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

[RACECAR]

No. Its important because "its free" is used as a way of attempting to shut down discussion. Which is wrong.

Suggestion from me: If this was your problem all along, why not just argue THAT instead of making entire paragraphs with questionable logic? Why not actually call these people out on them trying to hush people's criticisms and the flawed logic behind it (within reason and the AUP) instead of having these really lengthy posts that unnecessarily argue something so trivial? I've called out fanboys before who for some reason think less then positive criticism of ANY kind is somehow being "Ungrateful" and it sure didn't require mountains of text just to get the point across.

Seems like instead of that. you are getting worked up and literally making what appears to be a unnecessarily argument just because of certain people every month making it a unnecessarily habit of shutting down criticism and free speech. You're fighting ridiculousness with ridiculousness. I'm no professional strategist or team leader so I'm only making an observation here but much like Ferrari's 2018 season in Formula 1, I don't see many winning moves coming out of this.

 

[FoRiZon]

Look, your lack of comprehension is not my problem. Stop trying to project your deficiencies on me; I'm not the one unable to understand very simple concepts.

And, once again, it is not pointless because the "its free" fallacy is used, on this site, again and again by some as a method of attempting to shut down criticism of the update content. In an effort to debunk the "its free" fallacy it has been necessary to explain why the updates are not free; we may not have to pay for them at the time we receive them but they are, most definitely, not free. Updates are planned and their production costed. That cost has to be recovered from somewhere. That somewhere is the income. Unless PD start charging for updates then the only income we provide PD is when we purchase the game. You, me, and everyone else who purchased the game covered the cost of the production of the updates from our initial purchase.

Good Lord, I thought you Americans were all for upholding free speech? Here I am giving reasons why "it's free, stop complaining" is unmitigated BS, informing those who wish to complain, that they have every right to complain, and no-one else has the right to try and stop them (with a fallacy). Perhaps I should have sneaked in something about taking away your guns, you may have paid a little more attention then, no?


Yes. Of course they did. Sony/PD will have a rough idea of when initial sales slow down and when they need to encourage further sale through discounting.

Wait. You don't really think they didn't account for that, do you?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you don't run a business, right?


I'm aware of what the text in the video says, I even referred to it earlier:
*slightly altered for clarity
I know little things like details may be tedious to some these days but to get my point across it was important and necessary to draw a distinction between those two terms and whether anyone else wants to recognise it, or not, as seems to be the case, there is a fundamental distinction.



