Paid DLC Content vs Free DLC Content - Which one do you prefer? *Read OP*

[Dave A]

I'm not against paid DLC at all, people deserve to be paid for the content they make but at the same time the content has to deserve to be paid for. However the OP presents a very specific hypothetical situation which I don't think is a realistic scenario. GT7 doesn't have a problem with content you would expect to pay for and the DLC has no bearing on the in game economy, nor would paid DLC be any reason to remove MTX's and change the in game economy in any major way. GT5 and 6 has stingy economies too afterall, and those games weren't propped up with paid DLC (though limited paid DLC was available for GT5).

GT7 suffers massively from issues that are not things you should pay for in order for them to be fixed, lack of a proper career mode and events for example. These things could be fixed quickly without much time, but they aren't by design.

If GT7 introduced a full on career mode and events to my liking I wouldn't pay extra for that, in fact if it introduced that now it would probably entertain me for a while but as I've otherwise completed the game and got most of the cars, the journey (which is the main draw of a career mode like the classic GT's) is gone. It should have been there at launch. The economy would also need work in addition to this.

If they introduced those fixes and then had paid DLC car packs which also added extra events, I would consider paying depending on how much the game was still interesting me as at any time a new DLC pack dropped and how much each pack piqued my interest. If they came up with a paid DLC that added the career mode the game should already have IMO, I wouldn't pay for it. I bought the game afterall, if anything it would damage my opinion of Polyphony.

Of course the cost and content of each DLC pack would be important factors too.

But given the aspects of GT7 that I'm displeased with specifically, if you're asking would I prefer paid or free DLC, free of course. While I am happy to pay for DLC I deem worth of my money, I am still a consumer and prefer my money to remain in my bank accounts where possible.

Where I absolutely abhor the idea of paying for DLC is where content is helpd back with the primary purpose of being released later as paid DLC, we see this in some other game franchises happening far too often for my liking.

 

[Veinz]

It still dosent stop forza motorsport from charging for both cars and tracks

FM is the perfect example of why it sucks. I remember in FM6 they released Homestead with the Nascar dlc and it was only available in the Nascar lobbies if you wanted to race online, which were dead after two weeks anyway. What a waste that was.

A monthly subscription service is an even bigger joke than that. People are nuts for wanting this.

 

[Grimm6Jack]

You seem to be under the impression that shilling money to PD will suddenly increase their production rates by literally 3x!

I also think the same to an extent (if you give them more money, they can hire more staff to work for them... common business practice)... I just proposed a choice.

Imagining you could indeed get about 3x more content if you paid a small fee every month instead of what you get right now for free.

Getting 3 cars per month with 20 minutes - 1 hour worth of races, and a new track every what... 5 months? is hardly anything to make you turn on the console to play the game again after you've completed it.
I don't play online, and looking at the stats, 98% of the people who bought the game also don't do that... I'm saying this before anyone tells me or worse, orders me to play online.

IF, again, IF I were to give 5€ per month for them to give me propper playable content (alongside the other bug fixes and QoL which would be part of the free update obviously), I personally wouldn't think twice.


The best case scenario would be what they did with GT Sport... Give us massive amounts of cars and other events every month or so, for free. But for whatever reason, they are not doing that with GT7.
Who knows, maybe 2023 will be a new resolution for PD, and this came will truly come alive.

I always prefer free content, that's a no brainer, but if I were given the choice to get 3x more content, especially over what we currently get which is next to nothing, but in exchange of paying a small fee of 5€ or so? I would. And this is the question I posted to you all. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I just want to hear people's opinions on this.

 

[TumeK5]

Poll results speak for themselves...

 

[breeminator]

Respectfully, the game is what, £70?

If we include the cost of PS Plus for online play at £50 per year, and assume a 4 year lifespan for the game, it's more like a £250 game. Add £10 a month for the cars and tracks proposed in the OP and it would become a £730 game if it has a 4 year lifespan.

 

[AeonGaiden]

Id pay just for the tracks. Im not someone that is gushing over an even larger car list that I will probably just drive in my own free trial because its never a choice for daily races nor is it powerful enough for single player races which you have already by now probably finished all of them. New tracks for me bring more life back into the game, especially if they started bringing back more fantasy tracks.

 

[Grimm6Jack]

Id pay just for the tracks. Im not someone that is gushing over an even larger car list that I will probably just drive in my own free trial because its never a choice for daily races nor is it powerful enough for single player races which you have already by now probably finished all of them. New tracks for me bring more life back into the game, especially if they started bringing back more fantasy tracks.

More cars are good for custom races though. Saw a few videos of people recreating the 1989 24hr Le Mans with the Group C cars and it was bloody amazing (this was in a lobby, but it can be done offline in custom races), seeing the cars with the liveries (thanks to the livery editor) of the 1989 real life race. The 3 Saubers against the Jaguars, the Mazda 787 (in 1989 it was the 767 but we can put up with just using the 787 since they are similar and have the same livery), the 962C...

I still dream of recreating the 1998 grid with the LMGT1 race cars like the Nissan R390 GT1, Toyota GT-One, Mercedes CLK-LM, Porsche 911 GT1, Panoz GTR-1, McLaren F1 GTR ... Damn what a grid that was. Probably the most beautiful prototypes ever, even above the Group C beauties themselves IMO.

So yeah, more cars are definitely welcomed even if I'm not going to use them all. Besides, it's not for 1 person alone to use them all. I for example maybe like half the cars and will use them, and you like the opposite half and will use them instead, now apply this to all of the players and there will always be a group of people that will give use to any car even the ones you think will not or don't need to be used.

Still, it's better to pay 5 or 10€ for 10 cars and a track, than the same amount for just a track. I do agree with you that tracks do bring more life, since it's a different setting alltogether, but they are also far harder to render and put into the game, which is why I went with a single track every 2 months instead of monthly, and 8 to 10 cars per month which is what we have seen PD do in the GT Sport days (for free at that) and now for some reason they are not doing it.

 

[Tired Tyres]

If we include the cost of PS Plus for online play at £50 per year, and assume a 4 year lifespan for the game, it's more like a £250 game. Add £10 a month for the cars and tracks proposed in the OP and it would become a £730 game if it has a 4 year lifespan.

Final Fantasy 14 has a monthly subscription and doesn't require plus to play. It would be fair to see a subscription for GT7 would work the same way.

 

[FoxMulder]

I just don’t like the slow trickle of content that has taken over with GaaS.

I was fine paying for car packs for years.

 

[FluxWildly]

I'll start by saying I am dead against microtransactions and in game stores (you know the kind that sell cosmetics rubbish) but I would pay for a DLC if the frequency wasn't crazy and if there was a good chunk of content actually added.
Also for the simple fact that it means we get the full game at release instead of this hold back now and drip feed later rubbish we currently have.
This trend of companies releasing half a game and then slowly delivering the rest over time is rediculous

 

[Scuderia Paul]

I wouldn't have an issue paying for some DLC cars but think that circuits should be free as it keeps the community together online. Cars could be a mix of paid and free offerings.

 

[Ande3200]

I doubt they do paid dlc, forza motorsport will most likely have paid dlc, even with Tracks, but considering fm7 did not added a single new track in its life circle i doubt their will be many Tracks added after launch, gran turismo is proably the game that addw most Tracks after launch

 

[Scuderia Paul]

Forza Motorsport 7 is not get one new circuit after launch? That is pretty crazy these days.

 

[SestoScudo]

I prefer Paid content aka Expansions over live service garbage.

DLC started off with good things until it drifted onto the disgrace we see today.

 

[Meythia]

I usually dont buy any stuff that is added later to a game.
Regular payment is something that I only know of from MMO games, and I prefer to stay away of that.

No extra money from me, unless the game has picked my personal 10/10 and then it depends on the nature of the additional content and the pricetag.

 

[Darrenersmit]

I would never vote for paid cars/tracks - you're just splitting the playerbase.

Quite frankly it would be a disaster for lobbies and online in general. You would have people not being able to race certain categories, potential for paid meta cars, stopping people from racing if they don't own a track, Sport Mode being a complete wash because you either split people up loads or don't use DLC content at all (a massive waste in that case), you'd have people kicked out of races/wasting time if the lobby switched to a track people don't own (probably just killing the lobby, and so nobody would use them anyway) - probably people kicking those using DLC cars if they deem it unfair, and so on.
There's countless issues that would destroy the online of the game, which is the whole reason every company moved away from DLC packs in the first place, it's not sustainable for the playerbase.

Respectfully, the game is what, £70? It doesn't need paid DLC nor would it work with the format of the game. On a monthly basis that's ridiculous and is near iRacing tier, for something that would deliver a flawed product.

I doubt they're hurting for money anyway. They are under Sony after all.

I disagree, dirt rally 2.0 had paid dlc I quite happily paid for it. It definitely was worth it in the end kept me entertained no end, only stopped playing because of gt7, and there was plenty of others who paid for the content also

 

[Nebuc72]

I disagree, dirt rally 2.0 had paid dlc I quite happily paid for it. It definitely was worth it in the end kept me entertained no end, only stopped playing because of gt7, and there was plenty of others who paid for the content also

You missed the entire point. Dirt Rally 2.0 is a predominantly single player experience, obviously paid DLC packs work fine there.

GT7 has a big part of it targeting multiplayer, that's where it fails. It's why Call Of Duty got rid of map packs, etc.

 

[Darrenersmit]

You missed the entire point. Dirt Rally 2.0 is a predominantly single player experience, obviously paid DLC packs work fine there.

GT7 has a big part of it targeting multiplayer, that's where it fails. It's why Call Of Duty got rid of map packs, etc.

Not really, you couldn't join in with certain community daily/weekly challenges if you didn't have the country or cars for that particular event.

 

[Nebuc72]

Not really, you couldn't join in with certain community daily/weekly challenges if you didn't have the country or cars for that particular event.

You can surely see the difference between a leaderboard and an actual online race with other people?