Will the relatively poor sales of GT6 affect the development of GTSport?

[Wools]

The AI in the game is not only slow, it literally slows down and lets you pass for the win. Almost regardless of the rest of the game, that alone would make it a game targeted at casual players.

I'm not sure, isn't that more a symptom of the game having really bad AI rather than an effort on Polyphony to appeal to casual players?

For example, Project Cars is not a casual game because you can dial the AI back to 10% and add a racing line, it's just attempting to be inclusive to all players which is a good thing in my eyes.

 

[Imari]

I think the original poster is already wrong with one of their first assumptions that GT6 was targeted as casuals.

I think it was targeted at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. And even if it was targeted as casuals, why is that a bad thing as that would surely bring in more sales?

It's not targeted at the hardcore. The only thing in GT6 that supports the hardcore is the online, and even that requires them to work for it.

I'm not sure, isn't that more a symptom of the game having really bad AI rather than an effort on Polyphony to appeal to casual players?

No. The AI is fine (as far as such things go), the rubberband cripples it in order to let the player win.

The game doesn't have terribly bad AI. It has passable AI that is forced to do stupid things when it gets ahead of the player. Lewis Hamilton wouldn't be a bad driver if he got a tyre shot out every time he was leading a race, he'd be a very good driver that was forced not to win by external circumstances.

It's assumed that Polyphony did this in order to appeal to casuals, who generally just want to win. Fair enough. But they ignored the fact that there are at least half a dozen better ways of doing it in 2015, most of which are at least as easy as making that rubberbanding system in the first place. And these other ways tend to cater to both the casual who just wants to get a fast car and stomp the AI as well as the "hardcore" who wants to have a really close race and maybe even have to improve their skills to win.

For example, Project Cars is not a casual game because you can dial the AI back to 10% and add a racing line, it's just attempting to be inclusive to all players which is a good thing in my eyes.

Correct. pCARS allows for all styles of player, at least in theory. GT6 goes out of it's way to make it really tough for a good player to get a decent challenge.

Another example is how often they lock SRF on in challenges. If you're going to allow assists, which is reasonable for a casual focused game, you need to also be able to turn them off. Again, there are easy ways to handle this but Polyphony have just gone for the one-size-fits-all approach, and the one size is the casual size.

 

[Wools]

It's not targeted at the hardcore. The only thing in GT6 that supports the hardcore is the online, and even that requires them to work for it.

No. The AI is fine (as far as such things go)

Another example is how often they lock SRF on in challenges. If you're going to allow assists, which is reasonable for a casual focused game, you need to also be able to turn them off. Again, there are easy ways to handle this but Polyphony have just gone for the one-size-fits-all approach, and the one size is the casual size.

I disagree. Despite the problems GT6 has and the old hardware it's running on, it's designed to be a simulation driving game that's attempting to replicate real life car physics. That's no mean feet and combined with the petrol head content, it's been made with love for people who adore cars. Disagreeing with some small facets of the design of some rough edges does not make the game casual. All in my opinion of course!

 

[Johnnypenso]

I disagree. Despite the problems GT6 has and the old hardware it's running on, it's designed to be a simulation driving game that's attempting to replicate real life car physics. That's no mean feet and combined with the petrol head content, it's been made with love for people who adore cars. Disagreeing with some small facets of the design of some rough edges does not make the game casual. All in my opinion of course!

You're entitled to your opinion of course, it just flies in the face of the facts

 

[BrodieBoi94]

I voted that the sales of GT6 will definitely affect the development of GT7.

I do not think that it will be affected very much though, because Gran Turismo is a headline franchise for SONY. The name "Gran Turismo" holds a lot of value on it's own (kind of like NIKE, or Jordan).

If you ask most gamers and car enthusiasts, "Have you ever heard of Gran Turismo?" then they will probably say yes. Therefore I believe SONY will still invest a great amount into Polyphony Digital's development of Gran Turismo.

Additionally this is going to be a new entry on a NEW PLATFORM. That's enough to persuade many people to purchase it.

 

[Imari]

I disagree. Despite the problems GT6 has and the old hardware it's running on, it's designed to be a simulation driving game that's attempting to replicate real life car physics. That's no mean feet and combined with the petrol head content, it's been made with love for people who adore cars.

All of which is irrelevant to whether it's designed for casuals or not.

A simulation game can cater to casuals, as you've already pointed out by reference to pCARS.
Old hardware doesn't come into it.
"Petrol head content" doesn't make a game only for hardcore gamers, it means that it's aimed at petrolheads. A petrolhead is not by definition a hardcore gamer, if anything I'd say petrolheads usually aren't gamers at all.

