How much would people pay for another GPL?

OK, most people here know that GPL is the best racing simulation available for the PC, and they also know that Papyrus/Sierra did not get much of a return on their big investment to produce the title. My guess is that most GPL fans have paid their $40 or whatever, and still get enjoyment out of the game months and eventually years later, and have probably spent far more time on it than a lot of other titles they may have paid the same amount for. I think that the only way that a games development company could again justify the investment required to create a *** realistic simulation title is to go over to a subscription model of charging. This would probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. This would mean that although the number of users of the title would be relatively low compared to a game such as Need For Speed, a company could still make money because people would be paying more over the lifetime of the product. So, what do people think? Would you sign up for it? - Michael

I don't like that editors/developers think players are just a cow to be milked. It's okey for me to pay the game $100, because i think it deserve it, but no way for a pay-per-play !!!! [snip] [snip] -- ============================================================================== Sebastien Tixier - Game Developer http://www.eden-studios.fr http://www.vrally.com http://www.multimania.com/hclyon ==============================================================================

I agree !!!!!!!! More expansive OK but no charge to play !!!!!!!!!

Quoted text (24 lines)

> OK, most people here know that GPL is the best racing simulation > available for the PC, and they also know that Papyrus/Sierra did not get > much of a return on their big investment to produce the title. > My guess is that most GPL fans have paid their $40 or whatever, and still > get enjoyment out of the game months and eventually years later, and have > probably spent far more time on it than a lot of other titles they may > have paid the same amount for. > I think that the only way that a games development company could again > justify the investment required to create a *** realistic simulation > title is to go over to a subscription model of charging. This would > probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount > to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over > the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. > This would mean that although the number of users of the title would be > relatively low compared to a game such as Need For Speed, a company could > still make money because people would be paying more over the lifetime of > the product. > So, what do people think? Would you sign up for it? > - Michael

Wrong!!!! I was stung once with TEN. Not again. However, I do run a dedicated server every now and then. If you pay me $40.00/month I'll keep the server running and keep track of statistics. -- ========================================= Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? ========================================= http://members.xoom.com/BarlowRacing/ Racing online with the help of...... Race Communications Association Holodyne Engineering Mystic Music (have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)

: I think that the only way that a games development company could again : justify the investment required to create a *** realistic simulation : title is to go over to a subscription model of charging. This would : probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount : to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over : the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. : So, what do people think? Would you sign up for it? No way - I would pay either fee but not both. Unless I actually knew that a game was superbly brilliant I wouldn't sign up for that. Even having played the demo I wouldn't have bought GPL under those circumstances. Interesting to see how Warbirds has done financially. I think that's free to download but costs for time spent online. (It's a WWII fighter sim). -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

First thing to discover is how many GPL purchasers play on-line? I bought GPL, have played on a local network, but have never played on-line. My suggestion would be to develop other equally good sims using the same game engine. I would purchase Trans-Am, Can-Am, and other era F1 sims if I knew they would be as good as GPL. Alan

I would love to see GPL do this. Wargame sims and golf sims have done this forever. Sim drivers are spending 1-2 hundred dollars for video cards and have probably junked out at least one pricey steering wheel. User mods from various enthusiast sites are nice and I appreciate the effort but we need modern 3D support, weather effects and downforce modeling for winged racers that only a real-life development team can produce. An initial purchase price hardly entitles one to squat on Papy and leech upgrades parasiticly forever. Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?

This would I'd rather pay more for the original sim. When I think about it the price of GPL was quite low compared to the amount of hardware I have had to buy to be able to play it. Worth every cent. Chris

Lucky that you said the word "MOST"...... I appreciate it:-) Yup, thats ok, I realized, that but surely they culdn't ahve made such a severe loss as some people say.....or then again...judging by the demo........ Ok on the $40 bit, ok on the enjoyement bit but I wouldn't agree that its the most enjoyable game to play, I just paly it out for a change now and again. Low cost??!?! It hardely cost them $40 to make up my CD did it? Or any other manufactuer at that..... I hate when manufacturers make you pay when you they make so much of a profit on my purchase, but "FREE" updaets would generate more interest. Even GP2 can't boast that!!!!! Nice idea, but definitaly NOT! I don't feel its right for any company to charge for an update that we are paying for in the original purchase. As for a 2nd GPL, I would like to see, it maybe from the mid-70's, with the Tyrrell 6 wheeler or something but I wouldn't sell...... If people refused to by GPL1 after the demo, Even more will not buy GPL2 with the disappointement of GPL1. GPL just was to "simmy" for its own good.... ..... alot of peopl here have the obsession that the more difficult it is, the mroe real it is, I wish they'd get that out of their head.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I think that the only way that a games development company could again > justify the investment required to create a *** realistic simulation > title is to go over to a subscription model of charging. This would > probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount > to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over > the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. > This would mean that although the number of users of the title would be > relatively low compared to a game such as Need For Speed, a company could > still make money because people would be paying more over the lifetime of > the product. > So, what do people think? Would you sign up for it?

