A Quantum Leap

[Zer0]

As of right now, GT5 has sold less copies than GT4, which sold less copies than GT3. That's my statement. Disagree with that if you want.

But that is a very flawed view of the reality, who would like to view things like that if the parts are not presented equally or globally?

Even the peak that was GT3 sold less in their first years than any of the total of the previous GT (GT1 and GT2). Also the Prologues were introduced after GT3, there is another big chunk of sales per title omited in that downhill theories. If you make your maths there is not such downhill possible, just the contrary, and GT5 sales are still going.

GT3 + GT Concept
16.45M

GT4 + Prologue
13.13M

GT5 + Prologue
16M

The only way to present that reality in a bad view is ignoring the actual trend sales of GT5, ignoring the Prologues, ignoring the average sales per title and asume the abnormally GT3 sales as a new scale to weight the success of any single title: past, present and future. And also ignoring other exclusive title sales in the console to understand that the GT numbers are out of this world even without the need to peak every time to a maximum achieved once in the life time of the series.

GT is probably one of the most healthy sales-wise exclusive series in console. No one asked himself why MS or T10 are not releasing official sales data for the Forza series? that usually means not good news but I have not seen anyone worried or speaking of a downhill. No one cares? I think that would be a good cuestion to Dan to see the things in perspective.

 

[Chippy569]

Hey griff, do you have the same charts for FM4 sales by chance? They had a regular cadence of one dlc pack per month, which I suppose wouldn't directly show in those graphs, but id be curious if the rate of change is slower.

Should also be noted that fm4 sold less than fm3 sold less than fm2. If the two largest racing franchises are both selling less and less, perhaps that suggests some different things in the racing genre as a whole...

 

[Griffith500]

Hey griff, do you have the same charts for FM4 sales by chance? They had a regular cadence of one dlc pack per month, which I suppose wouldn't directly show in those graphs, but id be curious if the rate of change is slower.

Should also be noted that fm4 sold less than fm3 sold less than fm2. If the two largest racing franchises are both selling less and less, perhaps that suggests some different things in the racing genre as a whole...

Not my data, I'm afraid; X360 is a different ecosystem again (e.g. Live subscription), and might not help to clarify. I'm sure the info exists, somewhere...
I expect it'd look like GT4's curve; GT5 wasn't meant to be getting DLC, and it came late in the day, whereas FM4's DLC was pre-announced (and had a precedent in FM3 in terms of what to expect), so was part of the initial impetus to purchase. That said, I expect that the rate stayed roughly constant for longer before tapering off. I'd love to see an actual curve, though.


Anyway, I think there's more "competition" now; lots of people like racing games, but most don't like realism - they don't like to be told they suck, and don't want to put the time in to develop the skills (which is made worse by the fact that "sim" racing, in terms of feel and feedback, is not really very nice for beginners.) More games are offering experiences that look authentic, but that practically everyone can enjoy - which one do you choose?

I remember when people were amazed you "had" to brake for the corners in GT1 (wall - mobile or otherwise - riding notwithstanding), despite the obvious "arcade" feel.
GT isn't like that now, but there are lots of games that are.

 

[Imari]

But that is a very flawed view of the reality, who would like to view things like that if the parts are not presented equally or globally?

Because outside of that you get into opinion-based corrections of data. Where there's an opinion, there's the opportunity for bias. Humans are very, very bad at keeping their biases out of statistics.

Check out climate science for an example.

This is the problem. The pure numbers aren't really that meaningful except in a very broad sort of way. So people try to extrapolate them in a way that is meaningful, except that requires making assumptions.

Honestly, Griffith is right. The only time statistics work is when what they're telling you is so obvious that it's smacking you in the face. Before that point, your options are get more data and hope that it does become obvious before it becomes redundant, or get better rhetoric.

 

[Zer0]

Because outside of that you get into opinion-based corrections of data. Where there's an opinion, there's the opportunity for bias. Humans are very, very bad at keeping their biases out of statistics.

Check out climate science for an example.

This is the problem. The pure numbers aren't really that meaningful except in a very broad sort of way. So people try to extrapolate them in a way that is meaningful, except that requires making assumptions.

Honestly, Griffith is right. The only time statistics work is when what they're telling you is so obvious that it's smacking you in the face. Before that point, your options are get more data and hope that it does become obvious before it becomes redundant, or get better rhetoric.

So is the same that thinking that a 10 years boy that measures 150 cm tall is not going to grow more than his 18 years old and 190cm brother because today there is a factual difference between them?. Who thinks like that? a bad programmed robot?

There is something called logic and common sense and there is not much in that way of thinking. Others have been proved wrong in the past to think like that but more by accident, to me is amazing that someone decide voluntary to ignore all the variants and other facts than the raw numbers to draw their conclusions.

 

[Imari]

So is the same that thinking that a 10 years boy that measures 150 cm tall is not going to grow more than his 18 years old and 190cm brother because today there is a factual difference between them?. Who thinks like that? a bad programmed robot?

There is something called logic and common sense and there is not much in that way of thinking. Others have been proved wrong in the past to think like that but more by accident, to me is amazing that someone decide voluntary to ignore all the variants and other facts than the raw numbers to draw their conclusions.

No. Previously, I explained my own interpretation of the data that GT5 sales were unlikely to grow substantially more. Other people then put forward their own interpretations which were radically different. You think that it's a 10 year old and an 18 year old. I think it's a 15 year old and an 18 year old.

I pointed out that all such interpretations are bunk, and the only thing you can actually trust is the pure numbers with zero interpretation. Certainly, that gives you information that is near worthless, but it's not really open to interpretation. Right now, GT3>GT4>GT5, even if that doesn't tell us much of anything.

This whole discussion became moot at the point where we had several different interpretations of how the data should be extrapolated. How do you judge that your interpretation is better than mine, or TDs, or Griffiths, or anyone else's? Had we more data, there are at least ways of finding and evaluating trends with error margins and confidence intervals.

But all we have is very vague data, spaced widely apart and with no reference to any other events. GT3 was bundled with systems. How much did that skew the data? If you had numbers for how many GT3 systems were sold, and numbers of systems sold for similar periods without bundling maybe you could have a go at estimating it. But right now, it's a mildly educated guess at best, and probably not even that.

Similar things go for GT4 on an extremely popular system at the end of it's lifecycle. How do you even begin to quantify that? How do you take in to account that there wasn't a GT5 for nearly 6 years afterwards, so if people wanted GT then GT4 was all that was available?

See, my approach was to assume that there's no sensible way to separate these factors from the sales data. You just have to take the numbers as a product of the time that produced them. A lot of the factors like bundling, release dates and console sales are ultimately more or less under Sony's control, as are PD. Thus, I don't have much of a problem with putting all these things together. A console that sells well means better GT sales, which is fine because it's all money in Sony's pocket.

But if you guys want to keep trying to remove all "external" factors from the data, be my guest.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Why could that be? Is it because the DLC contains a fraction of the normal game's content?

GT6: $60 / 1200 cars = $0.05 per car PLUS all the track and gameplay content that comes with it.

GT5 DLC1: $8 / 15 cars = $0.53 per car, plus nothing.

Compared to the retail release, DLC is monstrously overpriced. The cost is an order of magnitude higher than the on disc content. Manufacturing and distribution costs are as small as possible thanks to digital distribution. And with the tendency to roll DLC into the next game, presumably the production costs for stuff like GT6 DLC are covered by the GT7 budget.

DLC in a game like this is as near as dammit pure profit.

One PC developer commented once that a general figure of a DLC sales would be around 10% of the game's sales. I find it interesting your figure seems to fit this 10% figure. (10 times less sales equals 10 times more cost.)

P.S This same developer also pointed out that since most of the money from DLC goes straight to the developers that they had made more off DLC than the game itself. It's one of the ways developers can stay in business with the higher cost of developing games especially artwork.

 

[Chippy569]

^ that argument is probably more valid on PC where piracy is a bigger issue than console. Then again, if you can pirate the game, why not the dlc too?

Sims like iracing makes more sense for large dlc sales percentages since its practically an f2p content model. Now I'm curious which dev you're referring to.

 

[Tenacious D]

Aren't those statistics you just gave, but more general? The fact that Ten D went in depth with them does not make them any less true.... It's actually quite the contrary.

I'd love to be responsible for the details, but it was another_jackhole who did the legwork on that. And Griffith500's post below pretty much sealed the closing argument. It was a good discussion. Now, for the physics debates...

Too bad he doesn't post as often in those threads to challenge him on the subject because I can as well think of several cars that not a single GT game ever came close to having. Does this make me hate GT? Not, at all, but I do like facts more and the sad reality is Forza does have the greater diversity I think.

You really typed that with a straight face...

I know it can be argued that Forza does have more American and European cars, but it can also be argued that the Japanese car market is richer in "diversity" - I hate that word, but on well. So, yeah, people do think a lot on both sides.

If you mean that you'd love for me to post in that other section, no thanks. It has a serious attitude problem. The GT boards have a rough n tumble atmosphere, but we have much more "diversity" of opinion. Over there, you'd better love Forza or you can leave. You get a spectrum from Barack Obama (You're entitled to your opinion, wrongheaded as it is...) to Dennis Leary (Shut the f... hell up). Now it would be refreshing to see the naysayers have as much freedom over there as here, but I think I'll stick to this neighborhood until I know the political landscape has changed in the MS burbs.

 

[Samus]

The majority of the huge Japanese car roster in GT5 are not culturally important cars or racing car staples. They're just everyday Japanese cars and several versions of each in many cases.

So hence my previous point, GT simply has more cars by number. If you're talking racing car staples and culturally significant models I believe Forza has more than GT.

If you want to challenge that statement feel free to head to the GT5 vs Forza 4 thread.

 

[Tornado]

Diversity!

 

[Duphman]

Diversity!

I don't think a Lexus GS300 Vertex Edition is even a real car.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

GT - The Real "Driving" Simulator ... not racing simulator ... hence everyday cars, slow cars, Kei cars, vintage cars, sports cars, supercars, racing cars, rally cars, carriages, concepts, prototypes, so many "diversity". I don't care where these cars come from, Asia, Europe, America, as long as I can enjoy driving them, tuning and racing them are added bonus. GT is unlike any other racing games, it's a driving game where license tests are included and only have basic offline racing events. GT has never tried to simulate racing series or calendar, it just gives a track and opponent to race with

I love to drive them cars, I love to cruise them, I love to drift them, I love to race against time ... and racing real people online. GT fits me like a glove

 

[Samus]

Yes but I'm arguing that of the two lists, Forza 4 exclusive cars and GT5 exclusive cars the former is the better, more diverse list overall. But that's not for this thread so I'm going to take it to the relevant one, feel free to join me. This is the wrong thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=276308

 

[Lain]

Yes but I'm arguing that of the two lists, Forza 4 exclusive cars and GT5 exclusive cars the former is the better, more diverse list overall. But that's not for this thread so I'm going to take it to the relevant one, feel free to join me. This is the wrong thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=276308

Forza isn't more diverse, it's more balanced.

GT is more diverse (I haven't seen any historical, concept or fictional cars in Forza), but less balanced (more cars from Japan than any other country, and a few dozen too many Skylines as well as several other Japanese cars that are duplicated and given different names to increase the car count).

I appreciate Forza's balance, but GT's ridiculous car count helps mitigate its issues with balance, so overall I prefer GT's car list since there's no other racing game that has some of the best of today's modern cars as well as the first motor carriages.

 

[maxpontiac]

I appreciate Forza's balance, but GT's ridiculous car count helps mitigate its issues with balance, so overall I prefer GT's car list since there's no other racing game that has some of the best of today's modern cars as well as the first motor carriages.

👍

 

[Griffith500]

[IMGs]

Diversity!

I don't know why they don't just fold those up into one car and let us choose the "trim". Well, actually that wouldn't work for (all of) those particular cars, but I think you get me; in GT2, there were so many variants of the same car (e.g. the 3 series Coupe) that weren't really separate cars at all.

I'm asking too much, though, because the marketing bonus from having the biggest, most stand-out, prominent, substantial and impressive number is all that matters.

 

[Samus]

Forza isn't more diverse, it's more balanced.

GT is more diverse (I haven't seen any historical, concept or fictional cars in Forza), but less balanced (more cars from Japan than any other country, and a few dozen too many Skylines as well as several other Japanese cars that are duplicated and given different names to increase the car count).

I appreciate Forza's balance, but GT's ridiculous car count helps mitigate its issues with balance, so overall I prefer GT's car list since there's no other racing game that has some of the best of today's modern cars as well as the first motor carriages.

Forza has more of 'today's cars assuming you're talking about 2010+ models and GT doesn't have the first motor carriages anymore. Sure it has the odd quirky car but they're rare, most of the GT5 car list are just bog standard, 90s Japanese cars with no real significance.

But again, this is for the other thread.

 

[Imari]

I don't know why they don't just fold those up into one car and let us choose the "trim". Well, actually that wouldn't work for (all of) those particular cars, but I think you get me; in GT2, there were so many variants of the same car (e.g. the 3 series Coupe) that weren't really separate cars at all.

I'm asking too much, though, because the marketing bonus from having the biggest, most stand-out, prominent, substantial and impressive number is all that matters.

I agree with you completely.

