Analogies, trains and FIRST-Racing...

My train analogy for FIRST Racing: Back in 1990 a company made its first passenger train. It was the best passenger train ever made and defined the design of trains for the future. The engineers and designers were heralded as innovators. A competitor surpassed it in 92 as new techniques and better tools were available. Undaunted our heroes redefined the genre again in 93 and followed it with their first goods train in 94. The goods train was bigger and heavier than the passenger versions and even though many preferred passenger trains the new technology in the new goods trains made many drivers make the switch and whilst they waited for the new technology to be incorporated in the passenger trains. This duly arrived a year later. Goods trains slowly improved but the real innovation was the new passenger train of 98 which again represented a major leap forward. Again the engineers and designers were viewed as heroes. Having created the greatest passenger train the company concentrated on their goods trains. Other companies launched new passenger trains but despite some successes the 98 passenger train was still regarded as the best by many of the drivers. Whilst the goods trains have a large following many drivers waited patiently for the next passenger train from the best designers. Years passed and it never arrived. The 98 trains were continually updated by their owners such that it looked up to date, but it lacked the technology being incorporated into the goods trains. As more years passed greater modifications were made to the 98 train by the customers to improve the technology rather than just the aesthetics. Furthermore goods trains were being converted to passenger trains in an effort to incorporate the new technology into passenger trains. Remarkably the manufacturers made no updates to passenger trains, leaving the customer base to modify the old trains and convert the goods trains as best they could. Fortunately for the manufacturers the continual improvements made by the customers kept them as a household name, despite their lack of involvement with passenger trains, such that when the company split up the key designers were able to form a new company credible to the passenger train market. The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but are waiting expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7 year void. At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds.

Wake me up when its over. The sleeper car looks inviting.

"MrMox" wrote: > Wake me up when its over. The sleeper car looks inviting. LOL. The sleeper car mod - I could use that in my next epistle. Then again maybe not :)

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tEiWd.28940$[email hidden]... > My train analogy for FIRST Racing: > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but arewaiting > expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7 yearvoid. > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds. Nothing wrong with what you wrote but you appear to miss the point. Money makes a company work, good PR is a nice thing to have, but it won't put bread on the table for long if people don't keep buying new trains. Why buy a second, new train if you can get a free second train by just modifying the original train? Don't forget a real train can only be changed, if you change it the original train is gone unless you change it back. You still only have one train. Mod a sim & you have the mod, plus the original sim is still there if you are interested in it. For example on my HD I have at least 5 mods for F12K2 plus the original sim but I only paid for one CD. Malc.

Hey Tony Where's your anorak, thermos & note book for the train numbers :) Stick to GPL - BTW I'm still being thrashed at Combe by my son. Chris "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tEiWd.28940$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> My train analogy for FIRST Racing: > > Back in 1990 a company made its first passenger train. It was the best > passenger train ever made and defined the design of trains for the future. > The engineers and designers were heralded as innovators. > > A competitor surpassed it in 92 as new techniques and better tools were > available. Undaunted our heroes redefined the genre again in 93 and

followed > it with their first goods train in 94. The goods train was bigger and > heavier than the passenger versions and even though many preferredpassenger > trains the new technology in the new goods trains made many drivers makethe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> switch and whilst they waited for the new technology to be incorporated in > the passenger trains. This duly arrived a year later. Goods trains slowly > improved but the real innovation was the new passenger train of 98 which > again represented a major leap forward. Again the engineers and designers > were viewed as heroes. > > Having created the greatest passenger train the company concentrated on > their goods trains. Other companies launched new passenger trains but > despite some successes the 98 passenger train was still regarded as the

best > by many of the drivers. Whilst the goods trains have a large followingmany > drivers waited patiently for the next passenger train from the best > designers. > > Years passed and it never arrived. The 98 trains were continually updatedby > their owners such that it looked up to date, but it lacked the technology > being incorporated into the goods trains. > > As more years passed greater modifications were made to the 98 train bythe > customers to improve the technology rather than just the aesthetics. > Furthermore goods trains were being converted to passenger trains in an > effort to incorporate the new technology into passenger trains. Remarkably > the manufacturers made no updates to passenger trains, leaving thecustomer > base to modify the old trains and convert the goods trains as best they > could. > > Fortunately for the manufacturers the continual improvements made by the > customers kept them as a household name, despite their lack of involvement > with passenger trains, such that when the company split up the keydesigners > were able to form a new company credible to the passenger train market. > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but arewaiting > expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7 yearvoid. > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds. > >

"Chris Bradley" wrote: > Hey Tony > Where's your anorak, thermos & note book for the train numbers :) > Stick to GPL - BTW I'm still being thrashed at Combe by my son. > Chris I just wanted to prove how nonsensical the analogies being used were. I think I may have gone overboard this time even by my standards :) Though in my (admittedly rather weak) defence I may have been indoctrinated by my youngest playing Starlight Express repeatedly... Kaemmer and I should clearly do our talking on the track and leave the analogies to others. BTW, Chris - have you tried the 65 mod yet? Cheers Tony

All you intellectual property buffs might wanna head on over to Catwoman: Copycat, here: http://www.bluetights.net/copycat/ These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick, they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:422a46bf$0$565$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tEiWd.28940$[email hidden]... > > My train analogy for FIRST Racing: > > > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but are > waiting > > expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7 year > void. > > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds. > > Nothing wrong with what you wrote but you appear to miss the point. Money > makes a company work, good PR is a nice thing to have, but it won't put > bread on the table for long if people don't keep buying new trains. Why

buy > a second, new train if you can get a free second train by just modifyingthe > original train? > > Don't forget a real train can only be changed, if you change it theoriginal > train is gone unless you change it back. You still only have one train.Mod > a sim & you have the mod, plus the original sim is still there if you are > interested in it. > > For example on my HD I have at least 5 mods for F12K2 plus the originalsim > but I only paid for one CD. > > Malc. > >

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:oNL_d.83931$[email hidden]: > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick, > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... > I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the 1.201 patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave off EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on Papyrus' promise. dave henrie

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oNL_d.83931$[email hidden]... > All you intellectual property buffs might wanna head on over to Catwoman: > Copycat, here: > > http://www.bluetights.net/copycat/ > > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick,they're > bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an analogy even worse than Tonys. Malc.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:422a46bf$0$565$[email hidden]... > > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:tEiWd.28940$[email hidden]... > > > My train analogy for FIRST Racing: > > > > > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but are > > waiting > > > expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7 year > > void. > > > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds. > > > > Nothing wrong with what you wrote but you appear to miss the point.

Money

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > makes a company work, good PR is a nice thing to have, but it won't put > > bread on the table for long if people don't keep buying new trains. Why > buy > > a second, new train if you can get a free second train by just modifying > the > > original train? > > > > Don't forget a real train can only be changed, if you change it the > original > > train is gone unless you change it back. You still only have one train. > Mod > > a sim & you have the mod, plus the original sim is still there if you

are

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > interested in it. > > > > For example on my HD I have at least 5 mods for F12K2 plus the original > sim > > but I only paid for one CD. > > > > Malc. > > > > > >

"Malc" wrote: > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but > > are waiting expectantly for the new generation passenger trains > > to fill the 7 year void. > > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds. > Nothing wrong with what you wrote Well even I was bored when I got to read it :) > but you appear to miss the point. Money > makes a company work, good PR is a nice thing to have, but it won't put > bread on the table for long if people don't keep buying new trains. Why > buy a second, new train if you can get a free second train by just > modifying the original train? If there are new and better ones to buy they will be bought. People don't spend money changing cars just because they are getting worn out but because they believe the newer ones are better. The loyalty and good PR bit just comes for free by an interest being maintained in their products by the modders. Probably doesn't make much difference to sales but is still a nice to have in case decent competitive products came on the market. Cheers Tony

"Malc" wrote: > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an > analogy even worse than Tonys. Thanks Malc :) Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too* good a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense!

