Transferring credits from Sport to GT7?

[twitcher]

No it doesn't. It's not negatively affecting anything other than your entitlement of wanting everything for free on the next game. The game still functions perfectly fine and works 100% as intended. So it's affecting your personal preferences, not the actual game itself like you're claiming for the community. It's easy to point out that it's not negatively or positively affecting the game at all, because if they simply add an option to be able to rent all cars online then whatever they do about transfering credits would be a non existent issue, as it was from the get go. It's a personal preference, but its not a problem of the game that it doesn't have it.

This game's whole schtick has been about progressing your way from the bottom, so if that's the problem you have with it, I think you might be better off playing sim oriented games as they seem to lack the actual progression, and the "starting from the bottom and working your way up" schtick they've been aiming for from the get go.

I thought there was maybe hope for you, but you’ve just resorted back to the lame argument of proposing that there is a “proper” or “classic” way to enjoy GT games.



That “starting from the bottom” aspect went out the window with 5 and the introduction of online lobbies. That’s how some people like to enjoy the games, that’s not how everyone enjoys the games.



You agree that the option to transfer would be good, but you think I’m entitled for desiring such an option. Brilliant thought process there bud.

 

[GingerBredMan]

People being “forced” to start from scratch in a new game has to be one of the wildest takes I’ve ever seen in gaming. Why even buy new games at that point?

 

[twitcher]

People being “forced” to start from scratch in a new game has to be one of the wildest takes I’ve ever seen in gaming. Why even buy new games at that point?

GT7 isn’t a new game. It’s a PS4 game that will have the exact same content as GTS. There’s zero reason to start the grind over again. The only defence of this a Call of Duty attitude where just because the title changes, it’s a “new game”.

 

[AlexWilmot]

GT7 isn’t a new game. It’s a PS4 game that will have the exact same content as GTS. There’s zero reason to start the grind over again. The only defence of this a Call of Duty attitude where just because the title changes, it’s a “new game”.

You’re right it’s not a new game, it’s the exact same as GT2

 

[AlexWilmot]

Wait… hold on… if GT7 is the exact same game as GT Sport what’s the point of transferring credits over if you can just play GT Sport

 

[GingerBredMan]

GT7 isn’t a new game. It’s a PS4 game that will have the exact same content as GTS. There’s zero reason to start the grind over again. The only defence of this a Call of Duty attitude where just because the title changes, it’s a “new game”.

The joke here is you’re showing all of this hate for this game that’s not even out yet, and you’ll probably get it the day it comes out.

But more importantly: the moment playing video games seem like a chore, you should probably focus your time on something else.

 

[ImaRobot]

In regards to your question, how does it help new players. It doesn’t, but it doesn’t negatively impact them either.

Forcing everyone to start GT7 from scratch does negatively impact a potion of the player base.

Also, I haven’t made anything up. Yes, I introduced a couple things that people have argued about on this forum for literally years in dozens of threads, I thought some of you could handle some broader context, but I guess I expected too much of the GTP crowd.

Hmmm... then that doesn't sound really that beneficial for the community as a whole does it? Which is said how you were approaching things. Just to remind you, I couldn't care less if any of these are/aren't an option, but really you're only looking out for those with similar viewpoints as yours, rather than the community as a whole like you pointed out it seems.

Having players start from scratch doesn't negatively affect anyone, because at that point, no one is getting an advantage over an other. It's an equal footing. However, none of that would be an issue with allowing people to use whatever they like online. Hell, they can even do that offline for a small credit fee or something, or a small % of overall credits won.

Also, yes you've made up a bunch of things that people never said here, it's been called out and pointed out many times already so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend. Ok so yeah, you used things that no one here said in order to 1up a point. If the people you're arguing with haven't said anything of the sort, why are you trying to apply it here? Like @Famine said, that's a strawman. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Thought you might have been able to handle a discussion and respond to things that people said instead of making up hypotheticals, and insulting people in the process because you don't like their viewpoint.

I thought there was maybe hope for you, but you’ve just resorted back to the lame argument of proposing that there is a “proper” or “classic” way to enjoy GT games.

That “starting from the bottom” aspect went out the window with 5 and the introduction of online lobbies. That’s how some people like to enjoy the games, that’s not how everyone enjoys the games.

You agree that the option to transfer would be good, but you think I’m entitled for desiring such an option. Brilliant thought process there bud.

laughably stupid thing to say. Hope for what? That you might like me or something? I never resorted to anything other than how PD say they want people to start their game. That they offer a ton of incentives for a jump start. That what you're saying about looking out for the community is a lie as you're really not. The starting from the bottom never went away, it's still very much there, or we wouldn't be talking about starting from the bottom , do you see how little sense that makes?

No, I think you're entitled because you're over here demanding things and arguing when there are very little people in this thread actually disagreeing with you. You're demanding a transfer and saying without that the game is negatively impacted because YOU don't want to wait for people to get credits to race in the cars you want. Entitled because you're trying to push a narrative that the games have been the exact same, 1:1, with no differences whatsoever, so that's why you feel you shouldn't have to pay for a new version of the game. You're ignoring things to try to push something, which is actually flowing more out than just this thread it seems like.

