Freedom isn't free, it costs folk like you and me...

[NotThirdReich]

The **** GTP users find to complain about is just astonishing, good lord.

Damn right. r/granturismo actually acts grateful, while we get people who want to **** on the update because it's called free.

 

[DJShadesUK]

The **** GTP users find to complain about is just astonishing, good lord.

I was actually complaining about people using a fallacy to trample on other peoples rights to complain; I was arguing for people to be able to freely express themselves without being harassed. That necessitated going into why the fallacy is a fallacy. I kinda wish I'd never bothered now and just let other people continue to crap all over other peoples rights.

You think you're some hot **** apparently, you think you're gonna start a revolution for all GT Sport players.

It's obvious that from a consumers perspective, which you should be looking from considering you are a consumer, this update is free for us. In a consumers perspective, the cost PD is paying is moot. And now you're trying to defend your useless point, trying to make a ****ing dictionary say what you want it to say.

Way to miss the point; PD isn't paying the cost, we are, even Sage Ages has just acknowledged that. Please see my last reply to Sage Ages.

 

[NotThirdReich]

Way to miss the point; PD isn't paying the cost, we are, even Sage Ages has just acknowledged that. Please see my last reply to Sage Ages.

We aren't paying like it's some season pass, we bought the game for what it was. PD is adding onto the game through updates.

Wow! PD really uses their profits to make a game better?! No dignity.

 

[OJT6627]

@DJShadesUK Man, you should get laid or something

As for update, tried only 356 so far. Very potent car when tuned. Amusingly didn't try stock version yet

Also bought Dino today, but haven't driven it yet

 

[DJShadesUK]

Except for the fact that your base argument started because they talked about the game being free to them.

I was trying to keep it short because, as is increasingly obvious, people just don't read long posts.

 

[ImaRobot]

I was actually complaining about people using a fallacy to trample on other peoples rights to complain; I was arguing for people to be able to freely express themselves without being harassed. That necessitated going into why the fallacy is a fallacy. I kinda wish I'd never bothered now and just let other people continue to crap all over other peoples rights.

No you weren't. Your point started about how people are misusing the word free. That after many tangents, that's what you finally got to, yes, but to pretend that's the point you conveyed from the beginning is the real fallacy here. It was a good couple of posts in before you mentioned anything about the ones getting shut down for criticizing free content. Hell, even after mentioning it, your main point still stayed on about how you think people are misusing a word.

I was trying to keep it short because, as is increasingly obvious, people just don't read long posts.

What exactly was short about anything you did here?

 

[DJShadesUK]

No you weren't. Your point started about how people are misusing the word free.

I really was. But okay, I'll hold my hands up, perhaps I should have explained myself fuller from the beginning. I had hoped some things didn't need to be spelt out, I was wrong for assuming that, that was completely my mistake and I shall not be making it again.

What exactly was short about anything you did here?

Emphasis on "trying", until it got drawn out into silly arguments (admittedly maybe through my own fault).

 

[crooky369]

Can we create another thread to actually discuss the contents of the update?

 

[DJShadesUK]

This is true in some cases. For example, when Mel Gibson yells "freedom" at the end of Braveheart, it would have made much less sense if he had yelled "no additional cost".

That doesn't help, and perfectly illustrates why internet forums are sometimes a stupid place to attempt to have sensible discussions.

 

[Brzlav]

I was arguing for people to be able to freely express themselves without being harassed.

What a noble cause, but utterly, utterly unnecessary. Of course you have the right to complain about free stuff. You can complain about anything. People might not like you if you do that often, but it is not forbidden at all.
So, it really doesn't matter at all whether the updates are actually free or not (I for one say they are free yet complain about the decision to bring the borefest that is SSRX).

I was trying to keep it short because, as is increasingly obvious, people just don't read long posts.

I do sometimes, but not if the poster just keeps repeating himself.

 

[Vspectra]

Finally. How GTs development is funded is key to understanding why "its free, stop complaining" is a fallacy and is wrong for it to be used to shut-down other peoples complaints.


I really can wrap my head around how the term is commonly used, I understand completely. People can call it free (its just easier for a start) I really don't object to that; What everyone appears to have been misunderstood, in typical internet forum fashion, is that I was objecting to the use the word "free" as an attempt to shut-down other peoples complaints (as in "its free, stop complaining"). All I was doing was attempting to debunk that fallacy. I really was just standing up for peoples right to complain without getting harassed or "jumped on" for it. That is all.

