- 1,846
- Arizona
- maxpontiac
Some hidden/reserved GT5 tickets
- Thread starter sorg
- 1,729 comments
- 407,444 views
- 40,743
His reasoning is actually straightforward, since telling PD/Sony en masse that you would be willing to pay for what basically amounts to content that was always there tells them that people will pay for content that was always there. That creates a pretty slippery slope considering some of the DLC that they've released (Paint Chips, second car pack, Chromelines) already veers into that territory.
And, like it or not, it is everyone's business if Sony sees something like that and starts monetizing the game like EA or Microsoft would. Whether or not you agree that the slippery slope mentality is justified it another matter (I personally don't see Sony ever having the balls to pull the kind of crap that Microsoft did with, say, Forza Horizon or Forza 4 Essentials), but it is still in everyone's best interest to keep Sony from deciding to sell stuff that has been on the disc since day one. It's no different at that point than any other kind of unlock code that particularly unscrupulous publishers (Capcom) resort to.
And, like it or not, it is everyone's business if Sony sees something like that and starts monetizing the game like EA or Microsoft would. Whether or not you agree that the slippery slope mentality is justified it another matter (I personally don't see Sony ever having the balls to pull the kind of crap that Microsoft did with, say, Forza Horizon or Forza 4 Essentials), but it is still in everyone's best interest to keep Sony from deciding to sell stuff that has been on the disc since day one. It's no different at that point than any other kind of unlock code that particularly unscrupulous publishers (Capcom) resort to.
- 2,268
- SoCal
- please ask
Opinions do not really matter. A companies primary goal is to make money each year. May it be via DLC or a Perfect Game, nothing changes the fact that they need to make numbers.
If PD was just a mom and pap restuarant, you would more likely see more service for the dollar if the onwer is top notch and their goals was not to make a project profit margin.
The findings from Sorg has been great. Though I do wish we could pick any PP, Track and rivals right now.
If PD was just a mom and pap restuarant, you would more likely see more service for the dollar if the onwer is top notch and their goals was not to make a project profit margin.
The findings from Sorg has been great. Though I do wish we could pick any PP, Track and rivals right now.
- 774
- Trial Mountain
- joehazell
- hazellnut134
How do I view sorg's images? Most of them are appear as the imagehousing logo.
- 1,846
- Arizona
- maxpontiac
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
Fact. And this is all PD are concerned with.
- 666
It is everyone's business, companies monitor consumer trends. From this thread alone, people are willing to dish out cash for....skins? apparent new modes? maybe tires? This signals to PD, sure be like all the rest, charge us for things that already exist. Nickel and dime the base.
Capcom released 3 modes of play for RE6. Imagine that, paying for modes. Fighting games, like Blazblue, have color DLC......color.
In that case, PD should just release a standard baseline single player only GT6 with about 50 cars and the rest will be via DLC including the "new and improved" multiplayer mode!! Take your cars and race ONLINE! They don't have to release a livery editor, they can just release skins and charge for it. A-spec too short? Guess what, let's release new events via DLC.
At that point, when is it enough? But like it was said already, you do what you want, it's your money. People don't seem to see the correlation from this sort of practice and the real world practice outside gaming.
Capcom released 3 modes of play for RE6. Imagine that, paying for modes. Fighting games, like Blazblue, have color DLC......color.
In that case, PD should just release a standard baseline single player only GT6 with about 50 cars and the rest will be via DLC including the "new and improved" multiplayer mode!! Take your cars and race ONLINE! They don't have to release a livery editor, they can just release skins and charge for it. A-spec too short? Guess what, let's release new events via DLC.
At that point, when is it enough? But like it was said already, you do what you want, it's your money. People don't seem to see the correlation from this sort of practice and the real world practice outside gaming.
- 2,268
- SoCal
- please ask
Are we there yet? 💡 rather then talk about "IF", which easily equals a conversion value of watching paint drying. Painful.
Instead, the DLC that came with the XL version was at a really discounted price. USD39.99 + state tax. For the amount of time one can spend their free time playing this game, it is by far the cheapest hobby around...even if you add the DLC costs. Find another hobby that is so time consuming near low cost factors.
{Minutes, Hours, Days, Years} / cost = ?
- 40,743
So what? You asked why people expressing the desire to buy something was any of Simon's business. I gave you the answer why it was. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are perfectly free to spend your own money however you want. Just as Simon is perfectly free to point out that people expressing public desire to pay PD extra for work they already did years ago could mean the start of something dangerous for everyone as a consumer.
For a lot of publishers in the industry, yes. We are there. Next question?
Shockingly, you don't have to take part in the conversation if it hurts you so much.
💡
Last edited:
- 2,268
- SoCal
- please ask
if you so enjoy old discussing of the world being flat or round, be our guest to create a thread. If you missed it, it was already clearly stated that PD will do what they will in making money for their own company. Opinions does not pay their bills = fact. Now maybe we can act our age and hope sorg will come up with something else useful to read.
..and if you missed it I was saying that we can tell PD, with our wallets, what we're willing to buy and what we're not. If people didn't buy whatever PD threw at them they would realise that doesn't sell and would have to rethink things. People paying for Super Soft tyres just tells PD that they are free to rape our wallets, people will buy it up. Same as all the people that bought paint packs, especially those that bought more than one.
- 40,743
- 8,704
An interesting aside to "PD should make what people are willing to buy" is the fact that the vast majority of people haven't bought their games. Existing customers are the overwhelming minority; if wallets are all that matter, you and I don't matter, relatively speaking.
