• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Modern Vintage Gamer: Online DRM has ruined Gran Turismo 7

Three

Member
The difference is that the MTX in GT7 are part of the gameplay experience from day one and reviewers weren't able to look at it. Feel free to explain how adding MTX 18 months later is the same thing.

I'll explain by telling you that the MTXs were part of the "gameplay experience" in SoT from day one because as I showed in that link they were planned before launch to be added early post launch. And reviewers weren't able to look at that either during reviews. Again for you


Stop with the daftness. Prices didn't increase 700%. Car prices didn't increase at all in GT7. Are you comparing to the old game GT Sport buying MTX cars instead of MTX Cr in GT7? What has that got to do with reviews of GT7 or GT7 gameplay post review? Whatever man, as I said I'm out because I'll be arguing in circles with you otherwise.
 
I'll explain by telling you that the MTXs were part of the "gameplay experience" in SoT from day one
No they weren't, they came out 18 months later.
Stop with the daftness. Prices didn't increase 700%. Car prices didn't increase at all in GT7. Are you comparing to the old game GT Sport buying MTX cars instead of MTX Cr in GT7? What has that got to do with reviews of GT7 or GT7 gameplay post review?
In GT7, MTX are part of the experience from day one. Making the cars way more expensive while increasing the grindiness at the same time means you're gonna have a different experience compared to, say, GT Sport. Reviewers should be able to include that into their ratings (if they want to). The outrage is there for a reason.
 

Three

Member
Obviously “Day 1” now means a year and a half after launch.
No they weren't, they came out 18 months later.
I mean I'm not sure what both of you aren't getting. I understand why you're doing it though seeing who you usually support.

The grindy "gameplay experience" was made with MTX in mind from the outset for both games (I posted a link of the plan for you, try reading it) and buying virtual currency were both not 'available' to reviewers when they did their review. "Gameplay experience" was the same. The gameplay of neither SoT or GT7 changed when the ability to buy virtual currency was added post review. The delay that Rare had on getting their microtransactions up had no bearing on the "gameplay experience" or the fact that they both got the ability after reviews.
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Then shut up and move on. Is not coming from your pocket

You should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are trying so, so desperately to defend a company that doesn‘t know you exist and doesn‘t give a shit about you as a consumer.

The actions taken by Sony/Polyphony here are simply wrong. There is no debate, there is no „other side“ of the conversation. It simply should not have happened and they need to be rightfully criticized. Yet here you are trying to spin it into being a *bad* thing that people are calling them out. That people aren‘t rolling over and accepting anti-consumer practices and the insulting treatment of game preservation.

Do fucking better, warrior.
 

skybaby

Member
It's both hilarious and pathetic how far some people are willing to go to defend these practices, whether in the name of their team or their allegiance to a certain game developer.

Gran Turismo 8 could release for $120, with cars being priced at real-world values and the requirement to sign up for a personal loan to finance your in-game purchases, and the same avatars will show up and write out entire essays about how it's not that bad and that anyone that is critical is just a hater.

It seems like there truly are no limits anymore. Full-priced, AAA titles released with microtransactions that belong in a free to play mobile game (that only show up after reviews have come out, which should be illegal), what a fucking joke.
 
Last edited:

SLB1904

Member
You should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are trying so, so desperately to defend a company that doesn‘t know you exist and doesn‘t give a shit about you as a consumer.

The actions taken by Sony/Polyphony here are simply wrong. There is no debate, there is no „other side“ of the conversation. It simply should not have happened and they need to be rightfully criticized. Yet here you are trying to spin it into being a *bad* thing that people are calling them out. That people aren‘t rolling over and accepting anti-consumer practices and the insulting treatment of game preservation.

Do fucking better, warrior.
Don't need to. I'm loving the game. Drop horizon and elden ring for it. Well worth it.

You guys dont have the game acting like white knights.
Just mind your own business.
 

NickFire

Member
It's both hilarious and pathetic how far some people are willing to go to defend these practices, whether in the name of their team or their allegiance to a certain game developer.

Gran Turismo 8 could release for $120, with cars being priced at real-world values and the requirement to sign up for a personal loan to finance your in-game purchases, and the same avatars will show up and write out entire essays about how it's not that bad and that anyone that is critical is just a hater.

It seems like there truly are no limits anymore. Full-priced, AAA titles released with microtransactions that belong in a free to play mobile game (that only show up after reviews have come out, which should be illegal), what a fucking joke.
Have you actually played it?

