Polyphony are you serious?

  • Thread starter alex511
  • 87 comments
  • 5,634 views
There are many more german cars that are much better than the M4 that PD could add Such as my avatar, also there are cars that are not on the list that are still coming to GT7 at some point IIRC.
 
Last edited:
They've averaged as a group revenue of $80 billion dollars a year, for the last 3 years, with profits in excess of $30 billion a year for the same time period. To be blunt, you're 100% wrong about them not being awash with cash.




They got given enough money to buy Bungie for $3.6Bn, so let's not pretend that a few OEM licenses are beyond what they could afford. Being able to purchase (which they are) and being willing to purchase (which they may not) are two different things, and to try and claim they can't afford it, is, simply put nonsense.
It is one thing to aqcuire a company with long term plans of increased profits or at least market penetration vs aqcuiring licenses to please a few car enthusiasts that buy the game anyway.
 
Don't think I've ever seen the slighest hint at what a car or brand licence actually costs. For GT or any other series.

That said I'd bet it's a fraction of what it takes to actually develop the model and everything else associated with getting it in-game.
 
It is one thing to aqcuire a company with long term plans of increased profits or at least market penetration vs aqcuiring licenses to please a few car enthusiasts that buy the game anyway.
It is indeed, but that's a strawman, as that wasn't the point I was answering or made. The claim was that Sony doesn't have the cash to be able to afford licences, the fact is they do.

I even clearly explained this in the very post you quoted:

"Being able to purchase (which they are) and being willing to purchase (which they may not) are two different things, and to try and claim they can't afford it, is, simply put nonsense."
 
It is one thing to aqcuire a company with long term plans of increased profits or at least market penetration vs aqcuiring licenses to please a few car enthusiasts that buy the game anyway.
It is indeed, but that's a strawman, as that wasn't the point I was answering or made. The claim was that Sony doesn't have the cash to be able to afford licences, the fact is they do.

I even clearly explained this in the very post you quoted:

"Being able to purchase (which they are) and being willing to purchase (which they may not) are two different things, and to try and claim they can't afford it, is, simply put nonsense."
The only way for Sony to afford it stop making the PlayStation 4 and just go with the PlayStation 5
 
Playground gives us maybe in next FH5 update the new BMW M4. And we in GT get only "old" cars from the datamined list.

I have no problems with older cars, but they shouldnt forget acual ones like that!
You’re absolutely right, I would have thought they would have gone live with an upto date car list but no, let’s stay in the past - Polyphony to a T - head in the sand see no evil hear no evil
 
For curiousity sake I turned on FH5. This new bmw M4 is not in there yet. At least i didnt see in its brand central. Newest car in there is bmw M8 from '20.
No, it won't be. That's because it's not confirmed as coming, but might be coming in the next update - on August 15, probably - for the next Series which starts on August 18.

And that's based on this:

1660132121510.png


1660132106058.png


Which makes the rationale behind this thread even odder than "PD sucks because a different game added a car".
 
Last edited:
My message behind this thread was, that PD want's to "surprise" us with old cars from the past, and Playground instead have actual models on the view.
The only "newl" ones from PD, are Toyota sponsored cars or any VGT Cars. As others sayd, for a racing game in 2022, with the focus of the past, PRESENT, and future, thats not enough.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but is it just me that prefer to get a Skyline Super Silouette over a ugly face M4 (and yes I've seen plenty in real life, still look ugly to me). I guess it depends what you are looking for in a game.

I would like a GT3/4 cars updated rooster but not like it's gonna happen. I knew that when I bought GT7 tho, they never spot on with the new release, GT has always been more of a nostalgia type of game rather than a new car one.
 
Last edited:
My message behind this thread was, that PD want's to "surprise" us with old cars from the past, and Playground instead have actual models on the view.
Whereas people who actually play FH5 spend a lot of time complaining about how most of the cars being added to the game are models from FH4 that were cut and are now being added back.

The July update for FH5 added 14 new cars. Four of them - Emory 356C, Gunther Werks 911 C2, Porsche 917K, and Singer DLS - were cars from FH4 that did not transfer to FH5 originally. The other ten were all duplicates of the Spark Odyssey 21 in the ten Extreme E liveries, and one of them was wrong because it's the only car with a unique front end but this wasn't preserved for the game model which is merely a reliveried version of the others.

That's four cars returning from an old game and one car duplicated nine times (incorrectly in one case), inflating the car count. Stop me if this sounds familiar at all...

The June update? Glad you asked: four cars from FH4. You have to go back to May for the last new-to-series free update cars - a 2018 model of the Audi RS 4 Avant (to go with the 2013 car with the same engine) and the Porsche 992 911 GT3.


Of course across the same time frame there was also the Aston Martin DBX, Audi RS 3 Sedan, and BMW M8 Competition Coupe... in the $30 Car Pass, which also added eight other returning cars in that time.
 
Last edited:
My message behind this thread was, that PD want's to "surprise" us with old cars from the past, and Playground instead have actual models on the view.
The only "newl" ones from PD, are Toyota sponsored cars or any VGT Cars. As others sayd, for a racing game in 2022, with the focus of the past, PRESENT, and future, thats not enough.

What you consider as a new car? 2020 and after?2018? 2019?
Because, depending on that, it represents a small percentage in fh5. Even though its way higher than gt7.

