PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Mulan]

But since PS4 seems to get a touchsensitive place on the controller and better moove camera and good "smart tv" like features i think the familyfriendly side of the console is going to be stronger. If the design is good and its more silent than today i think PC will have harder to get in the livingroom.

The PC as stationary is more and more becoming a gamers choice, lone wolf in the dark.
The other part of PC is laptops, they grow in numbers and especially as ultrabooks and as such not really for gaming. I think many of theese buy consoles instead.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Consoles do indeed malfunction from time to time. However, as high-end PC's are being put under more stress, reliability problems are more of a problem. And what's more, fixing, or even finding the problem, can be a real hazzle.

Source? And what increased stress?

A consumer can also fix a PC; not that difficult to trouble shoot. There is Google/YouTube; or a computer repair shop if you can't do that...

But I won't mention repairing consoles... because... you know... you practically can't.

You need to upgrade every now and again in order to play modern games. This is a fact. Don't deny that upgrades are necessary to get the most out of the games.

Source? Show me the time frame that is required for upgrades and compare that to consoles. (Hint: Directx might have something to do with it; everything else is on you!)

Very low graphic settings can hamper both the atmosphere and draw distance in games, resulting in a less than stellar game experience. And I think I speak for a lot of people, when I say it's quite annoying not to be able to play on the highest settings. Not even sure how to explain it. Kind of feels like your missing out on features.And getting lower framrate than what the game was designed for can and will destroy the fun of playing the game.

So you're saying consoles hamper the atmosphere and provide a less than stellar game experience? Again, maxing the game out is personal preference; no one makes you do it.

You say I need to take a class because a lot of games don't work like they should? Why? Why is it too much to expect that a game works out of the box. This was my point when I said that consoles and nice and easy. They work.

You have problems with your PC; plain and simple. It doesn't take me an hour to get ANY game to run.

Does it take anybody else here an hour to get a game to run?

Let me give some examples, starting with BF3. Rubbish game, both in actual gameplay related areas, but also in how it works. Myself, along with a ton of other people, are suffering from the game freezing up at freuqent intervals, and the game has trouble saving progress. Then there's of course Origin...

Don't know what your opinion of BF3 gameplay has to do with anything... but like I said... you have issues with your PC that need to be addressed. Sorry to say... but your issues are not experienced by the majority.

BF2, one of my favorite shooters isn't without problems either. I had the game a long time ago, and decided to purchase it again. I had to spend 2-3 hours searching the web for different solutions on how to make the game understand that my CD Key was valid (wouldn't let me join servers). I got it working, but damn was I grumpy about it.

Did you ever think of contacting EA support?....

I should't need to know how a PC works in order to get games to run. Belive it or not, not everyone is interested in stuff like that. The fact that problems like these don't exist with consoles, is a very appealing feature to many.

Yes, on consoles, you're stuck with one setting. How is this a bad thing? It means that the developers can make sure that everyone experiences the same thing. No one misses out. What possible reason could you have for wanting that option in consoles?

What? How? Didn't you just get done saying:

Very low graphic settings can hamper both the atmosphere and draw distance in games, resulting in a less than stellar game experience. And I think I speak for a lot of people, when I say it's quite annoying not to be able to play on the highest settings. Not even sure how to explain it. Kind of feels like your missing out on features.And getting lower framrate than what the game was designed for can and will destroy the fun of playing the game.

Do you think about what you type.... at all?

I never said It took me a long time to fiddle with settings. But when you have to do it with every modern game, it gets tiresome. And some games can indeed be troublesome in this regard. Rage for an example, is said to be quite a hazzle to set up to your PC's specs.

Uh, yes you did. If you don't want to deal with it put it on low...

And here comes the typical uninformed and arrogant PC player remarks... (no offence, but honestly)

I am a junior in the Computer Science program at the University of Texas at Dallas. Care to call me uninformed again?

I am arrogant though... Something that goes hand in hand with being a Marine for four years.

First things first. Crysis was and still is excellent. And the graphics are certainly great. But KZ2 (and occasionally the 3rd game too) and Uncharted 2/3 looks better and more detailed. Modern consoles do not run at 640x480, but nice try. PC games do indeed have higher resolutions, but for the vast majority of games, the actual visual difference is very small. This is the kind of "impressive numbers" BS I was talking about earlier. Once again, if it doesn't have a sizeable visual difference, then it doesn't matter.

See images below...

You also might want to look into the resolutions that the PS3 put out; because you are very mistaken.

Skyrim has never been a fantastic looking game, though the draw distance is rather impressive. Though you do actually mention one thing that I forgot to mention in my original post. Modding. This is indeed one of the greatest things about PC gaming. Even if some developers use it to finish their games (Bethesda, cough cough).

I didn't say Skyrim was. I said modded Skyrim; since you know... you said the visual difference is minimal...

Played Skyrim on XBOX 360... pretty finished to me... (sneeze, sneeze).

On a final note. I never said I could run every game on the highest settings. I said I could run most on highest. Though games like Crysis still drop a tad low on FPS at certain places. Again, if disregard numbers, and simply look at one of the greatest looking PS3 exclusives, and then compare it to one of the greatest looking PC game, the difference is not that big. It's certainly there. But it's nowhere near big enough to make a real difference on gameplay or atmosphere.

Like I said, you can't make the comparison of best looking pc game vs best looking ps3 game because you can't run them on pc.

But....

Uncharted 2 (which you wanted to bring up) which runs at 720p

Uncharted 3 (again 720p)

vs:

Crysis 3:

Taken from the Crysis 3 thread.
(thanks drizle)

Witcher 2

Don't take into account the fact these are still images, so things like shadows, reflections, lighting, particle effects, etc are completely lost to perception.

Oh ya bro.... Uncharted 2 looks just as good. Try again.

We won't even get into direct comparisons of the same game on console vs PC. OR Crysis 2 with MaldoHD, OR modded Skyrim, OR modded Crysis. (Any modded game for that matter).

Got jaggies?

 

[HKS racer]

I cant argue with steam sales, but in a normal scenario you wont play cheaper.

Steam sales are a normal scenario nowdays, you can always find good offers. Day one I could buy Assetto Corsa, pCars, which means 5 years of simracing at least. rFactor 2 will have a yearly subscription but will be 15 € or something. All the other games won't be day one for me.

Not to mention the 400 € console price is pure speculation we don't know what the real day one price will is going to be.

You need to upgrade every now and again in order to play modern games. This is a fact. Don't deny that upgrades are necessary to get the most out of the games. Very low graphic settings can hamper both the atmosphere and draw distance in games, resulting in a less than stellar game experience. And I think I speak for a lot of people, when I say it's quite annoying not to be able to play on the highest settings. Not even sure how to explain it. Kind of feels like your missing out on features.

And getting lower framrate than what the game was designed for can and will destroy the fun of playing the game.

Unfortunately this is exactly what happen with lot of CONSOLE games. Just think about F1 2012, the PC version looks stunning, the console version have TONS of aliasing and resolution is low because the game is made to run on modern PC's, so to prevent crappy fps they gave us crappy details.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Seven more days until Sony's big announcement guys.

The media is doing a nice hype job over it while Sony is keeping quiet for good reasons. Personally I'm not hyping myself for it, but every time I see Feb 20 on my calender I keep thinking PS4.

 

[Luminis]

I cant argue with steam sales, but in a normal scenario you wont play cheaper.

Steam sales are the normal scenario, you know.

Consoles do indeed malfunction from time to time. However, as high-end PC's are being put under more stress, reliability problems are more of a problem. And what's more, fixing, or even finding the problem, can be a real hazzle.

If you don't know what you're doing, yes. But that's about it.

You need to upgrade every now and again in order to play modern games. This is a fact. Don't deny that upgrades are necessary to get the most out of the games. Very low graphic settings can hamper both the atmosphere and draw distance in games, resulting in a less than stellar game experience. And I think I speak for a lot of people, when I say it's quite annoying not to be able to play on the highest settings. Not even sure how to explain it. Kind of feels like your missing out on features.

And even without upgrading your hardware, you do get more out of the game then you'd get out of the console version. So, if you feel like missing out on the PC if the game's not running at its highest settings, what do you feel like on a console?

I should't need to know how a PC works in order to get games to run. Belive it or not, not everyone is interested in stuff like that. The fact that problems like these don't exist with consoles, is a very appealing feature to many.

Does that change a thing about how PC gaming works out for someone who does know a thing or two about it?

And here comes the typical uninformed and arrogant PC player remarks... (no offence, but honestly)
First things first. Crysis was and still is excellent. And the graphics are certainly great. But KZ2 (and occasionally the 3rd game too) and Uncharted 2/3 looks better and more detailed. Modern consoles do not run at 640x480, but nice try. PC games do indeed have higher resolutions, but for the vast majority of games, the actual visual difference is very small. This is the kind of "impressive numbers" BS I was talking about earlier. Once again, if it doesn't have a sizeable visual difference, then it doesn't matter.

I bet you don't play most of your PC games on a screen that's about a meter (at max) away from you.

On a final note. I never said I could run every game on the highest settings. I said I could run most on highest. Though games like Crysis still drop a tad low on FPS at certain places. Again, if disregard numbers, and simply look at one of the greatest looking PS3 exclusives, and then compare it to one of the greatest looking PC game, the difference is not that big. It's certainly there. But it's nowhere near big enough to make a real difference on gameplay or atmosphere.

Depends on your system, I'd assume. I know that, on my rig,

 

[Jawehawk]

First things first. I'm not calling you arrogant. Simply saying that the remark was arrogant. And for the record, I think it's completely justified for anyone who has spend years in the military to feel proud. It's a damn fine profession IMO.

Back on topic. As graphics card continue to be more powerful, they develope more heat, and as games become more demanding, the hardware is being put under more stress. That's logic. Now of course there are ways to prevent failues, like different cooling units and what not. But none the less, the hardware still has to do more work. That said, I might be wrong about reliability issues being more prominent in PC's than consoles.

In regards to games not working. Well, how about you check the support pages for games like BF3 or Skyrim. While I've never had a lot of problems with Skyrim myself, others have. And BF3 is littered with problems on the PC. As for me not contacting EA support. Well, for one their rubbish and second it was a friday evening.

I never said there was no difference between graphics. I said that the difference in actual visuals aren't that big. You make a fair point when you say that I haven't seen The Witcher 2 or Crysis 3 on the highest settings on my PC. But even then, judging from pictures and gameplay videos, the differences aren't massive. They are there, and you can definately make them out from screenshots and while playing. But it doesn't alter the actual gameplay experience. The visual gap isn't that big.

I don't know how much you play on consoles, but the words "low settings" and the Uncharted or Killzone franchise does not go hand in hand. Again, there are some PC exclusives that look better. But if the graphics of the games mentioned aren't good enough to immerse you, then you are in my opinion, prioritizing the wrong things in games.

You're contradicting yourself in saying that the PS3 plays games in 640x480, then later you state several games that are outputted in 720P aka 1280×720. And then that is upscaled by your PS3/TV to 1080. While this of course isn't as good as genuine 1080P resolution, it's in no way bad looking. And as a small side-note. Wipeout HD mostly runs at real 1080P.

Bear in mind that you're comparing Crysis 3, a game designed (for high settings) to run on high-end PC's, to games running on 7 year old hardware. The fact that consoles are still visually competitive, is quite impressive. You continue to bring up all these impressive numbers, but what do they mean when the visual difference isn't proportionate to the numbers? I'm not at all saying that the difference is nonexistant. Just that it's not as big as you say it is.

And no, I don't think I'm missing out on anything by playing on consoles. If I think the PC version of any game is better, then I buy it for the PC.
I don't understand the point your trying to make in what you highlighted. But I'll try and explain myself better. In some PC games, I feel like I'm missing out on the full experience of the game, if I'm not on the highest settings. I don't get this problem on consoles, because I'm playing it at the settings and FPS it was meant for. If the game is out on multiple platforms, I'll usually buy it on the PC. Not because of the small boost in visuals, but because of things like dedicated servers, mods and depending on genre, controls.

However, some games does a better job of delivering the atmosphere with surround sound (ex. Dead Space), and in those cases, I'd choose the console version. can't forget that it's anything but practical to set up a proper surround sound enviroment for PC gaming, as you'd basically have to place the front speaker right in front of you.

And no, I did not say it took me a long time to fiddle with settings. Go back and read that part of my original message if you don't believe me!

Skyrim has a ton of bugs, and do not deny this. When a game has this many bugs, it's hardly a finished product. That's not to say it's unplayable.

And at last we have the picture comparision. All those games look great. Yes, you can nitpick your way into it and say that the increased resolution for the PC games make them look ultra superor, but that's not the case. While they do look better, it's by a fairly small margin. And once again, I never EVER said Uncharted 2 looked as good as Crysis 3 or The Witcher. I said it looks better than Crysis (as in the first Crysis), which it does. Regardless of higher numbers...

Does that change a thing about how PC gaming works out for someone who does know a thing or two about it?

What? No. Why would it change how hardcore PC players feel about playing PC games? I said that the simplicity of console gaming is a very appealing aspect to many. What does that have to do with hardcore PC players?

Sorry, but I have no idea on how to respond to the rest of you comment.


Phew. Damn this took me a long time to write.

 

[dhandeh]

Anyway, back in the PlayStation 4/Orbis Discussion Thread...

I bought the Playstation 1,2 and 3 on or near release dates. At the moment I don't think I will be doing the same for PS4, unless there is some stunning release games. I think I will sit and wait for the price to come down and the catalogue to increase. Especially so if as expected they aren't backwards compatible.

 

[Luminis]

Anyway, back in the PlayStation 4/Orbis Discussion Thread...

I bought the Playstation 1,2 and 3 on or near release dates. At the moment I don't think I will be doing the same for PS4, unless there is some stunning release games. I think I will sit and wait for the price to come down and the catalogue to increase. Especially so if as expected they aren't backwards compatible.

I wonder whether that's going to be a general consensus. Well, I actually hope so. For the next Xbox, too, if these rumours hold true for both consoles. Just to see what developers are gonna do when excessive DRM is going to bite them in the butt.

 

[F1 fan]

Anyway, back in the PlayStation 4/Orbis Discussion Thread...

Thank you. Why is it that every time I open this thread, there are always a few posts detailing why consoles suck and why PC gaming is infinitely better? Perhaps save it for another thread. As an ex PC gamer, I am aware of the many advantages of PC gaming, however the simplicity of having one wife friendly box under your tv screen and not having to constantly tinker with settings/upgrade hardware every few years is what dragged me in in the first place.

I am looking forward to Sony's announcement. Unlike Dhandeh, I was an early adopter(first few months) of ps2 and 3, however, this time I will be buying ps4 on day one as I want to experience a big console launch in Tokyo.

 

[dhandeh]

... this time I will be buying ps4 on day one as I want to experience a big console launch in Tokyo.

I'm sure there will be more of a buzz there, then at my local Currys!👍

 

[F1 fan]

I'm sure there will be more of a buzz there, then at my local Currys!👍

I should think so. I remember reading articles by an english journalist about the ps3 and ps2 launches in Tokyo. He made it sound like a lot of fun. Then again, an all night, red bull infused stand in the cold next to some cosplayers might be quite weird. I'd better take the iPod.

 

[dhandeh]

And some shades, it's rude to stare.

 

[avens]

Lets face it, if there weren't exclusive titles PC-only would be the way to go no questions asked. It's not like it is mandatory use mouse+kb sitting close to the monitor, and on the long run (a console generation) it is actually cheaper and simpler than consoles all things considered.

Now on the PS4, the current rumors say the xbox720 will be more focused on power than the ps4, which will introduce more gimmicks than the other. If that ends up to be true then that's not good news for the GT series (6 and 7).

 

[F1 fan]

And some shades, it's rude to stare.

Very true. The old beach technique
Edit: Well we managed to go six posts before the inevitable happened.

 

[dhandeh]

Indeed. On-off topic, the weather looks like it's starting to improve here. Even my daffodils are starting to spring up.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

As graphics card continue to be more powerful, they develope more heat, and as games become more demanding, the hardware is being put under more stress. That's logic. Now of course there are ways to prevent failues, like different cooling units and what not. But none the less, the hardware still has to do more work. That said, I might be wrong about reliability issues being more prominent in PC's than consoles.

Actually, no. The exact opposite is actually true. Compare the 6xx and the 5xx series from Nvidia; then compare the 6xxx and 7xxx series from AMD. You will notice lower power consumption and the production of less heat.

Do the same for CPU's.

Obviously it is true more work = more heat... on an identical set-up; a computer at full load produces more heat than one at idle... pretty obvious there.

In regards to games not working. Well, how about you check the support pages for games like BF3 or Skyrim. While I've never had a lot of problems with Skyrim myself, others have. And BF3 is littered with problems on the PC. As for me not contacting EA support. Well, for one their rubbish and second it was a friday evening.

The vocal minority is not a conclusive example of what the majority experiences.

You're also telling me to go to the support forums for these games to get an overall picture on issues.... think about that for a second...

I want to know what country has the best food; but I only ask the French... can you guess what the answer will be?

I never said there was no difference between graphics. I said that the difference in actual visuals aren't that big to me. You make a fair point when you say that I haven't seen The Witcher 2 or Crysis 3 on the highest settings on my PC. But even then, judging from pictures and gameplay videos, the differences aren't massive. They are there, and you can definately make them out from screenshots and while playing. But it doesn't alter the actual gameplay experience. The visual gap isn't that big to me.

You either don't notice the differences because you don't know what to look for, or just don't want to see them.

From environmental textures and objects being completely omitted because it is too much work for consoles, differences between directx9/10/11, to silly things such as higher res textures, tessellation, massive AA, AF, draw distance, etc. etc. etc.

Like I said, screen shots cannot do PC games justice; especially Crysis. It has to be experienced in game, with no compression, at high resolution.

I don't know how much you play on consoles, but the words "low settings" and the Uncharted or Killzone franchise does not go hand in hand. Again, there are some PC exclusives that look better. But if the graphics of the games mentioned aren't good enough to immerse you, then you are in my opinion, prioritizing the wrong things in games.

PS exclusives look better than their console brethren; I am not denying that. But, they use a ton of visual tricks to get it to look like that. Most people either won't or can't notice them. Do you even notice that everything looks really, really flat in the Uncharted games? Really jaggie? Lack of shadows? Lighting? Everything looks really, really blurry past a certain view distance?

You're contradicting yourself in saying that the PS3 plays games in 640x480, then later you state several games that are outputted in 720P aka 1280×720. And then that is upscaled by your PS3/TV to 1080. While this of course isn't as good as genuine 1080P resolution, it's in no way bad looking. And as a small side-note. Wipeout HD mostly runs at real 1080P.

No I am not contradicting myself; I didn't say every game runs at that resolution.

Bear in mind that you're comparing Crysis 3, a game designed (for high settings) to run on high-end PC's, to games running on 7 year old hardware. The fact that consoles are still visually competitive, is quite impressive. You continue to bring up all these impressive numbers, but what do they mean when the visual difference isn't proportionate to the numbers? I'm not at all saying that the difference is nonexistant. Just that it's not as big as you say it is.

So now its not okay to compare a game designed for PC's to some that are designed for consoles?

And VHS is visually competitive to Blu-rays....

Consoles are not visually competitive... if that was true this thread wouldn't exist and Sony wouldn't have an event scheduled for the 20th.

And no, I don't think I'm missing out on anything by playing on consoles. If I think the PC version of any game is better, then I buy it for the PC.
I don't understand the point your trying to make in what you highlighted. But I'll try and explain myself better. In some PC games, I feel like I'm missing out on the full experience of the game, if I'm not on the highest settings. I don't get this problem on consoles, because I'm playing it at the settings and FPS it was meant for. If the game is out on multiple platforms, I'll usually buy it on the PC. Not because of the small boost in visuals, but because of things like dedicated servers, mods and depending on genre, controls.

You're not though... I don't even understand how you can think this. How is playing a game at low or even lower settings at a terrible resolution with frame rates that drop below 30/playable playing it at settings it was meant for?

However, some games does a better job of delivering the atmosphere with surround sound (ex. Dead Space), and in those cases, I'd choose the console version. can't forget that it's anything but practical to set up a proper surround sound enviroment for PC gaming, as you'd basically have to place the front speaker right in front of you.

I don't know about you but I have DVI, mDP, and HDMI on my PC; pretty sure my TV accepts at least one of those. Surround sound is covered by audio card which has DD 5.1/7.1 and analog. I can even run audio through HDMI...

Also, pretty sure my PC is compatible with.... oh, every controller ever made.

And no, I did not say it took me a long time to fiddle with settings. Go back and read that part of my original message if you don't believe me!

Skyrim has a ton of bugs, and do not deny this. When a game has this many bugs, it's hardly a finished product. That's not to say it's unplayable.

No, you just said this: "Add to that the time it takes to find the optimal settings for each PC game" insinuating that it took a long time to fiddle with the settings.

Every game has at least one bug.... You can't code for an infinite amount of possibilities, in an open world game, and have a handle for every exception.

The more complex software is the more bugs that will be present.

Easy to write a program that is 5 lines without bugs; you can't say that for those in the hundreds of thousands of lines.

And at last we have the picture comparision. All those games look great. Yes, you can nitpick your way into it and say that the increased resolution for the PC games make them look ultra superor, but that's not the case. While they do look better, it's by a fairly small margin. And once again, I never EVER said Uncharted 2 looked as good as Crysis 3 or The Witcher. I said it looks better than Crysis (as in the first Crysis), which it does. Regardless of higher numbers...

You keep talking about resolution as if that is all it entails... Kind of makes me think you don't know what you're looking at.

Like I said before, pictures do not amount to the technology and visual improvements that are present.

There is a reason they are called video games and not picture games.

You think Uncharted 2 looks better than Crysis? ha.





Alright I am done; you can plant your damn daffodil garden again.

 

[Mulan]

...Now on the PS4, the current rumors say the xbox720 will be more focused on power than the ps4, which will introduce more gimmicks than the other. If that ends up to be true then that's not good news for the GT series (6 and 7).

I have a feeling GT6 will be the last one in the GT series for PS system.
They will upgrade, introduce DLC but i think 1 GT game will be enough for the PS4. Hopefully it will be a good one.

After that i think the series will be done.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Why?

 

[CAM]

Obviously because of the millions of loyal followers, large amount of income Sony receive from the game and KY's dedication to pushing the game forward.



Sony will force PD to do it until we stop buying it.

 

[Tornado]

I have a feeling GT6 will be the last one in the GT series for PS system.
They will upgrade, introduce DLC but i think 1 GT game will be enough for the PS4. Hopefully it will be a good one.

After that i think the series will be done.

Yeah, it will join all the other long running and major selling game franchises this generation that never had sequels developed and instead only had DLC for the entire generation.

Why?

He brought it up in another thread before. Because developers can make DLC now they have no need to make actual sequels.


Aside from the massive amounts of revenue and interest in the franchise that they bring, apparently.

 

[Mulan]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/xbox-720-and-ps4-most-likely-not-backwards-compatible

Regarding how they think gamers think.
Wonder what PS3 GT5 players will do when GT6 and ps4 comes. I guess there will be double communities.

Regarding GT6 being last. Yeah, i belive so what ever you try to comment that DLC:s are not enough. If there is no need for a GT7 then why bother make one?
Previous new versions was a must since new cars and tracks couldnt be downloaded. But with GT5 they have prooven that one game/generation is enough. And with PS4 this will be even easier to download DLC:S and as long as they are coming and the game is updated then there is no need to divide the community even more.

 

[Tornado]

Regarding GT6 being last. Yeah, i belive so what ever you try to comment that DLC:s are not enough. If there is no need for a GT7 then why bother make one?

Let's see... cornerstone franchise like Gran Turismo?



I can think of about 10 million reasons per game.

Previous new versions was a must since new cars and tracks couldnt be downloaded. But with GT5 they have prooven that one game/generation is enough.

Perhaps because they didn't actually release until near the end of the generation?


Just spitballing here.

And with PS4 this will be even easier to download DLC:S and as long as they are coming and the game is updated then there is no need to divide the community even more.

Because DLC does... not divide the community? Coulda sworn that most games don't let you even play against people who have major DLC released for them if you don't have it. And quite a few more people bought GT5 than bought any of the DLC.

 

[Sanji Himura]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/xbox-720-and-ps4-most-likely-not-backwards-compatible

Regarding how they think gamers think.
Wonder what PS3 GT5 players will do when GT6 and ps4 comes. I guess there will be double communities.

Regarding GT6 being last. Yeah, i belive so what ever you try to comment that DLC:s are not enough. If there is no need for a GT7 then why bother make one?
Previous new versions was a must since new cars and tracks couldnt be downloaded. But with GT5 they have prooven that one game/generation is enough. And with PS4 this will be even easier to download DLC:S and as long as they are coming and the game is updated then there is no need to divide the community even more.

Please leave the room. Having such talk that GT6 being the last one in the series is just too annoying to deal with.

Though, I agree with everything else you said.

 

[avens]

If there is no need for a GT7 then why bother make one?

Because there's this thing called money. You get a lot more of it by releasing new versions instead of add-ons, at least on the current business model which there's no way it will change on this franchise for GT6 (maybe GT7 but who knows).

Also there's a second aspect called time. Because of it there simply cannot be a "definitive, perfect gran turismo game" but just continuous new updates to the franchise.

In the end it has nothing to do with technology or how GT6 turns out to be.

 

[Mulan]

Sorry, i just printed what i feel is reasonable. But if people want a GT7 then they will make one even if it gives you 10 more nissans and some new sound fx.
Perhaps the community just hungers for more GT as Kaz for Nissans.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Final Fantasy is at what number now?

 

[sesselpupser]

Final Fantasy is at what number now?

Yeah but the next one will be the last one because the PS4 will have DLC or something. And also because Square Enix is about to go all THQ on us.

 

[Snaeper]

 

[Samus]

Sorry, i just printed what i feel is reasonable. But if people want a GT7 then they will make one even if it gives you 10 more nissans and some new sound fx.
Perhaps the community just hungers for more GT as Kaz for Nissans.

The reason we'll continue to get new games is because each one starts fresh, it's got a point A and point B, then beyond. You start a GT game from scratch each time, no events completed, no cars and progress through. When you finished in the first four games that was it, you could then replay it or just drive for fun but the game was for all intents and purposes 'complete' and you wanted the next one. The same happened with GT5 but this time we got DLC, we only got more cars and more tracks though. The game was (and is) still old and it's not going to restart itself. Again you can restart it yourself but it's never the same as starting a brand new game with brand new challenges and modes.

As long as PD forecasts that they can sell 7-10million full price games they will keep doing so over one full price game and 1, 2 millions tops paying for some add on content.

 

[sumbrownkid]

They are gonna keep pumping out new GT games in the future until Sony in itself disappears.