To those still frustrated at the Course Creator's delay...

[Eggstor]

Yes and no (oh, isn't that always the case?).

I don't know exactly how the Nissan and Toyota systems work, but my guess is it's a literal box that plugs into CANbus somehow - maybe even directly into the diagnostics port (CANbus is one of the standards in OBDII). The box would scavenge the data it needs and save it into the format that GT6 is set up to receive. I'd have to guess again on how you'd interface with the box, but USB seems sensible given that you can plug USB drives into the PS3.

So in theory, all someone would need to do to put it into any car made since 2001 (and post 1997 BMWs) is create the box. In practice... I have no idea

Jordan beta-tested the Toyota version, but he was vague on exactly how that system offloaded the data from the car (probably because it was still in beta). Judging by the literature from both Toyota and Nissan, an on-board computer handles the data conversion/synchronization from CANbus and on-board GPS to GT6-compatible data and puts it onto a USB drive plugged into the car. Nissan also says its system would relay data to a smartphone, I suspect via Bluetooth.

A couple of insurance companies here in the US do use data loggers hooked into the OBD-II port to monitor throttle and brake usage, so throttle/brake position and speed, as well as engine RPM, would be able to be read on all OBD-II/EOBD-equipped vehicles. However, I believe steering angle is only a recent addition to the data suite, when black boxes that record that data came into vogue in the late 2000's and then became required in the US as of last month. Since the black box can be read through the OBD-II port, I suspect that if the steering angle is part of the data suite, it can be read "live" through the port.

That would, if Polyphony wanted, allow for a "universal" real-world car data logger that would operate much as you describe, at least for many cars made since 2008. The trick, especially on vehicles without GPS, would be to synchronize that CANbus data to the GPS data. As others noted, without a high-rate GPS or a tightly-integrated tie-in between GPS and vehicle data, that could get "messy".

 

[Imari]

What is this fascination with B-Spec anyway? It's like watching a replay that you have a bit more control over.

That's how it's always operated, but there's always the hope that they'll make it more interesting, game-wise.

Making it more of a team management mode would be interesting, and having Bob as a replacement driver for endurance events makes it a lot more useful too. (I know we don't have endurance events either, but yeah...)

Or another way they could take it would be as a racecraft simulator. I imagine that for those of us who aren't aliens it could be quite fun to have "control" of a good driver and be instructing them what to do. A bit like yelling at F1 drivers on TV, except that they listen to you. "Take him on the inside!" "Defend the outside line!" "Later apexes!" This might require the development of a new control scheme to make this efficient and quick, but it could conceivably be quite an enjoyable mode if you're given enough control that it's actually worthwhile getting involved and micromanaging rather than just letting the AI do it's thing.

The other thing I like about that idea is it provides a way to teach players about good racecraft: passing techniques, defensive techniques, the importance of consistency, etc. It's quite easy to miss out on those things in single player, but then they become very important online. It'd be nice to have something in between to ease people into how to race cleanly and well.

 

[Cosbuster]

They're still human at the end of the day. They go there, work their fingers to the bone for us, try their damnedest to make the Course Creator work with technology from 2005 that wasn't meant for it, and then some of them come home and log on to GTPlanet to see all these scathing comments from people like myself who have no idea what it takes. Business or not, continuing to bash them for circumstances most likely beyond their control is just wrong.

Beyond their control? They overpromised and underdelivered, whose fault is that if not their own? Would you feel the same way if it was any other company that did the tricking? Moreover, you make a lot of assumptions about their feelings. For all we know, they may be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Streeto]

@Cosbuster

CZR is just what you call, an apologist.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

@Cosbuster

CZR is just what you call, an apologist.

Oh wow. Thanks for the label. Totally uncalled for.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh wow. Thanks for the label. Totally uncalled for.

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"

synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner;
informalcheerleader
"one of [Kazunori's]better-known apologists"

apol·o·gist
noun \ə-ˈpä-lə-jist\
: a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people

 

[azidahaka]

i'm not mad about course maker+gps tool i can well understand troubles with it and how easy is for the gps part or the course to end up creating all kind of bugs.

What i can't stand is the lack of certain very easy to implement features like online clubs/leagues (the promised social features) that could be made with such little effort compared to it and that would add a lot to the game.

