|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
On 27 Aug 2005 15:20:32 -0700,
>Remco Moedt wrote:
>> On 27 Aug 2005 00:32:42 -0700,
>> >The community has no one to blame but itself for their lack of
>> >contact. They're human too and aren't exactly thrilled with "you guys
>> >are a idiots, what the heck are you wasting time on this or that for"
>> >types of posts.
>Now, imagine the whole thing gets canned for whatever reason. There is
>also a termination clause in this contract. Typically you'd have every
>sort of possible scenario marked out in that for what happens if one
>side or the other stops cooperating or insists on changing the deal and
>so on. I.e., if the publisher yanks the plug, you still can't discuss
>the project or use the source code for anything for a year or two, or
>the penalties are invoked. And... I most likely am not allowed to go
>tell anyone what happened or tell them why, other than to say something
>about "due to contractual obligations..." This would continue for
>whatever period of time is covered in the contract.
>Vanished... News stops... Project winds up cancelled with official
>confirmation a year or so later when I decide to go do another thing on
>my own without the publisher....
The community didn't sign that contract. When a developer comes out
with information while knowing that it's possible that the publisher
will use the clausule in the contract, the developer has to be
carefull. In my opinion during the development of WSC they came
with too much information. In many ways a community behaves like a
child, if you promise a child candy, and then you don't give it any,
and stop talking about it, the child starts crying. Don't blame the
child for that...
>"they promised mountains again with a big hype (RL), "
>They're really damned if they do and damned if they don't on this one.
>What they were doing at the start of RL was putting up news, screen
>shots, and so on. If they do that, they're making mountains of big
>hype and **** you off, and if they don't, they're ignoring the
>community and **** off the people that want all the hype just to see
>that it's not vapourware, which right now seems to be in the majority.
>How many posts have you read that say something along the lines of "all
>I've seen are rendered screen shots that could have done in MAX?" The
>fact is screen shots aren't even doing it for people. Movies? Go get
>the WSC movies if you want to see what they have done. Think those
>were 3DMax rendering tricks?
Well, Chris always said RL wasn't more then renders and ideas, I've no
problem with that. That the reactions from the community became
stronger was something you could expect, that's the way it works.
>No, people were screaming for a demo. They were sick of pics and news.
> If they didn't believe them then when they said they were working on
>it because they perhaps misjudged how long it would take to put out a
>demo, why would they believe them now? Do people really think an
>"August 28- Hi guys, just wanted to let you know we're still alive and
>working on RL" is going to help? No way!
If people complain because they want more information than it's
obvious that they're greedy. All others (the (silent) majority) will
understand the situation. With no information at all you open the
way to speculation.
>> You seem to forget that they agreed to update the site every month,
>> but they didn't keep their promise. Like they also didn't deliver the
>> promised demo. Can happen, but TELL the public that you're not ready
>> yet, don't hide and blame the community.
>They "agreed to update the site every month?" I think their intention
>to do so was announced. That's quite a different thing from making an
>agreement with you or anybody else. After the hate mails and forum
>postings come flooding in after each one, would you continue with it?
During development there were 2 periods of silence. After the first
period (oct 2002 - jan 2003) they promised a regular update. Two
updates followed, then there was silence again.
>As far as notifying the public of their intentions goes, Chris did
>precisely that one year, seven months ago:
>And of course, this thread became cannon fodder as well for probably at
>least a year. The infamous "sorry" post that came after the infamous
>"transporter incident." I can't see anything they can do at this point
>that would not create a similar reaction.
The sorry post came too late. The mistake they made was that they
first hide, and explained after. They should've said before the
silence that they wouldn't post in a while. Yes, people will complain
just as hard, but then the developer did what was right.
>>Like they also didn't deliver the
>> promised demo.
>What promised demo? I searched their news page and saw no mention of
>any demo at all.
From the FAQ in 2002:
When will it be ready?
We expect to launch our first product later this year. We will be
introducing a beta test programme for all those who cannot wait for
the finished article. More information on this will be available on
Will there be a demo available?
Yes we hope to make a limited demo after our beta test programme is
complete. More information about how you can become part of the beta
test programme will be available on this web site in the near future.
>Anyway, even if they had or did, all I can say is "oh, please."
>Lighten up. I got involved in Virtual RC Racing in 2000. You know
>what our planned release date was? Sometime in 2001. It would be
>called Virtual RC Racing 2000, I kid you not. 2001 came and went. We
>changed the title to Virtual RC Racing 2001 and did a beta test. Then
>we changed it to Virtual RC Racing 2002. Finally, in 2003 we thought
>it might be best to just drop the year from the title and call it
>Virtual RC Racing :-D Thank goodness our little corner of the sim
>racing community did not harbor such resentment at our vicious lies.
