Forza vs GT

[cuco33]

Originally Posted by michealo

"one button racing" in a sim is still lame.

It is, but to appease the casuals and those not so good in racing games it exists. Remember that racing sims tend to cater to a smaller crowd than normal.

[RedRedSuit]

Originally Posted by cuco33

Remember that racing sims tend to cater to a smaller crowd than normal.

Yes. With sales of 8-15 million copies for each game in the GT series, the genre is really niche.

Same with Halo, Grand Theft Auto, and World of Warcraft.

[BladeofTheImmortal]

Originally Posted by cuco33

It is, but to appease the casuals and those not so good in racing games it exists. Remember that racing sims tend to cater to a smaller crowd than normal.

Haven't we been through the GT sales data before???

[cuco33]

Originally Posted by RedRedSuit

Yes. With sales of 8-15 million copies for each game in the GT series, the genre is really niche.

Same with Halo, Grand Theft Auto, and World of Warcraft.

If you neglect the fact that when GT1 hit nothing, and I mean nothing compared to it. There was no competition for a game like it and the series exploded from there on. People loved taking a car from a big selection, modding and tweaking it and making it go faster. Remember that compared to other racing games the GT series always looked better as well but I highly doubt that even 10% of all buyers got deep into the game or even bothered making fine adjustments to the tuning side of the adjustable race mods (almost everyone I know would slap the adjustable race spec part and NOT adjust anything) then go bump n run racing. I mean it's easy to see this point where in general arcade racers do a lot better than sim racers, GT and Forze excluded. Even online racers are more prone to bump n run racing with turn 1 clusterfuck rather than clean line racing, where shitty drivers aren't really the masses I'm referring to. Just go into a ranked race in any console racer remotely sim based and you'll see what I mean. Then do the same on the smaller not as known PC racer and you'll see on PC people are MUCH calmer and cleaner in racing.

The smaller market I'm referring to is more in the lines of the more serious sim racer that spends a ton of time on the same car, tuning it a whole bunch and doing time trials over and over again. It's probably one of the reasons why T10 added a tuning option to sell in the game's auction house or why there are programs made for racers like Forza and GT of specific tunes because most just don't care to spend the time nor have the knowledge of how a certain change will affect a car's performance.

How many copies of GTR on PC sold? I doubt it's anywhere near what any GT game sold. And this is the reason why some more hardcore racing sims charge per car and per track (as much as $15 a car and $10 a track) as development costs are hard to get back since the market isn't grand. But think more in the vast gray area and not just black and white extremes. It's like I said, the GT franchise will sell based on name alone to many people.

One button racing keeps that more casual crowd, or those who wouldn't get the game in the 1st place, playing the game a lot more. The more someone plays a game, the more he/she talks about it. The more it's talked about, the more it sells and the end result = more profit.
One of my PS3 only friends has GT5P and races with a controller. He's not connected online (I know, I tried getting him to but no luck) and doesn't think the game is all that great because it lacks the modifications (even if there is an add power section) and started getting 'hard'. He moved onto more arcade racers and thinks those are much better. I wouldn't label him as the sim fan but the money still went GT5P because it's the newest Gran Turismo

[RedRedSuit]

Originally Posted by cuco33

If you neglect the fact that when GT1 hit nothing, and I mean nothing compared to it.

GTA 3, VC, and San Andreas had pretty much nothing compared to it, either. Irrelevant. The sales speak for themselves. It's a huge market.

The sim genre does not cater to "a smaller crowd than normal." That is plain as day. It caters to a huge fucking crowd: as big or bigger than any other genre, and definitely bigger than the casual race game crowd (Burnout, etc.). All one has to do to realize this obvious truth is to look at the sales numbers.

I mean it's easy to see this point where in general arcade racers do a lot better than sim racers, GT and Forze excluded.

The best sim racers (such as GT) easily outsell the best arcade racers (such as Burnout).

How many copies of GTR on PC sold?

Irrelevant. It's a PC game. 99% of PC games sell next to nothing compared to their console counterparts.

since the market isn't grand.

The sim racer market is fucking huge. Sales numbers prove this.

