Looks like we were right about Papy :(

http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_24_02_09_01AM.htm Q: Where do you think the racing genre is heading? Rich: "I think that games that feature 'just racing' aren't enough for a lot of people in this era of gnat-like attention spans, and that's particularly true when it comes to the console crowd. That's why I think that you're going to see more and more games like Driver and Grand Theft Auto - where driving and racing is a part of the game, but not the whole experience. "That's why I think that as time goes on you're going to see fewer and fewer 'pure' racing titles; and as someone who would be quite happy spending the rest of his days working on sequels to Grand Prix Legends, I think that's a shame, but the bottom line is that you need to be willing to change with the market or else you're done. It takes an enormous amount of money to make a game these days, and quite understandably game publishers want to make games that appeal to the broadest part of the market so that they can maximize the return on their investment. "So although I don't necessarily see a bright future in terms of where the 'racing sim' market is headed, I think the sky's the limit as far as the mainstream 'racing game' area goes. I think that Grand Theft Auto 3 is one of the best games ever made, and I also enjoyed the Driver games quite a bit. There is certainly no lack of creativity in the genre these days and I don't see it growing stagnant any time soon." MadDAWG

I think like he states that a company has to go where the market is, and like it or not its the arcade style console games that sell to the masses. There is just not a large enough sim racing market to allow firms to be profitable. These things all go in cycles however, after the console market dies down a bit I suspect to see the more sim type titles come back to help tide these companies over until the next big thing. "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_24_02_09_01AM.htm > > > > > Q: Where do you think the racing genre is heading? > > Rich: "I think that games that feature 'just racing' aren't enough for a

lot > of people in this era of gnat-like attention spans, and that'sparticularly > true when it comes to the console crowd. That's why I think that you're > going to see more and more games like Driver and Grand Theft Auto - where > driving and racing is a part of the game, but not the whole experience. > > "That's why I think that as time goes on you're going to see fewer andfewer > 'pure' racing titles; and as someone who would be quite happy spending the > rest of his days working on sequels to Grand Prix Legends, I think that'sa > shame, but the bottom line is that you need to be willing to change withthe > market or else you're done. It takes an enormous amount of money to make a > game these days, and quite understandably game publishers want to makegames > that appeal to the broadest part of the market so that they can maximizethe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> return on their investment. > > "So although I don't necessarily see a bright future in terms of where the > 'racing sim' market is headed, I think the sky's the limit as far as the > mainstream 'racing game' area goes. I think that Grand Theft Auto 3 is one > of the best games ever made, and I also enjoyed the Driver games quite a > bit. There is certainly no lack of creativity in the genre these days and

I

Quoted text (7 lines)

> don't see it growing stagnant any time soon." > > > MadDAWG > > >

Exactly. One thing I always get a kick out of, in the flight sim crowd, is the "Woe is me, it's the death of flight sims this year"....................been hearing that yearly since 1988 now................ John "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dTsk9.100065$[email hidden]... > I think like he states that a company has to go where the market is, and > like it or not its the arcade style console games that sell to the masses. > There is just not a large enough sim racing market to allow firms to be > profitable. > These things all go in cycles however, after the console market dies downa

Quoted text (18 lines)

> bit I suspect to see the more sim type titles come back to help tide these > companies over until the next big thing. > > "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_24_02_09_01AM.htm > > > > > > > > > > Q: Where do you think the racing genre is heading? > > > > Rich: "I think that games that feature 'just racing' aren't enough for a > lot > > of people in this era of gnat-like attention spans, and that's > particularly > > true when it comes to the console crowd. That's why I think that you're > > going to see more and more games like Driver and Grand Theft Auto -

where > > driving and racing is a part of the game, but not the whole experience. > > > > "That's why I think that as time goes on you're going to see fewer and > fewer > > 'pure' racing titles; and as someone who would be quite happy spendingthe > > rest of his days working on sequels to Grand Prix Legends, I thinkthat's > a > > shame, but the bottom line is that you need to be willing to change with > the > > market or else you're done. It takes an enormous amount of money to makea

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > game these days, and quite understandably game publishers want to make > games > > that appeal to the broadest part of the market so that they can maximize > the > > return on their investment. > > > > "So although I don't necessarily see a bright future in terms of where

the > > 'racing sim' market is headed, I think the sky's the limit as far as the > > mainstream 'racing game' area goes. I think that Grand Theft Auto 3 isone > > of the best games ever made, and I also enjoyed the Driver games quite a > > bit. There is certainly no lack of creativity in the genre these daysand

