Porsche's Contract With EA

[Johnnypenso]

EA has to understand, that they don't have the right to block the Porsche's rights to another game. It isn't fair to PD.

They can and will because they can and do use that as the main USP for their substandard products compared to many other sims. They feel the need to try level the playing field with Porsches by setting strict rules for other developers.

Then again, Porsche aren't innocent. They could easily fix this mess, they set the rules for cars being used in games, after all Vehicles cannot just be put in a game as there has to be negotiation over more than just costs, but what the car is actually used for. For example, in Driver San Francisco there is a scene where the protagonist is involved in a car accident, which he comes out of in a coma. This means they would have to go to Dodge and ask them for permission to do such in a game, the cars are also not allowed to run people over or cause illegal environment damage, a problem for a game where you drive recklessly. (taken from a Media assignment, point of note : This information came from a link between my school's media department and Ubisoft Reflections) The same would apply to EA despite their license. It would be easy to say "We will give you exclusive rights for certain cars for x amount of time, dont like it? Licensing rights redacted." as I am sure Porsche wrote something in meaning they can make any changes they like... just in case.

I can't even tell if you guys are being serious. Porsche isn't innocent? Are they on trial for a crime or something? It's a free market, Porsche, the world's most profitable automaker in terms of profit/unit, has chosen through the free market, to sell the videogame rights to the highest bidder instead of making it available to everyone at a set price like most other manufacturers. This is how the free market works. If you don't like it, feel free to spam the PD and/or Porsche inboxes, twitter, facebook or whatever place you want with your desires to see Porsche in GT.

Concerning how cars are used in a game, I offer this from an interview with Stefano Casillo of Kunos who produces Assetto Corsa...watch from 5:40 as he's asked about limitations from manufacturers about damage (hint: he calls damage restrictions in videogames an "urban myth"):

​

 

[Tornado]

"EA doesn't have the right to do the exact thing that the licence Porsche sold them (and by all "known" accounts are happy with the agreement) gives them the right to do."

 

[R5]

I can't even tell if you guys are being serious. Porsche isn't innocent? Are they on trial for a crime or something? It's a free market, Porsche, the world's most profitable automaker in terms of profit/unit, has chosen through the free market, to sell the videogame rights to the highest bidder instead of making it available to everyone at a set price like most other manufacturers. This is how the free market works. If you don't like it, feel free to spam the PD and/or Porsche inboxes, twitter, facebook or whatever place you want with your desires to see Porsche in GT.

Concerning how cars are used in a game, I offer this from an interview with Stefano Casillo of Kunos who produces Assetto Corsa...watch from 5:40 as he's asked about limitations from manufacturers about damage (hint: he calls damage restrictions in videogames an "urban myth"):

​

I understand it is a free market, I was replying to this:

EA has to understand, that they don't have the right to block the Porsche's rights to another game. It isn't fair to PD.

This part implies innocence of Porsche in this situation (By the way, the word innocent can be used outside of court...) and shifts all possible blame to EA, I explained why it's not 100% EA by saying Porsche will almost definitley have written a clause allowing them to modify the license terms as they wish but dont. The problem with the highest bidder system is that it EA and they can make yet more money from the smaller developers such as Polyphony and Turn 10, and I am not willing to go on an endless pursuit of Porsche, the VW group, EA and (Why was this even mentioned?) PD over this license deal. I made a single post explaining why EA isn't the only party to blame from this, and gave no opinion on the subject. I didn't say I agree or not, so saying "If you don't like it, feel free to spam the PD and/or Porsche inboxes, twitter, facebook or whatever place you want with your desires to see Porsche in GT." is actually giving the implication you really read what you wanted to read from my post.

I would also like to mention, a user of a forum called FinalGear called JohnnyRacer did complain to EA, see results here---> http://forums.finalgear.com/forza-motorsports/the-talk-i-had-with-ea-about-porsche-51049/ more specifically the final message

Hello john,

Well I was not trying to be insulting, and I do apologize that you think it was insulting. All I can say is that Porsche is the company that has the final say in which game companies can have access to using their cars and or names in their products.

Best Regards,
Brandan C.

About "How cars are used in the game" notice I didn't mention the damage limitation, as I am well aware it doesn't exist in most cases, so why even mention it? I gave an example of it being difficult to license cars normally, with the EA/Porsche license agreement being even worse in terms of a licensing minefield. I used the example of Driver 3 to give the single example of "This means they would have to go to Dodge and ask them for permission to do such [note: This is the protagonist's crash where he was put into a coma, basically the backstory behind the game's defining feature of shifting to other cars, and also the story] in a game, the cars are also not allowed to run people over or cause illegal environment damage, a problem for a game where you drive recklessly"

"EA doesn't have the right to do the exact thing that the licence Porsche sold them (and by all "known" accounts are happy with the agreement) gives them the right to do."

If a license is hurting Porsche, which it has a good chance of doingwith the "Gran Turismo generation" (As magazines like evo insist on calling us) as highlighted in the Jalopnik article on the subject

Kids logging on to race GT-Rs instead of 911s will grow up wondering why they should spend all that extra money to buy a Porsche when they can buy a car they've already fallen in love with in the digital realm.

Then Porsche really does have a right to break off/modify the license. Oh and before you say "Ohhh but video games don't influence car sales" read this article.

 

[Haulin_Hebrew]

I would also like to mention, a user of a forum called FinalGear called JohnnyRacer did complain to EA, see results here---> http://forums.finalgear.com/forza-motorsports/the-talk-i-had-with-ea-about-porsche-51049/ more specifically the final message

When I saw the sub-Licensing post is what inspired me to open this thread, but @Johnnypenso made an excellent point

Sounds great in theory but what happens when Ferrari, Ford, Lamborghini and everyone else gets wind of it?

"Hey Mr. Toyota I just heard they gave Porsche $5Mill to use their cars in the game, how much did we get?"

"Uh, $100k"

"Sucker"

Even though I have loved Porsche's since I was a teen, and would love to have the Carrera GT in GT 7, I can't support the unethical actions of EA, this needs to be regulated by not supporting EA, just don't buy EA or the parent company EA Sports products, the people have spoken, Monopolies lead to price gouging, which is beyond capitalism, it is an illegal and unethical practice, an EA and EA Sports will have to learn A costly lesson.

 

[R5]

When I saw the sub-Licensing post is what inspired me to open this thread, but @Johnnypenso made an excellent point

Even though I have loved Porsche's since I was a teen, and would love to have the Carrera GT in GT 7, I can't support the unethical actions of EA, this needs to be regulated by not supporting EA, just don't buy EA or the parent company EA Sports products, the people have spoken, Monopolies lead to price gouging, which is beyond capitalism, it is an illegal and unethical practice, an EA and EA Sports will have to learn A costly lesson.

I am not saying what EA is doing is ethical, justifiable or anything but at the same time Porsche can fix it easily by altering the contract.

Other car companies could follow that strategy but easily makea conscious choice not to do so because they understand the importance of gaming in modern times. Nissan, most of all, but it's the same with other Companies. It's a smart move because they get advertising at a profit.

And I never buy EA games. Their unethical actions don't even produce good games.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There is nothing unethical about selling the rights to use your brand to the highest bidder, that's the free market at it's finest.

 

[R5]

There is nothing unethical about selling the rights to use your brand to the highest bidder, that's the free market at it's finest.

Not exactly "Finest" and I was simply quoting

When I saw the sub-Licensing post is what inspired me to open this thread, but @Johnnypenso made an excellent point

Even though I have loved Porsche's since I was a teen, and would love to have the Carrera GT in GT 7, I can't support the unethical actions of EA, this needs to be regulated by not supporting EA, just don't buy EA or the parent company EA Sports products, the people have spoken, Monopolies lead to price gouging, which is beyond capitalism, it is an illegal and unethical practice, an EA and EA Sports will have to learn A costly lesson.

I'm impartial on the subject, but went with Haulin's view of unethical withholding of licenses. I didn't bother adding speech marks to imply sarcasm, because I didn't see the point.

 

[Haulin_Hebrew]

There is nothing unethical about selling the rights to use your brand to the highest bidder, that's the free market at it's finest.

I am not saying what EA is doing is ethical, justifiable or anything but at the same time Porsche can fix it easily by altering the contract.

EA has a binding contract with Porsche, it is nothing Porsche can do about it until the terms are fulfilled, Unless Porsche sues for unethical practice of price gouging, It is in EA's power to give Sub-licenses at an acceptable rate, which is evident that they are not because of the absents of Porsche's in any other game besides the ones EA produce which is unethical (or deemed wrong by anyone effected by the decision), I was not inferring you meant anything except what you said @Johnnypenso all conclusions drawn from your post are mine, It is not Porsche where I place the blame, It is the holder of the sub-licensing power, If the sub-licensing power where in good hands everyone involved would be satisfied, but that is not the case, and the reason I assume to be price gouging, which is unethical, Monopolies corrupts, this is why they are illegal in the U.S. I see nothing wrong with EA making a Profit, but since no one is buying sub-license it must be because they are sold at an out rages rate.

 

[FastFurious77]

The Sub licencing deal between Porsche and EA allowed EA to grant the rights to Turn 10 to have some Porsche in their Forza 3 game. So the agreement allows EA to grant the sharing of the licence from Porsche but probably at a price that looks nice to EA that Turn 10 have to pay EA.

A portion of that money then from EA has to go to Porsche I'm guessing? If this isn't how it works then EA have already paid Porsche a bunch of money for the licence and then when EA share that with other companies the money they earn goes solely to them but i'm not sure which way this works.

Either way EA can and do have the power to allow Turn 10 or PD to have Porsche in their games at the cost of a large sum of money PD probably can't afford. Why? Because EA is Greedy for money. EA might continuously renew the contract with Porsche. But if they haven't, then when it ends PD might have a loophole chance to enter into an agreement with Porsche at a cheaper price than what EA might be charging while they currently own the licence.

OR the licencing deal directly between Porsche and PD in a new contract could cost PD more then EA are charging. But this i don't know about. I can only hope PD can afford to pay EA to have shared use of the licence for Porsche in GT7. But if EA have secure the licence for a long time down the road, theres no way for PD to get Porsche unless they either pay EA a lot of money.

 

[Johnnypenso]

EA has a binding contract with Porsche, it is nothing Porsche can do about it until the terms are fulfilled, Unless Porsche sues for unethical practice of price gouging, It is in EA's power to give Sub-licenses at an acceptable rate, which is evident that they are not because of the absents of Porsche's in any other game besides the ones EA produce which is unethical (or deemed wrong by anyone effected by the decision), I was not inferring you meant anything except what you said @Johnnypenso all conclusions drawn from your post are mine, It is not Porsche where I place the blame, It is the holder of the sub-licensing power, If the sub-licensing power where in good hands everyone involved would be satisfied, but that is not the case, and the reason I assume to be price gouging, which is unethical, Monopolies corrupts, this is why they are illegal in the U.S. I see nothing wrong with EA making a Profit, but since no one is buying sub-license it must be because they are sold at an out rages rate.

I really think you need to brush up on your terminology. There's a huge difference between a monopoly and an exclusive license and you are mixing and matching as if they are the exact same thing. Do you also complain that you can only buy GT on the PS system? Or that you can't get a Pepsi at McDonald's? Or that you can't buy a Dodge at a Ford dealer? Or that you can't buy a Stihl product at Home Depot? You are literally surrounded by all kinds of licensing and exclusive distribution limitations.

And again, there is no ethical issue here. Porsche and EA entered into a perfectly legal agreement. There is nothing preventing you from enjoying Porsche in the game in which it's offered, you are not restricted in any way from owning it, other than your ability to afford it, which is the same restriction we all have on the purchase of any good or service. You not liking it doesn't make it unethical.

Either way EA can and do have the power to allow Turn 10 or PD to have Porsche in their games at the cost of a large sum of money PD probably can't afford. Why? Because EA is Greedy for money. EA might continuously renew the contract with Porsche. But if they haven't, then when it ends PD might have a loophole chance to enter into an agreement with Porsche at a cheaper price than what EA might be charging while they currently own the licence.

EA exists literally for the sole purpose of making money, the same reason every other for-profit corporation exists, including Sony and PD, greed is a non-issue. Having the exclusive Porsche license for all video games is something that EA has determined is important to their brand and good for them that they have the stones to pony up and shell out the big bucks. If and when Porsche determines it's not in their best interests to continue the arrangement, I'm sure they'll figure out a way to spread their brand across a broader spectrum of games or select another producer to endow with their product in another exclusive arrangement. I highly doubt anyone would shed a single tear if EA lost the license to Sony/PD and PD didn't share it with Forza or Project Cars.

 

[FastFurious77]

Yes Johnny. So maybe Kaz was either too late because EA got to Porsche first OR Kaz didn't want to enter into such an expensive deal with Porsche. They clearly could afford a contract with Ferrari and McClaren and Lamborghini which i'm sure isn't that cheap either. At the end of the day it was either the fact Kaz was too late because EA got their first or it was too costly for his company OR maybe Porsche refused PD.

And with all the money EA have they still haven't made a simulation racing game by now that will compete with Turn 10 and PD or they plane and simple have not wanted to make a sim. PD have Limited resources but not Turn 10 who have Microsofts backing. For me I just don't enjoy EA's arcade games so i miss out on enjoying Porsche in their games. EA won't care about this though only GT or Forza fans.

So. You all need to wish for Christmas that EA will decide to make a simulation racing game. Whether EA have the right employees that are experienced in making a sim i don't know. It certainly would be fun if EA did this. There would be nothing to stop them doing this. I can't see it damaging their NFS or SHift brand. They really should have a go at doing one.

Then everyone can enjoy Porsche cars in a sim game. Also Porsche as you say could figure out a way or Kaz could invite the CEO of Porsche for a nice Coffee and a nice negotiation talk with Porsche to try to convince them to find another way to put their cars in his game. Also give them a free GTR. Yea just joking Porsche don't need a Japanese car. Why would they when they have a Porsche! XD Yup

 

[R5]

Or that you can't get a Pepsi at McDonald's?

I have never actually realised this

nice Coffee

Stein of beer no?

Also give them a free GTR.

That'd seal the deal for them.

Whether EA have the right employees that are experienced in making a sim i don't know.

The makers of the NFS Shift game are currently making a little known Sim called Project CARS. They were rejected from EA, but it does give a great insight into what Shift could have been had EA let them have their own way. More fool them, though

or they plane and simple have not wanted to make a sim

I'd say the closest is Shift (Excluding EA Sports games) but they target different audiences. Much like GRiD 2 and GRiD autosport target different audiences.

 

[Pootis]

Porsche's contract with EA sports is stupidity itself.

And the fact that the recent NFS barely had any Porsche's is not making any use of the contract. What's the point of the contract if the sales of each NFS game becomes worse and worse each year?

 

[Haulin_Hebrew]

I really think you need to brush up on your terminology. There's a huge difference between a monopoly and an exclusive license and you are mixing and matching as if they are the exact same thing.

A monopoly (from Greekmonos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity

Do I have to define commodity as well?

commodity is an object or a good or service ("product" or "activity") produced by human labor. Objects are external to man. However, some objects attain "use value" to persons in this world, when they are found to be "necessary, useful or pleasant in life, "Use value" makes an object "an object of human wants," or is "a means of subsistence in the widest sense.

I think you just like to being disagreeable @Johnnypenso, If someone agrees with you, you will find a way to
conflict it I know, you disagree, that's ok too, but it does not change the fact that you can't get A sub-license for the Porsche brand from anyone but EA, That is a Monopoly sir. and for the record, you can get A Pepsi in more places than just one, even if you can't get a Pepsi at McDonald's

 

[Johnnypenso]

monopoly (from Greekmonos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity

Do I have to define commodity as well?

commodity is an object or a good or service ("product" or "activity") produced by human labor. Objects are external to man. However, some objects attain "use value" to persons in this world, when they are found to be "necessary, useful or pleasant in life, "Use value" makes an object "an object of human wants," or is "a means of subsistence in the widest sense.

I think you just like to being disagreeable @Johnnypenso, If someone agrees with you, you will find a way to
conflict it I know, you disagree, that's ok too, but it does not change the fact that you can't get A sub-license for the Porsche brand from anyone but EA, That is a Monopoly sir. and for the record, you can get A Pepsi in more places than just one, even if you can't get a Pepsi at McDonald's

1. A licensing agreement is a legal contract between two parties, known as the licensor and the licensee. In a typical licensing agreement, the licensor grants the licensee the right to produce and sell goods, apply a brand name or trademark, or use patented technology owned by the licensor.
2. Licensing Agreements - Encyclopedia - Business Terms ...
   www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html

A monopoly is a very broad definition that has no meaning in this particular situation because it is far too general. Monopolies in the form of licensing agreements and other contracts are granted every single day under a myriad of legal contractual arrangements. I myself have a contract with many of my customers granting me exclusive access to their service work either because I am such a wonderful contractor or in some cases because I outbid my competitors. All perfectly legal. Towns, cities, counties, states, countries, regions, business and organizations of all kinds actually tender out or summarily grant legal, monopolistic access to the supply of goods and services every single day in uncounted numbers. Legally. So a broad general definition of monopoly has very different meanings in very specific situations correct?

The agreement between EA and Porsche falls under the very specific definition of a licensing agreement, perfectly legal, between two consenting parties, providing for the exclusive use of a brand name, trademark, technology etc. I'm not sure how to make this more clear than providing an explicit definition that fits the exact legal arrangement that EA and Porsche have. That McDonald's and Coke have. That Stihl and Home Depot do not have. The PS3 you play on has bluetooth but not WiFi right? GT plays on a PS3 but not on an XBox right?

 

[Haulin_Hebrew]

A monopoly (from Greekmonos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity

I think you are just going to miss this one @Johnnypenso OK lets say the State or A Brand holder, had given you a licensing agreement giving you exclusive right which is a (AKA Monopoly) to build and sell See-saws for 15 years in the North & South America and the U.K. , , and no one but you could sell see-saws in the public and private sectors, you my friend would have A MONOPOLY, Now once you have that exclusive right,(AKA Monopoly) you sell your see-saws at the going see-saw rate which is determined by the needed skill set and labor, I would agree with you when you said

There is nothing unethical about selling the rights to use your brand to the highest bidder, that's the free market at it's finest.

But if then you decide to quadruple the price beyond the labor rate because no one but you
can sell see-saws in the public and Private sectors for that term, Because you have exclusive right, (AKA Monopoly) then that is unethical, and that my friend is the case with EA with Porsche Sub-licensing right. It is NOT about Porsche selling distribution right to the highest bidder, It is about the highest bidder (EA) Price gouging the market because he has exclusive right, (AKA Monopoly) which is unethical.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think you are just going to miss this one @Johnnypenso OK lets say the State or A Brand holder, had given you a licensing agreement giving you exclusive right which is a (AKA Monopoly) to build and sell See-saws for 15 years in the North & South America and the U.K. , , and no one but you could sell see-saws in the public and private sectors, you my friend would have A MONOPOLY, Now once you have that exclusive right,(AKA Monopoly) you sell your see-saws at the going see-saw rate which is determined by the needed skill set and labor, I would agree with you when you said

But if then you decide to quadruple the price beyond the labor rate because no one but you
can sell see-saws in the public and Private sectors for that term, Because you have exclusive right, (AKA Monopoly) then that is unethical, and that my friend is the case with EA with Porsche Sub-licensing right. It is NOT about Porsche selling distribution right to the highest bidder, It is about the highest bidder (EA) Price gouging the market because he has exclusive right, (AKA Monopoly) which is unethical.

Your example is complete fantasy and unrelated to the issue at hand, which is a completely legal licensing agreement, thousands of which of which surround you everyday and which millions upon millions of people take advantage of everyday. Go to McDonald's today and try to buy a Pepsi. By the way, Porsche is my favourite marque since I was a kid and I was driving this last night and thinking of this thread...

I think I'll take this for a spin tonight:

 

[tankuroded]

Your example is complete fantasy and unrelated to the issue at hand, which is a completely legal licensing agreement, thousands of which of which surround you everyday and which millions upon millions of people take advantage of everyday. Go to McDonald's today and try to buy a Pepsi. By the way, Porsche is my favourite marque since I was a kid and I was driving this last night and thinking of this thread...

I think I'll take this for a spin tonight:

View attachment 275735

But those are mods, not official stuff direct from the publisher/developer of the game. (Yes, you can mod AC)

 

[Johnnypenso]

But those are mods, not official stuff direct from the publisher/developer of the game. (Yes, you can mod AC)

Yup, it's the glory of modding, and also perfectly legal because the mods are free, not sold, so no licensing required, just like with liveries and such...

 

[Haulin_Hebrew]

I think I'll take this for a spin tonight:

You are wrong for that one @Johnnypenso, Just rub our noses in it, If only EA didn't have A Monopoly

 

[JKgo]

...............Wish I could own a decent PC; modding communities thrive in such an insane level it just makes playing a game so much more...just check the vids of GTA4, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Red Dead, Skyrim, etc,etc...Too bad it's always the same reason that prevents me from plonking down for a gaming rig, a wheel/gamepad and a decent screen....

 

[Matej]

I would like to see Porsche as well but it would be a big mistake to include models that could be covered with spicy RUF editions instead. Many Porsche owners claim RUF is exaclty kind of Porsche they would like to have, so I don't see why people complain so much as we already have a great fleet that gradually increases since GT2.

Of course, classic models like 356, 959 or 911 GT1 are worth complaining but there are many people that would like modern Porches even though RUF did / could provide better.

And to paraphrase a game programmer I talked to long time ago, acquiring licence of cars in general is a very hard job that requires massive amount of pages listing bunch of demands that need to be satisfied; from damage on vehicles
across appropriate usage of badges and names to simple stuff like RGB settings of color palette of a specific car. Allegedly, if you are not willing to pay for a car, a manufacturer will allow you to use it as long as you accept all changes on a vehicle they are requesting.

So it certainly is all about accepting each other demands before you can even discuss about money. That is how I see it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would like to see Porsche as well but it would be a big mistake to include models that could be covered with spicy RUF editions instead. Many Porsche owners claim RUF is exaclty kind of Porsche they would like to have, so I don't see why people complain so much as we already have a great fleet that gradually increases since GT2.

Of course, classic models like 356, 959 or 911 GT1 are worth complaining but there are many people that would like modern Porches even though RUF did / could provide better.

And to paraphrase a game programmer I talked to long time ago, acquiring licence of cars in general is a very hard job that requires massive amount of pages listing bunch of demands that need to be satisfied; from damage on vehicles
across appropriate usage of badges and names to simple stuff like RGB settings of color palette of a specific car. Allegedly, if you are not willing to pay for a car, a manufacturer will allow you to use it as long as you accept all changes on a vehicle they are requesting.

So it certainly is all about accepting each other demands before you can even discuss about money. That is how I see it.

I don't believe that licensing is all that difficult otherwise the little guys would never be able to license cars at all. After doing this sort of stuff for 20 years I'm sure there are fairly standard contracts used for this same as anything else. You don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime you license a car. Assetto Corsa and Project Cars for example are able to license with a couple dozen manufacturers on a shoestring budget relative to Forza and GT and somehow get it done.

I've posted this before but it bears repeating. An interview with Assetto Corsa's Stefano Casillo calls damage restrictions in video games an "urban myth" and says the only real restrictions are on blood and guts. Start at 5:40:

​

 

[Matej]

I don't believe that licensing is all that difficult otherwise the little guys would never be able to license cars at all. After doing this sort of stuff for 20 years I'm sure there are fairly standard contracts used for this same as anything else. You don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime you license a car. Assetto Corsa and Project Cars for example are able to license with a couple dozen manufacturers on a shoestring budget relative to Forza and GT and somehow get it done.

I presume you're pointing on a very hard job quote, so I'm going to reply based on that:

I can't remember details but I'm almost absolutely positive he (the programmer) was alluding to weary process of meeting conditions each manufacturer set in order for a car to appear in the game without badges, official names, etc. They probably sent several prototypes of a vehicle to a manufacturer and then complied to each demand. If that happens several times that could be classified as hard, especially if a lot of paperwork is involved (which probably was).

I've posted this before but it bears repeating. An interview with Assetto Corsa's Stefano Casillo calls damage restrictions in video games an "urban myth" and says the only real restrictions are on blood and guts. Start at 5:40:

Well, Assetto Corsa doesn't have such extensive car list as Gran Turismo does so, the statement said by Mr. Casillo should be left for a period when they (if) will work with more than 80 manufacturers, as Gran Turismo does for almost several years now. Let's not forget that if one manufacturer disagrees with certain conditions a big compromise for every other will have to be made.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I presume you're pointing on a very hard job quote, so I'm going to reply based on that:

I can't remember details but I'm almost absolutely positive he (the programmer) was alluding to weary process of meeting conditions each manufacturer set in order for a car to appear in the game without badges, official names, etc. They probably sent several prototypes of a vehicle to a manufacturer and then complied to each demand. If that happens several times that could be classified as hard, especially if a lot of paperwork is involved (which probably was).

Well, Assetto Corsa doesn't have such extensive car list as Gran Turismo does so, the statement said by Mr. Casillo should be left for a period when they (if) will work with more than 80 manufacturers, as Gran Turismo does for almost several years now. Let's not forget that if one manufacturer disagrees with certain conditions a big compromise for every other will have to be made.

Nothing here makes me think anything differently. I see small games developed on small budgets with no history in dealing with automotive manufacturers I'm aware of, and getting the job done, albeit on a smaller scale but also with a much smaller team and 1/10th the budget or less. On the other hand Kaz has a 15 year relationship with these same people and I'm just not buying that the process is uber difficult. I am guessing but I'd go so far as to say he almost gets a rubber stamp on anything he wants, I think he holds that much sway and influence now.

 

[chengman]

EA will be EA. They will continue to release DLC one week after launch and they will continue to hog the licensing for Porsche. Our best bet would be RUF rebadging the cars and selling a limited amount of them so they are able to be put in the game. Whether or not RUF has the resources or time to do that is out of my control, but rebadging a Macan as CT3rotp would make it plausible to have Porsches in the game.

 

[gt3_racer05]

I'm not gonna pay more just for Porsche. If not possible, PD can just include more RUF models instead

 

[JKgo]

I'm not gonna pay more just for Porsche. If not possible, PD can just include more RUF models instead

..........I want Porsches in the game as badly as the next guy, but yeah if a compromise is not reached, then including newer Rufs may be the way to go forward.
I'm quite curious about the plan of action regarding next year's proposed FIA championship - without Porsche racing cars which roughly makes up almost half the grid this could get tricky to pull off. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for some sort of deal being reached here.
..............Some part of me says this partnership with FIA is actually the motorsport governing body taking over the sponsorship of GT Academy from Nissan...who knows...

Edit: I just had a crazy idea here, thanks to Street Fighter V......What if PDI and EA cooperate on GT7 and on a NFS title?? I know that sounds preposterous, but if Capcom can do it, then why not? EA puts up some cash and access to a bunch of Porsches for GT7, and PDI helps out with lighting engines, physics model and such for a more serious-minded NFS title.
This could work out nicely for both parties - PDI gets cars that pretty much everyone wants, while NFS series gets some uh, "legitimacy" among the eyes of more serious racing game fans. Or at the very least, purchases of the said NFS title from the curious.

 

[GT22]

If GT7 came out with Porsche, it would be a big selling point.That said I can live with the newest RUF versions!

 

[R5]

If GT7 came out with Porsche, it would be a big selling point.That said I can live with the newest RUF versions!

Would it really be that big?

I mean it'd get a bit of interest but it'd not be huge because... well, EA, T10, SMS et al already have Porsche so I imagine it being only of serious interest for GT fans.