Re: Tracks in DTR Sprints

In article <8m4r71$hmb$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: > In article <8m4doj$6nd$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] wrote: <SNIP>

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I played a early demo of Leadfoot about 4 months ago at a time when > negotiations were on with Toyota (or whomever) to underwrite Leadfoot > in exchange for.. well for whatever they managed to pay for. > Leadftoot=Toyota Offroad Challenge??? If Ratbag stopped working on it > for whatever reason then my mistake, but I remember clearly being told > that the ideal would be to have corporate sponsorship of the game, and > that the person I knew at Toyota Racing could be told that the game

was > quite nearly finished (this was about 4 months ago.) But you (John > Bodin) are very involved in that process, so you know.. its not likeI > have the inside scoop :-) Hey, Mark -- didn't realize that post came from you! Long time no communicate with! <G> Regarding the negotiations on Leadfoot, there are hopes for a game sponsor, but nothing solid has been established yet -- so if you have any contacts at Toyota, send 'em our way! ;-)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> As for the rest of your comments about advertising: the gamer 'wins > overall' only if the game is a good one. Whether a game is good or not > is not related (as far as I can figure) to the amount of in-game > advertising that is sold to companies that sell different real world > parts or services. The strength of your argument/idea is that in game > advertising doesnt hurt.. so why should it matter? BUT- with the > latest Ratbag games we're talking about advertising in the game menus > and in the frontend of the game.. and probably any other place (if

the > money is right.) Are WE the gamers the winner there too? I personally think the advertising in the in-game menus shouldn't be any more intrusive than the graphics in the menus themselves. Imagine something like the graphics that appear on the sponsorship menu screens in DTR, when a sponsor makes you an offer in career mode -- the in-game ads elsewhere shouldn't be any more intrusive than that, and they will be pertinent, hopefully. For example, if you buy a suspension upgrade, you will see a shock/spring manufacturer's name displayed on that screen (possibly more than one, in a "Goodyear/Firestone" sort of manner where possible). The idea is to make the in-game graphics no more intrusive than the trackside billboards, if possible. Is someone gets used to buying a certain product in DTR for their Late Model in the game, there's a fair chance that they will think of that product when it comes time to buy similar items for their own car in real life, and that's where the value comes in. You want to hook the player without kicking them out of the game -- not poke them in the eye and make it an annoying experience! <G>

Quoted text (7 lines)

> By the way, Ratbag was DESPERATE to get DTR distributed when they > signed with WizardWorks, and WW only distributes budget titles. So the > idea that spending $20 on a WizardWorks game is offset by anything > (selling advertising) is not a correct argument. WizardWorks *has* to > sell the game at $20. Its Ratbag that got screwed in all of this. > Anyway. No big deal. But I certainly dont like the sound of having > advertising in the menus become a common thing! I think that would

suck. When they did DTR, Ratbag had not yet achieved their current level of notoriety and their reputation for their ability to develop a solid sim product when they signed on with WizardWorks, so their return on investment was definitely smaller than what Papy makes off of their NASCAR titles, I would guess. Also, the DTR concept seemed to be VERY much a "niche" title, which made it the kind of risk that larger publishers most were unwilling to speculate on, which made it an ideal title for WizardWorks. And, actually, I believe the WizardWorks tie-in came from the fact that WW is (was?) a subsidiary of GT Interactive (before they were both absorbed by Infogrames, I believe), and since GT published Ratbag's Powerslide, I believe that it was GT's decision to publish DTR as a budget WW title, in order to reach the dirt track fans at Wal-Marts across the country. Ratbag may not have gotten as good of a deal as they would have with a NASCAR license, I don't think, but on the other hand, I don't think they necessarily got "screwed" in the deal, either. Anyway, that's my addition $0.02! <G> -- John Bodin VP Communications, Games-Advertising http://www.games-advertising.com/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

"Kevin Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YJhh5.30322$[email hidden]... > DTR did not contain only ovals, but also had figure eights, which by > definition have and equal amount of right and left turning. > > Sprint cars don't race on figure eights. Well there go my hopes for that one . . . :-( Ryan

In article <8m4doj$6nd$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: The actual truth of the matter regarding Leadfoot is that it

Quoted text (10 lines)

