Sim Racing: The Big Mid Season Review - Part 1

This thread was good until ISIS fanboys came up.:thumbsup:

ISI fanboys?sounds familiar, bit tired of seeing that thrown around as some kind of point, not sure how you came to that conclusion when you are arguing which ISI based game is better ha, its same with AMS, how can ppl praise AMS in same breath as bagging ISI, the studio thats provided the base to 80 per cent of these great sims.

Can the intelligent users come back now?:)
Oh I see you have won the argument, you doing great things with this thread.

While I tend to agree with you about people crying over trivial costs in sim racing. I still would like to to see costs kept low because not everyone has 1000's of dollars of equipment and I like big grids.:)

Ha, I put myself in the cheap arse group, Im a Scot mate, we invented copper wire fighting over a penny with the dutch:),Kunos should really allow DLC owners to play with non owners, with exception of tracks of course.
 
Last edited:
Kunos should really allow DLC owners to play with non owners, with exception of tracks of course.
Is debatable. That's just giving the message to the players that you shouldn't buy the dlcs for yourself because you can race with what you have just in the base game. So the work and investment they put in the dlc can fall short.
So if you want to play the game, want to play with or against new content, then you should also contribute to the investment the devs had to put to produce the cars and track.
 
Is debatable. That's just giving the message to the players that you shouldn't buy the dlcs for yourself because you can race with what you have just in the base game. So the work and investment they put in the dlc can fall short.
So if you want to play the game, want to play with or against new content, then you should also contribute to the investment the devs had to put to produce the cars and track.

That's only valid concern if you think your DLC might not be worth the price..
 
Last edited:
Is debatable. That's just giving the message to the players that you shouldn't buy the dlcs for yourself because you can race with what you have just in the base game. So the work and investment they put in the dlc can fall short.
So if you want to play the game, want to play with or against new content, then you should also contribute to the investment the devs had to put to produce the cars and track.
Anti consumer tripe. If I buy the base game I have no choice because the people who put the servers up have to cater to the community and if you put up some but not all of the content in servers then you're missing the community. If you don't buy all but only some of the content then you're excluded pretty randomly from servers.

Nonsense all around. The message being sent is that if you want to play online you have to drop cash on nearly every DLC pack. It would be different if these packs were purely themed, like GT3 packs, F1 packs, etc. The spread of different types of car into every pack ensures you're basically going to have buy everything to connect to servers.

Screw that.
 
Look it this way, why would Kunos make an effort to license and make all these cars and tracks if people can just play with base content against new? Then you're investing too much for possible little return as people won't find a reason to get the new content when you can easily just let others buy it and still race against new cars.

It would be different if these packs were purely themed, like GT3 packs, F1 packs, etc. The spread of different types of car into every pack ensures you're basically going to have buy everything to connect to servers.
Making single series packs is risky business, specially for AC that is a general sim without a specific racing theme. You're limiting a lot by dividing people's taste in classes.
Having different cars in the same dlc compensates for cars that potentially can't sell as much individually as the big names of motorsport but can be as much or even more enjoyable to drive than the big names.
 
@Moderators

Can we please not have "sad" or "haha" post ratings? This is very simple. With those kind of ratings people are just making fun of what others say, it feels like personal attack and doesn't incite any following discussion. However if you have a "disagree" rating it means someone doesn't agree with your arguments. But this way you're just having people making fun of what you said, and unfortunately to everyone that reads posts already rated with haha or sad remains with the wrong idea even before trying to understand what was written.

These ratings are the same from Facebook, but aren't adequate for a forum discussion. Those ratings are adequate for facebook because there sad and haha have different meaning. You give haha when something is funny, or sad when actually someone posted something emotional. But in a forum sad and haha are used wrongly and feels like those who rated your post that way are mocking you. According to any forum guidelines, personal attacks or mocking people aren't exactly advised. But sad and haha are used that way over here, contrary to their purpose when Facebook introduced them.
Even the ratings angry and wow feel inadequate for a forum discussion. Angry and Wow are emotional ratings adequate for when someone expresses their emotions on the Facebook wall.
 
Look it this way, why would Kunos make an effort to license and make all these cars and tracks if people can just play with base content against new?
Because they respect their loyal customers enough to not manipulate them into buying something they might not want to buy?

If you have to manipulate people to buy something you made by making it so that their existing investment loses value everytime a new pack is released if they don't own it then they shouldn't be making any DLC in the first place, and lets be honest here we all know there are oodles of people buying everything day 1 so the money isn't the issue. This isn't about insecurity on their part, its simply callous business sense.

In fact the more successful the DLC is the more my existing Assetto Corsa products lose value in terms of playing multiplayer because fewer and fewer servers will host content I own. That's simply cynical unfair nonsense.

Your only logic apparently boils down to as long as its in pursuit of money its a-okay.
 
Of course is money related, this isn't cheap to make. So you have to take decisions with your business in mind otherwise you risk future content and updates in the medium-long run.

The only place makes sense to race against cars you don't own is in iracing style game. There you buy every piece of content. Iracing isn't risking much by producing and selling piece by piece. But the risk is higher when you make dlc packs.

