Forza Motorsport 5 |OT| Where dreams are Realised

[greekbull]

I would much rather pay for the game in it's current state and DLC as it's produced than wait another year or 2 for the amount of content you guys deem worthy of buying. Would you rather not have a next gen racing title at launch? Would you rather T10 port over cars from FM2 and FM3 and give us a ton of horrible looking cars and tracks so they can up the counts? I have to say NO to all of that! 3

It wasn't physically or financially possible for T10 to give you more cars or tracks at launch and still go completely next gen from scratch. I am completely supportive of that and would much rather have a game that is a big step beyond any of it's console competition. We still get plenty of DLC(which you don't have to buy if you don't want to spend the cash!(I certainly will)) and get something that is new from the ground up.

If none of that appeals to you go to GT6 because right or wrong they took the opposite approach and went for Quantity over Quality. PD is going to have to step up to the plate big time for GT7 and it's going to take them some time to do it if they want to attempt to keep up with Forza. So in the end we all win because FM5 like it or not is going to push out better content from all the competition and we get better games to enjoy!

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

And some of the DLC cars from the first DLC batch were clearly done before the game had gone Gold (not a fact, but it is likely). At least judging from when they could release detailed screens and info.

Now, I can already hear the argument that “they have pictures so clearly it's done now” and that's total garbage. In video games, a picture is the equivalent (to borrow the earlier metaphor) of a concept car. Just because it's up on stage doesn't mean it's ready to sell. A picture is really easy, but that hardly means that the car is 100% done and fully usable in the game. It could mean that, but it could also not mean that at all. Assuming that it does mean that it's done is baseless (just as assuming that it isn't done is) and unless you have evidence, I see it merely as pointless speculation.

So, there's that. Also, that must mean that Titanfall is ready to release right now, cause that has waaay more than pictures. There's gameplay! They let people play it at conventions! Should come out as a launch title.

 

[Northstar]

Would you rather not have a next gen racing title at launch?

Can't say it would make me that upset considering what launch titles have become(Very thin original games and stripped down ports of last gen games).

 

[Jawehawk]

So, there's that. Also, that must mean that Titanfall is ready to release right now, cause that has waaay more than pictures. There's gameplay! They let people play it at conventions! Should come out as a launch title.

You can't compare a full game to one in-game model that uses the existing physics in a game. Also, keep in mind that I did say that we had no way of knowing if it was in fact done before the game went Gold. Only that it was very likely. And C'mon. The DLC's a scheduled with 1 pack per month, each consisting of 10 models. He says himself that it aparently takes 6 months to create the cars (wish both PD and Turn 10 would stop tossing this funny number around...), so they began the DLC content 6 months before the game released... Yeah, that totally justifies them charging extra for it...

 

[PzR Slim]

Can't say it would make me that upset considering what launch titles have become(Very thin original games and stripped down ports of last gen games).

Surely you could just pretend FM5 was never released and buy FM6 then? So with that in mind what exactly is the problem?

 

[greekbull]

Can't say it would make me that upset considering what launch titles have become(Very thin original games and stripped down ports of last gen games).

Well we all win then. The vast majority of us would rather have the opportunity to own this game now and the minority that is not drawn to it can wait for FM6 or play GT6...really whatever suits them. Much better than T10 holding off for two more years and the rest of us not getting a proper next gen title to please a few...

 

[Northstar]

Surely you could just pretend FM5 was never released and buy FM6 then? So with that in mind what exactly is the problem?

An extra 4-5 months or so of development time, I (obviously) don't know their schedule, but I'm guessing they have spent most of the last few months testing and waiting for the game to go gold.

But since they will now have to do the whole testing/production phase once again for FM6, there will be 7 months-year of lost development time.

 

[PzR Slim]

An extra 4-5 months or so of development time, I (obviously) don't know their schedule, but I'm guessing they have spent most of the last few months testing and waiting for the game to go gold.

But since they will now have to do the whole testing/production phase once again for FM6, there will be 7 months-year of lost development time.

