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."

Welcome to SONY next-gen

[mr_zorg]

Welcome to next-gen.

Next-gen gaming is already here in the form on the XBOX360, and I have yet to see any such approach there. Don't go trying to make people think ALL next-gen games will be like that. Add up all of Sony's mis-steps lately and you can't help but come to the conclusion that they've lost their minds.

same as it ever was

[mikerubin]

batteries not included

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[Soul-Burn666]

Two words... "Horse armor" [slashdot.org]

Re:I hope this kind of greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if you have $599 to pay for the console then you probably have the cash to shell out for micropayments for individual cars and tracks.

Film at 11: "Sony destroys computer entertainment"

[lonesometrainer]

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.

What a Winner.......Not

[segedunum]

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.

Synergizing the paradigm shift...

[enjo13]

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.

This will work excellent

[CrazyJim1]

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.

Pricing is key, micropayments unjustly attacked

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[Fruny]

Actually, I'm thinking "used games". This is a nice way for tham to make used games less attractive, since the original purchaser will already have consumed any "credit" that came bundled with the game (and we're not talking about a MMO subscription here). Instead you'll have to go back to Sony and pay them before the game becomes usable. Pure genius.

1) Make money off the initial sale.
2) Make money off the used game market.
3) Profit!

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[Loadmaster]

Good point, but the horse armor add on isn't nearly as necessary as cars or tracks in a racing game.

Swi

Micro Payment?

[faffod]

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"

Good and Bad...

[mitchell_pgh]

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."

Nonsense

[Dr. Eggman]

"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 [com.com]


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."

what about kids?

[torrija]

Is this game going to be restricted to people with credit cards?

If this is true, the game will be free

[dank zappingly]

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...

[Kaenneth]

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.

batteries not included

[gad_zuki!]

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?

only because you missed it

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

Re:Pricing is key, micropayments unjustly attacked

[grumbel]

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.

The trouble is that this system turns classic rewards in video games on its head. Back in the arcade you had to insert a coint when you failed a level, with this new system you have to insert a coin when you beat it. So success will be punished instead of rewarded, could be a great way to let motivation drop down quite a bit, even if the total money wouldn't be that different.

I don't think there is anything wrong with micropayment in itself, in fact I think its great for true additional content, but designers have to be very care full to not turn it into an annoyancy. The system in GT HD doesn't sound like they sell you additional content, it sounds like they sell you content you would have gotten with the game for 'free' a few years ago. This again has little todo with actual money, even so they probally wouldn't do it if they could gain more profit from it, but much more with psychology. Gaming should be first and for most fun, being forced to think about paying for the next level or track however isn't something that I would consider fun, I simply don't want to be bothered by such things when playing the game.

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[voice_of_all_reason]

Used game sales bring no profit to the hardware manufacturers, game publishers, and developers for a reason. They've already sold the product.

Your other point about them "allowing" a used game market is quite apropos to how they feel..

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[gutnor]

"Used games sales bring no profit whatsoever to hardware manufacturers, game publishers or developers."

Off course they do. Saying that it brings nothing to the developer is the same fallacy than saying that one pirate copy of Windows is one net sale less for Microsoft. There are other dynamics: for example people sell game and reinvest the money directly into new games, or people that get access to more title in the second hand market and may become buyer in the first hand market, or some people invest more because they have the feeling than they can always resell it if they don't like it, ...

That's very difficult to know the real NET effect of second hand sales. Second Hand market is legit and part of the dynamic of the market. Killing the second hand market is only telling your customer that the intrinsic value of your product is nil. That's not actually a problem, that's working for an entry to the theater for example but that doesn't mean that you will be able to continue to sell your game with the same price tag.
The new price tag may be higher if the demand is high and the offer is low but in this case I doubt it. If the second hand market is really causing them a net problem, then maybe that's because the perceived value of their product is already lower than their price tag ( no replayability, poor packaging, feeling of disposable product instead of exclusive product, ... )

Re:Who is making these decisions

[archen]

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.

Re:Lets Think About This a Second

[Achromatic1978]

Sorry, but I like Wikipedia. And I have no opinion on the idea of GT as a simulation or a game, but the area in which you're relying on WP here is wayyyy too subjective. Articles which can be sourced and cited on WP? Great. Articles on anything geek/nerd/etc, where there's no definitive source end up being: "Which group of said geeks/nerds were the most stubborn/obstinate/populous/vocal/determined in getting their point across?" which has no bearing in the accuracy of their judgment.

Re:Call the Whaaaaambulance!

[slowbad]

it'll be interesting to see how this works out.

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.

Meet the New Boss..

[PopeRatzo]

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.

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

[chromatic]

It flat out floors me that almost everyone I know steals software AND movies AND songs, yet they don't see this as stealing.

Perhaps your contemporaries see a difference between depriving someone of a physical item and making an exact digital duplicate of digital content.

Without making any moral or ethical judgments on the behavior, it's difficult for me to use the same word for both actions when the outcomes are so different.

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

[ConfusedSelfHating]

First, stealing indicates that you are taking something away from someone. For instance, if Person X steals Person Y's car, Person Y no longer has a car. This means that the owner has lost something. If Person X copies Company Y's music, Company Y still has access to the music unless Person X destroys all original copies in Company Y's possession. For a poor example of this, think of Johnny Mnemonic when the research scientists stole the cure and erased the original from the databank. I did say it was a poor example. Another thing to note is that no one owns copies of music, movies, television shows or games anymore. They are licensed. So really this is an issue of improper licensing. It is similar to someone running SQL Server with 150 connections when they are only allowed 100. It is still improper behavior (and Microsoft would come after you for it), but not theft. And likely criminal behavior in certain places.

