Since I've been complaining about the pricing and marketing of R3E, I thought I'd offer a potential alternative. Just food for thought. Apparently, thinking and commenting on racing sims has become my preferred method of procrastination these last few days! What I think could be interesting is a hybrid subscription/purchase model. What I am thinking of is based on the new sales model employed by Cakewalk's Sonar (http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR). Some quick background: Sonar is one of a number of Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) programs used by professionals and hobbyists for recording, editing, mixing, and otherwise producing music. It has been around in various incarnations for more than 25 years. Their previous business model was to release version upgrades once a year (along with free intermittent maintenance releases in between), and existing users could upgrade to the new version for about $100 - $200. My understanding is that this approach was chosen (rather than more sporadic and unpredictably timed releases, like most other DAW producers) primary to provide a steady and predictable revenue stream. The problem was that it sometimes became the tail wagging the dog -- they felt compelled to release enough new features each year to justify the upgrade and do so by the traditional upgrade date, even if the new features weren't quite ready; conversely, if great new features were ready shortly after the previous release, they would sit on them for months and months until it was the of time of year when the next version gets released. Starting this year, their new business model is essentially a subscription, but with some additional options and features that address some of the major concerns with subscription models. [Note that there are multiple tiers of the program that differ in price and feature availability, but for simplicity I'll just describe the "Platinum" version, which is the all-inclusive flagship version]. One option is a monthly subscription, which gives you access to all features and updates that are available. As new features, updates, etc. are added, they become immediately available. But, the nice thing is, if you subscribe for 12 or more consecutive months and then let your subscription lapse, you will continue to have access to everything that was available as of the last month you subscribed. No updates unless you re-subscribe (at which point you get updated to the most recent version/features), but you still have access to what you previously paid for. As an alternative to the monthly subscription, you can purchase an annual subscription at a discounted price, which is functionally equivalent to pre-paying for the next 12 months at a discounted rate; again, if you don't re-up, you still have access to what was available as of the end of your 12-month subscription. I think this is an interesting approach for both the developer and the customers. The developer gets steady and predictable revenue, and the customer gets new updates when they are ready and available, and don't have to deal with half-baked, bug-ridden features that were forced out early just to meet the traditional upgrade cycle. And, unlike a traditional subscription model, customers can opt out without losing what they already paid for. I think something like this could work well for a racing sim like R3E. Although it seems slightly complicated at first glance, it is actually a very simple and straightforward model. By subscribing, users could get access to all cars and tracks, as well as game features, as they become available (multiple tiers could also be created that differ in how much one gets access to, although that complicates things a little). No more staring at cars and tracks locked behind a pay wall, no more waiting while hoping for a sale to be offered on the content their interested in, no more having to calculate numerous scenarios to determine how to get the best price on the content they want to buy. And, with this hybrid model, they don't have to worry about getting shut out of what they have already paid for if they decide to stop subscribing, as is the case with some other subscription sims like iRacing. Sector 3 gets a steady revenue stream, while distancing itself from the free-to-play stigma, pricing confusion and frustration, etc. It seems like a potential benefit for both parties. Some key questions with this approach are (1) how to price the subscriptions, and (2) what about people already invested in the current system. As for price, I'm sure that would take a fair bit of thought, number crunching, focus groups, etc., but as a tentative ballpark I personally think somewhere around $5 to $8 per month would be reasonable, with something like a 20% discount for an annual subscription. As for those already invested, I think you could give them a discount or credit for future subscriptions based on the percentage of current content they already own as of the introduction of the new system. For example, if someone owns all current content, maybe they get a 70% discount on an annual subscription (or 12 months of monthly subscription). For someone who owns half, maybe they get a 35% discount. Those are fairly arbitrary numbers that would also require some thought, but you all probably get the idea. If someone preferred not to join the subscription model, they would continue to have access to the content they had purchased as of the introduction of the subscription model. S3 could probably also continue to have the current system as another option; that wouldn't help in terms of simplifying the pricing system, but at least now it would be an option to go that route, rather than the only way to go. If S3 wanted to create multiple subscription tiers, they could off course make some content and/or features exclusive to a higher and more expensive membership tier. Another approach could be to differentiate tiers in terms of frequency of updates. In the top tier, all new content is immediately available; in lower tiers, new content becomes available after a period of time (maybe a month or two) following its release. I like the idea (obviously), but I'm curious what other people think. Maybe it's not feasible, or not desirable, but I really think the current pricing and marketing approach is a major barrier to wider adoption by the sim racing community, so I figure some discussion of alternatives could be interesting, and perhaps even useful.
