Sorry bro, I aint buying that ready-made, hardware limitation bullsh*t excuse people like you keep making for Rockstar. I'm sure the stuff I mentioned would not have been that much of an issue, it's not complicated and it's far from impossible.
I'm not even gonna respond to your question about interiors. If you still don't know or understand why a decent amount of interiors are important to a GTA environment by now, then it is my conclusion your gameplay experience of GTA is very unimaginative, boring and lacking in taste. As for gambling, I'd still rather have that than yoga any day.
Your comment about properties is bullsh*t. Rockstar cleverly deceived most of us into believing safe house properties were returning. They first said properties in general would not be returning, then they said it was returning. They may not have been very specific but they knew what they were playing at. They just wanted to keep the pre-hype train moving at full speed by manipulating their words. People had good reason to expect safe house properties based on their deception.
I'm sorry you ain't buying it bro, but console limitations is a very real problem. It's most likely the reason Rockstar only included interiors that were essential to gameplay. While Burger Shot and hospital interiors would've been nice, they wouldn't have served any purpose in gameplay.
Rockstar weren't trying to be clever about purchasing safehouses either. If you had read the interviews, you'd know they were actually quite up front about it. The Gameinformer preview in particular had Dan Houser straight out telling us features that weren't going to be in the game, when they could have easily gone around those questions.
If you truly need interiors everywhere you go, with side missions telling you what to do in order to have fun in a GTA game, you are a very unimaginative person.
* There were no limitation for stuff like interiors and extra simple gameplay features, I just don't agree mate. It's a matter of we'll agree to disagree, I'm not repeating myself going in circles.
But even if it was down to console limitations, then I think Rockstar should have just scaled the map down, much more than it is now, and they more than likely would have had more resources and technology to work with. They should have put twice as much concentration on the city of Los Santos first and tried to make it as detailed and immersive as much as they could. Most of what they did with LS was to make it very pretty and stunning to look at, and that was mostly it. Rather than that huge map, they should have made LS bigger, made so many interiors for it, and created much more vibrant NPC action and presence in the streets.
When I look back at the game's environment, I consider all of that open space to be a waste anyway, there was not much use for all that countryside and wilderness, and there was not much to do there either. The wildlife nothing to marvel at either. There was hardly any use for underwater, and not much to see or do down there. If they had scaled down the map and concentrated on the main part of a GTA environment (CITY) in this game, I reckon the limitations would not have been so bad (presuming they were there in the first place).
* Sorry, defend them all you want, but Rockstar deceived a lot of people with that property feature issue. I know this, because I followed all the previews and pre-release stuff very closely. I know a lot of people on here will agree with me on this. You can have your opinion, but I know what I saw and read. Again, we can agree to disagree, no point in going circles.
* I don't need interiors everywhere I go in GTA, but it certainly helps with the immersion and fun in the way I play the game a great deal. I don't wanna be always out in the streets killing and destroying everything in sight, that gets repetitive and it's not realistic to always be out in the streets. I like to have close quarter, intense shootouts in an interior, stuff like that. Go into a nightclub, get into an altercation and a shootout, that kind of thing I find great fun.
As for side missions ? Well of course I need them to have fun you dummy. I'm not even gonna go into that, you must be very thick and stupid to wonder why anyone would need side missions in a GTA game to have fun.