GT Sport Reviews

[rono_thomas]

When a publisher offers buyer incentives that can only be obtained if you pre-order and then forces reviewers to hold back reviews until after that date then its a problem if statements they make about the degree of content turn out to be nonsense.

+1

 

[Skiddy]

That's information from Sony and PD, you told us not to trust it.

No it is not. The game is theirs. Published videos and opinions of beta are not from Sony or PD.

As for the rest, it all comes down to who do you trust about certain things. I watched those videos before the release, and approached gt sport with caution. Like i said before, if you do not do your research, and decide to give money to theese guys based on their 'brochures', that is your problem.

 

[Scaff]

No it is not. The game is theirs. Published videos and opinions of beta are not from Sony or PD.

And the beta and the demo came from?

You also forget that Kaz's statements about content were in direct reply to user feedback on them.

What about the fact that daily races were truly 'daily' in both the beta and the demo?

Or that the closed beta had no always on-line requirement at all?

Or that gaming the N class races wasn't possible in either?

I know exactly what the differences are because I was one of those people in both, publishing the videos about what the content was in them.

As for the rest, it all comes down to who do you trust about certain things. I watched those videos before the release, and approached gt sport with caution. Like i said before, if you do not do your research, and decide to give money to theese guys based on their 'brochures', that is your problem.

Its also Sony and PD's problem, something you seem to be rather loath to acknowledge.

Also can you please let me know what source I could have used to know that daily races would not be daily, or that you could game the N class system to downtune cars to enter lower classes and dominate the field?

Neither of these were a part of the closed beta or the demo.

What about the fact that the true scale of the always on-line was not know until a week before go-live (and people were still saying it would not be like that in the final version), how would all of your research have helped those who had already digitally ordered before then?

Your entire train of argument is utterly anti-consumer and does nothing to hold developers and publishers who deliberately miss-lead consumers to account.

 

[Skiddy]

And the beta and the demo came from?

You also forget that Kaz's statements about content were in direct reply to user feedback on them.

What about the fact that daily races were truly 'daily' in both the beta and the demo?

Or that the closed beta had no always on-line requirement at all?

Or that gaming the N class races wasn't possible in either?

I know exactly what the differences are because I was one of those people in both, publishing the videos about what the content was in them.



Its also Sony and PD's problem, something you seem to be rather loath to acknowledge.

Also can you please let me know what source I could have used to know that daily races would not be daily, or that you could game the N class system to downtune cars to enter lower classes and dominate the field?

Neither of these were a part of the closed beta or the demo.

What about the fact that the true scale of the always on-line was not know until a week before go-live (and people were still saying it would not be like that in the final version), how would all of your research have helped those who had already digitally ordered before then?

Your entire train of argument is utterly anti-consumer and does nothing to hold developers and publishers who deliberately miss-lead consumers to account.

Well it is anti consumer if you put it that way. When the consumers stop buying games, preordering games, then it will become the publishers problem. Until then, it is the consumers problem.

 

[Scaff]

Well it is anti consumer if you put it that way. When the consumers stop buying games, preordering games, then it will become the publishers problem. Until then, it is the consumers problem.

Backlash can come in many forms and doesn't always mean that the base product doesn't get bought.

Once again I refer you to the fall out over Street Fighter V.

Nor does it answer how I would have got answers to the points I raised above from the beta or demo?

You inferred that no issue with GTS could not have been found out if people had done their homework, yet some rather important areas were either not known until release or deliberately left until the last week (when most would have pre-ordered). How exactly were people supposed to know about those areas?

As I have already said, I was in the closed beta and I would not have been able to tell you a damn thing about the Career mode, Arcade mode, Livery editor, Scapes, Photomode, modifying of cars, etc. As none of that was open to try in the closed beta. Most importantly I would not have been able to tell you that you needed to be connected to the servers to do just about anything!

Going off the closed beta and demo I could not have told you that you daily races would actually not change daily, which is a pretty significant change, or that grid sizes would be being capped for some races, or that options in the scapes camera would change, or that you could down tune N class cars to dominate the field.

