Assetto Corsa EVO: Info On Modding Tools Imminent

Michael Krone said:

Thats one side of it, and completely understandable... The other side is people expecting a little more substance and disappointed with so little. Some people think there should be a certain amount (whos to define how much) of content before you can release anything in EA.

By your theory/definition, you can call a blank disc with a title written on it that only loads a splash screen, an early access game. Would you be ok with that? No matter how much you support that developer, you probably wont pay for that.

It very much comes down to; If you dont like what you see, dont buy it yet. -Or at all.

Click to expand...

it should be pretty obvious that a game should actually be started in order to call it early access so what you said is completely beside the point.

Peter Kerényi said:

I have had every Assetto Corsa from early access day 1. I am not criticizing the handling, graphics, performance, content, because I know what early access means. I am criticizing their online system and communication, transparency. Something they admitted they "got it wrong" in yesterday's video. So please get off that high horse of yours because you are being very condescending to everyone expressing even a hint of criticism, and that is an unhealthy mindset. Early access is the time when criticism makes the most sense, as everything is WIP and more flexible to changes.

Click to expand...

no, im specifically talking to those complaining about early access while failing to understand what it means. i expect that any intelligent person who actually cares about the development of the game would take the opportunity to provide their criticism directly to the developers instead of bitching and whining about the early access in a comment section.

Storm Rider said:

I have no hate for Kunos. I have every DLC they ever released for AC1 + some ACC DLCs and I would have continued to buy every DLCs if they had continued to maintain AC1.

Click to expand...

you do realize its a small team and they cant survive financially by developing a single game for decades? if they go out of business thats worse for all of us than putting out a new game 4 years after the release of the previous one. thats twice as long or more than most games that come out and they make less money due to being very reasonably priced and selling to a very niche market. how exactly do you expect a 20 something person team (dont know the exact number but i know its small) to simultaneously develop 3 separate titles? they finished AC1, they saw it through till the end and then started a new project. if you expect more then you have some fundamental issues in your understanding of how reality works. if they go out of business we all lose.

You're clearly passionate about Kunos and trying to defend their decision, but you’ve made a few assumptions that don’t hold up and you're spamming the forum with a bunch of nonsense or things that you just think you know.

1. (Kunos) is a small team and can’t survive financially by developing a single game for decades

Click to expand...

This is not at all true and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First, being a small team means you can survive finally with less income with lower costs.

Kunos sold 28 million copies of AC1 with over $110 million in revenue.

AC1 had (and still has) a huge modding community, MP servers, leagues like LFM and a strong fan base. It continued to sell for years after release, and still does. Modders and countless others keep the game fresh, and Kunos could have monetized that popularity. Instead of jumping ship to ACC, they had taken a different path and turned ACC into a big series of AC1 (AC1.5) DLCs, to develop and sell the official "leagues infrastructure" and compete against iRacing.

Kunos could easily have taken the iRacing (2008), DCS (2008), BeamNG (2015), Euro Truck Simulator 2 (2012) approaches: continue updating a single base game with modern rendering engines, physics upgrades, and quality DLC. Plenty of studios survive (and thrive) this way, especially in niche genres like sim racing. AC1 already had a developed player base. One that was partially fragmented during the ACC transition.

2. “They finished AC1 and started a new project”

Click to expand...

“Finished” is a vague word here. Kunos dropped AC1 despite the fact that the community wasn't done with it. There was no real “sunset” moment — no final update to futureproof the game, no roadmap, no community transition plan. They just moved on. And that's their right, but let’s not pretend it was because AC1 couldn’t be maintained or wasn’t making money. During 2016, in their official forums that were strong supporters of the idea of Kunos to develop AC1 into a platform to compete against iRacing. IMO, Kunos made the mistake of assuming that they could do better with less and create a "new" game with off-the-shelf game engine to do so. That's when ACC was created. And it failed twice. Once by fragmenting their playerbase and twice by failing to compete against iRacing.

Also, let’s not ignore that continuing to sell content to an established player base is far less riskier and resource-intensive than starting over with a new game, and potentially fragmenting the community.

4. “They’re a small team, how do you expect them to do 3 titles?”

Click to expand...

Nobody asked for 3 simultaneous titles. What people like me are saying is: Kunos had a goldmine in AC1, and they abandoned it prematurely. They could’ve continued developing it, releasing paid DLC, and even a paid physics/engine upgrade as AC “1.5” or “AC2” and carrying over the old contenet, maybe even re-selling the old content with a fresh new cover of paint. The game’s modular nature made that viable. Just look at how much it was improved by CSP. (Weather, Day-Night cycles, optimizations, AI, FFB, Physics..)

Gradually evolving a base product over time rather than starting over every few years, builds trust and longevity.

5. “If they go out of business we all lose”

Click to expand...

That’s a dramatic and inaccurate leap. Kunos wasn’t going out of business — they had a top-selling sim on Steam with 92% positive reviews, with constant community engagement and huge sales spikes during seasonal events and DLC launches. It is still sold to this day. Even with a small team, that’s sustainable if you actually support and grow the product you already have.

6. Bottom Line:
They didn’t have to abandon AC1. They chose to, and that was a missed opportunity.

If you think that expecting continued support for a beloved and successful game means I “don’t understand reality,” then you’re not seeing the bigger picture of how game studios survive and grow. Plenty do it by sticking with — and evolving — a single game for the long haul.

Storm Rider said:

You're clearly passionate about Kunos and trying to defend their decision, but you’ve made a few assumptions that don’t hold up and you're spamming the forum with a bunch of nonsense or things that you just think you know.

This is not at all true and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First, being a small team means you can survive finally with less income with lower costs.

Kunos sold 28 million copies of AC1 with over $110 million in revenue.

AC1 had (and still has) a huge modding community, MP servers, leagues like LFM and a strong fan base. It continued to sell for years after release, and still does. Modders and countless others keep the game fresh, and Kunos could have monetized that popularity. Instead of jumping ship to ACC, they had taken a different path and turned ACC into a big series of AC1 (AC1.5) DLCs, to develop and sell the official "leagues infrastructure" and compete against iRacing.

Kunos could easily have taken the iRacing (2008), DCS (2008), BeamNG (2015), Euro Truck Simulator 2 (2012) approaches: continue updating a single base game with modern rendering engines, physics upgrades, and quality DLC. Plenty of studios survive (and thrive) this way, especially in niche genres like sim racing. AC1 already had a developed player base. One that was partially fragmented during the ACC transition.


“Finished” is a vague word here. Kunos dropped AC1 despite the fact that the community wasn't done with it. There was no real “sunset” moment — no final update to futureproof the game, no roadmap, no community transition plan. They just moved on. And that's their right, but let’s not pretend it was because AC1 couldn’t be maintained or wasn’t making money. During 2016, in their official forums that were strong supporters of the idea of Kunos to develop AC1 into a platform to compete against iRacing. IMO, Kunos made the mistake of assuming that they could do better with less and create a "new" game with off-the-shelf game engine to do so. That's when ACC was created. And it failed twice. Once by fragmenting their playerbase and twice by failing to compete against iRacing.

Also, let’s not ignore that continuing to sell content to an established player base is far less riskier and resource-intensive than starting over with a new game, and potentially fragmenting the community.


Nobody asked for 3 simultaneous titles. What people like me are saying is: Kunos had a goldmine in AC1, and they abandoned it prematurely. They could’ve continued developing it, releasing paid DLC, and even a paid physics/engine upgrade as AC “1.5” or “AC2” and carrying over the old contenet, maybe even re-selling the old content with a fresh new cover of paint. The game’s modular nature made that viable. Just look at how much it was improved by CSP. (Weather, Day-Night cycles, optimizations, AI, FFB, Physics..)

Gradually evolving a base product over time rather than starting over every few years, builds trust and longevity.


That’s a dramatic and inaccurate leap. Kunos wasn’t going out of business — they had a top-selling sim on Steam with 92% positive reviews, with constant community engagement and huge sales spikes during seasonal events and DLC launches. It is still sold to this day. Even with a small team, that’s sustainable if you actually support and grow the product you already have.

6. Bottom Line:
They didn’t have to abandon AC1. They chose to, and that was a missed opportunity.

If you think that expecting continued support for a beloved and successful game means I “don’t understand reality,” then you’re not seeing the bigger picture of how game studios survive and grow. Plenty do it by sticking with — and evolving — a single game for the long haul.

Click to expand...

You could propose yourself as a marketing manager at Kunos, they surely need an enlightened person like you.

I think what is overlooked a lot when it comes to Sims and why "old sims" are not supported forever etc. are license agreements and royality fees:

- Steam takes (if I am not mistaken or it changed) 30% of the money spend there
- most license deals are limited to 3 or 5 years and have to be renewed then
- these deals include a minimum guarantee as well as sometimes flat payments upfront + a share of income of selling the item
- often renewals become more expensive (license prices go up at the minute, with the biggest increase seen on F1 tracks like Silverstone and Spa)
- this also means that the number that looks quite high (as in how often AC1 was sold) does not translate to revenue that high (besides most people picking it up while its like 50% off or such)

Yes a new game needs those licenses as well, but a new game means a bigger initial sales volume out of the gate.
Which makes spending that money a lot easier.

