Chances of Porsche in GT6

Paid Porsche DLC

  • Total voters
    1,089
Johnnypenso
Maybe Porsche doesn't take videogames seriously. Maybe Porsche doesn't think videogames = marketing. Maybe Porsche just wants the convenience of dealing with one developer. There are lots of reasons why Porsche would have an exclusive arrangement and not give two craps about what anyone thinks.
Click to expand...

I'm not contesting that. EA effectively have exclusivity, that's the only thing we do know, and guesses as to why are just that..

What I would argue though is that while Porsche may not care about the videogame industry (unlikely), they have a duty to their shareholders to protect their brand identity, and brand value. Therefore whatever decisions they took, they wouldn't have taken lightly. It's not free money, they are exchanging brand identity for it.

As I say, I think it's pointless to debate the specifics, no-one knows other than Porshche, EA, and some very well paid lawyers. Arguing about it won't change the current situation.
 
McLaren
Goodness, you're thick. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like Porsche.

When EA approached Porsche with the intent to hold the rights exclusively, they knew they would need to offer Porsche a larger than usual amount of money for it to make up for any other developers that would be approaching Porsche for license rights. With such a large amount of money equaling what several other developers would be giving Porsche for licensing rights over an unknown period of time, from one source up front, of course Porsche was going to take it. That's how a business flourishes. You can cry & blame Porsche all you want, but seeing as they're not in video game industry or have any major stock in it, they were going to agree to EA's deal once that fat check was written because, "Hey! Free money!"

It's as I said; everyone on this forum would have taken that same deal if someone wanted to use your products exclusively in a medium you don't have any business in to begin with. As long as they don't tarnish your products, what do you care if they keep your product from being licensed by others? You just got a large amount of money to make up for the lost business. And with Porsche having such a high following, as soon as the deal expires, those other developers will be lining up on Porsche's doorstep waiting to give them money to use their rights.

EA is to blame if any for keeping others from the licensing rights because they had a bigger checkbook. It's no different from when Sony fans will be pissed that Microsoft wrote another large check to Rockstar for exclusive rights to the next GTA V DLC coming this year. These companies are in the business of making money, not making choices that make everyone happy.
Click to expand...
You blame EA for a smart marketing move, immediately after excusing Porsche for making a smart marketing move.

You're turning brown bro. :lol:

eran0004
Because it's them who own the license and they keep it to themselves. And not only that, they try to tell gamers that they don't have anything to do with what cars are available in other games and that it's a matter between the other studios and Porsche, although it's obvious to everyone that EA have been sitting on an exclusive license for a decade and a half.



Because Porsche isn't in the video game business, they make cars. So when someone approach them and say "hey, can we purchase an exclusive license to use your cars in our games?" they don't have any reason to object because they're not going to make any video games themselves and what happens in the video games business in not of their concern.



:rolleyes:



Golf clap. They've sold the rights in the past, they can do it again. Keeping the license to themselves only means that they'll anger Porsche fans, which means Porsche fans won't buy their games, which means that they'll end up holding an exclusive license for a brand that their audience doesn't care about.
Click to expand...
Read above.
You're turning brown bro. :lol:
 
Johnnypenso
You don't really believe this do you? That Porsche signed a 15 year deal with EA and is completely unaware of videogames? I Or the inference that if this is true, EA should somehow share this exclusive license, possibly the biggest prize in all of sim racing, to be fair to everyone?
Click to expand...

The 15 year deal are your words, not my.

That they're completely unaware of videogames are also your words, not my.

That they should share their exlusive license are also your words, etc. etc.

So no, I don't believe in that.

What I'm saying is that you can't blame Porsche for not caring about the video game market, because they're not in the business.

It's not about being fair to everyone, it's about paying respect to the brand and its fans. Porsche Unleashed was a game where they did that. Since then, all they've been doing is to keep the brand away from the market.

Or it means that Porsche fans will buy EA games because that's the only place they can get them? If you want something and can only get it in one place, you don't go to that place and get it, instead you get angry and don't buy what you want out of spite? That makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

I think they're more likely to boycott EA products altogether. At least I know I am. And your logic is flawed, because "what you want" is in this case not Porsche per se, it's for Porsche to be available in other games than those of EA. You don't get that by buying EA games.

And all consumer decisions aren't made in anger, you know.

CSLACR
Read above.
You're turning brown bro. :lol:
Click to expand...

If you don't want to talk about it anymore you just need to say so.
 
Last edited:
eran0004
The 15 year deal are your words, not my.
Click to expand...

it's obvious to everyone that EA have been sitting on an exclusive license for a decade and a half.
Click to expand...



eran0004 said
That they're completely unaware of videogames are also your words, not my.
Click to expand...

Because Porsche isn't in the video game business, they make cars. So when someone approach them and say "hey, can we purchase an exclusive license to use your cars in our games?" they don't have any reason to object because they're not going to make any video games themselves and what happens in the video games business in not of their concern.
Click to expand...



eran0004 said
That they should share their exlusive license are also your words, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

They've sold the rights in the past, they can do it again. Keeping the license to themselves only means that they'll anger Porsche fans, which means Porsche fans won't buy their games, which means that they'll end up holding an exclusive license for a brand that their audience doesn't care about.
Click to expand...



eran0004 said
So no, I don't believe in that.
Click to expand...

Seems like you do indeed.


eran0004 said
I think they're more likely to boycott EA products altogether. At least I know I am. And your logic is flawed, because "what you want" is in this case not Porsche per se, it's for Porsche to be available in other games than those of EA. You don't get that by buying EA games.
And all consumer decisions aren't made in anger, you know.
Click to expand...

Keeping the license to themselves only means that they'll anger Porsche fans, which means Porsche fans won't buy their games, which means that they'll end up holding an exclusive license for a brand that their audience doesn't care about.
Click to expand...
 
Johnnypenso
Seems like you do indeed.
Click to expand...

You know that you can renew a contract after it has expired, so just because someone has held a contract for 15 years doesn't mean that the contract was written for 15 years. It might just as well have been written for 5 years and been renewed two times. So no, I never said that they had a 15 year deal, that's your words.

Being aware of something and being concerned about something is not the same.

Selling and sharing isn't the same either. So again, your words not my.
 
CSLACR
You blame EA for a smart marketing move, immediately after excusing Porsche for making a smart marketing move.

You're turning brown bro. :lol:
Click to expand...
I never said anything about smart marketing for EA; they took a risk doing it because there's no guarantee they'll re-coop their money back. Porsche is the one who came out on top because they received a large amount of money for nothing than licensing rights in a medium they don't care about.

Stop being so butt hurt.
MatskiMonk
No one here actually knows what Porsche and EA agreed to so I think it's a bit pointless to keep debating it, but in principle I disagree that "everyone on this forum would have taken that same deal", especially given that none of us know what that deal was.
Click to expand...
We all know the basic order of it. EA gives Porsche money for the licensing rights to the manufacturers' vehicles for a certain amount of time. Porsche accepts knowing EA is going to give them enough money to compensate whatever other developers would be approaching them. EA obviously can not do anything that would paint Porsche in a negative light. Everything else is details.
Completely placing control of your IP, copyright, design and image registrations to a single party within a sector is not automatically a good idea. Exclusivity is good for the person gaining the rights, not the IP owner hence the reason why exclusivity deals do generally carry a higher price tag - they are inherently risky for the licensor. And to ask "why would they care" is to completely miss that normally if you've gone to the trouble of building up a brand and an image you don't give it away lightly, not even if there's a lot of money involved.
Click to expand...
Try reading it again.
As long as they don't tarnish your products, what do you care if they keep your product from being licensed by others?
Click to expand...

In order for EA to have the contractual right to sub-license Porsche would have had to agree to it.... In order for that clause to have any validity, Porsche would have had to agree to exclusivity in the first place.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is EA wanted the licensing rights to themselves & compensated Porsche for it. Given that again, Porsche isn't in the business of video games, I doubt they're really concerned if EA sub-licenses it or not so long as they're not painted in a negative light. Other than that, they have EA's money, so I'm sure they're quite content.
 
Last edited:
lz7o4.jpg
 
McLaren
I never said anything about smart marketing for EA; they took a risk doing it because there's no guarantee they'll re-coop their money back. Porsche is the one who came out on top because they received a large amount of money for nothing than licensing rights in a medium they don't care about.

Stop being so butt hurt.
Click to expand...
Butt hurt?
Stop bitching and whining about EA being greedy for buying rights, and stop claiming ignorance for Porsche like a fanboy. 💡

Or are you gonna start explaining what you've refused so far? Like how EA is somehow obligated to share the exclusive rights they paid for?
 
CSLACR
Butt hurt?
Stop bitching and whining about EA being greedy for buying rights, and stop claiming ignorance for Porsche like a fanboy. 💡

Or are you gonna start explaining what you've refused so far? Like how EA is somehow obligated to share the exclusive rights they paid for?
Click to expand...
I never said EA was greedy or they had to share. They paid for the rights, it's theirs to determine how it's used.

And we're done here because you'll inevitably find yourself on the wrong end of a moderator's patience throwing around fanboy instead of providing any argument for your own stance.
 
eran0004
You know that you can renew a contract after it has expired, so just because someone has held a contract for 15 years doesn't mean that the contract was written for 15 years. It might just as well have been written for 5 years and been renewed two times. So no, I never said that they had a 15 year deal, that's your words.
Click to expand...

Semantic hair splitting doesn't change the fact that you said this:
it's obvious to everyone that EA have been sitting on an exclusive license for a decade and a half.
Click to expand...
Whether it's 3 - 5 year contracts or 15 - 1 year contracts really doesn't matter if the end result is 15 years of exclusivity.

Selling and sharing isn't the same either. So again, your words not my.
Click to expand...
Selling and sharing are actually the same thing in this context, the only difference is the exchange of money. Again, semantic hairsplitting doesn't change the fact that you want EA to share for money, the exclusive license to Porsche, that they've maintained for 15 years. It's fine to want this as a fan, it makes no sense for EA whatsoever unless people are lining up with buckets of money to license the cars from them.
 
Johnnypenso
Semantic hair splitting doesn't change the fact that you said this:
Whether it's 3 - 5 year contracts or 15 - 1 year contracts really doesn't matter if the end result is 15 years of exclusivity.
Click to expand...

It's not semantic hair-splitting. It's quite a big difference between three 5-year contracts and one 15-year contract. Here is what you wrote:

That Porsche signed a 15 year deal with EA
Click to expand...

Selling and sharing are actually the same thing in this context, the only difference is the exchange of money. Again, semantic hairsplitting doesn't change the fact that you want EA to share for money, the exclusive license to Porsche, that they've maintained for 15 years. It's fine to want this as a fan, it makes no sense for EA whatsoever unless people are lining up with buckets of money to license the cars from them.
Click to expand...

Selling and sharing isn't the same, because sharing implies that they do it without getting anything in return. The exchange of money just happens to be a pretty important thing in the world of business.
 
We've got all generations of GT-R, CORVETTE(except C4), Mustang(except Mustang II & Fox-body), Camaro, Viper(except roadster), Ford GT40/GT, Ferraris of varying kinds, Lamborghini, McLaren road cars(except 650S & P1). Honda NSXs, Astons, . Various BMW M3s. All these iconic cars and we have no new Rufs. Each GT should have added at least one new Ruf.

I think that says a lot about how concerned PD are with collecting "911" variants.
 
McLaren
I never said EA was greedy or they had to share. They paid for the rights, it's theirs to determine how it's used.

And we're done here because you'll inevitably find yourself on the wrong end of a moderator's patience throwing around fanboy instead of providing any argument for your own stance.
Click to expand...
You said it was EA's "fault" we don't have Porsche's, because they won't share.
Then, when the argument didn't go your way, you reported me. :lol: Very mature. 👍

Have a great day.
 
CSLACR
You said it was EA's "fault" we don't have Porsche's, because they won't share.
Then, when the argument didn't go your way, you reported me. :lol: Very mature. 👍

Have a great day.
Click to expand...
I didn't report anyone. Mods can verify that if they wish.
 
JoaoSilva
only proves than PD can have porsche in their game if they want to.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really prove that. It shows that Porsche and/or EA is prepared to do a deal with the Forza people... We don't know how or why, so we don't know that PD would have the same opportunity. Maybe they do, but the insinuation that they don't want to doesn't wash with me.
 
...If true, then FH2 will have a dream hypercar shootout all those Top Gear TV fans had been waiting for:

918 VS TheFerrari VS P1.

....Now, I wonder if Mr. Kaz is still not paying much attention to what other games are doing...:boggled:
 
MatskiMonk
It doesn't really prove that. It shows that Porsche and/or EA is prepared to do a deal with the Forza people... We don't know how or why, so we don't know that PD would have the same opportunity. Maybe they do, but the insinuation that they don't want to doesn't wash with me.
Click to expand...

The most likely scenario (at least to me) is Microsoft is willing to pay the ransom, sorry, "sublicensing fee" and Sony isn't.

Could it be Porsche and/or EA aren't willing to come to the negotiation table with Sony/PD? It's possible (Maybe they're still holding a grudge about the unapproved 996 GT3 that made it into the Japanese version of GT3.), but it would be beyond stupid from a business standpoint.
 
Does anyone can say how often you meet Porsche cars online in EA games? Because, as I remember from MW2 I was almost the one who played on 911 in rooms, it was as rare as Marussia, for example. I don't understand that, it's like a dog in a manger with this EA-Porsche license agreement, casual players don't like Porsches as much as GT or iRacing players do.
 
artem9000
Does anyone can say how often you meet Porsche cars online in EA games? Because, as I remember from MW2 I was almost the one who played on 911 in rooms, it was as rare as Marussia, for example. I don't understand that, it's like a dog in a manger with this EA-Porsche license agreement, casual players don't like Porsches as much as GT or iRacing players do.
Click to expand...
I think the appeal of Porsche is nowhere near as broad as Ferrari or a few other high end manufacturers because let's face it, a lot of people think of them as glorified Volkswagens:ouch: There I said it:yuck: I think Porsche appeals to a smaller but very rabid fanbase like you'd find here at GTP. I think it's also one of those things where it's appeal is magnified as much because we don't have it, as it is because of how good/great the cars are. If we had had it for 15 years everyone would be ho hum about it.
 
PD just needs to fork over enough money to pay for the license. Forza has done it twice now and it's obviously paid off as the games are getting better and bigger.

But then again it's cheaper to half model some concept cars.
 

Latest Posts

Back