will there be any motorcycles in gt7

[Johnnypenso]

GT6 and the VGT project is nothing more than a good example of how to pool content for one game, by drip feeding lesser content into another while working on two games simultaneously. The only two reasons GT6 is likely lacking in anything is 1: hardware limitations, and 2: preservation of content for later use (and this is too, hypothesis. Based off of numerous comments made by Kaz).

However, I'm tired of you guys acting like you're part of the PD dev team and know the inner workings of what's going on internally within PD headquarters. You're constantly speaking your opinions as fact when in reality, everything you're saying is hypothesis and theory. And based on your linear way of thinking, your guesses are completely unreliable to me.

With edits. Thanks to @Mike_grpA for being kind enough to point out some of my discrepancies to me. It is truly appreciated.

VGT is a good example of limited resources and VGT DLC supplanting production car and race car DLC because limited resources and we don't need to know the inner workings of PD to know this, it's fairly obvious, to me at least, IMO and all that.

Content will always be held for later use, that's a given, assuming a dev is planning on another game.

 

[Griffith500]

Let's get back to the point at hand.

Content taking time away from other content is one thing, content impinging on features is quite another.


Assume a fixed content budget, and have bikes take up some portion of that. Clearly not ideal, but PD have consistently been expanding its modeling team, and you expect only 50 cars per year anyway, so what does it matter. Plus it's no different from getting a bunch of cars you don't want.

...

More time and money on adding bikes and all that goes with it, means less time and money on everything else.

...

Still no mention of AI, sound, standing starts, flags, endurance racing etc. How do bikes affect those things?

So the questions that need answering are:

• Why does adding bikes cause the AI development to cost more?
• Why does adding bikes cause the sound development (excluding content, already factored in above) to cost more?
• Why does adding bikes cause standing starts to cost more?
• Why does adding bikes cause the inclusion of a flag system to cost more?
• Why does adding bikes cause endurance racing to cost more to develop?

If you can think of any others, let me know.

 

[Mike_grpA]

It's not just the 3d modelling that needs to be done to add motorbikes though. Each one needs programming time for physics, taking programmers away from being able to do other parts of the game. No one said it CAN'T be done, just that it shouldn't take precedence over the parts of the game that are severely lacking currently.

They could already add endurance racing and standing starts, any programming that would have to be done for those was done in gt5. They removed those things from gt6, but the underlying code would be there, so I don't think those are an issue. The abolition of standing starts from most events was due to the AI being so bad that they needed to stack the deck so heavily in the AI's favour in order to add any kind of challenge to the player, that's why AI should be re-done from the ground up, to bring it into line with current sims.

A flag system would require re-doing the penalty system, which would be good, as the penalty system in gt6 is one of the worst I've experienced. Not sure how much work that would take.

The physics of the cars isn't much better than gt5, and it's riddled with bugs, so in a lot of ways it's worse, so I would expect them to want to re-do most if not all of that for the new system. This is the part that would have their programmers time tied up the longest I would imagine, as it'd have to be pretty damn complex.

Another point would be, the majority of people aren't a fan of having the ps2 models in a ps4 game, so that is a metric **** ton of work if they are wanting to model as much of those as possible in a "premium" quality. If I could choose between bikes in gt7, with not many new cars, and all the standards from gt6, or a higher new car count, and a large portion of standards converted to premium, but no bikes, I would choose the latter. The odd looking ps2 models on the nicer looking ps3 tracks bothers me a little, I can only imagine how out of place they'll look in a ps4 game.

Sorry about the big post.

 

[Griffith500]

It's not just the 3d modelling that needs to be done to add motorbikes though. Each one needs programming time for physics, taking programmers away from being able to do other parts of the game. No one said it CAN'T be done, just that it shouldn't take precedence over the parts of the game that are severely lacking currently.

They could already add endurance racing and standing starts, any programming that would have to be done for those was done in gt5. They removed those things from gt6, but the underlying code would be there, so I don't think those are an issue. The abolition of standing starts from most events was due to the AI being so bad that they needed to stack the deck so heavily in the AI's favour in order to add any kind of challenge to the player, that's why AI should be re-done from the ground up, to bring it into line with current sims.

A flag system would require re-doing the penalty system, which would be good, as the penalty system in gt6 is one of the worst I've experienced. Not sure how much work that would take.

The physics of the cars isn't much better than gt5, and it's riddled with bugs, so in a lot of ways it's worse, so I would expect them to want to re-do most if not all of that for the new system. This is the part that would have their programmers time tied up the longest I would imagine, as it'd have to be pretty damn complex.

Another point would be, the majority of people aren't a fan of having the ps2 models in a ps4 game, so that is a metric **** ton of work if they are wanting to model as much of those as possible in a "premium" quality. If I could choose between bikes in gt7, with not many new cars, and all the standards from gt6, or a higher new car count, and a large portion of standards converted to premium, but no bikes, I would choose the latter. The odd looking ps2 models on the nicer looking ps3 tracks bothers me a little, I can only imagine how out of place they'll look in a ps4 game.

Sorry about the big post.

I get that you're late to the party and all, but let's just recount the facts.

PD made TT by modifying GT4.
Kaz said he's really pleased that people want another TT game, before GT5 launched.
Kaz teased "I can't say no" regarding bikes several times, lastly within a year or so ago.
So, if bikes are coming, they're already a long time coming.

Now, if they have planned so far ahead, and based on their experience with the first retrofitting of a GT to make a TT, they'll be trying very hard to consolidate the development process to minimise, not necessarily the cost aspect, but certainly the total time aspect. Their slow but determined approach to content production allows plenty of time for the volatile, imperfect task of programming - which they only have to do once with the consolidated approach.


