During the long-term, post-launch support of Gran Turismo Sport, Polyphony Digital added countless new cars to the game, making them all available for purchase individually at varying prices. For Gran Turismo 7, the approach to microtransactions has shifted, and some are taking issue with it.
Basically, the in-game purchases now boil down to buying more credits — Gran Turismo's currency. On the PlayStation Store, you can spend £15.99 / $19.99 to receive 2 million credits, or less for lower denominations, of course. What this means is, instead of picking and choosing the cars you want with your real-world money, you're effectively at the mercy of the in-game economy. If there's a vehicle you want for 3 million credits, you'll either have to earn them legitimately through play, or fork over the cash. Potentially, cars that were one price in GT Sport could now cost you much more, if you were to buy credits.
Obviously, this is no different to many other modern games, but it's still not great. Combined with some of the game's more desirable rides rotating in and out of availability at the Legend Cars shop, it's understandable that some players are disappointed in this approach.
It's worth noting that you don't have to spend any extra money to get anywhere in GT7; Assistant Editor Liam Croft, who played the racer for review, assures he never felt low on credits during play. You can definitely get the cars you want without touching microtransactions — you might just need to spend some extra time on the track to afford it instead.
Again, this is a very common thing in games these days, and Polyphony has already expressed its plans to support the game long into the future. This was always going to be a live service game, and these microtransactions are part and parcel of that — but don't let them get in the way of what is otherwise a fantastic sim racer.
How do you feel about Gran Turismo 7's microtransactions? Do they bother you? Will you be boosting your credits to get your favourite cars faster? Give us your thoughts in the comments section below.
how do I feel about Gran Turismo 7's microtransactions?
I'll let you know when it finally finishes installing. Been waiting just over 4 hours so far and it's probably roughly about 60% done (PS5 version)
The music Rally is fun but only stretches so far.
Gone are the days you could simply pop a game in and play straight away
Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
The whole point of the career part of the game is to work your way towards affording the better cars and to have that enjoyment when you can buy and use them.
People who use microtransactions as a short cut are simply ruining their own game, so let them.
Fuss over nothing here.
I find it funny, that many people claim, that Microsoft will have to put microtransactions into every game, since they are day one in Game Pass and meanwhile Sony is putting pretty bad microtransactions into 80$ full priced game.
Wasn't whole point of not putting Sony games into Game Pass like service (Spartacus) fact, that they won't have microtransactions? Because right now few micros in Forza Horizon 5 are looking way better then this overpriced *****...
And of course, I expect some people to defend it.
Like wtf? Porsche 919 Hybrid ´16 in GT Sport costs 2,99$ and in GT7 it costs ***** 30$.
Yeahhh think I’ll resist this. Until the game is a microtransaction in itself
I agree that MTX in a game that cost me £60 isn't ideal at all but they're always optional and if you play the game, you'll earn credits to help purchase better cars.
If all the other content they drop is free then I don't mind MTX being promoted. It's not a great trend though.
There's a balance to be had here.
One of the issues I have with Forza Horizon, which is a great game generally, is that they give you TOO many cars and rewards. As such each feels meaningless you feel no sense of ownership, they all feel like transient stat sticks.
One of the great things about Gran Tursimo in the past is that you could be proud of your relatively lowly Renault 5 or Mistubishi Lancer Evo or any other car. It felt like it was yours and you would work on it, find out it's advantages and flaws and then eventually upgrade to something else. But you wouldn't forget it, much like car ownership in real life.
As long as the game still allows you to buy and upgrade cars in game without feeling the need for buying currency then i'll be happy.
Microtransactions that impact single player games don't bother me unless the game is inherently extra grindy to entice people to purchase said "time savers". But even then I just blame the game itself as being poorly designed.
From the reviews most reviewers acknowledged the mtx but said they never felt gated at any point during the career mode.
Well never spent a dime! in GT Sport. I play to earn the CR if I can't have some car, let it just be there as a pixel design on my HD, no way I'm spending real money. Buying a full game at £15 is better than a single chunk of pixels. But these things are always aimed at people who are always in a hurry!
@Marios-love-child Same here. 4 hours to update. It will finish around 5pm UK time.
Not something that I will buy, I'll just play the game and try to get the credits for what I need.
I've put about 8 hours in so far and at no point do they feel forced upon you IMO.
I’m not surprised that micro transactions are in the game. I’ve played WoW and FFXIV for years and an online shop is pretty normal. Granted, those shops mostly serve up non play-enhancing items, but I would compare buying cars in GT7 to buying a leveling-skip in FFXIV. Players that earn their way to the top through play will likely know how to race better than the people who buy their way up.
But on the flip-side, if you are a seasoned racer and you see a car that you want down the road, and don’t have the credit, why not have an option to pay for it? A game like this costs many millions of dollars to develop and continue developing. You have to monetize it somehow.
I’ll stay far away from this rubbish, thank you very much.
As long as the game is balanced as in the past before all this Microtransaction rubbish started then go ahead and rinse idiots.
@themightyant I feel the same. The overused Car-PG term with Gran Turismo is accurate because it’s a racing game, and a journey. I want to live in this game for a bit and work my way to a garage of cool cars that I am invested in.
I hate microtransactions. But like comments have said above, it's not needed to progress. So taking that into consideration, it doesn't matter to me as I would still like to go the usual route of playing to buy the cars I want.
Kinda reminds me of the way the shop worked in CTR NF.
Items had rotation and you buy them with CTR Tokens which accumulated from either offline or online play. The game was really generous with how much you get but the option to spend real money was still there.
I'd imagine this isn't as big an issue as the article wants to suggest. It's probably more that a few people who need to have things first are mad that it's going to cost them a lot of real money for those "bragging" rights. It's likely a lot of us will be playing this game for years and will eventually get the cars we want by just playing and enjoying the game.
@MarkMarky so well worded 🤘🏻
@Godot25 If a company can make money without causing too much backlash, why wouldn't they? The difference with game pass is they probably need to add in microtransactions, whereas on playstation they can decide whether to do it or not. GTA has always been a microtransaction style game based on the career mode, just without real money until now.
On one hand this is crazy as a $20,000,000 credit car would cost you $200 real dollars but on the other hand it makes people actually play the game to earn the cars in it. Overall thought I think it’s a lot of cash for the credits you get and reeks of greed lol.
It doesn't bother me as i will grind my way to riches. I suppose it'll help people when they don't get much time to game due to family and work. With GTS you could buy cars with real money but i avoided that also as it takes the fun out of the game.
At $70 they shouldn't be there but if the post release support is as big as they say then it might be easier to ignore if they don't get in the way.
I don’t like the fact that there are micro transactions are in the game but if they don’t effect the single player campaign, I have no issue with it (from my own point of view since that’s mainly what I’m playing it for).
Sadly I think we’re getting to a world in which ANY game with a multiplayer component - paid, free, on GamePass or otherwise - will have micro transactions (look at CoD and Battlefield).
As if the £70 price tag wasn’t bad enough anyway 🙄
I’ve never understood the fuss about in-game purchases as long as everything is obtainable through gameplay. I understand the disgust for pay-to-win in multiplayer and in-game purchases locked behind a paywall with no other way to obtain them, but these types of micro-transactions just aren’t a big deal in my opinion.
This is the real reason the game is always online. They don’t want you cheating money, they want you paying for it.
@Rural-Bandit @Godot25 Is Microsoft or GamePass what this article is about?
@Rural-Bandit Maybe the person/persons not able to stay on topic is one viewing things from as you say “fanboy” perspective.
@Godot25 Lmao the few microtransactions in FH5? Really? The game launched with a $20 VIP membership, $30 car pass, $35 expansion bundle, and more.
Also GT is a series that's had microtransactions for years. When God of War and and Ghost of Tsushima start having exp packs and weapon bundles then you have an argument, but no this is not the same thing. Also you act like you can't buy MS games for full price and that you own them for $15 a month. It's absolutely idiotic to me that people think renting a game and then paying money for DLC is somehow a benefit. You're just throwing money into the trash.
@Rural-Bandit it’s not on topic! This is about GT7 and in-game purchases. No where is it comparing Microsoft’s micro-transaction strategy to Sony’s. Not one person besides you and Godot25 brought up GamePass or Microsoft. This argument is in your own heads.
I don't mind possibility of buying in-game currency for real money as long as these bundles stays in ps store and don't mess up in game hud and menu. All kind of game items available for real money is usuall for games like Resident Evil or The last of us. Items i completely ignored because they were isolated in PS store. The problem comes when game economy pushes you to use your leather wallet becouse of low incomes from driving and completing goals
I don't like mtx but in a live service games like this the mtx is used for supporting the game with additional content, so as long as the mtx is fair, it's okay I think.
@MarkMarky i cannot agree more with you you absolute right!
@Rural-Bandit todays journalism would be fairly dead if they needed sources or didn’t have qualifiers like “maybe, might and could.” But we are also to blame to not call out the gaslighting
@Squanch are you wilfully ignorant? A quick page search shows Apfel and awp mentioned gamepass as well.
"It's worth noting that you don't have to spend any extra money to get anywhere in GT7"
So it does not matter. You see the price as fair for what you get - buy it. If you do not want to spend real money for any reason - don't, and play the game.
Not this complicated
@Rural-Bandit That's exactly my point. These games have always had mt's.
it doesn't bother me , if people want that choice to buy in game money then let them have that choice. i've been playing gt7 since Tuesday night , and haven't had much issue making money.
"If there's a vehicle you want for 3 million credits, you'll either have to earn them legitimately through play, or fork over the cash."
"You can definitely get the cars you want without touching microtransactions — you might just need to spend some extra time on the track to afford it instead."
So there you go, non-issue. Basically if you want to drive the top cars ASAP then pay some cash. If you're prepared to play the game and work your way up then you can get to them that way.
The worst timesaver microtransaction are those that litter smartphone games, where doing anything means you have to wait a certain number of minutes, hours, days...or you can buy a chest of gems that will let you do that action immediately!!
That's not gaming IMHO.
Lots of “apologists” as always. It’s the double standards that get me. Anyway…. I’ll wait until I play it. I’m a big driving game fan and I’m holding off for now. I have plenty to play right now and this monster won’t be going anywhere and I suspect there might be a few patches in the works for a few of the mechanics players (not reviewers) don’t seem to like.
Now I know why this game requires an online connection.
So long as there is not any boring grind as I'm not going to pay to not play (and get the cars).
"Microtransactions don't affect gameplay"
Most desirable cars not always available to buy 🤔
Also adding microtransactions after the review period is a scummy move when Ubisoft do it and when Sony do
@Cherip-the-Ripper Did you read awp69 full post or just the word GamePass? He was referring to the industry as a whole having these types of transactions. He wasn’t arguing about GamePass and Microsoft being bad.
Apfelschteiner was responding to one of the people I was saying were going off topic.
So, no! I’m not willfully ignorant. By the way, if your going to ask someone if they’re “willfully ignorant” you should probably spell it right. Just saying. Nice edit on “wilfuly”. 😂 Now I’m way off topic…good day to you.
It isn't a big deal. I'm playing right now, you have two choices? You grind through the game like WE USE TO DO BACK THEN! Remember videogames back then? Especially GT series on the PS1 and 2 where you had to sometimes grind to make in game money to purchase your dream car? Remember? Yeah, you can do that and not spend real money. Or ...... if you have money and isn't like every person on the internet with this band wagon thing, you can go ahead and throw some cash and buy your dream car faster.
Decide with your wallet, end of story. It's like when people complained and cried about Devil May Cry 5 having microtransactions. It's like they never played a DMC game ever in their lives. You grind orbs to obtain new abilities. Common sense, stop crying.
@MarkMarky Great point well made sir 👍
It is also worth noting that these 20 million credit cars and alike are the prices when you start out, if you complete the challenges and more specifically the Menu Book 32 the price drops considerably. Over on the GT Planet forum people have stated the price for the Audi R18 was $20 mil to start with but after completing Menu Book 32, some licenses and a few other challenges the price dropped to $3 mil. Sounds fair to me!
I fired up GT7 at midnight and have been loving it so far. Such a great blend of serious car stuff with just the right amount of goofiness. I have no problem ignoring the micro transactions, but they do seem a bit in your face, like an over eager girl scout begging me to buy just one more box of cookies. I’ll bake them myself, thank you.
@Rural-Bandit Also, I can’t imagine what it’s like to be so deeply wounded by a perceived slight to a subscription service. I’ve never barreled into a comment thread loaded for bear to defend my subscription to Bird Watcher’s Digest.
I haven't played it yet (might get it tomorrow) but it doesn't sound like you're forced to pay to progress or are disadvantaged in any way if you don't pay. So I can't see a problem with it.
For those of us with limited time and/or patience we can buy a car we really fancy for a couple of quid. I think it's nice to have the option, personally.
I play FTP games where you have to pay unless you're a really casual player. To be competitive, adding up the MTX over a year or so, it's easy to have spent far more than the GT7 asking price .
It's important to also note that in order to further try and coax you into these bs live service elements, the cars come and go in availability. So it's not just grinding until you get the car, it's also experiencing fomo, because the car may not be for sale by the time you get the damn credits, then you have to wait until they deem it time to make it available again.
Live service is trash, and doing it is trashy. This opens the door up to all kinds of problems where a gme is no longer a reflection of dedicated craft for user experience, but instead deliberately designed to create long term cash flow beyond the purchase price. Apple is a great example of this with the design and deliberate manipulation of their product to incite purchases.
