Jump to content

Total cost of Dirt Rally 2.0

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, JesseDeya said:

Grand Turismo 4 launched in 2004/5 with 700+ cars and 50+ tracks. No payed DLC nonsense.

CMR 1, 2 & 3, 04 and 05 launched with 8-9 proper RALLY locations with multiple stages...  not single track 1.2km RX nonsense. No payed DLC nonsense.

Not sure what any of this is supposed to prove tbh. 🙂

Saying DR2 will have 31 different locations all told isn't comparing apples with apples. It will still only have 6 rally locations, everything else costs more money - that's they point people are making here.

Cool. And back then CM could sell 1-3 million copies of a rally game... so what happened?

Infographic of Dirt game sales.

we've already covered why it was easier and cheaper to make more content back then. catch up.

lol comparing this to Gran Turismo is the real apples to oranges here. it's Gran Turismo. it's a AAA series with the backing of the makers of Playstation. they're in completely different leagues of funding and sales figures. GT 3 and 4 sold 15 and 12 million copies, respectively, and Polyphony spent 60 million USD to make GT5.

what happened was the discipline of rally declined as the early-00s era drew to a close and a lot of popular manufacturers left the discipline. Dirt 2 & 3 did well because they were still riding the high of that era and they had other well-implemented disciplines like RX, landrush & raid, which made the games appealing to a wider, more casual player base that was huge on the consoles at the time.

also... paid, not payed.

Edited by ianism
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ianism said:

all that being said, I think it's obvious that the three classes of rally cars that were made DLC were picked because they're probably among most popular classes for each type of drivetrain, so they were chosen on purpose to sell more DLC bundles, which I'm not ultra happy about. I feel like they could at least have given us the Impreza & Focus 2001 in the base game and made like a couple of the R5 cars or something DLC instead.

the base game of Dirt Rally 2.0 is 69$ Canadian without tax on Steam (yeah, tax is not included in the sticker price of things here. and every province has different taxes. it's a pain lol), and you can buy a new physical copy for PS4 for 70$ (I happened to see one yesterday). AC Odyssey base version is 80$ (though currently you can get the gold edition for 52!)

I bought GTA San Andreas in 2004 for 65$. around the same time, I paid 74$ for Tekken 5. SSX 3 was 70$.

I missed the PS3/XB360 generation because I wasn't really playing games then and I was at uni in Edinburgh, so I can't speak on that. but I remember the prices of PS2 games I bought pretty well because I had an allowance at the time and so I had to figure out how many weeks in advance I had to save in order to be able to get it. (I know, life is so hard for an upper-middle class straight white teenager 😉)

*Cough*

Image result for monopoly money

6 hours ago, Tranzitive said:

the price of video games has not increased for over 10 years. 

that is a LONG time. i don't entirely agree with the method of selling all sorts of extras as DLC, and some publishers are extremely predatory about it. 

Another false equivalence. The price hasn't changed, but they sell on average significantly more more units. Publishers do predatory practices to gather more money. They'd still function without doing so, but their growth in the stock market might stagnate, which is eventually inevitable anyways. They're not happy making billions, they want trillions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ianism said:

we've already covered why it was easier and cheaper to make more content back then. catch up.

lol comparing this to Gran Turismo is the real apples to oranges here. it's Gran Turismo. it's a AAA series with the backing of the makers of Playstation. they're in completely different leagues of funding and sales figures. GT 3 and 4 sold 15 and 12 million copies, respectively, and Polyphony spent 60 million USD to make GT5.

Pretty sure Gran Turismo was still using PS2 assets until like GT6.

Yep. GT5 at least had 80% of it's roster come straight from the PS2. Fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Pretty sure Gran Turismo was still using PS2 assets until like GT6.

It was.

GT Sport is the first GT game since GT3 that had 100% entirely new car assets built from scratch.

GT6, GT5 and GT4 all used car assets from GT3, albeit with varying degrees of upscaling.

No car assets from GT1 or GT2 were ported over to GT3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get whats going on here.

It's simple:

If I look on how many hours I already put in this game and how much it had cost me since then, it's a damn good deal.

 

100€ for the base game + 4 seasons of content? It's clearly not cheap, but well away from my personal limit.

I did much more ridiculous stuff in the past, like buying Conker's Bad Fur Day for N64 in 2001 for ca. 90€, wich was much more money at that time. And the game was pretty short too. But I don't regret it...was hilarious 😄

I also spent 100€ on Forza Motorsport 7 and the same for Forza Horizon 4. But had more fun with DiRT Rally 2.0.

I don't wanna say I'm rich (I'm not), but the value I get is good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, PJTierney said:

It was.

GT Sport is the first game since GT3 that had entirely new assets from scratch.

Yep. Meanwhile Forza has surpassed their car count, and probably track count, after creating all of their assets from scratch after the switch to the new gen. Not to mention the constant improvements to everything during the last gen. They also don't release disappointing products every 6 years.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ianism said:
6 hours ago, JesseDeya said:

Not sure what any of this is supposed to prove tbh. 🙂

lol comparing this to Gran Turismo is the real apples to oranges here. it's Gran Turismo.