"Made with love"? You defensive about this or what? You're projecting your own feelings here.

Disagreeing with some small facets of the design of some rough edges does not make the game casual. All in my opinion of course!

No, designing the game to appeal specifically to generic casual player traits at the expense of gameplay other player types might enjoy makes the game casual.

It's not that I disagree with parts of their design, even though I do. It's that they've made the game in such a way as to target a specific type of player.

The sort of player that wants to win easily.
The sort of player that enjoys big numbers and lots of content over depth in gameplay.
The sort of player that loves a wide range of features but won't play with them long enough to uncover their limitations.
The sort of player that won't notice or care that half the assets are PS2 quality.
The sort of player that can't see screen tearing and frame drops.
The sort of player for whom grinding and achievements are engaging gameplay.

This is a casual player.

There's plenty of evidence within the game that's it's targeted at casuals. A casual in this case being a player that plays infrequently and puts little effort into the hobby. Like someone who goes to the movies a two or three times a year to see whatever happens to be big at the time might be a casual movie-goer, as opposed to someone who goes every fortnight and plans their movie watching schedule and movie watching technique who might be considered "hardcore".

GT6 is great for casuals. It gives a quick injection of fun if you sit down and play for half an hour. You unlock something or get an achievement. Maybe you get a new car. You won, you are the secret love child of Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher!

Unfortunately, it's not designed for long term engagement beyond the Pokemon aspect and online. There's no variation or scaling in gameplay, there's no drive to improve skills over merely investing time.

That's what separates the casual from the hardcore. Casuals just want to play and have fun, the hardcore want to display skill. GT6 doesn't allow that, without the player going significantly out of their way to defeat Polyphony's anti-skill design. In GT6, everyone is a winner.

And when everyone is a winner, no one is.

 

[JKgo]

The sort of player that wants to win easily.
The sort of player that enjoys big numbers and lots of content over depth in gameplay.
The sort of player that loves a wide range of features but won't play with them long enough to uncover their limitations.
The sort of player that won't notice or care that half the assets are PS2 quality.
The sort of player that can't see screen tearing and frame drops.
The sort of player for whom grinding and achievements are engaging gameplay.

...You talkin' 'bout me?

 

[Wools]

"Made with love"? You defensive about this or what? You're projecting your own feelings here.

It's not that I disagree with parts of their design, even though I do. It's that they've made the game in such a way as to target a specific type of player.

GT6 is great for casuals. It gives a quick injection of fun if you sit down and play for half an hour. You unlock something or get an achievement. Maybe you get a new car. You won, you are the secret love child of Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher!

Unfortunately, it's not designed for long term engagement beyond the Pokemon aspect and online. There's no variation or scaling in gameplay, there's no drive to improve skills over merely investing time.

That's what separates the casual from the hardcore. Casuals just want to play and have fun, the hardcore want to display skill. GT6 doesn't allow that, without the player going significantly out of their way to defeat Polyphony's anti-skill design. In GT6, everyone is a winner.

And that's the difference between our 2 viewpoints. I enjoy the game for what it is, despite not agreeing with some of Polyphony's design choices myself, you're arguing the semantics over your belief it's designed for casuals. And that word "casuals" has many connotations and subjective assumptions so I disagree with most of the points you've listed!

I mean you list "The sort of player for whom grinding and achievements are engaging gameplay." as a rock solid definition of someone who is casual... For all the tens of millions of "hardcore" Gran Turismo and Call of Duty players who have played for hundreds of hours grinding a track for 10K or played countless matches for a pistol upgrade yet enjoyed the process... They're casual? But what about someone like me who doesn't enjoy that, and plays almost all racing arcade and simulator games exclusively in Time Trial mode or private online games with friends, who's sole enjoyment is perfecting a lap time and getting to grips with the car? Am I casual or hardcore? Am I casual to you but hardcore to someone else?

If you take a breath and step back for a second, you'll realise that arguing the toss over such a small, subjective (And it is subjective despite what you think) and arbitrary assessment of a game and its millions of players, is almost pointless. Gran Turismo is many things to many people, you can't assess a development team and player base as easily as you like to think.

 

[Tornado]

For all the tens of millions of "hardcore" Gran Turismo and Call of Duty players who have played for hundreds of hours grinding a track for 10K or played countless matches for a pistol upgrade yet enjoyed the process... They're casual?

Yes. GT6 even doubles down on it by offering microtransactions.

