Look up the meaning of "argument": it doesn't have to mean a heated exchange.
What you've just described is a very different thing than the suggestion Sony was the party that decided which system the game was set for.
Which is it, then?
It's a bit like saying Chevy should be concerned that it's never been able to take the sales crown from Ford's F-150 in over three decades, even though the combined Silverado and Sierra sales are higher. T10/Microsoft have taken a different approach to Sony/PD's, that's all.
There's really no contest in Gr.4 right now, much like N300 with the Evo. You really do have to be ham-fisted to muck up the GT-R, which not only benefits the aliens, but even the casuals. The Mustang Gr.4, with stock settings, will kick its tail out in constant-radius third-gear corners with little to no warning.
I do wonder how BoP will translate to the entire track lineup in the full game. FM6 uses a similar system to previous GTs (PI vs PP), and there are certain styles of car tuning that are better suited to specific tracks. The front-drivers in N300 tend to have the edge in top speed terms, I've found. Perhaps that's why we're seeing so many fantasy circuits...
What on earth do you mean?
How many times and in how many different ways do you want me to say it.
It's "irrelevant", of "no importance", of "little consequence", to me.
The other quote of one sentence from a multiple post discussion you show is completely out of context.
It follows from a response to my previous post which said
"Also, one game trying to beat 5 games total.
Seems unlikely to me, but who knows.
But some suggest it could, and yourself suggest it's not out of the question.
I mean, 5 games cumulative total sales vs. 1.
Considering those 2 franchises are meant to be the closest competitors, kind of a crazy discussion really.
And if GT falls short, is it something PD should be concerned with, or should the spotlight be put on the Forza franchise?"
It in no way is refering to my opinion regarding me as a consumer being influenced by business structures.
I think I've made my view point crystal clear.
And I have no idea why you can't accept that.
Either way, I'm moving on.