Car and Driver, August 2007

[scandisk]

I doubt we’ll see anything at e3, instead either something at the Tokyo Motor and/or Game Shows.

http://e3.gamespot.com/games.html?tag=event_nav;games

GT5s on the list of games for E3. Now the question is what will they bring to the table.

 

[ALPHA]

http://e3.gamespot.com/games.html?tag=event_nav;games

GT5s on the list of games for E3. Now the question is what will they bring to the table.

As much as I’d like to believe GameSpot’s enthusiasm—I think there’s a higher chance of seeing GT Mobile being announced in conjunction with the PSP redesign (similar to the GT4 + PS2 Slimline bundle).

http://www.us.playstation.com/e32007

e3 2007 (Western centric titles)

• Killzone
• Uncharted
• Lair
• Heavenly Sword
• Home
• LittleBigPlanet
• Ratchet & Clank

TGS 2007 (Japanese centric titles)

• Metal Gear Solid 4
• Gran Turismo 5
• Loco Roco PS3
• Team ICO titles
• Devil May Cry 4

It’s not long now…

 

[Adam West]

It takes ages to properly programme traffic cone physics don't you know. Who needs semi-realistic understeer/oversteer when you can have a orange plastic cone bouncing around indistinguishable from the real thing?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Tenacious D]

Some of you guys really need a time out.

Online PS2 gaming: well, you conveniently forget that most of ust can't get online with our PS2s. I have one which is supposed to work, but will only ping the Sony site. I could have had Sony fix it, but I was still having too much fun with it. In fact I'm still having too much fun with it. Gran Turismo isn't the only game which dropped online play, hard drive support and many other things. Short attention span?

Damage: As Kazunori-dono says, damage is dependent on ALL the automakers getting on board. Would you tolerate a GT5 game in which about 70% of the cars could be damaged, but there were these magically indestructible vehicles racing alongside them?? Logic for teh win, guys.

Realism: I know Wolfe gets ulcers every time I say this, but Enthusia gets things wrong too. All of them do. And I've noticed that everyone is terribly biased and selective with the mortal sins one game or the other has. dunkee grouched at the abysmal hoodcam view in GT4, saying "no one drives from that position," while ignoring the fact that his beloved Forza 2 has no cockpit view, which last I checked the ONLY place a driver drives a car. And most of the Forza fans ignore the fact that Forza has only a partial damage model. Hitting a wall at 100mph should end your race, but often you can do better than limp around the track. Toca 3 has scripted physics, generic scripted damage, audio that only existed for your car, and worse rubberbanding and rabbiting than in any game I ever saw. And yet it's still heralded as a great racer, which it is.

You're also forgetting how much Gran Turismo has grown when the jump was made to the PS2. The PS3 is better than most gaming PCs right now. Sure, you have people with SLI GeForce 8080s and dual quad core Athlons, but most people still have single cores still running below 2.5ghz, and some don't even have a DVD drive.

Balance, memory, common sense seem to be rare commodities in these days of rampant FUD.

 

[Wolfe]

Some of you guys really need a time out.

Online PS2 gaming: well, you conveniently forget that most of ust can't get online with our PS2s. I have one which is supposed to work, but will only ping the Sony site. I could have had Sony fix it, but I was still having too much fun with it. In fact I'm still having too much fun with it. Gran Turismo isn't the only game which dropped online play, hard drive support and many other things. Short attention span?

This is true, the PS2 is worthless for online play. However, I think if GT4 had successfully launched online play, more people would have bought the adaptors and the demand would have been large enough to ensure a strong, stable set of dedicated servers.

Damage: As Kazunori-dono says, damage is dependent on ALL the automakers getting on board. Would you tolerate a GT5 game in which about 70% of the cars could be damaged, but there were these magically indestructible vehicles racing alongside them?? Logic for teh win, guys.

Automakers aren't as afraid of damage as you might think. Most of them don't have any problems with their cars getting damaged. It's the extent of the damage that's a problem. Some won't allow rollovers, some won't allow the passenger cabin to be intruded upon in any way, some won't allow the doors to pop open, etc. etc.

