Gran Turismo 7: Latest news and discussion thread
- Thread starter sems4arsenal
- 43,754 comments
- 5,091,739 views
- 3,385
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
it’s just the current gen road cars that PD don’t seem to care about 
- 3,157
- United Kingdom
- ask
Completely agree with your point about critical brands being missing and a lot of cars being outdated, though there could be a good chance we don’t have the AMG One as FH5 may have timed exclusivity with the model? IIRC Forza had timed exclusivity agreements with a few of their cover cars, like the GT2 RS and the Senna
That’s why I said even if it’s included in the mambo jambo. How is screening a game a copyright violation? It’s a video game, not a movie. People buy it to play it, not to watch it.
If it’s not allowed to show the game now it shouldn’t be allowed to show it after the “official” release date. As far as I’m concerned, the game has been released. Maybe early then Sony wanted, but the game was released as soon as someone got his copy legitimately.
- 147
- Germany
- 5,763
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
- 349
- Wales
Agree. Tho Merc does seem to be in somewhat of a special relationship relative to all the other non-J brands.
I would love to know where we stand now re the power/money flow. Do the developers still have to pay (much/anything) to manufacturers to get licences to include cars (and if so, on a car-by-car basis or just brand?)
Or, do the makers pay the developers to effectively do marketing for them? There are so many decent games around now I can imagine still not having Porsches or Ferraris in any game must put it at a massive disadvantage.
The lack of certain ‘obvious’ particular models (959, 918 and, until now, Carrera GT are just three from a single manufacturer) really confuses me and leaves ‘holes’ in games (yes, I’m a bit of an OCD type I guess...)
- 286
- Australia
I hope the Mitsubishi FTO returns on day one.
- 1,456
When some of those cars have been out for years, and in other games, with car lists like GT, for years, you think another 2 to 5 year long wait is just fine? Well, to each their own, but I believe I speak for most when I say: "We've been exemplary in our patience."
Agreed, but as others have pointed out, how is gameplay a copyright violation? If I upload gameplay, it might be their game but it is my gameplay. And the spoiler argument doesn't work either, since this is a simple racing game, not a narrative driven experience, where the twists of the story matter to player experience. You will drive cars on racetracks, there you have all the spoilers.
Somehow, I don't think they're sticking to clips with copyrighted music, and that's the issue. Amazon messed up and sent people their copies too early. If Sony has someone to blame here, its them. The end-users bought their copies legitimately and have to right to enjoy them, and yes, upload gameplay. They didn't sign any NDA with Sony, so they're not contractually bound to not show anything. By also taking down gameplay clips, not of their own, with non-copyrighted material, they are abusing the copyright system for damage control purposes.
- 262
- Adelaide
- LilBigHulk
mambo jambo? terms and conditions are apart of most paid digital entertainment.It broke street date. Sony isn’t stopping you from playing it if you got a copy. But honestly your getting this upset that they don’t want videos up of it on YT before the review embargo is up? It makes perfect sense from a business standpoint and I’m pretty sure it’s legal. Bringing up freedom of speech? Your being sarcastic surely?
- 335
- Germany
- helmi2398
He did an one lap race, so the reason for no cutscene is clear.
Just because it’s legal and makes sense from a business standpoint I don’t have to agree with it. People got the game legitimately, they should be allowed to post videos of it as most people will do after the “official” release date.
Mambo jambo may not be the right expression. It’s just that no one reads that ****.
And yes it’s a freedom of speech violation. I should be allowed to say what I want and show the game.
Obviously these are first world problems and considering the time we’re living clearly not important. I apologise for that. I really do.
Yes they are, stated on the back of the physical disc case
It actually is, devs know this - However thr common tie is giving a game exposure to the masses for potential future sales.
It's moot - it's still an IP. It's no different if you recut a movie and claimed it was - your - cut - unless you're critical of whatever IP you are referencing, it is actually copyright infringement.
Tom Scott has an incredibly informative video about this - basically YouTube for example has an agreement with any form of IP owner where, by rights and law, they could effectively sue the user who uploads any sort of copyright infringement, YouTube just takes said content down.
Worth the watch.
- 9,946
- Denmark
You could also upload a video of some turntable playing a vinyl record with the audio coming out of your speakers. Then argue you are recording your own listening experience, but you would still be sharing copyrighted material. Regardless of how the content is captured though, I think music, movies and games have the same rights. Even more rights when it involves multiple infringements at once, such as sharing gameplay with licensed music. I’m no lawyer, so this is simply my idea of how it works.
I know many people upload videos showing gameplay from games, but I’m not convinced it’s legal. Under normal circumstances people may get free passes to do it because no one really cares, but in this case Sony probably cares because they want to protect the GT7 embargo. True that the general public is not under NDA, but ultimately it’s probably still copyright infringement that Sony chooses to act on because the uploads are inconvenient for them.
I didn’t say anything about spoilers. Unrelated to the copyright angle really.
I don’t think Sony is blaming the general public for anything here, but file a complaint to the higher powers if you feel Sony is breaking the rules here.
To be clear, and I know you weren’t replying to my post here, I do understand this is considered copyright infringement. As the video posted above, thanks for sharing btw, copyright is tricky and common sense should prevail. Sony is not showing common sense here, imo, they’re protecting the embargo in a way I feel is unnecessary and morally wrong.
Last edited:
- 3,385
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
How come no one posts no more screenshots and vids?
- 1,456
The idea behind copyright law, is to prevent someone from providing an alternative way to experience a product, that doesn't go to the original source and the copyright owner, thus causing them financial loss.
In the case of music, if you can listen to a song through unofficial channels, you are getting the experience being sold, without going to the owner of the product. Those channels are violating copyright.
In the case of movies, it's a similar story. If you can watch a movie, in full or in parts, through unofficial channels, you are getting the experience being sold, in a way that doesn't go through the owner of the product. Those channels are violating copyright.
Videogames are a different story, that puts them in a grey area. Videogames are meant to be interactive experiences. A gameplay video is not an interactive experience. You are supposed to play a game, not watch a game. In most cases, you cannot properly experience a videogame through watching someone else play it. The whole point of games is putting you in control of the action, which doesn't happen in gameplay videos. However, there is one angle about gameplay where the copyright holders have good reasons, and that brings me to this statement:
If you have a story driven game, experiencing the twists and turns of the plot is a major part of experiencing the game as whole. A person who knows what's coming isn't going to get the most out of the product. In this case, copyright holders have at least a partial reason to restrict gameplay.
The same concept does not apply to a game like GT7, which lacks any narrative and whose core experience is in the driving, hands on.
A company can't just call something infringement because "it's inconvenient". The law says what's infringement and what isn't. If they don't like the law, they can try to get it changed first.
I think they do know where the blame is. They're just trying to limit the damage by pushing the law to the breaking point. I won't bother filing an complaint because it would be too much a headache for too little return. Besides, the higher powers tend to side with the corporations anyway. Still, one can point out when they're pushing it.
Similar threads
