This post outlines something very clear which disappoints me. The RROS aren’t at all made for the community, they are made for profit, and that makes this feel like an excuse saying “You guys didn’t give us enough money so were never revisiting this again”.
2 Likes
Exactly, RROs act as a hub that makes it easier to meet players of all kinds of personalities. Everyone loves at least one of the RROs. It’s a type of room that guarantees “hey all, this is one of the popular ones, if you want to play with other people there are ALWAYS other people active in these”. That cannot ever be replicated with UGC rooms. We still need a healthy dose of RROs.
It also makes rec room stand out because there is a set of rooms that everyone knows exist and has a community around them, RROS made rec room REALLY stand out from anything I’ve ever played before and seeing them just pushed away is just really sad, I miss discussing with friends how the new rro is gonna play out back in 2023 when MITM released or how excited everyone was when rec rally released.
Alot of these statements and arguments seem foolish.. so as to not be the 50th person to say the same things i will skip that and just get to feedback and ideas.
You talk about how many people are playing and how much money RRO’s are making. And yet you seemingly make no attempt to keep people playing them? None of the new RRO’S have gotten ANY content updates and even old RRO’S haven’t either. The only RRO’S that have really gotten content added post release are paintball, lasertag, and kinda discgolf i guess? And im not really gonna count adding new cosmetics to quests as a “content update”
Maybe if you made a serious attempt to continue supporting RRO’S people would continue playing them? Its like releasing a game and never giving it any updates, it obviously wont really continue to get support over the span of years and years.
I also see alot of people mentioning paywalls and even for someone like me who has already spent too much money on Rec Room and has been playing since 2017.. i ABSOLUTELY would pay to play a new a quest or pay for a new battlepass in RecRoyale or a new killer in MITM. Aslong as you’re offering new quality content I’d pay $5 or $10.
All im trying to say is if you want people to continue playing RRO’S.. update them? Support them? Not upload the room and leave it out to dry for 5 years..
and surely since you’ve seen people are more than willing to pay for new content maybe test it out. Make a new RRO or update to a RRO and make it a paid thing. See the player’s reaction and base your future endeavors off of that. All i can really say is dont be excessive. $5 to $10 for a new RRO is understandable, but if you make it like $20+ its very unlikely people will bite. If im paying that much for a RRO im not even guaranteed that ill play multiple times or that will get updates.. i might aswell just buy and play a different game.
Aside from RRO’S.. UGC has so many issues ESPECIALLY the recommended system. I dont really play UGC rooms and when i do i promise i dont play BYO or “ignited” games and yet its 90% of whats recommended to me? I had an idea of maybe adding a button or system for “interested” and “not interested” to help filter and customize each player’s recommendations individually. Aswell as maybe recommending newer rooms or featured rooms more often.
I also had an idea of adding a paid option to customize your watch menu and maybe the watch itself. Can say i wouldn’t buy RR+ specifically for it but i would gladly pay a one time individual fee for it. Letting people customize their watch menu’s colors and layout seems like a very interesting way to earn more money without too much extra work.
Thats all i have right now! So the last thing i can really say is please stop with the negativity and constant hate. If you want to see change support the idea of change rather than being mad and rude when the devs do something you dont like 
1 Like
I think your explanation for deprioritizing quests doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The original quests were launched during Rec Room’s early days — before the platform saw its big growth across VR and non-VR platforms. Of course their numbers are smaller. On top of that, some of those quests weren’t even available cross-platform until much later, so using engagement metrics alone to make that case seems misleading.
As for the newer RROs like Rec Rally — these felt more like tech showcases than actual gameplay experiences. You’ve admitted they lack replayability, so it’s odd to use them as evidence that quests aren’t viable. The issue isn’t the concept of quests — it’s how you’ve been executing them lately.
There’s also a bigger issue here: you continue to ignore great community suggestions while spinning narratives that paint your players as short-sighted or naïve. That’s the same pattern we saw with how weeklies were handled.
If you really want to build a platform that lasts, start by treating your players — and their feedback — with more respect. There are viable ideas out there. Stop writing them off.
1 Like
Looks like Rec Room is forgetting about the thing that built them, RROs. Just blantly using Maker AI will just give rec room a bad rep
1 Like
Maker Ai is not the solution. Not only is it a scummy way if spitting on creators of the media it replaces, it makes RecRooms priority just vanish. I do agree RecRoom Originals shouldn’t be made for a while. Its not for the reason of numbers. The games are getting buggy and need fixes, they need FIXES! Plus, why doesn’t the team make new features to old RROs while adding the new features they want to promote and use (like using the new tools in past RROs.) All that it shows is that the devs priority is just to make a cheap way to make cashgrabs, so more people put in as little effort as possible! So they can earn money and call it a day. What they need is to focus on bugs across all fronts, double check updates before lazily sending them out for bug prevention, and make RecRoom feel like it’s in good hands and showing the community it has it under control. Tell the community how long we have to wait for stuff! I still do think there is hope for this game, I just hope the fog clears soon…
Stop whining. 
Please ffs shut up about blog posts being AI generated. Some people are actually intelligent enough to type out decent wording (even if it’s mostly untrue). The fact you can’t doesn’t mean no one can.
1 Like
yeah, no actual real human being uses that many em dashes
1 Like
That honestly sounds like a skill issue to me 
1 Like
As a game developing studio, we do not believe that AI is needed in Rec Room. Kind of just takes the creativity away from users 
1 Like
Rec Room is going into the UGC route, and it’s nice, but we lack so many essential game development features that would spark thousands of new games. Like why can’t I scale players? why can’t i make players invisible? why can’t i make radio channels sound like normal voice call? why cant we have more physics settings for objects (destructible buildings? why can’t we edit makerpen settings to allow for options like only being able to place circuits or only being able to build? why can’t we make unsynced objects? why can’t we make custom huds/ui/gui ingame? why can’t we put rec net photos in our rooms? why are we still partially doing peer to peer? why don’t we have more vehicles or some sort of vehicle component? why can’t we access instances with cv2?
No i think you misunderstand, the post is fine, but the second comment under this post was was a suuuuper boot-lick-y post by an account with almost 0 read time on this site and was its only interaction with it. It genuinely looked like someone must have made it to try and trick people into thinking they also liked this change or something stupid, and it has since been removed. Not deleted—removed. I could be wrong, but i believe when deleting a post on here it leaves behind a remnant of the message saying “the creator of this comment has deleted it” or something, but this comment in question is completely gone which is super sketchy! You can see a few comments here talking like they’re a reply to a specific comment, but without actually tagging/embedding that comment, those are replies to this suspicious comment. Check out this comment above Why We Are Focused on Enabling Creation for Everyone - #20 by mrrfyW it shows someone copy-pasting the deleted post’s text into an AI detection site and getting a 61% likely back.
It was this account that has since been deleted https://forum.rec.net/u/i9/
1 Like
People refuse to support you financially when you hurt creators. It is that simple. Do better as a company, give players what they want, and you will see an upward trend in revenue as players become comfortable spending money again. Maker AI’s addition is the reason I WON’T buy RR+, and I know other people feel the exact same way.
1 Like
Rec room has sponsored at least one YouTuber, though it’s unknown how much that made.
1 Like
As much as this will barely help make new creators but if it succeeds then all of the good rec room games will be shadowed by some cash grab slop. You should just put more into teaching your players to use the maker pen not how to speak into it, doing so will actually help filter out the lazy Cash wanting devs but it will help grow those who will actually put effort into their games! Stop wasting your money on people who only want to squeeze the money out of your players.
1 Like
Your reply is that of a child.
Also, AI isn’t ’throwing things at a wall and hope something sticks’, it’s here and it’s here to stay..
2 Likes
Good point, but it would be more childish if i just threw words and opinions that weren’t based off of factual truths. Also, may i need to note that rec room is no longer profitable currently and fully relies on their investors, those who hope for the development of current technologies (AI) to be profitable in the future? Because of this, it results in them being stuck in a very hard position in terms of business
1 Like
Why don’t you push for your creative learning programs, it doesn’t cost you anything and the player base is fine with it, AI cost money and the player base doesn’t like it.