Realism: I know Wolfe gets ulcers every time I say this, but Enthusia gets things wrong too. All of them do. And I've noticed that everyone is terribly biased and selective with the mortal sins one game or the other has. dunkee grouched at the abysmal hoodcam view in GT4, saying "no one drives from that position," while ignoring the fact that his beloved Forza 2 has no cockpit view, which last I checked the ONLY place a driver drives a car.

Find a place where I've said "Enthusia is perfect" and I'll give you a million dollars.

GT4 doesn't have a hoodcam. It has a roofcam -- you sit on top of the car. The "bumpercam" -- like most other "bumpercams" in racing games -- is actually (gasp!) a cockpit view that just doesn't render a cockpit. That's why it's a better choice than the roofcam for a behind-the-wheel view. Forza 2's hoodcam (yes, it's actually a hoodcam) is even better, and easy-enough to render that I wonder why more games don't have something similar.

If I recall correctly, Forza 1 and/or PGR2 gave you the choice between a bumpercam, and a cockpit-without-a-cockpit-cam. The difference was clear.

And most of the Forza fans ignore the fact that Forza has only a partial damage model. Hitting a wall at 100mph should end your race, but often you can do better than limp around the track.

In terms of mechanical damage, yes, it could be better, but it's unlikely that you'll see a licensed car totally smashed up into a mangled mess -- see above.

Toca 3 has scripted physics, generic scripted damage, audio that only existed for your car, and worse rubberbanding and rabbiting than in any game I ever saw. And yet it's still heralded as a great racer, which it is.

"TOCA has flaws, but people still say it's good. And it is."

...sorry, I don't see your point.

You're also forgetting how much Gran Turismo has grown when the jump was made to the PS2. The PS3 is better than most gaming PCs right now. Sure, you have people with SLI GeForce 8080s and dual quad core Athlons, but most people still have single cores still running below 2.5ghz, and some don't even have a DVD drive.

We're also noticing that, as of yet, Gran Turismo hasn't grown much at all with the jump to the PS3. New content or not, GTHD has tweaked-version-of-GT4 written all over it.

Balance, memory, common sense seem to be rare commodities in these days of rampant FUD.

Only when you refuse to believe that someone who disagrees with you has those things.

 

[GTXLR]

Indeed, it’s a flat out filler article—the amount of fluff content is astonishing.

Car & Driver
If Andrew Wyeth is America’s foremost realism painter, imagine a machine that can paint, entirely from scratch, 60 Anew Wyeths per second, which incidentally, is twice the frame refresh rate of a standard, non–high definition television.​

Awesome, guys.

Also note C&D’s lack of PR respect—PS3’s written as PLAYSTATION3 and not the classic PlayStation. Considering the branding and materials that would’ve been supplied, writing PlayStation3 is pure ignorance. Personally I’d take this and the C&V article with a grain of salt.

CVG
The release of the highly-anticipated Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 could be pushed back as far as late 2008.​

What the hell? GT5 hasn’t even been officially announced. How can an unconfirmed release date get pushed back—we’re still being drip fed GTHD info…

The guy who wrote the JOYPAD article mentioned that it was a surprise how liberal their tour was compared to experiences shared by other journalists where they were specifically told what to write.

9 months? PD made the GTHD e3 2006 Prototype (GTHD Classic) in 3 weeks.

This is one of my main frustrations with GT, though there’ve been the additions of B–spec and photomode to GT4, the series’ core formula is getting tired.

With each new iteration it’s the same deal, achieve licenses > buy a cheap car > head to the Sunday Cup—rinse, wash, and repeat. Nothing has changed over the years and at times this is incredibly frustrating. The amount of cups reflects the epic amount of content in GT4, but at the same time half of the races are just as much of a novelty (nuisance) as the cars, Midget Cup anyone?