As you say, the major component (that isn't content) is the physics.
Physics, though, is physics: it applies to bikes just the same as it does to cars.
So any physics engine that works for bikes can be made to work for cars, and vice versa.
So if you're going to revamp the physics model, why not do it in a general way that benefits both vehicles (if you have plans to include both vehicles at some point)?

Now the cost potentially goes up (because the detail in the model is higher), but so does the benefit to the car simulation - besides, PD's budget must be growing, because its staff is; those decisions will already long have been made. I encourage you to work out for yourself how the necessary features for bike simulation will improve the car simulation, but it's explained in this thread twice at least.


So, since you say that bikes do not affect AI, flags, standing starts and endurance racing, all that's left is sound.

PD have spent several years working on a general system that can account for the wide array of differences present in the diverse car roster in the game; that naturally extends to bikes, which would require no special treatment. But can you also see the parallels in developing a general sound approach to cover content diversity and the need for a general physics approach to cover the content diversity? The other common factor is the timescale.


What else is there?

 

[Mike_grpA]

I get that you're late to the party and all, but let's just recount the facts.

PD made TT by modifying GT4.
Kaz said he's really pleased that people want another TT game, before GT5 launched.
Kaz teased "I can't say no" regarding bikes several times, lastly within a year or so ago.
So, if bikes are coming, they're already a long time coming.

Now, if they have planned so far ahead, and based on their experience with the first retrofitting of a GT to make a TT, they'll be trying very hard to consolidate the development process to minimise, not necessarily the cost aspect, but certainly the total time aspect. Their slow but determined approach to content production allows plenty of time for the volatile, imperfect task of programming - which they only have to do once with the consolidated approach.


As you say, the major component (that isn't content) is the physics.
Physics, though, is physics: it applies to bikes just the same as it does to cars.
So any physics engine that works for bikes can be made to work for cars, and vice versa.
So if you're going to revamp the physics model, why not do it in a general way that benefits both vehicles (if you have plans to include both vehicles at some point)?

Now the cost potentially goes up (because the detail in the model is higher), but so does the benefit to the car simulation - besides, PD's budget must be growing, because its staff is; those decisions will already long have been made. I encourage you to work out for yourself how the necessary features for bike simulation will improve the car simulation, but it's explained in this thread twice at least.


So, since you say that bikes do not affect AI, flags, standing starts and endurance racing, all that's left is sound.

PD have spent several years working on a general system that can account for the wide array of differences present in the diverse car roster in the game; that naturally extends to bikes, which would require no special treatment. But can you also see the parallels in developing a general sound approach to cover content diversity and the need for a general physics approach to cover the content diversity? The other common factor is the timescale.


What else is there?

Nope, not late to the party mate, I know all of that, and I can do without the condescension if that's cool with you

Kaz always says he won't discount things that people want, it's why everyone gets their hopes up about things like an open world gt. He loves stoking up the boiler on the ol' hype train lol. Remember the 100km x 100km gps course maker?

Considering the fact that Kaz has said they need to alter the physics of each VGT car as they become available to them, to make them work in the game, I'm not sure the current simulation even works as is for all the cars, let alone introducing bikes into the mix. Remember, roll over physics are like reduced gravity, so how does that engine handle bikes? I'm not sure, but if I were a betting man I'd say it would take a lot of re-working for it to be viable.

Of course you're right, if they do build a new physics engine from the ground up (god I hope so), it's in their best interest to make it more of a plug and play type thing where they can simply input the variables for each vehicle (which could include bikes in such a case) and the physics engine takes care of the rest. Like the new sound engine, which is very promising, and working in a basic form in small parts of gt6, which is why I didn't include that as something that would take too much time away from other things, as I think they would be pretty advanced with that right now.

I said it before, I wouldn't say no to bikes, provided they actually do everything else the game needs first. I honestly think the game needs all of those other things more than it needs bikes. So if they have everything sorted out, and no more damn ps2 cars, then I would love to have some bikes.

An alternative would be to build that new physics engine for gt7, focus on cars for gt7 to make sure they right all of gt6's wrongs, and let another studio take that physics engine and do all the modelling and other programming to make a Tourist Trophy 2. I wouldn't mind that either. Especially if that means players get the games earlier, as the two halves will be developed by separate teams, rather than PD's tiny team stretching development out over a much longer time frame.

 

[Griffith500]

Nope, not late to the party mate, I know all of that, and I can do without the condescension if that's cool with you

Ha. Pot, kettle.

Kaz always says he won't discount things that people want, it's why everyone gets their hopes up about things like an open world gt. He loves stoking up the boiler on the ol' hype train lol. Remember the 100km x 100km gps course maker?

But the course creator is still a planned feature, and as such is still coming. It'd be the same if Kaz said we'll get 10 000 bikes then changed his mind to only 400; that's still bikes coming one way or the other. Kaz stated that he would love to revisit TT. Nothing he has said since has rescinded that desire. In fact, there are clues in the current game that this development is already underway. In the B-Spec / AI controls, there is a "cancel wheelie" command. What's that for?

Considering the fact that Kaz has said they need to alter the physics of each VGT car as they become available to them, to make them work in the game, I'm not sure the current simulation even works as is for all the cars, let alone introducing bikes into the mix. Remember, roll over physics are like reduced gravity, so how does that engine handle bikes? I'm not sure, but if I were a betting man I'd say it would take a lot of re-working for it to be viable.

If every car requires changes to the physics engine, then bikes will be no different.

