Maybe. The point was entirely what it said. Who is throwing money at trying to get some credibility in cycle racing - and if you’re an official app for something no one really cares about so I won’t even google and remind myself, then obviously they imagine that is going to matter to people using the software. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of VC.
But, it’s free and I’ve not even installed it - because all of these games have the same issues (a) they’re struggling with development and they are at various states of usability depending on your setup, e.g zwift is a pain to get working over steam but it works because of the companion app, others don’t work, they adopt platforms with rushed versions and those versions become poor but they also stymie how flexibly and fast they develop the PC version - really bad mistakes that the others perhaps can blame on not combinations of not having users or money but zwift have had both in spades and (b) their ideas about what features to add have been a bad combination of ‘what does it look like when you go cycling outside’ and the poor ideas of ‘gamification’ that people started adding to everything, even things that weren’t games. e.g badges if you post to a forum, “levels” if you buy things from a store. Completely and utterly useless features that haven’t (and won’t) attract players. With undoubtedly a few features that are good ideas.
And I talked over your head again, I said other games have skill, that’s the primary reason people put 15000 hours into them or more - the fact people are generally bad at playing games doesn’t change that - most people try to find ways of convincing themselves they win things - you can see that in zwift racing when 90% of the crying are losers demanding that zwift remove other losers so they can kid themselves they are winners oh, and a lot of people who cheat. If you go and play team fortress 2 you’ll find the same thing, a very niche and tiny competitive community, and the bulk of the people trying to convince themselves they’re good at the game by only playing with other losers and, of course, cheaters. But all of them are predominately there because the game requires skill to play - and it’s engaging to play and you can sit for a few hours and it won’t feel like a chore.
Zwift doesn’t have or require any skill. Adding it is unlikely to be an option. For 2 reasons (a) Eric Min thinks his typical fantasy user is someone who can’t remove a bike wheel (source DC rainmaker interview) this isn’t draughts let alone chess, and (b) As you say, you think the racing is already nuanced. Let’s not laugh at that. But clearly there’s no point going down the avenue of making zwift a game of skill. That’s not their target audience.
I didn’t say “Zwift needs to add skill, it needs to be like chess” I’m saying they need to focus on what actually zwift is primarily used for. And that is people look at it rather than looking at something else while they’re spinning their legs around on a trainer - and they have some features that affect the way you interact, i.e maybe they make you press a button to change gear, or pedal harder or softer.
This is where zwift needs to assess new features and ideas. Do they make looking at the zwift screen more engaging? Can they make riding a route engaging? Making it like when I used to go climbing I’d climb for 2 hours and the time would just fly by because it was engaging. I wasn’t looking at a ticking clock thinking “I need to do 1:00:00” and it was on 45:00 and I’m think “Eugh, 15 minutes still to go”
Cycling outside is like that the miles just fly by. if zwift sat down with the right team of imaginative people and used that imagination it could be engaging too. It could be a great time sink - and then I’d suggest significantly more people would play it (and no matter how complicated removing a bike wheel is - imagine sitting in the meeting where the CEO said “our problem is the complexity of removing a bike wheel” and nodding. Bizarre.
As it is I think they’ve probably got as many users watching a second TV or not even looking at it most of the time (something a couple of people have replied to me when I suggested the hud might be readable - they aren’t even looking) I think the ‘ticking clock’ in the top right doesn’t help - times not going to fly past if you’re sitting looking at it and its practically the biggest thing on the display.
As someone else said they know people who thought doing a long route is a chore and only did it because of a badge - well to me that is a failure. I mean you can have badges, but because the actual real world event usually has people desperate to sign up to ride it - they look forward to the ride, not the medal at the end.
Eric’s dream of millions of cyclists cycling indoors isn’t going to be realised if it feels like a chore to ride a route and the only solution is “you get a picture of a banana after 2 or 3 hours”. Outside they are enjoying the actual ride. Make the ride in zwift enjoyable, fun and engaging - those are the game features you need - and I say that because it seems evident that just having scenery that vaguely matches outside doesn’t work when you’re inside.
Physical movement works, I used to go swimming for 3 hours up and down lengths of a swimming pool in my 20s and people would say “doesn’t that get boring” and it doesn’t because you’re physically moving and then eventually you start thinking about other things. Sitting on a static trainer with no forces acting on you that is lost. That’s why sitting on a trainer looking at the wall is tedious but swimming lengths looking at the wall isn’t. It’s why many people who want to think get out their chair and pace up and down or go for a walk.
Zwift’s competitor is things like youtube, netflix, the wall, outside. Right now they don’t even have a usable hud so this isn’t about adding complicated game mechanics or gimmicks. It’s core game play. They have to figure out what it is rather than just grabbing for things “Oh yeah give someone a badge every 30 hours and they’ll sit and grind away” - a few might for a bit, but you won’t have millions of players doing that. And if you think “other games do” then you really don’t understand that game - and especially the player base.
Racing, perhaps, gets away with it because races tend to be short and there is a goal for most of trying to keep up with a pack - that gives engagement. The problem with racing as a solution is it would only only suit a small percentage of the time you’re riding (without cheating) because we’re all physically limited to how much racing you can do. So even if the racing were brilliant and absolutely perfect there’d still be anything up to 80% of the time when you weren’t racing.
You know if someone tells me they’ve done 1000 or 2000 of something I’m giggling because which is it? And if you did 2 races a week 1000 races would take about a decade. 2000 is about 4 races a week for a decade. If you’re doing much more than that you’re either not actually racing or it’s not nuanced why you’re losing is it?
