Yeah I can't recall the details of those who said they wanted full access from day 1 so it's possible they were talking about some kind of try-before-you-buy arcade mode. Some of them did have the tone of wanting full access/no unlocks without having to do anything beforehand, not even playing through the singleplayer content. Which is fine, people can want whatever they want, but I don't think that's the type of game Gran Turismo has ever tried to be. There has always been a component of progression and unlocks, so expecting the series to deviate entirely from that format is probably unrealistic.
You're correct, that isn't what GT has ever been, but I do think having content unlocked in an arcade mode isn't an idea without merit. Though personally that's not something I've requested, it's not something I'd be against either.
I agree things should be released in a completed state, but having been a gamer for a long time I also know that very rarely happens so I tend not to judge games too harshly on it. It's also why I very rarely buy games on release, fully expecting a period of imbalance and instability. I wish things were different, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Wishing things are different does nothing, but making your thoughts and discontent clear online does, as has been proven by PD's reaction to it in relation to GT7. Maybe if fewer people were passive in this regards, developers would be more disposed to release games that don't rely on future patches as much as they currently do. It's not an excuse to release a full priced AAA title in a poor state. Of course, some things are personal preference. I applaud you for not being dragged into buying games on release, I'm the same with the the rare exceptions.
I agree that playing through the campaign should put you in a position to buy what you need for what level/stage of progression you are on at any given time, i.e. be able to afford a Gr4 car when those races come around, Gr3 car when those races come around, and so on. In my experience that worked pretty well in this game, I never once had to go and repeat anything to earn money to progress while doing the menus and license tests, and in fact probably spent more than I had to in order to just skip some menus by buying the required cars rather than winning them. However I disagree that finishing the singleplayer content once should put you in a position to buy a unicorn. If everyone was essentially handed a unicorn then they would stop being unicorns, and as I pointed out in a previous reply you won't attach any value to the imaginary thing unless you spent real effort achieving it.
You need to put what I'm saying in it's comlete context, the single player currently is far too short, there needs to be a lt more events.So I'm not saying after 100-ish races, you get to afford a 20m Cr car, that would either unbalance the economy the other way, or you'd have to begifted a car or one off Cr prize which doesn't really balalnce the economy well either.
So I definitely agree, you should be able to afford a unicorn car by the end of the single player career (not at least one, not all), but also the single player career is far too short, so it shouldn't be possible in the time it currently takes to complete GT7. There are also far too many cars in GT7 that are pretty useless, as in, there are no events designed for them. It takes very little time to create an event, I have created a large number of custom events for GT5, and I can manage 4 or 5 in a single evening, doing it on my laptop with the TV on.
And while we're at it, most people on the "economy is fine" side of things aren't proponents of grinding per se. If it's a problem when your side of the argument gets misrepresented then it's only fair that you don't misrepresent us.
Personally I don't think it's difficult to afford most cars in the game without engaging in grinding. I mentioned previously that the only grind I do ever is two runs of GT4 at HSR during those days where what I was doing anyway isn't earning me daily mileage. I hope that the no mileage in free practice is a bug that will be patched out by the way!
That's fair enough, I don't mean to misrepresent, but when it takes over 20hrs of grinding the most Cr efficient event (likely over 30 hrours in practice) just to afford a single unicorn car, I find it hard to understand your point of view if you're against grinding yourself.
If you're counting the economy as a whole, then you have to account for the grind it takes to afford any one of the several hyper expensive cars in the game. In fact, to afford every car in the game it will take the average player over 5 years.
Once agin, I dont mean to misrepresent, but I am having a hard time understanding your postion here.
Notice that I said most cars. It's difficult to afford the most expensive cars, and it's also difficult to afford all cars in a short period of time, but as I explained I think the economy right now is working well along the objectives I outlined. Buying all the cars, or buying the most expensive cars, should require a lot of effort.
And just how much effort do you think is reasonable to acquire a single one? Or all of them?
And to head off the question: I don't know whether the current rate is the correct one, or where it should be for all eternity. I think it's good though. I think it achieves the criteria for a good economy.
I disagree that the system is broken, per the criteria I listed previously. I also choose to take the long view and factor in coming updates, but I know you disagree with that philosophy.
That's fine, no one is forcing you to dislike something you like, that's why it's subjective.
Metacritic reports 9,768 ratings, and even if we limit ourselves to the 235,000 confirmed sales of GT7 in the first two weeks and round the reviews up to an even 10,000 they still only represent 4.2% of the playerbase.
So 4.2% of players are represented on metacritic yet we are to take that user score as gospel? I don't buy it.
So you have just under 10k metacritic ratings, which is a sufficient number and overall seeing poor ratings, you have polls also showing poor ratings and you have the social media feedback also voicing widespread discontent with the games economy. Feel free to not buy that, but it's tangiable, claming it doesn't represent users isn't. The fact that you see the same feedback reflected across all platforms and in discussions on here also reflect the same opinions should tell you otherwise.
The question I would like you to answer is why aren't more people who like the economy and game as it is voicing thier opinions and somewhat blaancing out the negative feedback?
According to Surveymonkey, statistically a higher percentage of people give good feedback than negative feedback, so if the userbase were happy with the economy overall, then the scores and freedback would reflect that, not the opposite.
Other sites dealing with statistics relating to feedback scores state people are two to three times more likely to leave a negative score, but don't provide any data for that. However even if you take that metric, that positive is 3 times less likely than positive feedback, that still pushes the positive reviews up to just under 4,000, a far cry from the golden 5:1 positivity ratio desired and still below 50% of the number of negative reviews. And that's just metacritic.
