Make all cars available from the start?

[niky]

Then...why doesn't GT7 work like GT3? Have a large portion of the cars available in arcade mode, then make them easier to unlock in GT mode. Done. Seems like a much better alternative then implementing a policy that nearly 2/3rds of the fanbase doesn't want.

There are those that seem convinced that the only two options are to have everything unlocked, or to keep things the way they are in GT6. Which just isn't the case. GT has enough cars to throw them at players for everything without leaving nothing left worthy buying. That'll be more true than ever when GT7 launches.

No, that's nearly 2/3rds of the voters on the poll. That's hardly the entire fanbase.

People who come to GTPlanet are typically more "hardcore" than your typical player. Just for kicks, see what some players here thought of "Arcade mode" in GT3: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gran-turismo-or-arcade-mode.19267/#post-471554

Further, people who frequent the GT7 forum are those who typically liked GT5 and GT6, and who are looking forward to whatever comes next. Some who didn't don't come in as often as they would have back in the GT4, GT5P and GT5 days.

People who come to this topic are those who've bothered to play GT6 quite a bit, and who have a definite opinion on the subject.

People then look up the topic, and are given a very stark choice. Either give everyone everything, or don't. "Don't" can mean anything from giving people a tiny amount of cash; a starting car; a few starting cars; a few starting cars and easy prize cars; or anywhere from 1% to 99% of cars available.

Giving them "Everything" means giving them everything. Not something everyone is willing to commit to. In fact, I could go either way.

Personally, I don't mind starting with just one car. Or none. BUT:

I'm sick of modern game dynamics that force you to grind simply to progress. In previous GTs, it didn't feel like a grind, though the huge percentage of 24 hour races in GT4 meant that getting 100% was a delicate proposition unless you had an air-conditioned game room and your PS2 next to an exhaust fan!

GT5 was a grind. A slogging, boring grind full of pointless races and poor event design.

Based on that, I say: Viva la Revolucion. Let Gran Turismo be all about the racing, as it should be.

I don't race for trophies or to show off cars online to people I don't know. I race simply to race. Which is why I logged so many hours in GT4 and GT5 in cars nobody else cared much about. I savor the challenge of learning the quirks and nuances of each and every car (which is why I've gotten a job doing so in real life). The Daihatsu Midget II. The Schwimmwagen. The Benz Patent wagon. The Tank Car. The Classic VW Beetle.

There is no other game series out there that gives you such a variety of cars with such relatively good driving physics.

But if GT is supposed to be an Encyclopedia of cars, it doesn't make sense to lock away 20% of the pages behind a wall that requires players to re-read the first 80% fifty times in a row.

-

TL;DR: Hey, I'd have no problem doing it your way. But the poll gave me an all or nothing choice, so I voted all.

 

[ironman44321]

No, that's nearly 2/3rds of the voters on the poll. That's hardly the entire fanbase.

People who come to GTPlanet are typically more "hardcore" than your typical player. Just for kicks, see what some players here thought of "Arcade mode" in GT3: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gran-turismo-or-arcade-mode.19267/#post-471554

Further, people who frequent the GT7 forum are those who typically liked GT5 and GT6, and who are looking forward to whatever comes next. Some who didn't don't come in as often as they would have back in the GT4, GT5P and GT5 days.

People who come to this topic are those who've bothered to play GT6 quite a bit, and who have a definite opinion on the subject.

People then look up the topic, and are given a very stark choice. Either give everyone everything, or don't. "Don't" can mean anything from giving people a tiny amount of cash; a starting car; a few starting cars; a few starting cars and easy prize cars; or anywhere from 1% to 99% of cars available.

Giving them "Everything" means giving them everything. Not something everyone is willing to commit to. In fact, I could go either way.

Personally, I don't mind starting with just one car. Or none. BUT:

I'm sick of modern game dynamics that force you to grind simply to progress. In previous GTs, it didn't feel like a grind, though the huge percentage of 24 hour races in GT4 meant that getting 100% was a delicate proposition unless you had an air-conditioned game room and your PS2 next to an exhaust fan!

GT5 was a grind. A slogging, boring grind full of pointless races and poor event design.

Based on that, I say: Viva la Revolucion. Let Gran Turismo be all about the racing, as it should be.

I don't race for trophies or to show off cars online to people I don't know. I race simply to race. Which is why I logged so many hours in GT4 and GT5 in cars nobody else cared much about. I savor the challenge of learning the quirks and nuances of each and every car (which is why I've gotten a job doing so in real life). The Daihatsu Midget II. The Schwimmwagen. The Benz Patent wagon. The Tank Car. The Classic VW Beetle.

There is no other game series out there that gives you such a variety of cars with such relatively good driving physics.

But if GT is supposed to be an Encyclopedia of cars, it doesn't make sense to lock away 20% of the pages behind a wall that requires players to re-read the first 80% fifty times in a row.

-

TL;DR: Hey, I'd have no problem doing it your way. But the poll gave me an all or nothing choice, so I voted all.

That...actually makes a good bit of sense haha. Though personally, even though I don't want things to stay the way they are. I'd rather keep them the same than just say, **** it, everything is unlocked from the start.

I've been thinking about what you said about GT3 a bit more though and think that could really work. There are roughly 80 A-Spec events in GT6 not including Goodwood, Red bull, Senna, ect. Bump that to about 100 in GT7, and give away a car for each one. GT5 did it, but it only had 54 events and those weird levels that made getting from one, to the other more difficult.

By the time you've finished GT mode you'd have 100 or so cars from a wide range of vehicle classes without having to spend a dime of the money you've earned doing it. That's more cars than some racing game have in total.

