GT6 News Discussion

[Ranman20]

 

[Nato_777]

With GT5 PD really hyped up the game giving us lots of information and raising our expectations through the roof only to be smashed down by the actual product which failed to deliver on the hype. It seems having learned from this mistake they're falling into another of not giving enough details for GT6.
I don't really think it's due to a lack of features and content as much as a fear of getting dragged over the coals again by the fans and media. This time around there's an awful lot of maybe's, whether that's a part of a strategy or a lack of confidence in their content to meet the high expectations of the more hardcore fans I don't know.
As much as I am craving some new information, I'm also quite intrigued by the mystery of it - well it's a mixture of intrigue and annoyance to be honest.

 

[omnibusse]

To me it almost seems as if they have nothing more to show, and if that is the case this game will disappoint.

Exactly that's what I am afraid of. And the closer the release gets (only 6 weeks), the more I am afraid that I will be disappointed. GT6 discs will have to be manufactured very soon to be right on time.

Currently I think the game will be GT5 with new physics, graphics and some tracks on day 1. But no extras: no livery editor, no easy sharing of gameplay recordings, no amazing A-spec...

 

[fortbo]

Exactly that's what I am afraid of. And the closer the release gets (only 6 weeks), the more I am afraid that I will be disappointed. GT6 discs will have to be manufactured very soon to be right on time.

Currently I think the game will be GT5 with new physics, graphics and some tracks on day 1. But no extras: no livery editor, no easy sharing of gameplay recordings, no amazing A-spec...

I just hope we get at least 4 more gt3 cars. It would be pretty sad if we didn't. How can you have a race with just 4 cars. Hopefully they have at least some more cars to show, we haven't even seen any of the Sema or Pebble Beach cars. That is very worrying at least for me.

 

[Cosbuster]

we haven't even seen any of the Sema or Pebble Beach cars. That is very worrying at least for me.

Well, we have seen the Bertone Abarth.

 

[fortbo]

Well, we have seen the Bertone Abarth.

Oh I forgot about that one, so we have seen one of the Pebble beach cars, but still no Sema.

 

[Cosbuster]

Oh I forgot about that one, so we have seen one of the Pebble beach cars, but still no Sema.

I understand your concerns but I would be really surprised if not all of them were there (minus this year's).

 

[eSZee]

GT6.00 at launch. What will the final tally of patches be by the time it's all said and done?

 

[diegorborges]

With GT5 PD really hyped up the game giving us lots of information and raising our expectations through the roof only to be smashed down by the actual product which failed to deliver on the hype. It seems having learned from this mistake they're falling into another of not giving enough details for GT6.
I don't really think it's due to a lack of features and content as much as a fear of getting dragged over the coals again by the fans and media. This time around there's an awful lot of maybe's, whether that's a part of a strategy or a lack of confidence in their content to meet the high expectations of the more hardcore fans I don't know.
As much as I am craving some new information, I'm also quite intrigued by the mystery of it - well it's a mixture of intrigue and annoyance to be honest.

I agree. This 100%. They will not hype it too much this time. And, it's a good plan considering what happened with GT5.

GT6.00 at launch. What will the final tally of patches be by the time it's all said and done?

I really, really don't care. I like updates, they mean that they work hard on them to make it a better product for us.

GT5 support regarding updates was the best I've ever seen in any kind of software. Because it completely changed the feeling between GT5 1.00 and 2.00+

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I really, really don't care. I like updates, they mean that they work hard on them to make it a better product for us.

It's weird. When other games do it, you'll hear cries of "they sold us an incomplete game" or "we're the beta testers, they're completing it via patches after launch". When GT does it, it's (potentially) a good move.

The support for GT5 was a very rare thing when speaking of the amount of updates, absolutely. Though one could argue, seeing that a lot of them fixed one thing only to break another, it was needed. That other companies don't have to constantly fix their product two years after release is probably not a bad thing.

GT5 support regarding updates was the best I've ever seen in any kind of software. Because it completely changed the feeling between GT5 1.00 and 2.00+

This is true.

