Gran Turismo 6 Master Car/Track List

[GTPorsche]

This might not be the correct place to post this, but I just realised that although there will be 200 cars added (to make the car count go up to 1200), I think PD may be updating some cars to Premium and not counting them as being added to the list since they're taking the Standard versions away. Hopefully this is true!

That would yet be another thing we have no clarification on.

 

[Samus]

I'm hoping their numbers are off because they're lacking the GT5 DLC tracks, which should without a doubt be included on the disc at launch.

They should and then like I say if they are and the numbers are correct, that's it. Brand's Hatch, Bathurst and any other track is DLC. I really hope not and I think it'd be amazing for them to not include Bathurst.

 

[sems4arsenal]

They should and then like I say if they are and the numbers are correct, that's it. Brand's Hatch, Bathurst and any other track is DLC. I really hope not and I think it'd be amazing for them to not include Bathurst.

It will be more amazing that they don't include Seatlle and Apricot hill ,both tracks were already shown and seem to be finished already

 

[ZZ-II]

let's hope they give us Midfield and El Captain back as well!

 

[Snaeper]

Considering they want to add a track a month via DLC, I wouldn't be surprised if Bathurst headlines the DLC tracks.

I'm interested to see what the reaction will be when Original tracks show up as DLC. Motegi came too late in the cycle to accurately (imo) judge how people feel about paying for a track that's been in previous GT's, and even then it's based on a real course and came with multiple variations. I don't know how thrilled I'd feel to purchase Midfield Raceway... unless...


... all the tracks they sell as DLC come with weather and/or time change.

 

[snowgt]

I know this is probably not a popular opinion, but I don't get what was so great about the Seattle-track of past GT games. The terraces-section with the three jumps was just silly, because every real-world car would have broken suspensions going over there at full throttle, much like the jumps on Cape Ring and Eiger.

Don't get me wrong, every track more is good, but I really don't need a jump track for my GT6-satisfaction...

 

[05XR8]

I know this is probably not a popular opinion, but I don't get what was so great about the Seattle-track of past GT games. The terraces-section with the three jumps was just silly, because every real-world car would have broken suspensions going over there at full throttle, much like the jumps on Cape Ring and Eiger.

Don't get me wrong, every track more is good, but I really don't need a jump track for my GT6-satisfaction...

I think the thrill of it were the variations and game play back then. Racing the muscle cars around Seattle was close racing in GT2. GT3 just plain had better graphics and sunset. The enduro was cool. Pitting for fuel and tyres. Negotiating the chicane over the railroad tracks. It's a cool track.

 

[Nattefrost]

I know this is probably not a popular opinion, but I don't get what was so great about the Seattle-track of past GT games. The terraces-section with the three jumps was just silly, because every real-world car would have broken suspensions going over there at full throttle, much like the jumps on Cape Ring and Eiger.

Don't get me wrong, every track more is good, but I really don't need a jump track for my GT6-satisfaction...

I think most who like the Seattle track would agree it'd be better without the jumps. It worked in earlier GT's but certainly in GT6 with its more realistic physics and suspension model it would stand out as extremely unrealistic. It's still a fantastic track in my opinion though. The flow through the blind corners after the uphil section, the railroad chicane, the narrow chicane just before the finish and the hairpin right at the start are all great features. Especially that final chicane, it's just so brutal if you're battling a few other cars going into it. If they'd just make the jumps a bit flatter, particularly the final one, it'd work well in GT6.

 

[lancia delta hf]

They should and then like I say if they are and the numbers are correct, that's it. Brand's Hatch, Bathurst and any other track is DLC. I really hope not and I think it'd be amazing for them to not include Bathurst.

Perhaps gt5 dlc is still dlc for gt6? For exmaple if you bought the dlc then you can use it on gt6 and if you didnt buy thme for gt5 then you simply purchase them for gt6

 

[the_racer100]

Matterhorn looks awesome judging by the video and the screenshots. It seems to have an amazing background nice elevation changes in the corners. Looks interesting

Interesting indeed it looks, and, by following some lines of thought, we can conlcude that Matterhorn will have different variations, just look at 0:55 in this vid: https://www.gtplanet.net/gt6-gameplay-video-audi-quattro-s1-at-matterhorn-circuit/

And, when I thought of a Grindelwald-based track earlier in this thread, I think my hunch was 55% right, because we have something very beautiful and similar. Thanks, PD!

