Too much money in ETS2? A hidden setting has been able to reduce your income drastically since 2013!

Euro Truck Simulator 2 does not have an officially named hardcore mode for its economy. The term is therefore only a provocative journalistic description. Technically, however, a remarkable control has existed since 2013 that can have exactly this effect for many long-term players. With Update 1.4, SCS Software documented the console variable g_income_factor. Its default value is 1.0, it can range between 0.0 and 1.0 according to the official documentation, and it multiplies the income of a profile. The original description already made it clear that this could reduce not only the player’s income, but also the income of their hired drivers.

The principle is initially simple. The default value of 1.0 represents normal income. A lower value reduces it proportionally. As a purely mathematical example, a factor of 0.5 means that a theoretical reward of 100,000 euros becomes 50,000 euros. With 0.25, only 25,000 euros would remain in this example. These figures are not statements about specific current job rewards, but only demonstrate how an income multiplier works in principle. The decisive point is that the variable does not reduce the reward by a fixed amount, but scales it by a percentage.

This simple effect can significantly change the long-term development of a profile. If you receive only half or a quarter for every delivery, you need longer to afford the next truck. A new garage once again has to be saved for deliberately. Repairs, fuel, and loan repayments gain more importance because money no longer flows in as quickly. A poor purchase or a damaged journey can become more noticeable. The game does not invent new economic systems as a result, but existing decisions become more meaningful.

It is especially important that hired drivers are also affected according to SCS’s original description. If only your personal income fell, the company could still grow very quickly. You would receive less for your own jobs, while a large network of drivers continued to earn high amounts. The effect would then mainly be noticeable at the beginning and almost completely disappear later. If the factor instead scales all profile income, the passive company income also grows more slowly.

This is crucial for large companies. In a highly developed profile, most income often no longer comes exclusively from your own journey. Several garages, numerous trucks, and many hired drivers can regularly earn money while you only complete a single job yourself. An effective income limiter therefore has to cover the entire company. This is exactly where the strength of g_income_factor lies: The variable reaches deeper than a voluntary rule such as “I only buy new vehicles rarely” because it changes the cash flow of the entire profile.

Nevertheless, the factor is not a complete redesign of the ETS2 economy. The official documentation describes it as an income multiplier, not as a comprehensive control for all economic values. Vehicle prices, garage costs, fuel, repairs, ferries, loans, and other expenses are not automatically recalculated by it. This separation is exactly what gives a lower value its effect: Income falls while the existing costs retain their importance.

However, this also leads to the most important criticism. Lower income does not automatically make the game more complex in every respect. You do not have to manage additional insurance, deal with unexpected company events, or consider fluctuating market prices. The variable changes neither job risks nor demand, staff management, or ongoing operating expenses. It primarily extends the period required for purchases and growth.

This raises the question of whether ETS2 genuinely becomes more difficult or merely slower. The answer depends heavily on your playing style. If you enjoy saving for a specific vehicle, deliberately repaying loans, and experiencing every new garage as an achievement, a lower factor can make progression more interesting. If, on the other hand, you mainly want to drive, explore new regions, and regularly try different trucks, the same setting may feel like an unnecessary restriction.

Challenge does not only come from time. A game does not automatically become deeper simply because you have to complete the same job more frequently. A genuinely more demanding economy could also include higher or dynamic costs, more difficult loan conditions, unexpected repairs, economic fluctuations, or company risks. g_income_factor offers none of these functions. It therefore does not solve every criticism of the company economy, but it changes one very important part of it: the speed at which money flows into the profile.

Despite this limitation, it is remarkable that one of the most effective economy options has not appeared as a normal control in the game menu for years. Anyone using only the visible settings may never learn about this possibility. The variable is part of the configuration and console level and is therefore considerably less accessible than graphics, sound, or driving assistance options. Technically experienced players know such commands, while a normal user has to search for them specifically.

This does not have to be a deliberate decision to hide the function from players. SCS documents numerous configuration variables that are more likely intended for experienced users, testing, or specialised adjustments. A game menu cannot include every internal control without becoming confusing very quickly. Nevertheless, g_income_factor is unusual because it does not alter a small technical detail, but can influence the entire long-term progression of a profile.

A normal menu option could be considerably clearer. Three economy profiles would be possible, for example: relaxed, normal, and economically challenging. Players would then not have to activate a console, open a configuration file, or change an unfamiliar variable. A short explanation could show that lower settings reduce the income of the player and their drivers without fundamentally redesigning other systems.