Gee, I hope so! :) -- Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866 Ext.125, Fax: (972)910-8216

Did you think of that yourself Mike ? Your right though , I've definitely had my 20 pounds worth ! There's plenty of people who would be more than happy to advise on the update. For me the only way to improve the game would be more of the same - more realistic graphics - too "clean" at the moment even more ridiculous physics engines etc. All this needs more computer power - I would happily subscribe to your master plan but I can't afford a kryogenically cooled PC !

I'd pay $150 for it. But I wouldn't pay monthly to play online. Heck, I'd probably pay 200 for it. It's that good. Dean

Quoted text (24 lines)

>OK, most people here know that GPL is the best racing simulation >available for the PC, and they also know that Papyrus/Sierra did not get >much of a return on their big investment to produce the title. >My guess is that most GPL fans have paid their $40 or whatever, and still >get enjoyment out of the game months and eventually years later, and have >probably spent far more time on it than a lot of other titles they may >have paid the same amount for. >I think that the only way that a games development company could again >justify the investment required to create a *** realistic simulation >title is to go over to a subscription model of charging. This would >probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount >to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over >the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. >This would mean that although the number of users of the title would be >relatively low compared to a game such as Need For Speed, a company could >still make money because people would be paying more over the lifetime of >the product. >So, what do people think? Would you sign up for it? >- Michael

I doubt this philosophy will ever come near to any corporate suits at SIERRA, unfortunately. -- -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... "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."

$40? I wish. I was perfectly happy with my K6-233 running MGPRS2 before GPL came along. Since then I've spent about $500 upgrading the CPU and video card solely to run this beast properly. I'm not complaining, either. David

I would've paid what I had to to get GPL but I wouldn't subscribe. I don't like committing to monthly payments. Ben....GPL ***

Quoted text (24 lines)

>OK, most people here know that GPL is the best racing simulation >available for the PC, and they also know that Papyrus/Sierra did not get >much of a return on their big investment to produce the title. >My guess is that most GPL fans have paid their $40 or whatever, and still >get enjoyment out of the game months and eventually years later, and have >probably spent far more time on it than a lot of other titles they may >have paid the same amount for. >I think that the only way that a games development company could again >justify the investment required to create a *** realistic simulation >title is to go over to a subscription model of charging. This would >probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount >to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over >the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. >This would mean that although the number of users of the title would be >relatively low compared to a game such as Need For Speed, a company could >still make money because people would be paying more over the lifetime of >the product. >So, what do people think? Would you sign up for it? >- Michael

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> This would >> probably mean charging $20 for the initial game along with a small amount >> to play online, and releasing low cost updates on a regular basis over >> the web such as new tracks, cars, new seasons etc. >I doubt this philosophy will ever come near to any corporate suits at >SIERRA, unfortunately.

Well, and you would have no chance in hell getting all the buyers sucked into this unless you started a really agresseive campaign telling people this.Would not work, IMO, what works is releasing a good product, and give us the sequels (although I may feel that the Nascar series have been used up..but it's a great idea). Now, the first thing for the "GPL2" would be 1976, and of course, the 19*66* British Saloon car championship (instead of dem trucks), a few new tracks.... *pop* However, I have this feeling we have to do it ourselves. No worries..:) M The GPLEA [link lost in import]

Quoted text (9 lines)

> First thing to discover is how many GPL purchasers play on-line? > I bought GPL, have played on a local network, but have never played on-line. > My suggestion would be to develop other equally good sims using the same > game engine. I would purchase Trans-Am, Can-Am, and other era F1 sims if I > knew they would be as good as GPL. > Alan

Alan, Download WinVROC (or for a start go to vroc.net and access it via the Java version) and go online a.s.a.p. It really is fantastic. Better: Join a GPL League and experience what real 'clean' online racing is. Jan. J.H.Hovius.vcf < 1K Download

> GPL just was to "simmy" for its own good.... > ..... alot of peopl here have the obsession that the more difficult it is, > the mroe real it is, I wish they'd get that out of their head. I think your wrong here: It is hard because real racing is hard and that's what GPL is trying to 'simulate'. Once you've 'raced' with GPL every other racing game pales. I for instance played MGPRS2 and really liked it but at the moment it is only collecting dust because it simply hasn't got the feel GPL has. Tried Nascar 3 a couple of times but it simply hasn't got it either: there's no sensation of speed and you have the feeling you're playing a racing GAME. I think the 'problem' with GPL is that most people who buy a game want to be able to master it after one day and be the fastest/best. Since this is simply impossible with GPL a lot of people quit. I for myself find this however the main reason to keep racing in GPL. I've never won a race (not even close) against the AI but am immersively satisfied when I'm able to be consistent and improve myself. Just my $0.02 Jan J.H.Hovius.vcf < 1K Download

This seems the view of a lot of people. I'm surprised. After all we pay for a lot of things in this way; utilities, cable & satellite TV. People who enjoy games like football think nothing of paying $30+ every couple of weeks to support their interest. I wouldn't propose that people commit to a length of time anyway. They could pull out and stop paying at any time. - Michael

I think you miss the point - I'm saying that a significant group of people like GPL the way it is - hard. That group of people, probably only around 100,000 worldwide is not enough to support the development of a sim like GPL. Increasing the price to say, $100 is not the way - you would be denied shelf space and create a barrier to entry so high that people would not take the risk of trying the title. - Michael

says... We are in a similar situation. Our company developed the relatively sim- like space game Independence War, which sold very well to its target audience. Its extremely hard now to get a publisher to commit funding to any title which does not have mass market appeal. What I am proposing is a way that a small company like ours could do hard-core titles, and still make money. ( A few years ago we were thinking of doing a retro racing simulation, working title "The Golden Age of Racing". We decided it wouldn't sell enough copies to justify the development:-) When we found out that Papyrus were doing something similar we were very surprised, but pleased. ) - Michael

> > I would've paid what I had to to get GPL but I wouldn't subscribe. I don't > > like committing to monthly payments. > This seems the view of a lot of people. I'm surprised. After all we pay > for a lot of things in this way; utilities, cable & satellite TV. well, tv, internet, offer constent services, lot of stuff that changes continually, so we pay this news stuff that we see/use every day. I don't think a game could do this, REALLY NEW stuff every month ! Impossible. When i buy a game, i don't want to pay monthly, otherwise its call rent. You can rent a car, or buy a car, what do you prefer ?, what is the most expensive in long-term ? It's will be okey for me, to buy a game, then buy add-ons ( if i wanted to ), but not pay-to-play on internet ! i'm going to have internet at home ONLY because i can now have cable internet, i don't like modem because , it's not inclusive price. -- ============================================================================== Sebastien Tixier - Game Developer http://www.eden-studios.fr http://www.vrally.com http://www.multimania.com/hclyon ==============================================================================

Michael, In one word : No !!! I'll pay what they want for the original release if it meets my needs. I'll pay for expansion pack if its something I want. But I won't continually pay for every single upgrade to come along. $20 for a patch. I can just see some companies making a living out of patches. Release a really great sim,but loaded with bugs. Then patch after patch every few months to correct the problems they left in on purpose. Throw in a new track or carset every so often to keep us happy. But end up paying literally hundreds for a sim. No thanks. And just what do you think they would do to sites like the USPits with its multitude of upgrades and ad ons ? Joel Willstein

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > I would've paid what I had to to get GPL but I wouldn't subscribe. I don't > > like committing to monthly payments. > This seems the view of a lot of people. I'm surprised. After all we pay > for a lot of things in this way; utilities, cable & satellite TV. > People who enjoy games like football think nothing of paying $30+ every > couple of weeks to support their interest. > I wouldn't propose that people commit to a length of time anyway. They > could pull out and stop paying at any time. > - Michael

Or we could stop subscribing to that service and start our own free service :) -- ========================================= Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? ========================================= http://members.xoom.com/BarlowRacing/ Racing online with the help of...... Race Communications Association Holodyne Engineering Mystic Music (have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)

> > I would've paid what I had to to get GPL but I wouldn't subscribe. I don't > > like committing to monthly payments. > This seems the view of a lot of people. I'm surprised. After all we pay > for a lot of things in this way; Maybe *you* do. I do only when I have to. And I won't pay to race online, period. Yep. No choice here. Nope & nope. Don't have em, don't need em. No car payments either. Buy my cars cash, older ones. Too bad I couldn't afford to get my home cash. ;-) Nope. Go to 2 races a year, the Detroit Grand Prix (Free Prix Day), and at Michigan Speedway (Neighbor of mine gets tickets for free where he works). No problem. Count me out at the beginning. I won't pay to play. -- Chuck Kandler #70 ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!

Michael, I the number of GPL sales is closer to 40-50,000. Joel Willstein

It hardly cost them $40 to make up my CD? What world are you living in? What do you think the development costs were? Geez, some people...

Then you may not race online in the future. Simple reality is that nothing is free although somehow a whole lot of people seem to think so, including some interesting business models that will not last. But back to the point, everything has a cost and the cost + a profit margin must be passed to the final consumer or the whole project is a big waste of time for everyone involved.

At this time I would pay $250 or more for a great modern F1 sim without even thinking about it. The key word, however, is "great". It would have to be "great" right out of the box. Not promising, but bug-ridden. Not exhibiting tons of potential, but absolutely "great". I would also pay some fee for updates (patches wouldn't be necessary since the sim was "great" right out of the box). In fact I think a lot of software companies are missing the boat on the updates thing. It's a potential revenue bonanza since they don't have to invest in "version 2" costs like artwork, manuals, boxes, etc.. they can bypass the distributor channel and take full retail selling direct from their website. As far as the monthly online fee thing goes, at this time I wouldn't be interested, but I suspect that it will eventually be a necessary evil.

> > > Maybe *you* do. I do only when I have to. And I won't pay to race > > > online, period. > > Then you may not race online in the future. Simple reality is that nothing > > is free although somehow a whole lot of people seem to think so, including > > some interesting business models that will not last. But back to the point, > > everything has a cost and the cost + a profit margin must be passed to the

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > final consumer or the whole project is a big waste of time for everyone > > involved. > Agreed. Although first they must find a sizable customer base to > support core costs, never mind any profit margin. Failing that, and *A > LOT* of people will refuse to pay to race, it still becomes a waste of > time. For the developers anyway. I refuse to let those that wage > corporate greed on the populace ***my pocketbook. It won't happen. > And as far as "interesting business models that won't last", you may > want to look at RedHat's latest stock price. For selling a free O/S, > their initial offering a few months ago of $15 a share is now at $245.75 > a share. Go figure, huh? ;-)

I wonder what percentage of those buyers are under the illusion that they are buying Linux. I don't really think Red Hat falls into the "interesting business models that won't last" category. But it's definately way, way overpriced considering they really don't even have a product.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Maybe *you* do. I do only when I have to. And I won't pay to race > > online, period. > Then you may not race online in the future. Simple reality is that nothing > is free although somehow a whole lot of people seem to think so, including > some interesting business models that will not last. But back to the point, > everything has a cost and the cost + a profit margin must be passed to the > final consumer or the whole project is a big waste of time for everyone > involved.

Agreed. Although first they must find a sizable customer base to support core costs, never mind any profit margin. Failing that, and *A LOT* of people will refuse to pay to race, it still becomes a waste of time. For the developers anyway. I refuse to let those that wage corporate greed on the populace ***my pocketbook. It won't happen. And as far as "interesting business models that won't last", you may want to look at RedHat's latest stock price. For selling a free O/S, their initial offering a few months ago of $15 a share is now at $245.75 a share. Go figure, huh? ;-) -- Chuck Kandler #70 ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!