In fact the more successful the DLC is the more my existing Assetto Corsa products lose value in terms of playing multiplayer because fewer and fewer servers will host content I own. That's simply cynical unfair nonsense.
There are several servers that run daily and are populated enough with just base content. 458 gt2, formula tatuus abarth, 458 and m3 gt2, bmw m3 e30, toyota gt86.

There was someone in the AC forum that suggested to demo the dlc cars before buying. Do you know what this means? It means that people will try them for a couple laps and instead say they want to keep their 5-10€. But when people pay money for something more likely they will put more use to what they purchased, and in different forms they thought initially. Demos often result in unnecessary lost sales. Specially when you already know how the cars in AC drive and look, because you already sampled the game when you bought it, so you are familiar with devs work.

You can't have only the dedicated and highly interested people in buying dlc packs. You also need players mildly interested in the content to purchase so that it compensates the costs and investment for future content-updates. Otherwise what will happen is the rfactor2, automobilista, raceroom effect. Only the highly interested people will buy and this translates in low amount of sales. Which is a disadvantage for those who actually purchased those sims, they often don't have enough people to race against and the company has less means to expand and improve the game, or even to plan a new one.
 
@P*Funk I have to add one more thing that is important to this discussion.
The software was only designed to load content that you own. Which means they would have to rewrite things and write new to support such feature. So I think they thought about it and such project wasn't justified for a small base that would actually use this. Like they said about post processing filters, AC is with pp filters not without so they always plan for the game and car textures to look good with pp enabled. Which makes me deduce that AC is race with and against content that you own.
Personally, I'd rather they spend time working on more important things for the racing experience for offline and online than take such project to make it possible to race against content you don't own on Steam.
 
Because they respect their loyal customers enough to not manipulate them into buying something they might not want to buy?

If you have to manipulate people to buy something you made by making it so that their existing investment loses value everytime a new pack is released if they don't own it then they shouldn't be making any DLC in the first place, and lets be honest here we all know there are oodles of people buying everything day 1 so the money isn't the issue. This isn't about insecurity on their part, its simply callous business sense.

In fact the more successful the DLC is the more my existing Assetto Corsa products lose value in terms of playing multiplayer because fewer and fewer servers will host content I own. That's simply cynical unfair nonsense.

Your only logic apparently boils down to as long as its in pursuit of money its a-okay.
That dude will never get your point mate.
It's pretty clear the amount of "free to play" games going on now should be a message to sim racing. I'm not saying they should make it free to play, but the DLC thing really shouldn't be forced like AC is doing (at least not with the current packs). P CARS did just fine with their model.
I think this would be a huge benefit for online racing in AC
To make clear: I don't have problem with DLC and to me they could cost a bit more, It bothers me we are paying for so much work the same it costs for a pic full of photoshop from a random "cosplayer" :whistling:
 
Last edited:
Watch the numbers drop in the Automobilista club when they start selling DLC. Further division. For those of us that use these sims for online multiplayer only, this is becoming a wilderness.
 
@Radu Oros You're like the kind of guy who defends those misleading movie trailers that make people buy tickets to movies that they don't actually want to see.

Let me bottom line it for you. Sim racers are a niche world. Fracturing the community via big DLC packs is bad for us even if you can say its good for the developer. Its the same old story that played out with AAA shooters and those map packs. You buy the pack not because you want the maps but because you don't want to be fractured out of the main body of the online community.
 
@Radu Oros You're like the kind of guy who defends those misleading movie trailers that make people buy tickets to movies that they don't actually want to see.

Let me bottom line it for you. Sim racers are a niche world. Fracturing the community via big DLC packs is bad for us even if you can say its good for the developer. Its the same old story that played out with AAA shooters and those map packs. You buy the pack not because you want the maps but because you don't want to be fractured out of the main body of the online community.
So what conclusion can I take from your post, that AC shouldn't charge for cars or tracks? And what's the reality for the aaa shooters nowadays, how are they doing it? Can you propose a solution which benefits both devs investment in producing dlcs and those who don't buy the dlcs to be fair for them in terms of online fracturing?
 
I always laugh at everyone slamming RF2's pricing model, it is the model, 12 bucks a year, your either in or out. No decision to be made on which car or track is most popular. Just in or out.
 
Watch the numbers drop in the Automobilista club when they start selling DLC. Further division. For those of us that use these sims for online multiplayer only, this is becoming a wilderness.
I think won't be a issue if they sell each piece separate, especially the tracks. Problem with DLC is that they are a pack with stuff you won't use (in this case a P CARS model works better), that's not cool. Or when they are nice you end up paying twice for the same stuff (Like Sector 3 steam packs...)
 
So if I don't want to buy a track cause I've raced it in 3 other sims, do you think I will buy it because RD will use it once every 4 months? In a club race. :) Probably not. I'll just wait till next week.
 

Latest News

What's needed for simracing in 2024?

  • More games, period

  • Better graphics/visuals

  • Advanced physics and handling

  • More cars and tracks

  • AI improvements

  • AI engineering

  • Cross-platform play

  • New game Modes

  • Other, post your idea


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top