[BBM128]

Originally Posted by TheAnalogKid

Just curious - if she hasn't taken over your PS3 in order to use the full, real version of Facebook..Why would she take over the 360 to use a gimped version of Facebook?

Because right now, Facebook doesn't work on PS3. At least it isn't for me.

[BladeofTheImmortal]

A sim racer demo(GT5: P) has outsold pretty much every racer this gen. I'd call that a fucking huge market.

[cuco33]

They were GTA games and GTA games sell based more on name. Why doesn't its competition sell close to a GTA game? cuz of the name. Isn't one of the things people on here claim that Halo sells anything based on the name alone? I mean I just recently came across something about Halo Wars and KZ2 and the justification about why sales were somewhat on par was because Halo Wars is a Halo branded game, even if it's an RTS on a console which normally do crap. Why is it hard to think this name thing doesn't hold true for GT? But be honest, do you think most buyers of GT really dwell into racing sim methods by anally tuning suspension and gearing settings?

Easy test red, gather all racing sims on all platforms and their sales and compare them to all arcade racers and their sales. The leaders will always be a Gran Turismo game, followed by possibly 8-9 arcade racers in the top 10 non GT/Forza branded games. It's why NFS series stuck to the arcade game play rather than the sim based game play up until recently where the knew something had to change. The more serious racing sim, usually on PC, might not even break the top 25 on any list especially when you take away a GT and Forza title from it.

[cuco33]

Originally Posted by BladeofTheImmortal

A sim racer demo(GT5: P) has outsold pretty much every racer this gen. I'd call that a fucking huge market.

... because it's a GRAN TURISMO game.

Think extremes as in black and white only and you won't see that the masses go more towards the arcade racer. Take away GT from any sim vs arcade racer list and you'll see that it's mostly filled up with arcade racers. It's not a hard concept to think. It's why I've said many times that GT5 will sell in droves because of the name and will outsell anything that hit the PS3 to date. Are we to believe that everyone who bought it is a sim racing fan and will fully complete the game ever so tuning cars and going for time trial runs? Reason why the name is so strong is because the word is spread, rightfully so, that the franchise is the best if not one of the best console racers out there.

I stand by this a ton, racing sim market is not as big as you think it is, even if a GT game sells in the millions because of the name. The rest of the racing sims don't do great. And most who buy a GT game won't bother doing what a "real" (now watch as someone goes apeshit over the words I use) racing sim fan will do. You'll probably hear most casual people complaining all over the web about damage being on in races, or the more serious folk asking why the noobs drop out of the race if they mess up in turn 1

[RedRedSuit]

Originally Posted by cuco33

They were GTA games and GTA games sell based more on name.

No, GTA III sold on quality. You can compare its sales to GTA 2, for example, and see that there is no comparison.

VC and SA were great games, too.

Why doesn't its competition sell close to a GTA game?

Because it's not as good, and because of marketing and brand name.

Of course, this is totally irrelevant to whether the market is huge or not for sandbox games... which it is. People don't subject themselves to a genre they don't like based on name alone. That's just dumb.

Isn't one of the things people on here claim that Halo sells anything based on the name alone?

I don't know what "people" claim, but I've always said Halo became popular because it was high-quality.

Anyway, this is a total change of subject. If games in a genre regularly sell 10+ million copies, then that genre's market is huge. Period. End of story. Whether those sales are due to quality or brand name or something else is irrelevant. It's a genre. It sells. Therefore, market is big. Done.

Why is it hard to think this name thing doesn't hold true for GT?

Whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant. People buy GT with the full knowledge it's a sim. You'd have to be totally and utterly masochistic to subject yourself to GT3 and then GT4 if you don't want to play a sim. It says simulator on the box.

Easy test red, gather all racing sims on all platforms and their sales and compare them to all arcade racers and their sales.

That's quite difficult to do. Worldwide sales are not easily available. Regardless, it's as simple as this: if a genre contains game series, one of which regularly sells ~10 million and another of which regularly sells ~3 million, then clearly there is a big market for that type of game. End of story. There's really nothing more to discuss. It was a simply false statement.

The more serious racing sim, usually on PC, might not even break the top 25 on any list

As I already said: PC, thus irrelevant. PC games, other than Warcraft and The Sims, don't end up in top 25 lists of anything.

[cuco33]

Originally Posted by RedRedSuit

No, GTA III sold on quality. You can compare its sales to GTA 2, for example, and see that there is no comparison.GTA2 was top down view was it not? GTA1 was also this. If I recall correctly GTA3 was the 1st GTA game that was in full 3D 3rd person and be able to go around doing what you wanted

VC and SA were great games, too.
which both followed GTA3's 3rd person view and not the top down view of GTA1 and GTA2. I remember a lot of people saying 'man they should make GTA games 3D' referring to not doing the top down view


Because it's not as good, and because of marketing and brand name. you just said it... but I'll repeat it... "brand name" aka the franchise name glad you finally agreed with me

Of course, this is totally irrelevant to whether the market is huge or not for sandbox games... which it is. People don't subject themselves to a genre they don't like based on name alone. That's just dumb.



I don't know what "people" claim, but I've always said Halo became popular because it was high-quality. and high quality = people talking about it, people talking about it makes that name stronger, so strong that even a decent RTS based on the franchise sold exceptionally well for a console, something that was unthinkable before.

Anyway, this is a total change of subject. If games in a genre regularly sell 10+ million copies, then that genre's market is huge. Period. End of story. Whether those sales are due to quality or brand name or something else is irrelevant. It's a genre. It sells. Therefore, market is big. Done.
see you said gameS. but outside a GT/Forza game, which other racing sim sold comparatively in the millions? not many if any. which arcade racer sold comparatively in the millions? many, which is my point that the reason why GT sells exceptionally well is because of the name, sim or not. Maybe that's why Forza 3 devs were big headed in their talk because even negative press is still press


Whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant. People buy GT with the full knowledge it's a sim. You'd have to be totally and utterly masochistic to subject yourself to GT3 and then GT4 if you don't want to play a sim. It says simulator on the box. again, because of the name alone it will sell in droves.


That's quite difficult to do. Worldwide sales are not easily available. Regardless, it's as simple as this: if a genre contains game series, one of which regularly sells ~10 million and another of which regularly sells ~3 million, then clearly there is a big market for that type of game. End of story. There's really nothing more to discuss. It was a simply false statement. it's not if you simply take away the GT franchise and see the scraps remaining. and no I wouldn't neglect PC sims in this case either because the big fans of racing sims know the best means to get their fix is via PC.

As I already said: PC, thus irrelevant. PC games, other than Warcraft and The Sims, don't end up in top 25 lists of anything.
I didn't say only on PC, I referred to especially on PC as the more serious sim is found on it than on console. There are other racing sims on console so no you can't just neglect it because most are on PC. You don't know much about them because they don't sell well. You hear more about a NFS, Burnout, Midnight Club, etc game on console... all arcade racers, alongside GT for big sales

see bolded above

[RedRedSuit]

Originally Posted by cuco33

GTA2 was top down view was it not? GTA1 was also this. If I recall correctly GTA3 was the 1st GTA game that was in full 3D 3rd person and be able to go around doing what you wanted

which both followed GTA3's 3rd person view and not the top down view of GTA1 and GTA2. I remember a lot of people saying 'man they should make GTA games 3D' referring to not doing the top down view

I find the above wall of text pointless to the debate. I am fully aware GTA 2 was 2D. Your claim was that the GTAs sold on "name." This is false; if it were true, GTA III would not have outsold GTA 2 by an order of magnitude. It was clearly on the game's own merits -- just like Halo: CE.

you just said it... but I'll repeat it... "brand name" aka the franchise name glad you finally agreed with me

I also said, explicitly, several times, that whether brand name is a part of it or not is totally irrelevant. It sells. Thus, the market is big. That's it.

and high quality = people talking about it, people talking about it makes that name stronger, so strong that even a decent RTS based on the franchise sold exceptionally well for a console, something that was unthinkable before.

Irrelevant. High sales = large market. Period. Whether some of those sales come from brand name or just pure quality is irrelevant.

see you said gameS. but outside a GT/Forza game, which other racing sim sold comparatively in the millions? not many if any. which arcade racer sold comparatively in the millions? many,

Not many. NFS sells okay. Burnout sells okay. Mario Kart sells great. What else is there? Dirt has rather poor sales. MotorStorm sold well for a launch game, but MS2 was really not good.

which is my point that the reason why GT sells exceptionally well is because of the name, sim or not.

