Gran Tourismo HD Cars Sold Seperately?

KDR_11k writes "1up reports on a Famitsu article discussing the future of microtransactions for PS3. According to the article, Gran Tourismo HD will require all cars to be bought via microtransactions. More specifically, the 'classic' package will come with no cars or tracks and the 'premium' package will include 30 cars and a measly 2 tracks to race on. Additional cars cost between 50 and 100 yen ($0.43-$0.85) and tracks go for 200-500 yen ($1.71-$4.26) a piece. No pricing was given for the game itself." From the article: "Now, is it possible that the game will be a full-priced title with a built-in download system that allows users to download cars and tracks equal to the number of the game's retail price? We hope the model ends up similar to this. However, right now, details are extremely sparse, and Sony has to have an answer to these questions -- most of the people who can answer are over in Tokyo, we'll update if we hear back. Welcome to next-gen."

Comments

I hope this kind of greed

[binkzz]

Dies a fast and painful death. It could completely ruin the console gaming experience.

Re:I hope this kind of greed

[H3g3m0n]

Problem is they don't need there games to be brought by large numbers of people with this system, they just need a few rich ones, or people willing to buy over a long period of time. It's like a MMORPG, since your paying per month it doesn't seem much but after about 3 months you have already payed more than the box cost of a normal game, everything after that is profit other than the hosting and DM staff costs which when split over the number of people playing is probally close to nothing. Of course for the average person they can simply avoid these games atleast untill more companies do what EA did with Battlefield 2, that is release an expansion pack that gives players access to more powerfull weapons while playing against people without the expansion pack. The best (evilest) thing sony could do would be release the game as normal with a massive focus on multiplayer, then a few months later after most poeple have brought the game they can let people purchase faster cars then people who want to beable to keep up will also have to purchase the cars. Large numbers of people might stop playing but they have already purchased the initial game, and those that remain behind end up spending 3x the amount they paid for the game although its over the period of months/years since sony could just release 1 car upgrade a month for a few $ (and a few cheaper visual only upgrades which are likly to get purchased along side).

Lets Think About This a Second

[SteevR]

Originally posted to The Escapist in their forum (by me).

Disclaimer: I bought a PS2 to play Gran Turismo 4. I also bought the Logitech Racing Wheel. You could say I'm a fan.

A micropayment strategy for online games is still novel in the US; compare that to Korea, where developers have created a bustling market for addons purchased online. Many of the games eschew subscription fees in favor of allowing no-payers to play, but be significantly handicapped through game-mechanics (didn't buy that turbo boost?), or socially handicapped in the world (their avatar isn't decked out in the latest sprite fashion). It is my understanding that alternate forms of payment, like gamecards or charging items to your mobile phone account makes billing less painful (and more impulsive). The bottom line is that this model is appropriate for some types of online games.

That said, what implications might this have for Gran Turismo specifically? Having to pay for cars and tracks will certainly limit the appeal somewhat.

0. Having to purchase, presumably via credit card, vehicles to play online will restrict the audience. Especially in the U.S. where alternate forms of online payment are in their infancy.

1. It will encourage a new user to research the virtual autos available, and pick one/few suited to their desires/needs. This serves to extend the nature of the simulation somewhat.

2. It will encourage users to practice with that vehicle, to the point where they can actually handle it properly on the track. This also serves the overall simulation (if you buy all 750 cars, you aren't playing Gran Turismo, you're playing a game of Jay Leno).

3. A combination of 0, 1 and 2 will lead to a higher general level of competition online. Just like the barriers to real-life autocrossing; people mildly interested in cars are not to be found on a real racetrack. This will further serve the simulation. This will also tend to drive off casual players to a greater degree than 0 or 1. This will serve as a draw for the serious players, who will spend more money over time.

4. Which tracks I have will limit the number of other players I can race against. This reflects the real world in a rather un-fun way (I can't drive from Kansas to Japan to "attack the downhill" on their mountain passes).

5. Due to 4, the more casual players would tend to buy a few tracks, and practice them. They will likely have a favorite, likely one that matches their car well. This would put them at an advantage over another person who owns the track, but has a different sort of car and another favorite track. This could serve as sort of a handicap, skilled players challenging other players who specialize in one course or one type of course. Think Initial D, where you have an "86" (A sporty version of the early eighties Toyota Corrolla) defeating 400HP AWD R32 Nissan Skylines. Handicap races with cars unsuited to the course they are on could partially offset 4, because they might have a stream of more heavily invested/skilled players (i.e. bought more tracks and cars) interested in racing them on their home turf.

6. Over time, because the investment is low, the more casual players will get disatsfied with their tracks and vehicles and buy more. This would support the server infrastructure over time, and lend longevity to the game. Microsoft does a lot to support live, it is clear what Nintendo intends to do with the Wii, but Sony was approaching the new generation with the same general attitude towards online play as they did with the PS2; it is the publisher's problem. And since the publisher finds few people (proportionate to sales) are willing to pay any monthly or yearly fee at all to support online infrastructre, that makes those subscription fees high. Micropurchases over time

To have as many cars and tracks as Forza 2...

[Grave]

$180 plus the initial purchase cost. This is if the lowest cost per car and track is figured. At the highest point, it's $383.

Forza Motorsport 2 is going to be $49.99. ....

Why does Sony persist in speaking to anyone in the public or press? They just keep making things worse for themselves.

Re:What a Winner.......Not

[PhrostyMcByte]

Beyond the initial cost, a WoW subscription is over $150/year. Do they add the equivalent content for 3 full $50 games in that whole year? Is the new gameplay innovative or just copying old stuff with a different treasure at the end? Are the graphics getting any better? So many people are playing it.

I'm not saying WoW is bad, just that a great many players are happy to throw down tons of cash on a game as long as they find it fun. I don't know how well this will work for a racing game, but the business plan has worked before. I definately don't like the idea of paying individually for all the initial levels but I think it would be pretty cool if I could download an expansion every month with a new car and a few new maps, if the price was kept low.

Call the Whaaaaambulance!

[mobby_6kl]

Calm down people, it's just a stupid (console) game.

This may, or may not, be a good thing. Of course, having any relation to Sony automatically implies it's something horrible and evil, but there are a lot of ways this can improve the game overall.

I'd gladly throw out all the ricer cars from the latest NFS game if it meant I could have more McLaren and Ferrari cars, or that I could save a few bucks. This would also show the devs which cars are in most demand, encouraging them to make more of those. Now, this last point could be negative for me if everybody drove riced out civics, but whatever. GTR2 seems to have all the official FIA championship tracks (and a few variations), but being able to drive on a local race track could be worth a buck or two.

No, I won't buy it, and I also won't get a PS3 or any other console, but it'll be interesting to see how this works out. Maybe it'll suck and be the first and last game to try this, or maybe it'll be the best thing since sliced bread.

Re:What a Winner.......Not

[yanos]

So the games industry wants to know what fuels piracy? Well, stuff like this certainly helps quite a bit.

How? If you just download the game, you won't be able to enjoy it unless you buy some cars and tracks to play with. And you probably won't be able to do that since your modded ps3 has good chances of beign flagged as a non-legit unit by the online store. This sort of thing can actually force more people to buy their games and not to mod their console.

As usual, submission takes the pessimistic view

[TempeTerra]

Sure, we all know Sony are completely batshit crazy - but if you ignore the gloom-and-doom reporting you'll realise that the following scenario is more plausible:

Gran Turismo: Menu Edition comes free with your PS3 Live account, which also includes $20 of credit at the Sony store. Everyone picks up a couple of tracks and a couple of cars with their credit and plays a LIMITED PREVIEW of the real new Gran Turismo game. Sony gets to showcase their online service with a popular franchise and gets free publicity for said franchise. Micropayments seperate fanboys from their money, everyone else just plays the game with a couple of cars.

The game is also available as Gran Turismo: I'm Too Lame For The Internet Edition, which has a couple of cars and a couple of tracks and you can play it with your mates without ever connecting to the internet.

Now THAT'S a sensible plan... what Sony will actually do remains to be seen.

Re:This will work excellent

[pembo13]

I think a lot of people here miss this. All of you who think Sony is shooting themselves in the foot. Sony knows that they have the hook in your mouth, and that no matter how much they toy with you, the hook just goes in deeper. They know they could charge $700 for their machine, post Sony-rootkit (not saying that that is the price) and people would still buy it. Frankly, I would do the same if I was in their shoes, not for profit, just purely out of curiousity, an experiment of sorts, to see how much people can take.

Sony - The Anti-Google

[BSonline]

If google is the messiah of the internet age, Sony has become the rootkit of all evil. Please forgive the pun, I tried hard not to type that. You know how it is, I lost control. Much the way Sony seems to be. They are letting the accountants innovate these days, instead of the engineers of yore.

Seriously. I'd buy a game for 10-20 USD and then add in the rest for .50 to 1USD for different things, on a conditional basis:
Don't give us a fnord of a game. It has to exist, and be somewhat enjoyable, for 10-20 USD.
The amount of content included and ability to progress should relate to the price of the game. For 10 bucks, I'll take a really cool demo. For 20, I better be able to find an ending to whatever game it is. It might be harder for me, but I better have the same plot progression/tournaments/etc. The cooler (addin) version of the game should never make me feel like the core game was a waste.
There should be a LOT of content available. As a consumer, the only point of this system is that I buy what I want. So all of the content out there shouldn't add up to the sticker price or slightly past. If I'm paying .50 USD for a car, I want a friggin' fleet at my disposal should I decide to spend the money. This way, when I buy a sticker prices worth of addons, I have EXACTLY the game I want.

