Jump to content

DiRTy Gossip

Recommended Posts

AIPacino said:
With the supposed removal of Opel Adam, a second car would have to be brought into R2 class so the Peugeot 208 is a plausible candidate.
Adam removed?? I dont think so, we are having the Opel Kadett, so the Opel Adam should be in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I've heard, the Opel Adam project was canceled. Could be wrong, but I recall seeing that somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AIPacino said:
As far as I've heard, the Opel Adam project was canceled. Could be wrong, but I recall seeing that somewhere.
The real life one won't continue and the Corsa R5 project got canned, but nothing mentioned about the video game one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but if I recall correctly, the project had been canceled even a little before D4 was released and the car still came in the game. Doubt this will be the case again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then they would have to drop pretty much the majority of the car list If cars without support can't be in the game.

People still drive the Adam in rallies. Factory support or not, so I don't see the reason to drop it from the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AIPacino said:
Yes but if I recall correctly, the project had been canceled even a little before D4 was released and the car still came in the game. Doubt this will be the case again.
Opel Kadett has been cancelled decades ago and it is still in ththe game LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason to lol is if you compare Kadett's history to Adam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AIPacino said:
The only reason to lol is if you compare Kadett's history to Adam.
The Opel Adam is now, technically, a part of Opel's history as well, since it was a program they officially supported. Also the Kadett may have more history but that doesn't necessarily make it more recognizable than the Adam, especially in the minds of younger rally fans. Given enough time, considering how good the Adam was, it will be well remembered as part of Opel's legacy.
And, to debunk the argument of 'project dumped by manufacturer, therefore not in the game', Peugeot 208 T16 R5. No longer manufactured, PSA has put their hopes in the new C3 R5, yet it's sill coming. Mitsubishi Evo X, no longer produced, advertised by Codemasters on the announcement article of DiRT Rally 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone clue me in why we are so certain that there won't be a 2000's class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyRex said:
Can someone clue me in why we are so certain that there won't be a 2000's class?
There's no certainty about it however, they haven't mentioned it in any car lists yet and they wouldve done as it sells games. I would imagine if it's coming, it will be as DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rallystu2 said:
JZStudios said:
Rallystu2 said:
I'm happy with the DLC structure codies are putting on. Fact is if you don't pay for stuff you won't get anything. The modern games industry has to fight the increase in production costs while all the while games prices stay relatively neutral. I find that those games with a free live service offer very little solid content and it tends to be spread pretty thin too. Look at battlefields 5' currently disastrous live service for example.
If we pay for DLC they have a reason to make more, and more importantly make more content that we really want as it means fatter pockets for them.

That's frankly a load of ****. Games are universally selling more than they have in the past, and even at the $60 price point they're still getting more than the return of investment.
This whole DLC process is "How little can we make them pay $60 for, and then charge for what should've been included?" Battlefield V has far less content than any of the previous games, maybe minus the spin-off Hardline, and the very limited BF1. Then people give them excuses and say "well it'll be better later when you buy EVERYTHING because they aren't making enough when they make $500 million in a week."

It's more equivalent to something like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, except you get half the characters and 1 location for $60, then buy the other 7 locations (10 if you're counting the PS1 version) for an additional $45.
People gotta make paper! And I want meaningful content which I'm more than willing to pay for personally.

I also disagreed with battlefields approach (I think you disagreed with me by agreeing)

Anyway it's a contentious issue but I personally sit very firmly in the 'show them what you think with your money' camp. 
I don't like the idea of "Well it's okay for them to charge you $60 for less content because you get to buy the rest of it" mentality.
The "increase" in production cost is more than covered by the increased amount of game sales universally, and that's not to mention all the new tools and assets in the game makers toolkits that makes game creation much easier and faster since a lot of it's being automated now. All I'm saying is that mentality of needing to give the big corporations more money for less content due to increased production costs is why loot boxes, microtransactions, and cut content resold as DLC all exist.

Frankly, if you buy the game, you're already showing them what you think. I'm fine with paying for expansions, but I hate things like paying for pre-order bonuses because you didn't buy the game at launch without any reviews or knowing if the game is any good. It's a dirty tactic. It's literally content that's in the game from day 1, but you didn't pay fast enough so now you get to pay more for what's already included. If DR2 has say, Australia (Because it would be new, not the generated D4 stages nor remakes of DR) I wouldn't mind. But literal cut content being sold back to you is BS.

