Death Rally [$.99] now officially has multiplayer courtesy a December 16 update. Starting now, you can participate in an online twist to the game's standard single-player campaign, which has been dubbed "Road Wars." In this, you simply race against others and earn a comparable amount of experience points based on your position and performance.

You'd figure this kind of update would make everyone happy, right? Wrong, because this is the Internet. Road Wars is loaded to the gills with IAP guns and cars that you can buy in advance of earning them normally through play. As a result, some are picking up their nearest pitchfork or torch to storm the gates.

We've spent some time with Road Wars and the IAP stuff looks like just that -- an option. Even though it'll be constantly winking at you, the experience seems suitably balance for those of us who just want to rock out and earn additional items through play. Full update notes through this link, by the way.

UPDATE: We've been advised that some higher level items can't be unlocked traditionally. The fact that IAP exists threw off the balance of the mode anyway, so there's not much left to say here.

  • Arien

    What's coming tonight!? Super Crate Box?

  • Anonymous

    I seem to have hit a point in the multiplayer campaign where IAP isn't an option anymore. It seems like after you get the Shrieker car and Sniper weapon no more upgrade pieces drop.  Maybe I'm just having bad luck?

    • Rich Pizor

      If that's all it is, you and I are both having it. I can't help but notice that the only cars and guns you can earn are the ones that only cost a buck.

  • Anonymous

    What is the fun of racing against someone who has just paid for nitros? 🙁 The next step is Chess where you can buy additional pieces... $1 for a bishop, $10 for a pack of five queens.

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    £13.99 for stinger missiles as an IAP! The game was only £0.59 when I bought it, then gladly paid for the flamethrower upgrade later on! I'm also hitting the limit where I might need (I won't be doing) to purchase the dominator.

    I wouldn't mind grinding my way to the top if I could. No matter, it's not the car that counts, it's what you do with it.

  • Jonas

    TA/Brad, you ARE aware that some of the progress in the multiplayer campaign is locked away behind IAP, and thus IAP is not optional, if a player wants to use all equipment/all cars?

    While I do agree that the digital outrage against freemium/IAP models can sometimes be overwrought, and sometimes downright silly, making fun ("this is the internet", pitchfork analogy) of players leveling possibly valid complaints (depending on one's views of limiting progress and content behind IAP in premium games) against the developer, and then misstate facts in your write-up, is not very good journalism (to the extent that news work on games ever is 😉 ).

    • Brad Nicholson

      Uh, I guess you missed the update. 

      • Jonas

        Yes, considering I wrote my post before you actually updated the article, I just might have 😉

        Though there is plenty more to say on the subject, should you actually want to investigate deeper and further. Contact the developers of Death Rally. Ask them of their reasoning (which might be very sound) behind including IAP in a long-awaited and promised multiplayer mode in a game that players have actually bought for money. Ask them of their counter-reaction to the reaction from the TA community. Inquire as to whether they might consider altering the Road Wars mode somehow, to try and appease both players and to maintain the cash flow. Take another small step towards elevating games news reporting to actual investigative journalism 😉 (pearls before swines though it might sometimes become 😉 )

  • Brad Nicholson

    This isn't watergate, dog. Remedy made a video game and did what it wanted to with it, and decided to charge for higher-level items. Calm down.

    • Jonas

      If you can find anything in my post to suggest that I am NOT calm, please recount it back to me 😀 The smilies, perhaps, or "POSSIBLY valid complaints", or my expressed sentiment that their decision might be based on sound reasoning? 😀

      As a journalist (who do not believe that gaming, and such possible small injustices, is important enough to actually waste journalistic effort on), I offered ways to expand your methods of reporting into something that might both aid your readers, and give you something occasionally a tad deeper and more engaging than reviews and rehashed information to write about 😉 Thus "should you actually want to investigate deeper and further", in reply to "so there's not much left to say here".

      While I'm not surprised to see such practices in forums, to have a news editor use the neo-classic rhetoric trick of "portraying the other guy as a raging, furious, rambling over-enthusiast (in spite of all evidence to the contrary) in order to either make fun of his opinions, undermine credibility, or make him seem overly passionate about a insignificant issue" is more than a little amusing 😉