You are correct about the link and what it lists. Did you also see the picture on the petition and my previous post in this topic located here?
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/online-petition.304096/page-3#post-9397554
Also, the main point of the petition, as pointed out in the last line of it, was not to complain about the content we do not currently have, it was to garnish communication from PD about the timeline of said content. If that is of no interest to you whatsoever then you were correct in not signing it.
Here is what I don't understand about this premise of the petition.
"A large number of us purchased this product with the expectation that the pre-purchase advertised content would be included in the opening day release or shortly thereafter and said content has not yet been distributed."
The reality is that the "pre-purchase advertised content"
was included in "the opening day release" and
not "shortly thereafter". So they exceeded everyone's expectations. Everything was delivered on time.
Or do you include the future functionality (which is clearly advertised as being
future functionality, and which
you have not paid for) in your expectation of being available "shortly thereafter". If it is your expectation that these future functions would be delivered "shortly thereafter", then I wonder what that expectation is based upon. This is not a commitment made on the product description page.
The reason that these functions are defined as "future" is to legally differentiate them from the base product. It's a legal requirement in many countries to clearly state what is included and excluded from a product offering.
(Google "sarbanes oxley revenue recognition criteria"). Had they said that the future functions were part of the base product, then, in many countries, the parent company could not recognize the revenue of the base product until all the components had been delivered. This is because if they fail to deliver parts of the advertised future functionality, there is a risk that customers could demand at least partial refunds.
That of course, does not preclude the option of providing the future functions via free DLC, but they clearly retain the option to charge for these functions. If past history is a guide, we can look forward to some gifts in our "Notifications" page. However, we should not be presumptuous and either demand or feel entitled to future DLC as a gift rather than having to pay for it.
Here is my prediction about what will happen in each of these future scenarios.
If the DLC is
free, there will be those who will complain that "see, we told you that GT6 was incomplete and this should have been part of the 1.00 release".
If the DLC has a
price on it, the reaction will be "but we already paid for this".
Neither of these statements are true of course, but given a strong sense of entitlement, anyone can believe anything they desire to be true.
Bottom line is that GT6 provided everything that
http://www.gran-turismo.com/us/products/gt6/ said it would.
EDIT: Oh, and as for expecting that PD should provide dates for future DLC, then maybe they will. Just closer to the actual availability date. Predicting software project completion dates with any accuracy is s skill still beyond human capability. Usually dates are met by reducing scope. Look at FM5 as an example. Personally, I would be really annoyed if PD were to be pushed into providing firm dates and then found they had to reduce the scope to meet the date.
