I think thers a bit of difference between rF1 and RF2: 1) rF1 was released in 2005 "as is", the patches that came thereafter mainly fixed issues/bugs/whatever. From what I recall there was'nt that much in the way of core engine changes like might come with RF2 2) at that stage in 2005 it was further a long than RF2 currently is in terms of "feature complete" 3) if indeed RF2 had an official release in January then its simply poor; Vmods not properly dealt with, Skins sharing not properly dealt with, Bugs still remained from 12months previous, older content not updated to "releaseable standard" (see Megane Windscreens, 60s mirrors, Clio sounds etc etc). Thats why I see a lot of people waiting for the older content to be released & updated seperatley as the "signal" if you like that this game is properly released, regardless of what ISI/Tim say in my opinion - and thats one of playing games since the 1980s! - this game is not at a decent enough stage to of been "released" in January. Get the older content updated and released individually, sort out the Vmods mess and Skins sharing and then as far as I'm concerned its Ready. Anything thereafter is a continuation of the games progress as we all know ISI are abiding too, releasing to DVD is neither here nor there for me and does'nt represent any definition of the game.
I've worked with enough developers to be aware that the pace of development the ISI devs have is really great, from my experience, so these kind of comments irk me quite a bit. This type of release isn't something completely new, it should be accepted by now like it is in every other genre where budgets are smaller. You only have to look at far as iRacing to see a product you could describe as having a similar development type. They tested in 2008 after four years development, then added features and content (not freely, as we will be). There are many areas they're still finishing up, and some features we're ahead of them having joined the party four years later. Think on that... I'm explaining how it is. That's all I came here to do. If someone is waiting for a release that will be considered gold, they're going to be waiting longer than they should be, and they're going to miss out on a lot. Like they would have, if they waited for the DVD of rF1 for 3 years, if they waited for (and presumably are still waiting) for iRacing to stop developing. I'm also absolutely sure AC and R3E are asking the same understanding, as they add features and content that won't be released for a long while. Few sims these days are a boxed product, a simple release and forget. Going gold is only a concern to a marketing department desperate to make a release date. And it is seldom a positive thing for a customer. What going gold means right now, isn't "finished", it's "the date we're marketing towards". http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/simcitys-gone-gold
Actually it does. The term going gold means, exactly that. When people talk about a product going gold, and that they are waiting for it, they are saying they are waiting for a version suitable for mass market and DVD production. Which did not happen with rF1 until ISI felt it was ready, in late 2007. I swear, I feel like I need to drill into someone's brain here to get this in... Do some reading (click expand when viewing): http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/rfactor/patch/3133.html http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/rfactor/patch/3739.html http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/rfactor/patch/8842.html http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/rfactor/patch/11304.html http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/rfactor/patch/20228.html
But this game is more like an mmo in terms of additional future content and support, they come out on dvd early It's simply just "is this beta, this is what beta is" argument all over again but Gold being the word. As Sims are going this mmo style route I still think the companies need a base to say "this is releasable form now, good enough to Go!"' For me personally we're not there yet with rf2, black mirrors, poor windscreen, jumbled sounds all indicate things that need to be fixed prior to a standard "good to go"release. That's what done mod teams are waiting for, that moment where they get the green light...as yet they haven't got it as each update breaks something previously working....rendering their work in limbo, ok maybe the last update was the one but certainly not in January.
I didn't say it wasn't like an MMO, or that it was. I was talking about those waiting for something that isn't going to happen, or isn't going to happen how they are defining it. Yes it is. It's not getting old yet? You're still doing it. I'm really trying to explain that it is what it is. Waiting for something to fulfill a defined word that has been placed on it, that it's never going to be, is silly - and a waste of your own time waiting. And that's why I'm saying what I'm saying. Why? Why do companies need that? Why do customers need that? ISI are developing their product fine. If a customer needs to be told to purchase a product by a company, there's no surprise people buy games they don't want. I want people to make their own mind up, thanks. Am I missing something there? If we say it's ready, but there's no oval racing, do you think we're feature complete to an oval racer? You define what makes rF2 ready (like you are doing). The word "gold" doesn't. It's that simple. Listing issues with our components within the rfmod format as released last year, which aren't a part of the core, as a basis for modders not using the core... I'm just confused by that part. (Apart from the fact that we've said they'll be fixed when released as components, which we've also said are in testing...) Can you actually tell me one mod, made by a modder, where something actually broke entirely and left their work in limbo, caused by a build? I can remember a few see-through objects... Can you even say that this didn't happen with as you said a "release ready" rFactor? (because those release notes I posted above indicate quite a few core changes which were made because they crashed modders tracks). Are you even getting this?