Call me pathetic or whatever, but here's my honest assessment. The game itself is fantastic. The always online aspect is contentious, and after being down a full day the same month as release it has proven to be a mistake IMO. The mtx is kind of scummy in some aspects (like limited time offers), but otherwise is no worse than a whole bunch of games that are consistently charting year over year. At the end of the day though, the gameplay remains fantastic.
 
I don’t see the reason to compare normal digital purchases to what happened to GT7, seems like a different topic altogether.
Im doing it to prove a point that the DRM hate is overblown MVG is guilty of that too he seem to hate DRM yet he is a game Dev himself he should know why DRM exist
like i said literally all games have DRM nowdays it not that DRM is bad but it the overpriced MTX but MVG seem to not focus on that much instead he goes at DRM like it something new but it not
 
Well You need hdd/ssd to install a game but console comes with it built in.
The fact that you do not need to authorize your console and to patch the game or system is main point.
You can most likely buy ps4/ps5 (lol maybe) and buy days gone and play. Fully 1.0 offline with never connecting online. Fully apocalypse scenario.

The moment game requires any patch to play or online authorization - it's gone.

That's why no patch will ever fix gt7. They would need to reprint the discs and make a new version even if they ever patched it to work offline
Im not so sure that "no patch will ever fix gt7" i don't think that entirely true
remember when the PS4 & PS5 had that Battery thing that made your game no longer work Sony fix that with blacklash from people so i think they too can fix GT7 single player needing online to play if they wanted to
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Im doing it to prove a point that the DRM hate is overblown MVG is guilty of that too he seem to hate DRM yet he is a game Dev himself he should know why DRM exist
like i said literally all games have DRM nowdays it not that DRM is bad but it the overpriced MTX but MVG seem to not focus on that much instead he goes at DRM like it something new but it not
Thats an extremely bad equivalence though. GT7's always online DRM can cause major inconveniences, like the one that happened or disconnecting in the middle of a race as i've seen some here complaining. This is nowhere near comparable to having to do a one time check when starting the game for the first time. Those are barely a bother to the player (most people on steam wont even realize this as you need to be online to download the game anyway) and can be easily circunvented to ensure game preservation.
 
Last edited:

Raven117

Member
Ruin is a really big claim, no?

Once they fix up the economy, implement some sharper multiplayer, it will all be great. Hell, its great now.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This is why I HATE this level of DRM in games! It's why the "always online" thing MS wanted to do with the Xbox One was stupid too!
 

Fox Mulder

Member
.

Well, I own the game and I’m enjoying it immensely, so not sure what your point is, particularly since I haven’t needed to spend any money on MTX.

I haven’t bought any MTX either but still think the game feels a bit like a scummy f2p game with FOMO tactics to sell currency in a $70+ game. They hid this from reviews so they know it would have hurt scores.

People focus on the cost of cars when the solo content isn’t even finished and lacks anything for the more expensive cars to even do. People complaining probably would have loved a long campaign where you progress up from low cars to higher stuff. The cafe felt like a tutorial instead.
 
Last edited:
What does this even mean? What difference would it make to a reviewer who has done their review if MTXs come a week or 18 months after the review is done? You're just looking for daft reasons/excuses for one and not the other and they don't make any sense.

The reason that SoT mtx were delayed too was because Rare was behind on content and player base but the model for the game and mtx were in place before the games launch and meant to be added early post launch, it was just delayed so that excuses it to you somehow.



No it isn't and yes I have.

And if I want to go kill some Ancient skeletons (NPCs) to farm coins and play solo "I got to be online for that".

Same thing. Some people are complaining about no offline mode in SoT. They just want to play on their own or coop looting without getting attacked. Same with GTA online. That's how it will work. It isn't how it works though because it's a GaaS model game like GT and GTA online. It's about engagement and mtxs. Don't make excuses for SoT because it's from your favourite company though.
It's pretty obvious it's you who's looking for the excuses and false equivalencies. SoT isn't really as comparable as you'd like it to be, no matter how hard you try.

What I honestly can't understand is why you'd choose to die on this hill. Not only that, but why do so pretending not to be incredibly biased. Not only are you trying (and failing) to debate a point centered on a false premise... You're doing so as if you're doing so from an honest perspective in good faith. As if you somehow didn't have an extensive posting history or something.

Sony has been anti consumer since the middle of the Playstation 4 era.
Sony has been one of the most anti consumer companies far longer than that. Hell, their Rootkit scandal is way older than that.
 

Airbus Jr

Litigate my emotions, daddy!
 

Three

Member
It's pretty obvious it's you who's looking for the excuses and false equivalencies. SoT isn't really as comparable as you'd like it to be, no matter how hard you try.
The GaaS equivalence is blatantly there but you'd rather not see or argue the point being made and instead pretend you are not an xbox fanatic. Like people can't see the things you've been saying or liking in your short time here.

SoT is a 2018 GaaS game being sold for £35 on steam right now, it's still full of microtransactions and grinding, it's always online even though it could have an offline mode and a lot of people play solo or would like to play solo offline.
Hell I'd even love to play GTA Online's grindfest offline singleplayer or co-op.
SoT is different/excusable though for the usual suspects because "reasons". Amazingly valid reasons like "it took 18 months for a microtransactions store".
 
Last edited:

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
I'll explain by telling you that the MTXs were part of the "gameplay experience" in SoT from day one because as I showed in that link they were planned before launch to be added early post launch. And reviewers weren't able to look at that either during reviews. Again for you


Stop with the daftness. Prices didn't increase 700%. Car prices didn't increase at all in GT7. Are you comparing to the old game GT Sport buying MTX cars instead of MTX Cr in GT7? What has that got to do with reviews of GT7 or GT7 gameplay post review? Whatever man, as I said I'm out because I'll be arguing in circles with you otherwise.
Obviously a Paul Tassi headline can serve as a console war fodder to prove a point. Paul Tassi equated this to Call of Duty WWII where MTX dropped weeks after reviews. And multiple quotes from his friend Jim Sterling trying to create fake outrage. And ofcourse this gem
One point of fact is that usually first party games stay away from this kind of monetization, like PlayStation’s Horizon Zero Dawn or Nintendo’s Super Mario Odyssey, content to offer traditional DLC expansions instead (something that also, once upon a time, was viewed as a rip-off and “cutting content” from the game). And so Microsoft may end up upsetting some by putting these microtransactions in Sea of Thieves, no matter when they might arrive, no matter what form they take.
Here is the original article where Paul Tassi sourced his story from
But IGN didn't mention any quote from Rare, just
"Our focus at launch [is] on a great game experience. When we deliver this first major update, that's when we'll turn on the ability for players to spend money optionally.

"We thought long and hard about what's right for our game experience, and the key thing we think is that it has to add to the fun, social nature of the game. So anything in this area will not impact power or progression, and you'll always know what you're getting - so that means no loot crates."
So there won't be any lootboxes and MTX will only be cosmetic and we don't have any quote regarding the supposed "3 months" that everyone believed back then(which Paul Tassi equated with right after launch to avoid bad reviews likw COD WWII). One of the things added in September 2019 for MTX was pets.
Shacknews: Are all the teams now focused on the Anniversary Update?

Joe:
Yep. Basically, yep. Apart from the team that’s working on pets – and they were in Anniversary, but then we took them out because they weren’t good enough.

Shacknews: Was that because pets are microtransactions and you wanted them in a good position?


Shelley:
Honestly, that’s not the reason why. When we look at a feature, we always make sure that a feature is to the highest quality. You can see it in the features that we put in, the love that we put in to the features. Regardless of whether pets were microtranscation or not, we didn’t feel they’d met our level of quality.
...
Joe: But it means vengeance will be better for launch. It means the pets aren’t coming for Anniversary because our community told us they weren’t good enough and that they expected more, basically, to summarize the feedback.
...
Shacknews: What kind of pets do you have planned, is there a dog?


Joe:
Ah, TBD. We’re not quite ready to talk about it.

Shacknews: Okay. Can you pet the animals?


Joe:
See, that was missing and that’s was one of the bits of feedback from Insiders, “You can’t pet a pet,” and we were just like, “Really? How’d we miss that?” We focused so much on their behaviour in the world that we forgot to focus on the interaction between you and pets. I want to be able to hold a pet and show it to you like “Look at my pet!” and then you feed it a banana.
They delayed pets because pets which were supposed to release in Anniversary Update because "you couldn't pet the pets". Here is everything that was released as MTX 18 months after launch.

Clearly these are not thingns meant to be released 3 months after launch, or as you and Paul Tassi suggest "It was ready at launch but delayed to avoid bad press at launch".
I am curious what are the thoughts of Paul Tassi on the subject matter of this thread, since he believes MTX should not exist in first party games at all.
It’s long been common knowledge that Sony has the Big Expensive Third Person Epic Story Game down, whether that’s God of War, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, Uncharted, The Last of Us, etc. But this is an age of live services, microtranscations and ongoing revenue streams, and this is an area that they’ve struggled with. In fairness, Microsoft has too (have you seen Halo Infinite’s monetization?) but Sony is attempting to do something about it.
Thats his only comment on this.
I mean I'm not sure what both of you aren't getting. I understand why you're doing it though seeing who you usually support.