Thanks for the scans Gabkicks 👍

you seem confused as to what i was refering to.

The last 9 months is the period of time where interviews and PR out of PD has revealed very little and is a cover for the shambolic goings on behind the scenes with Sony that have affected PD.

The fact that they allowed the Joypad journos to freely report on what theyd seen and been shown, indicates they didnt really have much to hide, bearing in mind how little was reported, that should be a concern to you.
The hinted at new features in the Joypad article, werent confirmed in exactly which title they will appear, the next title will not be GT5 (or will it?) is what that article deduced, when will GT5 appear no one is saying, what new content will be in the next GT is unknown, has KY's idea of GT5, been changed to fit into something that could be released earlier?

After the release of GT4 the main area of work for PD was to continue modelling in greater detail for when they recieved the Dev kits for PS3.
PD had hoped to attain those dev kits much much earlier than it turned out, they had envisaged getting GT5 out as close to launch as they could manage.

The fact that dev kits came very late in the day would mean that a proper next Gen GT would be a very long way off.
Sony were under pressure to have a Unit shifter on the way, and much pressure from SONYs top execs was placed on PD and kaz to have something to show, hence the need to deliver the 3week demo.
The late arrival of the kits would also lead the way for GT(4)HD to be the next GT title that would be available around PS3 launch, this was a marketing strategy, a showcase piece which would fill the void between GT4 and GT5.

PD had already been focusing the majority of their efforts on the graphical upgrade of the elements of GT4, since GT4's release, in preperation, but no work could be done on the new Physics engine, AI engine, Online code, in fact anything that would be a new feature that wasnt a graphical model could be worked on without the kit.
The fact that they had alot of the HD source data prepared during this time and the fact that the demo basically just extracted the PS2 GT4 engine and made it work on PS3 is not really an example of how much they can achieve in 3 weeks.
The late introduction of PS3 developement tools, and the rising pressure from Sonys execs, forced PD into producing GTHD as the next title, all be it an interim one, this would allow PD to have a better understanding of PS3,and allow more developement time to produce the title KAZ has the vision of.

By December 2006 GTHD had been the primary work focus for PD, it was a fully functioning title ready to release, 2 years work and basically it was just GT4 in HD!
I had an official Playstation3 magazine interview, made just prior to the expected launch of GTHD, where KAZ expressed that, at best GT5 was only 30% complete, it was clear that most of that was graphical, the actual code of all the new game engines, was a long way from being useable.
He stated that at that time he had no real idea of the strucuture that GT5 would take, they were merely trying out ideas to incorporate into the game.
When asked about potential release date, he was loathe to be drawn, but definately hinted that the earliest you could expect GT5 was december 2008.

That interview was printed after the swift removal of GTHD as a title, but the interview was made just weeks prior to GTHD launch which he, at that time believed would happen.
Also noted in the articlewith reference to the expected release of GTHD classic premium and not GT5, was the indication that some of the future downloadable elements could be:
New AI.
New crash damage for race cars.
New Physics.
The article also goes on about the time line for recreating each car, all this in an interview designed to concide with decmber 2006 launch.
Notice the PR blurring between that title and GT5, now!

The swift and totally unexpected removal of GTHD by Sony, Left PD and Sony in complete disaray as to what to do next.
GT5 was at least 2 years away from nearing completion, GTHD was now never going to be released, What were Sony and PD going to do now!
Much silence has been held by PD and Sony since the decision to withdraw GTHD, But clearly PD have been working on what was once GTHD, in order to provide the next tilte, yet they are adamant that its not going to be called GTHD (the need to distance this title from the debarcle at launch is clear here, and is clearly still a higly sensitive and contentious issue with SONY and PD) SO GT??? prologue it is.Suddenly their is specualtion that GT5 will appear some time in early 2008, when previously kaz was hesitant to even say it would be ready by dec 2008, add to that, that their effort has been to work on the interim title, one has to wonder just what will see the light of day!

This conerns me the most, because it would seem that much of the work for GT5 has been put on hold or merged into a title that was just GT4HD, the lack of clarity coming out of PD through PR and interviews about just what we can expect in the next GT??? prologue and/or GT5 either shows its either all still up in the air, and will be thrown together last minute, or are hiding the fact that the next title will infact be a reworked GTHD classic/concept which in itself is just a reworked GT4!
Quite what will appear and pay out is a mystery for us, and i believe also a mystery for both Sony and PD, what we will get is going to be far more dependant on what Sony needs to achieve, regardless of what PD says to car and driver.
I belive that PD have completely lost the focus and structure they required to deliver a ground breaking GT in GT5, far too many constraints and pressures have colluded against the developement of a fresh new title that was required to lift the series, and would have shifted PS3 off the shelf, but ironically, the pressures that Sony are clearly going to be/ have been asserting on PD over this title, have detracted from the direction and structure change that needed to be made.
GT5 will no doubt be a worthy title, but i doubt that it will be the fresh new rework that the series is in dire need of, to deliver on the promises and visions that KY has stated he would like to achieve, The hardware is here to help KY deliver, im just not sure that the management will allow KY the time to devlop such a product this time.

 

[Scaff]

Automakers aren't as afraid of damage as you might think. Most of them don't have any problems with their cars getting damaged. It's the extent of the damage that's a problem. Some won't allow rollovers, some won't allow the passenger cabin to be intruded upon in any way, some won't allow the doors to pop open, etc. etc.

While I agree that the issue is the extent to which damage occurs that is the problem, you can pretty much change all of the 'some' in your post to 'all'. No manufacturer is going to let a passenger car be subject to a roll-over or any form of damage that intrudes into the passenger space (and as doors form part of the structural rigidity of that space I include them in that).

The roll-over one is a legacy of the entire SUV roll-over issue and the legal disputes over how easy it is/isn't to do, and passenger space intrusion carries the obvious implications of serious injury or death to the driver. Even Ford who are notoriously damage-friendly when it comes to games list these as their two big no points.

In terms of mechanical damage, yes, it could be better, but it's unlikely that you'll see a licensed car totally smashed up into a mangled mess -- see above.

Again I agree with you, but for me that's not the problem with FM2's damage, its perfectly possible to keep to the two main manufacturer demands from above and have DNFs due to mechanical damage.

We're also noticing that, as of yet, Gran Turismo hasn't grown much at all with the jump to the PS3. New content or not, GTHD has tweaked-version-of-GT4 written all over it.

While I agree that GT:HD is little more that a graphically tweaked version of GT4, with some important by minor changes to the physics, that's rather a shallow point. Nothing more than that has ever been claimed for GT:HD, PD have remained very tight-lipped about GT5 (which I fully acknowledge is an issue in its own right).


Regards

Scaff

 

[Wolfe]

While I agree that the issue is the extent to which damage occurs that is the problem, you can pretty much change all of the 'some' in your post to 'all'. No manufacturer is going to let a passenger car be subject to a roll-over or any form of damage that intrudes into the passenger space (and as doors form part of the structural rigidity of that space I include them in that).

Yeah, pretty much. I didn't want my statement to sound quite so definitive and authoritative.

Again I agree with you, but for me that's not the problem with FM2's damage, its perfectly possible to keep to the two main manufacturer demands from above and have DNFs due to mechanical damage.

That's why I mentioned the mechanical damage could be better.

While I agree that GT:HD is little more that a graphically tweaked version of GT4, with some important by minor changes to the physics, that's rather a shallow point. Nothing more than that has ever been claimed for GT:HD, PD have remained very tight-lipped about GT5 (which I fully acknowledge is an issue in its own right).

That's why I italicized "as of yet." There's just as much evidence that they'll keep tweaking the GT4 engine as there is evidence that they'll put together something entirely new.

 

[johanlofgren]

eMke3, to be fair he said at launch there will be less cars than in GT4, but given the mass amount of cars of the same (ie, Skylines) we could still end up with 500 odd cars? It was 700 for GT4 wasn't it?

