Jump to content

» «

Too easy to make money in SP?

4 replies to this topic
  • kansas_dude


  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2006


Posted 06 January 2018 - 06:38 PM Edited by kansas_dude, 06 January 2018 - 06:40 PM.

Is it too easy to make money in Single Player and lack of reality of spending money (bills and such)? I think so.....what I think R* should have added (maybe in GTA VI (6)) is where Trevor, Michael, and Franklin has to pay house bills (electric, water, internet) every in-game month and vehicle insurance every in-game 6 months (or yearly (the player chooses vehicle insurance plan at start of game))


I think it would make this game more realistic


Ronald Reagan
  • Ronald Reagan


  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2017
  • Poland
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2017


Posted 06 January 2018 - 06:55 PM Edited by Ronald Reagan, 06 January 2018 - 07:48 PM.



What a cool idea!





  • TrevorIsMyDad

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2017
  • United-States


Posted 06 January 2018 - 09:56 PM

I'm all for realism but real life stuff like that would get old real quick, kinda the way it does in real life. SP definitely does need more uses for the cash you accumulate after reaching the "end" of the story though. I can only buy so many hoes...

  • RetroMystic

    Really makes you think

  • Victim of The Pit™
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2016
  • Australia


Posted 08 January 2018 - 09:42 AM Edited by RetroMystic, 08 January 2018 - 09:43 AM.

Until the end of the game you only make serious money through heists unless you do the Lester assassination missions before the final mission, if all three characters were charged rent, say weekly, it would be come annoying very quickly unless you manage to purchase a business as early as possible, especially since a system like this would also have story related reasons for taking the players cash, like Michael paying Dave Norton a large sum of money every week or so as mentioned by Lester, and at that point you'd be losing more money than you make. 

  • Dryspace

    The Infinitely Prolonged

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2017
  • United-States


Posted 08 January 2018 - 11:36 AM

The pursuit of realism must never conflict with the pursuit of enjoyability.


I am a big proponent of realism in videogames. What I realized at some point was that the primary purpose of a videogame is entertainment, and thus anything that detracts from enjoyability has no place in a game. Simply put, realism per se is neither good nor bad; it simply is. Realism should be pursued when it contributes to both the design goals and enjoyability of a particular game.


Using 'fast travel', or more accurately, teleportation, as an example: Being unable to instantly transport oneself to a desired location without a valid in-game justification such as magic is more realistic than being able to do so. The decision by a dev to disallow it--at least until 'earned' in-game in some manner--would be legitimate, because it trivializes a game's overall progression, and by its nature eliminates portions of gameplay.


On the other hand, leaving out the necessity of paying bills every month, while certainly less realistic than having to worry about them, is legitimate, as it does not detract from enjoyment (for 99% of people, anyway), whereas including it serves no conceivable purpose other than realism (again, for 99% of people, presumably).


To go further, even if some gameplay element was created in which the timely paying of bills was important, in reality, it is possible to automate such payments. The act of paying bills is not in any way, shape, or form entertaining to any person that I am aware of, and therefore there is not really a good argument for forcing one to do so in a game.


Things like firing weapons, engaging in combat (paintball e.g.), problem-solving, treasure hunting, walking, running, hiking, making money...busting bricks, eating mushrooms, and exploring sewers...etc. are fun in reality for many people, and thus it makes sense for these activities to exist as elements of a videogame.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users