You really think they have been 'waiting' for the game to go gold. My guess is they have been working every hour god sent to finish the game, all of which will go into making FM6 a better game also. So what is the problem again?

 

[Northstar]

So what is the problem again?

The part you so conveniently ignored.

But since they will now have to do the whole testing/production phase once again for FM6, there will be 7 months-year of lost development time.

I'm sure they do work on it right to the point the game goes gold, but having to do the testing/production phase twice takes a decent chunk of development time away from them. That's the problem.

 

[PzR Slim]

The part you so conveniently ignored.



I'm sure they do work on it right to the point the game goes gold, but having to do the testing/production phase twice takes a decent chunk of development time away from them. That's the problem.

You don't think the testing and production team are completely separate from the development team? Not to mention how much developing 5 will have taught them about the Xbone that will help greatly in the development of 6?

 

[Northstar]

You don't think the testing and production team are completely separate from the development team?

Of course they're separate, however they are not free and the money they save from only having to hire them once could go towards hiring an additional developer. The same can be said about the people that do the UI and HUD.

Not to mention how much developing 5 will have taught them about the Xbone that will help greatly in the development of 6?

If T10 were a 3rd party developer, you'd have a point, but they are a 1st party developer and have other studios to help them when it comes to the XB1.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

Also, keep in mind that I did say that we had no way of knowing if it was in fact done before the game went Gold. Only that it was very likely. And C'mon. The DLC's a scheduled with 1 pack per month, each consisting of 10 models. He says himself that it aparently takes 6 months to create the cars (wish both PD and Turn 10 would stop tossing this funny number around...), so they began the DLC content 6 months before the game released... Yeah, that totally justifies them charging extra for it...

Did you even read my previous post? Because I adressed this already. Allow me to quote the relevant section, again:

The counter argument for this is that since they worked on it before the game came out, they got paid for it in the game sales right? And I don't totally disagree with that, but it does run into a bit of a problem. Pretty much any DLC that comes out within 6 months of the game had at least a rudimentary amount of work or planning done on it before the game came out. Therefore, by the above logic, those DLCs should also be free, even if the content wasn't finished for several months after the game came out, because it was started before the game came out.

I think that unless you are against paid DLC in its entirety, you would agree that developers should be paid for work they are doing after the game comes out. Saying you agree with that but have a problem with day-one paid DLC is a bit of a nebulous distinction; you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand as to what you think it's ok to charge for. If day-one DLC isn't ok, what about week one? Month one? There's no way that any meaningful DLC released a month after the game didn't have at least some work done on it before the game launched.

There's no basis for the stigma beyond an arbitrary point where everything that's finished by this date should be free because reasons. That's what bothers me about the whole thing, the incredible double-standard of it. People are ok paying for DLC that they perceive as being developed after the game releases, but their perception of what constitutes that time period is arbitrary at best.

I've even bolded the most relevant sections for you; the whole thing is relevant, but those selections even more so.

You can't compare a full game to one in-game model that uses the existing physics in a game.

Just like you can't compare a picture of a car model to an actual ready to use car model.

 

[Jawehawk]

@HighSeasHoMastr

I did read your comment. And yes, if the work is done before the game is released, then it should be included in the game's retail price. If the content isn't finished in time, then you either delay the game, or release it as free DLC. Preferably the former. As I said earlier, if you allow the current practice to become the norm (more so than it already is), it won't be long until every single developer will leave out content for the sake of DLC. This doesn't benefit consumers in any way.

Even if we take the leap of faith, and say that none of the DLC for F5 was finished when the game went Gold, it's an awfully small step to go from working on DLC a half year before the game releases, to literally leaving finished content out of the retail game. From a profit standpoint, devs/puplishers will have a very easy time doing this, if consumers just turn the blind eye. I find it amazing that I have to actually defend something as basic as getting the full game that you paid for. But such is the current game industry...