First I want to say that I'm not accusing Sureshot of having the opinions below. Just bringing my thoughts about the matter up.

I hope we can bury that discussion soon. It's allways been around the GT-games. I've allways wondered, not why there's tons of evo's and skylines, but why there aren't tens of BMW 3-series, more Ford Falcons or any car else in the games..

Creating a full model, with right textures, right car feel, might take a long while and hard work. That's something we can't get away from.

If it would take two weeks to create a BMW 320, it wouldn't take a day to create the BMW 330 from the material you've allready made. I'm talking editing only parts of the model, changing performance settings et.c. Some parts won't even need edited models, as the GT series has used Bump-maps for a while now. They might brag about having gazillions of individually modelled and tested cars in their game, but I promise, that they don't re-invent the wheel for each model. I don't think filesize matters are the big issue either..

Making lots of evo's and skylines will not be a big issue in the delay of this game..
I think we should ask why we can't get 1400cars (Different variations then). Then hope for a better organized menu instead? (I'll let that discussion be though, I'll save it for the wishlist-threads instead)

Thoughts from a (not proffessional) 3d-game modder (Papy Nascar Games & RFactor)

Cheers
-Johan

(sorry for my ugly english, this swede has been offline for too long. )

 

[--Mastermind--]

all this jive talk i come outta the wood work as a nobody in the community....ima laugh, take five double shots of southern comfort, and go wreck my rx-7 outside when PD comes out at E3 showing all kinds of bad ass content and KY was just a tight lipped nazi holding out on the biggest surpize yet GT5 is acually in the works and progress IS being made........

It seems most have ruled out that GT5 is just a HUGE skunk works project(top secret projects run by government and contracted firms that built planes like the F22, F117) NOBODY new what was going on.. leaving everything to imagination and in reality they ARE working on GT5 full blast

Along with above: maybe they DID drop HD because of how much of a visually improved GT4 it was going to be....with fear of it getting boring and mis leading US (the consumers) of what GT5 might become waiting is fine....no damage is fine...just drive right and ya wont wreck ....

the damage in forza is weak hit a wall and some how get ur hood scratched SOME of the front bumpers dont even come off!.... now with GT GRANTED the gameplay is that of all the others given the photo, lan modes and other odds and ends KY gets paid alot of cash and i KNOW they have focus grouping, and research and its obvious people are liking what forza is offering... and GT is probly going to kick it up to keep up with the new trends...


lastly as i stated above

i belive GT5 is in progress and moving along, with that i belive they are hiding alot of things to make a big deal at E3 and show off... GT4 was pretty tight lipped for a whiles and i belive there just alot of negative people are fueling alot of negative thoughts.... lets let E3 be the final judge...and if im wrong.... awell im just some tuner shop owner in texas BUT i have a huge eye for doing things right the first time and holding out for perfection instead of biulding ricey crap and i respect KY for him holding out and taking what now seems to be a risk....

 

[Tenacious D]

GT4 doesn't have a hoodcam. It has a roofcam -- you sit on top of the car. The "bumpercam" -- like most other "bumpercams" in racing games -- is actually (gasp!) a cockpit view that just doesn't render a cockpit. That's why it's a better choice than the roofcam for a behind-the-wheel view.

While the rest of your post is our usual jovial banter, and yes I should have said "roofcam" - spent too much time in Forzaland, I have to differ with this. Bumpercam is moving the driver view four or five feet forward and two or three feet down, and is a view which is rather like that of a gocart. If you think gocarts have a driver view similar to that of a 240SX, that's okay and all, but I don't think your opinion will be widely shared.

And because I spent so much time in Toca 3 on both the XBox and PS2, I can safely say that the hoodcam view of Toca bears very little resemblance to that of Forza 2. It's too far forward and too low. Consider that many of the supercars have hoods which aren't even visible. Just remember that in all things from damage to drivercam placement, the widest variety of choice is always the best call.

