Absolutely! Art made some good points, considering those of us actually on these forums are a small, self-selected group of the RRRE users (and very few potential users). But whenever I've written about the negatives with RRRE, I'm really hoping Sector3 is listening. Some things should probably be changed, and it'd be great if Sector3 was involved in these discussions and learning more about what might be keeping user numbers down from the actual users. Also, just because I'm a user of the product, doesn't mean I have no insight into what keeps people away. These are the same things that kept me away initially and now have me thinking twice before buying another pack of vrp to get more content. I had grabbed 10000 vrp before the recent Summer sale and bought all the packs. Now, I'm reluctant to get more. Anyway, here are some aspects to RRRE that concern me (and I love the game -- I'm only listing these so that forum readers, and especially Sector3, can see what one user finds troublesome ): always online requirement (that is a big one, simply because I don't want to lose my investment) strange FFB behavior at center, while driving straight (G25 - I get that "driven", back and forth feel on straights, more at high speed) certainly the whole vrp and purchase model (It is NOT the cost. I'm OK with that. I've spent much more on iRacing, for example.) a separate place to buy vrp at bigger discounts than in the standard RaceRoom store no increasing, permanent discount for users as their owned content increases - I know there are discounts on different packs of vrp, but I'm at a point where I've used up my first 10000 vrp, but think to buy all of the remaining content would only be a few thousand vrp. I tend to want the best deal , so do I buy a 10000 pack again and then hope Sector3 gives me enough content to use it all or buy a smaller pack and get a reduced discount? iRacing handles this better, I think, by providing a larger discount as you own more content. the store bug that will only give you the "owned content" discount if it's already in your account, rather than side-by-side in your cart - I think this is a pretty big problem, since it's not clearly stated and obviously unfair if a user doesn't already know about it. My understanding is that you have to buy all of your content one at a time to get the proper discounts. BETA status? - This one is new to me. I keep hearing this from users on the forums, that the game is still in BETA (often stated as a kind of "well, the game's not done or fully released yet, so cut them some slack"). However, is that made clear anywhere, beyond perhaps the non 1.x version number? I never knew that when I first bought some DLC on Steam and then continued buying here on RaceRoom. If that's true, it sure seems it ought to be made much clearer. So, please remember, I really enjoy driving this game. I'm only stating the problems, as I see them, in the hopes that Sector3 is listening.
Initially there was a "beta" stamp on the loading screen as well as the steam store page, like these but those are indeed gone. Since then it's just an assuption that that is still the case as there was no official lift of that status flag. Oh, and this of course:
I wondered about that, I knew they used to be there but didn't recall seeing them in a while. If the game is in Beta I think it should be pretty clearly labeled both on Steam and on the game screens themselves. I often see complaints or questions on these boards that probably wouldn't exist if everyone knew that R3E was still in Beta mode. Oh, who am I kidding, people will always find something to complain about.
At work we deal with a company that makes self-inking stamps, I'll get one on order and ship it to Sonat so he can com by and stamp all of our monitors with "BETA".
To clarify my earlier comments, I'm certainty not suggesting that the business model shouldn't be discussed. And I didn't say that the comments of users on this board are "irrelevant" -- I said "not very relevant." But I'll admit that even that is probably too strong a choice of words. It would have been better to say "less relevant than those of the people who we would like to be using the sim but are not." Yes, I hope Sector 3 does listen to the people on this board. But, I also hope that they are monitoring other boards and getting a sense of why more people aren't playing, directly from the horses mouths. My point is simply this: in the many incarnations of this discussion, I see many posts that essentially say that the business model isn't really a major issue, that the pricing structure (and amounts) is very reasonable, etc. (perhaps those voices are fewer and less vocal than I am recalling) -- yet, in discussions that include the people who are NOT playing this sim (but who are interested in sims like this more generally), those issues come up repeatedly as things that are keeping them away. The ratio of people who find those to be problematic seems much higher outside of this board than in discussions that take place on this board among people who have already decided that the sim is worth at least tolerating these other things. To whatever extent the business model seems like an issue in the discussions that occur on this board, I am of the firm opinion that they are even more of a factor among the very people we (and presumably s3) would like to be customers but are not. Ultimately, my comments largely stem from increasing (and hopefully misplaced) pessimism about the future of this sim. Like others on here, I think its a great sim (overall, its my current favorite). But, it just doesn't seem to be gaining traction. Even with a small team, I wonder how long they can keep things going with the current trajectory. These business model discussions pop up again and again, and it just starts to feel like groundhog day. Nothing substantial changes, the same conversations recur and play out in much the same way as the last times. It sometimes feels to me like we're whistling past the graveyard. I'd love to be wrong about this, and hope the future for R3E is brighter than I fear.