Yes I get it Tim, I'm trying to help you see from a Customers point of view not one of an Employee! Are you seriously saying to me that a game with serious flaws (mirrors/windscreen/sounds) is in a "releaseable" state? matter of opinion maybe but if that was my game I'd be embarassed to call it released! As for mods breaking I'm going on what others have posted elsewhere, maybe they're lying I dont know but it seems to me theres still a few waiting for the "GO!", maybe they're late and the last build was "the one" I dont know I'm just expressing my points as a customer and trying (see failing!) to make you see it from my/some others point of view. I could'nt give a flying finger about GOLD or DVD, but TO ME this game is not at a decent stage to be considered "released" yet like you state it was back in January. Also its one thing to not have features listed in v1.0, its another to have features that are broken in v1.0
Indeed we do and have got it from day one really... People... There will be no "Gold"! It`s an ongoing project so therefor no "Gold"! It is getting a little tiring hearing people constantly mentioning "Gold" When "Gold" comes along... when rf2 goes "Gold" etc etc... There will be no "Gold" so just accept that. (Rant over...)
It's all like deja vu for me.. I've said many times (not always in here) we were past beta, we were past v1.0.. Now hopefully people will move on from here and accept what we have and what will become
Marc - it has been released. You have it. How, as an intelligent person capable of holding conversation here, are you posting that question? I'm using words to describe something. It's called released, because it has been released. If you don't consider the software whatever stage it should be, to make whatever stage you want it to be, so you can call it whatever name you need it to be, so that you can feel however, and whatever you need to feel, it doesn't change the fact that the software was released when it was released. It doesn't change the fact that it's an ongoing development. It doesn't change the fact that someone waiting for "gold" is, in my opinion at least, going to miss out on a lot of good usage, long before the rF2 software may be considered to go onto DVD (and actually be "gold" in the literal definition). I actually see the customers point of view on this. And, I haven't told anybody to purchase anything right now. We're not even marketing the product right now. What I am saying, is what I have said - that's it. I'm telling people what I am about gold, which is what the person asked about. I'm telling this person not to wait for some announcement WE ARE NEVER GOING TO GIVE. I didn't say he can't wait, I didn't say 'go buy it now!!!11' I merely stated, what I stated... *boom* (That was the sound of my head exploding).
Yeah we all know that, we've known that since day one....but newcomers won't and they will ask...time and time again
If we get rid of the terms "beta" and "gold" the problem will be gone. Those terms are meaningless anyway. When used in marketing they leave big room for interpretation. Also after the beta people expect the game to be in a "This is it!" state. I think it would have been better to avoid all these terms from the beginning. I remember Tim saying he will wait for a certain state where he thinks it is right to start the marketing for rf2. I think that point is much more important than the much desired "gold release" which everybody has his own definition of.
Right its been released, scenario: User buys a yearly subscription to a game thats released Downloads the game & content and installs Tries the 1960s at Monaco "WTF no mirrors, ok will have to drive with Virtual Mirrors"....brum brum up the hill "hmmm....missing building....I'm gonna load up the Clios thisgame seems not finished" Qualifies mid pack and goes to race "Whys my sound all distorted and that!?" Tries the Meganes "ahh this is better, eveythings fine.....gets to dusk "yeah cant see **** through my windscreen...uuummmm" Catch my drift? as a paying customer would YOU be happy with that? would YOU call it "beta"?!?! FYI I'm talking about the Released state, nothing to do with the term Gold. In Bold, that sentence right there says to me that this game is not ready yet, see "updated old content and such" from above. Seems like you're contradicting the company...the games released but you're not ready to market it yet...so in actual fact you're saying its not Ready yet
I might call it Marc from now on. No, I'm not ready to market it yet. Because it isn't ready for me to do that yet. Which is why I'm not, yet. I've not said anything different that isn't equally correct, and anything that is contradictory in my eyes. I've been saying that I'm not marketing it... What do you think that means? It's like you need me to come over and draw you a picture. You might not be trying to talk about Gold, but you have been. You replied to me when I was, because the thread was, and you keep mentioning it (although you did change the name of it to v1.0 to point out how you weren't talking about it). I'll say once more, gold would be when a product goes on DVD. If you don't care about gold, stop putting a line in the sand for the product to cross so you can consider it gold/v1.0. Everyone has a different line in the sand. When rF2 reaches mine, I'll start marketing the product.
To me the game was released to the public in late 2011 because I was able to get my hands on it. How else do you define the term "released"? I think this is the problem here, it is just a certain expectation everbody has when hearing those terms and the sim now clearly doesn't match yours.
No worries Tim, my statement wasn't meant so bad. But please try to understand from the customer view. We have to struggle since 15 Month with a rain-feature which don't have spray or raindrops on the windshield, just for example. There are bugs on some Content which aren't fixed since release. And it isn't so that we get so many new content instead of this. You tell us you licence this great thing here and this there, but when i see how rarely we get new tracks or cars or content updates from ISI i wonder when all these things will come? And as long as the assortment of ISI-Content isn't so lush, the patience of some users or me isn't that big. That's why i made this cheeky remark, previously.
