Member Level.

[DRTPolo16v]

I remember reading NG previous to the CARS project going live and Ian bell said something that we would have the option to get to the core of the engine and if we wanted, the option of programming and creating assets, What has happened to these options? anybody have any info?
cheers
Phil

[redi]

Starting from Manager level (level 4) you can access game scripts.

[DRTPolo16v]

$2500!! This isnt how Ian Bell mentioned it would be. So the only benefit to joining is to play early builds of a F2P Game?

[redi]

$2500!! This isnt how Ian Bell mentioned it would be. So the only benefit to joining is to play early builds of a F2P Game?

The whole idea of joining is that the community will have influence on the design and decision process. Game testing will be done by thousands of people with an equal amount of different system configurations. Ideas can be thrown up that, if deemed useful by the community, will be included in the game.

It's not just playing the early builds, it's contributing to the game by testing and giving feedback, and posting ideas on the forums.

[Mahjik]

$2500!! This isnt how Ian Bell mentioned it would be. So the only benefit to joining is to play early builds of a F2P Game?

It hasn't exactly been decided how the game will be marketed after completion. Ian mentioned he will list some options with pros/cons and allow the investors to vote when the time comes. However, that is a long ways off...

The original concept was to have a base free package and then support micro-transactions for more content. Again, still undecided as it stands today.

[AeroMechanical]

Initially when Ian was throwing ideas around, he mentioned a level around 10K I believe that would provide source code access. Presumably he came to his senses.

Though it would be lovely to have a look at the source (not that I have 10K anyways), there are a lot of people who do have 10K around the world and who would rather not pay the 500K or so it would cost to develop their own engine and are shady enough, or legally untouchable enough, not to.

Also, ISI probably actually owns the majority of it depending on how their licensing arrangements worked out.

Additional:

I know it's kind of being sold as a investment thing in the financial sense, but I really look at it more like I'm investing in them, and the only return will be that they develop a sim that isn't beholden to a bunch of people only concerned about financial return. If they repay me in credit for their DLC stuff, that would be fine (if they repay with some extra credits, that would be better yet).

I can understand that the people at the higher levels might be looking for a genuine financial return though. That's a different story. To be honest, once we're talking about real money, I don't know what I'd think about the "Toolpack" idea. Definitely I'm not giving up 25K on a "click to accept" agreement.

[Micas]

Who said "source code access"? I see "Can access Game Scripts". I have no idea what "Game Scripts" are, but most assuredly it's not going to be "source code".

It still makes me crazy when I see people say "the only return will be that they develop a sim that isn't beholden to a bunch of people only concerned about financial return." I know I should just ignore it and move on, considering it doesn't making any sense anyway.. but still.

Pretty much every video game that you have ever played was financed by somebody hoping for a "financial return". It's like a bunch of hippies have invaded the forum, passing around the brown acid, denouncing "the man" for making a living via video game development.. whist simultaneously making absurd demands and leveling baseless critiques.

[AeroMechanical]

You're very confused about the way things work. It has nothing to do with making money developing video games, and everything to do with getting someone to loan you the money to make a video game so you can both make money--the problem with making video games being that you have to do all the work before you see any money, making it naturally risky. SMS found that money previously in Electronic Arts, and we ended up with the Shift games, which had sparks of brilliance because SMS made them, but tons of horrible pandering to the lowest common denominator because EA financed them and thus held the reigns.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with EA, that's what they do, but they're only going to loan someone a few million dollars to make a video game if they are reasonably certain they are going to make their money back. That certainty gets orders of magnitude higher when the product is something with mass appeal, so naturally that's what they're going to want.

The only way SMS are going to be able to develop a real racing sim is to get somebody to take a pretty big risk. They're trying it a different way though, get lots of people to take a little risk. Those people are us, and yes, "crowd funding" is a very hippy-esque concept: a lot of people without much money, but faith in an idea, can collectively come together to get what they want. Pretty cool if it works. If you're not familiar with the video games industry, it's a pretty nasty business. SMS are trying to get above that using the respect and faith of their fans. We get the sense they like making sim-racing games. If they only cared about financial returns, they would be a lot better off focusing their talents elsewhere.

There are not a lot of options for sim-racing developers. iRacing was lucky enough to get a rich sim-racing enthusiast to back them, and to make their plan work they have to charge a relatively large amount of money for their sim.

ISI seem to do okay. I think they benefit from being small and agile (but with a lot of technical talent), and I believe they do reasonably good business on the side via licensing (rFactor Pro, for instance, and they got a chunk of the sales of the Shift games).

Other than that we have NKP, which never really went anywhere largely because Kunos was off trying to shore up the licensing part. LFS, which seems to be dead, and SimBin who are just milking what they got, but might still come through.

edit: Oh, but I do agree that some of the "this is the communities game!" sentiment going around is pushing it.

[Micas]

I'm confused about the "way things work"? Really?

Can somebody please translate his post into English?

[redi]

You're very confused about the way things work.
Please let Micas conclude for himself if he is confused, which I doubt he is. Sounds a bit patronizing ;)

[AeroMechanical]

Ah yes, I apologize to both of you. On a second reading that first sentence does set a tone not likely to illicit a reasoned response. I think this has the potential to be an interesting discussion because, aside from pontificating on the logistical side of it, there hasn't been much said about the merits of the process itself.

I am interested though, what you (Micas) think I should be expecting in return for my $35?

I expected the CARS forums to be a bit of a nightmare, but that has hardly been the case. I have yet to see anything too far removed from constructive criticism. However it works out in the end (and there is no reason to believe it will end badly), the people there clearly believe they are being listened to, and are taking the process seriously. I see nothing at all that would qualify as "absurd demands and baseless critiques."

It's impressive for an official game messageboard. Looking at, say, the official Codemaster's F1 2011 forum for a good counter-example.

This is what I was getting at in my unfortunately abrasive "confused" comment. Quite the contrary to what you originally said (unless I've misunderstood your point), I think the way CARS is working out has finally brought out the responsibility in the community. It's not just the usual hating on a company like Codemasters, accusing them of only being interested in money and delivering a sub-standard product knowing it will sell nonetheless, but people offering feedback aimed at helping them improve their product. There is most evidently a sense of mutual respect.

On the one hand, this could just be because they have a financial stake in it, or (and I believe much more likely), they want CARS to be an excellent sim simply because they want an excellent sim to play. In other words, that's all they expect to get out of it.

[gears]

I expected the CARS forums to be a bit of a nightmare, but that has hardly been the case. I have yet to see anything too far removed from constructive criticism. However it works out in the end (and there is no reason to believe it will end badly), the people there clearly believe they are being listened to, and are taking the process seriously. I see nothing at all that would qualify as "absurd demands and baseless critiques."

It's impressive for an official game messageboard. Looking at, say, the official Codemaster's F1 2011 forum for a good counter-example.



I think the reason the WMD forum is so well behaved and the CM forum is not is because CARS is PC only at the moment - no console gamers ;-) :-P :mrgreen:

(sorry I could not resist. It is a JOKE)

/runs and hides

[czechzombie]

I think the reason the WMD forum is so well behaved and the CM forum is not is because CARS is PC only at the moment - no console gamers ;-) :-P :mrgreen:

(sorry I could not resist. It is a JOKE)

/runs and hides

A reality-based joke. :D

/flame shield on