GT7 isn’t a new game. It’s a PS4 game that will have the exact same content as GTS. There’s zero reason to start the grind over again. The only defence of this a Call of Duty attitude where just because the title changes, it’s a “new game”.

GT7 iSn'T a NeW gAmE. Now you're ignoring reality in the most literal sense - but also ignoring the fact that the game isn't even out yet for you to determine that. You're trying to say this isn't entitled?

 

[Dave A]

I think some people are getting their heels dug in way too much on this one.

The inital debate (at least from what I can gather) currently taking place kicked off over if it was toxic game design to not allow people to carry over credits or cars from one game to the next. And I would disagree with that.

It isn't toxic game design, it's inconveneint to some people perhaps, but not toxic. Nor is it selfish or in any way or a big negative toward the developer. It's unprecedented, so why would it suddenly be an expected feature or a feature people should be entitled to now? It shouldn't be.

However, people arguing that it should never be an option or possible to make long time GT players not have to start completely from scratch (if they so wish) doesn't make any sense either. Having the option for me or other players to transfer cars oand/or credits if we wanted to do so doesn't harm anyone else, whatever choice I make.

So I do see a value in such a feature as a player, I just don't think there's any merit in expecting it or criticising the developer if we don't get it, because it's pretty uncommon across gaming in general.

Could that change? Yes. Is it likely to change? No. Is it toxic game design if it doesn't change? No.

 

[twitcher]

Hmmm... then that doesn't sound really that beneficial for the community as a whole does it? Which is said how you were approaching things. Just to remind you, I couldn't care less if any of these are/aren't an option, but really you're only looking out for those with similar viewpoints as yours, rather than the community as a whole like you pointed out it seems.

Having players start from scratch doesn't negatively affect anyone, because at that point, no one is getting an advantage over an other. It's an equal footing. However, none of that would be an issue with allowing people to use whatever they like online. Hell, they can even do that offline for a small credit fee or something, or a small % of overall credits won.

Also, yes you've made up a bunch of things that people never said here, it's been called out and pointed out many times already so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend. Ok so yeah, you used things that no one here said in order to 1up a point. If the people you're arguing with haven't said anything of the sort, why are you trying to apply it here? Like @Famine said, that's a strawman. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Thought you might have been able to handle a discussion and respond to things that people said instead of making up hypotheticals, and insulting people in the process because you don't like their viewpoint.


laughably stupid thing to say. Hope for what? That you might like me or something? I never resorted to anything other than how PD say they want people to start their game. That they offer a ton of incentives for a jump start. That what you're saying about looking out for the community is a lie as you're really not. The starting from the bottom never went away, it's still very much there, or we wouldn't be talking about starting from the bottom , do you see how little sense that makes?

No, I think you're entitled because you're over here demanding things and arguing when there are very little people in this thread actually disagreeing with you. You're demanding a transfer and saying without that the game is negatively impacted because YOU don't want to wait for people to get credits to race in the cars you want. Entitled because you're trying to push a narrative that the games have been the exact same, 1:1, with no differences whatsoever, so that's why you feel you shouldn't have to pay for a new version of the game. You're ignoring things to try to push something, which is actually flowing more out than just this thread it seems like.


GT7 iSn'T a NeW gAmE. Now you're literally ignoring reality in the most literal sense - but also ignoring the fact that the game isn't even out yet for you to determine that. You're trying to say this isn't entitled?

Again, you agree with my request for the option, but think I’m entitled for wanting the option. How you square that with yourself, I’ve no clue.

More of the assumptions about the motivation for my point of view, that you couldn’t be more wrong about. You’re like the GTP version of Dr Phil.

 

[ImaRobot]

Again, you agree with my request for the option, but think I’m entitled for wanting the option. How you square that with yourself, I’ve no clue.

More of the assumptions about the motivation for my point of view, that you couldn’t be more wrong about. You’re like the GTP version of Dr Phil.

Yes, you're absolutely right that I agree and don't mind it being an option(or don't care either way), and think you, specifically, are entitled - pretty simple if you ask me. I'm guessing you didn't read anything again and went straight for a shouting match. I'm not assuming anything, you've made it clear with what you said and nothing more - I've responded directly to what you posted. Please point out it out, or otherwise, stop crying about it. I mean why post if you're literally going to ignore everything.

Doesn't Dr. Phil deal with assholes of society?

 

[twitcher]

I think some people are getting their heels dug in way too much on this one.

The inital debate (at least from what I can gather) currently taking place kicked off over if it was toxic game design to not allow people to carry over credits or cars from one game to the next. And I would disagree with that.

It isn't toxic game design, it's inconveneint to some people perhaps, but not toxic. Nor is it selfish or in any way or a big negative toward the developer. It's unprecedented, so why would it suddenly be an expected feature or a feature people should be entitled to now? It shouldn't be.

However, people arguing that it should never be an option or possible to make long time GT players not have to start completely from scratch (if they so wish) doesn't make any sense either. Having the option for me or other players to transfer cars oand/or credits if we wanted to do so doesn't harm anyone else, whatever choice I make.

