- 1,367
- GDL, Mexico
- Insomniac_driver
Is not a secret that in general, the GT community didn’t take well the last update announced for tomorrow, there are several factors into the equation (large period with no updates, 2 VGTs and one of them will be released until next month, no new track and a feeling of a wasted opportunity).
There are several questions, theories and assumptions about what is happening (situation that is getting even more hot after some tweets/X post from some players from the GTWS) so what I will try to do here is try to find exactly what has bring the game to this situation and how this can dictate the future not only of the franchise, but gaming in general while explaining how other games (not necessarily from racing category) are being impacted for a similar situation.
Game as a Live Service
Is not a secret that SIE is pushing to get more presence on the GaAS segment of gaming, titles like Fornite, Rocket League, Genshin impact, iRacing and Warzone have shown that it is a very lucrative business that require a big initial invest, but that after that it remain relevant with constant (even though smaller) content updates that bring the interest of the players, at the same time this model allow the developers to introduce micro transactions, in most of the cases cosmetics, that give a constant flow of revenue and basically allow that a base game can still profitable for years.
Even though, it is not an easy model, there are more cases of failures than success (Halo Infinite probably being the first coming to my mind due the relevance of the franchise), but if the developer is able to catch and keep a big audience the risk is worthy. At this point the PS Studios offer on GaAS and Live services games is really limited, so they have been pretty vocal on their intentions of having at least one successful game on this category.
Theory on why SIE and PD took this route for GT7
Around the release of GT7, it was clear that the game was taking the route of a live service, with a limited amount of events and low payouts on their completion, the fanbase started to feel the pressure to spend real money on MTX to access to the most expensive cars and causing a great controversy. It was when Kazunori publicly admitted that GT7 was built on the foundations of a live service game on his apology blog about the MTX situation. Some days after this, Hermen Hulst mentioned this case and referred to the game as a ‘live ops service’ :
www.axios.com
But then the question is, why SIE and PD agreed on take the biggest IP of the company and transform it on a live service game?? There several points that could have help them to take the decision:
1.- Is a big IP (in terms of sales, the biggest on Sony portfolio)
2.- Other racing games with similar models have shown success (iRacing, rFactor)
3.- Is easier to keep a constant volume of small content such as cars, tracks, features and events/races
4.- It is a way to secure the game and the studio keep getting resources so the wait for the next game is not that long
5.- Internally can help to reduce the crunch, as there is not a need to provide biggest portions of content regularly
6.- SIE could have offer to keep founding the GTWS live events
But not everything is positive (especially for us, the fanbase) as we have been seeing:
1.- Even when the updates are constant and free the content is really limited
2.- There is a big push to keep using MTX, even when there are higher payouts events
3.- Most probably the next game (GT8/GT Sport 2) will take several years to be released, impacting some important aspects that can’t be updated easily on the current game such as physics, damage models, graphics, amount of cars on track, IA GT Sophy improvements etc.
4.- The games is always online, so if you don’t have internet, or if there are problems with th servers, you can’t use most of the features of the game.
PD decisions
But again, not everything rely on SIE, at the end they can push for the decision of transforming GT in a live service game with limited content, but it is pretty obvious that PD is the one choosing which cars, tracks and features are added on every update.
At the need is PD deciding what events to add, what cars to offer and what tracks to include and the features that will be implemented. Is not a secret that PD has been facing problems with licensing certain cars (Lotus) and Tracks (Spa Francorchamps) and that they can start modelling cars and tracks, but that don’t guarantee they can release them until the licensing is agreed with the other part (car brands and track owners).
And while this part is understandable, what is seems to show a really bad (or difficult to understand) planning is seeing some updates like the next I will mention:
1.- April 2022: They added the 24h version of Spa, where the only difference with the regular GP version is the pit lane
2.- September 2022: They added a duplicate of an existing VGT (that could have been easily prioritized for release)
3.- August 2023: They added the Corolla GR and the Himedic, but understandably they kept it from all the players for an entire month unless they participate on the TGR championship or viewed the Amsterdam event on the dedicated section on the game.
