DLC a knee jerk reaction to forza 4?

[Spagetti69]

I hope they do not follow this cheap trick with next GT

Is selling paint classed as a cheap trick I wonder?

 

[kimi123]

^^

Yeah that is just as bad as paying for online gameplay.

Forza 4 represents very good value for money in both the game price and DLC department. It is probably the highest value for money title on the 360 by quite a margin.

GT5 will not be able to match that DLC output with its current organisational structure. The only way they can compete is to have 3-4 times more staff as they have now. I think it is pivotal point for PD on what they decide to do in the future. If they carry on as they are they will most likely will be clear 2nd in content in racing games. After all PD is one of the largest first party studios in the world and probably joint top in Sony's department. Their rival happens to be one of the largest gaming development teams in the world and on average is about 2-3 times larger than any other top first party studio which I repeat is a unique situation. Most people consider PD as small but it still does not stop the fact that they are more or less close to being the largest studio Sony has. Sony may consider letting PD expand to three times quite strange considering how successful it is and how big it already is. The work of PD is being undermined due to only one competitor on a rival platform and hope it drives them to expand to show them they can match them in game content and DLC output department. The worrying thing though is their competitor might move the goal posts further by getting even more staff. I hope PD expand so we get even better value for money than we already do.

I don't think so. The problem here is the DLC which most companies plan and it is getting standard which is the worst thing to happen.

As far as PD goes I think it needs better planning and needs to set objectives, get their priorities right. Sure they need to expand more if they need to or out source like others do

 

[Rudenut]

Well Forza 4 will already have 3 DLC by January 1st week. Each of 10 cars worth 7$. The game was released less hardly released 2 months ago. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I hope they do not follow this cheap trick with next GT

This model is used in every consumer based industry Iam aware of. A car maker sets the price for a car and you can buy trim packages they may offer at whatever price they set.

F4 is not ripping off people with the base content. Same for GT5. Although GT5 was unfinished, it still had tons of content. The price point set for it was more than fair.

 

[Spagetti69]

^^

Yeah that is just as bad as paying for online gameplay.

I don't mind paying for a premium service.
I own both systems, after Xbox live I wouldn't pay for PSN in its current form.
That's my choice however if PSN worked as well as my other service I would pay for it.

 

[kimi123]

^^

PSN also has premium service and they charge for it not for online gameplay. But whatever.

This model is used in every consumer based industry Iam aware of. A car maker sets the price for a car and you can buy trim packages they may offer at whatever price they set.

F4 is not ripping off people with the base content. Same for GT5. Although GT5 was unfinished, it still had tons of content. The price point set for it was more than fair.

The problem here is if for 30 cars for next 3 months of release they are going to charge 21$. The better thing is to release the game few months later and have that on disk. They already decide what to sell as extra DLC and we should not encourage this. If everyone are doing it they will probably do it as well. But this is wrong

 

[Spagetti69]

The problem here is if for 30 cars for next 3 months of release they are going to charge 21$. The better thing is to release the game few months later and have that on disk. They already decide what to sell as extra DLC and we should not encourage this. If everyone are doing it they will probably do it as well. But this is wrong

The Huuurayyah or what ever it is called was a limited exclusive for EA I believe.
Not sure how long they had the rights for but it was a bonus in shift 2.
That was probably unavailable at launch and can be excused for recent release.

Cars can be bought individually if needed.

Actually the pack isn't compulsory and you don't have to download it.

Actually if what your saying is correct most people won't download it because of the reasons you stated. Then it will fail and burn and never happen again.

Actually it happened in Forza 3 too and it must have worked for them.
If it worked for them then, I suspect most people must have supported the idea and not your opinion.

It's all about choice. You buy you don't. No one is forcing anyone.

About the thread topic I don't think it's a reaction to Forza at all. People who have both systems will have both games.
People with one system obviously haven't the choice anyway so it doesn't matter one bit.

 

[tribolik]

The truth is if I had the money I would buy both systems and pay for whatever was released and laugh at discutions like this...

 

[Spagetti69]

The truth is if I had the money I would buy both systems and pay for whatever was released and laugh at discutions like this...

I really wish you had mate.
Wish everyone had and at least a debate could be started on an equal understanding lol.

Anyway one good thing is that it breeds competition between developers and the consumer benefits.

 

[tribolik]

I really wish you had mate.
Wish everyone had and at least a debate could be started on an equal understanding lol.

Anyway one good thing is that it breeds competition between developers and the consumer benefits.

So do I... but the problem is if everybody had the money to buy both systems there wouldnt be any unbiased discutions like this one and I wouldnt be able to laught at them...

 

[Spagetti69]

Ha ha too true.

 

[xxDingerxx]

You're right, FM4 doesn't need track DLC, it came out with a much better MUCH better real world track listing then GT5 has.
By miles and miles and miles and miles.
http://forzamotorsport.net/en-us/Tracks/TrackList.aspx

Excuse me if I don't pat PD on the back for adding and charging for the addition of a single track when their competition's track list is THIS much better.

While GT5 has got a few RL tracks that were simple GT4 ports, the majority of its RL tracks were built from the ground up. Sarthe, Monza, Indianapolis, Nordschleife. All highly accurate compared to RL.

Then there is the likes of Fuji, Suzuka which have had further works in modeling since there GT5P days.

Apart from 3 new tracks, F4 have just lifted the tracks from previous games. I don't mind the new textures etc but when turn 10 use the same Silverstone seen in F2 when the bridge layout has been decommissioned and the arena layout has been used for the past 2 seasons, its a p*ss take.

 

[Spagetti69]

I would concede that the Silverstone situation is really poor.
Fair enough to include it if it also contained the updated version.

Also dissapointed at the omission of the Bugatti circuit.

Rest of the tracks are top notch though.

 

[kimi123]

The Huuurayyah or what ever it is called was a limited exclusive for EA I believe.
Not sure how long they had the rights for but it was a bonus in shift 2.
That was probably unavailable at launch and can be excused for recent release.

Cars can be bought individually if needed.

Actually the pack isn't compulsory and you don't have to download it.

Actually if what your saying is correct most people won't download it because of the reasons you stated. Then it will fail and burn and never happen again.

Actually it happened in Forza 3 too and it must have worked for them.
If it worked for them then, I suspect most people must have supported the idea and not your opinion.

It's all about choice. You buy you don't. No one is forcing anyone.

About the thread topic I don't think it's a reaction to Forza at all. People who have both systems will have both games.
People with one system obviously haven't the choice anyway so it doesn't matter one bit.

Obviously DLC is optional. Even if they do the same I am sure many of us are going to buy it day1 But it is not right and I do not want them to do this.

 

[Spagetti69]

Obviously DLC is optional. Even if they do the same I am sure many of us are going to buy it day1 But it is not right and I do not want them to do this.

Fair enough. I get your point.

 

[Rudenut]

^^

PSN also has premium service and they charge for it not for online gameplay. But whatever.

The problem here is if for 30 cars for next 3 months of release they are going to charge 21$. The better thing is to release the game few months later and have that on disk. They already decide what to sell as extra DLC and we should not encourage this. If everyone are doing it they will probably do it as well. But this is wrong

I refer to my previous post....would you lik bacon on your cheeseburger? 50 cent plz.

 

[Tornado]

Apart from 3 new tracks, F4 have just lifted the tracks from previous games.

Trial Mountain. Deep Forest. Code d'Azure.

They haven't even retextured the last one since GT3, as far as I've been able to tell.

I don't mind the new textures etc but when turn 10 use the same Silverstone seen in F2 when the bridge layout has been decommissioned and the arena layout has been used for the past 2 seasons, its a p*ss take.

The Kingdome was torn down in March of 2000 (over a year before GT3 came out) and it's replacement, Safeco Field, was completed in June of 1999 (4 months before GT2 came out).

