Sim racers are an easy target

[Rob Every]

Now bear with me here, this is going to wind a few of you up.

I just added up the RRP of everything for this game on Steam, no offers, and it adds up to £85.

I am guessing most of you think that is good value, but I beg to differ.

It is only good value because a lot of you maybe compare it to other games or Iracing, but in general terms let's compare it to other games.

I am currently playing God of War, that has no DLC, and retail sets you back about 40 quid. Full game, no addons, Some games I imagine cost far more or are similar price wise.

Sim comparison F1 2020 say, all content 64 quid. Automobilista season pass is 80 quid. I cant work out DR 2.0 but I think if you bought everything from release full price it was over 100. The basics games gives you a few cars and tracks for 40 odd quid, now that is a total rip off if you ask me and its because the game was about a third of a game on release.

Why is it that sim racers are so easy to exploit? I know we are not alone here, most games do it now, but with Dirt Rally 2.0 really showed what exploiting a tiny population can rake in if you di it. Literally selling old content as new. You are so easy to manipulate, new physics, tyres, Oh yes we'll pay 40 quid for 8 tracks and about 10 cars! Bless.

Fair enough this game is new, it feels new, and the content is good and you can get it on sale as you can now for cheaper.

But the fact remains sim developers really do exploit sim gamers, and why? Because on the whole most of you are desperate or dumb enough to just forget what games ought to cost. And pay whatever they want you to pay. Just like SKY, Amazon, Disney, Netflix etc.

Now that's a harsh comment I know, but take a look here, if you always do it, guess what happens, that cost keeps on rising, more DLC keeps coming and they market it as unmissable and you MUST have it, but really is it such a good idea? Eventually a game with all content will be 200 quid plus and you are making companies vast profits who in the past would have to work harder for their money, you make it easier and easier for them to exploit you.

Kunos announced recently they had made 100 million recently, couldn't they just release a bit more with the game from new instead of basically releasing half a game? Wouldn't that be refreshing?

 

[Majuh]

The right thing to do these days is buying racing games only after their "GotY" edition is released. This way, you can play a finished product and you just need to pay a third of what the "beta testers" had to pay.

 

[Rob Every]

I would agree with that, I do think devs take advantage of the buy it now crowd who simply have to have it as it is released, the Dirt rally 2 example being utter garbage, more than half of what they released was old, they knoew, yet still handed it over!

 

[maelstrom]

GT4 has been around for a long time and should have been included in the release.

Why? GT4 wasn't part of the Blancpain GT series, the officially licenced series the game was based on, so why would they include it? It's like complaining that the F1 game doesn't include Indy Car or Formula Renault! You're clearly not reading any of the previous posts as all of this has been carefully explained to you many times.

ask yourself if you would pay £85 for this title as it stands now.

It only costs £34.99. Apart from one small, inexpensive update to the 2020 season (which isn't required to play the game), the rest of the DLC has nothing to do with the GT3 series the game is based on. No one is being forced into buying any of the DLC in order to play the game.

And believe it or not every game right now is NOT like this, Polyphony didn't really do it with the massive GT Sport, God of War, and others are just basically games released to be played for one price alone

ACC can fully be played for one price alone! I can't think of any other way to explain it so you'll understand better. The DLC lets you expand in to different series' which the original game has nothing to do with. It's almost like buying a new game with each piece of DLC.

 

[Rob Every]

So what you are saying is that all the DLC is not important, an 11 track 15 or so car game is enough. You are right, so why release anything else?

If it is not important why try and make money from it then? Release it free, who cars if it caters for a different championship, I certainly don't and I doubt anyone does unless you are obsessed with pedantry as you seem to be It's a GAME pal, not real life. They could do these things easily, but chose to go Monetization instead.

GT4 has been a part of Blancpain etc for a few years and any game designer with a decent attitude would perhaps have included it, the reason Codies don't do supports with F1 games is because they are yearly, if they do it once, it will be here for years, MOTPGP games do it for their support series. On other hand FIFA do it with their game, it covers multiple countries leagues etc, easier to market.

You seem to think that this company are being generous, I think you might find that they are just being a bit greedy, in the knowledge that people just have to have the new stuff, thereby making them increased profit, so much so they made over 100 million last year.

I don't have an issue with that, I have an issue with the way they have done it.

 

[maelstrom]

So what you are saying is that all the DLC is not important, an 11 track 15 or so car game is enough.

Yes. That's exactly what I paid for when I bought it. There was no mention of any DLC during EA or at launch. The DLC is just an optional bonus which, once again (although I feel like I'm wasting my time here), you don't need to play the full game.