> is essentially in the "alpha" demo stage, and actual in-depth "beta" > testing has not really even started yet (what they've got so far looks > GREAT, though <G>). > > > Also, regarding advertising in the in-game menus, what do you think > you're getting in games like ICR2 when you are "allowed" to choose > between "Firestones" and "Goodyears"? If it adds to the realism of the > game, why should the developer/publisher give away free advertising, > when these same companies pay big bucks for similar product placement > opportunities in television and motion pictures? Again, seems like a

no-

Quoted text (8 lines)

> brainer to me, and it seems like, in the end, the gamer is the one who > wins out overall. > > Just my $0.02. > > -- John Bodin > VP Communications, Games-Advertising > http://www.games-advertising.com/

I played a early demo of Leadfoot about 4 months ago at a time when negotiations were on with Toyota (or whomever) to underwrite Leadfoot in exchange for.. well for whatever they managed to pay for. Leadftoot=Toyota Offroad Challenge??? If Ratbag stopped working on it for whatever reason then my mistake, but I remember clearly being told that the ideal would be to have corporate sponsorship of the game, and that the person I knew at Toyota Racing could be told that the game was quite nearly finished (this was about 4 months ago.) But you (John Bodin) are very involved in that process, so you know.. its not like I have the inside scoop :-) As for the rest of your comments about advertising: the gamer 'wins overall' only if the game is a good one. Whether a game is good or not is not related (as far as I can figure) to the amount of in-game advertising that is sold to companies that sell different real world parts or services. The strength of your argument/idea is that in game advertising doesnt hurt.. so why should it matter? BUT- with the latest Ratbag games we're talking about advertising in the game menus and in the frontend of the game.. and probably any other place (if the money is right.) Are WE the gamers the winner there too? By the way, Ratbag was DESPERATE to get DTR distributed when they signed with WizardWorks, and WW only distributes budget titles. So the idea that spending $20 on a WizardWorks game is offset by anything (selling advertising) is not a correct argument. WizardWorks *has* to sell the game at $20. Its Ratbag that got screwed in all of this. Anyway. No big deal. But I certainly dont like the sound of having advertising in the menus become a common thing! I think that would suck. MR Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

FYI, your allegation that "Ratbags Leadfoot game is another one that could have hit the retail market long ago except for them negotiating sponsorship and 'side-money' deals" is way, WAY off-base -- so much so that you must have hurt yourself with that stretch of the truth. In truth, development on Leadfoot was delayed by Ratbag (the developer) for internal reasons, and THAT delay has in turn affected ad sales for that title, not vice-versa. I believe that Leadfoot's development was actually pushed back to allow more time for DTRSC development, and, again, ad sales have NOT affected the scheduling for EITHER Leadfoot or DTRSC in any way. The developer and/or publisher sets the publishing schedule for the title, and then ad sales follow based on that schedule. There is NO WAY that ad sales would EVER hold up a production schedule, so that assumption on your part is entirely incorrect. The actual truth of the matter regarding Leadfoot is that it is essentially in the "alpha" demo stage, and actual in-depth "beta" testing has not really even started yet (what they've got so far looks GREAT, though <G>). As for the "intrusion" of ads in a game, consider this: Would you rather pay $19 for something like DTR that featured some ads that help offset the development costs, or $50+ for a similar game with no advertising support? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Also, regarding advertising in the in-game menus, what do you think you're getting in games like ICR2 when you are "allowed" to choose between "Firestones" and "Goodyears"? If it adds to the realism of the game, why should the developer/publisher give away free advertising, when these same companies pay big bucks for similar product placement opportunities in television and motion pictures? Again, seems like a no- brainer to me, and it seems like, in the end, the gamer is the one who wins out overall. Just my $0.02. -- John Bodin VP Communications, Games-Advertising http://www.games-advertising.com/ In article <8m42vn$tlo$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> In article <8m3r38$g4q$[email hidden]>, > "Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Will the tracks in DTR Sprints all be ovals (and oval variations) as > in DTR? > Ryan > > > > > My understanding is that they added a few new tracks but the majority > are the same as in DTR. > > Because the publisher WizardWorks is under contract to ONLY sell games > in the budget price range (they deal mostly with outlets like Wal-

Mart,

Quoted text (21 lines)

