Economy system is a piece of ****!

[Woodybobs]

as they intended

People playing Sport mode is surely how PD intended the game would be played.

 

[MatskiMonk]

People playing Sport mode is surely how PD intended the game would be played.

And so is having to dedicate a significant amount of time to earning the most valuable assets in the game.

 

[Woodybobs]

And so is having to dedicate a significant amount of time to earning the most valuable assets in the game.

We don't know that PD intended that the only viable way to get these cars was through offline play. It's possible they've misjudged the economy system in Sport mode. Originally there were no credits awarded for VR play. That was changed in an update.

 

[Loverson]

Daily C you spend 15-20 minutes of racing and the pay out is so miserable. Only good things are mileage but those come easy in so many ways it's not even a problem.

 

[rallymorten]

"I like what this developer/game is offering so I will buy it and play it as they intended"

And so is having to dedicate a significant amount of time to earning the most valuable assets in the game.

So what you're saying is that trundling around Blue Moon Bay Speedway for hours on end stands out to you as a magnificent piece of game design that'd you'd be willing to delete all your save files just to get to experience again? Because that's what I'm hearing you say. And if that's your standard for "good gameplay", then you, good sir, need to play more games.

 

[MatskiMonk]

We don't know that PD intended that the only viable way to get these cars was through offline play. It's possible they've misjudged the economy system in Sport mode. Originally there were no credits awarded for VR play. That was changed in an update.

If it's an easy fix, which it surely would be, and we're 12 months into the game, I think that's a clear indication of their intention. The fact that these assets can't be bought with real-money, and still require a significant amount of time to get even in offline play further indicate PD know exactly how they've positioned them.

Besides that, the amount of credits you need to enjoy sportmode is significantly less. Infact, IIRC, all I had to do was select the manufacturer and then the car for the first sport mode races I ran... no credits were necessary... so you could argue that the amount of credits paid out in the various game modes are a reflection of the need for credits in those game modes.

At this point I'll reiterate, there should be more parity in on/offline payouts.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So what you're saying is that trundling around Blue Moon Bay Speedway for hours on end stands out to you as a magnificent piece of game design that'd you'd be willing to delete all your save files just to get to experience again? Because that's what I'm hearing you say. And if that's your standard for "good gameplay", then you, good sir, need to play more games.

Eh? Pretty sure I didn't say any of that.

I have said countless times that such a thing is a choice. Playing PD's game as they intended does not mean they intended a player to be solely grinding at BMB, it is an avenue people can pursue if they want to. If I genuinely had to do that kind of grind, I wouldn't think it was good game design, but I don't, nobody does - and if they don't think it's good game play then they can literally just not do it.

 

[Woodybobs]

If it's an easy fix, which it surely would be, and we're 12 months into the game, I think that's a clear indication of their intention.

That's speculation, albeit with some logic behind it. It was many months before credits began to be awarded in VR. How many months is the cut off before we can say what PD's intentions are? Even if they feel everything is fine as is, it's possible that user opinion might change their own.

Besides that, the amount of credits you need to enjoy sportmode is significantly less. Infact, IIRC, all I had to do was select the manufacturer and then the car for the first sport mode races I ran... no credits were necessary... so you could argue that the amount of credits paid out in the various game modes are a reflection of the need for credits in those game modes.

I agree, one could argue that. Equally, it could be just forcing a point where there is none. They gave out cars in the mission campaign etc. despite the fact they can't be used there.

At this point I'll reiterate, there should be more parity in on/offline payouts.

👍

I was responding to this though.

I am getting the sense that people now more than ever have the mind set "it's my game and I should be able to play it how I want", rather than how I remember it as "I like what this developer/game is offering so I will buy it and play it as they intended"

We only really know how the game is, not how it is intended. There are lots of instances of developers changing something during the lifetime of a game.

 

[rallymorten]

If I genuinely had to do that kind of grind, I wouldn't think it was good game design

..then why are you defending this kind of thing happening in the 21st century - a time where, as you said, entire games can be changed or even added via a simple download?

The expectation of the gamer/viewer appears to have become far more self centered

if they don't think it's good game play then they can literally just not do it.

