to the consumer if, after X number of upgrades, the game still fails to meet their expectations? - George

It did? If I remember right, it was supposed to come with updated physics [not GPL, so don't go there]. I don't feel I got my money's worth with their updated physics...so of course its relevant. Same recourses as any other game that may or may not be completely finished and polished. The other thing though, is if they don't like it...return it. Don't wait around. You can always get the online version if at a future date you wish to "check it out" and see if they have made improvements to it.

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:24:11 -0500, "Chris Schletter" >And George, what recourse does one have after 30, 60, 90, 120 days of N3? >When N3 is STILL based on an old driving engine of N1? >At least AMA...after 120 you have a much better chance of getting an revised >driving model or an improved one thats been tweaked. At least in N3 you _know_ what you're going to get and can decide there and then whether it's worth paying for. With AMA you but it on the premise that it "might" be much improved in the future. And if it's not.....too bad? If it's not much good after a couple of years of development and a release decision I don't hold out too much hope now. Cheers! John

> It did? If I remember right, it was supposed to come with updated physics > [not GPL, so don't go there]. I don't feel I got my money's worth with > their updated physics...so of course its relevant. Not, not really. You bought N3 version X, there has never been a promise of N3 version X + 1, no one from Sierra is claiming that N3 is a work in progress or a first attempt. It is there, you buy it, you evaluate it, you either return it to the store for a refund (if the store allows such a thing) or you take advantage of the Sierra money back guarantee. At no point in that process is there an expectation of improvement. You may have had such an expectation *before* you bought it, but that is neither here nor there, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please point me to a store that accepts software returns after 30+ days with no questions asked. If you can't find one please point me to the Motorsims no questions asked money back guarantee. Thank you for making my point for me. - George

Not to confuse apples and oranges, but what kind of guarantee did Microsoft make it's customers for the last decade that products like Word would meet expectations? How many *years* did it take before that product was the flagship word processor they always claimed it to be? If I went through my software shelf (not even counting games) and looked at the stuff I've bough that it took months of trying to coax into doing what I wanted, before giving up ....I'd probably question my sanity. Did they offer a lifetime return policy? No. Did patches solve my problems? No. I'm still waiting on a patch from Adobe for GoLive 4.0 for Windows so it don't crash when I don't have a PostScript printer. Am I hollering at Adobe? No. I'm not sure where I was going with this point now ... I guess I'm making a point for being reasonable. A "no questions asked" return policy for entertainment software just makes no sense. For the simple reason that there are so many titles in every genre that any one is more or less replacable in some fashion. With business software, you have a tangible reliance on a package so such a policy makes sense because you are making a commitment to use such a product and if it can't grow with your needs, you have to shelve it and retool. Where is that relationship with games? Other than emotional attachment, there is none. Every new PC comes with a free Internet account of some sort. Seeing that, we put systems in place to be able to offer frequent and free online updates. Somehow you seem to see this as we're cheating people. Seems like an impasse to me. -MSM -- __________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller "Be regular and orderly in your life, Director of Design that you may be *** and original Motorsport Simulations in your work." [link lost in import]

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> If I went through my software shelf (not even counting games) and looked at >> the stuff I've bough that it took months of trying to coax into doing what I >> wanted, before giving up ....I'd probably question my sanity. Did they offer >> a lifetime return policy? No. Did patches solve my problems? No. I'm still >> waiting on a patch from Adobe for GoLive 4.0 for Windows so it don't crash >> when I don't have a PostScript printer. Am I hollering at Adobe? No. I'm not >> sure where I was going with this point now ... I guess I'm making a point >> for being reasonable.

Very reasonable point Mark. So can you please send a post when AMA SBK delivers on it's promise of an excellent physics model? I'm serious. I'll generously try it again then. Yep, there are bugs and omissions in every piece of software ever released. The trick is deciding when it is acceptable for the customer to use without feeling cheated (ideally, pleasantly suprised). An error in that decision can't be fixed by the most solid update process - not long term anyway.