As it stands, hey, I really like the gameplay of DR2, and I get that there's licensing issues and the engine is woefully outdated, but the fact is even at launch there's less content than Dirt 1. But you'll probably all attack me. It makes sense in this scenario due to limitations, but for something like EA it's pretty inexcusable. Let's also not forget the Japanese game industry that make massive games with 100+hours of fresh content for $60 and don't complain about how little money they make, despite also only selling games for $60. It's just not an argument that stands up and you're defending paying more for less content, to buy more content later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AIPacino said:
The only reason to lol is if you compare Kadett's history to Adam.
Because I thought that it was the only Opel confirmed, but the Manta has also been cancelled long time ago  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
Let's also not forget the Japanese game industry that make massive games with 100+hours of fresh content for $60 and don't complain about how little money they make, despite also only selling games for $60. 

So I won't even dive into the rest of it since I haven't been a part of this debate, but please never use the Japanese business model to showcase a "healthy" system. It is woefully broken, abusive, underpaid, and a myriad of other things. They, like China too, load most of their games with tons of MTX - way more than what western devs do. Pay2win is a valid and acceptable strategy for some games over there with their user base supporting that.

The content for DR2.0 is definitely lighter than I'd like, but I think the final package (maybe after two DLCs) will be a worthwhile game. I think I'll get more than double my money's worth out of just the base game before the first DLC even drops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
Rallystu2 said:
I'm happy with the DLC structure codies are putting on. Fact is if you don't pay for stuff you won't get anything. The modern games industry has to fight the increase in production costs while all the while games prices stay relatively neutral. I find that those games with a free live service offer very little solid content and it tends to be spread pretty thin too. Look at battlefields 5' currently disastrous live service for example.
If we pay for DLC they have a reason to make more, and more importantly make more content that we really want as it means fatter pockets for them.

That's frankly a load of ****. Games are universally selling more than they have in the past, and even at the $60 price point they're still getting more than the return of investment.
This whole DLC process is "How little can we make them pay $60 for, and then charge for what should've been included?" Battlefield V has far less content than any of the previous games, maybe minus the spin-off Hardline, and the very limited BF1. Then people give them excuses and say "well it'll be better later when you buy EVERYTHING because they aren't making enough when they make $500 million in a week."

It's more equivalent to something like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, except you get half the characters and 1 location for $60, then buy the other 7 locations (10 if you're counting the PS1 version) for an additional $45.

I completely disagree with you on this one. Personally, I’m a big fan of titles expanding over time. That probably correlates with the games we own and the DLC experience. Since DR1, my most used games have been Assetto Corsa, Il-2 Sturmovik BoS, Project Cars 2 and Total War Warhammer - each of those has evolved over time, releasing improvements in patches supported by DLC/expansions which keeps the content fresh and interesting.

Personally, and I realise this is different for everyone, I want to stop seeing a new version of DiRT every year or two and see one that I like expand, improve and evolve over 2/3/4 years, taking content forward where possible. Il-2 is the best example of this approach to me; they’ve created a base game with 1 (huge) map and 8 plans, then created 3 more ‘games’ with similar quantities of content, which all expand upon the previous one and are part of the same ‘app’. With smaller individual pieces of DLC (making sure not to be ‘pay to win’) between. https://il2sturmovik.com/about/

To me, I'm happy Codemasters are taking these steps. They sound more in line with those of Project Cars 2 but the point is that there'll be ongoing support and fresh content throughout the game's lifespan. 
Assetto Corsa is crap with content and relies heavily on mods to make up for it. It uses different vehicle configurations and a crap ton of Lotuses no one cares about to inflate it's number. It was also released as an Early Access game, so updates are natural. The game as of now seems to also be dead since they've moved on to UE4 and Competizione, so that... doesn't really work.
I don't know anything about Sturmovik.
Project Cars 2 has a fairly decent amount of content from the base game. I actually don't even know what they have for DLC. They seem to have packs that are around $1 per car, or "expansions" with 6-8 cars and a track for $10. It seems to be a "sim" thing to just have... very little content actually and then just charge for everything else. Like seriously? The Ford Mustang and RUF Yellowbird, which were available and free in the first game? The Yellowbird especially because Porsche wasn't allowed, but now it is so you're charging a premium? Paying for content which was available free in the first game is irritating. If it's an actual licensing thing like Porsche requiring extra money to pay EA, sure, or if it's an actual new addition to the game I don't mind. Paying for repeat content is just stupid.

