Are you be done with GT6 because of GT Sport being announced?

[SlipZtrEm]

Online costs .1369863 cents per day. So round it off to 0.14 cents a day. If someone complains about that,your kidding!

Of course, put another way, online (PSN+ or XBL) costs roughly one game a year. Though one could argue you get that back with free games from your subscription, assuming you like them...

 

[killerjimbag]

Of course, put another way, online (PSN+ or XBL) costs roughly one game a year. Though one could argue you get that back with free games from your subscription, assuming you like them...

Yes there is lots of free games, for PS3 and PS4.

 

[YZF]

I am done with GT6 because of broken physics, which PD accepts (that they made mistake during data transfer from GT5 to GT6) and won't fix it. ****

 

[FranciRus]

Did not vote as i plan to play both. I will (hopefully buy PS4 before GTS launch day) so i will play GTS but still run GT6 seasonals as long put them online.

 

[NixxxoN]

Online costs .1369863 cents per day. So round it off to 0.14 cents a day. If someone complains about that,your kidding!

Not all countries have the same income. There are less rich countries that maybe 0.14 cents a day can hurt no matter if it sounds like a joke.
And yes Spain is one of those countries where many young unemployed people decline to buy a next gen console because of the online paying and instead go PC.
Its not my case because I can afford it but still it doesnt make me particularly happy.

 

[killerjimbag]

Not all countries have the same income. There are less rich countries that maybe 0.14 cents a day can hurt no matter if it sounds like a joke.
And yes Spain is one of those countries where many young unemployed people decline to buy a next gen console because of the online paying and instead go PC.
Its not my case because I can afford it but still it doesnt make me particularly happy.

Well no one wants to pay for online.
I get your point, you need a fairly high end PC to play most games today.
Which is not cheap.

 

[NixxxoN]

Well no one wants to pay for online.
I get your point, you need a fairly high end PC to play most games today.
Which is not cheap.

Actually you dont. You can play in low res and low textures, or play other games that dont require so much power to run.

 

[killerjimbag]

Actually you dont. You can play in low res and low textures, or play other games that dont require so much power to run.

If you want to play any new games that are on PC or console,simply turning down res and textures is not going to cut it. They look and play like crap. Unfortunately, its the way things are going.

 

[Max911]

Not everyone still play old games.

Well, in my case, you're asking a guy who still plays Demon's Souls and occasionally fires up his SNES or Sega Dreamcast for some old school gaming. Old games can be better, just look at Duke Nukem 3D compared to the newest one.

 

[NixxxoN]

If you want to play any new games that are on PC or console,simply turning down res and textures is not going to cut it. They look and play like crap. Unfortunately, its the way things are going.

I repeat, not all new games require massive PC resources. Also, play and look like crap, depending on what you want.
Now I play Zelda Wind Waker that has very low graphics detail and low res. But it looks decent and plays fantastically. An awesome game, beats most of todays full hd or 4k games.
Only graphics obsessed people have this problem. Unfortunately there's so many of those graphics obsessed people that judge a game ONLY for how it looks.

 

[Samus]

Talking about an emulated GameCube game is not exactly relevant to that discussion, is it? It's obviously not very demanding and is also piracy, at a cost of nothing. So, yeah, of course that is going to be cheaper than a PS4 & PS+.

However you know he was talking about modern games and it's not just graphics that are demanding on a modern game, why do you think Minecraft still has quite hefty system recommendations?

 

[zooburner]

It will have to be a good game in it's own right, and good value for money too, the days of simply buying the next Gran Turismo game simply because that is what it is are done. There is simply too much competition out there now and GT5 and 6 were not good enough for me.

 

[twitcher]

It will have to be a good game in it's own right, and good value for money too, the days of simply buying the next Gran Turismo game simply because that is what it is are done. There is simply too much competition out there now and GT5 and 6 were not good enough for me.

This x10 👍

I picked up PCARS, so I've been done with GT6 for a bit now. I used to be one of those people who would run out and buy a new console and new GT title just because it was GT, but no more. PCARS really opened my eyes that there are other options out there.

I have no desire to play the single player in GTS. I won't buy it to be wowed by the fancy new graphics and sounds.

Only way I'll be interested in it is if the online aspect is good and provides a good experience.

The car list will mostly be copied from GT6, with a handful of new additions that will end up being in GT7, so I don't think I'll miss out on driving any cars if I skip GTS.

