mate you are absolutely kidding yourself thinking any modding/league for someone elses platform is worth that amount of money
I just want to chime in and attempt to dispel, or at least register a '-1' to some of the misconceptions that seem to be metastisizing here. For my part, the objection over the subscription-based MM requirement for rF2 has nothing to do with these silly 'worst case scenarios' for ISI. It has everything to do with the attempt to convert the sim-racing market from game-as-product to game-as-service. The arguments about alien abductions of ISI staff, or how long ISI has operated in the black, independently or otherwise, or whether they may or may not ever give up on the service.... these are all completely irrelevant to the problem with which I am concerned. Because the problem, from my perspective, is that there is now a service being inseparably coupled to the product in the first place. In other words, and more plainly: I don't want the service. Thus, I don't care how it's managed, or even whether it's managed, or how long it might be managed or by whom. But just because I don't want the service doesn't mean I don't want the product to which it's being attached. And herein lies the problem: ISI plans to deny me the opportunity to purchase one without the other. In business terms, this is usually called 'bundling', or more specifically (and applicable to this case) a 'tying contract' or 'tie-in agreement'. It's worth noting that such practices are often considered illegal (according to the Sherman Antitrust Act). I point this out not to be inflammatory, but because it clearly communicates an inherent effect of these kinds of practices, which is that they have a tendency to be exploitative in nature, disproportionately disadvantaging the consumer. I think answering Tim's question will be very helpful: The simple answer is this: I don't want ISI handling a game for me. At all. But don't take it personally. It's not because I do or do not trust ISI, but because I don't want any entity 'handling' the game for me. I want to handle it myself, thank you very much. I want you to develop a game for me, and I'm eager and able to pay you in exchange for that effort. Furthermore, I'm not objecting whatsoever to ISI's attempt to create a profit opportunity for themselves that is above and beyond the point-of-sale of the product between themselves and a customer. Creating additional value to the game (at least as perceived by some) by providing a 1st party service and charging a subscription for it is a perfectly legitimate business venture. What I'm objecting to, and what I believe others here are objecting to (though clearly not all), is the fact that the service is not optional. The opportunity has been eliminated for me, as a consumer, to make a single (and historically mutually-satisfactory) exchange with ISI and then merrily go on my way. Note that in this case I consider the 'product' to be a multiplayer-capable sim-racing game. So if I can't participate in multiplayer racing without the MM service, then the product cannot be purchased without also subscribing to the service. Thus, in effect the game-as-product is redefined to game-as-service. I hope with this position in mind, it becomes obvious why the lifetime membership (as described) misses the point of the issue as well. I don't want my multiplayer sim-racing activity to be beholden to the MM service, at all, regardless of its duration. So it doesn't really matter if I am required to pay monthly, yearly, or (in the 'lifetime' case) just once for some unspecified (and unknowable) interval. It's the dependency itself that is the problem. I think this is the aspect of orangutan's original proposal (in the LAN thread, and reiterated here) that has been lost in the discussion. The proposal isn't to have the opportunity to just pay for a larger timeslice of rented capability (service-backed multiplayer), even at a discount. The proposal is to reinstate the ability to buy the product without the service! And as he said, there are those of us who would even be willing to pay a premium to be able to conduct a business transaction between ourselves and ISI under those terms. Please also note that I'm not making a quantitative judgement about the MM service. I'm sure it's the bee's knees. I just don't want it. But I would like rFactor2, thanks. So the question in front of ISI is this: does it want to voluntarily shrink the pool of potential customers by the amount of people that otherwise are desperately anxious to buy their game but are unwilling to shackle themselves to a peripheral service that represents the elimination of a long-standing consumer benefit?
I never said it is "worth" that much. I said we "invested" that much in our time value, for the payoff of league enjoyment. I could dump 40k into a season of regional and semi-national kart racing. Is my kart, tools, exhaust fumes, and worn out tires worth 40k? No. I would have invested the money for the reward of the racing itself. Same with my rF modding investment example. And I am not kidding myself on that number. Honestly, that number is very conservative, factoring everything in. And our number, if anything, is far lower than one of the big time "modding house" mods.
dahoste, that was exactly how I feel..it is the major reason I dumped iRacing. I wish I had the ability to articulate like you did in your post. In the end ISI/Gjon will do what they want, regardless of how much we dislike it.
It's part of the game!!!!!!!!!! Just like physics, graphics, multiplayer, etc. There's no separating them. There is no law that says an auto simulator can only have x,y, and z components, and that there must be a one time fee when purchasing. All the money, regardless of payment structure, goes to the same place. Only in your imaginations is there some kind fo strange separation. Is this simple little matter really beyond comprehension for some of you?
Hey Dave, thanks. I tried my best to describe it in a way that I think captures the sentiment of many of us, and which hadn't really been done justice yet in the thread. Your reasoning for abandoning iRacing factors in here significantly, and I'm glad to hear someone say it. I feel strongly enough about this that I've completely sworn off iRacing because it is at the forefront in an effort to erode community-controlled multiplayer sim-racing. What's so troubling, to me, with this move by ISI, is its consequences in comparison to iRacing. ISI had established a reputation as the flag-bearer of community-enabling open sim-racing. In essence it became the retroactive antithesis to iRacing. And this new rF2 policy shows ISI abandoning that role. Rather than re-affirming the long-standing loyalty of a huge swath of the sim-racing populace, it is choosing to squander that reservoir of collateral goodwill on a gambit for subscription profits. And you're absolutely right, ISI/Gjon will do as they wish, as we're frequently reminded. And that's totally their prerogative. My motivation for posting is to hopefully raise the profile of the tradeoffs involved with their choices. Tradeoffs affecting them as well as those affecting us, the gaming consumers and dedicated sim-racers.