The vast majority of updates will be planned; some will not be (like after the complaints due to a lack of GT League) but most will be. No bean counter (from Sony) would allow PD to keep chipping away at profits willy-nilly unless there is a damned good reason (the complaints about the lack of GT League being a prime example of a good reason; and its those kind of unplanned things that eat into profits). Using statistics and previous experience Sony/PD will work out, ahead of time, how much the game is going to cost to make (including planned updates), what sales they are likely to achieve, and, more importantly, the profits they are likely to make (once costs have been deducted), and how long all of that will take. Thats how (the vast majority of) products live and die. Thats how decisions to even make the product in the first place are made. No responsible company (and Sony has to be responsible with their projections as I believe under US law Sony has a legal duty of care to create profit for its shareholders) makes any product without first having a damned good idea of those figures; in layman's terms... a business plan. Just because PD have been going for 20 odd years, with some considerable success, doesn't mean they get to escape a bean counters due diligence!
~~~~~~~~~~~
As an aside, for the sake of balance, I must acknowledge that the console itself is a different story; as we all (should) know for the majority of its sales life the console is a loss-leader. The reason I mention this is not only to acknowledge that their are ways to make profits from losses, but to also highlight that Gran Turismo has to make a profit; it, and all the other games on the platform, are the reason Sony are able to sell the console at a loss yet ultimately make a profit from the whole scheme. A loss-leader infinite loop would not make a terribly good business plan. Anyway, I digress...


To a certain (very small) degree I would agree but that doesn't make it factually correct; its because marketing wonks have managed to convince people that not-actually-free is free that we find ourselves having these kinds of arguments.

Yet this is exactly where it starts.

And they, generally, do it precisely because the contents didn't come with a (visible) price. Its not for nought that I have said, over and over again, that people use "its free, stop complaining". But thank you, this is precisely the point I was trying to make, and why I felt it was necessary to explain the fundamental difference between "free" and "no additional charge". All I was trying to do is explain why "its free" is a fallacy and therefore why it is wrong for people to use it in an attempt to shut other peoples opinions down (which you acknowledge happens).

Explaining why one thing is wrong required explaining why another thing, the root cause of the first thing, is also wrong. (if you get what I mean). Perhaps this was too confusing for some?


Yes. And now that you, an administrator, have also said it hopefully people will start to believe it and finally stop using the "its free, stop complaining" method of shutting down criticism (or belittling others opinions).

This is no criticism of you, or any other administrator, moderator, or management, but the whole "its free, stop complaining" thing should have been stamped out a long time ago. I dunno, maybe you guys have previously tried to stamp it out but, from my experience, with many users being as stubborn as they are, the fallacy rampantly persists?

Indeed. But similarly, that update wasn't actually free either. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I'm just messing with you! )

You're talking about "feels" now and while "feels" do go some way to creating extra revenue, creating those "feels" has costs and those costs have to be met one way or another, even if its a bit further down the line.




Never has "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" been so true. You're right, PD has no responsibility to release new content, unless they want to. If they want to, and they obviously do because they are, then the costs have to be recovered from somewhere. I'm not going through all this again.


Its still not free. If the assets are to be used across the "next GT game or 2" then the development costs are being shared across all the titles in which they will be used (or at least enabling cost cutting on following titles)... it all depends how the accountants want to slice and dice it across the books. Think of it in terms of an actual car manufacturer sharing development costs of a platform with another manufacturer, only PD is sharing manufacturing costs across titles with itself.

I can only assume thats aimed at me (even though I have emphatically not been "complain[ing] about the dlc not being technically free", I've been explaining why it isn't free... I know, I know, complaining, explaining, they both end in "laining" its difficult but are actually two very different things). Anyway, to answer your question:

• Day 1.
  
• Full Price.
  
• Limited edition GT console (inc. game).

View attachment 793329

If your main goal for all of this is to be the biggest GTP Meme of the year then you made a very good job.

 

[Lazybike]

Way too many words in this thread.

 

[daan]

There is no other way that @DJShadesUK is not a troll, right?