4.- January 2024: After more of 90 days without any update, and killing the momentum they created with the fanbase, they decided to used 2 of the 3 slots of cars added on VGTs, and not only that, one of them (Bvlgari) can be claimed on release only if you buy the Bvlgari watch( with a price of $5,200 USD and not available on several markets) announced with the cars back in December, the rest of players will have to wait until a not provided date on February to access the car.
Again, I understand that they probably are getting pressure to give small updates, but there seems to be a bad planning on what cars are being added and obviously this is bringing bad reactions and frictions with the fanbase. Another point is the obsession of PD to model every single nut in a car, it is OK, but definitely that is not helping on the car situation.
Similar case on other genre: Mortal Kombat 1
I am bringing MK1 into the discussion because is happening for a similar situation. When the game was announced every fan was excited: great graphics, solid gameplay, a lot loved returning characters like Li Mei, Havik and Reiko were announced alongside the Kombat Pack 1 that included some popular superhero characters (OmniMan, Peacemaker and Homelander).
At release the reality was brutal:
-Instead of the promised 24 characters roster, the game was released with 23 characters, and one of them (Shang Tsung) was only available for preorders, if anyone else that did not preordered the game wants to use it needs to pay $4-5 dollars.
-There were content like the Van Damme Skin that was announced as exclusive for the deluxe edition, but at the end can be purchased via MTX.
-There game has at least 4 different currencies. One of them (for the premium store) is really difficult to obtain in game (and with a limited value) and mot of skins can be accessed only with this currency
-The characters from Kombat pack are not being release constantly, between Quan chi and Peacemaker there will a gap if 2 months, in January they released the Kameo of Khameleon that was initially scheduled to be released alongside Quan Chi.
-There are 2 characters from Kombat pack that were NPCs on the story mode on release, that were completed ready, but they diced to keep them behind a paywall with a later release.
-Skins bought can’t be used by player 2 on local matches.
WB Studios, is pushing heavily on Live services/GaAS models. MK1 is not the only one (Suicide squad is another example) but the problem with MK1 is that they never mentioned the model of the game and players found out on release (similar history like GT7)
The future: subscription services and GaAS
Another factor comes to the discussion, subscription services. Game Pass, PS+, EA play, etc. Every year we see more companies trying to push the subscription services to access to several games for a short monthly fee. While it sounds great and valuable on paper, the reality can’t be more different:
-Streaming services on Music and movies are starting to show a decrease on the people using the platforms.
-On gaming side there are games that have released on a rough state (Forza motorsport, Halo Infinite) or they have not been able to survive to the expectations. Other games like Warzone 2 are experiencing a dramatic reduction on the MAU (main metric for all of these models) and are also causing the single payer content to be cut or short.
I would not be surprised if the next GT game is also affected by this problems if they finally evolve from live service to GaAS or is include day 1 on PS+.
The fanbase
Last point is the fanbase of Gran Turismo. One of the big problems of a franchise like GT is that there are several demographics to try to please, on GT community I would say there are 3 groups:
1.- Old fans from the series, that have been playing the game since GT1/GT2 and that want a robust single player mode mostly based on road cars
2.- New fans from GT Sport onwards, that are most focused on the online competitive aspect of the game, and who are expecting to get new and modern race cars, tracks and update son online features
3.- Casual fans, that usually are not fully entitled to the game, but enjoy playing from time to time.
It is difficult to provide updates that please everyone, and with the last one basically neither of the 3 groups seems to be happy.
At the end I think PD still on time to reverse some of the bad generated by the last update, but for that they need to be open with the community and communicate with it, the problem is that PD is not an studio that is open to interact with the fanbase (mist probably due Japanese idiosyncrasy), for the moment they waste a lot of good things gained with the spec II update and it wouldn’t surprise me if this cause a reduction of their MAU metrics (and hopefully that can help to improve the thing for future updates).