But what about someone like me who doesn't enjoy that, and plays almost all racing arcade and simulator games exclusively in Time Trial mode or private online games with friends, who's sole enjoyment is perfecting a lap time and getting to grips with the car? Am I casual or hardcore?

The latter.

 

[guywithanAE86]

I'm late to the party as usual lol.

I'm not surprised one bit by those sales numbers. I still think it was pretty ballsy of PD to even make GT6 on the PS3 considering the game released right around the time its console got replaced. And even then, 2 mill ain't bad at all, based on what I see in the game a LOT less time went into GT6 than GT5 did, and I'm assuming the budget wasn't quite what GT5's was since we never bothered with a prologue or anything, all we got was that little physics engine demo. GT6's biggest expense was probably that new physics engine, which I'm willing to bet was just a test bed for what GT7's gonna be like. And if you ask me they nailed it with the physics, so PD can finally chalk a win on GT6 lol.

Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I'd like to think GT7's gonna be a lot better than the folks of GTPlanet are inclined to think. Sony's gonna be more willing to put more money into GT7 since it's one of their oldest franchises' debut on their new console, and the folks at PD kept raving about how much better the PS4 was than the PS3. I don't wanna start any project cars level hype, but I'm hoping PD walked away with a better idea for what we're looking for in GT7

 

[Imari]

And that's the difference between our 2 viewpoints. I enjoy the game for what it is, despite not agreeing with some of Polyphony's design choices myself, you're arguing the semantics over your belief it's designed for casuals. And that word "casuals" has many connotations and subjective assumptions so I disagree with most of the points you've listed!

Which is why I attempted to define more clearly what I meant by a casual player.

Enjoying the game is neither here for there. It's a discussion about the design and who it's aimed at.

I mean you list "The sort of player for whom grinding and achievements are engaging gameplay." as a rock solid definition of someone who is casual... For all the tens of millions of "hardcore" Gran Turismo and Call of Duty players who have played for hundreds of hours grinding a track for 10K or played countless matches for a pistol upgrade yet enjoyed the process... They're casual?

You forget that the spectrum of gamers is not binary. Not being casual doesn't make you hardcore.

Also, there are not tens of millions of Gran Turismo players, of any type. We're talking about GT6, and while we don't know exact numbers there's no way it's anywhere near even ten million. Please don't exaggerate.

But yes, grinding is something that works for casuals. It means that they don't have to optimise, strategise and increase their skill in order to achieve something. They just have to put the time in. A casual gamer is often someone who doesn't play much, but not necessarily. Playing an hour each day after work to unwind adds up pretty fast.

I've got something like 250 hours in Heroes of the Storm, and I'm absolutely a casual player. I jump in, play whatever I want however I want and get out. It's fun, and I really don't care much whether I'm any good at it.

But what about someone like me who doesn't enjoy that, and plays almost all racing arcade and simulator games exclusively in Time Trial mode or private online games with friends, who's sole enjoyment is perfecting a lap time and getting to grips with the car?

Your goal is to increase your skill. To me, you are more to the hardcore end of the spectrum.

A casual isn't focussed on perfecting anything. They just want a good time.

Am I casual or hardcore? Am I casual to you but hardcore to someone else?

As we established, everyone has different definitions and I attempted to explain mine to you, even though you insist on not attempting to understand.

If you take a breath and step back for a second, you'll realise that arguing the toss over such a small, subjective (And it is subjective despite what you think) and arbitrary assessment of a game and its millions of players, is almost pointless. Gran Turismo is many things to many people, you can't assess a development team and player base as easily as you like to think.

Right. So it's completely pointless to try and determine the characteristics of the players that Gran Turismo 6 was primarily aimed at, and the wider group that it might be able to reasonably satisfy?

If you want to lose the labels, then fine. But there's value to identifying who GT6 is made for. I think I've at least attempted to do that.

The sort of player that wants to win easily.
The sort of player that enjoys big numbers and lots of content over depth in gameplay.
The sort of player that loves a wide range of features but won't play with them long enough to uncover their limitations.
The sort of player that won't notice or care that half the assets are PS2 quality.
The sort of player that can't see screen tearing and frame drops.
The sort of player for whom grinding and achievements are engaging gameplay.

This is the player I think that GT6 is aimed at, whatever label you want to put on them. I'm now going to call them GT Timmy. GT Timmy is Polyphony's primary consumer.

If you'd like to have a go at defining who you think that GT6 is aimed at with some actual facts instead of sound bites about petrol heads and love of cars, be my guest.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

If this thread isn't classic evidence of Rule 25, I don't know what is.

@Imari Ignoring all of your snark and veiled insults towards @Wools and others, what does whether or not GT6 is a casual game have to do with its sales and whether or not it'll have an effect on GT7?