Personally, while I do believe games should be revisited after all of their updates, to better judge the final product, it's absolutely reasonable to expect the product to stand on its own from Day One. As such, the game should still be reviewed and rated based on that; I don't buy any other products and give them the benefit of the doubt, "they'll work on it" approach, GT shouldn't be any different. Imagine if we did that with car purchases!

 

[Akira AC]

Normal discussion be normal discussion ... anyway.


I'm not sure about you guys but ... I'm liking more what I'm seeing so far. I mean sure GT5 was a colossal flop due to it's lengthy development cycle and impossible expectations to be succeeded with that kind of time given to it, but GT6 is another story altogether.

For starters there is not so much focus on hyping the game with sidetracking stuff, but rather addressing previous game failures and game flows to ensure a smother experience, first prove of that was GT Academy 2013, the driving model from GT6 felt great, the game became fun just to drive on it.

Then you have the course selection, we're in first place getting the all the tracks they could fit from GT5 into GT6, plus 7 (thus far) more tracks, and an expanded editor to make the experience more diverse (and hopefully get proper rally stages this time).

Bitching about it or not, doesn't bother me as it used to. GT6 will never be the ultimate thing ever, but is also not crap as people here seem to imply.

I guess the updating the game constantly is the way to go, specially in a game of this scale: if you release a game like this next year people will expect it to look like FM5, people will also expect a massive library of games, a damage model and a bunch of things that a simple 3 year development stage cannot deliver.

I for one, will be buying GT6, what I have seen thus far is of my liking, and while the game have could more things, it already nearly has all the stuff I like from a game, not looking for hardcore simulation here but rather fun, and GT6 seems to deliver that, academy demo proved so.

A Williams FW16 could be a cherry in the cake.

 

[diegorborges]

It's weird. When other games do it, you'll hear cries of "they sold us an incomplete game" or "we're the beta testers, they're completing it via patches after launch". When GT does it, it's (potentially) a good move.

The support for GT5 was a very rare thing when speaking of the amount of updates, absolutely. Though one could argue, seeing that a lot of them fixed one thing only to break another, it was needed. That other companies don't have to constantly fix their product two years after release is probably not a bad thing.



This is true.

Personally, while I do believe games should be revisited after all of their updates, to better judge the final product, it's absolutely reasonable to expect the product to stand on its own from Day One. As such, the game should still be reviewed and rated based on that; I don't buy any other products and give them the benefit of the doubt, "they'll work on it" approach, GT shouldn't be any different. Imagine if we did that with car purchases!

I understand your points Slip. 👍

Even if cars and general products are way different than software, I understand what you mean. I'm from a time where games came completed in one single cartdridge. No patches, no fixes, it must be perfect in the release. Period.

In GT5 case, it just made stuff better. Some broken ones here and there but in the end, specialy Spec2, made it a better product.

And overall, if it's for the best... it's better to have those.

These are weird times. Again, I got some time to get used to game updates. Now that companies know that they can fix stuff on the go, they will use that. It's just... the actual gaming world.

 

[Zer0]

It's weird. When other games do it, you'll hear cries of "they sold us an incomplete game" or "we're the beta testers, they're completing it via patches after launch". When GT does it, it's (potentially) a good move.

The support for GT5 was a very rare thing when speaking of the amount of updates, absolutely. Though one could argue, seeing that a lot of them fixed one thing only to break another, it was needed. That other companies don't have to constantly fix their product two years after release is probably not a bad thing.

I have seen the same two sides confronted with the same exact arguments here in GTP regarding the GT5 updates and probably were more repeated the negative arguments given the negativeness of the forum.

How anyone could throw the argument that the updates were to constantly fix previously broken things (anecdotal) to distract from their success to make a better and more polished game is beyond me.

Those other companies would have better games now, one of two years after, if they will care enought to continue to support their games after the feedback and petitions to change or add things from its community. That is pretty basic, I have yet to see a game that would not benefit from continuos support and patches to polish things or add or change features.

 

[happycorey]

I honestly hope though that game developers don't pawn things off for a later time that could greatly affect the offline game. What was all the work for? I honestly hope they improve productivity and development for GT7 or we're going to be stuck without variety and wondering how we're being sold variations of GT5

 

[Nato_777]

I really, really don't care. I like updates, they mean that they work hard on them to make it a better product for us.