Agreeing with many points. Don't think we are in a graveyard situation however. The reason is that s3s seems well embedded with the licensed championships and seem to have good connections (see the Tilke thing). The way I see it is that R3E is the only "official" promoter for a lot of those racing series. Which is good advertisment for those as well, raceroom/s3s will be putting up their booths at the various events... So that + the community we have should keep things going. But I second that "growing" is another story. It is a bit concerning that Jay left in that regard... but maybe all the important series they wanted to go for are there and established, and now it's time to polish the game around it... There needs to come some big move/change, that gathers attention of many people and leads them to actually try the game again and it's attractive enough to stay. And we simply live in the (longish) transition phase, where the "rebuild" the game internals for the game they intended. If I was them and "stretched" I would keep going as is and not risk wasting the one big splash they can probably make again, until all the major concerns are dealt with. All content must be on the same level of polish (vehcile classes...). Like someone suggested a re-brand/re-launch of the prduct with some bigger changes (whatever they are, pure speculation doesn't matter). And that should be bigger content/feature that they are not disclosing until then. So that it doesn't feel like a predicted update. There must be some "aha" effect that gets people's attention, even within the R3E user-base. The current mode is too much like the usual business (which is fine for now and the progress is of course appreciated) to really suck new people in.
pixeljetstream, I'm sure your right that the various partnerships they've cultivated will buy them some time, even if the user base is smaller than we'd like to see. But, in the long run, I suspect that their partners will want to see a large enough user base to make it worth their while from an advertising/awareness perspective. So, it may help defer the issue while they continue to develop, but I think it ultimately has to be addressed one way or another if it is to succeed long-term. I agree with your notion that a big re-release of sorts could be a good way to go; one that bundles together a number of fairly substantial updates/changes (perhaps including a revised sales model), and perhaps even a new name (e.g., GTR3, Race16, etc.). Perhaps something like that could help it get a fresh start in the eyes of those that have yet to come on board. IMO, that would be worth putting up with a small user base, small-ish incremental updates, and the current business model for while, if it ultimately leads to brighter days ahead.
Relaunch under a new branding is literally impossible for R3E as you need to re-negotiate all the license in the game which is just way too much work and money for S3, according to Jay Ekkel a couple months ago. I think, perhaps moving everything to Steam and detach the legacy Simbin era server architecture(like always online) would be a better move, considering the game already needs Steam to run and Steam provides pretty much everything R3E needs, including a microtrasaction store feature(that is similar to the current R3E store) that is recently added for those who wants to buy content separately and also the much needed offline mode. Then, as seen in recent months where more and more packs are appearing on Steam, like DTM2015 and WTCC 2014, I think it would be better if the other content packs like GTR2, Touring Classics or M1 Procar pack also added to Steam store as DLCs. While for us as existing users, adding a functionality of converting our existing packs and content into Steam keys would be fine too so our content can be managed by Steam, instead of R3E's always online servers. Always online had become quite a nuisance for me as sometimes I am lock out of the game because I couldnt connect to the servers to access the $100 content I bought. It just left a sour taste in my mouth as I could play majority of my Steam games without active connection just fine in single player. Essentially, I am suggesting that S3 could move it's purchase mechanics and content control to Steam as Steam does everything as well as the current R3E backend with the same efficiency if not better. Most racing games are using Steam as backend these days as even iRacing had moved there ages ago(but still using their own servers) and rFactor 2 is also moving some of their infrastructure to Steam. I guess it is cheaper to let Steam do all the backend work than running your own systems. I dont regard valve as highly as before, however, I think Steamworks will provide most solutions that R3E needs to detach the game from legacy simbin era infrastructure. It will still take a lot of work but I think the benefits of moving to Steam would be great as you get a more exposure to the large Steam community. We will still get the same game, except most features are hosted on Steam servers. R3E always seemed to have tremendous amount of potential to build a larger fanbase as the game has some pretty good content that other games doesnt have. I think it just needed more exposure, a less clunky system to access paid content and possibly a price cut to entice more people.
While that might be true ( not saying it isn't, just don't know whether the same sort of micro-transactions are possible via steam store) there's always at least one consequence to consider: No more "fake currency" means no more competitions that grant money prizes. And I suppose steam store doesn't allow for virtual currencies. Another aspect I don't know about, would the steam store be able to handle packs with overlapping content the same way the R3E store does? (Like reducing the price of a pack when you already own part of the content) Last but not least, I assume steam takes a little something of every sale made in their store?
that is why thier is a discount at the publishers website. no steam tax. using the steam system wont work, not adding discounts or similar content discounts.
