Forza Motorsport's Post-Launch Track Updates Will Start With Yas Marina in November

[Famine]

This is the discussion thread for an article on GTPlanet:

Forza Motorsport’s Post-Launch Track Updates Will Start With Yas Marina in November​

While we’re still a couple of weeks away from the launch of the next Forza Motorsport title, the Turn 10 team has already confirmed the first steps in its post-launch content updates — starting in November with Yas Marina...

 

[RolexGTP]

With the longevity that this game is looking to possess for at least the next 3-5 years, I can potentially see this Forza Motorsports track roster nearly doubling which would be great.

 

[breyzipp]

I hope the hotel will be as colourful as we expect it to be. 🤞

Also looking forward to the new layout

 

[SestoScudo]

Honestly in the right track.

T10 has been communicating really well.

 

[Toto Wolff]

Abu Dhabi? Great memories!

 

[SestoScudo]

Abu Dhabi? Great memories!

NO MICHAEL NO

 

[Bogie 19th]

 

[R55NA]

Hopefully the penalty system is going to be working efficiently by then. I remember the amount of corner cutters and rammers, on this track specifically, from the previous games

 

[urmie]

Awesome news! Best part is time of day/weather on every track, so we will finally get these variations on tracks that did not have them prior.

I remember the good ole excuses on the official forums back in the day "bUt bUt iT rArEly rAinS tHeRe".

 

[PJTierney]

This is the discussion thread for an article on GTPlanet:

Forza Motorsport’s Post-Launch Track Updates Will Start With Yas Marina in November​

While we’re still a couple of weeks away from the launch of the next Forza Motorsport title, the Turn 10 team has already confirmed the first steps in its post-launch content updates — starting in November with Yas Marina...

Nice use of the photo mode height glitch in the thumbnail, been using that in Motorsport games for years 🙂

 

[Krakenous]

Removal of cars or tracks is very interesting topic. Obviously it would be a jugular response but it's why games have to be taken off the market for sale which is a real shame. I'd be really interested in how these supposed licensing arrangements for FM8 now differ. Hopefully enabling cars and tracks and content to always, accept in drastic situations as they allude to, be removed completely.

I would suspect this would apply to current and future seasonal race cars but that would be extreme. Kinda how the ongoing issues with BTCC seem to plague their full addition to the lineup in many games, especially the 90s stuff which I so desperately want to see...Renault Laguna anyone?! .

I'd like to know what happened with regards to Italian cars in Forza Horizon 5, specifically Lancia and Fiat. Why did they leave and how did they get re-added? I find it really interesting, I'd love if these sorts of details were more widely and publicly shared or at least fully explained when it comes to vehicle licensing for games.

I actually quite like the idea and method they are attempting here, which is essentially the Gran Turismo method (Sport and 7) of adding content over multiple years, hopefully consistently. I still feel the 30 car carpass is woeful. Unless they are actually "completely new to any Forza game" vehicles, rather than "new to Motorsport" then it still irks me a bit.

We shall see. Keeping quitly optimistic.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I almost feel like these track and car companies should be paying developers/publishers for promoting and advertising their products. I have no doubt that some part manufacturers, car manufacturers have earned revenue from gamers buying their products in real life.

 

[McLaren]

I almost feel like these track and car companies should be paying developers/publishers for promoting and advertising their products. I have no doubt that some part manufacturers, car manufacturers have earned revenue from gamers buying their products in real life.

That’s, unfortunately for us, just added benefits. Most car manufacturers don’t need video games to any degree to move products, they’re almost like fan-service in a way to enthusiasts.

Tracks, I can’t see doing that. There’s bound to be zero return on that investment on their end. Otherwise, the idea would probably be more popular with local, private track owners who just want to see their tracks immortalized in a game.

 

[Imari]

I almost feel like these track and car companies should be paying developers/publishers for promoting and advertising their products. I have no doubt that some part manufacturers, car manufacturers have earned revenue from gamers buying their products in real life.

Once upon a time I'm sure it was seen as a mutually beneficial relationship. Whether the car manufacturers should be paying the devs is debatable, but I could definitely see the argument for a mostly finance-free relationship. The manufacturers provide access and data, the devs do all the hard work of implementing the cars in-game. In return the manufacturers get free publicity (provided that their cars aren't garbage) and the devs get content for their game.

But these days companies are all about optimising profit to the n-th degree, and the reality is that developers NEED licensed cars in their games. A game like FM or GT with fictional cars is not nearly the same thing. Manufacturers have no need to have their cars in games to the same degree, it's a nice to have only. And so push come to shove, developers will pay manufacturers if they have to.

Which means that more budget goes purely to licensing, which results in less resources for everything else and probably a limited amount of licenses a game can support based on predicted sales. It's worse for everyone, except the CEOs and CFOs of the big car manufacturers who get to post better short term profits. It sucks, but it's just another product of the post-2008 commercial dedication to short term profits and growth over almost everything else.

 

[UKMikey]

It sucks, but it's just another product of the post-2008 commercial dedication to short term profits and growth over almost everything else.

Thanks Obama!

 

[Imari]

Thanks Obama!

Way to miss the point.

 

[UKMikey]

Way to miss the point.

It's sarcasm, like pretty much every time I've seen people use the phrase.

Of course I'm not blaming Obama although I wonder what's supposed to have changed in 2008 to make corporations suddenly get more greedy.

 

[ykiki]

Once upon a time I'm sure it was seen as a mutually beneficial relationship. Whether the car manufacturers should be paying the devs is debatable, but I could definitely see the argument for a mostly finance-free relationship. The manufacturers provide access and data, the devs do all the hard work of implementing the cars in-game. In return the manufacturers get free publicity (provided that their cars aren't garbage) and the devs get content for their game.

But these days companies are all about optimising profit to the n-th degree, and the reality is that developers NEED licensed cars in their games. A game like FM or GT with fictional cars is not nearly the same thing. Manufacturers have no need to have their cars in games to the same degree, it's a nice to have only. And so push come to shove, developers will pay manufacturers if they have to.

Which means that more budget goes purely to licensing, which results in less resources for everything else and probably a limited amount of licenses a game can support based on predicted sales. It's worse for everyone, except the CEOs and CFOs of the big car manufacturers who get to post better short term profits. It sucks, but it's just another product of the post-2008 commercial dedication to short term profits and growth over almost everything else.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay before 2008, but that's getting off topic.

 

[GBalao888]

Removal of cars or tracks is very interesting topic. Obviously it would be a jugular response but it's why games have to be taken off the market for sale which is a real shame. I'd be really interested in how these supposed licensing arrangements for FM8 now differ. Hopefully enabling cars and tracks and content to always, accept in drastic situations as they allude to, be removed completely.

I would suspect this would apply to current and future seasonal race cars but that would be extreme. Kinda how the ongoing issues with BTCC seem to plague their full addition to the lineup in many games, especially the 90s stuff which I so desperately want to see...Renault Laguna anyone?! .

I'd like to know what happened with regards to Italian cars in Forza Horizon 5, specifically Lancia and Fiat. Why did they leave and how did they get re-added? I find it really interesting, I'd love if these sorts of details were more widely and publicly shared or at least fully explained when it comes to vehicle licensing for games.

I actually quite like the idea and method they are attempting here, which is essentially the Gran Turismo method (Sport and 7) of adding content over multiple years, hopefully consistently. I still feel the 30 car carpass is woeful. Unless they are actually "completely new to any Forza game" vehicles, rather than "new to Motorsport" then it still irks me a bit.

We shall see. Keeping quitly optimistic.

In Motorsport 7, the KTM X-Bow GT4 originally had a licensed livery until Turn Ten removed it. The same also goes with the Porsche RS Spyder EVO.

Some cars I've seen in gameplay footage, such as the Toyota TS040 Hybrid, have a lot of sponsor decals removed, and one of the Car Pass cars, the Nissan R391, doesn't have the Clarion logos shown.

 

[PJTierney]

I almost feel like these track and car companies should be paying developers/publishers for promoting and advertising their products. I have no doubt that some part manufacturers, car manufacturers have earned revenue from gamers buying their products in real life.

OEMs make billions each year compared to the games they’re featured in.

Ultimately they’re the big dogs in this relationship and developers are beholden to their wishes.

 

[Imari]

Of course I'm not blaming Obama although I wonder what's supposed to have changed in 2008 to make corporations suddenly get more greedy.

Corporations were always greedy, that's the point of corporations. But what happened in 2008 to make corporations value short term profit over building long term value? Maybe something that showed that the underlying economic systems were fragile and unstable, and therefore the assumption that there is sufficient economic stability to make long term planning and value building worthwhile?

It's something that's always been there, but reasonable economic stability meant that companies were more willing to take risks for deferred rewards. And the (now multiple) economic crises that we've had in the recent past mean that modern companies prize short term value more than ever. It looks like greed, but it's not. It's just a change in goals towards the extreme near term, because at any moment the "value" that these companies are founded on could disappear. The people who make the decisions want their cake now, not in 5 or 10 years.

So car companies aren't terribly excited about building long term relationships through video games with low value customers buying hatchbacks and stationwagons at some point in the indefinite future. They'll market to immediate purchasers because that's a quick return. If a video game wants to license assets, then they can pay for it because that's an immediate and quantifiable return.

 

[ClydeYellow]

So car companies aren't terribly excited about building long term relationships through video games with low value customers buying hatchbacks and stationwagons at some point in the indefinite future. They'll market to immediate purchasers because that's a quick return. If a video game wants to license assets, then they can pay for it because that's an immediate and quantifiable return.

Then there's also the fact that car games are not a novel medium anymore. And I think this makes them less attractive to car manufacturers, that flocked to the gaming world pre-2008 because it was the "new" and "hip" thing to do and they wanted a slice of the pie.

Realistically, Microsoft can negotiate their licensing deals on a different base if Forza Motorsport's intended as a GaaS - as far as I know other racing sims that have followed that model, like iRacing, haven't lost bits and pieces to license expiration yet, so I assume there's some legalese that can be used to make things happen - but clearly expending said legalese (and, potentially, much larger sums of money) on a title with a two year shelf life wasn't worth it.

.

And to get back on topic, Yas Marina may not get me particularly excited, but I'm glad to see T10 is starting to provide something resembling a post-release support plan - and said plan seems to include roughly one new track and a good amount of new cars every month, at least for the short term. With early access players generally being enthusiastic about the way the base game looks and handles, and things shaping up the way they are, I see no reason not to fork over the required 35€ to upgrade to the Premium edition, and clear my schedule for the 5th...

 

[sirjim73]

Then there's also the fact that car games are not a novel medium anymore. And I think this makes them less attractive to car manufacturers, that flocked to the gaming world pre-2008 because it was the "new" and "hip" thing to do and they wanted a slice of the pie.

Realistically, Microsoft can negotiate their licensing deals on a different base if Forza Motorsport's intended as a GaaS - as far as I know other racing sims that have followed that model, like iRacing, haven't lost bits and pieces to license expiration yet, so I assume there's some legalese that can be used to make things happen - but clearly expending said legalese (and, potentially, much larger sums of money) on a title with a two year shelf life wasn't worth it.

.

And to get back on topic, Yas Marina may not get me particularly excited, but I'm glad to see T10 is starting to provide something resembling a post-release support plan - and said plan seems to include roughly one new track and a good amount of new cars every month, at least for the short term. With early access players generally being enthusiastic about the way the base game looks and handles, and things shaping up the way they are, I see no reason not to fork over the required 35€ to upgrade to the Premium edition, and clear my schedule for the 5th...

I wonder if one of the reasons for adding Yas Marina so early after release might have been the fact that it has a gazillion layouts (Full, Corkscrew, North Corkscrew, bit without the corkscrew etc etc) . Potentially they can expand a lot of series utilising the different layouts right up from slow hatchbacks to GT7 racers. It was certainly used a lot in FM7 for that purpose.

As much as I enjoy Monza, Bathurst and Nordschleife etc, there's really only one layout available for each (albeit the Nord can be combined with the Nurb to create the 24H layout).

Personally, I think the second addition in December will also have multiple layouts, for the same reason.

 

[nukleabomb]

I wonder if one of the reasons for adding Yas Marina so early after release might have been the fact that it has a gazillion layouts (Full, Corkscrew, North Corkscrew, bit without the corkscrew etc etc) . Potentially they can expand a lot of series utilising the different layouts right up from slow hatchbacks to GT7 racers. It was certainly used a lot in FM7 for that purpose.

As much as I enjoy Monza, Bathurst and Nordschleife etc, there's really only one layout available for each (albeit the Nord can be combined with the Nurb to create the 24H layout).

Personally, I think the second addition in December will also have multiple layouts, for the same reason.

Could it be Paul Ricard in Dec?

 

[ClydeYellow]

I wonder if one of the reasons for adding Yas Marina so early after release might have been the fact that it has a gazillion layouts (Full, Corkscrew, North Corkscrew, bit without the corkscrew etc etc) . Potentially they can expand a lot of series utilising the different layouts right up from slow hatchbacks to GT7 racers. It was certainly used a lot in FM7 for that purpose.

As much as I enjoy Monza, Bathurst and Nordschleife etc, there's really only one layout available for each (albeit the Nord can be combined with the Nurb to create the 24H layout).

Personally, I think the second addition in December will also have multiple layouts, for the same reason.

I'm sure that's the main factor that led to Yas Marina being prioritized - and it's certainly not a bad one; it's just that, like Paul Ricard and many other circuits with a billion of different layouts, Yas Marina gives me that "driving in between the cones in an empty parking lot" feel.

I think the light show provided by the W Abu Dhabi hotel at night also provides another compelling reason to add the circuit as soon as possible - people will be comparing how the track looked in FM7 and how it looks now, and T10 probably feels quite confident their newest title can deliver the graphical goodies.

And since we're starting the guessing game for the December track early: Daytona is a previously-seen venue that has three layouts that are used in auto racing, plus the moto and infield layouts that could be very serviceable for low-class racing. And wouldn't you know, the Daytona 24h is in January...

 

[ykiki]

My track guesses...
January - Daytona (For the 24)
February - Mt Panorama (Bathurst 12 Hr)
March - Sebring (12 Hr)
I was thinking Long Beach for April and maybe the Nordschliffe in May, but I've been reminded that T10 will be concentrating on actual tracks first and not temporary street circuits, so maybe not Long Beach quite yet.

 

[speeeyskells]

Have you forgot December?