Its not free, but please complain away, complain 'til your hearts content, that is your right and is all I was ever really trying to get at.

Actually you're still technically wrong.

It's free content. What would you call it if PD charged for these updates? Paid paid content? Your graphs don't even back up your claims and completely ignores the fact that Sony dictates the budget Polyphony gets for their games.

What happens with the profit a company makes? They use those profits to create new products, which they then release at a price so that they can keep money flowing in to keep making even more products. If a substantial amount of content/product work is given free (like for GTSport), it's inevitable you run out of budget, and not enough money flowing in to keep things going. That's why PD even had to reintroduce Microtransactions as another monetary platform as a way to be able to pay their workers. When you bought GTSport, you didn't spend $60 in hopes of DLC content. You bought it for what was released. In fact there was absolutely zero indication GTsport was even going to get this amount of content updates and at no additional charge.

If we use your logic then literally no other "free" content from any developer or company can be considered "free," because those companies would have had created that content using the profits they received from consumers buying a previous product. There's the massive flaw in your argument.

 

[DJShadesUK]

What a noble cause, but utterly, utterly unnecessary.

Its not unnecessary because even an administrator said it happens. People on this site attempt to trample on others rights to complain using a fallacy and it shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[Crazy Taylor]

In short. Did I pay for an update? No (as you don't pay for those, you pay for DLC). So whichever way you see it, on whichever side of the fence you camp on, it costs not a dime to you or me.

 

[DJShadesUK]

It's free content. What would you call it if PD charged for these updates? Paid paid content? Your graphs don't even back up your claims and completely ignores the fact that Sony dictates the budget Polyphony gets for their games.

What happens with the profit a company makes? They use those profits to create new products, which they then release at a price so that they can keep money flowing in to keep making even more products. If a substantial amount of content/product work is given free (like for GTSport), it's inevitable you run out of budget, and not enough money flowing in to keep things going. That's why PD even had to reintroduce Microtransactions as another monetary platform as a way to be able to pay their workers. When you bought GTSport, you didn't spend $60 in hopes of DLC content. You bought it for what was released. In fact there was absolutely zero indication GTsport was even going to get this amount of content updates and at no additional charge.

If we use your logic then literally no other "free" content from any developer or company can be considered "free," because those companies would have had created that content using the profits they received from consumers buying a previous product. There's the massive flaw in your argument.

You're a marketing wonks wet dream. Sad. Carry on. I'm done watching this thread.

 

[Vspectra]

You're a marketing wonks wet dream. Sad. Carry on. I'm done watching this thread.

Great argument. Cya.

 

[ImaRobot]

I really was. But okay, I'll hold my hands up, perhaps I should have explained myself fuller from the beginning. I had hoped some things didn't need to be spelt out, I was wrong for assuming that, that was completely my mistake and I shall not be making it again.

You didn't need to spell it out. What you had to do was actually make that point. You didn't initially, you did a good bit later on though, but the main point you continued arguing for the vast majority of this was the use of a word.

On short. Did I pay for an update? No (as you don't pay for those, you pay for DLC). So whichever way you see it, on whichever side of the fence you camp on, it costs not a dime to you or me.

Technically this is DLC. It's just free DLC

 

[GBalao888]

If updates weren't free, then that's basically pulling off an EA-like scheme in order to pay quite a sum in order to keep the game up to date.

Every update patch for every game is free, but it's up to the developer, in this case, Polyphony, where they can elect to either make its content free or paid; it's the content that will be paid for, if ever it is meant to be paid content. Free content will just be an easy grab.

Well sometimes these updates won't live up to our hopes and expectations, as mostly, it's Polyphony that will decide the content that will be released, with consideration to the players' requests too, for what they can suggest to be added to the game, but to each, their own, especially for Polyphony.

At the very least, with a number of cars and a new environment (sometimes with more layouts, even), as well as new career mode events and Scapes, this is already just as, if not, bigger than the average expansion for a Forza game.

As referring to "at no additional charge", every update and DLC of GT Sport has been free ever since, so you do not need to pay more (well basically anything for that matter). There could come a time that some DLC will be paid eventually, so they could charge players if they ever wished to do so.

It also refers to the fact that we, the people, paid roughly $60 or $100 (depending on our product grade, be it the standard or ultimate edition) for the product we are using (which is GT Sport), and that we are currently not paying any more than that with the updates and the content we are receiving from them.

Microtransactions were introduced as means to quickly buy cars so that people who cannot afford them and do not have the time, or are lazy to grind, can buy cars with real-world money, but this is only limited to cars priced no higher than 2,000,000 credits.

There is a disclaimer where you can get the cars through normal means, through progression, so this is an incentive, not a requirement. Yet people would like to avoid this as much as possible as they would rather save up on other things as opposed to a one-time, intangible product.

If one is complaining exactly like this, go play Real Racing 3.

 

[Dave A]

Before I start, I just want to say how frustrating this is becuause I agree with the frustration you have driving this argument but i cannot agree with the rest.

Wait, what? "just a quip towards any who complain every month after an update"? Either I've got the wrong end of the stick or here we are, in opposite world again? My entire point has been that it is everyone's right to complain - even an administrator agrees - everyone has paid for the right to complain via their initial purchase, and here you are quiping about people who complain, like maybe people shouldn't be complaining? Am I understanding that correctly?

I'm going to start calling myself Alice soon.

Ok, Alice, I agree with this, everyone has a right to complain .

I can tell you this with absolute certainty; Sony are not recovering the development costs of GT from console sales since Sony lose $60 on every console sale. Deduction, its a powerful tool; "When you have eliminated the impossible..."

You do realise that a. that article is from 2013 and the manufacturing process and costs thus involved have changed since 2013? and; b. the article quotes "well-placed sources" only, so there is infact no factual merit that can be established to that aricle or your point as it overlooks too many other factors. Even if it were true in 2013, it's not likely to be true now is it, and even if so it still doesn't negate the possability that Sony have included development costs of certain major first party games into thier console profits meaning losses would factor into there being a $60 loss per console. You do not know, you cannot state with an absolute certainty that it is not. Unless you are misapplyingthe phrase "absolute certainty", though that just means you are misapplyingthat phrase and not that you are absolutely certain.

There is no "might" about it. PD may be (well, are) making assets that are to be shared across the next two or three titles, but, as I have said, countless times, no matter how the bean counters slice and dice the costs, they will have to be recovered one way or the other. The only way PD recover costs (for now at least) is from us, via sales of the game. Ergo, we've paid for everything whether the price is visible at the point of delivery or not.

There is absolutely a might about it, there are so many budgets the development costs of this DLC could be coming from, GT Sport sales is just one of them and to me, that actually seems like one of the less likely sources. What game developer would make a game that sells for the usual cost and then start chipping into thier sales profit from that game by making free DLC. That's far less likely than the DLC devleopment being part of a future Gran Turismo games development and being part of that budget. They will have a budget for the DLC and it is most likely not game sales, it could also be what was budgeted for the games development in the first place, but we truthfully just don't know. There is a lot of room for a nice big "might" in there.

If? If? There is no "if" about it; Sony didn't get to be the global behemoth they are by maybe not having "anything about them". Saying "if" implies that you think Sony could have been winging it this entire time?!

You seem very obsessed with dealing with certainties, when we don't have any. I'll give this one a pass becuase we can reasonably accept that Sony know what they are doing, however you appear to taken the phrase "if Sony have anything about them" completely out of context as I was acknowledging that they did and actually agreed with you on that point.

Piece of advice, try to read the whole post before you hit reply and start replying to bits and bobs as you go. I assume by the nature of this post of yours that is what you've done becuase I can't see how you would have taken the above out of context otherwise unless you were simply looking for a rise.

Yes, forecasts and a plan. And Sony's bean-counters would go absolutely bat**** crazy at PD, if PD hadn't of planned for the (regular) content updates.

"Don't mind us, every month we're just going to chip into the profits we forecasted we'd make you. What do you mean we should have forecasted less profits then? Don't you know who I am? I'm Kazu-motherflippin'-nori!!" wouldn't really wash with a bean counter!

Sony have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to accurately report projected profits and to minimise unexpected things cutting into those profits (thats why companies have to issue profit warnings when something unexpected cuts into those projected profits).

See above, the money will be from somewhere, or be expected to be made/recouped somewherein some form, it doesn't mean it came from GT Sport sales. It doesn't mean those who paid for GT Sport have paid for this DLC in advance.

Owned, past-tense. Is that because you can't spell forecast?

Ha, nice try. No the poor spelling is down to fat fingers and small keys on my phone and rushing. What's your excuse?

This business of yours, it was that successful you decided to up sticks and go work for another firm as a departmental manager? Can't manage to spell manage even though you're a manager. Hmmm. Something doesn't quite add up there (ironic since you're an employee of an accounting firm!)

Don't let spelling do you out of the argument, if you must know I put an end to my business after some serious events in my personal life which meant the business received little to no attention and in the end I canned the business. It was successful while it lasted, it almost paid off my first house in less than 5 years.

I've known plenty of departmental managers who knew less about the department than those under them, but they knew how to make sure people got to work on time, didn't take too long for breaks, and hired and fired people. Just because you work for a large accounting and payroll firm doesn't necessarily mean you do accounting or payroll, does it?

In my case it does, not payroll you don't pay an accountant for that unless it's just a part of your job in a small firm.

I'm a personal tax specialist, so I deal with personal investments, inheritance and estates, trusts, residence, CGT, all of that side. I am fully trained in corporation taxes i.e. accounting for the income, expenses, BIK's, management accounts, trail balances, P&L accounts and balance sheets. I much prefer Perosnal Taxation to Corporation Tax, PT has much more to consider and more nuances. Not that any of this is connected to the debate in hand but I worked up from an Assistant to heading the department, part of heading the deperatment includes the forecasts as well as generating and accounting for all of the departments income etc.

Free is not relative. I will acknowledge that something make "look" free, it may even "feel" free, but that does not factually make it so. Something has either been paid for (maybe the cost included in a previous purchase) or it has not. This is not some Trump-esque "alternative facts" bizarro-land!

No, free is relative, google the definition, something not paid for. Therefore if I receive something I have not paid for it is free to me.

Imagine the following:

• You get on a train without purchasing a ticket and manage to reach your destination; that is free (very, very naughty) but ultimately free to you.
  
• You buy a train season ticket, paying by lump sum; the price of the season ticket will be worked out using statistical probability so that all your future rides are factored into the price (with some margin of error). Every time you subsequently get on a train you don't pay again, "looks" like free, but its not free, its at "no additional cost" because you've already had that ride factored into the original season ticket cost. (Does this not at all sound familiar?!?)

Yes, Yes, I know; in GTS we may not have known we were buying a "season ticket" but that doesn't automatically preclude it.

Not a remotely similar scenario, at the end of the day we know the following facts applied to GT Sport when it launched:

a. GT Sport sold for the same price as other AAA games
b. GT Sport was sold as a complete game
c. No Season Pass existed

Therefore, using your own logic, are we now saying every other AAA game is over priced? After all, we paid the same for GT Sport and a secret Season Pass as we did for other games that required extra for the DLC.

I makes no sense that purchases of GT Sport have funded the DLC. Sony and PD will be several steps ahead of that, and mymoney is on the GTSport DLC being early Development for GT7, GT World or whatever the next Gran Turismo is called.

Incorrect. My time is free if I choose to give it. My effort is for free if I choose to give it. Those are precisely the two things that we can, as individuals, give for free!

Only incorrect because you are not placing a value on those things, what is money at the end of the day? It is a man made unit that has the sole purpose of providing a scale of value to things. Time is a valuable commodity, effort is another commodity, they may not cost us money directly but we can lose money by focusing our time and effot on one thing rather than another. My time definitely has a value.

And? There is no promise of me having sex tonight, doesn't mean I'm not going to get it (or budgeted for it! )

Finally, something we absolutely agree on and the whole point of why I was trying to explain the flawed logic behind the "its free, stop complaining" fallacy which neccesitated going in-depth into certain things.

Now if this was your only point, we would be in agreement, just becuase something is free howver you definite that doesn't mean that it's good by default or that we shouldn't compain about it and have to suck it up.

Agreed. Thank you.

You are welcome, and I stand by that, I jsut think you are focusing on the wrong thing here.

I may be wrong here, and this is not specifically aimed at you Dave, but I get the distinct impression that some people think PD enjoys some kind of all-forgiving dispensation from Sony allowing them to continually operate at a loss, or at least without strict budgeting and hammer profits, because, umm, reasons? I love Gran Turismo as much as the next Gran Turismo loving person, I never want to see it disappear, and I hate to shatter some peoples illusions but; Sony may, given GT's success, tolerate a couple of successive GT titles making a loss but after that GT would be dead (unless, of course, Kaz were to buy PD back from Sony, but thats a different discussion).