>We finally released it November 29, 2004, four years late. That
>version didn't have AI cars or multiplayer. We just released the AI
>version a month or so ago. Five years. We'll finish the multiplayer
>some time next year. (By the way, Tony came in in the last year and a
>half and did twenty three tracks and probably ten cars in that period.
>He is wickedly fast. He did one full track in a week once. 'Stuff
>like the transporter slows down RL development?' Oh please...)
>If any demo they mentioned took longer than expected to put out (even
>years longer), I sure can't hold a grudge against them for that! :-D
>You see, we kept adding and adding and adding things. You can easily
>get to a point where it doesn't make sense to actually do the demo when
>you were planning to do it originally before you started much work on
>the thing. Once you get to writing the code things change.
I'm in the software business myself, and familiar with this. The
problem in this case isn't the delay, but the (lack of) communication.
The developers had no problems to tell all what they were going to do
and how good it would be, but when things didn't go as planned they
remain silent. IMO you've to balance this.
>If it makes you feel any better, there are a few of us in this thread
>that have already driven the RL physics engine ;-) I assure you it is
>very real, and is very much in very real development and has been all
I'm sure we'll see RL one day, and I hope it will be as good as we all
think it will be. And even if it never will be finished then it's fine
with me, there are lot of others games. The only thing I don't like in
this matter is the fact that the community is blamed for the negative
publicity. IMO it's part the fault of the developers, and part of a
small group of the community.
Remco Moedt wrote:
> I'm sure we'll see RL one day, and I hope it will be as good as we all
> think it will be. And even if it never will be finished then it's fine
> with me, there are lot of others games. The only thing I don't like in
> this matter is the fact that the community is blamed for the negative
> publicity. IMO it's part the fault of the developers, and part of a
> small group of the community.
I blame the internet! The community naturally has a diversity of views
on seemingly most things such that the very nature of usenet and web
forums just escalates these views into flame wars. The sim racing
community is no different to any other games communities (action games,
flight sims etc.) or for that matter any sports group (check out the F1
newsgroups for some hostility!).
The one common view I would expect every sim racer to have is for better
sims to be developed and with the pressures from publishers this is
threatened. A number of developers have taken the time to join in the
forums but I believe it simply becomes too much of an overhead, hence
the community members involved in the development take the stance of
spokesperson, but they are simply termed fanboys and either stop posting
or spend their time in a defensive stance.
I can understand the West's for believing they could join in with the
community and evelop their product with us. Sim enthusiasts moving away
from publishers so they could produce what they want and believe we
would want - a hardcore sim. Personally I find it embarrassing that the
community did not accept that - I don't see what we had to lose - the
West's were the ones taking the only risks. Though I am not surprised
having seen the way internet forums work.
Maybe they didn't understand the community at large compared with the
small groups they had dealt with and got the communication wrong - too
much too soon and then nothing. Though selfishly I would rather they
spent time developing than becoming PR experts.
When you look at the sim racing community it seems to have more villains
then heroes right now. We would only need rFactor to be delayed a couple
more weeks for a pre order scam to hit the boards and join the evil
ranks of Simbin and Dave Kaemmer according to some elements of the
In my view we should push the developers to give us what we want, yet
that can only be achieved by working with them not against them. This
will only work in closed beta groups in my view and they will want to
stay quiet for fear of stirring the proverbial hornet's nest and the sim
community in general will stay in the dark. Which is pretty much where
we are now...
"Remco Moedt" > wrote
> In many ways a community behaves like a
> child, if you promise a child candy, and then you don't give it any,
> and stop talking about it, the child starts crying. Don't blame the
> child for that...
This statement resumes the entire WSC/RL saga at its best.
-- François Ménard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
> "Remco Moedt" > wrote
>>In many ways a community behaves like a
>>child, if you promise a child candy, and then you don't give it any,
>>and stop talking about it, the child starts crying. Don't blame the
>>child for that...
> This statement resumes the entire WSC/RL saga at its best.
it is vaporware plain and simple. WSC was a total joke of a program and
the west brothers have been outed as collosal failures.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Racing Legends - PPU compatibility?||eppy||Simulators||48||May 8th 05 07:02 PM|
|Racing Legends demo released !!!||Doug Hook||Simulators||7||April 2nd 05 06:43 PM|
|Racing Legends forums gone?||[email protected]||Simulators||13||February 3rd 05 09:29 PM|
|Mustang Returns to Sports Car Racing||Grover C. McCoury III||Ford Mustang||0||January 29th 05 06:39 PM|
|Tough to Enter the Racing Sim Scene||Chuck||Simulators||14||November 10th 04 06:27 AM|