-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Despite saying that it wouldn't have any, GTSport introduces microtransactions in update [Read OP]
- Thread starter Deleted member 2791
- Start date
You can try to do something for personal benefit and still fail.
I don't think they actively tried to decieve players here. If the goal was just to dodge revriws, they would have implemented these MTX far sooner - when the player base was at its most monetezable. But the facts show that they went back on a public promise, and it seems like they aren't even acknowledging that. Rather, they're just introducing this change and assuming people won't notice.
No it doesn't.
Online racing is subject to classes and BoP. Theoretically all cars are equally competitive. In fact this has been proven in FIA events where top drivers in unpopular cars have still placed well.
Only cars 2m and under can be bought. An hour driving on Blue Moon will generate close to that amount. There are cars upto 20m. None of them can be bought and none of them are featured in Sport mode or FIA events.
Neither did they announce or promise a single piece of post launch support. And here we are 8 months later still getting significant updates free of charge. I agree with some previous posters the launch game needed additional content. After the initial plan for post launch support upto April (I think), the overwhelming expectation was paid DLC or irregular updates. The irony is if PD charged $10-$15 for this months update they'd have technically been keeping their "promise". Yet all GT Sports players would be financially worse off and the community would split.
Like PD, I'd do what's best for the community.
Last edited:
Because there are so many other games that I still have yet to get that I could purchase instead.
One thing I find interesting is how everyone rips games for micro transactions like this (Shadow of War for example or Forza 7 for having loot boxes that you can't even spend real money on just in game money), but yet this game seems to have a lot of people defending them adding it.
To be open I don't mind micro transactions, just something I found interesting reading this thread.
To be open I don't mind micro transactions, just something I found interesting reading this thread.
Which is what I said in a later post.
Still, I don't take anything a developer says as a promise or guarantee of what's going to happen for the rest of time since things can change based on feedback, development realities, and all that. It's fine if people are upset about it.
Game development is...not an easy thing.
I think my initial outrage at the beginning of the thread was just a culmination of the rollin' negativity surrounding GT Sport from people who don't play the game on Era. We get one thread a week asking what Polyphony should do now that GT Sport has failed. Not that there isn't some discussion that could be had there, but the number of people who either dismiss the updates the game has gotten post launch and the ~5 million in sales as disappointing is very strange.
I've always been committed to transparency in my own work, and that has come back to bite me in a big way a year or two out. When I released my game people showed me prototype photos I posted or comments I made asking why I lied about features that were supposed to be in the game...and I, unrealistically, thought they were keeping up with the game enough to know why I would change features or remove them altogether.
I kind of see that with what's going on here- Kaz said no microtransactions, now there's microtransactions. There's cause enough to be outraged. Peel it back and maybe it's not as bad as initially it seems- or maybe it's worse if you feel like they underdelivered with their final product. I don't think anyone is wrong in thinking this isn't a big deal, or is going to boycott GT forever.
Getting flashbacks to the kind of comments that can come back to haunt you, even though, yes, plans changes and strategies shift, is not a fun thing to deal with, because people aren't wrong to feel slighted.
*sigh* I should learn to sit these kinds of threads out, because I'm inherently biased- not because I'm a fan of GT/Sony, but because I know the pain and aggravation all too well of having to shift strategies to something you weren't initially going to do, and had no intention of doing, and the possibility of having mislead some people into supporting a vision you had a year ago that is a completely different vision today. It's no fun for anyone.
I reached out to the OP to apologize, and I'm sorry y'all for trying to stifle an actual discussion.
I think my initial outrage at the beginning of the thread was just a culmination of the rollin' negativity surrounding GT Sport from people who don't play the game on Era. We get one thread a week asking what Polyphony should do now that GT Sport has failed. Not that there isn't some discussion that could be had there, but the number of people who either dismiss the updates the game has gotten post launch and the ~5 million in sales as disappointing is very strange.
I've always been committed to transparency in my own work, and that has come back to bite me in a big way a year or two out. When I released my game people showed me prototype photos I posted or comments I made asking why I lied about features that were supposed to be in the game...and I, unrealistically, thought they were keeping up with the game enough to know why I would change features or remove them altogether.
I kind of see that with what's going on here- Kaz said no microtransactions, now there's microtransactions. There's cause enough to be outraged. Peel it back and maybe it's not as bad as initially it seems- or maybe it's worse if you feel like they underdelivered with their final product. I don't think anyone is wrong in thinking this isn't a big deal, or is going to boycott GT forever.