I lost a house in the Queensland floods earlier this year. Many years of hard work and investment. And some of you complaining about the potential risk of investing in a computer/server/whatever for a damn game? Come on, get real. There's no guarantee in life. If that's what you're waiting for, I suggest you stay in a wooden box shrouded in cotton for the rest of your life waiting for your gold plated idealistic solution.
exactly...putting a dollar value on time spent on a amateur hobby thats for enjoyment...imo isnt real
@ dahoste re #103 Yes - totally agree. As Dave Millard seems to say, I think you've coherently pinned down what some of us are feeling but perhaps struggling to express. Thanks. On the other hand, it is only a game, not a requisite of life or anything. And you do admit that: Well, it is - it's just that MM is compulsory whether you wish to make use of it or not. I know that's your whole point, but they are making it clear before purchase. Nobody has to buy it. So, whilst I completely agree with all that you said and empathise with your argument and position, I still say "Suck it up!" There's no choice but to do so, imo, as I don't see Mr Camaj being open to persuasion on this. C'est la vie. @ O: You're spending over 10K? Well, I have no idea on what it could be on, so I can't really comment. Maybe write a personal email to ISI saying you give them several K for a special licence and no-one else need know? Worth a try?
Well I for one am happy with this potential news and a little struggling all at the same time here ... Happy because ISI appear to be showing yet another example of listening to the community here and this lifetime possibility is attractive to me very much. I hope it can work out. Struggling because the piece-meal release of information is becoming very difficult to follow in these threads. I can pull it together but with all the bits of answers across all the threads, it's minefield for mis-understanding. Reaction to post questions is great. Thanks for that ISI. However, the answers being provided in these reaction answers ought really be the basic information that should be first communicated in a clear and coherent fashion up front to begin with. You may feel you have done this. Surely the forum response shows otherwise [emotion and attitude to boot unfortunately]. A coherent and complete communication is now vital to have to clear up the fog and reset the conversation. If that means ISI go silent on here for a week, then so be it .... I appreciate the communication and engagement and I want to thank you all in ISI for taking the time on here. This is genunie. Please please take a little more time before providing the answers to the forum to ensure a more complete
Well the way I see it if ISI was bank I would put my money in it. From one ole guy that drives like crazy and will buy the next gen of rf2 for 18mos and $13 bucks a year till death. Oh I have to say I am 66 had 9 heart attcks so no liftime for me heck one day at time is hard enough. Rogenator
The issue is as much protection of their intellectual property as it is maintaining the game. rFactor wouldn't be the first to tie up with a dedicated multiplayer service to reduce piracy issues and it seems like a reasonable way to deal with it as if you don't actually connect the protection check to anything it can be stripped out very easily. Whatever you're willing to pay I doubt it adds up to what ISI have calculated they'd lose in revenue otherwise. I don't get what's wrong with the service though - what's to suggest it will put you at any detriment cost aside? It's not like GTAIV where you have to be signed in to both Rockstar Social Club and GFWL to even play. If you can name a concrete disadvantage of having to be logged in to ISI's network to have multiplayer save the time it takes to log in I'd be interested to hear it. If you can't put a name to it I doubt it's something that's going to cost many customers. As for the issues with the service being pulled out when you've still got money invested in it... the real question should be this: what can we do to stop ISI murdering us once we've paid for several years in advance?
I'm sorry to hear that, but this is a great opportunity to extend your analogy to restate my point. Say you had five choices back when you bought your house: 1. You could buy a house in a flood plain, so flood insurance was not available 2. You could buy the exact same house, but flood insurance was available 3. You could buy a magical house where no floods were possible, no matter what 4. You could just stay in other people's houses 5. You could move to another location altogether, where they have those magical houses. These are the choices for ISI to provide for modders. Choice 1) is what ISI is going to provide with rF2 and MM. Choice 2) is if they simply added a guarantee that if for some crazy reason MM goes away, they'll patch rF2 to not need it. Choice 3) is you own rF2 outright when you buy it, and do not need MM to race in private leagues. Choice 4) is to give up modding in rF. Just drive ISI's cars and other people's mods. Choice 5) is to take your money elsewhere and mod on some other platform that you 'own' when you buy (or just download in the OSS case). The rub is that rF2 sounds like a great location to live in this analogy (tire wear visualization, dynamic track, new tire model, vibrant community), so choice 5 is a painful choice to make. So we lobbied here. Now we are just blathering on I suppose, since the ISI decision is done, but that's what people do.
Hmm lifetime of rF2 will be maxium at 5 or 6 years. So a good price for LTM should be around 3 years at max. Double the inital buy price isnt really a good one. Perhaps you can leave the amount open from a ... ~25$ to XXX so some freaks can send their > 100$ ...Can someone delete the last 3 pages?
