I Bought GT6 --- ?

[tooma]

Last night I was racing on-line with some friends and guests, and it left me thinking, "Just why did I buy GT6 - I need to remind myself why." Everyone really enjoyed the session, especially our host, my friend Rallygurkan from Sweden, and all enthused about what a great night it had been. Was it just nostalgia for the recently relegated GT5, or was there more to it?

Did I just buy the game because it had a couple of new tracks - Silverstone - Willow Springs - Matterhorn - Kart Space I and II - Gran Turismo Arena - Brands Hatch circuits - the return of Apricot Hill(a nice surprise) - Ascari - Mount Panorama - 7 or 9 Anniversary Cars with fancy livery(all beautifully modeled) - was I so easily bought? So easily seduced?

What did I lose? Well, a whole load of great cars actually, and a pile of cash, which, if I remember correctly, were all transferable from GT4 when I purchased GT5. That feature went for a Burton in favour of DLC which suits Sony and PD big time, but we the faithful all lose. Small surprise then that so many people felt justified in taking advantage of the "Money Glitch" when presented with it. Did I/we lose any tracks from GT5? I don't think so - I won't load GT5 to check right now - I'm sure someone will have the knowledge immediately in mind. So, am I convincing myself that I am happy I bought GT6 - well. not completely.

So, why not "completely"? Well, the handling of many of the cars bugs me - some of the tracks are causing my cars to feel skittish - like being on a nervous horse - the worst I find is HSR. Many people say that it will all be sorted with updates - and the much touted new and improved Track Maker is still to come, which will be amazing - oh yes, that's it - "still to come." I think I have come to my answer - the game was not ready for release on December 6th - nor January 6th - and not now either, and I believe that is why, not just me, but many other people too, feel dissatisfied and let down.

We had, and still have at the moment, as I discovered last night, a very good racing sim in GT5. I really do wish PD had waited until the game was at a much more advanced stage than it is now before releasing it - ah, but Christmas was coming - and the 6th of December was my birthday - they all knew about my birthday of course, and all my racing buddies were buying GT6 as soon as it was released; what chance did I have.

Do I feel better now after my little musing and gentle rant? Yes, just a bit.

 

[KinLM]

I agree in many ways.

Mind you, I personally really enjoy the game. But I miss many features that were present before.

I feel like things are missing because so much was actually remade. People forget that the framework and menus of the whole game were all recreated from scratch- we probably forget it's all new because it should've been this way from the start in GT5.

If they could've held off the release a little longer, I don't see how the press wouldn't be better. Games are still being released on PS3. And everybody got a PS4 for Christmas, not GT6. So I think it was a mistake to release it before then.

Nonetheless I'm one of the only ones who seems to really be enjoying the game. But I would really like to see some more content added. Too bad it couldn't be there in the start.

The game still isn't 'Alpha' to me as many are saying, but it is lacking in some serious ways.

 

[jimipitbull]

I'm not sure how you lost the cars and cash from GT5. Unless you lost your GT5 disc and game save file?

 

[Nielsen]

I'm not sure how you lost the cars and cash from GT5. Unless you lost your GT5 disc and game save file?

Taking things a bit out of context there.

 

[ildd]

7 or 9 Anniversary Cars with fancy livery(all beautifully modeled) - was I so easily bought? So easily seduced?

What did I lose? Well, a whole load of great cars actually, and a pile of cash, which, if I remember correctly, were all transferable from GT4 when I purchased GT5. That feature went for a Burton in favour of DLC which suits Sony and PD big time, but we the faithful all lose. Small surprise then that so many people felt justified in taking advantage of the "Money Glitch" when presented with it. Did I/we lose any tracks from GT5? I don't think so - I won't load GT5 to check right now

.

There was 25 cars with the Anniversary Livery on them
No, you couldn't transfer data from GT4 to GT5. You could from 3 to 4, though.
As of right now, there isn't any paid DLC for GT6. You can buy credits, but that's not DLC; that's, basically, a currency converter.
Only track lost was the Top gear test track, basically in favor of Goodwood.

 

[zotobom]

I don't get why everyone's like ''you can't transfer cars ohh nooo :'(''

It's really a good thing. I'd be bored out of my mind if I started a new career and instantly had amazing cars for every race and enough money to buy more. The thrill of GT is saving up for that one car you want.

