iRacing Costs

Personally, I think it's too expensive as it is and they need more payment plans. I don't mind paying for the content but i think the monthly sub is too high, especially if you don't get much time a month to race. A pay-as-you-race scheme would capture a whole swath of new people, imo. Any thoughts?

"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message news:qZ57m.1327$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Personally, I think it's too expensive as it is and they need more payment > plans. I don't mind paying for the content but i think the monthly sub is > too high, especially if you don't get much time a month to race. > > A pay-as-you-race scheme would capture a whole swath of new people, imo. > > Any thoughts?

A yearly subscription with the $60 credit, plus the current $25 bonus seems fair to me. I think the car and track prices could be a bit lower, but even there they offer discounts.

Schooner, Dave knows why they cant do "pay as you race" because the structure of the sim and the community/continuity wont really allow it. Just know, that if/when you buy an account there is several things that have to be done, some is done automated, most is or might not be. and to make money they have to charge money or else close the doors. Look at it as easily as you can, if I have 20 bucks in costs for signup and allowing the downloads from the server and you race only once, how much do I charge you to race once? now if I assume you will race for more than one month, I can recoup the money over 3 months of charges, this makes good sense. Sure there is no guarantee that you will race more than once in 3 months, but the odds are somewhat higher and I cover my costs. 2 fine examples: Call the cable company, see how much (if you aren't a subscriber already that is) it would cost to be hooked up just to watch one TV show this evening? You think it will be 5 bucks? You're crazy! Look at the supermarket, does the 6 oz (half size) pop can cost half what the 12 oz can cost? No, but the 2 liter is cheaper in almost every time you buy one than the 24 oz is... Single serving/ just like trial sizes of anything else, would HAVE to be exorbitantly priced just because of the overhead.

"PlowBoy," <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h3l1q8$hcn$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> Schooner, > > Dave knows why they cant do "pay as you race" because the structure of the > sim and the community/continuity wont really allow it. > > > > Just know, that if/when you buy an account there is several things that > have to be done, some is done automated, most is or might not be. and to > make money they have to charge money or else close the doors. Look at it > as easily as you can, if I have 20 bucks in costs for signup and allowing > the downloads from the server and you race only once, how much do I charge > you to race once? now if I assume you will race for more than one month, > I can recoup the money over 3 months of charges, this makes good sense. > Sure there is no guarantee that you will race more than once in 3 months, > but the odds are somewhat higher and I cover my costs. > > 2 fine examples: Call the cable company, see how much (if you aren't a > subscriber already that is) it would cost to be hooked up just to watch > one TV show this evening? You think it will be 5 bucks? You're crazy! > > Look at the supermarket, does the 6 oz (half size) pop can cost half what > the 12 oz can cost? No, but the 2 liter is cheaper in almost every time > you buy one than the 24 oz is... Single serving/ just like trial sizes of > anything else, would HAVE to be exorbitantly priced just because of the > overhead. >

Clutching at straws, I see. Just have a pay as you go account option like mobile phone companies do. Then you can top up your account as you go along. Charge a small signing on fee if you're worried about those costs. 2 bucks a race should do it. Your 2 'fine' examples are laughable, btw. iRacing is automated and electronic, unlike your examples.

> Just know, that if/when you buy an account there is several things that have to be done, some is done automated, most > is or might not be. and to make money they have to charge money or else close the doors. With an active user base hovering around 10,000, they aren't going to make money even with the original pricing scheme. If lowering the prices gets this count up to 30,000 to 50,000 active members, then they should be able to make money, but I don't know if there are 30,000 to 50,000 people interested in iRacings content and structure at any price. > how much do I charge you to race once? WOW in USA - $13 -> $15 / month. South Korea - some small amount for 5 or 30 hours blocks. In China, hourly fee that works out to be < $.05 (5 cents) per hour (most players don't own their own computers). So WOW is smart enough to target multiple audiences with various levels of disposable income.

"jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aus7m.681$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> Just know, that if/when you buy an account there is several things that >> have to be done, some is done automated, most is or might not be. and to >> make money they have to charge money or else close the doors. > > With an active user base hovering around 10,000, they aren't going to > make money even with the original pricing scheme. If lowering the prices > gets this count up to 30,000 to 50,000 active members, then they should > be able to make money, but I don't know if there are 30,000 to 50,000 > people interested in iRacings content and structure at any price. > >> how much do I charge you to race once? > > WOW in USA - $13 -> $15 / month. South Korea - some small amount for 5 or > 30 hours blocks. In China, hourly fee that works out to be < $.05 (5 > cents) > per hour (most players don't own their own computers). So WOW is smart > enough to target multiple audiences with various levels of disposable > income.

Exactly. Cant see the problem with have pay as you go for infrequent racers. Have an account with a 20buck minimum balance and charge 2bucks a race.

On Jul 15, 6:11 pm, "jeffareid" <[email hidden]> wrote: > With an active user base hovering around 10,000, they aren't going to > make money even with the original pricing scheme. If lowering the prices > gets this count up to 30,000 to 50,000 active members, then they should > be able to make money, but I don't know if there are 30,000 to 50,000 > people interested in iRacings content and structure at any price. i think these numbers you post are inflated like the list posted about who races it. finding out many never even ran a race. they use real names when doing demos and at shows and make it look like they are involved. iponzi I say

dfg.myass@aol (David Fisher's Left Testicle) wrote: > Personally, I think it's too expensive as it is and they need more > payment plans. If we could buy just the content we want, and race it when and in whatever combination we want, with whoever we want, I would happily pay the existing costs. Heck, I might even pay more! What still hurts is paying good money to be forced into combinations I'd prefer not to race on/in. (Well, obviously nobody's forcing anyone, but you know what I mean). Often I join races I don't really want to just because I'd prefer to race with a full(er) field in a race which splits rather than a half empty field in one which doesn't. If iRacing was about half the cost I'd buy everything, sign up forever and just get on with it even with the restrictions and frustrations. The trick is justifying that 100% extra cost beyond what I'm comfortable paying for this kind of hobby, racing against random names. Comparing the cost to real world hobbies & activities is fine. But the real comparison will always be with products which are most similar... that's the way real world hobbies work too. At the moment iRacing seems just about (ish!) justifiable to me because it feels like such a more satisfying driving experience than the other sims I have. But I don't expect that situation to stay static. I'm not so attached to online racing against strangers that I won't be lured away by an offline sim which can give me the same driving kick. Andrew McP

> If we could buy just the content we want, and race it when and in whatever > combination we want, with whoever we want, That's called rFactor or GTR. > I'm not so attached to online racing against strangers If what you want is online racing, then Live For Speed is probably the best bet, as they still reach a peak of 1000 players online at a time. The tracks are fantasy tracks, and only a few of the cars resemble real cars, but you're not stuck with the boring Soltice for months while waiting to advance to the next level. After this many years of racing, the realism factor has gone beyond the point of no return as what the various game makers consider "realistic". The SRF's lift throttle oversteer seems exaggerated. The Legend's power induces oversteer also exaggerated. The Radical is fun, but how much time and money do you spend with the boring cars until you can use the Radical?

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:44 +0100 (BST), Andrew MacPherson wrote: > If we could buy just the content we want, and race it when and in > whatever combination we want, with whoever we want, I would happily > pay the existing costs. That's one of my major gripes with the service: You don't actually "own" anything, but license it for the duration of your membership. Once you cancel the subscription, you're left empty handed and short of a few hundred bob. With most off-the-self titles you can still sell the box on ebay or to a mate and never look back, not so with iR. What if the service tanks or goes under? Same thing, your S.O.L. In comparison to iR, I'd happily have shelled out $100 or more for a one time purchase of rFactor. I feel a bit guilty for all the joy I've gotten out of this title for a mere 30 Euros or so. With rF2 on the horizon, I'd be prepared to pay them a lot more if I only get to properly "own" what I've purchased which isn't the case with iR. I know all the content is there again once you resubscribe to their service, but for instance you cannot legally sell your "Radical" or "Lime Rock" license to another iRacer if you find you hate the drive after you've forked out the cash. All the best, Uwe

