Slashdot Mirror
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."
Dies a fast and painful death. It could completely ruin the console gaming experience.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
batteries not included
I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
Why does this seem like its going to piss off a number of kids who get this game for christmas or a birthday? "YEA!!! I got Gran Turismo HD!!!" *Runs upstairs and puts it in PS3* "What! No cars! No Tracks! WTF!!"
<fineprint>
Seriously though, reduced-price modular video games expandable through micropayments is a neat concept. I can only hope that such a system remains optional, however...
This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
With such foresight with games, will the hardware manufacturers catch on as well? I wonder if buttons will come with the controllers or will they be an extra, "optional" feature to, to be purchased on a 1 by 1 and on a "as needed" basis!
Seriously, it's cool if true EXTRAS are open to purchase, but I tend to feel jipped if a product doesn't even provide the basic experience I was expecting out of the box.
Gran Toursimo HD... the only game out there that could possibly make be buy a PS/3. I would have to replace my LCD-TV (no HDMI), would spend big bucks on a PS/3 and even for the game itself.
I always liked GT... had bought a PS/1 _only_ for Gran Toursimo, same about half a year ago with a PS/2, because I was in a spending mood.
I personally haven't touched a computer game for six or seven years right now - except Gran Tourismo.
Buying each track, each car? This would be just a rip-off. So, Sony/Polyphony Digital/Whoever you're expecting me to pay hundreds of bucks to play all the nice cars and tracks that had been available in every game before? I say NEVER, NEVER.
YOu now what? Your PS/3 seems to be a blatant consumer rip-off and if the story is true the day will come that I - as a consumer - will stop buying Sony products.
Go and copy some macbooks, your big days are obviously over.
PS games have been overpriced for years without any silly ideas like this. There is absolutely no way people are going to pay for odds and ends that should be a part of the game in the first place, and just aren't worth that kind of money.
So the games industry wants to know what fuels piracy? Well, stuff like this certainly helps quite a bit.
I guess THIS is what they meant when they told me to 'think outside the box'. It's literally like Sony sat down and went 'just how badly can we screw up the PS3'? They are definitely executing that strategy to perfection.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
If someone is stupid enough to buy a ps3 for $599, and a game at 80$, they have more money than brains, and will probably buy all the tracks and cars too.
God spoke to me.
Indeed as the story points out, pricing is the key to this being good or evil for us as consumers.
If the game sells at half price to start, and I can buy just the cars I like and all the tracks at a price lower than most of the other retail titles - then the idea will be a good one for the game designers and consumers alike.
But outside of that, automatic mistrust of micropayments that seems to be rampant in responses to this story smacks of luddite thinking. Is not this the future we wanted, to be able to buy things in small components and assemble them as we wish? Greed may or may not enter into it but as a gamer the ability to buy a custom variety of tracks (some perhaps user designed!!) and cars is appealing.
But then again, it came from Sony so all of the normal interest in technology is turned topsy-turvy in bloodlust to see Sony fall. What a shame there are not more pure gamers and enlightened technical thinkers about Slashdot nowadays rather than having the populace fall to the Herd Mind of Rage which is all too popular in so many areas of thought these days. Far easier to demonize than engage in rational thought, I guess.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
Performing sanity checks on your own beliefs is vital in avoiding poisoned koolaid.
$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 $49.99.
Why does Sony persist in speaking to anyone in the public or press? They just keep making things worse for themselves.
To me a micro-payment is something in the order of a couple of cents (US$, fill in appropriate equivalant for other currencies). It is a very difficult problem to solve - how do you track micro-payments in such a way that it doesn't cost you more than what you'll end up collecting. Charges in the order of US$1.00 are not micro-payments. They're small, quite possibly impulse-payments, but definately not micro-payments. Marketing is trying to use the term to get consumers comfortable with the idea of dishing out cash. "Oh... it's just a 'micro'-payment of $5.00"
Like most technologies, I can see the good and bad of this.
I'm fine with the developers expanding a game (in an incremental way as compared to major expansion packs) after the initial release, but the initial release MUST be a complete gaming experience. To release an incomplete game (no cars or courses as given in the example) and expect users to buy additional components to make the game playable is ridiculous.
I'm sure this will be sold as a "feature" and will be explained away with "why FORCE users to buy items that they don't want or need," but to me it sounds like a lovely way to force you to sign up for a "service."
So, a game with no capability? Perhaps they can now start selling Duke Nukem Forever... Parts sold separately, soon (no really, soon)!
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"Even if there was a consumer who decided to buy the PlayStation 3 perhaps as a Blu-ray player, I think that they will quickly realize the potential and the entertainment value of the fantastic content in true (high definition). Any consumer would be hard-pressed really not to try that functionality out."
-- Kazuo Hirai Let the PS3 games Begin
Witness the awesome entertainment value enabled by Blue-Ray games disks! No cars or courses!
"We wanted to take advantage of the storage capacity that Blu-ray offers in terms of motion pictures and other content, but most importantly, for games as well. Our decision to include the Blu-ray player from day one in all of our PlayStation 3s was the right decision and, quite honestly, the only decision we can make.
Look at the massive amounts of data that's required to provide a truly immersive gaming experience in true HD. If you only have a DVD ROM drive, which can only go up to about 9GB or so, you're going to end up with a game that's going to have two or possibly even three discs. And then you're going to have to ask consumers to swap discs out or cache all the game onto the hard drive which I think is an inconvenience--not to mention the fact that you're going to fill up a 20GB hard drive very quickly with some of these games. So trying to go without a Blu-ray drive in the PlayStation 3 really is a nonstarter."
Demented But Determined.
Is this game going to be restricted to people with credit cards?
I hate signatures
400 bucks for the complete game? Somehow I doubt it. Sony is known for pushing pricing limits, but I don't think they'd be risking one of their exclusive system sellers with a pricing scheme like that. If those values are anywhere near correct then the game itself will be completely free. I can't imagine that it won't come with at least a decent amount of tracks and cars. It would be a cool idea for that type of game, because anyone could try it out, and if you didn't like it, you'd have only wasted a few bucks, and they could support it with a million extra tracks for the people who really love it. Then again this strategy would leave people who did not have a means for hooking their PS3 to a fast internet connection in the dark, so I doubt it will be the dominant strategy.
Only way I could see this working, is if the base game were a pack-in with the console.
Then it's a 'free demo' that everyone can try out, even if they (like me) don't currently care for racing games.
Manufacturers dont include batteries because:
1. You cant just fly a product with batteries into the US. Its easier and cheaper to ship batteryless gadgets or did you want to pay a premium on crappy bottom-barrel no name batteries?
2. Its costs you more because now youre paying increased shipping for the product in the total cost instead of being able to freely choose batteries at the store. What if one brand is one sale but youre paying 2x that in the bundled batteries? Guess what, you just got ripped off.
3. Ever notice how bundled batteries die a short while after purchase? Who wants more of that?
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.
.evom ton seod gis eht
MS sold additional maps for Halo 2. MS sold cars for PGR2 on Xbox years ago. They have sold two packs of cars on PGR3 for 360. They sold an upgrade for GRAW for $15 that is basically mandatory if you want to play online, because if you don't buy it you can't play in games hosted by people who bought the upgrade, even if they don't use any maps that came with the upgrade.
They sold a Santa outfit for the main character in Kameo.
They sell custom player icons for a few bucks. These icons are mostly ads for games.
They are readying new technology for October that allows developers to see you consumables in game. So they can sell you something, have it wear out and SELL IT TO YOU AGAIN.
I can understand not knowing the last part, but the rest just shows you aren't paying any attention. If you were looking at everything that is going on, MS would have made your hit list long before Sony.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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:
.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.
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
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.
PS: That is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters "Q" and "R" were removed.
You know in theory, assuming I'm willing to pay $60 for a game in the first place; I might be okay with this in Grand Turismo provided they made the game cheaper. I mean if they made the game $30 and charged $.50 a car it might not be a bad deal. I'll never drive that crap from Ford even in a video game =) Where that breaks down of course is when this game goes into the bargin bin for $19 - all games seem to hit that price point sooner or later so you're not really saving much.
I realise I'm chiming in far too late here, but the summary is wrong. According to this Gamespot article (scroll halfway down to the "update"), Gran Turismo HD Classic will feature all 750 cars and 51 tracks from previous Gran Turismo games, updated to look better in HD. The Premium version only contains 30 cars and 2 tracks, but it's content that's been designed from scratch for HD (far more polygons per model). The idea is that the Premium version focuses on online racing and downloadable content, while the Classic version is for people who just want to play Gran Turismo in HD.
Still pretty unexciting IMHO, and I have pretty strong reservations about it working. Time will tell I guess.
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
Parent buys a Microsoft/Sony title for their kid, grumbling how expensive it is.
The expensive XP-Plus/GranTurismo has lost the kid's attention after 3 days.
Kid tells parent they must buy more fish/cars for $100 total or it is all a waste.
Parent remembers quite well to never, ever buy anything from Microsoft/Sony.
Of course, limiting second-hand sales does impact the market. The harder it is to buy second-hand games, the more likely it is to find them available via BitTorrent, nicely cracked and proper.
The torrent version of Half-Life 2 even had a fancy optimizer (not sold by Valve) that made the game run faster and fixed a few bugs. I'm still waiting to see the first game that can't be diddled to defeat the copy protection or online authentication. Or maybe it's already come along but nobody cared (or bought the title).
