Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Woodee, Mar 19, 2016.
Ok, Saw it in RD. Nothing new about VR!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you Tim for doing the Q&A and also expanding here - the info may already be out there in the main but it is hard to keep track and remember all the bits you see here and there so it is a useful refresh for us, and I think a good thing for ISI (in theory anyway) as despite the mini storm going on now I think the refresh does serve to keep expectations in check longer term.
Intentionally or not there seems to be a "the end is in sight" feeling to the interview (with regards to RF2) which was a bit of a surprise, to me at least - I suppose I felt RF2 was still winding up not winding down, however slow that winding down may be. Would it be fair to conclude that catering for the hardcore (but very small) sim racing community quite as much as you do currently is simply not financially sustainable and that there will need to be some concessions to broaden the appeal for "not RF3"? [the gulf between hardcore sim and simcade titles has perhaps never been wider than at the moment in terms of revenues]
I think it is worth pointing out that even if "not RF3" made some simcade concessions and kept ISI afloat, but RF2 remained the best hardcore and moddable sim, then this is still a positive situation for RF2 users, as RF2 could live on for a long time with the kind of community support that kept GPL going in addition to basic developer support from ISI. The alternative being ISI go down in flames with RF2 and there is no developer support at all.
So true, its a plague thats affected the entire gaming community for years now. Its mind boggling that people would get that upset about something thats supposed to be relaxing and enjoyed.
Thanks for taking the time and answering all those questions on a weekend.
You've sort of summed up what I'm thinking, I do have a bit of a sad feeling and it's probably just the oodles of posts from grumpy users.
In agreement as well, if this new project can sustain the rf2 development, that would be perfect. I just dread to see the development slow down after having such a great pace over the last year or so.
It won't use the DLC option that is provided by Steam as that is designed to be used for only a few DLC items which are provided by the publisher (ISI). It also won't use the workshop directly, as Valve experimented with paid items there and when they launched it for a game called Skyrim, got so much backlash from the community that they disabled that feature altogether. How it will work exactly is something that is probably best disclosed and explained when we are ready to launch paid mods. Third parties will be able to leverage this. In other words, modding groups can make money providing (high quality) mods. I am personally still hoping someone will do a licensed version of current Le Mans as I would definitely pay for that myself!
I'm sorry but justifying the lack of interest on developing dirt pickup, damage etc. just because "you shouldn't be off-track or crashing" it's like racing series suddenly decide not to put marshals, tire bundles or catch fences, 'cause, you know, no one should be crashing!
I understand this thinking looking at a team simulator perspective, their point is gather driving information, not simulate race conditions. But for a consumer product? It seems a little odd, and actually incoherent as you at the same time manage to develop top-level AI and MP code.
But, it's your product right?
Is there (or will there be) a form of copy protection that could be used for paid mods for RF2? Without that I can't see modding groups being willing to make much more investment in payware than they would for freeware.
Try reading everything that has been discussed here again. Its not lack of interested.
Reading comprehension skills are at an all time low.
Justification would be required if we'd ever confirmed it would happen and backed out. We aren't doing it, we don't want to do it, and we think it's something that will make little difference if it was done. Seems like you selected part of my answer so you could act out. I'm fairly certain we've never said we were going to do pickup. It certainly would have been nice to have by now, but then - as stated - so would damage. If we end up doing it, woohoo, but comparing it to what you did seems a bit silly.
How about from a 'waste of our development time compared to other things we can be doing for rF2 that people will actually feel when driving more than a single turn' perspective? Because that's what my reply was talking about.
What I mean is effectively like 3PA, workshop for most, but there will be some that just isn't going to happen unless we offer someone DLC revenue. It'd go out as our content (like 3PA pretty much does).
That's exactly the kind of thing, I don't have a Le Mans license, but there are some pretty cool cars that I'm not sure I can wait for anymore. I thought for a while about buying in mods we like as content, but that goes too slow, so the other way around might work where we use folks like contractors.
Have to give ISI credit for sticking to their guns on the subject of selling their mods. rF2 is a heck of a deal for all the content you get IMO.
I've started to feel just lately that if you repackaged rF2, called it Indy 500 - The Simulation (teehee) and made sure it had a proper ruleset with just the correct oval config, the indy oval and the rules, you'd get more positive reception that rF2 gets covering what it does, how it does. Then repeat the process first-party for each segment we've attempted to support modding in. Watch the $$$ roll in like you're COD or EA Sports.
While the data isn't there, what would be stopping the artists from having the models started and somewhat ready to go, in the pipeline? In the rF2 universe, URD and ASR pump out stunning looking stuff and that could allow for leveraging ~4 people doing different cars from the same series. Then have stand-in values for parameters, and whenever hard data comes in, plug away.
What about dirt tracks/cars? We've seen at least 1 off-road car and an amazing track with cactuses in the early teaser photos. Can we expect those in the lifespan of rF2?
The reality is that there is so much content licenced that there are years worth of new stuff to be made. Years and years.
There is no question that had ISI released the Stock car content as a stand alone "Stock Car Factor" with the cars, tracks, and rule set in one package the purchasers of the content would be singing your praises. However, given the somewhat high expectations of rF2 and what it offers (and doesn't) those who dont race ovals and stock cars couldn't care less. I've personally been having a great tiem with the stock car content and have found a new respect for the people who race in this series.
BTW, for those of you who are complaining due to a lack of series based content, the Stock car content is a ready made series. Just add drivers.
I been saying it a few years.
Maybe something to look at for next title Mr.T . p
As long as people know another quality series is following I think the format could work.
Not just proper rule set either, each release honed to the representative series in features, garage settings and menus. etc
I think licences and ratings could be way to go too.
Then people are more pre-occupied with that rather then driving 1,000 car and track combos.
On modding AMS has broken the gmotor mold I think.
Already people are openly dissing any straight conversion that lack all AMS features.
That sort of thing never happened in other gmotor to gmotor because there were no features to replicate.
Now there are. ( Patrick's Bathurst is lovely ............pity AMS is too grippy , hope they fix that )
I'm just shocked by how the speech changed lately.
I've been following this forum since near Day 1 of rFactor2, and if you search you'll see I've never been the bashing type of guy, quite the opposite.
My comparison needed to be silly to make my point. Of course it's exaggerated, but you'll agree that your reasoning was kinda like this. During the past 4 years, you guys stood proudly by a lot of (cool) features that totally goes out of the "actually feel when driving more than a single turn' perspective" scope. So, answering a valid question, regarding a not so out-of-mind feature like "we won't do 'cause you shouldn't go there" it's just the easy-way-out.
I'm not even saying that you should or should not do any feature, I know it doesn't work like that. But you guys used to justify (and discuss) things way better back then.
Nothing stops that, and usually doesn't. I didn't mention the 3D of it. Notice the lack of cars coming compared to tracks? That's largely a data backlog.
Separate names with a comma.