So no, not all of the information required could have been found out from the closed beta or demo, and that's from someone who was on both (and also saw how it changed first hand from the Copper Box builds). The reason being that PD and Sony control exactly what you could and couldn't do in both, as such those videos on youtube (including mine) were always going to be at a disadvantage in that regard.

 

[Skiddy]

Backlash can come in many forms and doesn't always mean that the base product doesn't get bought.

Once again I refer you to the fall out over Street Fighter V.

Nor does it answer how I would have got answers to the points I raised above from the beta or demo?

You inferred that no issue with GTS could not have been found out if people had done their homework, yet some rather important areas were either not known until release or deliberately left until the last week (when most would have pre-ordered). How exactly were people supposed to know about those areas?

I did not preorder gts based on what i have seen in gt5, and in videos from people playing gtsport beta. I was cautios and I waited. That was enough for me.
Everybody else could have done that, and waited for the reviews. But some of them were inpatient, or maybe naive.
If they got burned, well, they should write a thank you note to Kaz, because the have probably learned something about life.

 

[Scaff]

I did not preorder gts based on what i have seen in gt5, and in videos from people playing gtsport beta. I was cautios and I waited. That was enough for me.

Still doesn't answer the questions I asked.

You have repeatedly infered that people could have found out all they needed to know before launch about GTS, stop moving the goal posts and tell me how they could have done this for the areas I have outlined.

Everybody else could have done that, and waited for the reviews. But some of them were inpatient, or maybe naive.

What part about Sony and PD deliberately missleading people, offering incentives that could only be gotten via pre-order and stoping reviews going out in advance are you missing?

This isn't a consumer fault problem, its a games industry problem, as in just about any other retail product situation if you deliberately mislead people about your product its illegal.

If they got burned, well, they should write a thank you note to Kaz, because the have probably learned something about life.

Or they could trade it in and not buy any DLC or future titles from PD.

 

[Skiddy]

Still doesn't answer the questions I asked.

You have repeatedly infered that people could have found out all they needed to know before launch about GTS, stop moving the goal posts and tell me how they could have done this for the areas I have outlined.


What part about Sony and PD deliberately missleading people, offering incentives that could only be gotten via pre-order and stoping reviews going out in advance are you missing?

This isn't a consumer fault problem, its a games industry problem, as in just about any other retail product situation if you deliberately mislead people about your product its illegal.


Or they could trade it in and not buy any DLC or future titles from PD.

Dude, all of them who got burned could have waited a few days to see how the whole thing worked out. Period.
I got enough information in my case.

As for the incentives.. They are a marketing stunt designed to make you inpatient. If you do not posess a strong will to resist those incentives..well then you will eventualy get burned.

 

[Scaff]

Dude, all of them who got burned could have waited a few days to see how the whole thing worked out. Period.
I got enough information in my case.

As for the incentives.. They are a marketing stunt designed to make you inpatient. If you do not posess a strong will to resist those incentives..well then you will eventualy get burned.

So that's a no you can't answer the questions and have just moved the goal-posts.

 

[Skiddy]

So that's a no you can't answer the questions and have just moved the goal-posts.

I think I did, but for the sake of it, could you please state your question once more?

 

[Scaff]

I think I did, but for the sake of it, could you please state your question once more?

How would anyone have been able to find out the following before launch:

"Going off the closed beta and demo I could not have told you that you daily races would actually not change daily, which is a pretty significant change, or that grid sizes would be being capped for some races, or that options in the scapes camera would change, or that you could down tune N class cars to dominate the field."

Some of which were not even known on launch day itself!

Please keep in mind that what you said was "I just do not get people who actually buyed the game expecting it to be classic gt, when every thing published prior to the release said otherwise."

So please provide details of how we would have know about these areas before release.


