Thing is, these free updates are still "damage control", or "compensation", if you wish, for the embarassment that GT5 has been and still is in many ways for PD. Yes, they could have left the game the way it was at day 1, but they would have quickly lost support from the gaming community and ensured that this one would have been the last game in the franchise for once and for all.
+1000 👍👍👍
There should be a line drawn between 'genuine improvement', and 'damage control'. IMO, all PD has done so far, without denigrating their efforts, is sadly what I would term as 'damage control'. While I applaud PD's dedication in updating and fixing bugs, and more devs should follow this example, at the end of the day, the reasonableness of the product was not as expected in the first instance (despite its positives), and in many tangible ways a step backwards (loss of a number of classic GT tracks, poor weather control options, limited number of tracks with weather and timing options compared to what was advertised, difference in online and offline physics, slow load times, limited A-spec and B-spec events).
[Slightly off-topic]
On this note, I would only cautiously 'welcome' the (paid) DLC, since these additional content should not have been excluded in the first instance. After all, Kaz said quite early on that he had no plans for DLC, so I personally don't like the step PD is taking with (paid) DLC. I would not like developers to deliberately strip out content, so they have the option to monetise them separately at a later date (via DLC or other microtransactions).
Unless the additional content really brings something different to the table that significantly changes gameplay mechanics like expansion packs in the old days, the additional cars and tracks should not be release as (paid) DLC. Such moves are, IMO, not good for gamers and the gaming industry.
[Ok, now back on topic =) ]
yahh
