Assetto Corsa Competizione British GT Pack DLC Arrives February 10 on PC

109
Italy
Civitanova Marche
Vincenzo_FaroGt
Vincenzodelfaro
The numbers are against it though. The statement says more than 40 cars and 70 drivers; the Mustang and F-Type had something daft like 27 drivers between them, so the driver count would be well above 70 if they were included.

That's a Pity.
Well thanks for the rapid response Famine! :)
 
2,986
Netherlands
The Netherlands
MarcoM1972
According to BritishGT twitter

upload_2021-2-5_16-22-49.png
 

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
73,756
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
According to BritishGT twitter

View attachment 989557
Already in the article yesterday :D
To complete the offering, there’ll be a dedicated championship season for British GT within the game’s Championship mode, to allow you to recreate the 2019 season in full if you choose. And, just like the real series, you’ll be able to race GT3 and GT4 cars together in these multi-class championship events for the first time in ACC.
 
811
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
We now have confirmation of Snetterton too (and I've updated the article to reflect this). Good news, as this is the 2019 season and presumably the track was scanned around then, it includes the Scary Tree which blew down in Storm Clara in 2020 (and is thus now just called "tree"):

View attachment 989551
Yes I understand its the 2019 season for the British pack content
 
248
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
aaron0288
Wonder if you’ll be able to use the GTWC on the 3 new tracks? Hope so. As far as I can remember, 2019 in terms of GT3 cars didn’t have any Audi’s, Ferrari’s, Honda’s (Brit GT never has had the Honda to be fair) and obviously no Lexus. Think there was one Porsche and one BMW. Majority of the grid were Aston Martin’s and Lambo’s. GT4 had a big grid and great variety, but obviously they’re not adding the Ford or Jag.
 
1,833
United States
United States
Watching Aris.drives doing a "preview" live racing stream showing Oulton Park and Donington and both tracks look good and should be fun. Not sure about racing Oulton in the rain that could be an interesting Challenge
 
396
Germany
Germany
Think I don’t like British racing tracks.

never been a fan of brands hatch, silverstone or Goodwood and the new ones remind me a lot of those.

still getting the dlc of course.

it seems like I’m more the Belgian/ Italian Track kind of guy ;)
 
Last edited:
3,158
England
London
Mauler_77
Think I don’t line British racing tracks.

never been a fan of brands hatch, silverstone or Goodwood and the new ones remind me a lot of those.

still getting the dlc of course.

it seems like I’m more the Belgian/ Italian Track kind of guy ;)
I'd take Oulton Park or Donington over Brands any day. And possibly Silverstone too. Really good tracks that I am eagerly awaiting!
 
1,833
United States
United States
Think I don’t like British racing tracks.

never been a fan of brands hatch, silverstone or Goodwood and the new ones remind me a lot of those.

still getting the dlc of course.

it seems like I’m more the Belgian/ Italian Track kind of guy ;)
For the longest time I was the same way about Brands Hatch until I really applied myself to get to know the circuit. Now I enjoy the circuit and I think Donington will be another I will like.
Now I would much rather race the Brands Hatch full circuit than I would Laguna Seca. To me the only thing that makes Laguna to be considered iconic is the corkscrew, other than that it is a low speed track that really has no decent straights.
Laguna to me is a track more suited to smaller slower touring cars or club classes such as Miatas or Mini's, maybe even some historic types of cars than a track for GT3, GT4 classes of cars.

If they took the corkscrew out of Laguna it would not classed a top 5 track for sure not even a top 10 track possibly compared to all the tracks located in the United States. Laguna is one of the most overrated tracks period in my opinion.
 
38,546
Australia
The Bronx
Again, it's like real life. I'm sure there are racers that prefer certain tracks over others. However, as long as they can race, that's the important thing. Pick a car you enjoy driving and get over the hurdle of those tracks during a Championship. Suzuka ain't my favorite, but when I'm in my Camaro, I'm doing my best to keep it on track and move up one spot. :)
 
1,833
United States
United States
From Aris.drives preview event, they don't have license for Toyota Supra GT4, so don't hold your breath.
I do wonder though if the Supra were to actually be raced within the series they are operating under license to recreate would that not grant them the rights to create the Supra under that license as long as the cars use was only within that series in the game?

Just like on every live stream Aris does there are people always asking if they will be getting the Corvette, Mustang or Jag ect added or this track or that track.
How hard is it for people to understand under the current format being used to create the game that unless a car model is being raced or a track being used within the series they are creating for then NO those additions will not be coming period in ACC.
 