 

[Wools]

If you'd like to have a go at defining who you think that GT6 is aimed at with some actual facts instead of sound bites about petrol heads and love of cars, be my guest.

I think I'm going to pull out of the thread as I don't think we'll make each other see their point of view but I'll answer this.

I don't know exactly what was going through the head of the lead designers at Polyphony as how could I? But what comes across is how much they love driving. Since the first Gran Turismo, it's been designed as a realistic driving game moulded around the single player structure of a Japanese Role Playing Game. Buy a car, race it to earn credits, customise it to go faster then rinse and repeat!

Because of that, it even incorporated ******** grinding mechanics and other eccentric oddities and as the series progressed, it's become more realistic but has retained some odd decisions! GT6 is the ultimate evolution of the series and despite me not liking the single player grind along with the dull AI and audio, I still love the series and can't wait to see GT7 running on PS4.

So who was GT6 aimed at? I don't think it was aimed at anyone to be honest. It was created by Polyphony to be their own love letter to cars and their culture. If you dig what they were doing, then you brought into it and came along for the ride. Yes they tried to appeal to fans and have accommodated all player types with assists, but it's their own unique creation.

Whereas Forza was created as a reaction to GT and Colin McRae Rally was created because of Codemasters love of Sega Rally, Gran Turismo was created by Polyphony for Polyphony.

 

[Imari]

I think I'm going to pull out of the thread as I don't think we'll make each other see their point of view but I'll answer this.

...

So who was GT6 aimed at? I don't think it was aimed at anyone to be honest.

So...a total non-answer.

If this thread isn't classic evidence of Rule 25, I don't know what is.

@Imari Ignoring all of your snark and veiled insults towards @Wools and others, what does whether or not GT6 is a casual game have to do with its sales and whether or not it'll have an effect on GT7?

Hey, when people say stupid things I like to point them out.

If you follow it back, the discussion started by Wools mentioning that the OP was wrong in assuming that GT6 was targeted at casuals. One of the questions in the OP is:

Do you think it'll spur them to rethink the offline gameplay, to cater to a wider range of players beyond the casuals that the GT6 appeared to be targeted to for the most part?

Even if we take the vague "casuals" terminology out of that question, asking whether the apparent poor sales of GT6 will lead Polyphony to widen or change their target audience is kind of interesting. Defining the current target of GT6 is the first stage to answering that. If you can't say what GT6 was aimed at then you can't say whether it might be to Polyphony's benefit to alter the audience, or whether it might conflict with any of their explicitly or implicitly stated goals for Gran Turismo in general.

Hence we get into a discussion about exactly what GT6's target audience was. I believe you can read quite a bit into the design decisions that were made in GT6. Wools does not, and somehow believes that professional game designers made an entire game purely for their own entertainment. Perhaps it's true, although he still has no reasoning to support this and presumably will never share any now.


I get snarky because people come in here and try to justify design decisions with stuff like "petrol head content" and "made with love", which is at best obscure and at worst just dribble. These things don't lead to discussion, they're the preamble to a valiant defense of the game that they love.

It's all well and good to love the game, but it's possible to have a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of certain design choices without ever bringing your personal feelings on the game into it. For example, there are valid reasons to argue for putting the game on PS3 at all. In hindsight, it was probably almost certainly the wrong call, but at the time the decision was made (say, a year before GT6 release) I could think of compelling reasons both for or against. Which way you decide is a bit of a coin flip given the information at the time, and you live with the consequences.

Likewise, there is discussion to be had about which design decisions actually betray information about intended audience, and which are simply byproducts of some other restriction. I know what I think, but I can't think of everything and it's at least interesting to consider what others think. But that's impossible if their reasoning is couched in catchphrases and love letters.

As much as there's two camps of thought on GT6 (and everything in between), it's still possible to have discussion. But it requires people to be objective, and not turtle up every time someone mentions something that GT6 does badly. Or well, for that matter.

 

[Wools]

So...a total non-answer.

Hey, when people say stupid things I like to point them out.

If you follow it back, the discussion started by Wools mentioning that the OP was wrong in assuming that GT6 was targeted at casuals. One of the questions in the OP is:

Hence we get into a discussion about exactly what GT6's target audience was. I believe you can read quite a bit into the design decisions that were made in GT6. Wools does not, and somehow believes that professional game designers made an entire game purely for their own entertainment. Perhaps it's true, although he still has no reasoning to support this and presumably will never share any now.