Here's chapter 1 of a little interactive story that ties into both of the above. It's called "customer satisfaction".

It's the 1980s. You are in charge of a video game development studio. You make games for a living. You release a game. It sells 250,000 copies. Because this is the 80's, technology is still somewhat limited, so let's say you're able to gather feedback from 10 players. 5 of them say the game's economy is broken to the point of ruining the game for them, the other 5 proudly claims the game is fine as it is and that the others need to "grow up or get out". With the sequel coming up, you have a simple choice: listen to the 5 people saying the game's unbalanced and tone down the grind aspects or listen to the 5 that say you should leave it as it is. What do you do, and why?

 

[coryclifford]

You do what you think is right. Which is obviously what we have here.

Kaz's viewpoint on his games.

 

[MMX]

Not sure why I keep checking this thread, it is exhausting to read. To contribute something, I'll repeat what I posted in the 20 mill thread...

I've made a little over 13 million credits since I bought the Daytona on Sept. 12th, doing solely 2 races everyday at Le Sarthe Nostalgia, and a couple hours of lobby racing on Tuesday nights.

Is it ideal? Certainly not, but considering the small amount of time I've spent racing, I think it's a pretty quick return in the investment. I'm less than 2 million away from paying for the Daytona I bought roughly 6 weeks ago, just doing 33 miles a day.

I should also point out, when I bought the Daytona, I had 20 million credits, and had been making "smaller" purchases to keep me off the limit. Decided to make a lot of room, and dropped the 15 mill on the Daytona. I'm at just over 18 million credits now, doing the minimum amount of racing.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That's speculation, albeit with some logic behind it. It was many months before credits began to be awarded in VR. How many months is the cut off before we can say what PD's intentions are? Even if they feel everything is fine as is, it's possible that user opinion might change their own.

Logic and probability. If they changed everything in the next update and hold their hands up saying, 'we didn't mean it to be this hard', then clearly they messed up... until then, it reasonably seems most probable to conclude they're okay with it.

We only really know how the game is, not how it is intended.

I think if we look at the changes being made to the game we can get a better understanding of what their intention was/is, but it's only ever going to be more speculation.

..then why are you defending this kind of thing happening in the 21st century - a time where, as you said, entire games can be changed or even added via a simple download?

Because neither I, nor anybody else here, genuinely has to do it.

It's the 1980s. You are in charge of a video game development studio. You make games for a living. You release a game. It sells 250,000 copies. Because this is the 80's, technology is still somewhat limited, so let's say you're able to gather feedback from 10 players. 5 of them say the game's economy is broken to the point of ruining the game for them, the other 5 proudly claims the game is fine as it is and that the others need to "grow up or get out". With the sequel coming up, you have a simple choice: listen to the 5 people saying the game's unbalanced and tone down the grind aspects or listen to the 5 that say you should leave it as it is. What do you do, and why?

What I would do is question the ethos of the game, review how we arrived at the economy, and I would act accordingly - if it was running as intended, nothing would change.. if we'd overlooked something we may well change it. I would do this because I am creating the game to offer for sale, and I would want it to represent my idea or concept. I would then accept if 50% of people didn't buy the game. The more fundamental why? here is that I believe people who are creating something (musicians, writers, directors, developers) are best served by delivering their vision, rather than simply giving way to populism.

If I had a boss in that hypothetical scenario, and they said "**** your vision, maximise profits" I would go back to the customer service team and get them to keep canvasing for opinions until the preference was clear, and I'd look to see what magazines were saying about the game and act according to what was likely to garner better reviews and therefore increase sales.

In an extension of the scenario, I might have specified during game development that cheats were built in, and if it seemed we'd made the game too hard, I'd ask Commodore Format, Zzap64 or ACE to publish those cheats (accepting that for those that could afford an action replay cartridge it already wouldn't be a problem).

 

[Woodybobs]

until then, it reasonably seems most probable to conclude they're okay with it.

Was it reasonable to assume they were okay with VR not offering credits until they changed it? If they were why change it? The possibility that they have simply overlooked something is also a reasonable assumption. It's probably more reasonable to not make assumptions.

 

[rallymorten]

Oh I'm not saying it's not about the "developers vision" and all that. Not at all. I'm getting to that point.

keep canvasing for opinions until the preference was clear

This is kind of the point I wanted you to make in this particular scenario. You have a sample size of 10 out of 250,000 copies sold. Said sample size is split in two equally-sized groups. It's impossible to tell if there even *is* a clear preference, but that's a story for a different thread.

Now, let's move it on a bit. It's 2018. It's a slightly alternative 2018 in that *you* don't have any direct obligations from a boss above you, but the rest of the world works pretty much as we know it. You're still a video game developer. You develop a game that sells five millions of copies. One day, a thread on a forum pops up, questioning the balance of the game economy. People start to get engaged, not just on that one forum, but it spreads across the internet. Let's say a grand total of 10,000 people get involved because technology is a wonderful thing that allows opinions to be heard. Of these, 70% believe the game economy is unbalanced, 25% tells the 70% to "stop whining", and 5% are pretty much indifferent. Remember, this is the glorious world of 2018, where you can change basically the entire game with a single download. Do you adjust the economy in hopes of finding a balance everyone can live with, or do you pretend nothing's wrong and keep doing as you've been doing?

There's a reason I've named this little story "customer satisfaction", because it all ultimately boils down to this: video game developers live and die by whether or not people buy their games - and that they keep doing that. The best way to make people buy your future games? Make sure they enjoy them. That means making compromises, even to what you considered the best game you could possibly make. At the end of the day, it's your vision or your place in the industry.

There's a reason the saying doesn't go "the creator is always right because duh, they created it, obviously they know better".*

*apart from at EA, obviously.

 

[Sander 001]

I am getting the sense that people now more than ever have the mind set "it's my game and I should be able to play it how I want", rather than how I remember it as "I like what this developer/game is offering so I will buy it and play it as they intended". The expectation of the gamer/viewer appears to have become far more self centered, which I personally think is a bad thing when people are buying into a well established franchise, it's how we end up with 'toxic' fandoms being a thing.

And the reason for that is pretty clear: We used to have Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left Right, B, A, Start.

Now we have: Pay $6.99 to skip side mission grinding, get boosters or other padding.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Oh I'm not saying it's not about the "developers vision" and all that. Not at all. I'm getting to that point.



This is kind of the point I wanted you to make in this particular scenario. You have a sample size of 10 out of 250,000 copies sold. Said sample size is split in two equally-sized groups. It's impossible to tell if there even *is* a clear preference, but that's a story for a different thread.

Now, let's move it on a bit. It's 2018. It's a slightly alternative 2018 in that *you* don't have any direct obligations from a boss above you, but the rest of the world works pretty much as we know it. You're still a video game developer. You develop a game that sells five millions of copies. One day, a thread on a forum pops up, questioning the balance of the game economy. People start to get engaged, not just on that one forum, but it spreads across the internet. Let's say a grand total of 10,000 people get involved because technology is a wonderful thing that allows opinions to be heard. Of these, 70% believe the game economy is unbalanced, 25% tells the 70% to "stop whining", and 5% are pretty much indifferent. Remember, this is the glorious world of 2018, where you can change basically the entire game with a single download. Do you adjust the economy in hopes of finding a balance everyone can live with, or do you pretend nothing's wrong and keep doing as you've been doing?

There's a reason I've named this little story "customer satisfaction", because it all ultimately boils down to this: video game developers live and die by whether or not people buy their games - and that they keep doing that. The best way to make people buy your future games? Make sure they enjoy them. That means making compromises, even to what you considered the best game you could possibly make. At the end of the day, it's your vision or your place in the industry.

There's a reason the saying doesn't go "the creator is always right because duh, they created it, obviously they know better".*

*apart from at EA, obviously.

The customer is always right is an idiom that A) Doesn't hold up in the real world, and B) Does nothing to guarantee a quality product.

As for our hypothetical scenario, the principle remains unchanged... measure the performance of a system against the stated objectives and act accordingly. For a profit driven company those objectives might be different to those of a more creative company. In reality you have to find a midpoint somewhere and making a profit and maintaining game/franchise/developer integrity would be on most people's objectives list, just to differing degrees.

 

[rallymorten]

The customer is always right is an idiom that A) Doesn't hold up in the real world

Which, I take it, is why there wasn't an uprising against EA last year, and why lootboxes aren't being illegalised left, right and center, correct?

Besides, if nobody buys a game developer's games, how long can they keep making games for?

It most certainly does have a relevance in the real world.

B) Does nothing to guarantee a quality product.

Neither does the developer dictatorically pretending to be the only one whose opinion matters.

In reality you have to find a midpoint somewhere and making a profit and maintaining game/franchise/developer integrity would be on most people's objectives list, just to differing degrees.

Ah, so perhaps there is a point in the madness? That it is, somehow, possible to combine a developer's vision for the game overall with an economy system that doesn't feel like a waste of time to a not insignificant amount of players?

So let me ask the essential question again: given the split in opinion presented in this thread, would it or would it not be a good idea for Polyphony to consider giving the economy system in Sport an extra look? Even if it doesn't change anything, would it be worth the while - for them and for us - for them to give it an extra once-over and say straight to our faces that this is how they intended the game to be played?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Which, I take it, is why there wasn't an uprising against EA last year, and why lootboxes aren't being illegalised left, right and center, correct?

Besides, if nobody buys a game developer's games, how long can they keep making games for?

It most certainly does have a relevance in the real world.

I see which way this going, absolutes.

The customer is always right dictates there is no scenario where a customer is wrong... I truly hope I don't need to explain why that is not true.

What happens when Nobody buys a game? Then it's likely the developer will incur a loss. In context, which Gran Turismo game did PD/Sony release for sale that sold zero copies?

...

I also didn't say it didn't have relevance, it just doesn't hold up. If it did, ANY customer of ANY business could make ANY demand and it would be fair and justifiable.

Neither does the developer dictatorically pretending to be the only one whose opinion matters.

Nope, but I've not said that a developer dictatorially pretending to be the only one whose opinion matters does either, you are the one falling back on idioms.

That it is, somehow, possible to combine a developer's vision for the game overall with an economy system that doesn't feel like a waste of time to a not insignificant amount of players?

Of course it's possible... but unless you are commissioning a developer to produce a product to a specification, you've got very little right to expect it, even if it seems reasonable.

So let me ask the essential question again: given the split in opinion presented in this thread, would it or would it not be a good idea for Polyphony to consider giving the economy system in Sport an extra look? Even if it doesn't change anything, would it be worth the while - for them and for us - for them to give it an extra once-over and say straight to our faces that this is how they intended the game to be played?

It'd be an idea. Not sure if it would be a good one, and I very seriously doubt it would change anything if Kaz tweeted out the 20mil cars were supposed to be difficult to earn. These threads would still exist and people would still complain. Let me ask an essential question... if Kaz did Tweet out, that they've reviewed the game economy, and car prices, and found everything to be acceptable, and then kept it the same, would you accept it?

 

[rallymorten]

The customer is always right dictates there is no scenario where a customer is wrong... I truly hope I don't need to explain why that is not true.

I never said the customer was always right. What I said was that there's probably a reason the idiom isn't about the company always being right. The last year-and-a-bit kind of tells a story about that.

What happens when Nobody buys a game? Then it's likely the developer will incur a loss. In context, which Gran Turismo game did PD/Sony release for sale that sold zero copies?

We're taking this into the real world, are we?

Alright, let's go along with that. Let's add all the layers back on top and make it a question not about whether it sells any copies at all, but about whether or not it sells enough to break even. What would happen to Gran Turismo if it doesn't sell enough copies to be profitable for Sony?

What I'm saying is that, regardless of how one can try to spin it, a company lives and dies from its customers. There's a reason companies take social media :censored:storms seriously. They know how damaging it can be to them.

Ultimately, if people doesn't buy what you're selling, it's time to look at your options, be it to embrace the niche that's left behind (with the required budget cuts), try to win old or new customers, or close up shop.

Let me ask an essential question... if Kaz did Tweet out, that they've reviewed the game economy, and car prices, and found everything to be acceptable, and then kept it the same, would you accept it?

Would I be interested in that happening? Definitely. If I can get word from as high up the ladder as possible that they always intended to lock the 20-million cars behind an excessive grind wall and that it won't change in the future, I'll know for certain that it's time to abandon ship. As will anyone else who's opposed to the idea of games becoming a second job. Then we'll see if the franchise can live off of who's left. And if not, maybe - just maybe - the company wasn't always right.

The simple fact of the matter is that, right now, we can speculate about the "way the developer wants us to play the game" as much as we want. Maybe they want us to bore our brains out on Blue Moon Bay. Maybe they want us to go through the entire GT League several times over. Maybe they want us to race for pennies online and never really get anywhere with the whole earn-credits-buy-cars thing. Or maybe they lost sight of the economy balance the moment they reintroduced said 20-million cars. Your guess, frankly, is as good as mine.

 

[coryclifford]

I feel lucky to be able to play…

 

[CBH]

I never said the customer was always right. What I said was that there's probably a reason the idiom isn't about the company always being right. The last year-and-a-bit kind of tells a story about that.



We're taking this into the real world, are we?

Alright, let's go along with that. Let's add all the layers back on top and make it a question not about whether it sells any copies at all, but about whether or not it sells enough to break even. What would happen to Gran Turismo if it doesn't sell enough copies to be profitable for Sony?

What I'm saying is that, regardless of how one can try to spin it, a company lives and dies from its customers. There's a reason companies take social media :censored:storms seriously. They know how damaging it can be to them.

Ultimately, if people doesn't buy what you're selling, it's time to look at your options, be it to embrace the niche that's left behind (with the required budget cuts), try to win old or new customers, or close up shop.



Would I be interested in that happening? Definitely. If I can get word from as high up the ladder as possible that they always intended to lock the 20-million cars behind an excessive grind wall and that it won't change in the future, I'll know for certain that it's time to abandon ship. As will anyone else who's opposed to the idea of games becoming a second job. Then we'll see if the franchise can live off of who's left. And if not, maybe - just maybe - the company wasn't always right.

The simple fact of the matter is that, right now, we can speculate about the "way the developer wants us to play the game" as much as we want. Maybe they want us to bore our brains out on Blue Moon Bay. Maybe they want us to go through the entire GT League several times over. Maybe they want us to race for pennies online and never really get anywhere with the whole earn-credits-buy-cars thing. Or maybe they lost sight of the economy balance the moment they reintroduced said 20-million cars. Your guess, frankly, is as good as mine.

The game developer wants us to play the game over time and get things like cars and stuff over time, and not play the game in 5 minutes and that what some players want, which is kind of . The game economy is fine whether it is offline or online.

 

[rono_thomas]

The game developer wants us to play the game over time and get things like cars and stuff over time, and not play the game in 5 minutes and that what some players want, which is kind of . The game economy is fine whether it is offline or online.

If your logic was sound then you would be able to understand that being able to earn 3x as much from offline in 12 minutes, opposed to sport modes paltry offering in 16 mins (current race C) is describing the exact same player that defined by you as a moaner and a groaner.

You’ve put yourself in this higher than thou position, and yet you fail to realise that you are that player who wanted everything in five minutes hence the rubber banding, hence running the offline races that pay you the most, exactly the reason you do not play Sport Mode, because it would take you too long.

You are that player.

 

[Scaff]

The game developer wants us to play the game over time and get things like cars and stuff over time, and not play the game in 5 minutes and that what some players want, which is kind of .

Why is it "kind of "?

I've put hundreds of hours into PC, PC and AC, all of which require no unlocking of any content at all. That would seem to fly in the face of the 'play the game in five minutes' argument. What I personally want from a racing/driving title is to be able to race and drive any car I want at any location I want, not to have to grind the hell out of it or hope blind luck favours me with a random prize. None of which makes it "kind of ", but what GTS does is put a barrier in the way of me wanting to spend time with it in any meaningful way, which means the game developer has actually failed in making me want to play the game in any way.

The game economy is fine whether it is offline or online.

Many disagree.

 

[Woodybobs]

I think it would benefit the game as a whole if those who predominately play Sport mode get the opportunity to purchase these cars with credits earned from Sport mode. Encouraging those players to leave Sport mode is counterproductive to the online aspect of the game. A forum like this gives players a chance to put forward ideas they have for the game. Whether PD agree or disagree (or notice) remains to be seen.

 

[ScottPuss20]

The title shouldn't be "Economy system is a piece of ****", it should be "The economy system doesn't work for me because I want 20 million dollar cars instantly"

 

[Woodybobs]

The title shouldn't be "Economy system is a piece of ****", it should be "The economy system doesn't work for me because I want 20 million dollar cars instantly"

Oh, please Come back when you've read the previous 324 posts.

 

[simsimsheree]

I think the bottom line of the absurdity is that the ONLY way to get the unicorns is to grind mindnumbingly horrible races in cars that offer an easy win.

If the reason PD placed the price so high is they expect effort to achieve them, sure, hell yes! But why is the ONLY effort that can achieve them in a pace practical to most (remember, every hour spent grinding is an hour NOT spent racing online, the actual focus of this game!) are the mindnumbing rote repetition of a couple of events..?

I think the point missed a lot on this thread is that the payout system for equivalent effort is so topsy-turvy. Boring offline effort? Tons of money. Interesting offline effort? Jack squat... Online effort? Next to nothing.

This flies so contrarily to the supposed focus of the game.

My take would be, up the payout for Lobby rooms for Clean Races only over a certain length (certainly over the 14min or so of a BMB grind!). You want thousands of clean rooms online? This is the way to get it. Incentivize it! Bonus for clean race (finished) only, NOT position (or I could hear the whining from here to Tokyo about bonuses lost from aggression!).

If we want a cleaner standard of driving, reward it!

Currently, the only thing that gets rewarded is OCD behavior that does nothing to improve the player base. 10 straight hours of grinding doesn't teach you a damn thing, other than PD are clueless when it comes to achieving their stated goal of a high class online esports program..!

 

[CBH]

I think the bottom line of the absurdity is that the ONLY way to get the unicorns is to grind mindnumbingly horrible races in cars that offer an easy win.

If the reason PD placed the price so high is they expect effort to achieve them, sure, hell yes! But why is the ONLY effort that can achieve them in a pace practical to most (remember, every hour spent grinding is an hour NOT spent racing online, the actual focus of this game!) are the mindnumbing rote repetition of a couple of events..?

I think the point missed a lot on this thread is that the payout system for equivalent effort is so topsy-turvy. Boring offline effort? Tons of money. Interesting offline effort? Jack squat... Online effort? Next to nothing.

This flies so contrarily to the supposed focus of the game.

My take would be, up the payout for Lobby rooms for Clean Races only over a certain length (certainly over the 14min or so of a BMB grind!). You want thousands of clean rooms online? This is the way to get it. Incentivize it! Bonus for clean race (finished) only, NOT position (or I could hear the whining from here to Tokyo about bonuses lost from aggression!).

If we want a cleaner standard of driving, reward it!

Currently, the only thing that gets rewarded is OCD behavior that does nothing to improve the player base. 10 straight hours of grinding doesn't teach you a damn thing, other than PD are clueless when it comes to achieving their stated goal of a high class online esports program..!

It does not take a effort achieve them, some players just want the 20 million dollar cars instantly and it does not happen like that. You have to earn them by winning credits, and this is a game to play over time and not in 5 minutes.

 

[rono_thomas]

You have to earn them by winning credits,

You mean like Earth is where humans live?

and not in 5 minutes.

Find me a quote where this has been said.

Quoting your self doesn’t count.

this is a game to play over time

It is this time that is being questioned and talked about, its a valid discussion and just because you keep incessantly repeating yourself doesn’t mean you are right.

 

[coryclifford]

He may not be right but he may not be wrong. Go earn the credits. However you want to. Do races. Wherever. But complaining about it just simply… makes one a complainer.

These are the cards we were dealt.