Your point sounds more like a call for acquiescence, i.e. the world is full of underperforming software and overblown marketing claims so get used to it. Sorry, losing battle or not I think I'll stick to the high road. Yet Sierra has exactly that - "the Sierra No-Risk Guarantee". Granted it is for only 30 days, but for a 'finished' product that is more than enough time to evaluate a game. The problem is that you have admitted that your product is not finished, it is a 'first attempt', a 'process', a work in progress. Since you are currently attempting to charge me for that work in progress I have every right to raise questions pertaining to recourse should the progress go off in a direction I am not interested in or never materialize. For the last time, I just want to know what if anything I can do to get my money back should I be unable to return it to the store I bought it from when and if patches come out that either do nothing or not enough to address the fundamental problems I have with game? If the answer is nothing, just say so, no qualifications are required. - George

It's too late now, they've already suckered you into paying them $40-$50 for the game. They've got your money and you're of no further concern to Motorsims.

As a Warbirds guy, I know what you're trying to do here and I commend you guys for it. The bottom line of this war here is that the game box does NOT say "Well, we know that what's inside here is sorta crappy and not what we want the game to be. But stick with us and eventually it'll get better." The game box promises a buncha stuff that it does NOT deliver. And until patches/upgrades are actually seen, your promises here are basically so much smoke. Most people who buy boxed games are NOT the online WB/AW community who are gonna stick with a game forever. They're gonna play it, see that it doesn't live up to the promisies on the box, and either throw it on the shelf or return it. -dobe-

Come on, MaX. Must you really be so bitter? If it really bothers you so much, make sure you buy all your software at stores with a return policy, like EB. It's not that hard. Really. -Chris- -- -Chris- ---Two wheels are better ---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

: A "no questions asked" return policy for entertainment software just makes : no sense. For the simple reason that there are so many titles in every genre : Every new PC comes with a free Internet account of some sort. Seeing that, : we put systems in place to be able to offer frequent and free online : updates. Somehow you seem to see this as we're cheating people. Seems like : an impasse to me. Yep, and I don't see how you can "win" this one. I think you can spend 4 hours each day trying to answer such questions, and you won't satisfy some posters. They have already made up their minds. Better you should oncentrate on filtering out the constructive criticism from the endless debates about whether Motorsims is "cheating" us and get on with moving the product forward. I think most people will be satisfied with this game, especially the online aspect of it. The diehard sim nuts here might not like it, but if they are posting on r.a.s. then they can download the demo. If they can't wait, well too bad. I'm sure I'll get an earful for that attitude, but it is nonetheless my opinion. I am constantly amazed at how worked up people get over a $40 game. Star Wars Episode I was a huge disappointment after the hype, but I didn't demand my ten bucks back. I'm practically dragging bug-fixes out of an arrogant company for a 60,000 video motion analysis system at the moment. Your plan for upgrades (if you follow through on it) sounds great for a $40 product. People need some perspective here. AMA is not the worst game to come along - we'll reserve that title for Snowmobile Racer (which amazingly has a sequel). Stephen

snipalot > People need some perspective here. Uhm, this is r.a.s., we have no perspectives in here......... -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

% > Somehow you seem to see this as we're cheating people. % For the last time, I just want to know what if anything I % can do to get my money back should I be unable to % return it to the store I bought it from when and if % patches come out that either do nothing or not enough % to address the fundamental problems I have with game? % If the answer is nothing, just say so, no qualifications are % required. Dead Horse! Dead Horse!! Let's beat it! <G> You know the answer, so I assume this is a rhetorical question? You don't like it when you buy, take it back. Check for updates, download the downloadable version.... if it's made the grade in your book, go out and buy the boxed version and apply the patches. If not, say "screw it" and walk away unhappy. Now to change the subject... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ;-) -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

LOL ;-) What a way to start the day < choked on my coffee > Thanks Mike ;-) -- Mike www.aloha.net/~flying sorry about the fake reply address < Tired of Spam> real folks can e-mail me at flying<at>aloha<dot>net

Indeed. All I'll say to wrap this thing up is what I said before - if you feel uncertain, try the demo version. Or stick with the free online versions until such time as you're comfortable buying the box. Whatever teething problems we have are being fixed. Whatever problems are in AMA Superbike are being fixed. Motorsims is committed for the long haul - we wouldn't have folks like Carroll Smith and Dave Sadowski in our corner if we weren't. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. -MSM -- __________________________________________________________________________ Mark S. Miller "Be regular and orderly in your life, Director of Design that you may be *** and original Motorsport Simulations in your work." [link lost in import]