What you describe with the roll over is, as with the aero problems, an example of how the model is not general - it's my main gripe with it, as everything gets an unnatural taint (spoiled as I am by a lifetime of interacting with Papyrus products).

A general model would work much better for cars, before bikes were even considered. That is the ultimate end-point PD should be aiming for, and it just so happens to make the inclusion of bikes simpler.

Of course you're right, if they do build a new physics engine from the ground up (god I hope so), it's in their best interest to make it more of a plug and play type thing where they can simply input the variables for each vehicle (which could include bikes in such a case) and the physics engine takes care of the rest. Like the new sound engine, which is very promising, and working in a basic form in small parts of gt6, which is why I didn't include that as something that would take too much time away from other things, as I think they would be pretty advanced with that right now.

So physics is not a barrier.

I said it before, I wouldn't say no to bikes, provided they actually do everything else the game needs first. I honestly think the game needs all of those other things more than it needs bikes. So if they have everything sorted out, and no more damn ps2 cars, then I would love to have some bikes.

But the two are not mutually exclusive to any real degree, as we've seen, and so they can come at the same time. There is no precedence relation between the named features and the extra content, so there is no "first".

An alternative would be to build that new physics engine for gt7, focus on cars for gt7 to make sure they right all of gt6's wrongs, and let another studio take that physics engine and do all the modelling and other programming to make a Tourist Trophy 2. I wouldn't mind that either. Especially if that means players get the games earlier, as the two halves will be developed by separate teams, rather than PD's tiny team stretching development out over a much longer time frame.

It would cost more that way. Much more. Either cost is an issue, or it isn't.

Since PD know their systems inside out, it makes more sense for them to dedicate a small portion of their content producing team to knock out a few hundred bikes; they're almost guaranteed to take less time to make than cars, possibly of the order of half the time. Failing that, they have several hundred 135 from TT.

Content is the only real barrier, outsourcing the whole project makes the whole project a barrier (technical support). Outsourcing the modeling might help, and could be a good experiment for PD. But they do things their own way there, too, and would take time to get another studio up to speed and familiar with their custom tools. It may be better just to spend that money on expanding their own team, as they already have been doing.

Note that Im not pre-supposing a delivery mode; it could still be a physically separate game if PD make it, the models could be included in the next GT game proper if someone else makes them. This is the point of generalised systems: flexibility.

 

[Mike_grpA]

My point was their modelling team should be focusing on updating the ps2 cars they don't want to drop to "premium", before they add bikes, if it's going to take too long to get bikes into the game, then leave them for TT2. I can't see a lot of people being keen on waiting years for gt7, the longer the game takes, the more fans will give up on the series before the game even comes out. Not many people were happy that after waiting so long for gt5, it was such a dud. Not to mention how long the features that were "almost ready for launch" still aren't in gt6 well over a year later.

That brings me back to the original point. They can focus on making gt7 what gt6 should have been, getting everything up to a respectable level of quality, before adding more quantity for gt8 or just making TT2 separately.

I wouldn't be able to stop laughing for days if they not only kept the ps2 car models in for gt7 on ps4, but also included ps2 bikes hahahaha. That would end Gran Turismo. It would be the biggest joke on ps4.

 

[Griffith500]

My point was their modelling team should be focusing on updating the ps2 cars they don't want to drop to "premium", before they add bikes, if it's going to take too long to get bikes into the game, then leave them for TT2. I can't see a lot of people being keen on waiting years for gt7, the longer the game takes, the more fans will give up on the series before the game even comes out. Not many people were happy that after waiting so long for gt5, it was such a dud. Not to mention how long the features that were "almost ready for launch" still aren't in gt6 well over a year later.

My point is they're likely to have been working on bikes for some time already, if they're planned at all.

Yes, TT2 could come after GT7 - the bikes still take time to make, and there's GT8 to consider still. It's a never-ending roundabout, and doesn't change this argument whatsoever.

What we don't know is when / if they started. You seem to be assuming that they haven't started yet, which goes against all the evidence of "long term planning". Assuming bikes are coming in the first place.

That brings me back to the original point. They can focus on making gt7 what gt6 should have been, getting everything up to a respectable level of quality, before adding more quantity for gt8 or just making TT2 separately.

But the content has even less of an impact on the features when there are just cars to consider, so this is even more nonsensical. They can make cars and improve the other stuff at the same time. Since making bikes is no different in the main, there is very little difference as far as the features are concerned.

The features are not impacted by the content.

I wouldn't be able to stop laughing for days if they not only kept the ps2 car models in for gt7 on ps4, but also included ps2 bikes hahahaha. That would end Gran Turismo. It would be the biggest joke on ps4.

I'd be laughing, too. But for a different reason. I don't care one iota about what Gran Turismo seems to be to the self-proclaimed cool-elite, I'm more interested in playing it.

Fear is definitely a recurring theme here, though. I don't understand why I should care what someone's opinion of a joke is. Either I'll like the game, or I won't. I couldn't give two hoots what someone else thinks, that's up to them - it doesn't impact my experience.

 

[SZRT Ice]

VGT is a good example of limited resources and VGT DLC supplanting production car and race car DLC because limited resources and we don't need to know the inner workings of PD to know this, it's fairly obvious, to me at least, IMO and all that.

Content will always be held for later use, that's a given, assuming a dev is planning on another game.

All you're doing is loosely throwing around opinions as fact, and over using the word "supplant". The biggest issue I'm having with your opinions, is that they are based on what PD has done that you've seen. It completely leaves out the key and most important things. Which is what they're saving for later.