No, @DJShadesUK is a 🤬

But it's OK to call him that as the 🤬 smiley doesn't mean what anyone thinks it means.

 

[FoRiZon]

I hope I can count the banknotes on the yacht one day

And some new console to boot.

No, @DJShadesUK is a 🤬

But it's OK to call him that as the 🤬 smiley doesn't mean what anyone thinks it means.

His profile info says "🤬 = flippin'". You meant that, right?

He is a flippin' confirmed.

 

[mynameis66]

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH YOU/WE HAVE PAID FOR IT. THE COST, TO PD FOR THE CREATION OF THE UPDATES, IS BUDGETED FOR AND COVERED BY PD's INCOME; THE MONEY WE ALL PAID FOR THE GAME! THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT! WE ARE NOT GETTING SOMETHING FOR FREE. WE MAY NOT PAYING FOR IT AT THE POINT OF THE UPDATES RELEASE, BUT IT IS PAID FOR; ERGO "NO ADDITIONAL COST" NOT "FREE".

Well,my copy of GTsport was a gift to me,so theses updates really are truly FREE to me

 

[TheProRacer]

Well while everyone else is discussing whether or not the update was free or at no additional cost, I'm enjoying driving my DC2 Integra around Nurburgring. I love this update.

 

[O604]

FYI the concept of TANSTAAFL or "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" has been around since the 40s.

Point being, you can put a price on anything if you try hard enough. Maybe stop trying so hard and enjoy things once in a while.

 

[teensonacid]

Look, your lack of comprehension is not my problem. Stop trying to project your deficiencies on me; I'm not the one unable to understand very simple concepts.

And, once again, it is not pointless because the "its free" fallacy is used, on this site, again and again by some as a method of attempting to shut down criticism of the update content. In an effort to debunk the "its free" fallacy it has been necessary to explain why the updates are not free; we may not have to pay for them at the time we receive them but they are, most definitely, not free. Updates are planned and their production costed. That cost has to be recovered from somewhere. That somewhere is the income. Unless PD start charging for updates then the only income we provide PD is when we purchase the game. You, me, and everyone else who purchased the game covered the cost of the production of the updates from our initial purchase.

Good Lord, I thought you Americans were all for upholding free speech? Here I am giving reasons why "it's free, stop complaining" is unmitigated BS, informing those who wish to complain, that they have every right to complain, and no-one else has the right to try and stop them (with a fallacy). Perhaps I should have sneaked in something about taking away your guns, you may have paid a little more attention then, no?


Yes. Of course they did. Sony/PD will have a rough idea of when initial sales slow down and when they need to encourage further sale through discounting.

Wait. You don't really think they didn't account for that, do you?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you don't run a business, right?


I'm aware of what the text in the video says, I even referred to it earlier:
*slightly altered for clarity
I know little things like details may be tedious to some these days but to get my point across it was important and necessary to draw a distinction between those two terms and whether anyone else wants to recognise it, or not, as seems to be the case, there is a fundamental distinction.



The vast majority of updates will be planned; some will not be (like after the complaints due to a lack of GT League) but most will be. No bean counter (from Sony) would allow PD to keep chipping away at profits willy-nilly unless there is a damned good reason (the complaints about the lack of GT League being a prime example of a good reason; and its those kind of unplanned things that eat into profits). Using statistics and previous experience Sony/PD will work out, ahead of time, how much the game is going to cost to make (including planned updates), what sales they are likely to achieve, and, more importantly, the profits they are likely to make (once costs have been deducted), and how long all of that will take. Thats how (the vast majority of) products live and die. Thats how decisions to even make the product in the first place are made. No responsible company (and Sony has to be responsible with their projections as I believe under US law Sony has a legal duty of care to create profit for its shareholders) makes any product without first having a damned good idea of those figures; in layman's terms... a business plan. Just because PD have been going for 20 odd years, with some considerable success, doesn't mean they get to escape a bean counters due diligence!
~~~~~~~~~~~
As an aside, for the sake of balance, I must acknowledge that the console itself is a different story; as we all (should) know for the majority of its sales life the console is a loss-leader. The reason I mention this is not only to acknowledge that their are ways to make profits from losses, but to also highlight that Gran Turismo has to make a profit; it, and all the other games on the platform, are the reason Sony are able to sell the console at a loss yet ultimately make a profit from the whole scheme. A loss-leader infinite loop would not make a terribly good business plan. Anyway, I digress...


To a certain (very small) degree I would agree but that doesn't make it factually correct; its because marketing wonks have managed to convince people that not-actually-free is free that we find ourselves having these kinds of arguments.

Yet this is exactly where it starts.

And they, generally, do it precisely because the contents didn't come with a (visible) price. Its not for nought that I have said, over and over again, that people use "its free, stop complaining". But thank you, this is precisely the point I was trying to make, and why I felt it was necessary to explain the fundamental difference between "free" and "no additional charge". All I was trying to do is explain why "its free" is a fallacy and therefore why it is wrong for people to use it in an attempt to shut other peoples opinions down (which you acknowledge happens).

Explaining why one thing is wrong required explaining why another thing, the root cause of the first thing, is also wrong. (if you get what I mean). Perhaps this was too confusing for some?


Yes. And now that you, an administrator, have also said it hopefully people will start to believe it and finally stop using the "its free, stop complaining" method of shutting down criticism (or belittling others opinions).

This is no criticism of you, or any other administrator, moderator, or management, but the whole "its free, stop complaining" thing should have been stamped out a long time ago. I dunno, maybe you guys have previously tried to stamp it out but, from my experience, with many users being as stubborn as they are, the fallacy rampantly persists?

Indeed. But similarly, that update wasn't actually free either. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I'm just messing with you! )

You're talking about "feels" now and while "feels" do go some way to creating extra revenue, creating those "feels" has costs and those costs have to be met one way or another, even if its a bit further down the line.




Never has "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" been so true. You're right, PD has no responsibility to release new content, unless they want to. If they want to, and they obviously do because they are, then the costs have to be recovered from somewhere. I'm not going through all this again.


Its still not free. If the assets are to be used across the "next GT game or 2" then the development costs are being shared across all the titles in which they will be used (or at least enabling cost cutting on following titles)... it all depends how the accountants want to slice and dice it across the books. Think of it in terms of an actual car manufacturer sharing development costs of a platform with another manufacturer, only PD is sharing manufacturing costs across titles with itself.

I can only assume thats aimed at me (even though I have emphatically not been "complain[ing] about the dlc not being technically free", I've been explaining why it isn't free... I know, I know, complaining, explaining, they both end in "laining" its difficult but are actually two very different things). Anyway, to answer your question:

• Day 1.
  
• Full Price.
  
• Limited edition GT console (inc. game).

View attachment 793329

did you pay for your update? i did not, it was free. i did not pay for the update file. the update file was provided to me for free. free of charge. no charge. free. FREE CONTENT IF YOU ALREADY PAID FOR THE GAME. i have not paid any dollars for any update so far. all the update content has been provided to me for free. i paid for a game. it was a good game. i was happy with the game, the company that provided me with the game i paid for decided to give me an update. it is for free because i did not have to pay for it. or, i paid for it because it was free and i already paid for the game.

its a ****ing update. you get some ****. anyone complaining should switch to ****ing forza

 

[teensonacid]

Well,my copy of GTsport was a gift to me,so theses updates really are truly FREE to me

so FREE

 

[Dr.Boss]

Good Lord, I thought you Americans were all for upholding free speech? Here I am giving reasons why "it's free, stop complaining" is unmitigated BS, informing those who wish to complain, that they have every right to complain, and no-one else has the right to try and stop them (with a fallacy). Perhaps I should have sneaked in something about taking away your guns, you may have paid a little more attention then, no?

huh...... is this the point where us "Americans" start making generalized blanket statements about the British? Wtf are on about buddy?

Also, have you driven the TVR Speed 6? Its awesome... and British. You'll probably extra love it!

The new Shelby is also tight, and if you open the trunk, its full of guns, like all American cars.

 

[teensonacid]

huh...... is this the point where us "Americans" start making generalized blanket statements about the British? Wtf are on about buddy?

Also, have you driven the TVR Speed 6? Its awesome... and British. You'll probably extra love it!

The new Shelby is also tight, and if you open the trunk, its full of guns, like all American cars.

let's go shoot some defenceless animals in the name of sport!

 

[DJShadesUK]

just a quip toward any who complain every month after an update

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.

The bottom line is we do not know how the costs are being recovered, Sony might be covering them from console sales

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..."

they might have been factored into GT Sports original development costs

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.

if Sony have anytinhg about them,

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?!

they will be analysing the sale charts and they will have had forcasts and a plan.

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).

BTW I owned a business

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

these days I magage a department for a large accounting and payroll firm.

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!)

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?

This is where you really fall apart, free means without cost or without payment, free is relative. To deny the logic of free being relative to each person you are in effect saying that free is an impossible paradaox and the word has no place in general speech and it is something that no one will ever experience.

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!

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.

You see if you want to be anal about something, everything has a cost, be it time and effort or money, everything costs something. So if we want to really get daft about this, let's say nothing in the world, life, history, has ever been free.

. 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!

there was no promise or guarentee of free DLC

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

What I do agree with is that this shouldn't be used to shut people down who don't think the DLC is good or have an opinion that isn't rosey about either the DLC or PD

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.

You clearly aren't stupid/thick or any of that

Agreed. Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why not actually call these people out on them trying to hush people's criticisms and the flawed logic behind it

With the exception of calling "these people out" (I don't want to unfairly focus criticism on any one individual) this is exactly what I have been doing; I've been trying to explain the flawed logic behind it, which has necessitated going into how development of GT (including updates) is, in all probability, costed and funded. Of course some things will be speculative but through deduction some things can be assumed with a high probability. But will people have it? No, because their either Experts-on-Everything or simply don't understand the difference between "free" and "at no additional cost". I'm aware people see no price tag and think its free but that doesn't mean it is free... everything gets paid for at some point (the "loss" on the consoles gets more than made up for by the games licences for instance). Everything has to be costed, budgeted and recovered otherwise, ultimately, there will be no business.

No, @DJShadesUK is a 🤬

But it's OK to call him that as the 🤬 smiley doesn't mean what anyone thinks it means.

Unbecoming for a moderator. I'd have hoped @Jordan would expect higher standards from one of his moderators? .

And don't give me any of that "but I'm also a member too" nonsense. The first thing people see about you is this:

EVERY time you post to GTPlanet that flag denotes you as having special privileges, that you should exhibit higher standards, that you're an ambassador of the brand. Is it ever likely that people have contacted me, both on and off-site, to tell me you're merely tolerated and your unprofessionalism goes unchecked because you have the ability to make people disappear before concerns about your, at times, questionable conduct and decisions can be raised?

I've told you in private now I'll tell you in public; you wouldn't have lasted five minutes as a moderator on some of the sites I've been associated with.

 

[DJShadesUK]

did you pay for your update? i did not, it was free. i did not pay for the update file. the update file was provided to me for free. free of charge. no charge. free. FREE CONTENT IF YOU ALREADY PAID FOR THE GAME. i have not paid any dollars for any update so far. all the update content has been provided to me for free. i paid for a game. it was a good game. i was happy with the game, the company that provided me with the game i paid for decided to give me an update. it is for free because i did not have to pay for it. or, i paid for it because it was free and i already paid for the game.

its a ****ing update. you get some ****. anyone complaining should switch to ****ing forza

For Gods sake. You, or someone else if the game was a gift, paid for the update whether you realise it or not...

Whether you bought the game yourself, or it was a gift from someone else, someone paid for the updates.

 

[TS050]

For Gods sake. You, or someone else if the game was a gift, paid for the update whether you realise it or not...

View attachment 793391

Whether you bought the game yourself, or it was a gift from someone else, someone paid for the updates.

It’s a free update.

 

[ImaRobot]

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!

It's a bit ironic how you'll go on about someones grammar, but make this simple mistake

What wasn't paid for is these extra updates that came out after the original release date.

The updates themselves are free, as in there is no additional cost attached to them. Acting like they aren't free because you had to buy a game is irrelevant. You had to buy a console to play the game(and internet for the most part too) - you had to buy a TV to use the console - You have to pay your electricity bill in order for those to work - You have own/rent an apartment/house in order to put all those things anywhere, and to have electricity to make these function - and you have to pay your food and water to make sure you live in order to do any of those things.

That doesn't mean that the content you get outside of the vanilla game wasn't free. You paid for whats on the disk. Only. Anything extra is not considered part of the base game, this is all just additional, free, content.

