NASCAR Heat Evolution

[howitzer155mm]

I like how after over a decade of awful NASCAR games, we still haven't gotten a single IndyCar game, no FIA GT3, GTLM, TUDOR, GTE, WEC or even a fully licensed game with the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series. All these resources put to waste while many of these companies just squat on the licenses for years.

And the only way to enjoy any of this is to invest in sims that could end up costing you a good $700 after 5 years.

I feel like as graphics improve, realism and quality go to crap.

 

[Catalysis]

I saw an extensive car setup screen in one of the YouTube vids which the presenter had found by chance buried elsewhere in the navigation...

You nailed it. The GUI is horrible. I so wanted this to be better than it is.

 

[Catalysis]

Like it or not, things have changed quite a bit since 2003, and it's a much more cut-throat gaming world out there.

Just because things have deteriorated doesn't mean we all have to bow down and accept the situation...

 

[P*Funk]

One final thing: The DLC policy.
That's one thing that really irks me. No the policy, but peoples reaction to it.
Hate it or love it, DLCs are the name of the game these days, no matter what franchise we're talking.
It's a simple fact of life.

But......saying a DLC should've been in the original game is just wrong.
The developers make a game, and set a price for it. They also get to set the prices for any eventual DLC.
Oddly enough, most companies are in this business to make money.
You, as a consumer, get to look at the pricing structure and decide for yourself whether or not you think it's worth the price of admission.
It really is that simple.
So please stop making claims that this or that 'should've been included in the base-game'
Trying to convince people that you're entitled to something for free really makes you look petty.

Launching a title with less wheel support than equivalent titles from 10+ years ago along with selling as day 1 DLC what was once considered part of the product isn't something we should be standing around saying is a good thing for the gaming consumer. They're selling additional content for the game without having the core content properly fixed yet.

Sure we have the option of choosing whether to buy or not buy when presented with a pricing model, but when that pricing model is ridiculous why can't we be critical of it? You may as well be saying its petty to say its crappy to be nickle and dimed for content that ought to be part of the package for the full title which is silly.

Frankly this entitlement accusation is thrown around too easily and its just insulting to the people with legitimate thought out gripes but you just throw them in with everyone else when you use it, basically painting them with the same brush you'd use on those legitimate idiots who complain about every Free to Play title and have no real sense of what they're talking about.

Yes DLC is here to stay but not all DLC is created equal. The DLC models that suck should be called out as such and I find bizarre to see someone defend them with the argument that the company's greed is rational. Well if that's rational then so is my umbrage.

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

I want a 6th voting option. "Yes - And got it refunded!"

 

[TheGrunt]

Yes DLC is here to stay but not all DLC is created equal. The DLC models that suck should be called out as such and I find bizarre to see someone defend them with the argument that the company's greed is rational. Well if that's rational then so is my umbrage.

IMO it's not even about the quality of DLC that is the problem. To me, every day 1 DLC is a crap no matter what it includes. If DLC is released on the day of launch, it could've been in the game from the start. Instead publisher decided to practically inflate the game price up right from the start and milk more money out of gamers pockets.

 

[Lars Hansen]

Sure we have the option of choosing whether to buy or not buy when presented with a pricing model, but when that pricing model is ridiculous why can't we be critical of it?

You can. No question about it.
But you may want to re-read what I wrote. I never said the pricing was fair, I never said that DLCs was a good idea in the first place.
What I objected to (and still do) is the claim that 'something should've been in the base-game'.
What should or should not be in the initial release is not up to the consumer, that's a business decision.
Any business will try to make as much money off a product as they can. If they don't, they probably won't be in business very long.
So it becomes a risk/reward analysis. If DMR (or any other developer) thinks they can sell both a base-game, and get additional income from DLCs, why on earth wouldn't they do so?
The risk of course is that the consumer-base may find it so un-fair that they won't buy either.
Which is where the consumer comes in, and this is the point where people get to vote with their wallets.
If nobody ever bought any DLCs, nor bought any game that featured DLCs, you can bet they'd disappear soon enough.

