GTSport takes 1 in Japanese game sales for the week!!

[rono_thomas]

I think you are all taking this situation a bit to serious. I mean, it's a game, clear case of first world problem.

I like the game. Does not mean Im not sympathetic to those that have issue with it.

It's foolish to compare GT5 physical vs GTS physical because if Japan was the same as other territories then GT5 was not available for digital purchase, retail was the only outlet. But if you want to compare them, then it could be argued that around 280,000 consumers did get the message from PD of a limited single player campaign versus, what? 3 or 4 hundred Amazon customers. Have a think about that.

How many did those 3 or 4 hundred then dissuade others to not buy the game, then consider the facebook posts which after a quick skim are showing a lot more negative comments, well in the thousands, how many did that put off, are we talking the difference between a satisfactory, or the sales that GTS would live to aspire to?

 

[Scaff]

It's foolish to compare GT5 physical vs GTS physical because if Japan was the same as other territories then GT5 was not available for digital purchase, retail was the only outlet.

I don't recall saying anything to claim otherwise?

But if you want to compare them, then it could be argued that around 280,000 consumers did get the message from PD of a limited single player campaign versus, what? 3 or 4 hundred Amazon customers.

How do you know they got the message? That would require quite a citation.

Its also not directly comparable at all, as such I'm not sure why you're trying to claim they are.

Take a look at my posts in regard to the verified Amazon reviews. I've never included unverified ones, I've always looked at the ratios between positive and negative and I've compared them to the same rations for parts GT titles. I've also not drawn a definative conclusion off of them, but rather point to what seems to currently be a change in mode around that.

Have a think about that.

Think about what? Two wildly different data-sets that aren't directly comparable?

 

[Hellburner]

These sales figures don't tell the whole story. Sony is doing a great effort in boosting GT Sport's sales by doing big advertising campaigns (Champions league). Many people will buy it just because of the advertising. But soon they will realise that they have bought a turd in a giftbox. Just look at the secondhand sites, they are allready filled with copies of GT Sport...

Belgium: https://www.2dehands.be/computer-ga...ware/sony-playstation-4/2/gran turismo sport/

 

[Skiddy]

Such an awful way to try to discredit someone. You've been very vocal against those with these opinions, which is odd if you're going to turn around and essentially say "get over it, its just a video game."

Hardly the case of me trying to discredit someone. I'm just saying, first world problem. And you are right, a have been to vocal, and realized what I have just said, I was spending way to much energy on it.

 

[Scaff]

Hardly the case of me trying to discredit someone. I'm just saying, first world problem. And you are right, a have been to vocal, and realized what I have just said, I was spending way to much energy on it.

A person spends money on a product that isn't what they believed it as and then complain.

Have you never done that?

I'm sure that you have on more than one occasion (I know I sure have - I once sent a car back because they built it to the wrong spec - stupid Audi dealer), as such some empathy would go a long way.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

How do you know they got the message? That would require quite a citation.

I didn't say I did, I said it could be argued. In other words, you have left them out of the equation.

Its also not directly comparable at all, as such I'm not sure why you're trying to claim they are.

I never claimed they were, I am pointing out that you cannot come to the conclusion that PD's message to consumers was wrong or deceitful when you are only using Amazon and one quote from Kaz. It's not enough, it's no where near enough to come to any conclusion.

Think about what? Two wildly different data-sets that aren't directly comparable?

Think about the fact that you are using skewed data to try to prove a point. It's like those adverts for shampoo, 7 out of 10 women prefer this brand. Except you've only asked 10 women with a bottle of that brand in the trolley.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't say I did, I said it could be argued. In other words, you have left them out of the equation.

As I didn't say it either I'm at a loss then to understand why you said it.

I never claimed they were, I am pointing out that you cannot come to the conclusion that PD's message to consumers was wrong or deceitful when you are only using Amazon and one quote from Kaz. It's not enough, it's no where near enough to come to any conclusion.

I've not said the message was wrong or deceitful at all, and its far from one quote from Kaz. Nor have I used it to come to a conclusion.

Think about the fact that you are using skewed data to try to prove a point. It's like those adverts for shampoo, 7 out of 10 women prefer this brand. Except you've only asked 10 women with a bottle of that brand in the trolley.

I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm having a discussion about what it may mean and why the pattern is currently different to past titles.

You seem to be attempting to assign positions to me I've never said and woudl appreciate it if you didn't.

 

[Skiddy]

A person spends money on a product that isn't what they believed it as and then complain.

Have you never done that?

I'm sure that you have on more than one occasion (I know I sure have - I once sent a car back because they built it to the wrong spec - stupid Audi dealer), as such some empathy would go a long way.

Sure I have, but like I said, it is only a game.
Seriously, Audi vs a 60$ game. Nice comparison, now I have apsolutly no empathy.

 

[Scaff]

Sure I have, but like I said, it is only a game.
Seriously, Audi vs a 60$ game. Nice comparison, now I have apsolutly no empathy.

Its an example, nor is it the only one i can provide, but do you honestly need me to make one that meets exact dollar parity for the point to be valid?

 

[Skiddy]

Its an example, nor is it the only one i can provide, but do you honestly need me to make one that meets exact dollar parity for the point to be valid?

O you have more, but you had to go with the Audi story and those stupid Audi dealers..Sorry dude, I have zero empathy to give..

 

[Scaff]

O you have more, but you had to go with the Audi story and those stupid Audi dealers..Sorry dude, I have zero empathy to give..

A minor comment earns this much ire from you, ok.

 

[rono_thomas]

O you have more, but you had to go with the Audi story and those stupid Audi dealers..Sorry dude, I have zero empathy to give..

There doesn’t seem to be a monetary value that you would give empathy for...

 

[ImaRobot]

Hardly the case of me trying to discredit someone. I'm just saying, first world problem. And you are right, a have been to vocal, and realized what I have just said, I was spending way to much energy on it.

It may have not been your intention, but that is what happened. Yeah, glad you realize it, but if you did, than I still don't understand why you'd go ahead and tell someone else that as if you didn't.

 

[eran0004]

Yes which part of his response to you was wrong as you posted?

See the previous post.

Why do you find it hard to accept!

That's how the majority of people buy games, be it FIFA, COD, Assassin's Creed, FM or GT.

If it has a long established brand they will buy it based on that.

I don't find it hard to accept. I find it hard to believe, which is something entirely different. I don't question brand loyalty, what I question is that you can be interested in a game and yet fail to pick up basic information about it.

I want to see the data that supports your claim that a majority of gamers buy games without looking for information first. That sounds highly unlikely given that the internet has never been more accessible. Sure, if it's six months later and you find the game with a reduced price you might buy it on impulse, but ahead of a release - and especially if you know the series - you are curious and you search for information.

Here is a more likely scenario: They see a new Gran Turismo coming out. They see that it's a new direction for the series. They decide to give it a try anyway. They don't like it and then they complain about the changes.

 

[markasred]

The reviews are the same as elsewhere.

"Is this a demo?"

"This isn't Gran Turismo"

"You can't even safe offline"

"Yamauchi, give me my money back!"

You can actually save off-line, what you can't do is up/download your career or get goodies.

For example the daily challenge offers you a marathon [26 miles/whatever 2 laps of Nordeshlief will do it] if you are connected, the game will go online and you'll get awarded a random car.. If not you won't... Likewise the achievements for ..er.. logins/ uploading liveries/ etc and all the other goodies which can increase your coffers/exp.

This is no different in essence than the Seasonal Events which are offline. If you aren't connected then you won't see them or be able to participate earn credits/exp/ cars nor be able to check, the hotshots and friends times.

 

[CopperySinger]

See the previous post.



I don't find it hard to accept. I find it hard to believe, which is something entirely different. I don't question brand loyalty, what I question is that you can be interested in a game and yet fail to pick up basic information about it.

I want to see the data that supports your claim that a majority of gamers buy games without looking for information first. That sounds highly unlikely given that the internet has never been more accessible. Sure, if it's six months later and you find the game with a reduced price you might buy it on impulse, but ahead of a release - and especially if you know the series - you are curious and you search for information.

Here is a more likely scenario: They see a new Gran Turismo coming out. They see that it's a new direction for the series. They decide to give it a try anyway. They don't like it and then they complain about the changes.

A large group don't preorder or buy on first day without knowing anything. It don't look legitimate, pages after pages of people complaining they forgot to do their research before buying. We talked about the game content before release here in this forum and some seem to have memory loss.


This is why I think it is "Fishy". Gamers buy Gran Turismo sport first day of release, Then complain "Kaz lied to me" when information explaining everything about the game has been available for months in the internet. Also what is fishy, some seem to be pretty knowledgeable explaining about Gtsport in their release days negative game review, ironic to be claiming that they are so uninformed. They make themselves seem to have an agenda as a group doing damage control, multiplying the negative reviews to make it look worse than it really is. One good thing about gt planet is you can track users message history and find out which racing game people talk good about.

 

[Scaff]

See the previous post.

I don't find it hard to accept. I find it hard to believe, which is something entirely different. I don't question brand loyalty, what I question is that you can be interested in a game and yet fail to pick up basic information about it.

I want to see the data that supports your claim that a majority of gamers buy games without looking for information first. That sounds highly unlikely given that the internet has never been more accessible. Sure, if it's six months later and you find the game with a reduced price you might buy it on impulse, but ahead of a release - and especially if you know the series - you are curious and you search for information.

My argument is that most buyers do little or no research when buying games, and that brand loyalty is a significant factor in a long running series.

When looked at as a factor of influence 67% of people how a title looks in the main buying factor (and the biggest influence), 48% cite it being a continuation of a series as the main influence, 42% will buy without trying a title compared to 32% from a demo (that's right less try a demo and buy that buy unseen). Games are seen as offering better value for money than DVD's, going to the movies and music (and as such a lower risk purchase - lower risk purchases get less research than high risk purchases).

When looked at as a percentage of all factors advertising and reviews are only a 3% influence factor combined, while what the cover looks like accounts for 4%. That's right a pretty box is a bigger factor than all the advertising and reviews combined! While familiarity with the series and developer total 20%.

http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/EF2017_FinalDigital.pdf
https://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-esa-essential-facts
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

Here is a more likely scenario: They see a new Gran Turismo coming out. They see that it's a new direction for the series. They decide to give it a try anyway. They don't like it and then they complain about the changes.

Some will, however the data doesn't support that being the majority, or even a significant minority.

A large group don't preorder or buy on first day without knowing anything.

Yes they do.

It don't look legitimate, pages after pages of people complaining they forgot to do their research before buying. We talked about the game content before release here in this forum and some seem to have memory loss.

They didn't forget, they don;t routinely do it.

Much as a I love and invest arguably far to much time in GT Planet, we are not even close to being an influence or source of research for more than a fraction of buyers.

This is why I think it is "Fishy". Gamers buy Gran Turismo sport first day of release, Then complain "Kaz lied to me" when information explaining everything about the game has been available for months in the internet.

No it hasn't. Don't make things up.

Also what is fishy, some seem to be pretty knowledgeable explaining about Gtsport in their release days negative game review, ironic to be claiming that they are so uninformed.

That's rather ironic given your release day review!

They make themselves seem to have an agenda as a group doing damage control, multiplying the negative reviews to make it look worse than it really is. One good thing about gt planet is you can track users message history and find out which racing game people talk good about.

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[CopperySinger]

No it hasn't. Don't make things up.

Yes it has, I have already provided you with the links of the resource material it dated all the way back to September. would you like for me to send it to you again?!?

information about GTS has been available over the internet before release.
Gran Turismo Sport: Eight Things You Need to Know. retrieved from playstation(9/14/2017)

Scaff this getting ridiculous, are you really this much uninformed about GTS?

 

[Scaff]

Yes it has, I have already provided you with the links of the resource material it dated all the way back to September. would you like for me to send it to you again?!?

information about GTS has been available over the internet before release.
Gran Turismo Sport: Eight Things You Need to Know. retrieved from playstation(9/14/2017)

Scaff this getting ridiculous, are you really this much uninformed about GTS?

The full extent of always online was not known months ago, the exact nature if single player was not known months ago.

Hell the website still says campaign has four modes to it.

 

[eran0004]

A large group don't preorder or buy on first day without knowing anything. It don't look legitimate, pages after pages of people complaining they forgot to do their research before buying. We talked about the game content before release here in this forum and some seem to have memory loss.


This is why I think it is "Fishy". Gamers buy Gran Turismo sport first day of release, Then complain "Kaz lied to me" when information explaining everything about the game has been available for months in the internet. Also what is fishy, some seem to be pretty knowledgeable explaining about Gtsport in their release days negative game review, ironic to be claiming that they are so uninformed. They make themselves seem to have an agenda as a group doing damage control, multiplying the negative reviews to make it look worse than it really is. One good thing about gt planet is you can track users message history and find out which racing game people talk good about.

I don't think they are faked opinions. Sure, there's always one or two fans of other games that like to pay a visit to a competing game just to take a bash at it (probably motivated by the fact that other people did the same to their own favourite game), but for most of it I think people simply set themselves up for disappointment by giving more importance to their own hopes of what the game would be rather than to the mountain of hard evidence pointing in another direction.

My argument is that most buyers do little or no research when buying games, and that brand loyalty is a significant factor in a long running series.

When looked at as a factor of influence 67% of people how a title looks in the main buying factor (and the biggest influence), 48% cite it being a continuation of a series as the main influence, 42% will buy without trying a title compared to 32% from a demo (that's right less try a demo and buy that buy unseen). Games are seen as offering better value for money than DVD's, going to the movies and music (and as such a lower risk purchase - lower risk purchases get less research than high risk purchases).

You assume that buying without trying a demo first is the same as buying unseen. Trailers and gameplay footage is however widely available through YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms. Games have their own websiter, articles are published on gaming sites and games are discussed in forums. There are plenty of ways to see a game without actually trying a demo. Furthermore, demos are not available for all games, which skews the statistics.

Risk research has very little relevance. You look for information primarily because you are curious, interested, hyped - not because of some risk.

When looked at as a percentage of all factors advertising and reviews are only a 3% influence factor combined, while what the cover looks like accounts for 4%. That's right a pretty box is a bigger factor than all the advertising and reviews combined! While familiarity with the series and developer total 20%.

That is the reason for buying though. If 4% of gamers base their decision to purchase on reviews and advertising, it doesn't mean that the other 96% of them don't read reviews and aren't exposed to the ads. You should also note that the sum of the 2015 chart is 100%, which means that either it measures only the primary factor of influence, or it is a multiple choice question measured as a percentage of all influences instead of a percentage of all gamers, so in either case the influence of ads and reviews is likely much greater than what the chart suggests. Which probably is the reason why they changed the design of this chart between the 2015 and the 2017 documents, where you can see that the influence of graphics went from 7% in 2015 to 67% in 2017, and Online Gameplay went from 4% in 2015 to 50% in 2017. Pretty massive difference, and it means that the 2015 data is essentially useless until we know what they measured and how the percentages are calculated. You certainly can't compare the 1% advertisement influence from 2015 to the 67% graphics influence in 2017, because these percentages are not calculated in the same way.

Some will, however the data doesn't support that being the majority, or even a significant minority.

Your data is about what influenced the decision to purchase - not about what the customers knew when they bought the game.

 

[CopperySinger]

The full extent of always online was not known months ago, the exact nature if single player was not known months ago.

For you to complain that information was not given a particular time makes it all seem even more leery. It is not obligated for people to be given the full information on a game 2months in advance instead of 1month. The information giving the latest details was there before release and it does not excuse lack of understanding for refusing to do research.

 

[Scaff]

For you to complain that information was not given a particular time makes it all seem even more leery. It is not obligated for people to be given the full information on a game 2months in advance instead of 1month. The information was there before release and it does not excuse lack of understanding for refusing to do research.

Utterly irrelevant to a claim by you that all of the information about GTS has been available for months.

It hasn't, as such that claim is demonstrably untrue.

I don't think they are faked opinions. Sure, there's always one or two fans of other games that like to pay a visit to a competing game just to take a bash at it (probably motivated by the fact that other people did the same to their own favourite game), but for most of it I think people simply set themselves up for disappointment by giving more importance to their own hopes of what the game would be rather than to the mountain of hard evidence pointing in another direction.



You assume that buying without trying a demo first is the same as buying unseen. Trailers and gameplay footage is however widely available through YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms. Games have their own websiter, articles are published on gaming sites and games are discussed in forums. There are plenty of ways to see a game without actually trying a demo. Furthermore, demos are not available for all games, which skews the statistics.

Risk research has very little relevance. You look for information primarily because you are curious, interested, hyped - not because of some risk.



That is the reason for buying though. If 4% of gamers base their decision to purchase on reviews and advertising, it doesn't mean that the other 96% of them don't read reviews and aren't exposed to the ads. You should also note that the sum of the 2015 chart is 100%, which means that either it measures only the primary factor of influence, or it is a multiple choice question measured as a percentage of all influences instead of a percentage of all gamers, so in either case the influence of ads and reviews is likely much greater than what the chart suggests. Which probably is the reason why they changed the design of this chart between the 2015 and the 2017 documents, where you can see that the influence of graphics went from 7% in 2015 to 67% in 2017, and Online Gameplay went from 4% in 2015 to 50% in 2017. Pretty massive difference, and it means that the 2015 data is essentially useless until we know what they measured and how the percentages are calculated. You certainly can't compare the 1% advertisement influence from 2015 to the 67% graphics influence in 2017, because these percentages are not calculated in the same way.



Your data is about what influenced the decision to purchase - not about what the customers knew when they bought the game.

I did note that the 2015 data is the sum of 100% while the later isn't

Nor do I claim it to be 100% infallible, but it does clearly indicate that the claim that people do loads of research before buying games, particularly for series in which they know well and from publishers that they know well.

It's also a 'risk' factor in the sense that risk judgment are something that animals do subconsciously every day for a wide range of activities, including spending money.

Have you never bought anything on impulse without research?

 

[CopperySinger]

Utterly irrelevant to a claim by you that all of the information about GTS has been available for months.

It hasn't, as such that claim is demonstrably untrue.

(9/14/2017) is date when detailed information about GTsport was available. This refutes all claims to blame PD for not providing details about GTSPORT before release.

 

[Scaff]

(9/14/2017) is date when detailed information about GTsport was available. This refutes all claims to blame PD for not providing details about GTSPORT before release.

Your claim:

"information explaining everything about the game has been available for months in the internet."

When were details about the always on-line and exactly what you could do if not connected to the servers or internet become avaliable?

Why does the GTS website still say two contradictory things about the number of modes in campaign (is it three or four)?

Oh and the 14th September isn't months (plural - two or more) before launch, its barely a month before launch, and if your referring to always on-line no mention of not being able to save progress was made at that point and members were still debating exactly what 'majority' would mean.

 

[CopperySinger]

When were details about the always on-line and exactly what you could do if not connected to the servers or internet become avaliable?

"In order to ensure fair racing for all, GT Sport will require an internet connection for the majority of functionality. This connectivity requirement is to ensure that progress, car availability, and driver ratings are properly maintained at all times.

PlayStation Plus will only be needed for online multiplayer. Portions of the Arcade Mode, including limited two-player split screen, single-player races on select tracks, and time trials can still be played in an offline environment." playstation 9/14/2017.

 

[Scaff]

"In order to ensure fair racing for all, GT Sport will require an internet connection for the majority of functionality. This connectivity requirement is to ensure that progress, car availability, and driver ratings are properly maintained at all times.

PlayStation Plus will only be needed for online multiplayer. Portions of the Arcade Mode, including limited two-player split screen, single-player races on select tracks, and time trials can still be played in an offline environment." playstation 9/14/2017.

Again.

Not months before release.

Do not say what the 'majority' is.

As such no, 'everything' was not known 'months' before release.

Oh and how many modes does Campaign have?

 

[CopperySinger]

Oh and how many modes does Campaign have?

"Campaign Mode gives players the chance to improve driving skills across four different categories and tutorial videos. Each of these modes play a key role in making every driver better prepared for racing against others.

• Driving School teaches drivers everything from basic operations to advanced racing techniques to help make everyone an expert behind the wheel.

• Mission Challenge provides various dramatic racing situations for players to overcome. Each mission has a “friend-ranking” leaderboard to encourage drivers to challenge their friends.

• Circuit Experience lets you learn how to drive the most challenging sections of the world’s great race tracks, sector by sector, braking point by braking point and apex by apex, until you’ve mastered them like a pro.

• In Racing Etiquettes players learn signals, flags and safety car protocols to ensure fair and respectful race conditions for all.

As you naturally increase your skill level, you will be awarded with a multitude of vehicles in various race groups, as well as in-game currency to allow you to further expand your dream garage." Playstation 9/14/2017.

 

[Scaff]

"Campaign Mode gives players the chance to improve driving skills across four different categories and tutorial videos. Each of these modes play a key role in making every driver better prepared for racing against others.

• Driving School teaches drivers everything from basic operations to advanced racing techniques to help make everyone an expert behind the wheel.

• Mission Challenge provides various dramatic racing situations for players to overcome. Each mission has a “friend-ranking” leaderboard to encourage drivers to challenge their friends.

• Circuit Experience lets you learn how to drive the most challenging sections of the world’s great race tracks, sector by sector, braking point by braking point and apex by apex, until you’ve mastered them like a pro.

• In Racing Etiquettes players learn signals, flags and safety car protocols to ensure fair and respectful race conditions for all.

As you naturally increase your skill level, you will be awarded with a multitude of vehicles in various race groups, as well as in-game currency to allow you to further expand your dream garage." Playstation 9/14/2017.

Except that Racing Etiquette isn't in Campaign mode, doesn't cover team signals, flags or safety car protocols.

Nor does it point out that Racing Etiquette consists of two videos totaling five minutes!

 

[fikridroid]

Are many players returned the game or only the eSports appeal started to dwindle? In Asian region which is filled mostly by Japanese players, I've mostly got 9 to 11 opponents in Sport mode.

 

[CopperySinger]

Except that Racing Etiquette isn't in Campaign mode, doesn't cover team signals, flags or safety car protocols.

Nor does it point out that Racing Etiquette consists of two videos totaling five minutes!

Yes it does. As part of the campaign mode you are to participate in two modules that teaches racing etiquette. This uses the methods similar to Blooms Taxonomy teaching method to demonstrate the proper response when using flag signals and safety cars. This campaign event is tabbed under the Sport mode instead to remind you that you need to obtain your certificate in order to move on to the online Sport.