The Downfall of Forza Motorsport

Forza Motorsport Forza Motorsport 2023 FM 2023 Discussion
21

downfall video seemed interesting, but Ultraviolet is a dishonest one and click baity, no one forces you to deplete the car level counter, it makes no sense, pick cars you enjoy exploit them and thats it. and as for the “professional” level gamer part you can say that same sentence from any pro gamer for Iracing, rfactor 2 and many more, at high level simulations feels like games as they ve exploited every nook and cranny by minmaxing or using the physics, part of the 1% of obsessive competitive players it barely concerns us.

Those videos are just blatant pedantry as they try to get more buyers remorse, and many youtubers do that and for many games I ve always enjoyed.
FM is far from perfect I admit that needs to fix manual clutch exploit, but the physics are soooo much beleivable than FM7 that I will enjoy this if they polish the product every bit by every bit.
I just wanted online play, a good physics model with gameplay play and I bought this one for that, not for that car rpg/ collecting non sense thay didnt clicked for me for most of previous FM, it was a platform entry to get into serious sims, there is no lie there, they announced the track list, I knew from the start that they’ll miss a lot of them, they ve announced cars, and they ve announced that progression system, “that build from the ground up” while funny is a misunderstood meme, the game design and philosophy of the game is completely changed, its not a car RPG anymore and thats their first try, this is the “ground” as a game design standpoint.

2 Likes
22

Well, that’s fine if the game works for you, but you are not the playerbase. The game does not work for a lot of that playerbase. The game does not live up to the expectations of a lot of that playerbase. And they didn’t need an UltraViolet or Fastminer or Don Joewon Song or Shinyodd to tell them that, because the unfortunate fact of the matter is that too many of them found out for themselves, the hard way, having paid good money to be subjected to that.

The question is, what is Turn 10 going to do about that? Because it’s laughable that anyone should think all this needs is a buff and polish, not when so much of this game screams for a frame-off rebuild.

18 Likes
23

ya its called early access back in days and it was cheaper

4 Likes
24

Amen to “still doesn’t excuse what we got.”
There are no excuses that could vindicate them for being misleading to knowingly sell such a mess.
Whatever their situation was, nothing could justify the way they chose to handle it.

9 Likes
25

most of game as service or sims are early access actually.
Automobilista 2 was out as 1.0 in 2020 and reached its “final form” weeks ago

They act like evolving products, not like in the past, as I really admit that they ve rushed the release, we can talk about it in 2 or 3 years maybe ? the worrying part is the tiny mouse step they do every update, as they re pressed to release cars (due to licensing contracts), tracks and not focusing on the core aspects.

2 Likes
26

They don’t need to be a “game as a service” to get updated. The live-service nature of this one is a big part of what caused myself and many other former Forza fanatics to refrain from buying it at all.
Patching a game to add things has always worked perfectly fine in the past for many, many games. The live-service model is unnecessary.
I’m still trying to figure out any actual benefit to a live-service and I keep coming up empty handed.

5 Likes
27

Because like all corporations, MS doesn’t want to show weakness that might effect their stock price. It’s why all big companies don’t like to air their dirty laundry… Even if it would help sway the court of public opinion in their favor.

It’s all about stockholders and company valuation more than the products they produce, ironically.

Yeah, I watched the first one… That I had stumbled across before it was posted… But just skimmed the second one.

The first one lost all credibility when he tried to claim, you can’t build a PC that is equivalent to the Xbox Series X, for less than a $1000. That’s complete bull, and then he goes into the typical “PCMasterRace” mode and goes on and on about how it’s the best platform for racing games, blah, blah, blah. It’s blatantly false stuff like this that make me tune out everything else the author has to say, when they can’t get basic information, right. But I digress…

While FM deserves the harsh criticism, videos like these capitalize on people’s disappointment, while not offering any real solutions… Even if it’s out of consumer’s hands. They exist to feed off people’s affirmation that the product they don’t like is in fact “bad” and everybody made the “right” decision declaring it bad.

Also, he did a two hour long critique of Forza Horizon 5.

FH5 is not perfect, but I don’t need to sit through two hours of someone nitpicking the game to death because I actually enjoy FH5 for what it is. Not for what it’s not.

Some games can benefit from Live Service IF they’re done right. MMOs are Live Service games before that term was even coined, and the model makes sense, there.

It’s just that about 10 years ago, publishers figured out recurring purchases and player re-engagement made a lot more money than just a one-time sale of a game. This is why even single player games are now using the Live Service model by having in-game shops for cosmetics, stat boosts, etc.

The real problem with Live Service games is most launch with minimal content and then drip feed what should have been there as additional content that you either have to pay for, or wait years to access.

1 Like
28

He says at the end that the video isnt meant to shame the devs.
They should feel shame. I certainly would. Especially if I had passion for cars. Much less the game franchise.

2 Likes
29

Or voicing their own displeasure that happens to line up with all of us voicing our own similar displeasure on here? Even if it were “Meant to capitalize” which I assume you intend to imply its being made solely out of cynical opportunism and not genuine opinions. Whats wrong with that? Its what 93% of youtube content is.

4 Likes
30

I think you should read what you wrote. Bugs, unoptimized pc port, lack of content, content should come faster, and upgrade system that most people dont like. These are major issues, all the bugs wont be fixed, the optimization issues stem from not utilizing cpu cores properly not a quick or easy fix it was designed improperly, lack of content can be remedied but how many tracks are they going to add to a dead game, speed wise lol theyre not that quick, upgrade system changes likely wont be made because realistically it needs to go back to using credits but that would then require the entire economy of the game being changed.

I just want to touch on the track thing again. More tracks arent going to help the fact that theres not much to support them. The campaign is trash and drip feeding a new track here or there into it isnt going to fix it. Freeplay is also pretty boring, the ai are garbage and they added better fuel and tire usage to the game yet theyre useless in freeplay as theres no modifier to actually have it have an effect. Multiplayer is barebones, more tracks would be great but turn 10 are notorious for choosing horrible track rotations so they likely wont help here either.

The actual driving is better than past motorsports, but its not that much better. Its not enough to keep the game alive while they figure out what they should do. Theres too much competition to release a game in this state.

7 Likes
31

:rofl:
LMAO these kinds of posts are comedy gold:
yeah it’s buggy, & it’s lacking content, & it’s lacking features, & it’s poorly designed, & it’s in shambles, & it would take years to fix…
…but I’m totally filled with hope that it will reach new heights!!
:laughing:
Keeping hope alive is what keeps sketchy game companies alive.

12 Likes
32

I don’t think that’s an act.

4 Likes
33

Exactly.
We’ve all smelled this enough times before to recognize a pattern:
sell a half-baked game,
slowly update it over time,
then undo & reset all of the (faux) “progress” from those updates by selling the next installment/sequel in half-baked condition again,
…then slowly update that over time to (maybe) catch up to similar levels of stability, features, & content that the prior installment eventually got,
then undo & reset all of that (faux) “progress” again by selling the next installment/sequel in half-baked condition,
slowly update it a little less than before,
…rinse & repeat, stripping away more each time.

A recurring one-step-forward-&-many-steps-back approach is backsliding, not progress.
We’ve fallen farther behind than we were a decade ago.
There’s even a recent thread here titled: “What feature from previous titles do you miss the most?”
…That’s not nostalgia - that’s recognition of this long-running decline.

3 Likes
34

As you pointed out, live-services benefit the publisher and their shareholders. Not the end users. As I said before, you really don’t need that to add content. They can just as easily put a storefront in the game for people who like to be milked for more money without the need for the constant connection being tied to the actual game itself.

When I was about 12, one of my favorite games was Wizard on the Commodore 64. That was around 1984. There was an expansion for that game. We didn’t even need the internet. The need for constant connectivity is just something that game publishers are trying to push because it gives them more control and more ways to try to wring money out of us.
The fact that they do that to some much beloved franchises on top of releasing utter crap is why I find it so insulting. And the longer people keep excusing them for it, the more they’ll do it, the lower the quality will be, and the more they’ll carve it up to give you less.

I’ve been watching exactly that happen over the last 20 years or so. I’m just glad I have old games as well as the indie game industry now.

7 Likes
35

looks like they have very limited development resources when it comes to core aspects

36

And the solution here would’ve been to charge a proportional amount of money for what is, quite literally, an early access beta if we measure by content, stability, and live service intentions.

Gonna release the other 50% of the content over the next 3 years?

Cool, charge me $40 now, not $100.

16 Likes
37

I feel there are some fantastic examples of ‘live service’ where it’s beneficial to the player:
I’d say ‘Hunt Showdown’ for one - receives constant updates, balancing, communication, implemented player feedback etc…

Another example might be Lords of the Fallen (the latest one) - its studio is incredible at reacting to player feedback and providing constant communication and updates.

Here for example is the top 3 posts in LOTF steam News - and I can assure you it continues like this all the way back to day 0 at launch and beyond.

image
image795×927 162 KB

1 Like
38

Exactly, it’s as simple as that. As long as we’re only charged for what we get, T10 can tinker with the product as long as they like.

3 Likes
39

Since we’re talking about Live Service games…

The big one that really solidified the model for investors and stockholders was Fortnite. And to an even larger extent, GTA Online (GTAV).

These kinds of online games showed how much more recurring investment makes instead of a single game purchase, alone.

People forget, Fortnite started out as a Co-Op Tower Defense game. Single purchase. Then, they took those people’s money and made a BR none of them wanted, but of course, it took off into the billion-dollar money maker that it is, today. Fortnite BR being F2P helped tremendously because you’re literally not paying for anything you don’t want, but you can still take part in the seasonal updates and big events they put on.

GTA Online is a whole other entity. Not only do you have to buy GTAV (single player), but then there are recurring MTX… Namely, the Shark Cards kids bought en masse because they got sick of being griefed online… And there are also paid expansions.

They made changes within the last year where you can now have private lobbies, but for the longest time it was setup to frustrate (younger) players into forking out their (parents) money, so they had a fighting chance online. It’s insidious, and why I don’t support any of R* online modes because they’re setup to be antagonistic and promote griefing for profit.

The point is, Live Service can benefit certain games (Destiny, Hunt Showdown, etc), and it just depends on how it’s done. For every LS game that is done right, there are probably five or more that are just in it for the cashgrab. These games don’t last long, so there is incentive to do LS well if that’s the model a game is going to use as their primary revenue generator.

Forza Motorsport is a poor fit for this model vs. something like iRacing, that is subscription and pay-as-you-go, but is the definition of Live Service.

1 Like
40

I don’t know what YouTube you watch, but this is not true at all.

You know how I know it’s not true?

Try taking the talking points these videos focus on into actual gaming Discords, or real life conversations and you’ll find you (persons in general) aren not in the echo chamber YT wants you to be in. This doesn’t mean, people are ignoring glaring issues, or only allowing “toxic positivity”. What it means is what I said: These content creators capitalize on negativity because it’s much easier to tear down than praise where it’s warranted.

I learned this the hard way, and had to step back and look at how much negative content I was consuming… Because it wasn’t aligning with what the majority of casual-core gamers were experiencing.

Again, I’m not saying criticism for things like FM is not warranted.

I’m just saying, be careful you don’t get too caught up in that narrow mindset because it’s not a true reflection of what’s really going on out there. Don’t be a rebel, for rebel’s sake. Once again, not directed at you, personally, but like I said, I got caught up in it, and it really cut off my enjoyment of a lot of things in gaming that actually had few flaws, but were amplified by content creators solely to generate clicks.

2 Likes