I didn't start the car count analogy, you did. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to look at an era and try and equate an 'acceptable' number of cars. PCars 2 launched with 187 cars two years ago - they aren't the size of Polyphony, in fact I suspect they are smaller than CMs.

Also I fully deserve to be 'payed' out for that embarrassing typo.

2 hours ago, PJTierney said:

It was.

GT Sport is the first game since GT3 that had entirely new assets from scratch.

That's pretty disingenuous, GT5 had 200 premium cars made from scratch and many of the standard cars and all the tracks were heavily reworked - which is apparently good enough to sell as DLC around here.

Also, GT4 was a thing.

When was the last CMs game that had entirely new assets from scratch?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JesseDeya said:

When was the last CMs game that had entirely new assets from scratch?

I wasn't comparing to Codemasters titles or looking to prove a point/argument, merely stating fact 😉 

(though I did miss a word, in that GT Sport had 100% new car assets from scratch)
 

GT4 imported a lot of GT3's content, as did GT5 GT4's and GT6 GT5's, hence GT Sport was the first "fresh start" since GT3.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Everyone has their own definition of how much content (be it new, remastered, ported, whatever) a game should have in order for that game to provide an acceptable value proposition. We all have our own preferences and shouldn't nay-say others for having different views.

For some, the content count is secondary to the actual gameplaying experience. I for example can appreciate the 800+ car count of Forza Motorsport 7 and have enjoyed many of them, but the driving experience in DiRT Rally (1) was such a refreshing challenge that I didn't care if it "only" had 30-40 cars.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Are we really all giving air to a comment that claims there’s “no new content”? I mean, in a game where we have:

- hand-built stages in Spain, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Poland and Argentina and six (I think) new RX venues

- Citroen DS, VW Golf MkII, Porsche 911 SC RS, BMW M1, Porsche 997 GT3, Chevrolet Camaro, Ford Mustang, Aston Martin Vantage, VW Polo R5, Citroen C3 R5, Skoda Fabia R5, Peugeot 206 WRC, Skoda Fabia WRC, Impreza S14 WRC, Peugeot 208 R2, VW Golf F2, Datsun 240Z and whatever else is new on the RX side, not to mention the Evo VI, 205 GTi, Opel Ascona, two R2s and three R5s that weren’t in DR1.

- tyre compound and wear (admittedly should be better), surface degradation and probably a couple of other improvements I can’t remember.

I mean, that’s Trump/Johnson levels of straight up lying right there, unless there was some secret version of DR1 I never found out about.

Also, “the only difference is improved visuals and handling”? Good! “The only difference with this new chocolate bar is that it tastes better”.

Finally, no one is making you pay that; you could get the majority of the brand new content I mentioned above for less than £50. 

Instead, I put it to you that for me the combined price for DR1 and DR2 is a bargain for the number of hours I’ve put into it. And I say that as someone who really got no value from Dirt 4.

 

Edited by RodgerDavies
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Yep. Meanwhile Forza has surpassed their car count, and probably track count, after creating all of their assets from scratch after the switch to the new gen. Not to mention the constant improvements to everything during the last gen. They also don't release disappointing products every 6 years.

I play and enjoy the Forza Horizons, but to be honest Forza Motorsports feel off compared to GT.

You can say GTs are disappointing all you want, but the punters disagree. FMS 7 (Xbox AND PC) is sitting at about 1.5 - 2 million sold, GT Sport (PS4 only) is in excess of 8 million.

This is actually the issue I had with DR2 in the beginning, not the amount of content, or the graphics or the sound... it felt wrong (FFB wise) and wasn't enjoyable to play (it's MUCH better now). I feel that way about the handling of FMS most of the time.

BTW: GTs launched in 2010, 2013 and 2017. Your six year "burn" is soooo console warrior circa 2009, and ironically was about GT5 which went on to become the most loved GT in a long time and sold 12 million copies.

Seeing as this thread is about cost of ownership:

GT Sport $60. Launched with 162 cars, added 130+ cars and counting - free. Launch with 17 locations and now 28 locations through free DLC.

FM7 $60 + $30 car pass (9 packs and counting). Launched with 700+cars, added 63 through paid DLC. Launched with 32 locations - no new additions.

DR2.0 $60 + $30 + $30 for seasons 1-4. Launched with 51 cars, added 28 through paid DLC. Launched with 6 Rally + 8 RX locations, now 12 Rally + 11 RX through paid DLC.

Not sure CMs had the goodwill to try and milk the bank that much - seems to be backfiring from a PR perspective.

Edited by JesseDeya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JesseDeya said:

I play and enjoy the Forza Horizons, but to be honest Forza Motorsports feel off compared to GT.

