20 million credits for free!
- Thread starter Tobiascyclist
- 2,352 comments
- 276,838 views
- 6,392
- Pennsylvania
- wat3rm370n
Victimless crime.
Besides, all market laws regarding stuff like this are arbitrary & existential anyhow. If you learn about "protectionism" in regards to patents, you find that out.
For example, blackberry farmers could, in theory push through a law that restricts growing/eating of blackberries outside blackberry farmers who would require some kind of registration by law. With non-compete rules that set up, encourage, and protect monopolies for people in the commercial blackberry industry.
And that could make eating the blackberries that grow wild in my yard, illegal, under the idea of that it's losing blackberry farmers money.
There is a logic to it, but it's by no means a justification, as some places people in a community might think this is restrictive to freedom, and therefore an unjust law. Etc. Etc.
By eating the blackberries out of my own yard, that grow wild, nobody could say that I am depriving someone else of something they already had. It's just simply a completely different concept than if someone went to the farmer's market, and shoplifted a basket of blackberries.
Stopping me from eating wild blackberries from my back yard would be protectionism.
And that's a matter that would be entirely pushed, or enforced, based on how profitable it would be to the people benefiting from the protectionism, to seek out & stomp out wild blackberry eating.
I'm thinking that in the case of GT6, seeking out & stomping out "credit thieves" is a matter of how important they think it is to guard the protectionism of their pay-for-credits system. How much money they think they're losing...
I don't think they're really losing much.
How many people who are using the glitch here would actually have paid for credits otherwise?
I think it wouldn't be worth worrying about it unless they truly believed something like 75% of people glitching would've otherwise purchased the credits. And I just don't think that's the case.
Moreover, if they really wanted to sell those credits, they would've priced them to move.
The credits are NOT priced to move.
Not by mark-to-market assessment, nor by any measurement I could think of in terms of time = money, or comparing to other video games, or whatever.
I imagine if the credits were pretty cheap to purchase, lots of people would rather just pay the money than fuss with the hassle of doing the glitch. And indeed, I think lots of people would just buy the credits if they were cheap enough.
Frankly, I'm rather confused about what PD is up to with selling the credits at such discouraging prices at all. If they wanted to really make money, they'd make them cheap enough so they'd A) be accessible to more people, and B) seem worth it to a lot more people.
I have 2 accounts. One with the glitch, this is not cheating, because u only sell cars that u pay for or recessive as a gift. This is PD's bug... And a regular one in witch I finished all events in 4 days (without the 24h races) and now what??? Nothing, i have 3 mills and thats all. I love the old Ferrari cars, specially the one that cost 20 mill, the 250 gt race car, and i cant drive them. Its going to take a really long time for me to get them with that low payroll. We all have payed for this game and now what, we have to pay some more, a lot more, if we wont to own some more cars. One is paying for DLC cars and tracks, but giving my money for bills and food for something that i have and payed for before is not correct. Sony decided to release the gt6 for PS3 for only one reason - bigger and faster profit by selling the game and than selling the DLc's. Oh, i forgot, then selling them again for PS4... Greedy!!!!
- 7,755
- Yorkshire
- ScapeGoat4U
- WhippingBoy
We have already bought the game disc containing all the content, including cars, therefore using the credit glitch to buy cars we've already bought with real money is not stealing. However, Sony & PD herding us towards macrotransactions to pay real money for credits to buy cars that we've already purchased on disc with real money, is stealing imo. You end up paying for the same cars twice, or even more!
For instance; consider someone who bought the Signature Edition of GT5. They paid top dollar for it, which included some "exclusive" cars. Then, these "exclusive" cars get carried over to GT6 (not much effort or work on PD's end to do this). Then they buy all the cars again with real money when they get GT6 for £39.99 or so, as they're all included on the disc. Then they find out that they can't afford to buy any of these "exclusive" cars in-game (that they've just paid twice for), unless they spend 3 x £39.99 for 3 x 7 million credits or so for every 20 million credit car. They'd end up paying for the same content 3 times over, & be losing huge amounts of real money to boot!
The macrotranactions are a scam for sure that's just this side of legal, but despicably unethical to say the least. Long live the 20 million credit glitch. 👍
For instance; consider someone who bought the Signature Edition of GT5. They paid top dollar for it, which included some "exclusive" cars. Then, these "exclusive" cars get carried over to GT6 (not much effort or work on PD's end to do this). Then they buy all the cars again with real money when they get GT6 for £39.99 or so, as they're all included on the disc. Then they find out that they can't afford to buy any of these "exclusive" cars in-game (that they've just paid twice for), unless they spend 3 x £39.99 for 3 x 7 million credits or so for every 20 million credit car. They'd end up paying for the same content 3 times over, & be losing huge amounts of real money to boot!
The macrotranactions are a scam for sure that's just this side of legal, but despicably unethical to say the least. Long live the 20 million credit glitch. 👍
Last edited:
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
I can't see this as intentional in any way. This is too odd a glitch. I think the reason that it's gone on so long is that Kaz is reading a lot of complaining about the way GT6 has been structured at the start, especially with the rate of body deterioration. But the economy is a bit skewed in many ways. Painting cars is more expensive. Tires are more expensive. The car mod parts are more expensive. Suits and helmets, admittedly something you would normally think of well into your "career" are more expensive. It's the basics of personalizing and enjoying the game the way we want that gouge our virtual wallets, along with cars that wear out too fast. I think Kaz is having mercy on us as much as anything.