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I > > don't see it growing stagnant any time soon." > > > > > > MadDAWG > > > > > > > >

"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dTsk9.100065$[email hidden]... > I think like he states that a company has to go where the market is, and > like it or not its the arcade style console games that sell to the masses. > There is just not a large enough sim racing market to allow firms to be > profitable. > These things all go in cycles however, after the console market dies downa

Quoted text (8 lines)

> bit I suspect to see the more sim type titles come back to help tide these > companies over until the next big thing. > > > > > > > > >

I NEVER have, nor EVER will buy or play any console game. They do not interest me whatsoever. But I HAVE bought every version of "Nascar Racing" since the first one so I guess they will be losing my business when they decide to cater to the consoles.

Sim racing features can be snuck into arcade games and vice versa. NR2002 and F1 2002 both include an assortment of driving aids and other "training wheels" that allow people to play it like an arcade game, in fact in F1 2002 I think it defaults to having all that stuff on. So developers could make a game with a good story and an arcadey driving model, and include a hardcore racing mode as an added feature. Best of both worlds. "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dTsk9.100065$[email hidden]... > I think like he states that a company has to go where the market is,and > like it or not its the arcade style console games that sell to themasses. > There is just not a large enough sim racing market to allow firms tobe > profitable. > These things all go in cycles however, after the console market diesdown a > bit I suspect to see the more sim type titles come back to help tidethese > companies over until the next big thing. >

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Exactly. One thing I always get a kick out of, in the flight sim crowd, > is the "Woe is me, it's the death of flight sims this > year"....................been hearing that yearly since 1988 > now................ > > John Well I'm not sure I'm ready to go for hte whole market beeing dead. Just Papy. Hopefully someone else setups up to the plate. Its just sad to see them go to that stuff. I know thats were the money is, but then again there is good money in crack too and I don't start selling that. lol MadDAWG

What Sierra fails to understand is that the console market is a lot more crowded and therefore competitive then niche markets like automotive or flight sims. Instead of competing with two companies they will now compete with a hundred maybe two. Papyrus missed the boat by not developing additional content for GPL, CART and took so long between Early Nascar updates that they created competitors. When CART got in bed with Microsoft Papy built GPL and then all but abandoned the product. In my opinion Papyrus was a victim of poor management and lack of vision. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:amtnhc$98k15$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Sim racing features can be snuck into arcade games and vice versa. > NR2002 and F1 2002 both include an assortment of driving aids and other > "training wheels" that allow people to play it like an arcade game, in > fact in F1 2002 I think it defaults to having all that stuff on. So > developers could make a game with a good story and an arcadey driving > model, and include a hardcore racing mode as an added feature. Best of > both worlds. > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dTsk9.100065$[email hidden]... > > I think like he states that a company has to go where the market is, > and > > like it or not its the arcade style console games that sell to the > masses. > > There is just not a large enough sim racing market to allow firms to > be > > profitable. > > These things all go in cycles however, after the console market dies > down a > > bit I suspect to see the more sim type titles come back to help tide > these > > companies over until the next big thing. > > > >

> In my opinion Papyrus was a victim of poor management and lack of vision. Bingo! MadDAWG

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:20:30 -0000, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote something like this: >royalties. But that's also understandable, since their products aren't >designed for that arcade mass market (except their Nascar series) and so of Is that angry mob coming this way perhaps a full field of N2002 drivers? <g> -- - Igor -

Papy had more of a vision than anyone else - their dedication to realism and online gaming is unparalleled and has revolutionised sim racing throughout an entire decade. If Papy had 'shortcomings' then those were only the marketing side as Papy made products they themselves and other hardcore simmers liked, but they didn't cater much to the vastly bigger market of the more casual players. And perhaps that Papy was a bit conservative when it came to paying royalties. But that's also understandable, since their products aren't designed for that arcade mass market (except their Nascar series) and so of course they can't be sure huge investments for royalties will pay off in the end. Achim "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > In my opinion Papyrus was a victim of poor management and lack ofvision.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Bingo! > > > MadDAWG > >