I also think it would benefit greatly from some adjustments to the games economy...but that's another discussion I think.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then...why doesn't GT7 work like GT3? Have a large portion of the cars available in arcade mode, then make them easier to unlock in GT mode. Done. Seems like a much better alternative then implementing a policy that nearly 2/3rds of the fanbase doesn't want.

There are those that seem convinced that the only two options are to have everything unlocked, or to keep things the way they are in GT6. Which just isn't the case. GT has enough cars to throw them at players for everything without leaving nothing left worthy buying. That'll be more true than ever when GT7 launches.

If you believe that then you haven't read this thread.

 

[ironman44321]

If you believe that then you haven't read this thread.

So nobody thinks that? Not one person? Oops , my mistake then. Sorry.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So nobody thinks that? Not one person? Oops , my mistake then. Sorry.

Maybe some poeple feel that way...that it is an either or thing. Most of us would just like a choice, more ways to play the game. It is an offline and an online world these days, plus so many of us have played the career mode before we'd just like some different ways to approach the game.

 

[Exorcet]

Have a large portion of the cars available in arcade mode, then make them easier to unlock in GT mode. Done. Seems like a much better alternative then implementing a policy that nearly 2/3rds of the fanbase doesn't want.

First off there is already a suggestion that should have 100% support (which is have GT Mode and then have Free Mode), so I don't really see why we need an alternative at all.

Secondly, I still don't understand why there is this dire need to have unlocks in games. If you want to play with them, that's fine. Why should anyone else?

There are those that seem convinced that the only two options are to have everything unlocked, or to keep things the way they are in GT6.

The people that are certainly no on that list are those asking for a Free Mode with everything available. The entire point is do away with PD's very narrow and at this point very old and worn progression scheme. Instead of that, let the players play how they want.

 

[ironman44321]

First off there is already a suggestion that should have 100% support (which is have GT Mode and then have Free Mode), so I don't really see why we need an alternative at all.

Secondly, I still don't understand why there is this dire need to have unlocks in games. If you want to play with them, that's fine. Why should anyone else?


The people that are certainly no on that list are those asking for a Free Mode with everything available. The entire point is do away with PD's very narrow and at this point very old and worn progression scheme. Instead of that, let the players play how they want.

And yet it doesn't. Now, I spent a good bit of time explaining this earlier in the thread. But I can only explain the reasoning, I can't make people understand it. There is plenty of debate about it a few pages back. You likely won't agree with me, but maybe you'll have better luck understanding the point of view than others have had. But I really have no interest in debating about it again.

Good.

So why are you disagreeing with the notion of having all cars being unlocked at the start? It's a way of improving the game for a handful of people. What is the benefit of keeping the game as is?

You, on the other hand. Asked a very good question that I never responded to. I'm not sure if you still care at all, but here's my answer anyways.

My own, personal reasons for not being fond of the idea stem from a few things.

First, I'm all for crowd funding games, less so with crowd developing games. This might sound odd, but I'm of the belief that a game should be what the developer wants first, and what the gamer wants second. With any form of artistic medium, I think the products success should be based on the consumer connecting with the creators vision, not the creator trying to give the consumer what he thinks they want.

Now, of course there are going to be concessions and I think developers have an obligation to take consumer feedback and work to improve. But I don't believe in tearing a game in a million directions hoping to appease everybody.

Secondly, by the time GT7 launches there will already be a game for people who want to have all of the cars right away available on the PS4. A game that many here advocating having all cars seem to be primed and ready to start playing regardless of what direction GT7 goes in. I don't think that just because some games in a genre have an idea that works, that every other game in the genre needs to follow suit.

Thirdly, I feel that giving the option to circumvent such a major part of the game lowers the pressure to improve GT Mode and by proxy, the AI. I'd hate for any potential progress made towards making GT mode better to stagnate because PD diminishes it's importance.

That's what I have, at least for now. Really sorry I didn't respond sooner and I hope that clears up any confusion. Feel free to ask more questions aswell.

 

[Johnnypenso]

First, I'm all for crowd funding games, less so with crowd developing games. This might sound odd, but I'm of the belief that a game should be what the developer wants first, and what the gamer wants second. With any form of artistic medium, I think the products success should be based on the consumer connecting with the creators vision, not the creator trying to give the consumer what he thinks they want.

Can't argue with that. Some people like stuff as it is off the shelf, some like to tinker. I would think that most car guys are on the "tinker" end of things, car culture being what it is, customization, upgrades etc.

Now, of course there are going to be concessions and I think developers have an obligation to take consumer feedback and work to improve. But I don't believe in tearing a game in a million directions hoping to appease everybody.

Two directions, not a million. And it's not to appease everybody, it's recognition that online and non-structured gaming is a growing segment of the marketplace and a place that many GT customers would like to be. It's growing with the market, maturing, becoming a game the moves with the times, rather than being stuck in 1999.

Secondly, by the time GT7 launches there will already be a game for people who want to have all of the cars right away available on the PS4. A game that many here advocating having all cars seem to be primed and ready to start playing regardless of what direction GT7 goes in. I don't think that just because some games in a genre have an idea that works, that every other game in the genre needs to follow suit.

Of course each game should have their own thing. But in fact, adding the option of all cars from the start, while simultaneously running the Career Mode in the traditional GT way would put GT in a unique position in the marketplace since no other game does that. So this wouldn't be copying anyone, it would be innovative. It would be the first game to acknowledge that an offline career is important, but that the game must also cater to experienced users that aren't interested in the career or who just want to race online. The two can remain wholly separate and integral parts of the game quite easily.