If it is not important why try and make money from it then? Release it free, who cars if it caters for a different championship

So you think the developers should do their work for free? Do you do your day job for free?

You seem to think that this company are being generous, I think you might find that they are just being a bit greedy, in the knowledge that people just have to have the new stuff, thereby making them increased profit, so much so they made over 100 million last year.

Are you talking about Kunos here? I'd be amazed if they made even a fraction of that in profit from ACC but, if you have the proof, please post the details with references or provide links to your sources. If you can't, I'll assume you're guessing to try to make a point.

 

[Durge Driven]

PRiCELESS

 

[Gevatter]

Are you talking about Kunos here? I'd be amazed if they made even a fraction of that in profit from ACC but, if you have the proof, please post the details with references or provide links to your sources. If you can't, I'll assume you guessing to try to make a point.

It's 100 Million for the whole Assetto Corsa Franchise, and it's revenue, not profit. Still impressive.

Assetto Corsa Hits €100 Million in Sales: Exclusive Interview with Kunos' Marco Massarutto

The Assetto Corsa franchise has achieved a major milestone today, reaching €55 million in sales on Steam and topping €100 million of revenue in total. The news comes from GTPlanet's exclusive interview with Marco Massarutto, co-founder and Executive Manager of Kunos Simulazioni, where we discusse

www.gtplanet.net

 

[maelstrom]

It's 100 Million for the whole Assetto Corsa Franchise, and it's revenue, not profit. Still impressive.

Thanks for that. It makes more sense as total revenue for the whole franchise. So not 100 million last year as claimed by @Rob Every.

 

[Alex Townsend]

The future is already here I am afraid, and sadly with people seemingly endlessly willing to hand out 100 quid for a 40 quid game over time, it will only get worse.

That's exactly the point though, over time... Not buying the next years installment but adding to the base. Are you starting to understand yet? This is taking too long...

My points are these. the game is based on a series, that series is not really the same as f1, or WRC or others in that it is designed around largely amateur drivers and pay drivers who are businessmen, some pros and some factory assisted teams, hence it can NOT be a full world series like F1 or WRC or Motogp, Oh and please dont put words in my mouth, Le Mans has ALWAYS been around amateur drivers mainly and pro at the top, if you don't get that you really don't know what you are talking about.

So GTWC can't be a proper world series in your eyes because some of the drivers are amateur and/or pay drivers?
You have also confirmed your understanding of gentleman drivers making up a large part of the Le Mans grid, and that seems to be ok, so you must also realise that a lot of drivers in F1, F2 and F3 are in fact pay drivers? Your argument in this regard is becoming thinner...

Third, ask yourself if you would pay £85 for this title as it stands now. I doubt you would. OK this has been doled out over say 18 months or so, but still it means a company can make money without really doing anything like releasing a game, it is LAZY, EASY money.

You doubt I would? You doubts are wrong. 85 quid is cheaper for 2.5 years worth of support and content. The same on F1, Fifa or MotoGP games without extra content at 40 quid a game would cost 100 and the EA cost reduction of ACC was cheaper than full release too... Are you getting it yet?

And sorry, "Without really doing anything"? "Lazy, easy money", are you for real with these comments?
What sims have you brought out or worked on lately that gives you the authority to spout utter garbage about the work that goes into creating a simulation and additional content such as ACC?

 

[Rob Every]

Selling DLC that boosts the cost of a game to more than double it's retail value is lazy and easy yes, I don't have to work anywhere to know this, if you could get away with charging people double for every loaf of bread ever made you would do it huh, what might stop you? reason, fairness maybe...

If you want to line the pockets of multi million dollar companies because you have no realisation of what that is doing to the gaming market, more fool you, are YOU getting it yet? You know how capitalism works I take it, have you watched Margin Call, greed has an outcome eventually. Taking advantage of people has an outcome eventually.

I guess you also think it's fine to pay to play online, or basically be taxed by a company worth tens of billions to play online like Sony and Microsoft do for their consoles, and in return get dire garbage for free every few weeks. That is the world people like you live in, it's fine as long as everyone does it, STAND up for yourself and those gamers that can't afford it for goodness sake.

Why on earth should I give a toss about a company making a product to sell and how much work it takes, it takes work to care for people when they are bloody dying, dealing with cancer patients, saving lives as a copper or nurse, dealing with numerous issues as a soldier, making games is a totally unnecessary industry that we all happen to buy into as it gives us enjoyment, does that mean we should all over pay to keep these people in a job, I don't think so fella.

 

[Rob Every]

I do think this has got about as far as it can, you see black, I see white and vice versa, it serves no purpose to carry on as neither party will ever agree or even consider the others opinion.

So let's leave it here.

 

[demetri]

So, I guess your dream is quality games for free. Sorry man, ain't gonna happen any time soon. Stuff takes time and manpower to make, people who make it for a living need money to feed their families. It's as simple as that

 

[Rob Every]

Dem

No that is not my dream

My dream is to go back tot eh days when companies made a game, released it with all its content and then patched it to sort out issues.

I understand why companies tried this DLC model out, but it is the consumer that had amde it the standard, not the companies, if no-one bought it, they would stop sellling

Hence, sim gamers ARE an easy target.

 

[Alex Townsend]

Selling DLC that boosts the cost of a game to more than double it's retail value is lazy and easy yes, I don't have to work anywhere to know this, if you could get away with charging people double for every loaf of bread ever made you would do it huh, what might stop you? reason, fairness maybe...

If you want to line the pockets of multi million dollar companies because you have no realisation of what that is doing to the gaming market, more fool you, are YOU getting it yet? You know how capitalism works I take it, have you watched Margin Call, greed has an outcome eventually. Taking advantage of people has an outcome eventually.

I guess you also think it's fine to pay to play online, or basically be taxed by a company worth tens of billions to play online like Sony and Microsoft do for their consoles, and in return get dire garbage for free every few weeks. That is the world people like you live in, it's fine as long as everyone does it, STAND up for yourself and those gamers that can't afford it for goodness sake.

Why on earth should I give a toss about a company making a product to sell and how much work it takes, it takes work to care for people when they are bloody dying, dealing with cancer patients, saving lives as a copper or nurse, dealing with numerous issues as a soldier, making games is a totally unnecessary industry that we all happen to buy into as it gives us enjoyment, does that mean we should all over pay to keep these people in a job, I don't think so fella.

I'm sorry but by your reasoning you don't seem to understand how capitalism works...
These companies make a product, you either buy it if you can afford it or you don't. Simple as that.
No, it's not caring for people that are dying but neither are a large proportion of jobs out there that we all do, but we certainly don't do it for free.
You may be frustrated that we don't all live in a communist bubble where everyone gets paid the same but that's not the world a lot of us live in.

You're right though, it has been said before but it's you vs a lot of people that have different views on this subject. We are not going to agree and that is ok

 

[Deleted member 379375]

Probably best that you don't buy the DLC and those of us that are happy with the model do. I don't buy all DLC, if I particularly enjoy the product and think the price is fair, or just want to help a struggling developer (there are such things) I'll happily buy it.
P.S. Some of the titles mentioned in support of no DLC are not helping the argument.

 

[Rob Every]

The money is not really the object, it is obviously a symptom of the argument, it is more the decision made higher up to do this and make games that have limited content on release (compared to some other sorts of games) with the FULL knowledge that more profit can be made for very little effort in comparison to say 20 years ago when you would have had to make another title.

That was hard work, not making games that can be squeezed for profit for years but basically making mods

Also, I really could not care a job about people agreeing with me, this is not a likes thing, and being critical of aspects of a game on a fanboy page is unlikely to be met with likes, nor is criticising people on the morality of what they spend their money on.

But sim gamers really are very easy to take advantage of I am sorry to say.

 

[BCJM76]

How is this thread still a thing. You all are just arguing in circles...

 

[Ghoults]

I don't think sim racing games being more expensive is a sign of simracers being taken advantage of. Price of game can be part of many things. I think with simracing it is not about greed or people being gullible. It is just lack of technological development and outdated software and business models combined with long development cycles.

Look at rf2 for example. Super old, dlc business model is so weird that it takes pages just to describe how it works before you even get into the problematic parts. But are the rf2 devs being greedy? No, I don't think so for a second. Same goes for kunos and iracing. Kunos prices the dlc very nicely but treats their dlc business model like it is the early 2000s. That is not greed. That's like your 90 year old grandpa still using a landline because landline is fine for him.

Another example is Iracing which came out when microtransactions, subscription models and dlc were at their peak. They made a decision based on what they need and how they get it. They created their own version of paid sub and dlc. Later they upgraded their systems so you don't need to own every dlc car in a session. They have also lowered the prices. They adapted but at the same time they are stuck with what they chose. It is almost impossible for racing to pivot into acc like business model for example.

Some other games made maybe better or even weirder choises, like live for speed. They sell their game as stages. Each stage is 12£ and a stage can be anything from many cars and tracks to a single track. Another weird one. And expensive. But greedy? I don't think so.