I'm not going to pay $60 for one level of THPS4 and then be afforded the opportunity to buy the rest of the game for an additional $45 over the next 2-3 years. I'll just wait for the inevitable "fun bag grab pack game of the year" with all the DLC to go on sale for $15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AIPacino said:
Or just set a free car on that class so everyone can play it. If you want to race the other cars in the class, buy the DLC. That would also solve the MP problem. If you just set it to the host, barely anyone will buy the DLC as they can simply look for a host who owns it all. That's how Europa Universalis IV currently works.
I'm pretty sure Forza used to include a free car with every car pack DLC. It was generally the least interesting/fun, but it was still something.
It'd be like the Mazda pack with the RX-7, the 787b, RX-8... and then some 50hp thing from the 60's as the free car. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
Rallystu2 said:
JZStudios said:
Rallystu2 said:
I'm happy with the DLC structure codies are putting on. Fact is if you don't pay for stuff you won't get anything. The modern games industry has to fight the increase in production costs while all the while games prices stay relatively neutral. I find that those games with a free live service offer very little solid content and it tends to be spread pretty thin too. Look at battlefields 5' currently disastrous live service for example.
If we pay for DLC they have a reason to make more, and more importantly make more content that we really want as it means fatter pockets for them.

That's frankly a load of ****. Games are universally selling more than they have in the past, and even at the $60 price point they're still getting more than the return of investment.
This whole DLC process is "How little can we make them pay $60 for, and then charge for what should've been included?" Battlefield V has far less content than any of the previous games, maybe minus the spin-off Hardline, and the very limited BF1. Then people give them excuses and say "well it'll be better later when you buy EVERYTHING because they aren't making enough when they make $500 million in a week."

It's more equivalent to something like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, except you get half the characters and 1 location for $60, then buy the other 7 locations (10 if you're counting the PS1 version) for an additional $45.
People gotta make paper! And I want meaningful content which I'm more than willing to pay for personally.

I also disagreed with battlefields approach (I think you disagreed with me by agreeing)

Anyway it's a contentious issue but I personally sit very firmly in the 'show them what you think with your money' camp. 
I don't like the idea of "Well it's okay for them to charge you $60 for less content because you get to buy the rest of it" mentality.
The "increase" in production cost is more than covered by the increased amount of game sales universally, and that's not to mention all the new tools and assets in the game makers toolkits that makes game creation much easier and faster since a lot of it's being automated now. All I'm saying is that mentality of needing to give the big corporations more money for less content due to increased production costs is why loot boxes, microtransactions, and cut content resold as DLC all exist.

Frankly, if you buy the game, you're already showing them what you think. I'm fine with paying for expansions, but I hate things like paying for pre-order bonuses because you didn't buy the game at launch without any reviews or knowing if the game is any good. It's a dirty tactic. It's literally content that's in the game from day 1, but you didn't pay fast enough so now you get to pay more for what's already included. If DR2 has say, Australia (Because it would be new, not the generated D4 stages nor remakes of DR) I wouldn't mind. But literal cut content being sold back to you is BS.

As it stands, hey, I really like the gameplay of DR2, and I get that there's licensing issues and the engine is woefully outdated, but the fact is even at launch there's less content than Dirt 1. But you'll probably all attack me. It makes sense in this scenario due to limitations, but for something like EA it's pretty inexcusable. Let's also not forget the Japanese game industry that make massive games with 100+hours of fresh content for $60 and don't complain about how little money they make, despite also only selling games for $60. It's just not an argument that stands up and you're defending paying more for less content, to buy more content later.
The reason I'm pre ordering deluxe is to play the game early and get season one and two. I couldn't really care less about the Porsche, it will be fun but I won't be genuinely competing in it. People have different opinions, I'm personally happy about the continued service and DLC. It pushes a developer to keep working on a title rather than letting it fester. I understand and respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
Let's also not forget the Japanese game industry that make massive games with 100+hours of fresh content for $60 and don't complain about how little money they make, despite also only selling games for $60. 

So I won't even dive into the rest of it since I haven't been a part of this debate, but please never use the Japanese business model to showcase a "healthy" system. It is woefully broken, abusive, underpaid, and a myriad of other things. They, like China too, load most of their games with tons of MTX - way more than what western devs do. Pay2win is a valid and acceptable strategy for some games over there with their user base supporting that.

