Payware Models and the Forums

[richard222]

Right, here's a bombshell I'm about to drop, but I feel it could merit something, so I think I will. Feel free to shout me down, if thats what you think

No offence is intended to Payware authors as to be honest, with your quality, I think what you are doing is often worth the price.

As we all know, UKTS is primarily a freeware site, with the odd demoware and commercial patches uploaded as a service to the community. Now, one thing that annoys me slightly is when commercial people come on this site to 'promote' works. Whilst in essence, I have no problem with them doing this (although I think a 'UKTS front page news' post is probably a better way), a slight annoyance of mine is when projects are announced from the start and we go through tens of progress pictures, only to be told towards the end that this project will be payware at a rising price (say £12.99 for a stock pack).

If I remember, commercial forums were all removed some time ago, so I don't see why they should essentially creep back in via general forums. I've got no problem with 'Donationware' or genuine community projects, but what annoys me is the purely making money companies who will promote their works on here, where one could think they are freeware.

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.

I would like to think that UKTS 'Content Creation' forums should really be for projects that are going to be released freely, no strings-attached on UKTS, either in the Download Library or as a Community CD, but I guess now it's obvious we need a place for the talented pro's to show off their works, but I think we need some clarity to what's what.

Richard

[dkightley]

Its not really a bombshell, Richard...well not as far as I'm concerned. And you're right to raise the subject of commercial add-on providers effectively getting free advertising for their products on a medium they do not contribute towards the costs of.

The line that Matt has always tried to take is one of not allowing threads that blatantly advertise any commercial product...but there has been some seepage through this in the way you have described....particularly over add-ons for Rail Simulator by some of the smaller and newer names in the market place. Matt has always preferred to be advised of new releases....which he will place an announcement on the front page of the website at no charge.

The one dilema we all have is that at the moment, with the lull in the hobby at the moment due to an array of factors, the last thing Matt wants is to do anything that goes against promotion of the hobby....and denying any small add-on producer the opportunity of a bit of free advertising could have a detrimental effect on the hobby.

Its certainly a subject where there's no easy answer.....

[mendes]

I don't believe there is any realistic living to be made out of Train-Simming.

As far as I can make out none of the releases in recent years (apart from the original RS) have been available in retail outlets, in fact I think that there is a general decline in games for the PC. All this online gaming and first person shooter stuff leaves me cold, I'd much rather go back to Doom!!

[Easilyconfused]

A lot of this will be ancient history for long term members but at least 1 member has said tonight he was unclear on what happened.

There was a move made at the end of 2005 just as I was invited to become a moderator to direct the announcement of commercial content to press releases on the front page rather than "taster" threads in the forums. This was unrelated to the appointment of some new moderators (contrary to a couple of posts at the time). There had been concerns expressed that commercial groups were getting free advertising on the forums so a bunch of threads were moved out of public view with a view to getting public announcements on the front page of the site that is seen by 4 - 10 times the number of people who are in the forums. The backlash from that resulted in a number of the community CDs going unavailable since permissions were withdrawn and only returned when alternative items were produced by a great effort from the UKTS community.

The guidelines were subsequently relaxed somewhat to where we are now.

However, with the launch of RS it seems a number of groups have sprung up selling payware items. That is part of the reason I haven't really gone into RS - apart from the steep learning curve. Bronwyn is into it - especially Kevin's fantastic little narrow gauge engines. I can't really get my head around it and I don't see myself going down the route of buying loads of payware little stock packs to run freeware scenarios that then rely on those payware items.

Don't get me wrong - I do see the place for payware stuff and I have bought most of the MT stock packs that appealed to me - I don't do DMUs especially but I have the 66's, PGAs, Desiros, Fragonset 33s, 31s and the Class 89 appeal pack.

The same applies for MSTS - if an activity requires a payware pack I don't have then unless I am absolutely desperate to run that activity then I don't buy the pack unless it already appeals to me. The difference in MSTS is that I can use Activity Analyser to swap out a commercial or non-available 66 for one of the ones I do have in my vast library.

[Acorncomputer]

Hi John

You can use Mike Simpsons Tools to replace rolling stock in RS Scenarios if you do not have the intended originals.

It is up to Matt and the UKTS team to decide on the treatment of promoting payware on the forums but personally I am happy to be advised of all developments and can decide for myself if want to follow progress of a particular item that might end up being commercial or payware.

[mendes]

A lot of this will be ancient history for long term members but at least 1 member has said tonight he was unclear on what happened.

I think you're referring to my post on the Fotopic Thread. I've done as you have suggested and trawled through the threads and now at least understand the principles if not all of the detail of what happened then.

As in most things it's a question of finding a balance between the interests of the Payware merchants and the average UKTS punter.