So what are your thoughts??
There are several questions, theories and assumptions about what is happening (situation that is getting even more hot after some tweets/X post from some players from the GTWS) so what I will try to do here is try to find exactly what has bring the game to this situation and how this can dictate the future not only of the franchise, but gaming in general while explaining how other games (not necessarily from racing category) are being impacted for a similar situation.
Game as a Live Service
Is not a secret that SIE is pushing to get more presence on the GaAS segment of gaming, titles like Fornite, Rocket League, Genshin impact, iRacing and Warzone have shown that it is a very lucrative business that require a big initial invest, but that after that it remain relevant with constant (even though smaller) content updates that bring the interest of the players, at the same time this model allow the developers to introduce micro transactions, in most of the cases cosmetics, that give a constant flow of revenue and basically allow that a base game can still profitable for years.
Even though, it is not an easy model, there are more cases of failures than success (Halo Infinite probably being the first coming to my mind due the relevance of the franchise), but if the developer is able to catch and keep a big audience the risk is worthy. At this point the PS Studios offer on GaAS and Live services games is really limited, so they have been pretty vocal on their intentions of having at least one successful game on this category.
Theory on why SIE and PD took this route for GT7
Around the release of GT7, it was clear that the game was taking the route of a live service, with a limited amount of events and low payouts on their completion, the fanbase started to feel the pressure to spend real money on MTX to access to the most expensive cars and causing a great controversy. It was when Kazunori publicly admitted that GT7 was built on the foundations of a live service game on his apology blog about the MTX situation. Some days after this, Hermen Hulst mentioned this case and referred to the game as a ‘live ops service’ :
PlayStation will make more live service games, but won’t abandon roots, studio chief says
Hermen Hulst talks PC, mobile, combatting crunch and a whole lot more.
www.axios.com
But then the question is, why SIE and PD agreed on take the biggest IP of the company and transform it on a live service game?? There several points that could have help them to take the decision:
1.- Is a big IP (in terms of sales, the biggest on Sony portfolio)
2.- Other racing games with similar models have shown success (iRacing, rFactor)
3.- Is easier to keep a constant volume of small content such as cars, tracks, features and events/races
4.- It is a way to secure the game and the studio keep getting resources so the wait for the next game is not that long
5.- Internally can help to reduce the crunch, as there is not a need to provide biggest portions of content regularly
6.- SIE could have offer to keep founding the GTWS live events
But not everything is positive (especially for us, the fanbase) as we have been seeing:
1.- Even when the updates are constant and free the content is really limited
2.- There is a big push to keep using MTX, even when there are higher payouts events
3.- Most probably the next game (GT8/GT Sport 2) will take several years to be released, impacting some important aspects that can’t be updated easily on the current game such as physics, damage models, graphics, amount of cars on track, IA GT Sophy improvements etc.
4.- The games is always online, so if you don’t have internet, or if there are problems with th servers, you can’t use most of the features of the game.
PD decisions
But again, not everything rely on SIE, at the end they can push for the decision of transforming GT in a live service game with limited content, but it is pretty obvious that PD is the one choosing which cars, tracks and features are added on every update.
At the need is PD deciding what events to add, what cars to offer and what tracks to include and the features that will be implemented. Is not a secret that PD has been facing problems with licensing certain cars (Lotus) and Tracks (Spa Francorchamps) and that they can start modelling cars and tracks, but that don’t guarantee they can release them until the licensing is agreed with the other part (car brands and track owners).
And while this part is understandable, what is seems to show a really bad (or difficult to understand) planning is seeing some updates like the next I will mention:
1.- April 2022: They added the 24h version of Spa, where the only difference with the regular GP version is the pit lane
2.- September 2022: They added a duplicate of an existing VGT (that could have been easily prioritized for release)
3.- August 2023: They added the Corolla GR and the Himedic, but understandably they kept it from all the players for an entire month unless they participate on the TGR championship or viewed the Amsterdam event on the dedicated section on the game.