I think this is entirely SONY. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a company move trying to make money every way they can after rolling out a pricey new product, PS4, as well as the increased network capacity with Gaikai. Even being made with mature "off the shelf" components for the most part, PS4 (and network expansion) was an expensive investment for them, and they're likely losing money with each sale, and will for a while.
- 6,392
- Pennsylvania
- wat3rm370n
But again, that doesn't make sense in the context of mark-to-market pricing. They're just not priced to move. If they wanted to make money every way they can, they'd price them to move, surely.
I mean this is a huge successfully profitable company. The idea that they would be clueless about marketing GT6 in-game credits seems fantastically improbable.
1k2go
Premium
- 154
- lk2go
Problem: I followed the instructions to the letter and received the $20 million for the Vision. Then I repeated the process and bought 20 more Visions with the $20 million. Now, every time I try to go back in the game it just freezes. I've started over twice now by selecting a different car (Honda Fit) and then repeating the process but it still says I'm on the Vision (whatever the code is for it) and the game continues to freeze… Suggestions anyone???
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
I agree with you, but that is a slightly different issue. This is part of the reason that the free market is such an interesting place. The indie developers see it the way you do, as they sell their games from $20 on down to as little as a dollar - or even free for first offerings. And because they can grab the attention of large numbers of gamers in communities like PSN and Steam, they make money even with low pricing.
Unfortunately, SONY CE is managed by SONY the money grubbing megacorp, and their money guys see things a little differently.
- 74
- UK
- GT_DanB
If you read the thread it already has been done.
Edit - From the post I was referring to above:
https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1260
"Exploiting a Game Glitch
Exploiting any issue/environment, not intended to be accessible, to give oneself an unfair advantage in online play."
This is from the PSN terms, I'm assuming the PS3s and GT6s terms also have glitch clauses, as I'm not bothered to read them just to post on this thread.
Last edited:
The credits rewarded in gt5 career mode were also poor,It was the the later added seasonal events,login bonus and friends racing your B-spec drivers where you made good credits.I dont believe kaz would want the ca$h for credits in this game or any GT,Why would he? Anyway i had 20mil credits on GT5 so im just carrying them over.Glitch on
- 1,297
- Kwicko
You'll have to download the 1.01 patch and get out of the Vision. Do that, put yourself in something that is in *ALL* versions of the game (might I recommend for you a nice Honda Fit?
), and then delete the patch and go sell some cars.Frustrating, I know; I learned it the hard way too.
- 629
- Ontario, Canada
- B-Line98
Is the Mercedes-Benz VGT in 1.00 so I can buy 20 of them there instead of reinstalling the patch, buying 20, and doing it all over again? I know the M4 isn't in 1.00 but is the Mercedes?
- 40,419
Sony's intended usage of the "licence" doesn't mean anything to end users beyond the services that Sony provides to those users from that point. Sony can ban people from playing the game online or from receiving future patches; and take legal action if the end user somehow breaks their copyright over the game, but that is the point at which Sony's rights over what the end user does with the game they bought ends.
Last edited:
- 74
- UK
- GT_DanB
The same SONY that is also fighting a losing battle in music and movie industries, because of similar antiquated pricing ideas.
Rob192005
Premium
- 12,818
- Backstreets of Paisley
- Robabza2
No because if it was you wouldn't be able to sell it for 20m.
- 6,392
- Pennsylvania
- wat3rm370n
That makes no sense.
In a free market - the mark-to-market pricing is EVERYTHING.
The market would decide how much those credits are worth. (And it still does, regardless of the protectionist regulations even so. You can't force people to spend money on leisure items.)
Even a big company like sony can't dictate that.
This isn't about indie developers.
And I don't think you have the first clue of "how I see things" in the market.
I'm telling you the facts... The credits are NOT priced to move. In a free market, or a regulated market, or whatever market we have as it stands.
You can't set prices & make the most of profit, if people aren't willing to pay those prices, you're not going to move your product.
This is Marketing 101 (edit: it's also economics 101 - or actually more... you learn supply/demand the 4th grade actually, or at least I did.)
(ie: it's not a matter of opinion - people will pay what they can afford and what they think something is valued... when it's a leisure item, no matter how big the company, they can't market to a wide audience by setting prices that are not priced at the perceived value.)
Append: the idea that Sony is so big & money grubbing that they fail to recognize what prices the market will bear for them to really move their product & make money... is absolutely ludicrous.
Last edited:
- 74
- UK
- GT_DanB
I'm sure I used the wrong names for the types of agreement/terms, I'm not a layer, maybe you are?
However I do work in the software industry, and have worked with lawyers over licensing agreements. I know for certain they often restrict usage, for example an unrelated but common one relates to restricting usage for nuclear facilities.
- 6,392
- Pennsylvania
- wat3rm370n
BUT... Is that a profit-protectionism issue? Or a safety issue having to do with using software at nuclear facilities possibly being open to serious damage done by security holes?
I think this argument, about the usage restrictions, is about protectionism of profits, not protecting public safety, in which case "unrelated" is an understatement, surely (in terms of nuclear facilities).
Append edit: BTW I'm not saying you're wrong for raising that subject. But I think a stipulation about a game for leisure is probably not going to bother with the kind of very specific end user restrictions as one that is imperative for public safety.
They're only going to restrict usage in as far as it needs to go to protect profits. That's not always that far. Though Sony is known for going pretty far in this dept... there are still some things it likely wouldn't see as important to nitpick about.
Last edited:
