Polyphony should Learn From Square (development)

[Raitziger]

The only developer PD should take note is t10. Game is similar and t10 has really streamlined production to be able to supply content much more efficient way. There has not been much signs that PD has changed their working ways to reduce modelling times or to outsource simple things.

 

[The Bman]

Probably the only reason that I stick to GT is because that their games actually have "soul", should I say. It's made by people who love racing, while Turn 10 seems to be dedicated to making money and more importantly, sending PD out of business.

Here's one thing that makes me like Forza. The developers listen to the fanbase.

"You want some vintage 40's-early 50's cars? We'll add them."

PD, however, just seems to give you a sarcastic smile and add another Japanese duplicate.

If PD would have their developers listen to the fanbase, GT wouldn't be faltering like it is right now. Back then, developers listened to their fanbase, and when they didn't, it wasn't so bad. Nowadays, the world is more demanding. People expect high quality products. With PD pumping out poor quality games and barely listening to their fanbase, they cannot keep up with the competition.

 

[Flaco13]

Probably the only reason that I stick to GT is because that their games actually have "soul", should I say. It's made by people who love racing, while Turn 10 seems to be dedicated to making money and more importantly, sending PD out of business.

Here's one thing that makes me like Forza. The developers listen to the fanbase.

"You want some vintage 40's-early 50's cars? We'll add them."

PD, however, just seems to give you a sarcastic smile and add another Japanese duplicate.

If PD would have their developers listen to the fanbase, GT wouldn't be faltering like it is right now. Back then, developers listened to their fanbase, and when they didn't, it wasn't so bad. Nowadays, the world is more demanding. People expect high quality products. With PD pumping out poor quality games and barely listening to their fanbase, they cannot keep up with the competition.

I totally agree about T10, what has come out is good, its a real good racing game, but thinking about how much $ I have spent (stopped purchase dlc in May) and how they advertise their dlc in game, they ARE about making $$$ and thats it!

Still you can enjoy the game without dlc

 

[Samus]

The only facts we have to go on are the release dates of the titles they make.....which as I have shown show that from 1994 to 2010 they released a game on average every two years......and since Turn 10 release games at the same rate of one game every two years you have yet to explain how this shows that PD are in any way inefficient.

Yes, I have. Just because they release a game every two years doesn't mean they're efficient, if the game isn't up to scratch.

No it does not have to have been in production at all. I can tell you today that I am going to release a game in 2013 it doesn't mean that I am working on it at the moment.

Toronado has already shown you it was, but regarding your comment if you have announced an iOS mini game to come out next year then no, you don't have to be working on it now because they don't take too long to make. But to announce "The complete GT4 experience on a portable" is out in a year you have to be working on it already. As Toronado has shown they were.

The fact they announced they would like to release the game in 2005 but had absolutely nothing to show the public for the next 5 years would appear to actively contradict your argument that they were working on it at all. If they had been working on it since 2004 they would have had something they could show to people.

They did show people things.

again you have no idea at what point Ford started working on the Ford GT and you have no idea at what point PD started working on GT5. All you can say is that the last GT40 was made in 1969 and GT4 was finished in 2004. Unless you have some facts about Ford or PD that you would like to share with us that is the only conclussion you can draw from those releases.

Again, Toronado has already shared these facts.

However you try to push the date back by claiming they were done with it in "late 2005" when the only conclussion you can draw was that they were finished with Tourist Trophy at some point before feb 2006. But again this tells us absolutely nothing about the start date for either GTSP or GT5.

You're arguing over a month or two here, and when they were finished with it what do you think they did? Sat on their hands until they thought about making GTPSP or the PS3 project?

again your opinion on what constitues a finished game or not. You feel that GTSP is not finished because it does not have a career mode.....however if it was never intended to have a career mode then in what way is it "not finished"?

Every single GT game up to that point had a career mode. They also all had car customisation of some sort. GT PSP had neither of those, so yes I'm well within my rights to call it unfinished in my eyes. I'm not the only one either.

As for Yamauchi's comments that GT5 was not finished I think thats far more along the lines of an artist never being satisfied that his work is finished more than anything else. I doubt Da Vinci ever felt the Mona Lisa was ever finished either.

What a ridiculous conclusion to draw. You constantly snipe at me claiming I can't know anything about anything and here you are telling me what KY meant with that statement. Let's work with the facts shall we? He said he wanted another two years to finish the game, ergo it wasn't finished. Whatever the reason for him thinking it wasn't finished we don't know, but that's what he said.

You do not know that they started work on GTSP in 2004.
You do not know that they started work on GT5 in 2004/5

Again, Toronado shows that they had started on the PSP in 2004. The Vision for GT5 was shown at E3 2005 so again, they'd obviously started working on it in some form by then.

You have no idea what so ever how long they spent and what resources they spent on any title so you cant possibly claim they are inefficient as a company.

I know how long it took them to release it and, speaking for the above two games above, they were woefully unfinished in my opinion and in the opinion of the creator on one of them. So yes, based on that I am entitled to claim they are inefficient. They took too long to release two unfinished games because they spent too long modelling cars in the case of GT5.

and again you have no idea if that is the only thing they worked on from 2006.....but even if it was that means they put out a new game on average every two years which seems to be industry standard given that Turn 10 have the same output.

So I ask again if PD are inefficient because they release a game on average every two years then why do you not criticise Turn 10 who also release a new game every two years?

First of all this was supposed to be about PD and PD only but you feel the need to constantly compare it to T10, despite knowing what happens to threads which do that.

So I will say one thing that I already did further up, knocking out a game every two years does not equal efficiency. Well, it equals efficiency in releasing games but it doesn't show efficiency in what went into making them. T10 haven't released unfinished games, they haven't released games with features missing from the manual, they haven't released games with mixed quality content, they haven't released games without a career mode, they haven't released games with the same career mode over and over again. I could go on but I won't.

So THAT is why PD are inefficient.

Simon K you do realise that most estimates put Turn 10's working numbers 'including out sourcing' at around 450. Thats 3 times as big as Gran Turismo's work force and they put out a game every 2 years. On equal terms, it would take six years to put out a Forza title, and even then, the vast majority of GT's premium cars are modled it a level that is as good as anything on the market including that project cars game. Not in game of course, but GT's in house screen shots show just how great the cars are when they are not limited to the constraints of the current console.

In other words it would probably take even longer for Turn 10 to produce another Forza title.

So yeah they are pretty efficient.

As above, this has nothing to do with T10 or any other company. But first of all, you can't just assume with 1/3 less work force it would take them 3 times as long because you don't know what they would change about their process to be more efficient.

As for GTs car models, THAT is exactly one of the reasons they are inefficent. They spent 60% of their entire dev time to create ~200 premium cars. Please tell me how that is an efficient way of working, bearing in mind what they did with the other 40% of their time.

 

[marchi]

They future proof their cars so that in the future, they don't have to completely remodel them how is that not efficient in the long term? It means they don't have to do the same job twice.

When the next Gen hits, Turn 10 will effectively have to produce 400 cars in the same quality as the 20 odd in their auto vista.

 

[Samus]

They future proof their cars so that in the future, they don't have to completely remodel them how is that not efficient in the long term? It means they don't have to do the same job twice.

If you could afford to do that and still build the rest of the game in time that's fine but PD clearly did not have the resources to spend all that time making future proof cars.

When the next Gen hits, Turn 10 will effectively have to produce 400 cars in the same quality as the 20 odd in their auto vista.

What makes you think they will have to completely remodel them? It's not like the GT5 standard cars that are just one big mesh that aren't upgradable, they're already fully modeled cars that I'm pretty sure were created with the next gen in mind.

 

[CommandoAir]

Well PD can't really win.

Half of their customers are complaining that there aren't enough premium cars and the other half are complaining it took to long to make.

To give you an idea why it took PD so long, it takes 9 months to create a premium car and there are around 221 premium cars. You get the idea now?

 

[Samus]

Well PD can't really win.

Half of their customers are complaining that there aren't enough premium cars and the other half are complaining it took to long to make.

Yes, because they took too long on each car and/or didn't outsource the work or expand given their size.

To give you an idea why it took PD so long, it takes 9 months to create a premium car and there are around 221 premium cars. You get the idea now?

No, the quote is that it takes 6 months of single man hours. Common sense should tell you it's not literal hours since development of GT5 didn't start 1200 years ago.

 

[DaveS1138]

That is an entirely separate problem if they announced a game for a release date fairly soon in the future and then just never bothered working about it, you're correct.


The problem being that they did show things off.

Nobody is saying that they never bothered working on it. Just that nobody knows what level of work was being done by how many people at what point in the development. For example they may have started work on GTSP and realised the hardware was much harder to squeaze a GT game onto than they thought which caused the project to be put onto a back burner for an unknown length of time.

And since none of that is known then stating that PD are not efficient because they took 5 years to develop GTSP and 6 years to develop GT5 is meaningless. The 5 and 6 year timeframes mean nothing.

February 2002, a month after they first showed it off. Before then it was never intended for production.

Really.....development of the Ford GT started AFTER they showed it off......what may I ask were they showing off if they were not going to do any development work what so ever for the next month.

Do you think if you keep repeating this comparison it will start being valid?.

No. Simply that if I keep repeating this comparisson you and others may understand it.....no sign of that so far but I'm an eternal optomist

Ford announced the GT was in production. PD announced GT PSP was in production (under the original title of GT4 Mobile). That the GT40 last rolled off the line in 1969, or that GT4 came out in 2004 is completely irrelevant to the conversation because the production of their successors was officially announced, which is when the clock starts ticking for development time unless you have something else that proves otherwise.

Which again is a meaningless way to measure the development time of a project. GTSP may have been announced in 2004 but you have no idea how much work was done and by how many people in the following 5 years. So any claim of in efficiency aimed at PD for a project you know nothing about is impossible.

I go back to my Avatar comparisson......Did that film take 15 years to make because the first draft was done in 1994? You can claim that if you wish but it is a meaningless figure when looking at the efficiency of James Cameron as a film maker since he was working on several other projects at the same time.

[Interesting. What's the classical art equivalent to things printed on the game box and in the game manual but weren't put into the game for a good while after initial release (or... ever, for the leaderboards and matchmaking).

How about claiming it is a picture of a woman but her not having eyebrows? I can imagine Da Vinci telling reporters after the paintings release that he would have liked another 2 years to get it finished

[

Both of which date from 2004.


So unless you are telling us that Sony was lying about the game even existing when they showed off that screenshot and trailer, were lying when they insisted it would be out as a launch window game for the PSP, and they were lying about how that video was made on PSP developer's hardware, I'm not sure where you are getting this.

A screenshot from GT4 and a video from 2007? How exactly are these supposed to prove that GTSP was in "full production" in 2004?

And what would that even mean since it would say nothing about the production at any other point from 2004 to 2009. If the argument is that PD are not efficient then you need to show how long and how many people they had working on the game.

 

[Samus]

So what you're saying is that unless we work for PD we cannot comment on anything they do?

Oh and the video is from 2004, 2007 was only the date uploaded to YouTube. YT didn't even exist in 2004.

 

[CorvetteConquer]

DON'T TELL MY COMPANY WHAT TO DO. I RUN THIS PLACE.

 

[DaveS1138]

So what you're saying is that unless we work for PD we cannot comment on anything they do?

Oh and the video is from 2004, 2007 was only the date uploaded to YouTube. YT didn't even exist in 2004.

You can comment on anything you want. However if you are going to claim they are an inefficient company you need something to back that up with. So far you have shown nothing since you can draw no conclussions on the work they did on a project when all you have to go off is an annoucement date and a release date. You know nothing about what happened between those two dates.

I on the other hand can present at least some facts to back up my point and those are that between 1994 and 2010 they have managed to put out a full game aproximately every 2 years. Which seems to be a fairly good industry standard.

When you then look at the other work that they have done on top of that. Their help with the GT Academy competitions, their design of bodykits, their work on the Nissan GT multifunction display, for example, I think the fact that they manage to do all that and still release a game every two years completely contradicts your point.

 

[shurnster]

So I will say one thing that I already did further up, knocking out a game every two years does not equal efficiency. Well, it equals efficiency in releasing games but it doesn't show efficiency in what went into making them. T10 haven't released unfinished games, they haven't released games with features missing from the manual, they haven't released games with mixed quality content, they haven't released games without a career mode, they haven't released games with the same career mode over and over again. I could go on but I won't.

Are you admitting that PD are efficient, cause they're releasing games? I think it's either they're efficient or not.

 

[maxpontiac]

The insulting of PD for being slow, lazy or whatever...

Is exactly one of the reasons I believe GTPlanet is not taken serious even when there are some valid and great suggestions being offered.

 

[I'm Motarded]

I totally agree about T10, what has come out is good, its a real good racing

game, but thinking about how much $ I have spent (stopped purchase dlc in May) and how they advertise their dlc in game, they ARE about making $$$ and thats it!

Still you can enjoy the game without dlc

How they advertise their DLC is nothing compared to EA. Having to constantly close the "Premium Pass" flash screen every time I start battlefield 3 is getting annoying and I feel it's intrusive.

Turn 10 send you one message every time a New DLC is available and you can ignore it without ever seeing it once, just like the 'you've been beaten by a rival' and other messages they send. Frankly this is what I call a good message system.

If you haven't noticed all these companies are about the money all the same, otherwise all content would be free no matter how much it cost to make.

Are you admitting that PD are efficient, cause they're releasing games? I think it's either they're efficient or not.

I think he means releasing the games in the window they set or were set by Sony, or in the timeframe expectations people were led to believe

 

[Samus]

You can comment on anything you want. However if you are going to claim they are an inefficient company you need something to back that up with. So far you have shown nothing since you can draw no conclussions on the work they did on a project when all you have to go off is an annoucement date and a release date. You know nothing about what happened between those two dates.

How are you not getting this?

They started one game in 2004 and released it in 2009, unfinished.
The started another game in 2005 and released it in 2010, unfinished.

Whatever they were doing in those years, based on what they released, I believe they were inefficient at getting the work done they were supposed to be.

I on the other hand can present at least some facts to back up my point and those are that between 1994 and 2010 they have managed to put out a full game aproximately every 2 years. Which seems to be a fairly good industry standard.

How many more times do I have to say, efficiently releasing games every two years and efficiently building those games is different. I could release a new game every year which is an efficient release schedule but if I don't get much content into each game I haven't been efficient in building the game.

When you then look at the other work that they have done on top of that. Their help with the GT Academy competitions, their design of bodykits, their work on the Nissan GT multifunction display, for example, I think the fact that they manage to do all that and still release a game every two years completely contradicts your point.

Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it? They're a video game studio, if they're spending their time doing all of that stuff rather than building video games then guess what? That's inefficient use of their time.