Let me ask you this...

Do you think PD has ANY cars modelled at all for GT7?

Do you think it's not likely that GT has selectively chosen vehicles to hold off for GT7?

Kaz helped choose the hardware requirements necessary for the PS4 and had early access to PS4 dev kits; being a top priority, 1st party dev. So when do you think the "work" (the saving of certain features unusable on PS3 to be used at a later time on PS4) on GT7 began? During GT6? Maybe during GT5?

What do you think was the purpose of GT:HD? Why do you think they held off on it? Why do you think PD was found scanning The Isle of Mann? And if GT:HD came out after TT, and was also a demo of a new, high definition version of Gran Turismo, wouldn't that mean that they were scanning premium quality models of motorcycles at that time?

PD has a pool of vehicles vehicles saved up for GT7, and they could likely release any of them as DLC if they chose. So knowing this, what's the logical reason you think VGT's have "supplanted" traditional DLC in GT6? No, it's obviously not limited resources. It's most likely to give GT7 greater relevancy. A substantial selling point. You want your next work to be far greater than your last, to supersede anything you've EVER done before. To be talked about until your next big thing arrives.

I, for one, never seen GT6 as a legitimate sequel, but more as a placeholder. PD throwing fans a bone to nibble while dinner's being prepared. It was never meant to be a definitive Gran Turismo, but instead a "Thank you" to the fans. So limiting GT7 to what was done on PS3 is completely ridiculous, and your claims hold very little weight. Your only basis for PD's resources is what they've shown you. And that doesn't mean that that's all that they've done.

 

[Johnnypenso]

All you're doing is loosely throwing around opinions as fact, and over using the word "supplant". The biggest issue I'm having with your opinions, is that they are based on what PD has done that you've seen. It completely leaves out the key and most important things. Which is what they're saving for later.

Let me ask you this...

Do you think PD has ANY cars modelled at all for GT7?

Are you getting real production/race car DLC? Me either. Are you getting VGT's. There's your answer as to VGT's supplanting other DLC.

Of course they are working furiously on GT7, and I don't care, I haven't bought GT7, I bought GT6 and want cars for the game I bought.

Do you think it's not likely that GT has selectively chosen vehicles to hold off for GT7?

Of course, but so what? I do not begrudge PD for working on GT7, it's business, I only care at this point, what car DLC I'm getting for GT6, which is zero outside the VGT's.

Kaz helped choose the hardware requirements necessary for the PS4 and had early access to PS4 dev kits; being a top priority, 1st party dev. So when do you think the "work" (the saving of certain features unusable on PS3 to be used at a later time on PS4) on GT7 began? During GT6? Maybe during GT5?

Don't know, don't care. GT6 is the game currently on the market.

What do you think was the purpose of GT:HD? Why do you think they held off on it? Why do you think PD was found scanning The Isle of Mann? And if GT:HD came out after TT, and was also a demo of a new, high definition version of Gran Turismo, wouldn't that mean that they were scanning premium quality models of motorcycles at that time?

Don't know, don't care. I'm on GT6, not GTHD or TT or GT7.

PD has a pool of vehicles vehicles saved up for GT7, and they could likely release any of them as DLC if they chose. So knowing this, what's the logical reason you think VGT's have "supplanted" traditional DLC in GT6? No, it's obviously not limited resources. It's most likely to give GT7 greater relevancy. A substantial selling point. You want your next work to be far greater than your last, to supersede anything you've EVER done before. To be talked about until your next big thing arrives.

Again, I don't begrudge them working on GT7, but I also do not care. I want cars for the game I have now, not the one released in 2 or 3 years.

I, for one, never seen GT6 as a legitimate sequel, but more as a placeholder. PD throwing fans a bone to nibble while dinner's being prepared. It was never meant to be a definitive Gran Turismo, but instead a "Thank you" to the fans. So limiting GT7 to what was done on PS3 is completely ridiculous, and your claims hold very little weight. Your only basis for PD's resources is what they've shown you. And that doesn't mean that that's all that they've done.

Sounds like a copout to me. I would put some stock in that opinion if GT6 were released at $39.95-49.95 which to me is the "thank you" to the fans, it would be implied in the price. But I paid full price for the game, same as every other game, so I expected a full game, I expected real car DLC just like I got in GT5. I expected it to flow like water actually after the "Quantum Leap" reference by a high ranking Sony executive, which conveniently wasn't addressed until well after the game was released.

 

[Griffith500]

@Johnnypenso would you begrudge them working on GT7 if GT7 was intended to contain motorcycles, though?

 

[Tornado]

What do you think was the purpose of GT:HD? Why do you think they held off on it?

Seemed like a pretty straightforward attempt to leverage the reverence about the series' history to that point in creating a freemium-style side title and pseudo-GT5 Prologue (depending on what version you went for); as well as bolster a rather disastrous console launch with a "free" game from said series. And Sony probably held off on it because this was circa-2006 Sony who couldn't go a single press release without pissing off someone and the entire micro transaction concept of the game was met with immediate and unrelenting and deserved backlash; and they were tasking a somewhat small developer already infamous by this point with schedule slip to develop three completely separate titles simultaneously.



It doesn't really mean anything for a discussion about whether they've been secretly modeling motorcycles to PS4 quality since we never saw any evidence of such a thing before the game was completely cancelled (the lone screenshot featuring bikes is a car selection screen mockup with a bunch of models already in GT4 and TT, suggesting it was in fact from the "GT4 in true HD except now with microtransactions" version instead of the demo of the early GT5 preview they eventually released), they were still making Standard models past that date and didn't stop completely until GT5 released, and half of the stuff mentioned was going to be in GT:HD was never heard from again anyway.

