Microtransactions Have Arrived in Gran Turismo Sport

[MisterOne77]

In all honesty, I'm just gonna wait and see how things play out. I also pray that the MT system already in place doesn't get any worse.
For now, I prefer that MT's weren't in the game but as long as I don't feed into them there isn't anything lost on my end. The fact that we were lied too leaves me feeling a bit salty though.

 

[AKbizzy]

Just going to leave this here because this is clearly a 🤬 move by PD and Sony.

"Do not waste your money on microtransactions in GTS" better donate to him on patreon or paypal.
Of course, when Kaz said that there would be no microtransactions in GTS and the appearance of them in almost after a year looks stupid, but these microtransactions in general did not affect the economy in GTS, If you are annoyed by the inscription about the possibility of buying a car for real money , they can be disabled in options.

 

[danh25]

Again, let me reiterate: Kaz lied. He went up to fans and customers, said that there wouldn't be microtransactions. Now we are at this point. If you cannot see why that this entire crux of the argument, AKA what this thread has been about for the ten pages it has been up, is what is being talked about, then I really don't know what to say except that it's absolutely sad.

The fact that I have 'complained' about GT in the past is irrelevant to the discussion being had, and really goes to show that this debate, as it pertains to Forza and GT, is incredibly tribalistic, and more often then not, having one side bash the other, yet staying suspiciously and hypocritically silent when the other does the exact same thing.

I understood your point very well but now I ask you, even if Kaz has lied (you should also contextualize the gravity of the lie), what changes in fact for the game? will it hurt someone by chance?

So what is your point? that Kaz lied releasing at the end of the bland microtransitions and we all have to rebel and kill kaz?

Come on, we try to see the context of things and not the simple words because everyone in here was expecting this move, ergo all this controversy I'm finding the classic hysterical controversy of the internet.

 

[Silver Arrows]

I understood your point very well but now I ask you, even if Kaz has lied (you should also contextualize the gravity of the lie), what changes in fact for the game? will it hurt someone by chance?.

No, but it is a trust issue, as stated up thread. If a developer is very much willing to break what was said publicly in press releases then there should be reason for criticism, especially in something as hotly contested as micro-transactions. But then again, this issue of trust is moot when you consider how many times Kaz has either stretched the truth, or outright lied to fans of the GT series since arguably GT4 at minimum.

If you aren't seriously willing to look at what this does to fan trust, then frankly, you just highlight the overall point: that GT fans have a nasty, tribalistic habit of criticizing other series in what they do, yet cannot look inward and criticize what their own developer does.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

I'm not overly fussed about the introduction of the new system.
It seems totally inconsequential to my game (and others), and only provides an option for those, whom for whatever reason, decide to purchase a car as opposed to playing the game to earn the Credits instead.

I've been fortunate to have had plenty of opportunity to play the game, so this isn't something I would be interested in.
Essentially the only cars I don't have are cars worth more than 2mill, and the odds of me getting the 20mill. cars seem slim, but it isn't something I'm losing sleep over.

It does seem a weird decision to me though.
Why now, and why in this fashion?
Clearly a financial decision, be it from SONY or PD or both, which I guess is understandable, but it's disappointing to see PD open themselves up for criticism in this way.

If there is a need to monetize, then what's wrong with having "normal" DLC car packs now and then, with 7 or 8 cars and priced at $4.99?

Perhaps you can help me out.

I've previously seen many people on this board, and also this thread, say they would be happy to pay for DLC.
So this would be a group of cars that can only be bought with real money, and those not willing to pay the money simply have no way to access those cars. Period.
Plus, should one of those cars initially happen to be OP for it's group, I can already hear the cries of "pay-to-win".

And yet here is a system that's been introduced that offers nothing more than an option to purchase cars with real money, cars that can already be won or purchased with Credits in-game if you choose, cars that everyone can have in their Garage, and yet it seems some people regard this system as the work of the devil.


I find it hard to follow the logic here.

 

[Vspectra]

If other racing games had MTs, they would get slated to hell and back, so why should PD and Sony get away with it? No "AAA" game should ever be immune from criticism over MTs, even if its a game people enjoy very much.

Name another racing game that has given out 8 months straight of free DLC cars/tracks/updates, and more possibly coming given we still haven't reached the 500 car count goal.
And please do explain why paid DLC would be a more honorable and legitimate means of revenue monetization for the dev team compared to this implementation of microtransactions, which doesn't even affect how you play the game.

This particular implementation of MTX seems to be a way they're trying to create revenue to further supporting their dev team/artist post-development and possibly more free DLC without alienating the fanbase who don't want to pay for DLC, and you aren't forced to use it, the game economy isn't changing or designed around it. Polyphony already tried paid DLC cars and tracks with GT5, and also tried an unintrusive MTX that doesn't affect how you play the game with GT6 where they were also able to give out free cars and tracks. Just seems like they found the GT6 route the better way in doing post-launch support, and I'm sure they and Sony know about the controversy regarding microtransactions. Everyone seems to be okay with paid DLC (as am I), but you know paid DLC also had its controversy at the start of last-gen, where devs abused it by making you pay for content already on the disc. Now we've gotten to a point where paid DLC is fair and a way to support the dev team post development of a game. MTX doesn't have to be abused (and people will know immediately when it is), it also can be fair like it is here in GTS, it all depends on the implementation.

From GT facebook:
• Vehicles costing Cr. 2,000,000 or less can now be purchased directly through the PlayStation Store and Brand Central, in addition to standard in-game purchases
• All vehicles will remain available for purchase with in-game credits; no vehicles will be exclusively available through paid DLC

From Kaz:
However, to keep things fair and balanced for our existing players, all cars can still be purchased with in-game credits as before; there are no cars that are only available for cash, and nothing will change in the way you currently earn cars, or the present car system.
Furthermore, GT Sport’s priciest vehicles can only be bought with the in-game currency – meaning drivers will still have to prove their ability and effort out on the track to acquire the very best cars on offer.

It's pretty clear they know about why MTX is frowned upon and are careful with this implementation, like how most devs now are careful with how they do paid DLC. This MTX isn't pay-to-win, the current game would play the exact same as before if it were never even introduced. But as soon as any gamer these days hear the word Microtransactions there's an outrage, just look at Forza 7 and the word lootbox.

 

[GT6mebe]

Or, to go several steps backward, at launch FM7 included the FXX K, P1, P1 GTR, 911 Turbo, BAC Mono, TVR Sagaris, and the '17 Ford GT just to name a few — where are those cars in GT Sport?

What does this have to do with the free DLC support GTS has gotten for 6 months.

Absolutely not.

You still have not answered why a new car model would not count as new content lmao

...But it’s the same car

Is the PS3 Mazda 787B the exact same model as the PS4 Mazda 787B? PD have done some work on it.

It may be new content to the game, but it isn’t really new to the franchise as a whole.

Sure.

Either those two facts are highly coincidental, or they're related.

Definitely related.

Good to know. Does that definition apply to all games?

Depends on the game. For instance if there was a GTS2 on the PS4 that copy and pasted all of GTS models then its clearly not new content.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2018/07/15/gt-sport-player-base-reaches-5m/#dAx45q4qP2EbuKgf.99


https://www.windowscentral.com/forza-horizon-3-crosses-9-million-players-xbox-one-and-pc

5>9

Active player count =/ total player count
FH number includes the free demo accounts as well.

 

[TokoTurismo]

"Do not waste your money on microtransactions in GTS" better donate to him on patreon or paypal.

And ignoring the patreon and paypal part in the video, he did include a video of Kaz and Translator-San being in a press conference where he mentions if microtransactions was to be included, and Kaz saids no. It's one of the reasons why I included it. Another it was related to this thread.