Getting flashbacks to the kind of comments that can come back to haunt you, even though, yes, plans changes and strategies shift, is not a fun thing to deal with, because people aren't wrong to feel slighted.
*sigh* I should learn to sit these kinds of threads out, because I'm inherently biased- not because I'm a fan of GT/Sony, but because I know the pain and aggravation all too well of having to shift strategies to something you weren't initially going to do, and had no intention of doing, and the possibility of having mislead some people into supporting a vision you had a year ago that is a completely different vision today. It's no fun for anyone.
I reached out to the OP to apologize, and I'm sorry y'all for trying to stifle an actual discussion.
Well, I have 6 other Gran Turismo games, so I'm pretty sure I would have got it once the opportunity arose.
The key thing is how they're implemented, in Shadow of War they were super aggressive, in GTS at least for the time being they won't be. Also with GTS a big part in this is that all post launch content so far was free. I know that PD kinda had to do this after not delivering enough content on launch, but it still needs to be reminded.
I think it's going to be interesting next few months for GTS to see if the players will ultimately accept current microtransactions and if PD actually decides to make more aggressive steps.
I'm personally ok with this implementation.
It's also been a year, the game has dropped in price, and a crazy volume of free content was added. I don't find this specific instance of micro-transactions alarming.
It's also been a year, the game has dropped in price, and a crazy volume of free content was added. I don't find this specific instance of micro-transactions alarming.
This can't be your first brush with this type of hypocrisy. As long as there's been more than one console holder, there's been gamers making excuses for one while blasting the other for doing the same thing. Forza bad, GT good, GT bad, Forza good.
I agree, it's not a pay to win scenario, it's a pay to save time scenario. You still need skill to win and you can't buy that. It's also not a loot box/gatcha thing, which you're not in control of what exactly you're paying for.
That first page is emberessing.
The microtransactions they said they would never add aren't even that bad!!! Why are you trying to spin this???
Like, Jesus Christ take a step back.
The microtransactions they said they would never add aren't even that bad!!! Why are you trying to spin this???
Like, Jesus Christ take a step back.
The implementation matters because there's context to everything. I don't see this as "Kaz lie = bad" that simple. I will criticize them for not communicating on why they change their mind, but I won't criticize them for changing their minds though we all know it's for business reasons.
I have only read the first page of this thread but the majority of the comments seem to suggest that microtransactions are now a perfectly acceptable option bestowed upon us by loving developers who only want to help players avoid grinding for in-game currency to get the cars they want.
Can these even be considered Microtransactions? You're paying for unlocks, not actually virtual goods, the "goods" are already in the game and available for free.
Honestly I excepted something like this to happen eventually, either that or the free updates would stop coming.
Honestly I excepted something like this to happen eventually, either that or the free updates would stop coming.
I think that is absolutely part of it, although I wouldn't go so far as to say it sold poorly. Definitely a step down from past GT games, but 3m+ is nothing to sneeze at.
But I would say it underperformed to Polyphony's/Sony's expectations. And now they're trying to find a way to help maximize revenues from the game. It seems they decided on MTX to do that. I think ultimately that is okay, but Sony should have come out and told us they were going this route. They should have alerted us prior to the update releasing. They should not do what they did and drop an update without any type of warning that there are MTX in the game now. I think people have good cause to be annoyed by this. At least be upfront with your customers!
Microtransations that have no affect on people are fine. It's either going to be that or game prices will have to go up. The issue with microtransations is when they are implemented in the way that they were in Shadow of War or Battlefront 2.
I feel like if this was EA or Ubisoft the backlash would be far larger, and you wouldn't have people defending them like some have in this thread.
With that said I don't play GT Sport (or Forza or sim racing games), but it's disappointing to hear a publisher/developer backed by Sony went back on their statement.
With that being said the microtransactions seem to be implemented fairly from my perspective, still sucks but it could be worse.
Also interesting to see some say GT needed this because of slow sales, from the recent sales thread on Gran Turismo, I saw a lot of post defending GT and saying sales were fine and acceptable.
With that said I don't play GT Sport (or Forza or sim racing games), but it's disappointing to hear a publisher/developer backed by Sony went back on their statement.
With that being said the microtransactions seem to be implemented fairly from my perspective, still sucks but it could be worse.
Also interesting to see some say GT needed this because of slow sales, from the recent sales thread on Gran Turismo, I saw a lot of post defending GT and saying sales were fine and acceptable.
OP
OP
You're paying a small amount of real money to unlock a virtual good. It's a microtransaction.
Microtransactions (sometimes abbreviated as MTX) are a business model where users can purchase virtual goods via micropayments.
That's exactly my point, you're paying for an unlock, not for the virtual good it self aka the cars. The new virtual goods were provided for free in the Update. I know it's semantics but technically I wouldn't even consider these to be microtransactions. Unless you consider the "unlock" to be the virtual good itself, which is kinda strange but I guess you can.
A common interpretation of the terms is that microtransactions are real-money purchases that skip in-game time/effort (often a consumable like game currency), while DLC tends to be a real-money purchase that unlocks new content not available in the base game. You can argue that all microtransactions are DLC, but not all DLC are microtransactions.
By every reasonable definition, these are microtransactions.
Eh, I think we're pretty close to each other re: this. For me, Kaz "lying" is tantamount to not communicating, while the implementation speaks to the latter point.
Ultimately, Kaz said no, then they said yes, with nary a comment or statement in sight to explain.
OP
OP
You're paying for the good that is behind the unlock, I don't see how it's any different.
To be clear, I don't really give a shit that the developers lied and are inserting microtransactions. I stopped playing GTS months ago and this will not affect me at all. I don't even care about microtransactions in general. Hell, thjngs like this have been around in Sony games for years like paying to have treasures in Uncharted Golden Abyss highlighted on your map or paying to unlock all areas in Motorstorm RC.
I just find it entertaining that so many people pretended to be outraged by prize crates in Forza Motorsport 7 - which could never be bought with real money - but when GTS gets microtransactions a lot of people start circling thr wagons. I am sure this thread will be a fun read.
Have a great day!
I know I've seen quite a few people (including some friends of mine) who specifically make it a point to try to avoid games with microtransactions because they don't want to support the trend. Let alone those that are just saddened and fatigued by the inclusion of them in nearly everything, constantly wondering if/how it might be affecting the game design. I can imagine anticipating a game and the feeling of relief after seeing articles like the ones in the OP promising that they wouldn't be in the game and making the decision to purchase the game based on those promises thinking that you where supporting something positive... and then this happens...
I can only hope Sony/polyphony don't get away with it and stick to their word and reverse coarse asap. I don't think it's right that those people's money would now go toward something that they where told it wouldn't go towards supporting and I also wouldn't want others to try the same thing. I don't play the game but I constantly try to put myself in others shoes and I would hate for this to happen to me in a game that I love because a precedent had been set by the industry leader atm.
I can only hope Sony/polyphony don't get away with it and stick to their word and reverse coarse asap. I don't think it's right that those people's money would now go toward something that they where told it wouldn't go towards supporting and I also wouldn't want others to try the same thing. I don't play the game but I constantly try to put myself in others shoes and I would hate for this to happen to me in a game that I love because a precedent had been set by the industry leader atm.
This is pretty common going back to Team Fortress 2. You introduce a good version of the game, get good reviews, build a player base, and then greedily hog the game up with microtransactions later on.
Not even that, it's just the unlock itself, you don't even get credits. When you go to buy a car you pay ingame credits, or pay real money.
Anyway I was gonna reply to the rest of you but we're really just being anal about the semantics at this point, morally and regarding the point of the thread I think it's the same.
Oh please do find and expose these hypocrites who complained about F7 lootboxes but are okay with GTS MTX. If they're different people then this is a pointless take, because you also have people in here who are outraged over GTS MTX, and not just because Kaz initially said no but because they think the in-game economy will change.
I don't have any problems with the vast majority of microtransactions in console games.
This makes it hard for new people to buy into a live game when there is not a mutual understanding or hard limitations on how the developer will change the game and how it is monetized. What's the point in investing time and money? They could come out with a statement saying it will never be pay to win, and that means nothing now that they've lied once. It's a really bad thing to do with your community relationship however people try to brush it off.
This makes it hard for new people to buy into a live game when there is not a mutual understanding or hard limitations on how the developer will change the game and how it is monetized. What's the point in investing time and money? They could come out with a statement saying it will never be pay to win, and that means nothing now that they've lied once. It's a really bad thing to do with your community relationship however people try to brush it off.
How did anyone not expect this? You could buy credits in GT6. Of course they added them and, by the sounds of it, they're completely ignorable.
Plus you can get the entire game with all of the free updates for like a tenner these days.
Plus you can get the entire game with all of the free updates for like a tenner these days.
With these huge free updates I mean they have to make a profit somehow, especially with sales being how they are.. I can't blame them for trying something. It's reality of game dev in my eyes things change at times, I just laugh at the fact that some are acting like Kaz killed their dog or something.