 

[SZRT Ice]

...I don't care, I haven't bought GT7, I bought GT6 and want cars for the game I bought...

...I only care at this point, what car DLC I'm getting for GT6, which is zero outside the VGT's...

...Don't know, don't care...

...Don't know, don't care... I'm on GT6...

...but I also do not care... I want cars for the game I have now...

Man, what a brat...

Sounds like a cop-out to me. I would put some stock in that opinion if GT6 were released at $39.95-49.95 which to me is the "thank you" to the fans, it would be implied in the price. But I paid full price for the game, same as every other game, so I expected a full game.

The track creator will make the game complete.

I expected real car DLC just like I got in GT5. I expected it to flow like water actually after the "Quantum Leap" reference by a high ranking Sony executive, which conveniently wasn't addressed until well after the game was released.

We discussed the whole "Quantum Leap" thing already... It never claimed ANYTHING about authentic manufacturer DLC, or a plan for the roll-out of DLC according to vehicle class and tier.
https://www.gtplanet.net/alpine-tea...r-for-gran-turismo-6-with-articulated-design/
^This topic is tiring... It seems you're more than willing to ignore the details if it means you can't have your way.

Again, your problem is expecting DLC cars when they never said they were doing it. Just because they did it in GT5, doesn't mean they are doing it in GT6. GT has done numerous things that haven't been repeated. And the DLC model in GT5 seemed more experimental to me, rather than an officially executed change in the way GT games are done. It was their first official attempt at DLC really. And it was never stated that things would be done that way from then on in every future iteration to come. That's not to say, that I'm not expecting a more official DLC plan to be revealed when GT7 arrives. And just like the DLC in GT5, just because VGT is in GT6, it's not a certainty that the project will continue for the next Gran Turismo.

The "Quantum Leap" comment, JP' so adamantly sticks to...
["I think that we very much cut our teeth on DLC with GT5, and I think there’s a real desire to make a quantum leap with GT6. Plans are not yet disclosed so I can’t talk in detail about what they are but there is a real desire to make a step change and take it to a whole different level. “And, you know, other games in different genre have demonstrated what’s possible in terms of providing a much longer and deeper consumer engagement and monetization, so our ambitions are to make a big jump."

- Jim Ryan, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe’s President and CEO

Edit: The header for the article reads...

"GTPlanet recently had the opportunity to sit down with Sony Computer Entertainment Europe’s President and CEO, Jim Ryan, for a round-table discussion on the business end of the Gran Turismo franchise."

The quote in question was made by a figure head for Sony. Not someone responsible for production. And the discussion was on the business end of things. Again, not the production side of things. The guy is likely clueless about in-game content, and any downloadable content GT will deliver. The only thing he likely insisted on was the DLC in-game currency. Can't blame Kaz and PD for that.

 

[SZRT Ice]

It doesn't really mean anything for a discussion about whether they've been secretly modeling motorcycles to PS4 quality since we never saw any evidence of such a thing

How does one see evidence of what a developer does in secret?

 

[Tornado]

It's usually not too difficult to see some indication of what PD is working on, actually. Even when Kaz just doesn't come out and say things are coming long before they are actually ready.


GT:HD still doesn't really have much of anything to do with the idea you mentioned, so it just makes me curious what you think the intention of the game was.

 

[Griffith500]

There was only really this:



The car is obviously "above GT4 quality", but the bike looks like the TT item.
Of course, most, if not all, of the cars intended for inclusion were / are below that quality...

 

[Tornado]

I hadn't seen that one before. The car might be the same render that PD used for the GT4 promotion/intro. The other pic with bikes just has a bunch of Standards with them, and the bikes themselves are bikes straight from TT so they are probably the same models as well.

 

[Griffith500]

I hadn't seen that one before. The car might be the same render that PD used for the GT4 promotion/intro. The other pic with bikes just has a bunch of Standards with them, and the bikes themselves are bikes straight from TT so they are probably the same models as well.

Yep, that's what I thought, too. Notice the self-reflection of the towing eye in the rear of the car, so it's a render as well.

I do still wonder what those bikes would look like on PS3; that one scrubbed up OK with the fancy lighting etc. If they could cheaply sort some of the texture issues with them all, and perhaps lightly remodel them in places, they might cost less than modeling from scratch. Of course, they'd have to add some new ones as well...

 

[Mike_grpA]

I'd be laughing, too. But for a different reason. I don't care one iota about what Gran Turismo seems to be to the self-proclaimed cool-elite, I'm more interested in playing it.

Fear is definitely a recurring theme here, though. I don't understand why I should care what someone's opinion of a joke is. Either I'll like the game, or I won't. I couldn't give two hoots what someone else thinks, that's up to them - it doesn't impact my experience.

This tells me you don't actually understand anything anyone here has said. Nobody claimed to be the "cool-elite" as you put it, and nobody said you should care about anything, everyone offered their own OPINIONS as to why it would/would not be a good idea to focus on bikes for gt7. Yours is no more valid than anyone elses. What will be important to PD is to make sure their game doesn't have the same issues as the last couple that their core fan base has been complaining about for years. As it's already turned a lot of people off the franchise, and ignoring the problem for another game will only serve to continue the downward trend in sales they've been seeing.

All you're doing is loosely throwing around opinions as fact...