Of course, when Kaz said that there would be no microtransactions in GTS and the appearance of them in almost after a year looks stupid, but these microtransactions in general did not affect the economy in GTS, If you are annoyed by the inscription about the possibility of buying a car for real money , they can be disabled in options.

It may not affect the economy in GTS, but it does encourage you to use real money to purchase virtual cars under 2 million if you're tired of grinding for credits, which GTS is sadly known for at the moment. Another method PD could have used is add in Log-in Bonus into the game, similar to GT5/6 which gave you lots of credits the more you kept logging in each day. And although you can disable it (which is nice), it doesn't change the fact that PD went behind their word and included MTs into their game after few months after GTS's release.

I'm not saying PD shouldn't be supported. It's just PD could have done something a lot more better than to do, 'this'. Supporting this will only encourage PD to rely on MTs to gain money quicker. It's probably why when GT6 got bashed for including MTs, PD added back log-in bonuses and Seasonal Events. Or make buyable DLC packs at the very least.

 

[-Fred-]

You still have not answered why a new car model would not count as new content lmao

If you've been able to play with that car for the past 6 titles, over 3 different generations of console, and said car is added after release to the new title, is it really a new car? If to you it is, then your definition of new is clearly flawed. The Ford Raptor is a new car, the R32 GT-R is not. Simple as that.

 

[kjeldsen]

Name another racing game that has given out 8 months straight of free DLC cars/tracks/updates, and more possibly coming given we still haven't reached the 500 car count goal.
And please do explain why paid DLC would be a more honorable and legitimate means of revenue monetization for the dev team compared to this implementation of microtransactions, which doesn't even affect how you play the game.

This particular implementation of MTX seems to be a way they're trying to create revenue to further supporting their dev team/artist post-development and possibly more free DLC without alienating the fanbase who don't want to pay for DLC, and you aren't forced to use it, the game economy isn't changing or designed around it. Polyphony already tried paid DLC cars and tracks with GT5, and also tried an unintrusive MTX that doesn't affect how you play the game with GT6 where they were also able to give out free cars and tracks. Just seems like they found the GT6 route the better way in doing post-launch support, and I'm sure they and Sony know about the controversy regarding microtransactions. Everyone seems to be okay with paid DLC (as am I), but you know paid DLC also had its controversy at the start of last-gen, where devs abused it by making you pay for content already on the disc. Now we've gotten to a point where paid DLC is fair and a way to support the dev team post development of a game. MTX doesn't have to be abused (and people will know immediately when it is), it also can be fair like it is here in GTS, it all depends on the implementation.

From GT facebook:
• Vehicles costing Cr. 2,000,000 or less can now be purchased directly through the PlayStation Store and Brand Central, in addition to standard in-game purchases
• All vehicles will remain available for purchase with in-game credits; no vehicles will be exclusively available through paid DLC

From Kaz:
However, to keep things fair and balanced for our existing players, all cars can still be purchased with in-game credits as before; there are no cars that are only available for cash, and nothing will change in the way you currently earn cars, or the present car system.
Furthermore, GT Sport’s priciest vehicles can only be bought with the in-game currency – meaning drivers will still have to prove their ability and effort out on the track to acquire the very best cars on offer.

It's pretty clear they know about why MTX is frowned upon and are careful with this implementation, like how most devs now are careful with how they do paid DLC. This MTX isn't pay-to-win, the current game would play the exact same as before if it were never even introduced. But as soon as any gamer these days hear the word Microtransactions there's an outrage, just look at Forza 7 and the word lootbox.

Paid DLC is OK for single player content but it sucks for multi-player games. With every DLC the player base gets reduced and those that bought the DLC gets a game that dies slowly.
At least that is often the case

I think that PD did a very balanced job with this and I hope it will fuel more content.

 

[Terronium-12]

What does this have to do with the free DLC support GTS has gotten for 6 months.