I get snarky because people come in here and try to justify design decisions with stuff like "petrol head content" and "made with love", which is at best obscure and at worst just dribble. These things don't lead to discussion, they're the preamble to a valiant defense of the game that they love.

Nope. It's an answer, you're just refusing to listen to my view and counter every one of my reasoned responses with subjective opinion you class as fact. With that logic, how the hell can I answer your question?

You believe GT6 has been made to appeal to casuals to which I disagree with and told you why. You list some points that proves GT6 is causal, almost all of which I disagree with and answer why. All this and the term casual / hardcore has such different meanings yet you only see in black and white. Combined with all that, you say the discussion started with me. No, the discussion started when the original poster started the thread asking will the direction of the series be targeted towards casuals ala Gran Turismo 6.

Finally, don't call me or my arguments stupid. It's a base level form of attack which is used when you can't articulate yourself well enough and above all I won't stand for it. This is a discussion for GT, not to insult each other. I've told you why I disagree with almost every single one of your opinions, you've come back with the word "casual" verbatim as if that somehow wins the discussion and resorted to insults to attempt to prove an already muddy point.

I'm not attempting to "turtle up" I can see when someone is not open to any other viewpoint and I'm bored arguing the toss with you.

 

[mister dog]

I'm not making any illusions, GT7 will be GT6 with updated eye candy and some minor improvements.
It will easily sell up to 3 million copies again (first GT on PS4 and all), but if you want innovative gameplay i fear you'll find yourself stuck in the nineties once more.

Bring on PS4's iteration of the clubman cup, whilst you start from the back of the train in your Japanese grocery car

 

[Johnnypenso]

If this thread isn't classic evidence of Rule 25, I don't know what is.

@Imari Ignoring all of your snark and veiled insults towards @Wools and others, what does whether or not GT6 is a casual game have to do with its sales and whether or not it'll have an effect on GT7?

Being a casual game has everything to do with sales. The target audience of a game is core to it's overall design, feel and appeal and will have an obvious impact on sales. I know there's been a lot of discussion the last couple of days but IMO there's no question GT6 was aimed squarely at the casual player. Doubling down on rubber banding alone puts it into the casual category for me but there are many other reasons as well. Locking the arcade driving aid SRF on in some TT's is one. Continuing with the whole "grinding" approach to building a garage is another. The ability to put F1 qualifying slicks on any car is part of it. Very simplified tuning options that didn't progress through the PS3 generation and don't include the most basic of sim options like tire pressure, the monitoring of specific tire temperatures and more advanced options for damper adjustments. The inclusion of assets from the previous generation points it in that direction.

Sales will be affected if that kind of game design doesn't have the same broad appeal it has in the past. Does a grinding approach to the career appeal to 10 million players at this point or would the player base be better served if there were multiple paths through the game? As in the option of different approaches from sandbox to a classic GT career, to smaller, more targeted or possibly user created careers in between. Do players want more of a targeted approach to gameplay with more exciting and involved Seasonal events and ongoing updates and the inclusion of DLC content into the career? Do players want the option of very challenging AI? Do players want the option of more involved, more complex tuning? Do they want SRF locked in seasonal events or should we have 2 separate leaderboards, one with a fixed set of "realistic" aids and the other wide open? All these game design choices, and others, make a difference in who buys the game and how many people buy it.

I think where people get confused is in separating their approach to the game with the design of the game itself. I would classify myself as hardcore, as I had no interest in any of the above things I just described and instead I skipped the career altogether with a money glitch, and headed directly towards tuning, hotlapping, competing online and only putting effort into TT's with what I thought were realistic tires and without SRF forced on. That doesn't make the game hardcore, it still makes it targeted towards the casual player in general, I just sidestepped all the parts of the game I didn't like and headed towards the parts of it I could make hardcore.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

So...a total non-answer.



Hey, when people say stupid things I like to point them out.

If you follow it back, the discussion started by Wools mentioning that the OP was wrong in assuming that GT6 was targeted at casuals. One of the questions in the OP is:



Even if we take the vague "casuals" terminology out of that question, asking whether the apparent poor sales of GT6 will lead Polyphony to widen or change their target audience is kind of interesting. Defining the current target of GT6 is the first stage to answering that. If you can't say what GT6 was aimed at then you can't say whether it might be to Polyphony's benefit to alter the audience, or whether it might conflict with any of their explicitly or implicitly stated goals for Gran Turismo in general.

Hence we get into a discussion about exactly what GT6's target audience was. I believe you can read quite a bit into the design decisions that were made in GT6. Wools does not, and somehow believes that professional game designers made an entire game purely for their own entertainment. Perhaps it's true, although he still has no reasoning to support this and presumably will never share any now.


