"but then adding features late is better than never adding them at all. I guess."

Or for a fee.

Later? Well, I suppose it's not too exciting when you first get it. But a few days after, I will be excited.

@ShirtGuyDom: its the prologue so i don't think they are going to charge more later for those features.

Doesn't matter. This game is a first day buy. It's nice to see though that they haven't forgotten about it. I love the fact that this is gonna be online.

They wont charge

So haven't really followed GT since #3, have they done damage rendering yet? Or is it still like playing ping pong when you hit something?

I like the idea of Polyphony adding stuff to Prologue as they go... (as long as it remains free)

Didn't they say they would update it with damage modeling at some point?

I think it comes down to how you look at it. Are these features that are mandatory for a good product or will they enhance the overall lifecyle of the product? In the case of private rooms and in-game voice chat, these are enhancements in my opinion. I'm glad to see them come, but I wouldn't dis on a game if they weren't there at first. Well, not a title like GT5. Perhaps for Gears of War or something like that.

Damage rendering may get annoing after a while, because i imagine you would have to pay for repairs and geting money in the early stages of GT is difficult man.

I do recall them saying about the same thing for GT4 as far as adding online later so I wont get my hopes up. Of coarse they didn't have the distribution model on the PS2 that they do now for the PS3 though. I did have some good times using tunneling software on my PC to trick it into connecting online through the LAN support that GT4 did support and although it was pretty damn laggy it was still fun playing a GT game head to head online. I'm planning on purchasing Prologue regardless as Forza 2 didn't really do it for me. I also hope they get the in game XMB support working soon as well...

@VGJ:
Polyphony "said" they will add damage rendering later on, but the problem is they also said some car makers don't want damage on their cars...
I guess it's a game that you are expected to be good and not crash =)

I don't know, just little bits. Like Colin Mcrae(sp) Rally for the 360, excellent damage rendering and it didn't REALLY punish you money wise when you crashed into things. However, I'll still be picking up GT regardless because it's f'in beautiful

@Dir_en_grey:
Than they should exclude those cars from the game this is what 2008 now, we've had damage modeling in racers for at least 5 years or so, there is no excuse that damage modeling would not be in, especially for a game that prides itself on being a realistic driving game.

@boxofthegods: Yes, but it's unfair to compare 5-year old car models with GT5 car models. And GT also prides itself in having fucktons of cars, so no, I don't think they will "exclude those cars." If you want damage, buy Motorstorm. If you want a real sim with no damage, buy GT.
Also, I love how everybody is being so picky about damage rendering. Have you seen the trailers of this game? Do you know that it will have 16 players online and in-car models? Think about it, then whine.

@boxofthegods: I think the key phrase there is "driving game" not "crashing game"

Call me old fashioned, but I like a game released finished, and not the other way around. It feels like moving into a house and having them install lights and toilets long after you've lived there. I love downloadable content, but this seems like a cop out to release it unfinished just so they can work on it while we play it.

As for the damage, as a racing sim, GT's first priority is the realism in the car's control. The thing about a company not wanting damage to their car represented in digital form is kind of a stupid deal. How useful is actually advertising your cars while a very, very small, if existent percentage of GT players can actually buy a fraction of the cars available? Hell, if they could, they're probably driving the real thing anyway.

I allways thought it was a bumper car racing sim, but really this demo/game looks epic....can't wait ^^,

I dont really care about damage, as long as they have the penalty that slows you down for a few seconds if you hit a wall or opponent with reasonable force... that stops people bouncing off other cars through corners, and makes you think about giving other cars space.

The real reason people should want damage modeling is so you want to avoid crashes... thats what real racing is about, clean passes. I get the feeling that some people just want to see the cars wreck ala Burnout Paradise.

"If you want a real sim with no damage, buy GT."

That sentence seems to be dripping with unintentional irony.

an unfinished...demo ? how less finished can a game be?
is it being released uncompiled too?

@sascha23: No, private rooms/matches are a basic and essential feature for any online game. Voice chat also seems to be pretty basic and essential if you own an Xbox 360, but I guess you could lower your standards and call them "extras".

@Astrofox:

personally i'd like to have the option to just mess around and make fun crashes or to play a serious typical gran turismo fashion.

@demonknightinuyasha:

in a*

@ForgotMyKeys: It's not necessarily about just advertising your cars for sale in a game; if these manufacturers still care about how their cars look (I know they *did* when GT1/2 came out, not sure if they do now when games like Forza can beat up Fords as well as Beamers and Ferraris), it's to keep the brand's image clean so your exposure to the car and the brand is confined to the showroom-floor, just-got-waxed pristine impression you see in car commercials and, well, GT5 videos.

This is ridiculous. The game bought from the shelf should be the complete game. Downloadable content should be used to enhance a game, not add some of the main features after the game has been released to ensure it reaches its deadline.

Imagine Nintendo took this policy? With all the delays, we would just end up with half of Super Smash Bros Brawl!

You're being charged for a fancy online demo lol, that's bad enough as is.

@Covert_Knight:

Funny, how this glorified demo *prologue* is bigger than most racing games with 71 cars, online mode and crisp perfect cars =]

This demo will last you longer than any mediocre shooter.
To name a few:
Halo 1
Halo 2
Halo 3
Gears of War

This demo will last you longer than any mediocre race game.
To name a few:
Project Gotham 4
Forza

@ForgotMyKeys: Why in God's name would you prefer that they release it later on with those features in tact? This is like they're doing you a FAVOR by letting you play the game early and then giving you the extra features when they're ready. I'd much prefer that then to have wait even longer to eventually wind up with the exact same thing as we're going to end up with. We get to play the game in the mean time. Besides, these features aren't even that important. I don't even have a single friend that owns a PS3, so being able to play with them in a private match is essentially worthless to me. Not that it wouldn't be a good feature for lots of people, but it hardly renders the game unplayable. I think it's good that we'll get to play it "early" (so to speak) and then when the extra features are ready down the line we'll get a patch. Why wouldn't you prefer that? The alternative is not playing the game at all until all the extra work is done and winding up with the same product in the end.

@thewisestfool: We DID end up with half of Smash Bros. Brawl if you want to compare the features that are being left out of GT5P for a later date. Voice chat! That ain't in Brawl. The online gameplay in Brawl is totally as gimped (if not more so) than it will be in GT5P, pre-patch. So what are you talking about? Your comparison doesn't work.
Also, people who complain about the fact that you get to play the game while they work on making it better, you're a bunch of whining fucks. Shut up. Seriously. You get to buy thee game and play it and then later on they'll make your game even better. Alternative? Wait even longer, without getting to play it, and then buy it. Either way you end up with the exact same game, but one way you get to play it in April, and the other way you get to play it ... at some point in the future beyond. I choose April.

And besides it isn't like the game is gimping you on content that will be important to the gameplay in any way. If people don't go online with their PS3's, the fact that they can't download this patch/update doesn't prevent them from enjoying their game anymore than they would if the game came with these features, because all of these features are exclusive to the online aspect. Anybody who would use these features is capable of downloading the update.

In my opinion, this is 100 % good. I get to buy the game in April and have fun with it, and by the time they add the extra online features I'll probably actually have some friends to play it online with because they'll get a PS3 in time for Metal Gear Solid 4 and end up picking up this game too. It's all good all around.

Not only are games released unfinished, this one one has been released in tiny chunks to keep the hype alive. Rather them just finish it as well. I'd hate to see a trend of AAA titles getting released like this in the future unless they are intentionally episodic (like a TV series sense).

@Idree: Since you seem to be a beacon of unbiased truth, I'll take your word for it.

@Idree: I fail to see any basis for that statement other than blatant fanboyism. 71 cars is more than neither of those games, people are still playing the old Halo's online now (I really don't like Halo before you throw your toys out the pram). Fine enjoy it, that's great but it is a demo nonetheless. A big demo, but then the game will come out and people will pay for it twice and STILL not see anything fundamentally wrong with that. I'm very excited about Gran Turismo 5, but not about...this.

@TearsandScreams: Project Gotham Racing 4 had 120 vehicles and 10 courses. That's really not all that much more than GT5P, all things considered. One costs 60 dollars, one 40. I think that 40 dollars for all the content in GT5P is a fair price.

