Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[jm79]

Sony doesnt need to respond yet. They have soundly beaten the xbox one with the ps4, thats why microsoft advanced the new generation... The goal for sony should be to launch a PS5 that will beat the Xbox one X in performance, they may do that in a couple of years

Yeah, they seemed to have settled into an alternating schedule, which should make for an interesting console gaming landscape in the future... If they try to outdo each other each time, then it can only benefit the gamer, just as competition in the racing game space can only raise standards in the genre and benefit everyone.

Exciting times!

 

[Johnnypenso]

60%, 55% or 70% PS4 users may not pay for PS+ for a host of reasons: too expensive, children "owned" consoles, don't see value, pays for other services, not their primary platform for online gaming, no interest in online gaming.

But all that is meaningless because for modern games' structure and their revenue models, these users are in second plan.
Why?

Look at those platforms' (Steam, Live, PSN) MAUs. Look at their Network revenue. Look at top grossing games. Look at most active games. Look at ARPU, ARPPU and Average Play Time. Look at viewership in gaming content in stream websites and youtube.

Online isn't "taking over", it has taken over.

This is like providing evidence of football fan activity by online polling people who attend the games. Until you come up with accurate figures for onlone activity, hours played offline etc., the stats are meaningless for comparison purposes. No one is denying online activity is huge but without comparitive stats for offline play we can't say for sure how the two types of users stack up. Based on the number of players that don't have access to online it's undeniable that they are still a major gaming segment and that any dev ignores them at his/her own peril. This is especially true in the car racing genreally which has always possessed a large offline component with one niche exception.

By the way, your first paragraph could basically serve as a laundry list of reasons why online hasn't quite taken over the entire gaming market just yet.

 

[rono_thomas]

This is like providing evidence of football fan activity by online polling people who attend the games. Until you come up with accurate figures for onlone activity, hours played offline etc., the stats are meaningless for comparison purposes. No one is denying online activity is huge but without comparitive stats for offline play we can't say for sure how the two types of users stack up. Based on the number of players that don't have access to online it's undeniable that they are still a major gaming segment and that any dev ignores them at his/her own peril. This is especially true in the car racing genreally which has always possessed a large offline component with one niche exception.

By the way, your first paragraph could basically serve as a laundry list of reasons why online hasn't quite taken over the entire gaming market just yet.

I recognise that all arguments for offline gaming are valid at this present time. I honestly think its a generational perspective.

My dad refuses to play online, to confusing, 95% of my gaming time is online, whilst my son and daughter nieces and nepwhews play 100% online.

So from my point of view as the generation that grew up with offline games grows even older I would argue that the demand for games to cater for this is inevitably going to decline, and the demand for online gaming to inversely increase.

This seems logical, inkeeping with the current trend. However I am not saying that the demand for offline gaming would reduce to a nothing.

So in relation to GT perhaps in a savvy studio/dev this is a gamble, but as I say inevitable, perhaps the first to make this leap is revolutionary?

 

[PzR Slim]

I recognise that all arguments for offline gaming are valid at this present time. I honestly think its a generational perspective.

My dad refuses to play online, to confusing, 95% of my gaming time is online, whilst my son and daughter nieces and nepwhews play 100% online.

So from my point of view as the generation that grew up with offline games grows even older I would argue that the demand for games to cater for this is inevitably going to decline, and the demand for online gaming to inversely increase.

This seems logical, inkeeping with the current trend. However I am not saying that the demand for offline gaming would reduce to a nothing.

So in relation to GT perhaps in a savvy studio/dev this is a gamble, but as I say inevitable, perhaps the first to make this leap is revolutionary?

Why revolutionary? It's main two competitors already have e-sports in their previous two games and that is going to be an even bigger thing in their coming games. PDi are playing catch up. On top of that they are forgoing single player while their competitors are including fully featured single player career modes as well as one having many more cars and the other many more tracks.

 

[rono_thomas]

Why revolutionary? It's main two competitors already have e-sports in their previous two games and that is going to be an even bigger thing in their coming games. PDi are playing catch up. On top of that they are forgoing single player while their competitors are including fully featured single player career modes as well as one having many more cars and the other many more tracks.

Your making my point for me its the fact that a fully featured single player career mode isnt included that makes it different, revolutionary is a strong word I agree, but at just a base level a dev is only interested in making games and making money with the hope that they can work on repeat titles after the fact.

I dont know for a fact but it must be cheaper to focus on one aspect either offline or online, rather than both. Its quite possible that GT maybe ahead in taking this route whilst also not completely removing all offline features leaving a route back, hands held up we got it wrong. Could account for a name change that if it did nose dive, they can always come back to the old way and the now not coming GT7 suddenly appears - all hypothetical.

Either way they've saved money and time become more efficient if PD can ever be, and if it works other devs would follow suit, hence revolutionary.

 

[PzR Slim]

Either way they've saved money and time become more efficient if PD can ever be

 

[rono_thomas]

Yea there was some kind of magical wizardry there, not something I was comfortable writing but PD's version of efficiency and time saving is measured in some other unit (lightyears) than most others . But imagine how long it would have taken to do any more than they have. I think the answer is much longer.

Time = money so PD quite possibly, theoretically saved a fortune.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

Your making my point for me its the fact that a fully featured single player career mode isnt included that makes it different, revolutionary is a strong word I agree, but at just a base level a dev is only interested in making games and making money with the hope that they can work on repeat titles after the fact.

I dont know for a fact but it must be cheaper to focus on one aspect either offline or online, rather than both. Its quite possible that GT maybe ahead in taking this route whilst also not completely removing all offline features leaving a route back, hands held up we got it wrong. Could account for a name change that if it did nose dive, they can always come back to the old way and the now not coming GT7 suddenly appears - all hypothetical.

Either way they've saved money and time become more efficient if PD can ever be, and if it works other devs would follow suit, hence revolutionary.

It's grasping at straws to claim that PD is saving time and money by leaving out a career mode and especially to say they're ahead of their competition for doing so.

The ingredients to make a career mode are already there: the cars, the tracks, and the AI. All that's needed is to actually design the career mode by coming up with race events, challenges, etc.

PD already proved they can make long lasting single player modes with less. Just look at GT3 and GT4.

The choice by PD to leave out a career mode with offline events in GT Sport was voluntary. They also didn't do it save time and money. The game has been development for 4 years plus one delay after all.

 

[cutmeamango]

Could it be, this time just like last time, that you didn't bother to read what I said before you rushed to regurgitate sales information at me as if I was too stupid to check what PS4 sales were before commenting on Sony's PR about PS4 sales?

I did think it was weird you hadn't learned.
But sure, explain to me what you meant with:

"[...] they have released sales data since the PS4 launched and outside of holiday periods it has never been anywhere near the like for like comparison Sony pretends it is."

In terms of sales/shipment, it is at the same pace as the PS2 so far while being higher priced at the same period, with the addition that the other consoles are selling better than the ones during PS2 era. Quarterly, not just "holiday periods".

But the italicized above are probably the reasons why PS4 won't reach its (PS2) lifetime sales. Stronger concurrents and slower cost reductions.

But again, explain to me what you meant.

Are you suggesting adopting a business model that ignores/excludes a distinctive majority of your installed user base is the way to go?

No, it's just that with current costs, retaining players and generating revenue is very important.
And while you can do with just online support like DLCs and updates, multiplayer/social structures are better at that. And the minority (in this case a 25mi minority) is more likely to expend time and money in your product.

So you sell a game for 60mi, but you cater for the 25mi.

After 4 fiscal years PS4 has shipped 60M units worldwide. In the same timeframe PS2 reached 71,3M. Almost 20% more.

Tornado is correct.

This is like providing evidence of football fan activity by online polling people who attend the games. Until you come up with accurate figures for onlone activity, hours played offline etc., the stats are meaningless for comparison purposes. No one is denying online activity is huge but without comparitive stats for offline play we can't say for sure how the two types of users stack up. Based on the number of players that don't have access to online it's undeniable that they are still a major gaming segment and that any dev ignores them at his/her own peril. This is especially true in the car racing genreally which has always possessed a large offline component with one niche exception.

1) As you've read in the content posted, the majority of users do have online access, they just don't pay for online services such as multiplayer servers.
So when you see those analytics, they do account for ""offline"/single player".

2) That's the thing, and I may be proven wrong in the near future, but I've repeated this more than a couple times, online multiplayers need good matchmaking, it is what attracts and keeps the whole gamut of players other than those already previously interested in MP. And that's what racing genre has ignored for this past decade movement.

By the way, your first paragraph could basically serve as a laundry list of reasons why online hasn't quite taken over the entire gaming market just yet.

If they are spread between platforms, are outpriced, or are under age, that still means they are potential consumers for this single platform (PS+).

 

[rono_thomas]

It's grasping at straws to claim that PD is saving time and money by leaving out a career mode and especially to say they're ahead of their competition for doing so.

The ingredients to make a career mode are already there: the cars, the tracks, and the AI. All that's needed is to actually design the career mode by coming up with race events, challenges, etc.

PD already proved they can make long lasting single player modes with less. Just look at GT3 and GT4.

The choice by PD to leave out a career mode with offline events in GT Sport was voluntary. They also didn't do it save time and money. The game has been development for 4 years plus one delay after all.

Grasping at straws hardly, having the ingredients is one thing, and to continue your description, those said ingredients being combined into the correct recipe and then baked to create a winning offline career cake would take a significant amount of time and resources not just one afternoons work for one employee.

This boils down to, maybe Gordon Ramsey would say reduces, to money. More than a piggy banks worth.

So rather than grasping at straws its really quite feasible to say they have saved time and therefore money.

I would also argue that PD are lacking in ingredients to make a resoundingly sucessful offline career mode at this time - the consumer has much more choice and is more demanding now.

If its sucessful or not remains to be seen. Sucess and subsequent copying by other devs would constitute as being ahead. Failure would just be a monumental cock up and therefore not ahead. If you have read my previous post you will see maybe and hypothetical were the words I wrote, I did not claim they are or will be.

PD already proved they can make long lasting single player modes with less. Just look at GT3 and GT4.

I do not dispute that they were successful.

The choice by PD to leave out a career mode with offline events in GT Sport was voluntary. They also didn't do it save time and money. The game has been development for 4 years plus one delay after all.

How do you know this?

EDIT: If their reasoning was neither time nor money. Also, if all they had to do was bung it together because all the work was done what reasons are left that have a negative impact on their business as to why they didnt just include it?

Instead off just disagreeing with some hypothetical why they didn't, offer some alternatives as to why they did.

 

[Northstar]

I would also argue that PD are lacking in ingredients to make a resoundingly sucessful offline career mode at this time - the consumer has much more choice and is more demanding now.

They have plenty ingredients for a decent to good career mode. All they would really need to do is make a core ladder of GR.4 -> 3 -> 1, than add some invitationals/side series' featuring rally and production races.

The only thing I can see taking any considerable time is designing the UI, which they have already done for the single player mode in GTS.

How do you know this?

If PD was really worried about costs the game would be out by now.

 

[queleuleu]

With the tools available (cars, tracks, AI, UI, leaderboards...). Let me a week and I can provide you an long career mode. Lots of time trials designed especially for pad players with non adjustable settings, awards like cars, racing suits, helmets for bronze and gold medals. The same for single car championships, EVO vs STI, Clio vs 208 GTI and the classic AWD, FWD, etc, battles. The biggest championships would be the "group" championships like gr.3 championships with long races. Add some endurance races, missions like fuel economy, gymkhana, cone challenge, drift events plus optional but interesting licence tests. Like this, no problem, everybody is OK, offline type of players like me and the other with the Sport mode and open lobbies.
IMO, it's a deliberate choice from Poly to not include a classic career mode. They want us to play online and tbh I don't know why. Maybe for the PS+ subscription that I find way too expensive.

 

[jm79]

Why revolutionary? It's main two competitors already have e-sports in their previous two games and that is going to be an even bigger thing in their coming games. PDi are playing catch up.

I know you don't intend to personally annoy me with this phrase, but 'PD are playing catch-up' is such an annoying thing to say

Why can we not just accept that these devs are taking different paths, and all power to them in their individual choices?

The way I see it is this, PD are PS4 only, PCars are primarily PC, Forza is Xbox (give or take some, of course). There's plenty of space for all to breathe (and sell). No-one needs to catch up to anyone, choose your poison, each to their own, etc.

 

[PzR Slim]

I know you don't intend to personally annoy me with this phrase, but 'PD are playing catch-up' is such an annoying thing to say

Why can we not just accept that these devs are taking different paths, and all power to them in their individual choices?

The way I see it is this, PD are PS4 only, PCars are primarily PC, Forza is Xbox (give or take some, of course). There's plenty of space for all to breathe (and sell). No-one needs to catch up to anyone, choose your poison, each to their own, etc.

They haven't released a game this gen. They haven't released a game with an esports component. Whether it annoys you or not they are playing catch up to their main competitors.

 

[cutmeamango]

I'll take "What are GT5 online features?" for 500, "What are ESL and RC view and participants numbers?" for 2500 and "What is GT Academy?" for 5000!!!

 

[rono_thomas]

They have plenty ingredients for a decent to good career mode. All they would really need to do is make a core ladder of GR.4 -> 3 -> 1, than add some invitationals/side series' featuring rally and production races.

The only thing I can see taking any considerable time is designing the UI, which they have already done for the single player mode in GTS.



If PD was really worried about costs the game would be out by now.

With the tools available (cars, tracks, AI, UI, leaderboards...). Let me a week and I can provide you an long career mode. Lots of time trials designed especially for pad players with non adjustable settings, awards like cars, racing suits, helmets for bronze and gold medals. The same for single car championships, EVO vs STI, Clio vs 208 GTI and the classic AWD, FWD, etc, battles. The biggest championships would be the "group" championships like gr.3 championships with long races. Add some endurance races, missions like fuel economy, gymkhana, cone challenge, drift events plus optional but interesting licence tests. Like this, no problem, everybody is OK, offline type of players like me and the other with the Sport mode and open lobbies.
IMO, it's a deliberate choice from Poly to not include a classic career mode. They want us to play online and tbh I don't know why. Maybe for the PS+ subscription that I find way too expensive.

Read my original post, I did not say they chose to not include a substantial offline career because of costs or time worries or issues but because of a growth trend in online gaming.

I then argued that this would have saved time and money, not as a driving factor but as a by product. You both agree that this would take x amount of time and therefore x amount of money. So thankyou for agreeing with me.

I think PD are taking a gamble on the change in gaming culture and its growth.

So again if their reasoning was neither time nor money. Also, if all they had to do was bung it together because all the work was done what reasons are left that have a negative impact on their business as to why they didnt just include it?

Instead off just disagreeing with some hypothetical why they didn't, offer some alternatives as to why they did.

 

[Northstar]

I then argued that this would have saved time and money, not as a driving factor but as a by product. You both agree that this would take x amount of time and therefore x amount of money. So thankyou for agreeing with me.

Obviously it costs money, but would it be a substantial amount?

So again if their reasoning was neither time nor money. Also, if all they had to do was bung it together because all the work was done what reasons are left that have a negative impact on their business as to why they didnt just include it?

It's PD, I don't think they even know why they do certain things.

 

[rono_thomas]

Obviously it costs money, but would it be a substantial amount?

Its PD so they simplest of things take a looonnngg time ...

Time = money so PD quite possibly, theoretically saved a fortune

 

[jm79]

They haven't released a game this gen. They haven't released a game with an esports component. Whether it annoys you or not they are playing catch up to their main competitors.

Do you see my point though?

I know that they're slow and all that, not ignoring that. But I think there is still space for them to take the path they're taking.

 

[queleuleu]

About time and money:
-Scapes: a cool feature, not the core of a racing game;
-Museum: the same;
-3D places like the wind tunnel or the designer house where it seems you can't even used as photomode location;
And I'm sure there are many other features that I forget. I like all of them, it's the GT style. I guess they all cost money and time but they can't offer us a classic career mode. A part of me wants to see GTSport failed because they know at Poly that many GT fans are disappointed without one.
And a year after the delay announcement, nothing has changed on this point.

 

[PzR Slim]

Do you see my point though?

I know that they're slow and all that, not ignoring that. But I think there is still space for them to take the path they're taking.

They can take any path they want. It's their choice, however, when they are asking us to pay full price for the game then you are going to get people who question what they are doing. Another racing game on the market can only be a good thing for us gamers but it's inevitable that they will get compared to their competitors. They will do some things better and some things not as well. And for many of us what they are doing is not at the same level as their competitors in spite of the extra time it has taken them. That doesn't seem to bother some people but for others it's hard to take particularly when a lot of us have been with the franchise from the beginning and want the game to be back where is deserves to be, on top of the pile.

 

[Tornado]

I did think it was weird you hadn't learned.

And I thought it was weird that you had another snappy response all typed up without actually reading what you were responding to. Different strokes.

But sure, explain to me what you meant with:

"[...] they have released sales data since the PS4 launched and outside of holiday periods it has never been anywhere near the like for like comparison Sony pretends it is."

I mean that the sales data for the console in specific periods is directly comparable, meaning things like the PS4 having the brand's best ever quarter is relevant to compare to the PS2's typical records. But overlaying the launch of the PS2 (released in the smallest territory seven months before anywhere else and still hopelessly supply constrained to the point it was basically not available until around February of the following year) and comparing it to the launch of the PS4 (available in all but the territory whose industry has collapsed in the past 5 years, and so many were available to buy that Sony exceeded their sales projections) from the time the first system hit a store is misleading about the actual demand for the system to the point of being meaningless beyond "Sony was actually able to make enough this time."
There was an entire cottage industry founded to supplying PS2s to people who had no chance of getting one, and nobody is desperate enough to explain where all the PS4's are that major news sites are going to report on a conspiracy theory that North Korea is hoarding them to launch ICBMs.


Which means this:

In terms of sales/shipment, it is at the same pace as the PS2

Is true only if stripped of context, put on a graph and posted on Twitter to be blindly spread around forums and hack news sites. The discussion started when it was claimed a "Playstation chap" said the PS4 is on track to outsell the PS2. It's not. Even if Sony ships enough to put the PS4 at the same ~71 million as the PS2 over the same time it's not, though it at least opens the door quite a bit to it being the case for the next year. The PS2 started off with maybe a 7 million console (give or take, due to the differences in reporting time and the differences between sold/shipped) disadvantage after a disastrous staggered launch. At this point in time in its life the system has managed at least rough parity with the PS4 anyway, and that's ignoring another major supply shortage that the PS2 had (that I believe was in Q3 2002, but I'm not digging magazines out to look) during that period. And then Sony had another one in its 4th holiday period, following the release of the Slim.

Sony, to their credit, outside of a couple instances just seems to release the sales data and count their money and let people on the internet play accountant, and much of the blame goes to Internet journalist sites that look at the two numbers and look at the dates and post them as if Sony was the one saying it. And you also get completely nonresearched information like this:

The PS2 is still the best-selling home console of all time, but it only sold 500,000 units on its first day compared to the PS4's 1 million.

In fact, after seven months on shelves, the PS2 had only sold 3.52 million units, increasing to 10.61 million six months later.

It's no different then when people talk about how much better Nintendo are doing with the Switch than ever before because it's supposedly selling marginally better than the Wii did in the beginning, when Wiis also basically weren't available anywhere. Put another way: Shift that PS2's line on the chart to the left by 7 months and shift it down 3.5 million. Is the PS4 outselling that?

 

[rono_thomas]

They can take any path they want. It's their choice, however, when they are asking us to pay full price for the game then you are going to get people who question what they are doing. Another racing game on the market can only be a good thing for us gamers but it's inevitable that they will get compared to their competitors. They will do some things better and some things not as well. And for many of us what they are doing is not at the same level as their competitors in spite of the extra time it has taken them. That doesn't seem to bother some people but for others it's hard to take particularly when a lot of us have been with the franchise from the beginning and want the game to be back where is deserves to be, on top of the pile.

Again it comes back to a generational thing, I started with GT5 and never did any career GT5/6 apart from licenses. When the servers "broke" during 6 it was the first time another game got played on my PS3. So bought my PS4 to be ready for GTSport and got hit by a delay and so battlefield has become my go to game. If the online works for GTS then I know how I will be spending my gaming time, with broadband availability and reliability and speed increases now much more accessible the first driving sim to get its online act together will end up on top.

 

[PzR Slim]

Again it comes back to a generational thing, I started with GT5 and never did any career GT5/6 apart from licenses. When the servers "broke" during 6 it was the first time another game got played on my PS3. So bought my PS4 to be ready for GTSport and got hit by a delay and so battlefield has become my go to game. If the online works for GTS then I know how I will be spending my gaming time, with broadband availability and reliability and speed increases now much more accessible the first driving sim to get its online act together will end up on top.

Plenty of driving sims got their online act together a long time ago. You still seem to think that what GTS is doing is something new. It's not.

 

[jm79]

They can take any path they want. It's their choice, however, when they are asking us to pay full price for the game then you are going to get people who question what they are doing. Another racing game on the market can only be a good thing for us gamers but it's inevitable that they will get compared to their competitors. They will do some things better and some things not as well. And for many of us what they are doing is not at the same level as their competitors in spite of the extra time it has taken them. That doesn't seem to bother some people but for others it's hard to take particularly when a lot of us have been with the franchise from the beginning and want the game to be back where is deserves to be, on top of the pile.

Yeah, I totally understand where you're coming from. It's a long and storied history with Gran Turismo eh? And a lot of their decisions and marketing, especially recently, has annoyed the fans to say the least.

However, I'm more inclined to see all that they've done and give them the benefit of the doubt. It's an optimist vs pessimist situation I guess. Your position is more sensible for sure - much less likely to be disappointed

 

[rono_thomas]

Plenty of driving sims got their online act together a long time ago. You still seem to think that what GTS is doing is something new. It's not.

You really believe that? Explain to me how pcars online was/is better than gt6 online? Broken chat, broken replay sound, getting stuck in pits, i mean having to change track settings was a pain in the proverbial, as for AC it took so long I gave up waiting for user created lobbies but yea you think they got their online act together, not to the standard I wanted.

 

[cutmeamango]

Is true only if stripped of context.

True, like stripped, again, of the context where PS2 had seen a bigger relative price drop in 3 years than the PS4, and that the PS2 had much weaker competition (in sales). Which are more relevant than "But WW shipments alignment! But possible demand!" that all the same would put, again, both at the same pace.
Some just understand variable variances and normalize all to weigh the same.
I mean: .

 

[PzR Slim]

You really believe that? Explain to me how pcars online was/is better than gt6 online? Broken chat, broken replay sound, getting stuck in pits, i mean having to change track settings was a pain in the proverbial, as for AC it took so long I gave up waiting for user created lobbies but yea you think they got their online act together, not to the standard I wanted.

Ah, sorry I didn't realise Sony were the only makers of a machine you could play games on.

 

[Tornado]

Which are more relevant than "But WW shipments alignment! But possible demand!" that all the same would put, again, both at the same pace.

Cool. Get back to me when the PS4 is sitting at ~76-78 million at the end of this holiday season.

👍

 

[Scaff]

You really believe that? Explain to me how pcars online was/is better than gt6 online? Broken chat, broken replay sound, getting stuck in pits, i mean having to change track settings was a pain in the proverbial, as for AC it took so long I gave up waiting for user created lobbies but yea you think they got their online act together, not to the standard I wanted.

However it was to a high enough standard for it to be the number 1 racing title for esports for the last year.

Was it perfect? Nope, but neither were GT5 and 6, and nor from the beta is GTS.