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

I did read your comment. And yes, if the work is done before the game is released, then it should be included in the game's retail price. If the content isn't finished in time, then you either delay the game, or release it as free DLC. Preferably the former.

Then you could easily end up with GT5. The releasing as free DLC part is what gets me here though. You're arguing that any feature or asset that was worked on at all before the game released should be free, even if it requires months more work for it to be finished. That's just an unrealistic expectation unless it's something that was advertised as being in the game and then not included in the game at launch. If it's an add-on feature that was never advertised as being included in the game, how does it follow that you $60 paid for it, regardless of when work on it started?

As I said earlier, if you allow the current practice to become the norm (more so than it already is), it won't be long until every single developer will leave out content for the sake of DLC. This doesn't benefit consumers in any way.

I agree 100% with this. Let's be honest though, this isn't really at the top of the list of anti-consumer practices prevalent in the gaming industry...
I don't really have an answer for how to fix this other than to not buy games that do these things. And I think we both know that won't ever happen in large enough numbers for it to make an impact. Too many people either don't realize or don't care and will continue to buy the games regardless of things like this. I mean, people are willing to pay like >$150 for the super-special-better-that-yours-edition of Cod 15 these days, so that shouldn't give a lot of hope...

Even if we take the leap of faith, and say that none of the DLC for F5 was finished when the game went Gold, it's an awfully small step to go from working on DLC a half year before the game releases, to literally leaving finished content out of the retail game. From a profit standpoint, devs/puplishers will have a very easy time doing this, if consumers just turn the blind eye.

I agree, but you have to look at it from a more objective standpoint. You are paying $60 for whatever content is on the disk. What other content may or may not exist is not relevant; it's not on the disk, it's not covered in the $60. If you don't feel that the content on the disk is worth $60, don't buy it. Only after you have made that decision can you decide if it's worth it to buy more content.

I find it amazing that I have to actually defend something as basic as getting the full game that you paid for. But such is the current game industry...

I find it amazing that something as simple as what I outlined above is such a rare viewpoint. You are getting the full game you paid for when you buy the disk, because you paid for what was on the disk. You didn't pay for anything that isn't on the disk, regardless of if it exists or not. The $60 covers what is on the disk, not all content that exists for that game at the time that you buy the disk. If you feel that the content on the disk is not worth the price of the disk, don't buy it. Expecting that the $60 you are paying for what is on the disk is also paying for content that is not on the disk, is not advertised as being included on the disk, and is not required for the content on the disk to function is absurd.

It's like buying a book and then being irritated when the author releases a sequel and you have to pay for that too. I mean, he clearly had done some work on the sequel when he released the first book, the continuity and meta-story must have been planned out already. By this logic, you didn't get the book you paid for, because clearly there was more stuff planned. You got ripped off.

You see how absurd it is?

 

[Jawehawk]

I find it amazing that something as simple as what I outlined above is such a rare viewpoint. You are getting the full game you paid for when you buy the disk, because you paid for what was on the disk. You didn't pay for anything that isn't on the disk, regardless of if it exists or not. The $60 covers what is on the disk, not all content that exists for that game at the time that you buy the disk. If you feel that the content on the disk is not worth the price of the disk, don't buy it. Expecting that the $60 you are paying for what is on the disk is also paying for content that is not on the disk, is not advertised as being included on the disk, and is not required for the content on the disk to function is absurd.

It's like buying a book and then being irritated when the author releases a sequel and you have to pay for that too. I mean, he clearly had done some work on the sequel when he released the first book, the continuity and meta-story must have been planned out already. By this logic, you didn't get the book you paid for, because clearly there was more stuff planned. You got ripped off.

You see how absurd it is?

I see your point. Although, I don't (fully) agree with it.
But yeah, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about some of these things. Don't think there's any further aspects of this to discuss, or at least I don't know how to continue. But it was a nice discussion. 👍

A shame that I'm failing to live up to my signature, about convincing others that my opinion is superior . (Joking)

 

[another_jakhole]

Dojodrifter was definitely taking it too far by triple posting and being spiteful/attack-y. I was about to warn him, but too late.