This always online nonsense only opens the door for all kinds of rubber banding and difficulty tweaks that may influence. More revenue. This nonsense, and especially it not being free to play to start is killing the game industry.
@Squanch lol figured I'd mess that up. Always need to look it up before I write any form of the word. But that is indeed beside the matter, I did read their messages that's why I was wondering how you magically missed them, just saying it has been mentioned context aside. Thanks for the heads up and you have a nice day as well!
Edit: just looked it up and wilfully is the british spelling so not wrong by default, no need to be an ass about it.
Edit 2: I see you're from the US, it makes sense now.
Well, you did condescendingly ask if I was willfully ignorant, so I don’t think you were trying to be overly nice yourself. And, context is important when it comes to peoples opinions and conversations , so I don’t put it aside because things can be taken and used out of context.
Yeah. Reading it back it didn’t come off the way I wanted to. But, I legit, did think the willfully ignorant thing was funny because the same thing would happen to me. That’s why I just avoid using the word ignorant on the net. Oh, well. Have a good one.
Not a fan of micro transactions, but equally won't be using the option, just have to smash Sunday cup for 2 hours like the old days.
What is annoying though, is you cant sell your cars for credits like in previous installments, which is a bit rubbish.
Removed - unconstructive feedback
I've been dodging NBA 2k microtransactions for years. GT7 Looks super mild in comparison. I appreciate that it's not so in your face and the game allows us to earn at a decent rate.
Been playing it all day and im really loving it so far, the graphics are brillant. Back to it now lol.
How far we have come from a series that didn't require online to play, with zero microtransactions, to this.
Honestly, I don't care about MTs, so long as they don't affect gameplay. What do I mean? If I can achieve a car(supra), through playing or SOME effort, I'm fine with that. But if they purposely put some large arbitrary nonsense into unlocking a car(beat 1000+ races) or "just buy a MT", then I'll be upset.
What happened to the good old days of Gran Turismo where you play to earn, a real experience to play.
No wonder it's online to play!
@PhhhCough well I can't agree anymore with this comment, the whole reason I believe it's an online game due to this nature of adding micro transactions not saying it's fully this due to unfair competition with someone who puts in hours compared to someone else who may not so makes a difference in quality of cars and money but I do agree.
They could have had a multiplayer mode and just not used the career save as it wouldn't need to be online then.
What do you mean with “you might need to spend more time on the track”?!?
Are you implying i should actually PLAY the game?
Watch your tongue!
Let me put an on topic comment on here as well and say I feel it's a bit overblown. I'll put this among the 'time saver' bs articles that pop off from time to time. I'm glad there's some measure of how hard it is to acquire said currency but that could use some fleshing out. Looking at this at face value doesn't make it sound that bad though I will say I will never dig mtx. Especially not in a game this expensive.
@Squanch I was just leisurely scrolling and threw that comment in there though in hindsight I see why it might've come off the way it did. Allow me the chance to apologize and say I'm not a native speaker. Hope that doesn't sound like an overused excuse. But oh well you have a nice day as well friend.
If a game is going to have microtransactions like this then it should not be a full priced title.
If they would've sold the game for like $40-50, then maybe I'd grab it. But for $70-80? No way!
Especially when you can't play offline, can't keep your save on your console, so if there's a problem with their server or your connection, you're pretty much SOL.
@hoffa007 Is it impossible to earn the cars ingame? I have to say dispise MT with a passion and i wont spend a dime on them in full priced games. MHW is the exception on that it that game had so much free content that it would be really cheap to complain about that.
@Cherip-the-Ripper I really dont like MT in fully priced games especially if they change the gameplay by making it more grindy. But i really need to hear how people feel about it when they are playing it. I have a bigger issue with not being able to do a local save and always online.
Is there any way how to turn off the in game "avatars" that speak to me in each different departments of the game??
@Flaming_Kaiser I don't know myself, but you probably could really or are they for the whole "we will force you to spend X amount for this item just so you could use it". I wonder if the bonus cars you get with the collectors edition will be part of those MT which I am not to fussed about as I bought the standard edition anyway.
Yup and it’s only going to get worse going forward. Hell, look how many people in these comments are making excuses for MTX’s.
It use to be, a 3-5 dollar item is fine. Then, a 10$ item is fine. Then, it became, well 20$ is fine because it’s good content. Then, it was it’s fine because only F2P games utilize MTXs, Sony games don’t.
People just keep coming with compromise after compromise after compromise. Yet, it only occurs because people pay it. So, like all things wrong in gaming, it’s still customers fault.
It’s going to be horrible by 2035.
More websites are coming out with info on GT7 micro-transactions and…oof, it’s not sounding good. It’s clearly price gouging at its worst. It’s pretty sad that people had to find out on release day before they could cancel pre-orders. Sony deserves all the s**t they get on this one, because they purposely stepped in it. Jim Ryan really needs to go before he destroys that company.
This should've really been mentioned in your review of the game along with the required constant internet connection.
@Would_you_kindly Well, according to the article, the microtransactions was added in the post-launch update. So, I think everyone even the reviewers are finding it out just now.
@BrainHacker I mean I knew there would be microtransactions because they were also in sport & Sony can say the always online requirement is because of cheating in multiplayer all they want but the simple solution to that would've been to seperate single player & multiplayer it's clearly because they don't want people skipping grinding by modifying their save files they're only okay with cheating if you pay them for the privilege , perhaps a revision of the review would be a good idea when they pull s*** like this
Concerning amount of comments brushing this off as "nothing". No one is telling you not to play GT7 or anything, and shout out to everyone who plays without touching that crap, but y'all better learn real fast to not give an inch or Big Jim Ryan will be asking us for $5 for a stack of wood in Horizon 3.
Absolutely disgusting that they took the Activision approach and just casually waited to turn them on until launch day.
@Rural-Bandit If you can explain how Microsoft makes a profit from giving access to so many games for so little without just totally killing their margins, I'd love to hear it.
Personally I only play games that I can pay one price upfront for all the content.
This has definitely cooled my enthusiasm for the game. I never really got into Gran Turismo before but was gonna commit to this edition. Hmmm
So, optional purchases in game are bad, but having the same game sold to you repeatedly is good? What's the logic behind that?
Sadly there will always be those that lack the willpower to resist something like this.
@Marios-love-child I’m in the same boat. I came here to read up on some PS news while I wait. This is insane.
Graphics are great and so is the gameplay but only 3 tracks and the same stupid music (that I can’t even turn off yet!) is burning me out.
Can’t wait to jump in properly when this finishes.
@Rural-Bandit (Part 1 of 2) Spotify is a great example of how streaming services take away value for the producers of the art and how a company with such a huge influence on the industry still doesn't make a profit. As far as I know, there is PlayStation studios equivalent for Spotify, although it would be interesting if Spotify made a move into buying the rights to back catalogues of certain artists. I'm extremely skeptical of any streaming service in general, but Netflix has started to make me think it will be a viable business (I think they actually make money now, not much considering the amount the dump into content). As a paying customer myself, I can't imagine ever getting through all of the shows that I could watch on the service even if they stopped adding new stuff. Disney has a great model where they extract the value out of new releases, then drop them onto the subscription service later. PlayStation might want to follow that approach.
Games just aren't the same as TV shows and movies because games are very time-consuming and have a huge barrier to entry in that gaming is still not that widespread compared to people who watch TV.
After all the effort that Microsoft have put in game pass nowhere near compares to the PS+ collection for someone new to gaming or the PlayStation.
@Rural-Bandit (Part 2 of 2) I get that the idea is to get people in cheaply and get them hooked playing games or just used to the money coming out of their account without question, and I acknowledge that Microsoft will be able to make game pass break-even and eventually profitable by gaining more subs and ratcheting up the price gradually, but there is a huge gap that needs to be made up on the loss per game sold at full price to being part of the subsciption. That is why it makes so much more sense to have, say a 6-12 window where the games are full price, then after that arrive on the subscription service. If I were Microsoft I would have all my games on PlayStation only available at full price never on sale as a contrast to game pass.
I am very skeptical that there is a huge market for any gaming subscription because there are so many free to play games out there and casuals seem to be satisfied by them.
If we could create a system where impatient people and people who have money to throw at worthless cosmetics subsidize the hardcore gamers to be able to play on a really low budget, then that could be a great outcome for us, but I don't see that as a likely outcome. The more likely outcome is a race to the bottom because that is when quality games are devalued and just become content to fill time.
I'm only invested in this conversation in so far as I am able to enjoy the games I like the way I like to play them. I just see too many ways that the subscription service can be bad for gaming in general. I really hope that Sony stick to their guns and don't do too much with subscription offering. Definitely no games day and date on the subscription service. Xbox are happy to artificially compete on cost because they have such deep pockets. I do like following Sony as I would my sports team (but I'm not so emotionaly invested), and take a general interest in how the industry works. I do hate everything about how Microsoft are as a business, they demonstrate the worst of American consumerism, I really hope Sony doesn't follow them too far and remain as Japanese as possible and value artistic merit.
Anyway, there are enough games out there to keep me entertained for the rest of my life, there are also plenty of other worthwhile pursuits out there, so I'd be fine with PS5 being the last console I own.
I don’t mind grinding because I’ve been doing that/it since Gran Turismo 2.
@Rural-Bandit Why do they need to have micro transactions in the game is the wrong question. What is preventing them from doing it. Gran Tourismo is well suited to micro transactions. As long as the cars or whatever can be earned with a reasonable input of time rather than being a total grind, then the micro transactions really have no negative effect on the game. Also, I'm not against the idea of game that people enjoy very deeply costing more than a game that is over with in a short period.
I agree on the quality aspect. If I were Sony I would focus more on the business model of high quality and high price that Nintendo go for. As a consumer, I'm quite content with the model of releasing the game full price in a buggy state and patching it and reducing the price so that after 6 months the game is much cheaper and fully functioning.
@Would_you_kindly They were..?
@Would_you_kindly I already expected that microtransactions will be added since GT Sports had it as well. But $40 upwards for virtual cars? it's insane imo, especially for a full price game $70.
I really wonder how much time will you need to grind, and earn enough credits to buy those legendary cars. It is also convenient that the cars will be rotated. So, you might not have enough time to grind and buy the car that you wanted. The microtransaction would have certainly affected the review scores.
This really isn't a good look for Sony and one of it's flagship games. Adding them to the last few was bad but the mobile economy of this is ridiculous. A stupid tacky ticket system for levelling up which as it turns out is also the same for completing the daily marathon, albeit a shiny silver version. A 1 in 5 chance now to add to your collection which will make duplicates you can't sell all the sweeter. A great game returning the old school vibe ruined by new age shake you upsidedown completely unnecessary greedy tactics.
@LiamCroft they aren't on the cons section
Started from the bottom now we here.. started from the bottom and my whole team here. People who complain about micro transactions when everything in game is unlockable just suck at gaming and have the attention span of a goldfish. The whole point of GT is to play through the game. Even if ya pay for an expensive car ya still gotta pass your license test to race the tracks…. And to get more tracks ya gotta pass the tracks. Buying a super expansive car out the gate kinda seems pointless. There has been a polethra of outstanding games that have came out that reviewed poor. I think It all boils down to impatient people playing games they expect to be amazing at out the gate when it exposes inexperienced gamers/new players. Lol it’s a driving simulator…. It’s a fine wine…. Some people won’t like this game and the ones that won’t are the ones who buy credits for micro transactions. From my experience of GT from its inception it can be insanely frustrating at times and a grind….. but I’ve been playing the music races for the past hour as it finishes installing and I’m hooked on just the intro. This game is gonna be insanely amazing and if the load times are as advertised on PS5 at around 1.5 seconds this game is just yeah….. I’m excited.
@Mjoen The microtransaction price for the cars are still ridiculous, regardless if the "complains" were knee-jerk reactions. If the grinding time to earn credits for the legendary cars are reasonable, then the complains are not warranted. It would have been better if Sony made the microtransaction accessible to the reviewers. So, we would have details about it. But instead they conveniently added the microtransaction after the game was released.
How scummy to add micro transactions after the game was reviewed by everyone, also pretty sad that this is why they made the game online only... you can't nickel and dime people that edit their offline saves or use someone else's!
Yeah this install time is ridiculous. Same size as Forbidden West, which took around 70 minutes to install (ps5 disc version) and GT7 is going to take closer to 10 hours.
Nothing I know of has changed in the 2 weeks since I installed FW.
Fortunately it was worth the wait. Although it was a rediculusly long install time once it's done the load times are pretty much none existent.
Managed to play it all night and didn't feel the need for microtransactions once
I am curious.
What is your professional area of expertise? What do you do for a living?
But they nerfed credit earning compared to the older games. lol
You're literally the reason why companies get to view us as dollar signs and not customers that they need to keep happy.
Glad you love that Gran Turismo is now a job instead of a game with progression, though.
I’ve played every GT game. Not happy how they are handling the micro transactions. Also the fact that we didn’t know about this before. I will say the cars are way more expensive than gt sport by far. Also some I couldn’t even buy and were locked “by invitation”. Well I got invited to buy some Astons and it expires 3-18. WTF?!?!?! I’m totally ok grinding for them but seriously? I have to purchase them during a ***** limited time? Also most of the cars are just duplicates of gt sport. I seriously love the game but come on?!?!? Lack of content and greedy. Not happy.
There are massive number of upvotes on this post. It's not just him.
@Mjoen I agree. The game is amazing and I love playing it but the micro transactions in the state they are in are not ok. The fact that I can’t buy certain vehicles without an invite and time limited at that is ridiculous and asking for me to spend money. See my post. Also, most of the vehicles were on gt sport. Makes me think that all the “new” content we will have to pay for….not to mention that the cars are at least double the price as GT Sport. Some of the other cars would cost over 30$ for a single car!
This is hypocritical, you don't have to say it's fine because it's a Sony exclusives guys. If it was another game, say forza, it would have been to shreds.
Really surprising comments here
I popped the game in, installed it and got to the music rally while the game slowly “downloads.”
I beat each one and while it was fun, I decided I wasn’t going to keep the game. I watched that “Downloading” progress bar crawl slowly to about the 70% mark before I questioned why I spent $70 on this game. Not that it’s not worth it— it looks and plays great and is a hallmark in quality— but I just decided that I can’t deal with this download and price and … ugh.. I’m going to return the game and wait until a price drop. I’m also heavily invested in Elden Ring and really am not interested in anything else at the moment (even though I thought I would be.)
The micro-transactions are just stupid. I truly believe you don’t need to “honor” them and can just grind instead of spending extra money but still… the principle of it.
I’ll always be a GT fan but I just can’t right now.
Sorry folks, see you at a later date on the tracks.
@Would_you_kindly That doesn’t mean they’re not mentioned in the review. You’re supposed to read the whole thing.
and i saw it from the start, no shocker!🙄🙄 i would rather play ridge racer type 4 on ps1 over and over than play this monetizing trash tbh
@Nightcrawler71 yep, exactly, horrendous grinds, live service, all cars locked to pay to win tactics, do they think i'm stupid enough to pay for this rubbish? gran Turismo died at n06 and i haven't touched a game in the series since, it's dead to me, just like ridge racer died for the same reason, greed and capitalism smdh
I don't care. I don't use em.
And they are not intrusive.
Much to do about nothing.
@lolwhatno I agree with your if it was another non Sony game most ppl here would s**g it off like no tomorrow
Unfortunately because of them ppl that say it's ok to do this stuff it's Sony,thats the reason it happens and they will continue to drain every penny from the players
Somebody said in a previous post ( can't remember who ) Sony is for the payers and it's getting that way unfortunately
And before ppl say of Microsoft did this blah blah think back about when they said the Xbox one wouldn't b able to play second hand games ....the ppl spoke they never did it ...think back to when they said they were gonna raise the gold price...the ppl spoke they never did it
Sony says £10 for upgrades ...the ppl spoke ..they said ok the next one we won't but the rest we will just accept it ,after posting how they made record profits as well,thanx Sony
The problem is ppl sit and take it and it won't stop , they will make loads of money via these transactions and then most games will b full of em and ppl will still b TOO loyal to the brand
@hoffa007 Its a tired thing now. CEO talking that gaming for relaxation is bad yeah i have no illsusions that gaming will become better in the future.
Its a pity maybe i can become a AVGN in the future.
@Martsmall Dont worry MS wants to cut you out of ownership of your games completely with a subscription making you a real consumer not a customer for real.
@Martsmall Yep, I totally agree that microsoft are more open with their customers. I'm still with Sony for their exclusives though (+ the dualsense).
happy gaming mate!
@Flaming_Kaiser You bring a valid point.....It isn't a counter-argument though.
Forza Horizon 5 has sh*tty monetisation and now GT7. Difference is I can play one on Gamepass for a small sub and the other they want £70. That doesn’t make it any better in FH5 but the narrative of Sony first party games having no microtransactions because they ain’t on a Gamepass type service is slowly fading away and will continue to do so.
Even if you don’t buy into these you’re ignorant if you think it doesn’t affect your game, intentionally longer grinds are what every gamer dreams of 😂😂 Sony simps gonna simp.
@Marios-love-child same here, how come copying the file from ps5 disc take this long? I thought buying the game in physical get me faster into the game rather buy it digital which we have to download it first, but really why copying from this taking this long same or on par with download in digital,
I'm sorry but I just can't give them a pass here... We've waited years for this game and they've put the most exclusive cars behind a time-limited window that almost forces you to buy currency unless you are playing the game 24/7. It's never needed it before and at £70 it shouldn't have them. We aren't talking about a free to play game here that's using micro transactions to allow for that. This is greedy and shady from Polyphony. Perhaps I'll buy it on sale down the line somewhere, but I can't support this at launch as is.
It'll fund new cars, tracks and enhancements. I don't think you can expect to pay a one off fee for a game and have endless free fixes and updates. Devs have to be paid. If they don't get extra income after releasing a game they've no incentive to keep supporting it. They'll just all move onto the next thing.
Like what used to happen before the high-speed internet. You forked out quite a considerable amount of money, got no bug fixes and no enhancements.
I'm playing GT7, now, it's great, I recommend it. I've personally no intention of spending any more on it but if others do? Up to them.
@lolwhatno All these big companies want to bleed you dry dont think MS/Nintendo/Sony are any different.
@LiamCroft I just skimmed through it to see if there was anything about the always online & how much was playable when offline but didn't see anything about it then checked the score & was surprised that the always online didn't effect the score
@SJBUK no one asked for any post launch content though whether it's free or not just give us a complete game that we can pay for & that's it
Should be ok as long as the game does not stop you from enjoying it. Unlike GTA Online in which for every dlc released you would have to buy shark cards using real life money in order to afford the property so that you can progress through that dlc.
@TrolleyProblems I'm a translator, why do you ask?
@Would_you_kindly I must admit I don't remember the last game I bought, on PC or PS, that didn't have patches or extra content after launch. I'd be annoyed if that didn't happen on the rare occasion I splash out 60 quid on a game to be honest.
As far as I can see it's complete and perfectly playable as it is. Don't have to spend another penny on it.
Only things that have annoyed me so far are the unskippable 10 minute intro video (on first play) and the 2 hour wait before I could play the full game even though I got the disc version. It's taken longer to get into this game than any digital purchase I've made, which is plain daft.
@Stevey_Mac sorry but i disagree with this, the game is very enjoyable. the whole thing is 100% optional. it feels like you are complaining about something you haven't even seen for yourself since you don't even have the game. making money isn't really that hard , and you don't need to play 24/7 either.
@twitchtvpat Well you’re very much entitled to disagree with me but it’s more of a principle at this point. If you can make money anyway why bother with micro transactions in the game then? If you don’t think in future you will be stung with limited windows to purchase cars then that’s up to you. But these companies don't put this in game and then give you everything for free anyway. They need incentive to sell as much of these in game credits as possible. That inevitably comes by hindering the player in the long run. Hence why they have added the always online mechanic. I would much rather pay for an expansion or dlc for post release content and have ZERO micro transactions for credits in the game.
Been playing the game all weekend and the micro transactions don’t really seem to be a big deal. You can farm 100k of credits about every 10-15 mins. 🤷🏾♂️
It does suck that They are suggesting you “bank” credits to be ready for a limited time car offer but the game gives credits out in what feels like a fair clip.
Because you are using a lot of financial and accounting related terms. while they make sense individually, you are missing the key component here.
Business and it's operations don't really account for expenses and revenues in such a black and white manner. There are aspects of fixed costs and variable costs that aren't really accounted for and you are throwing break even and other terms to sound like you know what you are talking about.
I understand that you are passionate about a company and don't necessarily understand how subscription model works other than rudimentary knowledge of it. And you do not understanding costing well enough to be mixing the two to make arguments.
It's not very different than when people randomly start throwing in "oh developers aren't making money" without realizing that developers are employees, and not investors. While they may be given bonuses depending on performances, they are skilled workers that, at the very least, earn a non hourly salary without the risk of worrying about profits and loss.
For taxation purposes, if they were treated like employees, they have to meet certain crtieras to be qualified as an employee. While criterias are different in each country to some extent, some are more common than others. One of them is to not bear risk associated with risk and profit.
But common public knowledge doesn't include these nuances for as how accounting treats them. They use random phrases to appear as if they are supporting these valuable individuals.
The amount of money that a subscription model can generate is ridiculous. The money generated by software sales almost pales in comparison. Every one throws in "revenue generated" as if they know the matching expenses, operating cost, and 10 other things associated with revenue.
You all honestly need to stick to gaming and focus less on whether a multi 100 billion dollar company can pay off a salary of maybe 150k one of its developer under best salary conditions... Over the span of an entire year. Or whether subscription model works or not. Or whether a company can "recuperate" billions "spent" (invested is correct term, nuances) on acquisitions without understanding asset related accounting.
The math behind a grind VS money spent argument isn't fully understood well enough for people to see opportunity cost associated with each of them. Throwing in "I am having a lot of fun while grinding the best case scenario lap" is also misunderstood if looked at from a common sense perspective. You can hardly have fun doing one lap that earns you roughly 50k credits every minute and a half. Doing such a lap means you aren't even playing the rest of the game. You are repeating same one ***** over and over and over and over and over, you get my drift.
Let's stick to game talk and as a gamer, worry about what stays in our wallets and not what a multi billion dollar company does to stay afloat.
Monetization of a game makes enough money because people have a tendency to pay out for things that require a lot of grind. Cellphone games are a prime example of this model, and it is rather successful. The psychology of a customer is generally studied upon before massive changes like these are made to the games. A niche "self proclaimed gaming enthusiast" group tends to ignore the actual population while really talking about a small sample size of a specific mentality of a gamer.
Even if 10th of the population spent 30 bucks for a "10 million copies sold" game over an entire year, just one year (not more than one), they would generate 30 million dollars of monetization revenue, which even at 50% gross profit margins, will yield a 15 million in just one year. Think of how miniscule my numbers really are, to generate a possible. 30 million "revenue".
In most game's cases, that's more than 20% of possible investment into a game's developement cost... Incurred over many years.
It's mind boggling to even see people pretending to understand basics of accounting while behaving like an arm chair investor, when even an investor doesn't understand the nuances of accounting under most cases.
Last but not least. Locking behind any gaming component that is not cosmetic, whether it is Forza, or Gt7, is absolutely horrible for consumers (for Gt7, roughly calculated at supposed 8 bucks an hour payout) .
A car is not a cosmetic if the machine that goes in it is different than any other vehicle you might own in that game. It is a separate individual item that you really do not possess.
It may sound like "the grind is worth it", but really isn't when the payout is a miniscule number when compared to how easy it is for one to want to spend money. It's a gross practice and shouldn't be supported unless the game was a freemium at best. Even then an average consumer might end up spending more than what a full game may cost over the time played.
@Stevey_Mac look you are free to think what you want. but the difference is i've played the game. like many other people who've played the game on here , its really not that difficult to make money. and that's not even grinding the game either. at the end of the day if people want to spend their money on in game credit's then they should have that choice. also it feels like most of the people complaining don't even own the game.
@twitchtvpat Again Pat like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. But if your argument for micro transactions is “you don’t own the game your opinions are lesser than mine” I’m not really sure that’s a very good avenue to go down. If they hadn’t taken this route with micro transactions they would have my £70 and I WOULD own the game. As it stands I don’t but I guarantee you I’ve watched enough reviews and read up enough to have taken that decision. They are putting popular cars behind timed paywalls that force you to either not spend and constantly horde your credits or “give us more money and you can buy it now”. I don’t understand how players like yourself can look at that and say it’s ok 🤷♂️ As I said it’s a matter of principal for me. Later down the road I may pick the game up on sale. But not supporting it at launch. I’m glad there are players out there like yourself that can look the other way and still have fun with it.
i'm just going to end this here , since you are just going to repeat your self , have a good day
What kind of a stupid argument is that? this has nothing to do with entitlement of opinion.
Entitlement of opinion is about being able to give one. There is no gurantee that your opinion is intellegent however.
I do not need to burn my hand or stay away from train tracks to know why something is potentially harmful for my health.
Use your head. @Stevey_Mac is correct.
It doesn't matter what game it is. If game is full-priced, it shouldn't give you "purchase this for x money" option, which this essentially is. Whether it is forza or GT7, the argument is same.
@twitchtvpat if people want to modify their save files they should have that choice
@mucc the difference here is how it's implemented.
FH5 Implementation is actually worth the money. Paying for these cars packs/passes/maps gives you no competitive advantage.
You can't purchase currency or wheelspins with real money.
VS gt where someone can start the game insta buy an expensive car for 160 real dollars while you do the alternative grinding for months to get a car that people have been driving around online since day 1. Kills any value in your effort.
23 years ago, in GT2 you could get those super-limited special cars by completing some exceptional challenges...but they were obtainable. These days it's all about eternal grind or spending money on top of the 99EUR price tag. What an era to be alive...
@TrolleyProblems When people say "developers aren't making money" they are referring to the company, not the individual. So the foundation for your critique of my knowledge is shaky at best. Whilst I have a pretty solid understanding of business, I do not claim to be an expert.
Telling people to stay in their lane with an appeal to authority is not an effective way to convince others or even educate them.
Your criticism needs to cite examples of what I or others said and give reasons why they are wrong.
@twitchtvpat You've got it totally right there. The key is how it works in practice. If it doesn't affect your personal play does it matter if someone else freely chose to pay for the item. Maybe they are cash-rich and time-poor. Whatever the reason, these people are subsidizing gaming for the normal gamer who won't bother buying the items. Having a barrier to entry of the price of the game should shield us from most of the worst free-to-play business practices.