It's amazing what greed can do to a stock price. Currently any Linux- associated business IPO generates interest far in excess of any rational calculation. - Michael

I had a P133, a Rendition card, and a TSW, and I was greatly pleased with playing ICR and N2. After hearing about GPL from this group and other sources, I bought a new computer so GPL would run well. So the answer to "What would you pay?" for me is about $1000 plus $34.95! Even at this cost, the rate has been about $.30 an hour for some really great fun. If Papy would produce a new sim of GPL quality that would run on equipment most of us now have, I would certainly consider paying a premium price - $100 to $200 is still a bargain on a per hour basis. Think how much an hour a $40 game cost if you dismiss it after only a few hours. Papy could save marketing costs by ignoring the ads in gamer magazines, and advertise where their clientele would see it - here. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

: I wonder what percentage of those buyers are under the illusion that they : are buying Linux. I don't really think Red Hat falls into the "interesting : business models that won't last" category. But it's definately way, way : overpriced considering they really don't even have a product. They have a product - it's just that they give it away for free. That's a buisness model I can admire. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Quoted text (7 lines)

> : I wonder what percentage of those buyers are under the illusion that they > : are buying Linux. I don't really think Red Hat falls into the "interesting > : business models that won't last" category. But it's definately way, way > : overpriced considering they really don't even have a product. > They have a product - it's just that they give it away for free. > That's a buisness model I can admire.

Absolutely!! And there's ample proof it can be profitable as well for the corporation involved. A model more corporations should follow, I'd say. And a corporation could definitely make money on a free online racing service. Just think about it for a minute, and you'll see what I mean. -- Chuck Kandler #70 ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > And as far as "interesting business models that won't last", you may > > want to look at RedHat's latest stock price. For selling a free O/S, > > their initial offering a few months ago of $15 a share is now at $245.75 > > a share. Go figure, huh? ;-) > It's amazing what greed can do to a stock price. Currently any Linux- > associated business IPO generates interest far in excess of any rational > calculation. > - Michael

That's true. I think it just goes to show there is quite a volume of folks out there that are sick & tired of the same old M$ BS. Maybe this can kick them into gear into producing a truly high quality product for once. Boy! Am I dreaming or what!?! ;-) -- Chuck Kandler #70 ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!

Well, they're not really giving their "product" away. They STILL sell Linux at CompUSA, et al. as well as direct. Where they're making what little money they're making is in services, contracts, and licensing. THAT's where Sierra could learn a lesson: LICENSE out the N3 and GPL engines. ALLOW other companies to make 3Do carbodies, tracks, etc. and get a license fee. I would STILL wager that the expanded customer base due to the wider variety of carsets, tracks, etc. would increase their overall profit for the title. Imagine an AUTHORIZED F1 (or CART, or SCCA) carset for N3 (or GPL)? Imagine your local 1/2mi oval in NL?! And even tho' Sierra didn't have to spend another PENNY, they could still make 2% off the top for EVERY COPY SOLD! As I've said before (and many have agreed) - I'd pay $20 for another track pack. And I'll pay another $20 for the Trucks. And another $20 for dirt cars (with tracks). And maybe even another $20 for Indy-style cars. differences in body shapes, N3- (or GPL-) native tracks - not those palette problems... I'll believe FOREVER that licensing is where a publisher can make their money once a product ships. And I can assure that it's unlikely that the retail version of Linux is keeping Red Hat alive. But nor are they "giving away their product." Gunner

>If Papy would produce a new sim of GPL quality that would run on >equipment most of us now have, I would certainly consider paying a >premium price - $100 to $200 is still a bargain on a per hour basis. >Think how much an hour a $40 game cost if you dismiss it after only a >few hours. It's not the high cost that would be the problem for the diehards - but it COULD be a problem to get together $200 at ONCE. I can pay $40 at a shot, but the ol' lady would bust a vein if I told her I wanted $200 for ONE game. She doesn't realize that I paid $40 for N3. I'll pay $40 for NL. I'll pay up to $25 for the trucks. Then I needed that Force Feedback wheel. And I had to have that 4-point sound system. Then I had to have that 4-speaker soundcard. So while it wasn't for GPL, I still paid close to a thousand for N3. But I can assure you, I SERIOUSLY doubt I would pay $200 for N3 - even if it HAD NL and the Trucks. Gunner

Quoted text (36 lines)