I like updates too - but only when they are adding to/enhancing the experience rather than fixing an underwhelming experience and things that shouldn't be broken in the first place as was the case with GT5.
They have stated that they've created the game to be much more update friendly so updates that fix one thing and break another should hopefully be a thing of the past.

 

[another_jakhole]

I like updates too - but only when they are adding to/enhancing the experience rather than fixing an underwhelming experience and things that shouldn't be broken in the first place as was the case with GT5.
They have stated that they've created the game to be much more update friendly so updates that fix one thing and break another should hopefully be a thing of the past.

Perfection, it is!

Honestly though, why?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I understand your points Slip. 👍

Even if cars and general products are way different than software, I understand what you mean. I'm from a time where games came completed in one single cartdridge. No patches, no fixes, it must be perfect in the release. Period.

In GT5 case, it just made stuff better. Some broken ones here and there but in the end, specialy Spec2, made it a better product.

And overall, if it's for the best... it's better to have those.

These are weird times. Again, I got some time to get used to game updates. Now that companies know that they can fix stuff on the go, they will use that. It's just... the actual gaming world.

True, in the long haul, it's probably better that we got the updates than if we had none. But I don't like to gloss over the fact that a lot of them came with their own hiccups. This could be less of a problem in GT6 - Kaz has discussed the idea of the game being built to accept add-ons more easily, that it's a more modular approach, so while we might be missing more on Day 1 ( 👎 ), it will be easier to add after that, with hopefully less problems ( 👍 ).

I too remember those days, and I guess part of me is nostalgic, since I don't think we'll get much of that anymore .

distract

Interesting choice of words. Go on, find another excuse.

How anyone could throw the argument that the updates were to constantly fix previously broken things (anecdotal) to distract from their success to make a better and more polished game is beyond me.

It's not anecdotal when there's threads documenting these very issues on GTPlanet. But to make it even easier for you (because I understand that having to search for answers is obviously too difficult for you, given your posting history), the PP model has changed a couple times already. That is just one very obvious example.

Those other companies would have better games now, one of two years after, if they will care enought to continue to support their games after the feedback and petitions to change or add things from its community. That is pretty basic, I have yet to see a game that would not benefit from continuos support and patches to polish things or add or change features.

Perhaps other games don't need constant updates for two years, because they shipped pretty much complete? Yes, GT5 got a massive update with 2.0, a year after release, enabling such amazing features as... changing wheels on 800 of the vehicles in the game - a feature that was already available on those cars five years previous in GT4. Perhaps you consider that an accomplishment, to just meet the standard the previous game set half a decade earlier (with the carried over PS2-asset cars in GT5 no less). To me, it was the very least PD could do.

Who petitioned to limit gifting, I have to ask? Why did they add a feature to a filter in Photomode, only to remove it the next update, then bring it back the update after that?

On the plus side, PD does have my respect for never giving up. If they took cues from you and just ran off whenever questioned about some of their decisions, GT5 would've never got the support you're rather ironically applauding them for.

 

[eSZee]

enabling such amazing features as... changing wheels on 800 of the vehicles in the game

Woah, that happened?
I don't think I knew this before. Must find gt5 disc.

 

[Nato_777]

...updates that fix one thing and break another should hopefully be a thing of the past.

Perfection, it is!

Honestly though, why?

SlipZ touched on it in the next reply...

...This could be less of a problem in GT6 - Kaz has discussed the idea of the game being built to accept add-ons more easily, that it's a more modular approach, so while we might be missing more on Day 1 ( 👎 ), it will be easier to add after that, with hopefully less problems ( 👍 )...

This modular (built to accept updates) approach should make the effects of updates more predictable than with GT5. Of course this doesn't mean there won't be any problems which is why both SlipZ and I used the word 'hopefully'.

 

[TorqueHappenS08]

Shouldn't this have a sticky?

 

[another_jakhole]

I like updates too - but only when they are adding to/enhancing the experience rather than fixing an underwhelming experience and things that shouldn't be broken in the first place as was the case with GT5.
They have stated that they've created the game to be much more update friendly so updates that fix one thing and break another should hopefully be a thing of the past.