Same for extra option in offline race buildings, or really basic liveries like "90° white stripes on car" or endurance mode.

For the B-spec i have the feeling it's pretty tightly tied to course maker; they are probably making sure the virtual buddies can find their own racing lines in non strictly programmed tracks.

As a last word it's the silence that hurts more than the missing features, at least for me.

 

[lancia delta hf]

Beyond their control? They overpromised and underdelivered, whose fault is that if not their own? Would you feel the same way if it was any other company that did the tricking? Moreover, you make a lot of assumptions about their feelings. For all we know, they may be laughing all the way to the bank.

this may seam off topic but its just to show that PD are just run really poor;y and need a good kick up the arse as it seams no one there can make good decisions.

Dying Light cancelled for PS3, Xbox 360

“After thorough internal testing, we have come to the conclusion that we have no choice but to leave past-gen systems behind and release Dying Light exclusively on the next-gen consoles and PC.

“Put simply, older consoles just couldn’t run the game and stay true to the core vision of Dying Light at the same time.

“To ensure you enjoy Dying Light as much as we would like you to, we chose to release it without any compromises on the three strongest systems available. Thanks to this, you’ll get the full and best experience regardless of the platform you play on.”

http://www.psu.com/news/25044/Dying-Light-cancelled-for-PS3-Xbox-360

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

i'm not mad about course maker+gps tool i can well understand troubles with it and how easy is for the gps part or the course to end up creating all kind of bugs.

What i can't stand is the lack of certain very easy to implement features like online clubs/leagues (the promised social features) that could be made with such little effort compared to it and that would add a lot to the game.

Same for extra option in offline race buildings, or really basic liveries like "90° white stripes on car" or endurance mode.

For the B-spec i have the feeling it's pretty tightly tied to course maker; they are probably making sure the virtual buddies can find their own racing lines in non strictly programmed tracks.

As a last word it's the silence that hurts more than the missing features, at least for me.

This is a place for discussing the Course Maker's delay, not other features.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I don't know how much something like that would be but I could see it being a success. The quality of the courses would have to be really good for it to be worth asking people to spend extra money on it though.

Eh, people throw $50 at PS Eye, and it's just a crap camera. Tell them they can create any of the roads they drive (or even their favourite off-road path, for all we know) in a video game with a piece of equipment for $100-$200, and I bet they'll make a nice pile of money. You know, if they ever actually release anything...

If they could figure those things out to offer an affordable canBUS course maker system it would be a game changer for racing games.

It'd be a game-changer for a single driving game series, unless this tech would be able to be utilized by other companies. I imagine PD would want exclusive access to this.

What is this fascination with B-Spec anyway? It's like watching a replay that you have a bit more control over.

In a game as grind-happy as GT6, it's a way to make money.

This is a place for discussing the Course Maker's delay, not other features.

Though it makes you think: if features that, conceivably, would be even easier to implement than Course Maker still haven't shown up in 11 months, what chance is there of CM? At this point it's already been months since Kaz' last statement on it.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I fear that the Course Maker might cause the game to crash a lot if it's implemented on GT6. The PS3 system has already been pushed to the limit, and I don't want it pushed over. GT5 wasn't at the PS3's limit so the there was room for a Course Maker. I would rather PD use the PS4 to realise these huge ambitions.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

I wonder if a lot of PD's problems are self imposed by the increase in resolution. I don't think the bump from 1280x1080 to 1440x1080 was necessary, I'd rather have the better frame rate and perhaps PD wouldn't be having so many problems.

 

[Imari]

I fear that the Course Maker might cause the game to crash a lot if it's implemented on GT6. The PS3 system has already been pushed to the limit, and I don't want it pushed over. GT5 wasn't at the PS3's limit so the there was room for a Course Maker. I would rather PD use the PS4 to realise these huge ambitions.

What?

What features of a course maker would need to run simultaneously to the rest of the game? It can be a feature unto itself as far as actually making the course goes, so there's no need for increased load then. And when you're driving on it then it should be no different to any other track. Like, say, Zahara which is supposedly a course maker track if you listen to some people.

Unless they're doing something radically different, there's no particular reason why the Course Maker should break the system. Unless PD does their normal thing of programming something that's far in excess of the capabilities of the console for no particularly good reason.

 

[Griffith500]

What?

What features of a course maker would need to run simultaneously to the rest of the game? It can be a feature unto itself as far as actually making the course goes, so there's no need for increased load then. And when you're driving on it then it should be no different to any other track. Like, say, Zahara which is supposedly a course maker track if you listen to some people.

Unless they're doing something radically different, there's no particular reason why the Course Maker should break the system. Unless PD does their normal thing of programming something that's far in excess of the capabilities of the console for no particularly good reason.

Looking at Zahara / Sierra and the way the detailed track and trackside geometry scythes through and builds upon the terrain geometry, there are hints of a possible real-time visualisation aspect.

 

[ScottPuss20]

What?

What features of a course maker would need to run simultaneously to the rest of the game? It can be a feature unto itself as far as actually making the course goes, so there's no need for increased load then. And when you're driving on it then it should be no different to any other track. Like, say, Zahara which is supposedly a course maker track if you listen to some people.

Unless they're doing something radically different, there's no particular reason why the Course Maker should break the system. Unless PD does their normal thing of programming something that's far in excess of the capabilities of the console for no particularly good reason.

Haven't people been complaining about bugs?

 

[Imari]

Haven't people been complaining about bugs?

In general, sure. But that could happen with anything. Polyphony seems to need a couple of hot patches to fix any update they do. It's a reasonable expectation that the Course Maker will have them too.

But bugs aren't something that pushes a system beyond it's limits, they're errors in code. You specifically said that you feared the Course Maker causing GT to crash by pushing the PS3 beyond it's limits. I see no particular reason why the Course Maker would be beyond the hardware limits of the console, so I'm asking you why you think that it might be.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Many reviewers say that GT6 has eeked almost every drop from the PS3's power

 

[Imari]

Many reviewers say that GT6 has eeked almost every drop from the PS3's power

Quite, and I'm asking you why you think this is a problem for the course maker.

 

[Griffith500]

Quite, and I'm asking you why you think this is a problem for the course maker.

Allow me.

Where is Ronda? It was never announced as a photo mode location, it was specifically introduced as a "pick your own route" course creator location.

What about the few tracks that are constructed from a large open terrain area, versus the older and more "traditional" (closed-circuit) technique of sectored "tunnels"?

Sierra is the product of the more traditional "lay a ribbon over terrain" course maker style, but it uses the same sectored visibility method that the fixed circuits use, instead of what GT5's course creator used: distance based (i.e. "pop-in"). This lines up with PD saying they'll release a "pre made" track first, then release the creator.

How would a real-time course creator (which it seems likely we'll get) know what geometry to render and what to ignore from any given viewpoint when the course isn't finalised yet?
This applies to Ronda also, because there's no efficient way to "sector" it like there is a circuit.

We're talking about a totally new way of handling visibility of geometry for PD, something like the ones typically used for open-world games with dynamic geometry (the course creator implies you won't know where the geometry is in advance, unlike fixed circuits).


All of the hard work in getting the PS3 to its "limits" is effectively in manually scheduling the SPUs. That's work you don't want to have to do too often by "changing the product" (which is any change in code functionality, its spec), and any errors* could potentially be catastrophic due to knock-on effects to other threads / systems.

Any update that changes the code on such a large scale upsets that interleaving of scheduling, and with several such updates due, it's probably best to lump them all together and do the optimisation once, and take the time to stress test it well for understanding.

* ignoring stupid stuff like typos, bugs are actually "faulty ideas": issues with "problem understanding, problem definition and communication", which are common to all engineering / human endeavour. These errors are more surprising in software engineering because of the relative purity of code as a concept - in effect it highlights our inadequacies in the way we solve problems, generally.

 

[brianwong]

Allow me.

Where is Ronda? It was never announced as a photo mode location, it was specifically introduced as a "pick your own route" course creator location.

What about the few tracks that are constructed from a large open terrain area, versus the older and more "traditional" (closed-circuit) technique of sectored "tunnels"?

Sierra is the product of the more traditional "lay a ribbon over terrain" course maker style, but it uses the same sectored visibility method that the fixed circuits use, instead of what GT5's course creator used: distance based (i.e. "pop-in"). This lines up with PD saying they'll release a "pre made" track first, then release the creator.

