It astounds me how people can't grasp the notion that 'funding' isn't the be all and end all. The developers have repeated over and over and over again how the traditional corporate structure is what they were trying to get away from with LFS.
The point is that despite all the hurrah of constant updates and a subscription based funding model iRacing still hasn't matched Live For Speed in several areas. This constant repetitive drone of complaint about how the LFS developers go about their business is nauseating. They've made themselves so clear on how they work, it really isn't hard to grasp. The value of LFS is unquestionable. I can barely get a month and a decent car/track combo on iRacing for the price of S3.
said the user with a demo licence demanding the developers act in a way that is completely incongruent with their published working motivation?
Also, how many new official tracks have there been for rFactor 1, Richard Burns Rally, Grand Prix Legends, NetKar Pro, GTR recently??? all contemporaries of the initial Live For Speed release, yet where is their 'proper development'?
The only sim comparable to LFS would be iRacing in terms of continual development over such a long period of time... and for that sim to have reached the point it is now a single user would have had to have spent thousands to have access to it fully during that period and even now it's tyre model still isn't as good as LFS in many areas.
I don't see that as a deficiency. iRacing, Assetto Corsa Competizione, rF2, AM2, Project Cars etc..., to varying degrees, are all merging into essentially the same simulator.
With Live For Speed there is a fantastic base physics model (which for all its 'development' iRacing is yet to surpass imo), but there also a touch of art with it. It's not just stale repetition of what we see in reality with 'official' cars & tracks. It seems like an oxymoron to have a simulator that has artistic qualities but I don't know how else to describe it. But it's what help sets it apart. Out of all the 'proper simulations' Live for Speed is instantly recongisable. Sure you can pick up the visual qualities of each sim that make them recongisable to the trained eye, but Live For Speed is set apart from that. It might be part of the reason for such a dedicated community. South City is OUR city!
Funny thing is when LFS do add real content like Rockingham is stonkingly good.
While I accept the notion that far too many people fail to grasp the notion that absolute economic growth is not the be all and end all, capitalism itself allows for a multitude of models. LFS exists within a free market model which encourages diversity within a particular sector. So I might got as far as saying it's a lack of appreciation of free market economics that's the problem.
Either way, the developers have made it so abundantly clear how they do things and more importantly why.
I don't really care if you stand behind it. Everything you've described is available on other sims too.
I will try to explain this in terms everyone can understand.
When people moan about LFS's development it is like walking into a niché coffee bar where the owner (ex-Starbucks manager who hated his job) is making coffee exactly the way he wants with passion and love and then telling the owner they should copy Stabucks coz they get more customers. The reason why people don't is because that'd be insane.
We live in a society where people have the freedom to do things exactly how they want. Some people paint by numbers and follow the norm, and others are more unique. I don't really know how to explain this is less complex.
The unique selling point of Live For Speed is that it's not like other sims. The developers have made it abundantly clear their model of business is built upon a structure that allows them freedom to work the way they want and not be weighed down by the constraints of a traditional business model. Hiring people is complex, acquiring licences is complex etc... People act as if the devs haven't worked in that environment and made it clear thats not how they want to do things.
Assetto, rF2, iRacing, Automobilista, Project Cars etc... are all converging into essentially the same simulator because they are all chasing the same thing. Real cars and real scanned tracks won't add much to LFS. What I actually like about LFS is the fact the tracks aren't real because it's adds an element of genuine artistry to the product. Live For Speed, despite its age, is the most unique sim product. It's a quality that should be treasured, not lambasted.
I don't think you understand the nature of a creative process and creative people. Scawan and co couldn't have been more explicit in their description of their business and working model.
I think the way people act about this is borderline personality disorder territory. As if spending 25 quid entitles you to question someone business model which has been so clearly defined for the last 15 years.
I do notice that most of these complaints are from people who have never even come close to producing something anywhere near the quality of Live For Speed. The fact it's still being worked on is miraculous and should be celebrated.