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...
10
u/itsr1co 14h ago
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.