It's not an analogy, it's case law. "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423bf27e$0$20513$[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:oNL_d.83931$[email hidden]... > > All you intellectual property buffs might wanna head on over toCatwoman:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > Copycat, here: > > > > http://www.bluetights.net/copycat/ > > > > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick, > they're > > bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... > > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an > analogy even worse than Tonys. > > Malc. > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:422a46bf$0$565$[email hidden]... > > > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:tEiWd.28940$[email hidden]... > > > > My train analogy for FIRST Racing: > > > > > > > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but are > > > waiting > > > > expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7

year > > > void. > > > > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds. > > > > > > Nothing wrong with what you wrote but you appear to miss the point. > Money > > > makes a company work, good PR is a nice thing to have, but it won'tput > > > bread on the table for long if people don't keep buying new trains.Why > > buy > > > a second, new train if you can get a free second train by justmodifying > > the > > > original train? > > > > > > Don't forget a real train can only be changed, if you change it the > > original > > > train is gone unless you change it back. You still only have onetrain. > > Mod > > > a sim & you have the mod, plus the original sim is still there if you > are > > > interested in it. > > > > > > For example on my HD I have at least 5 mods for F12K2 plus theoriginal

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > sim > > > but I only paid for one CD. > > > > > > Malc. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Going back to IndyCar Racing and the original NASCAR Racing, Papyrus worked hard to discourage mods. I presented Kaemmer with evidence that the (wholly unintentional) "modability" of Microsoft's Flight Simulator actually encouraged that sim's growth. Eventually, Papyrus embraced the idea. But, like SimBin, which started out as modders and now discourage it in GTR (they shut down a promising BMW M3 expansion car and won't even permit mention of 3rd-party tracks on their forums), Papy's legal and spiritual successor, F1RST, has joined the ranks of the Blue Meanies. They don't seem to have learned anything from the mods of games like Half-Life and Battlefield, which would prolly have ceased to exist w/o mods like Counter-Strike and Galactic Conquest. It's been the salvation of racing sims in an era when console games and ring-tones for cells almost wiped PC gaming off the face of the earth. Even Unreal Tournament is on board, promoting modding with contests like Make Something Unreal. Kaemmer may be Master of the Physics Engine, but abt. what makes the gaming world go around, he ain't gotta clue. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:oNL_d.83931$[email hidden]: > > > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick, > > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... > > > > I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the 1.201 > patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave

off > EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are > close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on Papyrus' > promise. > > dave henrie >

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tPS_d.668$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Malc" wrote: > > > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an > > analogy even worse than Tonys. > > Thanks Malc :) > > Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too*

good > a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense! I take it all back, Steve found an analogy even worse than DK's then. Steve, This thread was started to offer an explanation of the thought process behind sim designers allowing people to create what is essentially a second complete sim that can double the value of their original sim - this has the benefit of making the sim potentially appeal to a wider audience but the downside that the need to buy new sims may be reduced. It should be pretty clear to most that the intellectual rights belong to the original design team & there is a gentlemen's agreement that it's broadly okay to mod a sim even though usually the EULA will specifically prohibit it. If the designer chooses not to look the other way the community can't really do anything other than accept that. If it ended up in court the designer would win every time, so I don't really see how case law has anything to do with this situation. If the situation reaches the point where case law history is required the modders have already lost, and nobody likes a poor loser. Just accept and respect FIRST's decision & aim to influence the genres they simulate rather than getting hung up on the modding. There are plenty of other sims to mod. Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to suit your needs. Malc.

I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm objecting to their prior restraint of what others have produced. The rights you seem so eager to protect here are not being violated. There is no commercial intent. F1RST would have to prove that TR's mod (or BR's or C'One's or anybody's) are hurting the sales of that which they undeniably own the rights to, namely, NASCAR Racing 2003. But...N2003 isn't being sold (at least not by F1RST), so they would have to prove that these mods would hurt *future* sales of some as-yet-undefined F1RST product, which obviously can't--or won't--be done. I smell a rat when F1RST jumps in to not only protect their rights, but when they also force TR to remove references to Sauber/Mercedes, Jaguar, Mazda and Toyota. Is F1RST the agent, assign, counsel, heir, or party to any of these manufacturers? No, they are, IMO, just throwing their weight around to show they "mean business." I know all about property rights. I introduced a property called the Swiss Army Watch here in the U.S. I was contacted by the bullies, thugs, and goons of Forschner, who distibuted the Swiss Army Knife in this country. They told me, among other things, that I could not sell a watch with a red dial (!) and that I could not claim that the watch was made in Switzerland (which it was, in the hamlet of Porrentruy). This kind of intimidation is standard in this business. I forced them to change their name to Swiss Army *Brands* (their product had never been endorsed by the Swiss Army), but they forced me out of business because I could not afford to defend my little company against the onslaught of their mighty legal brigade. After I quit the field, they gobbled up my idea and profited from it to the tune of several million dollars a year. And still do. If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner of the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for the love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very people he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, if he ever gets a product out the door that these people might actually otherwise want. "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tPS_d.668$[email hidden]... > > "Malc" wrote: > > > > > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to findan

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > analogy even worse than Tonys. > > > > Thanks Malc :) > > > > Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too* > good > > a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense! > > I take it all back, Steve found an analogy even worse than DK's then. > > Steve, This thread was started to offer an explanation of the thought > process behind sim designers allowing people to create what is essentially

a > second complete sim that can double the value of their original sim - this > has the benefit of making the sim potentially appeal to a wider audiencebut > the downside that the need to buy new sims may be reduced. > > It should be pretty clear to most that the intellectual rights belong tothe > original design team & there is a gentlemen's agreement that it's broadly > okay to mod a sim even though usually the EULA will specifically prohibit > it. If the designer chooses not to look the other way the community can't > really do anything other than accept that. > > If it ended up in court the designer would win every time, so I don'treally > see how case law has anything to do with this situation. If the situation > reaches the point where case law history is required the modders have > already lost, and nobody likes a poor loser. Just accept and respectFIRST's

Quoted text (10 lines)

> decision & aim to influence the genres they simulate rather than getting > hung up on the modding. There are plenty of other sims to mod. > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to suit > your needs. > > Malc. > >

The majority of the mods you mention there, Steve, extend the current code and do not alter the actual core code and that's where FIRST is drawing the line. FIRST is only going after mods that alter the .exe. While I'm not especially happy about it (I was looking forward to the 1970's mod and the 2005 update) FIRST not only is fully within their rights, I wouldn't be surprised if they legally have to. I can't remember what flight sim it was where some airline had a cow about people putting replicas of their airplanes into it. Let's say one of of the car manufacturers that were in the original GTP mod decided they didn't like their cars in the mod and went after Redline over it. If FIRST did not do anything to prevent Redline's original mod then I'm sure some lawyer out there could twist it that they, too, were culpable. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fn%_d.84081$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> Going back to IndyCar Racing and the original NASCAR Racing, Papyrus > worked > hard to discourage mods. I presented Kaemmer with evidence that the > (wholly > unintentional) "modability" of Microsoft's Flight Simulator actually > encouraged that sim's growth. Eventually, Papyrus embraced the idea. > But, > like SimBin, which started out as modders and now discourage it in GTR > (they > shut down a promising BMW M3 expansion car and won't even permit mention > of > 3rd-party tracks on their forums), Papy's legal and spiritual successor, > F1RST, has joined the ranks of the Blue Meanies. They don't seem to have > learned anything from the mods of games like Half-Life and Battlefield, > which would prolly have ceased to exist w/o mods like Counter-Strike and > Galactic Conquest. It's been the salvation of racing sims in an era when > console games and ring-tones for cells almost wiped PC gaming off the face > of the earth. Even Unreal Tournament is on board, promoting modding with > contests like Make Something Unreal. Kaemmer may be Master of the Physics > Engine, but abt. what makes the gaming world go around, he ain't gotta > clue. > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> news:oNL_d.83931$[email hidden]: >> >> > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick, >> > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... >> > >> >> I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the >> 1.201 >> patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave > off >> EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are >> close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on >> Papyrus' >> promise. >> >> dave henrie >> > >

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:f46%d.101111$[email hidden]: > I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm FIRST. Not F1RST, which is a completely different bunch of guys. Let's face it, FIRST don't give a toss whether mods improve sales of NR2003, because I doubt they get anything from any sale of NR2003 in the shops. They bought the rights, not the money it's already made. Any talk about how Papyrus/Vivendi were happy for mods to come about has to be taken in the context that it was FIRST, under the guise of PWF, that engineered the situation to put CTS/TA/Busch code in the nr2003.exe, giving the illusion that exe modding would be ok, because papy did it for people anyway. Then DK+PWF > FIRST. A canny manouver, for sure. cheers John

"Steve Smith" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner > of the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for > the love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very > people he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that > is, if he ever gets a product out the door that these people might > actually otherwise want.