Instead we're stuck with a substandard system because selling games is apparently a willy-waving contest.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

But again, this is for the other thread.

Indeed; why people refuse to take the discussion to where it belongs after a few suggestions to is beyond me. So I'll remind others; Samus' suggestion is a fine one, so go on then.

Lain - I'm not sure how having fictional cars should be a plus for GT.

Griff - I'd love for PD to do something like that; give us the new 4-series coupe, for example, and let us pick the trim/engine/etc. It can't take too much longer to model the different bumpers and rims, though the M4 might need to be kept as a separate model (as it is in real life). They wouldn't even have to change their all-important final number for marketing purposes; much like the tracks are divided between "locations" and "variations", there could be car "lines" and "models" or some such method.

It'd be a damned sight more honest, at any rate.

 

[MeanElf]

...most of the GT5 car list are just bog standard, 90s Japanese cars with no real significance...

Not bog standard if you enjoy the tuner scene - I think these are the historically significant ones being overlooked in a previous statement.

 

[Samus]

I'm not denying some of them are significant and popular, just that a large number are not.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You really typed that with a straight face...

I know it can be argued that Forza does have more American and European cars, but it can also be argued that the Japanese car market is richer in "diversity" - I hate that word, but on well. So, yeah, people do think a lot on both sides.

If you mean that you'd love for me to post in that other section, no thanks. It has a serious attitude problem. The GT boards have a rough n tumble atmosphere, but we have much more "diversity" of opinion. Over there, you'd better love Forza or you can leave. You get a spectrum from Barack Obama (You're entitled to your opinion, wrongheaded as it is...) to Dennis Leary (Shut the f... hell up). Now it would be refreshing to see the naysayers have as much freedom over there as here, but I think I'll stick to this neighborhood until I know the political landscape has changed in the MS burbs.

When I say I do like fact more it should have been two separate statements, that one being aimed at you and your insistence to run around and use empathy to explain GT. Rather than living in a world of fact and reality which me, samus, imari, tornado and many others along with Slipz, Scaff, Kent and so on have shown you countless time. The second part is me saying I think there is better diversity in Forza 4 and if this were the right thread as said before, I'd gladly crunch the numbers and put it in to excel and prove me right. Thanks though for trying to spin my language, though I didn't help myself by typing in a fashion that helped you get there.

However, one only has to take PD's own word that they are cultural driven in their car list. I would think you would take their word for it since you do everything else.

GT - The Real "Driving" Simulator ... not racing simulator ... hence everyday cars, slow cars, Kei cars, vintage cars, sports cars, supercars, racing cars, rally cars, carriages, concepts, prototypes, so many "diversity". I don't care where these cars come from, Asia, Europe, America, as long as I can enjoy driving them, tuning and racing them are added bonus. GT is unlike any other racing games, it's a driving game where license tests are included and only have basic offline racing events. GT has never tried to simulate racing series or calendar, it just gives a track and opponent to race with

I love to drive them cars, I love to cruise them, I love to drift them, I love to race against time ... and racing real people online. GT fits me like a glove

This bit again? Once again let me make it clear to everyone who uses the bold red point of this post.

Turn around the game package and you'll see how it talks about being a real racing simulator

But by all means let's pretend they don't say this

 

[Tenacious D]

To you guys who insist that Forza is the game which has all the cars any sensible car lover would want to drive, once again, you operate on the basis of opinion/taste = fact.

You act like I'm saying, "Well.... I guess if you like all those BEEMERS and MUSTANGS and whatever Amer-Euro rides..." Talk about putting words where none were! I like those Beemers and Mustangs and whatever in Forza 4. The three cars I posted in "Which ONE car do you want in GT6?" are Forza staples.

But lookit. You have to understand that I'm one of a vast multitude of people who LOVE Japanese cars. Half of the cars I've owned have been Toyotas: Mk I Celica (don't ask me how it survived in good shape), a Celica Supra and Supra. We who are diehard fans of the Gran Turismo series have glommed onto it because it's trying to be a car encyclopedia. And one day those older cars are going to be as rare as any other classics, so I'm glad they're there. All of them? Sure. Do I drive them all? I'm in the process.

So, believe me, I know that hotrods and supercars rule and stuff. But some of us aren't keen on the top heavy list off thrilling rides in Forza at the expense of hundreds of lesser cars. I know this makes your brain divide by zero, some of you anyhow, but if you don't geddit, that's not our problem.

But, head on over to the Forza section? Sure, when I feel like it...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

To you guys who insist that Forza is the game which has all the cars any sensible car lover would want to drive, once again, you operate on the basis of opinion/taste = fact.

