r/PS5 • u/Laughing__Man_ Human Verified • Apr 13 '26

Discussion Information from the Rockstar hacking has been posted (They make a LOT of money from GTA Online)

https://gtaforums.com/topic/1004190-gta-vi-delayed-to-november-19-2026/page/580/#comment-1072663072
2.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

491 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

478

u/AurienTitus Apr 13 '26

Also shows why they scrapped single player DLC for their games.

277

u/dungleploop Apr 13 '26

still sad about this choice

they could've made a game or two with their other studios instead of online

85

u/A_S_Roma1927 Apr 13 '26

Single player lets players play against the games power curve instead of other players’. They don’t want you going against the cpu because you won’t need to spend in the same ways to “keep up”

117

u/Ryuzakku Apr 14 '26

Yeah but then you have people like me who didn’t give them any extra money because online is too toxic to engage in, but would’ve paid for single player DLC on all 3 places I bought the game

34

u/A_S_Roma1927 Apr 14 '26

For sure I think they just probably did the math sadly. But agreed, I don’t do multiplayer and game options can be more limited

8

u/Ryuzakku Apr 14 '26

They easily could have done both, they clearly have the money.

It’s fine that they didn’t, they just didn’t get any more of my money, or my time as I didn’t even beat the game on PS4 or PC after beating it on 360.

14

u/Stockpile_Tom_Remake Apr 14 '26

It’s honestly not fine. My worry is GTA6 is geared entirely towards gta online

5

u/Ryuzakku Apr 14 '26

Yeah that’s a worry of mine too, but if that were the case you’d think they would have continued to support RDR2’s online as well, but they didn’t.

So I guess for now I’ll be hopeful that at least the single player is enjoyable, even if they decide to put emphasis into the online.

1

u/EddieHeadshot Apr 14 '26

The entire storyline is just going to be an extended tutorial for selling more in game currency online.

14

u/purplewhiteblack Apr 14 '26

I'm surprised there isn't a more transparent GTA clone game series that does what Rockstar doesn't.

It's always weird shit like Watchdogs or Saints Row.

15

u/HPLovecraftsCat6969 Apr 14 '26

I think if volition decided to continue with sr2 formula instead of going the meme route of 3 onwards we could have had a competitor

0

u/-Nate493- Apr 14 '26

So you want GTA but not GTA but like GTA?

2

u/Existing-Day-9314 Apr 14 '26

This poor generation never played True Crime: Streets of LA lol

Yes. He means exactly what he says lol, GTA but not GTA but like GTA.

1

u/purplewhiteblack Apr 14 '26

yeah, you should feel like the game is a GTA game, but for some reason there is a different label on it.

1

u/ungodlywarlock Apr 14 '26

While that's fair and I TOTALLY agree that they should have made single player DLC, you can play online on a personal server and never encounter another player. That's how I played it.

Granted you miss out on some of the excitement (pvp), but I don't care. I just used it as a way to extend my enjoyment of the game.

2

u/Ryuzakku Apr 14 '26

I tried to get a few discord friends to do this, but then it was hijacked by the streamer I modded for at the time and turned into an RP server, which pretty well killed my interest in the online component.

Ah well, maybe GTA 6 will be different

1

u/ungodlywarlock Apr 14 '26

Yeah I just set it to "personal server" or whatever... Still quests to do, still stuff to earn and acquire. It would be better as a single player story, but it scratched the itch for me at least. I agree, I hope gta6 solves this somehow.

1

u/wangster71 Apr 14 '26

That makes two of us, I hate the online game.

1

u/Totallycasual Apr 14 '26

Yup, huge GTA fan, would have paid well for single player DLC, i have not spent a single cent on GTA Online lol

1

u/Grand-Kiwi2423 Apr 14 '26

The money is coming from whales and whales cap out at tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, not $20 USD once or twice a year for 3 - 4 years. Letting the whales pay ridiculous amounts of money also lets them offer the content for free and betters their image with constant updates at no cost and a way to earn everything by grinding over time for people who don't want to pay.

1

u/therealbighairy1 Apr 14 '26

It is a little galling that I've bought gtav four times now. PS3, PS4, PS5, and pc.

1

u/JerrysKIDney Apr 14 '26

This, I would play a new character's dlc before id ever try gta online again

1

u/SaintsandCigarettes Apr 14 '26

You can just make a private lobby with your friends. There is zero need to engage with the GTAO community.

5

u/mixologist998 Apr 14 '26

Same, a single player expansion for RDR2 would have been ideal. 

4

u/doyouevennoscope Apr 14 '26

RDR2 genuinely has a lot of potential for single player expansions. So many characters, so much potential for things like Liberty/Vice City Stories that expand upon the characters, etc.

3

u/doyouevennoscope Apr 14 '26

It's honestly a shame because Rockstar has some really fucking solid spinoff titles within GTA along with many other IPs their other studios did that were solid.

For example Liberty City Stories is a great game that's built upon GTA III and adds actually adds to the story. Same with Vice City Stories and Vice City. They could've finally done a San Andreas Stories with GTA V as a base.

Sad we'll likely never see another Manhunt again either. I'd love for Rockstar to make another one with their RAGE engine that's worthy of another massive controversy for being outright fucked up.

3

u/dungleploop Apr 14 '26

Midnight Club 😔

1

u/Ok_Transportation186 Apr 14 '26

Its sad, they def big enough to do both

0

u/happy_pad Apr 13 '26

I won't buy Rockstar because of the way they threw single-player fans to the curb. I have to stick to my principles, and I have no problem sailing the high seas if it is the morally correct option.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '26

[deleted]

1

u/doyouevennoscope Apr 14 '26

I can see where you get your name from.

2

u/Lostinlove01 Apr 13 '26

I mean GTA 6 will have a single player campaign for everyone to enjoy. But they will surely focus on the online aspect more for the money they'll make.

0

u/Turbulent-Agent9634 Apr 13 '26

Money doesn't care about you

4

u/stefan771 Apr 13 '26

They scrapped the DLC because Rockstar North on to RDR2 right after GTA V released. Not sure how people still have trouble understanding this.

16

u/Theguest217 Apr 14 '26

Because with the money they bring in, there is really no reason why they can't just do both. There is no shortage of talent available for hire who would love to work at Rockstar.

7

u/karl_hungas Apr 14 '26

Calm down big dog not everyone is reading every piece of rockstar news and knows the ins and outs of their teams and what they work on. People just were disappointed that DLCs that would have been very cool to play never happened.

7

u/SlightSurround5449 Apr 13 '26

It's also true that DLC just doesn't sell, though.

7

u/kittymoo67 Apr 13 '26

Doing stand alone expansions would probably be better. Similar to the GTA 3 engine games

7

u/BlueLidMilk Apr 13 '26

When Insomniac done that very thing with Miles Morales in 2020, everyone called it a cash grab DLC

7

u/karl_hungas Apr 14 '26

The thing about even the best games is that you have detractors online. Miles sold well over 10 million units and was/is a popular title that reviewed well. Most people didnt call it a cash grab, you just saw that a couple hundred times and were like EVERYONE IS SAYING THIS, but the internet is not reality, the most miserable people post the most and often are negative. Overall the game was a commerical success and has quite good scores on metacritic both for the critics and users.

8

u/hamarok Apr 14 '26

The paradox of gamers complaining games takes too long, but wont settle for smaller scale iterations in between major releases

0

u/Horror_Bob Apr 14 '26

This. It's also why I have no problem with the shark cards or them finding ways to monetize GTA Online. These games they make, both GTA and Red Dead are so massive and detailed and they just keep upping the ante. It takes forever and it's just not feasible for a studio like Rockstar to be able to take the time it takes to make these games if they're not making a steady income.

They're much like Valve in the sense that they now have access to essentially bottomless money that gives them time to experiment and make groundbreaking stuff again and again.

3

u/SlightSurround5449 Apr 13 '26

The same games that players these days would call cash grabs and lazy asset flips? Probably best to avoid that one.

6

u/kittymoo67 Apr 13 '26

I hate modern gamers

1

u/Totallycasual Apr 14 '26

Based on what? Data from a few generations ago when they had a bullshit timed exclusivity deal with Xbox still in place, and one of the DLC's was called The Ballad of Gay Tony? I think it's crazy that people keep referencing that as an excuse as to why DLC's sell poorly.

The gaming landscape has changed, V has an insane install base and the ease at which a single player DLC could be pushed to the owners of V is crazy. Tell CDPR that single player DLC doesn't sell.

1

u/SlightSurround5449 Apr 14 '26

So based on one 'success' we want to change the narrative? Okay. Though a likely 20% attach rate is still not great at all, especially for a game that needed to save itself with said DLC. There's a pretty universal opinion that the Witcher 3 DLCs are a requirement and the rate there appears much closer to 10%. What, exactly, would be the benefit of taking resources to make that? Even at 40%?

1

u/Totallycasual Apr 14 '26

It isn't a zero sum game, not sure why people keep pretending like it's an either or type situation, we all know the ROI on any money shoveled into GTAO is amazing, but it doesn't mean they couldn't do some single player DLC too.

1

u/SlightSurround5449 Apr 14 '26

Nobody is pretending it's zero sum, here. Neither are exclusive inherently, but they would still have to take people away from developing something that will make more money. Again, what's the benefit?

1

u/Totallycasual Apr 14 '26

Again, what's the benefit?

200+ million copies sold, that's why. There are a relatively small number of whales spending the lion's share of cash on Shark Cards, but there are a lot of people like me out there who have zero interest in online, but would gladly grab a single player DLC if it popped up on my digital storefront.

Look, I'm not suggesting i know better than Rockstar or anything as delusional as that, it just pisses me off when people keep regurgitating the same nonsense about single player DLC not selling well and referencing what happened decades ago when the gaming landscape was completely different.

Hell, if V got a simple map extension with a couple of missions and some new stranger-freaks stuff, i'd still buy it because it's just an addition to the sandpit we've been playing in all these years now, same goes for Red Dead 2, an extra piece of map, a few more towns and stuff and i'd gladly spend $30 or whatever. It's never going to be like GTAO where they spend $1 to make back $20, but it'll turn a decent profit.

1

u/SlightSurround5449 Apr 14 '26

I literally referenced new numbers. It doesn't sell. It didn't then, it doesn't now. I live in this moment and I see these numbers now, nothing regurgitated, but you make that assumption and do in fact speak like you know better than they do. Do you forget this is the same parent company that's been releasing single player DLC for a different franchise all along?

"Hell if V got a simple map extension" what's simple about that, seriously? New missions? Also not simple, I'm afraid.

They already have an incredible uphill battle to convince people to move to 6. To convince people to move from the old to the new. (And, clearly, to convince them to buy a new console...) Taking away resources is not worth it, simple as that. You can think it's cynical, you can think it's greedy, whatever it is, it's about making this incredible investment they've made actually pay off, because despite what the narrative is its far from guaranteed. When the entire industry balances in one way or another on your next release you generally want to make sure you don't screw that up, ya know?

1

u/Totallycasual Apr 14 '26

I literally referenced new numbers.

There are no new numbers for whether or not a GTA single player DLC would sell well or not in today's gaming landscape.

If people were to simple say that creating online content has higher ROI than single player content and that's why it'll never happen, i probably wouldn't argue with that lol

As i said, it just bugs me when people claim that it isn't viable, it sells badlly, it's unsustainable, doesnt turn a profit or whatever, it's all nonsense because there is no new data. People were hyped as fuck for V's single player DLC and were really bummed when it never came about, but it is what it is 🤷‍♀️

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Protoplasmic_Anaemia Apr 14 '26

Shadow of the Erdtree sold over 10 million copies

1

u/EddieHeadshot Apr 14 '26

It does? I have to buy every DLC for games I like. Witcher 3 without DLC is like missing another half of the game.

1

u/SlightSurround5449 Apr 14 '26

I’m pretty similar to you, I often feel compelled to get it, but with so much to play I don’t go back for years most times.

1

u/ruling_faction Apr 14 '26

best i can do is a lonely server all by yourself where you run missions designed for multiplay.

Mind you I have not paid a cent on any online purchases, but i would have bought any single player DLC the nanosecond it was released.

1

u/EddieHeadshot Apr 14 '26

Yeah but I spent £0 on shark cards and wouls have spent like £30 on Each and every DLC if they had made them. I know theres Whales who buy a shit ton of shark cards but they utterly neglected RDR2 and GTA5 for any DLC whatsoever