Jump to content

 

Monte Carlo DLC delayed by one week.


oO Triple G Oo
 Share

Recommended Posts

codemasters was one of my favorite developers , but now they are just trying fuck everyone is the arse like EA and activison

 

Yeah. Most developers seem to have DLC ready before the game even ships. I liked the idea of DLC increasing the longevity of a game, but now it just seems like a little 'fuck you... we could've put this on the disk, but we're gonna fleece some extra cash instead'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO! at least codies dont charge 1200msp for 5 maps!

 

FPS maps that are used for multiplayer are completely different than cars or tracks in a racing game.

 

Honestly, I've played over 1,000 games on the same map in Halo 3, and don't care about paying 800 MSP for 3 maps, but you know there's no way you'd run the same track more than 10 or so times in a racing game without getting completely tired of it.

 

My opinion is that it the effort to model 5 cars or tracks is not great, and the fact that this dlc was mostly made before the game even came out, and they held it back just to make extra money is really stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My opinion is that it the effort to model 5 cars or tracks is not great, and the fact that this dlc was mostly made before the game even came out, and they held it back just to make extra money is really stupid.

 

Agreed. A few extra cars for 460 points is not really a great deal.

 

I wouldn't mind, but the game constantly gives you reminders to buy the DLC and its quite irritating.

 

I hate that approach, reminds me of Animal Crossing on the Gamecube where the animals cried and told you how sad they were you didn't have a gameboy advance and gameboy advance link cable so you could visit the special island for extra funz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. A few extra cars for 460 points is not really a great deal.

 

I wouldn't mind, but the game constantly gives you reminders to buy the DLC and its quite irritating.

 

I hate that approach, reminds me of Animal Crossing on the Gamecube where the animals cried and told you how sad they were you didn't have a gameboy advance and gameboy advance link cable so you could visit the special island for extra funz.

 

Call of Duty gives you reminders every time you start up the multiplayer that there are new maps, provided you haven't bought them. Or maybe it still does, I wouldn't know. Also, I bet you wouldn't be bitching if they released a pack of five guns for 480 points. Guns are essentially cars, if you're going to compare the two games as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things:

 

- Not sure it was a goof, it may have been a planned gap.

 

- The Power and Glory Pack was not a rip off. Like someone said only $6 for 5 cars, great deal compared to other racing games.

 

- Many companies plan DLC for various reasons. Would you rather we just go back to the days of what they release is all you ever get? Imagine Dirt 3 never getting DLC. No new cars, no new tracks, etc. Is that really what you want? Even so nobody is forcing you to buy it.

 

- There are also a number of reasons why DLC is released so soon after the game. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to get the license for the car, or they were not able to get it in the game by the time it went Gold (which is usually months before release so technically when DLC releases this close to the release it's not as close to when they finished the game as you think) so it would have been impossible to get it in the game due to time constraints.

 

 

Again I never understand the complaining over DLC, if you don't want it don't buy it. I'm happy to spend my hard earned money (albeit this isn't expensive anyways) on the Dirt 3 DLC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY reason the DLC is released so soon after the game is so the publisher can cash in on the fact so many people are still playing it.

And the only reason the tracks and cars are/were not released together is so the publisher can skim a little extra and try make it feel like a bargain at the same time.

Even if Codemasters only charge the same as the Power and glory pack that's nearly a thousand msp for a few cars and a couple of tracks... something EA released on Shift 2 as a single DLC costing 800 msp. When EA DLC looks a comparative bargain something is amiss.

 

And 'if you don't want it, don't buy it' is no kind of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY reason the DLC is released so soon after the game is so the publisher can cash in on the fact so many people are still playing it.

And the only reason the tracks and cars are/were not released together is so the publisher can skim a little extra and try make it feel like a bargain at the same time.

Even if Codemasters only charge the same as the Power and glory pack that's nearly a thousand msp for a few cars and a couple of tracks... something EA released on Shift 2 as a single DLC costing 800 msp. When EA DLC looks a comparative bargain something is amiss.

 

And 'if you don't want it, don't buy it' is no kind of argument.

You clearly don't understand business models. Of course they want to release DLC close to release for a game like this. They waited too long with GRID and look what happened?

 

The thing you also forget about Need for Speed is that there is no real restriction on what cars you can throw in there, you'll noticed a bunch of cars under the same license which is why the cost of the DLC isn't that high. In Dirt you want to use cars that are appropriate for the game, no point in throwing in sports cars (which are a dime a dozen) as they would be very out of place.

 

We don't know the price of the DLC yet, if the cost comes out to around 1,000 MS Points for the first 2 DLCs (charity DLC excluded) I think that's more than fair and have no problem with it.

 

I hate to say it but if you don't like it don't buy it son. It's a perfectly viable argument and it's the best argument a consumer can use, I don't see it working here but you can do your best lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly don't understand business models. Of course they want to release DLC close to release for a game like this. They waited too long with GRID and look what happened?

 

The thing you also forget about Need for Speed is that there is no real restriction on what cars you can throw in there, you'll noticed a bunch of cars under the same license which is why the cost of the DLC isn't that high. In Dirt you want to use cars that are appropriate for the game, no point in throwing in sports cars (which are a dime a dozen) as they would be very out of place.

 

We don't know the price of the DLC yet, if the cost comes out to around 1,000 MS Points for the first 2 DLCs (charity DLC excluded) I think that's more than fair and have no problem with it.

 

I hate to say it but if you don't like it don't buy it son. It's a perfectly viable argument and it's the best argument a consumer can use, I don't see it working here but you can do your best lol.

 

What has overpriced and (clearly) pre-release produced DLC have to do with 'business models'?

It's good business for EA to charge for in game content that can be unlocked by playing... it's good business for Activision to charge 1200 msp instead of 800 for their COD map packs... but is it fair? Is it value for money?

 

Unless you're privy to EA's and Codemasters licensing agreements, it speculative at best to assume DLC prices are in anyway based on that cost.

 

I said 'if you don't like it don't buy it' isn't any kind of argument, because it's not. 'If you don't like the price, don't buy it' might be an argument, but it's not the same thing at all, is it, boy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said 'if you don't like it don't buy it' isn't any kind of argument, because it's not. 'If you don't like the price, don't buy it' might be an argument, but it's not the same thing at all, is it, boy?

 

See, now you're just splitting hairs. It means both, and don't try to bring your loophole bullshit into this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, now you're just splitting hairs. It means both, and don't try to bring your loophole bullshit into this argument.

 

It's hardly a 'loophole' or splitting hairs to say disliking a product and disliking the price of a product are not the same thing. They clearly aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly don't understand business models. Of course they want to release DLC close to release for a game like this. They waited too long with GRID and look what happened?

 

The thing you also forget about Need for Speed is that there is no real restriction on what cars you can throw in there, you'll noticed a bunch of cars under the same license which is why the cost of the DLC isn't that high. In Dirt you want to use cars that are appropriate for the game, no point in throwing in sports cars (which are a dime a dozen) as they would be very out of place.

 

We don't know the price of the DLC yet, if the cost comes out to around 1,000 MS Points for the first 2 DLCs (charity DLC excluded) I think that's more than fair and have no problem with it.

 

I hate to say it but if you don't like it don't buy it son. It's a perfectly viable argument and it's the best argument a consumer can use, I don't see it working here but you can do your best lol.

 

Honestly, I have no problem paying five to six bucks a pack for content on a game I really love. The only thing that is slightly bothersome is the fact that all four of the first announced packs could have easily been included on the shipped disc.

 

That being said, I love this game and have no problem supporting Codemasters so that I'll hopefully see a Dirt 4 in the future.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
  • Create New...