Sport modes biggest failing for the slow to average driver.

[rono_thomas]

Actually there have been quite a few "discussions" (err arguments) about this all the way back when the game was new and hot off the presses.

The reasoning or rather excuses offered has been from there are not enough racers with the "S" SR rankings of the lower DR rankings to match, there are not enough higher ranked players to fill a grid within their own DR ranks, Time of day being played, to turn a faster lap time.

Actually regardless of the why the reality is in sport mode daily races a high ranked SR and mid ranked DR player will usually find himself being used as a grid filler for higher DR ranked(hence faster) players ( At least on the N.A, servers region) and even improving of the qualifying times will only result in you being the grid filler for an even faster lobby.( I tested this by running races at one intentional sandbagged Q time then improving the Q time by a full 2 seconds and still placed within lobbies with a 11-17 th starting position over multiple races).

Then it went with the highest ranked players saying you needed to get gud or the lower ranked players just wanted easy wins handed out but the highest ranked players did not agree that they by racing slower ranked players were actually the ones that were receiving the easy wins as a result of slower grid fillers.

It was pointed out multiple times that the mid ranked players wanted nothing but what the game advertised was a matchmaking system where a player was in races racing against equal level and skilled players.

So the end result it has been this way since the start, you will not find a consensus as to it even being a problem much less of finding a fix. Although the game for months was shedding sportmode players by the thousands worldwide this was not considered by many to be a valid reasoning of perhaps why the losses, most players should be fine with having a best possible realistic finishing of 14th due to being a back marker grid filler entrant in many cases.

I will not go further in this as it is a waste of time but for those that bring these issues to light in current times believe me it has all been a hot topic since even the early release days of the game and it appears there is no answer, either accept it for what it is or find a different game to play.

Don’t disagree that matchmaking is wonky - playing the game tonight for me will begin with grids A+ A, but I doubt I’ll see any B until after 11pm. Quite obviously because there’s fewer people playing.

During the time that I’m seeing A+, A I can only assume lower ranks are seeing grids B, C but these are problems that only relate to race wins because matchmaking prevents like for like DR matching for whatever reason.

Moving back to my original response to @kjeldsen with regards to pole being given and my response being set the fastest time possible at least trying to be top of your DR class still stands and really has nothing to do with DR matching as its not a measurement of qualifying pace and through my experience at setting the top end qualifying times (consistently top 100-250) I’m never matched because of my qualifying time.

So playing at different times of the day you are more likely to be matched to your DR level therefore setting the best time you can will give you the best possible chance of being on pole.

 

[Hoopzah]

That’s not true at all. How do you explain other games having no issue with online play? This also ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who have the game also already have a PS+ subscription. Very few people buy a PS4 just for GTS.

1) My comment has no bearing on other games, and there's no point in comparing.

2)You have absolutely no data to back that up.

3)I have about 20 people on my friends list that stopped playing GT Sport. And when checking their profile the only game installed is? GT Sport! That would suggest they bought a PS4 just for Gran Turismo (I know I did, and there's a lot of people who have). Whatever the case, there's more data to suggest I could be on to something. Or maybe it's a conspiracy.

There's no way I'm the only person who has a friends list with similar data. If more people would care to check...

Edit:
Here's the result of a 2 minute Google search:

PS+ Subscriber count as of MAR/2018 is approx 33mil.
Source

Total PS4 units sold to date: 84.62M units.
Source

PS Plus is what's killing the online playerbase for Gran Turismo. Imo it's just dumb to require a subscription to play online for an online only game. Greed much?
Greed always comes around to bite ya' in the rear.

Get rid of it, or at the least Sony should allow the developer an option.

 

[kjeldsen]

*EDIT*

 

[rono_thomas]

Get rid of it PD!

Its not for PD to get rid of.

(Unless you are referring to GTS in its entirety)

 

[Hoopzah]

Pfft..
"Gran Turismo 4 life."
Yea, should have tagged Sony there.

Corrected

Is it really required for all multiplayer games? That's just jacked up dude lol.. woow.

 

[soundtiger95]

1) My comment has no bearing on other games, and there's no point in comparing.

2)You have absolutely no data to back that up.

3)I have about 20 people on my friends list that stopped playing GT Sport. And when checking their profile the only game installed is? GT Sport! That would suggest they bought a PS4 just for Gran Turismo (I know I did, and there's a lot of people who have). Whatever the case, there's more data to suggest I could be on to something. Or maybe it's a conspiracy.

There's no way I'm the only person who has a friends list with similar data. If more people would care to check...