Thirdly, I feel that giving the option to circumvent such a major part of the game lowers the pressure to improve GT Mode and by proxy, the AI. I'd hate for any potential progress made towards making GT mode better to stagnate because PD diminishes it's importance.

They've had 15 years of a single path through the game and it has the worst career mode of any racing game ever. How much worse do you think it would get by having the option of all cars? Either they are going to work on the offline or they are not, there is no proof whatsoever or logic that offering all the cars from the start would affect that in any way. The majority of people still play offline and will continue to do so. The pressure is really on the opposite. Make the offline portion of the game more engaging to attract more people to the game for longer periods. The offline career of Project Cars promises to be full length and engaging with massive customization of races and opponents. It's competition that will spur PD to improve, not operating in a vacuum like they've been the last 15 years on the PS.

This is the kind of fun thing that happens when you give people freedom in a game. You can't tell me this doesn't look like the most fun ever!!

 

[Tornado]

But I really have no interest in debating about it again.

That's amusing, since up until this point you've done nothing but rehash that discussion almost to the letter, even repeating the same false dichotomy about what people want (after niky gave a second and distinct explanation for why the voting may not reflect actual views) and propping up the poll results as proof (when the poll is essentially worthless for reasons even beyond what niky said above). Hell, you went so far as to avoid essentially the same question from then (why is what is being argued as a win-win scenario being so vehemently argued against) with the same manner of subtlety until you actually gave reasoning yourself.



Don't give yourself too much credit. There was nothing confusing about your points from earlier. Everyone does have a right to express an opinion. But hall90 has done a fantastic job over dozens of posts in several threads showing exactly why not everyone's opinion is of equal value to a discussion. And no matter how many times you allude to it, it is impossible to argue against an opinion when it isn't expressed unless you're comfortable with the chance of strawmanning people.
And your hypocrisy lies in how you take issue with people who want everyone to be able to have fun with the next game (which, for the third time, has been the overwhelming opinion with those arguing for the idea in both threads, instead of just getting rid of GT Mode) and dismiss reasoning against them when it has no substance (or when it isn't actually expressed), but are perfectly alright with people who just stonewall objectively false reasoning to argue against it.

Thirdly, I feel that giving the option to circumvent such a major part of the game any with the pressure to improve GT Mode and by proxy, the AI. I'd hate for any potential progress made towards making GT mode better to stagnate because PD diminishes it's importance.

With PD's recent frequent solution towards responding to criticism by essentially removing the thing people criticized rather than doing anything to improve it, this is a pretty reasonable objection to the idea. All the more so because that's essentially what they did with GT5's career, since they seemed to think that because they had a tacked online mode it didn't matter how barebones offline was.



But if they take "option to have cars available at start" as "pretty much give up improving offline play", there are far deeper problems with PD as a company than any one option could possibly cause.

 

[ironman44321]

That's amusing, since up until this point you've done nothing but rehash that discussion almost to the letter, even repeating the same false dichotomy about what people want (after niky gave a second and distinct explanation for why the voting may not reflect actual views) and propping up the poll results as proof (when the poll is essentially worthless for reasons even beyond what niky said above). Hell, you went so far as to avoid essentially the same question from then (why is what is being argued as a win-win scenario being so vehemently argued against) with the same manner of subtlety until you actually gave reasoning yourself.



Don't give yourself too much credit. There was nothing confusing about your points from earlier. Everyone does have a right to express an opinion. But hall90 has done a fantastic job over dozens of posts in several threads showing exactly why not everyone's opinion is of equal value to a discussion. And no matter how many times you allude to it, it is impossible to argue against an opinion when it isn't expressed unless you're comfortable with the chance of strawmanning people.
And your hypocrisy lies in how you take issue with people who want everyone to be able to have fun with the next game (which, for the third time, has been the overwhelming opinion with those arguing for the idea in both threads, instead of just getting rid of GT Mode) and dismiss reasoning against them when it has no substance (or when it isn't actually expressed), but are perfectly alright with people who just stonewall objectively false reasoning to argue against it.



With PD's recent frequent solution towards responding to criticism by essentially removing the thing people criticized rather than doing anything to improve it, this is a pretty reasonable objection to the idea. All the more so because that's essentially what they did with GT5's career, since they seemed to think that because they had a tacked online mode it didn't matter how barebones offline was.



But if they take "option to have cars available at start" as "pretty much give up improving offline play", there are far deeper problems with PD as a company than any one option could possibly cause.

Those two bolded lines are exactly why this discussion has turned into a marry go round of nonsense. it's also, oddly enough, the very reason I left this thread two months ago.

You just don't get it. You think the suggestion you're advocating is a win-win for everybody. Exorcet even described it as something that should have 100% support. The discussion can't move forward because you can't wrap your head around the fact that there's even opposition to your position. The fact that there is opposition, and that you have people in this thread debating that there shouldn't be an option to have all of the cars available at the start. Means that it isn't a win-win for everybody.

Also, where exactly did I dismiss someone who wants the option to have all of the cars unlocked? Show me an example of my hypocrisy.

I'm also going to ask you to defend your last line. My concern, is that if PD adds a way to avoid A-spec altogether, then community pressure to improve it decreases. If that happens, the incentive, and therefore likely hood. That it improves, goes down. I'm worried that such an option will cause a shift in priorities. That isn't the symptom of some holistically broken company, it's a rather natural shift in priorities.

Can't argue with that. Some people like stuff as it is off the shelf, some like to tinker. I would think that most car guys are on the "tinker" end of things, car culture being what it is, customization, upgrades etc.

Two directions, not a million. And it's not to appease everybody, it's recognition that online and non-structured gaming is a growing segment of the marketplace and a place that many GT customers would like to be. It's growing with the market, maturing, becoming a game the moves with the times, rather than being stuck in 1999.

Of course each game should have their own thing. But in fact, adding the option of all cars from the start, while simultaneously running the Career Mode in the traditional GT way would put GT in a unique position in the marketplace since no other game does that. So this wouldn't be copying anyone, it would be innovative. It would be the first game to acknowledge that an offline career is important, but that the game must also cater to experienced users that aren't interested in the career or who just want to race online. The two can remain wholly separate and integral parts of the game quite easily.

They've had 15 years of a single path through the game and it has the worst career mode of any racing game ever. How much worse do you think it would get by having the option of all cars? Either they are going to work on the offline or they are not, there is no proof whatsoever or logic that offering all the cars from the start would affect that in any way. The majority of people still play offline and will continue to do so. The pressure is really on the opposite. Make the offline portion of the game more engaging to attract more people to the game for longer periods. The offline career of Project Cars promises to be full length and engaging with massive customization of races and opponents. It's competition that will spur PD to improve, not operating in a vacuum like they've been the last 15 years on the PS.

This is the kind of fun thing that happens when you give people freedom in a game. You can't tell me this doesn't look like the most fun ever!!

"Tinkering" isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I'd rather PD's next meeting about GT7 start with "what would be a cool thing to add to the game?" or "How can we improve the game?" not, "what's popular in the genre right now?".

What I meant by "a million different directions" was that I don't think GT is a game for everybody. I don't think it caters to every play style and I don't really think it needs to. I know you're a big proponent of giving players options, and letting them choose how they want to play through the game. I just don't think GT needs to be everything to everyone. GT has it's place in the market, and I would rather see them gain success by being a better Gran Turismo, rather than trying to be every racing game all rolled into one.

My second point, though I do mention every game having it's own thing. Its primarily about Project Cars. I assume, that you plan on buying PCars when it launches in March. That game, will allow you to play online right away with any of the cars in the game. Actually, many of the stand out features of PCars are the very things you've been advocating for GT. So my point is, if you can already play the way you'd like to play with another game on the same platform that you already plan on getting, why does GT need to also fulfill those needs?

Now, of course I understand that there are differences between GT and PCars beyond just having all cars unlocked, or career progression. But why is the pressure on GT to adopt features from PCars? Especially when GT has other, arguably larger issues to work on. On top of that, they're different games. There is always going to be a trade off.

My last point isn't about it getting worse, because it's pretty bad now. It's about it not getting better. My concern, is that PD adding a way around A-spec will mean that they've given up on it. That they'll just leave it as is and whoever likes it can play it, and anyone who doesn't can just avoid it.

We don't 100% disagree on the idea of an event creator, though I think we differ on it's roll and implementation. But really that's another topic for another time I think.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm of the belief that a game should be what the developer wants first, and what the gamer wants second.

The devs can satisfy themselves quite easily since they're the ones coding the game. If there are two ideas that aren't mutually exclusive, why not have both? Again we're not in a position where we have to choose one or the other.

With any form of artistic medium, I think the products success should be based on the consumer connecting with the creators vision, not the creator trying to give the consumer what he thinks they want.

So PD adds GT Mode and then they add Free Mode and you've got PD offering their vision and you got a bunch of consumers getting what they know they want. Also, if you really believe this, then why complain about GT Mode stagnating? Maybe it's PD's vision to launch the same game over and over again.

Now, of course there are going to be concessions and I think developers have an obligation to take consumer feedback and work to improve. But I don't believe in tearing a game in a million directions hoping to appease everybody.

A Free Mode is simpler than GT Mode. In fact Free Mode probably exists before GT Mode in every game because the devs need to test the game and I'm sure they don't have to go unlocking a car before testing it in game.

If devs are obligated to take feedback, this is a pretty quick and easy bit of coding to do. It leaves the game as they may want it completely in tact. It leaves the players drawn to the original idea unaffected. It attracts other players who see potential in the game, but couldn't make use of the potential before with the original game design.

Secondly, by the time GT7 launches there will already be a game for people who want to have all of the cars right away available on the PS4. A game that many here advocating having all cars seem to be primed and ready to start playing regardless of what direction GT7 goes in. I don't think that just because some games in a genre have an idea that works, that every other game in the genre needs to follow suit.

This is not about other games. If GT existed in a vacuum this thread would play out the same. Free Mode is being asked for because it's a good idea, and it's a good idea in GT. Not because game X has it.

Also I don't understand why you wouldn't take a good idea from another game, barring development time, which is zero for Free Mode. If the game's selling point is that it has less features than the competition, that doesn't sound promising.

Thirdly, I feel that giving the option to circumvent such a major part of the game lowers the pressure to improve GT Mode and by proxy, the AI. I'd hate for any potential progress made towards making GT mode better to stagnate because PD diminishes it's importance.

Telling PD to keep everything the same and not to bother with simple ideas to improve the game sounds like a much better way to stagnate the series. The same series that has done the bare minimum to advanced itself over 6 games. Really, this point sounds like one I should be making, not you.