PD has a pool of vehicles vehicles saved up for GT7, and they could likely release any of them as DLC if they chose. So knowing this, what's the logical reason you think VGT's have "supplanted" traditional DLC in GT6? No, it's obviously not limited resources. It's most likely to give GT7 greater relevancy. A substantial selling point. You want your next work to be far greater than your last, to supersede anything you've EVER done before. To be talked about until your next big thing arrives.

I, for one, never seen GT6 as a legitimate sequel, but more as a placeholder. PD throwing fans a bone to nibble while dinner's being prepared. It was never meant to be a definitive Gran Turismo, but instead a "Thank you" to the fans. So limiting GT7 to what was done on PS3 is completely ridiculous, and your claims hold very little weight. Your only basis for PD's resources is what they've shown you. And that doesn't mean that that's all that they've done.

Fair bit of opinion in your posts being passed off as fact too mate.

 

[SZRT Ice]

This tells me you don't actually understand anything anyone here has said. Nobody claimed to be the "cool-elite" as you put it, and nobody said you should care about anything, everyone offered their own OPINIONS as to why it would/would not be a good idea to focus on bikes for gt7. Yours is no more valid than anyone elses. What will be important to PD is to make sure their game doesn't have the same issues as the last couple that their core fan base has been complaining about for years. As it's already turned a lot of people off the franchise, and ignoring the problem for another game will only serve to continue the downward trend in sales they've been seeing.




Fair bit of opinion in your posts being passed off as fact too mate.

It's a fact that the VGT project is a considered "thank you" to the fans. If it was possible for GT7 to be released last year, then by now, P.D. MOST CERTAINLY have at least 5 new cars to add to GT7. And I consider 5 or more vehicles a pool. Albeit a small pool. Pool meaning "selection" for anyone needing clarification.

My comments are mainly proactive. JP is speaking very critically. I can collect article for article, and piece together my defense, whereas all I keep hearing from him are factual opinions without merit or reason. Say what you will, but I'm simply requesting what I'd consider an improvement, while he makes claims of being owed something we were never told we'd receive.

I'm also curious about all this talk of expenses. PD doesn't seem phased by GT6's flop at all. I believe they've expected it. It's not good for marketing purposes to openly discuss how inferior your current project is/will be in comparison to the one that follows it, but they know the hardware must've known the hardware constraints of the PS3 in comparison to the PS4, and how much more they can achieve on GT7 in comparison to GT6. So why should they really be concerned? Money limitations? Doubtful. With multimillions sold, GTAcademy flourishing, a partnership with FIA, a movie planned, GT7 in the works, automakers signing deals, with more planned for the future. Money issues are likely not a problem.

It's more sensible to me to have GT6 as a planned loss, while GT7 is being worked on. There's so much more breathing room with the increased power and memory to improve a.i., physics, and visual prowess without wrestling with memory constraints as they did/do with PS3 that it just makes sense to me. But many of you will believe what you will until you visually see otherwise, so I don't really care to argue this point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Again, your problem is expecting DLC cars when they never said they were doing it. Just because they did it in GT5, doesn't mean they are doing it in GT6. GT has done numerous things that haven't been repeated. And the DLC model in GT5 seemed more experimental to me, rather than an officially executed change in the way GT games are done. It was their first official attempt at DLC really. And it was never stated that things would be done that way from then on in every future iteration to come. That's not to say, that I'm not expecting a more official DLC plan to be revealed when GT7 arrives. And just like the DLC in GT5, just because VGT is in GT6, it's not a certainty that the project will continue for the next Gran Turismo.

The "Quantum Leap" comment, JP' so adamantly sticks to...
["I think that we very much cut our teeth on DLC with GT5, and I think there’s a real desire to make a quantum leap with GT6. Plans are not yet disclosed so I can’t talk in detail about what they are but there is a real desire to make a step change and take it to a whole different level. “And, you know, other games in different genre have demonstrated what’s possible in terms of providing a much longer and deeper consumer engagement and monetization, so our ambitions are to make a big jump."

- Jim Ryan, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe’s President and CEO

Edit: The header for the article reads...

"GTPlanet recently had the opportunity to sit down with Sony Computer Entertainment Europe’s President and CEO, Jim Ryan, for a round-table discussion on the business end of the Gran Turismo franchise."

The quote in question was made by a figure head for Sony. Not someone responsible for production. And the discussion was on the business end of things. Again, not the production side of things. The guy is likely clueless about in-game content, and any downloadable content GT will deliver. The only thing he likely insisted on was the DLC in-game currency. Can't blame Kaz and PD for that.

The President and CEO of SCE Europe is a figurehead. I guffawed out loud at that one.

It's a fact that the VGT project is a considered "thank you" to the fans. If it was possible for GT7 to be released last year, then by now, P.D. MOST CERTAINLY have at least 5 new cars to add to GT7. And I consider 5 or more vehicles a pool. Albeit a small pool. Pool meaning "selection" for anyone needing clarification.

My comments are mainly proactive. JP is speaking very critically. I can collect article for article, and piece together my defense, whereas all I keep hearing from him are factual opinions without merit or reason. Say what you will, but I'm simply requesting what I'd consider an improvement, while he makes claims of being owed something we were never told we'd receive.

I'm also curious about all this talk of expenses. PD doesn't seem phased by GT6's flop at all. I believe they've expected it. It's not good for marketing purposes to openly discuss how inferior your current project is/will be in comparison to the one that follows it, but they know the hardware must've known the hardware constraints of the PS3 in comparison to the PS4, and how much more they can achieve on GT7 in comparison to GT6. So why should they really be concerned? Money limitations? Doubtful. With multimillions sold, GTAcademy flourishing, a partnership with FIA, a movie planned, GT7 in the works, automakers signing deals, with more planned for the future. Money issues are likely not a problem.