 

[ildd]

I don't get why everyone's like ''you can't transfer cars ohh nooo :'(''

It's really a good thing. I'd be bored out of my mind if I started a new career and instantly had amazing cars for every race and enough money to buy more. The thrill of GT is saving up for that one car you want.

This was the problem I faced when I put the Anniversary code in. I managed to only use 3 of them in the first 2 days, 2 of which were just a time trial.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

What did I lose? Well, a whole load of great cars actually, and a pile of cash, which, if I remember correctly, were all transferable from GT4 when I purchased GT5.

No, You could not transfer anything from GT4 to GT5, nothing at all. You could not transfer it to GT5P neither nor could you transfer cars from GT3 to GT4. You could start on GT4 with up to 100,000 credits and the first 2 licenses if you had a GT3 save game with at least 100,000 credits on it but that is it.

So the answer to your question. "What did I lose?" is nothing.

 

[Mubble]

It's just a $40 video game. I wouldn't think too much about it to be honest.

 

[Dusty1990]

It's just a $40 video game. I wouldn't think too much about it to be honest.

My mentality exactly, the cost of this game is small (in the scheme of things), seems quite apparent that the guys doing all the moaning are actually doing all the PLAYING, I'd love to spend a 10th of the time you lot spend on GT6 so quit the complaining!

 

[Bo]

You sound like you're trying to answer one of the world's great questions, and the weight of everything is just too much to bear. It's just a game. You don't need to worry, you bought it for enjoyment. You don't have to fall in love with grand features to enjoy it, just keep racing and driving. That's all it's about.

 

[Nielsen]

It's just a $40 video game. I wouldn't think too much about it to be honest.

It's a matter of principles, for me at least. The money spent is what it is but it's easy to hate having supported something which gives so little in return. We did know GT6 is a work in progress but not that it would hardly make any. The price has already dropped and what did early buyers get? A waiting game.

 

[eran0004]

It's a matter of principles, for me at least. The money spent is what it is but it's easy to hate having supported something which gives so little in return. We did know GT6 is a work in progress but not that it would hardly make any. The price has already dropped and what did early buyers get? A waiting game.

At least it's a game. GT5 was just waiting. If the trend continues, then GT7 should just be a game.

Waiting

Waiting game

Game.

 

[Mubble]

Most of us are disappointed because we spend the years between launches speculating about extensive features and gaming perfection. It never comes.

GT5 was a let down. GT6 is basically the same game with the same flaws (bugs, standard cars, no livery editor, start from the back of the pack in races). GT7 will be the first version on PS4 and will no doubt be lacking in many areas too. Maybe we should just accept it for what it is and live with it.

 

[GBO Possum]

It's just a $40 video game. I wouldn't think too much about it to be honest.

It wouldn't be $40 if it cost as much per hour as it costs to watch a rented movie on, say, iTunes!

IMHO, based on the following formula, GT6 is outstanding value:-

(Hours spent driving)+(Hours spent in Replays and Photomode)+(Hours spent wandering through the dealerships, kicking the tires and deciding if and what to buy)+(Hours spent discussing online and other GT6 experiences with my mate)+(Hours spent in delicious anticipation about what will be added next)+(yes, hours spent in GTPlanet).....

divided by.....

the total amount I spent to have this experience.​

It's right up there with the Forza series, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim.

 

[Griffith500]

Most of us are disappointed because we spend the years between launches speculating about extensive features and gaming perfection. It never comes.

GT5 was a let down. GT6 is basically the same game with the same flaws (bugs, standard cars, no livery editor, start from the back of the pack in races). GT7 will be the first version on PS4 and will no doubt be lacking in many areas too. Maybe we should just accept it for what it is and live with it.

Yeah, I have that problem with relationships. In between disappointments, I speculate about how perfect the next one will be. But unfortunately, due to the limitations of reality, they never live up to it. Naturally I blame them.

Turns out my imagination is a better place to live than the real world. Who'd have thought it?

 

[mister dog]

It's just a $40 video game. I wouldn't think too much about it to be honest.

60$ if you bought it at release like most though.

 

[Imari]

Yeah, I have that problem with relationships. In between disappointments, I speculate about how perfect the next one will be. But unfortunately, due to the limitations of reality, they never live up to it. Naturally I blame them.

Turns out my imagination is a better place to live than the real world. Who'd have thought it?

Turns out the same thing that works for relationships works for games (and pretty much anything else). Communication.

Even if your partner isn't your perfect dream (and let's face it, no one ever is), if you talk about it you can both understand where the other is coming from, and maybe make some compromises so that you're both a little more happy. Or maybe you just find out early on that you're not going to be right together and you can move on gracefully.

If PD was actually clear about what they intended GT to be, maybe more of us could appreciate it for that. Or decide that it's never going to be what we want, and move on.

Instead, they promise anything and everything under the sun. I don't think it's odd that people are confused as to what to expect, nor that they have trouble managing what they should be expecting. With the information that PD gives, it's nearly impossible.

Even with the game in hand, I have a hard time knowing exactly what the game is trying to be. Is it simulating a racing career? Is it just a sandbox? A graphical showcase? A marketing exercise? A beta for GT7? The product of 150 people doing whatever they felt like on the day?

It's hard to give something the benefit of the doubt when you don't even know what it was trying to do. If something has a stated goal, then at least it can be judged by that. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people judge it according to their own standards. That's all they've got.

 

[jimipitbull]

Turns out the same thing that works for relationships works for games (and pretty much anything else). Communication.

Even if your partner isn't your perfect dream (and let's face it, no one ever is), if you talk about it you can both understand where the other is coming from, and maybe make some compromises so that you're both a little more happy. Or maybe you just find out early on that you're not going to be right together and you can move on gracefully.

I have played quite a few relationships. Some were like 3rd person shooters, others were more like RPGs.

 

[Imari]

I have played quite a few relationships. Some were like 3rd person shooters, others were more like RPGs.

As long as they weren't like Pokemon.

 

[Griffith500]

Turns out the same thing that works for relationships works for games (and pretty much anything else). Communication.

Even if your partner isn't your perfect dream (and let's face it, no one ever is), if you talk about it you can both understand where the other is coming from, and maybe make some compromises so that you're both a little more happy. Or maybe you just find out early on that you're not going to be right together and you can move on gracefully.

If PD was actually clear about what they intended GT to be, maybe more of us could appreciate it for that. Or decide that it's never going to be what we want, and move on.

Instead, they promise anything and everything under the sun. I don't think it's odd that people are confused as to what to expect, nor that they have trouble managing what they should be expecting. With the information that PD gives, it's nearly impossible.

Even with the game in hand, I have a hard time knowing exactly what the game is trying to be. Is it simulating a racing career? Is it just a sandbox? A graphical showcase? A marketing exercise? A beta for GT7? The product of 150 people doing whatever they felt like on the day?

It's hard to give something the benefit of the doubt when you don't even know what it was trying to do. If something has a stated goal, then at least it can be judged by that. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people judge it according to their own standards. That's all they've got.

Do not underestimate the role that unrealistic expectations play in the individual, and do not justify it as the only logical thing to do without hard evidence - that is utterly fallacious, even if it is "only natural". It is unacceptable to construct a picture of reality in one's own mind and then expect the world to conform to that fantasy. Remember that many of the expectations here do not come from PD, they are from other people expecting every game to be some panacea, or from misrepresenting a personal opinion or desire voiced by a forum member as the official line from Sony.

Yes, marketing types will exploit our natural tendency to "expect", but that is no different for any other game, or any other product. It falls to the buyer to be vigilant and wary of their own weaknesses, and if there truly is a case to be held for goods mis-sold, then there is a process for that, too.

It's your money, you look after it as best you can, first.


Coming to GT6 from GT5, and seeing "future update" sprinkled liberally over their website, I knew that we'd be waiting - indeed, it is comically self-evident, given the word "future" implies that clearly. Yes, there hasn't been a track or car DLC every month as Kaz had suggested there would be, but I expect there is a good reason for that.

Communication would be nice, but communication creates its own set of expectations, with plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding, deliberate, careless or otherwise. It's like @Lawndart said: when faced with an unexpected problem (or just the possibility of unexpected problems), it's often better just to get stuck in and try to fix it, rather than announce a date for a feature's arrival, because you just don't know when you'll get it properly sorted. Unless you minimise risk to the point of practical creative and technical bankruptcy.

On the other hand, things have been so long in coming, e.g. the sound improvements, that PD / Kaz clearly felt the need to speak up about it. They communicated to us that they have been working on it for a few years and that they aim to have it in GT6, only probably not at launch - on the one hand, it's what we want to hear (and having heard evidence, I do not doubt what they say), but that clearly creates an expectation of its own. Would it have been better had Kaz said nothing in that regard?


