rFactor 2 Open Beta (pre-release discussion)

[Adam Eggbeer]

What is the pricing structure for rF2?
In the USA, rF2 will sell for $43.99. This will allow unlimited access to single player and mod development mode. It will also include one year access to an online account. Additional one year access to the online account can be purchased for $12.99.

Why not simply raise the initial purchase price?
That wouldn’t be fair to those wanting to use only the single player or mod development mode.

What exactly are online services?
Users will be given online accounts from which they can access multiplayer races. This should reduce the number of anonymous race entries and in turn hopefully reduce the number of passworded servers.

The service will identify when updates are available and allow for automatic downloads.

The service provides a way to generate and maintain unique Mod/Package ID’s. This should help reduce the mismatch problem found in the current version of rFactor and also help reduce/eradicate version confusion for the end user.

Additional features such as online statistics are also planned.

What will I be able to do if I don't use online services?
You will be able to run single player, run Mod Mode, and manually find and install any mods or updates.

What is this open beta I have been hearing about?
We plan to release an early content-limited version for mod makers to provide feedback on the system. It will be an open beta, meaning anyone can participate. People wishing to take part will be required to make a full purchase (see pricing info above). We are planning to give those who take part in the open beta 18 months of online access with that purchase rather than the 12 months which will come with purchase after the open beta.

Will you offer refunds during or after the open beta?
If you believe you became a part of the rFactor 2 community too early we can arrange one.

Source

 

[Juen-Jen Wang]

Yes, it's too much for nothing.

How is it nothing? There's no indication that rF2 will be the exact same lobby system as rF1. Have you seen how messy the rF1's online lobbies are? Mismatches, password servers, and wreckers galore. I love rF1. But rF1 has one of the worst pick-up racing I've ever seen in a game. Heck I'd rather play RACE 07 or LFS when it comes to pick up racing.

That's how unbelievably messy rF1's lobbies are. Nevermind the fact that there isn't an account registration system.

$13 is practically dirt for a subscription fee. rF2's additions are pretty minimal but adds a lot of convenience especially on the pick up racing side.

I say that's actually reasonably priced.

 

[Robert Walker]

Yes xbox 360 users pay £40 a year. But that's because they don't know any better. That's why they'll pay £10 for a patch with some maps. Unfortunately this has killed PC gaming which has had this stuff for free (as it should be!). If the console gamers knew it was free on PC they may have stood up to it. People should stand up to this and refuse to pay to play on our own servers. Instead we should hack the game to allow us to do this. I don't see anything wrong in that. But others will take the morale high ground and call for me to be banned for mentioning this. The gaming world has gone mad. The reason there is so much Piracy in games, music and films is because they are overpriced. I will never pay the same for an mp3 version of an album when I can have higher quality WAV's on a CD with a little booklet with notes from the artist. But if they offered me an album for a couple of pounds in mp3 format, I would buy it as would many many others. It doesn't cost them much in the long run to distribute mp3's over the web either. The profit margins would still be good. But greed will always win. The people who make these choices are earning about 200 times more than any of us earn in a year and they don't want that to stop. Rant over.

 

[Senad Subasic]

All I see there is automatic download of updates, and alleviation of my paralyzing confusion over mods. If that's not nothing, it's damn close.
Again, they aren't providing anything (interesting) for the fee, they are just blocking a game feature until you pay.

 

[Robert Walker]

xcc

 

[Bob Miley]

When you have a principle against spending as much money a year on a hobby that you´ll spend within seconds in a bar by getting a couple of drinks - you REALLY need to re-evaluate your principles.

I mentioned a few times in posts that it is not a question of money(how you know what I spend on drinks is a bit worrying) and I thought that saying when I buy something I don't want it to have reduced functionality after a set period. That was all I said, the fact ISI have announced this pricing simply means I will treat it as I would if Ford said the new focus will only have half the horsepower after a set period, it's a choice and I thought I was as entitled as anyone else to post what I thought.

It is also a bit naughty for some to have a go at Senad for his comments as below:

Luke McVicar
"23 cents a week is too much for you?

are you like living under the poverty line? "

Juen-Jen Wang

"Yeah I'm pretty sure you can find that on the ground... each week... $13 is barely a full meal here in America "


This is supposed to be a discussion not an argument.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Instead we should hack the game to allow us to do this. I don't see anything wrong in that.

Please instead of posting such nonsense, first take a look of what ISI is actually offering you for those lousy 13 bucks PER YEAR.

 

[Dariusz Swiderski]

$13 a year isn't much for on-line access in any case. Compared to iRacing pricing, is mega cheap. And if you stop playing on-line you can still use the game content off-line ( unlike rip off iRacing ). As long as the FFB is fixed in rF2 i'll be a very happy customer
Bring it on ISI

 

[Fredrik Arbegard]

This is supposed to be a discussion not an argument.

It is a discussion.
I was told at VirtualR that some kids might not be able to afford it and I told that guy that they can get a job.
Whatever your principles are for $13 a year they are nothing else than silly in my mind.
Just my 2 cents

 

[RedMetal]

.....Rant over.

Bunch of nonsense... I wish I could laugh but frankly it's sad, really sad

The profit margins would still be good. But greed will always win. The people who make these choices are earning about 200 times more than any of us earn in a year and they don't want that to stop. Rant over.

Care to show us your source? You seem to know what is ISI profit margin....

When you stop and think about it.... all that nonsense because someone ask you to pay for their product. Now if you disagree with the offer just use your freedom of choice and don't buy or use their product, you know, having everything the market offer is not a right as you seems to think.

 

[Ivo Simons]

Problem for me is not the price discussion.