Another such example is rf2. Having online as paid addon maybe made sense to someone in late 2000s but also ruined the game. Later, they changed the focus but just like iracing they are stuck with what they did earlier and what they have. Yet another is raceroom. This super weird dlc selling thing that pretends to be f2p. Another product of weird business decision that was made at a time when f2p and all weird concepts were still at infancy.

In some alternative universe all games might be like iracing and raceroom. It was difficult time to pick the winning strategy and sim racing games being more outdated even at the time than other games made some developers choose very badly or weirdly.

But our reality is that most sims are like acc and rf2. The rest of the video gaming industry has all this stuff figured out. But all of our sims are still tied to older tech, outdated business models and very little reason to change. Games tend to form into their own niches. Mobile games as a whole tend to do things in similar ways to their competitors, same goes for fps games, platformers, walking simulators and rpgs. All simracing games tend to have weird pricing and business models. A product is never just out. It is kinda out, kinda available in its own kind of deal. And racing sims are games that are played for a long time. Development is slower as a whole inside the niche and new titles are rarer. Things change slower. But at the same time development is ongoing and lasts longer which means titles also last longer.

Look at the sims we play and when they were made. The games we play in our niche were mostly all formed during the time when the gaming pricing madness was at its worst and weirdest. F2p models, weird and shaky steps into different dlc business models, weird combinations of business models (dlc, sub and microtransactions), going all out or adding little bit of everything. If anything the customers have suffered as much as the developers. There are no winners when a sim dev makes a bad or just weird business decision.

 

[PickABetterUsername01]

I don't think sim racing games being more expensive is a sign of simracers being taken advantage of. Price of game can be part of many things. I think with simracing it is not about greed or people being gullible. It is just lack of technological development and outdated software and business models combined with long development cycles.

Look at rf2 for example. Super old, dlc business model is so weird that it takes pages just to describe how it works before you even get into the problematic parts. But are the rf2 devs being greedy? No, I don't think so for a second. Same goes for kunos and iracing. Kunos prices the dlc very nicely but treats their dlc business model like it is the early 2000s. That is not greed. That's like your 90 year old grandpa still using a landline because landline is fine for him.

Another example is Iracing which came out when microtransactions, subscription models and dlc were at their peak. They made a decision based on what they need and how they get it. They created their own version of paid sub and dlc. Later they upgraded their systems so you don't need to own every dlc car in a session. They have also lowered the prices. They adapted but at the same time they are stuck with what they chose. It is almost impossible for racing to pivot into acc like business model for example.

Some other games made maybe better or even weirder choises, like live for speed. They sell their game as stages. Each stage is 12£ and a stage can be anything from many cars and tracks to a single track. Another weird one. And expensive. But greedy? I don't think so.

Another such example is rf2. Having online as paid addon maybe made sense to someone in late 2000s but also ruined the game. Later, they changed the focus but just like iracing they are stuck with what they did earlier and what they have. Yet another is raceroom. This super weird dlc selling thing that pretends to be f2p. Another product of weird business decision that was made at a time when f2p and all weird concepts were still at infancy.

In some alternative universe all games might be like iracing and raceroom. It was difficult time to pick the winning strategy and sim racing games being more outdated even at the time than other games made some developers choose very badly or weirdly.

But our reality is that most sims are like acc and rf2. The rest of the video gaming industry has all this stuff figured out. But all of our sims are still tied to older tech, outdated business models and very little reason to change. Games tend to form into their own niches. Mobile games as a whole tend to do things in similar ways to their competitors, same goes for fps games, platformers, walking simulators and rpgs. All simracing games tend to have weird pricing and business models. A product is never just out. It is kinda out, kinda available in its own kind of deal. And racing sims are games that are played for a long time. Development is slower as a whole inside the niche and new titles are rarer. Things change slower. But at the same time development is ongoing and lasts longer which means titles also last longer.

Look at the sims we play and when they were made. The games we play in our niche were mostly all formed during the time when the gaming pricing madness was at its worst and weirdest. F2p models, weird and shaky steps into different dlc business models, weird combinations of business models (dlc, sub and microtransactions), going all out or adding little bit of everything. If anything the customers have suffered as much as the developers. There are no winners when a sim dev makes a bad or just weird business decision.

Basically, boomer devs made games for boomer audience lol.

 

[maelstrom]

Selling DLC that boosts the cost of a game to more than double it's retail value is lazy and easy yes

What DLC do you need to buy to race GT3 cars in the series in the title of the game?