Last edited:
1,833
United States
United States
It is here just purchased mine on Steam a few minutes ago. Looking forward to getting it downloaded and try it out as soon as I have the time.
Also super cheap at only $12.99 U.S.D.
 
Last edited:

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
73,756
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
It is here just purchased mine on Steam a few minutes ago. Looking forward to getting it downloaded and try it out as soon as I have the time.
Also super cheap at only $12.99 U.S.D.
Ah, I was wondering about that. The press release states $14.99, but the European store is £11.99/€12.99. Usual the $/€ price is identical and the £ is less, so I thought that odd. I'll amend the article.
 

LeGeNd-1

Premium
6,817
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
I kinda wish we had Cadwell Park too. What an insane ride that would be with GT3 cars.

Is this it for ACC big DLCs or is there anymore planned?

From Aris.drives preview event, they don't have license for Toyota Supra GT4, so don't hold your breath.

I have a feeling a certain game company has the exclusive rights and prevents anyone else using it. Thank god for AC and its mods.
 
1,833
United States
United States
I have a feeling a certain game company has the exclusive rights and prevents anyone else using it. Thank god for AC and its mods.
I wonder though if the manufacturer in this case Toyota pushed their copyright ownership just how far they could really legally go to eliminating any name and likeness infringements on the use of their products or content?

I do know over the years Walt Disney Corp has gone to some pretty long extremes on cease and desist orders for their copyrighted content. I can remember one case that was on the news some years back where a kids daycare had someone paint murals of popular kids Disney Characters at their business and Disney found out about it and threatened to sue if the murals were not removed as they owned all rights to that material.
 
Last edited:

LeGeNd-1

Premium
6,817
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
I wonder though if the manufacturer in this case Toyota pushed their copyright ownership just how far they could really legally go to eliminating any name and likeness infringements on the use of their products or content?

I do know over the years Walt Disney Corp has gone to some pretty long extremes on cease and desist orders for their copyrighted content. I can remember one case that was on the news some years back where a kids daycare had someone paint murals of popular kids Disney Characters at their business and Disney found out about it and threatened to sue if the murals were not removed as they owned all rights to that material.

Just as with the Marco interview thread, I think you're being too paranoid about this whole modding thing. Sim racers have been modding from as far back as early 2000s in Papyrus NASCAR games, and probably from late 90s in Grand Prix Legends and Viper Racing. No one bats an eye about it. Sim racing is a lot bigger now but I doubt manufacturers are going to start taking action unless modding becomes a highly commercialised operation. It's really insignificant if you think about it compared to their main business of selling actual cars.

With Disney/Sega/Nintendo with their characters, it's a whole different ballgame because their business requires them to have full control over the characters and if people start copying them and making their own stories or games with it, that directly impacts their business model.
 
1,833
United States
United States
Just as with the Marco interview thread, I think you're being too paranoid about this whole modding thing. Sim racers have been modding from as far back as early 2000s in Papyrus NASCAR games, and probably from late 90s in Grand Prix Legends and Viper Racing. No one bats an eye about it. Sim racing is a lot bigger now but I doubt manufacturers are going to start taking action unless modding becomes a highly commercialised operation. It's really insignificant if you think about it compared to their main business of selling actual cars.

With Disney/Sega/Nintendo with their characters, it's a whole different ballgame because their business requires them to have full control over the characters and if people start copying them and making their own stories or games with it, that directly impacts their business model.

Looking at the legal ramifications of violating copyright and content creation/ownership laws is not being paranoid but realistic.
As you said SIM racing is getting bigger and as it gets bigger it is getting more commercialized and more games are obtaining exclusive licensing agreements which covers cars and racing series and even venues.

Was there not just an announcement last week that certain games would no longer be able to call spa "LeMans" due to licensing? Even you said a certain company may well own exclusive rights to the Toyota branding?
What about it is well known that Pikes Peaks venue is exclusively owned by one certain company?

Do you not think that as these licensing deals that are getting to be more exclusive and even more expensive to gain the rights to use a name or likeness that the companies that own these rights and sell those licenses and the companies that pay out big bucks to have access to those rights will not start protecting those rights from both side of the equation?

That track or venue that sells its name or circuit licensing rights to an exclusive deal for use of those rights is no different than Disney as that name and content is how they are making an income off of that licensing fee and they need to completely have control of that name and content and its exclusive use for the value to be where another company is willing to pay for those rights.

