Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why do people frown at the GTA Online business plan?

225 replies to this topic
came99
  • came99

    Cranky Old Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2011
  • Denmark

#1

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:42 PM Edited by came99, 19 May 2014 - 05:53 PM.

People frown at the fact that GTA Online is a free added bonus to the awesome singleplayer game that is GTA V?

Again and again I see the argument that "I already paid for the game, so why should I earn my money and/or buy cashcards to get what I want?"

You paid for the singleplayer game, which in my opinion is more than worth the price. As an added bonus Rockstar gave me gta online to play free of charge, with an OPTION to buy cashcards. (Which I gladly did at two occasions, where me and some friends was having a gaming weekend and wanted a car and a zillion sticky bombs to toss around.)

To me it is a perfectly fair and legitimate business plan, and I don't understand the arguments against it. Rockstar is continously adding new features and content, so how is it not fair to make a some bucks out of it? I got more than enough bang for the buck in the single player campaign to justify the price. Just as every other GTA game. They could have skipped the whole online part alltogether, and avoided all the hate, and people would still have loved what they paid for.

Please share your thoughts.. To me it seems that some people feel entitled to something they are getting for free..

  • Gaffa, WillWorthington3, ivarblaauw and 11 others like this

LoyalRockstarFanboy
  • LoyalRockstarFanboy

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2014
  • None

#2

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:44 PM

I agree that the SP was worth the 60$ but Online was advertised and hyped up as a main selling point.

  • JOEsAGGRESSIVE, robban, ~TKP~ and 3 others like this

came99
  • came99

    Cranky Old Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2011
  • Denmark

#3

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:45 PM

I agree that the SP was worth the 60$ but Online was advertised and hyped up as a main selling point.


Quite the opposite. It WAS clearly advertised as a free addon
  • ivarblaauw, Funkwalrus, Miss Malevolent and 4 others like this

Zee
  • Zee

    Shut up, sit down, relax.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2002
  • United-Kingdom
  • Comedian of the Year 2011

#4

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:46 PM Edited by Zee, 19 May 2014 - 05:47 PM.

Probably because it sucks. A subscription-based plan would be solve a lot of problems. Obviously R* wants the userbase to pay for the servers so it has to be pay to play anyhow. A subscription style setup would make it so that they could spend more money on infastrcuture and support so the game does not crash as often, instead of these monthly cash grabs of buying ingame items.
  • JOEsAGGRESSIVE, Diiesel and SonofLosSantos like this

LoyalRockstarFanboy
  • LoyalRockstarFanboy

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2014
  • None

#5

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:48 PM

 

I agree that the SP was worth the 60$ but Online was advertised and hyped up as a main selling point.


Quite the opposite. It WAS clearly advertised as a free addon

 

It was advertised as a constantly changing Online world with heists and with developers that listen to community feedback. So far its been the opposite.

  • Outplug, Officer620, robban and 5 others like this

poklane
  • poklane

    So now what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • Netherlands

#6

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:50 PM

People frown at the fact that GTA Online is a free added bonus to the awesome singleplayer game that is GTA V?

Again and again I see the argument that "I already paid for the game, so why should I earn my money and/or buy cashcards to get what I want?"

You paid for the singleplayer game, which in my opinion is more than worth the price. As an added bonus Rockstar gave me gta online to play free of charge, with an OPTION to buy cashcards.

To me it is a perfectly fair and legitimate business plan, and I don't understand the arguments against it. Rockstar is continously adding new features and content, so how is it not fair to make a some bucks out of it? I got more than enough bang for the buck in the single player campaign to justify the price. Just as every other GTA game. They could have skipped the whole online part alltogether, and avoided all the hate, and people would still have loved what they paid for.

Please share your thoughts..

I see you're following Rockstar's BS marketing huh? It's NOT free, it's just GTA V's multiplayer.

  • JOEsAGGRESSIVE, Outplug, DMC14 and 4 others like this

PancakePoon
  • PancakePoon

    Pancake Lover

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2013
  • Canada

#7

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:53 PM

We paid $60 for the package that is singleplayer and multiplayer. 

  • JOEsAGGRESSIVE, poklane, ~TKP~ and 1 other like this

homeskillet
  • homeskillet

    Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2013
  • None

#8

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:54 PM

They called it an added bonus so people would have no recourse if and when problems arise.

They knew that online was very important in regards to what people wanted and that their sales of the game depended on it they just didn't want to have to put any guarantees behind it.

Would you have bought the game if there was no online?

That being said, even if I did pay for online specifically, it is ridiculous to think having the option to buy cash cards is wrong.

  • BigBiff likes this

Revoltion
  • Revoltion

    Rev

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2013

#9

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:55 PM

When you think about it they aren't actually doing anything wrong, but as RockstarFanboy said it was hyped up a lot more than it needed to be. That is why people are getting so frustrated in my my opinion, because they were expecting something better than they got. (That is not to say Online isn't great, because it is)

 

I think Online would have been appreciated a lot more if R* had kept it a secret until it's launch. That way when people bought the game they were happy with what they got, another great SP experience. Then if R* had launched online say a few weeks (Or maybe months after seeing all the issues) later everyone would have been a lot happier and not so critical, simply because they weren't under any illusion about what to expect from Online.

  • JOEsAGGRESSIVE and Im2akillerfish like this

came99
  • came99

    Cranky Old Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2011
  • Denmark

#10

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:57 PM

 

People frown at the fact that GTA Online is a free added bonus to the awesome singleplayer game that is GTA V?

Again and again I see the argument that "I already paid for the game, so why should I earn my money and/or buy cashcards to get what I want?"

You paid for the singleplayer game, which in my opinion is more than worth the price. As an added bonus Rockstar gave me gta online to play free of charge, with an OPTION to buy cashcards.

To me it is a perfectly fair and legitimate business plan, and I don't understand the arguments against it. Rockstar is continously adding new features and content, so how is it not fair to make a some bucks out of it? I got more than enough bang for the buck in the single player campaign to justify the price. Just as every other GTA game. They could have skipped the whole online part alltogether, and avoided all the hate, and people would still have loved what they paid for.

Please share your thoughts..

I see you're following Rockstar's BS marketing huh? It's NOT free, it's just GTA V's multiplayer.

 

And they could have skipped it, and noone would have known...

 

Jesus.. The argument is SO hollow: Im just giving into some marketing bullsh*t". No, quite the contrary. I see myself as a very critic consumer who actually care about getting value for money. In this case I think I did.. More than enough.. And thats both the game and the 2x10 dollar cashcard I gladly bought to support the developers. And YES they are shoveling money, but that's really not a factor for me. I gladly pay for what I enjoy, if I think I am getting value for money.


homeskillet
  • homeskillet

    Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2013
  • None

#11

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:58 PM

 

 

I think Online would have been appreciated a lot more if R* had kept it a secret until it's launch. That way when people bought the game they were happy with what they got, another great SP experience. Then if R* had launched online say a few weeks (Or maybe months after seeing all the issues) later everyone would have been a lot happier and not so critical, simply because they weren't under any illusion about what to expect from Online.

That would have cost them millions in sales. To create an online game and not advertise it is business suicide.

  • sweetbrother likes this

came99
  • came99

    Cranky Old Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2011
  • Denmark

#12

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:59 PM

They called it an added bonus so people would have no recourse if and when problems arise.

 

TOTALLY AGREE. SMART MOVE.

 

They knew that online was very important in regards to what people wanted and that their sales of the game depended on it they just didn't want to have to put any guarantees behind it.

 

PROBABLY YES

 

 

Would you have bought the game if there was no online?

 

I AM ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THAT 99.9 % WOULD.

 

That being said, even if I did pay for online specifically, it is ridiculous to think having the option to buy cash cards is wrong.


moostered
  • moostered

    Racer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2013
  • Ireland

#13

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:03 PM

It was the main selling point of the game for lot's of people and was advertised as such.So it is not a "stand-alone title" or a "free addition to gta V" it is the multiplayer for GTAV same as battlefield and COD have multiplayers.R* can call it whatever they want but it is an equal,if not bigger part of the reason the game sold so well.GTA online IS paid for and it should be treated as a game you've paid for.
  • blackwolfred, TimelyMeerkat and whereisthesearchbar like this

Epsilon_Program
  • Epsilon_Program

    KIFFLOM

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2014
  • Fiji

#14

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:03 PM

I believe that we only paid for the SP, which was brilliant. I'm grateful that Rockstar gave us a awesome online bonus!


giraffeboy
  • giraffeboy

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2013

#15

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:04 PM

I'll bet the dev side of R* are pissed at the marketing side. The game didn't need any hype, yet it was the most hyped and scrutinised game of all time, every screenshot was broken down to the pixel. Like someone's said, if GTAO was just released, a month later say, without that video or any other fanfare it would probably be praised as the best thing ever, instead everyone got their own idea of what it would be like, some things they couldn't implement in time (*cough* heists) and inevitably people are going to be disappointed, myself included at some things. That said, they still overall did a fantastic job and it's the game I've sunk most time into ever, even more than when I had a severe case of MW2 addiction.

  • JOEsAGGRESSIVE likes this

BigBiff
  • BigBiff

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#16

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:06 PM

They called it an added bonus so people would have no recourse if and when problems arise.

They knew that online was very important in regards to what people wanted and that their sales of the game depended on it they just didn't want to have to put any guarantees behind it.

Would you have bought the game if there was no online?

That being said, even if I did pay for online specifically, it is ridiculous to think having the option to buy cash cards is wrong.

I can tell you I would not have gotten it any time soon.  Maybe in a year or two, because at this point single player is less of an interest to me.  To prove my point, I've played online for 14.5 days, and I'm 3.19% through single player.  To me, I bought GTA Online.  I would've gotten GTA Online if it was a standalone when I did, and would not have waited as I did.  It's Rockstar new path and they need this to work.  GTA solo is fun, I've played all of them since 3, but to truly grow the experience and the game, and the brand, they needed to move to Online and make it successful. 

 

That being said, it doesn't matter what you think you paid for.  Cash cards are 100% optional no matter how you see it, and they are the way the gaming works today.  Almost everyone with a massive online platform has it in one form or another.  Sure, we don't pay for DLCs but if you want everything fast and can't spend the time to get it, cash cards are there to help your experience.  Much like in BF or COD, you pay to enhance your experience be it through DLCs, cash cards, or renting a server to host games...it's all the same.  So, you paid $60 for the entire experience and whether or not you like it is up to you.  But to call Cash Cards a ploy is dumb.  If you HAD to buy them, absolutely.  Seeing that you don't, "you can't rape the willing."


OAF Marksman
  • OAF Marksman

    1985 Dodge Diplomat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 May 2014
  • United-States

#17

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:07 PM

awesome singleplayer game that is GTA V


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh... you were serious?

giraffeboy
  • giraffeboy

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2013

#18

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:08 PM

 

 

 

I think Online would have been appreciated a lot more if R* had kept it a secret until it's launch. That way when people bought the game they were happy with what they got, another great SP experience. Then if R* had launched online say a few weeks (Or maybe months after seeing all the issues) later everyone would have been a lot happier and not so critical, simply because they weren't under any illusion about what to expect from Online.

That would have cost them millions in sales. To create an online game and not advertise it is business suicide.

 

I kinda agree but disagree, they didn't need all the trailers and stuff, just confirm it's in the game with the minimum of details, people were still gonna shovel money at them. In this case I'd have said less is more, just whet the appetite a little, not explain everything you can do and some things you ended up couldn't.


Black Rabbit
  • Black Rabbit

    Owsla

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#19

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:17 PM

Rockstar's business plan is perfectly fine, it's their customer base that isn't. People just overhype things and expect things that just aren't there, then they complain when they don't get what they were hoping they would because they overhyped them so much, in their head, it was going to be grand and magical.

 

It's just like Googling space photos, getting all excited, then going out and buying the nicest telescope you can find expecting to see this from your backyard:

Headergrafik_Hubble-722x226.jpg

 

Wherein the reality is that you see this:

Milky+way.jpg


BigBiff
  • BigBiff

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#20

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:17 PM

 

 

 

 

I think Online would have been appreciated a lot more if R* had kept it a secret until it's launch. That way when people bought the game they were happy with what they got, another great SP experience. Then if R* had launched online say a few weeks (Or maybe months after seeing all the issues) later everyone would have been a lot happier and not so critical, simply because they weren't under any illusion about what to expect from Online.

That would have cost them millions in sales. To create an online game and not advertise it is business suicide.

 

I kinda agree but disagree, they didn't need all the trailers and stuff, just confirm it's in the game with the minimum of details, people were still gonna shovel money at them. In this case I'd have said less is more, just whet the appetite a little, not explain everything you can do and some things you ended up couldn't.

 

Remember that game companies compete for disposable income, meaning that there is a finite limit on most of their customers.  I'm not poor, but I also don't want to spend a ton of money on games a year and try to get 2-3 that will last me til the next year.  So, before I plop my money down, I want to know what I'm getting into.  I know there are diehards and early adopters out there who will jump at anything, but you don't grow your business selling to the same people over and over.

 

They needed to show Online, and what it would be in order to create that additional interest.  The marketing team did their job, the devs haven't.  So if the devs are pissed at someone, they can find the appropriate person to be pissed at in the mirror.

  • blackwolfred, TimelyMeerkat and CrazyLemon like this

fish61324
  • fish61324

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2013

#21

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:18 PM

smh.... I'm giving up on humanity.... yet another poor misled simple minded kid.  Dear OP: I feel sorry for you.

 

You can't fix stupid.

  • Zee likes this

BigBiff
  • BigBiff

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#22

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:20 PM Edited by BigBiff, 19 May 2014 - 06:20 PM.

smh.... I'm giving up on humanity.... yet another poor misled simple minded kid.  Dear OP: I feel sorry for you.

 

You can't fix stupid.

I pray this isn't your only contribution to this thread...you provided zero in the way that the OP is incorrect, or why he is simple and misled.

  • Epsilon_Program likes this

Gallioni Pepperoni
  • Gallioni Pepperoni

    ≧◔◡◔≦

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2014
  • Greece

#23

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:21 PM

Cause they are too cheap to spend a bit of money.

And just to clarify, I have never bought cash-cards my self.


giraffeboy
  • giraffeboy

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2013

#24

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:25 PM

Lol I wouldn't say they were exactly cheap, even without the marketing it cost more to produce than most blockbuster films


BigBiff
  • BigBiff

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#25

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:29 PM

Cause they are too cheap to spend a bit of money.

And just to clarify, I have never bought cash-cards my self.

So, how do you know how they're spending their money? 

 

They have shareholders that they have to act in the best interest of, so to spend frivolously attempting to please every gamer while not providing additional income is not in the shareholders best interest.  They were also highly in the negative in their net income the past year except for the quarter in which GTA came out.  You would know that though, seeing you probably read Take Two's annual report right?


tjor24
  • tjor24

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2013

#26

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:30 PM

Just like how everyone buys cod for the campaign right?
  • Outplug, Khartman and HaRdSTyLe_83 like this

Zee
  • Zee

    Shut up, sit down, relax.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2002
  • United-Kingdom
  • Comedian of the Year 2011

#27

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:30 PM

I would rather pay a subscription so the Drones couldn't use "its free!" as an excuse for why GTA Online is so sh*tty.
  • Outplug, blackwolfred, SonofLosSantos and 2 others like this

LoyalRockstarFanboy
  • LoyalRockstarFanboy

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2014
  • None

#28

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:32 PM

 

Cause they are too cheap to spend a bit of money.

And just to clarify, I have never bought cash-cards my self.

So, how do you know how they're spending their money? 

 

They have shareholders that they have to act in the best interest of, so to spend frivolously attempting to please every gamer while not providing additional income is not in the shareholders best interest.  They were also highly in the negative in their net income the past year except for the quarter in which GTA came out.  You would know that though, seeing you probably read Take Two's annual report right?

 

I thought Rockstar was bringing in hundreds of millions through cash cards.


SecludedMemory
  • SecludedMemory

    Lysergified

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2013
  • Antarctica

#29

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:32 PM Edited by SecludedMemory, 19 May 2014 - 06:32 PM.

Would you have bought the game if there was no online?

 

I bought GTA 1, 2, 3, Vice City and San Andreas. I'm pretty sure I would have gotten GTA 5 if there was no multiplayer.  

  • Outplug, Miss Malevolent, ~TKP~ and 1 other like this

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#30

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:33 PM Edited by Arazern, 19 May 2014 - 06:36 PM.

u start by assuming we bought the game cuz of SP... when SP sucks big time

 

i spent 60$ in MP, if it wasnt MP i wouldnt have bought GTAV

 

edit: Watch dogs has so weak MP that's why i aint moving to that

 

 

 

 

Just like how everyone buys cod for the campaign right?

:^:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users