If you are a gamer who is just not that excited about GTA VI, I want you to know you aren't alone. I'll probably play it at some point down the road when it goes on sale for $20 or so, but I...
If you are a gamer who is just not that excited about GTA VI, I want you to know you aren't alone.
I'll probably play it at some point down the road when it goes on sale for $20 or so, but I simply cannot be assed to care much about it, and certainly not to pay $80-$120 for the privilege.
For me, that ennui also extends to GTA5. I don't own the Steam version of GTA5, and although I have a physical copy of GTA5 for the PS4 somewhere, I don't think I played more than a mission or...
For me, that ennui also extends to GTA5. I don't own the Steam version of GTA5, and although I have a physical copy of GTA5 for the PS4 somewhere, I don't think I played more than a mission or two.
The game was just....too acerbically anti-social to be enjoyable; nobody in that game felt like a genuine human that I could empathize with, and turning everything into the butt of a joke got old really quickly.
It seemed to me like the game wants to look like it's criticizing society in every possible way but refuses to throw any knockout punches. It ends up feeling more like vaguely cynical teenage...
It seemed to me like the game wants to look like it's criticizing society in every possible way but refuses to throw any knockout punches. It ends up feeling more like vaguely cynical teenage edginess than anything.
I don't mind that since the open world and driving could carry this game two times over. Its greatest crime in my opinion is that it kind of squanders that with its extremely linear and sometimes plain tedious mission design. If not earlier, you start questioning your choice to play through it by the time you're stacking shipping containers or whatever other bullshit minigames they drag you through. The most fun I've had in its missions is getting away from cops. Even just getting from one point to another is usually more fun than anything else the missions have to offer.
Rockstar in a nutshell. I strongly prefer Bethesda’s approach I’ve seen in Skyrim and Oblivion where the games are foundationally designed around player agency.
Its greatest crime in my opinion is that it kind of squanders that with its extremely linear and sometimes plain tedious mission design.
Rockstar in a nutshell. I strongly prefer Bethesda’s approach I’ve seen in Skyrim and Oblivion where the games are foundationally designed around player agency.
This is an interesting example to make since I think they actually both suffer from a similar issue of appearing freeform on the surface but actually being rather restrictive when you poke at the...
This is an interesting example to make since I think they actually both suffer from a similar issue of appearing freeform on the surface but actually being rather restrictive when you poke at the edges. I feel this is especially true in regards to Skyrim, but the cracks first started to show in Oblivion.
Both Bethesda and Rockstar employ quest design that essentially amounts to playing a role in a script more than a character with agency. Most quests are binary, do this thing or fail the quest, and failure states are rarely interesting or have any follow through. I suppose Bethesda lets you continue playing in the failure state, but for most quests it might as well be a game over. Once you fail a quest in a chain there is no other progression that can happen afterwards for any questlines that actually compose the majority of the narrative content in the game. This is no different in my eyes than backing out of the gameover screen in a Rockstar game and playing the other openworld content.
Both games let you kill random NPCs but restrict player action in any meaningful way towards NPCs of any consequence, dubbed Essential NPCs in Bethesda games. And even the way you interact with NPCs you do have power over is restricted to killing them or not. When you are trying to kill them, you have about the same level of options in an Elder Scrolls as a selection of weapons in a GTA. When you arent, interaction is mostly limited to basic limited dialogue, usually from the NPC (especially pre RDR2) and without any consequence or effect beyond basic immersion. You always arrive at the predestined end point the devs prescribed for you, and any "choice" before the final binary decision making is usually an illusion of wieght and conseqeuence. Nothing besides their final choice makes any difference, whether in a Bethesda questline or a Rockstar campaign.
--Not attacthing any judgement towards you in this observation, I just found it to be an interesting thought path spurred by your comparison. --
You also have spells like Frenzy etc. Bethesda at least allows you to keep playing through the glitches. Rockstar has really strict quest scripting. I encountered a bug in RDR2 that could have...
And even the way you interact with NPCs you do have power over is restricted to killing them or not.
You also have spells like Frenzy etc.
Bethesda at least allows you to keep playing through the glitches. Rockstar has really strict quest scripting. I encountered a bug in RDR2 that could have been fixed by just going to the target location which was canonically already loaded with the quest loot. But because the right prerequisite didn’t trigger I couldn’t get the loot. In Skyrim you can noclip through a dungeon and the quest will pick up at the right spot on your next trigger event. Sure the options are scripted and limited but at least they are prioritizing the right things.
Rockstar also does the occasional camera hijack for a cutscene. Skyrim has very few such moments (most notably the opening sequence, which actually mostly keeps the camera under your control but forces you to sit/stand in place). I really hate cutscenes in an open-world game. IIRC Rockstar also has certain quests where if you move too far from the target area you “fail” and they’ll restart you back where they want you to go. Fuck that. Let me do whatever I want whenever I want as much as is possible. That is the primary constraint. The primary constraint should not be getting me into a highly tailored cinematic experience.
I'm not sure I would say either prioritizes the right things, they just prioritize different things since they are aiming to deliver different experiences, beyond the most surface level connective...
I'm not sure I would say either prioritizes the right things, they just prioritize different things since they are aiming to deliver different experiences, beyond the most surface level connective tissue of "open world video game." I know I'm really the problem here but I don't find having this dichotomy of player agency levels in the linear content verse the open world content to be an issue. Personally I don't even feel like Rockstar sells the game as anything other than what is, a cinematic narrative action game experience set in an expansive simulated open world. I don't find much disappointment in that aspect since I'm not expecting otherwise. If anything it's the culture around the games more than the games themselves that sell the series as this go anywhere do anything freeform experience. Which is certainly a facet of the game, but not what Rockstar is aiming for at the top level.
I’ve played GTA V on multiple systems and while I enjoy it for what it is, it’s mostly the freestyle stuff that is the most fun, and that was hugely cut down from IV. As you say, the missions etc...
I’ve played GTA V on multiple systems and while I enjoy it for what it is, it’s mostly the freestyle stuff that is the most fun, and that was hugely cut down from IV. As you say, the missions etc really aren’t actually very good and the humour, for the most part, isn’t really that funny and is usually incredibly obvious and lazy satire that gets very close to being post irony…that thing where it almost seems like the people writing it actually do believe what they are writing but have a thin veneer of irony over the top so they can always say “dude, it’s a JOKE, you just don’t get it.”
This has always been GTAs main messaging. It's never been serious social commentary or a political call to action. It was humor and commentary born of the late 90s, early 2000s alternative...
It ends up feeling more like vaguely cynical teenage edginess than anything.
This has always been GTAs main messaging. It's never been serious social commentary or a political call to action. It was humor and commentary born of the late 90s, early 2000s alternative culture, similar to something like CKY or South Park. It'll lampoon right wing talking points, warmongering, and a loss of community, but it's not going to actually propose solutions to any of that, or delve deep into the systems that produce it.
I don't expect that GTA 6 will either, nor do I think I'd really want it to though. It's just not that kind of game.
It's the video game equivalent of the kid in the leather jacket saying "this is all bullshit, teach", and when the teacher goes "well do you have a better alternative for how to teach this class so that you don't fall on your face when you get out of school without knowing how the basics of how the world works?" They fall completely silent.
That's fine for what it is, the annoying kid in the back of class can be entertaining. He's not going to change the world though.
It felt to me that making them into caricatures who ring a little hollow was intentional. Wanton violence in the franchise is huge, they want people to empathize with some of the stories, but the...