An adjustable slider would be even better. A new player could remain at the default value, while an experienced company owner reduced income to 75, 50, or 25 percent. A clear warning would be important, explaining that extreme values can slow progression considerably. The decision would remain entirely voluntary, but it would no longer be limited to players who know external documentation or old patch notes.

Transparency would be particularly important with existing profiles. An income factor does not automatically change already generated jobs retroactively. Mods, future updates, or other economic adjustments may also influence the result. Anyone changing the variable should therefore not assume that every mod and every version of the game will react to it in exactly the same way. Backing up the profile and save file is recommended before every change.

This warning is especially important because the variable is documented as profile-specific. An error or unsuitable setting therefore does not only affect one individual journey, but potentially the entire company. Anyone experimenting on a long-running main profile risks unnecessary frustration. It is safer to begin with a copy of the profile or a separate test save and observe how the selected value actually behaves there.

Extremely low values should also not automatically be expected to create an especially realistic experience. With a factor of 0.0, income is mathematically reduced to zero according to the documented multiplication principle. Costs may still continue to occur. Such a profile could therefore barely grow or might even lose money permanently. This may be interesting as a short experiment, but it is not automatically suitable for a normal long-term save.

Values only slightly above zero can also become problematic. If jobs generate almost no money, loans and ongoing expenses may become disproportionately difficult to carry. Hired drivers may also provide significantly less or ultimately no positive contribution because their operating costs continue to exist. Since SCS does not provide a comprehensive official guide for every possible extreme configuration, such values should be used carefully and only with a backup.

Medium values are likely to be more suitable for a normal challenging profile. In the simple mathematical model, a factor of 0.5 halves income without removing it completely. 0.3 or 0.25 slow growth down even more. The suitable value depends on how large your company already is, whether you use loans, how often you play, and whether additional economy mods are active. There is no universally perfect setting.

Mods make the situation even more complicated. An economy mod may change its own rewards, costs, or progression values. If g_income_factor is used at the same time, both systems may overlap. The result may be significantly harsher than intended. It is also not guaranteed that every future version of the game or every mod will treat the factor unchanged. Anyone encountering problems should therefore first check whether the variable behaves as expected on a clean profile without mods.

For this article, the presence of the variable was verified using the current official SCS configuration documentation. However, activation of the developer console in the current game version was not tested practically. We therefore deliberately do not provide a step-by-step guide for enabling the console or editing specific files. Such procedures may change and should only be performed using current documentation, a backup, and the necessary technical understanding.

Anyone who already uses the console or profile configuration safely can still find an officially documented option in g_income_factor. The relevant range is between 0.0 and 1.0, with the default value at 1.0. Changes should never be tried blindly on the only available save. A manual backup is not excessive caution, but the simplest protection against typing errors, unexpected mod interactions, or later problems.

The larger question nevertheless remains why such an understandable difficulty option has not yet arrived in the normal menu. ETS2 appeals simultaneously to relaxed drivers, economically interested players, and long-term users with enormous companies. One default value can hardly suit all of these very different expectations. Some want to try different trucks quickly, while others want to earn every purchase over many journeys.

Official economy profiles could serve both groups without changing the existing default. Nobody would have to give up fast progression. At the same time, experienced players could select a more difficult version without needing mods or configuration commands. SCS would not even have to develop a completely new economy system immediately. A well-explained interface for the existing income factor would already be a first step.

More could be possible in the long term. A challenging economy could consider income and costs together. Loans could depend more strongly on the state of the company, repairs could carry more weight, and economic events could change planning. Different profiles could influence not only income, but the entire development of the company. Only then would a simple slowdown become a genuine economic difficulty level.

Until then, g_income_factor remains a surprisingly powerful tool for experienced players. The variable proves that ETS2 has offered an official way to slow down the rapid flow of money for many years. The problem is less the complete absence of such an option and more its limited visibility and its restricted effect on only one part of the economy.

The provocative “hardcore mode” therefore does not consist of new company crises, complicated contracts, or fluctuating markets. It consists of a single number that reduces your income and that of your drivers. This may sound unspectacular, but on a long-running profile it can make the difference between constant abundance and deliberate purchasing decisions.

Would you play ETS2 with significantly lower income or would the progression only feel unnecessarily slow to you?