Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gran Turismo Sport' started by furryboy96, Nov 4, 2016.
Thanks for the breakdown gents, had no idea it was actually that much.
With all due respect Mr. Mike_grpA,
When you lay it out like that, to me (rounding the numbers just a tad) it shows +50% Sales from PS1 to PS2 and -30% sales from PS2 to PS3.
There aren't enough generations to predict the next trend, but in either direction this means it jumps 33.6M for +50% again, or fall to 16.2M if it continues at -30%. Just because they all have 2X.XXM values doesn't tell the whole story
Also, PS3 and PS4 are in a market with more PC sims than ever, a direct proper rival on the Xbox, and their company (PD) is no longer leading the way in terms of virtually any category, save perhaps for driving feel (and this is probably personal preference on my part).
I, want to be completely wrong with GTS. I'd be so pleased, but I don't see it happening, I see GT7 as a potential recovery and probably a last stab effort for PD to right the wrongs of the last three games prior to it, and get them back on track. Has it been all bad? No. But the opportunity cost is high. It's high enough that former direhard fans like me might switch for the first time ever to Xbox.
So if GTS sells 16.8M copies or there abouts, obviously this is what the community wants, and I'll be wrong.
EDIT: Also, PSP sales doesn't make sense in this context, is it a conclusion that the owners of the PSP and those GT games will be more often mutually exclusive from the PS3? Don't get that comment.
My comment had absolutely nothing to do with what the likely sales for GTS will be, or whether it will be class leading in any aspect, I was simply pointing out to Mister Dog that in the relatively recent past, GT has been extremely profitable, and letting him know exactly where the 76M figure came from. As far as what GTS may or may not do, it's all speculation at this point.
Just like how adjusting the numbers to say the sales dropped by 30% from PS2 to PS3, without taking into account the relative user base of those consoles, doesn't tell the whole story.
The PS2 sold more than 155 million units, and the PS3 sold more than 83.8 (Wikipedia for sources on this, hence the "more than" bit), so the PS3 titles had not much more than half of the potential buyers the PS2 titles had. The PS1 sold 102.49 million units. When you consider how many consoles from each generation were sold, compared with how many copies of GT games from each gen sold, things look very different.
No, not necessarily, and I never attempted to make that point at all. I merely included the PSP's sales because, as I've said above, my comment was in response to Mister Dog, who asked where the 76M figure came from. Including the PSP sales showed how that franchise sales total breaks down. If you like, since the PSP sold alongside the PS3, you can add the PSP title sales to the PS3 titles, and call it 7th gen system sales. In that case, the sales of that gen jump to just over 27 million, which isn't far off the PS2 GT sales.
In any case, the point of my last post wasn't to try to predict how well GTS or any subsequent GT games sell, it was simply to give Mister Dog the numbers and point out that despite GT6's low sales (relatively speaking), GT games would have still been incredibly profitable last gen.
Edit: Just to add, I actually agree with your point about the competition PD are facing this gen, and the likelihood of this affecting GT sales. PS4 also has a user base currently of about 50 million, but considering the online only iRacing style of GTS, it may not even sell as well as GT6 did. Who knows.
Objectively its not. Subjectively you may feel it is.
The AI in AC is a long way from awful following the first patch and its significantly better than GT6's AI.
Needless to say what?
You entire argument is that GT6 is better in all aspects than PCARs because you say so?
DC is an arcade racing title and has never been presented as anything else. As such attempting to use that as a negative is quite frankly absurd.
Obvious bias is obvious.
Who can say? But making games that are continually behind the curve technologically probably isn't a way to profitability, at least once the brand name glamour wears off.
Operation, sure. But any change would require that. Structure, it depends what they have now. Not necessarily.
It means that they're getting money in smaller more regular chunks. It's mitigation of risk, so that they're not reliant on their one big seller every five years being a big hit.
It means that they're getting more and more regular feedback on their changes, even though there may be less changes per release. Everyone knows that games are mostly played in the first few months after release, to getting more of those highly populated periods is a net gain in terms of interaction and presumably the data that they can read from it.
Future proofing content in the way that Polyphony goes about it isn't particularly brilliant. They seem to think that they'll be able to build something that they'll then be able to use forever. That's a lost cause. Much better is how other devs do it, build according to what will be required for this generation (which is much easier to foresee). At the end of the generation you can start thinking about also building to the next gen standard to avoid double handling.
But trying to make assets that will still be viable in ten+ years is not terribly brilliant. It's marginally better in modern times as there's less of a graphical jump each generation, but I think it's still too much to be keeping assets for that long. I mean, there are significant differences even between GT5P premiums and GT6 premiums.
Ok, so it's the most active thread of the GTsport section... The lack of communication from Poly doesn't help either IMO.