We saw several sims loosing licenses for content in DLCs over time (for example rF2 not selling LeMans track anymore) due to that. Because the track license costs more a year than the DLC brings in per year.

I am just putting that out here because often we players just see a big number and are like "they made lots of money, why can they not do..." but the reality looked quite different for the studios.

Storm Rider said:

You're clearly passionate about Kunos and trying to defend their decision, but you’ve made a few assumptions that don’t hold up and you're spamming the forum with a bunch of nonsense or things that you just think you know.

This is not at all true and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First, being a small team means you can survive finally with less income with lower costs.

Kunos sold 28 million copies of AC1 with over $110 million in revenue.

AC1 had (and still has) a huge modding community, MP servers, leagues like LFM and a strong fan base. It continued to sell for years after release, and still does. Modders and countless others keep the game fresh, and Kunos could have monetized that popularity. Instead of jumping ship to ACC, they had taken a different path and turned ACC into a big series of AC1 (AC1.5) DLCs, to develop and sell the official "leagues infrastructure" and compete against iRacing.

Kunos could easily have taken the iRacing (2008), DCS (2008), BeamNG (2015), Euro Truck Simulator 2 (2012) approaches: continue updating a single base game with modern rendering engines, physics upgrades, and quality DLC. Plenty of studios survive (and thrive) this way, especially in niche genres like sim racing. AC1 already had a developed player base. One that was partially fragmented during the ACC transition.


“Finished” is a vague word here. Kunos dropped AC1 despite the fact that the community wasn't done with it. There was no real “sunset” moment — no final update to futureproof the game, no roadmap, no community transition plan. They just moved on. And that's their right, but let’s not pretend it was because AC1 couldn’t be maintained or wasn’t making money. During 2016, in their official forums that were strong supporters of the idea of Kunos to develop AC1 into a platform to compete against iRacing. IMO, Kunos made the mistake of assuming that they could do better with less and create a "new" game with off-the-shelf game engine to do so. That's when ACC was created. And it failed twice. Once by fragmenting their playerbase and twice by failing to compete against iRacing.

Also, let’s not ignore that continuing to sell content to an established player base is far less riskier and resource-intensive than starting over with a new game, and potentially fragmenting the community.


Nobody asked for 3 simultaneous titles. What people like me are saying is: Kunos had a goldmine in AC1, and they abandoned it prematurely. They could’ve continued developing it, releasing paid DLC, and even a paid physics/engine upgrade as AC “1.5” or “AC2” and carrying over the old contenet, maybe even re-selling the old content with a fresh new cover of paint. The game’s modular nature made that viable. Just look at how much it was improved by CSP. (Weather, Day-Night cycles, optimizations, AI, FFB, Physics..)

Gradually evolving a base product over time rather than starting over every few years, builds trust and longevity.


That’s a dramatic and inaccurate leap. Kunos wasn’t going out of business — they had a top-selling sim on Steam with 92% positive reviews, with constant community engagement and huge sales spikes during seasonal events and DLC launches. It is still sold to this day. Even with a small team, that’s sustainable if you actually support and grow the product you already have.

6. Bottom Line:
They didn’t have to abandon AC1. They chose to, and that was a missed opportunity.

If you think that expecting continued support for a beloved and successful game means I “don’t understand reality,” then you’re not seeing the bigger picture of how game studios survive and grow. Plenty do it by sticking with — and evolving — a single game for the long haul.

Click to expand...

Lol I think everyone in this thread appreciates this post...

AC isn't being supported anymore because it'd break CSP, potentially catastrophically. At least that's probably a big reason this far in. The game is independently developing itself further than KS could have taken it and without any cost to them.

Dpounder420 said:

no, im specifically talking to those complaining about early access while failing to understand what it means. i expect that any intelligent person who actually cares about the development of the game would take the opportunity to provide their criticism directly to the developers instead of bitching and whining about the early access in a comment section.

Click to expand...

No, you responded to my comment so you were specifically talking to me as well. Problem is, what I have been complaining about was posted by me and also others on the official forum, and Kunos was silent (until the dev update the other day which gave it an acceptable answer for me). Of course I am not going to complain for example about graphical artifacts on Radeon GPUs on OverTake, stuff like that is an early access thing and belongs solely on the main forum. But questioning the whole gameplay model and accessiblity is a deeper topic, especially since it has been talked about very vaguely until now. Kunos either screwed up the communication or responded to the criticism towards the originally intended model, we don't know what happened exactly behind the scenes, but stuff like that is important to talk about and we could see the result in the dev update.

Lupo grigio said:

You could propose yourself as a marketing manager at Kunos, they surely need an enlightened person like you.

Click to expand...

You could propose yourself as the clown

Storm Rider said:

You could propose yourself as the clown

Click to expand...

No, you're already there

Stop it