[richard222]

The one dilema we all have is that at the moment, with the lull in the hobby at the moment due to an array of factors, the last thing Matt wants is to do anything that goes against promotion of the hobby....and denying any small add-on producer the opportunity of a bit of free advertising could have a detrimental effect on the hobby.

I totally agree with that Doug. I think, at the moment at least banning commercial advertising is wrong, however I also think a compromise has to be found, as I think those that make money out of the products are a bit cheeky advertising free on this site.

Maybe another option would be that UKTS, with it's sizeable force in the TrainSim market could market some of these products on CD via its own CD ordering, however, the worry would be that would make it 'too easy' to go payware.

Richard

[NiallGray]

If you're referring to MSTS, then I see no problem as long as it's clearly mentioned in the post it's a payware item/route. MSTS is on its last legs, sadly, and I have no problem with anyone promoting their stuff as long as it keeps interest in the simulator alive.

But if it's RS you are referring to, then I'll not comment as I don't visit the forums, so unaware what's going on.

[richard222]

clearly mentioned in the post it's a payware item/route.

This is the main point I'm trying to raise here. I think a way needs to be established of 'standardising' this differentation, whether it be my suggestion of a [f] [p] or [o] in thread titles or simply a rule that the first post must clearly state whether it is free/payware. I think, especially in the MSTS-RS transition period (if you can call it that), where some model makers switched, projects were started, appearing as if they were freeware, but later turned payware.

Obviously we cannot force individuals to make their item freeware and have to respect their decision, but i'd like to end confusion.

Richard

[45002]

here's a bombshell I'm about to drop

Oh No not again

Your going over old ground and i dont think anyone is really intrested.

Think most people are happy the way things are ?

MARTIN

[desiro5]

here's a bombshell I'm about to drop

Oh No not again

Your going over old ground and i dont think anyone is really intrested.

Think most people are happy the way things are ?

MARTIN

Martin,

You cant just assume other people opinions.

Richard only is expressing his views about on what he thinks is best for the comunity. Hes entitled to his opinion.

And the title of your post. Back to school. You trying to imply that some of us younger users post rubbish when you all aparantly think "we are bored in the holidays which are too long?". Well i think your wrong.

[45002]

here's a bombshell I'm about to drop

Oh No not again

Your going over old ground and i dont think anyone is really intrested.

Think most people are happy the way things are ?

MARTIN

Martin,

You cant just assume other people opinions.

Richard only is expressing his views about on what he thinks is best for the comunity. Hes entitled to his opinion.

And the title of your post. Back to school. You trying to imply that some of us younger users post rubbish when you all aparantly think "we are bored in the holidays which are too long?". Well i think your wrong.

I couldn’t have put it better myself

MARTIN

[richard222]

Well, What I'll say in my defense is this.

I was browsing through a forum, the RS Rolling Stock forum to be precise yesterday, where I check in occasionally to check on progress, 1/2 out of nosiness, 1/2 out of the fact I may be tempted to move over eventually. I then clicked on some of the threads to see what looked to be interesting and read them through from the start. It dawned on me that it isn't always clear to everyone that an item of stock is payware / freeware. I had a think and thought up the idea suggested with the [p]s , [f]s and [o]s and thought, 'hey, there might be something there, let's see what other's think?'

At the end of the day, if people believe this thread has no mileage whatsoever, that's fine by me, lock it, delete it, do whatever, but at the end of the day, it's a suggestion, and I tried, for the sake of putting my reasons behind it to give an explanation.

I can't confess to having an in-depth knowledge of 'the past', but I have a rough idea of it, and trust me, I don't want to go anywhere near there again, as I'm sure no-one on this forum would, but if anyone thinks this thread is treading those waters, fine, lock it.

Could somebody actually comment on my suggestion, which I have quoted below

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.

As with your subtle message 'Back to School', All I will say is yes, a number of us probably do get bored. Personally, I don't visit the site anymore than in normal term and all my posts are generally thought through, and I assure you, this was as well. Adult members of the forum are not immune from posting rubbish, and if this is truly rubbish that I have posted, then I apologise and again, invite the thread to be locked or deleted.

Richard

[45002]

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.

Its already been done,People just ask in the forums what it is

MARTIN

[Easilyconfused]

Well, What I'll say in my defense is this.

You don't have to say anything in your "defence" - you had a suggestion and posted it. There were some posts (including mine) that explained some of the history that occurred before you joined. Some posts were made saying why people did not necessarily agree. That is the way things work.

However, I am not impressed with a member changing the title of posts to "Back to school" and the rest of the discussion around that - that could be dealt with under the forum posting guidelines - specifically

) Members are expected to behave in a reasonable manner and with a spirit of goodwill, and opinions should be posted and read in good faith.

And to finish

Personally, I don't visit the site anymore than in normal term and all my posts are generally thought through, and I assure you, this was as well. 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.