"hoover" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4a604875$0$3294$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:44 +0100 (BST), Andrew MacPherson wrote: > >> If we could buy just the content we want, and race it when and in >> whatever combination we want, with whoever we want, I would happily >> pay the existing costs. > > That's one of my major gripes with the service: You don't actually > "own" anything, but license it for the duration of your > membership. Once you cancel the subscription, you're left empty handed > and short of a few hundred bob. > > With most off-the-self titles you can still sell the box on ebay or to > a mate and never look back, not so with iR. What if the service tanks > or goes under? Same thing, your S.O.L. > > In comparison to iR, I'd happily have shelled out $100 or more for a > one time purchase of rFactor. I feel a bit guilty for all the joy I've > gotten out of this title for a mere 30 Euros or so. > > With rF2 on the horizon, I'd be prepared to pay them a lot more if I > only get to properly "own" what I've purchased which isn't the case > with iR. > > I know all the content is there again once you resubscribe to their > service, but for instance you cannot legally sell your "Radical" or > "Lime Rock" license to another iRacer if you find you hate the drive > after you've forked out the cash. > > All the best, > > Uwe >

I think you should be able to practice off-line with stuff you have paid for after you've left.

hoover wrote: > In comparison to iR, I'd happily have shelled out $100 or more for a > one time purchase of rFactor. I feel a bit guilty for all the joy I've > gotten out of this title for a mere 30 Euros or so. Funny enough that is why I support the iRacing model. I would have gladly paid ISI for major updates to rFactor. Even more so I felt denied the opportunity to pay Papyrus for developments to GPL due to what I saw as constraints by publishers and eventual marketing decision that Papyrus didn't fit into their strategy. Watching these products fail to develop due to the publishing model limiting funding has been a source of frustration to me. With the one exception of NR2003 sim racing titles have had little or no resale value, they just become obsolete titles to the majority. Having a major developer without the constraints of a publisher with the initial funding to aim big is massive for sim racing in my view. I hope it can break the mould of sim racing distribution and we can look forward to an accelerated development path which we can invest in rather than the relatively poor overall gain we have made this decade. Cheers Tony

"Tony R" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XI28m.10343$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> hoover wrote: > >> In comparison to iR, I'd happily have shelled out $100 or more for a >> one time purchase of rFactor. I feel a bit guilty for all the joy I've >> gotten out of this title for a mere 30 Euros or so. > > Funny enough that is why I support the iRacing model. I would have gladly > paid ISI for major updates to rFactor. Even more so I felt denied the > opportunity to pay Papyrus for developments to GPL due to what I saw as > constraints by publishers and eventual marketing decision that Papyrus > didn't fit into their strategy. > > Watching these products fail to develop due to the publishing model > limiting funding has been a source of frustration to me. With the one > exception of NR2003 sim racing titles have had little or no resale value, > they just become obsolete titles to the majority. > > Having a major developer without the constraints of a publisher with the > initial funding to aim big is massive for sim racing in my view. I hope it > can break the mould of sim racing distribution and we can look forward to > an accelerated development path which we can invest in rather than the > relatively poor overall gain we have made this decade. > > Cheers > Tony > > forward to an accelerated development path...<

Well, yeah. But what have we seen so far? Basically, one, so far, fucked up opportunity, imo.

> With the one exception of NR2003 sim racing titles have had little > or no resale value, they just become obsolete titles to the majority. EA's F1 Challenge 99-02 is still selling for over $40 at Ebay, even though rFactor has good F1 mods for it now. Part of NR2003's current high price is due to the ignorance of the buyers that think they need a new cd-key in order to race online, not realizing that since the servers have been shut down, these cd-keys are now useless. If a player still has their original cd, they can use the tech support key RAB2-RAB2-RAB2-RAB2-8869 to install their game. The other part is that NR2003 wasn't superceded by a future game, unless you count the NR2005 mod which First stopped at every web site except for http://thepiratebay.org which was out of the legal grasp of First. In addition, since EA had bought the rights to Nascar, retailers weren't supposed to be selling NR2003 anymore, yet First made no effort to stop these retailers. If it hadn't been for First trying to elminate the distribution of the NR2005 mod, I and many other would have never heard of the pirate bay. I doubt that the NR2005 mod would have had any impact on iRacing. I doubt that there would still be resentment about First in the sim community. > Having a major developer without the constraints of a publisher with the initial funding to aim big is massive for sim > racing in my view. Except that the target audience is so small that the cost per player is going to be quite high. Having the assists, add-ons, and open play have helped rFactor and the GTR series to sell fairly large numbers of their games, while giving hard core sim fans something to enjoy (assists off). >initial funding The initial funding for iRacing is about what EA spends on each NFS game. The high volumes justify the big budgets, and the cost per player is low. EA will just slap "NFS" on their first shot with a sim-oriented racer, (the development team includes 25 ex-GTR employees), "NFS Shift", and it will sell in the millions. It will probably have fantasy cars and lots of assists to keep the casual players happy, but the core physics engine is claimed to be very realistic, and aimed at the serious hard core simmers. EA has the budget, people, and access to the data to make a realistic sim, but only time will tell if NFS Shift ends up as realistic as it claims it will be. The point here isthat a hard core standalone sim isn't going to sell well, but if it's included as an option as part of a more casual game it will, and the cost per player will be low. As an end-user, I know which pricing model I prefer (the lower cost one if anyone has trouble guessing).

> Except that the target audience is so small that the cost per player is > going to be quite high. Forgot to do the math: $20,000,000 dollars / 10,000 active players = $2000 / player. iRacing is going to need a lot more players. With the current pricing scheme working out to be $500 to $600 / player over a 3 year period they need about 40,000 players to break even and continue making money. This may happen in the next 2 years, but if it does, the iRacing of 2 years from now will be quite different than the iRacing it is now.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> The initial funding for iRacing is about what EA spends on each NFS > game. The high volumes justify the big budgets, and the cost per > player is low. > > EA will just slap "NFS" on their first shot with a sim-oriented racer, > (the development team includes 25 ex-GTR employees), "NFS Shift", and > it will sell in the millions. It will probably have fantasy cars and > lots of assists to keep the casual players happy, but the core physics > engine is claimed to be very realistic, and aimed at the serious > hard core simmers. EA has the budget, people, and access to the data > to make a realistic sim, but only time will tell if NFS Shift ends > up as realistic as it claims it will be. >

I have to laugh, for how many years, now be honest, has it "been reported" or "claimed" that the core physics of ANY EA racing game was "very realistic" Uh, um fracking all of them... The point here is, no there wont be a crapload of "oopsie, well I thought you might like this game billy" from parents because it wasn't 25 bucks in the bin at wallyworld, and not a lot of rFactors or iRacing cd's tied/bundled with systems... nope. But market wise, I would bet you a grand that they have researched and found that Hard core sim people are more loyal, have more repeat sales, and more 'likely' to unroll the wad o cash for a 'darn good' sim. Everyone on here has even said this while bashing any tittle ever discussed on here at RAS or likewise forums. The same shit happens with any product too, plus fads come and go. Want my shares in those shoes called Crocks? at one time they were worth a lot of $, now worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The point here isthat a hard core standalone sim isn't going to sell > well, but if it's included as an option as part of a more casual game > it will, and the cost per player will be low. As an end-user, I > know which pricing model I prefer (the lower cost one if anyone > has trouble guessing). > >