Because you saw fit to leap to the game's defense when it adopted microtransactions, presenting the fact that its 6 months of free DLC as if it were a token example in the genre. I'm going to tell you again: stop jumping to its defense. No one is going to congratulate you for this; no one is going to reward you.

Majority of GT Sport's DLC is returning (read: not new, no matter how ignorant you wish to be to the differences between the two) content, and it now has microtransactions despite an earlier claim that no such service would make way. Though, and I'm doing this for your own benefit: a returning car, as in to recur after a period of absence, is not a new car.

 

[huiop2]

First-timer here.

Anyway, I enjoy the game. But I can't stand the fact that some people blindly defend it and/or the developer just because we're given free DLCs. These people make it sound like we should be thankful for the free DLCs and anyone who dares critisize the game is entitled.

However what these people keep forgetting is that this is an AAA game that charges you for the full price of a typical AAA game except when it goes on sale (but what game dosen't?). Yet at release there's a severe lack of content, lack of cars, lack of tracks and not even an offline career mode. In other words, given the state the game was in at release it didn't deserve that full price tag (PCars 2 may have even fewer cars but we get a huge amount of tracks with day/night cycle and dynamic weather system, Forza 7 on the other hand has 700+ cars and also more tracks with dynamic weather system). Therefore it's only reasonable that we should't have to pay for these DLCs. They should've been in the game at release but they weren't. Now I'm not saying all DLCs of this game should be free, absolutely not, if they decide to bring us some extras like a season pass than I'm more than happy to pay, just not for the contents that should've been there at release. Am I entitled? Yeah probably...

As for the microtransaction I don't really have a problem with it, it's not like they are forcing us to use our hard earned money on the cars. Microtransaction isn't a bad thing as long as it's not about pay-to-win and not forced.

 

[Giygas]

I am quite disappointed by the inclusion of MT. I understand that hard decisions have to be made as they ultimately have to make money to exist, but this is the wrong move to make.

 

[Islaygaz]

I'm sorry, but I have to at some of these "greed" posts. Did you guys think Polyphony was some collective full of starving artists that only make racing games for the love of racing? That they don't care about profits? Polyphony's goal is to make as much money as possible with nearly everything they do. Sony has the same goals. This is 100% normal. These are businesses. I never understand people that get so upset when companies do things to try and make money. You (we) have all the power as consumers. If companies make poor DLC implementations, like in Star Wars Battlefront, then the community pushes back and companies adjust. This is a good thing. But we can't expect companies not to try things like this. The key IMO is how they do these implementations, are they fair/balanced, etc. Look, in a perfect world, there would be no micro-transactions but that ship sailed long ago....as long as there are people willing to pay for this stuff, then these kinds of markets will continue to exist.

As for Polyphony's take on micro-transactions; I really don't see the big problem here. Isn't this simply an option for people with more disposable income? Personally, I wouldn't pay for cars, but that's my choice. If people want to spend their money on them then so what? How is it all that different from spending hours upon hours grinding to buy these in-game? In one case you sacrifice your money, in the other it is your time; it's a personal choice for each gamer. IMO, Polyphony seemed to have made a fair micro-transaction system. You can shut the option off, no competitive advantages are gained, etc.

I mean....a petition?!? Good lord.

I know! How dare a business try to turn a profit!!!

Anyway, my take on it all is like others have said it’s all optional. All cars that can be purchased in the PS store are easily obtainable through gameplay! So it doesn’t bother me one bit. I can understand people getting upset if...

They added a car that was only obtainable through the PS store that was required for a specific race e.g. if the Merc W08 was only in the store, so yo u couldn’t complete the GT League event.

Note: notice I didn’t use the term Microtransaction

 

[AlanH49]

I've previously seen many people on this board, and also this thread, say they would be happy to pay for DLC.
So this would be a group of cars that can only be bought with real money, and those not willing to pay the money simply have no way to access those cars. Period.
Plus, should one of those cars initially happen to be OP for it's group, I can already hear the cries of "pay-to-win".

And yet here is a system that's been introduced that offers nothing more than an option to purchase cars with real money, cars that can already be won or purchased with Credits in-game if you choose, cars that everyone can have in their Garage, and yet it seems some people regard this system as the work of the devil.


I find it hard to follow the logic here.

There’s no logic or much understanding how business and plans change over the years. Reading some responses you’d think Kaz had personally offended and betrayed their family. More bizzare are suggestions it would be better to charge everyone for DLC. The result would be players out of pocket or excluded.

As it is all DLC is free, the game’s economy is generous, and the games community united. Thank goodness some of these guys aren’t doing business for me. I’d be out of pocket!

 

[Terronium-12]

I do wonder if PD could have avoided this by offering paid DLC, though that would open an entirely different can of worms I suppose.

 

[Islaygaz]

I do wonder if PD could have avoided this by offering paid DLC, though that would open an entirely different can of worms I suppose.

As far as I can tell the community’s biggest issue is the fact Kaz said there would be none but now there is!

 

[-Fred-]

the game’s economy is generous

Is it? Not having played the game I therefore can't really speak for the others, but the general concensus around here seems to be that people have a very different opinion on that matter. Having played 5 of the previous GT titles however, I can certainly say that a "generous game economy" has never been something I've found particularly true, and while GTS has taken the franchise into a completely different direction, some things don't really change.

 

[Giygas]

I do wonder if PD could have avoided this by offering paid DLC, though that would open an entirely different can of worms I suppose.

Yeah I don't think that would go over too well. I do think its curious that you don't rent cars for sport mode like how you could for the weekly races in GT6 however.

 

[McLaren]

Active player count =/ total player count

Post the numbers for both then.

FH number includes the free demo accounts as well.

Lol, there’s not enough numbers there to make up the difference it has on GT Sport.

 

[Vspectra]

First-timer here.

Anyway, I enjoy the game. But I can't stand the fact that some people blindly defend it and/or the developer just because we're given free DLCs. These people make it sound like we should be thankful for the free DLCs and anyone who dares critisize the game is entitled.

However what these people keep forgetting is that this is an AAA game that charges you for the full price of a typical AAA game except when it goes on sale (but what game dosen't?). Yet at release there's a severe lack of content, lack of cars, lack of tracks and not even an offline career mode. In other words, given the state the game was in at release it didn't deserve that full price tag (PCars 2 may have even fewer cars but we get a huge amount of tracks with day/night cycle and dynamic weather system, Forza 7 on the other hand has 700+ cars and also more tracks with dynamic weather system). Therefore it's only reasonable that we should't have to pay for these DLCs. They should've been in the game at release but they weren't. Now I'm not saying all DLCs of this game should be free, absolutely not, if they decide to bring us some extras like a season pass than I'm more than happy to pay, just not for the contents that should've been there at release. Am I entitled? Yeah probably...

As for the microtransaction I don't really have a problem with it, it's not like they are forcing us to use our hard earned money on the cars. Microtransaction isn't a bad thing as long as it's not about pay-to-win and not forced.

That is more of Polyphony's issue not wanting to outsource. GT6 had full dynamic time of day and weather system, 400 or so premium cars, lots of tracks, and they still gave you free DLC cars, tracks, and features post-launch, things they could have charged.

Forza 5 was also skimpy on content at launch and still made you pay for DLC car packs $10 each, including cars already in the previous games. So yes, forgive me if I'm thankful Polyphony didn't go this route and actually gave us significant free post-launch DLC, including already 4 tracks, 3 of which were remade to PS4 quality and don't look like they came from PS3/PS2 games.