It IS a sim. People don't buy a sim unless they want to play a sim. If sims sell, for any reason, then that means the market for sims is large. Period. The brand name thing is a total red herring. Halo and CoD sell on brand name quite a bit, too; that doesn't mean they should be discounted in discussions of FPS market size.

again, because of the name alone it will sell in droves.

Doesn't matter. It is a simulator. It sells extremely well. Therefore, the market for it is clearly large.

it's not if you simply take away the GT franchise and see the scraps remaining.

By the same logic, the FPS genre is not big if you "take away" Halo and CoD. Take those away, and your biggest sellers are... what? BioShock with its 2 million sales? Resistance? I guess the FPS genre must have a small market. You can't just take away the two biggest serious and have a serious conversation.

and no I wouldn't neglect PC sims in this case either because the big fans of racing sims know the best means to get their fix is via PC.

PC sales don't amount to shit 99% of cases, therefore citing a PC game as an example of low sales is way off. Period.

That's like me saying the FPS genre is small, because Crysis had meh sales. Sorry -- no.

[miDnIghtEr]

man.. some people are just looking to argue.

[cuco33]

Originally Posted by miDnIghtEr

man.. some people are just looking to argue.

I guess some people always wake up on the wrong side of the bed making generalizations of things they believe are true failing to see the other side's point.


but to add to the topic at hand...

Let's say GT4 sold 20 million copies by itself and ALL OTHER racing sims barely even broke 200k with the bigger titles hitting 1 million. Is the market large? Yes, because of GT4. But take GT4 out of the equation and the market isn't really large at all.
Now say arcade racers normally sell 5 million on average, and the big arcade racers, for this example NFS Gold Mine () sold 10 million. Is the arcade racer market large? Yes, even if removing NFS Gold Mine the market still is relatively large.
That's what I'm getting at.

Reason why GT sells well is because it is a high quality franchise many people know. There very well could be other things that are better than any game in the GT series but that's not the point, the GT title sells well due to it's brand people became familiar with. It's why Sony bundled (and will in my book) GT games with their consoles. Same would have held true if it was a popular big name arcade racer that sold in droves. Throw in again if more people are geared more towards arcade style or sim style and I think it's arcade by a long shot. There are significantly more people who will overpower a car with power mods (and end up bump n run racing) than stick to a balanced car and spend time tuning it while racing clean. Even with a penalty system in place, most want to crush the competition with speed on the straights than out cornering in the twisties.

Red, I'm into racers, moreso the sims but I dig the arcade style too cuz they are fun. I've seen and heard the more arcade minded to be true. Yes because of the GT franchise (and now Forza), the market overall is large but take those titles away and you'll see arcade racers are more popular. Remember this argument came out from a comment about why include casual minded features like autobrake and rewind (to cater more, not only, to the casual racer... keep him playing the game is always a plus as I've said the more people play the game, the more they talk. the more they talk, the more the company profits from sales. Perfect example is the Wii's domination this generation )

[Badger3920]

Originally Posted by miDnIghtEr

man.. some people are just looking to argue.

That comment is oddly out of place. This -IS- a debate corner on the forum.

Not to mention, this is Round 2 of cuco saying something totally incoherent, and flat out false in this thread, and then defending it. I'm interested to see if it will play out like the first time where he gradually abstracts it, and slips off topic to get away from the comment.

Currently, defending the argument that "the Racing Simulator market is small" is laughable at best. Red clearly shows otherwise. GT is one of the best selling game franchises in history. Forza titles are guaranteed to sell at least a couple million.... More need not be said really - the market isn't, in anyway, classifiable as niche or small.

Cuco's argument is absurd on its face. It's like saying, "Geez, almost no one lives in Asia. I mean, if you don't consider China, nor India because of their popularity, hardly anyone lives there per square mile."

It makes zero sense. This is one of those cases where it's really just best to say, "Okay yeah, I didn't think through what I said, that was wrong/here's what I meant" - but because it's some sort of debate forum, someone needlessly argues on