Would people really prefer having to pay for Battle Passes or monthly DLC packs for cars and race tracks?

[Magog]

Which ones you prefer has absolutely zero to do with an objective analysis of the game's economy.

My personal preference, no. But the fact that the most expensive cars aren't the most performant cars does. They exist as an extra layer of challenge for only the most dedicated players as the game was intended to be played. People put hundreds or thousands of hours into games like Zelda trying to find every korok seed without a guide. It's the same thing. Something to keep the game from "ending" too early. Once you have obtained every car for a certain type of gamer there is no reason to keep playing and they move onto something else. I think they are meant to be a kind of barely attainable unicorn to give that type of gamer a reason to keep playing between content drops. Same thing with car rotation and invites.

 

[RacingFan1]

Nope. I say NO to that rubbish, overpriced model of pay per content that other cars like assetto or iracing do... NO thanks!

 

[Johnnn]

Nope. I say NO to that rubbish, overpriced model of pay per content that other cars like assetto or iracing do... NO thanks!

Why is it overpriced? Do you know how expensive licenses are? What about models? Do you think GT has common car models every other game can offer?

 

[Scaff]

My personal preference, no. But the fact that the most expensive cars aren't the most performant cars does.

Nope. You're attempting to apply your subjective view onto an objective analysis of the economy.

An objective review of the economy is based on how quickly you can earn x amount, and then how much spending power that x amount provides you. Either the most expensive car or the total values of all cars are the best model for that.

They exist as an extra layer of challenge for only the most dedicated players as the game was intended to be played.

Citation required.

People put hundreds or thousands of hours into games like Zelda trying to find every korok seed without a guide. It's the same thing. Something to keep the game from "ending" too early. Once you have obtained every car for a certain type of gamer there is no reason to keep playing and they move onto something else. I think they are meant to be a kind of barely attainable unicorn to give that type of gamer a reason to keep playing between content drops. Same thing with car rotation and invites.

First, a big difference exists between hundreds of hours and thousands of hours, but right now, grinding at 1 to 2 hours a day would take you around ten years, not playing, grinding to do so.

You also, once again, forget that if this was PD's aim, then we would not have the ability to own any car, as soon as it appears in the dealership.

Nope. I say NO to that rubbish, overpriced model of pay per content that other cars like assetto or iracing do... NO thanks!

The models that iRacing and Assetto use are utterly and completely different, so I'm not sure why you are bundling them together.

Oh, and one of the Assetto's is a rather bad example to pick, as the majority of the content I have for it didn't cost me a penny.

 

[Dak0ta]

Indeed, but at the end of the day GT is a halo series and brings console sales and the associated attach rate to Sony, they would pretty much fund PD to make GT regardless, as long as it still shifts units (Forza is pretty much the same for MS).

That's what makes this all the more frustrating and annoying.

yeah, absolutely

i was further developing your point, in case it didnt come out as that

 

[RacingFan1]

Why is it overpriced? Do you know how expensive licenses are? What about models? Do you think GT has common car models every other game can offer?

Check out how much iracing with all content costs for 1 year, no comments necessary, the game may be good, but still what a ripoff.

The models that iRacing and Assetto use are utterly and completely different, so I'm not sure why you are bundling them together.

Oh, and one of the Assetto's is a rather bad example to pick, as the majority of the content I have for it didn't cost me a penny.

Still both have paid DLC. Assetto is so much more cheaper but still more expensive than GT7 if you bought it for PS4 early with full price so...

 

[Johnnn]

Check out how much iracing with all content costs for 1 year, no comments necessary, the game may be good, but still what a ripoff.

Still both have paid DLC. Assetto is so much more cheaper but still more expensive than GT7 if you bought it for PS4 early with full price so...

We are talking about GT. To me, every DLC should be paid because the quality could be very good. Nothing bad with it and I don't see overpriced strategy in it.

iRacing looks different but in fact, it's not much. Every content should be paid - all games (GT could be). Online racing must be paid because it's not free - PS+. iRacing is just for few people - high price. GT is a casual fun for masses (and system seller) - low price.

And like @Scaff correctly said, system sellers don't need profit. You can pay DLCs by Sony. GTS was probably that model.

 

[Scaff]

Check out how much iracing with all content costs for 1 year, no comments necessary, the game may be good, but still what a ripoff.

Wouldn't disagree, but it's also possible to dislike the iRacing model and GT7s, it's not binary.

Still both have paid DLC. Assetto is so much more cheaper but still more expensive than GT7 if you bought it for PS4 early with full price so...

AC was £35 at release and the season pass was around £20/25, so no it wasn't.

AC also locked exactly zero of its content behind a game economy built to encourage the user of MTXs.

 

[NotThePrez]

Check out how much iracing with all content costs for 1 year, no comments necessary, the game may be good, but still what a ripoff.

iRacing is definitely expensive, but the game is at least up-front with you. It tells you exactly what you're getting for what price, and pretty much all the extras are just that, extras, and once you pay for them, you have immediate access to them. The only thing you absolutely need to pay for in iRacing is the subscription fee to play. Mind you, I don't play iRacing as I don't have an adequate PC or wheel setup, but I'll take that over GT7s model of having cars that are already in the game be priced so high that it requires players to either grind for ridiculous hours, or pony up some substantial real-world cash, even though players already paid anywhere from $70-100 for the game. Keep in mind as well that we've already seen several cars in GT7 that cost much more than a year's iRacing subscription if one was to go down the MTX route.

Also, considering the crowd that iRacing attracts, some would argue that the high cost of entry is a good thing, since that means that the people who want to get into it are actually serious about racing, but that's a different discussion altogether.

Still both have paid DLC. Assetto is so much more cheaper but still more expensive than GT7 if you bought it for PS4 early with full price so...

@Scaff has beaten me to it. And, again, Assetto is at least up-front about their costs, and doesn't effcetivley lock away already-existing content through MTXs.

 

[Imari]

Nope. I say NO to that rubbish, overpriced model of pay per content that other cars like assetto or iracing do... NO thanks!

Yeah, god forbid you have to pay for content. It should all be free. And the games should be free. And Sony should send me a free console to play the game on. And Kaz should come set it up for me so I don't have to get off the couch. And hand me the controller, but only if he switches it on first.

Sorry, was someone saying something about people being entitled? Content costs money to license and money to create. Developers are not your slaves.

 

[GaugeForever]

delete

 

[Imari]

It's posts like this that let me know video games aren't for me anymore. I come from an era where when you bought a video game, you could play that game. The entire game. There was no online requirement, although with a lot of games having that option meant you could join others, optionally. There was no in game transactions. Expansions were just that, large feature complete expansions.

This is my preferred business model and I like to truly own the things I buy. I want to buy a game. A complete game. People did this for literal decades. Any argument trying to use idiotic attacks like this poster here is moot because, objectively, it's already been done. It's already been done by Gran Turismo itself. If you prefer live service model, and mini transactions, and all that, fine, that's your preference. Don't sit there and attack other people's preferences though. Some of us have been GT fans before a lot of the posters here were born.

As for me, I'm sad, but I'm not gonna rage or fight about it. Like so many of my other games, this one just isn't being sold to me anymore, so I'm not going to play it. I'll trade it in and never buy another PD game. Like I've boycotted EA games, Blizzard games, Ubisoft games, etc etc etc. I don't "need" to play these games. I have that thing called willpower. I know a lot of humans will buy and play these games all while complaining about them. That's not me. GT isn't GT anymore. It's something different and if people like it, that's ok. I don't, so I'm not going to play. I refuse to play any game that introduces problems it can sell the solution to.

I think the OP and many of the other posts like this are just people venting that PD is abandoning them chasing millennials and zoomers, who seem to absolutely love spending extra money on games and having it delivered to them piecemeal. It is what it is. We're the boomers now and we have to accept it. The good news is, there are lots of "niche" games that cater to us people who want feature complete standalone games.

 

[HarVee]

I think the OP and many of the other posts like this are just people venting that PD is abandoning them chasing millennials and zoomers, who seem to absolutely love spending extra money on games and having it delivered to them piecemeal. It is what it is. We're the boomers now and we have to accept it. The good news is, there are lots of "niche" games that cater to us people who want feature complete standalone games.

Ah yes the age old 'I don't like this so lets blame it on the younger generation(s)'. Such a statement makes you look worse than the very group you're insulting.


Anyway, back OT; I am wondering if the model that Sport was using actually ran at a loss of revenue and that's why they made the switch to the service model. It would explain a lot when you think about it.

 

[GaugeForever]

delete

 

[Magog]

Ah yes the age old 'I don't like this so lets blame it on the younger generation(s)'. Such a statement makes you look worse than the very group you're insulting.


Anyway, back OT; I am wondering if the model that Sport was using actually ran at a loss of revenue and that's why they made the switch to the service model. It would explain a lot when you think about it.

From what they have said and everything we can see so far it will continue the same model as Sport exactly. Monthly updates with a handful of cars and possibly a track along with some new events to use them at. It's the same "service" model as before. Buying credits is more expensive but as I would never buy credits under any circumstance that has no effect on my enjoyment of the game. If PD can make a few extra bucks off people who want to spend real money on fake cars that's fine by me. It will supplement their budget for those content updates.

 

[Johnnn]

Game are too expensive, many DLCs. Everything was better 20 years ago.

 

[RacingFan1]

Yeah, god forbid you have to pay for content. It should all be free. And the games should be free. And Sony should send me a free console to play the game on. And Kaz should come set it up for me so I don't have to get off the couch. And hand me the controller, but only if he switches it on first.

Sorry, was someone saying something about people being entitled? Content costs money to license and money to create. Developers are not your slaves.

Lol nice strawman there.
I hope you are not one of those who cried about the very high in game price of cars and microtransactions...
With all the reused cars and tracks from GT Sport, there's no need for polypony to ask for more money for the new content.

 

[Imari]

I got the joke, and my post still applies to the meaning of your joke, which is why I wrote it. So I have absolutely no idea why you're trying to meme your way out of it now. Really I'm more confused about this post than anything lol.

Because people "who make idiotic attacks like this poster" are exactly the people who would prefer what you're asking for. What you're asking for is a sustainable and reasonable form of commerce in games in which the consumers are provided a clear price for a complete product with total transparency as to what that entails.

The bollocks that I was replying to was the idea that paying for content is rubbish, which is stupid and should be mocked. Developers should be paid for what they make. That should then be presented to the customer in chunks that are reasonable for the game in question. Expansion packs are a good model for story-based games, and similar ideas can be adapted to racing games. Games should have a complete experience for the purchase price at release, but that doesn't mean that there can't be reasonable DLC or expansions sold later on.

As for Polyphony chasing millenials and zoomers, I think you'll find that those are the people least likely to be taken in by this sort of shenanigans. We grew up with games trying to scam us like this. We don't have spare money to throw away on microtransactions after we finally saved up for the game. That's why games have backed off of microtransactions in the last five years or so, and why so many big new games are releasing without them.

There's plenty of games out there that exist under the business model that you describe. They exist because people have pushed back against other business models instead of rolling over for them like you've just done. "So sad, too bad, guess I won't play video games" is some defeatist ********. You're allowed to have fun. They haven't made it illegal or anything. But sometimes you need to stand up and point at the people who are making the world a worse place and poke fun at them for a bit. It's both helpful and enjoyable.

 

[Johnnn]

Lol "Reductio ad absurdum".
I hope you are not one of those who cried about the very high in game price of cars and microtransactions...
With all the reused cars and tracks from GT Sport, there's no need for polypony to ask for more money for the new content.

What? GTS is different game from GT7. Every game has its own content you need to pay for.

 

[RacingFan1]

What? GTS is different game from GT7. Every game has its own content you need to pay for.

Pretty sure I paid 70€ at the start. So they should try to bring us as much as possible with those 70€ and nothing more, otherwise if they can't do maths then they can go and learn.

 

[GaugeForever]

delete

 

[DeolTheBeast]

No - this isn't Warzone

 

[ToyGTone]

Put GT aside for a moment but i honestly would rather have regular o' DLCs come back than have game/battle pass subscriptions where you have to buy it each month just to have access to minor content that you'll still have to grind for and unlock anyways.

Either way, free added content is definitely the much preferred way imo.

As for GT7, Sony should really just stick to adding in free cars and tracks. We already paid $90 for a game with barely any new tracks, still relatively low number of cars as a GT game and one that has an integrated MTX system in it.

Do we really need to pay for new content? Not only that but once the game servers has been shut down and it gets removed from the storefront, all of the DLCs would be locked behind a wall permanently if you haven't bought them already*. That's exactly what happened with Forza Motorsport 4, Driveclub and Gran Turismo 5 just to name a few.

So yeah, paid DLCs are far from perfect but still miles better than Battle passes imo.


*Assuming Polyphony removed any sort of DRMs

 

[Johnnn]

As for GT7, Sony should really just stick to adding in free cars and tracks. We already paid $90 for a game with barely any new tracks, still relatively low number of cars as a GT game and one that has an integrated MTX system in it.

That doesn't make any sense. You paid for new game (GT7) and another new content should be free why?

 

[Pete_J_C]

why do you often see people on the forums here postulating upon how they can give big companies more of their money?

 

[kilesa4568]

With me not getting on the game as often or for as long as I'd like, I wouldn't mind some sort of cash multiplier to speed things along. Maybe even a loyalty card to permanently drop the prices in the tuning or car shop.

I can't see them charging for tracks and cars that we're used to being free, though. I bought a few packs of cars in GT5 but we didn't have BoP to deal with back then and you'd need everyone you know to have bought the same track to get any real use out of it.

 

[MrNukki]

why do you often see people on the forums here postulating upon how they can give big companies more of their money?

I don't think people are doing that.

 

[Magog]

I don't think people are doing that.

I'm certainly not. They could make every car available to purchase optionally for ten cents each and I wouldn't buy a single one. Earning cars is much more rewarding.

 

[NTGSruler]

Ask yourself this: are you/we really happy with the game we got for 70-100euros? We got a Café mode which literally stops were the fun begins. Circuit experience is copied from GTS. Sport Mode is the bare minimum. 95% same tracks as in GTS. And no sell option. On top of that there is an ingame economy were you have to grind the same event (you dont't HAVE to, but if you want to be the most efficient) just to barely progress with the credits. Instead they made a very nice icon next to your credits to "top" up in the Store for extra credits.
The greed of these companies is just insane. They sell us the bare minimum for maximum price, they even INTENTIONALLY decrease payouts because some players were moving too fast. If Kaz wanted to balance the economy out, they could of easily adjusted it in the next update with new events were we get bigger payouts. Nobody would off cared.

I'm happy to read that there are still "oldschool" people like my that expect a DECENT game for the money we pay. If they deliver, then after they'll maybe can think of adding paid DLC. Nowadays it's in reverse. We pay for a game and along the way via patches and updates they try to make a better game.

 

[Pigems]

Highly disagree with this. Competition is a good thing. The only reason iRacing is "expensive" is a because there is no other available option. Even at $5/Month $5/Car/Track for a Sony/PD iRacing clone, it's still a lot cheaper to pick up a PS5 than it is to build a PC and all the extra variables outside of the actual driving experience that comes with that. There's a reason people pay for iRacing.

I dunno, my first PC was a fair bit cheaper than my PS5, even after upgrading it, and I was running triples at 1080 on it. Even my new PC still has to be on 1080 to run the triples, it just does it at a higher picture quality. You don’t need a brand new PC to run iRacing, not even close. To run it at high(er) quality, sure, but not just to play it.

As far as expensive goes, a PSN membership for a year is basically the same price as iRacing for a year, if you get the black Friday 1y deal for iR, so price wise their pretty similar there. And how can we really call iRacing expensive anymore? GT7 has cars in it that cost $200-300, now that’s expensive! lol. And is why I said PD/Sony should probably just stick to their thing. Why even waste the thousands of man hours and dollars, to render a car into the game, if only two dozen people(obviously exaggerated) are even gonna use/have it?


And to be clear. I’m in no way arguing that either iRacing or GT7 are better/worse than the other. They are both great at some things, and suck at others. 👍