I'm tired of GT stagnating as a poorly thought out arcade game when it could be a decent racing simulator. For those tired of GT Mode being the same thing it's always been, they benefit from Free Mode satisfying the racers because it leaves GT Mode all to them. I remember when GT5 seasonal payouts were reduced. Many were not happy because it meant playing GT Mode longer. If those people didn't need to bother with GT Mode, then PD gets to set credit payouts to satisfy those who want lower payouts without compromise. Everyone wins.

The discussion can't move forward because you can't wrap your head around the fact that there's even opposition to your position.

There is obviously opposition. That's why I continue to post. The problem is not accepting it's there, it's the reasoning behind it which is extremely difficult to understand.

"I want a good GT Mode"

A suggestion comes up to supply a game with a good GT Mode, but there is also a Free Mode.

"No, I don't like that idea because I want a good GT Mode"

You are getting what you want. To anyone looking at this from the outside it looks like you just don't want other people to get what they want. You did mention just now that you worry about Free Mode making GT Mode stagnate, but that sounds pretty silly given that PD has left GT to stagnate since day 1 and that if PD wants to try to satisfy people (sell games) with one mode, it needs to be full of compromise.



The fact that there is opposition, and that you have people in this thread debating that there shouldn't be an option to have all of the cars available at the start. Means that it isn't a win-win for everybody.

I'm also going to ask you to defend your last line. My concern, is that if PD adds a way to avoid A-spec altogether, then community pressure to improve it decreases.

If PD adds an escape from GT Mode, that would be an example of community pressure to improve. People aren't asking for Free Mode to make the game worse. The suggestion comes up because people want a good game. They see potential in GT and they want PD to tap all of that potential.

If that happens, the incentive, and therefore likely hood. That it improves, goes down.

Why? Will everyone suddenly stop playing GT Mode? If they did then it furthers the idea that GT Mode has always been a waste that no one wanted to play. Looking at GTPlanet though, there would still be plenty of players in GT Mode. They would also have GT Mode all to themselves meaning that their feedback would be all that mattered and they get a better experience for themselves. All thanks to having Free Mode.

I'm worried that such an option will cause a shift in priorities. That isn't the symptom of some holistically broken company, it's a rather natural shift in priorities.

Like Photo Mode did? Like Online Mode did? PD has added new modes in the past and no one seems to be complaining about them. The two I mentioned likely took a lot more effort than Free Mode would.

Speaking about Photo Mode specifically, when did we get it? Was it GT3 or 4? So either immediately after PM was added or at the same time of release, GTP's favorite GT Mode of all time was also released.

You're worried about PD being a bad developer. If that's your concern, then I don't think encouraging them to ignore the consumer is a good idea. The consumers want a good game.

"Tinkering" isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I'd rather PD's next meeting about GT7 start with "what would be a cool thing to add to the game?" or "How can we improve the game?"

Free Mode. Now they can add a new dimension to GT which allows it to function as a race focused simulator. New and better. They can also made GT Mode more focus and hone it to perfection in the eyes of GT Mode players. New and better.

You're trying to push Free Mode aside as some fad. It's not. It's consumer feedback every bit as valid as asking for an improved GT Mode. If PD can't add it and improve GT Mode, they're bad at their job. It's that simple.

What I meant by "a million different directions" was that I don't think GT is a game for everybody. I don't think it caters to every play style and I don't really think it needs to. I know you're a big

proponent of giving players options, and letting them choose how they want to play through the game. I just don't think GT needs to be everything to everyone. GT has it's place in the market, and I would rather see them gain success by being a better Gran Turismo, rather than trying to be every racing game all rolled into one.

The people asking for Free Mode are GT diehards, many of which have followed the game from the beginning. People who use the game are telling PD how to improve it. Not only that, what they want is simple to add. So it's not about trying to make GT do everything. It's again, about improving the game. It also happens that it stands to benefit everyone and I wouldn't consider that a negative. For zero effort, PD broadens the appeal of the game. What is not to like?

My second point, though I do mention every game having it's own thing. Its

primarily about Project Cars. I assume, that you plan on buying PCars when it launches in March. That game, will allow you to play online right away with any of the cars in the game. Actually, many of the stand out features of PCars are the very things you've been advocating for GT. So my point is, if you can already play the way you'd like to play with another game on the same platform that you already plan on getting, why does GT need to also fulfill those needs?

Unless GT and PC turn out to be the same game, then it should be obvious. People don't need to restrict themselves to one game. Also, if PD makes a better game then that is additional pressure on games like PC to improve, which is good.

Now, of course I understand that there are differences between GT and PCars beyond just having all cars unlocked, or career progression. But why is the pressure on GT to adopt features from PCars?

There is no such thing. The pressure is on GT to improve. PC is not relevant to this at all. It's merely an example of the competition that PD likes to ignore or that fans who cringe at anything new being added to GT sometimes like to ignore/don't know about when they discucss game design (example, people saying that unlocks are required in a video game).

Especially when GT has other, arguably larger issues to work on.

The lack of Free Mode is one of GT's larger issues. It's all about perspective.

My last point isn't about it getting worse, because it's pretty bad now.

Yes and I want to change that.

It's about it not getting better.

Yes, which is basically guaranteed when PD gets a free pass to ignore new ideas.

My concern, is that PD adding a way around A-spec will mean that they've given up on it.

That's simply not true. Really one does not logically follow from the other here.

That they'll just leave it as is and whoever likes it can play it, and anyone who doesn't can just avoid it.

What happens when they make the sequel? If they want it to sell, it has to be different. There is a force in place to keep from completely stagnating. There is also a consumer force to make GT accelerate in development as a game rather than slow down. You're fighting the latter. That basically leaves GT as it's always been.

