RF2 over LAN?

[Chip]

I'm assuming that since Noel focused on the $13 we're talking money here, rather than the 'phone home' aspect? If so, and no disrespect intended, but I have to wonder what anyone worried about $44 plus $13 per year (after a year) was expecting for rF2.

Many like yourself fail to see the big picture. With $13 you would be paying for something that already should be included without subscription. That's called crippleware and is a really bad business practice. It's like buying a water bottle and then having to pay a yearly subscription if you want to fill it with juice instead of water. It would seem totally ridiculous to you. And it is the same with rF2 when you'll have to pay for playing over LAN. The devs have no solid excuse for that 'feature'.

And the real point of this system is that you will simply have to pay more if you want to use the title in a normal way. Let's say you will buy the game and use it for approximately 6 years (as old as rF2 is today). That would mean you have to pay $44 retail price + 5x $13 = $109. That's the REAL cost of the game they're masking so it would seem less to us.

The proper way of generating revenue would be to ADD BONUS CONTENT for subscribers. Like including LIDAR tracks, new vehicles, perhaps working out some discount for certain game gear. It is by REWARDING the subscribers, not PUNISHING unsubscribers. It amazes me that so few can grasp this simple concept. Tell me, would you rather buy at a store that has friendly and helpful staff that treat you well and often give you discounts? Or would you rather buy at a store that has cameras all over the place, nasty-looking security guards and no discounts ever? Think about that.

P.S.: The 'phone home' itself is totally ridiculous, too. It only makes trouble for legitimate users as was already demonstrated by numerous titles with such idiotic DRM.

[theother5]

Many like yourself fail to see the big picture. With $13 you would be paying for something that already should be included without subscription. That's called crippleware and is a really bad business practice. It's like buying a water bottle and then having to pay a yearly subscription if you want to fill it with juice instead of water. It would seem totally ridiculous to you. And it is the same with rF2 when you'll have to pay for playing over LAN. The devs have no solid excuse for that 'feature'.

Lazza can defend himself, but I am sure he is fully appreciative of the full picture .... that picture is a different picture / view to other's. The rF2 pricing model ISI have poorly communicated initially [calling it as I saw it ISI] and we have poured plently of gas on [calling it as ?I see it] is also a successful business practice. Where the base product is valuable to the consumer ... they will continue to return. iRacing do it on a monthly basis with also more tie in and restrictions. The inkjet printing model work where there is no fixed renewal .... just buy a new cartridge when you need it. Nespresso took that model to the coffee.

Before anyone states the obvious, Yes, each model I've given is different in details but they all play on the same idea ... if the product or service is valuable, people will come back for more.

And the real point of this system is that you will simply have to pay more if you want to use the title in a normal way. Let's say you will buy the game and use it for approximately 6 years (as old as rF2 is today). That would mean you have to pay $44 retail price + 5x $13 = $109. That's the REAL cost of the game they're masking so it would seem less to us.

None is under any illusion about the cost of the game. Everyone can do that simple calculation and make their decision. There's no masking going on here. You'll have to accept this and focus on your above argument more ... it has more legs.

The proper way of generating revenue would be to ADD BONUS CONTENT for subscribers. Like including LIDAR tracks, new vehicles, perhaps working out some discount for certain game gear. It is by REWARDING the subscribers, not PUNISHING unsubscribers. It amazes me that so few can grasp this simple concept. Tell me, would you rather buy at a store that has friendly and helpful staff that treat you well and often give you discounts? Or would you rather buy at a store that has cameras all over the place, nasty-looking security guards and no discounts ever? Think about that.

There has been a message from ISI what development and updates will continue to be released for rF2. Meat on that bone may be light now so we'll have to wait and see.

P.S.: The 'phone home' itself is totally ridiculous, too. It only makes trouble for legitimate users as was already demonstrated by numerous titles with such idiotic DRM.

You have a point of view that is shared by many. I don't entirely disagree with all you've written above either by the way. What is the status on the LAN question by the way?

I am hopeful the lifetime membership option can be realized as I dislike [all] subscription systems. Worst case, I can accept a 12 month renewal option because I am sure it will be a worthwhile money spend.

The change with rF1's model obviously is noticed and generation thread length. It must be said that ISI are showing signs that they are listening to this feedback also which is a lot more that other dev houses have done in the past!

[MarcG]

Many like yourself fail to see the big picture. With $13 you would be paying for something that already should be included without subscription. That's called crippleware and is a really bad business practice. It's like buying a water bottle and then having to pay a yearly subscription if you want to fill it with juice instead of water. It would seem totally ridiculous to you. And it is the same with rF2 when you'll have to pay for playing over LAN. The devs have no solid excuse for that 'feature'.

And the real point of this system is that you will simply have to pay more if you want to use the title in a normal way. Let's say you will buy the game and use it for approximately 6 years (as old as rF2 is today). That would mean you have to pay $44 retail price + 5x $13 = $109. That's the REAL cost of the game they're masking so it would seem less to us.

The proper way of generating revenue would be to ADD BONUS CONTENT for subscribers. Like including LIDAR tracks, new vehicles, perhaps working out some discount for certain game gear. It is by REWARDING the subscribers, not PUNISHING unsubscribers. It amazes me that so few can grasp this simple concept. Tell me, would you rather buy at a store that has friendly and helpful staff that treat you well and often give you discounts? Or would you rather buy at a store that has cameras all over the place, nasty-looking security guards and no discounts ever? Think about that.

P.S.: The 'phone home' itself is totally ridiculous, too. It only makes trouble for legitimate users as was already demonstrated by numerous titles with such idiotic DRM.

Two things:

1) I think I read that the yearly sub is for the MM service, which will no doubt get upgrades/improvements so worthy of a Sub IMO. Also that the Sub helps fund the servers its running on to keep the Mods Checked so auto-downloading and "keeping mods upto date" works properly, again worth a sub IMO.

2) its just $13 a YEAR....what is so wrong with you people?! As I've said before I know kids on Paper Rounds (Routes) who earn double that everyweek so if they can easily afford to save up for $13 a YEAR then I'm sure most of you lot in the real working world can too!
Again divide $13 by 12months and see how much you have to save every 4 weeks, its not hard, its not difficult. If you're out of a job then the biggest priority is getting a job not funding a racing game to play!

If you're so against the "model" of paying for a Sub then I worry for you in todays age when famine, war, disease exist all over the world.....moral high ground i'm taking? so what.....blatant is'nt it!

[pitkin]

It's not the price that's the issue. It's the principle. I (grudgingly) accept that I must buy 2 copies of the game for 2 computers, but they're basically charging us to connect 2 computers that are in the same room together.

[Noel Hibbard]

pitkin, has that actually been confirmed? iRacing for example requires a sub and has to phone home to play yet you can still run it on two machines with the same user. Same goes for CARS and a ton of other games.

Technically you were supposed to have multiple copies of rF1 if you planed to use it on more then one computer. Only the dedi server was free to use without a licence. I believe it has been confirmed that the dedi server will still be free of a licence. So that will not change.

[K Szczech]

It's not the price that's the issue. It's the principle (...) they're basically charging us to connect 2 computers that are in the same room together.

It's not about principle either. Unfortunately, there is a technical problem here.

If ISI would provide LAN support, then instead of playing over internet, people would set up virtual networks and pretend to play over LAN. So basically ISI would be providing a backdoor for their own system this way.

[Lazza]

Many like yourself fail to see the big picture. With $13 you would be paying for something that already should be included without subscription. That's called crippleware and is a really bad business practice.

I see your point, and to an extent you are right. And maybe the fact that everything is above board (costs and limitations outlined up front, so only an idiot will turn around after a year and say, 'what? why do I have to pay more for online?') doesn't stop it potentially being in the 'crippleware' category - but that's still not grounds to demand or expect that they change the model. There are plenty of things in the world you need to keep paying for, and there's no doubt there is an online service being offered here (the matchmaker service in rF1 could have involved a fee too, though they obviously chose not to do that).

As long as the consumer is made fully aware up front of what they're getting into, what charges will be incurred, it's their choice whether to go ahead with the purchase and associated costs. That's why I keep trotting out the 'don't like it, don't buy it' line that I'm sure people don't appreciate - in both senses of the term.

Sure, ISI offered the rF1 matchmaker service free, other games have and will offer online services free, and that's their choice - but it's no obligation for such services to remain free in the future. Some people don't like it, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done - just that those people, if they don't agree to it, shouldn't buy the game.

So, there's no "should be included" here. If you think it should be, and it's not, don't buy it. That's your view, your problem, and it needs to shape your choice. ISI can charge whatever they want, and it's up to us to decide whether to buy it or not. If the majority of potential buyers decide not to buy, ISI either changes the model or loses their investment (and potentially goes out of business), so time will tell. Personally I think most people will accept the subscription and anyone not willing to pay for it will miss out on rF2 (online, at least).

There are still people stuck with very slow internet connections (or, indeed, no useable internet connection at all, but that's obviously an extreme in this context) who will be unable to play rF2 online based on the stated requirements - should ISI not add a lot of the new features (weather, live track, ...) to keep bandwidth down so those people can play? Are those people entitled to say, "I don't want to pay more for faster internet so ISI should make it work on my connection" ? No, those people just shouldn't expect to be able to play online, and either not buy it at all, buy it for offline, or buy it to test the online, find it doesn't work for them, and ask for a refund if they want.

Look at the other side: rF2 could be a flat $100, and anyone unable to play online has to pay for all the online code (and MM service) they'll never use. Instead, with the stated costs such a person could have rF2 and all released mods for $44, while anyone using the online service has to pay for it. (simple, logical, 'user pays' model... which never seems to go down well with those users who use the most... but that's another discussion)

If you want to take out the phoning home... let's say ISI gets some stats from the rF1 MM to judge the number of people playing vs the number of people who actually bought the game, and decide rF2 needs to be $240. How many would buy it then? Would ISI survive?

It's not the price that's the issue. It's the principle. I (grudgingly) accept that I must buy 2 copies of the game for 2 computers, but they're basically charging us to connect 2 computers that are in the same room together.

It's been alluded to already, but the rFactor (1) license absolutely doesn't give you the right to hook up 2 (3, 4, ...) computers in LAN games with a single purchase - of course I'm sure that did happen, which is why they're taking these steps to stop it...

[deBorgo83]

its just $13 a YEAR....what is so wrong with you people?!

This.
All these issues that people keep bringing up seem so easy to deal with to me. Just pay ISI the tiny dribble of money they're asking for just once a year and race online all you want.
I think when rF2 is released this discussion will go away, and it won't be back in 12-18 months when it's time to resubscribe. By then we'll know what a good thing we have and we'll just want to continue with rF2. Perhaps by then people will think maybe ISI deserves that extra little contribution from us after all the fun we've had.

[Slothman]

This.
All these issues that people keep bringing up seem so easy to deal with to me. Just pay ISI the tiny dribble of money they're asking for just once a year and race online all you want.
I think when rF2 is released this discussion will go away, and it won't be back in 12-18 months when it's time to resubscribe. By then we'll know what a good thing we have and we'll just want to continue with rF2. Perhaps by then people will think maybe ISI deserves that extra little contribution from us after all the fun we've had.

I have already started a list of "Will not buyers" and see how many I see online in the first month

[deBorgo83]

Yes, that should be interesting!

[Valter Cardoso]

People are talking in 13$ a year but thats the cost for a single player who wants to make some multiplayer races much probably wrecking all others in first nurburgring corner.....
For communities the future is not that bright.
I will give you all the average costs of our community (only for rf excluding iracing,simbin titles and netkarpro)
-server: 40 euros/month - year= 480 euros
-TS3: 10euros/4 times a year - year= 40 euros
-site host: some more euros
-prizes: some more euros
-all other software needed to run a site (music,video,picture edition):some couple more


This is just to show thats not only 13$ a year like many of you pretend to show.Probably to you who are reading this and playing rf1 in a community without paying a dime and using a cracked copy of rf1 could be....not for me.
Should we start asking for members to pay every year killing the rf1 free spirit (free communities,free mods,free tracks,free tournaments)?
Or should we demand ISI 10$ a year for advertising rf to our 2000 members database?
Its a matter of honesty,its an ethical matter.

When i buy some trowsers they are mine...i dont need to keep paying Levi´s everytime i want to go out!!!

[K Szczech]

This is just to show thats not only 13$ a year like many of you pretend to show.

No one is pretending anything. I pay like $30 a year for membership on just one portal. If I would be racing on 3-4 portals I would pay even more. $13 doesn't seem much for most important thing in simracing - the simulator itself


Trowsers are bad example. You do not get updates and online services for your trowsers

It's better to compare to games. I bought DeuEX 2 and I liked it. Then I bought new computer and game is unplayable now because of input lag.
I wish I could get a patch that fixes it but I won't - it's no benefit for developers to stick with their old producs. The same way we never got driver swaps fixed in rFactor.
Of course some people may feel like developers shoud still support their old products because it's better for the community but I wonder how would you feel if you go to work and your boss will tell you that you will work for free during next 3 months.

Some games are sold in a box, gamers enjoy them for a few weeks or months and then they're put aside and become nothing more than a collection rather than product that is still used. In this case, paying once for boxed version makes sense, because only a handful of people will be interested in playing it after one year. It's better to focus on sequel and sell it 2 years later.

With products like rFactor it's different story. These are long term projects and their life cycle is a lot different.
At first you get a product and then community gets accustomed to it, learn it, develop mods and so on. If there would be new rFactor every year then people would have to keep porting their mods to new game, servers would have to host races on latest version of the game and community would have to buy the latest game to join these servers.
Basically you'll end up with exactly the same thing - paying once in a while to keep up with things.

Continous development seems like a lot better path for such projects. Continous development means continous work and you can't demand that someone works for free.
Only when keeping backward compatibility for old mods and adding new functionality at the same time is getting too difficult, you will break that continuity and release, say rFactor 3.

In the meantime community will decide how much is rF2 worth and how long they want to support it with their money.


And as for honesty and ethics - there is no trap set here, no hidden costs, no tricks - that's just ISI's offer for us - take it or leave it. It may be inconvenient for you or not what you would expect, but it has nothing to do with honesty and ethics.
In the worst case they simply changed their mind about something they said in the past. There's nothing wrong about changing your mind.
It's just some people that take any word as a promise and then they perceive any change as a broken word. I sometimes make that mistake, but then I stand corrected and I have no problem with being corrected

[deBorgo83]

Should we start asking for members to pay every year killing the rf1 free spirit (free communities,free mods,free tracks,free tournaments)?

Um... I suppose you could, it's your choice.
As far as the $13/year charge to ISI is concerned, you'll have to pay that if you want to play rF2 online because that's what it costs to do so. Simple, really.

[Lazza]

Valter, I respect your opinion, but pigeon-holing people who don't agree with you isn't very nice.

It's fine to talk about all those costs, but that doesn't change whether it's rF1 or rF2 - so what we're looking at is an extra $13 a year. And I don't see a problem with that.

For what it's worth: I help run a league, our costs are covered by donations, I myself help with those donations, plus spend/give/invest/donate (take your pick) hundreds of hours a year towards forum and server maintenance, formulating competition guidelines, checking races for rule breaches, 'fixing' tracks to either suit how we're using them or to take out limitations the track makers probably thought made sense when they were putting the files together, tweaking mods where needed to suit the competitions, forum programming to fix bugs or add little features where necessary, plugin programming to cover gaps in rFactor's info, server-side programming to make running races easier, plus trying to actually turn up and drive fairly consistently - so pretty much everything most other league admins do, and you know what? It's a hobby, I enjoy it, and I do all that because I can and want to.

If the rFactor platform no longer fits the needs, I'll move elsewhere... if nothing provides what I'm looking for, I'll walk away. And I won't feel aggrieved, nobody will owe me anything, because it's all my choice.

If you don't like it, don't get it.

[Tony H]

well all i can say, as being just a "lemming", is im going to buy it, & happily pay $13 a yr later to run online.

also, we love u lazza u legend u ;-{}

[Dave Millard]

well all i can say.......

Is that ... that is the nicest looking posterior I have ever seen on a guy. avatar279_2.gif.jpg

[Slothman]

Is that ... that is the nicest looking posterior I have ever seen on a guy. avatar279_2.gif.jpg

BINGO...

Waaaiiiittt....thats a guy...DAMN...glad I am not dating any more, could get into trouble.... ::

[MaXyM]

pitkin, has that actually been confirmed?

Yes. It has been confirmed.

[the_last_name_left]

I have had more out of rF1 than any other software I have ever bought/used - except maybe Win98 or XP.

So much so, in fact, that I felt a little guilty about it. All this time, and all this fun, for just the measly £25 I paid. I really thought it was a giveaway and I wanted ISI to have made more from it. Hey, I suppose I could have made a donation (obviously I didn't feel *that* guilty! lol)

When you consider other Devs have just reiterated their titles year after year and charged the full £40 each time [Yes, YOU Codemasters, EA, SI] then $13 pa to continue having multiplayer is small-beer, and again it's a relative giveaway. I hate the phone-home thing.....but la de dah.....no more searching around for the "right" version of Spa just to get on a busy server etc. Hopefully, anyway.

I suppose it cuts both ways too - if you're being asked to pay $13 pa for online service and continuing development of sorts, then it better work, right? And there is some sort of entitlement to expect 'continuing development' in some sense. [Not that gamers need any encouragement to exercise their sense of entitlement, mind you.]

It'll perhaps become the most cliched line in rF2 - "I'm paying $13 pa so I demand ISI to fix/change/implement feature a/b/c!!!!" lol

[Noel Hibbard]

So much so, in fact, that I felt a little guilty about it. All this time, and all this fun, for just the measly £25 I paid. I really thought it was a giveaway and I wanted ISI to have made more from it. Hey, I suppose I could have made a donation (obviously I didn't feel *that* guilty! lol)

I felt the same way so my way of donating was to buy copies for several friends that were running cracked copies that refused to pay.