- 2,624
- The Hague
- Duman079
Well, it would be worse if everyone duped and sold X2010's and get a LOT of money, so thats good if you ask me.
POLL: Do You Like The <1,000,000 Cr. Gift Restriction?
- Thread starter 1241Penguin
- 844 comments
- 44,056 views
Well, it would be worse if everyone duped and sold X2010's and get a LOT of money, so thats good if you ask me.
hoobdeebla
(Banned)
- 178
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_hoobdeebla
👍
- 3,674
- PNW
- cowabungacorey
I could understand if maybe somehow it was a problem to have a lot of credits in this game, but let me think...... hmmmm nope, nothing wrong with it. I have damn near infinite credits in GT4, did they ever try to patch my game and tell me that racing a particular race, selling the prize car for more money was wrong? No. Getting 800k in 20 minutes was awesome, and they never fixed it, so what's wrong with it in GT5? The fact that they have reduced all prize money, and virtually nerfed duping along with a monotonous and lifeless career with a worthless level system proves they are actually trying to get people to play their lackluster game more, but instead, we want to see what the game is like at it's best, with nice cars, before we put it down indefinitely.
- 434
- strngz0731
(Just figure I would throw this out there, not to intentionally to ruffle any feathers, but to give all something to think about...)
Everyone has the right to think what they will about the gift/trade loophole out there that at least to some extent has been impacted by the 1.07 update. Everyone also has the right to make up their own mind when it comes to making a decision whether they do/did or do/did not wish to make use of it.
It's getting a little old, however, to constantly hear the "it doesn't hurt/effect anyone" argument.
You know who it hurts/effects?
EVERYONE - as it seems because of the gift/trade loophole, we have (this part of) the 1.07 update.
Those that chose to make use of the gift/trade loophole are hurt/impacted. Those that chose not to make use of the gift/trade loophole but still enjoyed using the gift/trade element of the game are also hurt/impacted.
Just saying...
Peace!
Everyone has the right to think what they will about the gift/trade loophole out there that at least to some extent has been impacted by the 1.07 update. Everyone also has the right to make up their own mind when it comes to making a decision whether they do/did or do/did not wish to make use of it.
It's getting a little old, however, to constantly hear the "it doesn't hurt/effect anyone" argument.
You know who it hurts/effects?
EVERYONE - as it seems because of the gift/trade loophole, we have (this part of) the 1.07 update.
Those that chose to make use of the gift/trade loophole are hurt/impacted. Those that chose not to make use of the gift/trade loophole but still enjoyed using the gift/trade element of the game are also hurt/impacted.
Just saying...
Peace!
- 83
agreed.
- 7,625
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I guess I can see where you're coming from, but think on it a bit harder.
How someone plays in single player is their business.
Online, how someone gets a car doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, nor does having a duped garage bestow any advantages.
I could have every car in the game 10 times over, and it wouldn't have the slightest impact on my chances of winning a 600 PP race where everyone is in 600 PP cars.
As for why people are upset over 1.07
- 253
- Sydney
- zdenko
LOVE IT!!!
I never traded a car even with my friends hasling me "cmon give me an X1". My answer was pretty much play the game yourself you cheat.
Whats with people these days wanting the game to be finished before they even play it??? That would be like being given the top job in a company without even working a day in your life. Baby dupers learn to earn what you want. There is no such thing as a free meal.
Sounds like most the people complaing are hoarders that want everything, but won't ever use it anyway.
Flame away all you like.
I never traded a car even with my friends hasling me "cmon give me an X1". My answer was pretty much play the game yourself you cheat.
Whats with people these days wanting the game to be finished before they even play it??? That would be like being given the top job in a company without even working a day in your life. Baby dupers learn to earn what you want. There is no such thing as a free meal.
Sounds like most the people complaing are hoarders that want everything, but won't ever use it anyway.
Flame away all you like.
- 295
- PA
- GTP_Apollo33
You know who bad arguments hurt? EVERYONE.
You didn't make a good point there at all. Maybe you'd also like to blame fat kids for the existence of bullies, or the Jews for the Holocaust? If those people weren't around, it wouldn't have forced others into their actions, right?
PD made a choice. It's not a logical choice, and it wasn't the only option. They are the only ones responsible for their actions. It's bad enough that everyone plays the victimnow you're playing the 'victim card' for them!
- 434
- strngz0731
I'm in 110% agreement that the (implementation of this) solution was not all that "good". (Heck, I guess even PD must know it, if they've temporarily suspended the 1 million credit limit until March 3rd.
The only thing, though, is that it's no longer just "their business" when PD's "solution" detrimentally impacts GT5 and a large portion of the GT5 player community.
Peace...
- 1,023
- London/Malaysia/Tunisia
- Waizon/v8stage1/
Dislike, although in practice it probably won't make a difference. I never duped a car myself, but as long as I can send any car of any value to my son (who uses the same console) then I'll be okay. But if I was wanting a £20m car - would rather be able to trade for it than grind.
- 434
- strngz0731
(Oh, and while I'm at it...)
I also wanted to express issue with the whole "I paid for the game so I can play it how I want to" rhetoric that's constantly tossed around as a defense for taking advantage of the gift/trade loophole...
Please note, I'm going to make an anagoly. I know I'm not "comparing apples to apples". I know that this is "just a video game". I'm making an analogy - to illustrate a point. I'm not hating on any group or anyone in particular, so save the hating of me because this post isn't written to receive it...
Also note, this message has nothing to do with my opinion on usage of the gift/trade loophole. You're making an assumption if you're getting my opinion from this message. I'm all for people enjoying GT5 as they choose to. The only opinion I'm expressing specifically regards hearing "I paid for this game so I can play it how I want to" all the time.
Well, here it is my analogy:
I paid for my shoes, but that does not mean it's OK for me to shove the size 10 shoe that's on my foot up someone's 🤬 because I want to.
The point I'm trying to illustrate is that shoes are not desgned to shove up someone's 🤬. GT5 was not designed to give the purchaser instant access to the 1,000+ playable cars in the game.
That's all...
Peace!
I also wanted to express issue with the whole "I paid for the game so I can play it how I want to" rhetoric that's constantly tossed around as a defense for taking advantage of the gift/trade loophole...
Please note, I'm going to make an anagoly. I know I'm not "comparing apples to apples". I know that this is "just a video game". I'm making an analogy - to illustrate a point. I'm not hating on any group or anyone in particular, so save the hating of me because this post isn't written to receive it...
Also note, this message has nothing to do with my opinion on usage of the gift/trade loophole. You're making an assumption if you're getting my opinion from this message. I'm all for people enjoying GT5 as they choose to. The only opinion I'm expressing specifically regards hearing "I paid for this game so I can play it how I want to" all the time.
Well, here it is my analogy:
I paid for my shoes, but that does not mean it's OK for me to shove the size 10 shoe that's on my foot up someone's 🤬 because I want to.
The point I'm trying to illustrate is that shoes are not desgned to shove up someone's 🤬. GT5 was not designed to give the purchaser instant access to the 1,000+ playable cars in the game.
That's all...
Peace!
- 40,891
That is PD's fault, though. Not the fault of those doing it in the first place.
PD saw something that they wanted to stop happening. That is fair enough. They chose to do so in a way that not only doesn't really solve the problem, or any of the root causes of the problem, but also in a way that punishes far more people than those who were actually in engaging in the behavior.
- 434
- strngz0731
You know who bad arguments hurt? EVERYONE.
You didn't make a good point there at all. Maybe you'd also like to blame fat kids for the existence of bullies, or the Jews for the Holocaust? If those people weren't around, it wouldn't have forced others into their actions, right?
PD made a choice. It's not a logical choice, and it wasn't the only option. They are the only ones responsible for their actions. It's bad enough that everyone plays the victimnow you're playing the 'victim card' for them!
(Maybe Everyone has the right to think what they will about the gift/trade loophole out there that at least to some extent has been impacted by the 1.07 update. Everyone also has the right to make up their own mind when it comes to making a decision whether they do/did or do/did not wish to make use of it doesn't mean what I thought it still meant...)
Whoa...
I'm not "blaming" anybody.
You (and anyone) will never get an argument from me that PD's solution was nothing short of "silly".
I was only expressing a personal issue with the whole "it doesn't hurt anyone" line that's tossed around as justification for using the gift/trade loophole. On March 3rd (because PD temporarily suspended the restriction put in place with update 1.07), I won't be able to gift/trade a car I earned/won in the game as I could've before update 1.07 came out. If that's something I wanted to do, but now can't, I guess that hurts me.
Let me know if I've missed something, OK?
Jeez - I guess you're really not gonna like my last post about "I can if I want to because I paid for the game"...
- 434
- strngz0731
Isn't that essentially what I said?
I'm not speaking on PD's solution - which I concur was terrible.
All I was doing was disputing the "it doesn't hurt anyone" explanation some use for their gameplay methodology.
PD's solution, as you've agreed with in your post, is proof of that.
However, I gotta wonder, would PD have implemented the 1 million credit gift restriction were it not for "those doing it in the first place"?
I don't know for sure, but it sure looks like it, and as such I respectfully gotta disagree, because then PD's solution, as terrible as it is, is basically their "fault".
Nothing more...
Peace!
Last edited:
- 434
- strngz0731
Yeah, there's surely more to the 1 million limit than the gift/trade loophole - one example being the selling of in-game content on eBay.
Again, all I was doing was expressing fault with the "it doesn't hurt anyone" rhetoric.
I respectfully ask that my thoughts on the update itself are not inferred.
(You don't have to - it was a "bad" update.)
I also respectfully ask that any non-contributory disputes to my expressed fault with the aforementioned rhetoric is extinguished before they're posted, because nobody benefits from that sort of "flaming"...
Thanks!
Peace...
- 7,625
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Duping doesn't cause cars to magically appear in other people's garage. Your analogy invovles someone doing something to someone else. Meanwhile, when a person dupes, and no one will know but that person. Likewise, what one does with their shoes it's their business. What one does to someone else isn't. A person has the right to do anything at all so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
Intent also doesn't mean much. Books were intended for reading, but if someone uses them to prop up the couch to watch TV, it isn't a problem. I don't know what PD intended with GT5, but I know that game gets better once you dupe.
- 178
- 434
- strngz0731
I guess the explanation of the analogy missed its mark. (Although, in my defense, I did try to explain the analogy in order to specifically have to re-explain it...)
My explanation was intended to express my belief that shoes when used as explained in the analogy, or GT5 when used in conjunction with the gift/trade loophole, are not being used as they were designed.
Yeah, I'll give you that there's an obvious difference between one person doing something to another and one person doing something not to another. I'll also gladly concede that unintended use is far from always bad use. Thank you for the logical arguments.
I'm not buying, not with my last dollar, that PD specifically intended to such an exploitable loophole out there. Doesn't make sense. If they wanted everyone to have instant access to all the cars in the game, it would've been a lot less work on their part in regards to gameplay design to make it that way. No, or have I missed something?
- 1,477
- New York, U.S.A
- XxOnLySBz4mExX
- 434
- strngz0731
That is not the same at all, my god
Did I say that shoving a shoe anywhere is the same as the gift/trade loophole?
No, I didn't.
(Really, I didn't. I went back and read it like five times, just to make sure...)
It was an analogy.
analogy
noun, plural -gies
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
In this analogy, the similarity in these two things is the like feature of neither being used as designed. The comparison I made was that "I paid for it and I want to" wasn't justifyable in use of the gift/trade loophole because it surely isn't justifyable in the analogy's shoe usage.
Thanks for playing...
(Tell them what they've won, Johnny...)
- 178
Wow, you try so hard to be clever and even go through the lengths of coloring your text to strengthen your words, but what you said is still wrong.
There is no similarity between those two instances. Using a shoe you bought to hurt someone else is not at the like using a loophole in a game you bought to enhance the experience for yourself and exclusively for yourself. A shoe is not designed nor intended to be shoved up someone's ass, but GT5 is designed and intended to be a game where people can drive their favorite cars which they would otherwise never be able to.
In fact, that's not even an analogy because there isn't a "similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based."
Your welcome, I can't say it was a great game though...
- 434
- strngz0731
Well, finally. Something I can agree with.
(Although, it's about the "great game" comment, unfortunately.)
Here, no color-changed text or anything. Better? Non-clever enough?
Tell me where I said hurting someone with a shoe is the same as bypassing the normal method of adding cars to a GT5 garage through use of the gift/trade loophole. Seriously, tell me. Please. I'll be impressed if you can, because I don't see where I did.
However, I did say that both were not design features (a.k.a. the similarity), and attempted to correlate (a.k.a. compare) the lack of validity to the "I paid for ___ and I want to" justification accordingly by way of the analogy.
I think I know what it is - GT5 must have the side effect that causes one to no longer be able to comprend written word. Seems I'm also affected, because with all these responses, it must be that apparently I've become incapable of comprehending the very things I write...
- 295
- PA
- GTP_Apollo33
You're making no sense. You said, "You know who it hurts/effects? EVERYONE - as it seems because of the gift/trade loophole, we have (this part of) the 1.07 update." That's placing blame on the dupers as being the direct cause of PD's update.
Then you contradict yourself and say that you realize PD responded poorly and could have done something different (or nothing at all). Do you know what that implies? That the dupers didn't cause this update. So they're still hurting no one.
- 434
- strngz0731
Ummmm...
A bit of a shame I have to, but let me explain...
First, as you quoted, I did say "as it seems".
Seems implies I don't know.
Not only do I not know, I don't really care and it doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned.
Of course PD could (and probably should) have responded differently.
I fail to see the contradiction in those two totally separate thoughts. The first thought was in regards to "why", and the second was in regards to "how/what". I think anyone can provide examples where the "right" thing can be done for the "wrong" reason, and the "wrong" thing can be done for the "right" reason. (Let me state that I'm not implying anything as far as "right" or "wrong" is concerned in regards to the gift/trade loophole or its use.) I'm not going to attempt another analogy on this topic, to avoid the analogy itself being ignored and/or picked apart, and to further invite flaming of a legitimate point of view.
All I was doing was disputing the annoying repetition of "it doesn't hurt anyone" comments that pollute threads like this.
Nothing less.
Nothing more.
Peace...
- 1,475
- GDL, Mexico
- Insomniac_driver
- 178
Hah, I can just imagine how you think of yourself behind that keyboard with the tone in your words and your subtle jabs and efforts to prove your point by insulting others which doesn't help at all because you still don't have a point.
You said "The comparison I made was that 'I paid for it and I want to' wasn't justifyable in use of the gift/trade loophole because it surely isn't justifyable in the analogy's shoe usage," clearly saying it is not justifiable in one case the same way as it is not in the other.
But NO, again, because it is justified in the case of GT5. I'm going to repeat this, because you seem to have happily ignored it, but GT5 is being played the way it is intended to be played, not necessarily how it was designed. But that's okay, because it was designed poorly. And I know you're going to jump on this, because you like to pick at every little mistake you seem to find that people make. GT5 is intended to be played the way I explained in my previous point, which is for the enjoyment of cars and racing.
I don't think you're unable to comprehend the things you write yourself, I think you're just trying your best to justify the rubbish that you wrote in the first place which isn't working, because 1. you continue to use that patronizing and conceited tone, and 2. you have no point that you keep trying to support, you just keep digging deeper into your own hole.
And notice how I never said anywhere that I did not like the color, I simply pointed out that it said a lot about you in the way that you try to bring your words down to the level of a 3rd grader by colorizing them in your attempt to prove your point, so I hope you enjoy the italics and the struggle you're facing.
CAG_Theory
(Banned)
- 281
- 5,897
- Canada