And Mastermind, I dig your post like a shovel. I'm holding out hope that Polyphony will make a surprise appearance at E3, since Forza 2 is out and making a good impression with gamers. But Kaz may be holding out for a fall auto show or TGS to put together something big. We have just a few days to go, so we'll see. And man, I wanna see.

 

[bucket of water]

they shouldn't have a damaged model.

they should make calculations on the vertices like on carmageddon two!

 

[Wolfe]

While the rest of your post is our usual jovial banter, and yes I should have said "roofcam" - spent too much time in Forzaland, I have to differ with this. Bumpercam is moving the driver view four or five feet forward and two or three feet down, and is a view which is rather like that of a gocart. If you think gocarts have a driver view similar to that of a 240SX, that's okay and all, but I don't think your opinion will be widely shared.

But that's just it -- the "bumpercam" in many games isn't really a bumper cam. Although no cockpit is rendered, the camera's placement replicates the driver's position vertically, at least, if not laterally or longitudinally (in most games your longitudinal position places you somewhere on the hood, because you aren't far back enough to make it seem like you have an invisible hood).

If games like GT4, Enthusia, etc. actually had bumpercams, you'd be staring up your opponents' exhaust pipes, watching the asphalt whiz by at a blindingly quick rate when you're moving, and picking out every single pixel in the ground textures with crystal clarity when you're stopped. Also, switching to a taller vehicle would have little to no effect, and crashing into something would literally blanket the screen with a single polygon.

Instead, you generally get to look at your opponents' taillights or rear spoilers, watching the asphalt whiz by below you. Switching to a taller vehicle gives you a better view over shorter cars, and there's a noticable gap between you and objects you hit.

Like I said, PGR2 offers you both a true bumpercam and the wannabe-cockpit-cam I'm trying to explain. If you have that game handy, it'd be worth popping in for a couple minutes to see what I mean.

 

[Tornado]

As a add-on point to help Wolfe explain, GT4 does have a real life, true bumper cam. It is the second first-person camera when in replays. That is a bumper cam. The one you can use in gameplay, however, is the same as an in-dash camera without the dash in how it is positioned.

 

[loki993]

they interviewed Yamauchi. he said at launch gt5 will have LESS cars then gt4.
says they will have additional cars later available for download.
another possible downloadable upgrade could be damage.
Yamauchi refuses to put damage in until it can be done realistically.

ohhh I can see it now. all for a price. want a new car?? 1-2 dollars. want damage?? $10.

this game could get very expensive very fast.

I still see mentions about "Classic" and "Premium" and downloads.
Lord help us if they blow GT over on-line transactions.

somehow im getting the feeling this is exactly what their going to do.

 

[Gil]

For me, the thing is quite simple. I don't care when GT5 releases.
I'm not of a mind to drop the cost of a PS3.
When they come down to half what they currently cost, I might get interested.
I also think that it's bogus to have to "download" crap to "complete" the game. Especially, if it's going to be a pay download.
IMHO, it may be "good business" to charge us thru the nose for a new game system, for the new game, and for the downloads.
But it speaks volumes as to what they think of us "loyal" GTers.
The best possible game may be being designed for us, but if our pockets ain't fat enough, we're SOL.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

For me, the thing is quite simple. I don't care when GT5 releases.
I'm not of a mind to drop the cost of a PS3.
When they come down to half what they currently cost, I might get interested.
I also think that it's bogus to have to "download" crap to "complete" the game. Especially, if it's going to be a pay download.
IMHO, it may be "good business" to charge us thru the nose for a new game system, for the new game, and for the downloads.
But it speaks volumes as to what they think of us "loyal" GTers.
The best possible game may be being designed for us, but if our pockets ain't fat enough, we're SOL.

I may have missed something, when did PD say that in order to complete the game you would have to download (free or added cost) content? Also, the advantage of downloaded content is allowing the user to choose what they want and what they don't want, and being able to play now rather than wait twice as long for content you may not even want just for them to release a game that will force you to pay for extra content you may not even want.

Also, you may not have heard, but you can now get a brand new 60GB PS3 for less than $400. $100 price drop for 60GB PS3 plus $175 worth of free six Blu-ray movies and the PS3 remote which can all be sold for more than $100, especially as they are new & sealed.

So, let's try not to get too hyperbolic.

 

[loki993]

I dont doubt the value of the ps3. I actually think its a bargain at 499, the price you can get a 60 gig for right now. that said im thinking of it as a blu ray player first and a game system second. as of right now its STILL the cheapest blu ray player on the market, as well as the best rated blu ray player on the market from what ive heard. sony released a blu ray player at 499 about a month ago which made it the cheapest. even with the ps3 at 599, you pay 100 dollars more and you get an excellent game system with youre player, at 499 its a no brianer. so that how im looking at the ps3 at this point.

Also, you may not have heard, but you can now get a brand new 60GB PS3 for less than $400. $100 price drop for 60GB PS3 plus $175 worth of free six Blu-ray movies and the PS3 remote which can all be sold for more than $100, especially as they are new & sealed.

well I dont know where youre looking, but ive seen the deal with 5 blu ray discs, its not very good. there are 5 categories and you can only pick 1 movie from each category. the 1st category has all the good movies and the other 4 categories have movies that suck. I dont see it as a very good deal.

I see sony nickel and diming everyone to death with this game. but Im also expecting this with pretty much all big game from now on for both camps. once they figure out they can charge people for stuff that should be free and theyll pay, theyll continue to do it.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Excellent points about the value of the Blu-ray player, and the unfortunate possibility that future downloads could be used as an opportunity to hold back some content from a game only to then charge more later. The best way to avoid this is to vote with your wallets, and not buy the content, but frankly I'm amazed MS XBL Gold members are willing to fork over $50 a year in membership fees as well as pay for overpriced games and content, so if this happens, perhaps it's the majority of consumers that will be at fault.

On the other hand I also have to respect the game developers who go the extra mile to create content far greater than your average game, and thus perhaps more than deserve to be properly compensated for it. if it means some form of ala carte pricing, so they don’t force everyone to pay more, only those that want and appreciate the extra content have to pay. Like a toll way, only those that use it pay for it. Just thinking out loud.

Obviously nothing would make me happier if all games were free, but I'm also trying to be realistic. The cost of developing these massive next-gen high definition incredibly realistic and astonishingly complex games must also come at a higher cost to produce. Someone has to pay for them, and unfortunately that means us.

well I dont know where youre looking, but ive seen the deal with 5 blu ray discs, its not very good. there are 5 categories and you can only pick 1 movie from each category. the 1st category has all the good movies and the other 4 categories have movies that suck. I dont see it as a very good deal.

If you think they suck that's actually better, as that's even more of a reason to sell them, as people are paying as much as $20 a piece for them if new & sealed. If you couldn't sell them then and didn't personally like them, then yes, that would be bad.

BTW: The 6th free Blu-ray movie and PS3 remote are additional promos when you buy it from Amazon... and they throw in free shipping and no tax... thus you can have yourself a brand new 60GB PS3 for less than $400, possibly as low as $350 if you get a great price using a free classified like Craig's List. 👍

 

[Blackbird.]

It also says that the crash damage may not be realeased with the game but later on as an update so that the game may ship faster. Also car companies don't want their cars to be shown crashed. ohhh boy here we go again.

I still can't wrap my head around the concept of them not wanting to have their cars the feature to be damaged. Alot of games already have this feature (although not all that realistically).

 

[Gil]

The other point of contention for me, is that while the PS3 is likely a great machine with many cool capabilities. But I've ended up buying two PS's and two PS2's because of mechanical difficulties in both machines, and to keep up with development. (The slimline PS2 will do a lot of things the original won't)
Color me jaded, but I'll wait for the second edition PS3, hopefully at a substantially reduced price.
Add to that
Sony will discontinuing the 60GB PS3. They are basically pricing it at "fire sale" savings to sell off the current inventory, which should last till about August or September.

