Developer Blog

[bduddy]

Why are there car limits in the first place?

[Black Rebel]

I don´t see a single reason to complain, but many reasons to suport the project and understand your reasons to make two versions out of it. And pepole should thank you will release a free version IMHO.

Just the Kickstarter post took a lot of working hours, A LOT, I am sure of it. I have been involved in other kind of projects that have been really demanding in what comes to dedication, and time and money from me and my collegues pockets. In the end I think it is fine that the team who will devolope the sequel can at least pay the bills that this same development produces. Time, software, etc.

Everybody wants the best product and for free, but it is fair to pay if we really want to expect the best possible stuff.

[puttz]

Well, yes, I understand that time and effort must be put into making even free features, but if you are going to make the game capable of 12 cars, why not let everyone have that? Having more cars was one thing most everyone was looking forward to, and now you are going to make them pay to get it, when it seems that people thought from what was told us that it would be free. Really, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the number of cars should be the same between the two versions. It can't be that much harder to make 12 cars than 6 cars can it? Not trying to sound overly negative, but my expectation was that the number of cars would be the same for both versions, and stuff like network multiplayer and more advanced tools and weather would be the paid bonuses, as stated in the previously referenced blog post:

It will not include features developed as a direct result of the Kickstarter funding process (such as stretch goals, or features we were able to raise additional budget for), such as online multiplayer, dynamic weather, random track generation, or the like.

I don't recall a difference in the number of cars being in the discussion of the differences between versions, and I wouldn't include it under the category of "the like". I was absolutely planning on backing the game, but as soon as I saw that difference I wasn't so sure. I'll have to think about it some more, because I don't want the people who get the free version to get shortchanged in car count. Again, not trying to sound too ranty or harsh (which I think I failed at), but this really does bug me. Not that I expect just my voice to change the developers minds, but I'd like to see other people's thoughts on this.

Also, just another comment, the KS demo does not give me a good feeling of how the game will be when it is released. It is very laggy, and my computer is not low end, but it's not really high end either. I think that having a better functioning demo might be wise, because people who have lower spec computers might say "why would I back this? It runs terrible on my computer." I realize there is a lot of optimization that is yet to be done, but still a better working product might be wise. Just some friendly food for thought.

[FRUKIScze]

Well, yes, I understand that time and effort must be put into making even free features, but if you are going to make the game capable of 12 cars, why not let everyone have that? Having more cars was one thing most everyone was looking forward to, and now you are going to make them pay to get it, when it seems that people thought from what was told us that it would be free. Really, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the number of cars should be the same between the two versions. It can't be that much harder to make 12 cars than 6 cars can it? Not trying to sound overly negative, but my expectation was that the number of cars would be the same for both versions, and stuff like network multiplayer and more advanced tools and weather would be the paid bonuses, as stated in the previously referenced blog post:

[Areen]

Well, yes, I understand that time and effort must be put into making even free features, but if you are going to make the game capable of 12 cars, why not let everyone have that? Having more cars was one thing most everyone was looking forward to, and now you are going to make them pay to get it, when it seems that people thought from what was told us that it would be free. Really, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the number of cars should be the same between the two versions. It can't be that much harder to make 12 cars than 6 cars can it? Not trying to sound overly negative, but my expectation was that the number of cars would be the same for both versions, and stuff like network multiplayer and more advanced tools and weather would be the paid bonuses, as stated in the previously referenced blog post:

(...)

Also, just another comment, the KS demo does not give me a good feeling of how the game will be when it is released. It is very laggy, and my computer is not low end, but it's not really high end either. I think that having a better functioning demo might be wise, because people who have lower spec computers might say "why would I back this? It runs terrible on my computer." I realize there is a lot of optimization that is yet to be done, but still a better working product might be wise. Just some friendly food for thought.

[Bird]

No I don't agree. There must be something why you buy the game! I always was asking me, how it feels to drive Generally against 11 opponents at the same time. Didn't you too?