So I do see a value in such a feature as a player, I just don't think there's any merit in expecting it or criticising the developer if we don't get it, because it's pretty uncommon across gaming in general.

Could that change? Yes. Is it likely to change? No. Is it toxic game design if it doesn't change? No.

I only say it’s toxic in the context of it’s a page out the EA sports game, or CoD play book. Release the same game with a different number attached to the title, and make people start all over again. If you want to disagree with that, that’s fine.

I’m not demanding or expecting anything different from PD, simply asking for the option. Based on my experience with PD, that option is highly unlikely, but that’s very antiquated game design.

If 7 would be radically different than Sport, sure fine, let’s start over. 6 was no different than 5, Sport was basically the same as 6 with the addition of a match maker, and 7 will be the same as Sport, just with the addition of weather and vehicle customization.

Yes, you're absolutely right that I agree and don't mind it being an option(or don't care either way), and think you, specifically, are entitled - pretty simple if you ask me. I'm guessing you didn't read anything again and went straight for a shouting match. I'm not assuming anything, you've made it clear with what you said and nothing more - I've responded directly to what you posted. Please point out it out, or otherwise, stop crying about it. I mean why post if you're literally going to ignore everything.

Doesn't Dr. Phil deal with assholes of society?

I have read everything you’ve wrote, and responded to it. Other than making asinine assumptions about me, you haven’t provided a single logical counter argument, other than defaulting to “that’s the way it’s always been”.

You’re now even making the assumption that I’m upset and shouting…I’m simply having a discussion here kid.

And now you’re calling me an asshole. Brilliant.

 

[ImaRobot]

I only say it’s toxic in the context of it’s a page out the EA sports game, or CoD play book. Release the same game with a different number attached to the title, and make people start all over again. If you want to disagree with that, that’s fine.

I’m not demanding or expecting anything different from PD, simply asking for the option. Based on my experience with PD, that option is highly unlikely, but that’s very antiquated game design.

If 7 would be radically different than Sport, sure fine, let’s start over. 6 was no different than 5, Sport was basically the same as 6 with the addition of a match maker, and 7 will be the same as Sport, just with the addition of weather and vehicle customization.

Aannnd that, ladies and gentlemen, is entitlement. That you think the game isn't changed enough(or at all, actually) for your taste to require more money, time, and effort to put into a new iteration(actually, not one, but 4) so instead of putting your money where your mouth is, you'll get mad at them for not catering to you and getting mad that you had to spend money and time again. I felt the same thing about Forza Horizon somewhat, but luckily for me it's on the Gamepass at no additional cost to me. Too bad GT doesn't do something like that, maybe it'd help you feel better. But then so would adding the option of allowing all cars online.

 

[twitcher]

Aannnd that, ladies and gentlemen, is entitlement. That you think the game isn't changed enough(or at all, actually) for your taste to require more money, time, and effort to put into a new iteration(actually, not one, but 4) so instead of putting your money where your mouth is, you'll get mad at them for not catering to you and getting mad that you had to spend money and time again. I felt the same thing about Forza Horizon somewhat, but luckily for me it's on the Gamepass at no additional cost to me. Too bad GT doesn't do something like that, maybe it'd help you feel better. But then so would adding the option of allowing all cars online.

Wrong assumption again (would I expect anything less at this point)?

There’s enough new content to justifying spending money on it, but it’s not a drastic enough difference to warrant grinding for the exact same cars all over again.

I like PD, I’m happy to give them money, and don’t think they owe me anything.

I would just prefer to spend my limited gaming time racing online, as opposed to repeating a credit grind I’ve already done. But that’s probably way too complex for you to wrap your head around.

 

[ImaRobot]

I have read everything you’ve wrote, and responded to it. Other than making asinine assumptions about me, you haven’t provided a single logical counter argument, other than defaulting to “that’s the way it’s always been”.

You’re now even making the assumption that I’m upset and shouting…I’m simply having a discussion here kid.

And now you’re calling me an asshole. Brilliant.

No, you actually ignored the vast majority of it with one line quips about my person, attacking those that don't agree, instead of the actual content of the post itself. You have no right to tell people what is or isn't logical here, considering your digging so deep that you're applying things that people never said here. I never said "that's the way it's always been" either, if you got that all you did was ignore the post and take it out of context.

I'm not making an assumption, you're over here throwing a hissy fit because of this conversation. You're resorting to petty quips and attacks instead of addressing things. That's not the actions of someone who is simply having a discussion.

I never said you were an asshole, I asked about Dr. Phils profession. Go report it if you have a problem with it.

Wrong assumption again (would I expect anything less at this point)?

There’s enough new content to justifying spending money on it, but it’s not a drastic enough difference to warrant grinding for the exact same cars all over again.

I like PD, I’m happy to give them money, and don’t think they owe me anything.

I would just prefer to spend my limited gaming time racing online, as opposed to repeating a credit grind I’ve already done. But that’s probably way too complex for you to wrap your head around.

You keep saying some stuff about assumptions, but never address it. What was assumed?

If that's how you prefer to game, and PD specifically says this is how they prefer their players to start, and haven't changed in 8 games, than maybe it's time to put your money where your mouth is and either drop the game, or wait for it to change before you buy in again and repeat the same process game after game, at your own admission. But that's probably way to complex for you to wrap your head around.

 

[Dave A]

I only say it’s toxic in the context of it’s a page out the EA sports game, or CoD play book. Release the same game with a different number attached to the title, and make people start all over again. If you want to disagree with that, that’s fine.

That is where the disagreement lies. It isn't really an EA thing, it's almost every game ever which carries assets from one game into one or more sequels. The only way to avoid it really is for every game to have entirely new content, which for a large number of games and genres just isn't practical. It's better that the previous content is used as well, as it allows the sequels to be bigger and the developers can focus attentions where needed.

Imagine GT4 if none of the cars from GT3 were carried over, we'd just have fewer cars, and the only reason why would be to avoid charging people twice for what they deem to be the same content.

But again, we come back to the issue of ownership, when you buy a game you don't actually own that game, you own a license to use that game and experience it's content within that game. So when a sequel does come out, the license you bought for the first title doesn't cover the sequel in any way, shape or form.

There is definitely a line to be drawn, but I don't see it where you do. @ImaRobot mentioned Forza Horizon, and I'm with him on that. They often release a sequel where vehicles from the previous game are cut from the sequel and then re-released as paid for DLC. It happens all the time in that series, and that's not something I like.

I do agree that options for experienced players who had the previous game/s to not have to start over from scratch if they don't want to, isn't a bad idea from a players perspective, be that by way of transfering cars or credits or just getting bonus credit and things unlocked at the start based on a previous games save file (as has been done before). But that's a completley seperate issue to the issue of licensing the right to play a game and use it's content within a particular piece of software. You have to differentiate the two.

 

[twitcher]

Aannnd that, ladies and gentlemen, is entitlement. That you think the game isn't changed enough(or at all, actually) for your taste to require more money, time, and effort to put into a new iteration(actually, not one, but 4) so instead of putting your money where your mouth is, you'll get mad at them for not catering to you and getting mad that you had to spend money and time again. I felt the same thing about Forza Horizon somewhat, but luckily for me it's on the Gamepass at no additional cost to me. Too bad GT doesn't do something like that, maybe it'd help you feel better. But then so would adding the option of allowing all cars online.

Wrong assumption again (would I expect anything less at this point)?

There’s enough new content to justifying spending money on it, but it’s not a drastic enough difference to warrant grinding for the exact same cars all over again.

I like PD, I’m happy to give them money, and don’t think they owe me anything.

I would just prefer to spend my limited gaming time racing online, as opposed to repeating a credit grind I’ve already done. But that’s probably way too complex for you to wrap your head around.

No, you actually ignored the vast majority of it with one line quips about my person, attacking those that don't agree, instead of the actual content of the post itself. You have no right to tell people what is or isn't logical here, considering your digging so deep that you're applying things that people never said here. I never said "that's the way it's always been" either, if you got that all you did was ignore the post and take it out of context.

I'm not making an assumption, you're over here throwing a hissy fit because of this conversation. You're resorting to petty quips and attacks instead of addressing things. That's not the actions of someone who is simply having a discussion.

I never said you were an asshole, I asked about Dr. Phils profession. Go report it if you have a problem with it.


You keep saying some stuff about assumptions, but never address it. What was assumed?

If that's how you prefer to game, and PD specifically says this is how they prefer their players to start, and haven't changed in 8 games, than maybe it's time to put your money where your mouth is and either drop the game, or wait for it to change before you buy in again and repeat the same process game after game, at your own admission. But that's probably way to complex for you to wrap your head around.

multiple times you’ve made assumptions about my motivation for my opinion.

No one is throwing a hissy fit, that’s another assumption and probably a projection.

What do you want me to address? You’ve said that most agree with my request for the option, YOU agree with the request, so what else is there to say? Other than apparently wanting that option makes me entitled (based on assumptions about me, my lifestyle, and motivations).

You literally just resorted to the “this is the way PD says it should be, it’s the way it always has been” in this very post. Well done.

Aaand more assumptions about the games I play, assuming I haven’t played PCARS and Asseto Corsa.

 

[ImaRobot]

Someone get this one a bottle of warm milk. Maybe some whiskey under the gums.

 

[AlexWilmot]

Wait so it is now a different game as there’s enough new content? But earlier it wasn’t?

 

[twitcher]

That is where the disagreement lies. It isn't really an EA thing, it's almost every game ever which carries assets from one game into one or more sequels. The only way to avoid it really is for every game to have entirely new content, which for a large number of games and genres just isn't practical. It's better that the previous content is used as well, as it allows the sequels to be bigger and the developers can focus attentions where needed.

Imagine GT4 if none of the cars from GT3 were carried over, we'd just have fewer cars, and the only reason why would be to avoid charging people twice for what they deem to be the same content.

But again, we come back to the issue of ownership, when you buy a game you don't actually own that game, you own a license to use that game and experience it's content within that game. So when a sequel does come out, the license you bought for the first title doesn't cover the sequel in any way, shape or form.

There is definitely a line to be drawn, but I don't see it where you do. @ImaRobot mentioned Forza Horizon, and I'm with him on that. They often release a sequel where vehicles from the previous game are cut from the sequel and then re-released as paid for DLC. It happens all the time in that series, and that's not something I like.

I do agree that options for experienced players who had the previous game/s to not have to start over from scratch if they don't want to, isn't a bad idea from a players perspective, be that by way of transfering cars or credits or just getting bonus credit and things unlocked at the start based on a previous games save file (as has been done before). But that's a completley seperate issue to the issue of licensing the right to play a game and use it's content within a particular piece of software. You have to differentiate the two.

Ok fair enough, it’s not just EA, it’s most of the gaming industry. I still don’t see that as justification for continuing the practice.

There are countless examples within gaming of games or franchises that are decades old, that people still play, that continue to get new content, yet players aren’t forced to start the game from scratch every time something new gets added to the franchise. Biggest example would be World of Warcraft, but there’s others like World of Warship, World of Tanks, Elder Scrolls Online, and many more.

Myself and others are more than happy to support the developer by paying for the new content, we just don’t want our account started from scratch just because the weather changed or because some new location got added.

Like I said, I’m well aware this is standard practice in the industry, but it would be hella nice to progress past that, and it would extremely awesome if PD led the charge in changing how the industry works.

But I guess that makes me a selfish entitled asshole (not saying you said that, but others in this thread have).

 

[philipPF]

Well @twitcher you're not alone, I understand your points

The car models probably won't need much work to port them in GT7. It seems GT7 is build on top of GT sport content (including of course cars & and tracks), so no, it's not a "brand new game".

Nothing is due obviously, it would just be a nice move from PD, even if personnaly I'm not interrested (but considering the amount of people willing to pay twice for the same car model, PD should make profit from this )

 

[ImaRobot]

There are countless examples within gaming of games or franchises that are decades old, that people still play, that continue to get new content, yet players aren’t forced to start the game from scratch every time something new gets added to the franchise. Biggest example would be World of Warcraft, but there’s others like World of Warship, World of Tanks, Elder Scrolls Online, and many more.

You mean those examples that release a content update that has to be paid for every 6 months practically. Those others that take paid subscriptions? Those kind of games? You're more willing to shell out hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year to play a game just because the progression isn't lost, rather than buying one 60 dollar game every 5+ years? I mean damn, if that's what you prefer, it makes sense why you're so bothered by the fact that they don't allow you to start with everything you've acquired over decades of games. I for one think those kinds of games are massive cash cows and they do it like that because it makes them vastly more money. Why make a game every few years that has a wealth of content when you can make small expansions multiple times a year for the same price of a full game?

Myself and others are more than happy to support the developer by paying for the new content, we just don’t want our account started from scratch just because the weather changed or because some new location got added.

Please, help us all out and flesh out the game of GT7, that comes out in 4 months. Wish we all had that time machine. I'm all for having gripes with a game, but it's insensible to have them without even knowing what's going on with the game, especially with one not out yet. On top of that, the racing genre is pretty hard to reinvent the wheel. Besides Pcars2 to Pcars 3, I don't know any game that changed so drastically within each iteration. This genre is about evolution rather than revolution, and on top of that, none of them are games as a service - That was, until GTS and Forza Horizon 4 happened. I would have preferred that they made GT7 strictly as a PS5 game so they can really flesh it out, but no matter a game that does that, it'll still be about incremental changes in core gameplay services rather than a completely 100% new all around game.

But I guess that makes me a selfish entitled asshole (not saying you said that, but others in this thread have).

Definitely entitled, maybe a bit of a brat, even if what you want I don't disagree with. Asshole was applied to yourself by yourself though, but If going off how you acted here - the childish remarks, the insults, the fabrication - I wouldn't entirely disagree with you.

 

[twitcher]

You mean those examples that release a content update that has to be paid for every 6 months practically. Those others that take paid subscriptions? Those kind of games? You're more willing to shell out hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year to play a game just because the progression isn't lost, rather than buying one 60 dollar game every 5+ years? I mean damn, if that's what you prefer, it makes sense why you're so bothered by the fact that they don't allow you to start with everything you've acquired over decades of games. I for one think those kinds of games are massive cash cows and they do it like that because it makes them vastly more money. Why make a game every few years that has a wealth of content when you can make small expansions multiple times a year for the same price of a full game?


Please, help us all out and flesh out the game of GT7, that comes out in 4 months. Wish we all had that time machine. I'm all for having gripes with a game, but it's insensible to have them without even knowing what's going on with the game, especially with one not out yet. On top of that, the racing genre is pretty hard to reinvent the wheel. Besides Pcars2 to Pcars 3, I don't know any game that changed so drastically within each iteration. This genre is about evolution rather than revolution, and on top of that, none of them are games as a service - That was, until GTS and Forza Horizon 4 happened. I would have preferred that they made GT7 strictly as a PS5 game so they can really flesh it out, but no matter a game that does that, it'll still be about incremental changes in core gameplay services rather than a completely 100% new all around game.


Definitely entitled, maybe a bit of a brat, even if what you want I don't disagree with. Asshole was applied to yourself by yourself though, but If going off how you acted here - the childish remarks, the insults, the fabrication - I wouldn't entirely disagree with you.

You don’t need a monthly subscription to play ESO, or Warships, or Tanks. Some games do require that, many don’t. Expansion packs for ESO were a fraction of the cost of a full game. And I haven’t spent a dime on World of Warships over the years. So, not sure what your point is, other than you seem to not have experience with these kinds of games.

The fact that you point out the new game will only be incremental changes is precisely why I would prefer to see player accounts carried over, if we choose to do so. I do not see “it’s always been like this” as a justification to continue to do so.

I haven’t fabricated anything. If you think I fabricated the idea that certain players thing that everyone must “work” for and “earn” cars in GT games, then you simply haven’t been around these forums long enough. I know for a fact that there is at least one person who has made that arguement multiple times over the years, lurking in this thread, liking comments which support their view. I simply raised that point when I did to nip it in the bud, as I have no desire to repeat that same convo with that same person. Furthermore, and maybe I’m mistaken that it was @Famine, but one of the staff of GTP had to explicitly call this person out for putting forth that argument in one thread, while promoting credit exploits in another thread.

The only insult i levied was calling you a child, which you have more than demonstrated and confirmed.

 

[ImaRobot]

You don’t need a monthly subscription to play ESO, or Warships, or Tanks. Some games do require that, many don’t. Expansion packs for ESO were a fraction of the cost of a full game. And I haven’t spent a dime on World of Warships over the years. So, not sure what your point is, other than you seem to not have experience with these kinds of games.

ESO Plus - The Elder Scrolls Online

Become an ESO Plus™ member to unlock VIP perks, including full access to all DLC game packs and more!

www.elderscrollsonline.com

Sure, you can buy every single new pack outright if you want, but again, thats a price of a new game a few times a year. Which is very likely why the offered a subscription plan in the first place. The game itself is 20 bucks, the expansions are 40-50, so no, that's completely wrong. Either way, they're milking their playerbase, and is actually a more toxic thing than anything COD or EA is doing that you brought up. I really hope this doesn't become the norm, because that would just be ******. The other games like that, and not excluding ESO which is already massively expensive, make their money off massive amounts of microtransactions. Another thing that would just as bad as anything COD or EA or doing.

So, not sure what your point is, other than you seem to not have experience with these types of games.

The only way PD would be able to keep up those practices is if they take on those designs that are actually toxic.

The fact that you point out the new game will only be incremental changes is precisely why I would prefer to see player accounts carried over, if we choose to do so. I do not see “it’s always been like this” as a justification to continue to do so.

Yes, that's racing games in a nutshell. The only way to do what you expect is to 100% drop every single piece of content from the game and start 100% fresh each game - not recycling any tracks, cars, or features. I don't know about you, I just wouldn't prefer 1 game a decade. I think they might actually eventually run out of content sooner than later too. Good thing I never said that I think "it's always been like this" as a justification for it either. The more sim-oriented games don't have much wiggle room for revolution, that's why they all try to make incremental changes instead.

If you think I fabricated the idea that certain players thing that everyone must “work” for and “earn” cars in GT games, then you simply haven’t been around these forums long enough.

What was that you said about assumptions? Ironic. You fabricated responses to things that you said because you feel that was what people are going to say to you, instead of responding to things that people. You've been called out for it, so not sure why that's being backpeddled now.

The only insult i levied was calling you a child, which you have more than demonstrated and confirmed.

Ironic, or hypocrite? Pick one for yourself. You've also insulted peoples intelligence, thought process, and ways of thinking. You've tried to use a real life person as some sort of quip against them. You've constantly berated those in discussion with you when no one was doing such things to you in the first place. You really have no place to be calling people children.

Here, since you seem to have selective memory:

how childish this community can be.

Any justification for forcing everyone to start over is garbage PR speak from a bean counter.

Perfect example of the childish attitude of this forum.

This is exactly the one dimensional thinking I’m talking about.

and who have actual lives outside of GT,

What are you, 14??

You’re a selfish child.

Brilliant thought process there bud.

You’re like the GTP version of Dr Phil.

I’m simply having a discussion here kid.

But that’s probably way too complex for you to wrap your head around

The one just below, is where you started to make up responses for people, instead of responding to what they're actually saying. That's called making something up.

But we know that won’t be the case in GT7, and furthermore, the exact same people who are saying “new game, start over” will put forth bogus reasoning that giving away the cars in game for free (to use online) goes against “GT philosophy” where players have to “work” to “earn” cars to use online (translated, strap a rubber band to your controller to exploit whatever glitch the community has discovered).

 

[GingerBredMan]

I think the ask on its own is pretty innocent, but in the context of Gran Turismo the ask is to essentially not play the game.

Acquiring cars and credits wasn’t exactly hard in GTS. 10 sport mode races will get you a healthy amount of credits, I don’t really understand the need to transfer credits from GTS.

 

[twitcher]

ESO Plus - The Elder Scrolls Online

Become an ESO Plus™ member to unlock VIP perks, including full access to all DLC game packs and more!

www.elderscrollsonline.com

Sure, you can buy every single new pack outright if you want, but again, thats a price of a new game a few times a year. Which is very likely why the offered a subscription plan in the first place. The game itself is 20 bucks, the expansions are 40-50, so no, that's completely wrong. Either way, they're milking their playerbase, and is actually a more toxic thing than anything COD or EA is doing that you brought up. I really hope this doesn't become the norm, because that would just be ******. The other games like that, and not excluding ESO which is already massively expensive, make their money off massive amounts of microtransactions. Another thing that would just as bad as anything COD or EA or doing.

So, not sure what your point is, other than you seem to not have experience with these types of games.

The only way PD would be able to keep up those practices is if they take on those designs that are actually toxic.


Yes, that's racing games in a nutshell. The only way to do what you expect is to 100% drop every single piece of content from the game and start 100% fresh each game - not recycling any tracks, cars, or features. I don't know about you, I just wouldn't prefer 1 game a decade. I think they might actually eventually run out of content sooner than later too. Good thing I never said that I think "it's always been like this" as a justification for it either. The more sim-oriented games don't have much wiggle room for revolution, that's why they all try to make incremental changes instead.


What was that you said about assumptions? Ironic. You fabricated responses to things that you said because you feel that was what people are going to say to you, instead of responding to things that people. You've been called out for it, so not sure why that's being backpeddled now.


Ironic, or hypocrite? Pick one for yourself. You've also insulted peoples intelligence, thought process, and ways of thinking. You've tried to use a real life person as some sort of quip against them. You've constantly berated those in discussion with you when no one was doing such things to you in the first place. You really have no place to be calling people children.

Here, since you seem to have selective memory:






















The one just below, is where you started to make up responses for people, instead of responding to what they're actually saying. That's called making something up.

Eso plus was an option, not a requirement. I knew plenty of people who played eso without it, myself included. Majority of the expansion packs were PvE content, and I was focused on pvp, so I didn’t buy every expansion.

I also never said I want PD to adopt those types of practices, I simply used those games to demonstrate that player accounts do not need to be reset just because new content gets added.

I never said I expect GT7 to be 100% different. In fact, I’ve said basically the opposite, that I know for a fact it will be mostly the same, which is why I would like the option to transfer my account.

Poo pooing famine’s comment is not an insult, if it was, it wouldn’t be an option on this website.

The rest, I only dished out what I received, aside from the initial comment where I called the forum childish, which the forum has more than demonstrated and confirmed, both in the past, and again today in this thread.


What’s your goal here? You’ve said you agree with my request for account transfer, or that you don’t really care one way or the other, so why do you continue this? All you’ve done is argue against incorrect assumptions, despite actually agreeing with my overall point.

 

[ImaRobot]

Eso plus was an option, not a requirement. I knew plenty of people who played eso without it, myself included. Majority of the expansion packs were PvE content, and I was focused on pvp, so I didn’t buy every expansion.

I know it's an option. The expansions are options too, but you're talking about games constantly adding in new content. What you're failing to add is that those games adding in additional content on the same original game for years and years also cost a crap ton of money, yearly. In the amount of time it takes between one production cycle of GT, you're sitting on somewhere around 4-6 years of subscriptions and/or updates that you're constantly pay for. The choice of spending 60 bucks every 5 years or so and starting new compared to having to spend hundreds of dollar a year(times 5) to just play the additional content doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade off at all. If that's what you prefer, cool. That sounds terrible to me though.

I also never said I want PD to adopt those types of practices, I simply used those games to demonstrate that player accounts do not need to be reset just because new content gets added.

I never said I expect GT7 to be 100% different. In fact, I’ve said basically the opposite, that I know for a fact it will be mostly the same, which is why I would like the option to transfer my account.

I know you didn't. If that's what you got from that than you're massively missing the point. The only way for PD to survive a game cycle like that and make money would be to take on such ****** practices like that. It was outright bad thing to compare it to considering the amount of money it requires just to do it.

You're saying the opposite? You started saying every single game is the same, then you said that they are slightly different, then you're getting mad at incremental changes, but now you're ok with incremental changes? The only way for it to be massively different for you to justify buying a new game would be to completely redo it every single time. That's terrible for racing games.

Poo pooing famine’s comment is not an insult, if it was, it wouldn’t be an option on this website.

The rest, I only dished out what I received, aside from the initial comment where I called the forum childish, which the forum has more than demonstrated and confirmed, both in the past, and again today in this thread.

Oh, so just the poo one is the only one out of place? That was intentionally placed there to see if you'd single it out and not the others. The rest, was actually you first and foremost all the time, every single time. Especially in response to me. Not one of my responses were posted in such a way until you decided to insult the world as you go before anyone got a chance to. You're not wrong about the forum though, you just happen to be the main contributor here. Like you said, you initially started it, so you just got back what you gave.

What’s your goal here?

I'm sharing my opinion on things like other people are doing that post on video game forums. If that's an unknown concept than maybe you haven't been around here long enough. There was no assumptions, as I'm responding directly to things you've said. Please point out the assumptions so I can address them correctly, please.

 

[twitcher]

I know it's an option. The expansions are options too, but you're talking about games constantly adding in new content. What you're failing to add is that those games adding in additional content on the same original game for years and years also cost a crap ton of money, yearly. In the amount of time it takes between one production cycle of GT, you're sitting on somewhere around 4-6 years of subscriptions and/or updates that you're constantly pay for. The choice of spending 60 bucks every 5 years or so and starting new compared to having to spend hundreds of dollar a year(times 5) to just play the additional content doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade off at all. If that's what you prefer, cool. That sounds terrible to me though.


I know you didn't. If that's what you got from that than you're massively missing the point. The only way for PD to survive a game cycle like that and make money would be to take on such ****** practices like that. It was outright bad thing to compare it to considering the amount of money it requires just to do it.

You're saying the opposite? You started saying every single game is the same, then you said that they are slightly different, then you're getting mad at incremental changes, but now you're ok with incremental changes? The only way for it to be massively different for you to justify buying a new game would be to completely redo it every single time. That's terrible for racing games.


Oh, so just the poo one is the only one out of place? That was intentionally placed there to see if you'd single it out and not the others. The rest, was actually you first and foremost all the time, every single time. Especially in response to me. Not one of my responses were posted in such a way until you decided to insult the world as you go before anyone got a chance to.


I'm sharing my opinion on things like other people are doing that post on video game forums. If that's an unknown concept than maybe you haven't been around here long enough. There was no assumptions, as I'm responding directly to things you've said. Please point out the assumptions so I can address them correctly, please.

I never said I want PD to copy ESO exactly, with multiple expansion packs per year and such. You’ve completely missed my point here, and again, are arguing against things you assume I want.

I’ve pointed out every assumption you’ve made along the way, maybe you just didn’t read.

I have no issue with buying a new game. If the new game is only an incremental change over the old game, and we will be doing basically the same activities, then I would like accounts to transfer over. This is the position I’ve maintained this entire time. Any misunderstanding about that on your part is down to your assumptions.

Reread the thread again. I only started the mild insults after it was stated I was doing mental gymnastics, told I was “butt hurt”, and told by random strangers to manage my time better.

Saying “this is an example of one dimensional thinking” is not an insult, it’s just saying a person is only thinking about an issue from one point of view.

It’s clear that you’re just interested in perpetuating a fight, without moving anything forward. I have been around long enough to now know that you have nothing interesting or innovative to add to the discussion, your only interest in circular bickering, and that these types of convos go no where, so I’m ending my part here.

 

[ScottPuss20]

GT7 isn’t a new game. It’s a PS4 game that will have the exact same content as GTS. There’s zero reason to start the grind over again. The only defence of this a Call of Duty attitude where just because the title changes, it’s a “new game”.

You don't get to decide what the game is going to be. You are not a developer. You aren't a chairman of the board, you aren't a creative director, you aren't a technical director and you aren't a Sony executive. If you don't want to grind your way through again, don't buy the game. You don't define what the game is to other people and nor do you then lambaste them for disagreeing.

 

[twitcher]

You don't get to decide what the game is going to be. You are not a developer. You aren't a chairman of the board, you aren't a creative director, you aren't a technical director and you aren't a Sony executive. If you don't want to grind your way through again, don't buy the game. You don't define what the game is to other people and nor do you then lambaste them for disagreeing.

Where did I decide what the game is going to be? Everything I’ve said is based off content for GT7 that has been released, and based on experience with past GT games.

I’m still undecided on buying the game, so I may take your advice.

That’s a little ironic, the bit about lambasting people for having a different opinion on what GT “should be”….lots of comments in this thread (and on the forum over the years) explicitly saying GT games are about the credit grind, when there are plenty of us who play it for the online aspect with no interest in the single player credit grind. Furthermore, the comedy in this whole discussion is that most of us seem to agree that an option to transfer certain account info, from credits to decals (different thread, same root issue) would overall be a good thing, so not really sure who is lambasting anyone.

 

[05XR8]

I think the ask on its own is pretty innocent, but in the context of Gran Turismo the ask is to essentially not play the game.

Acquiring cars and credits wasn’t exactly hard in GTS. 10 sport mode races will get you a healthy amount of credits, I don’t really understand the need to transfer credits from GTS.

Mentioned many times myself, restarting GTS over 100 times. Gold each Circuit Experience(CE) gifts thirty-six cars and about six million Cr(plus the 50,000Cr at start up). Takes about five hours to complete. Add the initial First Car, at game start up, the Daily Workout Gift(DWG) or gifts for the number of days any one player takes to complete CE, the two FIA Manufacturers loan cars and Kart, plus if it's a player's birthday and depending on the cars gifted in CE, a player never has to buy a car.
A player should reach Level 16 afterwards.

If not gifted in CE and DWG, the Cr. earned is enough to buy the Red bull cars or all the formula cars or a mix of Red Bull, Formula and Nostalgic race cars.

GT7 looks( so far with Brighton Antiques) to have more expensive cars than GTS. WELL See.