Edit:
Here's the result of a 2 minute Google search:

PS+ Subscriber count as of MAR/2018 is approx 33mil.
Source

Total PS4 units sold to date: 84.62M units.
Source

PS Plus is what's killing the online playerbase for Gran Turismo. Imo it's just dumb to require a subscription to play online for an online only game. Greed much?
Greed always comes around to bite ya' in the rear.

Get rid of it PD!

1. It absolutely DOES have a bearing since no other game has this issues while still needing a subscription to play.

2. My data is the fact that there’s so little single player content that the game is essentially useless offline.

3. Or maybe it’s the fact that you surround yourself with people like you, and that’s why there’s so many similarities? Everyone who plays GTS on my friends list plays other games. So is my anecdotal evidence worth more? Is yours?

As for the edit, comparing total units sold with the number of subscribers doesn’t make much sense. Many people buy a console as a gift, don’t use it much or at all, end up re-selling it, etc. Too much happens for it to be an accurate number. The 33 million number is more accurate, but that’s also at any given time, and it’s risen steadily over the years. There’s also 80 million monthly users but that also includes people who use it for streaming shows and movies, music, etc.

The fact remains that GTS is the only game that really has an issue, and the reality is that it’s a niche game.

Pfft..
"Gran Turismo 4 life."
Yea, should have tagged Sony there.

Corrected

Is it really required for all multiplayer games? That's just jacked up dude lol.. woow.

Yes, it is required for all games which is what I was getting at. No other game has the problem that GTS has though.

 

[kjeldsen]

*EDIT*

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Actually regardless of the why the reality is in sport mode daily races a high ranked SR and mid ranked DR player will usually find himself being used as a grid filler for higher DR ranked(hence faster) players ( At least on the N.A, servers region) and even improving of the qualifying times will only result in you being the grid filler for an even faster lobby.( I tested this by running races at one intentional sandbagged Q time then improving the Q time by a full 2 seconds and still placed within lobbies with a 11-17 th starting position over multiple races).

Filler? Don't you mean matched in the middle of the grid with equally skilled players?

It was pointed out multiple times that the mid ranked players wanted nothing but what the game advertised was a matchmaking system where a player was in races racing against equal level and skilled players.

You mean placed into the middle of the grid as filler?


Reading some of your posts it sounds like you want a grid where you are gifted a pole position at the top of the DR B grid. That seems kind of silly.

 

[Groundfish]

The whole premise being pushed is false.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Filler? Don't you mean matched in the middle of the grid with equally skilled players?



You mean placed into the middle of the grid as filler?


Reading some of your posts it sounds like you want a grid where you are gifted a pole position at the top of the DR B grid. That seems kind of silly.

Simply not getting real involved in this discussion again but if the position on the grid is at the rear WITH THE SAME DR TIER RANKED players making up the rest of the grid so be it, I am then competing within a skill level by ranking as determined by the game and have been placed in as fair a grid that should be expected.

If I am placed in the middle of the grid and am one of the faster drivers within my ranking tier range and those in front of me on the grid are possible two tier ranks higher than my ranking level then no I have not been placed in a fair grid of equal level.

If I am placed on pole and win the race in a grid where the competition is ranked one to two tier ranks below me even though I will be awarded the race win statistically I did not EARN THE WIN BY DEFEATING EQUALLY SKILLED DRIVERS.

As far as my opinion the same goes for any racer that beats a field full of drivers that the game has determined by the ranking tier level where they are placed is of a lower, hence slower paced driver.

Expecting the average gamer to consistently be placed within a race that contains players at the front of the grid at a much higher level and at times a 10 second a lap faster pace where his level of expectation is to usually have a starting position towards the rear of the field and possibly a "best" result may be 14th and expect such normal player to continue to play to fill the grid for those faster players well a more serious player may continue but not the average player.

Take that same average player and place him in races populated by players of his skill level or at worst within the skill level of his ranking tier then perhaps at that point he can see a close enough goal pace wise that he does have races where he could get top 5's, podiums and maybe even a win here and there.

That would make for a realistic challenge and to possibly keep playing but when the same driver may be placed on a grid where only the top 3 or 4 actually cross the finish line before timing out and yes this I have seen then after a while the average player sees no reason to keep racing hoping to finish mid pack and virtually no chance of a win.

The only people being "GIFTED A POLE" are the higher ranked players filling the top grid slots of a grid mainly populated by lower ranked racers.

Of course this will be argued, and I really do not care as in my opinion it is what it is, but even though I wasted my time with one more post on the subject it still does not change a thing.

