- 1,735
- United Kingdom
As usual nothing new with Kaz but at least Sony is very proud of Poly it seems.
"Please look forward to the future evolution of Gran Turismo" - Kaz
GT8 confirmed
Last edited:
As usual nothing new with Kaz but at least Sony is very proud of Poly it seems.
PP limitations in single player must be optional!Facts. Old style A-Spec career with Sophy plus PP limitations and less or not required prize cars would make it great
There should absolutely be no license/patents for content in video games whatsoever! Make racing games legally free for all cars and brands and trademarks.The other thing about a game set around modern race cars is, outside of IMSA who do license out LMDhs/GTPs like candy (PD should really talk to them, it'd be a good PR win), licensors are increasingly preferring their own standalone games and/or iRacing these days. A few examples:
I don't profess to know the reasons at all, but it's clear most racing series licensors are either being more picky with where they license or aren't being approached by many places for their licenses.
- The only 2 2020s F1 cars I can think of outside of the licensed F1 games are the 2020 Mercedes in iRacing and the Red Bull in The Crew.
- The only 2 LMHs outside of officially licensed LMU are the GR010 here and the 499P that just got added to iRacing.
- The cars in GT5/6 might still be the most modern rally cars outside of the official WRC series, modern versions of these don't really show up at all.
- The current Indycar is iRacing-exclusive.
- NASCAR's current generation of cars is only iRacing and Forza.
- Super Formula is GT7 and iRacing exclusive.
- Super GT GT500 doesn't exist in modern form anywhere, The only GT300s are the BRZ GT300 and Lexus GT3 livery we have here.
- DTM may as well be RaceRoom exclusive, except for the RS5 we have here.
- Current-gen V8 Supercars is iRacing-exclusive (Forza just got the old generation models back; claiming that is like claiming PD have modern Super GT GT500 from the 2016 models)
- Basically every GT3 model that's been added to anything other than officially licensed ACC in the past couple of years has come in a factory base livery (or a custom livery like we got the '18 GT-R in) rather than a racing team livery.
Why shouldn't car brands be able to monetise their brand in games when it's literally how Sony make money from Gran Turismo?There should absolutely be no license/patents for content in video games whatsoever! Make racing games legally free for all cars and brands and trademarks.
The problem isn't monetizing it's the patents which is monopoly rents which is a legislated [partial] market failure or markets behaving dysfunctional. Also fictional cars like the most VGT cars in GT should also not be patented or use-rights exclusive to Sony & Polyphony digital. Most of the profits/sales is because many enough game players across console/pc think a game is entertaining enough to buy. Which is not mostly because of new real world cars which are still produced and sold in the real world.Why shouldn't car brands be able to monetise their brand in games when it's literally how Sony make money from Gran Turismo?
Gran Turismo Evo"Please look forward to the future evolution of Gran Turismo" - Kaz
GT8 confirmed
Intellectual property is the mechanism that allows the monetisation. If you don't own the design rights and trade marks for your brand, people can use them to generate money for themselves without you having any say in it.The problem isn't monetizing it's the patents
The righteous & ethical law would be that even if you don't own the design rights & trade marks for the brand, it should be unlawful to put it behind a paywall or to charge money for it otherwise. But indirectly generating advertising income should be allowed. I think Creative Commons is the correct law&rule for what I support for all digital stuff in movies&books&video games. And in video games and movies we pay for the game and the movie we don't pay for the brands in the games & movies. And the fun isn't in the brands themselves.Intellectual property is the mechanism that allows the monetisation. If you don't own the design rights and trade marks for your brand, people can use them to generate money for themselves without you having any say in it.
I think that there is a significant of content being pooled for future utilization, whether being held off for more longevity for GT7 or for a larger GT8. There is certainly the early versions of UX/UI developed for GT8 and probably a hollow career mode. But with the progression of Sophy and new ideas that Sophy can be implemented into are going to play a pivotal role in that. I would bet that the development of Sophy is actually slowing the development of GT8PD are likely prioritizing gt8 development right now, gt7 updates are secondary at this point.
Are you mad? Do you want brands to give away their property and have it used and abused in ways you can't even imagine? There is a reason why licenses exist.There should absolutely be no license/patents for content in video games whatsoever! Make racing games legally free for all cars and brands and trademarks.
You said the wrong words there, "righteous & ethical" when you added the word "law".The righteous & ethical law would be that even if you don't own the design rights & trade marks for the brand
Hopefully Not!I honestly think they'll keep GT7 alive for longer than they usually keep their games alive.
Hopefully Not!
Word salad.The problem isn't monetizing it's the patents which is monopoly rents which is a legislated [partial] market failure or markets behaving dysfunctional.
Good job that's not the case then.Also fictional cars like the most VGT cars in GT should also not be patented or use-rights exclusive to Sony & Polyphony digital.