I get snarky because people come in here and try to justify design decisions with stuff like "petrol head content" and "made with love", which is at best obscure and at worst just dribble. These things don't lead to discussion, they're the preamble to a valiant defense of the game that they love.

It's all well and good to love the game, but it's possible to have a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of certain design choices without ever bringing your personal feelings on the game into it. For example, there are valid reasons to argue for putting the game on PS3 at all. In hindsight, it was probably almost certainly the wrong call, but at the time the decision was made (say, a year before GT6 release) I could think of compelling reasons both for or against. Which way you decide is a bit of a coin flip given the information at the time, and you live with the consequences.

Likewise, there is discussion to be had about which design decisions actually betray information about intended audience, and which are simply byproducts of some other restriction. I know what I think, but I can't think of everything and it's at least interes

Being a casual game has everything to do with sales. The target audience of a game is core to it's overall design, feel and appeal and will have an obvious impact on sales. I know there's been a lot of discussion the last couple of days but IMO there's no question GT6 was aimed squarely at the casual player. Doubling down on rubber banding alone puts it into the casual category for me but there are many other reasons as well. Locking the arcade driving aid SRF on in some TT's is one. Continuing with the whole "grinding" approach to building a garage is another. The ability to put F1 qualifying slicks on any car is part of it. Very simplified tuning options that didn't progress through the PS3 generation and don't include the most basic of sim options like tire pressure, the monitoring of specific tire temperatures and more advanced options for damper adjustments. The inclusion of assets from the previous generation points it in that direction.

Sales will be affected if that kind of game design doesn't have the same broad appeal it has in the past. Does a grinding approach to the career appeal to 10 million players at this point or would the player base be better served if there were multiple paths through the game? As in the option of different approaches from sandbox to a classic GT career, to smaller, more targeted or possibly user created careers in between. Do players want more of a targeted approach to gameplay with more exciting and involved Seasonal events and ongoing updates and the inclusion of DLC content into the career? Do players want the option of very challenging AI? Do players want the option of more involved, more complex tuning? Do they want SRF locked in seasonal events or should we have 2 separate leaderboards, one with a fixed set of "realistic" aids and the other wide open? All these game design choices, and others, make a difference in who buys the game and how many people buy it.

I think where people get confused is in separating their approach to the game with the design of the game itself. I would classify myself as hardcore, as I had no interest in any of the above things I just described and instead I skipped the career altogether with a money glitch, and headed directly towards tuning, hotlapping, competing online and only putting effort into TT's with what I thought were realistic tires and without SRF forced on. That doesn't make the game hardcore, it still makes it targeted towards the casual player in general, I just sidestepped all the parts of the game I didn't like and headed towards the parts of it I could make hardcore.

ting to consider what others think. But that's impossible if their reasoning is couched in catchphrases and love letters.

As much as there's two camps of thought on GT6 (and everything in between), it's still possible to have discussion. But it requires people to be objective, and not turtle up every time someone mentions something that GT6 does badly. Or well, for that matter.

I still don't understand what effect (positive or negative) the target audience would have on GT7's sales. To me, GT has always catered to both hardcore sim fans and general gaming/casual fans by gearing certain things towards one or the other. Unless PD suddenly decides to all of a sudden go 100% towards one end of the spectrum or the other for GT7, there are still going to be the same people playing GT who have always played GT.

EDIT: This was meant for @Johnnypenso too, but I screwed up quoting him somehow.

 

[Tornado]

To me, GT has always catered to both hardcore sim fans and general gaming/casual fans by gearing certain things towards one or the other. Unless PD suddenly decides to all of a sudden go 100% towards one end of the spectrum or the other for GT7, there are still going to be the same people playing GT who have always played GT.

These two sentences are at odds with each other. If the series spent most of its life maintaining a delicate balance between accessibility and depth and succeeded because of it (and it's easy to see that it has, when competitors that have strayed far from the GT balancing have failed completely), it doesn't have to jump off the deep end in either direction to get hurt in sales performance. It doesn't even have to make a big swing in either direction, because PD's schizophrenic game design choices for the past two games have made the series both more inaccessible and more shallow in gameplay.

Now, it's a bit skewed because GT5 and/or GT6 public reactions are going to be just big of a factor of GT7 sales as GT7 itself will be; but how many hardcore players have abandoned the series with the wayward path it cut across the PS3's lifespan, with garbage like 24 minute endurance races and AI that lets you pass it to win? How many casual players have abandoned the series for games in the genre that offer shinier graphics and "cooler" cars and fancier features than PD were able to provide over the past two games? How many people have abandoned the genre in general as it becomes more and more niche, since all racing game sales are down and all of the biggest sellers were 4+ years ago?