SlipZ touched on it in the next reply...

Updates Should NOT be a thing of the future? They weren't a thing of the past and because of that they shouldn't exist or be utilized like they were for GT5? I would really like to see what you see. I hear that games used to come as complete packages, but how is that known if games are always evolving from sequel to sequel and generation to generation? And now that these past thirty years have seen the "total" evolution of gaming, why can't updates be recognized as a part of that evolution (meaning, where will it start)? The standard won't stay the same and Kaz has made that a point. First with how they updated GT5, then by him saying that updating will be a "regular" practice.

 

[Akira AC]

People here seem to ignore a trend that has been increasing during the last few years, which is this:



First happening to COD, then to Battlefield and now both GT and FM are victim of it too.

I hate to get myself dragged into these discussions time and time again, but there seems the be a clear lack of definition of what game development-assets production and product marketing is all about. In previous years the costs and time that a game took were relative to the scale of the project, likewise assets, programming and design didn't take as much time because games were designed in a smaller scale, same trend that happens to GT nowadays.

Nowadays people criticized more harshly the lack of content and the implementation of it for GT due to the Forza series doing roughly the same. The thing is (and I'm sorry to bring FM series here, but is relevant to the following point) that since FM2 to FM3 to FM4 T10 followed a more linear development on the game, straightforward use old assets, outsource of them to be refurnished and produced for their next iteration, and then adding a few more content like (5 tracks per game) to complete the with a worked game engine to give the illusion of a new game. COD is pretty similar to the FM series when it comes to this (FM2 released in 07, FM3 released in 09 and FM4 released in 11) following a similar 2 year old cycle to expand enough content to make the game feel different after each iteration.

Meanwhile PD had to handle GT HD(2007), GT5(spec III,2008) and GT PSP(2009). It might not seem as much, but when a framework and technical spec like GT5 is presented as how GT5 is going to be like it obviously creates high expectations for it, then the humongous car list added to a lot of features (livery included that never made it into the game) made impossible expectations for the game.

However, it should be noted that PD didn't wasted all the time and resources available for them, what they did was simply evolve into the things that other weren't doing(FM was already doing what they have' been doing for years not, several game like shift was also chasing that market as well as several competitors in several platforms).

As such, what PD were doing was simply evolve the lighting engine, introduce a weather system, track editor and a huge deal of HD assets; Nurburgring on HD, including the GP version and the 24 hour layout, For a company that is based in Japan and uses GT Academy as proxy for feedback to make such tasks is pretty hard work to make it possible. You have to work on Madrid, a whole set of complex buildings, roads, 3D models around the track, landmarks, etc, same for Rome, same for Le Mans, and HD version of Tokyo, Suzuka, Indianapolis and Monza. Adding to that around 200 premiums minus the 80 models GT5 carried over.

Many screw ups from PD were the introduction of standards, and the poor implementation of the features, including downright absent features. I'm guessing PD view that the 260-ish cars plus the premium tracks (those that weren't carried over from GT4) didn't made up for the numbers they were expecting, so they just shovel everything into it and got everyone in ruckus because of the inflated number they themselves created, which ultimately end up being a shot in the foot.

Now...

Perhaps other games don't need constant updates for two years, because they shipped pretty much complete? Yes, GT5 got a massive update with 2.0, a year after release, enabling such amazing features as... changing wheels on 800 of the vehicles in the game - a feature that was already available on those cars five years previous in GT4. Perhaps you consider that an accomplishment, to just meet the standard the previous game set half a decade earlier (with the carried over PS2-asset cars in GT5 no less). To me, it was the very least PD could do.

Who petitioned to limit gifting, I have to ask? Why did they add a feature to a filter in Photomode, only to remove it the next update, then bring it back the update after that?

On the plus side, PD does have my respect for never giving up. If they took cues from you and just ran off whenever questioned about some of their decisions, GT5 would've never got the support you're rather ironically applauding them for.