GT should be fine then, given how slow it generally is to get new cars in it. I mean you're still wrong, but you do you.Most of the profits/sales is because many enough game players across console/pc think a game is entertaining enough to buy. Which is not mostly because of new real world cars which are still produced and sold in the real world.
Word salad.The righteous & ethical law would be that even if you don't own the design rights & trade marks for the brand, it should be unlawful to put it behind a paywall or to charge money for it otherwise.
And that would work how?But indirectly generating advertising income should be allowed.
Why? Let's take a recent example of a popular DLC, one that sold almost entirely due to the 'brand' content it contained. The Super Tourer DLC for RaceRoom, should only the studio be able to profit from that content, and not the companies that designed, built and raced the cars themselves?I think Creative Commons is the correct law&rule for what I support for all digital stuff in movies&books&video games.
You pay for both, because brands in games (which is what we are talking about) are a draw to the target audience and mutually beneficial to both the brand and the studio.And in video games and movies we pay for the game and the movie we don't pay for the brands in the games & movies.
Do you know how much demand certain brands get in titles? The presence of the Nürburgring for example?And the fun isn't in the brands themselves.
It doesn't seem particulary fair to call arguments you disagree with word salads. I mean I understood perfectly well the points that guy was makingWord salad.
The points that are clear I've addressed, the ones that are not, is because they are word salad.It doesn't seem particulary fair to call arguments you disagree with word salads. I mean I understood perfectly well the points that guy was making
I could've sworn they said this was the plan way back when GT7 first came out. As long as the updates are free, I don't see the issue with continuing to evolve and add content to the base GT7 game. It's not like the experience of a GT8 would be wildly different than what GT7 has become now, anyway.I honestly think they'll keep GT7 alive for longer than they usually keep their games alive.
A lot of people are convinced that PD's had a change of heart out of nowhere and that GT8 will miraculously launch with a massive GT4-tier career. Which is... optimistic, to say the least.It's not like the experience of a GT8 would be wildly different than what GT7 has become now, anyway.
Especially if PD feels what they are is working so why change it up? I don't for see GT8 being different from GT7. Maybe, hopefully some newer cars Sophy AI but still chase the rabbit etc... Hopefully I'm wrong and they do the unexpectedA lot of people are convinced that PD's had a change of heart out of nowhere and that GT8 will miraculously launch with a massive GT4-tier career. Which is... optimistic, to say the least.
Plus, it saves me the $70 or whatever in having to buy a whole new game.
I agree with this. I would love to be able to go into a brands showroom and buy any car from their catalogue and then decide which content I'd like to play. I'll happily pay per car and get what I really want, rather than a garage of 600 cars from which I only use 10. Same for tracks but to a lesser extend.Do you know how much demand certain brands get in titles? The presence of the Nürburgring for example?
Especially if PD feels what they are is working so why change it up? I don't for see GT8 being different from GT7. Maybe, hopefully some newer cars Sophy AI but still chase the rabbit etc... Hopefully I'm wrong and they do the unexpected
The same complaints about AI/chase the rabbit were made with GT Sport.This is an interesting thought really. Do they take notice of feedback at all over at PD do we think?
They’d have to wade through a lot of silly nitpicking and unreasonable requests if they did, but surely they’ll have noticed that everyone, literally everyone, who has bothered to share their experience of GT7 on the internet has mentioned how bad the AI is and how crappy the Cafe Menu career is, as well as the litany of problems with the multiplayer experience. These things are universally lambasted.
They must know. So, the question is, do they care? No matter what I’m sure a lot of people will buy GT8, but surely that’s not all they’re bothered about. You’d think they’d prefer people to actually love it as well, right?
I am way past single player (not 100% everything but not time for that). The thing I enjoy the most is racing with the Titans (our small not serious league, but we try to drive clean most of the time). And if I have enough time I do the TTs and the weeklies, and my GT7 is as full as possible.I think it depends on where you are with the game now. Especially along the single player progression.
Like personally I’m totally ready for a new game now because I’ve pretty much done everything, and I’m pretty fed up with the broken multiplayer side.
I believe PD intends to support GT7 for considerably longer than GT Sport, so the content updates are more spread out and smaller in order to preserve a buffer in case staff productivity for whatever reason slows down.The reason it happens is likely because people see GT8 as the only reasonable reason for why the current content drops aren't as significant as they were in GT Sport.
It's a coping mechanism of sorts, trying to think of a logical explanation for why things are the way they are in the most positive way they can.
Only other assumption they might be able to come to is that Polyphony have dropped the ball and slowed production entirely, and they don't want to believe that.
I personally believe it's more to do with not having as big of a stockpile of unreleased content as GT Sport had at launch, and that the larger updates Sport had burned through that stockpile faster to the point where the production rate & update contents levelled out over time. Hence why Sport had smaller updates as time went on too.
For GT7 they probably had less unreleased content at launch for them to use in updates, so the update sizes remain about the same as GT Sport's by the end of its content cycle.