But if the franchise wants to retain the numbers of average players racing online they will make the grids to be of a more level makeup. The lower a drivers DR ranking the more than can be affected as the number of higher level DR racers can then cross up to 4 levels higher in a grid they may be placed in.

So again fair equal competition for the average guy is for the entire race grid and not for possibly the last two positions out of 20 on a race grid.

 

[zzz_pt]

One thing that would keep me playing GT more regularly would be awarding me cars I don't own in daily rewards.

It's simply frustrating to have tens of thousands of KM driven, being S/S or A+/S and still getting Meganes and Minis despite the fact I don't drive FF cars.

I still don't own a 20M car and with each update, with the number of cars getting higher (a good thing), the chances of getting a 20M car is even lower.

I would keep playing if I would be awarded a freaking new car, that I don't own, once in a while. And I don't own a good number of cars... The last ones I bought were Gr.2 cars because I needed them for dailies.

This might seem a small thing for most, but for me, it just breaks the immersion. Playing the game months in a row and getting to the daily reward screen just to win a car I would never buy or drive for the 6th time, makes me want to turn off the game and play something else.

And no, I won't let my PS4 running for 24h to get 6M at a time. I don't want to burn my console just to get 1 of the several 20M cars.

 

[simsimsheree]

This has way more (read: everything) to do with requiring a PS+ subscription, and little do with GT Sport's gameplay itself...

Think about it.

Thought about it. Decided it was rubbish! You paid more for the game than you do a PS+ subscription. If money were that tight, no-one could have afforded the game in the first place.

Secondly, $60 a year is 16cents a day. If you can't afford that, you can't afford the electricity to run the PS4!

Think about it...

PS-Plus is required for every online game on the PS4, that is not the problem for the many people playing other online games.

But unlike modern online games GT-Sport does very little to keep it interesting for anyone but the die hards to keep on playing. And die-hard is pretty much everyone here that is still playing and posting about the game. Our sample base here, compared to the millions that bought the game is not only small it is totally screwed vs ordinary players

The problem is compounded by many of the real die-hards moving away from GTS and towards ACC, PC2 and iRacing. Once upon a time, GT ruled the roost unchallenged. But viable alternatives (with much of the feature set and content no longer in GTS) have sprung up.

Online racing is a numbers game. GT5 and GT6 (up to the PS4 release) basically garnered 100% of the PS base. But now those numbers are diluted by PC2, AC, and the move towards more affordable gaming computers that can do racing in VR, 4K etc., that the real die-hards need to be given a sense of progression.

Coming from GT6, I felt absolutely no progression of the form in GTS, only regression. No weather, no ToD, little tuning, few tracks, few cars. The price paid for 4K assets was too high. But unfortunately, the grass isn't much greener anywhere else as far as online participation. Especially for those that simply want a nice clean pickup race.

IMHO, PD are the luckiest developers on the planet. They left themselves open and vulnerable for other games to come in and basically steal their entire base, and those games dropped the ball with pretty terrible online systems and bad design for pickup racing on consoles.

But the first game to put the package together is going to clean up. Sadly, at the moment, that is nobody...

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Thought about it. Decided it was rubbish! You paid more for the game than you do a PS+ subscription. If money were that tight, no-one could have afforded the game in the first place.

Secondly, $60 a year is 16cents a day. If you can't afford that, you can't afford the electricity to run the PS4!

Think about it...



The problem is compounded by many of the real die-hards moving away from GTS and towards ACC, PC2 and iRacing. Once upon a time, GT ruled the roost unchallenged. But viable alternatives (with much of the feature set and content no longer in GTS) have sprung up.

Online racing is a numbers game. GT5 and GT6 (up to the PS4 release) basically garnered 100% of the PS base. But now those numbers are diluted by PC2, AC, and the move towards more affordable gaming computers that can do racing in VR, 4K etc., that the real die-hards need to be given a sense of progression.

Coming from GT6, I felt absolutely no progression of the form in GTS, only regression. No weather, no ToD, little tuning, few tracks, few cars. The price paid for 4K assets was too high. But unfortunately, the grass isn't much greener anywhere else as far as online participation. Especially for those that simply want a nice clean pickup race.

IMHO, PD are the luckiest developers on the planet. They left themselves open and vulnerable for other games to come in and basically steal their entire base, and those games dropped the ball with pretty terrible online systems and bad design for pickup racing on consoles.

But the first game to put the package together is going to clean up. Sadly, at the moment, that is nobody...

I can agree that thus far a system that puts together a package that appeals and rewards all racers, even the more casually geared types that literally enjoy racing and a competition with other racers that do not have the time, the desire or even the inclination to be at the very fastest pace or the pointy end of the spear compared to all racers within the games active player base does not currently exist.

Unlike in the real world where there are distinctive levels of progression and prestige for a driver to be competing in a certain class against faster drivers (where in real life a separation of the machinery or equipment or perhaps the modifications allowed) is also a factor such does not exist within the video game world.

You would never in the real world see a beginning or club level motorcycle racer in the same class and race racing against the likes of Leon Haslam, J. Rea or M. Marquez as each championship is on a different level and has in place support classes that cater to the riders at a lower skill level or making the climb to possibly MAYBE someday race against in the fastest racers at the pinnacle of the sport.

The reality is that even in the real world 99+% of the people that get involved and racing at some level will NEVER reach being a top rated or professional driver and as a result there are many different classes and seasonal championships for these different levels from pro to club level.

The championships offered by GTS cater to the several hundred top gamers in the world and for the ultimate best of the best that is what it should be but if the gaming industry wants to see this format supported in a way that they profit from it then they need to take into consideration that the top few hundred fastest players in the world are not the core that keeps there business doors open.


They need to have classes that reward drivers that may not be an alien but are good racers at the pace they run.

Actually the higher the class and the better and more experienced the racers should be at racing and playing the actual game the higher and more prestige as being known as the best of the best the more that all facets of the game that include suspension tuning should be incorporated as just as in the real world driving is only a part of being a series racing champion.

But the gaming industry needs to figure out how to make the on line portion, even that daily races and even more the FIA championship series to also hold the interest and to entice the average gamer to want to compete instead of the well I am not fast enough or good enough to have a chance in that so they do not bother.

A game that only releases a new edition only every 4 years or so on average needs to retain its original player base even more than games with more frequent like yearly or semi annual releases.

Gts may get somewhat of a boost again this holiday season IF the game is included as (which should be a cheap addition to the package with the games selling price) in some console packages which sometimes include 2 or 3 older games to entice purchase of a new system.

PS4 is getting long in the tooth and getting people to purchase one as a new system (not a replacement for a broken system) will be more challenging the older the system gets.

GTS needs to do what is needed to remain viable and not only promote the equal racing for everybody but actually deliver it.

Believe me the general public cares nothing about the "get as gud" as the top tier ranked level drivers or be happy finishing at the rear of races aspect of competition as what you see is the normal responses on this forum of much more involved GTS players.

 

[Hoopzah]

Thought about it. Decided it was rubbish! You paid more for the game than you do a PS+ subscription. If money were that tight, no-one could have afforded the game in the first place.

Secondly, $60 a year is 16cents a day. If you can't afford that, you can't afford the electricity to run the PS4!

Think about it...

Maybe YOU paid more for the game then a PS+ subscription, but I didn't. I think I paid $35 for the digital deluxe edition, and $300 for a PS4 pro. And GT Sport is what, $20 now?

Perhaps in your mind anyone with a PS4 can afford whatever caviats they wish, but the overwhelming number of people who have one of these received one as a gift. And that's a not point, and totally unrelated to my argument (as is your response):

Sometime back there was a post of how many people purchased GT Sport. Somewhere in the post there's a link to show how many people *actually played online* and the number is somthing like less than half. So think about it. Why would people buy a game. Download it. Install the updates. And then NOT play online?
Oh.. maybe it's because they CAN'T. It's not awfully difficult to surmise that the greater majority of people who bought the game don't have a PS+ subscription. And when you learn that more than half the US population are living from paycehck to paycheck, it's even more understanding that that teenagers parents simply can't or aren't willing to afford a monthly subscription.

Granted this is all speculation, however I refuse to believe there's no relationship between PS plus subscription and the actual online playing user base. The numbers kind of swing towards this argument.

Your response seems to omit the facts.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Perhaps in your mind anyone with a PS4 can afford whatever caviats they wish, but the overwhelming number of people who have one of these received one as a gift. And that's a not point, and totally unrelated to my argument (as is your response):

I would think this statement of most which would indicate the majority that own a PS4 or even the game GTS itself received such as a gift is nothing but a wild stab at throwing something out there that very well is most likely not correct and makes no difference as to the subject at all.

Oh.. maybe it's because they CAN'T. It's not awfully difficult to surmise that the greater majority of people who bought the game don't have a PS+ subscription. And when you learn that more than half the US population are living from paycehck to paycheck, it's even more understanding that that teenagers parents simply can't or aren't willing to afford a monthly subscription.