To add on to that. What about those that got the games for free or as a gift? Are you going to say that it's still not free because they had to pay for something eventually to be able to get that game for free in the first place?

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?!?)

That's not even remotely the same. You paid for a specific amount of rides and/or a timeframe. It runs out eventually, and you have to pay again to renew it. There is no extra's you're receiving either, like these updates are considered. Extra, free, updates. Or are you somehow paying a yearly fee towards Gran Turismo Sport? That's the only way that can make any sense.

These updates are completely free because they aren't part of any base content that you had to pay for at all.

Unbecoming for a moderator. I'd have hoped @Jordan would expect higher standards from one of his moderators? .

And don't give me any of that "but I'm also a member too" nonsense. The first thing people see about you is this:

What word did he use, to personally identify you?

 

[Scaff]

its a ****ing update. you get some ****. anyone complaining should switch to ****ing forza

Can you please point me to the part of the AUP that says we can't complain about certain titles?

Also I don't have an XBox and my rig wouldn't work with one either, as you're instructing me to switch to Forza can you please provide the funds to do so, otherwise I will (and other should also) feel free to discuss what I do and don;t like about any product, paid for or otherwise.

Unbecoming for a moderator. I'd have hoped @Jordan would expect higher standards from one of his moderators? .

And don't give me any of that "but I'm also a member too" nonsense. The first thing people see about you is this:

View attachment 793383

EVERY time you post to GTPlanet that flag denotes you as having special privileges, that you should exhibit higher standards, that you're an ambassador of the brand. Is it ever likely that people have contacted me, both on and off-site, to tell me you're merely tolerated and your unprofessionalism goes unchecked because you have the ability to make people disappear before concerns about your, at times, questionable conduct and decisions can be raised?

I've told you in private now I'll tell you in public; you wouldn't have lasted five minutes as a moderator on some of the sites I've been associated with.

The bold part is quite an accusation to make, and as a retired member of the moderation team I can also state factually is nonsense.

No member of staff can make a member 'disappear', as every single moderation action is automatically logged by the site software and published for all moderators, admins and @Jordan for review. It's a total peer review of every moderation action, and these actions are often discussed both prior to, and post action being taken.

 

[Brzlav]

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.

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..."


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.

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?!


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).

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

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!)

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?

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!

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.

. 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!

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.


Agreed. Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the exception of calling "these people out" (I don't want to unfairly focus criticism on any one individual) this is exactly what I have been doing; I've been trying to explain the flawed logic behind it, which has necessitated going into how development of GT (including updates) is, in all probability, costed and funded. Of course some things will be speculative but through deduction some things can be assumed with a high probability. But will people have it? No, because their either Experts-on-Everything or simply don't understand the difference between "free" and "at no additional cost". I'm aware people see no price tag and think its free but that doesn't mean it is free... everything gets paid for at some point (the "loss" on the consoles gets more than made up for by the games licences for instance). Everything has to be costed, budgeted and recovered otherwise, ultimately, there will be no business.


Unbecoming for a moderator. I'd have hoped @Jordan would expect higher standards from one of his moderators? .

And don't give me any of that "but I'm also a member too" nonsense. The first thing people see about you is this:

View attachment 793383

EVERY time you post to GTPlanet that flag denotes you as having special privileges, that you should exhibit higher standards, that you're an ambassador of the brand. Is it ever likely that people have contacted me, both on and off-site, to tell me you're merely tolerated and your unprofessionalism goes unchecked because you have the ability to make people disappear before concerns about your, at times, questionable conduct and decisions can be raised?

I've told you in private now I'll tell you in public; you wouldn't have lasted five minutes as a moderator on some of the sites I've been associated with.

Is there something like a character limit for a single post that you reached? Cause I think it's quite impressive that you followed this post up with another post. The mother of double-posts!

I have to admit though, I didn't read either of these posts (even though doing that would be totally free (just like the update)).

 

[DJShadesUK]

What wasn't paid for is these extra updates that came out after the original release date.