In the grand scheme of things, compared to other PS titles, GT is a niche, its a drop in the ocean for Sony. For Sony to keep operating PD at a loss it would mean a niche title like GT generates an absolutely absurd amount sales of other licenced "things", enough to keep PD ticking along. This is highly improbable.


I could go into the sales numbers of GT and other PS titles, but no-one appears to give a 🤬 about details on here it seems, and since I'm typing all this out of sequence I really can't be bothered any more.

Gran Turismo probably does not operate at a loss, but it is a very popular franchise and it wouldn't make bad busienss sense to let it operate at a loss if they were confident it would drive someconsole sales. We know Gran Turismo is a popular franchise, granted not nearly as much as GTA and RDR2, but it has pulling power. People will buy a console for a racing game they want. GTA and RDR2 are more popular games but they're avaialble on several formats reducing the liklyhood of a console purchase. People will just buy those on a coonsole or format they already own. There's no way we can know how GT Sports DLC is funded.

I'm just going to say one final thing on this matter and then I'm done, because I don't agree with your logic and if you still don't agree with mine we are just going round in circles and I think agreeing to dissagree is the next best thing. But I understand what is driving your argument, I actually agree with that and respect that point of view. You are free to feel that way and it is your right to do so. Other people are free to love PD and every DLC released because they are not paying for it, they shouldn't expect everyone to feel that way though.

If you dissagree with all or some of the above, that's fine, we will just agree to dissagree from here 👍.

 

[AUTISTICBOYX]

You're a marketing wonks wet dream. Sad. Carry on. I'm done watching this thread.

Aaaaaaand CUT! You were doing good so far, but as a successful troll, you need to keep burying twisted logic in abstruse walls of text to project unequivocal verisimilitude to your narrative; then you move on to pithy bromides to dispense with cogent rebuttals and segue into the denouement - exiting the barn burner debate in a subtly fashion.

Roll the camera!

 

[marcvic]

Man! Article-length posts to argue the semantics of whether or not GTS DLC is 'free'

Came by to find some footage/screenshots of the new content, but guess I'll try again later

 

[ImaRobot]

Man! Article-length posts to argue the semantics of whether or not GTS DLC is 'free'

Came by to find some footage/screenshots of the new content, but guess I'll try again later

I wish you luck on your quest.

 

[Nielsen]

I really hope no one from PD is lurking and reading the free vs. free argument here. It’s 🤬 sad to see something so 🤬 trivial getting most of the attention only hours after a new content update!

 

[Victoria H]

Whatever, but at the end of the day, PD didn't charge me anything for a pack including 8 super premium cars and a new track..

No, I do not count the money I spent purchasing the actual game or the money of a PS+ subscription (which I don't even have anymore) as some proof that the update contents are not free for us. Maybe I'm an ignorant and I'm missing something here, but honestly I don't care.

Compare that to Ubisoft, that wants me to shell out BRL 30 for a single assault rifle DLC in Ghost Recon Wildlands.

 

[Auditore]

I really hope no one from PD is lurking and reading the free vs. free argument here. It’s 🤬 sad to see something so 🤬 trivial getting most of the attention only hours after a new content update!

Oh they do visit this forum,you bet the next DLC will be called the FREE FREE TOTALLY FREE February Update

 

[D-Max]

WHO CARES??? NOT ME

You paid whatever amount of $ or £ or € or whatever the hell. That’s what happens. Did you buy the game dependant on updates? NAW. Do you pay for each game update? NAW

Circling back round.....

WHO CARES

 

[stpatty]

How many people saying the updates are free have to pay for an internet connection to be able to download them?

Thought so.

 

[ImaRobot]

How many people saying the updates are free have to pay for an internet connection to be able to download them?

Thought so.

What exactly was this supposed to prove?

 

[Auditore]

The base game is paid,the additional content is free of charge you don't pay for Stage Route X,how the hell can someone dispute that?

 

[stpatty]

What exactly was this supposed to prove?

You need to pay to be able to access the update, don't you?

 

[Novalee]

You bought the game for however much it was when you purchased it, as is - as advertised, everything which was shown is in the game. It was very clearly stated that Sport was taking a new direction and that it’d have less cars in at launch as they rebuilt many from scratch (although as of now they have figured out a way to convert GT6 premiums over to the PS4 and GTS AFAIK, which is great since they already looked really good + helps with adding cars while working on new ones).

Can you point out the post pd/sony made saying when gt sport launched that there was to be no content added?