- 580
- Titchfield Common
- SCAR-Scholesy
Probably the Hokusai/Shogun/Ronin? car model artist being whimsical. Kaz saw it, looked up, out to the middle distance and remembered why he loves his kooky band.
Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion
- Thread starter Formidable
- 47,132 comments
- 4,774,400 views
Probably the Hokusai/Shogun/Ronin? car model artist being whimsical. Kaz saw it, looked up, out to the middle distance and remembered why he loves his kooky band.
- 2,810
Is it just me or do PD seems to have spent all their focus on the "Sport" aspect and done very little with the rest. The graphics look nice, but the sound is as a bad as ever, handling looks virtually the same and the game still appears sterile compared to the likes of Project Cars and Assetto Corsa.
I guess time will tell
That thing is incredible. If only modern LMP1 cars looked like this...
I guess time will tell
What is this?
Look at those weird ass wheels...
That thing is incredible. If only modern LMP1 cars looked like this...
Last edited by a moderator:
Neomone
(Banned)
- 133
- Australia
Jesus. I wouldn't have thought that the best way to get people to buy your product at launch was to compare it to Driveclub or SFV. Both of which were famously awful at launch.
Driveclub eventually came right, SFV looks like it's on the way to doing so. But I think most people would agree that the best course of action for a consumer would have been to wait and see how the updates come rather than plonking down $60 at launch for an unfinished product.
That's what "game as a service" seems to mean to AAA publishers: The game isn't finished yet but we'd like you to buy it anyway on the promise of more stuff to come. We've been through this with GT6. It was kind of a joke, major features came long, long after launch, and some were never even finished and have been rolled over into GTS (*cough*VGTs*cough*).
People can do what they like with their money, but this sounds awfully like the GT6 saga all over again to me.
- 1,984
- Barcelona
- mannjonusa
Yeah there's something that still irks me that games as a service, i.e. publisher-speak for unfinished, still require you to pay full price at launch. I've never understood this.
GTS for me, still has a decent amount of content to not make it look like SFV, but still, the idea annoys me a bit. Make it $40.
If the understanding is 'there's more to come' (paid) then $60 is too much.
The reasoning perhaps is that publishers are wary of their product appearing to be a 'budget' title.
- 355
- Italy
- riblo72
At least on platoform like steam there is the interesting thing called "Early Access" that grants you to buy the beta of the game granting you the final version for free and supporting this way the software house...
In this case or like with kickstarter or similar that we can truly talk about buying a service... GTS looks to me like a prologie/demomarketed and sold as a full retail game...
- 1,984
- Barcelona
- mannjonusa
You could certainly apply that argument to SFV, but not GTS, in my opinion. It's at the bare minimum of content, I must admit, but they passed the threshold of boxed price value. Again, just.
The business model of games as a service is very, very confused. Often there are value issues, combined also with server issues. And then post-release support issues.
So many issues...
And let's not talk about betas, haha.
- 8,187
- Kaikoura, NZ
- Nato777
I really don't have a problem with GT's $60 price tag - most other AAA games are $100-120. Gran Turismo has always been great value in my opinion - also the game updates are almost always free aside from some paid DLC which I'm also fine with providing the price is sensible.
Neomone
(Banned)
- 133
- Australia
I think it depends on the person, but it's very close. FM5 arguably provides more content, depending on how GTS counts it's car models. Driveclub is close. FM6, FH2/3, and pCARS definitely provide more. Assetto Corsa is $50 instead of $60.
On it's own GTS probably provides enough value, I've seen games with less. But it certainly doesn't stack up particularly well to what a lot of the competition is offering for the price. If someone had $60 to spend on a game, I could definitely see why GTS might not be a first choice.
The business model of games as a service is very, very confused. Often there are value issues, combined also with server issues. And then post-release support issues.
So many issues...
And let's not talk about betas, haha.
It's just that games that are truly sold as a service tend not to be labelled as such. iRacing, DotA, LoL, World of Warcraft. Generally they're subscription or F2P so that the company actually has to provide service or they lose customers. They don't ask for money up front much, because that's the trade off that you make. The developer puts out content slowly, and the customers pay as they receive it.
The AAA "games as a service" model is simply trying to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to give up on the massive influx of money at game launch, but neither do they want to have to make a whole game up front. It's early access by another name, and if they don't get enough suckers to fund the ongoing development of the game then it gets quietly killed.
- 8,187
- Kaikoura, NZ
- Nato777
Yeah it depends where you look - some places have it cheaper. When first announced most NZ sites had the pre-order listed at around $65 NZD, but I'd admit looking around now many now have it at $119, and some around $90 but you can still find for $80 sometimes but it seems to be a pretty fluid price at the moment!
Pays to shop around.
- 1,984
- Barcelona
- mannjonusa
Yeah it depends where you look - some places have it cheaper. When first announced most NZ sites had the pre-order listed at around $65 NZD, but I'd admit looking around now many now have it at $119, and some around $90 but you can still find for $80 sometimes but it seems to be a pretty fluid price at the moment!
Do you guys not have a NZ/OZ PSN store or something? Wouldn't that be the 'official' price?
) - call me old fashioned but I still want a disc. 
- 1,984
- Barcelona
- mannjonusa
The UK/EU tax is worse. It's basically a bad idea to even comprehend the US price, if you have to pay anything else...
- 789
- QLD
The idea that it is a game as a service is a bit of a worry to me, the worry is the economic model. I have no problem with a game as service, that is what iRacing is but with iRacing you do not pay for the game, you subscribe to the service and that subscription pays for the updates and the servers.
The problem with GTS is you still pay the PS+ sub for the servers and you pay a one time fee for the game, so how do they keep making money to keep upgrading the service like iRacing does? I worry about what the answer to that question might be, there are a lot of bad answers I can think of, the only good answer I can think of is for the game to have an economy. If they sell skins for money and let anyone create and sell skins that they receive money from the sale of, then that would create an ongoing revenue source. All the other ways I can think of are not good.
The problem with GTS is you still pay the PS+ sub for the servers and you pay a one time fee for the game, so how do they keep making money to keep upgrading the service like iRacing does? I worry about what the answer to that question might be, there are a lot of bad answers I can think of, the only good answer I can think of is for the game to have an economy. If they sell skins for money and let anyone create and sell skins that they receive money from the sale of, then that would create an ongoing revenue source. All the other ways I can think of are not good.
- 789
- QLD
iRacing is a service, it is not a game you buy, you can't buy it. It is a service you pay a subscription fee to use. That is why 8 years after iRacing has been released they are able to continue developing ground breaking features and constantly stay ahead of the competition. iRacing has an ongoing revenue stream that pays for continuous development but since I have said that it should be pointed out that what they have been able to do with such limited resources is pretty incredible. Having said that I should point out that what Kunos have done is also remarkable.
But when Kaz says GTS is like a service that is a worry. Because when you sell a game, the price you sell it for pays for the costs of building that game and the profit you expect to make. And you can only sell a limited number of copies, once everyone in your market has their copy you can't expect continued revenue from sales of the game to fund all these updates to keep improving the service and keep it current.
So when they call it a service that is a worry and like others have said it screams of being unfinished and you would expect the updates to the so called service to end as soon as they consider it complete. But that really isn't a service, that's just an unfinished game. If they do plan for GT to be an ongoing service the question that needs to be answered is how do they continue to fund constant updates?
You have the COD model but that isn't really a service and that would potentially fracture the community and be damaging to the future of online racing. You can try and rely on DLC in the form of tracks and cars but even those have their limits, it isn't like Rocksmith where DLC is very cheap to make and there is a never ending supply of songs that can be added, unique cars and tracks cost more to make and the amount is limited. The best way to pay for ongoing updates to the service in a way that doesn't fracture the community would have been a subscription service but when you don't have a subscription service then you need something like a successful Free2Play model that uses cosmetic DLC to generate ongoing income. The only way I can see GTS successful as an ongoing service is to constantly provide new DLC that people want to buy but DLC that doesn't impact on game play.
I wouldn't call that a service, I'd call that finishing a game and in those examples they didn't even deliver what they said they would so if that is what they are really saying publicly at this point they have just signed the death warrant to GTS. For GTS to be a success they must deliver everything they have promised so far at release. Sure if they want to continue to make it better and improve beyond that then great, that would make it more like a service and then I would wonder how long that could continue and how they plan to fund the continued development. But if they are now saying they can't deliver what they have promised by release I think there will be a lot of people that will not give them the benefit of doubt and those people simply will not buy another unfinished game. And this is a game who's success relies on participation so they can't afford to not sell well.
Last edited:
I get what @7HO is saying. Development of the PS3 games continued after release because they had to, there was a lot missing from both promised pre-release. Sure they did add some totally new stuff as well but the content wouldn't have continued at such a pace without the requirements to finish them. They weren't doing all of that out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because they had to. Note how once they finally got the Course Maker out the door in GT6 that was it.
With GTS I don't think that is going to be the case. They seem to have learnt their lesson and have now only announced stuff they know will be in the final game. Of what they've shown so far I think the only possible doubt is the livery editor, everything else seemed finished in the sense of existed as advertised.
For GTS to truly be a service they're either going to need to keep the DLC both desirable and constant or go down the horrid microtransactions route. Because clearly they're not going to go down the monthly/yearly subscription route, nobody is going to pay that on top of PS+ and the initial $60 outlay.
With GTS I don't think that is going to be the case. They seem to have learnt their lesson and have now only announced stuff they know will be in the final game. Of what they've shown so far I think the only possible doubt is the livery editor, everything else seemed finished in the sense of existed as advertised.
For GTS to truly be a service they're either going to need to keep the DLC both desirable and constant or go down the horrid microtransactions route. Because clearly they're not going to go down the monthly/yearly subscription route, nobody is going to pay that on top of PS+ and the initial $60 outlay.