Same thing goes for the track list. Mostly carried over (and limited being that it's not a full game) with one, maybe 2 new additions. PD would have to add close to 10 tracks for me to jump out the window to buy GTS...and they'd have to be the legendary ones: Imola, Zandvoort, Road America, Sebring, Cadwell Park, Philip Island, Zolder, Mugello, Macau. And most of those I can play in PCARS. I'm guessing GTS won't have the Nordschlief in it either.

So ya, if the online is good, and it seems like there is a decent communitu going, I'll pick it up once the price drops.

I plan on sitting on GT7 for a while too. Who knows what else will be out by then, and like I said, PD gets no more auto-purchases from me.

 

[Andefir]

Well first of all GTS isn't even out yet and probably won't be for a while.

And second i can't even afford to buy a PS4 yet so i guess i'll have to wait.

However i picked that I am moving on to GT Sport because as soon as I am able to play it, I will.

 

[NixxxoN]

Talking about an emulated GameCube game is not exactly relevant to that discussion, is it? It's obviously not very demanding and is also piracy, at a cost of nothing. So, yeah, of course that is going to be cheaper than a PS4 & PS+.

However you know he was talking about modern games and it's not just graphics that are demanding on a modern game, why do you think Minecraft still has quite hefty system recommendations?

Why do you assume its emulated and you assume its piracy aswell? I actually play it at the gamecube. I was just giving one of hundreds of examples of a game that is awesome without having great graphics.
But anyway, since you mention this, I'm pretty sure you can download and play emulators and ROMs IF you boght them but for example the console doesnt work anymore because its broken (as I did with my old SNES and N64)
Minecraft recommended specs are very low compared to one of those MASSIVELY demanding games.

I can only think that those games are "sponsored" by Nvidia and AMD to have more graphics sales, otherwise I dont quite understand this obsession with more and more and more graphics quality.
Games at 4k? Give me a break. Lets wait until 2025 for this, dont go too fast.

 

[killerjimbag]

OK so go plug your PS3 into a CRT TV and tell me the graphics are good compared to a cheap LCD? The advancement's in technology happen quickly my friend. With direct x 10 coming out I think soon,your PC won't run jack if it can't run Windows 10 and have a decent graphics card.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm guessing GTS won't have the Nordschlief in it either.

It was in the trailer, I'm pretty sure it will be there.

 

[twitcher]

It was in the trailer, I'm pretty sure it will be there.

I don't know how I missed that My bad

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why do you assume its emulated and you assume its piracy aswell? I actually play it at the gamecube. I was just giving one of hundreds of examples of a game that is awesome without having great graphics.
But anyway, since you mention this, I'm pretty sure you can download and play emulators and ROMs IF you boght them but for example the console doesnt work anymore because its broken (as I did with my old SNES and N64)
Minecraft recommended specs are very low compared to one of those MASSIVELY demanding games.

I can only think that those games are "sponsored" by Nvidia and AMD to have more graphics sales, otherwise I dont quite understand this obsession with more and more and more graphics quality.
Games at 4k? Give me a break. Lets wait until 2025 for this, dont go too fast.

You can't understand someone preferring this:

to this?

 

[N0t_L3fty]

I'll give GTS a shot if they have a free beta. I won't buy it day one though unless the beta really shines. Fool me once (twice) shame on you, fool me again, shame on me. I'll buy it sooner or later, might buy it used just to make sure they don't make an money off me.

 

[McClarenDesign]

I'll be finished when I'm damn well and ready when GT Sport is released, and not a moment sooner.

 

[photonrider]

I may play both.

 

[NixxxoN]

You can't understand someone preferring this:

to this?

Car games is a case where great graphics help, but not all kinds of games require so many graphics detail.
The first image you posted is not ingame graphics btw. And the second image is GT4 instead of GT6 just in case you didnt realise.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Car games is a case where great graphics help, but not all kinds of games require so many graphics detail.
The first image you posted is not ingame graphics btw. And the second image is GT4 instead of GT6 just in case you didnt realise.

The first image is from Project Cars and in game, there is no photomode. The second image is from GT4 yes. You mentioned in your post that you wanted to wait until 2025 for 4K, so I went back 10 years for a game image to compare.

