What would you do??? Paying people to join rF2 servers or what????? Youre kidding, or what?? Do you want to tell us that rF1 is better than rF2??? What does this mean? Too old for hard sim???? I tell you something: Even arcade titles like Gran Tourismo climb up at the ladder of simulation! You can´t escape! The computer power will be used in the one or other way. So get used to the fact that especially racing sims will be more complex, lifelike and advanced. Or go to Need for Speed..... (noone hopes that this will happen!(empty servers...) If the development in the 90´s was interesting for you, THIS development TODAY must be much much more interesting for you!! I don´t understand you. Isn´t it also a matter of technical interest? Greets Pete
I have personally tried to guide a couple of non-hardcore simracers into using rF2 and they all find it a difficult process getting to play online. At the moment there is no 24/7 server that would offer ISI content only - in my opinion this is a must in order to get the causal players online. I think it's fair to say that the average user won't spend hours searching online for a set of modded tracks in order to join, he/she rather moves to play something else in that case. Maybe it was different 8 years ago with rFactor, but back then there wasn't platforms like iRacing that offered everything "plug and play". I think improving the usability (including the UI) would pay off quite quickly in increased numbers of online racers, I'd really like to see some improvement in this area.
For the average user, yes, and by far. Solid multiplayer, tons of mods and tracks, much better visuals/performance ratio, much easier to use... The new (but unfinished) new features aren't enough. Don't trust me if you don't want, but at least look what are most leagues doing... or compare the online activity of both games.
Isn´t it a matter of user driven servers?? I mean: It´s not ISI´s fault, is it? If you want it, go on and open up a server with only ISI content if you like! Isn´t any problem, is it? Maybe the most server hosters want too much.... So complain to THEM! There was already the suggestion that ISI fire up an own server, and Tim said that it would be possible...later... But the main thing is: ISI is not responsible for the servers that are online! (and neither for not working getmod-function) Remember that. Greets Pete
What would the graph look like when talking about rF1 server activity? I'm sure that as the old generation of sims gets older and the new one keeps evolving as it does (superior in many aspects and getting better), the majority population will move on to the newer sims, like from rF1 to rF2 etc... What ever the reason that the transition to the 'new and shiny' isnt always happening as soon as the 'new and shiny' is released (Timmy mentioned few estimates I believe), the transition will happen. You can see this behavioral pattern in mmorpg's for example, which are great indicators of how folks like their entertainment and when.
I mentioned a while ago something about ISI having a few servers up of their own, I fully agree with this point. A handful of servers with ISI tracks and cars, sometimes mixing cars (much like endurance), would go a long way into helping this. Imagine one server with FIA F2s, another with Méganes and Clios, another with the Nissan GTR/370z/Camaro/Corvette, another with the historic Formula cars, and another with the Howstons, all cycling through a handful of appropriate tracks.
meanwhile my extended online playtime (because i´m a earlier buyer of this product, when it was only "beta" and now not) is wasted in empty servers because rf1 (6 years old plataform) still better than rf2 (an 2 years old plataform)...
Do not start your own business. Regards your "version for modders" link: Notice: This is an old thread and information may be out of date. The last post was 599 days ago. Please consider making a new thread. Typical, arrogant non-response. Disgusting. We stay loyal, wait 2 years - yet such a question is 'badgering'. Well excuse me, but you clearly don't volunteer ****. For all your excuses, you still haven't even bothered to answer. Are you admitting that you (as a company), are playing off rf1 against rF2? Because that is what your responses sound like. That leaves us - here - in the lurch. For how long? You go on about $25m budget holes in OTHER companies. But what we want to know - really - is when YOU are going to MARKET THIS. As opposed to smug responses. Maybe their forum rep is not helping with PR. Opening up an ISI run server (or two) seems like the most basic of requests (I notice it worded above as "would really help us") - but it seems to me that getting ISI (Tim?) to lift a finger away from some pre-determined secret path, is far too much to expect for paying subscribers. Sorry, but in the history of my experience with representatives and PR of private companies, in a capitalist (supposedly) free-market economy, I have NEVER come across a company with such a bad attitude towards their own private community of supporters. It is like we are PRIVILEGED to be here, as opposed to being requested to please pay and play. EDIT: Correction. EA have been worse, but they have so much money they don't care. You have so much money you don't care? Because if THIS is your public face - and what passes for 'marketing' - it is no wonder the game is barren of subscribers. No subscribers = project failure and fold....just so you know.
Does rFactor 1 out sell rFactor 2? How strong are sales for rF1? I would have thought 8 years after release that rF1 would have very stagnant sales.
Well - assuming the continuance of this current attitude (e.g. OP is 'badgering' and doesn't deserve a response) - the chickens will certainly come home to roost once they begin requesting repayment from the current subscribers. These subscribers are currently keeping the project afloat. Not in a financial sense - but buying new software - and finding no one in the world is playing - is not the best PR. Empty servers are what define dead software. The greatest software in the world is useless if people don't use it. You cannot blame anyone or anything else for this. It is ISI's problem and responsibility - solely. These people have a right to ask: What will I be getting? Same barren servers? Will ISI continue to sell their old software (rF1) at the cost of the new (rF2)? How long must we wait for ISI to actively promote rF2, so we can actually have people to drive with (say, by ending sales of rF1)? Will it be the same pace, regards new, functional updates (as opposed to bug fixing and the odd track/car additions)? Maintaining rF1 sales as a cash-cow, while failing to market rF2, is unquestionably a disservice to current subscribers to rF2. Especially this far down the track. EDIT: Random sample of number of drivers currently driving in the world: 4. Number of non-passworded servers: 1. Yeah right, Tim. I am SO rude for asking why, and expecting an answer or solution.
Sure they are more complex now, but the actual playable content has become more scarce than when compared to even early 90's. There is no point watching and feeling "perfect" physics if you can't do anything with it. Maybe one big change is that multiplayer is overriding single player and it stagnates content development. This is also true in other video games. Racing simulators have never taken the next step and started to become also driving simulators, car fixing/tuning simulators, management simulators..., etc. Not to talk about other possible aspects. I remember playing Indianapolis 500 simulator on early 90's and thinking that some day this game is also driver simulator, garage simulator and business simulator. Still not yet, after hefty 20 years.
As of this moment: Time in London: 6:33am Time in New York: 1:33am Time in Los Angeles: 10:33pm Time in Berlin: 7:33am Just for reference.
I understand MiniBull (I am off-peak), but since we are talking in single digit numbers, it is not really relevant.
You can't market an unfinished product. You may try but you shouldn't, one of the principles of marketing is you need a product. No amount of marketing in the world can sustain a subpar (in this case W.I.P.) product therefore there's only disservice to be done if this is marketed. What needs to happen is continued, relentless investment in the development of the product, and that's the one part where I suppose we could make demands.
Add depth of field effects / increase car shadow draw distance / add motion blur / for replays. Also increase replay fidelity so we can see how great the physics are... and people will come to this sim in droves. As superficial as it may be.. graphics is the number one complaint I see all over the internet as a reason people don't want to buy it.
And not many people is going to wait 2 or 3 years with an "unfinished product" after being waiting already 2-3 years more before beta was released...
I paid for a lifetime subscription, back when money was not so tight, having played RF1 to death and presumed RF2 would have me hooked. But somewhere along the way, RF2 got fired up less and less (eg. I last started RF2 when Mores v1 was released and only drove once for ~10mins). I cannot nail the reason for this to one single thing, but it includes... I rarely have patience to drive in single player mode in any sim for more than 10mins Multiplayer only ever seemed to show just the odd server (of 50+) showing "life" and even then <5 players "Real road" takes some time to get used to, when other current generation sims like pCARS and R3E don't replicate this presently Some cars feel like they "want to kill me" with default setup from initial impressions, putting me off trying them again (but some of this could be "green" realroad) I'm not a setup guru... or anything close! I'm a bit of a sucker for nice graphics and RF2 takes some getting used to after pCARS The weekly (although daily for ~1 month) new builds of pCARS hooks me into seeing what has changed I've always tended to play one sim a lot more than other titles I have (eg. Race07 barely got a look in back in RF1 days)