Yeah, the problem with chasing the money is that everybody else gets there first and by the time you show up, the gold rush is over. I'm guessing that if EA didn't have the exclusive license to NASCAR, we would see Papyrus happily churning out titles indefinitely. Gerald "Conga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<uCuk9.100108$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> What Sierra fails to understand is that the console market is a lot more > crowded and therefore competitive then niche markets like automotive or > flight sims. > > Instead of competing with two companies they will now compete with a hundred > maybe two. Papyrus missed the boat by not developing additional content for > GPL, CART and took so long between Early Nascar updates that they created > competitors. When CART got in bed with Microsoft Papy built GPL and then all > but abandoned the product. > > In my opinion Papyrus was a victim of poor management and lack of vision.

"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<dTsk9.100065$[email hidden]>... > These things all go in cycles however, after the console market dies down a > bit I suspect to see the more sim type titles come back to help tide these > companies over until the next big thing. I think you're right. The PS2, X-Box and GameCube are all relitively new to the market, so naturally there's a lot of hype around them. Publishers seem desperate to squeeze as much out of these consoles as fast as they can, but once everybody's bought one, and once we get a tide of shit games for them (as happened to the PS1), I'm sure they'll start to work harder on the PC market again. Until the next 'next gen' console is released...

I saw on Tech TV a few weeks ago that Microsoft has the X box 2 basicly ready, but are waiting on something new like a PS3 to come out before they release it. MadDAWG

No they won't. Look how many producers, publishers have gone under in the last two years. In large part because of multiplayer the PC will support one or two games per genre... Deathmatch: Unreal Tournament, Quake, Counterstrike Strategy: Starcraft, Warcraft, Ages RPG: Diablo, Final Fantasy Flight: Sturmovik, Falcon Race: Nascar, GPL And then there is theSims sigh This means that unless your part of the dirty dozen that makes it to the top your gonna starve. With consoles you have the ability to mix genres and create games for known platforms. Metal Gear, Grand Theft, Devil may cry, Mario games cost a fraction of what a pc game costs and you can port it to 3 or 4 platforms and then feed off of addons for years... There is a reason Microsoft built a console machine.... How it should have been: 1-Niche producers like Papyrus should not have sold to companies like Vivendi and Microsoft. 2-Persistent worlds and monthly fees should be part of any niche product 3-Addons should be a major part of the economic model 4-Pricing for simulation products should not be anything like other PC Games. GPL2: $149.95 Monthly fee is $8.00 Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:12:40 -0400, "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote: >rest of his days working on sequels to Grand Prix Legends, I think that's a >shame, but the bottom line is that you need to be willing to change with the Hey, at least he mentioned GPL ...... David Kaemmer must be spinning in his Barber Dodge car about now ....

"Conga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VsHk9.100304$[email hidden]... > No they won't. Look how many producers, publishers have gone under in the > last two years. In large part because of multiplayer the PC will supportone

Quoted text (11 lines)

> or two games per genre... > > Deathmatch: Unreal Tournament, Quake, Counterstrike > Strategy: Starcraft, Warcraft, Ages > RPG: Diablo, Final Fantasy > Flight: Sturmovik, Falcon > Race: Nascar, GPL > > And then there is theSims sigh > > This means that unless your part of the dirty dozen that makes it to the

top > your gonna starve. > > With consoles you have the ability to mix genres and create games forknown > platforms. Metal Gear, Grand Theft, Devil may cry, Mario games cost a > fraction of what a pc game costs and you can port it to 3 or 4 platformsand

Quoted text (22 lines)

> then feed off of addons for years... > > There is a reason Microsoft built a console machine.... > > > How it should have been: > > 1-Niche producers like Papyrus should not have sold to companies like > Vivendi and Microsoft. > > 2-Persistent worlds and monthly fees should be part of any niche product > > 3-Addons should be a major part of the economic model > > 4-Pricing for simulation products should not be anything like other PC > Games. > > GPL2: $149.95 > Monthly fee is $8.00 > Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 > > One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00

Have to agree with you here - I can't understand why companies aren't looking at different (and completely obvious) economic models before saying that "X won't sell enough to make a profit". I know that GPL2, if produced under the above model, would sell like crazy to basically everybody who is still playing GPL. After all, our original "investment" of $40-50 dollars seems a pittance next to all the hardward upgrades we've purchased in the same period of time, mostly to play GPL better. I would buy GPL at the above price, or even higher, no questions asked, no hesitation. We're talking value for money here.............

Papyrus is a good bunch of guys. They just got tied up to the wrong company. One which was gonna take on EA with their Sierra Sports division..blah blah blah and then folded like a house of cards. Little did they know that only a few years later EA would come back and kill their NASCAR jewel....The more I look at software/hardware industry. It becomes so obvious that they don't know what the F... they are doing. Bet you by the time they wake up their counterstrike franchise is gonna be worth shit too. "Jeffrey Haas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:12:40 -0400, "MadDAWG" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >rest of his days working on sequels to Grand Prix Legends, I think that'sa > >shame, but the bottom line is that you need to be willing to change withthe > > Hey, at least he mentioned GPL ...... David Kaemmer must be spinning > in his Barber Dodge car about now ....

>"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote Almost everybody left Papyrus. You would be surprised of the low number of employees there. Kaemmer is only "helping" the team for NR2003, he's not anymore employeed there. I wouldn't be surprised if they only kept Papyrus alive for the sake of their name, and restart a whole new company elsewhere with the same name (owned by Sierra, of course). -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Hopefully some of these guys will regroup somewhere's else. But when your worth millions and have a couple porsches in your garage its hard to code 18 hours a day and I don't blame them one bit. Also makes one quite skeptical about how good and revolutionary this Nascar 2003 will be :) > (owned by Sierra, of course). > > Merci Francois >

Quoted text (15 lines)

> 1-Niche producers like Papyrus should not have sold to companies like > Vivendi and Microsoft. > > 2-Persistent worlds and monthly fees should be part of any niche product > > 3-Addons should be a major part of the economic model > > 4-Pricing for simulation products should not be anything like other PC > Games. > > GPL2: $149.95 > Monthly fee is $8.00 > Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 > > One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00

This plan is similar to that proposed for RL. Could the Wests be right?

Even at $180 how many could they actually sell compared to a $60 Xbox or PS2 game? As much as I'd love to see Papy stay with the PC sim market we have to be realistic. Software companies have taken a beating the last could years and a lot of companies have disappeared. At this point investors and managers want sure things, not speculation. It's a lot easier to say we can we can make a new arcade title for the PS2 that has over 10 million consoles in North America alone (http://www.psreporter.com/playstation_2_sales.html) than it is to say we can make a new premium sim for say 100,000 possible target users (just made that up, I have no idea). ""Grand Theft Auto 3," developed by Rockstar Games for Sony's PlayStation 2, was the best-selling console game, with nearly 2 million units sold since October 2001. " (http://news.com.com/2100-1040-831599.html) At the end of the day the development cost are nearly the same for both titles so it really comes down to the pay off. I don't agree with this approach but this is the way the bean counters see things :-\ "rcmrcm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 1-Niche producers like Papyrus should not have sold to companies like > > Vivendi and Microsoft. > > > > 2-Persistent worlds and monthly fees should be part of any niche product > > > > 3-Addons should be a major part of the economic model > > > > 4-Pricing for simulation products should not be anything like other PC > > Games. > > > > GPL2: $149.95 > > Monthly fee is $8.00 > > Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 > > > > One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00 > > This plan is similar to that proposed for RL. Could the Wests be

right?

"Conga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VsHk9.100304$[email hidden]... > GPL2: $149.95 > Monthly fee is $8.00 > Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 > > One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00 I lost track somewhere along the way - what's the $8 monthly fee for? -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark

It's such a single minded vision. Why is it not possible to let the big sellers fund the fringe, and possibly more serious, works in these peoples minds? If I were to do hokey-doke P&R gigs all year I wouldn't make a cent. But if I didn't, the kids in my community would have lesser quality sound at all their public events. For more reasons than I care to go into, I believe that the youth of our planet deserve to experience as much richness of life as can be afforded them. I loose a little bit of money every time I go do a 'puppet show'. But it's important that the things that aren't hugely profitable still get done. So I do what I can, in my community. So I do a few corporate gigs, a few concerts, and a few 'puppet shows' in the park. In the end, I make ends meet and I do my part. It's such a simple design, it's not even funny. What better benefactor than the one with the means? You put out 20 GTA3s in a year, and one GPL every 3 or 4 years. Simple. Who is so greedy that they would deny their love of craft and heritage to make a few more pennies each year? A company that makes the best sims is gonna have a little more swing when they say, "Our bullets tear away flesh with amazing realism. And our cars slide real good too." Plus, the sim market is going to grow when the kid who loves his first person cop killer fantasy notices that his favorite gaming company also makes a CART sim. I see nothing wrong with doing the best you can for no other reason than the quest itself. If you get good, people will pay. But then... that's bad business, isn't it? Isn't that how Porsche supports their racing efforts? Or did that go the way of the dodo as well? -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_24_02_09_01AM.htm > > > > > Q: Where do you think the racing genre is heading? > > Rich: "I think that games that feature 'just racing' aren't enough for a lot > of people in this era of gnat-like attention spans, and that's particularly > true when it comes to the console crowd. That's why I think that you're > going to see more and more games like Driver and Grand Theft Auto - where > driving and racing is a part of the game, but not the whole experience.

"Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<KGOk9.100446$[email hidden]>... > ""Grand Theft Auto 3," developed by Rockstar Games for Sony's PlayStation 2, > was the best-selling console game, with nearly 2 million units sold since > October 2001. " (http://news.com.com/2100-1040-831599.html) This is no doubt what they're thinking. Problem is, I'm sure for every GTA 3 there's 50 complete failures/borderline successes (pure guesswork - I don't follow the industry). As someone else already pointed out, in the PC arena they've got very little competition. Growth. Again, not following the industry, my guess is that Papy ticked along nicely before Sierra got hold of them. Ticking over, making steady profit is not acceptable in the corporate arena. You must GROW. Not sure this is possible in such a niche. I'm gutted, but I'm also hoping someone else can plug the gap who will be happy milking the limited cash that will be readily available for the right product. Hey - Spider-Man grossed 300 mil domestically. Movies must be a cash cow just waiting to be milked. Let's get some of that action... Mark

I think it will be very good. I don't expect it will be very revolutionary, except that maybe it will go absolutely over the top in the eye candy department, to the degree that it will be several years before a run of the mill PC will be able to run it in "eye-candy mode" in a worthwhile manner. It's their last product in the line, so they want it to be able to hold its own for a while. I seriously doubt there will be signifigant change to any other parts of the engine. The one thing I am really hoping for is that they finally throw it open to the mod-makers, so the community can carry on where they had to leave off. Gerald "Conga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<e%Mk9.100419$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hopefully some of these guys will regroup somewhere's else. But when your > worth millions and have a couple porsches in your garage its hard to code 18 > hours a day and I don't blame them one bit. Also makes one quite skeptical > about how good and revolutionary this Nascar 2003 will be :) > > (owned by Sierra, of course). > > > > Merci Francois > >

> The one thing I am really hoping for is that they finally throw it > open to the mod-makers, so the community can carry on where they had > to leave off. > > Gerald That is my hoope as well. Just lok at how GPL has hung on with help from the games fans. MadDAWG

"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > I saw on Tech TV a few weeks ago that Microsoft has the X box 2 basicly > ready, but are waiting on something new like a PS3 to come out before they > release it. That's not the only reason. It would be financial suicide for them to release it now. The X-Box is still brand new. People have only just spent their hard earned cash on it. If they released a second X-Box now, few people would be willing to spend their money on it again. Would you?

On 26 Sep 2002 09:32:58 -0700, [email hidden] (Phoenix Knight) wrote: >I think you're right. The PS2, X-Box and GameCube are all relitively >new to the market, so naturally there's a lot of hype around them. >Publishers seem desperate to squeeze as much out of these consoles as >fast as they can, but once everybody's bought one, and once we get a >tide of shit games for them (as happened to the PS1), I'm sure they'll >start to work harder on the PC market again. Don't quite follow your logic here. Console games sales are on an incredible growth curve, nothing at all like what happened with the PSX. The next-gen consoles are rapidly becoming an ordinary part of every household, just like a VCR. And just like a VCR you can put a game in and it just works, which is why they are so popular. Secondly, while there are inevitably "shit games" on all platforms, one of the nice things about consoles (as opposed to PCs) is that the longer you own it the better the games get (gameplay, graphics, sound - in all areas really). The developers can't count on people upgrading graphics cards and CPUs, so they work very hard to squeeze more and more out of existing hardware. PC games will remain viable, but in an increaingly limited number of genres - flight and auto sims, first-person shooters, strategy games, etc. But to hope that the popularity of console games in general is a mere "blip" which will be reversed is nothing but wishful thinking.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:24:06 -0600, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Why is it not possible to let the big sellers fund the fringe, and possibly >more serious, works in these peoples minds? That's a good question. It's more or less how the movie business works. They all want the money-making big summer blockbuster. But they fund more serious films too in hopes of awards, critical acclaim, and building their studio's prestige.

I was pointing out this: 1: A sim being marketed to 100 000 customers can not be priced the same way as an arcade shooter aiming to sell 1 000 000 copies. Is Norton Anti Virus the same price as ACT or GHOST CORPORATE? No of course not. 2: Multiplayer play should not be a free feature of such a game. Online play, championships rankings and other features should generate a monthly fee. I.E Warbirds 3: Addon tracks, seasons and cars can generate some money. Its nuts to spend three years of R & D on a product like GPL and not build additional content for it... I paid 19.95 cnd for GPL in 1998 thats 12.00us if you divide that over four years its 3.00 a year and that is what the retailer got. No wonder they lose money. The other thing to keep in mind is that what makes a sim special is its physics....the life expectancy of a sim is completely different then an arcade shooter. The problem is not with the quantity of potential clients. Its the stuborness of the publishers trying to can a sim as if it was tuna. "Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> On 26 Sep 2002 09:32:58 -0700, [email hidden] (Phoenix > Knight) wrote: > > >I think you're right. The PS2, X-Box and GameCube are all relitively > >new to the market, so naturally there's a lot of hype around them. > >Publishers seem desperate to squeeze as much out of these consoles as > >fast as they can, but once everybody's bought one, and once we get a > >tide of shit games for them (as happened to the PS1), I'm sure they'll > >start to work harder on the PC market again. > > Don't quite follow your logic here. Console games sales are on an > incredible growth curve, nothing at all like what happened with the > PSX. > > The next-gen consoles are rapidly becoming an ordinary part of every > household, just like a VCR. And just like a VCR you can put a game in > and it just works, which is why they are so popular. > > Secondly, while there are inevitably "shit games" on all platforms, > one of the nice things about consoles (as opposed to PCs) is that the > longer you own it the better the games get (gameplay, graphics, sound > - in all areas really). The developers can't count on people upgrading > graphics cards and CPUs, so they work very hard to squeeze more and > more out of existing hardware. > > PC games will remain viable, but in an increaingly limited number of > genres - flight and auto sims, first-person shooters, strategy games, > etc. > > But to hope that the popularity of console games in general is a mere > "blip" which will be reversed is nothing but wishful thinking.

That is a good point. I have purchased many Sierra products out of respect for their support of Papyrus. Viper Racing Half Life collector's pack Cybergladiators No one lives forever Every Nascar Release GPL They can kiss that good bye. "Joe62" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:24:06 -0600, "mark jeangerard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Why is it not possible to let the big sellers fund the fringe, andpossibly > >more serious, works in these peoples minds? > > That's a good question. It's more or less how the movie business > works. They all want the money-making big summer blockbuster. But they > fund more serious films too in hopes of awards, critical acclaim, and > building their studio's prestige.

On 27 Sep 2002 04:32:52 -0700, [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I think it will be very good. I don't expect it will be very >revolutionary, except that maybe it will go absolutely over the top in >the eye candy department, to the degree that it will be several years >before a run of the mill PC will be able to run it in "eye-candy mode" >in a worthwhile manner. > >It's their last product in the line, so they want it to be able to >hold its own for a while. >

Eye candy wise (from the interview at least) talked about photo-realistic. Now if that is true and they are saying "we have to leave now but look at this" even the latest CPU will be stretched to the breaking point for a while to come so if that and "heres the code" about 3months in I would not see this thing leaving harddrives for a long time

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (rcmrcm) writes:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> 1-Niche producers like Papyrus should not have sold to companies like >> Vivendi and Microsoft. >> >> 2-Persistent worlds and monthly fees should be part of any niche product >> >> 3-Addons should be a major part of the economic model >> >> 4-Pricing for simulation products should not be anything like other PC >> Games. >> >> GPL2: $149.95 >> Monthly fee is $8.00 >> Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 >> >> One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00 > > This plan is similar to that proposed for RL. Could the Wests be right? >

But would the slower drivers REALLY pay a monthly fee to get their asses kicked all the time? I may be in a bunch of leagues now, but it also doesn't COST me anything. I don't join anything that actually costs to join, simply because I know I can't compete. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <ScTk9.1229$p03.1095@fe01>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>"Conga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:VsHk9.100304$[email hidden]... >> GPL2: $149.95 >> Monthly fee is $8.00 >> Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 >> >> One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00 > > I lost track somewhere along the way - what's the $8 monthly fee for?

