RE: Yanks and their US Dollar making LFS rather expensive...
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD!!!
We (Europeans) frequently get screwed over compared to the American market, key reason being astronomical Tax to be fair, and the 1 time you have to pay slightly over the odds and its like its 'OMG can you believe this!!!'
This is a game/sim produced in europe, bend over and take it like a man
You would own GTR2 no more than you own LFS. Giving your friends an unlock or installing GTR2 on friends computers is the same thing, it is stealing. You don't own the software, you have a license to use the software. The way LFS is doing it is just a better way of protecting themselves against piracy.
nah the guy has a point
if for any reason the devs would have to shut down their business and the licence server youve paid 24 pounds for something you cant use anymore
Here PC games are 29,90 euros. The Sims 2 has been 59,90 since it came out, and still is. Which is around 40 and 80 dollars. So I wouldn't say LFS is expensive from a Finnish point of view at least.
And what you are saying is illegal. Guess you've never read the terms and conditions that come with any piece of software? Read that and tell me you have more `rights`. When you buy GTR2 you don't buy the software, you buy a license to use the software and the publisher holds the rights to do basically anything they want.
Anyway, LFS is not expensive in its native country (far from it). Although I believe it's all relative at the end of the day especially with the US since it would appear your cost of living is cheaper than ours.
I don't think the question here is not how much or how. In this thread it hinges on your hatred for Americans. Why do you have to retort with hate when an American posts his views? You didn't say anything when the Europeans posted their displeasure with the price, did you?
To boot, the Americans have been supporting the additional money for the devs, in fact the person who suggested it is an American.
I think some of you folks should consider treating people in nicer ways.
In that case, and that was said years ago already, there would be a license removal patch for last version.
Again: LFS dev-speed isnt related to money.
About prizing. The dollar is worth less than a EUro or even less than a pound. So you have to come up with that. If you think that's too much, you might wnt to ask your goverment to subventionize LFS, should rise your state debts a lot, isnt it? :P
Crazy thread. Of course, I reckon 90% of us would pay a bit extra (a few extra quid is nothing when you consider many of us have paid £24 for nearly 4 years of licensed LFS) for extra content faster.
But I think the idea that it's anything like as simple as that is bonkers. Almost as bonkers as the idea that a thread like this could pursuade SCAVIER to drop their whole working philosophy, which (in case you hadn't noticed) seems to be quite successful.
Perhaps you are a little confused here. Windows is an operating system, not a game. In fact, any PC manufacturer that calls his computer an "MSDOS-PC" and uses Windows as an operating system must pay initial royalties to Microsoft. Those royalties are included in the license that MS issues with Windows.
But I presume that you are not aware of the law that the EU passed last year. In essense, the new law on software says that any software sold in Europe has to be sold as "open source". In other words, the software developers have a legal obligation to surrender the source code to the buyer. LFS included. In that sense, yes, you own the software.
That was debated in an EU court against Microsoft, for which MS developed the new operating system, Vista.
For this reason I said that if the LFS developers get in a legal jam with the EU laws, we might be out of all our investments in LFS.
Okay, here:
Sorry to disagree with you, my friend. I have owned Flight Simulator since it was developed in Champaign, Illinois, at the University of Illinois back in 1996. A company was formed after the developers graduated from the university and named it Sub-Logic until Microsoft bought them out and introduced FS4 in 1993.
I have all the versions of Flight Simulator clear to FS2004 and I have been able to play them all online without having to pay any extra money.
In case you don't know, there are many online networks for MS Flight Simulator, the largest are Vatsim (http://www.vatsim.net) and IVAO (http://www.ivao.aero). Vatsim has about 80,000 members and IVAO about 60,000. I have been a member of IVAO for 6 years and before that I was a member of SATCO which started back in 1997 using FS4. IVAO was formed in 1998 and Vatsim in 2001.
If Microsoft goes belly up, we can still use Flight Simulator on those networks. They are completely independent from Microsoft. We can't do that with LFS.
My point is that what comes on the CD (or downloaded) I should be able to to use even after the developers dissapear. This means, yes, until the end of time.
Hence why I used the term "software"... I know how to differentiate a game from an OS thank you.
An operating system and a game both fall into the category software wouldn't you agree?
Hmm, yeah. What does that have to do with anything I said. I know how MS licenses work trust me.
How often do you see the term "MSDOS-PC" being used these days anyway? I never see it.
Mostly they're just called a "PC" or a "Designed for Windows XP/Vista PC", and occasionally still "IBM-compatible PC", as IBM created the original version of what we refer to as PC's these days.
Your interpretation of that law is incorrect or incomplete at best.
And besides, being able to see the source code of a piece of software does not make you the owner of the software. Even if for instance the Windows source code was opened up completely, wouldn't mean you would be allowed to alter it and distribute your own version. You do not have the same legal rights the owner has.
So let me get this straight, MS developed Vista FOR the EU?
Good for you. I am however pointing out that not all games (if any) have a 100% official guarantee for it. I know that's a stretch and a bit anal but so is the scenario of all three LFS devs vanishing from the earth so to speak or LFS getting in trouble with the EU.
Just because you are able to point out a game that you're able to use years after purchase doesn't mean it's like that with all games. You certainly don't have any legally binding guarantee by the creators.
If the LFS devs would have to go out of business they could make sure people are able to keep on using it. For instance by releasing a patch which would permanently unlock all copies. And they could give out details to the community how they could set up their own masterserver. After all, the servers which LFS are played on are independent of the developers.
Or maybe it just hinges on the fact that you cant interpret something thats said as hatred for something thats just a passing comment where you never give a single thought for anyone else in the exact same circumstances when its on the other foot?
Its just made to be this huge statement as to how unjust it all is that Americans are being ripped off, the fact that you pay about 60% of the price for every other game on the market doesnt seem to concern you, what DOES concern you is paying more than average for ONE game. Where is the outrage that we're (Europeans) paying more for every other game on the market?
Maybe its just arrogance that you think you should get it cheaper, or maybe its just far easier to MAKE ASSUMPTIONS (like my last comment ) about someone which fit your pathetic little adjenda? We can all take comments completely out of context and turn you into a 'f*ck everyone else USA rules we have a devine right to have everything cheaper than everyone else like we do for all other games' type character, its fairly easy isnt it, just make assumptions and twist things to be convenient.
So how about in future instead of making rash assumptions about someone you actually read a little more into what the person is saying instead of assuming every comment about americans HAS to be negative so start bashing before actually reading. You ignored the fact that there were 2 winking emoticons and a tongue pulling one and just interpretted everything as some Yankie-bashing excersise and figured rather f*ck what it really was, lets bring out the US Patented Friendly-Fire™!
You pay no more than anyone else for this game, You paid £12 per licence, just as everyone else who has paid for their licence, the fact that every other game you've bought has been cheaper than the European price makes you LUCKY, but apparently what it actually makes you is down right UNGRATEFUL of the fact.
And if your too stupid to have recognised the same thing then your just as stupid to actually recognise someone spouting rubbish because they'd rather turn am in-jest comment into a case of national hatred.
That is the sort of crap people have to get used to.
This needs a bit of calming, it's a good rational debate, lets not allow a few o/t rant posters drag it into the rubbish bin please
Note: for all non-brits whinging about exchange rate issues, none of you have been supporting any 'additional money' for the devs, they still get exactly the same £££'s each time no matter what the exchange rate. It's still up to the individual to choose whether to spend their money on it or not.