Making the statement that more than half the U.S. population lives paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford a PS+ subsription is also funny on many levels, those same people can afford 900.00 dollar phones and 200.00 dollar a month phone service contracts, those same people have no problem stopping by Starbucks and spending 5.00 for a cup of coffee or chick fil a and dropping 7.00 for lunch several times a week.

Many are living paycheck to paycheck because of the choices they make daily and failing to live within a budget, not because that is all they can manage. Just by the above example a person skipping the starbucks coffee for 8 days a year could afford the cost of a PS+ subscription for an entire year if bought during a sale event.

Also there was a thread at one time on this site that polled the members ages and actually the numbers from the ages of players running from the 20's to 60's way dominated those playing still of teenage years that depended on a persons parents to buy them a subscription to play online.

Anyone that owns a PS4 that wants to play any game online needs the PS+ so many would already want the online capability and it would not have limits to just desired for the single game of GTS.

I cannot see this being a deciding factor as its cost is minimum compared to the cost of the console and even a new released game.

Again just one persons opinion and observations overall.

 

[Hoopzah]

Still doesn't answer why there are millions of sales, but not millions of members playing? Which relates to the OP since he's being grouped with on uneven playing field which we all assume is from a small playerbase.

The who's and what's aren't relevant, I admit.

With that said however, the idea of a hundred plus million people making minimum wage (i.e paycheck to paycheck), all make bad choices is extraordinarily opinionated. Statistics have shown most Americans don't budget properly, true, but those stats apply to wide range of incomes.

I have many friends who have it tough. Thankfully between my military service and an education I was able to rise up from that.. but it wasn't always easy. If it weren't from that experience I'd probably have the same outlook as you (no offense).

In my OPINION it isn't due to their choices or lack therof, it's due to the way this capatlist "system" is designed. Far too many people are willing, and have, stepped over the backs of others to get what they have. Average rent is $800 a month? Factor in utilities, car insurance and payments, food, gas, etc.. a min wage paycheck is what? 4-500$ a WEEK. Tops. Before taxes. Ouch. And if they have kids?- forget it.

"Sorry timmy, can't get you that subscription this month that automatically deducts from x account."

Is it really that hard to imagine?

 

[GreenT]

I would think this statement of most which would indicate the majority that own a PS4 or even the game GTS itself received such as a gift is nothing but a wild stab at throwing something out there that very well is most likely not correct and makes no difference as to the subject at all.


Making the statement that more than half the U.S. population lives paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford a PS+ subsription is also funny on many levels, those same people can afford 900.00 dollar phones and 200.00 dollar a month phone service contracts, those same people have no problem stopping by Starbucks and spending 5.00 for a cup of coffee or chick fil a and dropping 7.00 for lunch several times a week.

Many are living paycheck to paycheck because of the choices they make daily and failing to live within a budget, not because that is all they can manage. Just by the above example a person skipping the starbucks coffee for 8 days a year could afford the cost of a PS+ subscription for an entire year if bought during a sale event.

Also there was a thread at one time on this site that polled the members ages and actually the numbers from the ages of players running from the 20's to 60's way dominated those playing still of teenage years that depended on a persons parents to buy them a subscription to play online.

Anyone that owns a PS4 that wants to play any game online needs the PS+ so many would already want the online capability and it would not have limits to just desired for the single game of GTS.

I cannot see this being a deciding factor as its cost is minimum compared to the cost of the console and even a new released game.

Again just one persons opinion and observations overall.

I can’t argue that there is an extreme case of over extending and poor financial responsibility in the world but placing everyone in a category of bad financial management is simply wrong and extremely judgmental on your part. It is the exact same ignorance shown worldwide about race, religion, cultural traditions, etc. Using $900 phones as an example completely generalizes and groups everyone together unjustly. I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck most of my life, working 60-80 hrs every week for over 20 years. I finally started to get ahead enough that I was able to spoil my self with a ps4, GT Sport, and a wheel and guess what happened. In March I had a massive heart attack that caused me to flatline 9 times, be life flighted to closest major town, have open heart surgery, spend 10 days in ICU and now have to get a pacemaker and have constant supervision as I’ve passed out regularly since then. I had insurance but I’m still on the hook for over $200000.00 for what the insurance didn’t cover. I don’t have a $900 cell phone, nor do I have the luxury of purchasing things like Starbucks everyday.
Long story short, your show casing the bigotry and ignorance the human race has perfected and our civilization should be past that, shouldn’t we?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Still doesn't answer why there are millions of sales, but not millions of members playing? Which relates to the OP since he's being grouped with on uneven playing field which we all assume is from a small playerbase.