The Kingdome was a beacon of light standing proud in GT3, GT4 and GTPSP. Safeco Field was in a perpetual state of incompleteness in GT2, GT3, GT4 and GTPSP. In the Gran Turismo universe, the city of Seattle seems to be bankrupt.







Glass houses and whatnot.

 

[Scaff]

Funny, I could have sworn I said this....

Next one to start the flame-bait gets banned.

Nice and simple.


Scaff

...we already have a GT vs FM thread, you want to discuss how tracks have been carried over from previous version do it in that thread, not this one.

Scaff

 

[McLaren]

And it's not hard to conclude that the reason a certain manufacturer isn't in Forza 4 this time is because MS saw the bill, and you have to draw the line somewhere, even M$.

Please, do not lie because you do not know the real reasoning behind.

MS was denied Porsche because T10 wouldn't give in to EA's request to have the Ferrari license withheld from other game developers.

Actually the guy doing the trash talking was Dan Greenawalt so yeah and of course they had to get rid of Che it doesn't show any initiative from Turn 10.

Dan never trash talked GT. He poked fun at it, but he never "talked trash".

Yes that is true but remember PD never planned DLC (it was only after fans asking) and both teams have said that it takes two years to build a track so I am being fair ( I do agree Forza's car packs are better only because theres ten cars every month or so). Also I do not like DLC being released so closely to a game's release but that is a different topic.

Then why did they start work on it one year prior to GT5's release unless they fully expected GT5 to be in development til' near 2012.

Also what proof do you have the EA said that to Microsoft.....exactly none...oh the guys at Turn 10 said so....yeah the people who lost the license said so....because that is such a reliable source isn't it.

Well then, since you know better, please provide any proof that says T10 are lying.

I mean, since you seem to know better.

Well Forza 4 will already have 3 DLC by January 1st week. Each of 10 cars worth 7$. The game was released less hardly released 2 months ago. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I hope they do not follow this cheap trick with next GT

Cheap trick? How's $2 for paint you can only use one time & a bunch of re-modeled cars?

^^
The problem here is if for 30 cars for next 3 months of release they are going to charge 21$. The better thing is to release the game few months later and have that on disk. They already decide what to sell as extra DLC and we should not encourage this. If everyone are doing it they will probably do it as well. But this is wrong

So why didn't PD follow this suit? Why didn't they just include the RM-cars from the start instead of adding them as DLC? Because we both know it didn't take them that long to model those cars.

 

[xxDingerxx]

Please, do not lie because you do not know the real reasoning behind.

MS was denied Porsche because T10 wouldn't give in to EA's request to have the Ferrari license withheld from other game developers.

You accuse him of lying, then come up with your own version which cannot be proven. The most logical reason is MS denied Ferrari's for Shift 2, EA retaliated by blocking Porsche.

Dan never trash talked GT. He poked fun at it, but he never "talked trash".

Whatever it was, it was done by DG, Che and other MS employees (the MS employee using a corporate e-mail to sign into GAF just to trash GT5 was the funniest)....And it certainly wasn't friendly

Then why did they start work on it one year prior to GT5's release unless they fully expected GT5 to be in development til' near 2012.

Kaz already went on record saying he wanted 2 more years. By the state GT5 arrived in, it seems Sony did force PD's hand a bit.

 

[diegorborges]

The same thing again and again. Ewww...

Happy 2012 for you all.

 

[Imari]

Kaz already went on record saying he wanted 2 more years. By the state GT5 arrived in, it seems Sony did force PD's hand a bit.

He also went on record saying they could release whenever they liked. You can find Kaz quotes to support just about any theory, because his plans change all the time.

I'm assuming that PD have had DLC in the works since they released the game, and they bumped it forward to match FM4. Because that's what any competent company would do in that situation.