 

[05XR8]

I'm still looking at that AC video

 

[JKgo]

^^ Holy cow that was one long, dedicated post. Whew.

.............Just had a funny realization here: Technically speaking, I believe ALL the cars in GT6 are already available from the start....barring the obligatory Honda Fit purchase of course. No hidden cars anymore, nope.

Soooooooooo..............shouldn't the question be now, ya know, "Is grinding okay or should we blow its lights out?" or "Is credit system relevant or not?" instead??

................Apologies if I sound insane; it happens to me sometimes. Doctors say I'm incurable!!

 

[TayeezSA]

Those two bolded lines are exactly why this discussion has turned into a marry go round of nonsense. it's also, oddly enough, the very reason I left this thread two months ago.

You just don't get it. You think the suggestion you're advocating is a win-win for everybody. Exorcet even described it as something that should have 100% support. The discussion can't move forward because you can't wrap your head around the fact that there's even opposition to your position. The fact that there is opposition, and that you have people in this thread debating that there shouldn't be an option to have all of the cars available at the start. Means that it isn't a win-win for everybody.

Also, where exactly did I dismiss someone who wants the option to have all of the cars unlocked? Show me an example of my hypocrisy.

I'm also going to ask you to defend your last line. My concern, is that if PD adds a way to avoid A-spec altogether, then community pressure to improve it decreases. If that happens, the incentive, and therefore likely hood. That it improves, goes down. I'm worried that such an option will cause a shift in priorities. That isn't the symptom of some holistically broken company, it's a rather natural shift in priorities.




"Tinkering" isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I'd rather PD's next meeting about GT7 start with "what would be a cool thing to add to the game?" or "How can we improve the game?" not, "what's popular in the genre right now?".

What I meant by "a million different directions" was that I don't think GT is a game for everybody. I don't think it caters to every play style and I don't really think it needs to. I know you're a big proponent of giving players options, and letting them choose how they want to play through the game. I just don't think GT needs to be everything to everyone. GT has it's place in the market, and I would rather see them gain success by being a better Gran Turismo, rather than trying to be every racing game all rolled into one.

My second point, though I do mention every game having it's own thing. Its primarily about Project Cars. I assume, that you plan on buying PCars when it launches in March. That game, will allow you to play online right away with any of the cars in the game. Actually, many of the stand out features of PCars are the very things you've been advocating for GT. So my point is, if you can already play the way you'd like to play with another game on the same platform that you already plan on getting, why does GT need to also fulfill those needs?

Now, of course I understand that there are differences between GT and PCars beyond just having all cars unlocked, or career progression. But why is the pressure on GT to adopt features from PCars? Especially when GT has other, arguably larger issues to work on. On top of that, they're different games. There is always going to be a trade off.

My last point isn't about it getting worse, because it's pretty bad now. It's about it not getting better. My concern, is that PD adding a way around A-spec will mean that they've given up on it. That they'll just leave it as is and whoever likes it can play it, and anyone who doesn't can just avoid it.

We don't 100% disagree on the idea of an event creator, though I think we differ on it's roll and implementation. But really that's another topic for another time I think.

I couldn't really articulate the points here in my other posts but this takes the words out my mouth.

 

[ironman44321]

Let me try and clear this up, for everybody's sake. Make sure to correct me if I'm misrepresenting anyone, or any ideas.

You, and others on here are saying. That PD should give the option to have access to all of the cars, tuning, ect. without the need for any in game credits so that people can skip right to playing online without needing to go through A-spec.

The argument is that it is a win-win because PD will be adding a simple option that will allow more people to play the way the want without having any adverse effects on the rest of the game.

Once again, make sure to correct me if I've made any mistakes or if I've missed something.

The counter argument, at least from my perspective, is that there will be adverse effects to other areas of the game. Namely, A-spec mode itself.

So the debate at this point should really be about whether adding the option to skip the in game economy will have adverse effects on the rest of the game.

 

[CBH]

PD should never give an option to have access to all of the cars without earning them unless the cars are available for some events by PD, and that is the Gran Turismo way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Let me try and clear this up, for everybody's sake. Make sure to correct me if I'm misrepresenting anyone, or any ideas.

You, and others on here are saying. That PD should give the option to have access to all of the cars, tuning, ect. without the need for any in game credits so that people can skip right to playing online without needing to go through A-spec.

The argument is that it is a win-win because PD will be adding a simple option that will allow more people to play the way the want without having any adverse effects on the rest of the game.

Once again, make sure to correct me if I've made any mistakes or if I've missed something.

The counter argument, at least from my perspective, is that there will be adverse effects to other areas of the game. Namely, A-spec mode itself.

So the debate at this point should really be about whether adding the option to skip the in game economy will have adverse effects on the rest of the game.

Explain how it will adversely affect the rest of the game given that you will choose to play the way you enjoy the most, presumably through the career, and I will choose the way I enjoy the most, which is to get all the cars and tune and race online.

 

[Riblo72]

PD should never give an option to have access to all of the cars without earning them unless the cars are available for some events by PD, and that is the Gran Turismo way.

repetita juvant??? keep repeating it and maybe one day you will believe it...

 

[CBH]

Why do you want to choose the way you want to play the game for @Johnnypenso it should be only one way to play the game only the Gran Turismo way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why do you want to choose the way you want to play the game for @Johnnypenso it should be only one way to play the game only the Gran Turismo way.