Second, DRM doesn't seem to be about preventing piracy. After all, only one of your friends has to have a non-DRM copy of something for you to get an illegal copy. The concern about DRM is lock-in. The company that controls the DRM scheme gets to decide which devices you can use with the content that you purchased a license for. Money exchanges hands. You will pay a premium for a device which is compatible. It is quite similar to the HD-DVD and Blu Ray battle, it is all about who controls the revenue stream from licensing the winning format. This also leads to grossly incompetent situations where a company manufactures a device which will not work with their own DRM (Microsoft -> Zune). DRM is simply not in the interest of the consumer.

Third, there has always been a significant amount of piracy in software and it has completely destroyed the software industry. Oh wait, it hasn't. The richest man on Earth just happens to have made his money through software. I strongly support the jailing people who sell pirated material or use pirated material in their businesses, but someone downloading a song they would never buy is very low on my list of priorities.

In defense of Oblivion

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Welcome to SONY next-gen

[Rich0]

You missed another aspect of the used market which impacts the first-sale market - value. A game which can be resold is more valuable than a game that cannot. Sure, people don't think about it much now, but that is only because all the titles can be resold. If you end up with a mix people will realize that a resellable game is cheaper since once you get tired of it you can recoup some of your initial investment by selling it. A game which cannot be resold just sits on the shelf unused.

What is the 5-year cost of owning a new car? It isn't just the sticker price plus the cost of gas/maintenance/etc. It is all that MINUS the value on sale 5 years later - and that number is a BIG part of the equation as it makes the replacement car a whole lot cheaper to purchase.

Console publishers who don't allow resale will find consumers willing to pay less for their games. Now, it may well be that they more than compensate for this by getting rid of the resale market, but I think that this will only work for wildly popular games. Initially consumers will pay big bucks not realizing the hidden cost of this scheme, but if it takes off consumers will figure it out...

Re:Pricing is key, micropayments unjustly attacked

[Weedhopper]

What you say about essentially paying for your reward is very true. I like driving games and I liked GT's simulation aspect but that wasn't what made me replaying the game for weeks and months. I played because like many others I knew who were GT addicts, half the fun is in collecting cars. Why drive around the same racetrack hundreds of times hoping to be rewarded with the GT One or an F-1 car when you can just buy it? They're taking the reward and replacing it with a transaction.

It'll be interesting to see how they actually do this and if it actually works out.

Re:only because you missed it

[Ullteppe]

The two car packs cost peanuts. PGR3 came with lots of cars, and there was one car pack that was given away for free as a promotional excersise. There is a big difference in selling extra stuff, and basically making extras matadory. Playing PGR3 without buying any extra stuff works fine. Most of the Xbox Live paid downloadables are things like icons and backgrounds (console's equivalent of ringtones?). You don't have to buy these.

If Sony is going to charge for necessities, then that is very different. If they gave away the game, then this would be OK. Somehow I suspect they won't.

Well, if Gran Turismo tanks, then it will just be another nail in Sony's coffin.

that's a shame

[rabbot]

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.

Re:In defense of Oblivion

[Lord_Dweomer]

Bingo. This is why I have been against micro-transactions in games from the beginning. Its not that the system can't work, its that the companies in the industry are too greedy to let it work successfully. Another part of it is cultural. I know in the east, like Korea, these types of things are kind of expected and well accepted. But in America, we tend to feel that if we purchase something, we own it, and if you want us to pay more for parts of it you're bloody nickle and diming us. And that is indeed how I feel. I even objected to the horse armor even though it was optional. The fact of the matter was that it was something that SHOULD have been included in the game that they quite obviously scraped to sell later.

And ultimately that is the problem with this extremely slippery slope we've been on with extra content for years now. First it started as full fledged expansions, then smaller expansions, then "episodes" and now items. If they CAN scrape the content and sell it later for more, it has been proven they WILL do it. What's next...paying for stats when you roll your character? You want to play with a good character don't you? That'll be 5 bucks more.

And thanks to inflation, you don't have just one product going up in price, suddenly all the micro purchases go up in price.

And the worst part is when buying it gives you an unfair advantage over others. And for those who don't believe this has happened in America yet, I point you to Battlefield 2 and their Special Forces expansion where they let people use those weapons in the regular vanilla game on the ranked servers. And the guns they give have a HUGE advantage.

Re:Meet the New Boss..

[Shadow99_1]

One of my favorite teachers redid the phrase "The Customer is always right." into "The customer isn't always right, but they are the custoemr and deserve respect". Customers will bleed you dry if you are to nice to them, but you can't be an ass either as no one will want your product. I've found it works far better in the real world then assuming they are right no matter what. It's a matter of attitude rather than policy which really makes the difference...

Re:batteries not included

[Tim C]

I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK most toys now do come with batteries, while previously they didn't. The change is apparently due to improvements in the shelf life of batteries; before, the batteries would be half-way to useless by the time someone bought the toy and started using it, so there was little point. Battery tech has improved to the point where batteries now have shelf lives measured in years, and it's common for electronic gadgets and toys to include batteries.

Potential gambling abuse

[r_jensen11]

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.