 

[McLaren]

You accuse him of lying, then come up with your own version which cannot be proven. The most logical reason is MS denied Ferrari's for Shift 2, EA retaliated by blocking Porsche.

I did not come up with it. My proof is right below.

While we respect EA's need to run their business as they see fit, we've regularly collaborated in the past and hope we can find our way back to that approach. Forza had the exclusive license for all Ferrari cars, for example, on the Xbox and PC platforms. But at the end of the day, we've always found we just weren't willing to block other racing games from having Ferraris outright, as we believed this would do nothing but hurt the racing ecosystem.

http://forzamotorsport.net/en-us/underthehood1/

Either TD has something that says this is a lie, or he should remain silent on the matter of questioning as it being false.

Whatever it was, it was done by DG, Che and other MS employees (the MS employee using a corporate e-mail to sign into GAF just to trash GT5 was the funniest)....And it certainly wasn't friendly

No, it was not. GAF was solely Che; it was part of his job as the Community Manager. I'm still waiting for this "trash talk" from Dan.

 

[xxDingerxx]

He also went on record saying they could release whenever they liked. You can find Kaz quotes to support just about any theory, because his plans change all the time.

I'm assuming that PD have had DLC in the works since they released the game, and they bumped it forward to match FM4. Because that's what any competent company would do in that situation.

That may have been the case. They may have had enough content to make a GT game but it definitely seemed like a rushed job in the end.

Maybe just a case of having all the ingredients but no cooking instructions and just 5 minutes to make a 3 course meal (while blindfolded).

As for DLC, I wouldn't bet against anyone within PD or Sony having a clear plan for it, even months after GT5's release. It seems like the 1st batch of DLC was just to test the water to see if DLC was viable. What better time for a test than to pair it against your biggest rivals release.

With over a million sold...The test worked out extremely well

 

[Samus]

The problem here is if for 30 cars for next 3 months of release they are going to charge 21$. The better thing is to release the game few months later and have that on disk. They already decide what to sell as extra DLC and we should not encourage this. If everyone are doing it they will probably do it as well. But this is wrong

If they did that it would be a never ending cycle and the game would never be released. Game companies like PD and Forza that are focused on one game or game style are always going to constantly be churning out content and assets. Just because a game is released, doesn't mean they stop until it's time to work on another game, it's one constant process of content creation. The games themselves you can look at as mere landmarks in the constant content creation.

In the old days this content would have to wait until the next game but now with DLC they can offer you what they have now at a premium before the next game is released. If you want that content now, you can pay that premium. If you're happy to wait most of it will probably appear in the next one.

So what if T10 already had some of the models ready before the game was released, that is their business choice. If they have the luxury of having such a large amount of content they can release 90% in the game and then keep the other 10% back for later. It's simple business.

 

[xxDingerxx]

McLaren....

When it comes to PR between two companies like EA and MS. Never take either one's word on it as the truth is always somewhere in the middle. So to trust Turn 10's version of events is like trusting a vamipe to give you oral sex....

As for DG, Che and MS doing some trash talking, here is a small collection

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/09/29/forza-dev-didnt-have-to-bash-gran-turismo-5-as-forza-3-is-good-on-its-own-merit/

EDIT. Oh, your also reading their statement wrong. They are saying they wouldn't block Ferrari's from other games. Not that EA were trying to get MS to block Ferrari's.

However, Ferrari's not showing up in Shift 2 while the italia 458 being blocked in TDU 2 on the 360 (while appearing on the PS3 version) kinda paints a different story to that statement

 

[Tenacious D]

Bold part first - proof?
Or just another wild assumption? I have no reason to believe NFS didn't take their license and say "no thanks" to MS, unless you have proof, outside of wild assumptions made by a random on an internet forum.

Assuming somehow you're right about everything else, the simple answer is "to bad".

(piccie snip)
"We don't have to money to make a better game" coming from the best selling racing franchise ever, really?

And who is saying that bold part? Way to twist virtually everything said so far, CS.