 

[HAL20XX]

Dojodrifter was definitely taking it too far by triple posting and being spiteful/attack-y. I was about to warn him, but too late.

Yeah, the little guy left a pathetic message on my wall, got banned, created a new account, and got that banned too.

 

[johnnyp2k13]

i have the need, the need for.., well what im trying to say is that bring on forza 5!!!!!

 

[Ddrizle]

 

[Wardez]

The Hammond one about GT racing was pretty cool, but James May's was really gringey talking about the whole "more POWER!" thing. Appeals to the kids though I suppose, wasn't made for me.

 

[Imari]

The Hammond one about GT racing was pretty cool, but James May's was really gringey talking about the whole "more POWER!" thing. Appeals to the kids though I suppose, wasn't made for me.

I guess it depends whether you share that whole "muscle cars are compensation for too much room in the underpants" theory that tends to be popular around Europe.

To be fair, the whole point of muscle cars is power so he's not exactly wrong, it's just that the whole piece is done in a slightly backhanded way. Possibly should have got Hammond to do that one, he's the only one of the three who seems to appreciate muscle cars for what they are.

 

[King1982]

i think i might like ForzaVista on all cars

 

[phillgt2002]

Next gen is here. I cannot wait for the things that fans produce. Paint-jobs, photos, videos and such. If only I could get my hands on an Xbox One on time.

 

[Kake Bake]

Speaking of which, I wonder which car will have the least popular/interesting ForzaVista reel? My vote goes to the Scion TC--the inclusion of which, considering all the great cars lost due to the paring down of the roster, is kind of a slap in the face.

The Scion TC was designed by squishing a loaf of white bread into a vaguely car-shaped mass. Despite being as beige as a Camry, this front-wheel-drive car has been marketed to hipsters as a cool and affordable performance sedan. Scion execs didn't count on hipsters not liking cars, however, so 100% of TC sales are to young men between 17 and 24 whose favorite YouTube searches include "burnout," "v-tec," "parking lot," and "cops."

 

[eSZee]

The Hammond one about GT racing was pretty cool, but James May's was really gringey talking about the whole "more POWER!" thing. Appeals to the kids though I suppose, wasn't made for me.

I was really surprised Hammond didn't do the one about muscle cars. That's his thing.
Maybe they thought May would be funnier since he'd be more negative toward that genre of car.

 

[Minty]

Speaking of which, I wonder which car will have the least popular/interesting ForzaVista reel? My vote goes to the Scion TC--the inclusion of which, considering all the great cars lost due to the paring down of the roster, is kind of a slap in the face.

I like to think they wanted to keep the PT Cruiser, as well, but all three hosts couldn't stop laughing when it was brought up.

 

[Kake Bake]

I like to think they wanted to keep the PT Cruiser, as well, but all three hosts couldn't stop laughing when it was brought up.

Oh no, imagine the fallout if T10 had kept the PT Cruiser in.

What a beast of a motor it is. Truly destined to go down in motorsport history.

 

[Wolfe]

While I'm a tad confused myself why the Scion TC made the cut, and I'm no fan of the PT Cruiser either...I can't agree with wishing cars would go away/stay away, or the common complaints that a mundane car "stole" the place of a better car. Every car is someone's favorite, and I agree completely with T10's stated philosophy on car selection, in that they need to represent three kinds of cars -- the player's first car, the car they drive now, and the car they dream of owning one day.

I believe eliminating all non-sporty or non-historic models from the lineup would make more people unhappy than you could ever please with their theoretical sporty/historic replacements, because while many people drive PT Cruisers or TCs, not everyone is a fan of, say, a classic Chrysler New Yorker or A20-series Toyota Celica.

 

[phillgt2002]

Some gorgeous gameplay.

 

[sems4arsenal]

The audio for the Mount Panorama video sounds very weird on my headphones, also downshifts sound strange.

Looks stunning even in a Compressed Youtube video though