I say, let these foolish content providers destroy themselves with more onerous methods of limiting the value of their games to the second-hand market. It will give us a new generation of creative young people who will be our next software designers. And other companies will come along that embrace their customers and the after-market market that provides us with a longer life for our games in the form of mods and patches.
Most of you aren't old enough to remember the motto of merchants in the past: "The Customer is Always Right" - a motto that made them successful and their customers happy. These rapacious bastards have embraced the opposite approach to the people that keep them in business.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The things like horse armour are 100% optional. It's mainly cosmetic and is just kinda silly. There is still an entire very massive game to play without it. It's not like you need horse armour to access any special content. You pays your money for the game, you get tons of entertainment out of it, no additional purchase necessary. Also, on the PC at least, you can mod the shit out of it for free. There are tons of fan created mods that cost nothing. The game not only allows it, but is designed to make it real easy to do.
What is being proposed for GT would be like selling things in Oblivion on a per quest basis. "Oh you want to do that quest? That'll be $1 please.". In Oblivion they give you plenty for your money, I mean the game is very large, very rich, and very detailed. They are just also willing to sell you some additional content. It's not really worth it and is mostly for show, but if you wish to spend the money fine. However they aren't trying to decrease your experience and require that you buy it.
2. DOSBox is your friend. Just because a game is 10-15 years old without stunning graphics does not make it a bad game. Stop with the Valve / Blizzard fanboy nonsense and just go find some of these old games to try for yourself in an emulator like DOSBox - or go check out PC emulators for other systems.
3. Ignore the peer pressure to have the latest system all of the time. I've just picked up a second Gamecube for £30 and can buy Gamecube games used for around £5 each now. I really don't care that the "graphics are 5 years old", it's the playability of the game that's important, not how nice it looks.
Sure, you may like the idea of "subscription model" games like Warcraft III and Gran Turismo HD and good luck to you. But please don't forget that you're just being railroaded into renting games rather than owning them outright because that way the games companies can crowbar more money out of you through subscriptions and endless upgrades.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
As with others, I think this is definitely a bad idea, as it stands. But...
I would _love_ to see the extensible race game that this is indirectly proposing. I want to see manufacturers releasing models of their new models that we could download and start playing with. I want to be able to pick up new tracks just like FPS players can download new maps. How about racing IndyCars round Brooklands, or WRC cars on the Targa Florio or TT Mountain Course? How about Clermont Ferrand, or the Gross Glockner hillclimb course?
GT4 showed what's possible, but didn't go far enough. THe full extensible race game, when it hopefully appears, will have some marvellous possibilities for the anorak.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
I read a thread that said "not ALL next gen games charge money after purchase". RIIIIGGGHHHHT. If one company makes money from this tactic, many other companies will quickly follow suit.
By the time my 2 year old starts playing games, they will have an initial purchase price of $200.00, require 27 hours per day to play, and the entertainment industry will be watching you through a built-in camera to make sure you're not using "their" product wrongly.
I'll stick to Ur-Quan Masters on my hand-me-down Ubuntu laptop. Fantastic game that has yet to cost me a penny.
I really enjoyed building up a huge collection of cars and fixing them up in the previous GT games. Are the parts stores going to charge me money now as well?
Can we still win cars after races or would that be hurting the bottom line?
I just can't see myself being able to pay for something that has always been included in the game up to this point...it just seems like a fanboy tax to me.
Sony almost has me convinced that the xbox360 is the second console I should get this time around (wii being the first). I know people will say that MS is doing the same micropayments scheme, but I really don't think they're stupid enough to try and release an empty game.
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.
/. 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.
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
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Well, the solution to this issue seems pretty simple. If you don't want to deal with the nickel-and-dime fees (or rather, "microtransactions"), then don't buy the software. It's that simple - if you, as a customer, are offered something that you don't want, you don't A. Gripe about it, or B. Buy it anyway and then gripe about it. You just don't buy it. That way, companies get the message that they need to change their products to appeal to consumers and make money. If you want to be active about it, then organize a boycott or whatever. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, anyway.
As a side note, if the only products available are objectionable in this regard, then a host of new problems are raised. But inter-corporational cooperation to limit consumer choice is something that seems, for the moment, to be limited mostly to the music industry and DRM.
quia potentia mens mentis
Aren't Grand Tourismo et al. really just massive advertisments for car manufacturers? I mean, making people play the game to "unlock" the rest of the ad was pretty bright, but how are they going to move their metal when people steadfastly (and somewhat inexplicably) refuse to pay the extra $.50 (or whatever) for the priviledge of watching another few hours of car commercials?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I could see potential gambling abuse with this system. Say you buy an add-on car and race it online. You lose to somebody else in a race, you lose your car. End result: you spend more *real* money on the car you just lost. Rinse and repeat.