The content for DR2.0 is definitely lighter than I'd like, but I think the final package (maybe after two DLCs) will be a worthwhile game. I think I'll get more than double my money's worth out of just the base game before the first DLC even drops. 
Really? I just played through Persona 5 and Yakuza, both series have little to no microtransations. Resident Evil 7 has some DLC chapters, but the base game is otherwise free of those features. Could be wrong, but I don't see Super Smash brothers including tons of paid DLC, MTX, or lootboxes... Mario... no... Dark Souls.. some DLC side mission stuff, but nothing like the main story from Destiny... Bayonetta, nope. Final Fantasy? Mmm, not really. FFXV isn't great, but aside from the MMO one, there's really no additional cost. Metal Gear? Nah. Granted it's not a complete story, but it's still got 90 hours of content. Monster Hunter World? Eh, I could see it, but most of it's gestures and costume stuff, granted it is overpriced. And that's not to mention the amount of content already in the game. Nier Automata? It has one, which is a challenge thing and has some costumes as rewards.
Pokemon? I don't play them, but I'm pretty sure you don't pay extra for bonus Pokemon. Legend of Zelda? I saw something about a motorcycle. Have no idea if it's paid or not. Mario Kart? Alright, apparently it has 3 packs, and one is hilariously Mercedes, which is also free.

I see FAR less DLC, micro-transactions, and loot boxes in Japanese games than western ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
I see FAR less DLC, micro-transactions, and loot boxes in Japanese games than western ones.
Well you're also only focusing on the games which get exported to the west. They produce far more games that never leave the SEA region than those that do, and those local games are the ones which push obscene amounts of MTX because they know their local playerbase (unlike the west) will easily drop money on this stuff. The west still does it too, but not like SEA does. Look to any big SEA specific MMOs and things, you'll see it. Hell Black Desert is a great example of a game which made it to the Western market that uses only some of the MTX practices the rest of the games in the east use.

But let's go back to your earlier arguments about not including past content (or charging for it) in future releases. And let's do it using THPS4! How many levels from THPS1 through THPS3 were included with THPS4? How many of the same skaters, decks, secret characters, map building items, etc were carried over into the new game?

If you want things done right, you can't just drop in old assets. If you're actually iterating on a game and improving it with the sequels you have to rebuild the designs and assets from the ground up. You can reuse the old ones as a guideline for what you're aiming to achieve but you can't just reuse them. If you do it'll be quickly shown to be sub-par to the actual new content. So while I would love to get more of the old cars/stages in DR2.0, I won't complain that we aren't getting double the content of DR1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
Dytut said:
tbtstt said:
The symbols on the left page look similar to the code that is partially visible on the right? Is that something? 
Notes in the right shows alphabet following code 191 and forwards in the extended ASCII table. So you can translate the symbols on the left page by using that. I'm at work so won't do it, but if anyone has the time and inclination....
Seems like no one cares about this at this point, but I might just point out that I am NOT a "code" writer. I might have to [REDACTED] and my coa=b has a fl#x+x
Maybe it helps anyone, I'm stuck here:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People complaining that grpB RX being DLC because it was in a previous game don't make any sense.

It's not like DR2.0 is releasing with less content, people keep forgetting that we haven't been told half the cars coming in the base release yet, we only know the number, which is comparable with DR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange, the Instagram post with the Fiesta MK8 RX is gone now ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JZStudios said:
I see FAR less DLC, micro-transactions, and loot boxes in Japanese games than western ones.
Have you heard of a little company called Capcom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People complaining that grpB RX being DLC because it was in a previous game don't make any sense.

It's not like DR2.0 is releasing with less content, people keep forgetting that we haven't been told half the cars coming in the base release yet, we only know the number, which is comparable with DR.
It makes all the sense. It's content that was previously available being gated off behind a paywall. it's not like they have SO MUCH work if they can't bo bothered to make EGO really modern. It's high time to adapt some proper multi-threading, async compute (DX 12 / Vulkan) and newer AA.

These two videos accurately sum up what's happening in "simracing" genre. The first one is just like the situation with Group B RX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21rU8eL6f8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qbbgVZObW8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's fairly clear you don't quite get this, additionally you're talking about engine development.

1) were not talking about engine development, that's another conversation.

2) a) you have never had anything previously available in DR2.0.
b) nothing is being gated
c) instead of including previously created assets in this new release, they release new content instead.  (remember this is a DR successor, not D4) 

As DLC, they are making some older content available in the new release.


Would you rather they released the content in the base game instead of the new stuff? Or do you think that game development is always <content developed since dawn of time> should always be included as there is zero work to put it in the new game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@F2CMaDMaXX good post, +1

I'm personally surprised they've taken this approach as the 'easy' way would be to save the content that's new to the series until after launch, but to pretend there'll be no work to bring content to the new standard in DR2 is vastly underestimating the work needed IMO. And I say that as someone who's disappointed in the news as I have no interest in RX content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×