I agree. In reality the niche group who mod and play mods probably isn't going to make a difference to John Henry's bottom line so embracing the modders or eliminating them "just in case" doesn't really matter. However, it doesn't feel like the developers playing nicely with their greatest fans does it nor come across particularly well in demonstrating Henry as an "avid participant in the auto racing simulation community"? It seems a bit like a car manufacturer going after one of its enthusiast owners clubs members for modifying their engines, a tiny percentage of customers but hardly good PR. Quite how the developer run "Federation of International Racing and Sanctioning Trust" will work remains to be seen.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:f46%d.101111$[email hidden]... > If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the ownerof > the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade forthe > love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the verypeople > he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, ifhe > ever gets a product out the door that these people might actuallyotherwise > want. Too bad you don't realise that the sims are more important than the mods. Sure the mods are important, but you can't mod something that doesn't exist, and if the community puts the creators in a position where they are no longer financially interested in creating the sims in the first place the whole community loses out anyway. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. If it's good enough we'll buy the sims anyway whether they can be modded or not. There is a compromise as I stated earlier that the lack of mods may restrict sales a little (I wouldn't have bought F1C or F12k2 were it not for the mods, I only bought NR2k3 & NR4 to pay my Papy tax) but if restricting the mods allows DK & buddies to secure a better financial footing & therefore produce more sims then that benefits us all. Maybe in the future 'if we behave' we'll be given something that can be legitimately modded as a reward, as we were with the extra code in NR2k3. Some people may want mods for the sake of it but mostly what I think the community wants are sims that model what they are interested in. Would you rather have that sim made by DK or the modding community? Both can produce great stuff but given the choice between buying a sim then modifying it to suit my needs, or buying a sim that suits my needs in the first place I'll go with the latter every time. Malc. > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it tosuit > > your needs.

Anything's possible, as my 12-year-old sez. Yes, I tell him, but is it probable? If somebody tried to *sell* an American Airlines (or even Pan-Am) add-on a/c for MSFS, they'd need a license (altho Nick Watts can paint a picture of a Ferrari at Le Mans and sell prints for $250 each without Ferrari's permission or paying Ferrari a royalty). But if somebody made an add-on and gave it away, that's protected by the First Amendment. NASCAR can protect their "likenesses and images" because, like the NFL, they operate within stadiums and nobody ever reads the fine print on the ticket. But AA and Pan-Am operate in the public arena. If you can paint a picture of their airliners or put their name and descrip in a novel, you can also make a model or render a virtual model - that all falls in the domain of fair use. What you do in private is different from what you do in public. "Narrow-casting" (semi-peivate distribution) of "art" is the gray area we're talking about, and who'd win a suit would depend on who had the deeper pockets. "Michael Horton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o9%d.76131$gJ3.25853@clgrps13... > The majority of the mods you mention there, Steve, extend the current code > and do not alter the actual core code and that's where FIRST is drawingthe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> line. FIRST is only going after mods that alter the .exe. While I'm not > especially happy about it (I was looking forward to the 1970's mod and the > 2005 update) FIRST not only is fully within their rights, I wouldn't be > surprised if they legally have to. I can't remember what flight sim it was > where some airline had a cow about people putting replicas of their > airplanes into it. Let's say one of of the car manufacturers that were in > the original GTP mod decided they didn't like their cars in the mod and

went

Quoted text (19 lines)

> after Redline over it. If FIRST did not do anything to prevent Redline's > original mod then I'm sure some lawyer out there could twist it that they, > too, were culpable. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Fn%_d.84081$[email hidden]... > > Going back to IndyCar Racing and the original NASCAR Racing, Papyrus > > worked > > hard to discourage mods. I presented Kaemmer with evidence that the > > (wholly > > unintentional) "modability" of Microsoft's Flight Simulator actually > > encouraged that sim's growth. Eventually, Papyrus embraced the idea. > > But, > > like SimBin, which started out as modders and now discourage it in GTR > > (they > > shut down a promising BMW M3 expansion car and won't even permit mention > > of > > 3rd-party tracks on their forums), Papy's legal and spiritual successor, > > F1RST, has joined the ranks of the Blue Meanies. They don't seem to

have > > learned anything from the mods of games like Half-Life and Battlefield, > > which would prolly have ceased to exist w/o mods like Counter-Strike and > > Galactic Conquest. It's been the salvation of racing sims in an erawhen > > console games and ring-tones for cells almost wiped PC gaming off theface > > of the earth. Even Unreal Tournament is on board, promoting moddingwith > > contests like Make Something Unreal. Kaemmer may be Master of thePhysics

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > Engine, but abt. what makes the gaming world go around, he ain't gotta > > clue. > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > >> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in > >> news:oNL_d.83931$[email hidden]: > >> > >> > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick, > >> > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable.... > >> > > >> > >> I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the > >> 1.201 > >> patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave > > off > >> EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are > >> close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on > >> Papyrus' > >> promise. > >> > >> dave henrie > >> > > > > > >

Yer right abt. FIRST (sorry), but wrong abt. PWF. Kaemmer had long since left Papy when the ex-Papy peeps did their deed, and I don't think he was associated with the Project (altho, like the similarly reclusive Howard Hughes, his fingerprints are always deliberately smudged). Indeed, it may have been because PWF let the (intellectual property) cat outta the bag that he decided to shut down any repeat of the "leak." "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:f46%d.101111$[email hidden]: > > > I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm > > > FIRST. Not F1RST, which is a completely different bunch of guys. > Let's face it, FIRST don't give a toss whether mods improve sales of > NR2003, because I doubt they get anything from any sale of NR2003 in the > shops. They bought the rights, not the money it's already made. > > Any talk about how Papyrus/Vivendi were happy for mods to come about has

to > be taken in the context that it was FIRST, under the guise of PWF, that > engineered the situation to put CTS/TA/Busch code in the nr2003.exe,giving

Quoted text (10 lines)

> the illusion that exe modding would be ok, because papy did it for people > anyway. > > Then DK+PWF > FIRST. > > A canny manouver, for sure. > > cheers > John >

Agreed. Corporate greed and myopia go hand in hand. A friend of mine makes die-cast model cars. He wanted to make a 1:18 of the Lotus-Ford that ran at Indy. He reasoned that since Ford had spent millions of dollars 40 years ago for the p.r. (to influence peep's perception of Ford as a performance-minded company), they'd be happy to have a reminder of their glory days. But no, they gave him the run-around and finally told him it would cost him $50,000 to put the Ford "bug" (logo) on the model. My friend pointed out that the development cost of the model was around $100,000 and he'd be lucky to sell a thousand of them (unlike 1:43 models, 1:18s don't exactly fly off the shelves) to break even. He put the model on the market without the Ford logo, thus diluting the impact of the millions that Ford had already spent and gaining no additional impact. What would the $50K have done to their bottom line? That's probably less than they would have made selling a couple of extra Expeditions. OTOH, I told Kaemmer years ago that instead of going to corporations, hat in hand, and begging for their permission to use their products in games, that he should go to them like a movie company and ask for money for "product placement." Ford will pay movie producers up to $100,000 per vehicle to get a Ford Expedition, say, in a film (even if it's irrelevant to the plot). What exposure do they get out of this? Usually no more than one "impression" (viewing) per customer. I used to work as a marketing consultant. Marketeers pay per impression. Now take, say, Firestone. If one of their billboards appears trackside in, say, NASCAR Racing, they reap the benefit of THOUSANDS of impressions per viewer over the life of the game. In any marketing research, this would be worth thousands to Firestone, and they should be willing to pay the developer multiple thousands of dollars for such free advertising. Nowadays, of course, this is becoming the norm (and will only get more instrusive), but 20 years ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for suggesting such a radical idea. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EHb%d.1770$[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" wrote: > > > If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but noton > > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (theowner > > of the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their tradefor

