Agreed, for typical console games this type of discussion is irrelevant because it doesn't effect most gamers. Going as far as to say which platform the game runs/looks better on is more than enough.

The problem is, for the majority of people the question of which platform version of the game do you buy simply comes down to which platform do they own. So while the technical details are worth noting, they're not as important because to most people it's irrelevant. Note, this primarily only matters when talking…

I don't disagree that people should discuss technical details about games if they're interested in it. But I do question how important that really is, especially on consoles where the technical details are less relevant for various reasons.

GT is being much more innovative overall than FM is and that has the potential to keep it ahead of FM for a very long time.

It depends what their production is focused on. I don't disagree that the sound and damage could be vastly improved, but the problem would be at what cost. If you were to tell me those would be improved vastly, but we wouldn't have this amazing innovation of having actual car manufacturers designing cars for the game…

I don't disagree that GT6 has been a disappointment, however there are things they're doing in it that have me so excited for GT7 (which isn't that far off 2-3 years most likely) if they can pull it all together nicely.

Part of the problem though is that you're assuming the problems they need to solve are actually capable of being solved on consoles. They are much more limited in what they can do on consoles compared to PCs and that's why PC sim racing games in the past few years have totally destroyed any console game when it comes…

Honestly, I'm not sure how you could think that what the GT series has done in changing the sim driving gaming culture could be bad in any way. Yes, they made the genre considerably more accessible, but how exactly is that worse? It created more consumers for an extremely niche genre of gaming, something all…

I'm not disagreeing with you, but there's a considerable difference when designing a game for a console and for PCs. PC has hardly any limitations that consoles are packed with, which does limit the depth and realism you can achieve compared to PC games to the point of it not even being a fair comparison. Especially…

Again I'll say, your limited definition of a beta is your opinion and not actual fact here. You shouldn't be expressing it as though it's generally considered that a game is under official release once they make the game purchase-able or open the cash shop. The only fact is that the game actually is in beta, and you…

You're right in that they could have given fake cash out, but how does implementing the actual cash shop take away from the beta aspect of this game?

Not necessarily, especially when a game's core comes down to purchasing the cards (via real money or game earned money), they can't not have the shop available and fully test it. Your opinion on whether a cash shop being available for a beta game is overgeneralizing when a game like this would have hindered testing…

Jokes don't have to make logical sense you know...

Most suburban areas outside the major cities easily have 3-5 options for ISPs, however that shouldn't be considered the norm and should by no means be generalized in this discussion as though everyone has that many options.

Because water and electricity are much more limited in supply, whereas internet access can be near infinite. It's also not quite the same thing due to water and electricity being basic necessities.

The thing is, companies that are willing to charge more will only really be able to get away with doing this in areas that they monopolize, and even then it's risky. Several companies have tried this, and as the article says, it was disastrous. So while they do have the option of it, it's not guaranteed that they'll…

Because pushing the gaming and other markets into digital distribution "forces" ISPs to keep up with that demand, arguably. It also removes all the back-end of creating physical products, therein providing products for a lower cost.

You mean the multiplayer innovation and what they attempted with the auction house? Yes, the auction house failed, but it was still attempted innovation that the gaming industry is better for because of it's failure.

I think the point he's trying to make here though is that instead of offering valid feedback most people did nothing but bitch about it requiring always online - with their only complaint to that being that they couldn't play the game initially. I can understand being upset primarily due to the connection issues that…

You're right, if the game was designed to be played offline in the first place. Changing the architecture of a game from always online to allowing offline takes more work than just making a new game with offline features. Why though, would they spend time developing a game with offline features if that's not how they…