> K-Mart, etc) you will see in Sprints a new approach to make money: > massive advertising within the game. > A while back I read that they were even selling advertising space in > the setup menu screens! (I think it cost more if you wanted an ad that > blinked off and on.) There was also advertising space for sale on the > cars and on the billboards.. and I dont know if there is a airplane > flying overhead that is trailing one of those long advertising banners > behind it, but thats something they might want to look into. I'm not > aware of this in game advertising ever being done in a game before on > this scale. Ratbags Leadfoot game is another one that could have hit > the retail market long ago except for them negotiating sponsorship > and 'side-money' deals. A certain amount of real world advertising on > cars and billboards looks good in a game, but when it starts to leak > into the in game menus then I could see it getting annoying. Whats > next?? Pauses between races for commercial breaks!? > > MR > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8m3r38$g4q$[email hidden]>, "Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Will the tracks in DTR Sprints all be ovals (and oval variations) asin DTR? Ryan > >My understanding is that they added a few new tracks but the majority are the same as in DTR. Because the publisher WizardWorks is under contract to ONLY sell games in the budget price range (they deal mostly with outlets like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc) you will see in Sprints a new approach to make money: massive advertising within the game. A while back I read that they were even selling advertising space in the setup menu screens! (I think it cost more if you wanted an ad that blinked off and on.) There was also advertising space for sale on the cars and on the billboards.. and I dont know if there is a airplane flying overhead that is trailing one of those long advertising banners behind it, but thats something they might want to look into. I'm not aware of this in game advertising ever being done in a game before on this scale. Ratbags Leadfoot game is another one that could have hit the retail market long ago except for them negotiating sponsorship and 'side-money' deals. A certain amount of real world advertising on cars and billboards looks good in a game, but when it starts to leak into the in game menus then I could see it getting annoying. Whats next?? Pauses between races for commercial breaks!? MR Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

how about a square then? oz

Well there go my hopes for that one . . . :-( Ryan

Will the tracks in DTR Sprints all be ovals (and oval variations) as in DTR? PLEASE, say they won't! The ONLY reason why I never bought DTR was because of the lack of variation in the tracks. Yeah, the racing could be tight, and I'm not claiming that pack racing on ovals is easy, but I have come to the realisation that oval racing is not really my favourite pasttime. Others, I gather, may feel differently . . . I couldn't find this kind of information on the Ratbag site (although what I did see looked rather "ovalish"). Ryan

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > As far as I'm aware, Sprint cars are designed to only corner (at speed) > in one direction, which would make it damned hard to race on anything but > an oval. > > Cheers, > Rod.

how about a square then? oz

sprint cars dont race on road courses...? if you want sprint cars on road courses... buy nintendos road to indy Ryan Mitchley wrote in message <8m3r38$g4q$[email hidden]>... >Will the tracks in DTR Sprints all be ovals (and oval variations) as inDTR? > >PLEASE, say they won't! The ONLY reason why I never bought DTR was because >of the lack of variation in the tracks. Yeah, the racing could be tight,and >I'm not claiming that pack racing on ovals is easy, but I have come to the >realisation that oval racing is not really my favourite pasttime. Others, I >gather, may feel differently . . . > >I couldn't find this kind of information on the Ratbag site (although whatI

Quoted text (8 lines)

>did see looked rather "ovalish"). > >Ryan > > > > >

"Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8m3r38$g4q$[email hidden]... > Will the tracks in DTR Sprints all be ovals (and oval variations) as inDTR? > > PLEASE, say they won't! The ONLY reason why I never bought DTR was because > of the lack of variation in the tracks. Yeah, the racing could be tight,and > I'm not claiming that pack racing on ovals is easy, but I have come to the > realisation that oval racing is not really my favourite pasttime. Others,I > gather, may feel differently . . . > > I couldn't find this kind of information on the Ratbag site (although whatI > did see looked rather "ovalish"). > > Ryan > DTR did not contain only ovals, but also had figure eights, which by definition have and equal amount of right and left turning. Sprint cars don't race on figure eights. > > > >

BUT!... DTRSC will find the tracks from DTR, so... theres your figure 8's... Ryan Mitchley wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >"Kevin Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:YJhh5.30322$[email hidden]... >> DTR did not contain only ovals, but also had figure eights, which by >> definition have and equal amount of right and left turning. >> >> Sprint cars don't race on figure eights. > >Well there go my hopes for that one . . . :-( > >Ryan > > > > >

In article <8m3r38$g4q$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Will the tracks in DTR Sprints all be ovals (and oval variations) as in DTR? As far as I'm aware, Sprint cars are designed to only corner (at speed) in one direction, which would make it damned hard to race on anything but an oval. Cheers, Rod.

