Because you can't afford things doesn't mean his point is invalid. There's a lot on the market right now, and what he's saying holds true. Before I found out what GTSport was supposed to be, I had already had it in my head that I'm going to get a PS4 specifically for that game. The more info that came around did little to help hold my interest.
Making a point a point that having 2 games is better than having one by comparison, is invalid. Just because you
can afford 2 different cars with 2 different purposes, doesn't mean it's a more viable solution to acquiring a car that is somewhat good in both of those purposes, for less money.
The point is, there is no fairness at all saying that 3 games are better than 1, and stating that those 3 games represent a solution to replace one.
I think you're misinterpreting the post. It has nothing to do with bragging, but asking what GT Sport's USP is. The genre has never been more populated, and with Polyphony seemingly giving up a lot of their previous calling cards — massive car lists, comparatively complex modification system, the whole caRPG thing — the question is a valid one.
Maybe, but he could have worded things differently. Maybe saying that he, as of right now, sees no point in getting GTS because he already has AC for its simulator? The way he said it, made it seem like GTS alone had to be better than all those games at the same time, to be worth it.
Sure, a good chunk of us see the difference in having a fun, light-hearted open world game versus a more sim-like, competitive game. But there's a lot of people that don't. They see racing games as racing games, regardless of nuance.
FH3 isn't a completely direct competitor largely because it's not on the same console. But it is a highly-visible driving game title — arguably the biggest of 2016 now that Sport was delayed. People will compare, especially those that are just looking for fun.
I wouldn't really compare the two. I feel like the much bigger question mark is the likely FM7 next year, quite possibly as a Scorpio launch title...
Maybe I was a bit harsh. But it still is a different game, less focused on racing. I would call it, a more relaxed game, just like the old NFS were.
The point of me saying that they are different games, is to end these comparisons. We can't compare a tiger to a shark just because both are predators, or a ferrari to a pick up truck because both have 4 wheels. Different purposes for each, and that's it. The moment people acknowledge this, discussions will get way more cleaner and focused.
The main reason they are compared is because no other car game gets as much visibility as Forza and GT. NFS has been forgotten, and in fact NFS is the main competitor to Forza Horizon. Since the NFS series is almost dead, people have to compare the game to something, I guess...
I wouldn't compare both either, because they have completely different visions of a driving/racing game. Both will be enjoyable in their own ways.
Why would VR itself delay the game? It's not as if PD would have been surprised by it; it's highly likely they've had access to the hardware for more time than just about any other developer. Driveclub VR launches in two weeks, and that was accomplished with a now-closed studio.
I'll never understand the thought process that the delay will mean (much) more content. Maybe an Event Creator could appear, though I think that'd be down to the public outcry over the game's perceived lack of offline content.
But the same handful of tracks were shown since the Copper Box reveal, and more or less the same cars too. The game was obviously not going to be finished with the originally-planned content for November. Delaying to some vague 2017 time frame, only to double-down on the amount of content to include, would just perpetuate the cycle.
Is just a thought. Simply because it's one feature that relies a lot on the game's framerate stability. Any small glimpse of FPS drops, and might be enough reason to delay. It's not about how much time they had access to the VR, but instead how much tweaking is needed for every single track until they get that solid 60 FPS.
It doesn't mean there will be more content, but means that
if all the cars and tracks in game were to be modelled as of the initial lauch date, then with the delay, the modelling team could have a chance to bring the car/track count up a little.
That was exactly my thought when I mentioned a Event Creator. They could very well acknowledge the critics for the lack of a full offline career, and to compensate, just implement that feature.
The ability to fully customize events would be a very good feature, possibly more enjoyable than a normal career mode.