I guess you weren't very happy when they added online racing to GT5 then eh Hall? After all, racing exclusively offline was the Gran Turismo way from GT1-4 or more than 10 years. I can't imagine how bitter you are about that massive change to the series. You must be apoplectic about the Seasonal Events which didn't exist in GT1-4, with their massive payouts that completely obliterate the need for grinding that was the Gran Turismo way for 10+ years along with making a complete mockery of the payouts in GT mode and the economy in general. MicroTransactions you say? Paying for credits? That's just not the Gran Turismo way, you have to earn it!!!! How dare Kaz allow people to pay for credits!!!! Those people are so lazy!!!

 

[Tornado]

You just don't get it. You think the suggestion you're advocating is a win-win for everybody

You already tried this argument before. Absent any justification to the contrary, which it took 13 pages into the thread for someone to actually provide without jumping to humongous strawman arguments or "true fan" fallacies or dictating what they consider fun on other people or circular logic or even well-intentioned arguments that simply fall apart under scrutiny, there's no reason to act like it isn't. The big list of posts you quoted all fell under the above, for the reasoning I gave in response to you posting it; and you blowing it off because you were too cool for school doesn't make any of the reasoning displayed in those posts any more valid 3 months later when repeated by others.




The mere fact that opposition exists towards the idea is irrelevant if the loudest voice of opposition is 3 dozen posts where one guy says something that was shown to be objectively false over and over and over again, when he's not busy doing the same thing in any other thread that talks about potential changes to future GT games. The mere fact that opposition exists towards the idea is irrelevant if the reasoning given for the opposition immediately crumbles under any scrutiny, and the fact that the thread just kept humming right along after you left shows that some of the reasoning against is actually being examined and debated in detail rather than simply dismissed because it's a win win so everyone should just accept it.


Going a bit deeper:

The counter argument, at least from my perspective, is that there will be adverse effects to other areas of the game. Namely, A-spec mode itself

The problem being that that's not a counter argument anyone in this thread has actually defended until you posted your reasoning above. Let's go all the way back to the beginning:

Just find it funny that your reasons for wanting something are more valid than the oppositions reasons for not wanting it.

Why aren't they?


What makes this garbage:

PD should never give an option to have access to all of the cars without earning them unless the cars are available for some events by PD, and that is the Gran Turismo way.

Why do you want to choose the way you want to play the game for @Johnnypenso it should be only one way to play the game only the Gran Turismo way.

In GT7 if you need a car to race for that event whether it is offline or online, you have to buy it and if you have not got enough credits for that car well you just have to grind for it, and that is the way it should be for ever in the GT series.

There will not be a button that gives you access to all the cars from the beginning you have to earn them, and that is the correct way to go about it and not your way Johnny is ridicules.

Repeated 30 more times as the thread wore on, as valid as a detailed breakdown for responding to concerns about the idea? When someone posts an idea and the response explains how it is false, why is the false idea equally valid? When people in this thread talk about concepts like game difficulty or sense of achievement or noobs getting cars they shouldn't have and ruining online play or etv., why are direct comparisons to functionality that is already in the game (and previous GT games) that cause the same problem swept under the rug in favor of just repeating the initial arguments? Other games have functionality very similar to what is being talked about here and also perfectly functional "main" modes, so why is asserting GT will be ruined if such a thing happens taken at face value but the posts questioning the idea ignored?




You have yet to answer that, and until you do you're doing little more than posturing.

Also, where exactly did I dismiss someone who wants the option to have all of the cars unlocked? Show me an example of my hypocrisy.

Every time you presented the thread as being strictly about the Either/Or question the poll asks rather than what most of the people have actually been arguing for, for starters. You even acknowledged as much:

You are talking about something more specific than the topic of the thread or the poll. You're saying we should have an option to unlock all of the cars at the start of the game. The thread/poll topic is simply should they all be unlocked at the start of the game.

Yeah, we weren't talking about the poll options. Most of the people in favor of the idea were never talking about the poll options. So repeatedly referring to the poll as proof people don't want something that isn't really being discussed or the poll options as being the two choices people are presenting in this thread pretty much just is you blowing off what the people are actually saying.


Your opening salvo back into the discussion stands out an awful lot as well:

Uuuuhhh....That's not really up to you is it? It's up to the person saying it would be less fun for them...I agree with him. It would kind of spoil it if you could just choose to have everything unlocked at the start of the game. Think of it in terms of trophies

A thread full of people telling others what the most fun way to play a Gran Turismo game is and why such an option would go against that, and you drop everything and jump on Exorcet of all people for saying that someone else can't dictate what is fun in relation to him?

I'm also going to ask you to defend your last line. My concern, is that if PD adds a way to avoid A-spec altogether, then community pressure to improve it decreases. If that happens, the incentive, and therefore likely hood. That it improves, goes down. I'm worried that such an option will cause a shift in priorities. That isn't the symptom of some holistically broken company, it's a rather natural shift in priorities.

It's only a natural shift in priorities of something actually takes the traditional GT modes place for their focus. They don't need to do it, so they'll focus on something else. But what is the something else? Implementing a Free Mode or beefing up Arcade mode or whatever doesn't do that because not a lot has been actually been needed to improve GT mode since GT5. The online mode of GT5 wasn't anything amazingly impressive for its time, or even compared to what the series had already done, but they still took it as a pretext to basically gut the offline mode and then pad it out to a certain length. GT6's online was even worse until just a short while ago, and rather than a comprehensive redesign of GT5's structure they instead moved some deck chairs around and make the game even worse offline (AI in particular) in some places.


It doesn't seem to me that priorities are the issue at hand.

 

[Northstar]

The counter argument, at least from my perspective, is that there will be adverse effects to other areas of the game. Namely, A-spec mode itself.

If they followed the Forza model, A-Spec wouldn't be effected at all.

If you haven't played any of the newer Forza's, you have access to all the cars to use in Arcade as well as any online racing. However, if you want to use them in the career mode, paint them or tune/upgrade non-race cars you must buy them via the traditional methods. This seems to work rather well and the career mode still gets plenty of attention, plus you don't have to worry about not liking the super expensive cars as you get to test drive them.

Plus, the biggest detriment with A-Spec is the crappy A.I. As it currently stands, the only reason I have even bothered with it is because of the need for credits, the main thing I do in GT is time trials.

PD should never give an option to have access to all of the cars without earning them unless the cars are available for some events by PD, and that is the Gran Turismo way.

I always thought the "Gran Turismo way" was pushing new boundaries and making the competition play catch up. Granted it's been awhile since that has been the case.

 

[ironman44321]

Explain how it will adversely affect the rest of the game given that you will choose to play the way you enjoy the most, presumably through the career, and I will choose the way I enjoy the most, which is to get all the cars and tune and race online.

I explained it a little in an earlier post, I responded to you with this.

"My concern, is that PD adding a way around A-spec will mean that they've given up on it. That they'll just leave it as is and whoever likes it can play it, and anyone who doesn't can just avoid it."

To expand on that, the worry I have is that PD will look at the cost/benefit of making A-spec better as opposed to just letting players skip it, and decide that the extra benefit of improving the A-spec to a significant degree isn't worth the significant increase in resources it would take.

If PD were to greatly improve A-spec AND provide an option to let players have all of the cars at the start, I'd be okay with that.

To answer the question @Tornado had, I really don't think PD would have any trouble finding something else to spend their time and money on instead of A-spec. It's not like they have the time and man power to spare.

 

[ironman44321]

If they followed the Forza model, A-Spec wouldn't be effected at all.

If you haven't played any of the newer Forza's, you have access to all the cars to use in Arcade as well as any online racing. However, if you want to use them in the career mode, paint them or tune/upgrade non-race cars you must buy them via the traditional methods. This seems to work rather well and the career mode still gets plenty of attention, plus you don't have to worry about not liking the super expensive cars as you get to test drive them.

Plus, the biggest detriment with A-Spec is the crappy A.I. As it currently stands, the only reason I have even bothered with it is because of the need for credits, the main thing I do in GT is time trials.



I always thought the "Gran Turismo way" was pushing new boundaries and making the competition play catch up. Granted it's been awhile since that has been the case.

As far as car availability goes that would be my preference. But the plan being suggested would be to give players the option to avoid the game economy altogether.

I also wouldn't really listen to Hall...he's passionate, but not so logical.

 

[CBH]

I guess you weren't very happy when they added online racing to GT5 then eh Hall? After all, racing exclusively offline was the Gran Turismo way from GT1-4 or more than 10 years. I can't imagine how bitter you are about that massive change to the series. You must be apoplectic about the Seasonal Events which didn't exist in GT1-4, with their massive payouts that completely obliterate the need for grinding that was the Gran Turismo way for 10+ years along with making a complete mockery of the payouts in GT mode and the economy in general. MicroTransactions you say? Paying for credits? That's just not the Gran Turismo way, you have to earn it!!!! How dare Kaz allow people to pay for credits!!!! Those people are so lazy!!!

If someone want to use Micro-Transactions for credits well it up to the player whether they buy them or not for the game.
You should never have an option to have all the cars available for nothing in Gran Turismo series, it is just not the right way to go and if you do not like that way in a game well don't play it.

 

[Northstar]

if you do not like that way in a game well don't play it.

As much as I hate to bring up sales numbers, I kind of have to in order to prove a point.

Currently, GT6 is the worst selling full title in the history of the franchise (only about 3 million copies), even GT5P has sold more copies. I'm not so sure telling players to go play something else if they don't like the way the game is set up is a very wise thing to do business wise, unless they want Sony to shut them down after GT7 that is.

 

[CBH]

As much as I hate to bring up sales numbers, I kind of have to in order to prove a point.

Currently, GT6 is the worst selling full title in the history of the franchise (only about 3 million copies), even GT5P has sold more copies. I'm not so sure telling players to go play something else if they don't like the way the game is set up is a very wise thing to do business wise, unless they want Sony to shut them down after GT7 that is.

I am not talking about sales numbers, please get it right ok.

 

[Northstar]

I am not talking about sales numbers, please get it right ok.

I don't think you got my point so I will try it again.

PD cannot afford to have another game with sales figures like GT6 has had. Therefor telling potential customers to go play some other game isn't a wise choice, especially when it's something as simple as making all the cars available for use right away (doubly so when you consider that one of the main competitors also has a livery editor, regular DLC and a trading system, all things that have been asked for quite a bit).

I understand people want to show off how good they are at a video game, but when it comes to racing games that usually happens on the track, not a virtual garage. Hell, I currently have both the Red Bull X cars and the new Chaparral in my garage (as does everyone else probably), neither of those mean anything though as I'm worthless behind the wheel of both.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If someone want to use Micro-Transactions for credits well it up to the player whether they buy them or not for the game.
You should never have an option to have all the cars available for nothing in Gran Turismo series, it is just not the right way to go and if you do not like that way in a game well don't play it.

Just skipped right over all the other points I made. 👍

 

[photonrider]

I can't imagine how bitter you are about that massive change to the series. You must be apoplectic about............ people are so lazy!!!

Please . . . cease and desist.

There is no need to paint a picture of the poster.
Just address the concepts expressed in the post.
Thanks.