It's more sensible to me to have GT6 as a planned loss, while GT7 is being worked on. There's so much more breathing room with the increased power and memory to improve a.i., physics, and visual prowess without wrestling with memory constraints as they did/do with PS3 that it just makes sense to me. But many of you will believe what you will until you visually see otherwise, so I don't really care to argue this point.

PD expected a flop eh? 15 years with full games selling a minimum of 10million copies and they expected a flop? A planned loss? Now who's making stuff up?

There's so much more breathing room with the increased power and memory to improve a.i., physics, and visual prowess without wrestling with memory constraints as they did/do with PS3 that it just makes sense to me. But many of you will believe what you will until you visually see otherwise, so I don't really care to argue this point.

If you think there are no memory constraints on the PS4, you need to re-educate yourself on next-gem gaming. It's a very common misperception. My guess is that people think it's copy/paste PS3 game and now we have all kinds of room for ai, sound, physics etc. Throw 45 cars on a track with next-gen quality textures, with 500k polygons at 1080/60 and we'll see how much room is left over for everything else.

 

[Mike_grpA]

It's a fact that the VGT project is a considered "thank you" to the fans.
I'm also curious about all this talk of expenses. PD doesn't seem phased by GT6's flop at all. I believe they've expected it. It's not good for marketing purposes to openly discuss how inferior your current project is/will be in comparison to the one that follows it, but they know the hardware must've known the hardware constraints of the PS3 in comparison to the PS4, and how much more they can achieve on GT7 in comparison to GT6. So why should they really be concerned? Money limitations? Doubtful. With multimillions sold, GTAcademy flourishing, a partnership with FIA, a movie planned, GT7 in the works, automakers signing deals, with more planned for the future. Money issues are likely not a problem.

It's more sensible to me to have GT6 as a planned loss, while GT7 is being worked on. There's so much more breathing room with the increased power and memory to improve a.i., physics, and visual prowess without wrestling with memory constraints as they did/do with PS3 that it just makes sense to me. But many of you will believe what you will until you visually see otherwise, so I don't really care to argue this point.

You didn't say anything about the VGT being a "thankyou to the fans", you said gt6 was never meant to be a definitive gran turismo. I don't know where you got that from, but it certainly isn't a fact, which was why I pulled you up on it, only because you said it in the same post as you said @Johnnypenso was passing opinion as fact.

About the hardware constraints of the ps3 v ps4 and pd comparing them to make a case for gt7 being amazing, they said the same rubbish about how the ps3 was so mega powerful that Kaz could finally realize his dream on ps3. It's just marketing. They know gt6's best sales are long behind it, so why not run the ps3 into the ground to make the ps4 sound better? They are trying to start up the ol' hype train for gt7, so it makes perfect sense to start spewing the same crap they did when gt5 was in development.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You didn't say anything about the VGT being a "thankyou to the fans", you said gt6 was never meant to be a definitive gran turismo. I don't know where you got that from, but it certainly isn't a fact, which was why I pulled you up on it, only because you said it in the same post as you said @Johnnypenso was passing opinion as fact.

About the hardware constraints of the ps3 v ps4 and pd comparing them to make a case for gt7 being amazing, they said the same rubbish about how the ps3 was so mega powerful that Kaz could finally realize his dream on ps3. It's just marketing. They know gt6's best sales are long behind it, so why not run the ps3 into the ground to make the ps4 sound better? They are trying to start up the ol' hype train for gt7, so it makes perfect sense to start spewing the same crap they did when gt5 was in development.

Once everyone realizes that you can't just throw 45 cars on a track with 500k polygons and expect 1080/60 with next gen texturing/physics/tire model/ai etc., then it'll be, "boy we didn't realize how limited this console is, sure it looks great but we wish we could do more than 20 cars offline etc. etc. etc., just wait until PS5 it's gonna be so great!"

 

[Mike_grpA]

Once everyone realizes that you can't just throw 45 cars on a track with 500k polygons and expect 1080/60 with next gen texturing/physics/tire model/ai etc., then it'll be, "boy we didn't realize how limited this console is, sure it looks great but we wish we could do more than 20 cars offline etc. etc. etc., just wait until PS5 it's gonna be so great!"

No doubt they'll focus on the graphics and effects again too, and gt7 will probably end up being another sweet looking half arsed game full of bugs due to "pushing the limits of the ps4".

I really hope it doesn't, I hope they pull their heads out of their arses and up their game. I won't get my hopes up too much though.

 

[Griffith500]

This tells me you don't actually understand anything anyone here has said. Nobody claimed to be the "cool-elite" as you put it, and nobody said you should care about anything, everyone offered their own OPINIONS as to why it would/would not be a good idea to focus on bikes for gt7. Yours is no more valid than anyone elses. What will be important to PD is to make sure their game doesn't have the same issues as the last couple that their core fan base has been complaining about for years. As it's already turned a lot of people off the franchise, and ignoring the problem for another game will only serve to continue the downward trend in sales they've been seeing.

OK, but the core issues have nothing to do with bikes. You seem to just be using it as a scapegoat and excuse to vent.

Contrary to what you say, I understand what you fear, and I understand what your preference might be - I have fears and preferences of my own. By "self-proclaimed cool-elite", I'm referring to the kinds of people that would paint something a "laughing stock" on superficial / contrived / corrupt grounds, the IGNs of the world. So if I'm not supposed to care about that, why bring it up?

We are digressing from the actual issue again. Bikes would have no negative impact on the "core of the game", remember, so bleating on about it is pointless.