Thanks, John, for a great thread, and thanks to the rest of the guys who have contributed! Very helpful info for me. I've considered getting a copy of "Sprinters" late in August (I HOPE that is when it hits the shelves!) and just letting GP3 cool out a bit; I like the Ratbag pricing structure LOTS, and could stand to wait til the price drops on GP3.Hope this note hits the ether; I'm finding my messages are NOT going out. (I know, I know... Who cares??? :-))) )Priest In article <8m4slr$iu5$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (123 lines)

> In article <8m4r71$hmb$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] wrote: > > In article <8m4doj$6nd$[email hidden]>, > > [email hidden] wrote: > <SNIP> > > I played a early demo of Leadfoot about 4 months ago at a time > when > > negotiations were on with Toyota (or whomever) to underwrite > Leadfoot > > in exchange for.. well for whatever they managed to pay for. > > Leadftoot=Toyota Offroad Challenge??? If Ratbag stopped working > on it > > for whatever reason then my mistake, but I remember clearly > being told > > that the ideal would be to have corporate sponsorship of the > game, and > > that the person I knew at Toyota Racing could be told that the > game > was > > quite nearly finished (this was about 4 months ago.) But you > (John > > Bodin) are very involved in that process, so you know.. its not > like > I > > have the inside scoop :-) > Hey, Mark -- didn't realize that post came from you! Long time no > communicate with! <G> > Regarding the negotiations on Leadfoot, there are hopes for a game > sponsor, but nothing solid has been established yet -- so if you > have > any contacts at Toyota, send 'em our way! > ;-) > > As for the rest of your comments about advertising: the gamer > 'wins > > overall' only if the game is a good one. Whether a game is good > or not > > is not related (as far as I can figure) to the amount of in-game > > advertising that is sold to companies that sell different real > world > > parts or services. The strength of your argument/idea is that in > game > > advertising doesnt hurt.. so why should it matter? BUT- with > the > > latest Ratbag games we're talking about advertising in the game > menus > > and in the frontend of the game.. and probably any other place > (if > the > > money is right.) Are WE the gamers the winner there too? > I personally think the advertising in the in-game menus shouldn't > be > any more intrusive than the graphics in the menus themselves. > Imagine > something like the graphics that appear on the sponsorship menu > screens > in DTR, when a sponsor makes you an offer in career mode -- the > in-game > ads elsewhere shouldn't be any more intrusive than that, and they > will > be pertinent, hopefully. For example, if you buy a suspension > upgrade, > you will see a shock/spring manufacturer's name displayed on that > screen (possibly more than one, in a "Goodyear/Firestone" sort of > manner where possible). The idea is to make the in-game graphics > no > more intrusive than the trackside billboards, if possible. Is > someone > gets used to buying a certain product in DTR for their Late Model > in > the game, there's a fair chance that they will think of that > product > when it comes time to buy similar items for their own car in real > life, > and that's where the value comes in. You want to hook the player > without kicking them out of the game -- not poke them in the eye > and > make it an annoying experience! <G> > > By the way, Ratbag was DESPERATE to get DTR distributed when they > > signed with WizardWorks, and WW only distributes budget titles. > So the > > idea that spending $20 on a WizardWorks game is offset by > anything > > (selling advertising) is not a correct argument. WizardWorks > *has* to > > sell the game at $20. Its Ratbag that got screwed in all of > this. > > Anyway. No big deal. But I certainly dont like the sound of > having > > advertising in the menus become a common thing! I think that > would > suck. > When they did DTR, Ratbag had not yet achieved their current level > of > notoriety and their reputation for their ability to develop a > solid sim > product when they signed on with WizardWorks, so their return on > investment was definitely smaller than what Papy makes off of their > NASCAR titles, I would guess. Also, the DTR concept seemed to be > VERY > much a "niche" title, which made it the kind of risk that larger > publishers most were unwilling to speculate on, which made it an > ideal > title for WizardWorks. And, actually, I believe the WizardWorks > tie-in > came from the fact that WW is (was?) a subsidiary of GT Interactive > (before they were both absorbed by Infogrames, I believe), and > since GT > published Ratbag's Powerslide, I believe that it was GT's decision > to > publish DTR as a budget WW title, in order to reach the dirt track > fans > at Wal-Marts across the country. Ratbag may not have gotten as > good of > a deal as they would have with a NASCAR license, I don't think, > but on > the other hand, I don't think they necessarily got "screwed" in the > deal, either. > Anyway, that's my addition $0.02! <G> > -- John Bodin > VP Communications, Games-Advertising > http://www.games-advertising.com/ > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!