You can say GTs are disappointing all you want, but the punters disagree. FMS 7 (Xbox AND PC) is sitting at about 1.5 - 2 million sold, GT Sport (PS4 only) is in excess of 8 million.

This is actually the issue I had with DR2 in the beginning, not the amount of content, or the graphics or the sound... it felt wrong (FFB wise) and wasn't enjoyable to play (it's MUCH better now). I feel that way about the handling of FMS most of the time.

BTW: GTs launched in 2010, 2013 and 2017. Your six year "burn" is soooo console warrior circa 2009, and ironically was about GT5 which went on to become the most loved GT in a long time and sold 12 million copies.

K. Don't know what punters or console warriors are, but whatever. FM7 also had a ****-tastic launch with adding in a bunch of stuff no one liked, wanted, or asked for. Not that sales figures have any relevance to anything I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JesseDeya said:

Cool. And back then CM could sell 1-3 million copies of a rally game... so what happened?

Infographic of Dirt game sales.

What has your link got to do with the cost of the game/rate of inflation?

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

K. Don't know what punters or console warriors are, but whatever.

Punters = Paying Customers. Console Warrior = Twisting of the term Keyboard Warrior.

18 hours ago, JesseDeya said:

CMR 1, 2 & 3, 04 and 05 launched with 8-9 proper RALLY locations with multiple stages...  not single track 1.2km RX nonsense. No payed DLC nonsense.

Not sure what any of this is supposed to prove tbh. 🙂

Saying DR2 will have 31 different locations all told isn't comparing apples with apples. It will still only have 6 rally locations, everything else costs more money - that's they point people are making here.

No. The deluxe edition of the game, which as you can see if you go back and look at my post, is what I used in the price comparison, is actually cheaper than the cost of a game from 2000 and has seasons 1+2 dlc included in the price. So, in your "apples for apples" comparison, it has 10 rally locations, which is more than any of the CMR's and also includes 11 RX stages.

The cost of the base game (6 rally locations + 9 RX locations) is £45, which in terms of 2000 money is roughly £28.50

Also, the reason why the DiRT Rally games use the single stage/broken up formula is because we (the forum members) asked Codies to give us stages that were as long as possible instead of several short stages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, SkiddyMcCrash said:

What has your link got to do with the cost of the game/rate of inflation?

Quite a lot.

If your theory is correct, people should be flocking to the current game because it's cheaper than ever (adjusted for inflation) and includes more (1-2) rally locations. The reality, as emphasised by the infographic, is that this CMR is the least popular of all (based on the sales data we can glean so far).

I don't think price is the only factor that turned people off, CMs have had dozens of other missteps this release, but the way they are handling the seasons is particularly grating. It doesn't matter and people don't care that it's technically cheaper by late 90s/early 20s standards (adjusted for inflation), it only matters that it's still deemed "expensive" by today's standards. Customer perception is retailer reality.

To buy a computer in 1985 with around half the computing power of my iPhone XS would cost - inflation adjusted for today - about $76,303,643.12 USD. That doesn't mean I look at the $999 USD figure of the iPhone XS and consider it cheap.

Quote

Also, the reason why the DiRT Rally games use the single stage/broken up formula is because we (the forum members) asked Codies to give us stages that were as long as possible instead of several short stages.

I wasn't complaining about that, I too like long stages. When I was talking about 1.2km tracks I specifically mentioned Rally X circuits, which I have no interest in.

Edited by JesseDeya
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JesseDeya said:

If your theory is correct, people should be flocking to the current game because it's cheaper than ever (adjusted for inflation) and includes more (1-2) rally locations. The reality, as emphasised by the infographic, is that this CMR is the least popular of all (based on the sales data we can glean so far).

What? People said the game cost more than it would have done in 2000. I used the Bank of Englands inflation calculator to show that isn't true. That's not a theory and in no way related to why sales figures are down. You're the one trying to connect price and sale numbers, not me.

I wasn't comparing RX stages with SS stages, I was explaining why there Codies use 2 long stages split up, instead of several different small stages. As I've said before, RX was added to the game at the request of forum members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price and sale figures always related though, I think he was making a valid point. Whether justified or not Codemasters/their publisher haven't made the value proposition attractive enough.

In my opinion it was going to get very hard anyway after what happened with DiRT4, where support was dropped quickly and very quietly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chukonu said:

In my opinion it was going to get very hard anyway after what happened with DiRT4, where support was dropped quickly and very quietly.

Fair enough, but I think we can all agree CM and @PJTierney have done a great job fixing this exact issue. CM is constantly pumping out more content for us, even if we all can't agree on the price they are still pushing out content - they didn't just drop it. And PJ has been all over the place trying to keep every sub-community up to date with info and fixes. They are doing the exact opposite as with D4 and that (imo at least) is going to go a long way for pushing that value proposition way back up. 

 

Sure, some people may look at the upfront cost and go "that is way too much", but others will look at it and see years worth of racing content being published for them to enjoy and wonder why it is only $100

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

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

×