 

[ZohsixGT5]

I know this is probably not a popular opinion, but I don't get what was so great about the Seattle-track of past GT games. The terraces-section with the three jumps was just silly, because every real-world car would have broken suspensions going over there at full throttle, much like the jumps on Cape Ring and Eiger.

Don't get me wrong, every track more is good, but I really don't need a jump track for my GT6-satisfaction...

I always slowed down for each hill to prevent getting air. Although while racing, that's not an ideal option. Someone will just blow by full speed because there is no damage done to the car.

 

[omnibusse]

Perhaps gt5 dlc is still dlc for gt6? For exmaple if you bought the dlc then you can use it on gt6 and if you didnt buy thme for gt5 then you simply purchase them for gt6

I think so. Thus we would get seven really new tracks and who bought DLC for GT5 can still use it.

 

[Samus]

Yet with that 'solution' those tracks would not be able to feature in A-Spec mode and the game still wouldn't have a test area mode on the disc.

 

[Rods]

Interesting indeed it looks, and, by following some lines of thought, we can conlcude that Matterhorn will have different variations, just look at 0:55 in this vid: https://www.gtplanet.net/gt6-gameplay-video-audi-quattro-s1-at-matterhorn-circuit/

And, when I thought of a Grindelwald-based track earlier in this thread, I think my hunch was 55% right, because we have something very beautiful and similar. Thanks, PD!

Yes, I was commenting on the "Matterhorn - the track in real life" thread that on 0:48, 0:55 and 1:10, there are indications of possible variations. Some of the blocked paths look more like pit entrance/exit, though, like at 1:25.

 

[Snaeper]

Yet with that 'solution' those tracks would not be able to feature in A-Spec mode and the game still wouldn't have a test area mode on the disc.

Unless they make larger moves to integrating A-Spec with the online events mode... They have commented on making the game more configurable after all.

 

[Samus]

Yeah but what I'm saying is unless someone buys Spa and the like they won't be in their game, and that's a big shame. If you have a track like Spa why would you still restrict it to people buying premium DLC?

 

[Snaeper]

Yeah but what I'm saying is unless someone buys Spa and the like they won't be in their game, and that's a big shame. If you have a track like Spa why would you still restrict it to people buying premium DLC?

Ahh, now I understand what you're saying, and I agree. I really would be disappointed if the DLC tracks were not included. I didn't get around to purchasing Motegi because I haven't been playing GT5 much and figured it would be in GT6 anyways.

 

[machschnel]

I think it'd be amazing for them to not include Bathurst.

Polyphony definitely have form in that regard - the omission of Spa (and I guess Motegi) from GT5 was just as amazing.

Unfortunately (I think), Bathurst is the new Spa.

 

[Jawehawk]

Polyphony definitely have form in that regard - the omission of Spa (and I guess Motegi) from GT5 was just as amazing.

Unfortunately (I think), Bathurst is the new Spa.

Judging from when we got the DLC, I think it's very safe to assume that they simply didn't have the license to use the tracks at release. In other words, they didn't leave them out intentially.

 

[Samus]

Judging from when we got the DLC, I think it's very safe to assume that they simply didn't have the license to use the tracks at release. In other words, they didn't leave them out intentially.

Pure conjecture on yor behalf.

 

[Vend1go]

BMW BMW Motorsport Team Schnitzer Z4 GT3 E89 2011 !!!!!!!!!!!!

this is what i'm talking about !!! Made my day ! now cant wait to fly with this beauty/Beast !

 

[Jawehawk]

Pure conjecture on yor behalf.

Which is why I said "safe to assume".
There's no evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[Samus]

Which is why I said "safe to assume".
There's no evidence suggesting otherwise.