And prior to the demo (which was only a week before release - a point at which people should have been provided with all the info they needed to make a buying choice) how would anyone have been able to know about the always on-line limits, the content of the Campaign, how the livery editor worked (and its limits), how scapes worked?

 

[CopperySinger]

That makes no sense at all.

dp

 

[VBR]

Looks like I'm in the minority, once again, as I gave the demo a 1 star rating on PSN.

Actually, it looks like I'm not in the minority; the game only gets 2.5 stars on Amazon UK, & the majority of them are 1 star reviews.

 

[Skiddy]

"Going off the closed beta and demo I could not have told you that you daily races would actually not change daily, which is a pretty significant change, or that grid sizes would be being capped for some races, or that options in the scapes camera would change, or that you could down tune N class cars to dominate the field."

Let me provide you with the link from official pages http://www.gran-turismo.com/gb/gtsport/news/00_4857498.html. Take a look at the date, than take a look at the last line. They say *In some circumstances, the content of the events may be changed without notice. So you see, even they state that it may not be as advertised. The date is 15/10/2017.
It took me literally 30 seconds to get that information.

And prior to the demo (which was only a week before release - a point at which people should have been provided with all the info they needed to make a buying choice) how would anyone have been able to know about the always on-line limits, the content of the Campaign, how the livery editor worked (and its limits), how scapes worked?

I found out about the campaign, and bunch of other stuff, some where in august, from PlayStation Access You tube channel, Try typing in everything you need to know about GTSport in YouTube. And they are not the only one. Also the online manual of the game was published prior the release with loads of information about online saving. Demo also had online save only functionality. If all of those videos, and information is not something to raise suspicion about the game's character, I don't know what is.

How the scapes camera worked? Really, you are gonna base your buying decisions on that? Considering the amount of details you require prior the purchase of the game, I wonder do you read the script of the movie before you buy tickets? (rhetorical question)

 

[TokoTurismo]

Actually, it looks like I'm not in the minority; the game only gets 2.5 stars on Amazon UK, & the majority of them are 1 star reviews.

So in other words. The people in the UK who bought GTS are disappointed with it, despite some in the GTS thread cheering about how "it sold well". It's good that it sold well, yes, but that doesn't mean a thing if customers aren't happy with their purchase (and for various reasons stated on this board as well.)

 

[Scaff]

Let me provide you with the link from official pages http://www.gran-turismo.com/gb/gtsport/news/00_4857498.html. Take a look at the date, than take a look at the last line. They say *In some circumstances, the content of the events may be changed without notice. So you see, even they state that it may not be as advertised. The date is 15/10/2017.
It took me literally 30 seconds to get that information.



I found out about the campaign, and bunch of other stuff, some where in august, from PlayStation Access You tube channel, Try typing in everything you need to know about GTSport in YouTube. And they are not the only one. Also the online manual of the game was published prior the release with loads of information about online saving. Demo also had online save only functionality. If all of those videos, and information is not something to raise suspicion about the game's character, I don't know what is.

How the scapes camera worked? Really, you are gonna base your buying decisions on that? Considering the amount of details you require prior the purchase of the game, I wonder do you read the script of the movie before you buy tickets? (rhetorical question)

All of which is from sources you said shouldn't be trusted?

You don't get to dismiss what the Studio head and Sony board member said as untrustworthy and then use Sony and PD as sources!

You seem to be contradicting yourself massively here.

 

[Skiddy]

All of which is from sources you said shouldn't be trusted?

You don't get to dismiss what the Studio head and Sony board member said as untrustworthy and then use Sony and PD as sources!

You seem to be contradicting yourself massively here.

That is right, I have provided you with the official statement, so that you would see, that even they claim somethings may not be as expected, and that the information was available to anybody willing to invest 30 seconds of their time in order to get it.
An average customer willing to know more about daily races would probably go to the official pages, and that is why I've put the link.

I said that I do not believe PD, Kaz or Sony, and that everything that theese guys say is filtered in my head. That is my opinion, an opinion that the average customer does not necessarily share, so what I think about the credibility of the company is not relevant.
Explain to me how is that contradictory?

 

[ImaRobot]

Explain to me how is that contradictory?

Because you keep saying to look up the information, and then turn around saying that it doesn't hold ground when it comes from PD/Kaz. You've been defeating your own argument before anyone gets to reply to it.

 

[Skiddy]

Because you keep saying to look up the information, and then turn around saying that it doesn't hold ground when it comes from PD/Kaz. You've been defeating your own argument before anyone gets to reply to it.

Yeah buddy, It doesn't hold ground when it comes to me. But the debate in question was about how anybody could have known about daily races. If an average customer does not scrutinize everything that Kaz says than that information is valid to that customer, and as such can be usefull to him to obtain new knowledge about the product.

When it comes to me, and my money, I don't give much attention to what Kaz is promising, and I won't give him much credit until he hopefully proves me wrong.

 

[Scaff]

That is right, I have provided you with the official statement, so that you would see, that even they claim somethings may not be as expected, and that the information was available to anybody willing to invest 30 seconds of their time in order to get it.
An average customer willing to know more about daily races would probably go to the official pages, and that is why I've put the link.

I said that I do not believe PD, Kaz or Sony, and that everything that theese guys say is filtered in my head. That is my opinion, an opinion that the average customer does not necessarily share, so what I think about the credibility of the company is not relevant.
Explain to me how is that contradictory?

Statistically the average customer picks up a box, likes the look of it and buys it.

You also seem to be putting some rather odd priorities on statements, two statements from Kaz on the largest independent source of GT news (and we are cited as a source by numerous other media outlets) are not trustworthy, but a standard (and not remotely prominent) disclaimer is!

I asked you to provide a source for the information you said could be obtained before release, your the one that dismissed Sony, Kaz and PD as reliable sources, as such then using them is contradictory.

 

[ImaRobot]

Yeah buddy, It doesn't hold ground when it comes to me. But the debate in question was about how anybody could have known about daily races. If an average customer does not scrutinize everything that Kaz says than that information is valid to that customer, and as such can be usefull to him to obtain new knowledge about the product.

Sure, but that doesn't change the discussion at hand, we're discussing what you're saying, and what you're saying people should do. You're telling them to look it up, and then following it up with the fact that we shouldn't even trust what he says in the first place. At that point, what use would it be to even look up anything, going off what you're saying?

I get that we should take what Kaz says with a grain of salt but you cant argue that people need to invest time in research, and then turn around and say the research they did wouldn't hold much because Kaz is untruthful.

 

[CopperySinger]

Sure, but that doesn't change the discussion at hand, we're discussing what you're saying, and what you're saying people should do. You're telling them to look it up, and then following it up with the fact that we shouldn't even trust what he says in the first place. At that point, what use would it be to even look up anything, going off what you're saying?

I get that we should take what Kaz says with a grain of salt but you cant argue that people need to invest time in research, and then turn around and say the research they did wouldn't hold much because Kaz is untruthful.

What would make this game developer truthful in your opinion?

 

[ImaRobot]

What would make this game developer truthful in your opinion?

Telling the truth.

 

[Skiddy]

You also seem to be putting some rather odd priorities on statements, two statements from Kaz on the largest independent source of GT news (and we are cited as a source by numerous other media outlets) are not trustworthy, but a standard (and not remotely prominent) disclaimer is

If you'll be so kind, what two statements from Kaz did I use?

I asked you to provide a source for the information you said could be obtained before release, your the one that dismissed Sony, Kaz and PD as reliable sources, as such then using them is contradictory

It is not contradictory in the context that was presented in. I am sorry that you are not able to see that.

Sure, but that doesn't change the discussion at hand, we're discussing what you're saying, and what you're saying people should do. You're telling them to look it up, and then following it up with the fact that we shouldn't even trust what he says in the first place. At that point, what use would it be to even look up anything, going off what you're saying?

I only said that it is smart to put statements of Kaz and PD/Sony trough some filtering prior to making decisions, based on my personal experience. Never said that that you should not trust them (that is for you to decide). I said that I do'not trust them, it is an opinion from an individual. Sorry you misunderstood it.

 

[CopperySinger]

Telling the truth.

Interesting answer. but how much of the truth should be the real question. Quite frankly I haven't seen all of the truth in most of the games today.
I see a great level of honesty in some, but when you look deep into the games can you really say that everything said about it was true? What I'm getting at here is no game promotion is telling you the entire truth, do you agree?

 

[IceMan PJN]

So in other words. The people in the UK who bought GTS are disappointed with it, despite some in the GTS thread cheering about how "it sold well". It's good that it sold well, yes, but that doesn't mean a thing if customers aren't happy with their purchase (and for various reasons stated on this board as well.)

It's the same story on GameFAQs. "Oh, look at the sales! This means people love the game!" All it means is people bought it because it was Gran Turismo. PD could package dog turds and slap a GT logo on the box and it would sell millions of copies because it says "Gran Turismo" on the box. Sales don't reflect how happy those people were after their purchase.

What's more telling is how the next game sells. GT5 sold as well as all the previous titles, which is historically in the ten-million range, sometimes more. That was because of GT 1 through 4. People liked 1 through 4. They weren't as satisfied with 5, but it was too late. They already bought it. Their displeasure was more evident in GT6, which was the first GT (don't care about prologues or whatever) to sell half as well as its predecessors. Sales of GT Sport won't really reflect how people feel about Sport. That's more likely to be seen in sales figures for GT7..., several years from now.

 

[ImaRobot]

I only said that it is smart to put statements of Kaz and PD/Sony trough some filtering prior to making decisions, based on my personal experience. Never said that that you should not trust them (that is for you to decide).

And if you personally think they're untrustworthy, why would you tell people to look into things that you yourself don't necessarily trust?

Sorry you misunderstood it.

There is no misunderstanding of what you meant.

Interesting answer. but how much of the truth should be the real question. Quite frankly I haven't seen all of the truth in most of the games today.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I see a great level of honesty in some, but when you look deep into the games can you really say that everything said about it was true? What I'm getting at here is no game is telling you the entire truth, do you agree?

For what it's worth, Kaz has by far been the worst offender in this case.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Interesting answer. but how much of the truth should be the real question. Quite frankly I haven't seen all of the truth in most of the games today.
I see a great level of honesty in some, but when you look deep into the games can you really say that everything said about it was true? What I'm getting at here is no game promotion is telling you the entire truth, do you agree?

Not sure what other developers are doing has a anything to do with Kaz unless you are suggesting he's a lemming. As my Mom used to say, "if all of your friends were jumping off a bridge..."

Truth doesn't mean full disclosure. One can be truthful and non-commital at the same time. Eg. "We are shooting to include this feature but can't guarantee it'll be in at launch".

 

[Skiddy]

And if you personally think they're untrustworthy, why would you tell people to look into things that you yourself don't necessarily trust?

Because they just might have different opinion on it? It's like: Go read it and make up your own mind about the stuff you read. It is entirely your choice whether to believe it or not.

There is no misunderstanding of what you meant.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Scaff]

If you'll be so kind, what two statements from Kaz did I use?

I didn't say you did.

I said you dismissed them as reliable, which you did.

And Kaz is not a reliable source.

It is not contradictory in the context that was presented in. I am sorry that you are not able to see that.

Then I can only assume you don't understand what contradictory means.

I only said that it is smart to put statements of Kaz and PD/Sony trough some filtering prior to making decisions, based on my personal experience. Never said that that you should not trust them (that is for you to decide). I said that I do'not trust them, it is an opinion from an individual. Sorry you misunderstood it.

No that's not all you said.

Your opening on it was "And Kaz is not a reliable source".

So in short not only are you moving the goalposts again, but you are now cherry picking the information that you want (which is why you are being contradictory)!