Again, I doubt profitability is an actual issue for PD. Releasing GT6 on PS4 would probably have helped keep the franchise on the curve of technology at the time too. Still, despite considering it an anomaly, its sales figures would potentially please most game developers. Assuming they where the indices of a decline, PD/Sony still have a few options at hand; DLC could easily fit the bill for income harmonization should cash flow become an issue. There is also the PS Plus subscription question mark. That said, considering there is currently little clue what the final product will be, I’m not going to speculate on how well it will perform at this point.
On the point of future-proofing, one would think that PS3 500K polygons assets would have at least stand one generation jump. Sure things like Physically Based Rendering, High Dynamic Range and (ultra) Wide Color Gamut would require a rework on the shaders but thinking that hundreds of meshes were simply throw in the bin is beyond me.
Not at this point, no. But they're riding a wave of brand recognition that stretches back to 1998, when they were legitimately market leaders. That only goes so far.
I'm sure everyone knows the list of companies that were at one point market leaders, and lost it either through complacency or mismanagement.
I mean, Polyphony's more or less there now. During PS1 and PS2 they were the unquestioned king of console racers. Right now, they're another game, that has it's ups and downs at best. This is not to put Polyphony down, this is just pointing out the obvious. They are nowhere near the dominant force that they were 15 years ago.
Depends what they spent to make it. Most people would love to make $100 million a year. But not if they had to spend $300 million to get it.
Formula 1. It's a funny sport.
Remember that everything is relative, and big numbers are not great simply because they're big. There's more to profit than just raw units sold. Selling a million units off a $5 million budget is probably pretty good. Selling 5 million units off a $40 million budget is arguably a worse return.
I think Polyphony have demonstrated so far that they're not really up with the play in terms of DLC either. I doubt that they can just turn on a cogent, modern DLC plan that provides value without infuriating customers. It seems to take most companies at least a few tries. Polyphony has had middling to poor DLC in GT5, and none in GT6. I'd say they still probably need more practice before they're gonna get it right.
I know. I don't get it either. The only thing I can think of is potentially damage, but I sort of doubt it given that we've not seen ANY damage in action yet. As far as I can tell, there's no reason not to be using at least the late PS3 models.
Maybe it's just PD overreacting to the standards kickback, maybe there's actually a legit reason why the PS3 cars aren't good enough. I guess one day we'll know.
Totally off topic but this was my first ever racing game:
Alright, let's consider the sales figures as a percentage of the total consoles sold.
Sony sold 155 million PS2 consoles, and the combined total of GT3 and GT4 sales was 29.58 mil (rounded up to about 30 for the purpose of this argument), which means that approximately 1 in 5 PS2 owners had either GT3 or GT4.
Let's compare that to the PS3:
84 million consoles were sold, whilst a combined total of the GT5 and GT6 was about 22 million, which means that approximately 1 IN 4 PS3 owners had a GT game. So, based on this fact, GT did pretty well on the PS3 - relative to the amount of PS3 owners. Take that as you will.
Where have you got that? Per PDs website the current total is 17 million. 12 for GT5, 5 for GT6.
Look at the post @Conza has quoted
Ah he was including GT5P, you just said 5 + 6. You can include GT5P and say 22 million people had a GT game but it's not particularly accurate, there are obviously a lot of crossover sales of the same people there.
Yep, that was my exact point mate
The PS2 sales include the Concept series and GT4 Prologue, which adds around 3 million to the total. There's always going to be crossover, not just between prologue and full version buyers, but also buyers of both full games on each console. I was simply making a broad point about the relative success of the GT franchise on each console, given the install base of each console. It has done extremely well on each console so far, so they've set themselves a very high bar for GTS and any other PS4 GT titles (if there even are any).
Remember Re-Volt? A new game is on its way, softlaunched earlier this year in a few countries.
Edit: realized I haven't replied in this thread before now. Short story: yes, I respect Kaz. He made me love cars. He made me love racing. He made me get a Datsun 260Z, he made me want to build that 260Z into a street legal time attack/drift race car. Just you wait..
Don't know why I wouldn't respect him, he has not done anything to adversely affect me, just not very interested in his product right now.
Yeah I remember it, but to be honest I remember Acclaim more for the huge number of epic genre-defining games they made in their prime. It's cool that series' like Mortal Kombat and Burnout continued under different devs, but it's a bit depressing that nobody picked up the Turok or Shadow Man series. The first Shadow Man is one of my all time favourite games, it was just so damn good back in it's day. I'd love a remake on modern systems of that game a-la Resident Evil remake, that'd be epic.
But as Misterdog stated, it would have been better keeping to the original formula -being arbitrary and keeping to a discerning customer base instead of the constant problem of having to please everybody with compromises for all, judging by all the complaints. If the game is so irritating, then why not go out there and acquire the real thing? I would if a dream car meant that much to me. I'm glad PD isn't in the business of developing cyber-sex simulators because I would say the same thing
Frustrated racing driver mentality market that's why!
Annoyed with GT? Go out and just buy yourself a real F40.
I'm sorry, Mr. Trump. Most of us don't have that sort of pocket change.
I don't think it's that easy for me to set aside about 3 million pounds for a LaFerrari.
I will then.
I think we have a fairly good idea what the game will be at this point, unless they've taken the delay to do some drastic reworking of single player and all that.
The game lacks a 'traditional' GT-style campaign. Which I think is a huge, huge mistake.
The game has a small fraction of the cars that GT6 had. This is not only disappointing just in terms of a 'step back', but it also limits the fun and satisfaction of earning credits and collecting cars and all that.
Related, the game lacks upgrades, another huge staple of the series and something I think is another massive mistake. This further makes credit earning less satisfactory and also makes each car feel less personal. Paint customization should help here quite a bit, but it is still an issue. And it makes for a less variety and depth, too.
And overall, we know there's a *big* focus on online competition.
So I'd say considering all that, the game will be a critical failure by GT standards. I would not at all be surprised to see it get plenty of 6/10's and whatnot from reviewers. I think fans will, as a whole, be extremely disappointed by it, too. Those of who love online competition aren't some super tiny minority, but we're hardly the crowd that leads to these 10 million+ sales figures, either. Focusing on us at the detriment of everybody just does not seem like a smart move.
Ultimately, I think the game will sell reasonably well by normal AAA standards, but poorly for a GT. I think it will be strong out of the gate, as many have been waiting quite a long time for a next-gen GT, but it will not have the tail that most GT's do as there just isn't going to be enough mainstream appeal after more people become informed of what it's all about. I predict sales in the region of 3-4 million.
Broadly agree. Apart from two things. I expect it to get excellent reviews - afterall it's all about online now isn't it? and as for sales numbers I don't think 3-4 million. I think 2-3 million. People are not stupid when it comes to knowing what a game is about before buying it and a GT fan knowing what was revealed at copper box will know if it is for them or not.
While GT has obviously always had a pretty good attach rate among Playstation owners, you simply cannot present the numbers in that fashion without them losing meaning. There were not 30 million different PS2 owners who had a GT title, nor were there anywhere near 22 million Gran Turismo owners on PS3. 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 are pure fantasy.
That is the point actually.
Since it's London unveil it seems Kaz has spend more time telling what the game could be rather than what it actually is. Either the identity/content of game hasn't been clearly defined yet (something slightly worrying at this point in time) or it has gone through a more in-depth rework indeed. A delay without new set date and a cancelling of preorders leads me to favour the later. If a game with such a limited number of assets needed some extra polishing they sure could have set a workable timeframe IMO.
Well I wouldn't say it's 'all about online now', necessarily. I think it really depends on the genre and/or type of game. For a circuit-based racing sim like GT, I think online aspects tend to appeal only to the driven and competitive types of racers. It's really a niche audience relative to the broad, general appeal that GT usually has. And it's understandable, cuz online sim racing can be intimidating.
I just dont think your average game reviewer is necessarily that type of competitive sim racer who will appreciate this side of things quite as much.
Well I think one of the better guesses for what was at least *partly* to blame for the delay was them not managing to get VR working for the whole game. As that was originally the plan, they would have been designing around that in terms of UI and graphics/performance and all. Now that they've relegated VR to a special mode, they need to develop this separate mode and all that it entails and it also frees them up to do a lot more with the graphics, which I expect is a big deal to them. I wouldn't be surprised if weather shows back up in the development at some point. I doubt they were happy to get rid of that, but it probably was just too intensive for VR.
I'd be happy if they brought back a proper campaign mode and upgrading, but I'm really not getting my hopes up on that.
I did get one of my dream cars. I must've written it everywhere by now. But that doesn't change anything. I still want a perfectly good GT to play too. I can't do everything I do in GT irl with my dream car. But GT has inspired me to try, tune the car up real good for time attack / drift events around Europe. But it isn't as easy as in GT, it takes both time and money to do that. A lot of it. Time and money I don't have.
Before I ripped of the bumpers and side indicators in the grill.
I don't have 3 million pounds either, but I'm more racing biased and have always treated the game as little more than a trainer where you can also race against like minded folk who don't have the time and money to do it for real. It's more than good enough with which to learn to drive competitively, provided you adopt critical habits though, otherwise making the transition to the real thing will be difficult. I'm aware that a lot more could be improved, but I trust the quality of it will plateau off eventually until the next step would be to go to a hydraulic rig.....where you might need more than 3 million to purchase one.
I can only decide once the game is released.
Although, I did lose respect when I played GT6...
6 tracks (No City or Dirt)
Makes a Heroic Documentary of himself
2 years for "Track Creator"
2 years for "Painting a Spoiler"
About 5 new "Body kits"
"Other Parts" which like 3 cars had
Majority of Standard Cars Not Improved
Bad Engine Sounds
3-4 Coffee break missions (Ruined with Drift)
Goes on and on!!!
This may be off topic but you see how I lost respect for KAZ. And most of all...
"Get gold in a Seasonal Event to win a Paint Bucket!"
"Respect" isn't a good word here. I think you should asked for something like: "Do you still believe in Kaz?"