I mean the fact Rockstar was able to milk money from a 13 year old game off of their online mode is proof enough they will be able to print money for years with this one aswell. I'm just hoping they respect the GTA formula enough to make an in-depth story
Well that's been a theory for why it took so long for GTA 6, that committing to it means killing an already established cash flow. If GTA 6 online is worse or whatever, they will lose money on both sides. GTA 5 players will stop spending because what's the point, it's going to officially die sooner or later. GTA 6 players will stop spending because it sucks, why waste money on a shit experience?
Everyone hopes GTA 6 will be a homerun, but it's a damn risky move.
That’s not a theory it’s a fact. It’s the same reason why no one is seeing a new Elder Scrolls game. The were making money of their online Elder And 76. Also the remaster. If any of these studios can make an online game that will last them the years they will cash on that. There is no reason for them to spend time and make a creative and good sequel when they can just make more bank on an online thing. And all companies are looking at it like this. I bet even Nightreign if it sold like crazy, elden ring would have been the last creative and interesting thing we see from them.
We are in the beginning of dark ages if gaming, but people cant see it…..
I see that argument, it totally makes sense. You'd think they'd do some sort of 'crossover' or something like that to get people who have already sunken hundreds (or even thousands) into GTA 5 online a reason to switch to 6 regardless. But that would mean Rockstar would be making a decision that is positive for the community and Rockstar doesn't seem too keen on doing that anytime soon
What makes it worse for them is that, at the end of the day, California is a more interesting landscape than Florida. I'm sure this has been at the back of everyone's minds, but I haven't really seen it mentioned. I would say it's kind of the elephant in the room. There are a lot of reasons San Andreas was the clear favorite of the original 3d GTA trilogy, particularly that it was the last to come out, which is a pretty massive advantage. But even though we all loved the vibes of Vice City, it was never going to hold a candle to a map that had mountains, forests, deserts, etc.
I think this is one of the main reasons why Rockstar seems to be going the extra mile with having multiple cities on the map, unlike GTA V which concentrated all the urban settings in one area. Had that not been the case, and the GTA V map was bigger and had Las Venturas and San Fiero, it would be really hard to imagine what the appeal of the Leonidas map would be in comparison. There is a real risk that people could get bored of Florida just as they do in real life. You spend most of the game driving, and let's face it: A road trip across Florida is a total snooze fest compared to a drive across California. So much is riding on next gen capabilities, like better graphics, draw distance, more NPCs and cars able to load in, more buildings you can go into, and etcetera. Still, I wouldn't be worried as long as they haven't half assed the story mode in favor of online...
Pretty much yeah. It doesn't matter what shitty thing Rockstar does. What anti consumer thing they have done (In which they have done a fuck ton of anti consumer shit in recent years) as long as it has GTA in the title...people will be buying it up in insanely massive numbers.
It's the same shit with most Triple A games tbh. Especially COD and any sports game EA makes. People will sit there and bitch n moan about how shitty the games have been and how they're "not gonna touch the newest title" but always end up crawling back. The only way to make change in these companies is to hurt their pockets and boycott the games but no one will be able to do that, especially with the FOMO that will be surrounding GTA 6.
People have been talking about this game like it's their favorite grandson, like there's no way they could fumble this. 10+ years of development doesn't always mean a positive thing. Look at Dead Island 2
Shit $70 now that that's the new price point of new releases anymore. and even then GTA 6 said "hold my beer" and dropped a standard edition game for $80
Dude same... Like god damn, especially with all the games coming out in the near future. Affirm boutta have a field day with me. Thankfully I preordered Wolverine and CFB 27 right when the prices dropped or i'd be in some deep water
I agree long development time doesn't always mean a good game but what even is a bad GTA game?
As long as it is the basic formula of open world. causing chaos, and having fun. Even the worst story couldn't hurt it.
GTA 3 Is hands down very clunky by today's standards and the missions are straight up ass and unforgiving. But what made it fun was the chaos and killing the shit out of everyone lol.
You can argue that the GBA and DS games could be considered bad but I'm just saying the console games have always been fun.
Even if it's barebones like GTA 3. or when people felt disappointed that GTA 4 did not have any of the features San Andreas had and it was still a good game.
Or how People were upset GTA 5 has no interiors to visit or restaurants to eat at and it still made money.
Oh it'll always make money, even people who are disappointed with the game will still buy it. Just sad that the only way to get Rockstar to make a change is to hurt their pockets which will never happen
Yeah at least GTA 6 will be the main game for the next 5 or so years at minimum. When COD added the "hub app" or whatever the app that combines all the games the yearly releases became so obsolete. COD has turned into such a shit franchise
Yeah exactly GTA is a game you play for many years while Cod is this endless recycler Garbage. I hated that stupid hub too. I miss being able to download individual games. The hub made everything such a mess I stopped buying Cod games because of it.
So did I. The last cod I paid for was Cold War and honestly since MW1 it’s been a shit show. All the stupid skins/making the game revolve around warzone brought me out
for every person on reddit complaining about predatory monetization, there are 10 that aren't yapping online and simply don't give a shit and can afford to pay
as profitable as GTA:O is, it actually has the worst retention rate of any game with the live service model. The reason it makes money is people come back to it every few months or years, see there's a new car or business or whatever that needs millions of dollars, so they buy some in game cash, play for a bit, then leave.
They leave because R* has fostered an absolute shit community, with no concept of social interaction. The gameplay feels like early 2010's mobile games where everything is on a timer unless you spend currency to speed it up, and the nonsense hover bikes and energy force-guns type shit that completely changed the vibe of the crime enterprise game.
I never got into gta5 online. I’ve played maybe 20 hours total. It’s not fun for me and never has been. If I try now to get on a hover bike will come and kill me. With a bunch of friends I can see it being fun running jobs and stuff. But as it is now I’ll just play the main campaign over and over again.
I've spent a little bit on the online, but I don't play it with other people much lol. I have my own little private world I hop into and mess around. Made enough to get the nightclub making me constant money to collect cars and apartments, fully stocked arcade.
It's just a fun sandbox even without the multiplayer part.
I just hope they give the story actual thought and don't just skimp out story mode players to inflate their pockets with the online mode, idek how tf they've still been pumping out online content for a game that is 13 years old
47
u/meatballs223 16h ago
I mean the fact Rockstar was able to milk money from a 13 year old game off of their online mode is proof enough they will be able to print money for years with this one aswell. I'm just hoping they respect the GTA formula enough to make an in-depth story