What Did We Learn From the GT Sport Beta?

[ImaRobot]

If a consumer likes what you have, they're going to buy it. So if more people buy your game than they do your competitor's, than that means people like your game more. Again, number of sales isn't the only metric, but its really hard to argue against folks putting their money up

It's really not that black and white, to be honest. Brand awareness is a huge thing as well as legacy names come into it. Something being a best seller doesn't automatically make it the best product. That's why sales numbers are meaningless to the consumer.

The fact that you feel that way does not change the game's status as the pinnacle. Because GT6 sold so many more copies compared to the competitors, it can be objectively concluded that people like GT6 more. That's not to say GT6 is better in every way, but people like it more as

The fact that I feel that way does exactly that. A Pinnacle game in terms of quality, not sales, should be very hard to make people go "hmm maybe I should hold off." It selling more in no way means that people think it's better. It has it's roots, and it's competitors have been chopping then little by little. I've seen this example thrown around and it fits; Toyota will sell more vehicles than Ferrari, doors that mean everyone would prefer the Corolla over there Ferrari?

Sales are meaningless to us. It didn't get you a bigger game, it don't get you more content, and it didn't get the game to us any faster.

True, but release scheduling is a very important factor of a game's success. The best example I can think of is FF12; it released right as the PS3 was announced, and it didn't do well despite the good reception and how good FF10 was. A lot of analysts still think the release date played a major role in the poor sales.

So with the relatively small amounts of PS4's available at the time, you think it would have sold more? They put it on the console in which they had a relatively huge player base. I'm not seeing it that way.

But all throughout PS3 GT, there was a lot of competition (I mentioned them in the earlier post). And by the time GT5 came around, Turn 10, Codemasters and NFS had ample time to develop a reputation. Also some people might think GT offers more than the other titles - something that goes beyond just a car/track count.

There was no one doing what GT was doing, on the scale it was doing. Either way you talk about it being the top because no one could come close to it's sales, yet try to say these games were "competition." That seems a bit contradictory to your point.

 

[marcvic]

It's really not that black and white, to be honest. Brand awareness is a huge thing as well as legacy names come into it. Something being a best seller doesn't automatically make it the best product. That's why sales numbers are meaningless to the consumer.

Yes, brand awareness is important, but these days gamers aren't just blindly spending $60 on video games just because they're familiar with a brand.

Like I mentioned before, I'm not saying sales automatically make it the best product, just that something simply has to be said for sales. Especially when it comes to the entertainment industry. People have no problem switching and moving on to the next best thing.

The fact that I feel that way does exactly that. A Pinnacle game in terms of quality, not sales, should be very hard to make people go "hmm maybe I should hold off." It selling more in no way means that people think it's better. It has it's roots, and it's competitors have been chopping then little by little. I've seen this example thrown around and it fits; Toyota will sell more vehicles than Ferrari, doors that mean everyone would prefer the Corolla over there Ferrari?

Sales are meaningless to us. It didn't get you a bigger game, it don't get you more content, and it didn't get the game to us any faster.

Toyotas and Ferraris don't cost the same $60 though. I get what you're saying, but it doesn't fit this situation. That scenario is shedding light on the fact that both are necessary means of transportation, but one is valued as an everyday necessity, while the other is valued as a luxury object. Like trying to explain why water, although vital to our life, is cheap compared to wine costing thousands of dollars.

I don't think we necessarily needed a bigger game, and I don't disagree that GT took a big cars/tracks cut. Despite that, GTS looks like a much bigger game with more depth than any one that came before it. And we all know PD's development cycle time, so I'm not sure why you brought that up - I didn't say anything about big sales meaning that a new game comes out every one, two or three years

So with the relatively small amounts of PS4's available at the time, you think it would have sold more? They put it on the console in which they had a relatively huge player base. I'm not seeing it that way.

I didn't say it should have released on the PS4 - I stated that the end of a console generation is a tough time to release a flagship title. That's why I gave the FF12 example.

There was no one doing what GT was doing, on the scale it was doing. Either way you talk about it being the top because no one could come close to it's sales, yet try to say these games were "competition." That seems a bit contradictory to your point.

Yes, I think GT had adequate competition. Yes, I stated a fact that GT has superior sales numbers. And yes, I think that something has to be said about sales numbers in the video game industry. I don't see why those statements have to contradict one another

 

[ImaRobot]

Yes, brand awareness is important, but these days gamers aren't just blindly spending $60 on video games just because they're familiar with a brand.

I don't see any change in how people buy games now compared to say 5-10 years ago. People still blindly spend money just as much as usual. Hell, I still go to video game stores and browse games and will usually try to purchase a game I have no idea about from time to time. There are also games I extensively research before hand as well because of sometimes they were shown in a negative light before, or if I had a bad experience with a past one, so I'm more weary.

Like I mentioned before, I'm not saying sales automatically make it the best product, just that something simply has to be said for sales. Especially when it comes to the entertainment industry. People have no problem switching and moving on to the next best thing.

Yeah, you say that, but then you keep bringing up sales as a way to prove that its at the top, so which one is it?

Toyotas and Ferraris don't cost the same $60 though. I get what you're saying, but it doesn't fit this situation. That scenario is shedding light on the fact that both are necessary means of transportation, but one is valued as an everyday necessity, while the other is valued as a luxury object. Like trying to explain why water, although vital to our life, is cheap compared to wine costing thousands of dollars.

The example fits perfectly in my opinion. I'm not talking about a specific car, but a whole brand. Toyota vastly outsells Ferrari in terms of cars sold, so because they vastly sell more calls should mean they are the better product, no?

Why I feel it fits perfectly is because GTS has been in a cycle for so long and yet we have Pcars2 just around the corner on a shorter lead time from the last game that looks to vastly outshine it in aspect of features and content. To me, it looks like the Ferrari of the bunch, one that will not sell as many, but still looks to be shining brighter than the other.

I didn't say it should have released on the PS4 - I stated that the end of a console generation is a tough time to release a flagship title. That's why I gave the FF12 example.

Yet you used the PS4 as a fact that it sold worse. So do you think it would have sold better on a console that had an extremely smaller playerbase in comparison? They obviously thought that it was a smart move, and it made the most sense considering that is still where most of the playerbase is.

Yes, I think GT had adequate competition. Yes, I stated a fact that GT has superior sales numbers. And yes, I think that something has to be said about sales numbers in the video game industry. I don't see why those statements have to contradict one another

Tell me, what has large sales number done for us? They don't do a thing for us. The only thing it can show us, and the only thing it works with, is when people want to try to use it as some way to show that its better. Its usually a last ditch effort for some to throw in peoples face when it turns out other games might actually be doing things better, not that I'm saying you're doing that. Sales numbers are absolutely meaningless to the consumer, as it does nothing for us. They mean everything to the developer, though. Unless you're actually developing the game, I don't see why people should focus solely on it.

 

[Z28_]

I have a very simple opinion on the beta.

The game seems to be a step forward from GT6. I was 100% happy playing the same tracks over and over and genuinely had a lot of fun meeting great people. If the beta wasn't enticing, most likely I would have stopped playing. I feel like Gran Turismo has something that makes me want to play it. The music is good, car sounds are much improved over GT6 and the graphics are susbstantially better. Sure, we can complain about physics and some clutch issues, but overall I feel like the game is a step forward from GT6 and that's all I've wanted.

October 17th can't come soon enough.

 

[Daffyboo]

If I'm not mistaken, GT has been on top with each game, each generation, at least sales-wise. I don't disagree that PS3 GT had it's fair share of problems, but GT has always been on top.

Can't wait to see how GT Sport does though.

Might I ask what sales numbers have to do with the game being more realistic or generally more fun to play? Drive Club or The Crew may have sales going through the roof for instance, but that has no bearing at all on whether I'm going to enjoy it or not as a consumer.

 

[turnupdaheat]

It's certainly true that strong sales figures have no bearing on whether a game is of better quality or more realistic than competing titles which are not as commercially successful. However, from an online racing POV, player numbers is a hugely important consideration. Even now with the likes of PCars and AC being established for quite some time on the PS4 there are still far more players playing GT6 online on the previous gen PS3 and people are disappointed with the lack of numbers of real drivers available to compete against on the PS4. To be clear, I'm only talking about Playstation titles here and, clearly, this move by PD in the Esports direction is not going to suit everyone so it will be interesting to see what affect this will have on sales and numbers racing online.

From my own perspective, I learned that, despite its faults and having PCars, AC, Dirt Rally and DC loaded on my console, it was the GTS Beta that I played almost exclusively as long as it was available to me and it provided the opportunity to enjoy some of the best online racing I have experienced on any title so far.

 

[Imari]

Yes, I stated a fact that GT has superior sales numbers. And yes, I think that something has to be said about sales numbers in the video game industry.

If a game is good, then you can describe why without any reference to sales. If you need to refer to sales to make a case for how good a game is, it probably isn't that good.

Sales numbers are interesting information after the fact, but they provide no direct evidence of the quality of a game. Tons of people bought No Man's Sky, which was one of the most misleading and broken game launches of this generation. But I could explain why No Man's Sky was a bad game (and a bad launch) without referencing the sales numbers at all. Or explain why Horizon 3 (while it may not be for everyone) is a great game, again, without referencing sales.

What matters about a game is the game. Talk about that, rather than trying to big up the game by talking about things that are not the game. GTS looks like a very small, highly curated and very focused online experience. There are a couple of things that it does well, but at this point there are several other games in the same space that, on paper at least, seem to be offering similar things and more.

If GTS didn't have the Gran Turismo name attached to it, how exciting would it really be? Would it be just another pretty racer that you'd keep an eye on when it comes out to see if it gains traction? I think a lot of people underestimate the power brand names have to influence perception, and the reality is that nothing that GTS has shown thus far is really very remarkable for a game of this generation at all. Mostly it's simply expected of a modern racing title, yet because Gran Turismo has been behind the curve technologically for the last ten years people get very enthused.

 

[ImaRobot]

It's certainly true that strong sales figures have no bearing on whether a game is of better quality or more realistic than competing titles which are not as commercially successful. However, from an online racing POV, player numbers is a hugely important consideration.

Sure, that is true. However, only if the games in question sold in the thousands would that make sense. It is not hard at all to find a game, or people to play with on, say, Forza Motorsport for example. There's only about 2 million ~ players on that compared to the the millions sold from PD.

 

[marcvic]

@ImaRobot @Imari @Daffyboo

I get you guys' point, especially the rather extreme example of No Man's Sky, but I never said that sales is the sole metric of analyzing a games success. I did say, and stand by the fact, that something has to be said when a games sales well amid so many competitors.

Sales numbers are interesting information after the fact, but they provide no direct evidence of the quality of a game.

Yes they are interesting after the fact, which is in the frame that we are discussing PS3 GT. A story can start with sales, but that doesn't mean that that's where the story ends. GT6 didn't sale as well as past games? Why? No Man's Sky, a first-out by a brand new studio sold well? Why? FF12 didn't sell well compared to past games? Why? GTA V sold remarkably well? Why? And if we are looking at overall quality, and public perception of it, why can't sales be included in that conversation? That means something. Especially when looking forward to following releases.

My trade is accounting & finance, so that may be why my mind is geared toward incorporating numbers into an analysis. Again, sales is not the sole metric of, but for my mind, its something that belongs in the conversation.

What matters about a game is the game. Talk about that, rather than trying to big up the game by talking about things that are not the game. GTS looks like a very small, highly curated and very focused online experience. There are a couple of things that it does well, but at this point there are several other games in the same space that, on paper at least, seem to be offering similar things and more.

The discussion started because someone mentioned GT was not on top, and it went into sales - I never just came in the thread and said "GT6 was the greatest because it sold well".

If GTS didn't have the Gran Turismo name attached to it, how exciting would it really be? Would it be just another pretty racer that you'd keep an eye on when it comes out to see if it gains traction? I think a lot of people underestimate the power brand names have to influence perception, and the reality is that nothing that GTS has shown thus far is really very remarkable for a game of this generation at all. Mostly it's simply expected of a modern racing title, yet because Gran Turismo has been behind the curve technologically for the last ten years people get very enthused.

If it did not have the GT name behind it, yes, people would be HIGHLY interested in this game. The simple fact that it has some of the best visuals in gaming would turn everyone's head. and that's how that story would begin. Nothing GTS has shown *you* so far is remarkable for a game this generation - I disagree, but that is OK. But what makes you think that GT has been behind the curve technologically for the last ten years?

*We could talk more about GT's brand image, No Man's Sky deceptive marketing, GT6 vs. competitors quality, or FF12's release date, but I think this is not the place for that. Of course, you are free to reply and quote me, but I won't comment on the subject anymore in this thread - I think it's gone off topic enough. My posts, from here on in this thread, will only be in regards to the beta.

 

[ImaRobot]

I get you guys' point, especially the rather extreme example of No Man's Sky, but I never said that sales is the sole metric of analyzing a games success. I did say, and stand by the fact, that something has to be said when a games sales well amid so many competitors.

I do realize that you're not using it as a sole point, but you're making it the biggest point right now when you continue to go back and bring up how there is no one that can touch it's sales. I stand by the fact that those numbers are useless to us. The only way I can see it being useful is how @turnupdaheat mentioned about lack of online players. However, with these games still in the millions(just not as many millions as GT), this is not really an issue.

The discussion started because someone mentioned GT was not on top, and it went into sales - I never just came in the thread and said "GT6 was the greatest because it sold well".

Yes. It went that direction by you and only you it seems. You're the only one that mentioned it being the top and referenced sales as a main point of it.

If I'm not mistaken, GT has been on top with each game, each generation, at least sales-wise. I don't disagree that PS3 GT had it's fair share of problems, but GT has always been on top.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It means that, despite the shortcomings, consumers decided that the product was good enough to earn their purchase.

True.

So if more people buy your game than they do your competitor's, than that means people like your game more.

False. Or at least, inconclusive.

There's a logical leap there. It doesn't mean that at all: all it means is what your first quote said. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be, either: someone very much could've been interested in another game on another platform that they didn't own while they already did own a PS3. Buying a game for $60 (or, likely less) is a significantly "safer" outlay than multiple hundreds for a new setup.

The landscape now is also a lot different from 2013. As you pointed out, there are a lot of different competitors now. There are two games launching within a month of GT that offer a lot of features that GT Sport doesn't. We're also very far into this console generation for the first GT game — longer than any previous generation, PS1 included — so if there are folks out there that haven't picked a console (if they're in the position of having to choose one or the other), that's something to be considered, too.

It's a really fascinating time for the genre as a whole, IMO. Is it going to be too much of a good thing in the autumn, and folks are going to be paralyzed by choice? Who knows!

What I learned from the Beta is that PD are taking the competition very seriously - the game changed a lot during the 3.5 months that it was available, especially in the sound department. I learned that PD are not going to take their licks lying down and will digest/implement feedback better than they have before because they know that they won't get sales just off the GT name alone.

It really was great to get a look at how player feedback shaped updates to the game. We know PD has tracked online use since GT5, but bald numbers only tell so much. Getting the experiences straight from beta players is invaluable IMO. It should be interesting to see how it further influences the release version of the game... and what level of feedback is encouraged after October 17, too. 👍

The fact that you feel that way does not change the game's status as the pinnacle. Because GT6 sold so many more copies compared to the competitors, it can be objectively concluded that people like GT6 more. That's not to say GT6 is better in every way, but people like it more as a whole compared to the competition.

False. Or at least, inconclusive.

Yes, brand awareness is important, but these days gamers aren't just blindly spending $60 on video games just because they're familiar with a brand.

How else can we explain COD still existing?!

I don't think we necessarily needed a bigger game, and I don't disagree that GT took a big cars/tracks cut. Despite that, GTS looks like a much bigger game with more depth than any one that came before it.

You've said this before, but I'm genuinely curious: how does it appear to be a much deeper game than any that's come before? Not going by what we're told it'll be: but by what we've been shown.

 

[marcvic]

You've said this before, but I'm genuinely curious: how does it appear to be a much deeper game than any that's come before? Not going by what we're told it'll be: but by what we've been shown.

Online is deeper and more structured. Career issues have been worked out, or at least my issues with it (all these cars, and nowhere to race for credits). Photo-mode/scapes looks to be a much better tool, with a lot more capability. Physics look much improved. Car customization is more involved (engine output increases dropped, livery editor added). Graphics are far more immersive, with everything looking real to the touch (we'll have to see what happens with the Nurb. tree shadow pop-in). Sounds have dramatically gotten better, no longer being the Achilles heel. And the U.I. is more intuitive and sexier than ever, and always forcing car porn down your throat - something that adds to the overall experience. All these give the package more depth. To me, it looks like they took everything they did before and made everything better*.

*hopefully this won't spawn a features/content debate

False. Or at least, inconclusive.

You're right, and I thought I did an OK job of mentioning how inconclusive everything was. Guess it needs more work

Yes. It went that direction by you and only you it seems. You're the only one that mentioned it being the top and referenced sales as a main point of it.

Fair point:tup:, but that came off a comment about it not being on top, so I presented the only truly objective way of being on top. I didn't just blindly hop in the beta thread and say "GT6 is the best game because it sold best".

 

[Seanspeed]

Better graphics give the game more depth?

And car customization has been swapped from mechanical customization to visual customization.

 

[Daffyboo]

Better graphics give the game more depth?

And car customization has been swapped from mechanical customization to visual customization.

I do not mean to be disrespectful to the the developers, but having played all the GT games to date, I think PD/Kaz continue to make empty promises and they're just hoping that jaw-dropping graphics will continue to keep the game relevant and mainstream among console owners. Well, that may be true to some extent, as you can bet it will sell plenty of PS4's, but I also believe they are living on borrowed time. I challenge you find anyone who's switched over to the likes of CARS, AC or Forza and then stopped playing these three to go back to GT.

 

[marcvic]

Better graphics give the game more depth?

And car customization has been swapped from mechanical customization to visual customization.

Yes, better visuals make the game more immersive. Its not the only thing that gives immersion, but one of the major inclusions. You don't think so?

And it looks like the only mechanical upgrades taken away is the engine output upgrades, looks like everything else is still there - it just doesn't hold your hand with something generic, like "Sport Suspension".

The visual customization added is the livery editor.

 

[ImaRobot]

The visual customization added is the livery editor.

Big thumbs up on that one, but it definitely feels like a "one step forward, two steps back" type of thing considering the amounts of visual customization that was removed. I'm glad that rim changing is a thing though.

 

[Seanspeed]

Yes, better visuals make the game more immersive. Its not the only thing that gives immersion, but one of the major inclusions. You don't think so?

And it looks like the only mechanical upgrades taken away is the engine output upgrades, looks like everything else is still there - it just doesn't hold your hand with something generic, like "Sport Suspension".

The visual customization added is the livery editor.

Better graphics do not add 'depth' to a game. You either dont understand what people mean by 'depth' or you're reaching quite desperately in order to pad out your argument.

And the only mechanical upgrades taken away are ALL of them. That you're really trying to downplay it like only *some* of them were dropped is kinda laughable here man. The entire upgrade system is scrapped and gone.

I do not mean to be disrespectful to the the developers, but having played all the GT games to date, I think PD/Kaz continue to make empty promises and they're just hoping that jaw-dropping graphics will continue to keep the game relevant and mainstream among console owners. Well, that may be true to some extent, as you can bet it will sell plenty of PS4's, but I also believe they are living on borrowed time. I challenge you find anyone who's switched over to the likes of CARS, AC or Forza and then stopped playing these three to go back to GT.

I mean, it's a difficult thing to measure because we haven't had a next-gen GT yet for people to go back to.

But yes, I ultimately agree that PD put too much focus on presentation levels. And even then, as nice as the graphics are in GT Sport, it's lacking dynamic time of day and weather and all that. I give them credit for at least making the game a lot closer to a solid 60fps, but outside of photomode captures/scapes and 30fps replays, I'm not actually too blown away here from a technical perspective.

I really think GT Sport is gonna go down as a huge misstep once the game is released and reviews are out and users get their hands on it. It's not gonna be what many expect and outside the competitive online racing niche, I think there are simply going to be better sim racers on offer. GT no longer has the Playstation platform to itself here. And with Forza Motorsport 7 going to PC, that's another chunk of people that have a great GT-esque option.

 

[marcvic]

Better graphics do not add 'depth' to a game. You either dont understand what people mean by 'depth' or you're reaching quite desperately in order to pad out your argument.

And the only mechanical upgrades taken away are ALL of them. That you're really trying to downplay it like only *some* of them were dropped is kinda laughable here man. The entire upgrade system is scrapped and gone.

Yes, I think better graphics (vastly better graphics) will make the experience deeper. Not sure if you used the photo mode in GT5/6, but as good as it looked, when you were really going for those close-up shots, some details were lost, and you could start to see jaggies and imperfections. So the graphics gives you better use of the scapes/photomode. The graphics have reached a level that I feel could allow me to export these images and make them into posters for my man-cave. I.E. a deeper experience.

These shots simply weren't possible in GT5/6:

As far as mechanical upgrades go, we still don't know exactly what it is going to be like in the final game. But I do know that never before have I payed so much attention to tuning/setting up a vehicle for a particular race - like I said, rather than simply buying a generic sport suspension for flat/banked tracks is less involving than tuning a suspension for flat/banked surfaces. I never payed attention to that before.

*What I find desperate and laughable is how quickly some folks are to be so condescending, just because they don't know the perspective of the other person.

 

[Tornado]

Yes, better visuals make the game more immersive.

Then say "immersion". Don't say "depth" and talk about things that contribute to immersion and then go back to saying depth as if they are the same thing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As far as mechanical upgrades go, we still don't know exactly what it is going to be like in the final game. But I do know that never before have I payed so much attention to tuning/setting up a vehicle for a particular race - like I said, rather than simply buying a generic sport suspension for flat/banked tracks is less involving than tuning a suspension for flat/banked surfaces. I never payed attention to that before.

*What I find desperate and laughable is how quickly some folks are to be so condescending, just because they don't know the perspective of the other person.

Do you also find it desperate and laughable that you are lauding tuning in GTS as if somehow having less tuning options made you pay more attention to the tuning options that were there all long in previous versions of the game but you never paid attention to them?

 

[Silver Arrows]

You know, I wonder, if GTS doesn't really live up to expectations set by fans (especially the ones who are lapsed and probably don't have the biggest expectations anyway) and gets middling reviews in the critical press (Which it could, considering that a racing game with such a focus on online racing is on much more rocky ground, and one bad mistake at launch could sink a game, see TDU2 and Driveclub) is whether Sony will force PD onto a much shorter leash.

 

[marcvic]

Do you also find it desperate and laughable that you are lauding tuning in GTS as if somehow having less tuning options made you pay more attention to the tuning options that were there all long in previous versions of the game but you never paid attention to them?

No, but the fact that the beta users have noted that the tuning changes react more like they do in the real world is pretty exciting:tup:

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, but the fact that the beta users have noted that the tuning changes react more like they do in the real world is pretty exciting:tup:

That's physics. It has nothing to do whatsoever with having less options for tuning and adding parts/upgrades.

 

[marcvic]

That's physics. It has nothing to do whatsoever with having less options for tuning and adding parts/upgrades.

Then its the physics that make it a deeper experience - swap that in the paragraph above then.

Also, it looks like engine output increases is still a thing after all.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then its the physics that make it a deeper experience - swap that in the paragraph above then.

Also, it looks like engine output increases is still a thing after all.

We weren't talking about a deeper experience. We were talking about you suggesting that by reducing the tuning options somehow the game is more engaging. It was just a few moments ago I'm sure you remember.

 

[marcvic]

We weren't talking about a deeper experience. We were talking about you suggesting that by reducing the tuning options somehow the game is more engaging. It was just a few moments ago I'm sure you remember.

Yes, if there was any reduction in mech. tuning options, but the tuning itself became more realistic I'd feel that was deeper.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, if there was any reduction in mech. tuning options, but the tuning itself became more realistic I'd feel that was deeper.

You're talking about two different things. Fixing the broken physics of GT6 vs. more or less options for the player. Of course fixing the broken physics and improving on the rest of the physics engine is going to make a better experience but it's completely unrelated to the depth and fidelity of the tuning/upgrade options.