[James]

Why are there car limits in the first place?

A variety of reasons really: from gameplay (where do we put all the grid slots?), to user expectation ("I selected 500 cars, why aren't they on the track?"), to performance implications (for each vehicle there is rendering, collisions, damage, etc. to keep track of), to UI concerns (where do we put all the in-game positional and driver information)! We had to choose a number and, after much scouring of years of posts here and elsewhere, the most common request was to up it to 10 or 12 cars... so that's what we went with. From some tests we did with GR1 and car numbers (a quick hack-job Hannu did a while back for fun), anything over 12 felt distinctly less GR-ish, so we went as far as we could whilst still trying to keep it feeling right

I don't recall a difference in the number of cars being in the discussion of the differences between versions, and I wouldn't include it under the category of "the like". I was absolutely planning on backing the game, but as soon as I saw that difference I wasn't so sure. I'll have to think about it some more, because I don't want the people who get the free version to get shortchanged in car count. Again, not trying to sound too ranty or harsh (which I think I failed at), but this really does bug me. Not that I expect just my voice to change the developers minds, but I'd like to see other people's thoughts on this.

Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from to an extent. However, I still cannot understand the "shortchanged" argument. I have long failed to understand how anyone is entitled to anything for nothing - not just related to GR, but life in general. The GR community members (myself included), have had thousands of hours of fun from GR1 - and that's great - but that's not grounds for expectation that anything in the future should be free. With GR2, the two alternate scenarios were: everyone pays for it, there's no free version; or sometime in the indeterminate future there might, possibly be freeware sequel to GeneRally... and people complained to us about both of those options

We surveyed the GR community on two occasions, and followed countless discussions and posts, to try and ascertain who would want what, and to help us discover a suitable feature-set to give to our backers and this is where we're at. Furthermore, at this point, even if I was desperate to change what's available to free users: I can't - we have an expectation made upon us by the 90 people (so far) who have backed us... they paid for a set of features, and we are expected to deliver upon them. If this is something we lose your pledge over, then that will obviously, from our point of view, suck... but again, we think long and hard about the decisions we make to try and give the best product to as many people as possible in the most practical way, and that won't always please everyone. We do our best to gather feedback and opinions, but if we waited for a full community consensus on features, we'd still be staring at a blank screen

Also, just another comment, the KS demo does not give me a good feeling of how the game will be when it is released. It is very laggy, and my computer is not low end, but it's not really high end either. I think that having a better functioning demo might be wise, because people who have lower spec computers might say "why would I back this? It runs terrible on my computer." I realize there is a lot of optimization that is yet to be done, but still a better working product might be wise. Just some friendly food for thought.

Not really sure what to say here - we have clearly advertised on a number of occasions that the game isn't even in alpha yet. "a better working product" is not something that happens over-night, nor is there some magical switch we can flip that suddenly makes things better. If you're so concerned about performance that even with the knowledge of how early on in development we are, and how we have done no real optimising to this point, then my only advice can be to not back (and that's not an easy thing for me to suggest).

It's a well-established and understood principle these days in the gaming community, with so many early-access projects now available, that features, performance and pretty much everything else will be sub-optimal for a significant period at the start. We're not on Kickstarter because we have a finished game ready to sell to you - we're on Kickstarter because we have an in-development game that we need some help to complete (not only in terms of the finance, but in terms of those willing and able to understand that it won't be perfect from the start, and that their input on matters of performance, implementation, etc. will directly affect the development process).

[DuklaLiberec]

Well, yes, I understand that time and effort must be put into making even free features, but if you are going to make the game capable of 12 cars, why not let everyone have that? Having more cars was one thing most everyone was looking forward to, and now you are going to make them pay to get it, when it seems that people thought from what was told us that it would be free. Really, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the number of cars should be the same between the two versions. It can't be that much harder to make 12 cars than 6 cars can it? Not trying to sound overly negative, but my expectation was that the number of cars would be the same for both versions, and stuff like network multiplayer and more advanced tools and weather would be the paid bonuses, as stated in the previously referenced blog post:

(...)

Also, just another comment, the KS demo does not give me a good feeling of how the game will be when it is released. It is very laggy, and my computer is not low end, but it's not really high end either. I think that having a better functioning demo might be wise, because people who have lower spec computers might say "why would I back this? It runs terrible on my computer." I realize there is a lot of optimization that is yet to be done, but still a better working product might be wise. Just some friendly food for thought.

+3. I hope I'm not an outsider for not being in a position to back GR2 (refer to my age) but you will absolutely receive my moral support.

[puttz]

James, I also understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying we are necessarily entitled to it, but rather had been given certain expectations that were not met. Can you give me an instance anywhere that we were given a solid idea that there would/might be different amounts of cars in the free and paid versions? I can't think of any, but if you can please do let us know so that we can see where and how that was presented. Also, about the community consensus, the common feeling was that more cars were desired, and we (or at least I) thought that meant that would be free.
@Bird, there are plenty of other reasons to pay for the game: better tools, multiplayer online, and the other things listed on the comparison sheet. Number of cars, imho, should not be one of them.

[DuklaLiberec]

@Bird, there are plenty of other reasons to pay for the game: better tools, multiplayer online, and the other things listed on the comparison sheet. Number of cars, imho, should not be one of them.

Once again, agreed.

[James]

James, I also understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying we are necessarily entitled to it, but rather had been given certain expectations that were not met. Can you give me an instance anywhere that we were given a solid idea that there would/might be different amounts of cars in the free and paid versions? I can't think of any, but if you can please do let us know so that we can see where and how that was presented.

I doubt there is one - quite simply because we've tried very hard to avoid giving solid comments on those features before we were able and ready to commit to them. On the other hand, and maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't recall us ever promising that we'd increase the car count for GR2 (did a quick scan through my posts, and couldn't find anything)... so, from our perspective, this is simply a 'bonus' for backers, not a 'removed feature' for those who don't. It's difficult to 'compare' a list of free and backed features to, say, a year ago... simply because a year ago, two versions wasn't even part of the equation.

As mentioned above, I do see your point - and we'll obviously be disappointed if that loses us your support. We try to be as transparent as possible with these things, but at the end of the day we are, at the heart, community members like you, not marketing professionals

[puttz]

At least there were some hints at what the premium features would be, even if you were trying to be somewhat vague, but nowhere was it ever mentioned or hinted that there was a possibility of having different numbers of cars in the free and paid versions, which is what is upsetting to me. To me that is not being completely transparent about your intentions, and we were never surveyed on that aspect. As an aside, it would be nice if you are going to keep the different number of cars to at least up the free version to 8 cars instead of 6. Surely that isn't too much to ask?

[Trigger Happy]

... but nowhere was it ever mentioned or hinted that there was a possibility of having different numbers of cars in the free and paid versions, which is what is upsetting to me.

On contrary I don't recall that anywhere was mentioned, hinted or promised, that both versions will have same numbers of cars. It was told the free version will be on par to everything we have in GR1 (plus a lot of the newly developed things, but not all of them). So I must admit I don't understand the dispute little bit.

[puttz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the default assumption would be that both versions would have the same number of cars unless otherwise stated. That is my thought, anyhow.

[Trigger Happy]

If the fact is, that minimal standard of free version is ''on par to GR1'' and nothing else more specific is promised, then in my opinion the default assumption is, that any feature developed further above level ''GR1'' may be subject to the differentiation of the versions according deliberation of game developers. I cannot see a point (told promise etc) excluding amount of cars on track from that freedom of deliberation, so it IMHO remains valid for this feature too. Any other implication looks to me like a groundless conclusion.