I've played a LOT during the weekend, and i honestly do not understand where this criticque or fear is coming from.
The game showers you in credits, especially in the higher tournaments / races.
The most expensive car i could find so far is 3 million credits, which would take you like 1-2 hours of doing tournaments. It feels faster than in the classic Gran Turismo.
The only reason the store option is there for credits is for people who don't want to do singleplayer (you have to do a little bit of it to onluck MP) but still want a car collection for multiplayer.
@savarunl but why charge people to unlock cars when they've already payed for the game what happened to cheat codes for people that wanted to cheat I mean when you buy the game you're paying for all the content in that game so if you want to fast track unlocking this content that you've already payed for then being charged for the privilege is just disgusting the same with games like resident evil that have 'unlock everything' micro transactions you're being charged to access content you've already payed for
When people say "developers aren't making money" they are referring to the company, not the individual.
Then "Developers" are no different than regular business. Stop making it sound like people give 2 ***** when every one talks about "returning games for 10 bucks less".
Let's not attempt to take the high ground on some half baked sense of morals. I don't care what million or billion dollar companies make. I care about if I can afford games. I haven't taken a responsibility for someone else's financials. My interest in games is as a consumer, the best possible means to get the games I want for the best price for me.
Feel free to argue with me on this.
"So the foundation for your critique of my knowledge is shaky at best."
I am giving you a critique "as an expert in accounting field". Your knowledge is shaky at best.
"Whilst I have a pretty solid understanding of business, I do not claim to be an expert."
As an expert in the matters that you are attempting to communicate, your arguments have so far held merit no more than that of a "pretty solid understanding of business" guy.
Accounting is my forte.
Also, understanding business, is not same as understanding accounting. But I am sure you knew that already.
"Telling people to stay in their lane with an appeal to authority is not an effective way to convince others or even educate them."
I find it amusing that you think this argument of yours means more than 2 pennies.
This is not me doing arm chair accounting for you. I am telling you that as an expert in the field of accounting, people in here have shown so far that they have no idea about how "recording of transactions" work. This is not about my opinion is more valid than yours. This is about an expert in the field telling you that you do not know how accounting and it's standards under IFRS are carried out.
"Your criticism needs to cite examples of what I or others said and give reasons why they are wrong."
I don't need to cite things because you do not have the basics required to understand cost accounting. I also don't need to cite examples to a person who hasn't cited any example to back their comments about revenues and expenses in first place.
I am a certified public accountant. I have studied accounting for 10 years, and I am a senior manager in finance and accounting for multi billion corporation. I have more than half a decade of experience in compiling statements.
You don't understand revenues, cogs, and operational expenses.
Tldr: no, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have patience to educate a person in field of accounting to get any validation.
Stick to gaming.
@TrolleyProblems Your comments are less than useless if you are just saying that you are the expert in accounting and I am not and therefore all my points that I made about anything are invalid.
I like a good discussion, but it has to be good-natured and it has to be based on the strength of your argument.
Since you don't want to make your case for why I'm wrong, I will evaluate your comments to give proper examples of where I disagree.
It is a basic premise of business that the producer has to make a profit to be sustainable. Whilst it might be good for the individual in the short term to buy milk below cost price, the producer will go out of business then you will be left at the mercy of the pricing of other companies. You might have a big corporation come in making a loss, or with margins that are unsustainable for a small operator, or that might squeeze the wages of the individual employees. Some people might see it from an ethical point of view, others might just see it as naked self-interest.
However complicated you want to get into accounting you can't get around the basic fact that first any business needs to be profitable. In the case of Game Pass, it seems pretty clear that Microsoft can make money from it, but most likely they will deflate prices.
I mostly play single player games, and I can't imagine this new model will be positive for this.
I've actually lost track of what we were discussing, but feel free to continue or not if you feel like having a good-natured discussion.
You ARE getting all the content in the game. You don't have to pay anything to unlock everything. If you want to skip everything and go straight into MP with a big collection, there's a convenience fee and there is nothing wrong with that.
Are you seriously asking why you can not cheat in a game in 2022 (apart from the fact that the gamesharks costed money too)?
Again, you do not have to pay anything. You don't want to pay, you play to unlock (yeah i know, weird concept, actually playing a game you bought).
Look for the definition of an "expert opinion". I am a subject matter expert. Please comprehend the following statement.
You are "Free to give opinions". But you aren't owed a "well his opinion matters because s/he is a human" argument. Your claims to understand will support you until you understand that you are speaking about general things with general people. I do not go to a mechanic to argue about his assessment of my car's health, and to a doctor to argue with him on why I have a stomach ache.
I listen to them and do not argue if they are a subject matter expert. If you do not understand this, then your sense of entitlement is through the roof, and continuing to have an argument with me on this is only going to make me drive this point harder.
I do not doubt that you like a good discussion. But you need to stop attempting to come across as a person with "good knowledge about business" while throwing in a bunch of financial terms without understanding what and how they impact.
I do not care about an argument being good-natured. But factually, an argument has to be supported by either "facts" cited, if you aren't a subject matter expert, or "listen" when a subject matter expert is telling you that you are wrong in your assumptions.
I do not want to make my case with you because you do not understand accounting. I do not argue with my mechanic about his conclusions, if i cannot comprehend them. I take the word of my eletrician when he tells me that wiring in my home is not done right if he has the right credentials. I do not tell him to show me a bunch of cords so I can "see" and pretend to understand them.
I cannot explain to you the context of my reasoning for saying why you do not understand how revenues and expenses are recorded. Why? because you do not have the foundation to understand it.
Profits are not about Revenues - expenses. It takes years to understand the accounts, the criteria, the standards, that dictate what that profit number is. Here is food for thought: Profit and Loss statements are entirely based upon "Estimates". These assumptions of these numbers are different from company to company because of the standards they opt to follow.
There is no concrete black and white "Revenue/Expense/Profit".
I do not need you to evaluate my comments because you do not have the credentials to assess my argument. The only reasonable response that I can expect out of you is "Uhuh".
I do not need you to validate my argument, your knowledge does not qualify you.
I am glad that you can tell me the "basic premise" around how business assesses their profitability and sustainability. I only do this for a living.
A business dealing with Microsoft/Sony will undoubtedly perform their own analysis before interacting with Microsoft/Sony about putting their games on their subscription. Unless you are egotistical enough to assume otherwise, trust the judgment of a company that has far more to lose in a deal that does not align with their "going concerns", than a random 3rd party that claims to understand "their" business.
A "big corporation" making a loss is not the same as a "Small company not making a profit". Please research this concept some more.
A "company not making a profit" is not the same as "a person not earning their salaried wage".
There is no "Ethical" view on this other than " I want them to do better ". But you would understand that if you studied business and accounting.
It is quite amusing to me when you talk about "a company and its ethical standpoint", because from that perspective, extorting money out of me by making a game exclusive, whether it be MS or Sony, is "unethical". I should not have to spend more than 1000 bucks and should be able to play both GT7 and Forza on the same machine. Companies should ethically do what is best for others too. This is a 2-way street. But we tend to ignore our own wallets when we talk about feeding others and helping a "multi million/billion" dollar company to stay afloat.
Both "entities" consider their own self-preservation and interest before others.
However complicated you want to get about business, you can't get around the fact that a company in its own "Self best interest" wouldn't put their product on a "subscription" if it didn't help them. This again is a "going concern principle".
claps At last, we are going to discuss "MS inflating their subscription prices", or "Sony increasing their game prices while introducing Spartacus". A discussion you should have been most interested in, instead of blabbering about accounting and profitability and other crap. Why? YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST. Your own self-preservation.
This was my entire bloody argument to begin with. Stick to your own Wallet, do not worry about what a multi m/billion dollar company has to do to stay afloat.
Whether the new model is "positive" for us is the concern we should be looking into. You have at last arrived at this point.
You as a single player, need to figure out if paying for a full game, while being extorted to pay for "items in game" or "grinding away at same lap for 20 hours" is a "fun experience" for you.
If you want to have a conversation with me, talk to me about your interests, and your self-interests. Talk to me about how you want to save money to the best your abilities while enjoying your favorite hobby. Please do not talk to me about a business making money.
Removed - flaming/arguing; user is banned
Removed - flaming/arguing
@TrolleyProblems That was a bit more content within your rant this time, so thanks for pointing out what you think I was arguing.
The point is this forum does not really require a degree in accounting. Of course, big businesses can pay little or no tax if they are investing, but that doesn't mean that I company wants to spend as much money as possible and make a loss just for tax purposes.
Companies have made some really terrible choices in business history, so we don't need to just trust their judgment blindly.
I'm not even arguing that Microsoft is not doing what will make them money in the long term, as the challenger brand they are trying to make Sony play to Microsoft's strength, which is huge cash reserves, which until fairly recently were mostly closed to the Xbox division.
When I mentioned ethics I never said that I was talking about business ethics. Are you going to argue that you are an expert in layman's ethics ahead of me?
You can argue exclusivity is unethical if you like, but I'd argue that would undermine the whole concept of personal property rights. I don't have the right to tell you what to do with your property. It would be unethical for you to demand multiplatform releases. If we were talking about food, clothing, or shelter, or even entertainment if there wasn't any available, but not for a few games you can't play without paying the price that the company asks for.
I see the benefits of exclusives. Maybe more so in the past when machines were much more different, but still Sony is able to innovate on the hardware and tailor the experience to the PS5.
Neither of us know the details of the game pass deals for third party games, but I'm going to imagine that right now they are particularly generous because Microsoft has to get them onboard. In general providers will often be forced to take an unsustainable amount for their goods or services because the market is hostile to them or there are huge corporations such as supermarkets that keep prices low. It is ethical and good business to pay suppliers a reasonable amount to make them sustainable and able to keep providing the goods and services.
@savarunl 'convenience fee' sounds like you're just making excuses for big companies to exploit customers.
Dude, let me make it simpler. Stick to gaming conversation. Please do not throw accounting and business-related terms.
Let's end the business related talk here and move on to other things moving forward.
No one "Demanded" non exclusive games. I am simply telling you that from a consumers perspective, exclusivity results in a loss for customer in long run. If you are a multi platform gamer, which I am, you will have to fork out more money than otherwise.
As far as personal property rights go, do you understand why the term MS is "monopolizing" was being thrown around? I can tell you that it had nothing to do with personal property rights, but ethics.
If you want to champion exclusives, then would it be nice for companies to buy each other and start making stuff exclusive to their own brand? I would imagine it to be a No.
I do not know exact detail, but I do know the principles that surround accounting and I have yet to see a company that willingly gets into a contract that makes their financial position worse.
For now, What ever deal is signed up, it is working just fine. In future if the deal is not beneficial, then i imagine businesses not agreeing to it. Until that happens, I am not going to start assuming Dooms day scenarios.
Naturally speaking, so far it appears that MS is happy with how things are, and since they are happy, i am assuming that the games made by companies who decide to put them on game pass, are doing alright too. Win Win situation for me.
Add my joy when i have to worry less about the money I have to fork out, i am even happier!
Paying full price for a game, and then having to either deal with an ugly grind or mitigating it by virtue of forking cash out, is not a good option.
@Rural-Bandit It's good talking to you too. I swear some people on here don't have any social skills!
The way I see it is that Microsoft is not content with the way Game Pass is as a business right now. By that I agree that they are meeting or surpassing expectations in many metrics, but it wouldn't be acceptable for Microsoft to stay at this level of revenue from this number of subscribers. Clearly, Microsoft is betting big on this model with the expectation of an explosion in revenue. There are still a lot of questions that can only really be answered by how game pass performs going forward.
I don't necessarily see this as an advancement in gaming. I don't know if we have had an advancement in music. Sure, I much prefer digital as I don't want to store tonnes of CD or create all that waste, but I don't like the streaming concept. I don't see the pressure towards moving away from albums as a good thing. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing that bands make the majority of their money on merch and tours. I buy albums digitally and have a few bands that I'd like to watch live. The big negative about the all-digital future is that it takes away price competition from physical media, which inherently costs money to sit in a warehouse somewhere or on store shelves. Digital sales compete with physical, that's why they can sometimes be so cheap. Also, you can't share, swap, or sell digital. So it's obvious why all digital is not so great for gamers.
I was very reluctant on streaming TV/movies, but Netflix has impressed me with the quality of shows. With the amount of free time I have, I'll never run out of TV shows and games to keep me occupied even if I just subscribe to Netflix and PS+ and nothing else. The problem is that the content is really devalued (just calling it content devalues it) firstly by the ridiculously low price of Netflix, and also there is absolutely no anticipation as shows just keep on dropping often in one big chunk so you just watch the next show after the cliff hanger that would have kept you thinking all week in the old model.
Gaming news is another great example. Things were so much better in the magazine days. I used to get N64 magazine and it would be exciting for it to drop on my doormat and it would be all my gaming news in one special place. Now it is kind of an extension of doomscrolling that I've heard referred to as "gleefreshing", but it is just like a gatcha for news.
The other major issue I have with subscriptions is why I don't like all-you-can eat anymore. It pushes you to consume more than you actually want and usually has to be priced as if you will consume a lot. Then you have the problem of content moving off the service, so there is a pressure to finish stuff. I just get round to games when I find the time usually when the games are much cheaper and in a better condition to play.
I love technology and have a bias towards the novel, but it has to be better than what we already have to make a change worthwhile.
Tap here to load 144 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...