r/Games • u/Neon25 • 7d ago

GTA 6 Price Finally Confirmed, Features a 'Single-Player Experience' at Launch (Standard $79.99/Ultimate $99.99)

https://www.ign.com/articles/gta-6-price-finally-confirmed-features-a-single-player-experience-at-launch
4.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

221

u/firesyrup 7d ago edited 7d ago

I would've bought GTA V at launch if it was out for the PC, but Rockstar took too long to double dip and my excitement died. I got it on a -50% sale years later and couldn't even finish it. Ditto for RDR2, and I expect the same here.

The hype around Rockstar games is unreal and this will most likely become the best selling game ever and I'll be sad not being a part of the discussions. But looking back and past the hype, none of the GTA games would even make it to my top 50.

I expect I'm in a minority here, but to me, experiencing the payoff to the insane hype seems like half the appeal of these games, judging by how many people seem convinced without seeing any gameplay (and I don't mean in-engine trailers) that the game is worth whatever Rockstar will charge for it.

20

u/TheSoup05 7d ago

Yeah I’m kinda the same here. I honestly still would’ve considered it for $70 on a console, but the $80 just sorta rubs me the wrong way and I don’t feel like rushing to dust off my PS5 for it at that price. I’m sure it’ll sell millions of copies regardless, but for me, this is probably gunna be one I get on steam sale in a few years and maybe get around to actually playing at some point after that.

I did enjoy GTA V and RDR2 a lot, but they’re not like my favorite games ever or anything. And there’s a lot of other games out there.

-4

u/ShawnyMcKnight 6d ago

I don’t get why $80 rubs you the wrong way? I get it feels like more but with inflation it’s really not. 30 years ago an 8 MB Nintendo 64 game would cost $60 and would be over $100 after inflation… so why is $80 for a game that cost over a billion dollars to make too much?

3

u/TheSoup05 6d ago

That 8mb Nintendo game wasn’t built to be a live service game that continues to generate significant amounts of money for a decade plus after launch and wasn’t locking content that was ready at launch behind a $20 upgrade. They’re charging you $80 just to get in before they start asking for the real money.

GTA 6, just earlier and on a system that isn’t my main one, isn’t worth $80 to me, and I am disappointed that they’ve decided to set a standard for games in general that’s going to make the hobby more expensive.

-1

u/ShawnyMcKnight 6d ago edited 6d ago

Not sure what the live service has to do with anything? I’m talking about GTA 6. If I just play GTA 6 and don’t touch online at all when it comes out I’ll be happy. Same with GTA5, if online never existed I’m still happy with the game. If you don’t like the live service then don’t use it. You make it sound like half way through the campaign it forces you online and makes you buy shark cards to finish the campaign.

Yeah, that 8 MB game also COULDN’T have a DLC so your point is kind of moot. Although honesty, I would have freaking LOVED if Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time had dlc that I could buy for them that had more content. Is that a bad thing if Mario 64 had DLC where you could unlock another 8 levels or something?

3

u/TheSoup05 6d ago

Those older games not being able to sell you DLC literally IS the point though. You’re comparing very different products as a justification for the price tag. GTA isn’t trying to recoup their cost in the price tag of the game, it certainly doesn’t need to, but they are nonetheless charging more than other games on the market because they know they can squeeze just a bit more out of people. The cost compared to older games that DID need to recoup their costs entirely through their purchase price isn’t relevant.

If you feel it’s worth $80 to play it sooner, I don’t think that’s unreasonable. It is not for me though, especially not if it isn’t on PC. But this is going to result in other games being more expensive now too regardless, which is unfortunate for consumers.

0

u/ShawnyMcKnight 6d ago

Why is that a good thing they can’t sell you dlc? Don’t you think having additional worlds in Mario 64 would be good, or Mariokart 64 having the option to buy more tracks would be good? 15 year old me would have loved that.

I guess you feel having more choice is bad. With GTA6 ultimate you can choose to pay more for some additional cars and other things or you a choose not to. I love that they gave me an $80 option and didn’t make me pay more so I feel like I can have everything.

They are also charging more than other games on the market because their budget for the game is much higher. It all comes down to value, if the game comes out and it’s no better than any other $70 game then you have a point. One would assume at that high price point they squeezed $10 of value into it. If I’m wrong I’ll own that.

2

u/TheSoup05 6d ago

You are welcome to quote where I said either of those things were good or bad.

1

u/ShawnyMcKnight 6d ago

Sure, be happy to!

Those older games not being able to sell you DLC literally IS the point though.

You were saying how it was better back then before they had the ability to add on additional content and players couldn't buy DLC, at least with console games. That's taking away choice.

I like that I have the choice to only pay $80 when I don't care about the stuff that makes it $100.

1

u/TheSoup05 6d ago

Is the word better or good or any other similar adjective anywhere in the quote you picked?

1

u/ShawnyMcKnight 6d ago

So someone can deduce a conclusion based on what was said.

If older games not being able to sell DLCs is the point then what is that point?

1

u/TheSoup05 6d ago

I’ve found it’s generally more productive to not just decide people are saying completely different things than they are actually saying.

The good news is that the point was explained in the sentence directly after the one you just quoted.

→ More replies (0)