You know how everyone here likes to speculate. It seems kinda realistic anyway, with each upgrade costing £12.
You know how everyone here likes to speculate. It seems kinda realistic anyway, with each upgrade costing £12.
So far the only time Scawen has mentioned the price for S3 AFAIK.
It does, indeed, seem reasonable to assume that an upgrade from S2 to S3 will cost £12. But the problem is no one really knows for sure. New people asking about S3 are being told that it will cost £36 (or £12 if they upgrade from S2), but if the devs decide to charge £15 or £20 instead you'll have loads of people complaining that they were "lied to" and were told that it would only be £12.
Realistic my a**... Ever heard of inflation?
Yes, because software companies always raise their prices because of inflation. Better buy S2 now before the prices rise due to inflation!!!
Wow. It's amazing how I only spent 24 pounds (~58 Canadian dollars) for a video game. It's probably worth a lot more now because of inflation!
Who said anything about S2 price? We're talking about S3 price. You are way off topic here.
And if you think new games will still cost the same after 5/10/50 years the games still cost the same you are out of your mind.
So the price of S3 should increase because of inflation but the price of S2 should stay the same? So S2 is immune from inflation somehow?
A new edit. OK, I don't know what you are trying to say here, but inflation exists on the cost and revenue side of businesses.
However, inflation does not mean that something is worth more now than it was before. It means that the value of money has gone down. So if you bought something 5 years ago for £12 and now sell it for £13 (adjusted according to 2% inflation annually) you can still by the same amount of goods as you could before because their cost has gone up aswell... But if you don't get it anyway you are not going to get it with me trying to explain it to you and you acting as an arrogant brat.
Well, in theory prices of old goods and technologies should go down with time. IT software suffers from moral amortization of around 33%+ annually which makes an assumed inflation of 2% annually a much smaller factor.
It should be expected for a game to cost less as time goes by (see Steam for how much old games cost - not much). However, Scavier has continued the development of the game so I guess this is the main reason they have kept the price the same.
In conclusion, in theory you should expect the S1 and S2 prices to fall in the medium to long term and expect S3 to cost more than £12. Ofcourse, Scavier could make various decisions that are not based on this logic or this logic alone. The reduction in workload of Victor or the weakening of the British pound could come into play aswell... I'm just saying that don't get your hopes up on S3 costing £12 - it could easily be more (or less) and you should not state it as some kind of fact as you can't really know.
Well, in Canada lfs is 54$ already, and games like NFS: Shift are like 30$
So the s3 will be 81$ and here most of the games, even the bests one hardly go above 60$ brand new.
Tho i like lfs and i think i'm buying it soon ^.^
edit: We pay 27$ (or 12 pounds for most of you) for an update, not a complete game. The updates worth it tho i'm not complaining but
if we go to s5, s6, new users will have to pay something like 100/130$ to get the full updated game if it goes that way.
There will be... You won't pay full S3 price, but only the upgrade one, so what's the problem?
If there is a discount for S2 players, then what if people buy S2 first and upgrade to S3 right after?
And on the other side - if you mean people who have S2 and have played for longer period, then it wouldn't be fair for demo users, who have been playing so long either. But if we have a discount for demo users, playing from a long time, licensed people will start to make new threads in every possible section of the forum, just to start a fight about that. So, imo, keep it as it is.
From what I have seen, 99% of the people are happy with the current situation, so why change it.
yeah but if you look at it that way, ps3 games were expensive when they first come out but now there the same as the ps2 games out, so when ps4 comes out the games will drop to the same price,
so Gran Turismo 6 or 7 whatever they will be up to by then, will be the same price as lfs but have heeps more cars and tracks. so in that case, lfs will be over-priced for what it has.
Every time one of these discussions goes into value for money territory all the negative comments always neglect to take into consideration "time already served".
Most games tend to be "you get what you pay for". You spend X amount of money on a CD/DVD. LFS is much more of an evolutionary experience. I have had S2 for just over 2 years now and when the time comes I will be more than happy to spend an additional £12 (or whatever it is) for more content.
It is my personal belief that Rockingham + the mystery new car will not be the only content released over the course of time under the S3 license. The developmental history of this game indicates you get more for your money as time goes on.
If some of you do not think that what has definitely been announced for S3 justifies the cost, then just wait to see if more content is added over time and then perhaps in 2011 you will think it is worth the cost.
An extreme example: If this goes on for years and years (and years and years) then there may be a time when I have spent £100 on LFS. After you factor in that that £100 has been spent over 15-20 years the cost becomes negligible.
I would rather get in at the ground floor and enjoy the whole ride, but to each their own.
Most games tend to be "you get what you pay for". You spend X amount of money on a CD/DVD. LFS is much more of an evolutionary experience. I have had S2 for just over 2 years now and when the time comes I will be more than happy to spend an additional £12 (or whatever it is) for more content.
It is my personal belief that Rockingham + the mystery new car will not be the only content released over the course of time under the S3 license. The developmental history of this game indicates you get more for your money as time goes on.
If some of you do not think that what has definitely been announced for S3 justifies the cost, then just wait to see if more content is added over time and then perhaps in 2011 you will think it is worth the cost.
An extreme example: If this goes on for years and years (and years and years) then there may be a time when I have spent £100 on LFS. After you factor in that that £100 has been spent over 15-20 years the cost becomes negligible.
I would rather get in at the ground floor and enjoy the whole ride, but to each their own.
IMO it would be logical for the devs to allow people to get S3 without S2 content, or even without S1. A user with the "S3 only" license would have demo content + Rockingham + the new mystery car. Most would opt for everything, but there are some who would want to pick and choose.
That's not to say it will be that way, but it makes sense to me.
So, before you shoot us with something like that why don't you think? The hosts should also include S2 only mode, S3 only mode, S2+S3 only mode, etc... That's not just like to give them that content... A lot of other changes will be needed. S3 hosts will allow S1, S2 and S3 cars, so every time more cars get allowed (in case you are on demo+s3 license) you will get disconnected/kicked out, and that would also bring lots of pointless threads in the forums.... I just find no sense in putting so much effort in having licenses like that, because it would bring multi-license combinations.
To repeat again: If you want "S3 only" licenses, there will also have to be "S2 only" licenses, "S1 + S3" licenses and "S2 + S3" licenses, which will bring us on a place, where we have so many combinations in upgrading licenses, that new people will get lost in lfs.net, wouldn't know what to click, get scared and leave the site(typical&normal user reaction).
The dedicated host has no "S" mode and no license check. You just set the car/track combo. Hosts are visible to players only if they have the required content. Sorry if I shot you.
edit: I should say, the dedicated server is the same program, whether it's demo, S1, or S2.
edit: I should say, the dedicated server is the same program, whether it's demo, S1, or S2.
Best part of lfs now, is the patches. Free update on the game. New physics etc new model. Everytime something got updated, gave lfs until now a different feel.
So live with it, buy it and play it or dont buy and dont waste our time for reply..
So live with it, buy it and play it or dont buy and dont waste our time for reply..
No, you didn't shoot me at all. You know, in the settings file there is a line for the host's license. If it's set to demo, it would not allow the host to change the track or allow some other car, different than demo ones. Then, take the situation: You have S1+S3 license, and people who have S1 or S2, can't play, but in the same time hosts with S2 license cars, will not let people with S1+S3 play on these hosts, which brings an awfully confusing situation.
PS: Sorry, but it's the 3rd time im defeating my point now and I have said everything. If you just keep on picking up separate words from what I said, please first put some logical thinking and read the whole post again, because it's kind of annoying to explain the same situation to everyone in person(while, weirdly, it says the same thing, but in a different way a few posts up). Thank you !
@Takumi: +11 (btw, I do realize that this is eleven)
S3 and buying S2 now
(68 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG