Jump to content

dirt3joe

Members
  • Content Count

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dirt3joe


  1. The only people that will ever get banned will be the ones that use modified code to cheat.

    You said it yourself. 98% of the playerbase are ****. Implying that if you had your way 98% of the playerbase would be banned.

    Not a chance. There is no way any business is going to alienate even 10% of its userbase by banning them. 1% maybe.

    You will never get the experience you want driving with randoms. Leagues are the only answer.

  2. No one is ever going to get banned for adopting a different style of play, even if the majority don't like it.

    AFAICT there is no condition on purchase that says you have to play in a particular way. So people getting banned could result in people asking for their money back and a spiral into all sorts of nonsense.

    The only way round this is leagues, where people race with players who want to race in the same way. And CM should include as many tools as possible in the game to make leagues as easy as possible to make and flexible to administer.

  3. GotchaNL said:
    If everything should be as realistic as possible, all camera positions should be removed except for the cockpit view, all driving aids and the Flashback option as well. ?

    Again, I don’t understand the point of straight out oppose people from asking for such an option. If you don’t like it or don’t want to use it, that’s your freedom as well.

    I guess there’s lots of people who like the cockpit view, but don’t want the halo obstructing their view like in this video (I know this is not F1 2018): https://youtu.be/9TymJxOen4Y
    It's because of the competition.

    If you are playing on your own it's not a problem if you can do anything in game. It only affects you. Whereas if you are playing in multiplayer and playing competitively, the idea that some players can turn it off because they can't master it damages the competitive point of the game. Imagine if Lewis Hamilton decided he couldn't master the halo in real life so decided he wanted rid of it. Would that happen ?!

    Of course a lot of people don't care about it, even in multiplayer, but if you are getting into competitive esports where there can be a serious amount of money to be won/lost then it is an issue. At the highest level everyone has to be forced to have the same settings so they are advantaged/disadvantaged in the same way, and those settings should be as realistic to F1 as possible if Codies esports F1 is to gain credibility.

    A lot of people will say it's only a game, who cares. But esports is getting bigger and more competitive.

  4. Flazh92 said:
    Wow... 8 years and still no official HUD..  I really don't get it why he even went there to just show some time trial gameplay and talk about stuff we already know.
    Yes he really did not say much that we don't already know.

    robin8f said:
    Ujhelyi91 said:
    Joethe155 said:
    Amazes me that there's people that still hope the official HUD, ever since F1 2010. CM's graphics do a good job and there's nothing the official ones wuld do any better.
    I agree. I was looking forward to an official HUD years ago and while it was good while you were watching, the CM interface isn't intrusive at all while driving.
    Yep. I would like to see some improvements to the spectator mode though, such as showing whether a driver is going green, purple or yellow in each sector during qualifying, like they do in real life. They should also implement the mini map (including the great new addition that each car/dot is now coloured) in spectator mode.
    The spectator does need a lot more information.and especially everything that you mention.
    It needs some goddamn colours :D

    MrCosta96 said:
    The lack of information about online stability worries me, especially with what Beta testers have been saying.
    You and me both mate.
    99% of the information that was given by Lee Mather was about career again.
    Only thing he mentioned about online was the "Superlicense" that matches players with similar stats while searching for lobbies.

    AMS97KRR said:
    Codemasters don't use the official hub because by using their own graphics they have greater flexibility. I'm sure this is what was said. Clearly they feel that the best experience they can offer requires their own graphics, which function perfectly well and have done since 2010. 

    Why does it matter anyway, surely the racing and the driving is the important part? 

    They showed some good stuff off at e3 and it sounds like the career mode has made some positive strides and yet we still get endless whining about non issues. The real issues are online and the safety car, not the HUD.
    While I agree that using their own style of HUD does give them more flexibility, the true potential of that has not yet been really reached.
    There are so many things that can be done with the HUD like having a small popup box indicating the difference in the sector times between you, the car behind and ahead without having to ask the engineer, who gives more information than you ask, which can cause him to annoyingly talk to you through corners. Spectator mode needs a lot more visible indicators when a driver posts a personal or session best time in a sector or lap. There are so many minor things like that, which can make a major difference in immersion.

    dirt3joe said:
    Joethe155 said:
    Amazes me that there's people that still hope the official HUD, ever since F1 2010. CM's graphics do a good job and there's nothing the official ones wuld do any better.
    "OFFICIALY LICENCED F1 PRODUCT"

    MotoGP / FIFA / PES / NASCAR / NFL / NBA / NHL / MBL etc., all these sports games make use of the official HUD as it improves immersion and realism tenfold, but Codies are immune to such a commitment?

    Ridiculous.

    PS: Codemasters could easily offer both the generic HUD and the official one in the game if they wanted to, the players could then choose which to take, but of course it's too much to ask i guess.....




    Since an F1 race driver never sees the "official HUD" (which by the way is not a driver HUD but an audience information screen) while racing how can having the "official HUD" improve realism tenfold ?
    I have to remind you there that this a GAME. An official F1 game, but a GAME.
    Realism is always welcome, but it does not belong in every aspect of a game.
    That is proven by the fact that not everyone prefers to play in cockpit cam, so infromation has to bee delivered through other means.

    Using the official HUD can really show that the developers want to bring the casual and dedicated players as close to the IRL sport as possible.
    While it does not have to have the exact same functions as the IRL graphics, having the same style can have a much greater impact in the immersion.

    When playing a game that is based on real events or sports, immersion plays a great role in keeping the player playing the game, hence increasing the games life time and entertainment.
    Never said anything about realism or it's role in games. Clearly there are many places where the game has to make compromises. I actually like F1 more than a lot of other racers on the market because I find it a better balance between sim and game. Sims like PCars I like but find less enjoyable because they are too hard to play.

    If you want to argue inclusion of the "official HUD" will make it a better game, fair enough.

    If you want to argue that it will make the game ten times more realistic (which was what was originally claimed) - that's what I take issue with. I could argue that inclusion of ejector seats would make it a better game if you could eject before crashing. Fair enough, thast's my opinion. If I argued inclusion of ejector seats made the game 10x more realistic people would say I was talking rubbish. And they'd be right.

    Edit : I think that if you are going to get Codies to implement it the first thing is to make a strong argument as to why. I am actually surprised they didn't do it this year, as there is clearly demand for it. "realism" isn't part of a strong argument as to why they should do it.

  5. Flazh92 said:
    dirt3joe said:
    Joethe155 said:
    Amazes me that there's people that still hope the official HUD, ever since F1 2010. CM's graphics do a good job and there's nothing the official ones wuld do any better.
    "OFFICIALY LICENCED F1 PRODUCT"

    MotoGP / FIFA / PES / NASCAR / NFL / NBA / NHL / MBL etc., all these sports games make use of the official HUD as it improves immersion and realism tenfold, but Codies are immune to such a commitment?

    Ridiculous.

    PS: Codemasters could easily offer both the generic HUD and the official one in the game if they wanted to, the players could then choose which to take, but of course it's too much to ask i guess.....




    Since an F1 race driver never sees the "official HUD" (which by the way is not a driver HUD but an audience information screen) while racing how can having the "official HUD" improve realism tenfold ?
    I don't get it why you are trying to ignore his point while he clearly said you could chose between Official and Codies one. Sounds fair.

    It improves realism by seeing stuff that is shown on TV, of course the driver doesn't see the HUD, but you see it so you are familiar with it. After 8 years we can at least get a small version of the Official HUD but we are left out once again. Just give us an TV Style replay functionality or something like that where you can put it in but I just hate how codies is once again just giving a damn about Fan Opionion but lying on there blog about how much they care about us..
    Because it's a dismal argument.

    There are lots of reasons you could justify the inclusion of it. For example, it should be included in replays because that is where you would normally expect to see it. Immersion is subjective, so I guess if people feel it makes the game more immersive fair enough, even though other people may be equally right in feeling that it doesn't.

    But to argue that putting in something that a driver never sees or experiences will somehow make the game 10x more realistic, it's just poor.

  6. Joethe155 said:
    Amazes me that there's people that still hope the official HUD, ever since F1 2010. CM's graphics do a good job and there's nothing the official ones wuld do any better.
    "OFFICIALY LICENCED F1 PRODUCT"

    MotoGP / FIFA / PES / NASCAR / NFL / NBA / NHL / MBL etc., all these sports games make use of the official HUD as it improves immersion and realism tenfold, but Codies are immune to such a commitment?

    Ridiculous.

    PS: Codemasters could easily offer both the generic HUD and the official one in the game if they wanted to, the players could then choose which to take, but of course it's too much to ask i guess.....




    Since an F1 race driver never sees the "official HUD" (which by the way is not a driver HUD but an audience information screen) while racing how can having the "official HUD" improve realism tenfold ?

  7. .
    I believe Paul Coleman has already said that money isn't always the issue. Sometimes a license is simply unattainable due to previously established contracts.
    There's no such thing as an unbreakable contract. It happens in football all the time. The issue is more how much money you're prepared to pay to make two parties break a contract because it's in their mutual interest to do so. So money is ultimately always the issue. If you want it that badly you can always buy the company that owns the contract anyway - with money.

    Without mentioning any names there was a long standing contract in gaming to licence a particular  manufacturers cars that everyone knew about. It was supposedly "impossible" for those cars to appear in any game because of the arrangement. But some time before the arrangement finished these cars did appear in another game. Not too hard to work out what happened there.

    Words like "unattainable" and "impossible" are pretty strong. A bit like the word "need" which is very much overused IMO !

  8. As I’ve said before, the biggest problem with a wrc licence is the fact they already have wrx. But if the licence is not tied up, and the fact we’ve already seen the c3 wrc in the crew, we could always see wrc cars in the next dirt like we did with dirt rally
    I don't think so, the biggest problem is how much money they have to pay for it/whether it makes a viable business proposition.

    Codies have a pedigree in terms of producing the worlds best licenced racing games (F1). They have produced what is recognised amongst games players as the best rally game for many years. So it boils down to how much cash they are willing to offer. In terms of potential, if I was in charge of the licence I would be looking to give to a developer that has a strong esports showing as well, as this seems to be the growth area atm.

  9. Codemasters don’t usually do big announcements at places like e3. Personally I wouldn’t have thought it would be a good time to do an announcement, with so many big game news coming out, it’s easy to get lost in the stream. Especially with the likes of fallout and such being shown
    The last info available on the licence changing was end July 2013. My guess is that the current licence holder would not want any announcements before the licence period is up because that would detract from their sales/events. The fact that the current esports event appears to finish end july is interesting to say the least. Whatever happens with the licence, my guess is we will be put out of our misery by end July. Either a new holder will be announced or we can assume the licence continues with the old holder. E3 I think is a possibility, but I agree with you less likely than end july.

  10. Operator1 said:

    dirt3joe said:
    ...It's because you use statements beginning with : 

    "I don't understand why anyone"
    "Don't we all want"
    "Why would anybody argue"
    "Why can't gamers come together"

    That suggest you have an inherent problem or difficulty with understanding how other people think or seeing things from other peoples' perspectives...

    LOL! So I have an "inherent problem" just because I'm not a mind-reader and/or because I disagree? Don't quit your day job - leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals.

    dirt3joe said:
    ...other people view continuous repetition of the same mantra over and over again trolling. You've got it in your sig. Everyone is aware of your POV and doesn't need to be consistently reminded of it....

