Oh dear another one.

[Calvyn White]

Removed no longer relevant.

 

[Emerson Meyer]

Based on what? Your crystal ball that details alternate realities when different directions were taken?

The same crystal ball that you use to say that the current reallity is the best one from ever possible alternative.

Anyway, according to your vision, this sim is a success... and nothing needs to change... (the numbers from steam charts don't confirm that though...)

 

[natedogg1867]

Well, I think there is actually. While you are entirely correct in the points you are making about funding, the fact is that this business model has not always existed and nor is it particularly common. Plenty of other games out there are still supported without having a content store to fund them. Some are supported with free content patches funded by the games actual sales, others by significant DLC that are worth the relatively low cost. There are other ways of doing things and R3E could have used them.

I think that is still going around in circles here, and outside the scope of this thread now

The free to play business model is an entirely different discussion.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Kunos would have canned development on AC long ago if they never charged for dlc... And that's with being the most popular sim that has sold the most copies.

Adding to that, if you as a company expect future sales bring your old content that people already paid for up to the current standard, as the DTM 1992 cars still feel like they drive on rails, especially compared to the latest cars. Why would I spend money on content and expect it to be kept updated if you have shown to be negligent in this regard in the past?

Look at it this way. If you buy something, you are buying it as it is at the moment of purchase. You are not buying something based on speculation of how it might be different in the future.

You are not promised any improvements, or overhauls to how the car drives. Now whether it would be in the interest of the business to update something... that's another matter.

Anyway, according to your vision, this sim is a success... and nothing needs to change... (the numbers from steam charts don't confirm that though...)

Actually they do... RR has been increasing in players for a while now and recently just hit it's most ever concurrent players. Sure it's not as many as AC, but no other game is.

Hardly trending downwards...

 

[UMC 22]

as the DTM 1992 cars still feel like they drive on rails

Not sure what game you're playing bud, but our regular club events using those cars show that they're anything but on rails.

The same crystal ball that you use to say that the current reallity is the best one from ever possible alternative.

Anyway, according to your vision, this sim is a success... and nothing needs to change... (the numbers from steam charts don't confirm that though...)

Given that I never said anything close to either of those things, it seems clear you're the type that likes to put words in people's mouths. That being the case, I bow out of this discussion.

 

[Gevatter]

Look at it this way. If you buy something, you are buying it as it is at the moment of purchase. You are not buying something based on speculation of how it might be different in the future.

You are not promised any improvements, or overhauls to how the car drives. Now whether it would be in the interest of the business to update something... that's another matter.

Look at it this way. You buy a piece of content in its current state, like you said. Then over the years, more and more content is released which receives improved physics models as they are developed. You see that other devs do the same, but they also update their old content to match the quality of the new. I know I'm not promised updates, but like I said I also know that other developers can deliver them and keep their content on the same level, updating it along the way when new features are introduced like for example the tire model updates in AC or AMS. That in my mind raises the question why the R3E devs (or the publisher) can't or don't want to do that with their content, which btw I didn't receive with the game or buy in a mixed DLC pack, but specifically bought because I specifically wanted to drive it because it exists in no other sim. When all the content felt the same it was another story, because I now know how it could feel - but doesn't - so I don't have much desire to ever drive them. This is disappointing to me.

And of course content within the same game will be compared in terms of quality and features. Having differences in terms of the physics model within the same sim makes it inconsistent, which in turn makes me (personally) hesitant to play it, spend money on it or recommend it to others.

Not sure what game you're playing bud, but our regular club events using those cars show that they're anything but on rails.

Well, bud, I can only attest to my latest experience from two days ago, where I test drove the new 1995 DTM Mercedes, which feels great. I could feel road bumps and noise, I felt the car slide over the front or rear wheels, etc. Much much fun to be had. Then I drove the 1992 DTM Mercedes on the same track layout used for test drives, and it felt just flat. The road noise was gone, bumps were muted, the only thing you really felt was the kerbs (without Kerb Effects). The car felt very grippy and just didn't tell me what its wheels where doing half the time. You can tell the two cars are on very different physics models. Same with the updated GT3 cars compared to the not updated GT2 cars. If you don't mind that, that's fine, but I do.

 

[Emerson Meyer]

As I say, I'm happy with R3E and am in no particular rush for the features it currently lacks. That said, how many more people would be playing if they'd sorted the core simulation out first and focused on content only after it was finished?

I hate being repetitive...

 

[Calvyn White]

I take it all back. I given this car a few more hours and I'm actually beginning to like it.