 

[Mike_grpA]

OK, but the core issues have nothing to do with bikes. You seem to just be using it as a scapegoat and excuse to vent.

Contrary to what you say, I understand what you fear, and I understand what your preference might be - I have fears and preferences of my own. By "self-proclaimed cool-elite", I'm referring to the kinds of people that would paint something a "laughing stock" on superficial / contrived / corrupt grounds, the IGNs of the world. So if I'm not supposed to care about that, why bring it up?

We are digressing from the actual issue again. Bikes would have no negative impact on the "core of the game", remember, so bleating on about it is pointless.

Again, no one said you should care about anything, it's PD who should care what their fans/customers think, and what the majority of them think is quite obvious if you read the posts in this forum, or look at the sales of each gt game being a lot worse than the previous title.


GT5 was joked about by a lot of people, because it was over hyped for so long, and delayed for so long, and then when it finally came out it was underwhelming to a large number of people who bought it. GT6 was even worse, hyped up once again by PD as the second coming, only for it to be ridiculed as a half finished game full of bugs and useless features no one cared about. This isn't just my opinion, it's a common theme around here, and the GT6 sales reflect it. Hell the only reason I bought it after owning GT5 was the hyped up course creator that was "almost ready for launch", and where's that?

You keep saying that content can be added without impacting features and vice versa, but if that was the case, why did it take PD over 3 years to add only a handful of cars for GT6? If it wasn't due to them completely reworking the physics, and adding features, then why couldn't they upgrade some standards and/or add a significant number of new cars?

They said they were working on GT6 when GT5 came out, so if it takes them 3 years to add that many cars, they won't have much time to add even 10% of the cars people want, let alone upgrade a significant number of standards, and add bikes too.

 

[Griffith500]

Again, no one said you should care about anything, it's PD who should care what their fans/customers think, and what the majority of them think is quite obvious if you read the posts in this forum, or look at the sales of each gt game being a lot worse than the previous title.

You started this off-topic tangent, I keep saying I have no interest in it. Also: "self-proclaimed (false-)majority". I know GT has flaws, I'm not disputing it - many of them are to do with catering to the lowest common denominator: the actual majority.

I still don't see how it affects the argument: the relationship between content and features.

GT5 was joked about by a lot of people, because it was over hyped for so long, and delayed for so long, and then when it finally came out it was underwhelming to a large number of people who bought it. GT6 was even worse, hyped up once again by PD as the second coming, only for it to be ridiculed as a half finished game full of bugs and useless features no one cared about. This isn't just my opinion, it's a common theme around here, and the GT6 sales reflect it. Hell the only reason I bought it after owning GT5 was the hyped up course creator that was "almost ready for launch", and where's that?

Yes, I'm well aware of the context for all the fear.

The course maker is fundamentally a programming task: "volatile and imperfect", I said, and it won't benefit from assigning more people to it, either (in fact, it's likely to delay it further). It's also a feature; car modeling has not caused it to be delayed.

You keep saying that content can be added without impacting features and vice versa, but if that was the case, why did it take PD over 3 years to add only a handful of cars for GT6? If it wasn't due to them completely reworking the physics, and adding features, then why couldn't they upgrade some standards and/or add a significant number of new cars?

Wait, so you're saying the reason they didn't add "more than a handful" of cars between GT5 and GT6 is because they reworked the physics etc.? I thought you said it was the same broken mess?

They did upgrade some Standards, and over 100 new cars is significant in the context of the Premiums.

They said they were working on GT6 when GT5 came out, so if it takes them 3 years to add that many cars, they won't have much time to add even 10% of the cars people want, let alone upgrade a significant number of standards, and add bikes too.

We don't know the split of their modeling effort between GT5 and GT6 on the Premiums and Semi-Premiums, and certainly not into the future on whatever else they might decide to make. This low output was evident for GT5, as well, before they made a single Semi-Premium.

The team has steadily been growing, but they've not increased their "output" (or at least the portion of it that made it into GT games) in line with that change. We could be as well to say they've only made 20 cars in the last year (half their apparent output between GT5 and GT6), because that's all they've added to the game. They're also around 40% over on their 6-month per-car figure, potentially implying about 30% of their total effort has been going into something we're yet to see.

If bikes are coming, they'll have been modeling them already, because of the long term nature of the idea itself (TT / GTHD etc.). This is one explanation for that apparent and consistently increasing drop in throughput of car modeling relative to the number of car modelers.

 

[TayeezSA]

Well for me, I wouldn't mind if bikes were in GT7.

My issue though is that I feel they'll take a backseat. Kinda like how GT4 had trucks and it felt more like an afterthought rather than 'solid content' for lack of a better description.

I feel they would be better represented in their own game like how there was that focus in Tourist Trophy. That was performed well, no?

For all we know PD have probably already modeled bikes and they're ready to chuck in. PD are like ghosts and ninjas, you never know what they're doing, they do things when you least expect it and they're mysterious about it.

 

[Harsk100]

Well, TT has the same physics as GT4. My idea of wanting to have bikes and cars together on GT7 is when I saw several images of GT HD which had a scooter, a car and a sports bike. And I saw also the JGTC GT300 Cars and Racing Bikes together in a Tokyo R246 race.

In Test Drive Unlimited 1 and Project Racing Gotham 4 have cars and bikes together and there was not much issue for these games.

Sorry if it was off-topic...

 

[PiotrGT]

I don't think having cars and motorcycles at the same time in game that calls itself a simulator is a good idea. Just imagine online. But having them separate from cars may work. I'm not fan of them but it would be something cool to have.