Are you admitting that PD are efficient, cause they're releasing games? I think it's either they're efficient or not.

See above. Constantly knocking out games doesn't mean those games were made in an efficient manner, if they're not up to scratch. I'm not arguing that they're inefficient at releasing games, I'm arguing that they're inefficient in building them.

 

[DaveS1138]

How are you not getting this?

They started one game in 2004 and released it in 2009, unfinished.
The started another game in 2005 and released it in 2010, unfinished.

Whatever they were doing in those years, based on what they released, I believe they were inefficient at getting the work done they were supposed to be.

Because you have yet to show in any meaningfull way that they started working on one game in 2004 and another in 2005 or what level of work they did on those games in the years in between. You can make no claim about inefficiency if you cannot show that.

You also add your personal opinion that those games were unfinished. I asked you before and you never answered.....if GTSP was not intended to release with a career mode then in what way does it not having a career mode make it an unfinished game in anything other than your own meaningless personal opinion?

I on the other hand can point to their release schedule to back my claim that they are as efficient compared to their peers.

Motor Toon GP 1994
Motor Toon GP 2 1996
GT1 1997
Omega Boost 1999
GT2 1999
GT3 2001
GT4 2004
Tourist Trophy 2006
GTSP 2009
GT5 2010

that's 10 games released in 16 years......and this is the company you claim are inefficient

How many more times do I have to say, efficiently releasing games every two years and efficiently building those games is different. I could release a new game every year which is an efficient release schedule but if I don't get much content into each game I haven't been efficient in building the game.

now you add the suggestion that the games lack content???? really? Thats the direction you want to go with this?

GTSP has 800+ cars and 35 tracks
GT5 has 1000+ cars and 31 tracks

Can you show me another title on consoles or handhelds with that level of content?

No they are not just knocking out games every two years with little content....that is just silly.

Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it? They're a video game studio, if they're spending their time doing all of that stuff rather than building video games then guess what? That's inefficient use of their time.

No quite the opposite actually. If they are doing all of that and still releasing games at the same rate as their competitors whilst having a considerably lower number of staff then they must be a more efficient company.

It's a very simple concept......think about it long enough and I'm sure you will get there.

See above. Constantly knocking out games doesn't mean those games were made in an efficient manner, if they're not up to scratch. I'm not arguing that they're inefficient at releasing games, I'm arguing that they're inefficient in building them.

Your personal opinion on the quality of the game is just that.....your opinion. It is not a fact. If the only thing you can back up your position that PD are an inefficient company is your opinion that they didn't make the game that you personally wanted them to make then I'm sure you can see just how weak a position that is to take.

 

[Spagetti69]

If the only thing you can back up your position that PD are an inefficient company is your opinion that they didn't make the game that you personally wanted them to make then I'm sure you can see just how weak a position that is to take.

In fairness to Simon, Kaz wanted to add more too.

 

[Samus]

Because you have yet to show in any meaningfull way that they started working on one game in 2004 and another in 2005 or what level of work they did on those games in the years in between. You can make no claim about inefficiency if you cannot show that.

Yes, it has already been shown that they started on them around that time. You just chose to ignore it.

Also, yes I can make claims. Here, let me break it down for you.

Point A in time, a Video game developer starts working on a game.
6 years after point A in time, the video game developer releases said game.

In that time it's safe to assume that video game developer was developing the video game in that time. It's their job. I don't have to show you what they were doing.

If the final result isn't finished (Even by admission of the person that created it) then it's perfectly fair for me to say that in those 6 years they were inefficient in building a videogame. If that's because they did'nt work in an efficient way or if it's because they got pre occupied doing other non video game things it's the same thing, an inefficient use of 6 years.

You also add your personal opinion that those games were unfinished. I asked you before and you never answered.....if GTSP was not intended to release with a career mode then in what way does it not having a career mode make it an unfinished game in anything other than your own meaningless personal opinion?

The original press releases from Sony in 2004 stated that GT4ortable was going to be an exact replica of the PS2 game so it therefore was going to have a career mode. So yes, it was meant to have one to start with.

I on the other hand can point to their release schedule to back my claim that they are as efficient compared to their peers.

Motor Toon GP 1994
Motor Toon GP 2 1996
GT1 1997
Omega Boost 1999
GT2 1999
GT3 2001
GT4 2004
Tourist Trophy 2006
GTSP 2009
GT5 2010

that's 10 games released in 16 years......and this is the company you claim are inefficient

Really, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. I'm not going to repeat myself again why I'm not talking about release date inefficiency. Also I've been focusing this whole time on the last two games, not the earlier games. I've had no real problem with those games.

now you add the suggestion that the games lack content???? really? Thats the direction you want to go with this?

GTSP has 800+ cars and 35 tracks
GT5 has 1000+ cars and 31 tracks

Can you show me another title on consoles or handhelds with that level of content?

No they are not just knocking out games every two years with little content....that is just silly.

Do YOU want to go down that route? GT PSP took most of it's cars from GT4, as did GT5. Tracks other games are on a level par but tracks and cars, believe it or not, are not the only content in a racing game. Just like GT1-4 you need a career mode and other features, GT PSP and GT5 were both lacking in that crucial department.

Plus they were wasting their time with things like paint chips, suits, horns and helmets. Again, an ineffient use of time in my opinion.

No quite the opposite actually. If they are doing all of that and still releasing games at the same rate as their competitors whilst having a considerably lower number of staff then they must be a more efficient company.

It's a very simple concept......think about it long enough and I'm sure you will get there.

Again you're not getting the point. Releasing games at the same rate is irrelevant to how efficient they are in making those games.

Your personal opinion on the quality of the game is just that.....your opinion. It is not a fact. If the only thing you can back up your position that PD are an inefficient company is your opinion that they didn't make the game that you personally wanted them to make then I'm sure you can see just how weak a position that is to take.

Well duh, of course it's my opinion, just as it's your opinion that they are efficient, and of course that opinion is based on my opinion of the final products.

 

[DaveS1138]

In fairness to Simon, Kaz wanted to add more too.

He did.....As I suggested I doubt any artist is every truly finished with anything they create. There is always more that can be added. It doesn't mean the game is "incomplete" as released.

Yes, it has already been shown that they started on them around that time. You just chose to ignore it.

No it has not been shown at all.

You have provided no start date for GT5 you just use an arbitrary date of your own by claiming that they must have started work on GT5 as soon as they finished GT4. Considering that they were working on other games between the release of GT4 and GT5 that proves nothing.

You have stated that GTSP went into production in 2004 based only on it being talked about at E3 that year.....but you provide no proof what so ever of when they actually started work on the project, how much time and resources they spent on it or if they ever stopped work on it to work on other projects.

You have provided next to nothing.

Also, yes I can make claims. Here, let me break it down for you.

Point A in time, a Video game developer starts working on a game.
6 years after point A in time, the video game developer releases said game.

In that time it's safe to assume that video game developer was developing the video game in that time. It's their job. I don't have to show you what they were doing.

If your talking 6 years I assume you are refering to GT5.

So again......"Point A in time"....you have provided no proof what so ever when "Point A in time" actually is.....you simply state that GT5 must have gone into production when GT4 was released.....you have proved nothing.

"6 years after point A in time the game is released"......since you have provided no proof what so ever of when point A is then you have also failed to proove that the game came out 6 years later.....

"It is safe to assume the video game developer was developing the video game in that time".......no it is safe to assume no such thing.....they could have been working on any number of projects.....just as in my anaolgy with James Cameron he was not working only on Avatar between 1994 and 2009.....and without being able to show what projects PD had how many resources working on you can make no claim about their efficiency.

If the final result isn't finished (Even by admission of the person that created it) then it's perfectly fair for me to say that in those 6 years they were inefficient in building a videogame. If that's because they did'nt work in an efficient way or if it's because they got pre occupied doing other non video game things it's the same thing, an inefficient use of 6 years.

Wrong again......you would need to show how long they were working on the project and how many resources they were using to make any claim about inefficency. You have provided none of that. You are simply stating that GT5 took 6 years to develop.....you have offered no proof.

The original press releases from Sony in 2004 stated that GT4ortable was going to be an exact replica of the PS2 game so it therefore was going to have a career mode. So yes, it was meant to have one to start with.

Pretty much every game ever made goes through changes during it's development. Especially a game being released on a new peice of hardware. If PD attempted to make GT4 run on the PSP and discovered that it was simply not powerfull enough to do that then of course they would have to make changes. Again that answers nothing to their efficency or lack of.

Really, it's like trying to talk to a brick wall. I'm not going to repeat myself again why I'm not talking about release date inefficiency. Also I've been focusing this whole time on the last two games, not the earlier games. I've had no real problem with those games.

Of course this point is the one that you wish to drop since it is the only facts presented in the debate and directly contradicts the point you have been trying to make.

If PD were an inefficient company they would not be able to release titles at the rate that they have been doing....at the same rate as their direct competitiors who you dont claim are inneficient even though they have more resources and yet only release games at the same rate.

Do YOU want to go down that route? GT PSP took most of it's cars from GT4, as did GT5. Tracks other games are on a level par but tracks and cars, believe it or not, are not the only content in a racing game. Just like GT1-4 you need a career mode and other features, GT PSP and GT5 were both lacking in that crucial department.

Plus they were wasting their time with things like paint chips, suits, horns and helmets. Again, an ineffient use of time in my opinion.

Just as every other producer of a game series re-uses content from past games. That is in no way an indication of inefficiency...it is the industry standard.

As for them "wasting their time" on features that you personally do not value......as I said previously this entire mini attack on PD can be summed up as simply as you being upset that they didn't make the game specific to you. You are free to feel that you wanted something different from GT5 or GTSP but your personal disapointment in either game is irrelevant to a claim that they were inefficient in making the game. The only thing it shows is that they didn't tailor the game you your and your alone requirments. Can you name me a game developer that does make a game to the specific requirments of one player?

Again you're not getting the point. Releasing games at the same rate is irrelevant to how efficient they are in making those games.

How is it irrelevant at all? The efficiency of a game developer can be measured in no other way than the number of games they produce.

If PD were releasing a game every 5 years I would completely agree with you that they are less efficient than other companies who can produce the same type of game in 2 years (taking other factors into account like size of workforce etc).

But they dont.....they seem to be doing a perfectly good job of maintaining the industry standard for number of games released.

It blows your argument out of the water....which is the reason you dislike the point so much.

Well duh, of course it's my opinion, just as it's your opinion that they are efficient, and of course that opinion is based on my opinion of the final products.

No. You are expressing an opinion that they are inefficient that you are unable to back up.

I am presenting facts on the number of games they release and how often they release them to back up my claim that they are not inefficient.

 

[Tornado]

Really.....development of the Ford GT started AFTER they showed it off......

Yeah, actually. It was a one-off concept jury-rigged together purely to build up hype for Ford's centennial celebration. They never had any intention of actually building it in numbers until they noticed how overwhelmingly positive the reaction to the car was; at which point they put plans in motion to make it a production car the month after it was shown off. The same thing happened with the Pontiac Solstice (an attempt to show that Bob Lutz was committed to turning GM around). And the Dodge Viper (a modern interpretation of the Shelby Cobra to thank Carrol Shelby for his work with the company in the 80s). And the Plymouth Prowler (an attempt to show that Chrysler no longer was in the financial danger they were in a decade before).

And since this happens on a fairly frequent basis in the automobile industry, I suggest in the future you don't make offhand comparisons to other industries when they don't actually work the way you think they do.

He did.....As I suggested I doubt any artist is every truly finished with anything they create. There is always more that can be added. It doesn't mean the game is "incomplete" as released.

No, the fact that the game was objectively incomplete when it was released means that the game was incomplete when it was released. Features listed on the game box, the instruction manual and PD's own website were not in the game and had to be patched in later. Some of them still aren't. This is inarguable. Not open to interpretation. Not changed by whatever crap you want to claim Kaz "really" meant. It just is. Deal with it.

You have stated that GTSP went into production in 2004 based only on it being talked about at E3 that year.....but you provide no proof what so ever of when they actually started work on the project

So I just want to make sure of this, since you dodged the question the first time:

You are saying that Sony was lying about the game being in development in 2004, you are saying that the various assets dating from 2004 that they said was from the in-development title running on PSP hardware were fake, and you are saying that they never intended to meet the original launch date of the game.

 

[Raitziger]

DON'T TELL MY COMPANY WHAT TO DO. I RUN THIS PLACE.

You just run your car and smoke, so shut up

 

[DaveS1138]

Yeah, actually. It was a one-off concept jury-rigged together purely to build up hype for Ford's centennial celebration. They never had any intention of actually building it in numbers until they noticed how overwhelmingly positive the reaction to the car was; at which point they put plans in motion to make it a production car the month after it was shown off. The same thing happened with the Pontiac Solstice (an attempt to show that Bob Lutz was committed to turning GM around). And the Dodge Viper (a modern interpretation of the Shelby Cobra to thank Carrol Shelby for his work with the company in the 80s). And the Plymouth Prowler (an attempt to show that Chrysler no longer was in the financial danger they were in a decade before).

And since this happens on a fairly frequent basis in the automobile industry, I suggest in the future you don't make offhand comparisons to other industries when they don't actually work the way you think they do.

So they designed and built a Ford GT......showed it off.....people loved it and they thought..."hey cool, people love this....we should make more of them".

and from that you are going to class the start of the development of the car not with the original concept car which they built to show off to people.....but rather after they had shown it off and people loved it.

erm.....ok. So that first car they built wasn't a Ford GT?

No, the fact that the game was objectively incomplete when it was released means that the game was incomplete when it was released. Features listed on the game box, the instruction manual and PD's own website were not in the game and had to be patched in later. Some of them still aren't. This is inarguable. Not open to interpretation. Not changed by whatever crap you want to claim Kaz "really" meant. It just is. Deal with it.

So just because a feature that was once planned for the game is dropped that makes the game incomplete? Even though that happens in lots of games during their development.

If the ability to upload your videos to YouTube is dropped because it is simply not technically possible to make it work that means the game will never be finished just because they once said they would like to do that?

I personally think that's an odd standard to hold a game to but hey that's just me. I think the fact that you can complete the game to 100% makes it a finished game.

But what does that have to do with PD being an efficient company or not?

So I just want to make sure of this, since you dodged the question the first time:

You are saying that Sony was lying about the game being in development in 2004, you are saying that the various assets dating from 2004 that they said was from the in-development title running on PSP hardware were fake, and you aresaying that they never intended to meet the original launch date of the game.

I didn't dodge the question I simply asked how a screenshot from GT4 and a video uploaded in 2007 showed that PD were in "full production" of GTSP in 2004.

So to answer your points directly.

1) No I am not saying that Sony lied about the game being in production in 2004 simply that nobody has shown what level of production the game was at in 2004. Again going back to the Avatar analogy......work was done in 1994 and the film was not finished until 2009 but I dont think it is fair to claim the film was in production for 15 years and that James Cameron is an inefficient film maker because of that. You would need to look at what other work he was doing in the meantime.

PD may have done some proof of concept work in 2004. But without knowing what work they completed or how many resources they were using on it it's silly to draw the conclussion that they took 5 years to make it or that they were inefficient in doing so.

2) I am not saying that "the various assets dating from 2004 that they said was from the in-development title running on PSP hardware were fake"

I asked for proof that the video was from 2004 since the only date on the video is 2007......however even if it was from 2004 it again shows nothing on the amount of work or resources used in 2004 or any other point in the games production. And without that how can you make any claim about the efficiency of PD.

3) I am not "saying that they never intended to meet the original launch date of the game"

They may well have intended to meet the original launch date of the game when they announced it in 2004 however they could have very quickly realised that (for example) it was simply impossible to complete in the manner they planned and in the timeframe they planned and at that point put the project onto the back burner......or they could have (for example) realised that another project was going to require far more of their resources than they had planned and decided to place the PSP game onto the back burner....or perhaps (for example) the original plan was based on an early estimation of the power of the PSP or ease of converting PS2 titles to run on it which did not work on the production model and caused the project to be heavily redesigned.

There are lots of possible reasons why they may have felt in early 2004 that they could release GTSP in 2005 but the organic nature of buisiness made them have to take a different approach.

None of which would have made their announcement in 2004 a lie or done anything to prove the amount of time they spent working on the title or the resources they devoted to it.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

Probably the only reason that I stick to GT is because that their games actually have "soul", should I say. It's made by people who love racing, while Turn 10 seems to be dedicated to making money and more importantly, sending PD out of business.

I will never understand what people mean by this "soul" or "spirit" GT has that somehow separates it from other racing games. And PD isn't out to get money either? Give me a break. Before it was changed, I can remember the uproar there was when the first DLC came out and if we wanted more than one set of the TCs, we'd have to buy it with real money again.

 

[Spagetti69]

He did.....As I suggested I doubt any artist is every truly finished with anything they create. There is always more that can be added. It doesn't mean the game is "incomplete" as released.

Gold.

 

[shurnster]

See above. Constantly knocking out games doesn't mean those games were made in an efficient manner, if they're not up to scratch. I'm not arguing that they're inefficient at releasing games, I'm arguing that they're inefficient in building them.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Tornado]

erm.....ok. So that first car they built wasn't a Ford GT?

No, funnily enough. As clever as you want to act to try to spin it, the fact of the matter is that it wasn't a Ford GT production car. It was a hand-produced, bespoke, nonfunctioning and absolutely-not-road-legal show car that wasn't created with any intent to be produced; making it completely irrelevant to the development of the Ford GT production car, which had to be designed to completely different circumstances and needs. The only thing that directly carried over is the styling, which had to be modified for production as well. So please. Enough of this painful metaphor.

So just because a feature that was once planned for the game is dropped that makes the game incomplete? Even though that happens in lots of games during their development.

No. Because a feature was not only planned for the game; but is advertised in the game's manual, on the game's box, and shown on the company's website as being in the game but isn't actually in the game when it comes out makes the game incomplete. The difference is that something like the YouTube feature was shown off months in advance but ultimately removed, whereas things like Remote Racing were shown off as being confirmed features in the game when you buy it but weren't actually put in for several months after release.

But what does that have to do with PD being an efficient company or not?

Probably has something to do with you claiming that one title every two-ish years contradicts Simon's claims that they are inefficient, when one of those titles was so blatantly unfinished at release that even the person who made it apologized for it repeatedly over specific features that were missing, promising that they would be coming soon; and the other one was basically just a port of an existing game.

And I do find it ironic that Kaz's fans seem to be less humble than him when it comes to admitting mistakes, considering you so conveniently forgot why it mattered while at the same time bringing it up the "they release this many games in this many years" bit again.

1) No I am not saying that Sony lied about the game being in production in 2004 simply that nobody has shown what level of production the game was at in 2004.

They had an engine already going that was good enough to make that video with, and had gotten at least two cars and at least one track running on it. That's a fairly extensive amount of work done.

Again going back to the Avatar analogy......work was done in 1994 and the film was not finished until 2009 but I dont think it is fair to claim the film was in production for 15 years and that James Cameron is an inefficient film maker because of that. You would need to look at what other work he was doing in the meantime.

Okay. Let's look at the other work.

James Cameron wrote a script in 1994. He started getting stuff together in 1996. Then he stopped for a decade when he realized that he needed to wait for technology to catch up. During that time he made 6 movies.

Sony announced GTPSP in 2004. Showed off the amount of work that PD had done thus far, and gave it a release date. And we also know that PD continued to work on it throughout 2006, because Sony kept making it known that the game had not been cancelled and was still being worked on at enough of a capacity to give it release dates that PD kept missing (until towards the end of 2006, when it was indefinitely delayed). So let's make the assumption that PD just stopped bothering with it then until the very end of 2008. What had they done in the meantime? They released two work-in-progress demos, one of which was just a developmental build of GT5 (and the other of which arguably was as well) that they kept updating as they kept working on GT5. Meanwhile, that PSP game still wasn't making any progress until (presumably) Sony put their foot down and forced PD to release it in time for their new hardware revision; all with no problem equivalent to Cameron's (since it was fundamentally the same technology that they started working on).

PD may have done some proof of concept work in 2004. But without knowing what work they completed or how many resources they were using on it it's silly to draw the conclussion that they took 5 years to make it or that they were inefficient in doing so.

Did they announce that it was currently being worked on in 2004? Yes. Did it eventually come out in 2009? Yes. So the 5 years part is kind of inarguable, then. More arguable is that what it ended up being didn't justify nearly that much time, but I'll get to that.

I asked for proof that the video was from 2004 since the only date on the video is 2007......

No. What you actually did was fob off the screen shot as being from GT4 and that the video was from 2007, then ignored when it was pointed out that neither was true; which is particularly odd since you were so quick to say that there was no proof that the game even existed in 2004.

3) I am not "saying that they never intended to meet the original launch date of the game"

Except you said exactly that:

No it does not have to have been in production at all. I can tell you today that I am going to release a game in 2013 it doesn't mean that I am working on it at the moment.

The fact they announced they would like to release the game in 2005 but had absolutely nothing to show the public for the next 5 years would appear to actively contradict your argument that they were working on it at all. If they had been working on it since 2004 they would have had something they could show to people.

In addition to you saying several times that there was no proof that they had ever worked on it, even after it was pointed out how ridiculous that statement was. Hence me asking the question again now that it has been made absolutely clear to you that they were in fact working on it in 2004.

They may well have intended to meet the original launch date of the game when they announced it in 2004 however they could have very quickly realised that (for example) it was simply impossible to complete in the manner they planned and in the timeframe they planned and at that point put the project onto the back burner......or they could have (for example) realised that another project was going to require far more of their resources than they had planned and decided to place the PSP game onto the back burner....or perhaps (for example) the original plan was based on an early estimation of the power of the PSP or ease of converting PS2 titles to run on it which did not work on the production model and caused the project to be heavily redesigned.

Which was pretty much Simon's original point: That simply getting the game done doesn't constitute anything when a far better (and, dare I say, more efficient) use of their time would have been spent on GT5 and letting someone else make the portable title rather than switching back and forth between the two to the detriment of both. And considering what the game ended up being (a port of most of GT4's content with the structure removed) and what it did to GT5's development (because Kaz outright admitted that he had to throw almost the entire weight of PD at the game, taking them away from GT5, because it was giving them problems), I daresay he's right.



Hence, as hard working and passionate as they are, they aren't paragons of efficiency. They try, but they made bad decisions, most of which they have admitted to since, which caused them problems in development.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

The debate about PD efficiency of producing game software seems to be very long. Let us remember that PD made these games for Sony Computer Entertainment aka SCE. SCE sets their development time frame, goals, expected standard for content and quality, they poured in the money for PD.
Kaz was basically the project manager for all the games PD have produced, he also have a position in SCE which means he had a hand in SCE's decisions. The big question of efficiency for PD, the only person who can answer that is Kaz himself and SCE's big wig. He and the SCE management must have set time frames, schedules, workloads management, budget management, risk management and many other things while producing GT games.If he was to set certain dates for a game completion and it turned out to be not enough, he then extend the dev time to fulfill the predetermined design goals with the available resources and fund, is it an efficient undertaking for him or SCE ? Does SCE consider PD inefficient ? We have to ask that to SCE and PD. If Kaz was inefficient in producing games for the last 10 years, I doubt he would hold his position in PD right now.

We as consumers have the right to say that one developer company is not efficient, but it's only an opinion, not a fact. The real fact is only known to the company's management, where they have all the datas, the records of all their work done so far and how those records are being interpreted by the stake holders who then decides how efficient they are as a company.

Companies have different views of how efficient a team in making a product, given the resources, time and expectations. There many factors that could change the way a company view a project as efficient. Internal and external causes can vary from competitors release dates, bugs, technical design issues, workforce issues, funding problems, licensing issues, and so on.

These issues that needs to be taken care of, changes the efficiency threshold for the company. For SCE, PD might be an efficient game developer , but to other company like Microsoft who must have different set of goals and expectations, PD's work might be considered inefficient if compared to Turn10. Goals and expectations plays a huge part in how efficient a company is and their higher ups alone have the final word on the matter.

 

[Samus]

I've never claimed PD being inefficient is a fact, it is of course simply my opinion which I have reason for believing. I'm done commenting here because Dave is impossible.

 

[Spagetti69]

Well a lot around here blame Sony for telling PD to release it as it was.

Make of that what you want.