So, you want to have less store exposure on Steam store by avoid Steam tax? There are some games that I backed refused to go on Steam initially because they want to avoid Steam tax which eventually they did with the game was doing much better than before. Even if you put it on Steam, you can still sell your games on your own site and Steam keys generation, afaik, it is free of charge. Steam doesnt care if you sell the game outside their store. The game is already bounded to Steamworks via download while some content packs are on sale on Steam. Moving the whole platform there would save S3 a lot of Error 503 and always online complains. I guess this game will always be the under appreciated game with this kind of fanbase.
But if the steam store doesn't offer the same kind of discounts, people will complain about being "tricked into" buying stuff there and afterwards finding out they could have gotten it cheaper. And what about my first two questions? Prizes and discount system? I guess I'll never start taking you seriously with this kind of statements, always - and seemingly deliberately - taking things out of context.
I thought for my first post on this forum you might like some input (or maybe not) from the point of view of a new user who downloaded the free game a few days ago and found the base content compelling enough to spend $70+ acquiring a decent (but nowhere near complete) roster of tracks and cars. Obviously the business model wasn't enough to put me off, but a few points of it leave a bad taste in my mouth: Microtransactions: Developers have to eat, and I like to support them for their work, but this model just makes me feel like I'm being nickel and dimed. Does anyone outside of the publisher actually think this irritating support system is a good idea? Did the publisher get some business cost/benefit analysis done? Does it put off new users? I can't answer those questions. All I can say is that at best I'll tolerate it for the sake of ongoing development, but that's it. vRP: I found the whole vRP system needlessly complicated, intimidating and confusing, and actually spent several hours forum scouring and googling until I could work out the whole steam wallet/vRP/bulk discount malarkey. I actually came very close to uninstalling out of sheer frustration. This is not a good way for a new user to a game to feel. Cost: As far as I'm concerned R3E is by far the most expensive sim with a single player component. It cost me significantly more to establish a track and vehicle roster that compares with the other titles I own. Granted, in the grand scheme of things $70 is not a lot of money compared to the hardware I've invested in, however I know I personally would have felt better just paying $70 for the game and its content up front, and a few bucks every month or two for DLC via steam. That's the system that seems to work well enough for other titles. Beta: I'd have a better feeling paying $70 for a product that wasn't a bloody beta. Something happened in the last few years that made it acceptable for unfinished games to be released at the full price of a finished product. As the consumer you get to pay in full, and have your complaints about missing and unimplemented features dismissed by developers and supporters with "what do you expect, it's a beta?!". Not that I'm saying this is the behaviour I've observed for R3E but I've sure as hell seen it elsewhere. As far as I can tell, R3E has come a long way in the last 12 months, and is an enjoyable title as it stands, but it's still far from feature complete, yet here I am paying over the odds for it via a convoluted and alienating microtransaction system. I'm really impressed with R3E. It's immersive and fun to play. Its presentation, audiovisuals and driving model are absolutely top notch. The AI, damage modelling, tyre wear/damage, pitting, flags, penalties, setups are not. S3S seem like committed and passionate devs who are aware of and working on all these things, and they shouldn't have to work for free. It's disappointing that the publisher chose an income model for them that causes so much angst to prospective and existing customers. When there's a lot of (various) quality products out there competing for fickle sim racers' wallets, making people jump through hoops to give you their money is probably not doing this game favours in the long run. PS Hi everyone.
I'm sure every constructive input is very welcome, as are you. I think you, like most other people on here, are making valid points. I don't know if you've read into the whole thing to the point where you've come across some explanations as for why things are the way they are. If not, I'd gladly mention some of them, just not now as I just returned from a trip to my grannies and I have to recover from hours of racial stereotyping. Looking forward to meeting on track sometime maybe.
Cheers mate. I've lurked for a few days doing a lot of reading to try acquaint myself with the sim, the developers and the history, but obviously I can only get so much perspective in that time. As my Gran once told me, "You can help what you think but you can't help what you feel". So I just put my feelings down, I'm not trying to pass off my opinions as facts! Really looking forward to seeing how this enjoyable and promising game develops over the next while, business model notwithstanding. Thanks again Christian.
If that's how you feel about it, then that's how you feel about it and it's good that you've come here to let the devs (and us) know. And I'm not trying to say that the reasons I've heard over the years I've been involved in this project should be taken as the only truth or an overwhelming justification for how things are. I'm rather just mentioning them to give a different perspective and show what the reasoning might have been. F.e. one of the main reasons for using vRP are the competitions that grant prize "money". It wouldn't be possible to have such competitions with real money cause that would be considered gambling in many countries and - if not prohibited straight away - would require to exclude people below the legal age for gambling.