The thing is, with a little bit of knowledge about how game development works, in the broader strokes, delays and such are perfectly understandable, and even to be expected. The communication, then, becomes implicit - just like it always was. The problem comes when you try to deny the nature of games, and to hold them up to the standards of other products, specifically the trend towards a broader utilitarian valuation of games ("games as services", paid in-development early access, "crowd-sourcing", etc.), when in reality they are frivolous entertainment (not to belittle those who rely on games to a higher degree than that, for whatever reason) created by someone who wants to make a game, funded by someone who wants to make a profit.

 

[KinLM]

I consider it great value. Value is not where my problem is.

I've driven for 62 hours and I paid $60 for the game.

That works out at less than $1 per hour of driving. That sort of price is pretty good. I pay 5 times that every month just to be allowed to use online features on my XB1. I consider $1 per hour of driving time to be a very good use of my money.

 

[FussyFez]

I just wanted to say how pleased I am to see a constructive and thought about rant.

Not the usual "dis game iz carp, why no livry edtr doe" that im used to reading.



I personally love it. The physics are (imo) a step up from gt5, I have more tracks, and some nice new cars. The Nordschleife alone will keep me happy. But Stowe + low powered drift car and I'm equally happy.

I play GT to drive enthusiastically, without risk of death or serious injury. It currently is doing an excellent job at keeping me alive, so for that I am grateful.

To top it off, gt6 was a gift. So in no way do I ever feel I payed for an incomplete product.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Well I paid the full $60 for the game and last I checked I had spent a little over 130 hours actually driving so that is less than $0.50 per hour.

I also enjoy some RPG games, rarely do I get 130+ hours out of one of these for $60 but I still buy them and enjoy them. Imagine if you were to rent enough movies to spend 130 hours watching them how much it would cost, or worse going to the theater to watch some movies, how long before $60 is spent?

 

[LVracerGT]

Well I paid the full $60 for the game and last I checked I had spent a little over 130 hours actually driving so that is less than $0.50 per hour.

I also enjoy some RPG games, rarely do I get 130+ hours out of one of these for $60 but I still buy them and enjoy them. Imagine if you were to rent enough movies to spend 130 hours watching them how much it would cost, or worse going to the theater to watch some movies, how long before $60 is spent?

The problem with this comparison, when people pay for a movie they know they're getting the whole movie, unless they leave early. They don't get halfway through it and have parts missing, or have the movie advertised at 190 minutes and it ends at 150 minutes. And movies aren't advertised as "parts of the movie to come at a later date" and then don't come.

 

[Lawndart]

PD's delays

Last night I was racing on-line with some friends and guests, and it left me thinking, "Just why did I buy GT6 - I need to remind myself why." Everyone really enjoyed the session, especially our host, my friend Rallygurkan from Sweden, and all enthused about what a great night it had been. Was it just nostalgia for the recently relegated GT5, or was there more to it?

Did I just buy the game because it had a couple of new tracks - Silverstone - Willow Springs - Matterhorn - Kart Space I and II - Gran Turismo Arena - Brands Hatch circuits - the return of Apricot Hill(a nice surprise) - Ascari - Mount Panorama - 7 or 9 Anniversary Cars with fancy livery(all beautifully modeled) - was I so easily bought? So easily seduced?

What did I lose? Well, a whole load of great cars actually, and a pile of cash, which, if I remember correctly, were all transferable from GT4 when I purchased GT5. That feature went for a Burton in favour of DLC which suits Sony and PD big time, but we the faithful all lose. Small surprise then that so many people felt justified in taking advantage of the "Money Glitch" when presented with it. Did I/we lose any tracks from GT5? I don't think so - I won't load GT5 to check right now - I'm sure someone will have the knowledge immediately in mind. So, am I convincing myself that I am happy I bought GT6 - well. not completely.

So, why not "completely"? Well, the handling of many of the cars bugs me - some of the tracks are causing my cars to feel skittish - like being on a nervous horse - the worst I find is HSR. Many people say that it will all be sorted with updates - and the much touted new and improved Track Maker is still to come, which will be amazing - oh yes, that's it - "still to come." I think I have come to my answer - the game was not ready for release on December 6th - nor January 6th - and not now either, and I believe that is why, not just me, but many other people too, feel dissatisfied and let down.

We had, and still have at the moment, as I discovered last night, a very good racing sim in GT5. I really do wish PD had waited until the game was at a much more advanced stage than it is now before releasing it - ah, but Christmas was coming - and the 6th of December was my birthday - they all knew about my birthday of course, and all my racing buddies were buying GT6 as soon as it was released; what chance did I have.

Do I feel better now after my little musing and gentle rant? Yes, just a bit.

This echoes many here... My patience has been theroghly tested and I don't even log on for the bonus anymore...

GT 6 is doing a heck of a job forcing me to explore other options, the opposite of what it should be doing.

Its sad when one can so easily see how to fix the whole thing, one who knows the entire process, yet can only sit here and watch... Like a slow motion train wreck...

 

[Griffith500]

Just noticed an inaccuracy in the OP: cars were not transferable from GT4; that was GTPSP, in which there was a very different way of collecting cars.

Also, HSR should be skittish. It's high speed. The bad handling cars are unfortunate, but I don't think it's the end of the world given setups are readily available.

The game wasn't ready for the full feature set PD want to include, but they couldn't win either way - save for being less ambitious for the short term (I still say their long term plan is where the fun is).

If GT6 is "forcing" people to explore other options, I say good. That's what different games exist for: find your own nirvana, and stop perverting mine!

I wonder what this easy fix is, though.

The problem with this comparison, when people pay for a movie they know they're getting the whole movie, unless they leave early. They don't get halfway through it and have parts missing, or have the movie advertised at 190 minutes and it ends at 150 minutes. And movies aren't advertised as "parts of the movie to come at a later date" and then don't come.

Movies can still feel rushed, unfinished, incoherent and confused for much of the same reasons, plus some extra ones including a linear narrative and plot, or whatever it is that matters. Then again, they also exist in many games, but player-driven narrative based on emergent systems is much more interesting, worthy of at least as much attention, but that's a separate matter.

Godfather Part III is an interesting point of comparison; there are probably many others, even beyond simple "sequel-itis".


What differs greatly is the level of communication, and the level of interaction with fans. In fact, "fan service" is generally considered a bad thing, creatively, when it comes to movies (unless it's cleverly hidden away, of course - easter eggs and cameos etc.) Making a sequel is in itself a kind of fan service, and is obviously cynical in that sense.

Some of that attitude crosses over into games, but usually only with those games based on movies or movie adaptations - e.g. Star Wars. There are plenty of examples in that one universe alone of fan service ruining a unique experience, not least of which Galaxies or the more recent Level 1313. In the latter, the "nondescript" protagonist was to be replaced by Jango Fett because "management" thought fans would prefer it (which is to say, it'd sell better). Of course, Level 1313 has been canceled, and Galaxies' concept is due to be revisited with "lessons learned". Time will tell, as only time can.

 

[mister dog]

PD's delays

This echoes many here... My patience has been theroghly tested and I don't even log on for the bonus anymore...

GT 6 is doing a heck of a job forcing me to explore other options, the opposite of what it should be doing.

Its sad when one can so easily see how to fix the whole thing, one who knows the entire process, yet can only sit here and watch... Like a slow motion train wreck...

Which can be a good thing; better to take action and look for what you really want, then waiting forever for them to implement it.

 

[Imari]

Do not underestimate the role that unrealistic expectations play in the individual, and do not justify it as the only logical thing to do without hard evidence - that is utterly fallacious, even if it is "only natural". It is unacceptable to construct a picture of reality in one's own mind and then expect the world to conform to that fantasy. Remember that many of the expectations here do not come from PD, they are from other people expecting every game to be some panacea, or from misrepresenting a personal opinion or desire voiced by a forum member as the official line from Sony.

Yes, marketing types will exploit our natural tendency to "expect", but that is no different for any other game, or any other product. It falls to the buyer to be vigilant and wary of their own weaknesses, and if there truly is a case to be held for goods mis-sold, then there is a process for that, too.

It's your money, you look after it as best you can, first.

Having unrealistic expectations is bad, obviously. But people have unrealistic expectations in the first place because they don't know what to expect.

If you have no information, your options are either to expect nothing, or come up with your own expectations. Those will almost certainly be unrealistic, no matter how hard you try.

Some will be more unrealistic than others. Expecting 1000 premium cars in GT5 was unrealistic, there wasn't really any conceivable way for that amount of work to get done. Expecting the DLC promises in GT6 to be followed through is hardly unrealistic. I would have said that seeing at least one of the feature updates within the first three months would be fairly realistic as well.

Unrealistic expectations can only be formed when there's insufficient or inaccurate information, and so there's a definite option for the company to minimise any misunderstanding. The consumer can be somewhat sensible about it and not expect things that are plainly impossible, but it also works the other way when expecting stuff that appears to be plainly reasonable.

Coming to GT6 from GT5, and seeing "future update" sprinkled liberally over their website, I knew that we'd be waiting - indeed, it is comically self-evident, given the word "future" implies that clearly. Yes, there hasn't been a track or car DLC every month as Kaz had suggested there would be, but I expect there is a good reason for that.

Yeah, and it'd be great if they'd tell us what it was instead of setting us up and then going quiet.

Communication. If plans change, they need to communicate that. Sometimes it's uncomfortable, and they're going to catch some backlash. But the zero communication policy isn't making them any friends either. Better to be straight up.

Communication would be nice, but communication creates its own set of expectations, with plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding, deliberate, careless or otherwise. It's like @Lawndart said: when faced with an unexpected problem (or just the possibility of unexpected problems), it's often better just to get stuck in and try to fix it, rather than announce a date for a feature's arrival, because you just don't know when you'll get it properly sorted. Unless you minimise risk to the point of practical creative and technical bankruptcy.

Announcing dates is the last thing they should do, because they've shown that they can't meet dates.

What they should be doing is keeping consumers in the loop. That, or simply not announcing stuff before it's actually ready.

But then, how many fewer copies of GT6 would have sold if they didn't make all those promises?

On the other hand, things have been so long in coming, e.g. the sound improvements, that PD / Kaz clearly felt the need to speak up about it. They communicated to us that they have been working on it for a few years and that they aim to have it in GT6, only probably not at launch - on the one hand, it's what we want to hear (and having heard evidence, I do not doubt what they say), but that clearly creates an expectation of its own. Would it have been better had Kaz said nothing in that regard?

The sounds is actually one of the few things that I think they've more or less handled right. It's still a travesty that the sound are awful, but they were pretty clear that while they're working on it, we shouldn't really expect the update to be in GT6. It might be, but probably not.

People are getting their hopes up that it will be, and that's a somewhat unrealistic expectation.

The thing is, with a little bit of knowledge about how game development works, in the broader strokes, delays and such are perfectly understandable, and even to be expected. The communication, then, becomes implicit - just like it always was. The problem comes when you try to deny the nature of games, and to hold them up to the standards of other products, specifically the trend towards a broader utilitarian valuation of games ("games as services", paid in-development early access, "crowd-sourcing", etc.), when in reality they are frivolous entertainment (not to belittle those who rely on games to a higher degree than that, for whatever reason) created by someone who wants to make a game, funded by someone who wants to make a profit.

Delays are understandable and expected, certainly. I totally agree.

I don't agree the the communication is implicit. If there's a delay or a change to plans that the company has explicitly expressed, I think that the onus is then on them to convey the change. If the DLC for GT6 is going to be delayed, they should say so. If the features are being difficult and they're not going to be out for a while, they should say so.

It's perfectly acceptable for a company to say "Look, we thought we were going to be able to have the online community features out in January, but a bunch of killer bugs cropped up. We're not releasing until we're happy you'll have a great experience. I can't tell you when that'll be, but even if it's not ready next month we'll have another update for you".

I don't see what's so difficult about that, and I don't see why that shouldn't be expected from a major company that has promised that there are more features to come on it's product. It's not like it costs them a huge amount of time or money to knock together a press release once a month, and it's hardly taking time away from the people that would actually be working on the game.

Just because something is a game, doesn't mean that it's not important to interface with your customers.

 

[machschnel]

The thing is, with a little bit of knowledge about how game development works, in the broader strokes, delays and such are perfectly understandable, and even to be expected. The communication, then, becomes implicit - just like it always was. The problem comes when you try to deny the nature of games, and to hold them up to the standards of other products, specifically the trend towards a broader utilitarian valuation of games ("games as services", paid in-development early access, "crowd-sourcing", etc.), when in reality they are frivolous entertainment (not to belittle those who rely on games to a higher degree than that, for whatever reason) created by someone who wants to make a game, funded by someone who wants to make a profit.

This paragraph would have been a rather poignant posting in the GT5 forum, but years later in the GT6 forum I think it's "missed the boat" so to speak.