Originally Posted by: Lowe0 
I didn't suggest removing online play. I suggested making the same rewards available to all players, whether they play offline or online.
In that case, just wait. Rewards that are made available to online players will eventually be made available to offline players. Hence, why I italicized "early" in "early access" in my response to you. Example: Apollo Intenza Emozione was initially offered in Series 9 spring Trial and later made available (twice) in the Forzathon Shop.
Originally Posted by: Lowe0 
I already told you what constitutes compromised game design: you simply look at PG's previously stated vision of "play how you want" and ask if a feature adheres to that vision or not. PG abandoned their previous guiding principle; that's what compromised the design.
I think the problem is that you're conflating the concept of principles and laws so that they're indistinguishable. Regardless, I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I still don't think that the Playlist breaks the vision statement as you suggest. The Trial is a much different challenge
because of its intended design being co-op.
That is the
experience that PG wanted you to have for
that specific event. Playing the Trial in solo would effectively corrupt that original design concept and completely change the nature of it. The Trial, being just one
element of the Playlist means that you can forgo playing it and wait until its reward becomes available in a future offline event or available through the Forzathon Shop.
That, to me, sounds a lot like "play how you want".
I don't think that PG intended for people to be able to change the parameters of in-game design components/rules that actually form the basis of the challenge itself. In other words, I don't think that PG meant for "play how you want" to be interpreted so literally that you should be allowed to bring a hypercar to this season's retro supercar Trial. Scrutinizing the individual parts that form the game's design is the only way for the vision statement to be interpreted so literally, which is what you're essentially doing. The Trial is a co-op event by nature of the challenge. Making the Trial an offline event would effectively be changing the rules of its design. In essence,
that would be compromising the game's design based on the designers' original
intent!
Similarly, by nature of the event itself, the "Seasonal Games" is a co-op event. Set aside the fact that it's in the Playlist. How do you play that game by yourself? If the guiding principle was "play how you want", then obviously "Seasonal Games" is in violation of the vision statement and should be entirely removed from the game. That's the sort of nonsensical road we can travel if we decide to make a literal interpretation of an overall, guiding principle that was not intended to be
law.
Originally Posted by: Lowe0 
Also, you'll note that the solution I proposed was to use the existing Forzathon Points system, not microtransactions. I'm wondering if your misstatement of my argument is accidental or intentional.
We never discussed "Forzathon Points" in any part of our discussion; so there could be no way for me to misstate your argument. The extent of our discussion, since your response above, was the following comment (in its entirety) that you directed at me:
Originally Posted by: Lowe0 
What's so important about online racing that it justifies compromising the game design to promote it?
. . . So I brought up the hypothetical example of microtransactions to explain a mechanism that can
"compromise" gameplay, for a
player as it pertains to
"game design". The reason why I brought that up is because the argument of "compromised game design" was rather suspect in the context that you mentioned. So I attempted to make the distinction of what
I think constitutes "compromised" game design so I'd have a better understanding of what
your position was and vice-versa. Your response better explained to me why you were arguing a violation of the game's design. What I'm trying to express is that the game
is the game itself. Therefore, the game design can't be "compromised" for it
being the game. Otherwise we could just say that
Ms. Pac-Man is compromised game design because it's "different" from
Pac-Man. No --
Ms. Pac-Man is the game. It's just a
different game.
Apparently my example of microtransactions was still too abstract for the conversation. So a better example of "compromised game design" is what is happening in ranked team adventure where players can help a team win by quitting. That obviously was
not the intended game design by PG. Therefore, that aspect of the game's design can be said to be, "compromised".
Your application of the term "compromised game design" is based on an interpretation that allows you to argue for an overhaul of the game so that it meets
your preference to not have to participate in certain activities that were meant to enhance a player's experience with, exploration of, and involvement with the game. What you're advocating would effectively remove an entire method of earning rewards; thereby negatively impacting the "play as you want" vision statement.
Originally Posted by: Lowe0 
Right now, I have unfinished playthroughs of Modern Warfare and Gears 5, 3 more characters to play through in Borderlands 3, Death Stranding coming in a couple weeks, Jedi Fallen Order a couple weeks later, and have a backlog all the way back to the 90s if I somehow get through all of that. Why would I spend time on a mode I don't enjoy when I have all that to get through?
"Play how you want" used to be the vision statement of Horizon. Why not design the reward loop around that idea?
Originally Posted by: Lowe0 
Not counting upcoming seasonal exclusives, there are four cars I don't own: the Chevrolet ZR2, the Ford Capri FE, the Rossion Q1, and the VW ID-R.
The next time I grind out 16M credits, I can pick up the ID-R. . . .
I think there are a lot of different issues going on here, and the main one being that you're not having any fun with the game. I get that because it took me a long while before I got into FH4. If there's any flaw with the game's design, it's probably that there's a very steep learning curve for beginners. After that it's up to the player to figure out how to get the most out of it. If a player can't ever get to that place where they
want to play it, then why bother?
And how is it the fault of PG that you're being prevented from getting to those other games? And why on earth would you grind credits for a VW I.D. R in the Auction House? Just wait for it to become available again as an offline Playlist event. If I played this game the way you did, then I'd hate it too! As I said before, if something's not fun, then either find a better way to play the game or just set it aside for something else that you
want to play.
(BTW, the VW I.D. R Trial was so stupidly easy that I even commented on how unrewarding that event felt to me.)