Polyphony didn't even announce the DLC would be free before or even at release before any DLC even came out to entice you into buying the game. Kaz said he wanted 500 cars in the game and people were already expecting DLC to be paid because providing 300 free cars made to PS4 quality just isn't financially feasible for a company that doesn't want to outsource.

 

[ImaRobot]

Active player count =/ total player count
FH number includes the free demo accounts as well

Source please.

 

[Brend]

Personally I wouldn't mind paid DLC over this type of thing, assuming it was totally new content to the franchise. That's one area I think GTS is sorely lacking in post release support, especially when it has come to new cars and real world tracks.

Putting entitlement aside though, I can't deny that the level of support since release has been incredible. Just wish there was more of a focus in getting new series-first content to us.

 

[Lord of Tranz]

Curious, as I'm yet to start on these bad boys. (And with another added).

How long will it take to get 75m credits to buy the 2 Ferrari's, Lambo, and Jag?

Use the quickest way available of course, just simple hours is all I'm curious over.

(For the average player, not an alien that can beat the average by a good 5 seconds a lap or some crazy stuff like that, lol. A casual gamers approach, how long we talking?)

 

[AKbizzy]

And it's so funny to watch that this thread turned into a war for a Forza fans when motorsport 7 is clearly very poorly sold, they let horizon 3 into the battle, which was released in September 2016 on 2 platforms (with Play Anywhere).

 

[Vspectra]

You still have not answered why a new car model would not count as new content lmao

If you've been able to play with that car for the past 6 titles, over 3 different generations of console, and said car is added after release to the new title, is it really a new car? If to you it is, then your definition of new is clearly flawed. The Ford Raptor is a new car, the R32 GT-R is not. Simple as that.

Several of the cars like this that were in the previous games most absolutely should be considered new content. Same car for the past 6 games but it's obvious they had to completely remake it from scratch to modern standards as if it were a new car to the series. That's the same amount of time a modeler/artist would have been spent on a completely new car from 2018, employees Polyphony have on their payroll. I suspect a lot of returning cars are coming out earlier than new-to-series cars because Polyphony already has all of the photo/video research and laser scan data to have gotten an earlier start on creating them.

 

[Vekta]

im pretty disappointed with MTs, although it wont change the game for me, the problem really is that kaz said there would be no MTs in the game. if he didnt said that i wouldnt mind, if it was in the game since launch i wouldnt mind either

luckily they are not really bad, as nothing is locked behind a paywall, and tbh i dont mind the grinding

the thing about the 20m cars tho, i think if they put those to buy with cash, people would complain that the cars are ultra expensive so they are "forced" to pay cash for it

Curious, as I'm yet to start on these bad boys. (And with another added).

How long will it take to get 75m credits to buy the 2 Ferrari's, Lambo, and Jag?

Use the quickest way available of course, just simple hours is all I'm curious over.

(For the average player, not an alien that can beat the average by a good 5 seconds a lap or some crazy stuff like that, lol. A casual gamers approach, how long we talking?)

takes 40h to get 75m with the blue moon bay method

 

[Lord of Tranz]

takes 40h to get 75m with the blue moon bay method

Thx dude.

 

[McLaren]

And it's so funny to watch that this thread turned into a war for a Forza fans when motorsport 7 is clearly very poorly sold, they let horizon 3 into the battle, which was released in September 2016 on 2 platforms (with Play Anywhere).

It’s so funny watching the same people act as if they would commit seppuku for GT.

 

[Northstar]

Several of the cars like this that were in the previous games most absolutely should be considered new content. Same car for the past 6 games but it's obvious they had to completely remake it from scratch to modern standards as if it were a new car to the series. That's the same amount of time a modeler/artist would have been spent on a completely new car from 2018, employees Polyphony have on their payroll. I suspect a lot of returning cars are coming out earlier than new-to-series cars because Polyphony already has all of the photo/video research and laser scan data to have gotten an earlier start on creating them.

If a band remasters an album, do you consider it a brand new release?