I don't think an iRacing model is the way to go, and I really hope they don't catch on to that! Most complains about iRacing isn't the pricey cars and tracks but the subscribing, myself included. I stopped with iRacing because of it. They then made a way to earn some money back to get the participation up, sounded good at first, but it quickly became a chore!.. . And when a hobby starts to feel like a chore, they are in big trouble.
The model I'm suggesting differs from iRacing's model in several very substantial ways. First, with iRacing, the subscription just gives you access to a small number of relatively unappealing cars and tracks, and the opportunity to buy additional content (which is VERY pricey). The model I'm suggesting would give you access to all content. Second, with iRacing, if you let your subscription lapse, you can't access anything, including content you have already paid for. They don't even let you access the forums anymore! With my suggested model, you retain access to content that was available at the end of your subscription, assuming you've paid for 12 or more consecutive months. That 12-consecutive-month caveat is only there so that someone can't just jump in and pay for a single month once a year (for example) and then cancel, yet retain all available content for perpetuity (essentially, buying the entire program for the price of a single month), which isn't fair to the developers or other customers. Another way to think about this approach is that, if you do the annual subscription, you are essentially buying outright all content currently available, plus all content released for the next year, for a single fixed price. For example, if the annual membership fee were $60, if you paid that right now you would forever have access to all content currently available as well as all content available as of 7/1/2016. If you want new content created after that time, you'll need to renew, but that is similar to a paid upgrade or DLC. The monthly subscription is a good option for those that want to spread the cost over the year, or who want to use it only sporadically. For example, maybe someone is participating in a one-time league using R3E and don't plan to use it afterwards, so they could subscribe only for the duration of their league. Or, you could subscribe initially for a single month to be able to try everything out before deciding if you want to buy an annual subscription. I don't understand how this approach would make using the game a chore. Can you elaborate?
Putting it this way it sounds a bit better, but I don't know if this would be doable. And the modular part of the game would no longer exist for those who just wants a single car in a couple of classes and pick the tracks they want and like. And how about someone that have been subscribing monthly for a few months or half a year and then wants to quit, what will they be entitled to keep in game? I like the idea of paying for content rather than subscriptions. I think a base game or different base game packages would be the best way to go. And no you're model wasn't the target for the chore part. But if you subscribe to something, you feel the need to get your money worth even more. And that along with that if I was making score in several series in iRacing I would get some subscription money back, made it a chore for me. And I wasn't longing to get back in the game anymore, I was making up excuses not to..
Too many water! Personally, I hate subscriptions - because they oblige to play! That's why I don't play iRacing! I like R3E model very much, they only thing we need to boost the game more is free weekends like it was and sales after! That's all!
It's a nice idea and I'm not opposed to it. The subscription model makes a lot of sense and is something I can see becoming more prevalent in gaming. It suits a long-term, continual development project where content and features are continually drip fed to the user base. The player can have immediate access to all content for a small fee and the developer benefits from a more reliable revenue stream. Win-win. My only issue is price. As someone who is heavily invested in R3E, the subscription fee would have to be very cheap. I'm talking £2/3 per month as anything higher wouldn't represent good value to me. Nice concept anyway. Thanks for putting it out there.
