So, while it says that "improvements, fixes and/or changes (...) are to be expected", there is no mention of a time frame. For me, this basically means "you pay for the game as it is now, but we can make changes to it as we see fit and you shouldn't come whining to us when we make a change you don't like".
I don't see any way this could be interpreted as "You pay for the game now and we promise you that we will continue to update it and add extra content in a reasonable amount of time, and please, if you find it takes too long feel free to start a thread on the forum asking when we will finally release an update with your desired feature/content in it."
Seriously, the devs owe us f*ckall, development wise. The only thing you could argue that they owe us is to keep the master server running so that we can keep playing the game we payed for. That's it, IMO.
It's a bit tricky though because you pay for an S2 license, but what does that mean?
If they stopped developing the game today, people might have reason to argue, but say if they dropped the Alpha tag and stopped, that's that then, you've payed for and received 'S2'.
Then when do updates stop, when do they move onto S3 and when do they stop updating S3. I'm sure the devs have the plan worked out as best as possible but it must be a hard model to maintain.
From the small amount of work I've released to the public I found support and updates very time consuming... and to a certain extent tedious. Once the final product is released, support essentially eats time for no return other then maintaining - or even perhaps improving - your reputation for future projects. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out with LFS.
obsolum, your - rather arguable - interpretation of this one line and an exaggerated misinterpretation do not convince me. the true meaning of this line sure lies somewhere between your two extremes (without the useless ornamentation, of course).
it's not only this line in the EULA that determines if we're legitimized to moan and groan:
LFS is sold as an unfinished product... but you pay for the finished product - S2, and whether it is particularly written in the EULA or not, this implies that you have a claim on the finished product.
Sure, it's a bit tricky to tell when it's finished. But it sure isn't when its name is "alpha". On the other hand just removing the tag doesn't do the trick - just one reason being that alpha and non-alpha cannot be the same thing.
A cheap improvement and taking away the tag? Probably legal but definitely not the nice way and a fist in everyone's face who bought the game just a while ago.
It's a bit hard to find an analogy with another product to illustrate the problem a bit. Maybe because the LFS business model is so unique (for a good reason).
Imagine buying a house that is being built. You pay the price for the finished house and the constructors go "we don't exactly know what it will look like in the end, but we will finish it."
Well, if your stupid enough to buy it (yes, I'm implying something here), you might do it because of thoughts like: well, me and the constructors know what a house in this price range is supposed to be like, and we also all know how long it usually takes to finish such a house.
During the year that has passed since you bought the house, a tree was planted in the garden and the kitchen was painted, but still crucial things like heating or even a frontdoor are missing, and the fridge looks and is a bit outdated.
You start moaning. The constructors tell you "look, we didn't ever tell you when we'd finish your house. We work at our pace."
"Can't you at least tell me, what you will do next?"
"No. This will only increase your moaning if we don't do it quickly enough."
Ok.
Oh yeah, I forgot to tell: you've got neighbours in unfinished houses, too. And some of them see the things the same way, others are happy with their unfinished house.
Yes, you can definitely say that this neighbourhood's people are all stupid and shouldn't have bought their unfinished houses in the first place. And the ones who don't complain are happier than the others but not less stupid. But it doesn't mean that this is the way houses should be built and sold.
we DO get updates, so what is your point?
and there are also people who sell their unfinished stuff (source codes and so on), u expect updates for those things too? imo you pay for what there is already
You're not paying for the game, you're paying for a license to play the game. Whatever state that is in. It states that on the read before you buy page.
Still, I don't mind what happens to LFS really, if they stopped today I would feel I've got my £24 worth.
Technically the game is free and we pay for the cars and tracks (and a few features such as skin storage). If and when S3 comes along we don't have to pay to get it (unless they decide to change the way they do business), we just have to pay to get the new content it brings.
I got my license only a couple of months before you did, and I would not feel one bit cheated if they decided to stop developing LFS. I don't think I've played any other game for as long as I have LFS, so it was well worth the £24, even if it's not entirely finished yet.
