Unrealistic Selling of Cars.

[BloodHunterVX]

Totally agree with that, I've seen people throw tens of thousands at cars in the form of engine swaps/mods, paintwork and suspension but when they eventually go to market they are usually getting less back than the stock car was worth.

Modified cars - Expensive but utterly worthless

Core example: A stock late 90's Supra is rare and expensive because of how often they are modified.

 

[Dagger311]

I believe you should get a portion of the money spent on mods back, but it doesn't bother me at all, I have all the cars I want and 8 million left over.

 

[Swagger897]

Might as well count how many times you wash cars and those expenses... I mean, IRL I've probably detailed my car well over 100 times in my life, equaling about $500 worth of product.. But I'm not gonna ask that much more because the car is not worth it.

 

[JoaoSilva]

I'm on the hunt for all premium cars in GT6 so i rarely sell cars.

 

[JKgo]

I'm on the hunt for all premium cars in GT6 so i rarely sell cars.

............Good luck with that; I did this, and was a nightmare....

 

[JoaoSilva]

............Good luck with that; I did this, and was a nightmare....

I got like 300-ish cars already.

 

[JKgo]

I got like 300-ish cars already.

........150 more to go, then. 👍

 

[AstarsProDrvr]

So I randomly buy the wrong car for $300,000. I don't even get into the car. It has zero miles and hasn't technically even been started yet. You sell it, right back, and lose $210,000. Makes a heck of a lot of sense.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

So I randomly buy the wrong car for $300,000. I don't even get into the car. It has zero miles and hasn't technically even been started yet. You sell it, right back, and lose $210,000. Makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Sounds true to life if you ask me

 

[OneShoe50]

Gee, just like real cars...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Gee, just completely unlike real cars...

Fixed that for you.

In a game that lacks the pure incentive of gameplay for it's own sake, it's no surprise they have to resort to ripping you off when selling a car to "encourage" more gamplay by penalizing your bank account completely unrealistically, in a so-called "simulator".

 

[eran0004]

Fixed that for you.

In a game that lacks the pure incentive of gameplay for it's own sake, it's no surprise they have to resort to ripping you off when selling a car to "encourage" more gamplay by penalizing your bank account completely unrealistically, in a so-called "simulator".

It's not a car-sale simulator though. It's a driving simulator. If they rip you off when selling cars they are very generous when it comes to giving you money for winning races. Not to mention that you have free gas and a huge garage for no cost at all.

 

[JockeP22]

Not to mention that you have free gas and a huge garage for no cost at all.

I've never thought of it that way. 👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's not a car-sale simulator though. It's a driving simulator. If they rip you off when selling cars they are very generous when it comes to giving you money for winning races. Not to mention that you have free gas and a huge garage for no cost at all.

It's also not a racing simulator or an ecomomy simulator and yet you're using both to prove your point. Now what? There is no justification for ripping people off selling cars. Real cars depreciate in a fairly predictable way, there's no reason this can't be easily simulated with a very simple algorithmn. There is no good reason to not do it, other than to penalize players for selling cars and force them to play the game to earn money instead of selling cars to do so.

 

[eran0004]

It's also not a racing simulator or an ecomomy simulator and yet you're using both to prove your point. Now what? There is no justification for ripping people off selling cars. Real cars depreciate in a fairly predictable way, there's no reason this can't be easily simulated with a very simple algorithmn. There is no good reason to not do it, other than to penalize players for selling cars and force them to play the game to earn money instead of selling cars to do so.

I'm using neither to prove my point. Because my point is that the simulation is about driving, not about economy. There is a GAME economy, which is basically just a rate by which value is created and a rate by which value is destroyed. It's there for game dynamics reasons, not for simulation reasons and there are two things to consider:

1. WHY is it done?

2. HOW is it done?

An answer to the first question could be that without value destruction, players would quickly inflate their wallets, meaning they could obtain expensive cars at a faster pace than what's intended.

An answer to the second question could be that they're fine with letting you keep the value as long as it's tied up in the form of cars, because then you'd still have to generate more value in order to buy new cars. If you want more value, play the game.

Of course it could be an alternative to have a more realistic economy, and let value be destroyed through other means: fuel, reparation costs, fines, wages, garage rent etc. because in the end you'd still be forced to generate new value. The downside is that it would create a much more complex game and perhaps it would focus too much on aspects that simply are "off topic". Realism != a good game.

 

[AstarsProDrvr]

It's also not a racing simulator or an ecomomy simulator and yet you're using both to prove your point. Now what? There is no justification for ripping people off selling cars. Real cars depreciate in a fairly predictable way, there's no reason this can't be easily simulated with a very simple algorithmn. There is no good reason to not do it, other than to penalize players for selling cars and force them to play the game to earn money instead of selling cars to do so.

So if you had $300,000 for a Lamborghini Aventador in real life, and bought one in white because you couldn't decide between that and orange, never even started it, had it pushed onto a trailer, brought it back to the dealership within the hour to swap it out for an orange one, you would take a $210,000 loss that you would have to then pay additional for that car, now making an Aventador stock with no miles now $510,000. Highly realistic.

 

[Jubby]

Folks, it's a game. In our "world" we look at depreciation on a exponential curve, on a distant planet far far away, they appreciate in a linear pattern. Your actions are based on the in-game method that was designed more than 10 years ago and has been fairly constant and predictable.

Plus, if we wanted to make it realistic, you'd have to have a buyer for each car you want to sell--- that's an online market... and you'd be waiting for a while before you sell it. I'd rather have other features in the game, not deal with this rubbish.

 

[breyzipp]

I'm on the hunt for all premium cars in GT6 so i rarely sell cars.

Same here, at around 315 cars now. But I started with all the cheapest ones, I'll keep those 20 mill ones for last.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Folks, it's a game. In our "world" we look at depreciation on a exponential curve, on a distant planet far far away, they appreciate in a linear pattern. Your actions are based on the in-game method that was designed more than 10 years ago and has been fairly constant and predictable.

Plus, if we wanted to make it realistic, you'd have to have a buyer for each car you want to sell--- that's an online market... and you'd be waiting for a while before you sell it. I'd rather have other features in the game, not deal with this rubbish.

Strawman argument. It's not hyper realistic or nothing. Changing the selling price of cars is literally one line of code. Change the 0.25 to 0.75. Done. A simple algorithm would take a few minutes. Start at 0.75 and decline to 0.25 over a period of X. But as with many things in GT, the word "simulator" is more marketing than substance.

 

[Jubby]

Strawman argument. It's not hyper realistic or nothing. Changing the selling price of cars is literally one line of code. Change the 0.25 to 0.75. Done. A simple algorithm would take a few minutes. Start at 0.75 and decline to 0.25 over a period of X. But as with many things in GT, the word "simulator" is more marketing than substance.

There's no straw man here. I'm providing you an example of how the world works- a market. There is no selling without buying and appreciation/depreciation at different rates is realistic.

You can simulate the real world with presenting a market, but it's not worth the time, effort, or resources. Your simple algorithm doesn't hold as different cars have different values at different ages, mileage, rarity, et al. If we want this to change, do it right or just don't. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether it is 25% (wrong) or 75% (wrong)- they're both wrong choices... a constant value is wrong.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There's no straw man here. I'm providing you an example of how the world works- a market. There is no selling without buying and appreciation/depreciation at different rates is realistic.

You can simulate the real world with presenting a market, but it's not worth the time, effort, or resources. Your simple algorithm doesn't hold as different cars have different values at different ages, mileage, rarity, et al. If we want this to change, do it right or just don't. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether it is 25% (wrong) or 75% (wrong)- they're both wrong choices... a constant value is wrong.

All you did was repeat the same strawman argument. Basically, no system is perfect so if you can't make it perfect then why bother. Sorry, but even just a simple 75% would be far more accurate, given that all the cars we buy are brand new off the showroom floor. A simple linear regression in price would be far more preferable than nothing at all. Yes still inaccurate but far more rewarding for the player and at least making headway towards something simulating real life depreciation.

If PD held your opinion about the game, cars would still look like like GT1. Clearly although there will never be a perfect visual recreation of a car, what we have today is better than this:

 

[Jubby]

All you did was repeat the same strawman argument. Basically, no system is perfect so if you can't make it perfect then why bother. Sorry, but even just a simple 75% would be far more accurate, given that all the cars we buy are brand new off the showroom floor. A simple linear regression in price would be far more preferable than nothing at all. Yes still inaccurate but far more rewarding for the player and at least making headway towards something simulating real life depreciation.

If PD held your opinion about the game, cars would still look like like GT1. Clearly although there will never be a perfect visual recreation of a car, what we have today is better than this:

You're generalizing my opinion and incorrectly at that, so please don't presume to know what my opinions are on unrelated GT topics.

You have my point... no depreciation system will be perfect so why bother. Thank you.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're generalizing my opinion and incorrectly at that, so please don't presume to know what my opinions are on unrelated GT topics.

You have my point... no depreciation system will be perfect so why bother. Thank you.

I'm not generalizing your opinion, I'm using your own words:

You can simulate the real world with presenting a market, but it's not worth the time, effort, or resources

If we want this to change, do it right or just don't.

Doesn't take a degree in English to know that means if it isn't perfect don't bother. It's not even a generalization, it's literally your own words.

Everything in the game is simulated and everything could use improvement, and some improvement is better than none. And that applies to everything. To throw up a strawman of perfection or nothing is a silly way to approach anything IMO, especially when dramatic improvement is literally a few minutes of coding away.

 

[OriginalCheezIt]

I'm not generalizing your opinion, I'm using your own words:





Doesn't take a degree in English to know that means if it isn't perfect don't bother. It's not even a generalization, it's literally your own words.

Everything in the game is simulated and everything could use improvement, and some improvement is better than none. And that applies to everything. To throw up a strawman of perfection or nothing is a silly way to approach anything IMO, especially when dramatic improvement is literally a few minutes of coding away.

But what if that few minutes of coding is better spent on something more relevant to Polyphony's vision for GT?

 

[Jubby]

Everything in the game is simulated and everything could use improvement, and some improvement is better than none. And that applies to everything. To throw up a strawman of perfection or nothing is a silly way to approach anything IMO, especially when dramatic improvement is literally a few minutes of coding away.

Drop the straw-man fallacy... this isn't even close to one. I'm not misrepresenting your position nor oversimplifying. In fact I'm complicating the argument by adding the way to make it realistic (which you want) and then making a value judgement on what it would take. - since you're reading my posts you should know what I mean.

However, to avoid any confusion, I will tell you precisely what I meant, since you were unable to infer that. I stated, "You can simulate the real world with presenting a market, but it's not worth the time, effort, or resources", but that must not have been clear enough for you, I apologize. I won't make the mistake of being even closely ambiguous this time.

It's about opportunity cost and to make the selling prices better and that cost is too high, for me. In order to get it closer to being realistic, it would require work, which isn't worth the time and effort. Just changing a coefficient (which in your opinion) makes it better, doesn't make it better for everyone. But even if it was the best option, I'm making a value judgement on the topic of the selling car price. I would rather PD take the 5 minutes towards making course maker versus making the selling costs better. I would expect better to make it even remotely valuable. This would take even more time (a more complex solution). This makes it even more costly. If you feel that making the selling costs is a higher priority, then fine, but it's a misuse of time--- so yes, don't bother with it. The time is better spent elsewhere.

This paragraph is a more detailed version of my final sentence in my original post. "I'd rather have other features in the game, not deal with this rubbish."

 

[xiando]

But what if that few minutes of coding is better spent on something more relevant to Polyphony's vision for GT?

Depends. If that vision includes fixing something that's broken, or delivering the content they already sold us but have still failed to deliver in over 15 months (five fiscal quarters) since release of the product, well, that's one thing. If it's providing some specious fluff for their sycophants in lieu of delivering already advertised, paid content for ALL customers, then no, at least not in my opinion.

 

[GTPVenomZombie]

I remember thinking this while I was playing GT4. Bought the Toyota GT-One for 4.5 million cr. then I was only able to sell it for something like 956.000cr.

 

[Racin510s]

The only cars I ever sold were the ones I bought for paint chips. I've had plenty of credits for a long time so it doesn't bother me about what you get back. I've just started using the stockyard for cars that I never drive instead of selling them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Drop the straw-man fallacy... this isn't even close to one. I'm not misrepresenting your position nor oversimplifying. In fact I'm complicating the argument by adding the way to make it realistic (which you want) and then making a value judgement on what it would take. - since you're reading my posts you should know what I mean.

However, to avoid any confusion, I will tell you precisely what I meant, since you were unable to infer that. I stated, "You can simulate the real world with presenting a market, but it's not worth the time, effort, or resources", but that must not have been clear enough for you, I apologize. I won't make the mistake of being even closely ambiguous this time.

It's about opportunity cost and to make the selling prices better and that cost is too high, for me. In order to get it closer to being realistic, it would require work, which isn't worth the time and effort. Just changing a coefficient (which in your opinion) makes it better, doesn't make it better for everyone. But even if it was the best option, I'm making a value judgement on the topic of the selling car price. I would rather PD take the 5 minutes towards making course maker versus making the selling costs better. I would expect better to make it even remotely valuable. This would take even more time (a more complex solution). This makes it even more costly. If you feel that making the selling costs is a higher priority, then fine, but it's a misuse of time--- so yes, don't bother with it. The time is better spent elsewhere.

This paragraph is a more detailed version of my final sentence in my original post. "I'd rather have other features in the game, not deal with this rubbish."

This kind of reasoning is ridiculous, I'm sorry. You'd rather they take 5 minutes and put it towards Course Maker rather than fixing the also ridiculous price of selling used cars? Part of the reason the game is in the state it is in, is because all these little details get thrown aside in favour of grandiose promises and marketing hype that are rarely fulfilled, and the little stuff just drags on and and on and on. Sooner or later all these little 5 and 10 and 15 minute projects add up to a game that's half assed, half finished and has a whole series of little mistakes and glitches that ruin the overall experience.

 

[Jubby]

This kind of reasoning is ridiculous, I'm sorry. You'd rather they take 5 minutes and put it towards Course Maker rather than fixing the also ridiculous price of selling used cars? Part of the reason the game is in the state it is in, is because all these little details get thrown aside in favour of grandiose promises and marketing hype that are rarely fulfilled, and the little stuff just drags on and and on and on. Sooner or later all these little 5 and 10 and 15 minute projects add up to a game that's half assed, half finished and has a whole series of little mistakes and glitches that ruin the overall experience.

You obviously don't understand how projects work in the real world, your expectations are ridiculous. That'll be the end of my pursuit to explain my point of view. You seem to have no realistic expectation of opportunity costs, time management, and critical decision making surrounding a vision. Have fun in your 'I want everything' world and good luck with it.