 

[Samus]

Car games is a case where great graphics help, but not all kinds of games require so many graphics detail.
The first image you posted is not ingame graphics btw. And the second image is GT4 instead of GT6 just in case you didnt realise.

No games require great graphics, people just like them as it's simply human nature to want things that are as aesthetically pleasing as possible. If they didn't, we still be watching VHS on our CRTs. We have long desired 2D mediums that can look as lifelike as possible. They help you connect with a character, see their emotions and help you feel that they're real people. I mean, when you played older games with pre-rendered cut scenes did you not wish the game looked that good?

vs

That doesn't mean we can't tolerate poorer quality, I still play Final Fantasy VIII looking like that, but I don't know why you can't fathom why people want games to look great. It's just natural progression.

 

[NixxxoN]

The first image is from Project Cars and in game, there is no photomode. The second image is from GT4 yes. You mentioned in your post that you wanted to wait until 2025 for 4K, so I went back 10 years for a game image to compare.

You know how much costs a PC that can handle 4k well in any game? Its something for the rich only.
For 4k to go mainstream, yes, I guess we will have to wait until 2025 or so.

No games require great graphics, people just like them as it's simply human nature to want things that are as aesthetically pleasing as possible. If they didn't, we still be watching VHS on our CRTs. We have long desired 2D mediums that can look as lifelike as possible. They help you connect with a character, see their emotions and help you feel that they're real people. I mean, when you played older games with pre-rendered cut scenes did you not wish the game looked that good?

vs

That doesn't mean we can't tolerate poorer quality, I still play Final Fantasy VIII looking like that, but I don't know why you can't fathom why people want games to look great. It's just natural progression.

People in general (and I mean gamers in general) are ignorant on the subject. They dont realise how much it takes to create games with such graphics. But they want better and better graphics quality.
So whats the result? the developers create games that focus way too much on graphics quality and not enough on gameplay, and instead of making the game in 2 years they take 4 years to make it.
So therefore what we got is:
-Great graphics
But also:
-Less games
-Average gameplay that dont match the quality of other departments, in many cases.

 

[Max911]

People in general (and I mean gamers in general) are ignorant on the subject. They dont realise how much it takes to create games with such graphics. But they want better and better graphics quality.
So whats the result? the developers create games that focus way too much on graphics quality and not enough on gameplay, and instead of making the game in 2 years they take 4 years to make it.
So therefore what we got is:
-Great graphics
But also:
-Less games
-Average gameplay that dont match the quality of other departments, in many cases.

True, very few games deliver the best of all worlds. The Fallout and Soul series are a few examples of great in every aspect. I do personally prefer gameplay over graphics any day. Sound effects are also a huge plus in my book.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You can have a game with great graphics, and it can still be a bad game. But you'd struggle to have a bad game with great gameplay. PS3 gen and PS4 gen has set the bar so high though, that it can be jarring to play a game with poor graphics, even if it has great gameplay -- and the cost in resources to produce such good looking games inevitably robs from the resources to produce a great playing game. Some have both (such as GTAV) and still fail to hit the spot for me, because of the reliance on online to complete the experience... PD chose to lead with the online experience that their next game will offer - and that disappoints me.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to play Stunt Car Racer on ccs64.exe

 

[Samus]

People in general (and I mean gamers in general) are ignorant on the subject. They dont realise how much it takes to create games with such graphics. But they want better and better graphics quality.
So whats the result? the developers create games that focus way too much on graphics quality and not enough on gameplay, and instead of making the game in 2 years they take 4 years to make it.
So therefore what we got is:
-Great graphics
But also:
-Less games
-Average gameplay that dont match the quality of other departments, in many cases.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Even if people didn't "demand" better graphics, video games would probably still focus on visuals because it's the easiest thing to market in a visual driven medium.

If games suffer then games suffer but that's a different thing to you saying you didn't understand why people wanted better graphics. That is what I was explaining.

 

[NixxxoN]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Even if people didn't "demand" better graphics, video games would probably still focus on visuals because it's the easiest thing to market in a visual driven medium.

If games suffer then games suffer but that's a different thing to you saying you didn't understand why people wanted better graphics. That is what I was explaining.

No, its not a visual driven medium, its fun driven.
Anyway this has gone way off topic. We went from "people dont want to pay for online" to "pcs are expensive to play" to "no need for a high end pc to play" and now this... meh. This is going nowhere.