GeneRally International Forum

After much discussion as to what went wrong with the GR2 Kickstarter Campaign, the topic moved to whether GR2 should be free, a demo with a pay premium version or just a pay version. Whilst it is obviously up to the developers what they do with GR2, I thought a quick poll would make for interesting reading.

Are we really the right people to ask? I can't imagine anyone that would prefer paying money over not paying money (in a vacuum), but the situation changes very quickly when you factor in how much will actually get done depending on the money received.

The question for the poll isn't what you would prefer, it is what you think is best for GeneRally.

What does being "best" for GeneRally mean? Anyway, you should have included whether people want free version in 2020 or paid version in 2015.

Perhaps those that choose the free only option could provide some ideas on how to provide sustainable long lasting funding that would last another 10-20 years like GR1?

At the moment I presume Crono pays for the hosting of this forum, which shouldn't really be a task he should undertake, are the dev team expected to do the same? albeit i realise the costs are small compared to the potential £8 x purchases. But there would be additional costs involved to provide hosting for online races etc.

Also perhaps the dev team could provide a detailed breakdown on how the sum of £8 came about, particularly going forward after an initial funding phase? Although of course I realise 'purchases' would significantly drop after the initial release.

Hangman wrote:What does being "best" for GeneRally mean? Anyway, you should have included whether people want free version in 2020 or paid version in 2015.

Best for its long term future, to be successful.

There should be next option in the poll: "What the devoloping team considers is needed to get it done". So I am not voting one of the current options.

Because otherwise we are just saying what we wnat, and of course we all want the very best game and for free. But then I would understand that maybe the GR2 guys are not up to spend valuable time of their lifes working on it, investing the money from their own pockets just to make us all happy. How egoistic does that sounds???

Now, here's a question. Could it be possible to make it so that people host their own races on their computer rather than through an online server?

puttz wrote:Now, here's a question. Could it be possible to make it so that people host their own races on their computer rather than through an online server?

Not sure how your question relates to the poll but yes this is how a lot of multiplayer games work but I *think* you still need a matchmaking server but the game is hosted on a client rather than the server.

tonyyeb wrote:

puttz wrote:Now, here's a question. Could it be possible to make it so that people host their own races on their computer rather than through an online server?

Not sure how your question relates to the poll but yes this is how a lot of multiplayer games work but I *think* you still need a matchmaking server but the game is hosted on a client rather than the server.

Sorry, it was related in my head Just thinking how the developers could reduce/eliminate the cost of multiplayer thus either reducing the price of the game or giving multiplayer for free.

If GR Team want earn money, They should try promote game on Steam (more people know and use Steam than kickstarter).

But IMO £8 is attack for players money. Is more expensive than Global Offensive. It is crazy...

If we compare it to indie games

Spelunky: £12
Super Meat Boy: £11
Generally 2: £8
Cave Story+: £7
Fez: £7
Hotline Miami: £7
Limbo: £7
Faster Than Light: £7
Binding of Isaac: £4
Generally: £0
Cave Story: £0

£7 seems quite common for some reason

How many people actually pay those prices, though? They are discounted so often... and most of them are much more appealing to the average gamer than GR2 ever will be, let alone the current GR2 demo...

Yeah, that's the thing. A lot of these games are bought when they go on sale at 50-75% off, making them only a couple of bucks. Racing games are kind of niche games compared to things like platformers and fps, and GR even more so within the racing genre, so it would be a hard sell for 8£ (which by the way in US$ is like 12-14, which is a lot more than a lot of the smaller indie games). Just saying.

GBP too stronk nerf pls.

No, seriously, most of those niche indie titles go for 10 USD or less.

bduddy wrote:Are we really the right people to ask? I can't imagine anyone that would prefer paying money over not paying money (in a vacuum), but the situation changes very quickly when you factor in how much will actually get done depending on the money received.

Probably (and to my surprise too) the poll wasn't that bad idea after all, atm it says, that majority (15 of 27) actually doesn't think to be totally free of any fee is the best for a GR sequel.

Hi everyone

i think 8 bucks is a bit expensive (based in other games like this one on steam and origin) but cheap based on games like CoD Ghosts or CoD Advanced Warfare (60 dollars )

Hmmm... You compare GR2 with CoD? Oh yeah, fantastic idea!

I´d like to add my coin in this discussion:
Anybody who heard a little bit about marketing knows about the "pay-wall-effect".
It means, that customers will always be stunned at first when they need to buy something rather than getting it for free.
It doesn´t matter if it´s 10€ or 20Cents. You have to take out your wallet, your credit-card, etc. which causes you trouble you would like to avoid.
Once this pay-wall is crossed, the actual amount loses its meaning. (Most people living in western or middle europe don´t really mind typing a 5 or a 8 in a field before clicking the "buy" button)

The problem with kickstarter is, that it unnecessarily raises this pay-wall by accepting only credit cards, having to create an account, etc.
Maybe having the game on steam would make it easier for customers to cross this pay-wall.
They already have their account and their payment details set up. They probably already bought many games before and all they have to do to buy the game is clicking a button.

So imo the discussion about the price is rather useless, at least as long as it stays in a reasonable range.
The important thing is to make the game easily accessible for people who are interested i it.

Hi. I am not one of the crowd here and cannot claim to be a gene-rally addict who really knows the game or who can compete in the competitions with the sickeningly quick perfect lap times! I like the game, it's really fun, simple to play with a deep level underneath it that makes it work brilliantly. Add in the customisation. Perfect. I found it when looking for a racing game that allowed you to build your own track and race on it a couple of years ago and play every now and again since.

My attitude when I was younger was that everything should be free, but I don't think that is necessarily right in all cases. The real person is to ask would be the guy(s) who are/is doing all of the development work. It's really down to him, basing on his decision on whether he can make enough for it to be worthwhile or not, or whether he enjoys it so much that he will do it anyway.

The problem with introducing payment is that with payments people expect there to be no bugs and other features that aren't necessary if it's simply free. Having it as a pay-game may also lose the customising community that has clearly built up around the game... can something be effectively open-source as well as being free? I am not sure....maybe...

But on the other hand, these guys have built a game and community that people love and are willing to lay a lot down, a lot of hours, stress, emotions, and expertise, in order to produce the game so why shouldn't they be justly rewarded for their efforts?

Personally, I hope gene-rally 2 doesn't differ too much from the original, asides from introducing multiplayer gaming which I think is what everybody really wants. The game works so well as it is, it doesn't really need massive upgrades.

Well, if they NEED the money (of course they do [not sarcasm]), then I think it should be a free version that's basically like GR1 but with the new track/car editor and physics (maybe also the day-night thing), and a paid version that's the full new thing. The price might be too high though, considering the game's niche appeal, as was previously stated. Maybe 5 to 10 dollars?

If the current developers aren't willing to develop a game for free (plus possible donations?), then obviously there's nothing we can do to make them. However, there's also the issue that trying to charge for GR2 may not lead to all that much money, either - something the failed Kickstarter seems to have leaned towards, not to mention decreasing activity in the GR community. Unfortunately, there's no easy answer...