> >> They have a product - it's just that they give it away for free. > >> That's a buisness model I can admire. > >Absolutely!! And there's ample proof it can be profitable as well for > >the corporation involved. A model more corporations should follow, I'd > >say. And a corporation could definitely make money on a free online > >racing service. Just think about it for a minute, and you'll see what I > >mean. > Well, they're not really giving their "product" away. They STILL sell > Linux at CompUSA, et al. as well as direct. Where they're making what > little money they're making is in services, contracts, and licensing. > THAT's where Sierra could learn a lesson: LICENSE out the N3 and GPL > engines. ALLOW other companies to make 3Do carbodies, tracks, etc. and get > a license fee. I would STILL wager that the expanded customer base due to > the wider variety of carsets, tracks, etc. would increase their overall > profit for the title. Imagine an AUTHORIZED F1 (or CART, or SCCA) carset > for N3 (or GPL)? Imagine your local 1/2mi oval in NL?! And even tho' Sierra > didn't have to spend another PENNY, they could still make 2% off the top for > EVERY COPY SOLD! > As I've said before (and many have agreed) - I'd pay $20 for another > track pack. And I'll pay another $20 for the Trucks. And another $20 for > dirt cars (with tracks). And maybe even another $20 for Indy-style cars. > But I'm not just talking about "custom 3Do's" like I've seen around (the > differences in body shapes, N3- (or GPL-) native tracks - not those palette > problems... > I'll believe FOREVER that licensing is where a publisher can make their > money once a product ships. > And I can assure that it's unlikely that the retail version of Linux is > keeping Red Hat alive. But nor are they "giving away their product." > Gunner

Don't have a lotta bones about the racing ideas. Sound good to me. But the last segment..... Rest assured, Linux is *free*. If you so chose, you could even download the entire thing off the net & burn it to cd for nothing. Legally. What RedHat, and other distributors as well, sells is *tech support* for the product. You are in essence buying a warranty that guarantees you'll get it up & running on your system. What seems to be keeping RedHat very much alive is the e***ment that there is soon to be a real alternative in the O/S world. And that is not meant as a M$ bash, per se. Because it should also have an effect of improving their product offerings as well, with the consumers being the ultimate winners. Now, as far as a free online *** service.......Imagine, if you will, the all-familiar multiplayer screen in N3, NL or even the VROC-style screen for GPL. Then imagine the top, say, 20% (arbitrary figure) being sold as advertising space on either a per-hit or term payment schedule. Businesses already budget for advertising expenses, so there need not be any additional outlay there. And the *** community at large (us) need not pay either. Add in an interface "standard" that any *** company could plug their title into for multiplayer, and the resultant usage rates should more than pay the bills. To add cream to the top of this, add the capability of spectator-mode viewing with the same advertising agenda. Not only can friends and family, co-workers, etc. show up & watch the live action, those sitting on the fence over a particular title may just get prodded into a purchase also, benefitting the software producers. One needent*** the consumer base of a significant portion of their hard-earned paycheck in order to make money! -- Chuck Kandler #70 ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!

I don't believe they have a product. I think Mr. Torvalds has a product, and currently he chooses to allow others to distribute it freely under the GNU public license which could conceivably change (I'm not suggesting it will) and where would that leave Red Hat? Red Hat most definately doesn't have a product unless you want to consider RPM one. Great, here's another business model that everybody seems to admire lately. Let's sell widgets for $1 under cost and make up for it in volume. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it doesn't add up. But then you bring in the "market share", "economies of scale", and "information value" bullshit and suddenly you've got investors standing in line for this idea when probably 99.99999% of all of these startups will run out of money before the value of "market share", "economies of scale", etc. ever kick in, leaving everybody wondering what went wrong. > : I wonder what percentage of those buyers are under the illusion that they > : are buying Linux. I don't really think Red Hat falls into the "interesting

Quoted text (11 lines)

> : business models that won't last" category. But it's definately way, way > : overpriced considering they really don't even have a product. > They have a product - it's just that they give it away for free. > That's a buisness model I can admire. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Come on, think about, it, you nkow what I maent!!! > > It hardely cost them $40 to make up my CD did it? > > Or any other manufactuer at that..... I hate when manufacturers make you > pay > > when you they make so much of a profit on my purchase, but "FREE" updaets > > would generate more interest. > It hardly cost them $40 to make up my CD? What world are you living in? > What do you think the development costs were? Geez, some people...

>Rest assured, Linux is *free*. If you so chose, you could even download >the entire thing off the net & burn it to cd for nothing. Legally. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. I certainly understand it's free (I have a copy coming soon) and can legally be copied, distributed,or whatever. What I meant was that Linux is NOT Red Hat's "Crown Jewel." As you stated, their tech support and services are their crown jewels. Therefore, their NOT "giving away their product." They're actually CHARGING for their add-on's to it (support, utilities, etc.). The original poster was trying to make it sound like Sierra could give away N3 and/or GPL and still survive. Gunner