But the problem for me is that people are saying things and make assumptions you only pay for the matchmaker etc were we all dont know all the details of it yet. They said only a small thing at this moment. Also people say they gonna rip off modders with this. Maybe the modders get a money for there mods? Again we dont know all the details yet. So you cant make all those assumptions at this point with lack of all the details..

Lets wait for the release first.

 

[Chris Butcher]

If it's the case for the online play aspect - suits me just fine.

Year subscription on iRacing: $99

rF2: $13

In iRacing it really frustrates me, because ok, the modelling, laser scanning etc is all great - but you can only race in what they say you can. The license system is ridiculous. For instance, the only oval events that are ever official (in the rookie class) are the Legends races - and they are a crash fest, I'm lucky to get out of there with a flat SR.

If I only have to pay ISI $13 a year, to play what I WANT, not what they tell me, then I'm more than happy at that.

$13 really is nothing. You think nothing of paying $30 for 3 months of iRacing.... or $60 on a blockbuster game such as BF3 or CoD.

 

[Senad Subasic]

I preferred xbox comparisons to iRacing comparisons, LOL.

iRacing offers a bunch of (quality) content and a whole infrastructure built around it for their fee. rF2 doesn't have anything. You'll still have to pay for your own server, download tracks and mods, and have basically the same thing you have now.

 

[George Mastrokostas]

13 dollars a year is nothing.

We will have to wait and see what the actual online aspect of rFactor2 is.
It is too early right now and we have incomplete information which leads only to speculations that have a large degree of error.

 

[Juen-Jen Wang]

This is supposed to be a discussion not an argument.

Really? Seems to me like most of you are just sitting there complaining rather than really discussing. It's really the complaining to gets to me, it isn't even so much that ISI is this big gigantic corporation. I don't see a problem supporting ISI especially if they are promising more services to their online features

rF2 doesn't have anything. You'll still have to pay for your own server, download tracks and mods, and have basically the same thing you have now.

You actually dont know that. Sure rF2 could come out and be exactly like you say and I'll have to eat my own words. But the fact of the matter is (at the moment) is that ISI isn't exactly clear how rF2 will be "better" than rF1. But I have faith that the yearly fee is due to a newly introduced online syncing service that will make pick up racing a million times more convenient than rF1 and that in itself is already worth the $12 yearly fee. Heck wasn't it already confirmed that rF2 will have an account system online? That's already quite a bit different than rF1

Heck, Senad you get the first year for free. You might as well try it and if you dont like it just don't renew.

13 dollars a year is nothing.

We will have to wait and see what the actual online aspect of rFactor2 is.
It is too early right now and we have incomplete information which leads only to speculations that have a large degree of error.

I agree. Everyone is speculating way to much and we may be bashing something we have no understanding of. (This including me as I may be completely wrong defending rF2's fee). But the heavy amounts of complaining around Race Department and outside have really gotten to me. All this consumer entitlement bullcrap irritates me. Excluding some very basic common sense protection (such as it's illegal to have false advertisements for a product, etc), when it comes to a free market, it's pretty much fair game between the consumer and producer. All this "everything should be free" is really quite selfish at times especially since ISI is a very independent developer who are working hard to bring us a product that would emulate a sport we all love.

I understand that everyone (including me) is worried about whether rF2 will have an online feature robust and different enough to warrant a yearly fee. Many people just speculated that they just copy and pasted the rF1 lobby system into rF2 but based on interviews this clearly isn't the case.

Honestly, I personally believe that there is no indication that the rF2 online features will be limp enough to not warrant a $13 yearly fee. But that's just my opinion on the Dev Q&A. Yet, I havent seen a good argument as to why a $13 yearly fee is "bullcrap" besides the "cause it's the same as rF1" argument

 

[Senad Subasic]

You actually dont know that. Sure rF2 could come out and be exactly like you say and I'll have to eat my own words. But the fact of the matter is (at the moment) is that ISI isn't exactly clear how rF2 will be "better" than rF1. But I have faith that the yearly fee is due to a newly introduced online syncing service that will make pick up racing a million times more convenient than rF1 and that in itself is already worth the $12 yearly fee. Heck wasn't it already confirmed that rF2 will have an account system online? That's already quite a bit different than rF1

You're right, I don't know that. I'm just reading what they said, and seeing that. They mentioned some online statistics that are planned. If there was more, even something in its early stages, surely they would mention that too, even just as a secret surprise feature. Although, it looks they don't need to justify the fee, so maybe they left stuff out.

Heck, Senad you get the first year for free. You might as well try it and if you dont like it just don't renew.

I don't want a demo version of a game I purchase.

 

[Juen-Jen Wang]

I don't want a demo version of a game I purchase.

But it's not. Nothing is left out if you buy a game and you use the online subscription for free

 

[cammel]

If ISI provided the servers the only content that would be allowed, would be fully licensed content.Because they would be held responsible for what is on their servers.

They also said development will continue after initial release.So what the Matchmaker service is at release is not necessarily what it will be later on.

 

[Fredrik Arbegard]

I don't want a demo version of a game I purchase.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demo

Hope that helps, it's NOT a demo.

 

[Senad Subasic]

A game with limited functionality. I thought it sounded better than shareware you have to pay for.

 

[David O'Reilly]

Robert Walker I'm afraid I have to agree with RedMetal above.
You accuse Xbox players en masse of ignorance and then go on to justify your own failure to pay money for services you wish to acquire.
You justify music piracy by complaining that MP3s should be cheaper than its comparator an album on CD with a cover etc. Do you actually buy these albums then? Or are they just your excuse to steal music?
I reckon I can guess how much you have spent in the last year on digital entertainment within a £20 margin of error. My guess is £5.00
Your post is a misinformed, ignorant rant against peple who run good businesses providing gamers with stuff thay want.
If we all followed your example there would be no new games at all and we would be playing space invaders (for free of course)