Senna content coming soon?
- Thread starter strela
- 5,436 comments
- 417,250 views
- 3,100
- Sweden
Well, there's a post on Facebook, but without any further explanation as to why it was delayed.
https://www.facebook.com/GranTurismo
ZedMan1996
(Banned)
- 2,597
- South East
- ZedMan1996
Well, why isn't the MP4/4 in any game it seems?
- 2,993
- Brisbane
- jimipitbull
It is exclusive to SimRaceWay as far as we know.
https://www.simraceway.com/cars/mclaren_racing-mp44-1988?locale=en
- 405
- A house
- AbsoluteBarstool
- AbsolutBarstool
So, it wasn't released today...
THAT MEENS IT ISANT COMEING!!!
Yet.
THAT MEENS IT ISANT COMEING!!!
Yet.
- 1,932
- Finland
- HI-tauer
"a few regional licensing issues have complicated a simultaneous worldwide launch of the new content"
..so leave out all idiotic comments about Gran Turismo / PD - this is purely a bureaucracy issue. Only thing PD has overlooked here (once again) is publicity - they really should pick up that ball as giving first hand information before rumors and saying sorry usually tends to make people less frustrated.
I have noted this earlier. Some countries / officials are a bi#### to work with. From what I have heard from the game developer community I believe its once again Italy or Spain. Or then the F1 licence holders - I dont know just how many institutions there is that "own" rights to these old F1 things and to Senna. I am pretty sure these "rights" have been given, taken and sold under pretty loose control during past decades. Call it corruption if you will - they call it a days work..
(not referring to italians or spanish - but to institution and licence holders) Some institutions just like to slow down others work if its anything for them in doing so.
Only thing I am a little surprised of is companies size of PD / Sony havent double checked the licensing issues a month ago, but I guess not every problem can be foreseen..
and I think at this point for PD this is a case of doing it right or doing it in time - and we have seen they rather do it right even if it take a little time. (..or sometimes A LOT of time.
)
What comes to this, I must say I think the person/institution selling rights to such car for a single game is just incompetent. The car is part of motor sports history - everyone should be able to get the licence for a reasonable compensation. They would get the same money and more from several deals instead of just one, and hopefully use the money in a good way. The same goes with the Porsche licence - just doesnt make sense.
..so leave out all idiotic comments about Gran Turismo / PD - this is purely a bureaucracy issue. Only thing PD has overlooked here (once again) is publicity - they really should pick up that ball as giving first hand information before rumors and saying sorry usually tends to make people less frustrated.
I have noted this earlier. Some countries / officials are a bi#### to work with. From what I have heard from the game developer community I believe its once again Italy or Spain. Or then the F1 licence holders - I dont know just how many institutions there is that "own" rights to these old F1 things and to Senna. I am pretty sure these "rights" have been given, taken and sold under pretty loose control during past decades. Call it corruption if you will - they call it a days work..
(not referring to italians or spanish - but to institution and licence holders) Some institutions just like to slow down others work if its anything for them in doing so.Only thing I am a little surprised of is companies size of PD / Sony havent double checked the licensing issues a month ago, but I guess not every problem can be foreseen..
and I think at this point for PD this is a case of doing it right or doing it in time - and we have seen they rather do it right even if it take a little time. (..or sometimes A LOT of time.
)What comes to this, I must say I think the person/institution selling rights to such car for a single game is just incompetent. The car is part of motor sports history - everyone should be able to get the licence for a reasonable compensation. They would get the same money and more from several deals instead of just one, and hopefully use the money in a good way. The same goes with the Porsche licence - just doesnt make sense.
- 1,932
- Finland
- HI-tauer
now that the deadlines are gone, I just hope the detail they have put to this thing is really respectable. I really hope, that when this eventually comes out, we get the feeling it really was worth the wait. And I really believe so. 
👍
..well not all of us here seem to be capable of that feeling.
👍..well not all of us here seem to be capable of that feeling.
- 4,004
- Croatia
Well, it actually does make sense from the perspective of the license holders. Why? Because with the "exclusive" licenses they are obviously getting bigger profits. How do I know that? I don't, but it is a heavy capitalism and if the reality was different, I am sure they would pursue the path where they can reach bigger profits (or any other side-benefit).
I will use the example of the F1 license rights before and post 2003.
Before 2003, the FOA was very liberal regarding F1 licenses and (almost) any studio (publisher) that wanted an F1 game could come to Ecclestone, place the offer and get the license. It was Sony who made a precedent in 2002, with securing exclusive rights for the F1 games in the period from 2003 to 2007. Noone except Sony was able to use any content related to licenses covered by FOA.
Due to increased license-fees announced by FOA in 2007, Sony opted out of the agreement and left to license to the other bidders. When heard about the F1 license being freed, Activision bought Bizarre Studios in intention to have them develop multiplatform F1 title. However, they were not willing out to pay alleged 15 million $ annually to FOM in order to get the rights. They were using the fact they have one of the best F1 development studios in the line to develop the game (it was former Bizzare - under the Psygnosis name - that developed legendary F1 and F1 '97) as the leverage to get lower cost. However, they didn't count on Codemasters willingness' to shell out 15M$ to Bernie. Deal was sealed in 2008 and Codies got the license, and in a sad turn of events, Activison dismantled Bizzare afterwards.
My point - if the multi-license could get Ecclestone more money, he would opt for it. But here are the actual stakes: with EXCLUSIVE license, he is SURE about annual income of 15M$ during the contract. He does not have to worry about market-caps, focus trends and similar things that get in the way when you have free license and you leave to the market to determine does it want to pay for your license or not. When you have "floating" license, your income depends on willingness' of each potential buyer to actually purchase a license for every year.
I presume it is exactly the same situation for the Simraceway. At some point, when those hedge-funds were investing into the Simraceway, someone thought how paying a hefty sum of money to McLaren for complete exclusivity of their portfolio will be a good marketing investment. McLaren saw a business opportunity to get that hefty sum as 100% certain income. And the agreement was settled. Easy-peasy and 100% logical.
Regarding Porsche, it is a more complicated situation. No-one know anything with 100% accuracy, but it seems how both companies (EA and Porsche) have their interest covered. With regular paying for the Porsche license, EA is securing own leverage on the market for their games and they use it to highlight that particular content as comparative (contentual) advantage of their titles. In the same time, Porsche is 100% certain about their annual income based on the license agreement and they do not have to worry about potential loss of such income if the license is made "floating" and their income become dependable of the number of the potential users by year.
It is really simple IMO. Yes, it does benefit to actual players, but it probably absolutely benefits to all other involved parties (to at least some margin).
- 1,831
- England
- Player_7421
- Player 7421
I don't see us having the content out by the end of this week. Unless they mean releasing it next Tuesday.
- 1,537
- GTP_Soundtrack
- 1,932
- Finland
- HI-tauer
(summarized your post quite well there?
👍)That to me is exactly what summarizes incompetence in business. They take the easy way out. They could take a risk, let the license float (great term there btw
👍) and use some expertise and TLC to guide it and make it grow. Limiting the creativity on the use of the licence to one company just suffocates the growth of the licence and the phenomenon behind it.Its once again a case where I see what they do, I understand why they do it - but I refuse to accept the way they do it.
As I said before, it means anyone wanting those cars HAS to buy SRW. If a console game has them it's still a possible lost sale.Are SimRaceway developing for consoles? If not, I do wonder how much $$$$ you need to secure an exclusivity on a platform you don’t target. Sounds like wasted money.
- 732
- france
- lifengjap
- 1,796
- Gambleboyen
How do you not sort out licencing before starting any other work?
PD's QA department must consist of nothing more than a piece of crumpled up paper.
PD's QA department must consist of nothing more than a piece of crumpled up paper.
- 1,537
- GTP_Soundtrack
- 720
- Australia
Will go and play Watch Dogs as I haven't been playing gt6 much just testing a few cars practicing laps and some online racing.maybe we will see the update tonight.
- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
My prediction is that we will have the content by Friday. They said this week, and I believe they will hold true to their word.
- 4,004
- Croatia
Have gran-turismo.com ever announced any date regarding Senna content?
I think not.
Licensing of ANY content in GT series - or any other PlayStation game - have NOTHING to do with the developer, but with the PUBLISHER (SCE in this regard).
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
- 17,441
- United Kingdom
That's a really interesting statement.
When Sony obtain a license, do they have to specify what title it will be used in? For example, in NFS: The Run, there is an M3 GTS, does that mean Sony hold the license for that, and if so, why would they not be able to include it in GT?
Actually you don't have to answer that, I'm already aware of the complexities of licensing, I think I'm just frustrated with GT at the moment. Too much time and energy being spent on the inclusion of cars that I don't think are really part of what GT was about (i.e. F1 cars).
ITCC_Andrew
(Banned)
- 18,532
- Kitchener
Your optimism is wonderful, but I'm not certain.
- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
Similar threads
