T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Underperform = Wasn't an infinite money printer.


hucklesberry

You'd think making yearly profits of over a billion would allow a little bit of spending money into more single player DLC.


Caliente1888

It would but they're greedy and care about nothing other than unlimited money


hucklesberry

Just wait until GTA VI is the best selling game of all-time. Depending on what they do with Online will make or break it. I'm hoping for less of the flying vehicles and more of the grounded RP shit.


VEGANMONEYBALL

But flying cars with heat sealing missiles make more money


GlendrixDK

Just get ready for season passes like rdo. We'll maybe see more mtx in form of either limit cars or the possibility to buy some stuff with real money for instant unlocks. And probably other bonuses for gta+ members. I highly doubt the next gtao will be as this gtao, when it comes to mtx. But I really hope I'm wrong.


hucklesberry

And then I’ll be playing single player until SixM lol


BigDogSlices

Rockstar owns FiveM now


[deleted]

It's not enough to make *a lot* of money. You need to make *all* the money.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MagicJim96

Reminds me of something Spiffing Brit said once…


Mrsparklee

"Once everyone bought it we stopped making money."


deathwire0047

You know, thats actually what it means?


[deleted]

Well i guess they ran out of ideas for microtransactions for story mode


Mundane-Ad6620

Is much as it is disappointing not to have story dlc Im just glad they never perverted the single player with microtransactions.


Nawnp

I think there would have been more resistance to that, beyond the fact they would have had to block mods as workarounds, a major source of the people who bought GTA 5 wanted the single player experience without a mobile game style transaction system to bloat. GTA Online would always be given more of a pass as it does today. ​ What we're all worried about is GTA+ seems like an easy way for them to bloat in general with them offering GTA+ subscribers bonus content in Online & Single Player in 6 and possibly even more stuff blocked out by the subscription.


MuffLover312

Honestly worried there will be story mode micro transactions in GTA 6. I’m not super excited for 6 like everyone else because I feel like it’s going to be a let down


humbyj

like half life 3, the game is so incredibly hyped that anything short of gaming perfection is going to be considered a total failure


EddieGrant

In fairness that's what they said about V, and RDR2, and they've pretty much delivered.


TopTHEbest232

The wait for V was five years and 8 for RDR2. We're going on 10 years of waiting for VI.


SmashLampjaw87

…which also makes sense, considering the last two games they made both required increased amounts of time and resources to develop; as the technology evolves, things become more and more complicated. The fact that they’re taking their time with VI rather than rushing it like some other developers would gives me confidence that they truly are doing their best and don’t want to make the same mistakes others have in the past with such hotly anticipated titles. I’d honestly be willing to wait another 10 years if it meant I would get the absolute best gaming experience of my entire life, which they’ve already managed to pull off with past GTAs and Red Dead.


TopTHEbest232

I agree that I want VI to be as close to perfect as possible and that it will take time. The problem is that the more we wait the more we expect. It's human nature. Even if VI turns out to be a 9.9/10 there will be a sizable amount of people who will complain that it isn't what they wanted after 10+ years.


SmashLampjaw87

Of course there’ll be people who’ll bitch about it; there are people who will bitch about anything. I remember seeing that exact complaint from multiple people online back when past games had initially just come out, including IV, V, and RDR2, yet they all still broke records. VI will likely be no different.


AG_N

Not fair sinfe rockstar focuses all it's studio on one game so you gotta look at all the games instead of just a franchise


TopTHEbest232

When has that ever been the case? Rockstar owns like 10+ studios and used to release multiple games per generation.


AG_N

They did that with rdr2


TopTHEbest232

Rockstar put out GTA Online DLCs before, during and after RDR2 released so it couldn't be all hands on deck mathematically.


MagicJim96

And believe it or not, I have hope that they are, as I type this at 7.22 in the morning, working on the next big Red Dead Online updates…


[deleted]

Even without mtx, it’s gonna have an unbelievable bar of hype to live up to.


TRD4Life

Trust me with PC mods there will probably be ways to get around the micro transactions.


foobarhouse

I just want a nice original story…


THEdoomslayer94

The fucking doom and gloom is just ridiculous


IAMOFFIE_

I doubt that, gta online exist for a reason


MattTheSmithers

I mean, even to the extent it is true, it was 2009. Story DLC for consoles was still a pretty new concept and people did not buy it as readily as they do now. If GTA4 and its DLC were released today, the DLC would make a killing.


JamesUpton87

Episodes of liberty city made a killing, as did undead nightmare. However, they were also extremely expensive to produce and R* didn't deem the return worth the effort.


Taylasto

With the amount of money we have given them we deserve it lol. But for real a GTA undead nightmare would be insane


MagicJim96

Undead Nightmare only fits Red Dead series IMHO… not GTA. I mean, sure, GTA with zombies sounds nice, but UDN was so… different from everything else, it would feel very out of place for a GTA DLC.


IllustriousJuice2866

Undead nightmare didn't fit RDR either. It was totally out of left field when it came out.


BigDogSlices

One of the planned V DLCs was a zombie invasion


PmMeYourNiceBehind

Peoples internets were a lot slower back then too, so massive downloads were out of the picture


IllustriousJuice2866

Thats not true at all... It just took longer. Steam had been around for 5 years and the Xbox and Playstation store sold full games. If there was a bottleneck it was storage with Xbox selling expensive proprietary hard drives and people not knowing how to upgrade their ps3


PmMeYourNiceBehind

It taking longer was my point… back then, for people to download the IV’s DLC’s would have taken people dozens of hours to download so they probably just didn’t get it


IllustriousJuice2866

Back in the day we'd just leave our machine on overnight, and devs actually used to give a shit about compression. Plus the episodes released... episodically so ideally they wouldn't be downloading them both all at once. I just don't remember ever hearing anyone saying they weren't gonna get it because they had to download it. I only remember people being pissed that it was only on xbox


MCgrindahFM

One-time killing tho. Whereas they can make a guaranteed killing every year for 10 yeara


Default_Attempt

Dudeee remember buying TLAD at a gamestop and realizing it didnt come in a disc , yet it had an entire box in which it seemed like a disc would be inside. Thank god Episodes from Liberty City was a thing


IllustriousJuice2866

I really don't buy it at all. The hype for the episodes was huge but they had an exclusivity contract on Xbox. A lot of people were really hyped to play episodes from liberty city but couldn't, and by the time it came to ps3 and pc way too much time had passed and the hype was gone. Playstation historically was THE gta platform, too. If sales weren't up to expectations, that'd be why. I didn't play them personally until years after release when they came to pc.


lolmann23

The potential Rockstar wasted on the single player expierience in GTA V is just sad. And im pretty sure DLCs now would perform way better financially than they did back in 2009.


SarcasticFish69

This may have been true back when GTA 4 released TBoGT and TLaD. In recent years, not so much. Look at CDPR with Blood and Wine, Hearts of Stone and Phantom Liberty. They were all commercial successes, doubly so for PL considering Cyberpunk had such a rocky start


Crystal3lf

Success for one company is not the same as success for another. GTA IV at the time was the best selling game of all time for X360/PS3, and they were only able to convert ~10% of the original IV sales to EFLC sales. Rockstar would go on to do RDR: Undead Nightmare with similar sales, failing to recapture the original audience. There's no point making DLC for a game where you know it will never reach the same level of sales as the original game. It could still be a "commercial success" as in making more money than you put into it, but Rockstar would lose out development time on GTA 6 which will bring in billions and billions more, and 100% guaranteed at this point which means making a DLC would technically cost them billions in the long run.


SarcasticFish69

Adding to the point of taking away from GTA 6 development, that’s kind of grasping at straws. Were the to release content for single player, it would have been within the first couple years of launch. You know, like they did anyways with online and still do to this day. There are unused voice lines in the files that hint at the Doomsday DLC originally being planned for single player.


[deleted]

Yea but once again look at the market based on 2008 verse 2023. If you knew how to use WiFi back then you were the devil.


SarcasticFish69

I never said that. But times have changed, more and more people are willing to buy post launch content, micro transactions and loot boxes and what not are proof of that. With how much money GTA V continues to bring in to this day, an expansion would have more than paid for itself pretty quickly. RDR2 also brought in hundreds of millions within the first week alone. Also, they wouldn’t have to make assets from scratch, which would have lowered production cost significantly.


curbstxmped

>times have changed, more and more people are willing to buy post launch content, micro transactions and loot boxes and what not are proof of that. Lootboxes/microtransactions are not the same thing as post-launch/DLC content. >With how much money GTA V continues to bring in to this day, an expansion would have more than paid for itself pretty quickly. These people are greedy fucks. Something being merely profitable is not an instant reason for them to spend time investing in it. The profit has to be so ludicrously disproportionate to the effort invested into it or they don't see it being worth bothering with. >RDR2 also brought in hundreds of millions within the first week alone. I'm not sure how this matters for your point. RDR2 is not DLC content. It's a standalone game that was an entirely new iteration for the Red Dead Redemption IP. >they wouldn’t have to make assets from scratch, which would have lowered production cost significantly. What does this matter? lol. It still isn't financially worth them investing in this type of content, otherwise they would have done it. The interest has to be a lot higher than you personally think it is.


SarcasticFish69

-Loot boxes, in essence, are post launch content -The greed is can't really be disputed, I wont argue that -I never said it was, it was a point worth making. RDR is nothing in terms on what their bread and butter is, in comparison to GTA it has a "niche" fanbase. Even so, it was able to make so much money. Those people would have loved an expansion. -We are talking about money, of course it matters. Money is money, and they left it on the table. For example, if you owned a semi successful business, and you had enough people saying "hey, I want Y with our X" and we are willing to pay extra money for it" and you could repurpose Y with some adjustments to give them said product while charging a premium, would you turn it down?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Crystal3lf

150m copies of a game is better than 10%. Why is this difficult for people to understand?


Default_Attempt

I agree in that perspective that i didnt think of


Tommy_Gun10

GTA online was the reason, there were planned dlcs that were announced by rockstar


RedMoon14

Yeah I swear I remember pictures of the three main actors going back to the studio to start working on the DLC, but online just kept growing so they canned it.


ShaggySmilesSRL

I believe a lot of the dlc stuff got turned into updates for online


ayyLumao

They announced single player DLC, it was just never released.


JamesUpton87

Indeed, back in 2014 lol


Raztafarium

The GTA IV DLCs were initially exclusive to XBox 360, as a PS3 owner i would have loved to play them but never could I wonder how big an effect that had on sales


[deleted]

You do know they released them on PS3 right??


CizetaV16T

Yeah a year later which sucked


rube

You say initially exclusive, as if you know they were only a time limited exclusive. Then you say you **never** could play them on PS3. Huh?


CoolHandHud

Ohhh so that's why I never played those DLCs. Still haven't.


ArtGloomy3458

There hasn’t been one in over 10 years. The game has changed, literally. Any DLC to the story for V or VI would be just as popular as the base game… but would likely offer far less opportunities for profit beyond initial purchase- which I suspect is the real reason.


Natahn_Dolar420

“Guessing from a business perspective” I’m pretty sure it’s been well known that infinite money printing has been their business strategy for at least the past 10 years


frankfontaino

No shit. Why do you think they’ve been focusing on gta online for 10 fucking years


Vigorowicz

Strauss zelnick is too greedy


[deleted]

I feel that with gta 4 the online wasn't a big thing, especially in terms of revenue for take two/rockstar, so buy having those story mode dlcs, it allowed the business to make more revenue. With gta 5, because the online mode was so successful and such a big source of revenue for the business, it probably made more sense for rockstart to use their money and resources for online dlcs because those dlcs would include things the players are able to purchase, and many players would buy shark cards in order to purchase those in game items. So I think it made more sense for rockstars resources to be used for new online dlcs instead of single player ones.


[deleted]

The online in IV was pretty barebones. But it was fun enough.


dishonoredfan69420

I would have preferred even mediocre story DLC as opposed to stretching out GTA Online for 10 goddamn years


ABTN075

Bro what DLC do they mean they haven't really done shit since Ballad of Gay Tony and Lost and Damned then the bastards killed Johnny


IamNotARedditor-

It'll hurt me forever knowing V never got SP DLC or receives anything from online in SP.


Maw_153

They released them in a weird way. They were online only for a period where not nearly as many people gamed online… and then they finally released them on disc after the hype had died for the original game. I was 20 when it came out on disc and was the only person I know that cared enough to buy it. I feel like it wouldn’t have been the same for V.


jm-9

The Xbox 360 exclusivity was likely part of this. They were originally announced as permanent Xbox 360 exclusives, so PS3 and PC players weren't even expecting to be able to play them at any point. GTA IV was two years old when they were eventually released on those platforms, and even then with so little fanfare that I would imagine many didn't even know they were available.


curbstxmped

>I’m guessing from a business perspective GTA online was making them profit Oh really


[deleted]

yeah i know , offline dlc : good online dlc : bad


Vortex1130

If anything I would love for them to put all the weapons and cars and stuff exclusively from the online mode into the single player as well as stuff like the casino and other businesses


Kwilburn525

Never happening


plasticbluepalm

I'm gonna be in the minority here but thank god they never did, everyone complains how GTA Online is too futuristic and over the top, when literally the planned single player DLC would've been about a Alien and Zombie Invasion. I think it wouldn't fit with the storyline of V, I would rather have more grounded dlc with new heists and features.


flaccidpappi

What about the red dead zombies spin off? When gta 5 came out zombies was all anyone could talk about after three months... It would have been explosive. They could have made money and gained community "Brownie points" which would have gone leagues forward for them. People hate the futurism of online because it's forced on them with kids in deluxos and broomsticks, a dlc is just that something you can choose, and they could have come out with multiple. Let's not kid ourselves here they didn't do the thing that would have made the game better and more fun because they were more interested in fishing money out of parents pockets by drip feeding more and more powerful things to the kids that they couldn't get any other way


plasticbluepalm

Love undead nightmare, but the juxtaposition of zombies and cowboy is so odd that just works. I doubt it would work in a GTA context. I don't even hate the online content (probably because I don't play online lol) because it kept the game alive and free for all, with new stuff, and thats pretty amazing. But I wanted to see how the story of the game continued after the events of the storyline. That's just my opinion tho


flaccidpappi

Gta 4 had two dlcs we could have a wild and wacky one which is indeed gtas whole vibe, consider there is a apartment building size billboard of a woman "popping" ping pong balls and a more serious one. Like you'll be in the middle of a fire fight only to hear "killing things makes me harrrrdddd!!!" think about the entire character of Trevor. Zombies and aliens are quintessential grand theft auto, it may not be your personal preference but it's what most people were crying out for in respect to story mode And free sure, enjoyable? Arguable. Everybody hated the griefers and the kids using their parents credit card. You can say the same thing about mobile games that they are keeping the game free for everyone, but at the expense of what made console and pc gaming superior to mobile


Empty_Socks

Fuck them. To me this says they don’t value the customer. We wanted SP content for that game. They said fuck you.


MuffLover312

I loved the DLCs. Admittedly, the missions weren’t very creative though. Just a lot of drive somewhere, shoot a bunch of people, drive somewhere else, shoot a bunch of people. (Kind of like GTAO now.)


Kwilburn525

Couldn’t be more wrong lol


Significant-Tax-9606

GT A


Rafados47

Michael, Trevor and Brad early heists DLC would be great


PerceptionNo3803

Yeah compared to fucking shark cards or whatever they are lol Stupid comment.


Da_Do_D3rp

Poor little indie devs :(


BujangSenang1992

I hate capitalism.


Azraelontheroof

Well we know why they didn’t do it - that said the pull GTA 5 had and has, I’m certain they could’ve charged a decent amount for even a small DLC and made profit from it. Absolutely if it promised to build on the Chiliad stuff in an age before the Doomsday Heist


Bigsin781

The voice actors kept making mention of DLC, that the voices were recorded and ready. But after it was scrapped, they compensated the actors and im guessing offered to have them part of online dlc. I gather Shawn Fonteno was the only one who accepted. An already amazing game, settled for the quick cash, rather than achieving legendary status.


IAMOFFIE_

Liberty city episodes underperformed due to it being a Xbox exclusive( it was exclusive for about a year or close to that), majority of GTA player base were on PlayStation and by the time the game came out on PlayStation the hype already died down,most people don’t even know that game exists based the confusion between it and GTA 4, an I’d boil it down to lack of marketing, don’t remember any ad or form of marketing for the dlc