Kaz interview on Eurogamer - Standards are here to stay! Poll added

[joetruckv8]

Before GT5 there was nothing so I wouldn't complain about what he gives us, in the end its better than nothing. The glass is half full, not half empty,.

 

[GTboyz]

If they wanna put duplicates, at least put the ones like the Zenki and Kouki version of AE86 with both coupe and hatcback. Unlike the different year of miatas. Hope they update the standard cars to near premium quality (at least the ones that worth upgrading) oh and i hope they upgrade the important cars to premium like you know, the JZA80 supra, AE86, R31 skyline, Hakosuka, 240Z and so on....

 

[Imari]

How do you know the budget for GT6?

Don't get me wrong, PDs small size is my biggest issue with them and I think they need to be at least twice the size they are now. But I wasn't saying that to defend PD so much as to condemn Codemasters. As I said 100% no reason why a team that big couldn't give interiors to 73 cars.

I don't. But after $60+ million (speculated as high as $80 million) for GT5, I hardly see how GT6 could be done for less than say, $30 million. Which compared to the budget for pCARS is Scrooge McDuck type money.

You'll also be aware that Codemasters isn't just working on a single game at the moment. They have F1 2014 due out fairly soon, so you can at least divide that number of employees in half, assuming that they don't have a team working on the next Dirt as well.

I answered your question.

No, you didn't.

The question was "How does having less staff allow a company to make a game with more content?"

Your answer was "Standard cars and tracks is how."

That is not an answer. You've got it backwards. Standard cars and tracks allow a company with less staff to make a game with more content.

Your answer should be "Having less staff allows a company to [insert answer here] to make a game with more content."

If English isn't your first language then this could be tricky, but the distinction in causality is important.

 

[Imari]

Edit: Oops, double.

 

[1241Penguin]

PD keeps standards - people whine because they look ugly.
PD drops standards - people whine because there's too few cars. Still more than in most other games, though. But this is GTPlanet.
PD updates every standard to premium - people whine because it takes time and they can't get the game right now, or preferably last week and for free.

I don't think PD can win this game. Not with the mindset people are having, everything PD does has to be better than what everyone else does or toys are flying out of the pram with a frightening rate. The current fashionable thing seems to compare it to Project CARS - how many cars does that one have? A thousand? No. Five hundred... three hundred... one hundred...? Well no. Less than one hundred from what I can gather from the web. It's completely OK but imagine the amount of bickering if GT7 was released with a hundred cars. The so called GT fans have some of the most ridiculous double standards I've ever seen and I'm certainly not buying the concept that "it's for the better for all of us to demand more" - yeah right, only that the demands for PD are on a very different level from those for everyone else.

This is PD's own fault. Indeed, they can't win the game, but that's the result of PD digging their own hole deeper and deeper by keeping PS2 era models from one game to another.

None of the three problems you listed would exist if PD dropped the standards from the get-go. The first one would not be a problem for obvious reasons. The second one wouldn't be either because PD hasn't set the standard for having an ever growing car list from game to game. Look at the car count in GT2 and then GT3. The third one wouldn't be a problem for the same reasons.

 

[ironman44321]

I don't. But after $60+ million (speculated as high as $80 million) for GT5, I hardly see how GT6 could be done for less than say, $30 million. Which compared to the budget for pCARS is Scrooge McDuck type money.

You'll also be aware that Codemasters isn't just working on a single game at the moment. They have F1 2014 due out fairly soon, so you can at least divide that number of employees in half, assuming that they don't have a team working on the next Dirt as well.

That seems like a pretty reasonable estimate (not that I would know). But that's probably less than the budget for a main Forza game.

I think if we're not giving PD as pass for being small it wouldn't make much sense to give Codemasters a pass for working on more than one game at a time.

 

[Chikane_GTR]

Is their anything Sony can do to prevent PD from doing this?

 

[Imari]

I think if we're not giving PD as pass for being small it wouldn't make much sense to give Codemasters a pass for working on more than one game at a time.

The difference being that if Codies weren't working on multiple games, they couldn't afford to hire that many people. They need the income from multiple games to pay for that large team.

Polyphony makes one game, has the largest known budget for racing games, and at worst has the second highest after the unknown budget of the Forza series.

Say for argument's sake that a Codies team for one game is about 200 people. A little bigger than Polyphony but not so different.

Then look at the sales of any Codemasters racing game, and compare it to the 10+ million sales of GT5. How on earth are Codies managing to keep bigger teams running than Polyphony on such a greatly reduced income? Something doesn't add up.

Hell, last time I checked SMS was near a hundred staff. On a budget of ~$5 million. While making probably as many new assets as we saw in GT6, if you take into account cars and tracks. How are they doing that?

If you want to take Forza, let's assume that their budgets are around about the same size as Gran Turismo. I have no idea, to be honest, but it seems reasonable that they're at least in the same ballpark. Both are system selling exclusives, so I imagine both Sony and MS put a similar value on them. The FM team is what, 400~ish people now? And with sales of half what GT5 did, how are they making ends meet on that one?


I feel like someone at Polyphony and/or Sony is getting very rich by saving an awful lot of money on staff salaries. It just doesn't add up when you look at the way other studios are funded and run. Something smells fishy.

That's why I don't give them a pass for team size. If everyone else can have the same or larger teams on substantially reduced budgets and incomes, then so can Polyphony.

 

[Zelalem]

I feel like someone at Polyphony and/or Sony is getting very rich by saving an awful lot of money on staff salaries. It just doesn't add up when you look at the way other studios are funded and run. Something smells fishy.

So many times this. They could have outsourced or hiring new staff to solve the sounds and so on, but instead they make a lot of money, without living up to the expectations, they have sometimes set for their own. We wouldn't talk about standard cars in the first place, if PD never used this idea or hired a lot of new talented people.

 

[ironman44321]

The difference being that if Codies weren't working on multiple games, they couldn't afford to hire that many people. They need the income from multiple games to pay for that large team.

Polyphony makes one game, has the largest known budget for racing games, and at worst has the second highest after the unknown budget of the Forza series.

Say for argument's sake that a Codies team for one game is about 200 people. A little bigger than Polyphony but not so different.

Then look at the sales of any Codemasters racing game, and compare it to the 10+ million sales of GT5. How on earth are Codies managing to keep bigger teams running than Polyphony on such a greatly reduced income? Something doesn't add up.

Hell, last time I checked SMS was near a hundred staff. On a budget of ~$5 million. While making probably as many new assets as we saw in GT6, if you take into account cars and tracks. How are they doing that?

If you want to take Forza, let's assume that their budgets are around about the same size as Gran Turismo. I have no idea, to be honest, but it seems reasonable that they're at least in the same ballpark. Both are system selling exclusives, so I imagine both Sony and MS put a similar value on them. The FM team is what, 400~ish people now? And with sales of half what GT5 did, how are they making ends meet on that one?


I feel like someone at Polyphony and/or Sony is getting very rich by saving an awful lot of money on staff salaries. It just doesn't add up when you look at the way other studios are funded and run. Something smells fishy.

That's why I don't give them a pass for team size. If everyone else can have the same or larger teams on substantially reduced budgets and incomes, then so can Polyphony.

That theory implies that one of Codemasters games isn't pulling it's own weight. That's the only way a team of 500 making 2 games is financially viable but a team of 250 making one game isn't. If that were the case it's highly unlikely that they would keep making whichever game series wasn't profitable.

The team size per game might not be that much bigger than PD, but they had a lot less cars to model. PD made more cars with interiors between GT5 and GT6 than Codemasters did in total for Autosport.

I have to be honest I know pretty much nothing about SMS or how PCars is being made.

As far as someone making huge amounts of money off of GT, It's Sony. Sony owns PD and the budget PD gets to make the games isn't directly linked to how much the game makes because of it. Now, they might get bonuses or something if the games reach certain milestones. Think of any other product, The team that made the VW Golf don't get paid per Golf sold.

 

[PAPPACLART]

It's pretty disappointing that we have we will have touched up cars from 2 generations behind being using current gen. I understand the logistics behind 1000s of premium cars but this president is now here for good. The financial gain of selling another game every couple of years whether finished or not is just too good for developers, finishing a game is not financially viable anymore at at least for PD with the giant logistical hole that they have dug themselves. It does not help now that especially with PS4, so much more is possible, with the extra power on tap, not to mention that game budgets for a long time now rival Hollywood movies. To be financially viable games in most cases have to ship every couple of years otherwise the numbers don't add up.

GT5 was half baked, and really is still not a complete game. GT6 released minus many features that even GT5 had, is another game incomplete and now we will get GT7 on PS4, a game that will no doubt release with likely less features than GT6. Will all tracks be premium or some will look good while others not? I will go with the latter. I am still waiting for the community features for GT6 promised in January.

PD will keep doing this and despite the whining from us we will still go out and buy 10 million GT7s regardless of standards, less features, bugs etc, so yes they will keep at it.

This is it now, we the gamer have allowed this trend of half finished games being sold as final versions as we keep buying them. Last complete game we got from PD was GT4, those days are now over.

For me personally, as much as being an Beta tester for PD, will go and buy GT7 regardless of what state it is in, as what it will have vs what it wont as it will still be more than worth it.

 

[SimTourist]

The other key difference is that T10 doesn't throw in features that are half done or affect the game negatively when it comes to performance. Many people cry how FM doesn't have night or weather, but the truth is 360 couldn't handle at the same 720p/60fps mark with no drops. At the same time PD thought let's throw both dynamic lighting and weather into a PS3 game and let's have it work at 1280*1080p on a system with 256 mb of VRAM. framerate? What framerate? What do you mean drops to 20 fps are unacceptable in a racing sim? We are polyphony, we know better and these two will look good on the back of the box.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The difference being that if Codies weren't working on multiple games, they couldn't afford to hire that many people. They need the income from multiple games to pay for that large team.

Polyphony makes one game, has the largest known budget for racing games, and at worst has the second highest after the unknown budget of the Forza series.

Say for argument's sake that a Codies team for one game is about 200 people. A little bigger than Polyphony but not so different.

Then look at the sales of any Codemasters racing game, and compare it to the 10+ million sales of GT5. How on earth are Codies managing to keep bigger teams running than Polyphony on such a greatly reduced income? Something doesn't add up.

Hell, last time I checked SMS was near a hundred staff. On a budget of ~$5 million. While making probably as many new assets as we saw in GT6, if you take into account cars and tracks. How are they doing that?

If you want to take Forza, let's assume that their budgets are around about the same size as Gran Turismo. I have no idea, to be honest, but it seems reasonable that they're at least in the same ballpark. Both are system selling exclusives, so I imagine both Sony and MS put a similar value on them. The FM team is what, 400~ish people now? And with sales of half what GT5 did, how are they making ends meet on that one?


I feel like someone at Polyphony and/or Sony is getting very rich by saving an awful lot of money on staff salaries. It just doesn't add up when you look at the way other studios are funded and run. Something smells fishy.

That's why I don't give them a pass for team size. If everyone else can have the same or larger teams on substantially reduced budgets and incomes, then so can Polyphony.

Add to that, that in the time it took GT to make GT5 and GT6, T10 pumped out 5 full Forza games + 1 Forza Horizon (and one more coming soon), and was ready to go with the next gen Forza 5 on day 1. One of the big advantages of having a bigger team.

 

[SimTourist]

Add to that, that in the time it took GT to make GT5 and GT6, T10 pumped out 5 full Forza games + 1 Forza Horizon (and one more coming soon), and was ready to go with the next gen Forza 5 on day 1. One of the big advantages of having a bigger team.

I believe their full time team is of comparable size to PD. All the extra staff comes from contractual workers and outsourcing companies located mainly in asia where the workforce is cheaper. T10 outsources their cars, tracks, certain car sounds when a particular car can't be obtained in the US and others. Also they use a lot of middleware like Fmod, Drivatar, their IBL lighting, etc.

 

[H3avyM3tal]

No, you didn't.

The question was "How does having less staff allow a company to make a game with more content?"

Your answer was "Standard cars and tracks is how."

That is not an answer. You've got it backwards. Standard cars and tracks allow a company with less staff to make a game with more content.

Your answer should be "Having less staff allows a company to [insert answer here] to make a game with more content."

If English isn't your first language then this could be tricky, but the distinction in causality is important.

Having less staff allows a company to [re-use existing assets (as in standard cars and tracks) in order] to make a game with more content.

Is that better teacher?

 

[Imari]

Think of any other product, The team that made the VW Golf don't get paid per Golf sold.

You'd be surprised. Most of the team won't, but managers of certain design and engineering groups probably do.

Having less staff allows a company to [re-use existing assets (as in standard cars and tracks) in order] to make a game with more content.

Is that better teacher?

No, because a team with a larger staff can reuse just as much content as a team with a small staff.

 

[H3avyM3tal]

No, because a team with a larger staff can reuse just as much content as a team with a small staff.

It is an answer (a correct one), whether you like it or not.

Every team can reuse as much content as they like. Small teams benefit from that as well, and depending on time-tables, may (or may not) benefit from it more.

You can argue semantics as much as you like, but don't throw around assumptions of your own while ignoring others'.

 

[Vspectra]

The other key difference is that T10 doesn't throw in features that are half done or affect the game negatively when it comes to performance. Many people cry how FM doesn't have night or weather, but the truth is 360 couldn't handle at the same 720p/60fps mark with no drops. At the same time PD thought let's throw both dynamic lighting and weather into a PS3 game and let's have it work at 1280*1080p on a system with 256 mb of VRAM. framerate? What framerate? What do you mean drops to 20 fps are unacceptable in a racing sim? We are polyphony, we know better and these two will look good on the back of the box.

The 360 was powerful enough to do night racing without affecting the framerate, but Turn10 didn't even bother to add at least one night track. It seemed to be more of a technical ability of the coders and artists considering Rallisport Challenge 2 on the original fat Xbox had night racing at a locked 60fps, and it looked fantastic as well as provide more of a challenge and diversity to the tracks. Again, next gen hardware arrived, and Turn10 still didn't even deliver one single night track, and the Xbox One is more than capable of doing it.

And while GT5 and 6 don't run at a locked 60fps, it sure as hell doesn't run at an average of 20 fps. The game hovers above 45-50+ fps the majority of the time. If you wanted a locked 60fps, go play Forza. But I'm glad that PD was ambitious enough and actually managed to get a realistic day to night transition on last gen hardware and gave us a taste of next-gen racing. Driving on Nurburgring with the dynamic 24h lighting engine was the most immersive driving experience in a videogame when it released, and the framerate held up more than fine. This is still incredible to this day, GT5 even runs extremely smooth after all the updates.



GT6 made it look even better with the cloud simulation. And after having played the game to take this pic, the framerate was a non-issue. Just don't turn on the rain effects.

 

[Zelalem]

The 360 was powerful enough to do night racing without affecting the framerate, but Turn10 didn't even bother to add at least one night track. It seemed to be more of a technical ability of the coders and artists considering Rallisport Challenge 2 on the original fat Xbox had night racing at a locked 60fps, and it looked fantastic as well as provide more of a challenge and diversity to the tracks.

Different engine, different game, different physics engine, different polygoncount on cars, different graphics, and son on.

Again, next gen hardware arrived, and Turn10 still didn't even deliver one single night track, and the Xbox One is more than capable of doing it.

1. Not true

2. They have already said that time was the problem and i am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But with Horizon 2 coming out this year, there is almost no reason for Forza 6 to not include night racing. GT6 is an impressive game if we talk about graphics, but it struggled with the framerate. Gameplay and quality are more important as quantity or pushing the hardware to far in my opinion. Don't you think it is wired that PD tries so much, as seen in your stunning picture and is willing to include standard cars in the game?

 

[shurnster]

Or people can look past standard cars? Maybe they dont purchase them? Maybe they even... like them? Thats not bad. No one's opinion is correct. People dont seem to understand that and post excuses for their side. F-that. Just say you mind or dont mind. Arguments over things like this is just a time killer. Its like some think theyre going to force their opinion on others and make them 'fall in line' with their views. Just get a kick outta that!

How can you look past standard cars if you're racing against them? We all have opinions, which is fine. I personally think there shouldn't be a difference between standards and premiums for the PS4 title. When I played GT5P, I quite enjoyed that game, because the graphical quality was definitely consistent. The cars had just about the right balance for my gaming needs. Having standard cars returning on a next gen title is unacceptable in my opinion.

 

[SimTourist]

The 360 was powerful enough to do night racing without affecting the framerate, but Turn10 didn't even bother to add at least one night track. It seemed to be more of a technical ability of the coders and artists considering Rallisport Challenge 2 on the original fat Xbox had night racing at a locked 60fps, and it looked fantastic as well as provide more of a challenge and diversity to the tracks. Again, next gen hardware arrived, and Turn10 still didn't even deliver one single night track, and the Xbox One is more than capable of doing it.

And while GT5 and 6 don't run at a locked 60fps, it sure as hell doesn't run at an average of 20 fps. The game hovers above 45-50+ fps the majority of the time. If you wanted a locked 60fps, go play Forza. But I'm glad that PD was ambitious enough and actually managed to get a realistic day to night transition on last gen hardware and gave us a taste of next-gen racing. Driving on Nurburgring with the dynamic 24h lighting engine was the most immersive driving experience in a videogame when it released, and the framerate held up more than fine. This is still incredible to this day, GT5 even runs extremely smooth after all the updates.

T10 wouldn't deliver just one single night track because again that creates disparity in content, with their standards of quality they will either make all the tracks available with night or none at all. T10 doesn't give themselves liberties to create uneven quality content or even smallest compromises in framerate.
Second, 40 fps is not acceptable for a serious sim racer, it creates uneven response to controls and distracts the player from the race. And one of the reasons I play Forza is indeed a rock solid 60 fps, and this target is rarely achieved by developers, even on current gen we've seen it mostly in Nintendo's games, because 60 fps requires a lot of dedication to refining the code and polishing the engine in such a way that the load on it is consistent and there are no sudden spikes that cause slowdowns. It's not exactly hard to throw all the rendering technologies in and call it a day, much harder to make steady improvements while maintaining the same target on same hardware. And something is really messed up with how PD's engine spreads the load on the PS3, because the game manages to drop frames even with one car on track even on tracks with pre baked lighting.

 

[rickykaka3]

The votes says it all, i'm out. iRacing and Assetto Corsa i'm coming.

 

[IceMan PJN]

Before GT5 there was nothing so I wouldn't complain about what he gives us, in the end its better than nothing. The glass is half full, not half empty,.

This isn't such a great argument. We are talking about a product people pay for, which should have value, but that value drops as product quality drops. If I'm hungry and paying for a dinner, don't take a dump on a plate and charge me what you would for a steak dinner. I won't pay steak price for a poo poo platter. If PD wants to offer a product with reduced quality, they should sell it for reduced price. Slap GT7 with a MSRP of $30 on day one, new.

 

[Vspectra]

Different engine, different game, different physics engine, different polygoncount on cars, different graphics, and son on.

rallisport 2 = original xbox
Forza 2-4 = xbox 360

The 360 was 15 to 20 times more powerful than the original xbox. Technical limitations wasn't the issue for why Forza 2-4 didn't have night racing.

1. Not true

Context, we were referring to the Forza games on the 360 and onwards.

2. They have already said that time was the problem and i am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But with Horizon 2 coming out this year, there is almost no reason for Forza 6 to not include night racing. GT6 is an impressive game if we talk about graphics, but it struggled with the framerate. Gameplay and quality are more important than quantity or pushing the hardware to far. Don't you think it is wired that PD tries so much, as seen in your stunning picture and is willing to include standard cars in the game?

The framerate isn't locked, but that doesn't mean GT6 isn't a quality game or that the gameplay sucks because of the inclusion of dynamic lighting. It's actually quite the opposite. While I got bored racing on the same circuits with the same look over and over in the Forza games, GT managed to give me another option in gameplay with the weather and day to night transitions. The biggest problems with GT6 lies in design decisions around online aspects, A.I. design, and sounds. The inclusion of standard cars aren't that big of a deal. You can choose to use them or not. During a race, you can barely tell which car is standard. And there's no proof that removing the standards would give us more quality cars, we already have 450 premiums to play with.

 

[trustjab]

How can you look past standard cars if you're racing against them? We all have opinions, which is fine. I personally think there shouldn't be a difference between standards and premiums for the PS4 title. When I played GT5P, I quite enjoyed that game, because the graphical quality was definitely consistent. The cars had just about the right balance for my gaming needs. Having standard cars returning on a next gen title is unacceptable in my opinion.

I cant pretend to pay attention to the quality of car my opponents drive. I just try to pass them. Everyone has their view. And in their opinion, its the right view. Saying its not the right view is more opinion, not fact.

 

[Zelalem]

rallisport 2 = original xbox
Forza 2-4 = xbox 360

The 360 was 15 to 20 times more powerful than the original xbox. Technical limitations wasn't the issue for why Forza 2-4 didn't have night racing.

Why wasn't Uncharted in 60FPS, because some games already did 60 FPS on Xbox or PS2? Well. different game, different graphics, and so on. Most importantly different goals from the developer. T10 used the hardware for other stuff and then dynamic night racing didn't worked anymore. PD used the hardware for night racing and made a very good job for the ps3 limitations. One more reason why standard cars doesn't make sense at all. It's almost as Kaz as an twin brother, which wants quantity and the other wants to achieve the impossible.

The framerate isn't locked, but that doesn't mean GT6 isn't a quality game or that the gameplay sucks because of the inclusion of dynamic lighting.

I've never said the gameplay or game is bad

 

[SimTourist]

The 360 was 15 to 20 times more powerful than the original xbox. Technical limitations wasn't the issue for why Forza 2-4 didn't have night racing.

PS3 was 40 times more powerful than PS2, technical limitations weren't the issue for why GT5/6 didn't have locked 60 fps and cars ported from PS2.

 

[shurnster]

I cant pretend to pay attention to the quality of car my opponents drive. I just try to pass them. Everyone has their view. And in their opinion, its the right view. Saying its not the right view is more opinion, not fact.

True. Can't disagree with you there.

 

[Imari]

It is an answer (a correct one), whether you like it or not.

It is not a correct answer.

Having less staff does not allow a team to reuse old content. Having old content allows a team to reuse old content.

There is no connection between team size and the ability to reuse old content. Any team can do it. It would be more correct to say that breathing in and out allows a team to reuse old content, because at least that is a requirement to do so.

So would you like to try again?

 

[SimTourist]

Also Forza always had much higher amount of detail in the tracks, more geometry and better textures. So if they downgraded all that to GT level, completely chucked out their sound engine, allowed their engine to drop frames as low as 20 fps in worst condition, they could've easily made night and weather on 360. But the questions is would you really want them to make the compromises mentioned above in order to achieve the questionable experience that GT5/6 offered. Complete with jaggied shadows that draw 1 meter away from you and low rest alpha effects like smoke and dust?