How would a real-time course creator (which it seems likely we'll get) know what geometry to render and what to ignore from any given viewpoint when the course isn't finalised yet?
This applies to Ronda also, because there's no efficient way to "sector" it like there is a circuit.

We're talking about a totally new way of handling visibility of geometry for PD, something like the ones typically used for open-world games with dynamic geometry (the course creator implies you won't know where the geometry is in advance, unlike fixed circuits).


All of the hard work in getting the PS3 to its "limits" is effectively in manually scheduling the SPUs. That's work you don't want to have to do too often by "changing the product" (which is any change in code functionality, its spec), and any errors* could potentially be catastrophic due to knock-on effects to other threads / systems.

Any update that changes the code on such a large scale upsets that interleaving of scheduling, and with several such updates due, it's probably best to lump them all together and do the optimisation once, and take the time to stress test it well for understanding.

* ignoring stupid stuff like typos, bugs are actually "faulty ideas": issues with "problem understanding, problem definition and communication", which are common to all engineering / human endeavour. These errors are more surprising in software engineering because of the relative purity of code as a concept - in effect it highlights our inadequacies in the way we solve problems, generally.

It's not dynamically figuring out what to render. Things " pop in" because the PS3 sucks and it can't render things at a distance.
How course make would work is that it could have the course pre made and then loaded up just like any other track.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

Sierra is the product of the more traditional "lay a ribbon over terrain" course maker style, but it uses the same sectored visibility method that the fixed circuits use, instead of what GT5's course creator used: distance based (i.e. "pop-in").

I don't agree with this statement. When I'm driving on Sierra and looking into the distance, particularly down a long straight where the course then turns by 90 degress, I see the exact same track-is-suddenly-cut-off after X distance then pops up/track and scenery loads in block segments as you get closer that I did on many of my GT5 course creator tracks with similar layouts.

Where this is most noticeable is the final long straight over the bridge in the final sector, about 7 corners before the finish. Look at the left hand side when you get to that bridge, where there is a long sweeping left hand turn, there's nothing there and then big chunks of track and scenery - all seemingly the same size - are added in order as you get nearer. Like I said, it was just like this on my own courses in GT5, same sized blocks being loaded at the same distance from the player.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Allow me.

Where is Ronda? It was never announced as a photo mode location, it was specifically introduced as a "pick your own route" course creator location.

Gran Turismo 6 is set to be fully unveiled at a massive, two-day media event to be held in Ronda, Spain – a city which will feature as both a Photo Travel and Course Maker location in the game.

Found this too from June 11, 2013

If they are going to go to the trouble to create such beautiful vistas, I think we can safely bet there will be some photomode locations in Ronda, if not the entire city being available in photomode. Not guaranteed mind you, but a good bet nonetheless.

 

[Griffith500]

It's not dynamically figuring out what to render.

I said that.

Things " pop in" because the PS3 sucks and it can't render things at a distance.

It's a polygon budget issue, distance has nothing to do with it, because the units are arbitrary. The PS3 doesn't make those decisions, visibility is handled in code, and there are lots of approaches to consider, all compromises.

How course make would work is that it could have the course pre made and then loaded up just like any other track.

That's not how it worked in GT5. Visibility can take a long time if you want high quality results like you get in "any other track", and there's usually an element of manual fine tuning required. None of that is acceptable when waiting to preview your creation a hundred times when making it!

I don't agree with this statement. When I'm driving on Sierra and looking into the distance, particularly down a long straight where the course then turns by 90 degress, I see the exact same track-is-suddenly-cut-off after X distance then pops up/track and scenery loads in block segments as you get closer that I did on many of my GT5 course creator tracks with similar layouts.

Where this is most noticeable is the final long straight over the bridge in the final sector, about 7 corners before the finish. Look at the left hand side when you get to that bridge, where there is a long sweeping left hand turn, there's nothing there and then big chunks of track and scenery - all seemingly the same size - are added in order as you get nearer. Like I said, it was just like this on my own courses in GT5, same sized blocks being loaded at the same distance from the player.