And you could argue that DLCs are to the benefit of the consumer as well.
Take the Throwback livery pack for instance.
Doing all these liveries took X number of man-hours, and the company needs to make some money of that product to recuperate the cost, I'm assuming we can agree on that much.
So DMR has a choice between either offering it as a DLC for 9.99 (or whatever the price-tag is), or including it with the base-game and adding that cost to the base-game.
If they raise the price on the base-game that will lower overall sales, and it'll only add something that the casual user-base probably has no interest in.
On the other hand, if they offer it as a DLC, the casual user-base get the base-game cheaper while those that want the full experience can pay extra to get what they want
.
It's like when you buy a car.
You can get the basic package for the lowest price, but if you want leather seats, high-quality HiFi and airconditioning, then you're going to pay extra for it.
Whether or not the extra expense is worth it, is entirely up to the consumer.
But if you try to go into a car-dealership and argue that all the luxury extras 'should' be in the base-package as well because you somehow deserve it, or because 'it was ready at the same time', then lots of luck.

 

[Trimaz]

What a shame, was really hoping this was going to be the NASCAR's Dirt Rally, but all we just got another generic unfinished and buggy console racing game. Looks like I will be sticking with ARCA for another 12 months.

 

[Boby Kim]

Maybe they release a wheel support DLC

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

It's like when you buy a car.
You can get the basic package for the lowest price, but if you want leather seats, high-quality HiFi and airconditioning, then you're going to pay extra for it.
Whether or not the extra expense is worth it, is entirely up to the consumer.
But if you try to go into a car-dealership and argue that all the luxury extras 'should' be in the base-package as well because you somehow deserve it, or because 'it was ready at the same time', then lots of luck.

Well, if I buy a Premium product (AAA-game) I expect that certain things are included. There are cars that I expect to have leather seats, airco etc.
But if I buy a Dacia, I don't expect it.
This is no low-budget indie-game, it's not a Dacia, or at least it's not supposed to be. Why would I want to pay Merc-prices for a fairly entry-level Dacia?

It's not that physics and graphics are the be-it-all either. I still play V-Rally 3 on PS2, with poor physics (and that's me being nice), framedrops, and graphical glitches... But it's got a fantastic career-mode.
This game have nothing. There are small things that frustrates and irritates me all the way.

 

[Deleted member 130869]

The GUI is horrible.

Jeez, thanks. I had nothing to do with it!

 

[Lars Hansen]

This is no low-budget indie-game, it's not a Dacia, or at least it's not supposed to be. Why would I want to pay Merc-prices for a fairly entry-level Dacia?

You shouldn't, and you didn't.
Far as I remember, you took it back to the dealership after a test-drive.

 

[Catalysis]

Just occurred to me that all the Day One DLC was a fast money grab by the publisher before anyone realized how flawed the title is?

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

You shouldn't, and you didn't.
Far as I remember, you took it back to the dealership after a test-drive.

Touchè! I am just so darn disappointed in this game -.- I still have to fall back to NASCAR 06 on PS2.

 

[P*Funk]

What I objected to (and still do) is the claim that 'something should've been in the base-game'.
What should or should not be in the initial release is not up to the consumer, that's a business decision.

That's just pointless semantics. When asserting what should or shouldn't be in the base game the critique is expressing a view about the notion of value as a product and how its packaged. It doesn't matter if its up to you or me or them, if I can be critical of the pricing model then I can be critical of the value of the products as framed at release.

Their right to do it has no bearing on our judgment of their decisions of how to package the product. How does that even constitute an argument? If they sold me a Burger and Fries with a drink and tried to tell me salt for the fries was $1 extra and a straw was $0.50 I can say that should have been part of the meal. I'm not being petty or entitled. There is no effective difference in principle between arguing whether a price is wrong or whether the value of the product as packaged is wrong.

Any business will try to make as much money off a product as they can. If they don't, they probably won't be in business very long.

More greed apologetics. This point you're making is an abstract one, a broadly generalized one. Its attempting to argue against the specific merits of the given criticism of this game and its model of pricing and packaging by arguing a generic outlook.

You're effectively saying that if they weren't trying to rip us off then they wouldn't be in business for very long. That's the rational conclusion of your assertion here and that's simply untrue. Reiza is a perfect example of a company that gave lots away for free and is doing just fine thank you very much. Its not a matter of necessity how much you try to bilk your customers versus offering them excellent value, its a question of how much the market will tolerate it and it doesn't matter if the market tolerates a lot of BS, its still fair to criticize the practice.

Your argument here is simply an ideological outlook with respect to business practices and not factually and inevitably true as you imply. I disagree with it and many, including some of those who develop and sell products in this niche seem to as well. There is no rule that if you don't try to give the consumers as bad a deal as possible at every opportunity you probably won't be in business very long. That's just too simplistic and fallacious.

To me your whole shtick boils down to 'the consumer is entitled if they expect a good deal but the business is rational if they try to give you as bad of one as possible'.

 

[Catalysis]

This guy just about sums the whole sad affair up. I'm refunded and back to NR2003 already. It KILLS NHE.

 

[Lars Hansen]

That's just pointless semantics. When asserting what should or shouldn't be in the base game the critique is expressing a view about the notion of value as a product and how its packaged. It doesn't matter if its up to you or me or them, if I can be critical of the pricing model then I can be critical of the value of the products as framed at release.

Their right to do it has no bearing on our judgment of their decisions of how to package the product. How does that even constitute an argument? If they sold me a Burger and Fries with a drink and tried to tell me salt for the fries was $1 extra and a straw was $0.50 I can say that should have been part of the meal. I'm not being petty or entitled. There is no effective difference in principle between arguing whether a price is wrong or whether the value of the product as packaged is wrong.



More greed apologetics. This point you're making is an abstract one, a broadly generalized one. Its attempting to argue against the specific merits of the given criticism of this game and its model of pricing and packaging by arguing a generic outlook.

You're effectively saying that if they weren't trying to rip us off then they wouldn't be in business for very long. That's the rational conclusion of your assertion here and that's simply untrue. Reiza is a perfect example of a company that gave lots away for free and is doing just fine thank you very much. Its not a matter of necessity how much you try to bilk your customers versus offering them excellent value, its a question of how much the market will tolerate it and it doesn't matter if the market tolerates a lot of BS, its still fair to criticize the practice.

Your argument here is simply an ideological outlook with respect to business practices and not factually and inevitably true as you imply. I disagree with it and many, including some of those who develop and sell products in this niche seem to as well. There is no rule that if you don't try to give the consumers as bad a deal as possible at every opportunity you probably won't be in business very long. That's just too simplistic and fallacious.

To me your whole shtick boils down to 'the consumer is entitled if they expect a good deal but the business is rational if they try to give you as bad of one as possible'.

If your main point is that you think the product is over-priced, then scroll up a bit.

at present I think the game is over-priced.

As for the rest of it.....
Apparently we keep talking past each other, so let's just leave it.

 

[M D Gourley]

So, in closing I think DMR is being run over by their own hype-train.
It's a fun game, but it's not the sim that they've alluded to.

Phew....that was a close one...I was almost ready to lay down some cash, thanks Lars...lol....but like you said maybe in a few months or more it may improve, and I will possibly look into it again.
Although I am slightly disappointed with how they built up the hype with their videos, then only to be let down....maybe DMR would have a good career in politics...lol

 

[Boby Kim]

Phew....that was a close one...I was almost ready to lay down some cash, thanks Lars...lol....but like you said maybe in a few months or more it may improve, and I will possibly look into it again.
Although I am slightly disappointed with how they built up the hype with their videos, then only to be let down....maybe DMR would have a good career in politics...lol

Well...apparently they had a good look at SMS

 

[Kenny Paton]

I had intended to get this but might be better reinstalling the original heat game (big box game on a disc in a cupboard upstairs) as apart from the graphics it looks like it was a far superior product.
Outwith the merits of physics, handling, FFB modern sims/games seem to lack the cohesion of the older titles with the exception R3E which has different issues and AMS.
At least I still have Race 07 and GTR 2 to fall back on.
Slightly off topic, but after this debacle I'm worried about the GT Legends reboot now.