It felt to me that making them into caricatures who ring a little hollow was intentional. Wanton violence in the franchise is huge, they want people to empathize with some of the stories, but the open world mayhem of the game makes it hard to not immediately negate any goodwill acquired in a narrative with a stray killing spree. Rockstar actually does a great job with the humanization of the protagonist with something like Max Payne.
Also feels like it's just the product of the times - if the game reflects an anti social, dodgey and pessimistic view of its main protagonists, then I think it does a pretty good job holding its mirror to society.
It's okay to not like that kind of thing, but I think its staying power is warranted a little.
I'm sure GTAVI will do something similar, featuring raucous violence, pointed dialogue that can either make a leftist proud or a maga boy laugh, sex appeal, and a metropolitan simulation fantasy.
I will also wait. It'll be a good game, but it's still worth $60 imo
This has been a recurring problem in basically any open world game that tries to have a serious story. It was especially bad in GTA IV, which tried to have a more down to earth, gritty story, with...
they want people to empathize with some of the stories, but the open world mayhem of the game makes it hard to not immediately negate any goodwill acquired in a narrative with a stray killing spree.
This has been a recurring problem in basically any open world game that tries to have a serious story. It was especially bad in GTA IV, which tried to have a more down to earth, gritty story, with a reluctant main character who lamented all of the violence required in his line of work... Then he'd go out and run over 3 hookers, shoot 5 cops in the face, and cause 12 accidents on his way over to the bowling alley just for fun.
I admit to being hyped for GTA 5 when it was coming out, I upgraded my graphics card and planned 24 hours of it in the first few weeks it was out. School and work and life got busy, and I never...
I admit to being hyped for GTA 5 when it was coming out, I upgraded my graphics card and planned 24 hours of it in the first few weeks it was out.
School and work and life got busy, and I never went back to finish it. It seems like it'd be fun to do at some point, but I don't know when I'll build a new computer to play more demanding games and when I finally do I'm not sure I'll want to play GTA games again. I also don't know any of my friends who are that excited for GTA 6, but I guess I'll see how many of them end up getting it.
Edit: I'm not a fan of short form content, but there is one guy whose shorts I watch occasionally and so many of the skits and his voice makes me feel like he would be a perfect fit for a GTA radio broadcaster: https://www.youtube.com/@AudioOpera/shorts
I've never played any GTA and have never felt much of a desire to. I gotta admit, some of the info that's come out about the technical systems in 6 have me intrigued but that's more about the tech...
I've never played any GTA and have never felt much of a desire to.
I gotta admit, some of the info that's come out about the technical systems in 6 have me intrigued but that's more about the tech than the game.
Maybe one day I'll try it but I'm in no hurry. I'm sure I'll hear more than I ever care to about the game for the foreseeable future
Similarly, for whatever reason I've never enjoyed a GTA game. It's odd because RDR and Bully are two games I absolutely loved, so it's not Rockstar's general formula that's the problem. Not like...
Similarly, for whatever reason I've never enjoyed a GTA game. It's odd because RDR and Bully are two games I absolutely loved, so it's not Rockstar's general formula that's the problem. Not like it matters, I'd have to wait for the PC port to come out regardless (and hope that my RX 7800 XT or the 4060 in my laptop can handle it).
Weirdly enough, I'm most excited for the soundtrack, as V had some absolute bangers and I'm hoping VI continues the trend.
I feel the same, the price of the console ~500 + 100 for the game + paying for online ~10/month, it's kinda huge. And I don't feel so bad about paying higher price for the game since it has been...
I feel the same, the price of the console ~500 + 100 for the game + paying for online ~10/month, it's kinda huge.
And I don't feel so bad about paying higher price for the game since it has been in development for almost 13 years, but I can fulfill so many of my other hobbies for that price that I cannot justify it.
People are weird about GTA6, especially those that go "You aren't a real gamer if you aren't excited" in some sites, well then maybe I never wanted that "gamer" label, anyway. I've played some GTA...
People are weird about GTA6, especially those that go "You aren't a real gamer if you aren't excited" in some sites, well then maybe I never wanted that "gamer" label, anyway.
I've played some GTA on and off but with GTA4 I kinda felt like I'd be only interested in wreaking havoc, not so much story or other facilities in game.
Plus if I wanted racing and driving, at least at the time, there was NFSMW and Midnight Club.
The most fun I had in San Andreas is probably just the cheat codes and flying with the tank.
Ultimately kinda pointless to buy a GTA game just for that.
This kind of thing translates in my head to "you aren't a real sports fan if you don't like [sport]". That's way too broad a category. Saying you don't like a specific game isn't even like saying...
"You aren't a real gamer if you aren't excited"
This kind of thing translates in my head to "you aren't a real sports fan if you don't like [sport]".
That's way too broad a category. Saying you don't like a specific game isn't even like saying you don't like a specific sport like football (either one). I'd be like saying you don't like a specific season of that sport, or maybe even a specific match.
It's good to know I'm not the only who doesn't care about this game. I hated IV, can't even remember a thing about it despite beating the game (except the bowling meme), and V didn't really grab...
It's good to know I'm not the only who doesn't care about this game. I hated IV, can't even remember a thing about it despite beating the game (except the bowling meme), and V didn't really grab me at all, don't remember how much I played but I don't think I got very far, never finished it.
I replayed the Definitive Editions of the trilogy a year ago and those were fantastic. Brought back all the memories, had a blast with all of them. Something about modern GTA just doesn't capture that same magic and is totally uninteresting to me.
I don't really like the overall vibe of GTA VI, plus I definitely won't be able to run it because I just got a new used GPU for my desktop PC: a blazing fast GTX 1070 Ti. But what makes this...
I don't really like the overall vibe of GTA VI, plus I definitely won't be able to run it because I just got a new used GPU for my desktop PC: a blazing fast GTX 1070 Ti.
But what makes this really exciting is wondering whether we're going to get an illegal vibecoded PC port and/or how long it's going to take. There will undoubtedly be people attempting this and I have no idea how probable it is, but I'm quite sure it's not impossible. I'm not saying its good, but it's incredibly interesting.
I haven't been excited for a video game to come out since like 2003, but I'm actually really looking forward to this. I'm not even a huge GTA guy. I don't know if it's the two+ years of hype &...
I haven't been excited for a video game to come out since like 2003, but I'm actually really looking forward to this. I'm not even a huge GTA guy. I don't know if it's the two+ years of hype & promotional material, the level of detail, some of the RDR2 things that I've seen them incorporate, or what, but at this point I think I'm going to get it at launch and lock myself indoors until Thanksgiving.
I don't remember where I've seen this and even if it is official, but it was said that it's coming on the first half of 2027 aswell, right? not a whole year after like it happened with GTA V back...
I don't remember where I've seen this and even if it is official, but it was said that it's coming on the first half of 2027 aswell, right? not a whole year after like it happened with GTA V back in the day.
I don't get the angry sentiment towards pricing, but i am 100% the type of person that will pay more for a good bakery to make me one real croissant or creative pastry over getting a 12 pack of...
I don't get the angry sentiment towards pricing, but i am 100% the type of person that will pay more for a good bakery to make me one real croissant or creative pastry over getting a 12 pack of crescent buns at walmart. Or spend the cash on a good cut of meat once every few weeks. Do with that info what you will. But its a good looking, huge game, that took a ton of effort to make. Surely its worth more than fc 27
I am excited for this game, ive played every gta since the first one. I only wish they'd make the radio as awesome as liberty city stories. Gta v radio was a wash. I look forward to the more technical aspects of living as your character, the romance/relationship stuff sounds fucking awesome, the soundtrack is going to raise the bar. Im so stoked. I have not watched any leaks, i am keeping my nose off of the ground till this comes out so that i can savour the whole thing from my own perspective.
I think the anger is A) just general anger at the rising costs of games and everything these days, and B) the lack of an actual physical disc, just a code. I actually do agree some games are worth...
I think the anger is A) just general anger at the rising costs of games and everything these days, and B) the lack of an actual physical disc, just a code.
I actually do agree some games are worth the higher prices, especially when you compare it as dollars to hours played. But the economy in recent years is..... Bad. Really bad. Spending $80 or $100 on a game, even a long-anticipated one, is a big splurge compared to "just" $60 or $70. Compounded by the fact it's currently releasing for consoles which are also experiencing price hikes, so people who want to play it ASAP but lack a console would need to spend even more money.
I'm sure people would always complain about the price hike, but the current state of the world makes it even more contentious.
And they see the writing on the wall. GTA5 made it well clear that singleplayer is an afterthought and selling you Shark cards is where the game is. You'll be squeezed for more than just the...
And they see the writing on the wall. GTA5 made it well clear that singleplayer is an afterthought and selling you Shark cards is where the game is.
You'll be squeezed for more than just the sticker price. People can see that value proposition is likely not worth it.
While the goal is definitely selling Shark cards in a persistent online mode, I think Red Dead Redemption 2 proves singleplayer isn't just an afterthought. Even GTA V didn't launch with that...
While the goal is definitely selling Shark cards in a persistent online mode, I think Red Dead Redemption 2 proves singleplayer isn't just an afterthought. Even GTA V didn't launch with that intent, it was only after GTAO became incredibly massive that they scrapped other singleplayer content in the aims of filling out online and putting more effort into the runaway success that consistently gains traction and earns more money. I think this a reasonable and understandable, albeit disappointing, decision to make, especially at the time. Rockstar was doing well pre-GTA V but they are in a whole other league after that game's wild success.
Rockstar went on to put the mind boggling revenue of GTAO ($500M a year well after its heyday) towards one of the most ambitious singleplayer experiences of all time. You may not like the game or agree with the design decisions of the RDR2, but I think its pretty safe to objectively say that RDR2 is art made with immense love and care for the craft (and horrific abusive crunch workculture), enabled by this borderline mythic level cash cow. They definitely tried for a second round at that with RDR Online, and if they had put the same level of work and care into it, its possible it might have gotten there. Alas Rockstar didn't commit and it languished early, leading to end of life support being announced maybe a few years in at most.
And yet, with this new GTA outing, they have said nothing about online, not even directly confirming its existence, and have focused entirely on the singleplayer. A seemingly luxurious, rich, and extensive singleplayer which appears to be taking far more from RDR 2 than GTA V, so much so I would say this new game is actually a sequel to the former more than the latter, tonally and mechanically. Which again reads to me that they put a lot of weight, love, and care into these singleplayer experiences as art and worthy of existing on their own. If the goal was only to make a vehicle to get you into the online money pits, they would surely try to follow up on the game that successfully created those money pits rather than the one that failed to do so, no? And it's not like RDR2 was a failure, the game still sold 87M units since launch, placing it in the top 5 selling games of all time, succeeded only by GTA V, Minecraft, and Tetris (if you combine different versions of the game). But even that is only just over a third of what their prior title has made, even with 5 less years of existence.
Given that, while I agree they will be squeezing us, because they know they can, it's admirable to continue to use a sizeable chunk of that towards creating more art. Art made with love and intent that exists on some level beyond extracting as many in app purchases as possible from as many people as possible. I think it's entirely possible at this point that the next online component will be a separate experience entirely, unattached from the singleplayer release of GTA VI. Even cynically viewed, GTA VI is a prudent stepping stone and foundation towards another infinite money machine, sure, but it does not feel like an afterthought.
I'm going to apologize in advance. I will be trite and short because I really really really need to go to bed, and your response is passionate enough to warrant a proper response in return. But...
I'm going to apologize in advance. I will be trite and short because I really really really need to go to bed, and your response is passionate enough to warrant a proper response in return.
But while I sleep and mull over a proper answer, please consider that I did not say multiplayer. Think about gating and selling singleplayer content as upsold editions for a bit. To me it means that the concept of "Shark cards" is no longer multiplayer only.
GTAV had a singleplayer largely left alone from the influences of nickel and diming. Selling this in tiers was them crossing the Rubicon.
What worries me about the change in mentality is not that they will make the singleplayer forgettable per se, it's that they will start monetizing the singleplayer beyond what's acceptable, which...
What worries me about the change in mentality is not that they will make the singleplayer forgettable per se, it's that they will start monetizing the singleplayer beyond what's acceptable, which in my mind is already too much with the tier system locking missions, and that the entire experience changes from love, weight, and care put into an art form, to an optimized method of farming the player for cash. There hasn't been an indication there will be more monetization yet, but then again there hasn't been an indication about anything really.. except that the project has been delayed multiple times, their developers have been repeatedly crunched to a significant degree, unions were busted, and that they've locked content behind paywalls.
The reason I'm hesitant even giving them the benefit of the doubt is because the GTA5 experience was pretty rough man. Not that the singleplayer game didn't work or something, but that the repeated promises of Rockstar were broken. Heists took absurdly long. Network connectivity remained as shoddily implemented as ever for years. The two promised DLC were scrapped.
Singleplayer recieved not a single content update post 2015. A handful of weapons, an outfit or two, first person mode, and a graphical update which applied to the whole game.
None of that screams "priority" to me.
Only time will tell if the GTA6 singleplayer is made with the player in mind. I'm thinking we'll see one significantly cut in length like Call of Duty's campaigns, or act as a funnel for online mode, or worse.. one that incentivizes players to pay for more singleplayer content through MTX.
I'm entirely willing to eat crow on this, in fact I hope I will.
These are definitely valid and understandable concerns to have, especially given the track record on display. But for me, RDR2 really sold me on Rockstar's continued singleplayer output. That was...
These are definitely valid and understandable concerns to have, especially given the track record on display. But for me, RDR2 really sold me on Rockstar's continued singleplayer output. That was such a rich, enjoyable, and well realized singleplayer experience, probably one of the most memorable I have had in years. There were a few iffy things like preorder bonuses locking off minor one off side activities, but I never felt like I was lacking a piece of the full game. There was so much game in there I forgot about the preorder content pretty quick. I'm a tad less optimistic with that being the case here, being that entire stores are locked off which definitely sucks, but from everything I have read (finely tuned marketing, I know) in the lead up, the game seems to be very expansive and well realized once again.
Another not insignificant piece of the puzzle is that some of the upper management in the studio has gone through some big (seemingly positive) changes. Former studio head Dan Houser dipped after RDR2's release, and if Jason Schreier's recent reporting on the game's development is to be believed, a lot of the toxic upper management has been purged. Those who stepped into fill those roles are also people who have been with the company for decades, like Aaron Garbut who has been credited as art director and for open world design since GTA 1 and is now a design director on the project. To me this says this is a Rockstar invested in somewhat cleaning up their image and culture, which I'm optimistic will lead to a better game and consumer experience, at least in this aspect of the release.
Singleplayer recieved not a single content update post 2015. A handful of weapons, an outfit or two, first person mode, and a graphical update which applied to the whole game.
None of that screams "priority" to me.
While valid, I think it's important to add that Rockstar tends to be one project studio, and beyond the skeleton teams supporting online, everything and everyone went towards RDR2. Given that a large share of the online content updates are reportedly repurposed scrapped singleplayer expansions, I think GTA V is a case of having something blow up beyond what even the studio expected and pivoting to where the money is. Then using that money to fund your next big project, which crucially didn't sacrifice its integrity in favor of chasing online dollars. The online of that game was clearly given less priority and resources, and it's bare bones nature shows. It definitely sucks to not see further singleplayer support for these titles post launch, but if it means we get more lavish singleplayer experiences down the line, I think I'll take that devil's deal.
As you say, time will tell if this is misplaced optimism or not, but even with GTA V's rough post launch support, I don't see this Rockstar as a studio willing to substantially compromise their output in favor of chasing more money when they already have more money than god. Maybe that's naive, because even as I write this I'm grappling with my own faith in a company to produce worthwhile art when companies are always incentivized to extract as much as possible. Maybe its a desperate attempt to cling to some optimism in an industry constantly flooded by negativity and dread. In any case, I appreciate your perspective for helping sober those expectations up.
Likewise, but for the opposite reason. I'm cynical, jaded even, through the actions of corporations never disappointing me when it comes to fulfilling my expectation of them overall taking the...
In any case, I appreciate your perspective for helping sober those expectations up.
Likewise, but for the opposite reason.
I'm cynical, jaded even, through the actions of corporations never disappointing me when it comes to fulfilling my expectation of them overall taking the worst possible option for consumers.
But.
But, you're right. Media like games can still have people working on them that do so out of a passion for creating something they can be proud of. I shouldn't dismiss that out of hand.
I should at least give them the opportunity to prove to me the molotov won't be used to light the house on fire.
If I offered you two bags of sand, one of which I shoveled off a pile at the local agricultural supply and took me 3 minutes, and one where I picked up each grain of sand with tweezers, would...
If I offered you two bags of sand, one of which I shoveled off a pile at the local agricultural supply and took me 3 minutes, and one where I picked up each grain of sand with tweezers, would anyone be justified in disagreeing with me charging more for the tweezer sand just because it took more effort to gather? The value is in the enjoyment, not in the effort. Rockstar has priced it to make money, and they're interested in charging what the market will bear. They're a business and want to make money to cover their costs and make money for the future. But sale price and value aren't strongly correlated when it comes to video games. It is "worth" more than fc27? Almost certainly, given the terrible reviews. Will people pay more for it? Probably. But that will be because of its lineage and their feelings about prior games, not because Rockstar spent more than a decade on it.
That's the textbook definition of a strawman argument. Games do not compare like raw resources do. Pricing, in most industries, is (usually**) determined by some tangible metrics such as quality,...
That's the textbook definition of a strawman argument. Games do not compare like raw resources do. Pricing, in most industries, is (usually**) determined by some tangible metrics such as quality, craftsmanship, material cost, innovation, use, etc. Video games have been locked into a hard pricing model for legacy reasons and have only recently, with the help of Steam and other online marketplaces, broken away from rigid 60$ price tags as publishing deals change and independent games of every size are made and sold. Gta is looking to adopt a different pricing model because they know what they've got. I think that's fine and the market will determine the final answer. You clearly recognize this so im not really sure what your point is?
The REAL problem that i have is that predatory publishers like EA will see this successful, and entirely justified, move from Rockstar and also increase their prices for their shitty sports/gambling and other low effort games. Which will have its own series of consequences.
My only statement was about "But its a good looking, huge game, that took a ton of effort to make. Surely its worth more than fc 27". Was the analogy of digging up sand too abstract for you? Let's...
My only statement was about "But its a good looking, huge game, that took a ton of effort to make. Surely its worth more than fc 27". Was the analogy of digging up sand too abstract for you? Let's try again with something more similar:
What does anyone care what the effort was? If a person spent 10 years of their life slaving away making a videogame and it was good, would they be justified in charging more than an equivalently good game that someone shoved out the door in 6 months? Of course not. It's the quality that matters, not the duration of work.
They're entirely justified in charging more if it pushes technical and creative boundaries of the medium, yes. As a matter of fact, itll be used as a selling point. No, youre analogy was not too...
They're entirely justified in charging more if it pushes technical and creative boundaries of the medium, yes. As a matter of fact, itll be used as a selling point. No, youre analogy was not too abstract, it was just a really bad analogy to make for the argument.
Sure, they're justified in charging whatever they want for any reason. That's entirely tangential to what it's worth, and more time invested doesn't change what a game is worth.
Sure, they're justified in charging whatever they want for any reason. That's entirely tangential to what it's worth, and more time invested doesn't change what a game is worth.
Can’t say I expected a thread about GTA VI to spark a debate about the labor theory of value vs. the subjective theory of value, but this is Tildes. As far as mainstream economics is concerned the...
Can’t say I expected a thread about GTA VI to spark a debate about the labor theory of value vs. the subjective theory of value, but this is Tildes. As far as mainstream economics is concerned the matter has been settled for 150 years. Noah Smith has a pretty good article about it if anyone’s interested.
Long story short, stuff is worth whatever people are willing to spend on it, and the reasons behind their decisions are a beautiful tapestry of rational and irrational judgments.
The pricing of everything is determined by the 2nd derivative of revenue and cost, which are themselves determined by supply and demand. The relation to craftmanship and quality exists insofar as...
Pricing, in most industries, is (usually**) determined by some tangible metrics such as quality, craftsmanship, material cost, innovation, use, etc.
The pricing of everything is determined by the 2nd derivative of revenue and cost, which are themselves determined by supply and demand.
The relation to craftmanship and quality exists insofar as those things can heighten demand, but said relation is not guaranteed by any means.
Based on apparent demand I have no doubts that GTA 6's pricing is fine, but EA too can price their games however they wish, and if they are wrong on their estimates of demand, then they are "punished" by making less money than they otherwise would have. There's no problems.
I'll take the contrarian perspective... I'm excited for it. GTA2 was the second pc game I bought for myself (after the original roller coaster tycoon), and Vice City was my favorite game in the...
I'll take the contrarian perspective... I'm excited for it. GTA2 was the second pc game I bought for myself (after the original roller coaster tycoon), and Vice City was my favorite game in the series for a long time. I'm happy to see an updated Vice City, I like what I've seen of the two main characters... maybe cause I'm a white guy from south FL who married a Latina... but regardless, it has some appeal imo.
If it turns out to be as hollow as V was, character-wise (I still never finished V's campaign), then I'll be bummed, but Tommy and Vance were good character in the original Vice City, and we've seen Rockstar do deep emotive characters in recent games (who didn't love Arthur on a high honor RDR2 playthrough?), so for the time being I am holding out hope for a good single player experience.
Everyone else's criticisms are perfectly valid though. It could easily go the other way. And the price is unreasonable. I'd gladly pay $60 and maybe $70... but more than that is a big ask.
Sidenote, but the audio in this trailer seems really strangely mastered. Is that just me? Voices clip every so slightly and sound way louder and inconsistent (separate even) with the effects and...
Sidenote, but the audio in this trailer seems really strangely mastered. Is that just me? Voices clip every so slightly and sound way louder and inconsistent (separate even) with the effects and music.
The entire trailer seems weirdly low quality for such a massive release. I think their other teasers were better.
I recently downloaded every single video game ever produced, and the open-world genre is a bear to store locally. I kept GTAs to fewer than IV, ultimately. I think the dlc, saas, and ai eras are...
I recently downloaded every single video game ever produced, and the open-world genre is a bear to store locally. I kept GTAs to fewer than IV, ultimately. I think the dlc, saas, and ai eras are all essentially impossible to archive for a project like mine, and gta VI is going to have all of those. I think, what I'll do, is I'll go to your house and play it there (if you're not already on it)
Is this a personal project, or something public facing? I mostly ask since I'm trying to visualize how much storage you need for something like that. It seems like it'd balloon in the mid-to-late...
Is this a personal project, or something public facing? I mostly ask since I'm trying to visualize how much storage you need for something like that. It seems like it'd balloon in the mid-to-late 00s. Are you at the petabyte level for storage yet, or just terabytes?
Some estimates I remember seeing a few years back put an archive like that around 10-20PB. If this is Joe Schmo with a residential gigabit fiber connection, that's over 5 years of sustained 100%...
Some estimates I remember seeing a few years back put an archive like that around 10-20PB. If this is Joe Schmo with a residential gigabit fiber connection, that's over 5 years of sustained 100% maxed out download. "recently downloaded" uh huh... What's the setup? How many hard drives failed during that time? How are you certain you have everything? Has everything been tested? What about games produced but never released? How are you dealing with DRM? etc etc etc
Forget about the download speeds or cataloging issues, we're talking close to $2,000,000 over those five years just to get the hardware and turn it on.
Joe Schmo is my father, we run a powerful underground sneaker-net where all data generated so far is available within a few miles' radius. Schmoozing from place to place used to be the fastest way...
Joe Schmo is my father, we run a powerful underground sneaker-net where all data generated so far is available within a few miles' radius. Schmoozing from place to place used to be the fastest way to transfer data, just walking it over on a floppy disk. My father pioneered this technique; now we wear rubber boots and carry data around in big coils that fills up the house but can be stacked to form furniture which is how we've upholstered most of the living room
I've played every GTA game dating back to the 90s but never at the actual release date. For reference, I didn't complete the main storyline of GTA V until early 2022. I will probably do something...
I've played every GTA game dating back to the 90s but never at the actual release date. For reference, I didn't complete the main storyline of GTA V until early 2022. I will probably do something similar with GTA VI because my nostalgia for the series runs too deep not to check it out. Maybe in a couple years though once the PC release has been out for a while and comes down in price. Not like it's going anywhere. My daily driver PC game is a 2019 re-release of something that originally came out in 1999, so I'm in no hurry to play the latest cutting edge games. That said, I'm still excited to play GTA VI... eventually!
Was intrigued so I peeked at your history. AOE2! Been playing the 1999 multiplayer hits with friends for the past few years. Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, lately Worms Armageddon. Have yet to...
My daily driver PC game is a 2019 re-release of something that originally came out in 1999
Was intrigued so I peeked at your history. AOE2! Been playing the 1999 multiplayer hits with friends for the past few years. Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, lately Worms Armageddon. Have yet to convince the others to play HoMM 3 and AOE2, but man, what a year for PC games! Apparently GTA II was released in 1999 as well, but I never multiplayed that.
Those are all great games! I should go back and play some of those myself. Two of those are games I played in their eras (Q3 and UT) but not ones I ever revisited in the years since (not for any...
Those are all great games! I should go back and play some of those myself. Two of those are games I played in their eras (Q3 and UT) but not ones I ever revisited in the years since (not for any particular reason). AOE2 is just my lifetime obsession, so with the limited time I have to play now that I have two kids, I always go back to my old faves. And my son plays it with me now too. A dream come true.
Hmu if you ever wanna play AOE2DE! My friends and I have been trying to beat the AI on extreme difficulty, and we lost 3x 3v2s yesterday. They're not always available to play when I am though. We can beat extreme in a 2v1, but when you give it an ally, the difficulty goes way up. I can manage a 1v1 on hardest but not extreme yet.
On one hand, I haven’t felt the need to play GTA since Vice City. On the other hand, if this winter has a lot of really cold weekends and I’m bored, I can see myself giving this a shot just to see...
On one hand, I haven’t felt the need to play GTA since Vice City. On the other hand, if this winter has a lot of really cold weekends and I’m bored, I can see myself giving this a shot just to see for myself if the hype is justified. I can take it or leave it, and I definitely don’t want to pay $130 for it, so we’ll see.
If you are a gamer who is just not that excited about GTA VI, I want you to know you aren't alone.
I'll probably play it at some point down the road when it goes on sale for $20 or so, but I simply cannot be assed to care much about it, and certainly not to pay $80-$120 for the privilege.
For me, that ennui also extends to GTA5. I don't own the Steam version of GTA5, and although I have a physical copy of GTA5 for the PS4 somewhere, I don't think I played more than a mission or two.
The game was just....too acerbically anti-social to be enjoyable; nobody in that game felt like a genuine human that I could empathize with, and turning everything into the butt of a joke got old really quickly.
It seemed to me like the game wants to look like it's criticizing society in every possible way but refuses to throw any knockout punches. It ends up feeling more like vaguely cynical teenage edginess than anything.
I don't mind that since the open world and driving could carry this game two times over. Its greatest crime in my opinion is that it kind of squanders that with its extremely linear and sometimes plain tedious mission design. If not earlier, you start questioning your choice to play through it by the time you're stacking shipping containers or whatever other bullshit minigames they drag you through. The most fun I've had in its missions is getting away from cops. Even just getting from one point to another is usually more fun than anything else the missions have to offer.
Rockstar in a nutshell. I strongly prefer Bethesda’s approach I’ve seen in Skyrim and Oblivion where the games are foundationally designed around player agency.
This is an interesting example to make since I think they actually both suffer from a similar issue of appearing freeform on the surface but actually being rather restrictive when you poke at the edges. I feel this is especially true in regards to Skyrim, but the cracks first started to show in Oblivion.
Both Bethesda and Rockstar employ quest design that essentially amounts to playing a role in a script more than a character with agency. Most quests are binary, do this thing or fail the quest, and failure states are rarely interesting or have any follow through. I suppose Bethesda lets you continue playing in the failure state, but for most quests it might as well be a game over. Once you fail a quest in a chain there is no other progression that can happen afterwards for any questlines that actually compose the majority of the narrative content in the game. This is no different in my eyes than backing out of the gameover screen in a Rockstar game and playing the other openworld content.
Both games let you kill random NPCs but restrict player action in any meaningful way towards NPCs of any consequence, dubbed Essential NPCs in Bethesda games. And even the way you interact with NPCs you do have power over is restricted to killing them or not. When you are trying to kill them, you have about the same level of options in an Elder Scrolls as a selection of weapons in a GTA. When you arent, interaction is mostly limited to basic limited dialogue, usually from the NPC (especially pre RDR2) and without any consequence or effect beyond basic immersion. You always arrive at the predestined end point the devs prescribed for you, and any "choice" before the final binary decision making is usually an illusion of wieght and conseqeuence. Nothing besides their final choice makes any difference, whether in a Bethesda questline or a Rockstar campaign.
--Not attacthing any judgement towards you in this observation, I just found it to be an interesting thought path spurred by your comparison. --
You also have spells like Frenzy etc.
Bethesda at least allows you to keep playing through the glitches. Rockstar has really strict quest scripting. I encountered a bug in RDR2 that could have been fixed by just going to the target location which was canonically already loaded with the quest loot. But because the right prerequisite didn’t trigger I couldn’t get the loot. In Skyrim you can noclip through a dungeon and the quest will pick up at the right spot on your next trigger event. Sure the options are scripted and limited but at least they are prioritizing the right things.
Rockstar also does the occasional camera hijack for a cutscene. Skyrim has very few such moments (most notably the opening sequence, which actually mostly keeps the camera under your control but forces you to sit/stand in place). I really hate cutscenes in an open-world game. IIRC Rockstar also has certain quests where if you move too far from the target area you “fail” and they’ll restart you back where they want you to go. Fuck that. Let me do whatever I want whenever I want as much as is possible. That is the primary constraint. The primary constraint should not be getting me into a highly tailored cinematic experience.
I'm not sure I would say either prioritizes the right things, they just prioritize different things since they are aiming to deliver different experiences, beyond the most surface level connective tissue of "open world video game." I know I'm really the problem here but I don't find having this dichotomy of player agency levels in the linear content verse the open world content to be an issue. Personally I don't even feel like Rockstar sells the game as anything other than what is, a cinematic narrative action game experience set in an expansive simulated open world. I don't find much disappointment in that aspect since I'm not expecting otherwise. If anything it's the culture around the games more than the games themselves that sell the series as this go anywhere do anything freeform experience. Which is certainly a facet of the game, but not what Rockstar is aiming for at the top level.
I’ve played GTA V on multiple systems and while I enjoy it for what it is, it’s mostly the freestyle stuff that is the most fun, and that was hugely cut down from IV. As you say, the missions etc really aren’t actually very good and the humour, for the most part, isn’t really that funny and is usually incredibly obvious and lazy satire that gets very close to being post irony…that thing where it almost seems like the people writing it actually do believe what they are writing but have a thin veneer of irony over the top so they can always say “dude, it’s a JOKE, you just don’t get it.”
This has always been GTAs main messaging. It's never been serious social commentary or a political call to action. It was humor and commentary born of the late 90s, early 2000s alternative culture, similar to something like CKY or South Park. It'll lampoon right wing talking points, warmongering, and a loss of community, but it's not going to actually propose solutions to any of that, or delve deep into the systems that produce it.
I don't expect that GTA 6 will either, nor do I think I'd really want it to though. It's just not that kind of game.
It's the video game equivalent of the kid in the leather jacket saying "this is all bullshit, teach", and when the teacher goes "well do you have a better alternative for how to teach this class so that you don't fall on your face when you get out of school without knowing how the basics of how the world works?" They fall completely silent.
That's fine for what it is, the annoying kid in the back of class can be entertaining. He's not going to change the world though.
It felt to me that making them into caricatures who ring a little hollow was intentional. Wanton violence in the franchise is huge, they want people to empathize with some of the stories, but the open world mayhem of the game makes it hard to not immediately negate any goodwill acquired in a narrative with a stray killing spree. Rockstar actually does a great job with the humanization of the protagonist with something like Max Payne.
Also feels like it's just the product of the times - if the game reflects an anti social, dodgey and pessimistic view of its main protagonists, then I think it does a pretty good job holding its mirror to society.
It's okay to not like that kind of thing, but I think its staying power is warranted a little.
I'm sure GTAVI will do something similar, featuring raucous violence, pointed dialogue that can either make a leftist proud or a maga boy laugh, sex appeal, and a metropolitan simulation fantasy.
I will also wait. It'll be a good game, but it's still worth $60 imo
This has been a recurring problem in basically any open world game that tries to have a serious story. It was especially bad in GTA IV, which tried to have a more down to earth, gritty story, with a reluctant main character who lamented all of the violence required in his line of work... Then he'd go out and run over 3 hookers, shoot 5 cops in the face, and cause 12 accidents on his way over to the bowling alley just for fun.
I admit to being hyped for GTA 5 when it was coming out, I upgraded my graphics card and planned 24 hours of it in the first few weeks it was out.
School and work and life got busy, and I never went back to finish it. It seems like it'd be fun to do at some point, but I don't know when I'll build a new computer to play more demanding games and when I finally do I'm not sure I'll want to play GTA games again. I also don't know any of my friends who are that excited for GTA 6, but I guess I'll see how many of them end up getting it.
Edit: I'm not a fan of short form content, but there is one guy whose shorts I watch occasionally and so many of the skits and his voice makes me feel like he would be a perfect fit for a GTA radio broadcaster: https://www.youtube.com/@AudioOpera/shorts
I've never played any GTA and have never felt much of a desire to.
I gotta admit, some of the info that's come out about the technical systems in 6 have me intrigued but that's more about the tech than the game.
Maybe one day I'll try it but I'm in no hurry. I'm sure I'll hear more than I ever care to about the game for the foreseeable future
Similarly, for whatever reason I've never enjoyed a GTA game. It's odd because RDR and Bully are two games I absolutely loved, so it's not Rockstar's general formula that's the problem. Not like it matters, I'd have to wait for the PC port to come out regardless (and hope that my RX 7800 XT or the 4060 in my laptop can handle it).
Weirdly enough, I'm most excited for the soundtrack, as V had some absolute bangers and I'm hoping VI continues the trend.
I feel the same, the price of the console ~500 + 100 for the game + paying for online ~10/month, it's kinda huge.
And I don't feel so bad about paying higher price for the game since it has been in development for almost 13 years, but I can fulfill so many of my other hobbies for that price that I cannot justify it.
People are weird about GTA6, especially those that go "You aren't a real gamer if you aren't excited" in some sites, well then maybe I never wanted that "gamer" label, anyway.
I've played some GTA on and off but with GTA4 I kinda felt like I'd be only interested in wreaking havoc, not so much story or other facilities in game.
Plus if I wanted racing and driving, at least at the time, there was NFSMW and Midnight Club.
The most fun I had in San Andreas is probably just the cheat codes and flying with the tank.
Ultimately kinda pointless to buy a GTA game just for that.
This kind of thing translates in my head to "you aren't a real sports fan if you don't like [sport]".
That's way too broad a category. Saying you don't like a specific game isn't even like saying you don't like a specific sport like football (either one). I'd be like saying you don't like a specific season of that sport, or maybe even a specific match.
It's good to know I'm not the only who doesn't care about this game. I hated IV, can't even remember a thing about it despite beating the game (except the bowling meme), and V didn't really grab me at all, don't remember how much I played but I don't think I got very far, never finished it.
I replayed the Definitive Editions of the trilogy a year ago and those were fantastic. Brought back all the memories, had a blast with all of them. Something about modern GTA just doesn't capture that same magic and is totally uninteresting to me.
I'm just here to enjoy the pretty pictures.
I don't really like the overall vibe of GTA VI, plus I definitely won't be able to run it because I just got a new used GPU for my desktop PC: a blazing fast GTX 1070 Ti.
But what makes this really exciting is wondering whether we're going to get an illegal vibecoded PC port and/or how long it's going to take. There will undoubtedly be people attempting this and I have no idea how probable it is, but I'm quite sure it's not impossible. I'm not saying its good, but it's incredibly interesting.
I saw reports that Rockstar plans to release the PC version in the first quarter of next year, so I don't know if it's even worth the effort
Honestly even that is interesting, because I don't doubt the decision has been influenced by what's been happening in the LLM space.
I haven't been excited for a video game to come out since like 2003, but I'm actually really looking forward to this. I'm not even a huge GTA guy. I don't know if it's the two+ years of hype & promotional material, the level of detail, some of the RDR2 things that I've seen them incorporate, or what, but at this point I think I'm going to get it at launch and lock myself indoors until Thanksgiving.
I'm mostly just happy Justice is composing the soundtrack. I'll probably wait for the pc version though.
I don't remember where I've seen this and even if it is official, but it was said that it's coming on the first half of 2027 aswell, right? not a whole year after like it happened with GTA V back in the day.
Modders will have it decompiled and built for windows in a week
That is probably one of (if not the only) reasons they are releasing it early.
Related link:
Justice - Flower In A Hurricane (ft Tame Impala, SZA, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard) [from GTAVI]
I don't get the angry sentiment towards pricing, but i am 100% the type of person that will pay more for a good bakery to make me one real croissant or creative pastry over getting a 12 pack of crescent buns at walmart. Or spend the cash on a good cut of meat once every few weeks. Do with that info what you will. But its a good looking, huge game, that took a ton of effort to make. Surely its worth more than fc 27
I am excited for this game, ive played every gta since the first one. I only wish they'd make the radio as awesome as liberty city stories. Gta v radio was a wash. I look forward to the more technical aspects of living as your character, the romance/relationship stuff sounds fucking awesome, the soundtrack is going to raise the bar. Im so stoked. I have not watched any leaks, i am keeping my nose off of the ground till this comes out so that i can savour the whole thing from my own perspective.
I think the anger is A) just general anger at the rising costs of games and everything these days, and B) the lack of an actual physical disc, just a code.
I actually do agree some games are worth the higher prices, especially when you compare it as dollars to hours played. But the economy in recent years is..... Bad. Really bad. Spending $80 or $100 on a game, even a long-anticipated one, is a big splurge compared to "just" $60 or $70. Compounded by the fact it's currently releasing for consoles which are also experiencing price hikes, so people who want to play it ASAP but lack a console would need to spend even more money.
I'm sure people would always complain about the price hike, but the current state of the world makes it even more contentious.
And they see the writing on the wall. GTA5 made it well clear that singleplayer is an afterthought and selling you Shark cards is where the game is.
You'll be squeezed for more than just the sticker price. People can see that value proposition is likely not worth it.
While the goal is definitely selling Shark cards in a persistent online mode, I think Red Dead Redemption 2 proves singleplayer isn't just an afterthought. Even GTA V didn't launch with that intent, it was only after GTAO became incredibly massive that they scrapped other singleplayer content in the aims of filling out online and putting more effort into the runaway success that consistently gains traction and earns more money. I think this a reasonable and understandable, albeit disappointing, decision to make, especially at the time. Rockstar was doing well pre-GTA V but they are in a whole other league after that game's wild success.
Rockstar went on to put the mind boggling revenue of GTAO ($500M a year well after its heyday) towards one of the most ambitious singleplayer experiences of all time. You may not like the game or agree with the design decisions of the RDR2, but I think its pretty safe to objectively say that RDR2 is art made with immense love and care for the craft (and horrific abusive crunch workculture), enabled by this borderline mythic level cash cow. They definitely tried for a second round at that with RDR Online, and if they had put the same level of work and care into it, its possible it might have gotten there. Alas Rockstar didn't commit and it languished early, leading to end of life support being announced maybe a few years in at most.
And yet, with this new GTA outing, they have said nothing about online, not even directly confirming its existence, and have focused entirely on the singleplayer. A seemingly luxurious, rich, and extensive singleplayer which appears to be taking far more from RDR 2 than GTA V, so much so I would say this new game is actually a sequel to the former more than the latter, tonally and mechanically. Which again reads to me that they put a lot of weight, love, and care into these singleplayer experiences as art and worthy of existing on their own. If the goal was only to make a vehicle to get you into the online money pits, they would surely try to follow up on the game that successfully created those money pits rather than the one that failed to do so, no? And it's not like RDR2 was a failure, the game still sold 87M units since launch, placing it in the top 5 selling games of all time, succeeded only by GTA V, Minecraft, and Tetris (if you combine different versions of the game). But even that is only just over a third of what their prior title has made, even with 5 less years of existence.
Given that, while I agree they will be squeezing us, because they know they can, it's admirable to continue to use a sizeable chunk of that towards creating more art. Art made with love and intent that exists on some level beyond extracting as many in app purchases as possible from as many people as possible. I think it's entirely possible at this point that the next online component will be a separate experience entirely, unattached from the singleplayer release of GTA VI. Even cynically viewed, GTA VI is a prudent stepping stone and foundation towards another infinite money machine, sure, but it does not feel like an afterthought.
I'm going to apologize in advance. I will be trite and short because I really really really need to go to bed, and your response is passionate enough to warrant a proper response in return.
But while I sleep and mull over a proper answer, please consider that I did not say multiplayer. Think about gating and selling singleplayer content as upsold editions for a bit. To me it means that the concept of "Shark cards" is no longer multiplayer only.
GTAV had a singleplayer largely left alone from the influences of nickel and diming. Selling this in tiers was them crossing the Rubicon.
What worries me about the change in mentality is not that they will make the singleplayer forgettable per se, it's that they will start monetizing the singleplayer beyond what's acceptable, which in my mind is already too much with the tier system locking missions, and that the entire experience changes from love, weight, and care put into an art form, to an optimized method of farming the player for cash. There hasn't been an indication there will be more monetization yet, but then again there hasn't been an indication about anything really.. except that the project has been delayed multiple times, their developers have been repeatedly crunched to a significant degree, unions were busted, and that they've locked content behind paywalls.
The reason I'm hesitant even giving them the benefit of the doubt is because the GTA5 experience was pretty rough man. Not that the singleplayer game didn't work or something, but that the repeated promises of Rockstar were broken. Heists took absurdly long. Network connectivity remained as shoddily implemented as ever for years. The two promised DLC were scrapped.
Singleplayer recieved not a single content update post 2015. A handful of weapons, an outfit or two, first person mode, and a graphical update which applied to the whole game.
None of that screams "priority" to me.
Only time will tell if the GTA6 singleplayer is made with the player in mind. I'm thinking we'll see one significantly cut in length like Call of Duty's campaigns, or act as a funnel for online mode, or worse.. one that incentivizes players to pay for more singleplayer content through MTX.
I'm entirely willing to eat crow on this, in fact I hope I will.
These are definitely valid and understandable concerns to have, especially given the track record on display. But for me, RDR2 really sold me on Rockstar's continued singleplayer output. That was such a rich, enjoyable, and well realized singleplayer experience, probably one of the most memorable I have had in years. There were a few iffy things like preorder bonuses locking off minor one off side activities, but I never felt like I was lacking a piece of the full game. There was so much game in there I forgot about the preorder content pretty quick. I'm a tad less optimistic with that being the case here, being that entire stores are locked off which definitely sucks, but from everything I have read (finely tuned marketing, I know) in the lead up, the game seems to be very expansive and well realized once again.
Another not insignificant piece of the puzzle is that some of the upper management in the studio has gone through some big (seemingly positive) changes. Former studio head Dan Houser dipped after RDR2's release, and if Jason Schreier's recent reporting on the game's development is to be believed, a lot of the toxic upper management has been purged. Those who stepped into fill those roles are also people who have been with the company for decades, like Aaron Garbut who has been credited as art director and for open world design since GTA 1 and is now a design director on the project. To me this says this is a Rockstar invested in somewhat cleaning up their image and culture, which I'm optimistic will lead to a better game and consumer experience, at least in this aspect of the release.
While valid, I think it's important to add that Rockstar tends to be one project studio, and beyond the skeleton teams supporting online, everything and everyone went towards RDR2. Given that a large share of the online content updates are reportedly repurposed scrapped singleplayer expansions, I think GTA V is a case of having something blow up beyond what even the studio expected and pivoting to where the money is. Then using that money to fund your next big project, which crucially didn't sacrifice its integrity in favor of chasing online dollars. The online of that game was clearly given less priority and resources, and it's bare bones nature shows. It definitely sucks to not see further singleplayer support for these titles post launch, but if it means we get more lavish singleplayer experiences down the line, I think I'll take that devil's deal.
As you say, time will tell if this is misplaced optimism or not, but even with GTA V's rough post launch support, I don't see this Rockstar as a studio willing to substantially compromise their output in favor of chasing more money when they already have more money than god. Maybe that's naive, because even as I write this I'm grappling with my own faith in a company to produce worthwhile art when companies are always incentivized to extract as much as possible. Maybe its a desperate attempt to cling to some optimism in an industry constantly flooded by negativity and dread. In any case, I appreciate your perspective for helping sober those expectations up.
Likewise, but for the opposite reason.
I'm cynical, jaded even, through the actions of corporations never disappointing me when it comes to fulfilling my expectation of them overall taking the worst possible option for consumers.
But.
But, you're right. Media like games can still have people working on them that do so out of a passion for creating something they can be proud of. I shouldn't dismiss that out of hand.
I should at least give them the opportunity to prove to me the molotov won't be used to light the house on fire.
If I offered you two bags of sand, one of which I shoveled off a pile at the local agricultural supply and took me 3 minutes, and one where I picked up each grain of sand with tweezers, would anyone be justified in disagreeing with me charging more for the tweezer sand just because it took more effort to gather? The value is in the enjoyment, not in the effort. Rockstar has priced it to make money, and they're interested in charging what the market will bear. They're a business and want to make money to cover their costs and make money for the future. But sale price and value aren't strongly correlated when it comes to video games. It is "worth" more than fc27? Almost certainly, given the terrible reviews. Will people pay more for it? Probably. But that will be because of its lineage and their feelings about prior games, not because Rockstar spent more than a decade on it.
That's the textbook definition of a strawman argument. Games do not compare like raw resources do. Pricing, in most industries, is (usually**) determined by some tangible metrics such as quality, craftsmanship, material cost, innovation, use, etc. Video games have been locked into a hard pricing model for legacy reasons and have only recently, with the help of Steam and other online marketplaces, broken away from rigid 60$ price tags as publishing deals change and independent games of every size are made and sold. Gta is looking to adopt a different pricing model because they know what they've got. I think that's fine and the market will determine the final answer. You clearly recognize this so im not really sure what your point is?
The REAL problem that i have is that predatory publishers like EA will see this successful, and entirely justified, move from Rockstar and also increase their prices for their shitty sports/gambling and other low effort games. Which will have its own series of consequences.
My only statement was about "But its a good looking, huge game, that took a ton of effort to make. Surely its worth more than fc 27". Was the analogy of digging up sand too abstract for you? Let's try again with something more similar:
What does anyone care what the effort was? If a person spent 10 years of their life slaving away making a videogame and it was good, would they be justified in charging more than an equivalently good game that someone shoved out the door in 6 months? Of course not. It's the quality that matters, not the duration of work.
They're entirely justified in charging more if it pushes technical and creative boundaries of the medium, yes. As a matter of fact, itll be used as a selling point. No, youre analogy was not too abstract, it was just a really bad analogy to make for the argument.
Sure, they're justified in charging whatever they want for any reason. That's entirely tangential to what it's worth, and more time invested doesn't change what a game is worth.
Can’t say I expected a thread about GTA VI to spark a debate about the labor theory of value vs. the subjective theory of value, but this is Tildes. As far as mainstream economics is concerned the matter has been settled for 150 years. Noah Smith has a pretty good article about it if anyone’s interested.
Long story short, stuff is worth whatever people are willing to spend on it, and the reasons behind their decisions are a beautiful tapestry of rational and irrational judgments.
The pricing of everything is determined by the 2nd derivative of revenue and cost, which are themselves determined by supply and demand.
The relation to craftmanship and quality exists insofar as those things can heighten demand, but said relation is not guaranteed by any means.
Based on apparent demand I have no doubts that GTA 6's pricing is fine, but EA too can price their games however they wish, and if they are wrong on their estimates of demand, then they are "punished" by making less money than they otherwise would have. There's no problems.
I'll take the contrarian perspective... I'm excited for it. GTA2 was the second pc game I bought for myself (after the original roller coaster tycoon), and Vice City was my favorite game in the series for a long time. I'm happy to see an updated Vice City, I like what I've seen of the two main characters... maybe cause I'm a white guy from south FL who married a Latina... but regardless, it has some appeal imo.
If it turns out to be as hollow as V was, character-wise (I still never finished V's campaign), then I'll be bummed, but Tommy and Vance were good character in the original Vice City, and we've seen Rockstar do deep emotive characters in recent games (who didn't love Arthur on a high honor RDR2 playthrough?), so for the time being I am holding out hope for a good single player experience.
Everyone else's criticisms are perfectly valid though. It could easily go the other way. And the price is unreasonable. I'd gladly pay $60 and maybe $70... but more than that is a big ask.
Sidenote, but the audio in this trailer seems really strangely mastered. Is that just me? Voices clip every so slightly and sound way louder and inconsistent (separate even) with the effects and music.
The entire trailer seems weirdly low quality for such a massive release. I think their other teasers were better.
I recently downloaded every single video game ever produced, and the open-world genre is a bear to store locally. I kept GTAs to fewer than IV, ultimately. I think the dlc, saas, and ai eras are all essentially impossible to archive for a project like mine, and gta VI is going to have all of those. I think, what I'll do, is I'll go to your house and play it there (if you're not already on it)
Is this a personal project, or something public facing? I mostly ask since I'm trying to visualize how much storage you need for something like that. It seems like it'd balloon in the mid-to-late 00s. Are you at the petabyte level for storage yet, or just terabytes?
Some estimates I remember seeing a few years back put an archive like that around 10-20PB. If this is Joe Schmo with a residential gigabit fiber connection, that's over 5 years of sustained 100% maxed out download. "recently downloaded" uh huh... What's the setup? How many hard drives failed during that time? How are you certain you have everything? Has everything been tested? What about games produced but never released? How are you dealing with DRM? etc etc etc
Forget about the download speeds or cataloging issues, we're talking close to $2,000,000 over those five years just to get the hardware and turn it on.
pics or it didn't happen
Joe Schmo is my father, we run a powerful underground sneaker-net where all data generated so far is available within a few miles' radius. Schmoozing from place to place used to be the fastest way to transfer data, just walking it over on a floppy disk. My father pioneered this technique; now we wear rubber boots and carry data around in big coils that fills up the house but can be stacked to form furniture which is how we've upholstered most of the living room
I've played every GTA game dating back to the 90s but never at the actual release date. For reference, I didn't complete the main storyline of GTA V until early 2022. I will probably do something similar with GTA VI because my nostalgia for the series runs too deep not to check it out. Maybe in a couple years though once the PC release has been out for a while and comes down in price. Not like it's going anywhere. My daily driver PC game is a 2019 re-release of something that originally came out in 1999, so I'm in no hurry to play the latest cutting edge games. That said, I'm still excited to play GTA VI... eventually!
Was intrigued so I peeked at your history. AOE2! Been playing the 1999 multiplayer hits with friends for the past few years. Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, lately Worms Armageddon. Have yet to convince the others to play HoMM 3 and AOE2, but man, what a year for PC games! Apparently GTA II was released in 1999 as well, but I never multiplayed that.
Those are all great games! I should go back and play some of those myself. Two of those are games I played in their eras (Q3 and UT) but not ones I ever revisited in the years since (not for any particular reason). AOE2 is just my lifetime obsession, so with the limited time I have to play now that I have two kids, I always go back to my old faves. And my son plays it with me now too. A dream come true.
Hmu if you ever wanna play AOE2DE! My friends and I have been trying to beat the AI on extreme difficulty, and we lost 3x 3v2s yesterday. They're not always available to play when I am though. We can beat extreme in a 2v1, but when you give it an ally, the difficulty goes way up. I can manage a 1v1 on hardest but not extreme yet.
On one hand, I haven’t felt the need to play GTA since Vice City. On the other hand, if this winter has a lot of really cold weekends and I’m bored, I can see myself giving this a shot just to see for myself if the hype is justified. I can take it or leave it, and I definitely don’t want to pay $130 for it, so we’ll see.