There is a location where that comes into question. Just before the start of the fourth sector, just after the 12 marker (were those km? Seems too short) the track goes around an "inlet" on the reservoir and you can see the course on the other side of the water, but not the road or the bridge that takes you there. This implies a camera distance based visibility determination, and not track distance based. However, the bridge first pops in, then out and then back in again, as you drive towards it. So it's not distance based at all.

I should have worded it better, because all the tracks have pop in, especially if you drive them backwards. The course creator tracks are clearly generated in chunks, which implies they're stored in chunks, and a naïve search of that data structure for vis purposes might easily stop at the chunk level, especially if it's only a temporary hack in PD's dev tools (it also uses less memory). The distant pop in on long straights implies a cap on the ray tracing (or equivalent) for vis; standard performance consideration.

Camera distance based visibility determination is no good for Ronda, or for twisty tracks, because the load varies considerably. Track distance based vis offers a more or less constant load, but the apparent draw distance varies instead - that's what GT5's course creator had.

We need something that gives high quality results like the pre-made circuits, but crucially on the fly.

Gran Turismo 6 is set to be fully unveiled at a massive, two-day media event to be held in Ronda, Spain – a city which will feature as both a Photo Travel and Course Maker location in the game.

Found this too from June 11, 2013

Poor wording on my part again. At the Silverstone unveiling, Ronda was referred to as a course creator location first, and only. In the game, it's a photo mode location first, and only.

We have a photo location with a fixed viewing area, and hence fixed vis requirement, but no "choose your own route" mode. I wonder if that would work better with an abstract schematic or using the actual geometry. One requires extra, probably at least partly hand-made content, the other can be ported to any other such areas ("coming in a future update / game") trouble free.

 

[Imari]

Gran Turismo 6 is set to be fully unveiled at a massive, two-day media event to be held in Ronda, Spain – a city which will feature as both a Photo Travel and Course Maker location in the game.

Found this too from June 11, 2013

Lol, fully unveiled. A year and a bit later and we still don't know much about some aspects of the game.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

Lol, fully unveiled. A year and a bit later and we still don't know much about some aspects of the game.

Not that many members here are going to care when the "promised" features finally arrive. Instead of being thankful they're finally here they're just going to be as anal-retentive as always and lambast PD for every single little flaw they find. There's constructive criticism, and then there's just being caustic.

(EDIT: I'm not referring to you, by the way. You seem to be rather levelheaded.)

 

[jimipitbull]

Yes and no (oh, isn't that always the case?).

I don't know exactly how the Nissan and Toyota systems work, but my guess is it's a literal box that plugs into CANbus somehow - maybe even directly into the diagnostics port (CANbus is one of the standards in OBDII). The box would scavenge the data it needs and save it into the format that GT6 is set up to receive. I'd have to guess again on how you'd interface with the box, but USB seems sensible given that you can plug USB drives into the PS3.

So in theory, all someone would need to do to put it into any car made since 2001 (and post 1997 BMWs) is create the box. In practice... I have no idea

In practice.... purchase a OBD2 bluetooth interface (I paid $15 for mine), an android device running Torque pro app ($5) with track recorder plugin.

All required data is collected, just need to tweak the export function to suit GT6

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not that many members here are going to care when the "promised" features finally arrive. Instead of being thankful they're finally here they're just going to be as anal-retentive as always and lambast PD for every single little flaw they find. There's constructive criticism, and then there's just being caustic.

(EDIT: I'm not referring to you, by the way. You seem to be rather levelheaded.)

Timing is everything isn't it? Games don't have indefinite lives, most of us have a time limit of enjoyment of a particular version of a game. We aren't all still playing GT3 are we? 3 months into the life cycle of a game, most of us are still hot to trot, exploring cars and tracks. A few more months in, interest begins to wane as we discover GT6 is just GT5.1 so far and all the best features we wanted are not here yet and it's just a few more tracks and cars but basically the same thing as GT5. People start talking about other games, Forza 5, Horizon 2, Grid Autosport, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, building PC's etc., this is the natural progression when your game of choice fails to deliver in a timely fashion and other games look more attractive by contrast. You look to other options to fulfill your desire to race and compete and just enjoy driving. A year later you're still waiting for promised features and frankly by this time, all but the hardcore players have moved on. You can see it all over the boards, people saying they haved moved on, are switching to Forza or PC gaming.