[puttz]

Okay, fair enough, Ivo. My opinion is still the same on this matter, but I think I'll shut up now to avoid having this devolve into another situation like with Lukeno a few months ago, as my views on this are quite well known by now, so no reason to harp on it further. I'll probably still back it anyway, but I would like to see a consideration for at least 8 cars for the free version.

[Trigger Happy]

Frankly, I'm not afraid of coming the argument anywhere near an over the top argue ATM, I can feel a lot of mutual empathy from posts between you and James.

And a sidenote, I guess most of people have a small concern in mind or other preference in an aspect, it cannot be fitting perfectly for every each person, it's natural. E.g. I'm not very keen on anything like career mode in GR or actually I'd prefer to keep only 6 cars on track in whole game - because I enjoy the HUD with tyres, fuel, damage and lap times for all cars and with this number of cars on track I can manage to keep eye on it all, so GR1 race for me isn't about 'racer is racing' feeling, but also pit wall engineer, team strategist/race analyst all at same time with the racer feeling. I love this depth subtly hidden in the GR simplicity and am bit worried, that it'll get hurt with too many cars at once. But anyway I'm going to back the project, no doubt.

[Black Rebel]

I'm not very keen on anything like career mode in GR or actually I'd prefer to keep only 6 cars on track in whole game - because I enjoy the HUD with tyres, fuel, damage and lap times for all cars and with this number of cars on track I can manage to keep eye on it all, so GR1 race for me isn't about 'racer is racing' feeling, but also pit wall engineer, team strategist/race analyst all at same time with the racer feeling. I love this depth subtly hidden in the GR simplicity and am bit worried, that it'll get hurt with too many cars at once. But anyway I'm going to back the project, no doubt.

But listen, now imagine a long distance race with that outstanding day/night transition where you set up 6 GT cars and 6 LMP cars. Wouldn´t it be SUPERB? You could still focus on your 6 car race and enjoy a multi class event. Anyway I think you should be able to choose how many cars does start the race, so if you pick 6 cars, there should be only 6.

By the way, will GR2 support multiclass races? I mean, will there be a chance to see two diferent finalc standings depending on the class?

[James]

By the way, will GR2 support multiclass races? I mean, will there be a chance to see two diferent finalc standings depending on the class?

Well, there's one that's going on the "features to consider" list

[RudyOosterndijk]

From a competition organizer's point of view I can only reiterate the concerns that have been expressed by various members like puttz. I would go even further than that:

As much as I can understand that online multiplayer is one of the most anticipated features and absolutely worth paying for, it is a major let-down when it comes to the point where you want to organize a competition for both kinds of users, those who bought the game and those you use the free version.

OK, let's pretend I'll give you that: Online competitions shall be for paying users only.
That leaves us with the classic offline login competitions. The problem, that I can see here, revolves around such basic features like the higher number of cars. Due the fact that only the paid version contains these features, I am forced to "dumb down" my competition, e.g. by setting the amount of cars from 12 to 6, to make it possible for everyone to take part in. That would be a shame: for the paying competitors and for the whole game and all the new possibilities that come along.

The counter-argument here would be: "Then let's have one competition for paying users and another one for free-riders."
I admit that my argumentation is partly based on a very simple assumption: "We need the free-riders because there will not be enough 'paydrivers' around."
But even if you prove me wrong, I generally don't like the idea to draw the line between a free and a paid version where it affects the opportunities of paying users and free-riders to come and play together. And the number of cars could be one of them.

[bduddy]

from gameplay (where do we put all the grid slots?),

Limit it to the number on the track, just like every other racing game?

to user expectation ("I selected 500 cars, why aren't they on the track?"),

Just don't allow more cars than available spots to be picked - this should be implemented even if you have a limit!

to performance implications (for each vehicle there is rendering, collisions, damage, etc. to keep track of),

Sorry to say, but if you're having performance issues on an average machine with less than 100+ cars, you've done something seriously wrong with GR2. And in any case, what about future machines? Why limit people forever? This is making me think back to games like Sports Car GT, where players are limited to 24 cars forever, despite all the third-party tracks and infinitely more powerful machines.

to UI concerns (where do we put all the in-game positional and driver information)!

I tried to think of something like that myself, and to be honest, I couldn't. Tough to say without seeing what UI you're going to use for the final game... I still don't think this is a major reason, though. Is it a huge deal if you can't see info for every car?

We had to choose a number

Why? TORCS, rFactor, and so on don't have a limit.

and, after much scouring of years of posts here and elsewhere, the most common request was to up it to 10 or 12 cars... so that's what we went with.

I still feel like this isn't the right way to do it. If the limit is 123084 and you want to race with 10-12 cars, you still can! Why prevent everyone else from using more?

From some tests we did with GR1 and car numbers (a quick hack-job Hannu did a while back for fun), anything over 12 felt distinctly less GR-ish, so we went as far as we could whilst still trying to keep it feeling right

I want that version so much now...

I apologize for continually going on about my "pet issue", but I really detest arbitrary limits, especially in PC games that should last for years and years with ever-increasing hardware, and I hope that I can at least get some people to understand why.

[puttz]

That leaves us with the classic offline login competitions. The problem, that I can see here, revolves around such basic features like the higher number of cars. Due the fact that only the paid version contains these features, I am forced to "dumb down" my competition, e.g. by setting the amount of cars from 12 to 6, to make it possible for everyone to take part in. That would be a shame: for the paying competitors and for the whole game and all the new possibilities that come along.

While I agree with Rudy on that point, I have to say that having anything more than 5 AI cars in a login competition is just asking for mayhem. I don't think I'd have a compo with more than 5 AI cars on the track, I see enough problems caused to drivers by what is currently available, adding more AIs for a compo would just make the results even more random, as there would be more AIs to mess people up. Now, that's not to say that others might not want to have more AIs on track for a compo, but that particular issue wouldn't affect me. But it is something to consider furthering the argument for having the same number of cars in both versions.

[James]

I admit that my argumentation is partly based on a very simple assumption: "We need the free-riders because there will not be enough 'paydrivers' around."
But even if you prove me wrong, I generally don't like the idea to draw the line between a free and a paid version where it affects the opportunities of paying users and free-riders to come and play together. And the number of cars could be one of them.

All very valid points - and no disputes from my point of view there - you're quite right. Having run many competitions for GR over the years, I certainly sympathise with the points you've made.

The problem at this stage, from our perspective, is we never intended or wanted there to be two versions of GR2 - but we responded to the community to give our basic feature-set for free, as an 'upgrade' to GR1, and support the development with further funding. What this means is, there will be some things that are far less than ideal when it comes to this situation - and the car number differentiation is one of them. We will work to mitigate as many of those problems as we possibly can, whilst still remaining faithful to what we've "promised" in the past (in this case, on Kickstarter).

For us, creating two version is more hassle, more stress, a higher commitment to ongoing maintenance/support, and more costly overall. The primary reason we're doing the two versions is because of the sheer amount of abuse and hate we got (publicly and privately) when we suggested GeneRally 2 might not be a freeware title. This is our hobby and our passion... we're not going to turn a huge profit and wake up next week on some Carribean island - we just want to make a nice sequel

I apologize for continually going on about my "pet issue", but I really detest arbitrary limits, especially in PC games that should last for years and years with ever-increasing hardware, and I hope that I can at least get some people to understand why.

Everyone's entitled to voice their opinion - and we read every single post made here about GR2 - so, definitely not something to apologise for

[Black Rebel]

By the way, will GR2 support multiclass races? I mean, will there be a chance to see two diferent finalc standings depending on the class?

Well, there's one that's going on the "features to consider" list

Hurrah! Thanks for the answer!

[jefcam]

"From some tests we did with GR1 and car numbers (a quick hack-job Hannu did a while back for fun"

it would be nice to have this bonus GR1 version as well