I guess it all comes down to what you expect when you buy a license. Personally, I didn't expect anything other than access to all tracks and cars in the game at that time. I think the problem is that many people these days buy a license with expectations regarding future content and features. They dream of things that might one day be implemented, rather than just enjoying the game for what it is.
That's a good point, especially when you consider the demo is the full "game", just with reduced content
I'd like to see LFS wrapped up before it goes final (the few remaining bugs sorted, the things Scawen said he would work on for the Beta), but after that I wouldn't mind if no more work was done. Even now, considering I've gotten 3 years out of LFS, I feel my £24 has been more than justified. Contrast that against spending €50-70 on new PC games, that you'll get maybe a few weeks out of at best, and LFS is pretty damn good value
Eeek, that's weird. More people discover new stuff, but I don't think that is the case with LFS. It's sad, but I have to admit it. Maybe LFS is.... fading away?
There is no interpretation possible with such a clear contract as the EULA. Remember, the EULA is a legal contract that binds you with Scavier if you decide to purchase the voucher. It is thus in the best interests of the team to have a clear and uncontestable contract to avoid undergoing legal fallouts with angry customers.
I would like to underline to you the double condition (and the second sentence might have created doubt for you as well as others). The most important phrase in the first sentence is "we can alter". If you signed the contract (which you did by buying the voucher), you agreed to the fact that the devs have the authority to alter the product in any way they want, but these alterations are solely depending on the wills of the devs. This is shown by the use of the word "can", which induces possibility when used in its juridical meaning. What's confusing here I admit is that our use of can usually implies certainty (e.g. : "I can beat the WR" or "I can do that"). In the legal sense, it refers to a possibility depending solely on the will of the one who will initiate the action and allowing that person to do so. They "can alter", but they are not "obliged to" (if they were, the contract would stipulate so).
The second sentence is what, in my mind, disturbs you (and you are right to think so, because it isn't clear). However, "are to be expected" means to a possiblity of alterations to come. E.g., when someone says "snow is to be expected today" in the weather forecast, it implies that snow is very likely to come, though keeping some degree in uncertainty. If snow was to come, they would have said : "it will snow tomorrow".
So basically, this sentence means:
"Updates/alterations are very likely to come, and we may alter LFS is so". But it does not imply any obligation for them to do so.
Are you unhappy with what you paid ?
The parallel with the house is not appropriate, unless you NEED to have LFS to have a good life.
We put our money down on unfinished software , it is what it is.
You paid for a work in progress with no clear time line of when it will be finished or if it ever will and i still think most people are ok with that.
But what people want is exactly what they paid for, progress.
There's probably thousands of analogies for how LFS works , like you bought a license to look at an unfinished painting based on the premise the painting would be finished one day and it would cost extra to have new colours etc etc etc.
Anyways thats a long winded way of saying people know what they paid for and its ok to whinge from time to time about what is happening with the work on the product.
You CHOSE to pay £24 to have the full version of S2. You KNEW it would include free updates for life (although the content in the "next stage" would come at an additional charge) on a game you've probably played more than any console game that would cost twice as much, and not forgetting has an 8.5/10 physics and 10/10 pick up and play rating..
As pb3200 has said, even if development stopped today I wouldn't be angry or feel ripped off. I've played LFS since before S1 was made final (about 5 or 6 years now, can't remember) and enjoyed every moment!
You know what? Okay, let's just say you paid for S2 final. I'm not exactly sure myself if one pays for the game as is or for the final version of a stage, but whatever. Whatever you paid for, it doesn't matter. Whether you paid for the game as it was when you bought it and you receive the updates for free, or whether you paid for S2 final, it doesn't change the fact that whatever any of us here says won't make things go faster.
We all paid for S2. There was no guaranteed date of release, and it would have been stupid for Scavier to even hint at one. See what happens when something gets postponed; people whine and moan; "zomg, when zizitready?!???111". Besides, do all the moaners think that the VWS wasn't postponed for a good reason? Do they think that it's just Scawen playing with us? No, it wasn't ready. Would they have like to have an unstable, or faulty in some kind of way version of LFS?
It'll be released when it's ready. Not before. Just wait. And the money you paid for it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