 

[AXEofGOD]

70 million units sold (http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html) in 15 years(GT1-GT5) at a conservative 30 per unit means that PD has made 2.1 Billion for all stakeholders(Sony, PD, retailers, ect.)

GT6 alone has around 3Million in sales. At a conservative 40 per unit we see 120 Million for all stakeholders. I doubt that PD is carrying that much overhead.

 

[Johnnypenso]

70 million units sold (http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html) in 15 years(GT1-GT5) at a conservative 30 per unit means that PD has made 2.1 Billion for all stakeholders(Sony, PD, retailers, ect.)

GT6 alone has around 3Million in sales. At a conservative 40 per unit we see 120 Million for all stakeholders. I doubt that PD is carrying that much overhead.

That argument is no more valid here than it is here. PD's overhead is the same at all times, give or take a little here or there. They don't subcontract staff nor farm out any work, everything is done in house, they are on record as saying this many times. Staffing and overhead should be the same from year to year. How much do you think they are paying those 150 staff that have worked for PD up to 20 years?

 

[Formidable]

Wow...

I'm really late to all of this

With GT6 selling like it did, I think major improvement needs to come. It's a new system, an upgrade in terms of what it can run graphically and what/how much information it can process. If it's going to get good sales, it needs to appeal to multiple audiences, not just one. Let's say, have a mode that gives arcade gamers a relaxed and fun experience, while there is a mode to where hardcore sim racers can have the full raw experience. How and if they do that, I don't know, but there needs to be more variety in terms of features and gameplay. The graphics need a huge improvement, and physics too. Now the atmosphere is okay with me. There is something about Gran Turismo games that make them easily stick out from the crowd, and it needs to keep that originality in order for it to not be easily similar to another game.

These are just some of my thoughts. Feel free to discuss them with me if you want

 

[gtracedriver1]

There is nothing know as Hardcore or casual. The AI and VGT has nothing to do with being casual. Arcade games have rubber band AI and way more sense of speed. People love that. GT6 is nothing like that. With online being the focus now a days obviously they will encourage people to drive with similar skill players, friends online. The sales are still better than other racing games. I prefer grid start and AI to be more competitive than it is right now. They should have difficulty level in GT mode as well.

 

[Imari]

Arcade games have rubber band AI and way more sense of speed. People love that. GT6 is nothing like that.

You don't think so? You don't think the rubberband AI, and the introduction of ridiculous hypercars like the Red Bull X, the Chaparral and the Tomahawk are aimed squarely at that sort of arcade gamer?

I would have said it's fairly clear that GT6 is moving solidly to make sure that they have the "features" that an arcade gamer wants. Like you say, ridiculously fast cars and AI that will let them win. It's by no means the core of the game, but it's certainly a new direction for Gran Turismo, and one that's kind of at odds with their public goal of excellent simulation.

I suspect what they're actually aiming for these days is to try and make a game that is all things to all people. I'm not sure it's the right call, I prefer the Forza style of multiple games each aimed at a different audience. I think it's better both for the players and for the company making it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There is nothing know as Hardcore or casual. The AI and VGT has nothing to do with being casual. Arcade games have rubber band AI and way more sense of speed. People love that. GT6 is nothing like that. With online being the focus now a days obviously they will encourage people to drive with similar skill players, friends online. The sales are still better than other racing games. I prefer grid start and AI to be more competitive than it is right now. They should have difficulty level in GT mode as well.

As @Imari noted above, much of the VGT Project and certainly the X Project, was a definite move in the direction of arcade style cars with massive levels of grip and power, acceleration and speeds greater than cars normally available to the public. Rubber band AI, the most arcade of aids, SRF, forced on in some events etc. Fans screaming for the Mclaren P1, Ferrari LaFerrari, and E30 BMW's, and we get fantasy cars cornering at speeds that would render a human unconscious racing against AI that just slow down and get out of the way and let you win. How could that be anything other than moving in the direction of arcade games?

 

[Shirrako]

The sales of GT6 show Polyphony that the old formula no longer works, so yes it will have a massive change, one of the reasons why Polyphony is hiring so many new people.