I disagree. I think subscription models are a thing of the past and have been slowly disappearing in recent years. With very few exceptions (Eve Online, iRacing, WoW), anybody still clinging to the old style has been forced to switch to free to play and there's good reason for that: It's hard to justify paying for a game monthly. Even within those exceptions, they have adopted systems that circumvent the typical monthly subscription. WoW is free up until level 60, and both iRacing and Eve Online's subscriptions can be negated by playing well. Another reason I don't like the idea of a subscription for R3E is that a subscription implies a level of service far beyond that of your average game. It's a model typically reserved for MMOs. iRacing is the only game I can think of that's not a traditional MMO and still charging monthly, however its service is far and above what your typical racing game is, and in many ways an MMO in everything but name. If R3E goes subscription, they'll need to start offering something more interesting and more involved than just a multiplayer lobby system with no persistent anything, and if they decide to go that route, I would prefer they adopt something more akin to a good free to play model. That OP's example of a subscription is a production software suite is telling. That's a completely different market and a completely different kind of product. I will agree that programs such as 3DS Max, Photoshop, etc are moving towards subscriptions, but that's as a way to make what used to be a $1500 price tag down to something more manageable. It also better allows them to keep a captive audience, and for their userbase it comes out to more money for them in the long run. It's a completely different market and not relevant to games. However, there is one advantage I like that comes from OP's idea. It could reduce the fragmentation that arises from the current model. In terms of gameplay, it's the biggest problem with the current model. You can never count on anybody owning the same combination of content, and it makes playing online a hassle as a player. On top of that, it encourages people to buy only the most common content to maximize their chances of everybody having the same stuff. Meanwhile, it discourages people from trying weird combinations they never thought or cared to try (this was my favorite part of the free weekend) because it's highly unlikely that anybody else would own both that car and track.
I agree with subscription only in one case! SUBSCRIPTION FOR NEW PLAYERS! And only after S3 will announce that game is complete. Because for now it's beta and multiplayer is alpha. For people who invested from one unit of content – too maximum = game should remain for free, because we aren't just playing – we making this game better and better and this is a worthy thing that we provide for free. Our comments and suggestions save huge amount of time for the developers. And as every adult know – time is money! Despite the fact that more than half of my purchases are from sale I already invested about ~60-70$ maybe more, didn't count precisely, something around that number. I am not interested in subscription scheme at all! I chosen this game mainly because I can buy content and this content will be unlimited in time or something else. Have time – I play. No time – don't play. If I do not play I have no depressing thoughts that I am losing my money. I like this feeling. I agree with Packs and new content. And I will buy them for sure. Coz it's fair exchange of work.
I still prefer the themed packs and separate individual content model but with some small price drops for tracks. Not everyone wants all the content in the game as I had seen people only buying a car and 1 livery while subscription model seemed to have some sort of stigma attached to it for most people. Ideally, I still prefer the $60 retail with expansion packs model though, like most racing games out there. I did not play iRacing because I am not interested in the high price for content and also monthly subscription. Still, $5-$8 subscription a month with access to all content doesnt sound too bad for me. I think it could be used in conjunction with the current business model.
Thanks for the responses -- I think this is an interesting discussion! Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "subscription", since that seems to have a stigma of its own and many of the objections seem to be based on thinking of this as a traditional subscription model, where once you stop paying you no longer have access to the product. That is absolutely not what I am suggesting, and I agree that such an approach is generally undesirable. In contrast, with what I am suggesting, you own what you paid for, even once you've stopped paying. It's just a matter of whether or not you have access to new content. Again, I think it is perhaps clearest to think about the annual option as buying all current content outright, plus all new content released for the next year. So, the "subscription" part of it is more like an "unlimited DLC plan." It merely dictates whether you get new content, but you can pass on it and retain what you have so far. The monthly option is probably contributing to the perception of this suggestion as being like a traditional subscription. Personally, I wouldn't go the monthly route, but it is just another option for customers, which gives flexibility to those that desire that sort of an approach. For most, the annual plan makes the most sense, but the monthly option is good for those that might only want limited-time access, or who want to treat it as a glorified trial that gives access to everything. I would not opt for the monthly plan, but I already know that I want to use this sim for the long term. As for those that pay in for less than 12 months and then quit, there are plenty of ways that could be dealt with, ranging from having access to nothing (other than perhaps some free-for-all/demo content, such as what is currently available for free), to perhaps maintaining access to your most used content proportional to the amount of months you paid in (ex., if you paid for 6 months then quit, perhaps you'd still have access to the 50% of cars and tracks you used most), etc. It doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle to me, it just would require a bit of creative thinking to find a fair arrangement.
Why485, you noted that many subscription programs create a captive audience, and customers often end up paying more as a result. I agree that this often happens with traditional subscription models, but I don't think that is true with this approach. With Sonar, for example, if you do the annual membership, it works out to be the same price as if it was based on a traditional upgrade model, where you simply pay for the upgrade. Again, you get to keep that version forever even if you never pay another cent more, so you are no more captive than with a traditional version/upgrade model. If someone decides they don't want to upgrade any more, they can still use everything they currently have forever, and could also choose to upgrade at some distant point in the future if/when they feel the incremental updates make it worth their while. As I've probably made clear, I don't think the free-to-play model is a great way to continue, in part because of my own personal objections to the f2p model, but even more so b/c many others have as strong or stronger objections that seem to be leading them to write off R3E. The Steam Charts numbers for R3E are quite low, as are the number of players typically in the multiplayer races. Much lower than other sims that I personally feel are not as complete or engaging. Only S3 knows how their financial situation is, but it's surely the case that they would like a larger user base. I'm sure there are many reasons for the relatively low numbers, and I don't claim to know precisely why, but a very common theme that comes up in discussions outside this forum (and to some extent within this forum as well) is that the f2p model drives many away. So, although there certainly is some merit to the current approach, it seems to me that some changes are needed. The free weekend was a good step, but we'll see if that has a lasting effect now that it has ended. Many of the comments I have read in various forums suggest that, despite enjoying their time with the sim, many folks are still staying away due at least in part to the f2p model. Only time will tell.
I also prefer the traditional model of $40 - $60 retail, with a few expansion packs here and there. Actually, my ideal model is where you buy once, and then updates are released for free from time to time. But I recognize that developers need to make money to keep things going, otherwise they'll have to do something else for a living. So the approach I'm suggesting tries to balance those things by enabling people to essentially but the game as it currently stands, as well as updates for a period of time, and keep what they've paid for even if they pay no more in the future. If they want to keep on the upgrade/content train, they'll need to contribute to the cause, but hopefully in a way that doesn't make it feel like they are being nickeled-and-dimed. I also agree that they could maintain the current approach while also providing another option such as I'm suggesting. That would give more options to let people buy in at the level that best suits them. As I noted before, the more options there are the more complicated it becomes, so there is some tradeoff there. Personally, I'm in favor of more options, but lots of people prefer simpler, more streamlined approaches over lots of options.
So, now because of a bunch of guys using the payment form like people use a slot machine in a bar, click click click without brain, some customers feel entitled to give advices to S3S how manage its business? I don't want any kind of subscription, if that time will come, I'll leave this game. The actual system is the best system I have found for a game, but it requires a very big effort: read the FAQ, but people don't even know that a pack is a discount itself. when the system is understood, people will realize that is customer friendly as concern the money to spend, at least it's possible buy only 1 car per classes during a 50% off to achieve the possibility to compete in all classes, also online, with few euros.
R3E is not free to play. Not in the way that term is commonly used, nor the game mechanics or pay model that it implies. That Steam labels it as such, and creates a completely false impression of what the game is, is a very big problem with RaceRoom's public perception. It's something that almost deserves its own thread, but to keep it simple, R3E should not be labeled as such. It's very damaging to peoples' expectations and opinions. I suspect this may be a limitation in how Steam categorizes games, but the current R3E client you download through Steam would be better described as a demo. To turn RaceRoom into a real free to play game would require a reworking of the game on such a fundamental level that I honestly don't find it to be a realistic option. As I said in another thread, if you want to talk about turning R3E into F2P you need to get the devs involved in the discussion because of how extensive the game would need to be modified. I throw it out there not only as an example of what RaceRoom is not and as an alternative pay model, but also what I thought RaceRoom was when I first encountered it. I honestly wish it did have a good free to play model for online play because I'm not terribly fond of the current pay model, and I would love to see another racing game with a robust multiplayer. Again though, that requires a radical rework of the game, so I believe it unlikely. Honestly, I don't have any great proposal in my head for how a F2P R3E would work either. It's something I would have to think about. My goal though would be something similar to iRacing (i.e. a great pick up and play multiplayer experience with mechanics that highly encourage safe driving), but more straightforward, cheaper, and more welcoming to newcomers. I find the idea fascinating because there isn't anything like that on the market, and if done well, could really shake up what is a very stale genre. On the current pay model, I think it's actually pretty fair and probably one of the better implementations of this kind of idea. I wouldn't even have much of an issue if nothing at all changed. However, I do think it's a bit convoluted and confusing, especially for newer players. I don't like having to explain to somebody how to make their money go the furthest as it's always a turn off. It implies that you are trying to fight an exploitative system, no matter how generous the system actually is. I also don't like the large fragmentation of content it creates among the community. As a singleplayer game, this doesn't matter, but I am admittedly biased towards multiplayer, so I see it as a very large drawback. The thing is, RaceRoom doesn't actually do anything new to the genre. It's a great game and I love it, don't get me wrong. I just wish it was structured as more than just your usual racing sim, and you know where I got that idea? The Steam page said this game was "free to play."
Not a fan of subscriptions and there's one core feature of R3E that makes this approach nearly impossible: Experiences. Those are intended, as they are right now, to be complete, separate, official racing series' games one has to/can buy separately and are distributed via the platform being R3E. I don't think the licensors would be satisfied with a share of the relatively small subscription fee you suggest and theoretically possible standalone versions of those games, which many people would like to have, would be ruled out completely. Possible sollution would be a rather high subscription fee, but then people would complain about having to pay loads of money for content they didn't want in the first place but are being forced to spend money on. If we were to separate the experiences from R3E completely then we'd loose the very popular cross usability of content (e.g. ADAC cars or DTM tracks in R3E) and we would actually loose quite some content (in R3E), cause I believe many licenses could only be acquired through the "official experience" licensing.
I don't, cause by installing the game you install the whole game, not just a demonstrational part of it, which is what defines a demo after all: "Generally, playable demos are stripped down versions of the full game, restricting gameplay to some levels, only allowing access to some features, or limiting the amount of time playable in the game...demos of racing games are ordinarily restricted to a single race with a pre-selected car." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_demo
I'm all against subscriptions, this would be gamebraker for me in R3E (like it is in iRacing). Real life has its prioritys and when I couldn't race for some prolonged period of time I would be literaly loosing money for subscription. Subcription is the worst solution of all and I really hope it will not be introduced to Race Room. I personally don't mind current business model (I did in the past, but I got used to it and now I may even like it a bit - especially the part that allows you to buy only one car from racing class to participate in racing in that class, and also free test drive for each car. It is really fair and honest), but I understand that it is off puting for newcomers (like it was for me for some time in my beginning with Race Room) and shrinks potential playerbase, so it probably needs rethinking. But once again - please - no subscriptions for me. Unless they would be maybe not time dependant, but race entry dependant (like you would buy a pack of race entries to multiplayer races with indefinite validity).