Where do you think all of PD's money comes from? US. Do you think PD had a secret piggy bank that they fund the developement of updates from? All their money, ultimately, comes from us...

Do you think updates are produced from some out-of-sight fund hidden way off to the right of the above?

The updates themselves are free, as in there is no additional cost attached to them.

For gods sake, "Free" and "no additional cost" are not synonyms.

To add on to that. What about those that got the games for free or as a gift? Are you going to say that it's still not free because they had to pay for something eventually to be able to get that game for free in the first place?

Illogical. Somebody paid for the game, even if that game was then gifted, the original purchaser helped pay for the development of the updates:

That's not even remotely the same.

I never said it was the same, I said "familiar". Familiar doesn't mean "the same"

These updates are completely free because they aren't part of any base content that you had to pay for at all.

The updates are funded by the base content!

What word did he use, to personally identify you?

I don't know why I'm bothering, you obviously don't even understand what a name (or handle) is!

No, @DJShadesUK is a 🤬

See that thing that says DJShadesUK in the above quote, the thing preceded by the @ symbol? Now take a look to the left of my posts, see if you can work the connection out?!

 

[Scaff]

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..."

Do you actually think that Sony are still losing money on every PS4 unit sold?

They lost $60 on every machine at launch (and you source is an article from 2013), and that's the norm for console sales. As time goes on economies of scale drop costs, components get cheaper (in particular chipsets, memory and HDD storage) and the costs accrued against each sale for development get recovered.

The break-even point appears to have been late 2013 / early 2014.

https://uk.pcmag.com/video-game-consoles/11826/sony-nearly-breaking-even-on-playstation-4
https://www.polygon.com/2013/11/20/5125098/sony-nearing-breakeven-point-on-cost-of-ps4-hardware
https://www.engadget.com/2013/11/19/ps4-costs-381-to-make-according-to-hardware-teardown/

Deduction is indeed a powerful tool, as long as you don't wield it inaccurately!

 

[FoRiZon]

It’s a free update.

It's free real estate.



Was going to post my gameplay video here but the meme keeps going.

 

[Sage Ages]

The rather amusing thing here is that he's not strictly wrong here. He just can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that in the context of downloadable content, the term "free" is commonly used to describe content that requires no additional charge to access and thus, feels compelled to go on long, unnecessary tangents telling people that they're wrong.


And now, I shall practice my right to complain about free content.

- The N300 class keeps getting more broken with each update.
- The Corvette, Firebird, and M3 not have sequential transmission upgrades, unlike almost every other car in the game. This hasn't been fixed as of the current update.
- Why the hell are most of the cars in this update more expensive then their GT6 incarnations?

 

[DJShadesUK]

Do you actually think that Sony are still losing money on every PS4 unit sold?

I did, in a much earlier post, acknowledge that the consoles do eventually break even and become profitable. The PS4 did it much quicker than I expected then. Thank you for the info.

 

[ImaRobot]

Where do you think all of PD's money comes from? US. Do you think PD had a secret piggy bank that they fund the developement of updates from? All their money, ultimately, comes from us...

Doesn't change the fact that these updates are free to us, the consumer. What I pay for is what is going to come on the disk. If they have extra money on the side to supply us with free content, than great, win-win.

Do you think updates are produced from some out-of-sight fund hidden way off to the right of the above?

No, where did I insinuate or allude to any of that?

Illogical. Somebody paid for the game, even if that game was then gifted, the original purchaser helped pay for the development of the updates:

I like how you conveniently ignored this part.

You had to buy a console to play the game(and internet for the most part too) - you had to buy a TV to use the console - You have to pay your electricity bill in order for those to work - You have own/rent an apartment/house in order to put all those things anywhere, and to have electricity to make these function - and you have to pay your food and water to make sure you live in order to do any of those things.