Again I guess it is in some ways what a person feels is acceptable or right or wrong. My viewpoint is more I do not pirate or illegally download music or pirate software as in my opinion the creator or owner of the product is within their rights to have control and profit over its distribution or use.
I have that same outlook and feeling towards mods for games.
It does not matter to me whether it is big enough to draw the attention or action from the creator or the owner if it is in violation of the copyright or trademark laws then to illegally use or distribute the protected product should not be allowed in any capacity no matter how small.

But that is me sticking to my morale compass and each person I guess can view it differently, but it is not being paranoid at all.
 
Last edited:

LeGeNd-1

Premium
6,817
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
Looking at the legal ramifications of violating copyright and content creation/ownership laws is not being paranoid but realistic.
As you said SIM racing is getting bigger and as it gets bigger it is getting more commercialized and more games are obtaining exclusive licensing agreements which covers cars and racing series and even venues.

Was there not just an announcement last week that certain games would no longer be able to call spa "LeMans" due to licensing? Even you said a certain company may well own exclusive rights to the Toyota branding?
What about it is well known that Pikes Peaks venue is exclusively owned by one certain company?

Do you not think that as these licensing deals that are getting to be more exclusive and even more expensive to gain the rights to use a name or likeness that the companies that own these rights and sell those licenses and the companies that pay out big bucks to have access to those rights will not start protecting those rights from both side of the equation?

That track or venue that sells its name or circuit licensing rights to an exclusive deal for use of those rights is no different than Disney as that name and content is how they are making an income off of that licensing fee and they need to completely have control of that name and content and its exclusive use for the value to be where another company is willing to pay for those rights.

Again I guess it is in some ways what a person feels is acceptable or right or wrong. My viewpoint is more I do not pirate or illegally download music or pirate software as in my opinion the creator or owner of the product is within their rights to have control and profit over its distribution or use.
I have that same outlook and feeling towards mods for games.
It does not matter to me whether it is big enough to draw the attention or action from the creator or the owner if it is in violation of the copyright or trademark laws then to illegally use or distribute the protected product should not be allowed in any capacity no matter how small.

But that is me sticking to my morale compass and each person I guess can view it differently, but it is not being paranoid at all.

Yeah it depends on your threshold I guess. For me as far as someone is not commercialising their modding work, it falls under the hobbyist category. No one is profiting or losing anything over it, so it really doesn't affect the beancounters (edit for clarification: the developers that have their content stolen is barely losing revenue in the grand scheme of things, as is the manufacturers that hands out the license). Just because a car/track is modded into a game, does that mean people will stop buying other games that have that car/track? I don't think so, at least not for a majority of people. I have hundreds of mods in Viper Racing, rFactor and all its derivatives, and Assetto, but I still buy an enjoy the same cars/tracks in other games be it NFS, Driveclub, GRID or GT. Even tho I have modded ACC GT3 cars into AC, I still play ACC too because of all the physics improvements it has. Whereas if you imagine AC released without modding, it probably wouldn't have lasted this long and Kunos would probably lose more revenue than it gains from the extra ACC sales.

The car/track companies doesn't really care, because the game companies pay the licensing fee up front. Whatever happens after that, is not their problem anymore. It's impossible to police anyway. How do you go after every single person who have downloaded the mods?

Like this guy who rips tracks from Forza, but he doesn't share them publicly online, he only used it for himself. Is that breaking the law?

Some modding groups release paid mods that look exactly the same, except all branding and names are removed. Is that violating rules? Is that better than releasing a free mod that has all the names and branding intact?
https://www.unitedracingdesign.net/product-page/bayro-egt-2018

Or maybe you have a kid, and he/she is talented enough to make 3D models on computer. But he/she just makes it for fun. The cars are not put into any games, but they are highly realistic copies of a real car. Is that breaking the rules?

Even with Disney characters, I've been to third world countries where people sell shirts and merchandise with Mickey and stuff on them by the side of the street. I doubt they got licensing permission but even so Disney isn't going to start prosecuting them because there's no financial gain going after these people.

So you see, it's really not a clear black and white situation with modding ;) As long as it's not expressly forbidden, I'm going to still enjoy mods. I hope you can relax a bit and enjoy it too because it really is a game changer 👍
 
Last edited:
1,833
United States
United States
No one is profiting or losing anything over it, so it really doesn't affect the beancounters. Just because a car/track is modded into a game, does that mean people will stop buying other games that have that car/track? I don't think so, at least not for a majority of people.

Whereas if you imagine AC released without modding, it probably wouldn't have lasted this long and Kunos would probably lose more revenue than it gains from the extra ACC sales.