That kind of stuff is what I find annoying, after so much crap with GTPSP right in the middle of their development phase, I find it ridiculous to undermine the damage control that PD has been trying to do since 2011 with the whole standards affair. Sony needed a game (several of them in fact), and PD delivered what they could, people didn't want the standards but the game was advertised with 1000 cars so they just better made those 1000 cars look as good as hey can be even though they were probably never planned in the first place.

PD announced 1000 cars, show eye candy and everyone assumed all cars were going to have such quality, when it was nearly impossible given the tools and staff PD has. Now people deemed the updates as incomplete work, given that some fixes were probably impossible to archive with enough QA time to test them in a game of such scale, so many barriers between Japanese and American car culture and conception of video games (don't want to be racist, but Japanese and American game are pretty damn different, is hard to make something that fulfils both markets, knowing that Japanese are crazy for collections, hence the museum and the inflated car number), so many problems that needed to be addressed in the online front, hackers, PP balancing, preparing the game for DLC and tweaking what players like or don't like, I wouldn't classify it just like "just rims and paint in standards".

Not to mention seasonal events, that are still implemented up to this date, almost 3 year later after release, not only expanding into the crappy a-spec, but probably serving as a metric to work out what didn't work in GT5 to further apply it in GT6. They are already addressing the aerodynamics, tyre and suspension modelling issues. all of this thanks to the update progress that the game has had during the last few months.

 

[Carson79]

A great read 👍

 

[HKS racer]

Senna in GT6 = Classic F1's in GT6?

Speculation.

 

[Samus]

Swansong for the PS3. They would have a very good idea of how many copies will sell. Not too much will effect that. A loss means they lose money. Slightly less profit is not a loss.

Yes but you know what I meant, "It's their loss" is a common phrase, "It's their slightly less profits" is not.

GT5 is very good. Higher than usual expectations could explain your disappointment. Perhaps the physics were too advanced for your skills. Either way, that sounds more like a personal development issue, as opposed to product development.

I do not appreciate the condescending tone. The core of GT5, the physics, were great. My biggest issues with it were the 'game' aspects. It's also not like I was the only one to feel this and 'higher than usual expectations' had nothing to do with it.

Well, you have also been spouting what ifs. Or more accurately, a lot of why nots. Same thing innit. This time round though, it sounds like you have low expectations. Quite predictable, once you take your previous comments on GT5 into account.

No it's not the same thing. A world exists where information on GT6 is lacking, a world doesn't exist where GT6 is a book.

 

[Griffith500]

In relation to Akira AC's post:

"Spectacle creep" is the name I didn't know for something that has worried me for some time. It's worse when there are two or more "franchises" trying to "out-do" each other. That is akin to a war of escalation, and at some point, someone has to do the sensible thing and bail out before they effectively self-destruct.

What's better is to put money into new ideas, into exploratory endeavours instead of over-farming what little fertile land you have found. There is so much room for exploration and for innovation with games that it is utterly pointless to fence yourself in and only try to iterate vertically on something. That's especially true given the relative lack of headroom before you get to the proverbial dead-end of "saving the world" - it's not a linear scale, things escalate very quickly, it seems. Or maybe that's just human nature.

But, that's not what most people want. They want GT, but more. I want that, too, but I also want something new, and I think most people would like that too if they were given the chance. When game makers, and their customers, start asking themselves "where do we go from here?" the answer must surely be "somewhere new".

 

[Johnnypenso]

In relation to Akira AC's post:

"Spectacle creep" is the name I didn't know for something that has worried me for some time. It's worse when there are two or more "franchises" trying to "out-do" each other. That is akin to a war of escalation, and at some point, someone has to do the sensible thing and bail out before they effectively self-destruct.

What's better is to put money into new ideas, into exploratory endeavours instead of over-farming what little fertile land you have found. There is so much room for exploration and for innovation with games that it is utterly pointless to fence yourself in and only try to iterate vertically on something. That's especially true given the relative lack of headroom before you get to the proverbial dead-end of "saving the world" - it's not a linear scale, things escalate very quickly, it seems. Or maybe that's just human nature.

But, that's not what most people want. They want GT, but more. I want that, too, but I also want something new, and I think most people would like that too if they were given the chance. When game makers, and their customers, start asking themselves "where do we go from here?" the answer must surely be "somewhere new".

I agree wholeheartedly, unfortunately a lot of consumerism today is often just pomp and circumstance with no real substance. Can PD/Sony break this mold or can the overwhelming desire for profit and keeping costs in line be trumped by charting unexplored territory and carving a new path. PD did it once when they launched this game, can they do it again or will they be content to ride a wave of popularity based on past success and money flowing in to the coffers like water?

They get a pass on GT6 from me due to the limitations of the hardware they are working with. Their choice I know, but it's made and nothing we can do. No such pass comes with GT7 on PS4. As far as I'm concerned, at that point they are on a level playing field with all other platforms and the ongoing issues with AI, sounds, standards, FPS etc will become a thing of the past as a matter of routine, it won't be something to be celebrated as groundbreaking and innovative because everyone else is already proving these things can be done and done well. The bar will be much much higher for GT7.

 

[GTracer98]

I'd say GT6 on PS3 will simply give more time for PD to make a good GT7...

 

[Brend]

Now this makes sense! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJGJ44Cbbmc

Always wondered what game it would be.

 

[Scaff]

I have seen the same two sides confronted with the same exact arguments here in GTP regarding the GT5 updates and probably were more repeated the negative arguments given the negativeness of the forum.

How anyone could throw the argument that the updates were to constantly fix previously broken things (anecdotal) to distract from their success to make a better and more polished game is beyond me.

Those other companies would have better games now, one of two years after, if they will care enought to continue to support their games after the feedback and petitions to change or add things from its community. That is pretty basic, I have yet to see a game that would not benefit from continuos support and patches to polish things or add or change features.

Good to see your not avoiding question you have been asked in other threads again. Oh wait................................

That kind of stuff is what I find annoying, after so much crap with GTPSP right in the middle of their development phase, I find it ridiculous to undermine the damage control that PD has been trying to do since 2011 with the whole standards affair. Sony needed a game (several of them in fact), and PD delivered what they could, people didn't want the standards but the game was advertised with 1000 cars so they just better made those 1000 cars look as good as hey can be even though they were probably never planned in the first place.

And who announced that GT5 would have a 1000 cars? That would be PD, as such I think its quite clear that it was planned in the first place.

PD announced 1000 cars, show eye candy and everyone assumed all cars were going to have such quality, when it was nearly impossible given the tools and staff PD has.

Which is a more than reasonable assumption for people to make, after all the Standard/Premium split was not exactly the norm now was it.

PD did everything they could to be vague and uncommunicative in regard to standards right the way up to the launch.

Now people deemed the updates as incomplete work, given that some fixes were probably impossible to archive with enough QA time to test them in a game of such scale, so many barriers between Japanese and American car culture and conception of video games (don't want to be racist, but Japanese and American game are pretty damn different, is hard to make something that fulfils both markets, knowing that Japanese are crazy for collections, hence the museum and the inflated car number), so many problems that needed to be addressed in the online front, hackers, PP balancing, preparing the game for DLC and tweaking what players like or don't like, I wouldn't classify it just like "just rims and paint in standards".

Not a single area of which is unique to PD at all, this generation these are issues faced by pretty much all developers. As such the 'issues' are not the issue, rather how the developer deals with them are.

Not to mention seasonal events, that are still implemented up to this date, almost 3 year later after release, not only expanding into the crappy a-spec, but probably serving as a metric to work out what didn't work in GT5 to further apply it in GT6.

Again they are not alone in terms of pushing out content long after launch, not that the majority of the 'chase the rabbit' seasonals actually make up (for me) for a poor a-spec. Lets be honest these are not race events in the established norm of Motorsport at al.

They are already addressing the aerodynamics, tyre and suspension modelling issues. all of this thanks to the update progress that the game has had during the last few months.

Already!

Did you really say that, how long have PD had to work on this? These areas of the physics engine have moved on only in small degrees since the PS2 days (and were outclassed by two titles back then).

Its not a case of already, but rather at damn last, please don't forget that a good few of us have been raising issues with these areas of GT5 for years, only to get moaned at by those who are perfectly willing to accept them (normally without a solid understanding of exactly what the issues were).