My assertion is basic business. However, in your assertion, you have a problem.

See, by your reasoning, all the profits from GT5, or a good deal of them, are basically being sat on by PD. So let's say that each PS3 game sold is sold at the production end for $30 for the sake of easy math. This means that the 7 million units sold to date, again a round number for the sake of argument, grossed $210 million. Paying back SONY for their admitted $80 million investment, since by most reports SONY funded the project - and ignoring a few million in production costs for the Blu-ray discs, box and manuals, this leaves Kazunori and the Polyphony team sitting on a cool $130 million.

Since everyone in Polyphony hasn't had their fill of up to 24/7 slavery to Gran Turismo yet and retired in mega-style, you must either assume that those people are such addicts to that grueling lifestyle they can't give it up - i.e. are insane, or they just got a nice completion bonus from SONY and still need a weekly or bi-weekly paycheck to live.

Now, the ball is in your court as to an explanation, if Kaz and company are really rolling around in billions of yen.

By the way, McLaren's assertion is interesting, though wouldn't be such a huge surprise, since business is often as political as politics.

By the way, Mac, speculation and lying are two different things. Careful with the accusations, big guy.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

Well Forza 4 will already have 3 DLC by January 1st week. Each of 10 cars worth 7$. The game was released less hardly released 2 months ago. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I hope they do not follow this cheap trick with next GT

I was more than happy with the initial purchase of Forza 4 - worth every penny. DLC's are icing on the cake and worth every additional penny. Season pass cost me $30 (60 cars) + an additional muscle car pack (10 cars). That's $.042 per car. And it's all about "value", not just the cost! They are releasing car packs with wide (US, Europe, Asian, muscle, road, race, iconic, classics) appeal.

 

[Tornado]

Kaz already went on record saying he wanted 2 more years. By the state GT5 arrived in, it seems Sony did force PD's hand a bit.

He went on record saying, over a year before the game came out, that the game was done, they could release it whenever, and that only didn't because they needed to make it perfect. To "go way beyond gamer expectations" were his exact words. That was October of 2009.

He went on record when the game missed its initial November release saying that it was delayed because they pushed it back because they had to fix some things to make it perfect.






Then they released GT5 in the state it was in when it came out.

My assertion is basic business. However, in your assertion, you have a problem.

I like how you say things like this, but then you throw numbers around in a way that would only apply if PD was a third party studio Sony farmed the development out to.



There's also 5.09 million things wrong with the numbers you are using. The 5.09 million things that even under conservative estimates would have made Sony their money back before a single copy of GT5 was sold.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

I don't mind paying for a premium service.
I own both systems, after Xbox live I wouldn't pay for PSN in its current form.
That's my choice however if PSN worked as well as my other service I would pay for it.

You make a good point. I think many on the PS3 are unaware (I was) of what Xbox Live Gold offers. I didn't like the thought of having to pay for the service at first but again it's a good "value" and worth the cost - especially when purchased at a discount (many deals offered throughout the year).

 

[Tenacious D]

I like how you say things like this, but then you throw numbers around in a way that would only work if PD was a third party studio Sony farmed the development out to.

There's also 5.09 million things wrong with the numbers you are using.

I think my point sailed completely over your head. My point is that CSLACR is making this very assertion, that he is acting like PD got to keep all the net profits, like a third party developer. Why else would Polyphony be rolling in yen after 7-plus million sales of GT5, and 5 or 6 million sales of Prologue, and whatever it was of GTPSP?

The net from all that is possibly way over $200 million. One would think that Kaz would be happy to make Polyphony Digital the flagship SCE development studio, and largest, if he had a budget remotely like that available to him.

My point still stands. But I have to wonder if CS's accusation doesn't fit himself more than me, since he's arguing pretty much with nothing whatsoever to go on than "PD is now rich because of X million GT sales."

You are the definition of an internet arguer. You don't give two 🤬 about the subject, but just "proving someone or something wrong".