You act like I'm saying, "Well.... I guess if you like all those BEEMERS and MUSTANGS and whatever Amer-Euro rides..." Talk about putting words where none were! I like those Beemers and Mustangs and whatever in Forza 4. The three cars I posted in "Which ONE car do you want in GT6?" are Forza staples.

But lookit. You have to understand that I'm one of a vast multitude of people who LOVE Japanese cars. Half of the cars I've owned have been Toyotas: Mk I Celica (don't ask me how it survived in good shape), a Celica Supra and Supra. We who are diehard fans of the Gran Turismo series have glommed onto it because it's trying to be a car encyclopedia. And one day those older cars are going to be as rare as any other classics, so I'm glad they're there. All of them? Sure. Do I drive them all? I'm in the process.

So, believe me, I know that hotrods and supercars rule and stuff. But some of us aren't keen on the top heavy list off thrilling rides in Forza at the expense of hundreds of lesser cars. I know this makes your brain divide by zero, some of you anyhow, but if you don't geddit, that's not our problem.

But, head on over to the Forza section? Sure, when I feel like it...

You seem to be putting words there not anyone else, and we've been asked I'd say to move there in a very subtle nice fashion. So instead of avoiding the subject that you seem to care about you can let others defend themselves and talk about it. None of us that think there is a better balance or diversity or less favoritism to one whatever the case, we’ve shown far more facts to support our argument than you, so I find this double standard no surprise yet again.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It's that or go to the threads that are dedicated to discussing the two games against one another. You don't even have to travel out of the GT section. Or compare two games that aren't out yet.

You've been told this numerous times, by multiple people, but still seem to think ignoring the staff and treating any thread you see fit as a personal VS thread is acceptable. So do everybody a favour, yourself included, and head on over to the "exclusive car" discussion Simon has been thoughtful enough to already start. In the proper thread, so this one can return to its regularly-scheduled program.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's that or go to the threads that are dedicated to discussing the two games against one another. You don't even have to travel out of the GT section. Or compare two games that aren't out yet.

You've been told this numerous times, by multiple people, but still seem to think ignoring the staff and treating any thread you see fit as a personal VS thread is acceptable. So do everybody a favour, yourself included, and head on over to the "exclusive car" discussion Simon has been thoughtful enough to already start. In the proper thread, so this one can return to its regularly-scheduled program.

And yet again we've been reminded now in a not so subtle fashion, I doubt he'll go there though Slipz (now he will). Thanks for the friendly reminder.

 

[Lain]

Forza has more of 'today's cars assuming you're talking about 2010+ models and GT doesn't have the first motor carriages anymore. Sure it has the odd quirky car but they're rare, most of the GT5 car list are just bog standard, 90s Japanese cars with no real significance.

But again, this is for the other thread.

True, but my point still stands: GT, despite maybe 70% or more of the cars being Japanese, still has the most diverse range of vehicle types. Forza comes close, but doesn't really delve too much into the more niche, obscure and/or just plain old/"useless" vehicles.

So in a sense, Forza's car list is geared towards racing, whereas GT's allows for cars that aren't really practical for racing since it's a "driving" simulator. Thus which one you prefer depends on whether you appreciate the car encyclopedia approach of GT, or you appreciate more how Turn 10 spares you the "useless" vehicles in favor of more broadly appealing ones.

I, and a few other people, just happen to prefer GT's approach. Crazy, I know. But that's not to say that GT's current car list is the ideal car list... with its heavy emphasis on Japanese cars, its encyclopedic approach is far from comprehensive when it comes to cars produced in other countries. I'd love to see a bunch of old and crappy American cars added.

Lain - I'm not sure how having fictional cars should be a plus for GT.

I think they are a plus, just so long as they don't go too overboard with it. As long as the fictional cars account for less 0.2% of the total car count, I'm totally fine with them adding more fictional cars.

But to be fair, Forza 4 did have the Warthog in it... you just couldn't actually drive it, unfortunately.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Lain we were told to move on, and we have done so on the the thread suggested

 

[dice1998]

historical

Ferrari 330p4
Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa
Ferrari 250 GTO
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA Stradale
Alfa 33 Stradale
Aston Martin DBR1
Audi Quattro S1
BMW 507
BMW 2002 Turbo

well, I mean, I can continue if you want.

concept

Lamborghini Miura Concept
Mazda Furai
Saleen S5S Raptor
Mini Coupe Concept
Chrysler ME Four-Twelve