Basically your above statements totally contradict themselves, your first statement says "No one is profiting or losing anything over it, so it really doesn't affect the beancounters" while your second statement says "if you imagine AC released without modding, it probably wouldn't have lasted this long and Kunos would probably lose more revenue than it gains from the extra ACC sales."
You cannot have it both ways and even you say Kunos is more than likely profiting on the extended sales life of AC due to mods which I fully agree with.

The car/track companies doesn't really care, because the game companies pay the licensing fee up front. Whatever happens after that, is not their problem anymore. It's impossible to police anyway.
This is where your line of thinking in my opinion goes totally off the rails.
If you think that the car/track companies do not care about protecting their brand/product rights and exclusivity you are mistaken. The fact that the game companies pay up front is irrelevant as that very word EXCLUSIVE has a big influence in driving the pricing for future contracts as well.
Example Polyphony is interested in purchasing a license for exclusive rights to Laguna Seca which license covers the next 3 years for that exclusive use.
But yet due to modding it is well known that Laguna Seca will also find its way as downloaded content in AC a competing game title as well. Now do you really think that the value of that "EXCLUSIVE" rights contract has not taken a hit and Laguna Seca will not lose value and income due to not being able to control the full rights to the use of their name and likeness of their venue? Do you not think Polyphony will not offer a smaller dollar amount for the license fee to that content because it really is not exclusive due to mods allowing the content in a competing game title?


How do you go after every single person who have downloaded the mods?
You do not need to, only the company or site owner that is allowing their site to allow to share such illegal downloads or the company that is willingly allowing the illegal copyrighted material to be inserted or used within their product. Still not a great solution but the best realistically available. Many examples of such legal precedents have already been established within the music industry as artist have been fighting for ages to protect their content from illegal download and use which denies them the legal rightful compensation for the use of their legally owned and protected content from illegal download and even possession of their material.

Like this guy who rips tracks from Forza, but he doesn't share them publicly online, he only used it for himself. Is that breaking the law?
Yes, he is still STEALING copyrighted material period! There is no grey area here, he either has legal rights to the material or he does not, how he plans to use such stolen material has no bearing one way or the other. No difference than illegally downloading music. If you do so you are a thief just what you stole is in a digital format rather than a physical format. If that person wants access to those tracks in a game then he should purchase Forza and use those tracks within that game.

Some modding groups release paid mods that look exactly the same, except all branding and names are removed. Is that violating rules? Is that better than releasing a free mod that has all the names and branding intact?
No different if the mod is actually using the original copyright protected released files to be created. No different than any other copied product where rights and patents of an original product are ignored or stolen.

Even with Disney characters, I've been to third world countries where people sell shirts and merchandise with Mickey and stuff on them by the side of the street. I doubt they got licensing permission but even so Disney isn't going to start prosecuting them because there's no financial gain going after these people.
First world or Third world really makes no difference it is just as illegal in one as the other. You though seem to weigh the risk by the amount of probability of a person or company being prosecuted for committing the illegal act rather than acknowledging that committing the act is wrong and should not be acceptable behavior period.

So you see, it's really not a clear black and white situation with modding ;) As long as it's not expressly forbidden, I'm going to still enjoy mods. I hope you can relax a bit and enjoy it too because it really is a game changer
I enjoy some mods within some games but the mods I enjoy usually are adjustments to make gameplay more balanced or add features to the content already in a game.
I actually use some add on mods that are original created content created to add certain more advanced features to a game that originally was not part of the game but the key there is original created not stolen or pirated material.

Like I said I have my moral compass to satisfy first and I have no interest in using content that is likely illegal or stolen regardless of whether I could or would ever be prosecuted for having or using that content.

As gamers if you want even the legal modding content to continue then we need to police ourselves and frown upon the inclusion of illegally obtained content to be used as part of those mods.
If you think that government oversight and legislation cannot be created that can hold the original studio of a game that has an open code that willingly allows mods to be added to their original game cannot be held liable for damages to the holder of that stolen original content then you are fooling yourself. It is possible if that were to occur that all game studios to protect themselves will lock their programming code down to a point where adding ANY mods would be virtually impossible.
If you enjoy using pirated and stolen material that is on you and what you find acceptable but not for me. I will continue to enjoy mods which contents I feel are of a legal nature only but again we each have our own measurement of where that line is we consider to be right or wrong.
 
Last edited:

LeGeNd-1

Premium
6,817
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
Basically your above statements totally contradict themselves, your first statement says "No one is profiting or losing anything over it, so it really doesn't affect the beancounters" while your second statement says "if you imagine AC released without modding, it probably wouldn't have lasted this long and Kunos would probably lose more revenue than it gains from the extra ACC sales."
You cannot have it both ways and even you say Kunos is more than likely profiting on the extended sales life of AC due to mods which I fully agree with.