    Ah, so you're the mind-reader who speaks for what everyone else thinks? :o I'm not violating any rules, and I have just as much right as you & everyone else to express my views here. If that's too much for you, then you have my blessing to completely ignore all of my posts. <3

    dirt3joe said:
    ...I think though implying that a "company" as a collective group of people doesn't care about whether you or I like a product or not is wrong. The vast majority of people who design products/create things don't just do it for the money. They want people to like and admire what they have created... Saying these people don't care about whether we the consumer like the product or not is a bit of a slap in the face. I can imagine that as a CM employee reading these forums can sometimes be very demoralising...

    I have said many times elsewhere (which you should be intimately familiar with since you say nobody needs to be reminded of my views) that I believe the people with direct hands-on roles in creating games are likely highly skilled & very passionate about what they do. I've also recognized that front-line hands-on workers generally have little (if any) influence on a company's decision-makers. Company decision-makers listen to consumer spending, not consumer feedback. Company decision-makers follow the money, and if the money is in repeatedly selling very buggy games, then they'll continue repeatedly selling very buggy games. If consumers want better functional quality, that message can only reach company decision-makers through changes in consumer spending. No amount of civil & constructive feedback on forums & social media will influence company decision-makers anywhere near as much as sales figures.

    dirt3joe said:
    ...we should try to see things from other peoples' perspective and try to come up with solutions in everyones' interest...

    It seems to me that the solution in everyone's interest is to significantly reduce the number & severity of bugs/issues in games. What's the alternative? Continue increasing the number & severity of bugs in games?

    dirt3joe said:
    ...What I would hope though is people learn how to interact positively to the benefit of both parties and have realistic expectations. It's a good model for life. My general experience is that if you go around trying to achieve things in a confrontational way sometimes it may work, but a lot of the time it will fail utterly...

    Right, so when you say I talk like I have Asperger's, I lack empathy, I have an inherent problem, & I'm a troll, that's your idea of interacting positively & being non-confrontational? You're doing an amazing job practicing what you preach. o:) I must indeed be suffering from severe issues since I can't seem to wrap my feeble brain around such staggering reasoning & benevolence. :'(



    "Ah, so you're the mind-reader who speaks for what everyone else thinks? :o I'm not violating any rules, and I have just as much right as you & everyone else to express my views here. If that's too much for you, then you have my blessing to completely ignore all of my posts."

    I can't speak for everyone else. Yes, I was wrong here, it should be "some people" rather than "other people". "Everyone" is used in the context of people being able to read your sig, which is one of those assumptions (rightly or wrongly) that I make when people are using a forum, that everyone participating can read.

    "I have said many times elsewhere (which you should be intimately familiar with since you say nobody needs to be reminded of my views) that I believe the people with direct hands-on roles in creating games are likely highly skilled & very passionate about what they do. I've also recognized that front-line hands-on workers generally have little (if any) influence on a company's decision-makers. Company decision-makers listen to consumer spending, not consumer feedback. Company decision-makers follow the money, and if the money is in repeatedly selling very buggy games, then they'll continue repeatedly selling very buggy games. If consumers want better functional quality, that message can only reach company decision-makers through changes in consumer spending. No amount of civil & constructive feedback on forums & social media will influence company decision-makers anywhere near as much as sales figures."

    I agree.

    "It seems to me that the solution in everyone's interest is to significantly reduce the number & severity of bugs/issues in games. What's the alternative? Continue increasing the number & severity of bugs in games"

    Yes but your suggested route to doing that (not buying the game) is not always a great choice of action if you are enjoying the game irrespective of the current bugs that are in it. Everyone has a different feature or level of bugs that is important to them. That's why some people are happy with the game and will continue to buy it, even though others find these things unacceptable. Hopefully this makes some sense.

    "Right, so when you say I talk like I have Asperger's, I lack empathy, I have an inherent problem, & I'm a troll, that's your idea of interacting positively & being non-confrontational? You're doing an amazing job practicing what you preach. o:) I must indeed be suffering from severe issues since I can't seem to wrap my feeble brain around such staggering reasoning & benevolence. :'("

    No it's more about me (maybe somewhat clumsily) trying to understand your POV and why you have it for the benefit of us both so we can interact more positively in the future. Actually it's always easier to walk away (and most people do) from discussions like this for the reasons this exchange demonstrates. I've tried to establish whether or not you have issues understanding what other people think and then gone on to try to help you understand why they think the way they do. I also tried to explain why the way you phrase questions makes me think the way I do. If you don't appreciate this then please accept my apologies.






  11. Operator1 said:

    dirt3joe said:
    You talk like you have Aspergers or something. Do you not have any ability at all to empathise with other people ?

    Why do you think anyone should cares what you think, if you don't care what they think ?

    The bottom line is this. If you're not happy with previous iterations of the game, then buying the next one is stupid. Really stupid. That much is obvious. We don't need to be repeatedly told it. 20 odd words does the job.

    There are however, many people who ARE happy with the game. This may be because they don't use it in the same mode as other people, or they are more tolerant, or the benefits outweight the drawbacks. Why should these people not buy the game just because you are in some one man war against software developers ?

    Some people will like this game and they will buy it. They don't need to be reminded over and over of your views or be told not to buy it because you for whatever reason don't like it. It's trolling to constantly come on here and critise people for making decisions that are perfectly snesible rational to them. Whether a person views the game as a good purchase is subjective, not objective. Understand that. You are not the arbiter of a good quality game.

    So in answer to your questions :

    I don't understand why anyone would prefer to defend dysfunctional games & defend game companies instead of advocating for improvements in functional quality : Because I don't see the games as dysfunctional. My opinion. And just as relevant as yours.

    Don't we all want better games to play? : No. I'm happy with what I've got, and the value for money it represents.

    Why would anybody argue against their own interests to defend dysfunctional games?Because I don't view the game as dysfunctional.

    Why can't gamers come together to press for progress instead of fighting to silence criticism & keep letting games get worse? Because I'm not going to deprive myself of enjoying the game just because you have certain expectations. What I think counts to me.

    I feel sorry for people that aren't getting what they want out of the game. I hope that they can in the future and that the game can live up to their expectations. Of course they should provide feedback to CM regarding the bugs and the compliant level helps CM prioritise what to fix. However they shouldn't expect me not to buy and enjoy the game just because their expectations and requirements are different to mine.

    Just because my views are different from yours, it doesn't mean I lack empathy or that I don't care what anyone else thinks.

    The title of this thread is "Codemasters, please listen to your customerbase" and the original post says "we're pleading with you to address the existing issues" - so my comments here are directly on-topic to the subject about customers who are not pleased with the long history of bugs/issues in CodeMasters games. I don't see how that's trolling.

    What seems like trolling to me is how every time anybody posts a thread requesting bug fixes, some people can't help themselves from chiming in with useless blabber about how "nothing is perfect" and "there's no such thing as bug-free software" as if that's a completely acceptable justification for all bugs in all games.

    If you are happy with the game series, then by all means, buy the next installment & play the heck out of it. Those who are displeased with bugs/issues in the games are not trying to take anything away from those are happy with the games - they're just trying to enjoy it as much as you enjoy it.

    My simple message to those who are unhappy about the bugs/issues in the games is that it does no good to complain if you continue buying anyway, because voting with your wallet sends a much louder message than requests & complaints. Since they won't listen to our voices, we have to make them listen to our wallets. Companies don't care if you like it or not - they only care if you buy it or not.

    My simple message to those who are happy with the games is that others deserve to have the bugs/issues affecting their in-game experiences heard & addressed without being told "stop complaining, nothing is perfect." You have nothing to lose & everything to gain when bugs/issues are fixed, so stop interfering when people are just trying to get their games to reliably function properly.


    "Just because my views are different from yours, it doesn't mean I lack empathy or that I don't care what anyone else thinks".

    Correct. It's because you use statements beginning with :

    "I don't understand why anyone"
    "Don't we all want"
    "Why would anybody argue"
    "Why can't gamers come together"

    That suggest you have an inherent problem or difficulty with understanding how other people think or seeing things from other peoples' perspectives. That in itself is not anything bad but it helps everyone in a debate if they are aware of it.