Only a true sucker with no self control would buy this. Unfortunately, that's like half the core gamers out there. I hope people don't buy this en masse, as it will only encourage publishers to release and charge for unfinished products, or in this case an XL demo. @ckranger11: @TearsandScreams: Please don't acknowledge the idiot fanboys. Give 'em the amount of time they're worth (none).

If you don't like it don't buy it. They have been doing the prologues now for a while and people bitched back then too, but you know what? People do buy them.

People love Gran Turismo, simple as that, get over it. People paid 60$ to play Halo 3 beta but buying crackdown (and you know majority bought it mainly for the H3 beta). Was funny the day after the beta ended, that gamestops had stacks of Crackdown returns to sell used suddenly....

@ca$h: If it has voice chat, or when it has voice chat im buying myself in. Im not a huge GT fan so this is the perfect game for me. Its not as expensive as the full retail version and it has a good deal of content.

Why does someone have to be labeled a sucker or an idiot just because they dont share the same view as you?

@ca$h: I never downloaded a demo of this size from Xbox Live.

I think this is a fine way to release a game, but when the full version comes out next year (or later this year?), but what may perturb me down the road is how they go about releasing the full game and what it will include. I want it to be appropriately valued with people who already bought Prologue in mind.

still no damage modeling, what is the point of making a game realistic if you can just play bumper cars?

Sure, you can play bumper cars. You can also spin around and race backwards up the track. You can smash your guitar while playing guitar hero. You can shoot Ashley in RE4. In any Wii game, you can pop the batteries out of the Wiimote and swallow them.

What's the common thread? Every one of these will make you lose. Does it mean that much to you whether you smash into a wall, and lose a race by hobbling around for several minutes with a damaged engine and broken steering alignment, or just lose the race because you smashed into a wall and lost several seconds getting back on track? Both would be frustrating, only the former would probably needlessly additionally penalize you by making you buy replacement parts and repairs. To me, that only brings the crappy parts of owning a car to the otherwise fun world of video games.

I'm not some kind of GT apologist - they've said damage will be added so there's no need to make excuses for it - but personally I'd probably turn it off or make it cosmetic unless you could have it MOSTLY reduced like in Pro Race Driver 2006 instead of just ruining your car like Forza. The whole "BAWWW, GT has no car damage!" whine is as old as GT. So? There are no bloody decapitations in Super Mario Galaxy either... do most fans want them?

@fuchikoma: You made good, I approve.

@fuchikoma: decapitation in mario - child trauma!!!! :) Totally agree though - real damage modeling would also result in not being able to race after any kind of real contact. Cars can't take punishment like they do in Burnout Paradise :)

Leave this beautiful racing game alone and keep the damage to racing game like Burnout Paradise and Motorstorm. There's a ton of racing games with damage and mayhem that people call "fun" but there's only one Gran Turismo, it's pure racing game that rewards you for driving flawlessly while admiring the beautiful cars. GT series sold 48 millions without damage and that will not change now. This game attracts the young and old car enthusiast and no other car racing game can match that.

@boxofthegods:
Additionally to what others have said, you have to understand the enormous complexity that would be involved in trying to make damage models accurate, or at least to the high standards that this developing team holds for itself.

I doubt that even the PS3 would be able to accurately calculate the physics in not only situational elements that lead to the crash, but also the way the car's structure would react to certain types of impact, not to mention the multitude of appearance changes that could take place and resulting changes to the car's dynamics.

If you think this is an exercise in exaggeration, it isn't. And if you think that you've seen "proper" damager modeling, you haven't. Leaving it out is a testement to how good Polyphony really is.

@thegunshow: I'm sure they could manage to put a "Damage: OFF" option in there for you.

This isn't aimed at you, but the general idea that GT should be thought of as the best racing SIMULATION (as in, true to life) on a console but there should be no damage done to the car in a wreck is laughable.

@BoffrO: So if the damage modeling isn't 100% perfect, then it shouldn't be done at all? If that's you're opinion, more power to you. But if you're trying to say that it's because of developer integrity, that's BS.

Where is that logic when releasing a "game" like GT5: Prologue? This game/demo/beta test (whatever you want to call it) is nowhere close to perfect or even finished by definition. A perfectionist developer (Valve, Blizzard, etc.) would NEVER let a half-completed project like this hit retail.

If Forza can have damage, why can't GT? I'm calling bullshit on this.