The who's and what's aren't relevant, I admit.

With that said however, the idea of a hundred plus million people making minimum wage (i.e paycheck to paycheck), all make bad choices is extraordinarily opinionated. Statistics have shown most Americans don't budget properly, true, but those stats apply to wide range of incomes.

I have many friends who have it tough. Thankfully between my military service and an education I was able to rise up from that.. but it wasn't always easy. If it weren't from that experience I'd probably have the same outlook as you (no offense).

In my OPINION it isn't due to their choices or lack therof, it's due to the way this capatlist "system" is designed. Far too many people are willing, and have, stepped over the backs of others to get what they have. Average rent is $800 a month? Factor in utilities, car insurance and payments, food, gas, etc.. a min wage paycheck is what? 4-500$ a WEEK. Tops. Before taxes. Ouch. And if they have kids?- forget it.

"Sorry timmy, can't get you that subscription this month that automatically deducts from x account."

Is it really that hard to imagine?

First off I am going to say that someone that is in that dire of a financial situation should not be spending their limited available funds on a video game console or video games much less a PS+ subscription.

Regardless of how you want to twist it it still boils down to a persons choices and in this case spending very limited resources(that according to your description are needed elsewhere) on a game console and video games is pretty irresponsible.

Life's needs are a priority and in no way is a game console a needed item!

Also minimum wage jobs are designed for a young person just starting out in the working world and not being the income of a career designed to support a household or raise a family.

I personally do not know many people that have the drive to gain success that have remained in minimum wage jobs but have learned skills or trades that allowed them to bring home a better wage. It does not take a college education to get into a career that pays a much higher wage than the wage designed for high school kids in their first jobs.

Perhaps you live in an area of the country that the economic landscape and job market is depressed or cost of living is excessive as compared to the majority of other areas but if that is the case then the solution is to move to an area that is more friendly from an economical standpoint for the wage levels your chosen profession may pay.

Again there are possible options and other paths that may have better results.

If you have been working any type of job for "years" and still earn minimum wage in my experience perhaps you should look in the mirror at the reason and quit trying to shift the blame on the "man holding you down".

But claiming that a subscription that can be bought for 39.00 a year RIGHT NOW on the holiday sales which actually works out to less than .11 cents a day is the problem for the online portion of the game is still really funny.

If household income level is the problem then you do not need to be spending money on gaming at the present time to begin with as you apparently have other more pressing issues to contend with such that should be taking priority.

Lashing out at others for a lack of a persons success is just trying to shift the blame from where it belongs. Personal responsibility!

 

[Max_DC]

I had insurance but I’m still on the hook for over $200000.00 for what the insurance didn’t cover.

Sorry for the offtopic comment, but that's a fine example of how it doesn't have to be. In Germany you would have to pay like 5 EUR a day for in hospital treatment per day, get the same level of quality medicine, but end up with a bill below 100 dollars total. And everybody (99.x%) has health insurance. And our country is doing great nevertheless, no communist breakdown on the horizon so far. Just sayin...
Back on topic: you get about 600 dollars worth of games with PS plus a year, granted you wouldn't buy them all and not all of them a gems, but you still get way more out of it than you pay for - not even counting online multiplayer. Not to forget regular 10-50% discounts on games.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Sorry for the offtopic comment, but that's a fine example of how it doesn't have to be. In Germany you would have to pay like 5 EUR a day for in hospital treatment per day, get the same level of quality medicine, but end up with a bill below 100 dollars total. And everybody (99.x%) has health insurance. And our country is doing great nevertheless, no communist breakdown on the horizon so far. Just sayin...

One thing I will say that in this country any reasonably decent health insurance policy has a deductible that before it starts paying ranges anywhere from usually 600.00- 2000.00 and a cheap premium monthly cost policy may have up to a 5-6000 dollar deductable and would be for catastrophic hospital care as its only use.

Also a heath policy also has a maximum out of pocket limit for a calenders policy year of usually 5-10,000 dollars that once you owed that amount in bills out of your own pocket the insurance from that point on pays 100%.
Now some policies do of course have lifetime limits that they will pay but those amounts are usually in excess of 1-2 million dollars depending on the policy.

So the insurance situation in all situations is not as dire in this country as has been made out to be by a long shot and most people with decent insurance would not owe more than about 8-10,000 cost out of pocket maximum regardless of the total bills amounts unless it exceeded the lifetime maximum of the policy.

Personally 2 1/2 years ago I had a medical issue where I spent a 30 full days in the hospital,( actually they wanted to keep me one more week but I finally talked them into letting me out!) had a code blue situation once during a procedure (died) and spent some time in the ICU and my total cost out of my pocket ended up being about 7000 dollars.