Whereas people who actually play FH5 spend a lot of time complaining about how most of the cars being added to the game are models from FH4 that were cut and are now being added back.

The July update for FH5 added 14 new cars. Four of them - Emory 356C, Gunther Werks 911 C2, Porsche 917K, and Singer DLS - were cars from FH4 that did not transfer to FH5 originally. The other ten were all duplicates of the Spark Odyssey 21 in the ten Extreme E liveries, and one of them was wrong because it's the only car with a unique front end but this wasn't preserved for the game model which is merely a reliveried version of the others.

That's four cars returning from an old game and one car duplicated nine times (incorrectly in one case), inflating the car count. Stop me if this sounds familiar at all...

The June update? Glad you asked: four cars from FH4. You have to go back to May for the last new-to-series free update cars - a 2018 model of the Audi RS 4 Avant (to go with the 2013 car with the same engine) and the Porsche 992 911 GT3.


Of course across the same time frame there was also the Aston Martin DBX, Audi RS 3 Sedan, and BMW M8 Competition Coupe... in the $30 Car Pass, which also added eight other returning cars in that time.
I noticed that.
Cars in fh4 missing from fh5. Two of my favourite were missing at the start. Mosler mt900 (came back as dlc) and morgan aero (still missing).
 
They've averaged as a group revenue of $80 billion dollars a year, for the last 3 years, with profits in excess of $30 billion a year for the same time period. To be blunt, you're 100% wrong about them not being awash with cash.




They got given enough money to buy Bungie for $3.6Bn, so let's not pretend that a few OEM licenses are beyond what they could afford. Being able to purchase (which they are) and being willing to purchase (which they may not) are two different things, and to try and claim they can't afford it, is, simply put nonsense.
That's over-simplifying how economics and finances work for a company as big as Sony.

Sony is comprised of different divisions, departments and satellite companies, which also have their own divisions and departments. Regardless of what Sony reports as a whole on their year end fiscal calls, those divisions, departments and satellite companies don't get to spend what they make, they don't get a blank cheque. The money all goes back to Sony.

Sony, like any other large company, will assign budgets to each team, in this case they'll assign $X amount to PlayStation for a years operating costs. If PlayStation meet goals set by Sony and don't spend all of their budget, Sony will reduce their budget for next year. If PlayStation spend all of their budget and meet their goals, Sony will increase their budget. Things like business acquisitions don't come out of this budget, they get handled as special projects which PlayStation would have to present to Sony, with Sony approving or denying and then providing the money if approved.

PlayStation follow suit with budgeting the companies (developers) under them, in the same way Sony do. PD in this case will be allocated money for operating costs and expected to meet certain goals for the year. As PD have recently launched a game that has a lot of issues, I think it's fair to say that a lot of their attention (and so budget) is going towards overtime and damage control, not on expanding licenses for cars.

PD do not get access to the profits Sony reports, PlayStation doesn't either. Everyone gets allocated a budget based on the previous years operating cost, profits and revenue made last year are not a consideration.
 
Last edited:
That's over-simplifying how economics and finances work for a company as big as Sony.

Sony is comprised of different divisions, departments and satellite companies, which also have their own divisions and departments. Regardless of what Sony reports as a whole on their year end fiscal calls, those divisions, departments and satellite companies don't get to spend what they make, they don't get a blank cheque. The money all goes back to Sony.

Sony, like any other large company, will assign budgets to each team, in this case they'll assign $X amount to PlayStation for a years operating costs. If PlayStation meet goals set by Sony and don't spend all of their budget, Sony will reduce their budget for next year. If PlayStation spend all of their budget and meet their goals, Sony will increase their budget. Things like business acquisitions don't come out of this budget, they get handled as special projects which PlayStation would have to present to Sony, with Sony approving or denying and then providing the money if approved.

PlayStation follow suit with budgeting the companies (developers) under them, in the same way Sony do. PD in this case will be allocated money for operating costs and expected to meet certain goals for the year. As PD have recently launched a game that has a lot of issues, I think it's fair to say that a lot of their attention (and so budget) is going towards overtime and damage control, not on expanding licenses for cars.

PD do not get access to the profits Sony reports, PlayStation doesn't either. Everyone gets allocated a budget based on the previous years operating cost, profits and revenue made last year are not a consideration.
You mean just like MS, whom it was claimed were awash with money so could buy any licence they wanted, unlike Sony?

However, once again we have someone misrepresenting what I said, so once again for the cheap seats.

"Being able to purchase (which they are) and being willing to purchase (which they may not) are two different things, and to try and claim they can't afford it, is, simply put nonsense."

I've put it in bold this time, so maybe people will actually bother to read it, I'd go for flashing lights, but we don't have that option (yet - I still hold out hope).
 
Last edited:
You mean just like MS, whom it was claimed were awash with money so could buy any licence they wanted, unlike Sony?

However, once again we have someone misrepresenting what I said, so once again for the cheap seats.

"Being able to purchase (which they are) and being willing to purchase (which they may not) are two different things, and to try and claim they can't afford it, is, simply put nonsense."

I've put it in bold this time, so maybe people will actually bother to read it, I'd go for flashing lights, but we don't have that option (yet - I still hold out hope).
I will apologize, I didn't catch that bit or it didn't stick.
 
Back