 

[Tenacious D]

The thing about remarks like Shirrako's is that they could never be validated by any sort of evidence, short of an interview where Kaz admitted such. As Griffith remarked in another thread, Gran Turismo is made by artists, Japanese artists, who seem to have a penchant for doing things no one else would do, especially upon moving to a more powerful platform. GT5 in particular took the cake when it came to experimentation, from using experience points and level system as barriers to progress - even to buying cars! To pokemoning anything and everything from Museum Cards, car horns, and even paint chips needed to paint the cars because the Paint Shop mysteriously had no paint to speak of! And they were one use at that, criminey...

I really think that GT7 is finally going to blossom because, whether you dismiss PS4 because it's not bleeding edge technology or not, it's capable of some truly amazing things in the hands of a capable developer. And Kaz has mentioned all through his career with SONY that he was hoping to see a dream system he could realize a dream Gran Turismo on. PS4 is basic, as easy to code for as it gets, and has a lot of resources to mine, not the least of which is an eight core architecture and 8GB of very fast ram. And very few developers have the skill of Polyphony Digital in realizing a graphical wonderland.

Believe it or not, Kaz also takes his games pretty seriously. And he has been getting a bellyful of of GT5 and 6 criticism both for no less than half a decade. Plus, there hasn't been all that wide a spectrum of requests. Content, features, yes, but if you boil things down to what people essentially want GT7 to be, it runs between two threads: make GT7 an old school Gran Turismo like a combo of 3 and 4, or all of them, or make it a racing sim-like guy with a lifelike career and a ton of real world league racing as in P CARS and racing sims. I don't see why GT7 couldn't be some of both.

Will I get anything of what I want? Who knows, but I'll hope for the best, and we'll see how the chips fall in a year or so.

 

[HarVee]

Thing about Kaz is that I don't think he is really an avid gamer. He's a car enthusiast. He knows what car enthusiasts want, but not so much of what gamers want. And his attempts to find out by reaching out to the community, alas Pitstop Blog have ultimately wielded unsatisfactory results.

For GT7 Kazunori and PDi need to rethink their approach to how they design the game. They need to go back to the drawing board and figure out what priorities are more important for which markets and shift focus on making those specific elements as best as possible. Ultimately if they can do that successfully than GT7 may turn out better than 5 and 6.

But the skeptical person inside me instead suspects that the lackluster sales of GT6 won't have nearly a major impact on the development of GT7 as one might hope for.

 

[wakas]

The thing about remarks like Shirrako's is that they could never be validated by any sort of evidence, short of an interview where Kaz admitted such. As Griffith remarked in another thread, Gran Turismo is made by artists, Japanese artists, who seem to have a penchant for doing things no one else would do, especially upon moving to a more powerful platform. GT5 in particular took the cake when it came to experimentation, from using experience points and level system as barriers to progress - even to buying cars! To pokemoning anything and everything from Museum Cards, car horns, and even paint chips needed to paint the cars because the Paint Shop mysteriously had no paint to speak of! And they were one use at that, criminey...

I really think that GT7 is finally going to blossom because, whether you dismiss PS4 because it's not bleeding edge technology or not, it's capable of some truly amazing things in the hands of a capable developer. And Kaz has mentioned all through his career with SONY that he was hoping to see a dream system he could realize a dream Gran Turismo on. PS4 is basic, as easy to code for as it gets, and has a lot of resources to mine, not the least of which is an eight core architecture and 8GB of very fast ram. And very few developers have the skill of Polyphony Digital in realizing a graphical wonderland.

Believe it or not, Kaz also takes his games pretty seriously. And he has been getting a bellyful of of GT5 and 6 criticism both for no less than half a decade. Plus, there hasn't been all that wide a spectrum of requests. Content, features, yes, but if you boil things down to what people essentially want GT7 to be, it runs between two threads: make GT7 an old school Gran Turismo like a combo of 3 and 4, or all of them, or make it a racing sim-like guy with a lifelike career and a ton of real world league racing as in P CARS and racing sims. I don't see why GT7 couldn't be some of both.

Will I get anything of what I want? Who knows, but I'll hope for the best, and we'll see how the chips fall in a year or so.

OR........

No one has done physically simulated damage on a large scale before, lets do that. Why stick to 1080p lets aim for 4K, too much lets render at 1920 x 2160 and upscale to 4k. Lets put in dynamic GI in as well, it will be amazing. 8 puny jaguar cores? Lets do some serious physics stuff on it. Lets do all that and launch the game "soon", we'll call it GT6 II.

Seriously, I believe Cell to be the culprit last gen. I believe PD overestimated what they could extract from the CELL which was a very complicated processor and played a significant role in GFX rendering for the PS3. They had to re write the code base for the game to make it run better on the CELL, lets hope they didn't have to do that again this time.

 

[Johnnypenso]

OP updated with current sales information.