Multiplayer membership? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 28 Sep 2002 16:02:08 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >But would the slower drivers REALLY pay a monthly fee to get their asses kicked >all the time? I may be in a bunch of leagues now, but it also doesn't COST me >anything. I don't join anything that actually costs to join, simply because I >know I can't compete. I can compete fine in leagues, and I still quit as soon as a cost was levied. I'd rather race AI than pay to play online, at least until 1.5mbps circuits come standard in every house. =) Jason

Is that to unlock the 'online' feature? I'd rather pay a larger price at the beginning. I'd buy yearly updates, np. Stuff like the no-disco patch I would expect for free... but paying a monthly fee to be able to dial up Jan and have a spin around Monza is strictly out. That's a bit like asking me to pay a monthly fee to Isuzu to get the current key to start my car. I don't like that idea one bit. Imagine a lease world, where you would buy a bed, but pay a monthly fee to lie in it. Same for you appliances and dog.... Yikes. :-( How does this Warbirds thing work? -- "Nothing gets closer!" - Crammond mark "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <ScTk9.1229$p03.1095@fe01>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> > writes: > > >"Conga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:VsHk9.100304$[email hidden]... > >> GPL2: $149.95 > >> Monthly fee is $8.00 > >> Carset and season pack for 1972 $34.95 > >> > >> One year revenue: appr. $180.00 vs $6.00 > > > > I lost track somewhere along the way - what's the $8 monthly fee for? > > Multiplayer membership? > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+8.03 > N2002 Rank:+20.124 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Well a lot of leagues charge fees to cover their server costs, trophies, etc plus it is also a way to show dedication to a league so that people aren't as apt to join and then quit after a few races. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 28 Sep 2002 16:02:08 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >But would the slower drivers REALLY pay a monthly fee to get their asseskicked > >all the time? I may be in a bunch of leagues now, but it also doesn'tCOST me > >anything. I don't join anything that actually costs to join, simplybecause I

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >know I can't compete. > > I can compete fine in leagues, and I still quit as soon as a cost was > levied. I'd rather race AI than pay to play online, at least until > 1.5mbps circuits come standard in every house. =) > > Jason

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:28:48 -0300, "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well a lot of leagues charge fees to cover their server costs, trophies, etc >plus it is also a way to show dedication to a league so that people aren't >as apt to join and then quit after a few races. I agree, and I understand why some leagues charge, I just can't justify paying to participate in terms of opportunity cost. That said, if RAS started a RASCAR type league, with full rules/points/prizes and Eldred charged for it, I'd join in a heartbeat. I'd get killed if it were in GPL or if the truly great simracers joined, but I'd also learn a lot more than I would by racing in most leagues and it would be fun losing. Jason

In article <djml9.2773$p03.896@fe01>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Is that to unlock the 'online' feature? > >I'd rather pay a larger price at the beginning. I'd buy yearly updates, np. >Stuff like the no-disco patch I would expect for free... but paying a >monthly fee to be able to dial up Jan and have a spin around Monza is >strictly out. That's a bit like asking me to pay a monthly fee to Isuzu to >get the current key to start my car. I don't like that idea one bit. Imagine >a lease world, where you would buy a bed, but pay a monthly fee to lie in >it. Same for you appliances and dog.... Yikes. :-( >

No, I'd think that it would be more like TEN was. You pay a monthly fee for their 'game matching' capability with ratings, ranks, and stats. >How does this Warbirds thing work? Dunno, but it's probably similar to the above. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > No, I'd think that it would be more like TEN was. You pay a monthly feefor > their 'game matching' capability with ratings, ranks, and stats. OK, I had it all futzed up in my head. I though the game publishing company was taking the monthly fee. :-) Of course, if the league offers what I want, and it's worth paying for or takes considerable effort to produce, I'd pay gladly. -- Mark > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+8.03 > N2002 Rank:+20.124 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.