Again just a point and back to the topic concerning the game.

 

[Hoopzah]

Also minimum wage jobs are designed for a young person just starting out in the working world and not being the income of a career designed to support a household or raise a family.

I'd have to disagree right there.. minimum wage jobs are much more likely to be designed to keep operating costs at a minimum. Point blank and simple. In today's world profits run corporations, not heart.

You really should consider opening your mind a little.

And healthcare is an atrocity in this country. If your healthcare doesn't support a procedure, or a medication, or even certain hospitals billing systems, your on the hook for the entire bill. Again profits> people.

I live in New England where the costs of living rise steadily. In other places like New York and New Jersey rent is being increased to unbelievable levels (a couple grand a month for an apartment is the average.. yes, AVERAGE) minimum wage can't get you a place to live. Believe it. I can understand your beliefs to a degree but open your eyes man, I'm telling you things have gotten substantially worse for the average American family since the 1980's. It's a matter of fact my friend. If it wasn't so bad politicians wouldn't be running on slogans like "Make America great again."

And your totally right each person is responsible for their own inititave, but if the opportunity is just not there, if there's a huge black cloud living over communities that distorts the view of the world, how much of a chance do these people really have?

Rural America may be alright. But the major cities (where I'm from) the coastal areas (where the population is, and where I'm from as well) these places are getting worse..

 

[Alpha Cipher]

One thing I will say that in this country any reasonably decent health insurance policy has a deductible that before it starts paying ranges anywhere from usually 600.00- 2000.00 and a cheap premium monthly cost policy may have up to a 5-6000 dollar deductable and would be for catastrophic hospital care as its only use.

Also a heath policy also has a maximum out of pocket limit for a calenders policy year of usually 5-10,000 dollars that once you owed that amount in bills out of your own pocket the insurance from that point on pays 100%.
Now some policies do of course have lifetime limits that they will pay but those amounts are usually in excess of 1-2 million dollars depending on the policy.

So the insurance situation in all situations is not as dire in this country as has been made out to be by a long shot and most people with decent insurance would not owe more than about 8-10,000 cost out of pocket maximum regardless of the total bills amounts unless it exceeded the lifetime maximum of the policy.

Personally 2 1/2 years ago I had a medical issue where I spent a 30 full days in the hospital,( actually they wanted to keep me one more week but I finally talked them into letting me out!) had a code blue situation once during a procedure (died) and spent some time in the ICU and my total cost out of my pocket ended up being about 7000 dollars.

Again just a point and back to the topic concerning the game.

I'd have to disagree right there.. minimum wage jobs are much more likely to be designed to keep operating costs at a minimum. Point blank and simple. In today's world profits run corporations, not heart.

You really should consider opening your mind a little.

And healthcare is an atrocity in this country. If your healthcare doesn't support a procedure, or a medication, or even certain hospitals billing systems, your on the hook for the entire bill. Again profits> people.

I live in New England where the costs of living rise steadily. In other places like New York and New Jersey rent is being increased to unbelievable levels (a couple grand a month for an apartment is the average.. yes, AVERAGE) minimum wage can't get you a place to live. Believe it. I can understand your beliefs to a degree but open your eyes man, I'm telling you things have gotten substantially worse for the average American family since the 1980's. It's a matter of fact my friend. If it wasn't so bad politicians wouldn't be running on slogans like "Make America great again."

And your totally right each person is responsible for their own inititave, but if the opportunity is just not there, if there's a huge black cloud living over communities that distorts the view of the world, how much of a chance do these people really have?

Rural America may be alright. But the major cities (where I'm from) the coastal areas (where the population is, and where I'm from as well) these places are getting worse..

Title is "Sport Mode is the biggest failing for the slow to average driver" but ok

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Title is "Sport Mode is the biggest failing for the slow to average driver" but ok

And the offshoot direction was related and started as what was a response given to a reason of why sport mode fails for average players which is peoples ability to afford PS+.

Maybe read what led up to where the conversation picked up the variance in the last few post, if you prefer not to then feel free to not worry about it!

But I do not need a high school kid telling me what to post or not post!

 

[Tassie_tiger]

And the offshoot direction was related and started as what was a response given to a reason of why sport mode fails for average players which is peoples ability to afford PS+.

Maybe read what led up to where the conversation picked up the variance in the last few post, if you prefer not to then feel free to not worry about it!

But I do not need a high school kid telling me what to post or not post!

The personal dig is not only completely irrelevant, but also totally unnecessary. 👎

The game is played by all ages and by people from all around the world, as are the forumers of GTPlanet.
And considering the original topic is about the mix of DR grades being matched in a race, discussing the American health system and claiming it's relevant seems an extremely long draw of the bow to me.

 

[kjeldsen]

*EDIT*

 

[simsimsheree]

Black Friday discount PS+ for a year, $40.

11 cents a day. If you can't afford that, go back to begging on street corners! And sell your PS4 and buy yourself some food!

BTW, bought my GTS when it first came out, no discount back then! PS4Pro at Black Friday prices. Along with a wheel and then Playseat.

If 11 cents a day to be able to play online is too much, try PC2. Great AI (way faster than GTS), bigger grids, better tracks, better cars. And no online requirement whatsoever.

But, as I said, if you can't spring 11 cents a day, you can't afford the electricity to run your PS4. If Mommy and Daddy won't spring for PS+ (but apparently sprung for the PS4!), go mow some lawns, deliver some papers, write someone's term paper!

You want to decry the current economical system? Work harder, smarter, faster. You might even make 11 cents a day more!

Mission accomplished!

 

[chaseter]

It's amazed me that this has never been addressed yet in any updates. I'm talking about the terrible mismatching of rankings. For example, i've been a D-S for a long time who sometimes reaches the dizzy heights of C-S. All too often though i get both rankings pushed down. Why? Because the system thinks it is fair to match a driver who is D rated with A and S rated drivers.
Im not interested in the mechanics of how or why this happens, im aware. What i can't understand is how it is still allowed to happen after so many updates. For example, ive put hours and hours in to qualifying trials for Bathurst and my absolute best is 2:06.750.
Now after that i never managed to dip below 2:07.2 ever again, it was a true one off. My peak of talent. My limit. My absolute best that cant be improved upon.
I was quite happy with that yet since gaining that time im constantly matched with A and S rated drivers who are at least 3 seconds a lap faster than me and will churn those times out constantly. Its not just Bathurst, it's every sport mode race since the game began. Rarely do i get a fair and equal grid and manage to get a fair race with equal drivers.
The game should match drivers equally. D with D, B with B and so forth. A D-S driver should only ever be matched with a grid of other D-S drivers as should A-S drivers only be mixed with A-S drivers and the same for every other combo too. Seriously, how hard can i be to implement a fair system?! It totally puts me off racing when you know you cant make any progress.

Every time I get in a evenly matched race the system glitches and I have to re-enter and back to racing A S drivers.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

And the offshoot direction was related and started as what was a response given to a reason of why sport mode fails for average players which is peoples ability to afford PS+.

Slow to average driver. The title refers to DR class and speed, not intellect, social class, finances or whatever the hell else nonsense you're trying to grind an axe on just to hijack the discussion into complaining about a $40 - $60 annual service charge. Online service charges are the status quo for console gaming and generally accepted by the masses. They aren't going anywhere and if you don't like it then find another hobby, or at the very least another forum thread.

What a bizarre tangent.

In regards to the actual intent of the thread, the only issue I (a DR B / SR S driver) have with the online racing is the formal time commitment that it requires. Sure, the race is only 15 minutes but once you add qualifying laps and the typical wait time you usually have to set aside 30 minutes of completely free time to race. That is more than reasonable to expect from a player but my family life still makes it difficult to manage such a pure open time gap.

If Race A had 2 alternating iterations so that one was always available to shorten the required time sink to no more than 20 minutes that would be far more manageable and I wouldn't be stuck having to scrape out AI races to pass the time.

I know, it's such a nitpicky complaint that isn't even worth PD addressing but at least it's on topic.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Slow to average driver. The title refers to DR class and speed, not intellect, social class, finances or whatever the hell else nonsense you're trying to grind an axe on just to hijack the discussion into complaining about a $40 - $60 annual service charge. Online service charges are the status quo for console gaming and generally accepted by the masses. They aren't going anywhere and if you don't like it then find another hobby, or at the very least another forum thread.

If you had of read the thread then you to would have seen that I was not the one that was blaming anything or any of the games problems, issues or shortcomings on needing PS+ OR a persons social class or an individuals financial status or income level.

Actually that standpoint was from a couple of other individuals that had posted in the thread earlier and my response was to the point and fact that if they could not afford PS+ then perhaps spending their limited income period on gaming was not a wise choice.

So before you want to put in a comment that you probably think is cute maybe you should make sure your comment is directed to the posters that made the statements not the person that actually had the same stance on the issue that you are just now putting forth.