4.- January 2024: After more of 90 days without any update, and killing the momentum they created with the fanbase, they decided to used 2 of the 3 slots of cars added on VGTs, and not only that, one of them (Bvlgari) can be claimed on release only if you buy the Bvlgari watch( with a price of $5,200 USD and not available on several markets) announced with the cars back in December, the rest of players will have to wait until a not provided date on February to access the car.
Again, I understand that they probably are getting pressure to give small updates, but there seems to be a bad planning on what cars are being added and obviously this is bringing bad reactions and frictions with the fanbase. Another point is the obsession of PD to model every single nut in a car, it is OK, but definitely that is not helping on the car situation.
Similar case on other genre: Mortal Kombat 1
I am bringing MK1 into the discussion because is happening for a similar situation. When the game was announced every fan was excited: great graphics, solid gameplay, a lot loved returning characters like Li Mei, Havik and Reiko were announced alongside the Kombat Pack 1 that included some popular superhero characters (OmniMan, Peacemaker and Homelander).
At release the reality was brutal:
-Instead of the promised 24 characters roster, the game was released with 23 characters, and one of them (Shang Tsung) was only available for preorders, if anyone else that did not preordered the game wants to use it needs to pay $4-5 dollars.
-There were content like the Van Damme Skin that was announced as exclusive for the deluxe edition, but at the end can be purchased via MTX.
-There game has at least 4 different currencies. One of them (for the premium store) is really difficult to obtain in game (and with a limited value) and mot of skins can be accessed only with this currency
-The characters from Kombat pack are not being release constantly, between Quan chi and Peacemaker there will a gap if 2 months, in January they released the Kameo of Khameleon that was initially scheduled to be released alongside Quan Chi.
-There are 2 characters from Kombat pack that were NPCs on the story mode on release, that were completed ready, but they diced to keep them behind a paywall with a later release.
-Skins bought can’t be used by player 2 on local matches.
WB Studios, is pushing heavily on Live services/GaAS models. MK1 is not the only one (Suicide squad is another example) but the problem with MK1 is that they never mentioned the model of the game and players found out on release (similar history like GT7)
The future: subscription services and GaAS
Another factor comes to the discussion, subscription services. Game Pass, PS+, EA play, etc. Every year we see more companies trying to push the subscription services to access to several games for a short monthly fee. While it sounds great and valuable on paper, the reality can’t be more different:
-Streaming services on Music and movies are starting to show a decrease on the people using the platforms.
-On gaming side there are games that have released on a rough state (Forza motorsport, Halo Infinite) or they have not been able to survive to the expectations. Other games like Warzone 2 are experiencing a dramatic reduction on the MAU (main metric for all of these models) and are also causing the single payer content to be cut or short.
I would not be surprised if the next GT game is also affected by this problems if they finally evolve from live service to GaAS or is include day 1 on PS+.
The fanbase
Last point is the fanbase of Gran Turismo. One of the big problems of a franchise like GT is that there are several demographics to try to please, on GT community I would say there are 3 groups:
1.- Old fans from the series, that have been playing the game since GT1/GT2 and that want a robust single player mode mostly based on road cars
2.- New fans from GT Sport onwards, that are most focused on the online competitive aspect of the game, and who are expecting to get new and modern race cars, tracks and update son online features
3.- Casual fans, that usually are not fully entitled to the game, but enjoy playing from time to time.
It is difficult to provide updates that please everyone, and with the last one basically neither of the 3 groups seems to be happy.
At the end I think PD still on time to reverse some of the bad generated by the last update, but for that they need to be open with the community and communicate with it, the problem is that PD is not an studio that is open to interact with the fanbase (mist probably due Japanese idiosyncrasy), for the moment they waste a lot of good things gained with the spec II update and it wouldn’t surprise me if this cause a reduction of their MAU metrics (and hopefully that can help to improve the thing for future updates).
So what are your thoughts??
Last edited:
