It’s honestly hard to see how any of this benefits Porsche in any real way. After all, there was no new Need for Speed game or Real Racing game released in 2014. Why is Porsche content with this deal? Is Porsche simply satisfied to sit in the grandstand watching gamers test driving vehicles from every other major auto manufacturer all year? It makes no real sense.
This is the same kind of humongous logical leap so present in the forum posts the article alludes to, and it tarnishes the rest if it pretty bad. If the deal didn't benefit Porsche in 2014, did it benefit them in 2001? 2003? 2004? No Need for Speed games with Porsches in those years, and EA obviously had the licence then too. Why would Porsche not only continuously renew the deal between the two companies, but in the past decade seemingly make it even stronger than it had been?
Could it be because the article makes the same mistake so many of those forum posts do, overstating the impact of the "serious" racers and downplaying the ones that are "just" arcade racers? Need for Speed games are bona fide million sellers. No, not individually more than Gran Turismo games (though that Real Racing 3 game apparently has 5 million downloads); but they come out a hell of a lot more frequently and on a hell of a lot more systems; far moreso than any other individual series. Does rapid, wide releases of a series with high popularity not increase exposure compared to one game every ~3 years at best?
The article mentions that the licence isn't being used to the fullest potential because a Porsche isn't on the cover even though it's the only place to get it. Is there any proof that a Porsche would be a lock for the cover of a GT title? We already know that they wouldn't be for a Forza, so if a Porsche wasn't on the cover of a GT game it would also just be another car in the game. Except unlike Need for Speed, it wouldn't be 1 or 2 cars out of ~40, but maybe 5 or 6 cars out of well over a thousand.
Could it be because Porsche isn't interested in trying to deal with multiple parties and thus find the current deal where EA handles everything on their (and EA's) behalf ideal? For all of the outrage when EA cut off the NFL 2K series at the knees in 2005 after ESPN NFL 2K5 outsold Madden, we now know that it was the
NFL that initiated that deal because they wanted a sole partner instead of dealing with multiple licencees. Who's to say Porsche isn't the same way?
Could it be that perhaps Porsche isn't too bothered that the people who are already aware of Porsche's racing ("enthusiasts") can't replicate that history in sim games because
those people are already aware of it? Porsche doesn't go racing so the race cars can be featured in games. If people already
know about Porsche's racing efforts and can link them to Porsche road cars, Porsche has already accomplished what they went racing for in the first place.
Gran Turismo certainly was fundamental (as was the rise of the tuner culture following Fast and the Furious) in the Lancer Evolution (and the WRX) finally being offered in America. But comparing that to Porsche not being in Gran Turismo/Forza, and to futher imply that it might lead to lost sales in the future, is a false equivalency. No one
knew about the Lancer Evolution in America, because there was no popular outlet other than Gran Turismo to link this piece of crap:
With a 300 HP AWD rally machine.
You can't say the same thing of Porsche; because even if you ignore the inherent brand cachet, the TV advertisements, the popular representation in movies and shows and music, the actual races that Porsche takes part in... Porsche is still featured fairly prominently in a highly popular, long running video game franchise.
So how are they actively hurt by not being in more serious titles to the extent that their deal with EA isn't worth pursuing?
I did however swap out the madly powerful RUF twin-turbo flat 6 for a more Porsche-like