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > the love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very > > people he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that > > is, if he ever gets a product out the door that these people might > > actually otherwise want. > > I agree. In reality the niche group who mod and play mods probably isn't > going to make a difference to John Henry's bottom line so embracing the > modders or eliminating them "just in case" doesn't really matter. > > However, it doesn't feel like the developers playing nicely with their > greatest fans does it nor come across particularly well in demonstrating > Henry as an "avid participant in the auto racing simulation community"? > > It seems a bit like a car manufacturer going after one of its enthusiast > owners clubs members for modifying their engines, a tiny percentage of > customers but hardly good PR. > > Quite how the developer run "Federation of International Racing and > Sanctioning Trust" will work remains to be seen. > > > > > >

Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make Something Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage modders. They prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is worth to their bottom line. You might even say they're feeding the hand that bites them (from FIRST's perspective). "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423d796b$0$531$[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:f46%d.101111$[email hidden]... > > > If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but noton > > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (theowner

Quoted text (13 lines)

> of > > the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for > the > > love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very > people > > he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, if > he > > ever gets a product out the door that these people might actually > otherwise > > want. > > Too bad you don't realise that the sims are more important than the mods. > Sure the mods are important, but you can't mod something that doesn't

exist, > and if the community puts the creators in a position where they are no > longer financially interested in creating the sims in the first place the > whole community loses out anyway. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. > > If it's good enough we'll buy the sims anyway whether they can be moddedor > not. There is a compromise as I stated earlier that the lack of mods may > restrict sales a little (I wouldn't have bought F1C or F12k2 were it notfor > the mods, I only bought NR2k3 & NR4 to pay my Papy tax) but if restricting > the mods allows DK & buddies to secure a better financial footing & > therefore produce more sims then that benefits us all. Maybe in the future > 'if we behave' we'll be given something that can be legitimately modded asa

Quoted text (22 lines)

> reward, as we were with the extra code in NR2k3. > > Some people may want mods for the sake of it but mostly what I think the > community wants are sims that model what they are interested in. Would you > rather have that sim made by DK or the modding community? Both can produce > great stuff but given the choice between buying a sim then modifying it to > suit my needs, or buying a sim that suits my needs in the first place I'll > go with the latter every time. > > Malc. > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to > suit > > > your needs. > >

Steve Smith wrote: but 20 years > ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for suggesting > such a radical idea. Was her name Anne-Marie? Mitch -- Remove "nospam." to reply. SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

but 20 years Was her name Anne-Marie? Mitch -- Remove "nospam." to reply. SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

The only problem with this analogy is....what if you have a situation where one brand is cleaning the clocks of all the other brands in real life. E.g. the way Firestone was crushing Goodyears a few years back when the two competed in CART. Let's say Goodyear pays a sim maker for "product placement" in a CART sim but then everyone who plays the game chooses Firestones because the Goodyears are accurately simulated as being crap by comparison. Product placement is a 'neutral' concept where the brand is in your face. I seriously doubt that the company would be eager to pay for "placement" where they were made to look bad because they were failing in the real life competition as well. Randy Steve Smith wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> OTOH, I told Kaemmer years ago that instead of going to corporations, > hat in hand, and begging for their permission to use their products > in games, that he should go to them like a movie company and ask for > money for "product placement." Ford will pay movie producers up to > $100,000 per vehicle to get a Ford Expedition, say, in a film (even > if it's irrelevant to the plot). What exposure do they get out of > this? Usually no more than one "impression" (viewing) per customer. > I used to work as a marketing consultant. Marketeers pay per > impression. Now take, say, Firestone. If one of their billboards > appears trackside in, say, NASCAR Racing, they reap the benefit of > THOUSANDS of impressions per viewer over the life of the game. In > any marketing research, this would be worth thousands to Firestone, > and they should be willing to pay the developer multiple thousands of > dollars for such free advertising. Nowadays, of course, this is > becoming the norm (and will only get more instrusive), but 20 years > ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for > suggesting such a radical idea.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vDf%d.84178$[email hidden]... > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make Something > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage modders.They > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is worthto > their bottom line. You might even say they're feeding the hand that bites > them (from FIRST's perspective). If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their wishes you fool. Malc. > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you mightlike > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter itto > > suit > > > > your needs.

As we like to say in marketing, Randy, "One hand washes the other." "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> The only problem with this analogy is....what if you have a situation > where one brand is cleaning the clocks of all the other brands in real > life. E.g. the way Firestone was crushing Goodyears a few years back > when the two competed in CART. Let's say Goodyear pays a sim maker for > "product placement" in a CART sim but then everyone who plays the game > chooses Firestones because the Goodyears are accurately simulated as > being crap by comparison. > > Product placement is a 'neutral' concept where the brand is in your > face. I seriously doubt that the company would be eager to pay for > "placement" where they were made to look bad because they were failing > in the real life competition as well. > > Randy > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > OTOH, I told Kaemmer years ago that instead of going to corporations, > > hat in hand, and begging for their permission to use their products > > in games, that he should go to them like a movie company and ask for > > money for "product placement." Ford will pay movie producers up to > > $100,000 per vehicle to get a Ford Expedition, say, in a film (even > > if it's irrelevant to the plot). What exposure do they get out of > > this? Usually no more than one "impression" (viewing) per customer. > > I used to work as a marketing consultant. Marketeers pay per > > impression. Now take, say, Firestone. If one of their billboards > > appears trackside in, say, NASCAR Racing, they reap the benefit of > > THOUSANDS of impressions per viewer over the life of the game. In > > any marketing research, this would be worth thousands to Firestone, > > and they should be willing to pay the developer multiple thousands of > > dollars for such free advertising. Nowadays, of course, this is > > becoming the norm (and will only get more instrusive), but 20 years > > ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for > > suggesting such a radical idea.

Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n ot...v.v. "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423dbd33$0$535$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:vDf%d.84178$[email hidden]... > > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make Something > > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage modders. > They > > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is worth > to > > their bottom line. You might even say they're feeding the hand that

bites > > them (from FIRST's perspective). > > If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their wishesyou

Quoted text (18 lines)

> fool. > > Malc. > > > > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might > like > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it > to > > > suit > > > > > your needs. > >

Not to be churlish...if a game like IndyCar Racing featured a Chevy-powered car that could crush all the Ford-powered cars, then Ford would be stupid to buy into the deal, either as a licenser or literally by paying for product placement. (But you're right, in The French Connection, the car that Gene Hackman comandeers is truly brand-neutral, altho a huge case could be made for the benefits to Ford...and, to a lesser degree, to Dodge...for the Mustang that Steve McQueen drove in Bullit...and the Charger that the bad guys drove.) Or if a game exists where you can only win on Michelins, then Firestone and Goodyear shouldn't have any part of it. But since game developers generally aim toward a level playing field ("play balance"), that's not likely to be the case. I also worked at car magazines (Road & Track, Car and Driver, Motor Trend) and at ad agencies (for accounts like Mercedes, Porsche, Ford, Chevy, etc.). The case was often made that agencies should only buy ads in magazines that were likewise "brand-neutral," i.e., not biased for or against any given manufacturer. But the opposite argument--that increased brand exposure can counter bad reviews--also had its proponents. Once, when I announced in Car and Driver that we would not be road-testing a Corvette because its build quality was so poor, not only did the ad agency *not* cancel its advertising, they reasoned that they should buy even more pages to counter the negative impression that I had created. (And Zora Duntov loved the comment; he used it as a club to beat up top GM brass with the argument that he needed more money for quality control. And he got it; it's in his book.) "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> The only problem with this analogy is....what if you have a situation > where one brand is cleaning the clocks of all the other brands in real > life. E.g. the way Firestone was crushing Goodyears a few years back > when the two competed in CART. Let's say Goodyear pays a sim maker for > "product placement" in a CART sim but then everyone who plays the game > chooses Firestones because the Goodyears are accurately simulated as > being crap by comparison. > > Product placement is a 'neutral' concept where the brand is in your > face. I seriously doubt that the company would be eager to pay for > "placement" where they were made to look bad because they were failing > in the real life competition as well. > > Randy > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > OTOH, I told Kaemmer years ago that instead of going to corporations, > > hat in hand, and begging for their permission to use their products > > in games, that he should go to them like a movie company and ask for > > money for "product placement." Ford will pay movie producers up to > > $100,000 per vehicle to get a Ford Expedition, say, in a film (even > > if it's irrelevant to the plot). What exposure do they get out of > > this? Usually no more than one "impression" (viewing) per customer. > > I used to work as a marketing consultant. Marketeers pay per > > impression. Now take, say, Firestone. If one of their billboards > > appears trackside in, say, NASCAR Racing, they reap the benefit of > > THOUSANDS of impressions per viewer over the life of the game. In > > any marketing research, this would be worth thousands to Firestone, > > and they should be willing to pay the developer multiple thousands of > > dollars for such free advertising. Nowadays, of course, this is > > becoming the norm (and will only get more instrusive), but 20 years > > ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for > > suggesting such a radical idea.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:u_l%d.146015$[email hidden]... >Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n > ot...v.v. You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put the dev in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no more sims from that dev, simple. So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hope they are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on (eg to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want mods, there will be no mods. If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed. If the devs don't mind mods being made (or if they encourage them) then it doesn't matter either way. If you bite the hand that feeds you and it doesn't mind being bitten, it doesn't matter whether you bite it or not. (I feel this is stretching the analogy somewhat, but it's still a damned sight closer than some in this thread) The flip side of this is that if the dev who doesn't want mods doesn't make a popular sim he'll be in a less robust position, so what I'm saying is that you (personally you Steve) need to be attempting to influence what sport the sim actually simulates rather than worrying about the little stuff like how mod-friendly the sim is. Malc.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:423dbd33$0$535$[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:vDf%d.84178$[email hidden]... > > > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make Something > > > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage modders. > > They > > > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is

worth

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > to > > > their bottom line. You might even say they're feeding the hand that > bites > > > them (from FIRST's perspective). > > > > If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their wishes > you > > fool. > > > > Malc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might > > like > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter

it

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > to > > > > suit > > > > > > your needs. > > > > > >

If the mods make the game wildly popular then the devs will have a lot less trouble finding fin backers that if they had put out a game that can't be modded, or, worse, nobody *wants* to mod. Like Postal, which sold less than GPL its first time out. Somehow, I don't think Kaemmer, with the squillions he got from selling out to Sierra, and Henry, a trader who rides herd on a $2 billion fund and who paid $700 million for the Red Sox, are going to have to go to the vulture capitalists. You're the one who doesn't seem to get it, Malc. Mods are not only not the Anti-Christ, but are instead so good for business that they have been embraced by the rest of the PC games community as a source of fresh blood, new ideas, reams of fawning p.r., near-infinite good will, and future loyalties. Otherwise, why would Atari be willing to spend ONE MILLION DOLLARS to encourage them? Mods are one of the few reasons left to get into PC games, as opposed to consoles, where the h/w and s/w are as rigid as a control-freak like Herr Ing. hcF Kaemmer likes. I'd go so far as to say that if it wasn't for mods, PC games would be in even more dire straits than they already are. What planet or century are you from exactly? Mod-friendliness isn't "little." At one point, there were 30,000 players on several thousand servers every night playing Counter-Strike, far outstripping the success of the original game. Ghost Recon, a far better FPS, wasn't mod friendly (you could make maps, uniforms and guns and that was about it), and it dribbled away like Duke Nukem. Ghost Recon 2 for the PC, in the works since 2002 (the year after GR was released), was recently canceled for lack of interest. All that remains are the console titles. That's where a lack of mod-friendliness will get you. --Tom Clancy "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423e0bfa$0$546$[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:u_l%d.146015$[email hidden]... > > >Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n > > ot...v.v. > > You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put thedev > in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no moresims > from that dev, simple. > > So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hopethey > are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on(eg

Quoted text (7 lines)

> to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want > mods, there will be no mods. > If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed. > > If the devs don't mind mods being made (or if they encourage them) then it > doesn't matter either way. If you bite the hand that feeds you and it > doesn't mind being bitten, it doesn't matter whether you bite it or not.

(I > feel this is stretching the analogy somewhat, but it's still a damnedsight > closer than some in this thread) > > The flip side of this is that if the dev who doesn't want mods doesn'tmake > a popular sim he'll be in a less robust position, so what I'm saying isthat > you (personally you Steve) need to be attempting to influence what sportthe > sim actually simulates rather than worrying about the little stuff likehow

Quoted text (10 lines)

> mod-friendly the sim is. > > Malc. > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:423dbd33$0$535$[email hidden]... > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:vDf%d.84178$[email hidden]... > > > > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make

Something > > > > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encouragemodders.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > They > > > > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is > worth > > > to > > > > their bottom line. You might even say they're feeding the hand that > > bites > > > > them (from FIRST's perspective). > > > > > > If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their

wishes

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > you > > > fool. > > > > > > Malc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you

might > > > like > > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can'talter

Quoted text (10 lines)

> it > > > to > > > > > suit > > > > > > > your needs. > > > > > > > > > > > >

She was wearing a housecoat and slippers. I vividly remember what she said to me (and won't repeat it here) but I don't remember if she had curlers in her hair, and I vehemently disremember her name. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:m2h%d.20476$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote: > > but 20 years > > ago, Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for suggesting > > such a radical idea. > > Was her name Anne-Marie? > > Mitch > -- > Remove "nospam." to reply. > SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7To%d.106523$[email hidden]... > If the mods make the game wildly popular then the devs will have a lotless > trouble finding fin backers that if they had put out a game that can't be > modded, or, worse, nobody *wants* to mod. Like Postal, which sold lessthan > GPL its first time out. Somehow, I don't think Kaemmer, with thesquillions > he got from selling out to Sierra, and Henry, a trader who rides herd on a > $2 billion fund and who paid $700 million for the Red Sox, are going tohave > to go to the vulture capitalists. We're talking about racing sims here, it's a specialist market. If you are a dev & you want something that will be 'wildly popular' you make a good arcade racer, not a sim. Not only is it a specialist market, within that market there are a great deal of different racing series, even if you generalise & use terms like 'single seaters', or 'rallying' or 'touring cars'. You obviously realise that it's possible to make more than one type of racing sim from the same base game engine, that's what the aftermarket mods do after all. The market isn't big enough to support a specialist sim in an already specialist market, and for EA it's solution is to make sims that out of the box appeal to as wide an audience as possible (ie F1 mostly) but that can be modded so people like me (who aren't interested in racing modern F1) might also buy it. I'm not saying that doesn't work, nor am I saying it's a bad choice. It's just a choice. And FIRST have made a different choice, which is (hopefully) to focus on multiplayer. > You're the one who doesn't seem to get it, Malc. Mods are not only notthe > Anti-Christ, but are instead so good for business that they have been > embraced by the rest of the PC games community as a source of fresh blood, > new ideas, reams of fawning p.r., near-infinite good will, and future > loyalties. Otherwise, why would Atari be willing to spend ONE MILLION > DOLLARS to encourage them? Mods are one of the few reasons left to getinto > PC games, as opposed to consoles, where the h/w and s/w are as rigid as a > control-freak like Herr Ing. hcF Kaemmer likes. I'd go so far as to say > that if it wasn't for mods, PC games would be in even more dire straitsthan > they already are. > > What planet or century are you from exactly? Mod-friendliness isn't > "little." At one point, there were 30,000 players on several thousand > servers every night playing Counter-Strike, far outstripping the successof > the original game. Ghost Recon, a far better FPS, wasn't mod friendly(you > could make maps, uniforms and guns and that was about it), and it dribbled > away like Duke Nukem. Ghost Recon 2 for the PC, in the works since 2002 > (the year after GR was released), was recently canceled for lack of > interest. All that remains are the console titles. That's where a lackof > mod-friendliness will get you. Once again you plough in & miss the point Steve. I'm not against mods & I understand & have written in this very thread about the benefits of modding. What I am saying is that if the sim is what you want out of the box the fact that it can't (or mustn't) be modded isn't a big deal. If the original game /was/ Counter-Strike do you think it would have been as popular? Of course it would because that was what people wanted to play, plus the gamers would have paid for the original game (if they liked that too) /and/ CS. The only people that benefit from CS being 'free' are the people who would only have bought one CD anyway, so they are not a factor for the devs. imo good online multiplayer requires a game or sim to be hard to mod so that cheating is also hard. Picture a sliding scale with 'good online racing' at one end, and 'adjustable physics' at the other. FIRST seem to have set their priority towards the online end, EA is probably somewhere in the middle. If your big selling point is the online code then it's mod-friendliness has to take a back seat, and vice versa. Life is full of compromise and this just looks like a way for FIRST to differentiate themselves from EA so they aren't competing head-on. If FIRST compete directly with EA then the one with more money wins (ie probably not FIRST) so FIRST aren't particularly losing sales, but they will hopefully fill a gap in the market that currently only lfs fills imo. > --Tom Clancy Tom Clancy writes plausable fiction Steve, you don't. Malc.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:423e0bfa$0$546$[email hidden]... > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:u_l%d.146015$[email hidden]... > > > > > >

Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > ot...v.v. > > > > You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? > > > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you > might > > > > like > > > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't > alter > > it > > > > to > > > > > > suit > > > > > > > > your needs.

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423e39da$0$565$[email hidden]... > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7To%d.106523$[email hidden]... > > If the mods make the game wildly popular then the devs will have a lot > less > > trouble finding fin backers that if they had put out a game that can'tbe > > modded, or, worse, nobody *wants* to mod. Like Postal, which sold less > than > > GPL its first time out. Somehow, I don't think Kaemmer, with the > squillions > > he got from selling out to Sierra, and Henry, a trader who rides herd ona > > $2 billion fund and who paid $700 million for the Red Sox, are going to > have > > to go to the vulture capitalists. > > We're talking about racing sims here, it's a specialist market. If you area

Quoted text (8 lines)

> dev & you want something that will be 'wildly popular' you make a good > arcade racer, not a sim. > > Not only is it a specialist market, within that market there are a great > deal of different racing series, even if you generalise & use terms like > 'single seaters', or 'rallying' or 'touring cars'. You obviously realise > that it's possible to make more than one type of racing sim from the same > base game engine, that's what the aftermarket mods do after all. The

market > isn't big enough to support a specialist sim in an already specialist > market, and for EA it's solution is to make sims that out of the boxappeal > to as wide an audience as possible (ie F1 mostly) but that can be moddedso

Quoted text (11 lines)

> people like me (who aren't interested in racing modern F1) might also buy > it. I'm not saying that doesn't work, nor am I saying it's a bad choice. > It's just a choice. And FIRST have made a different choice, which is > (hopefully) to focus on multiplayer. > > > > > You're the one who doesn't seem to get it, Malc. Mods are not only not > the > > Anti-Christ, but are instead so good for business that they have been > > embraced by the rest of the PC games community as a source of fresh

blood, > > new ideas, reams of fawning p.r., near-infinite good will, and future > > loyalties. Otherwise, why would Atari be willing to spend ONE MILLION > > DOLLARS to encourage them? Mods are one of the few reasons left to get > into > > PC games, as opposed to consoles, where the h/w and s/w are as rigid asa

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > control-freak like Herr Ing. hcF Kaemmer likes. I'd go so far as to say > > that if it wasn't for mods, PC games would be in even more dire straits > than > > they already are. > > > > What planet or century are you from exactly? Mod-friendliness isn't > > "little." At one point, there were 30,000 players on several thousand > > servers every night playing Counter-Strike, far outstripping the success > of > > the original game. Ghost Recon, a far better FPS, wasn't mod friendly > (you > > could make maps, uniforms and guns and that was about it), and it

dribbled

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > away like Duke Nukem. Ghost Recon 2 for the PC, in the works since 2002 > > (the year after GR was released), was recently canceled for lack of > > interest. All that remains are the console titles. That's where a lack > of > > mod-friendliness will get you. > > Once again you plough in & miss the point Steve. I'm not against mods & I > understand & have written in this very thread about the benefits of

modding. > What I am saying is that if the sim is what you want out of the box thefact > that it can't (or mustn't) be modded isn't a big deal. If the originalgame > /was/ Counter-Strike do you think it would have been as popular? Of course > it would because that was what people wanted to play, plus the gamerswould > have paid for the original game (if they liked that too) /and/ CS. Theonly > people that benefit from CS being 'free' are the people who would onlyhave > bought one CD anyway, so they are not a factor for the devs. > > imo good online multiplayer requires a game or sim to be hard to mod sothat > cheating is also hard. Picture a sliding scale with 'good online racing'at > one end, and 'adjustable physics' at the other. FIRST seem to have settheir > priority towards the online end, EA is probably somewhere in the middle. > > If your big selling point is the online code then it's mod-friendlinesshas > to take a back seat, and vice versa. Life is full of compromise and this > just looks like a way for FIRST to differentiate themselves from EA sothey

Quoted text (21 lines)

> aren't competing head-on. If FIRST compete directly with EA then the one > with more money wins (ie probably not FIRST) so FIRST aren't particularly > losing sales, but they will hopefully fill a gap in the market that > currently only lfs fills imo. > > > > --Tom Clancy > > Tom Clancy writes plausable fiction Steve, you don't. > > Malc. > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:423e0bfa$0$546$[email hidden]... > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:u_l%d.146015$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > >

Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > > ot...v.v. > > > > > > You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? > > > > > > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you > > might > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't > > alter > > > it > > > > > to > > > > > > > suit > > > > > > > > > your needs. >

Gee Malc, maybe you and Steve need to take some of your own advice..........here, let me refresh your memory........ "By & large RAS is one of the most friendly newsgroups I've seen, and I'd like to help it stay that way. You will get a better response if you think about your posts a bit more before clicking 'submit'. Maybe it would help if you compare a newsgroup to a school playground. Act like a fool & people will ignore you or call you a fool, be helpful & friendly and people will be friendly & helpful back to you. It's really not all that hard if you think about it ;-) "

Agree 100% Steve! Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:f46%d.101111$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (103 lines)

> I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm objecting > to > their prior restraint of what others have produced. The rights you seem > so > eager to protect here are not being violated. There is no commercial > intent. F1RST would have to prove that TR's mod (or BR's or C'One's or > anybody's) are hurting the sales of that which they undeniably own the > rights to, namely, NASCAR Racing 2003. But...N2003 isn't being sold (at > least not by F1RST), so they would have to prove that these mods would > hurt > *future* sales of some as-yet-undefined F1RST product, which obviously > can't--or won't--be done. > > I smell a rat when F1RST jumps in to not only protect their rights, but > when > they also force TR to remove references to Sauber/Mercedes, Jaguar, Mazda > and Toyota. Is F1RST the agent, assign, counsel, heir, or party to any of > these manufacturers? No, they are, IMO, just throwing their weight around > to show they "mean business." > > I know all about property rights. I introduced a property called the > Swiss > Army Watch here in the U.S. I was contacted by the bullies, thugs, and > goons of Forschner, who distibuted the Swiss Army Knife in this country. > They told me, among other things, that I could not sell a watch with a red > dial (!) and that I could not claim that the watch was made in Switzerland > (which it was, in the hamlet of Porrentruy). This kind of intimidation is > standard in this business. I forced them to change their name to Swiss > Army > *Brands* (their product had never been endorsed by the Swiss Army), but > they > forced me out of business because I could not afford to defend my little > company against the onslaught of their mighty legal brigade. After I quit > the field, they gobbled up my idea and profited from it to the tune of > several million dollars a year. And still do. > > If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner > of > the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for > the > love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very > people > he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, if > he > ever gets a product out the door that these people might actually > otherwise > want. > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... >> "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:tPS_d.668$[email hidden]... >> > "Malc" wrote: >> > >> > > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find > an >> > > analogy even worse than Tonys. >> > >> > Thanks Malc :) >> > >> > Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too* >> good >> > a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense! >> >> I take it all back, Steve found an analogy even worse than DK's then. >> >> Steve, This thread was started to offer an explanation of the thought >> process behind sim designers allowing people to create what is >> essentially > a >> second complete sim that can double the value of their original sim - >> this >> has the benefit of making the sim potentially appeal to a wider audience > but >> the downside that the need to buy new sims may be reduced. >> >> It should be pretty clear to most that the intellectual rights belong to > the >> original design team & there is a gentlemen's agreement that it's broadly >> okay to mod a sim even though usually the EULA will specifically prohibit >> it. If the designer chooses not to look the other way the community can't >> really do anything other than accept that. >> >> If it ended up in court the designer would win every time, so I don't > really >> see how case law has anything to do with this situation. If the situation >> reaches the point where case law history is required the modders have >> already lost, and nobody likes a poor loser. Just accept and respect > FIRST's >> decision & aim to influence the genres they simulate rather than getting >> hung up on the modding. There are plenty of other sims to mod. >> >> Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like >> straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to >> suit >> your needs. >> >> Malc. >> >> > >

When I met the Papy PR people they were in no way impressive AT ALL. No wonder these people couldn't think outside of the box. I met the PR people at the NROS Finals in Daytona. Bill Bollinger "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wxf%d.84177$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (80 lines)

> Agreed. Corporate greed and myopia go hand in hand. A friend of mine > makes > die-cast model cars. He wanted to make a 1:18 of the Lotus-Ford that ran > at > Indy. He reasoned that since Ford had spent millions of dollars 40 years > ago for the p.r. (to influence peep's perception of Ford as a > performance-minded company), they'd be happy to have a reminder of their > glory days. But no, they gave him the run-around and finally told him it > would cost him $50,000 to put the Ford "bug" (logo) on the model. My > friend > pointed out that the development cost of the model was around $100,000 and > he'd be lucky to sell a thousand of them (unlike 1:43 models, 1:18s don't > exactly fly off the shelves) to break even. He put the model on the > market > without the Ford logo, thus diluting the impact of the millions that Ford > had already spent and gaining no additional impact. What would the $50K > have done to their bottom line? That's probably less than they would have > made selling a couple of extra Expeditions. > > OTOH, I told Kaemmer years ago that instead of going to corporations, hat > in > hand, and begging for their permission to use their products in games, > that > he should go to them like a movie company and ask for money for "product > placement." Ford will pay movie producers up to $100,000 per vehicle to > get > a Ford Expedition, say, in a film (even if it's irrelevant to the plot). > What exposure do they get out of this? Usually no more than one > "impression" (viewing) per customer. I used to work as a marketing > consultant. Marketeers pay per impression. Now take, say, Firestone. If > one of their billboards appears trackside in, say, NASCAR Racing, they > reap > the benefit of THOUSANDS of impressions per viewer over the life of the > game. In any marketing research, this would be worth thousands to > Firestone, and they should be willing to pay the developer multiple > thousands of dollars for such free advertising. Nowadays, of course, this > is becoming the norm (and will only get more instrusive), but 20 years > ago, > Papy's licensing manager threw me out of her office for suggesting such a > radical idea. > > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:EHb%d.1770$[email hidden]... >> "Steve Smith" wrote: >> >> > If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not > on >> > the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the > owner >> > of the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade > for >> > the love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the >> > very >> > people he is stomping on here are the core of his future >> > audience...that >> > is, if he ever gets a product out the door that these people might >> > actually otherwise want. >> >> I agree. In reality the niche group who mod and play mods probably isn't >> going to make a difference to John Henry's bottom line so embracing the >> modders or eliminating them "just in case" doesn't really matter. >> >> However, it doesn't feel like the developers playing nicely with their >> greatest fans does it nor come across particularly well in demonstrating >> Henry as an "avid participant in the auto racing simulation community"? >> >> It seems a bit like a car manufacturer going after one of its enthusiast >> owners clubs members for modifying their engines, a tiny percentage of >> customers but hardly good PR. >> >> Quite how the developer run "Federation of International Racing and >> Sanctioning Trust" will work remains to be seen. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >

Half-Life-2 and the mod-friendly Valve group now surpasses over 100,000 users 24/7. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7To%d.106523$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (133 lines)

> If the mods make the game wildly popular then the devs will have a lot > less > trouble finding fin backers that if they had put out a game that can't be > modded, or, worse, nobody *wants* to mod. Like Postal, which sold less > than > GPL its first time out. Somehow, I don't think Kaemmer, with the > squillions > he got from selling out to Sierra, and Henry, a trader who rides herd on a > $2 billion fund and who paid $700 million for the Red Sox, are going to > have > to go to the vulture capitalists. > > You're the one who doesn't seem to get it, Malc. Mods are not only not > the > Anti-Christ, but are instead so good for business that they have been > embraced by the rest of the PC games community as a source of fresh blood, > new ideas, reams of fawning p.r., near-infinite good will, and future > loyalties. Otherwise, why would Atari be willing to spend ONE MILLION > DOLLARS to encourage them? Mods are one of the few reasons left to get > into > PC games, as opposed to consoles, where the h/w and s/w are as rigid as a > control-freak like Herr Ing. hcF Kaemmer likes. I'd go so far as to say > that if it wasn't for mods, PC games would be in even more dire straits > than > they already are. > > What planet or century are you from exactly? Mod-friendliness isn't > "little." At one point, there were 30,000 players on several thousand > servers every night playing Counter-Strike, far outstripping the success > of > the original game. Ghost Recon, a far better FPS, wasn't mod friendly > (you > could make maps, uniforms and guns and that was about it), and it dribbled > away like Duke Nukem. Ghost Recon 2 for the PC, in the works since 2002 > (the year after GR was released), was recently canceled for lack of > interest. All that remains are the console titles. That's where a lack > of > mod-friendliness will get you. > > --Tom Clancy > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:423e0bfa$0$546$[email hidden]... >> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:u_l%d.146015$[email hidden]... >> > >> > Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n >> > ot...v.v. >> >> You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put the > dev >> in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no more > sims >> from that dev, simple. >> >> So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hope > they >> are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on > (eg >> to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want >> mods, there will be no mods. >> If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed. >> >> If the devs don't mind mods being made (or if they encourage them) then >> it >> doesn't matter either way. If you bite the hand that feeds you and it >> doesn't mind being bitten, it doesn't matter whether you bite it or not. > (I >> feel this is stretching the analogy somewhat, but it's still a damned > sight >> closer than some in this thread) >> >> The flip side of this is that if the dev who doesn't want mods doesn't > make >> a popular sim he'll be in a less robust position, so what I'm saying is > that >> you (personally you Steve) need to be attempting to influence what sport > the >> sim actually simulates rather than worrying about the little stuff like > how >> mod-friendly the sim is. >> >> Malc. >> >> >> > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:423dbd33$0$535$[email hidden]... >> > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > > news:vDf%d.84178$[email hidden]... >> > > > Tell that to Epic Games and Atari, the sponsors of the "Make > Something >> > > > Unreal" contest, which put up a million dollars to encourage > modders. >> > > They >> > > > prolly know better than either of us what the modding community is >> worth >> > > to >> > > > their bottom line. You might even say they're feeding the hand >> > > > that >> > bites >> > > > them (from FIRST's perspective). >> > > >> > > If you bite the hand that feeds you, you are going against their > wishes >> > you >> > > fool. >> > > >> > > Malc. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > "Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > > > > > news:423cd426$0$552$[email hidden]... >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you > might >> > > like >> > > > > > > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't > alter >> it >> > > to >> > > > > suit >> > > > > > > your needs. >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

"Michael Horton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8o9%d.76131$gJ3.25853@clgrps13...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> The majority of the mods you mention there, Steve, extend the current code > and do not alter the actual core code and that's where FIRST is drawing > the line. FIRST is only going after mods that alter the .exe. While I'm > not especially happy about it (I was looking forward to the 1970's mod and > the 2005 update) FIRST not only is fully within their rights, I wouldn't > be surprised if they legally have to. I can't remember what flight sim it > was where some airline had a cow about people putting replicas of their > airplanes into it. Let's say one of of the car manufacturers that were in > the original GTP mod decided they didn't like their cars in the mod and > went after Redline over it. If FIRST did not do anything to prevent > Redline's original mod then I'm sure some lawyer out there could twist it > that they, too, were culpable. >

Well, we could talk legalities 'til we're blue in the face but who cares. So the exe is hacked a little effectively creating a new mod that has all the weaknesses (Nascar setups, front tyre temp discrepancy, etc) as all the other mods and a little night driving - big deal. Another question - why didn't the Ferrari mod get all this attention? I think the creation of VROC for the GTP mod and the fact that no NR2003 disc was required for the initial release is what created all the fuss. The car and exe issues are a load of utter shit imo.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ref%d.84173$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Yer right abt. FIRST (sorry), but wrong abt. PWF. Kaemmer had long since > left Papy when the ex-Papy peeps did their deed, and I don't think he was > associated with the Project (altho, like the similarly reclusive Howard > Hughes, his fingerprints are always deliberately smudged). Indeed, it may > have been because PWF let the (intellectual property) cat outta the bag > that > he decided to shut down any repeat of the "leak." >

Which raises the issue - were Jaguar, Chrysler, Ford and Chevrolet paid for the PWF mod? What about the TPTCC mod? And the trucks? Aerowars? Cooky stuff! Like you said, it's just muscle flexing for the sake of muscle flexing as far as this car rights and exe hacking crap goes.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mTn%d.147150$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Not to be churlish...if a game like IndyCar Racing featured a > Chevy-powered > car that could crush all the Ford-powered cars, then Ford would be stupid > to > buy into the deal, either as a licenser or literally by paying for product > placement. (But you're right, in The French Connection, the car that Gene > Hackman comandeers is truly brand-neutral, altho a huge case could be made > for the benefits to Ford...and, to a lesser degree, to Dodge...for the > Mustang that Steve McQueen drove in Bullit...and the Charger that the bad > guys drove.) Or if a game exists where you can only win on Michelins, > then > Firestone and Goodyear shouldn't have any part of it. But since game > developers generally aim toward a level playing field ("play balance"), > that's not likely to be the case. >

Simple solution - none of the bastards get a penny! As has been said, sometimes it is free good advertising, sometimes not - just as in the money outlayed by manufacturers in the actual sport of motor racing - they should get nothing! The only say they should get is if they are portrayed in a bad light or unrealistically represented then they could force a company to cease selling such a product.

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423d796b$0$531$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Too bad you don't realise that the sims are more important than the mods. > Sure the mods are important, but you can't mod something that doesn't > exist, > and if the community puts the creators in a position where they are no > longer financially interested in creating the sims in the first place the > whole community loses out anyway. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. >

Complete crap. If FIRST are threatened by GTP then they are in trouble alright because what they'd be offering would be no more than a mod as well! As for biting hands that feed you, you have that exactly the wrong way around.

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423e0bfa$0$546$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:u_l%d.146015$[email hidden]... >> > Must...re-read...sentence...sez...FEED...the...hand...that...BITES...you...n >> ot...v.v. > > You really have no idea what I'm on about do you? If the modder put the > dev > in the position where they struggle to find financial backing, no more > sims > from that dev, simple. > > So if the modders 'lose' and can't make mods we get sims & have to hope > they > are what we want. If the modders 'win' this round the devs just move on > (eg > to console games) & the communuty dies. Either way if the devs don't want > mods, there will be no mods. > If you bite the hand that feeds you, next time you might not get fed. >

LOL. You are in serious danger of becoming negligible - utter dribble. Now get a tissue and clean that up! Let me try to paint a picture of how ridiculous this whole thing is. In this corner we have DK - highly paid and needing to pay for the rights for this and that and he is jealous of a bunch of blokes in the other corner who are paid zero but need not pay for rights consequently. If you can't see how pathetic that is then you're blind. What DK ought to be worried about is what FIRST will need to do if SimBin actually get around to puting the finishing touches on GTR because if that happens then the least of his worries will be the GTP mod let me tell you!

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:423e39da$0$565$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Not only is it a specialist market, within that market there are a great > deal of different racing series, even if you generalise & use terms like > 'single seaters', or 'rallying' or 'touring cars'. You obviously realise > that it's possible to make more than one type of racing sim from the same > base game engine, that's what the aftermarket mods do after all. The > market > isn't big enough to support a specialist sim in an already specialist > market, and for EA it's solution is to make sims that out of the box > appeal > to as wide an audience as possible (ie F1 mostly) but that can be modded > so > people like me (who aren't interested in racing modern F1) might also buy > it. I'm not saying that doesn't work, nor am I saying it's a bad choice. > It's just a choice. And FIRST have made a different choice, which is > (hopefully) to focus on multiplayer. >

So what about TPTCC, PWF, trucks, Aerowars, Ferrari,..........................................? Why just GTP? I suppose FIRST should be really worried if I release an IRL mod based on Indianapolis 500 - The Simulation? No doubt everyone would ignore the fact that it was hopelessly outdated physics wise and just luuuuuuuuuuuve those IRL skins????? All that has happened here is that when Redline released GTP initially no CD was required to install GTP or even play it online via the new VROC - that's what got FIRST's attention. No doubt FIRST decided to go the whole hog whilst they were at it. I wouldn't be surprised if DK wishes he could take the rest of what he said back because it's hopelessly petty. Moral to the story - when doing a mod don't make it so that people without legit copies of the original game can use it. This might even be the reason DK threw the other stuff at them as well - maybe he was pissed about the way they did this?

Byron Forbes wrote: > This whole mess just took a very serious turn I guess... http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/legal/ Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Byron Forbes wrote: > > > > This whole mess just took a very serious turn I guess... > > http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/legal/

Forgot this... http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/comments/for_immediate_release/ Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Goy Larsen wrote: >> >> Byron Forbes wrote: >> > >> >> This whole mess just took a very serious turn I guess... >> >> http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/legal/ > > Forgot this... > > http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/comments/for_immediate_release/ >

Pretty sad stuff. It seems they can, so they have. ie it seems some copyright stuff may have been breached so they have a "legal" right to do this. The question is - should they? My answer is a huge NO! I found it a little bit funny that DK reminds us over a half a dozen times that he's so committed to making the best simulators on planet earth yet here he is apparently threatened by a mod of a hack (the hack being pta). Petty.

"Goy Larsen" wrote: > This whole mess just took a very serious turn I guess... > > http://www.first-racing.net/index.php?/First-Racing/legal/ With all the money lawyers charge you'd think they would use a spell checker. It takes some of the official edge off a legal document when they can't spell defendant... I am not sure most companies would want this stuff on their brand web site but so be it, I guess they want to make a stand to the modders. I am sure it goes without saying similar action will be taken against the internet cracking outfits who simply duplicate their stuff and distribute it on the Net? Cheers Tony

Note the train analogy has been dropped from FIRST's letter on their main news page. DK must have been fearful I'd do another one... :) Cheers Tony

Tony Rickard wrote: > > Note the train analogy has been dropped from FIRST's letter on their main > news page. > > DK must have been fearful I'd do another one... :) Either that or he was afraid the developers of Rail Road Tycoon would sue him Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Tony Rickard wrote: >> >> Note the train analogy has been dropped from FIRST's letter on their main >> news page. >> >> DK must have been fearful I'd do another one... :) > > Either that or he was afraid the developers of Rail Road Tycoon would > sue him >

LOL.

>"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > "Narrow-casting" (semi-peivate distribution) of "art" is the gray area > we're > talking about, and who'd win a suit would depend on who had the deeper > pockets. Exactly. I often wrote about this here, that we have to remember that 99% of all modifications third-party users have done probably have some form of legal gray area. Just take car paints, how many of them have decals and sponsors which they have not agreed to? All of them. Heck even putting the standard Nascar decals near the door number, is in the gray area (that was, after Papyrus stopped having their own paintkit with licensed decals). Same for tracks with billboards, etc... So if they start stopping mods, they also enter in the gray area where themselves don't put the effort to block completely ALL possible legal issues. That would be crazy, basically the software would be a simple client where we couldn't alter anything, from sounds, tracks, graphical add-ons, etc... as they would fear public distribution of such modifications. They should have went the Microsoft way with the FS series, and just made it open in their first release back a decade ago. FS will stop being popular in the future if they start blocking more and more distributions of third-party add-ons (that where they built their market), so Papyrus/F1RST/whatever should have had gone the same road with their racing sim, nowadays we wouldn't fight for these issues as it would be the selling point behind the simulator. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...