I regret buying this game...

[Silver Arrows]

Apparently it's bad to criticize a game company for indulging in predatory behavior in creating a game so dependent on micro-transactions, to the point where it is in your face whenever you do anything that revolves around buying something. Anything.

Sure, pass the buck and blame others for not being responsible with their money. But if you give someone a gun and they go out and kill someone with it, we should probably take a look at who gave that person the gun alongside the person who committed the crime, no?

 

[Baka_Marimo]

I must say, it baffles me how this "It's all their own fault" attitude in regards to addiction issues is still so prominent. You either have to be completely oblivious to the evidence at hand or be intentionally ignorant to take that stance. On the matter of MTX specifically, video game publishers do not just randomly put up MTX packages for sale, there is actual scientific research that goes into them and often enough the science suggests that manipulating players into buying them by making natural game progression as arduous as possible is the best way to get as many sales as possible in a set amount of time. This video provides a thorough breakdown of how MTX are designed and put into practice.



Microtransactions in video games have now gotten so bad that in the UK they have caught the eye of lawmakers who have taken steps to scrutinize them in order to introduce regulation. There is some scathing evidence pointed out in this 84-page report into immersive and addictive technologies done by the the DCMS Committee of the UK Parliament. You can either read it yourself or watch this video which looks at some of its excerpts. The relevant bit begins at 1:45.



Unfortunately GT7 is not an exception in the realm of largely predatory MTX practices. Sure, there might not be loot boxes, but the game pictures collecting cars as one of the big goals (if not the one big goal) and then tells you to either do hours of mindless grinding or just skip that by paying up hundreds of bucks for individual cars. And no, GTS wasn't worse. It wasn't even remotely as bad. As an example in GTS you were able to buy the Ferrari F40 for € 2.49 directly from the PSN store whereas purchasing the equivalent amount of credits to buy the car in GT7 will cost you € 13.50 (when going for the best Euro to Credits deal). That is a five time increase in cost to buy the cars with real money. And there's no FOMO element in GTS. Plus, you weren't even able to buy anything worth more than 10m credits with real money.

Now, even if only a small percentage of players is going to buy into the MTX (which by the way is not going to be a small amount of people, considering the size of the playerbase) everyone suffers from the fact that the game is designed around the intent to push people towards doing these ingame purchases. I bought GT7 because I was looking forward to many years of having fun with it. Nothing has changed about that. I'm also intending to acquire a complete car collection (albeit very slowly) but the realization about just how hard Sony is trying to push these microtransactions onto us has left me with a really bitter aftertaste.

 

[Igano]

After all the excitement of the release, real issues with the game show up and it's not looking good right now for GT7. The metacritic user score is 6.3! This is certainly an overpriced and half finished product, really glad I didn't proceed with buying the game and a full sim setup to go with. It will take from 6 months to a year for this game to be in a sweet spot with much needed fixes and a generous discount!

 

[NAXEHT]

If you choose to only cherrypick parts of what I've said, sure. Except I've said over and over how both parties are responsible, one has a problem and that is on them, but Sony is exploiting that problem, which does make them the evil one in this situation, yes.

Going back to the idea of smaller friendly bets, while I've reconsidered and do believe they're probably a bad thing, I also don't believe they should be punished. There can be small bad things that people engage in that only affect themselves, otherwise I'd be banning things like unhealthy food too. However, anything larger scale, such as companies trying to profit from it, should be banned in my opinion.

I did see you mention both parties early on in the discussion, but what kind of percentage are we talking here? In your opinion? 20/80? 10/90? 50/50? 70/30? Forgive me if I’ve read you incorrectly but my impression was you were acknowledging the person’s fault while also heavily diminishing their part in it. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Well, from your second paragraph I think it’s obvious we’ll never see eye to eye on this. But that’s fine. Betting companies should definitely exist and not be banned. I took myself as an example earlier in the discussion, I’ve been gambling without any issues for over a decade and it’s given me some ups and downs as well as entertainment. Hasn’t hurt my economic or psychological situation. I know there’s people with problems but we’re also many with none — why take the service away from us?

Unhealthy food, now that one’s funny. If someone’s absurdly obese that’s on them, definitely not the fault of McDonald’s.

 

[Kean_1]

I must say, it baffles me how this "It's all their own fault" attitude in regards to addiction issues is still so prominent.....

....and if I can be equally as honest, it still baffles me how some folks can be the most vociferous opponents of MTXs and these "predatory" companies that implement them but still end up buying their products.

I can't help but see the hypocrisy of it all. If I was this wound up about MTXs in gaming, I wouldn't be gaming anymore. ....or at least I wouldn't be buying games / products from companies that support it.

 

[Baka_Marimo]

....and if I can be equally as honest, it still baffles me how some folks can be the most vociferous opponents of MTXs and these "predatory" companies that implement them but still end up buying their products.

I can't help but see the hypocrisy of it all. If I was this wound up about MTXs in gaming, I wouldn't be gaming anymore. ....or at least I wouldn't be buying games / products from companies that support it.

I don't mind being called hypocritical if it doesn't come with a coherent argument. The whole basis of your argument is that I bought a game with MTX and am now criticizing it for having said MTX. Firstly, my criticism is not for the game to have MTX at all, it is for how they are implemented. I played GT Sport for many years despite it having MTX and I didn't lose a single word on this forums (or anyhwere, for that matter) condemning them. Why? Because GTS did not push them onto me. Or at least nowhere near as hard as GT7. I am critical of GT7 because I am long time fan of the franchise and want it to be better than this. It's not all just black and white.

 

[NotThePrez]

....and if I can be equally as honest, it still baffles me how some folks can be the most vociferous opponents of MTXs and these "predatory" companies that implement them but still end up buying their products.

Thing is, is that just "voting with your wallet" doesn't work, at least not by itself. The reason why there's been a major shift in how the gaming industry uses MTXs is because there has been massive backlash from the consumers talking about how scummy and even dangerous these practices are. Not only did we see a lot of companies alter, roll-back or even eliminate MTXs from their games, we also saw many major governments writing litigation regarding MTXs in video games. That's why there's still continued discussion on it.

While I personally despise the concept of MTXs as a whole, I can at least tolerate them to a degree depending on their implementation. If it's a one-time visual addon that has no effect on general gameplay, than I'll give it a pass. I might even buy one on occasion if it looks good, and if the game itself is fun enough for me to justify throwing the devs a few extra bucks after already spending $60-$70 on their initial product.

What makes GT7s implementation so incredibly frustrating is that PD have not only decided to utilize MTXs in a way that has been passé within the industry (outside of free-to-play mobile game or similar) for at least 5+ years, but the games economy is built in a way to encourage purchasing MTXs to alleviate the grind, and the game apparently likes to constantly remind you that you can buy in-game credits with real money pretty much anytime you buy something, which is not OK at all. That's the kind of system that only makes sense in free-to-play games, as that's their primary source of income, and it's still not great there (it's a big reason why I stopped playing WarThunder after its 2nd year). This system should not exist in a game that people have spent up to $100 on, after potentially giving Sony $500+ as well in order to even use said game. It's greedy, scummy, and should be called out. Not buying the game and saying nothing about it doesn't achieve that.

Let's also not forget that Sony withheld the pricing for the MTXs from the people who got early review copies of GT7, meaning that they couldn't write a fully transparent review from the get-go and a lot of journalists had to write-in edits afterwards, some of which rightfully called out Sony and PD for their actions.

I can't help but see the hypocrisy of it all. If I was this wound up about MTXs in gaming, I wouldn't be gaming anymore. ....or at least I wouldn't be buying games / products from companies that support it.

Then you probably wouldn't be buying games at all, which isn't exactly a good solution either. People want to play games because they want to have fun, and when the people the consumer base is giving their money too drop the ball, they 100% can and should voice their displeasure about it in hopes that the person realizes their 🤬-up and do something about it. We've seen several companies, including PDs closest rivals, do this, yet PD, based on past history in other areas, refuse to.

Accountability is the name of the game, and there's been recent history that shows that effective accountability does create change, at least within the gaming industry.

 

[GTD87]

OMG It's so terrible!!

Then you send the game back then 2 months later after sweet content drops you'll be like buh why did i sell the came?! Now i gotta buy again!

I heard stories like that during GTS LOL!!

After doing license tests and few races i had 750 thousand credits and that's after spending like 2 3 hundred thousand tuning a few cars. And it didn't even take that long . No i didn't have to play for 48 hours straight to get that many credits.

Why do people exaggerate so much?

No real money spent either. Muh micro transaction !! Or you can do a race? Lolz don't have to spend real money on that.

Man people on here are hilarious . Send the game back please and give me more server space so online races run better.

Have fun with getting a billion credits the second you start playing forza horizon so you can make your little 20 thousand horsepower Ferrari you can drive in a mexican jungle.

 

[wasenhorn]

I was thinking about this yesterday, and I think we may have misunderstood the reason for the cars having ridiculous values in real world currency. As you point out, it's not sensible pricing if you want people to buy them with real world currency. I think the real reason might be to get people to assign a real world currency value to their playing of the game. Like "Hey, I can grind High Speed Ring for an hour and it's like I'm being paid £20 for that hour, that's a great way to spend my time!".

This is exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do to lure pople to spend their real money. The best grinding method at this moment gives you roughly 1.8 million credit per hour, which is roughly $18/h. If someone's wage is even vaguely close to $18/h, they're very unlikely to spend any money on this game. As such, with the current pricing scheme, you could only target people with far higher wage such as $2,000/h or $500/h (or at least an order of magnitude higher than $18/h), because it's 60 minutes of mindless grinding vs. 36-160 seconds worth of real life working for those high earners.

This is very wrong thing to do for any game developer who wants to lure as many whales as possible, because you only have very limited amount of wealthy audiences and a lot of average customers. Ideally you want to target both, by offering differently priced products to each group, and if you had to choose only one of them, then it's average people 100%. To lure average people in, you typically need to give them a lot of reasons, including faster progress (you get them instantly without having to spend hours of grinding first) as well as more efficient progress (even minimum wagers should be able to get 3-30x speed up when they're spending their real money), competitive edge, some reasons to get those competitive edges, rarity, gatcha, weekly/monthly sales (offering better values), etc. GT7 failed to give almost every single one of those reasons except for one thing, a faster progress. They even got the most basic things wrong (no gatcha, no $100 payment, no efficiency for minimum wagers, no competitive edge nor the need for those edges).

 

[HyperSpeeder]

The thing with MTX pricing announced after reviews is that I doubt it'd have had much of an impact on the scores themselves. A game does not suddenly go from 90 to 70 because of MTX unless it's a very limiting element, which it isn't in GT7, considering the Legends cars aren't a whole lot, and everything else can be purchased easily.

FOMO elements unfortunately are here to stay. Just look at games like Forza Horizon 5 and The Crew 2. FH5 had 18 million players and The Crew 2 is reportedly getting a next gen update with overhauled physics. Both games are successes despite their psychological tactics to engage players and keep them tied to the product.

Any racing game with arcade/progression elements will inevitably be subject to grinding, NFTs and (possibly) microtransactions. Not lootboxes, or else the EU cracks down on them. The 2000s have been over for more than a decade and unfortunately we'll never go back to that.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Just look at games like Forza Horizon 5 and The Crew 2. FH5 had 18 million players and The Crew 2 is reportedly getting a next gen update with overhauled physics. Both games are successes despite their psychological tactics to engage players and keep them tied to the product.

More like they're successful games and have learned to keep players based on providing content, but apparently that's a bad thing coming from you.

which it isn't in GT7, considering the Legends cars aren't a whole lot, and everything else can be purchased easily.

Are you playing the same game I, or a good chunk of this forum has been when it comes to the in game economy?

Any racing game with arcade/progression elements will inevitably be subject to grinding

no, lmao

NFTs

not in a million years considering the (once more, correct) backlash against the concepts

(possibly) microtransactions.

boy, almost like there's a game that embodies that entire concept completely. A first party title. I wonder what it is?

 

[McLaren]

The thing with MTX pricing announced after reviews is that I doubt it'd have had much of an impact on the scores themselves. A game does not suddenly go from 90 to 70 because of MTX unless it's a very limiting element, which it isn't in GT7, considering the Legends cars aren't a whole lot, and everything else can be purchased easily.

It will not go from a 90 to a 70, but it absolutely has an impact.

Update 5th March: As you will see from the review, no mention of the microtransactions were made. This was because the cost of these was hidden. Now I know this, combined with something I did mention - the grind - I can't overlook this matter of concern. Much like my many complaints against Ubisoft for forcing grind into their recent games to sell the solution, this is certainly present in Gran Turismo 7. As such, I will be adjusting my score from 9/10 to 8/10, though I will say the many qualities still make it a great title, it's just a shame it's been plagued by terrible decisions.

Gran Turismo 7 Review - I'm in Love with My Car [Updated & Score Lowered due to Microtransactions]

Gran Turismo 7 is here and marks a return to what people expect from Polyphony Digital games, but just how good or bad is it? Let's find out.

wccftech.com

Zarmena writes… I’ve always found the practice of making microtransactions available post-launch a bit iffy since they can’t be taken into account in reviews. I understand that Polyphony Digital was going for realism with the whole Hagerty thing, but considering the prices of the credit bundles and the inability to purchase cars individually like we could in Gran Turismo Sport, the whole thing just comes across a bit ill-advised. Let’s see how Sony responds to players’ concerns.

Gran Turismo 7 Microtransactions and Dynamic Car Prices Causes Concern

Gran Turismo 7 microtransactions have come under fire especially after it was revealed that in-game car prices will be dynamic.

www.playstationlifestyle.net

It's especially dismaying that the full scope of this new cash-for-credits scheme was only revealed after the review process was completed. Yes, it is an optional shortcut, but considering credits build fairly slowly via racing, you can’t sell cars from your garage, and a number of GT7’s coolest cars have been made artificially scarce, at what point do we call it predatory? With rare cars in the legendary dealer rotating in availability before they’re “sold out” (and unobtainable to you in your single-player game), and others that require peculiar, time-limited, in-game invitations to actually purchase, it’s definitely easy to see how some players who know they won’t have the time to build a large amount of credits by racing may be compelled to part with real cash to snag certain cars before they’re gone.

Gran Turismo 7 Review - IGN

Mixing the original GT’s trendsetting format with GT Sport’s stern but very successful focus on competitive online racing, Gran Turismo 7 makes a few errors but is a potent podium performance from developer Polyphony Digital.

www.ign.com

The fact Sony waited until after the reviews were all published to flip on MXTs shows they know full well it would've dinged the scores b/c many publications have ran updates or additional articles to their initial reviews about it specifically.

FOMO elements unfortunately are here to stay. Just look at games like Forza Horizon 5 and The Crew 2. FH5 had 18 million players and The Crew 2 is reportedly getting a next gen update with overhauled physics. Both games are successes despite their psychological tactics to engage players and keep them tied to the product.

Any racing game with arcade/progression elements will inevitably be subject to grinding, NFTs and (possibly) microtransactions. Not lootboxes, or else the EU cracks down on them. The 2000s have been over for more than a decade and unfortunately we'll never go back to that.

I don't know how The Crew 2 handles itself, but FH5's FOMO element is vastly different than GT7's & almost every car one would fear of missing out on can be found on the auction house by other players shortly after.

Trying to validate GT7's way of business as something that is basically "here to stay", is disingenuous when you know full well its economy compared to other games & the influence of real world money is not the same. We may not be able to go back to the old days, but that's not an invitation for predatory design.

 

[Dodger28462]

At release.

Now, don't get me wrong - I love Gran Turismo, however the way GT7 currently is just kills all the fun out of it. The payouts in GTS were ok, nothing special but at least money wasn't unobtainable.

In GT7 the ammount of grinding required is just too much. Together with a stupid legendary/used car rotation system and invitation system makes for a really fun-free experience.

I bought this game to enjoy virtual cars and to have fun, in current state the game doesn't allow me to have that. Also, 20mil cap again?!

Right now I've completed all the licences, missions and café menus. And the fun from the game just faded away. Car customization is great but what good is it when R34 costs 400k (when you can find it), add items to that and it becomes almost a million. That's an hour of grinding for one "fun" car experience? Not worth it in my book. I'll just wait and hope for seasonal events which will hopefully pay better, or at least hope for a nerf in the credits system.
Also, track challenges yield no reward apart from some low ammount of credits! What's up with that?

U better stop posting b4 they say your whinning and delete your thread.

 

[mwoodski]

U better stop posting b4 they say your whinning and delete your thread.

We get it, you're 13.

 

[tankuroded]

I wonder if I asked the right questions on this /r/changemyview thread:


EDIT: Also it is worth noting that most regulatory calls on microtransactions only apply if you can use them (or credits earned in-game) for random items (i.e. loot boxes) - hence my CMV thread, since GT7 does not (currently) allow paying any amount of currency for tickets.

 

[Famine]

U better stop posting b4 they say your whinning and delete your thread.

Notice how it's three pages long already and site staff have posted in it?

Maybe your notion that stuff critical of GT7 gets deleted isn't correct after all. Maybe it's just your posts getting deleted, edited, and locked because you keep breaking the site's Acceptable Use Policy - which you agreed to abide by when you joined up - and you're acting like a massive baby about it...

 

[breeminator]

Any racing game with arcade/progression elements will inevitably be subject to grinding

To me, "grinding" is a negative thing, implying you have to play the game in a way that makes it a chore to progress. This is not inevitable to have progression in a game. GT7 is a grind, for sure, with "progression" constituting driving the same one meta credit earning race over and over again, no matter what else you'd like to do in the game. Contrast that with Rocket League, for example, where the only thing you have to do to progress is play competitive multiplayer games, i.e. participate in the core competitive experience the game provides. You progress by developing your skill at the game, becoming higher ranked. If someone doesn't enjoy that, then the game isn't for them, as that's the core of the game. There are many other extremely popular games that as far as I'm aware have similar mechanics where you can simply play competitively to progress in skill at the game without having to "grind" to access the tools required to play competitively.

 

[DivitLad]

Car Prices Probably based on Japanese Yen not the dollar

 

[Kean_1]

I don't mind being called hypocritical if it doesn't come with a coherent argument. The whole basis of your argument is that I bought a game with MTX and am now criticizing it for having said MTX. Firstly, my criticism is not for the game to have MTX at all, it is for how they are implemented. I played GT Sport for many years despite it having MTX and I didn't lose a single word on this forums (or anyhwere, for that matter) condemning them. Why? Because GTS did not push them onto me. Or at least nowhere near as hard as GT7. I am critical of GT7 because I am long time fan of the franchise and want it to be better than this. It's not all just black and white.

It was not about you simply not liking MTXs but buying the game anyway. I buy lots of games that I don’t particularly like certain aspects of but when the pros outweigh the cons, the game is still fun for me. The thing is, your argument in your previous post was regarding MTX and game publishers in general as if this is a plague set upon us all, victims of these practices, etc.

Time after time I see some (again, not all) that try to paint a picture of a this big, bad, "predatory" industry as a whole that is taking advantage of all these "vulnerable" gamers yet they themselves continue to support them by buying their products and playing their games. That is the hypocrisy I'm pointing out.

I don't have a problem discussing the imbalance of the in-game economy in GT7 as I think there is in fact a disparity between the payouts (especially in custom races) and the cost of the vehicles. I'm even game for talking about the unfairness or a distaste for certain types of MTXs or the preference of others in certain games. I get not liking the imbalance of the model PD has implemented in GT7 and that's something I can agree with.

I do hope that the in-game economy gets adjusted at some point.

 

[mwoodski]

Car Prices Probably based on Japanese Yen not the dollar

They're not based on anything, and Japanese versions of the game have the prices of everything 100x higher.

 

[NotThePrez]

Car Prices Probably based on Japanese Yen not the dollar

The only thing that the Yen would do is add another 2 zeros to the end of every credit value in the game.

The prices for cars in the UCD (especially the JDM cars) are very much based on how those cars are valued in today's market. PD has also mentioned that the pricing in the LCD is dynamic and will change over time based on data from Hagerty.

It's one of those things where it's a neat gimmick, but doesn't really add anything to the actual gaming experience, especially with GT7s current economy.

 

[RikkiGT-R]

Thankfully Amazon will refund me without question. Something I rarely do, but if GT7 was free I’d still feel short changed.

EDIT: thanks for the redaction edit 😬

 

[nummer0]

Unless we can sell legend cars - Hagerty pricing only has one reason for existence: forcing MTX.

 

[Staquix]

Unless we can sell legend cars - Hagerty pricing only has one reason for existence: forcing MTX.

Yes this, Well said. It would be one thing if we could play car broker and sell cars when the market was up. I enjoy this aspect of Forza Horizon greatly but there Hagerty pricing is pointless in this game other then driving there financial gains.

 

[Kean_1]

Thing is, is that just "voting with your wallet" doesn't work, at least not by itself. The reason why there's been a major shift in how the gaming industry uses MTXs is because there has been massive backlash from the consumers talking about how scummy and even dangerous these practices are. Not only did we see a lot of companies alter, roll-back or even eliminate MTXs from their games, we also saw many major governments writing litigation regarding MTXs in video games. That's why there's still continued discussion on it.

When someone is so adamantly against an industry practice and yet still supports them by buying their product, that's where they lose me. ....that's my point.

....and voting with your wallet indeed does help. There are a lot of games that failed to deliver what consumers wanted and flopped because of it. You're also right about how public opinion can sway companies to make changes to their MTX models as we have all seen the result of that in more high profile cases like with loot boxes.

Don't underestimate the power of the consumer and their decision not to buy a game, or stop playing because they don't agree with something a gaming company does.

While I personally despise the concept of MTXs as a whole, I can at least tolerate them to a degree depending on their implementation. If it's a one-time visual addon that has no effect on general gameplay, than I'll give it a pass. I might even buy one on occasion if it looks good, and if the game itself is fun enough for me to justify throwing the devs a few extra bucks after already spending $60-$70 on their initial product.
What makes GT7s implementation so incredibly frustrating is that PD have not only decided to utilize MTXs in a way that has been passé within the industry (outside of free-to-play mobile game or similar) for at least 5+ years, but the games economy is built in a way to encourage purchasing MTXs to alleviate the grind, and the game apparently likes to constantly remind you that you can buy in-game credits with real money pretty much anytime you buy something, which is not OK at all. That's the kind of system that only makes sense in free-to-play games, as that's their primary source of income, and it's still not great there (it's a big reason why I stopped playing WarThunder after its 2nd year). This system should not exist in a game that people have spent up to $100 on, after potentially giving Sony $500+ as well in order to even use said game. It's greedy, scummy, and should be called out. Not buying the game and saying nothing about it doesn't achieve that.

Let's also not forget that Sony withheld the pricing for the MTXs from the people who got early review copies of GT7, meaning that they couldn't write a fully transparent review from the get-go and a lot of journalists had to write-in edits afterwards, some of which rightfully called out Sony and PD for their actions.

Personally, I don't have a problem with MTXs as I can see the value in them as long as they continue to fund new, meaningful content, updates, improvements, etc. for players into the future. ....something I realistically would not expect a company to continue to support without additional revenue months and months beyond the game's release.

I wouldn't call PD's implementation of a "cash for in-game currency" model "passé". One of the most (and continuously) successful MTX models in the industry is exactly that (GTAO). To be quite honest, it is the one I prefer over most as I can still grind for the items I want by simply playing the game.

Where I have a problem in GT7 is the wide variance in payouts vs. cost of items in the game. The scarcity of used and prestigious cars is also annoying to me. Personally, I think they should tweak the payouts (especially online and custom races) as well as perhaps increase the number of vehicles available in the dealers or the speed of their rotation.

As for these "greedy", "scummy" game companies. I don't have a problem with people being that vocal about how they feel in regard to MTX practices or the companies that implement them. I even agree to on some points but where we part ways is just how strongly I feel about it. It's just one of those aspects I don't particularly like in GT7 because of the imbalance but I still enjoy the game otherwise and will wait to see if they end up changing it.

Then you probably wouldn't be buying games at all, which isn't exactly a good solution either. People want to play games because they want to have fun, and when the people the consumer base is giving their money too drop the ball, they 100% can and should voice their displeasure about it in hopes that the person realizes their 🤬-up and do something about it. We've seen several companies, including PDs closest rivals, do this, yet PD, based on past history in other areas, refuse to.

Accountability is the name of the game, and there's been recent history that shows that effective accountability does create change, at least within the gaming industry.

Again, I have nothing against people expressing their opinion of the game, criticism of MTX ,etc. My only point was that some talk about people like PD taking advantage of the "vulnerable", creating addicted "victims", being "scummy", "harmful", "predatory", etc. They seem so vehemently against MTXs (or certain implementations of it) to the point that it's a moral issue. I mean, the picture some are painting is of really horrible people. Who would want to support them by buying their product if you truly felt this way? .....that's my point. Not the fact that GT7's economy has an unfair imbalance which I happen to agree with.

Personally, I don't think I have ever bought an MTX in a game. I've played GTAO off and on since the PS3 release. Talk about a disparity in cost vs earnings but I still play and grind for the in-game cash because the game is fun, there are a lot of incentives that bring me back and a ton of content that gets added.

GT7 might be the same but I doubt it. Time will tell. I don't ever see myself grinding away for every car possible in it's current form but a lot will depend on if PD changes the economy.

Perhaps with more and more content creators and the community that have criticized the game's disparity in cost/earnings, they will change their minds. ....and yes, I agree that consumers can do a lot in that regard to help effect change.

 

[Pfei]

I don't regret buying the game. When online is patched up and the official seasons start I will be very happy to participate with the much improved race car physics, dynamic weather, and time of day. GTS was the best online racing I have ever had and I hope it continues in GT7. Also happy to see photo mode, Scapes and livery editor made the transition intact.

That said, the rest of the game to me is not much more than hot garbage:

• In-game economy, can't sell cars, massive grinding
• Content locked until finishing Menu 39
• GT Café was cool, but I finished it in ten hours. Should be much longer. And should not be the main "career mode".
• Very low number of events
• No sense of progression
• Bugs galore
• The AI races are nothing more than a chore. Not fun, not racing.
• MTX prices out of this world
• Time sensitive access to certain cars is ridiculous through invitations and Legendary dealer rotation
• Daily workout rewards are pathetic
• Some RWD road cars behave bizarrely
• Music Rally

This game is clearly unfinished and probably needed another 6-12 months in the oven. Basically they improved the physics over GTS but managed to ruin everything else. A huge disappointment overall, but if they fix Sport Mode I will be happy. I don't care for single player stuff in racing games anyway, but I do feel for those who were expecting a long single player campaign.

 

[Baka_Marimo]

It was not about you simply not liking MTXs but buying the game anyway. I buy lots of games that I don’t particularly like certain aspects of but when the pros outweigh the cons, the game is still fun for me.

And that is exactly how it is for me with GT7. I am absolutely going to enjoy it over the coming years. That doesn't mean though that I won't criticize elements of the game I am not happy with.

The thing is, your argument in your previous post was regarding MTX and game publishers in general as if this is a plague set upon us all, victims of these practices, etc.

Yes, to be fair I went on a tangent about MTXs in general because there were people downplaying the responsibility of video game publishers regarding gambling addiction issues. I didn't mean for it to come across like I'm painting the entire industry like the Cosa Nostra. However the point regarding GT7 still stands. As many people have pointed out, everyone is suffering from the game being specifically designed around pushing players towards ingame-purchases, even those who were never considered target audience in the first place.

Time after time I see some (again, not all) that try to paint a picture of a this big, bad, "predatory" industry as a whole that is taking advantage of all these "vulnerable" gamers yet they themselves continue to support them by buying their products and playing their games. That is the hypocrisy I'm pointing out.

I'm sure there are a lot of people like that on the internet, however when it comes to GT7 it's not as simple as that. We didn't have any idea about the way MTXs would be implemented before the game came out. Looking at the past we only had GT6 and GT Sport to go on (and GT5, on a limited scale). I for my part never had the feeling that those games were forcing me into making use of their MTXs to make progress at a reasonable rate. So I had good reason to believe that GT7 would follow them in this tradition and acted in good faith by preordering the game. It's only after the purchase that I learned the things I'm criticising it for now, and also let's not forget about the deceptive practice of introducing MTXs only after the reviews came out.

Of course you could argue that I could just have waited for the player feedback to come in and made my decision then. But again, I'm a long-time fan of this franchise and have been eagerly awaiting this game, so anything other than a day one purchase wasn't really an option to me. But yes, technically I could've made an informed buying decision here. If that makes me a hypocrite to you then so be it.

I do hope that the in-game economy gets adjusted at some point.

Yes, that is something I'm hoping for too. I'm not expecting it to actually happen though. It's safe to assume that those MTXs made them boatloads of cash already.

 

[Samus]

This is exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do to lure pople to spend their real money. The best grinding method at this moment gives you roughly 1.8 million credit per hour, which is roughly $18/h. If someone's wage is even vaguely close to $18/h, they're very unlikely to spend any money on this game. As such, with the current pricing scheme, you could only target people with far higher wage such as $2,000/h or $500/h (or at least an order of magnitude higher than $18/h), because it's 60 minutes of mindless grinding vs. 36-160 seconds worth of real life working for those high earners.

No, you've missed the point entirely. The lure is exactly because of what you said, the "best grinding method". The fact that even exists is enough for some people to be lured into MTs. Especially when that currently is pounding around a crappy dirt track for hour after hour.

People are tempted into MTs because it's the easier and quicker option, they don't come up with a cost vs time analysis and factor in their real world wage.

They'll be bought primarily by two groups of people - those that can afford them without much issue, and those who can't really but just see the cheaper MTs every now and again as not too bad, "Just a cup of coffee" is a typical rationale people give to themselves. $4 to buy a couple of cars? "Yeah, why not" they think. Do that ten or twenty times over a few months, it starts adding up. They might even stump up for the $20 one when it's payday, treat themselves.

 

[NotThePrez]

When someone is so adamantly against an industry practice and yet still supports them by buying their product, that's where they lose me. ....that's my point.

Like I said, it depends on the implementation to some extent. Visual only MTXs that don't have a real effect on gameplay? I can ignore those if the game itself is good. But when the game itself is built around getting people to buy additional microtransactions after already spending $60+ for the game itself, it's there where issues start to come up, and where people rightfully should voice their displeasure. For me, I won't be buying GT7 (and probably a PS5) until this issue is addressed (either that, or if I can pick up a used physical copy on the cheap, so at least then I'm not directly giving Sony and PD my money).

....and voting with your wallet indeed does help. There are a lot of games that failed to deliver what consumers wanted and flopped because of it. You're also right about how public opinion can sway companies to make changes to their MTX models as we have all seen the result of that in more high profile cases like with loot boxes.

Don't underestimate the power of the consumer and their decision not to buy a game, or stop playing because they don't agree with something a gaming company does.

Which is why I said that voting with one's wallet doesn't always work by itself. And with Gran Turismo being a first-party Sony title, that practice has a lesser effect. As @Silver Arrows has mentioned, GT7 could sell 10 copies or 10 million copies, and it wouldn't matter too much because PD will be bankrolled by Sony for the next project no matter what, because it'd be silly for Sony not to.

It's why it's important to not just vote with one's wallet, but to actually hold PD and Sony accountable for their decisions by voicing displeasure at their practices. CoD is a shining example of this method getting results, despite the game maintaining consistently high sales numbers each entry.

Personally, I don't have a problem with MTXs as I can see the value in them as long as they continue to fund new, meaningful content, updates, improvements, etc. for players into the future. ....something I realistically would not expect a company to continue to support without additional revenue months and months beyond the game's release.

I'd be inclined to agree if this wasn't PD, a first-party Sony company, we were talking about. They don't really need additional funding through MTXs to fund future projects, given their resources, connections in both the gaming and automotive industry, and their connection with Sony themselves. Obviously their funds aren't limitless, but I highly doubt that they would have a hard time realistically funding anything if it involves Gran Turismo.

I wouldn't call PD's implementation of a "cash for in-game currency" model "passé".

It's passé for a full-priced product, and has been for quite some time. Hell, the last time Forza had this system (in the form of tokens) was in Forza Horizon 3, which was released in 2016. Why are PD using a system that pretty much no other noteworthy racer is currently using, or has used for a while?

One of the most (and continuously) successful MTX models in the industry is exactly that (GTAO). To be quite honest, it is the one I prefer over most as I can still grind for the items I want by simply playing the game.

I wouldn't exactly call GTA Online a great example of, well, anything, especially since it's also a full-priced game with an economy that is significantly more aggressively geared towards promoting MTX sales that GT7s currently.

Where I have a problem in GT7 is the wide variance in payouts vs. cost of items in the game. The scarcity of used and prestigious cars is also annoying to me. Personally, I think they should tweak the payouts (especially online and custom races) as well as perhaps increase the number of vehicles available in the dealers or the speed of their rotation.

Totally agreed there.

As for these "greedy", "scummy" game companies. I don't have a problem with people being that vocal about how they feel in regard to MTX practices or the companies that implement them. I even agree to on some points but where we part ways is just how strongly I feel about it. It's just one of those aspects I don't particularly like in GT7 because of the imbalance but I still enjoy the game otherwise and will wait to see if they end up changing it.

Which is totally fine. As I and many others have mentioned, it's not a problem if people are enjoying GT7, because the game absolutely has a lot of good things going for it. What is a problem, though, is that this system exists in a full-priced product, and that there are individuals that try to discredit these valid and consistent criticisms because they honestly can't handle Gran Turismo, PD or Kaz having criticism levied at them. It's a bit cult-y at times, honestly.

And the reason why people are calling this setup scummy is because this is the kind of setup that one would expect from a free-to-play mobile or PC game, where such a system is likely the developer/publishers main source of revenue, not from a first-party AAA title that people have spent up to $100 on just to play (more if you bought a console specifically to play GT7). It's scummy because it's a system based on greed, and shows a total lack of respect from Sony and PD to their customers.

Again, I have nothing against people expressing their opinion of the game, criticism of MTX ,etc. My only point was that some talk about people like PD taking advantage of the "vulnerable", creating addicted "victims", being "scummy", "harmful", "predatory", etc. They seem so vehemently against MTXs (or certain implementations of it) to the point that it's a moral issue.

I mean, it kinda is. The dangers of MTX addiction are very well documented, and have been for a number of years. I remember @Scaff using an example a few days ago of someone being a recovering alcoholic, going to a restaurant, and the workers were constantly trying to encourage the patron to buy booze at every opportunity even though they didn't want any, and were trying to actively avoid it. It's a similar setup to how GT7 seems to have constant reminders that you can buy in-game credits with real money any time you buy something. For you and me, we can ignore it because we know better, but there are a lot of people who genuinely struggle with this, and Sony and PD are, to some degree, banking on people like this to buy their microtransactions.

GT7 might be the same but I doubt it. Time will tell. I don't ever see myself grinding away for every car possible in it's current form but a lot will depend on if PD changes the economy.

Perhaps with more and more content creators and the community that have criticized the game's disparity in cost/earnings, they will change their minds. ....and yes, I agree that consumers can do a lot in that regard to help effect change.

I'm not holding my breath, but it'd be nice if PD could at least acknowledge peoples concerns with the economy and MTX systems, and say something on it. That would at least show that they're aware of the current issues. However, they'll probably sit back in silence and just continue to do things their way, even though that is no longer and never has been an effective form of community interaction.

 

[Kean_1]

And that is exactly how it is for me with GT7. I am absolutely going to enjoy it over the coming years. That doesn't mean though that I won't criticize elements of the game I am not happy with.

....and I'm not saying folks shouldn't criticize what they don't like or feel should be changed about the game. That wasn't what I took issue with.

Yes, to be fair I went on a tangent about MTXs in general because there were people downplaying the responsibility of video game publishers regarding gambling addiction issues. I didn't mean for it to come across like I'm painting the entire industry like the Cosa Nostra. However the point regarding GT7 still stands. As many people have pointed out, everyone is suffering from the game being specifically designed around pushing players towards ingame-purchases, even those who were never considered target audience in the first place.

You're coming from a position where you believe your view on the matter is irrefutable and absolute. I's not a matter of downplaying. What I see is a disagreement on where the brunt of that responsibility should lie for instance in the case of someone with addictive behavior which was brought up.

I'm sure there are a lot of people like that on the internet, however when it comes to GT7 it's not as simple as that. We didn't have any idea about the way MTXs would be implemented before the game came out. Looking at the past we only had GT6 and GT Sport to go on (and GT5, on a limited scale). I for my part never had the feeling that those games were forcing me into making use of their MTXs to make progress at a reasonable rate. So I had good reason to believe that GT7 would follow them in this tradition and acted in good faith by preordering the game. It's only after the purchase that I learned the things I'm criticising it for now, and also let's not forget about the deceptive practice of introducing MTXs only after the reviews came out.


Of course you could argue that I could just have waited for the player feedback to come in and made my decision then. But again, I'm a long-time fan of this franchise and have been eagerly awaiting this game, so anything other than a day one purchase wasn't really an option to me. But yes, technically I could've made an informed buying decision here. If that makes me a hypocrite to you then so be it.

That is not what I found hypocrisy in. .....a point which I clarified more than once already.

....and although none of us really had a grasp on the balance of the in-game economy, cost, etc., we actually did know before launch what kind of MTX system PD was implementing.

Personally, I waited until after the embargo lifted on the reviews before I committed to buying the game at launch. For me, the cost of the credits made no difference since I don't partake in those systems regardless. I was however, disappointed to see the variance in payouts vs. cost of goods.

For me, there are aspects of games I can live without, those I can't and those that I simply won't tolerate in games. If there is even a question about those elements, I always make sure I wait until I can get clarifications first. If that's after release, then so be it.

It just didn't compute why someone who seemed so incensed with the industry about something like this (and has such a low opinion of them) would put themselves in a position to be surprised like that. .....but as you pointed out, it seems that just came off much more strongly that you intended.

As I said before, I actually agree that the economy is not balanced fairly in GT7 right now.

Yes, that is something I'm hoping for too. I'm not expecting it to actually happen though. It's safe to assume that those MTXs made them boatloads of cash already.

I don't know. R* actually revisited their in-game economy in RDO early on when no one thought they would. They too had a situation where many felt prices were just too high vs what they could earn. I suspect that if the issue continues to get bad publicity, PD too may rethink and adjust theirs. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

As for how much they made on MTX so far, perhaps we'll find that out too with their fiscal year-end report I would expect next month.