That doesn't mean that the content you get outside of the vanilla game wasn't free. You paid for whats on the disk. Only. Anything extra is not considered part of the base game, this is all just additional, free, content.

Like I said, you paid for what came on the disk. That's it, and that is undeniable. If they have money on the side left over after the fact, in order to give us content that we don't need to pay for anymore(because what we paid for is specifically on the disk only) then cool. I'm glad that I'm not paying for anything else, and that every update that I'll receive is given to me for free.

I never said it was the same, I said "familiar."
Familar doesn't mean "the same"

Ok let me rephrase that. In no way does your analogy make any sense in this situation, at all. Because that is a timed subscription you're talking about, whether its based of days, months, or even amount of rides. It needs renewal. that you think that was a good analogy is laughable.

The updates are funded by the base content!

No. I think you mean it's funded by the base game's sales, not by the content specifically. If I pay for a game, everything I paid for, I already received. Unless they advertised something that never came, and will come in a future update.

I don't know why I'm bothering, you obviously don't even understand what a name (or handle) is!

Well that just sounds dumb.

See that thing that says DJShadesUK in the above quote, the thing preceded by the @ symbol? Now take a look to the left of my posts, see if you can work the connection out?!

And again, what was it that he said? You're going off on tangents because you don't understand the statement

 

[Satomiblood]

The rather amusing thing here is that he's not strictly wrong here. He just can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that in the context of downloadable content, the term "free" is commonly used to describe content that requires no additional charge to access and thus, feels compelled to go on long, unnecessary tangents telling people that they're wrong.

That's more or less my feeling on the matter. It got to the point that I actually had to utilize the ignore function for the first time. I see nothing wrong with reasonable criticisms. GTS is far from perfect, but the diatribe was really starting to get in the way of my enjoyment.

 

[Brzlav]

For gods sake, "Free" and "no additional cost" are not synonyms.

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".

 

[DJShadesUK]

The rather amusing thing here is that he's not strictly wrong here.

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.

He just can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that in the context of downloadable content, the term "free" is commonly used to describe content.

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.

And now, I shall practice my right to complain about free content.

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.

 

[gtuned]

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

 

[NotThirdReich]

Where do you think all of PD's money comes from? US. Do you think PD had a secret piggy bank that they fund the developement of updates from? All their money, ultimately, comes from us...

View attachment 793434
Do you think updates are produced from some out-of-sight fund hidden way off to the right of the above?


For gods sake, "Free" and "no additional cost" are not synonyms.


Illogical. Somebody paid for the game, even if that game was then gifted, the original purchaser helped pay for the development of the updates:

View attachment 793434

I never said it was the same, I said "familiar". Familiar doesn't mean "the same"


The updates are funded by the base content!

View attachment 793434


I don't know why I'm bothering, you obviously don't even understand what a name (or handle) is!


See that thing that says DJShadesUK in the above quote, the thing preceded by the @ symbol? Now take a look to the left of my posts, see if you can work the connection out?!

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.

Here's some advice: Don't chase after useless things.

Edit: Also in one of your posts, you mentioned using "It's free, stop complaining" as a bad argument. It may be, but act grateful for once in your life. We're being given content for free. PD should just stop. I don't think it's good to work for the ungrateful.

 

[ImaRobot]

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.

Except for the fact that your base argument started because they talked about the game being free to them. Then you went off on a tangent on how it's not free because it costs money to someone. Cool, it does, you're right, it costs the devs money to make this. That's not entirely related to what that point was, that it's free to us.

I do agree that something being free doesn't make it free from criticism, as it's all subjective how it'll be received as everyone' taste don't always align, but it definitely makes it an easier pill to swallow in that regard. Going so far to make personal digs at someone for misspelling something, yet you're making similar mistakes, detracts from your discussion.

That that is the point you were trying to convey, you did a horrible job at getting to it.

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

Tell me about it. Some of the stuff I've seen you post sometimes has definitely been astonishing.