    "The title of this thread is "Codemasters, please listen to your customerbase" and the original post says "we're pleading with you to address the existing issues" - so my comments here are directly on-topic to the subject about customers who are not pleased with the long history of bugs/issues in CodeMasters games. I don't see how that's trolling."

    Again it might be difficult for you to understand why other people view continuous repetition of the same mantra over and over again trolling. You've got it in your sig. Everyone is aware of your POV and doesn't need to be consistently reminded of it.

    "If you are happy with the game series, then by all means, buy the next installment & play the heck out of it. Those who are displeased with bugs/issues in the games are not trying to take anything away from those are happy with the games - they're just trying to enjoy it as much as you enjoy it."

    Glad to hear that buying the game if you are happy with it is considered acceptable and peoples' reasons for doing so are understood.

    My simple message to those who are unhappy about the bugs/issues in the games is that it does no good to complain if you continue buying anyway, because voting with your wallet sends a much louder message than requests & complaints. Since they won't listen to our voices, we have to make them listen to our wallets. Companies don't care if you like it or not - they only care if you buy it or not.

    I suppose it depends what you mean by "companies". At a corporate/financial level, yes probably only whether you buy or not it counts. I think though implying that a "company" as a collective group of people doesn't care about whether you or I like a product or not is wrong. The vast majority of people who design products/create things don't just do it for the money. They want people to like and admire what they have created. I create quite complex products myself. Yes, at the end of the day selling them and making a profit is very important, the business could not continue otherwise. But I also care about what my customers think and that they like the things I create. There is a piece of me in every product I create. It's rewarding and satisfying to feel that people like the product and feel I have created something worthwhile. I am confident that there are many people at CM that feel the same way, although of course in a large business there will always be some that don't. Saying these people don't care about whether we the consumer like the product or not is a bit of a slap in the face. I can imagine that as a CM employee reading these forums can sometimes be very demoralising. None of this of course means that we shouldn't ask for better products. But it does mean that we should try to see things from other peoples' perspective and try to come up with solutions in everyones' interest rather than trying to see things in black and white / simple terms and adopt confrontational positions.

    "My simple message to those who are happy with the games is that others deserve to have the bugs/issues affecting their in-game experiences heard & addressed without being told "stop complaining, nothing is perfect." You have nothing to lose & everything to gain when bugs/issues are fixed, so stop interfering when people are just trying to get their games to reliably function properly."

    I don't think I would ever ask someone to stop putting a constructive viewpoint forwards (with emphasis on the word constructive - I don't see repeating the same thing over and over again as constructive). What I would hope though is people learn how to interact positively to the benefit of both parties and have realistic expectations. It's a good model for life. My general experience is that if you go around trying to achieve things in a confrontational way sometimes it may work, but a lot of the time it will fail utterly and normally at the point where you are at your weakest. In life people will generally do things for you for one of three reasons, either a) because it's mutually beneficial, b) because they like you (maybe a subset of a) and c) because they fear you or fear the consequences of not doing what you ask. c) is not generally a long term route to success.


  12. CymroJ said:
    What do you guys think of today's CMs announcement they're listing on the stock market? It will raise a lot of money leaving them debt free, also allows them to buy certain rights? I'm sure they will have to provide some guidance to the market soon about upcoming projects too and how much they expect to make and which quarter any future games will be released. Will be worth a scan!
    Saw it, scratched my head at the numbers and learnt nothing about wrc licences :)

  13. Operator1 said:

    It may not be mandatory. But it is entirely impractical to expect any useful software to have no bugs. Even the process-heavy, mission-critical Zero Defect Software Development only claims 99.999% reliability, not 100%. Aircraft, spaceships, nuclear power plants... all these things run redundant concurrent software systems, written by different engineers from the same specs, in case there's a bug in one of them. 

    Bug-free software is still a pipe dream.

    Just because 'nothing is perfect,' that does not mean it can't (or shouldn't) be better.

    Just because 'perfection is impossible,' that does not mean we should have no functional quality standards whatsoever.

    If 'nothing is perfect' is an acceptable justification for selling substantially buggy software, then why not just launch an alpha or a beta release to retail & call it done? Why bother with any post-launch patches ever?

    CodeMasters has been involved in making the same F1 game series for about 10 years, and they've been involved in making multi-platform car racing games for about 20 years. With all that experience & customer feedback behind them, the level of reliable functional quality in their games should be greatly improving with each release.


    dirt3joe said:
    although it's preferable to have them fixed some people are willing to accept them because they don't significantly impact their gaming experience.

    I care most about gameplay-impacting bugs/issues/problems. I don't think we should all lower our standards just because some people are willing to happily accept gameplay-impacting bugs/issues/problems.

    The more problems we accept from games, the more problematic games become. The reason functional quality continues to decline across the industry is because people continue buying & defending dysfunctional games year after year.



    I don't understand why anyone would prefer to defend dysfunctional games & defend game companies instead of advocating for improvements in functional quality. Don't we all want better games to play? Everybody wins when consumer feedback, requests, & complaints are put to good use: gamers get better games to play, and game companies sell more copies. Everybody loses when quality declines: gamers get worse games to play, and game companies sell fewer copies. Why would anybody argue against their own interests to defend dysfunctional games? What does any gamer have to gain by more bugs/issues/problems in games? Why can't gamers come together to press for progress instead of fighting to silence criticism & keep letting games get worse?


    You talk like you have Aspergers or something. Do you not have any ability at all to empathise with other people ?

    Why do you think anyone should cares what you think, if you don't care what they think ?

    The bottom line is this. If you're not happy with previous iterations of the game, then buying the next one is stupid. Really stupid. That much is obvious. We don't need to be repeatedly told it. 20 odd words does the job.

    There are however, many people who ARE happy with the game. This may be because they don't use it in the same mode as other people, or they are more tolerant, or the benefits outweight the drawbacks. Why should these people not buy the game just because you are in some one man war against software developers ?

    Some people will like this game and they will buy it. They don't need to be reminded over and over of your views or be told not to buy it because you for whatever reason don't like it. It's trolling to constantly come on here and critise people for making decisions that are perfectly snesible rational to them. Whether a person views the game as a good purchase is subjective, not objective. Understand that. You are not the arbiter of a good quality game.

    So in answer to your questions :

    I don't understand why anyone would prefer to defend dysfunctional games & defend game companies instead of advocating for improvements in functional quality : Because I don't see the games as dysfunctional. My opinion. And just as relevant as yours.

    Don't we all want better games to play? : No. I'm happy with what I've got, and the value for money it represents.

    Why would anybody argue against their own interests to defend dysfunctional games?Because I don't view the game as dysfunctional.

    Why can't gamers come together to press for progress instead of fighting to silence criticism & keep letting games get worse? Because I'm not going to deprive myself of enjoying the game just because you have certain expectations. What I think counts to me.

    I feel sorry for people that aren't getting what they want out of the game. I hope that they can in the future and that the game can live up to their expectations. Of course they should provide feedback to CM regarding the bugs and the compliant level helps CM prioritise what to fix. However they shouldn't expect me not to buy and enjoy the game just because their expectations and requirements are different to mine.




  14. Operator1 said:

    kevinkirk said:
    Consider how it feels to need to explain over and over again the obvious of software has flaws.  

    Consider how it feels to need to explain over and over again the obvious that software flaws can be fixed, and they're not an inevitable & necessary consequence of all software development, and it's not mandatory to leave bugs in software.


    Consider how it feels to need to explain over and over again the obvious that software has flaws, and they're inevitable consequence of all software development, and although it's preferable to have them fixed some people are willing to accept them because they don't significantly impact their gaming experience.