 

[solinent]

The other point of contention for me, is that while the PS3 is likely a great machine with many cool capabilities. But I've ended up buying two PS's and two PS2's because of mechanical difficulties in both machines, and to keep up with development. (The slimline PS2 will do a lot of things the original won't)
Color me jaded, but I'll wait for the second edition PS3, hopefully at a substantially reduced price.
Add to that
Sony will discontinuing the 60GB PS3. They are basically pricing it at "fire sale" savings to sell off the current inventory, which should last till about August or September.

Which is why it is a very good idea to get one now! The PS3 backwards compatibility is not in any future versions except those priced at $499 now (the 60GB).

Then again, I did buy mine on launch...

 

[Blackbird.]

Whoa, whoa, whoa? All future versions of the PS3 will not have the backwards compatibility?

 

[MasterGT]

Compatibility is being handled by the OS in software now, so they don't need the original hardware. Compatibility can only get better, as time goes on.

Cheers,

MasterGT

 

[Blackbird.]

Sorry I don't know if that's a yes or a no.

 

[Gil]

He says "yes"
However. I have not been terribly impressed with the "backwards compatibility" of the PS2.
The slimline is a good bit better than the original.
But take GT2 and load it in your PSone, then load it in the PS2. You will see a great difference in playability, in favor of the PSone.

 

[Blackbird.]

Well it's not that big of a deal then I just keep my Slimline which has had no difficulties. Just seems like reverse thinking to me that they'd take away that feature on a future version.

 

[loki993]

If you think they suck that's actually better, as that's even more of a reason to sell them, as people are paying as much as $20 a piece for them if new & sealed. If you couldn't sell them then and didn't personally like them, then yes, that would be bad.

BTW: The 6th free Blu-ray movie and PS3 remote are additional promos when you buy it from Amazon... and they throw in free shipping and no tax... thus you can have yourself a brand new 60GB PS3 for less than $400, possibly as low as $350 if you get a great price using a free classified like Craig's List.

all good points. I had thought of taking the blu ray discs I didnt like and maybe trying to trade them at gamestop for a game or 2 maybe.

I still can't wrap my head around the concept of them not wanting to have their cars the feature to be damaged. Alot of games already have this feature (although not all that realistically).

its basically a lie, im sure there may be some damage that they will not allow, but none?? how can they say that when games like need for speed have had damage for at least the last 7 years. its along the same lines as the exclusive licensing. EA was supposed to have exclusive licensing for porsche, lambo and ferrari, yet they miraculously appeared in other games such as forza and PGR. I think the issue is money more than anything else.

The other point of contention for me, is that while the PS3 is likely a great machine with many cool capabilities. But I've ended up buying two PS's and two PS2's because of mechanical difficulties in both machines, and to keep up with development. (The slimline PS2 will do a lot of things the original won't)

thats crazy, I had my ps1 for probally 5 or 6 years, chipped for 3 of them, and have had my ps2 for 7 and had nary a problem with either of them, ever.

 

[loki993]

The best way to avoid this is to vote with your wallets, and not buy the content, but frankly I'm amazed MS XBL Gold members are willing to fork over $50 a year in membership fees as well as pay for overpriced games and content, so if this happens, perhaps it's the majority of consumers that will be at fault.

I agree, but we can only do so much, unfortunatly there will be enough sheep out there that will blindly pay for content that should be free and ruin it for everyone. I understand that the devs need to get paid for their work, I have no problem with that, but from what ive gathered most of the take from the DLd content is going the the companies, ie microsoft and sony, not the DEVs, its the companies that are dictating the prices of the DLs.

 

[Skid Mark 33]

Right, I just want to point out something about the damage thing, and manafactures not wanting their cars smashed up on a game. They dont seem to mind about their cars being smashed up on the Forza Motorsport games, so why the hell is it different with Gran Turismo!