This has just been my thoughts. This can be an advantage. It can ruin a lot of games, and franchises. Gamers will speak with their money, endorsing the games done well and ignoring the rest. This should definitely not be the end of free (quality) content. And if Sony (or M$) screws this up, I'm sure they'll rethink their plans within 1 holiday season.

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[lordofthechia]

Heheh, this idea isn't too far from Divx , except they're testing the waters by offering part of the game as an added purchase (instead of the whole thing). How long do you think before we see $10 games that you can play for 2 days then you have the choice to buy "unlimited playing" for $50 more? (Oh and it'll only play on your PS3 Xbox360 so your buddy will have to pay to play it on his system.)

Ok, maybe I'm being too paranoid. Nobody would try *that* idea again...

Re:PS3 is starting to sound better every day!

[H3g3m0n]

The problem is what happens when these 'extras' can be used in a multiplayer game against people without them. This happened in Battlefield 2, they released the expansion pack that allowed people to get access to more powerfull guns while playing against regular people. Fortunatly the rest of there optional extras seem to be limited to playing with people that also have them.

Re:Pricing is key, micropayments unjustly attacked

[ediron2]

I see where you're coming from on this, but you'd probably agree that punish/reward aspects to games are a bit more complicated.

A gamer doesn't think of another quarter* as simply as you describe it. Another quarter can be used for a different game, without anyone feeling punished for success. Heck, I've *NEVER* played an arcade game that let me change tracks or cars or player personalities without putting in another quarter.

And if they're uncoordinated wonks like I am, another quarter has nothing to do with rewards/return: I often move on to another game or a different car or a different field because the previous one was handing me my ass and I want to see if maybe I can do a bit better if I shift things around. And if/when I found a game I could consistently beat, I didn't feel gypped... the other scenarios or games were just a quarter away.

Last of all, because of familiarity and sweet-spots and what seemed fun, I can tell you that nearly every option-rich game I have owned in ~30 years has seen a WICKED bell-curve on how I played the options. There were half a dozen *favorite* cartridges for the Atari, and on those just a few favorite settings. On MK, I had a favorite persona, and another that I never quite could master. Ditto for customizations/weapons/scenarios/mods for Wizardry, Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Quake 3, Halo, Halo 2, GT, Evercrack, and on games my kids and I play now. If I got a default half-dozen racers, and then bought several classic roadsters, a new 'vette, a 911 and a Lotus, that'd be enough for me. And when my wife says she wants a hybrid car, I'd think it was great if I could say 'hmmm... let's try out the Prius and the Escape on.... the shure-kill (Schuylkill) express simulator'. Esp. if my net out of pocket by the time I'm done is five or ten bucks more than the game.

Come to think of it, tell me car companies wouldn't *SPONSOR* physics-accurate demos (and prepaid downloads) of their cars to enable virtual test-drives for approved customers.

*quarter = 5c, 10c, 25c, 50c, 75c, $1... whatever. Another payment. By the way, anything more than a few cents DOESN'T feel very micropaymenty to me.

Re:Film at 11: "Sony destroys computer entertainme

[RESPAWN]

I was going to post a comment of my own, but you're actually an example of one of the points I wanted to make: Sony is going to drive away the casual/occasional gamer crowd with tactics like this. I would probably be considered an occasional gamer and would have considered shelling out the dough for a PS3 for no other reason than to get the latest and greatest in the Gran Turismo series. Not now. Not if GT:HD and GT5 are going to be released on this sort of business model.

I bought a PS2 specifically for two games: Gran Turismo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 3. I would probably have eventually broken down and purchased a PS3, after it came down in price a bit, just to play the next installments of those two games. Now, GTA4 is also being released on the 360 and Sony is killing the Gran Turismo series for me. And that's just me, the occasional gamer, who would have eventually ended up building his PS3 game library to the same 25 - 30 game level as my PS2 library. The guy who buys accessories and who pays for XBox Live!, even though I maybe play one game a month over it.

What about the casual gamers? Many times these are the same people that don't have broadband at home. Some of them probably don't even have computers as they have no need for them. They just like to play the occasional video game as a way to unwind. I know several characters like this (mostly amateur racers and semi-pro racers) who bought a PS2 and don't play anything other than GT3 and/or GT4. I used to go to one friend's house and we would end up playing GT3 for hours on end. I guarantee you that friend isn't going to be buying a PS3 and GT:HD.

Anyway, enough ranting. I think it's safe to assume that everybody on /. thinks this is a bad idea. What really remains to be seen is whether or not Sony can pull this PS3 debacle off or not. They've clearly lost their minds.