Analogies, trains and FIRST-Racing...

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" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Smith" > wrote in
> :
>
> > 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
>

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" > wrote in message
. ..
> "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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

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" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Smith" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> > 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.
>
> 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" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > 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

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" > wrote in message
...
> 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" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > 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.

As we like to say in marketing, Randy, "One hand washes the other."

"Randy Magruder" > wrote in message
...
> 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" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > > 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" > wrote in message
...
> 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" > wrote in message
. ..
>
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" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steve Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > 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" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>