Pikes Peak Hill Climb May be Exclusively Licensed to the Gran Turismo Series

[flatdarkmars]

The worst part about this is that it will probably take another 5 years and come as DLC for Gran Turismo 7.

 

[Kurei]

Considering this is Eurogamer (the same people who made some very unfounded comments last year regarding GT Sport), I'm not quite sold on this yet. Given the sales of the previous GTs, an exclusive deal seems like the worst idea right now.



Quite the overreaction considering there is no evidence supporting this.

Sarcasm man, bunch of others got it, why not you?

 

[RACECAR]

Sarcasm man, bunch of others got it, why not you?

Coming off crap loads of people who legitimately made political claims about a race finish (not here), Haven't had my sarcasm turned on.

 

[GrumpyGrumps]

PD wants to use this track so much because they can put a lot of invisible walls. I think invisible walls is their fetish.
Invisible. Walls. Everywhere.
And I can't remember any game with Pikes Peak for last years except Dirt Rally, so exclusivity will not hurt.

I agree, and I really don't understand the invisible walls. I used to play a rally game for original Xbox (don't remember the title) and what I loved most about it was the fact that if you screwed up your car fell a ridiculous distance down the side of whatever cliff or mountain you were on, bouncing and crashing all the way. It was marvelous. And if you are going to use invisible walls, at least put them far enough off the track that I don't feel like cattle being herded along, you know?

 

[jm79]

Hey @Brend - can you get in touch with Martin Robinson and ask him about this, maybe? Seemed an odd, somehow cheeky way of telling us this, if it's true.

And it was certainly worded fairly unequivocally that it was true...

 

[PsuPepperoni]

I bought DiRT Rally on sale knowing nothing about it, and it turned out to be one of the funnest racing games I've played. It was like Christmas morning when I saw it had the full PP hill-climb.

If PD takes years to release it, only renders it in sections, or worst of all, turns it into an invisible wall ridden pinball machine, I'm going to be pretty :censored:ed.

 

[MXH]

KickUp said:

zoliRX said:
Hey, @KickUp! Can you (possibly) confirm that the PPIHC license is now exclusive to another developer/game and if it's the reason for its' absence?

The Eurogamer article got me intrigued.

Yes, we signed it for DiRT Rally before it went exclusive but we can't use it anymore.

There you have it folks, from the man himself (on the official CM forums). I'm glad they managed to sign it before PPIHC went exclusive to Gran Turismo and PD.

 

[RACECAR]

Well balls, its official then.

Not a fan of this at all.

 

[Tornado]

It's nice to see PD now has exclusive use of a licence for them to waste.

 

[SVX]

This having an exclusive license is just as good as forbidding use of the track in general.

Next we'll see exclusive Japanese tracks. I could see Forza trying Bathurst.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I could be wrong, but if memory serves me well: I think I read a while ago from either a Forza, PCars or Assetto Corsa forum, after players showed there disappointment at the lack of Japanese tracks, that the exclusion was due to them being being exclusively licensed to PD. Don't know if this applies to Suzuka, as I have heard the license fee to use it's likeness is unreasonably expensive for some. This was a reason given for their exclusion by the developer of one of those respective titles mentioned above. Never heard this as an official statement from PD though. But then they have never been the most communicative.

Close: you're right there hasn't been a confirmation about any of this from PD—and if you were in their shoes and it were true, would you say anything?—but the general talk I've run into in both the Forza and AC communities is that it isn't quite an exclusivity deal. It's just that non-native developers are asked to pony up massive licensing fees, and the assumption there is that Japanese devs aren't. A form of protectionism, I suppose. It may have come up in the PCARS community too, but I'm having a heck of a time hunting it down for any of them.

I wouldn't be very surprised by it, either.

This having an exclusive license is just as good as forbidding use of the track in general.

Next we'll see exclusive Japanese tracks. I could see Forza trying Bathurst.

This is what I'm most worried about—an exclusivity arms race. It'd be pretty ballsy of T10 to attempt something like that though: there was a lot of talk about how exclusive licenses were bad when the Porsche fiasco happened leading up to FM4's release. From my understanding, all it's done since has been timed exclusives, which are a lot more tolerable.

Still, can't believe this would be done right after the Porsche/EA deal has finally died. It's as if nothing was learned. Doubly disappointing that the games that actually implement proper rallying won't even be able to use it.

 

[fatkid]

Close: you're right there hasn't been a confirmation about any of this from PD—and if you were in their shoes and it were true, would you say anything?—but the general talk I've run into in both the Forza and AC communities is that it isn't quite an exclusivity deal. It's just that non-native developers are asked to pony up massive licensing fees, and the assumption there is that Japanese devs aren't. A form of protectionism, I suppose. It may have come up in the PCARS community too, but I'm having a heck of a time hunting it down for any of them.

Bingo! Your memory serves you better than myself. What you stated is much closer to the lines of what I think I might I have read several months back.

Shame. Suzuka is my favorite all time track. And I love doing time trials with various 90's JDM's on Tsukuba (you can thank Best Motoring videos on YouTube for that). I hope they both appear in GT Sport. Moreover, I hope GT Sport becomes as appealing to me as all previous GT's for me to consider buying it. But that talk is for a different thread.

 

[05XR8]

PD will having matching exclusive VGT. Evens out. . 👎

It would be fine to see a grid of 20 cars racing on Pikes Peak. Only if it were a staggered TT though.

 

[Chikane_GTR]

Exclusivity is always bad news

I don't get this comment? So are exclusive games also bad? I mean isn't it also Anti Consumer the fact that i cant play forza 6 on my PS4? Personally i see nothing wrong with a game having exclusive content.

 

[gladbecker82]

Sucks. Now its in the hands of someone who does get their s... together.

Especially since i dont know what the point is, Rally Games arent Major Competition for a GT Game.

 

[breyzipp]

I don't really care tbh, it's a boring track anyway. I barely drive it in Dirt Rally, the normal rally stages are tons more fun.

I will LOL when I will see the first videos of fantasy Vision GTs going up the mountain.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

I don't get this comment? So are exclusive games also bad? I mean isn't it also Anti Consumer the fact that i cant play forza 6 on my PS4? Personally i see nothing wrong with a game having exclusive content.

I'm sort of with you, although I can understand the general sentiment against exclusivity.
But to add something to your argument, specific car brands, to me, is different to specific tracks.
Most games seem to cover most brands, to a point.
But many games have varying track rosters, exclusive or not.

I guess it depends on whether you think that most games would include PPHC should the deal not be in place.
Personally, I doubt it.
So you would need to buy that particular game/s to be able to drive it anyway.

To my mind this deal therefore isn't that big a snub to gamers.
But should this story be confirmed by PD, they must include it in Sport or it's a whole different ballgame.

 

[Kazuya720]

Honestly, I am strongly annoyed by this "XXX exclusively for …" policy. Neither tracks or cars should be exclusively for just one game series or platform. Does a car which is only in a game, because the guys behind made a deal with the manufacterer, this automatically to a better game? NO! Of course not. How could you even compare of the car XY is in game A better/more realistic as in game B, if you just dont have that car in both (all) games. Exclusive content, made never a better game. Not in racing games, nor in football or sport games.

 

[queleuleu]

That's not how things work Poly. As a first party studio with a huge budget and experience, its version should be better than every other dev like Codemasters, Kunos or SMS (except Turn 10). Poly shouldn't be afraid of comparison.
I don't want Poly to be the new EA...

 

[Yui-san]

While I don't really like the idea of "exclusive licensing", this particular case isn't necessarily bad, as long as PD actually takes advantage of this license and include the track in the game.

I mean, it's not as if many developers are looking to include this track in the games. Even before this deal, PP only ever appeared in 2 games as far as I can remember: GT2 (short ver.) and Dirt Rally.

 

[SVX]

While I don't really like the idea of "exclusive licensing", this particular case isn't necessarily bad, as long as PD actually takes advantage of this license and include the track in the game.

I mean, it's not as if many developers are looking to include this track in the games. Even before this deal, PP only ever appeared in 2 games as far as I can remember: GT2 (short ver.) and Dirt Rally.

It hurts other franchises like the DiRT one, however. Codemasters was suddenly getting its act together, and now already a potential Rally 2 has a glaringly big omission compared to it's predecessor.

 

[GTPVenomZombie]

Oh no...

 

[Yui-san]

It hurts other franchises like the DiRT one, however. Codemasters was suddenly getting its act together, and now already a potential Rally 2 has a glaringly big omission compared to it's predecessor.

That's true. However, I don't see why CM couldn't continue to use the track under a different name, like what PD did with Monaco. Pikes Peak highway is a public toll road after all.

Also, let's not forget the CM themselves have a long-running exclusive license, which has prevented other developers from including F1 cars and the official Monaco Circuit.

 

[RACECAR]

That's true. However, I don't see why CM couldn't continue to use the track under a different name, like what PD did with Monaco.

Also, let's not forget the CM themselves have a long-running exclusive license, which has prevented other developers from including F1 cars and the official Monaco Circuit.

There's also the WRC license being exclusive to a developer (milestone I think?). In fact, the FIA seem intent to keep those license exclusive to a single developer only.

 

[SZRT Ice]

I don't get this comment? So are exclusive games also bad? I mean isn't it also Anti Consumer the fact that i cant play forza 6 on my PS4? Personally i see nothing wrong with a game having exclusive content.

Though Forza is exclusive to XBox. PC & PS4 are allowed their own interpretations of sim racing via GT, Asetto Corsa, iRacing, Project CARS, etc.

And though, arguably, Forza 6 & Horizon 3 would look & run better on PS4/Pro than XBox one (available on PC through W10). Console exclusive content simply means you go to where you want to get the preferred version of the experience you're looking for, which may be made, limited, restricted, or influenced according to varying factors.

Game exclusive content is an entirely different beast. We're limited by the complete absence of the availability of an experience, person, place, or thing. And limited by the functionality, the physics, coding, artistic vision atmosphere, purpose, etc. of the game itself and vision/capability of the team that creates/created it. Like Porsche in a NFS game w/ NFS physics, etc. There's a fundamental difference to who can take a real world thing and give us their own interpretation of it Vs locking down the rights & abilty of sharing your own interpretation of a real world thing to ONE experience in ONE game and to ONE dev/team. And though people could debate their preferred version of Pikes Peak, or if it would fare better in a more authentic/Rally focused game. Exclusivity of this nature completely limits/removes our ability to do so.

This is more akin to Microsoft gaining exclusivity to all sim racing, so no other developers would legally be allowed to produce sim racing games. Or like having exclusivity to the sun, moon, a body of water, city, or other structure, story, real life thing that's adored by many yet viewed, cherished, & revered in different ways for varying reasons.

 

[SVX]

Also, let's not forget the CM themselves have a long-running exclusive license, which has prevented other developers from including F1 cars and the official Monaco Circuit.

It's a bit different I believe - from my understanding, FIA licenses are exclusive to developers the same way the series in real life is.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Though Forza is exclusive to XBox. PC & PS4 are allowed their own interpretations of sim racing via GT, Asetto Corsa, iRacing, Project CARS, etc.
And though, arguably, Forza 6 & Horizon 3 would look & run better on PS4/Pro. And Pikes Peak would arguably fare better in a more authentic & Rally focused game. Console exclusive content simply means you go to where you want to get the best version of the experience you're looking for, which may be limited or enhanced according to varying factors.

Game exclusive content is an entirely different beast. We're limited by functionally by the physics, coding, artistic vision atmosphere, purpose, etc. of the game itself and vision/capability of the dev team. Like Porsche in a NFS fame w/ NFS physics, etc. There's a fundamental difference to who can take a real world thing and give us their own interpretation of it Vs locking down the rights of sharing your own version of a real world thing in a game to one dev/team.

This would be more akin to Microsoft gaining exclusivity to all sim racing, so no other developers would legally be allowed to produce sim racing games. Or like having exclusivity to the sun, moon, a body of water, city, or other structure, story, real life thing that's adored by many yet viewed, cherished, & revered in different ways for varying reasons.

Are no other games allowed their "own interpretation" of PPHC?

And you forgot one limitation of gamers.
Budget.
Not everyone has the ability to purchase multiple games to test physics, coding, etc., etc., etc.
Let alone multiple platforms.

Not every game on every platform is going to include PPHC.
So as you say, people make their choice.

 

[SZRT Ice]

Are no other games allowed their "own interpretation" of PPHC?

And you forgot one limitation of gamers.
Budget.
Not everyone has the ability to purchase multiple games to test physics, coding, etc., etc., etc.
Let alone multiple platforms.

No. Gran Turismo has the rights. As posted on the home page:

https://www.gtplanet.net/confirmed-pikes-peak-is-a-gran-turismo-exclusive/

Budget would work in favor of my post, but isn't the exact point I was trying to make.

My point was the contrast between console exclusive content Vs game exclusive content. Forza on PS4 would still be Forza. But Porsche is different from NFS, to Asetto Corsa, To forza, to GT. And the same can be said for Pikes Peak. You may play the same track/vehicle from game to game, but we're allowed our differences/preferences. But limiting an object/thing, place, or activity to one dev/team limits our options beyond just what we can afford. It can also limit us from what we like, entirely.

 

[ribloGT]

This is Why it's better racing on PC...
You don't have exclusive? You can have a mod...

 

[Tassie_tiger]

No. Gran Turismo has the rights. As posted on the home page:

https://www.gtplanet.net/confirmed-pikes-peak-is-a-gran-turismo-exclusive/

Budget would work in favor of my post, but isn't the exact point I was trying to make.

My point was the contrast between console exclusive content Vs game exclusive content. Forza on PS4 would still be Forza. But Porsche is different from NFS, to Asetto Corsa, To forza, to GT. And the same can be said for Pikes Peak. You may play the same track/vehicle from game to game, but we're allowed our differences/preferences. But limiting an object/thing, place, or activity to one dev/team limits our options beyond what we can afford. It can limit us from what we like entirely.

I understand your point.

I'm simply saying historical evidence shows little interest in PPHC.
A reported deal with PD from other sources, which until announced is all it is, does not mean suddenly all games on all platforms would want to include PPHC but can no longer do so.