What I think you and others don't get is, why are they still here when they've moved on or are saying they are going to move on? They are still here because deep down they still care about the GT series. They don't want it to fail, they want it to succeed so they can enjoy it again. Their anger comes from what they perceive as a lack of care or concern on the part of their beloved franchise and it's leader. It's one thing to miss deadlines, it's another thing to drop the cone of silence over pretty much all of communication we would like to see surrounding the franchise and it's development. PD is showing all the signs of the Microsoft Syndrome. We are the market, we can't lose, we own everything, therefore you take what we give you and you'll damn well like it. I'm not saying that's what PD/Kaz actually have in mind, but it'd definitely how they are being perceived by many of it's formerly diehard fans, just like with Microsoft.

Being thankful is usually something reserved for unexpected or excessive generousity, not for getting something you already paid for, a year after you paid for it.

 

[MarchingSaint]

Being thankful is usually something reserved for unexpected or excessive generousity, not for getting something you already paid for, a year after you paid for it.

This.

 

[Imari]

Instead of being thankful they're finally here they're just going to be as anal-retentive as always and lambast PD for every single little flaw they find.

I think Johnny has a point. While it would be nice if people stuck to legitimate criticism instead of "OMG Kaz iz teh suxx0rz", there's not really anything to be thankful for receiving features a year after release.

Had the Course Maker come out within the first few months, nobody would have been especially thankful just because it came out. They would have judged it on it's own merits, because it was an expected part of the package that we all paid for.

Yet here we are 11 months later, and there's a taste of fear in the air. Would Polyphony actually drop a major feature?

I'd like to believe that they wouldn't, as I think would most people. But I'm not as sure as I was 9 months ago.

At this point, I think what some people might describe as "thankful" would actually be more like "relief". It would be thankfulness that they didn't screw us all over and drop the features completely. Frankly, it starts to get a bit like Stockholm Syndrome.

I don't buy games to have them jerk my chain. I pay people good money for that.

I've been saying for a while that my personal cut off is twelve months. If they can't get their features done in 12 months, they shouldn't have even mentioned them, or at least they should have made an announcement making it clear that they would not be in the game. Games drop features before releases, it's not a big deal. If they've announced features though, they need to follow through.

If they don't have all their advertised features functional after 12 months, I'll be trying to get my money back. I'm willing to give them a chance, but I think 12 months is enough. If they can't get it done in 12 months, I have serious doubts that it'll get done at all.

 

[Nooboogering]

Timing is everything isn't it? Games don't have indefinite lives, most of us have a time limit of enjoyment of a particular version of a game. We aren't all still playing GT3 are we? 3 months into the life cycle of a game, most of us are still hot to trot, exploring cars and tracks. A few more months in, interest begins to wane as we discover GT6 is just GT5.1 so far and all the best features we wanted are not here yet and it's just a few more tracks and cars but basically the same thing as GT5. People start talking about other games, Forza 5, Horizon 2, Grid Autosport, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, building PC's etc., this is the natural progression when your game of choice fails to deliver in a timely fashion and other games look more attractive by contrast. You look to other options to fulfill your desire to race and compete and just enjoy driving. A year later you're still waiting for promised features and frankly by this time, all but the hardcore players have moved on. You can see it all over the boards, people saying they haved moved on, are switching to Forza or PC gaming.

What I think you and others don't get is, why are they still here when they've moved on or are saying they are going to move on? They are still here because deep down they still care about the GT series. They don't want it to fail, they want it to succeed so they can enjoy it again. Their anger comes from what they perceive as a lack of care or concern on the part of their beloved franchise and it's leader. It's one thing to miss deadlines, it's another thing to drop the cone of silence over pretty much all of communication we would like to see surrounding the franchise and it's development. PD is showing all the signs of the Microsoft Syndrome. We are the market, we can't lose, we own everything, therefore you take what we give you and you'll damn well like it. I'm not saying that's what PD/Kaz actually have in mind, but it'd definitely how they are being perceived by many of it's formerly diehard fans, just like with Microsoft.

Being thankful is usually something reserved for unexpected or excessive generousity, not for getting something you already paid for, a year after you paid for it.

Hmm.



PD are a small company a factor not seen by a lot of fans expecting such a small group to generate a great deal of comfort to all who purchase their game.
Only the competition will keep everyone happy.