No, it's not wrong - it's exactly what you said and did so if that's wrong, you're wrong. You said car culture isn't driving around tracks tracks, then proceeded to name a bunch of things which are basically driving around tracks, or extremely similar. That is more or less the same thing as what you're saying not to focus on. I never said racing, you didn't either, you said places where cars drive around. You're right, Sema is car culture - but that's nothing even similar to what you actually wrote, because it's not a thing that cars drive around, like the many you actually did list.
Car culture is Low Riders, Car Culture is Bosozuku, Car culture is how drifting started. It isn't stretches of road like the many you listed, but those are in fact area's in which people meet and expand that culture. Some car cultures take many ideologies around and mingle them together too, very much like the thing you're fighting against.
Still wrong. Go read again what I said. I explicitly said that car culture is "not just driving around a track". Then named a few venues, if you will, that are completely different than tracks. But here comes mr. nitpicking, claiming that everything I said "can be" a track. Well great, any stretch of road can be a track, not even a road, any surface, can become a track. But are those places I mentioned, as is, tracks? Nope.
Also, I simply gave examples of places where people drive cars without the intent of purelly racing, and that that's also a part of car culture, as not everything revolves around track racing. Was entirely responding to this claim:
"For a game that bangs on about car culture it's not done terribly well at including large numbers of the most important/famous/interesting/whatever tracks from around the world."
And I ended up just giving some examples that came to mind. Didn't even try to make a "complete list", so there's that.
What's Wrong? It's exactly what you said. What you did was us car culture as a reason to focus more on cars rather than tracks, because everyone else focus's on tracks. PD is already deciding to take on what other games are doing, so it's literally contradicting what you're saying immediately - that's not a bad thing either, that's how things progress, by having competition and learning from the things they bring to the table. Literally no one is saying to 100% copy a game, so not sure why you're going about it that way.
GTS disappointed fans, yet has more likely than not trumped the downward trend of less sales that GT6 was setting? That doesn't make sense. It did extremely well for a game that broke away from it's roots and took on idea's from other games. Which is exactly why they're continuing with it and still making sure its a prominent part of the next game.
Wrong. I stated this:
We need more tracks, sure, but they don't need more attention than cars, as other games already do that.
And at the end:
Hopefully outsourcing solves this problem, so there's no debate over cars or tracks.
Do I need to say more? Or do you still believe that I'm against more tracks in the game?
And btw, where did PD follow other games' footsteps? With GTS, where they quickly realized that a "proper" GT was the way to go next, and not GTS2? Was GTS success based on the concept of the game, or because, unlike GT6, was released on the present gen of console (PS4 back then), and was the first GT to do so, and it was called "Gran Turismo"? Yes, the Sport Mode is staying, which is a good thing as many players enjoyed it, but they also brought back the old GT style, being a game that appeals to the masses. So, at the end of the day, me, and many others, simply don't want GT to be yet another racing game that restricts the car list, to have more tracks (as a trade off).
Who said anything about hating their playerbase? Goes to show how you think about it considering no one mentioned anything of the sort. No, because since they've had the license they've done absolutely nothing with it. If you're so blind to that fact than I don't know what to tell you
Also, how are you going to say something as ridiculous as "Definitely, because you believe so right?" When literally 100% of what you posted is only something that you believe they should do, regardless of the fact that they aren't even going about it the way you're saying. If it's taking them 2 games and 5 years to simply scan a track, than yeah, they're terribly inefficient. Not only that, but the aspect of taking an exclusive license and making sure no other game uses it, while also not making use of it for 4+ years is terrible practice in this day and age. Exclusivity from these brands do nothing for us, the players, in the long run and is exactly what everyone hated about NFS and Porsche.
It would be stupid of them to not learn and take on what makes other racing games good. Especially within this genre, where it's extremely hard to reinvent the wheel. There's a reason why competition is helpful, and that should be obvious.
I asked you a question, to give me a reason to why they would hold on to it. The "because since they've had the license they've done absolutely nothing with it" means nothing, as we have no clue at what stage Pikes Peak is in terms of being modeled/ready for the game or not. Making assumptions that they are holding it back on purpose makes no sense. A more likely answer would be that maybe they didn't prioritise it, given the focus on racing of GTS.
Then, I didn't even mention the license. Doesn't mean I agree with what they did, neither does that I have to believe in the idea that they are holding it back. It
should come to GT7, and hopefully it does, either at launch or a future update. For a game that has a fairly low amount of tracks, holding some back is ilogical, specially when they know it's one of the things it would be noticed (low car and/or track count).