There is no evidence to support your theory either.

 

[Jawehawk]

There is no evidence to support your theory either.

The fact that they were left out of the game at release, and brought to the game a year after release (longer in the case of Motegi), strongly suggests that they didn't have the license for the tracks at the time of developing the game. That's enough evidence to assume something.

 

[Traviizter]

Fingers crossed for the new Renaultsport range...

 

[Samus]

The fact that they were left out of the game at release, and brought to the game a year after release (longer in the case of Motegi), strongly suggests that they didn't have the license for the tracks at the time of developing the game. That's enough evidence to assume something.

Strongly disagree. That is evidence the tracks were released as DLC, that's it. I could assume they did it purely to gain money and the track could have been on the disc and it'd be just as baseless an assumption.

 

[Jawehawk]

Strongly disagree. That is evidence the tracks were released as DLC, that's it. I could assume they did it purely to gain money and the track could have been on the disc and it'd be just as baseless an assumption.

Right. 'Cause it makes perfect sense for a company to wait a year or more to release DLC, when that means a decent portion of consumers have moved away from your base product, and thus won't know about the DLC.

If the DLC's were availible close to the release, then there would be a basis for suspecting the content to have been on the disc since release, or to have been finished before release. There's no basis for such a theory when the DLC took this long to appear, without there having been any rumors about the DLC content prior to the announcement.

Which leaves only one possible basis for a theory. And that theory being that they either did not have the license for the track(s) or they did, but they weren't finished with modelling the tracks.

 

[Samus]

Not being finished makes sense, not having a license is completely made up on your part. That's the point I was making.

 

[Jawehawk]

Not being finished makes sense, not having a license is completely made up on your part. That's the point I was making.

I see. That's fair enough. Though I would find it odd if PD secured and paid for a license that far in advance to actually model the track(s). Can't imagine that track licenses, espicially not for legendary tracks like Spa, come cheap.

 

[Duphman]

A tip from kelrick85 who translated this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZZAe7cTjCSA

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see Warren4649's reply. But he didn't translate everything Kaz said, so I'll keep my post here

I can't believe no one did this for like 3 pages. I don't understand Chinese so I'll omit the intro, but I can take a guess at what questions were asked.

Of course I tried my best to translate everything, but I'm not a professional translator, so if anyone else want to add or correct, please do (especially the questions. Like I said, I don't understand Chinese, so that is totally a guess based on the answer that was given).

1. "Is GT6 coming for PS3 or PS4?"
There is already a big base of PS3 users, so we would like to deliver the new GT series to them first. We felt that there were more potential in PS3 performance, and we could do more with it. After the release of GT6 towards the end of the year, we want to grow the franchise by continuing to provide DLC on monthly basis. After we've done enough with the DLC, i.e. when everyone had a chance to play thoroughly the entirety of GT6, the new, PS4 version will naturally appear.

2. "Is there a plan for PS4 version of GT6?"
Of course we have plans, but we're not at the stage of being able to talk about it, because we are concentrating on the PS3 version.

3. "Difference between GT5 vs GT6"
The most important improvement from GT5 to GT6 is the overhaul of the essence of the racing games, and build a new basis for the next generation of racing games. This includes the physics engine, or the rendering engine. If you had a chance to try it out, you will notice a huge difference in the speed of the UI. For example, from the top menu to the start of the race, there is hardly any waiting time, and the player can start the race seamlessly. Like so, we're trying to improve the quality by rebuilding from the basic elements that can be transferred to the future of racing games.

4. "Is there going to be Season Pass for GT6?"
We have decided to provide monthly new content. However, we don't know for sure whether this will be in form of DLC or Season pass, which is a yearly subscription. We have not decided on this point yet.

5. "Are there going to be Chinese tracks?"
I visited Shanghai International Circuit recently, and it is in our waiting list, but we have not started recreating the course. It does take a long time to recreate a course. Since GT6 is to be release at the end of the year, so it is difficult to make this deadline.

So not a full on confirmation, but a pretty good indicator that this F1 track may indeed become DLC down the road.