The grindy "gameplay experience" was made with MTX in mind from the outset for both games (I posted a link of the plan for you, try reading it) and buying virtual currency were both not 'available' to reviewers when they did their review. "Gameplay experience" was the same. The gameplay of neither SoT or GT7 changed when the ability to buy virtual currency was added post review. The delay that Rare had on getting their microtransactions up had no bearing on the "gameplay experience" or the fact that they both got the ability after reviews.
Yes, Sea of Theives had pets and all other MTX stuffs ready at launch. I am sure that was all they were thinking while making the game. The MTX in Sea of Theives is completely outside of the gameplay and purely cosmetic.
 
Last edited:

DGrayson

Mod Team and Bat Team
Staff Member
I only tangentially followed this GT story but the economics of MTX and social media and stuff are always interesting to me.

I would love to see the financials of a game like this and see how much more less the game would make if, for example, it was priced the way it is now + MTX or if they sold the game for 100-120 in different markets and had everything unlockable.
 

Schmick

Member
Obviously a Paul Tassi headline can serve as a console war fodder to prove a point. Paul Tassi equated this to Call of Duty WWII where MTX dropped weeks after reviews. And multiple quotes from his friend Jim Sterling trying to create fake outrage. And ofcourse this gem

Here is the original article where Paul Tassi sourced his story from
But IGN didn't mention any quote from Rare, just

So there won't be any lootboxes and MTX will only be cosmetic and we don't have any quote regarding the supposed "3 months" that everyone believed back then(which Paul Tassi equated with right after launch to avoid bad reviews likw COD WWII). One of the things added in September 2019 for MTX was pets.

They delayed pets because pets which were supposed to release in Anniversary Update because "you couldn't pet the pets". Here is everything that was released as MTX 18 months after launch.

Clearly these are not thingns meant to be released 3 months after launch, or as you and Paul Tassi suggest "It was ready at launch but delayed to avoid bad press at launch".
I am curious what are the thoughts of Paul Tassi on the subject matter of this thread, since he believes MTX should not exist in first party games at all.

Thats his only comment on this.

Yes, Sea of Theives had pets and all other MTX stuffs ready at launch. I am sure that was all they were thinking of that while making the game. The MTX in Sea of Theives is completely outside of the gameplay and purely cosmetic.
And you can't bypass the 'grindy' bit to reach Legendary Pirate status through MTX.
 

Three

Member
Obviously a Paul Tassi headline can serve as a console war fodder to prove a point. Paul Tassi equated this to Call of Duty WWII where MTX dropped weeks after reviews. And multiple quotes from his friend Jim Sterling trying to create fake outrage. And ofcourse this gem

Here is the original article where Paul Tassi sourced his story from
But IGN didn't mention any quote from Rare, just

So there won't be any lootboxes and MTX will only be cosmetic and we don't have any quote regarding the supposed "3 months" that everyone believed back then(which Paul Tassi equated with right after launch to avoid bad reviews likw COD WWII). One of the things added in September 2019 for MTX was pets.

They delayed pets because pets which were supposed to release in Anniversary Update because "you couldn't pet the pets". Here is everything that was released as MTX 18 months after launch.

Clearly these are not thingns meant to be released 3 months after launch, or as you and Paul Tassi suggest "It was ready at launch but delayed to avoid bad press at launch".
I am curious what are the thoughts of Paul Tassi on the subject matter of this thread, since he believes MTX should not exist in first party games at all.

Thats his only comment on this.

Yes, Sea of Theives had pets and all other MTX stuffs ready at launch. I am sure that was all they were thinking while making the game. The MTX in Sea of Theives is completely outside of the gameplay and purely cosmetic.
Reasons why it's different from somebody I would expect to make reasons. The orginal headline is from IGNs Joe Skrebels not Sterling, and not Paul Tassi. The 3 months is even in the title of the IGN link because they told him that the microtransactions are planned to release with the first major content update which was planned for 3 months after release. The store launched 18 months after instead. Yes they built a GaaS game and its grindy nature with microtransactions in mind from the onset. They were coming off the massive controversy of Star Wars Battlefront 2 microtransactions that Christmas and they were launching in March. They didn't launch with them but they clearly built the game with them in mind and admitted to planning to have them with a content update before the game had launched.

Nobody disputed the IGN source or tried to correct it then even if you now retrospectively 4 years on think it was somehow fake news. It clearly wasn't otherwise that would be the sort of thing you would try to correct with a statement.
All this is irrelevant though. The game's a microtransactions filled grindfest regardless. When they got the store up or all this he said, she said, is irrelevant.
Now they have them, the game is a grindfest for ancient coins, and it was a £60 game and is still £35 now 4 years on for an old f2p style game. People I expect to make excuses for it though make excuses for it because reasons.
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Reasons why it's different from somebody I would expect to make reasons. The orginal headline is from IGNs Joe Skrebels not Sterling, and not Paul Tassi. The 3 months is even in the title of the IGN link because they told him that the microtransactions are planned to release with the first major content update which was planned for 3 months after release. The store launched 18 months after instead. Yes they built a GaaS game and its grindy nature with microtransactions in mind from the onset. They were coming off the massive controversy of Star Wars Battlefront 2 microtransactions that Christmas and they were launching in March. They didn't launch with them but they clearly built the game with them in mind and admitted to planning to have them with a content update before the game had launched.

Nobody disputed the IGN source or tried to correct it then even if you now retrospectively 4 years on think it was somehow fake news. It clearly wasn't otherwise that would be the sort of thing you would try to correct with a statement.
All this is irrelevant though. The game's a microtransactions filled grindfest regardless. When they got the store up or all this he said, she said, is irrelevant.
Now they have them, the game is a grindfest for ancient coins, and it was a £60 game and is still £35 now 4 years on for an old f2p style game. People I expect to make excuses for it though make excuses for it because reasons.

Just another console warrior, mate. They will defend shitty design to the day they die as long as its on their plastic box.

Reality is, GT7 and SoT are both shite and could use a lot of improvement. GAAS in general is a cancer to the industry.
 

coolmast3r

Member
Why would you damage the Gran Turismo brand after all that investment over the years though?

Sanford And Son Smh GIF
Sometimes short-term personal gain and greed overcome everything else, resulting in dumb executive decisions being made.. Not the first time this has happened and most certainly not the last.
 

Hayabusa83

Member
It's pretty obvious it's you who's looking for the excuses and false equivalencies. SoT isn't really as comparable as you'd like it to be, no matter how hard you try.

What I honestly can't understand is why you'd choose to die on this hill. Not only that, but why do so pretending not to be incredibly biased. Not only are you trying (and failing) to debate a point centered on a false premise... You're doing so as if you're doing so from an honest perspective in good faith. As if you somehow didn't have an extensive posting history or something.


Sony has been one of the most anti consumer companies far longer than that. Hell, their Rootkit scandal is way older than that.

Sound interesting. I started to notice their anti consumer bullshit when the majority of the games released on the PS4 were PS3 re-masters.
 

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
All this is irrelevant though. The game's a microtransactions filled grindfest regardless. When they got the store up or all this he said, she said, is irrelevant.
"The grind" of the game can't be bypassed through MTX. MTX is completely separate from the gameplay and is only cosmetics. For new players, you have to grind a lot for say that Dark Adventurers set, but you can not buy it through MTX.
Now they have them, the game is a grindfest for ancient coins, and it was a £60 game and is still £35 now 4 years on for an old f2p style game. People I expect to make excuses for it though make excuses for it because reasons.
And those "Ancient Coins" only give you more cosmetics. These are specific cosmetics that are exclusive to the Pirate Emporium that were added later. But the game still gives you an incentive to buy them.
Now they have them, the game is a grindfest for ancient coins, and it was a £60 game and is still £35 now 4 years on for an old f2p style game. People I expect to make excuses for it though make excuses for it because reasons.
So you want this to be like Paul Tassi suggested and not have any MTX like the comparisons he made and still make content updates.
Yes they built a GaaS game and its grindy nature with microtransactions in mind from the onset. They were coming off the massive controversy of Star Wars Battlefront 2 microtransactions that Christmas and they were launching in March.
There is an insider program where you can sign to test preview builds. Pets in the insider program during anniversary update changed a lot in the September content update when they were added. You are saying they lied even to the insiders and all that cosmetics were just present at launch?
They didn't launch with them but they clearly built the game with them in mind and admitted to planning to have them with a content update before the game had launched.
They also admitted that there won't be any lootboxes and MTX will only be cosmetics that don't affect the gameplay.
Just another console warrior, mate. They will defend shitty design to the day they die as long as its on their plastic box.
So getting concerned about Sea of Thieves MTX and suggesting that all that MTX was ready at launch but just pushed back 18 months to avoid a bad press is not console warring. What does this thread even got to do with Sea of Thieves MTX concerns anyway? But apparently not patting your friend in the back for his SoT concerns in this thread is console warring 🤷‍♂️.
 
Top Bottom