  15. Over the years I think Codies are generally receptive to customer requests. If there is something that people want on here that they can do relatively easily then IME they do it. I doubt very much though any game developer would release a game with the tagline "we fixed all the bugs we had last year". Maybe not for the people on here, but the vast majority of people that buy the game want to see new things/features.

    I think based on the requests on here there were several stand out requests, the official "HUD" (which IMO is not a HUD at all but that's another argument), working safety car, team R&D issues in career, multiplayer,VR. From the classics side the Brawn probably got the most requests. I doubt whether VR will make it, but my guess is there is a good chance we will get something on the rest. We shall see.

  16. Love the classics, but would prefer them to concentrate on doing a complete classics season line up than cars from different years - even if it meant racing those cars on the modern circuits. Something from 1990 to 1995 would be great.

    I think there is a strong chance we get the Brawn this year, as a lot of people asked for it last year. Great to hear they have got some Sauber cars. The more different manufacturers they do deals with over time, the closer we come to getting a full classics line up at some point in the future.

  17. dirt3joe said:
    That just looks like the scan of a car. Maybe for Rx in Dirt4.

    Don't think there will be any announcement today from Codies - too late now.

    Next thing to watch for - Monday 28th May.
    You guys still consider DLC for DiRT 4 a possibility? It isn't going to happen this late. I'd be incredibly surprised if it did, mostly because I don't think it would sit 100% with the community. At this point, people are expecting something new, entirely.

    My 2 cents of how things might be going: DiRT with Codemasters and V-Rally with BigBen. One will try to win over folks with better RX content and the other with better Rally content. Since I'm not that into RX, personally, the choice for me would be easy. However, this is just a thought of mine.
    No, I don't. DLC window for D4 ended a long time ago.

  18. Any classics are good for me, but stuff that is pre-2000 tends to be better, because most of the post 2000 cars look pretty similar.

    I would love to see more 70s and 80s, but I suppose as the cars get older then it is harder both to locate the owner of the licence plus the model becomes more and more different to the standard stuff that exists and therefore more work.

  19. tbtstt said:
    I too don't think there's enough audience for a WRX game. I did the numbers, a while back, and WRX doesn't pull anywhere near as many viewers as the WRC. 
    I think that is a rather restricted view of the subject, I would think any comparison would have to look at a wider interest in rallycross versus rally: both disciplines are more than just a World Championship and, globally, rally surely has the biggest following.

    That said, the percentage of rallycross viewers who regularly play games might be a very different statistic given the audience that rallycross - specifically World Rallycross - seem to be targeting. 
    If you have a larger pool of fans, it seems logical that the percentage of those who are gamers will also be larger. True, there's more to rally and rallycross than their respective world championships, but those major championships are the ones most likely to be followed, so I think it's fair to use them as a metric for how much attention the sport gathers. If you're going to analyze how many people watch open-wheel, you're not going to use Formula 3 as your basis, are you?

    dirt3joe said:
    Something definitily feels up. F1 announcement much shorter than usual, no videos etc.

    I notice PCars are releasing a mobile PCars game, which seems a bit weird seeing as it is sim orientated. Still haven't heard anything from them re the fast and the furious.
    Can you tell me where you see this mobile game? I'm just curious. I've seen apps for PCARS 2, but not a game.

    Something is definitely cooking and, as a fan of things, rally related, that Codemasters does, I can't wait to find out what's in store.
    Eurogamer.

    F1 was not announced on Eurogamer either (usually is). Pretty low-key.

  20. Something definitily feels up. F1 announcement much shorter than usual, no videos etc.

    I notice PCars are releasing a mobile PCars game, which seems a bit weird seeing as it is sim orientated. Still haven't heard anything from them re the fast and the furious.

  21. We know that in the past Lotus was licensed in F1 2013, so it is possible to do deals with them. Also PCars has Lotus.

    The Brawn was a very popular request, so I would hope to see that. ALso some of the early to mid 80's renault cars would be great.

    It would also be great to get an entire seasons cars, but I guess that is very hard.
×