The thread was suggesting donating additional funds to speed up progress, i think we all know that additional funds wouldnt speed it up, and i think that point was made within the first 5 posts. I think most people would be willing to entertain other options they'd pay for additional content or something, but on the context of paying for it to speed up progress we all know it wouldnt make an ounce of a difference because it will be done at whatever pace it takes the 3-man team. If it would speed things up and bring additional content i'd be more than happy to do so, partly because its kinda got to a point where it feels like a significant patch is a year appart, and as i said in my original post i geniunely dont see S3 Final before 2010 and i'd say thats optimistic. But they're not so much interested in speeding up developement more a case of getting it done their way, which has its + & - points, some which could mean half the people here from the beginning will have lost interest in sim-racing by the time its finished which to me is a great shame, but then so would be rushing it.
I think it was Vykos, in another thread, that mentioned (and reminded me) that Scawen was considering alternative ways of 'finishing' LFS, doing away with the Stage format, because of the time it took to get to S2. (Remember, LFS was originally pencilled to be finished (S1, S2, S3) over a period of a year, which went out of the window in the first few months).
So perhaps we'd have a £3 upgrade to a version with rain, £2 to get day/night cycles... who knows, it's just conjecture on my part (PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS FACT)...
Anyway, I'm happy to play LFS no matter how or how quickly it's developed until something better comes along. So far that hasn't happened, and as such I've been playing LFS almost exclusively for circa 4 years.
Wasn't there an S4 planned originally as well? If only for a short time? I think I remember reading that somewhere once, but I could be wrong. I hope they'll stick to the original plan though, wouldn't the alternative way cause a fragmentation of the userbase?
Correct, there was S4 planned, to be released quarterly.
Why would it fragment the userbase? As long as a)everyone pays the same and b) there aren't too many updates to get confused with (e.g. 50% of people have rain, 50% of people have day/night, but only 20% have both) then I can't see a problem. Obviously chucking out every new feature as a pay-to-play patch will cause problems, but waiting 4 years for S3 would be as annoying...
Who knows how they will do it - I bet they've thought about it and have a plan. Maybe they'll just have car/track packs for sale, and leave the physics as free patches, so we all get rain, but only those that want it get 'The Rally Pack' or 'The Supercar Pack' or 'Track Pack 3'.
I guess most people would upgrade instantly/soon with every new update so the problems would be temporary I guess.
As far as waiting for S3, I guess those same features would be delivered in "sub-stages" as well in the form of incompatible patches so the waiting would be just as long in the original plans I think.
I think that would be a good idea, seeing as the difference over time between S1 and S2 is basically only in the content as well.
Anyway, it's not that I don't have faith in how they'll do it. Ultimately all is fine to me, I'm not going anywhere
I'd pay €30 for S3, if only development would go faster, things from other race simulations ( rain, more damage, blahblah ) got included, etc. etc. etc.
But until we see a faster and more productive progress in the development, I'll spend the money on another beer next time, I'm going out.
I think that a lot of LFS' current users would be open to car/track packs. As long as the quality was high, I'd pay for this kind of stuff without hesitation.
The only problem with this is that it could negatively impact how easy it is to jump in and play. Right now LFS is one of the only sims that you can connect to a server and KNOW that it's going to work. Releasing cars/tracks as add-on packs could cause problems when you try to connect to a server that's running a car/track you don't have. This could be fixed by making the executable the same for everyone, but having separate unlocks. But this could get unwieldy for Scawen to code and manage.
Or you have LFS.exe intelligently hide tracks/cars you don't have perhaps. Or link to the relevant purchase page if you choose one you don't have.
Or allow all car/track packs to be used offline (if you've downloaded them), and have a quick LFSW check when going online to see if you have the relevent licence.
I'm sure there are ways to make such a (hypothetical) system work, but I'm not a programmer, the creator, or a good businessman, so who knows what Scavierge decide.
Scavierge = Scawen, Victor, Eric & Geraldine, and I thought of it myself
Yeah. There are options on how to handle it. The point I was trying to make was that you only really have two main choices: 1) You don't handle it and you end up with rFactor-like server joining problems. 2) You handle it in some way, but then you have to deal with the overhead and programming that it requires. Which means that we get fewer new features and enhancements because Scawen has to spend time getting things to work properly.
