Payware Models and the Forums

[kevmt]

What I would suggest as a good way of resolving this unclarity is that if an item, a route, a stock pack etc. is going to be released as Payware, that the author, or a moderator could place a simple [p] in the title, if it is freeware an [f] is placed in the title, or if it is other, ie Demoware, Donationware etc. a [o] is placed in the title and then the type of release explaine first line.. This allows everyone to know exactly where a route stands and should alleviate any confusion.

Richard

Hi Richard,

I reckon that that's actually not a bad idea. ( I'm saying that, as I posted a similar suggestion as few months ago )

Having said that over the last few weeks one does get the impression that the majority of new models announced are probably all going to be payware.

Cheers,
Kevin

[CaptScarlet]

I don't this forums history but wouldn't it more appropriate to have a generic payware forum category for say RS etc if necessary, that way all the posts related to payware for one sim have a appropriate forum category to post in thus seperating the freeware and payware posts ?

John

[johndibben]

Adult members of the forum are not immune from posting rubbish

I quite agree - the bulk of the moderating effort is expended on dealing with "adults" who have nothing better to do than stir up trouble by posting provocative or political posts.

I'm not one for believing the youngsters on UKTS these days are any worse than adults although that's not always been the case. In fact they can be far more tolerant than anyone.

Amazed provocative or political posts take up the bulk of moderator's times as there's far more mods than political posts in the Open Forum on any day and none at all most of the time for months.

Back on topic, Martin has a point in that discussion concerning freeware and payware usually ends in tears and has proved far more damaging to UKTS and UK trainsimming, since payware started.

Disallusion with UKTS has nearly always been over this issue, criticism, bias, moderation etc. I only know of one case where politics played even a part in someone's disallusion and that was someone who was involved in political debate.

I'd suggest making every effort to encourage freeware as payware is likely to dominate MSTS2 in the same manner as RS simply through the amount of work which goes into the best models.

There's only a few dedicated RS freeware modellers and I see little additional appreciation of their efforts.

I'd urge mods to concentrate on suggestions such as that of Richard's rather than political debate until rules are broken and not when they consider rules may be broken. I'm not anti-payware and buy Trainz and RS add-ons. However, if we don't 'big up' freeware on UKTS, I can see human nature taking its course and the bulk of freeware on UKTS likely to be for MSTS which has retained a loyal following which has been amazing considering the age of the program.

[45002]

If its a simple case of wanting to know whats payware or freeware.

Just ask in the topic

MARTIN

[johndibben]

If its a simple case of wanting to know whats payware or freeware.

Just ask in the topic

MARTIN

Remember a question concerning one model which saw the reply, 'It will be available to everyone'

Content creators can also change their mind either way.

Auran have a seperate forum for freeware and payware creators and suggest that solution.

However, they own the basic product.

UKTS 'supports' basic products as it sees fit and in effect, has 'advertised' MSTS2 wheras the original RS Forum could hardly be said to do so and even now, only Matt appears positive about RS developments.

[richard222]

Whilst in essence, asking is fine, but it can cause confusion in that
- You may have to trawl through pages to find the question & response
- You can get 'bad' answers as John says.

Richard

[johndibben]

I suggest Richard's idea that 'a simple [p] in the title, if it is freeware an [f] is placed in the title, or if it is other, ie Demoware, Donationware etc. a [o] is placed in the title and then the type of release explain first line'. Is adopted over all forums.

I buy Trainz and RS payware while using them both and so have an interest when deciding my next little layout

*Edited sentance*

[45002]

Back on topic, Martin has a point in that discussion concerning freeware and payware usually ends in tears and has proved far more damaging to UKTS and UK trainsimming, since payware started.

Think this may be the post in question,3 years ago ?

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=49546

MARTIN

[buffy500]

Back on topic, Martin has a point in that discussion concerning freeware and payware usually ends in tears and has proved far more damaging to UKTS and UK trainsimming, since payware started.

Think this may be the post in question,3 years ago ?

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=49546

MARTIN

aaaahh I've just gone dewey eyed reading that.

The good old days, you just can't beat them you know

[AndiS]

First, I letting the dogs sleep would be the least bad solution, given the history and current condition of the scene etc.

But then again, I think the suggestion is a valuable one if you consider the fact that not only those asking about payware vs. freeware might get a bad answer, but some people consider the asking itself as criticism against payware, so thing can really get complex with simple bits of information.

If people are undecided whether their creation will be payware, maybe we put <u> to the list of categories.

Anything that keeps discussions about the distribution mode out of discussions of the model is a good thing.

On a sidenote, [ do not seem the best solution since they are used in BBcode, ( or < are not.

[45002]

Back on topic, Martin has a point in that discussion concerning freeware and payware usually ends in tears and has proved far more damaging to UKTS and UK trainsimming, since payware started.

Think this may be the post in question,3 years ago ?

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=49546

MARTIN

aaaahh I've just gone dewey eyed reading that.

The good old days, you just can't beat them you know

When i was searching for that thread,i noticed it was dated 05 Jan 2006

Spooky

MARTIN

[buffy500]

Seriously...

A lot of time and water has passed under the bridge since 2006.

If it was decided that payware posted needed a small code in the title to make it clear what it was I don't think it would be totally unreasonable.

Back in 2006 the commercial groups were obvious, most people knew who they were, now with new sims like RS it may not be as obvious what was what.

[AndiS]

... and people are just making up their minds, so the limits are flowing.

Talking about 3 years of water under the bridge, I hope that a few of the actors find the time to hold some anniversary meeting in some pub. And invite a few of the newer members of the payware scene and give them a short history lesson. Otherwise, someone might start some history re-enactment someday.

[allypally]

I was a moderator at the time the policy started to form (but not when it actually got posted!) way back when and I remember going through this then.

The 'problem' if there is one is far smaller than it was.

A tag in the title doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[bigvern]

Given the slightly different "status" of RS compared to other sims, maybe a "Commercial Announcement" forum would offer a solution? This would be limited to a factual posting, on release (no vapourware please!) and restricted to the OP and mods. At the moment, threads touting the release of scenario packs just tend to draw comments along the lines of, "Who's going to pay £7 for a bunch of scenarios?" I know. I am guilty...

However you will still get discussions of that nature spring up in the General areas when people start discussing the whys and wherefores, with the devs springing up to defend their policy!

The other possibility is a more visible links page to people producing the payware add ons. Most developers worth their salt should have their own site and that should be their shop front for selling the wares.