What probably also goes underestimated is the proportion of people who really will "pay to win". It's not a matter of economic feasibility, because if a game's big enough (user-wise), it'll always be feasible to cram it with microtransactions - that's all most Facebook games are (with elaborate hooks to draw in even just one transaction, which is all they want / plan for), and they're big business.
Portraying a certain image becomes more important at some point, namely around the time that you're trying to sell a supposed quality product. At that point, you're not excluding microtransactions because they're not economically viable, but because they look bad (or because you don't agree with the principle, or whatever). If a game sticks with them, not buying it (alone) sends no message, because if it's well marketed or compelling in any way, it will sell regardless of what the "elite" think of it, and you will just become one of the uncountable number of "people who don't buy games".
Weirdly, then, that annoying, pervasive gamer-elitism as the vocal minority is actually kind of useful in shaping the attitudes towards what is and isn't acceptable in games. Not that everyone will listen to everything, and you will always have little clades that draw their own truths from the masses of "data", but that's a much bigger story...
In summary, what you do with your money is borderline irrelevant, it's whether the "community" (in the broadest sense) can convince others of what to do with their money that matters.
It is simple, wouldn't take too much work and wouldn't affect the handling / tuning anything like (as adversely as) the recent update. The fact that data entry isn't PD's strong point has nothing to do with it, because that affects everything.
But I still wouldn't expect it, so maybe you needn't get so worked up about it?
I'm probably missing a broader argument here, I only considered your initial post in isolation, since you seemed to start ranting about brake fade out of nowhere.
What probably also goes underestimated is the proportion of people who really will "pay to win". It's not a matter of economic feasibility, because if a game's big enough (user-wise), it'll always be feasible to cram it with microtransactions - that's all most Facebook games are (with elaborate hooks to draw in even just one transaction, which is all they want / plan for), and they're big business.
Portraying a certain image becomes more important at some point, namely around the time that you're trying to sell a supposed quality product. At that point, you're not excluding microtransactions because they're not economically viable, but because they look bad (or because you don't agree with the principle, or whatever). If a game sticks with them, not buying it (alone) sends no message, because if it's well marketed or compelling in any way, it will sell regardless of what the "elite" think of it, and you will just become one of the uncountable number of "people who don't buy games".
Weirdly, then, that annoying, pervasive gamer-elitism as the vocal minority is actually kind of useful in shaping the attitudes towards what is and isn't acceptable in games. Not that everyone will listen to everything, and you will always have little clades that draw their own truths from the masses of "data", but that's a much bigger story...
In summary, what you do with your money is borderline irrelevant, it's whether the "community" (in the broadest sense) can convince others of what to do with their money that matters.
And you must have missed the part where I said that adding all of those variables would be one the problems unless they've already done all the work to get the information that they would need to have to do it. This is the same game that has trouble getting simple things like gear ratios and rev limits and curb weights and even horsepower right despite all of that being "more-or-less public knowledge," so forgive me if I don't think it would be as simple as you are presenting it to add things like brake dimensions and strength and pad material behind the scenes.
And thanks for, you know, answering my query about whether the game already takes material into account.
It is simple, wouldn't take too much work and wouldn't affect the handling / tuning anything like (as adversely as) the recent update. The fact that data entry isn't PD's strong point has nothing to do with it, because that affects everything.
But I still wouldn't expect it, so maybe you needn't get so worked up about it?
I'm probably missing a broader argument here, I only considered your initial post in isolation, since you seemed to start ranting about brake fade out of nowhere.
ZedMan1996
(Banned)
- 2,597
- South East
- ZedMan1996
- 1,846
- Arizona
- maxpontiac
I caught what your reply was, Toronado. I responded in kind.
I agree that anyone can say whatever he/she would like here in this forum, and in turn, I will do the same and voice my reasons on why I purchase any and all DLC from PDI.
As far as your start of something dangerous comment is concerned, friend, it's a little to late to be concerned with the nickle and diming of the consumer base, for that gun fired a long, long time ago.
You are not a moderator.
- 1,846
- Arizona
- maxpontiac
I do hear what you are saying. It is off topic afterall. I am done.
- 2,012
I always like more content and I don't have moral issues with spending $10. As long as it is decently made (not some standard quality car with recycled gt1 sounds) and it is an actual addition (tracks, cars, etc.) then I'll buy it no matter if it comes out at the beginning or years after.
It is paying a premium for premium content after all, and while I know videogames are one of the cheapest forms of entertainment (bang for the buck) it's still childish to complain about lunch money.
It is paying a premium for premium content after all, and while I know videogames are one of the cheapest forms of entertainment (bang for the buck) it's still childish to complain about lunch money.
Last edited:
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
GT5 wasn't really a 'complete' game from Kaz's words. So maybe the things that sorg has found (engine stages, extra tire compounds) weren't implemented because they weren't finished if you get what I mean. Not an excuse but maybe a possibility. Sorg said he was about a half second faster with Super Soft racing tires than on Soft racing tires. Maybe the % gain in lap time is suppose to be greater? Maybe stage3 to 4 engine is a smaller increase from stage 2 to 3? There's lots of reasons that could make sense why it this content was left out.
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
No one knows why or if it could be activated without rewriting the game in other areas. Not literally writing a new code, but the effects this would have in other aspects and areas.
- 7,432
- Fort Collins, CO
- Koios1031
- koios1031
Amidst all the chaos. I just wanted to thank Sorg for the unique insight you have brought to GT5. It's been great to do hear about some of the "behind scenes" information that have been brought to light. Can't wait to find out if there is more. Just for informations sake.
- 369
- Spain
- wejhvabewjty
@sorg Have you tested the extra turbos with some cars?
Thank you.
Thank you.
ZedMan1996
(Banned)
- 2,597
- South East
- ZedMan1996