This is where your line of thinking in my opinion goes totally off the rails.
If you think that the car/track companies do not care about protecting their brand/product rights and exclusivity you are mistaken. The fact that the game companies pay up front is irrelevant as that very word EXCLUSIVE has a big influence in driving the pricing for future contracts as well.
Example Polyphony is interested in purchasing a license for exclusive rights to Laguna Seca which license covers the next 3 years for that exclusive use.
But yet due to modding it is well known that Laguna Seca will also find its way as downloaded content in AC a competing game title as well. Now do you really think that the value of that "EXCLUSIVE" rights contract has not taken a hit and Laguna Seca will not lose value and income due to not being able to control the full rights to the use of their name and likeness of their venue? Do you not think Polyphony will not offer a smaller dollar amount for the license fee to that content because it really is not exclusive due to mods allowing the content in a competing game title?


You do not need to, only the company or site owner that is allowing their site to allow to share such illegal downloads or the company that is willingly allowing the illegal copyrighted material to be inserted or used within their product. Still not a great solution but the best realistically available. Many examples of such legal precedents have already been established within the music industry as artist have been fighting for ages to protect their content from illegal download and use which denies them the legal rightful compensation for the use of their legally owned and protected content from illegal download and even possession of their material.

Yes, he is still STEALING copyrighted material period! There is no grey area here, he either has legal rights to the material or he does not, how he plans to use such stolen material has no bearing one way or the other. No difference than illegally downloading music. If you do so you are a thief just what you stole is in a digital format rather than a physical format. If that person wants access to those tracks in a game then he should purchase Forza and use those tracks within that game.

No different if the mod is actually using the original copyright protected released files to be created. No different than any other copied product where rights and patents of an original product are ignored or stolen.

First world or Third world really makes no difference it is just as illegal in one as the other. You though seem to weigh the risk by the amount of probability of a person or company being prosecuted for committing the illegal act rather than acknowledging that committing the act is wrong and should not be acceptable behavior period.


I enjoy some mods within some games but the mods I enjoy usually are adjustments to make gameplay more balanced or add features to the content already in a game.
I actually use some add on mods that are original created content created to add certain more advanced features to a game that originally was not part of the game but the key there is original created not stolen or pirated material.

Like I said I have my moral compass to satisfy first and I have no interest in using content that is likely illegal or stolen regardless of whether I could or would ever be prosecuted for having or using that content.

As gamers if you want even the legal modding content to continue then we need to police ourselves and frown upon the inclusion of illegally obtained content to be used as part of those mods.
If you think that government oversight and legislation cannot be created that can hold the original studio of a game that has an open code that willingly allows mods to be added to their original game cannot be held liable for damages to the holder of that stolen original content then you are fooling yourself. It is possible if that were to occur that all game studios to protect themselves will lock their programming code down to a point where adding ANY mods would be virtually impossible.
If you enjoy using pirated and stolen material that is on you and what you find acceptable but not for me. I will continue to enjoy mods which contents I feel are of a legal nature only but again we each have our own measurement of where that line is we consider to be right or wrong.

I'll keep this short because I don't wanna take this thread off topic any further (despite the lack of actual discussion of the actual topic itself lol).

Basically, let's say Polyphony has the Pikes Peak license and uses it in the next GT game. But AC also has the Pikes Peak course (despite not being ripped from GT). How much sales do you think AC will take from GT? Not much if at all probably.

The third world country example is just my way of saying that, there are bigger problems out there than arguing over the IP of a bunch of pixels and notepad files for a game. This isn't something tangible like music, movie or an actual car. Maybe in the future there will be legislation passed, but until then, it's free for all. And even with legislation, you still see music & movie getting shared everywhere. Sharing stuff isn't the problem with these things. It's when it gets big enough to affect the rich people in charge that they try to stop it. As a species we have been sharing stuff for much longer before money or law concepts even came into existence.

If you wanna talk about moral compass, then justify sim racers spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on games, DLC, consoles/rigs and wheel/pedals while millions of people are still living below the poverty line. If you really wanna do the right thing, donate the money and/or volunteer your time instead no?

Anyway, this is not a personal attack at you. I respect everyone opinions, I have my own philosophy of not buying paid mods too (because if they're paid, then it should be official content and be as perfect as possible, and many mods fall short of that). So I'm happy to leave it here and go our separate ways :)
 
Last edited: