GTA VI Speculation & Discussion - Part ∞ - The Leonida Drought

[Nyfyr]

19 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

i find these type of comments so lame too, like... this is a video game. you can literally do anything. why limit on things just because it doesn't happen in real life? way to be boring... but then you get arguments that it won't be "authentic" to the real thing.

 

bitch, i'm not asking for f*cking shark tornados or whatever... and this argument falls flat now too seeing how rockstar brought in futuristic crap to gta online  >_>

If you’re talking Online? F*ck it, have at it

 

Not in mah single player tho

[Xilurm]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Like I said in another post, these analysts have for many years now been horribly wrong on a lot of what's good and bad for the industry and this is just another example. $100 games would be the final nail in the coffin for the vast majority of the industry, it'd tank sales.

 

And I also don't get these  people that defend stuff like this by saying something like "AAA game costs are too expensive." 

 

I don't care.

 

If you can't manage AAA resources and budget then stop making such games instead of f*cking over your customers. 100$ price for a video game is extremely anti-consumer. It's not worth it.

[Agent Edward]

1 hour ago, Retro_Causality said:

GTA V sold 11 million copies day 1

 

do you think VI will surpass that day 1?

I'm 99% sure, I mean... all this clickbait and other f*ckery around the internet has to mean something.

[The-Ghost]

45 minutes ago, tony da boss said:

It actually snowed in Miami and Tampa in 1977, today is the anniversery

So.. 70s setting confirmed?

We're so back let's go

[Dick Justice]

I'm pretty sure any "they'll charge $100 for GTAVI" article is just engagement farming rage-bait. It's almost always based on a quote from some random analyst who gets one thing right and twelve things wrong. Every time I see it mentioned on other social media sites people discuss it as if it's a foregone conclusion, they'll read the headline and then act like Rockstar are committing highway robbery, proving that rage-bait clearly works. 

[The-Ghost]

31 minutes ago, Xilurm said:

And I also don't get these  people that defend stuff like this by saying something like "AAA game costs are too expensive." 

 

I don't care.

 

If you can't manage AAA resources and budget then stop making such games instead of f*cking over your customers. 100$ price for a video game is extremely anti-consumer. It's not worth it.

I too find it strange, especially coming from players.

And the price hike thing is laughable to me because I think people are buying less games in general now than they did before.

[Ryderfromgrovestreet]

Honestly I don’t even think GTA 6 is going to have an online mode, I think Rockstar is going to go the same route that Bethesda did with the Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76 where GTA Online’s successor is its own separate thing from GTA 6. With this new version of GTA Online being specifically designed to last for decades, we will probably get much more meaningful updates than we did for 5’s online, I.E map expansions, possible FiveM integration or I guess it would be called SixM now, we could even get single player DLC for GTA 6 but I wouldn’t count on it.

 

Probably the reason why Rockstar took down the Liberty City Preservation Project is because the new GTA online will have some sort of Liberty City expansion, not just Liberty City but Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Vanturas, Possibly even New Cities like Chicago, London, Anywhere City, Tokyo, Paris, Etc…. GTA 6 might be the last traditional Grand Theft Auto game, instead of Making a GTA 7, they will probably just incorporate all of the content that would equate to a GTA 7 in GTA Online instead.
 

Continuing to make games on the scale of GTA 6 is also kinda unsustainable in the long term, I could see Rockstar splitting into two internal divisions, one division will work on and support the next iteration of GTA Online and the other will work on multiple smaller budget titles, Like Bully 2, Max Payne 4, LA Noire 2, Midnight Club, probably even a new IP, like that medieval game everyone keeps talking about.

 

You guys are probably asking about where the Red Dead franchise fits into all of this, welI I have no idea, It’s clearly their secondary franchise behind GTA so it will probably become a live service like GTA.

Edited January 20 by Nonesuchriver

[JohnCGaming]

47 minutes ago, Xilurm said:

And I also don't get these  people that defend stuff like this by saying something like "AAA game costs are too expensive." 

 

I don't care.

 

If you can't manage AAA resources and budget then stop making such games instead of f*cking over your customers. 100$ price for a video game is extremely anti-consumer. It's not worth it.

 

I've never loved this thought process to be honest. You as the consumer can also choose to not buy a game if it exceeds your personal threshold. There's lots of things I would spend more money on if I perceived them to be worth it, and a lot of things I would cut out. I do not view any Ubisoft game as being worth more than $20 at this point. Ergo, I don't buy 'em. Simple as. This isn't food or transportation or something critical. 

Edited January 20 by JohnCGaming

[The-Ghost]

Just now, Dick Justice said:

I'm pretty sure any "they'll charge $100 for GTAVI" article is just engagement farming rage-bait. It's almost always based on a quote from some random analyst who gets one thing right and twelve things wrong. Every time I see it mentioned on other social media sites people discuss it as if it's a foregone conclusion, they'll read the headline and then act like Rockstar are committing highway robbery, proving that rage-bait clearly works. 

It comes every now and then too, it's like social media circles have a cycle they go through, if it's not the delay it's the price, if it's not the price it's budget, and speaking of which, I am still seeing people talk about a 2billion budget for this game like it's something confirmed.

 

[Retro_Causality]

These next two weeks is nervous time 

[Agent Edward]

At this point I'm starting to think that Rockstar is jealous of their own game and wanna have it only for themselves. 

[Vashter]

6 minutes ago, Agent Edward said:

At this point I'm starting to think that Rockstar is jealous of their own game and wanna have it only for themselves. 

they pretty much can do that anytime at their work place. 

[Retro_Causality]

at this point do you guys think they even have trailer 2 made and ready..

 

lets just say hypotheically trailer 2 was coming out in May.. would it already be finished at this point?

[r0eladn]

1 minute ago, Retro_Causality said:

at this point do you guys think they even have trailer 2 made and ready..

 

lets just say hypotheically trailer 2 was coming out in May.. would it already be finished at this point?

 

I think they decide at some point to start making it, and then whenever it is finished they release it.

 

I dont believe in a big masterplan as to which exact date they wanna release trailers.

 

Maybe some stuff weighs in on when they release it, like when they have these financial calls or whatever.

 

But im FAR from an expert on this, maybe others know more.

 

The no-masterplan thing is how i see it.

[Trafficante]

5 hours ago, Tez2 said:

Yep. In addition, R*/T2 already sell GTAO & RDO separately, but VI will be the first game where online is sold separately at launch, while story mode will be part of the full package that covers both. They will have to factor the online standalone price into the total cost. What portion of the base price will be the online's price? And what would be the story mode upgrade price for those who've bought the online standalone?

 

T2 could benefit by pricing the online standalone lower, making it accessible for those who can't afford the $70 or $80 price. Eventually, those players will upgrade to access the story mode, so that's a win-win for them. This also opens an opportunity, some players may be eager to access the story mode but can't afford the upgrade price too. That's when they could slide in GTA+, and offer Game Pass-like access. They'll net extra profits from players who keep subscribing instead of saving for the upgrade. Another win-win for T2.

 

The win for us is if the online standalone is priced as low as it can be and factored into the total cost, the game could be sold at the standard $70 instead of a higher price.

Tbh, the most profitable approach would be to chalk up Online to GTA+.
 

Every time you want to play it, it’s $7.99 per month. Can bleed it for 10 years. (Increase the price whenever during that decade which is free % on top.)

 

It’s either that or ~$39.99 (?) for standalone Online access. While the second option is a big boost for the quarter/annum, that sweet MRR is milk & honey to the C-Suite & equity partners.

 

It also depends on the quarterly DLCs, but even if people don’t play much, they need to dip into GTA+ four or five times to pay the standalone price.

 

Keeps both sides honest since the DLCs need to be good, and who knows? Maybe even single player guys will join, since it really is a price of Starbucks nowadays.

(Which sucks more than the $100 game theory.)

[REVENGE777]

2 hours ago, Nonesuchriver said:

Honestly I don’t even think GTA 6 is going to have an online mode, I think Rockstar is going to go the same route that Bethesda did with the Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76 where GTA Online’s successor is its own separate thing from GTA 6. With this new version of GTA Online being specifically designed to last for decades, we will probably get much more meaningful updates than we did for 5’s online, I.E map expansions, possible FiveM integration or I guess it would be called SixM now, we could even get single player DLC for GTA 6 but I wouldn’t count on it.

 

Probably the reason why Rockstar took down the Liberty City Preservation Project is because the new GTA online will have some sort of Liberty City expansion, not just Liberty City but Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Vanturas, Possibly even New Cities like Chicago, London, Anywhere City, Tokyo, Paris, Etc…. GTA 6 might be the last traditional Grand Theft Auto game, instead of Making a GTA 7, they will probably just incorporate all of the content that would equate to a GTA 7 in GTA Online instead.
 

Continuing to make games on the scale of GTA 6 is also kinda unsustainable in the long term, I could see Rockstar splitting into two internal divisions, one division will work on and support the next iteration of GTA Online and the other will work on multiple smaller budget titles, Like Bully 2, Max Payne 4, LA Noire 2, Midnight Club, probably even a new IP, like that medieval game everyone keeps talking about.

 

You guys are probably asking about where the Red Dead franchise fits into all of this, welI I have no idea, It’s clearly their secondary franchise behind GTA so it will probably become a live service like GTA.

 

I share all of these sentiments 100% and I believe you’re right on the money. I’ve expressed the same thing.

[Dick Justice]

53 minutes ago, r0eladn said:

The no-masterplan thing is how i see it.

Depends on what you mean by masterplan? Rockstar's marketing department would have a pretty specific outline for when to drop materials. They might be a little bit looser with things like trailers, i.e. "announce and drop trailer 2 April 2025" but then get more specific as the date gets closer. They need to be hyper-specific with things like billboards, which have probably already been booked. I imagine getting people to paint the side of Hotel Figueroa is something that would need to be planned a year in advance.

 

Concerning trailer 2, you would have multiple versions of it being iterated upon again and again up until the week it drops. It might be large changes like swapping out entire scenes, or small changes like redoing the lighting or changing the time of day to make the scenes look better. Then you have to have to make sure it resembles the current version of the product as much as possible. 

 

There's this joke that all the marketing department does is press a big red button and watch as all of this stuff happens automatically, but there's a lot of work that goes into it. We're talking about a ~$250m marketing operation here. 

[Ser_Salty]

1 hour ago, Trafficante said:

Tbh, the most profitable approach would be to chalk up Online to GTA+.
 

Every time you want to play it, it’s $7.99 per month. Can bleed it for 10 years. (Increase the price whenever during that decade which is free % on top.)

 

It’s either that or ~$39.99 (?) for standalone Online access. While the second option is a big boost for the quarter/annum, that sweet MRR is milk & honey to the C-Suite & equity partners.

 

It also depends on the quarterly DLCs, but even if people don’t play much, they need to dip into GTA+ four or five times to pay the standalone price.

 

Keeps both sides honest since the DLCs need to be good, and who knows? Maybe even single player guys will join, since it really is a price of Starbucks nowadays.

(Which sucks more than the $100 game theory.)

Eh, nah, that kills all momentum that the game would have. The key for live service games is getting as many people through the door as possible. It's worth it bundling GTAO with the SP for "free", as that massively lowers the inhibition on spending money on MTX. After all, you already got your 70 bucks worth from the SP, Online is a free bonus! Having Online be attached to a semi-forced subscription is just bad for business in this day and age. It's a recipe for controversy, bad press, and frustrated players. Eventually, that turns into the game bleeding players.

 

Also why GTAO standalone is unlikely to go above like $30, and that's really the maximum, I'd expect it to cost $20, maybe $25. You just want to get people in there and lower their guard.

 

If you're looking for high player counts in the long term, you need to keep that entry barrier low and keep lowering it as time goes on. Most successful live service games are F2P, and the others still have low entry barriers. For current GTAO, for example, the game is often on sale, was even given away for free at one point, and comes with that massive single player campaign. You get the game for 15-20 bucks, suddenly you feel like you got such a great deal that it doesn't hurt to put a tenner down for shark cards.

 

And you gotta remember, we might be fanatics, for the average maf*cker, GTAO2 would still be competing with GTAO1.

[lngtrw]

So I was rewatching the trailer and I noticed some of the “reels” were in vertical mode while others were in landscape. Now, it might just be for the trailer, but I was thinking, could we possibly own an iPad in the game? Or is it just a laptop? 

Edited January 20 by lngtrw

[DETHRO]

42 minutes ago, lngtrw said:

So I was rewatching the trailer and I noticed some of the “reels” were in vertical mode while others were in landscape. Now, it might just be for the trailer, but I was thinking, could we possibly own an iPad in the game? Or is it just a laptop? 

phone will probably rotate vertically automatically.

[Krymefull]

6 hours ago, Xilurm said:

And I also don't get these  people that defend stuff like this by saying something like "AAA game costs are too expensive." 

 

I don't care.

 

If you can't manage AAA resources and budget then stop making such games instead of f*cking over your customers. 100$ price for a video game is extremely anti-consumer. It's not worth it.

If you unironically pay $100 for a single videogame, you deserve to get scammed.

Edited January 20 by Krymefull

[el carlitos]

4 hours ago, r0eladn said:

 

I think they decide at some point to start making it, and then whenever it is finished they release it.

 

I dont believe in a big masterplan as to which exact date they wanna release trailers.

 

Maybe some stuff weighs in on when they release it, like when they have these financial calls or whatever.

 

But im FAR from an expert on this, maybe others know more.

 

The no-masterplan thing is how i see it.

Without a doubt, they have a detailed plan in place, whether you call it a master plan, project plan, or time schedule. A project of this magnitude simply cannot be executed without meticulous organization. Internal delays are inevitable, and maintaining quality will be priority but they absolutely have a fixed release date for the trailer. The game's own development timeline directly impacts the trailer's schedule. I imagine the trailer team has been working on concepts for a while now – sketches, initial ideas, even test trailers using existing assets like GTA 5 for example. The actual trailer with real game footage will likely be produced closer to the trailer release date, perhaps just a few weeks beforehand, minimizing the risk of leaks.

[Bexter]

6 hours ago, Xilurm said:

And I also don't get these  people that defend stuff like this by saying something like "AAA game costs are too expensive." 

 

I don't care.

 

If you can't manage AAA resources and budget then stop making such games instead of f*cking over your customers. 100$ price for a video game is extremely anti-consumer. It's not worth it.

You're absolutely right. I only buy games that I think are 100% worth the money. Back when games were $20 on the PS2, I (well, my parents) would buy at least one game a week. Now, I only buy a game every 2–3 months. The only games I’d pay $100 for are GTA 6 and BG3.

[SpiderVice_Sucks]

9 hours ago, Tez2 said:

Yep. In addition, R*/T2 already sell GTAO & RDO separately, but VI will be the first game where online is sold separately at launch, while story mode will be part of the full package that covers both. They will have to factor the online standalone price into the total cost. What portion of the base price will be the online's price? And what would be the story mode upgrade price for those who've bought the online standalone?

 

T2 could benefit by pricing the online standalone lower, making it accessible for those who can't afford the $70 or $80 price. Eventually, those players will upgrade to access the story mode, so that's a win-win for them. This also opens an opportunity, some players may be eager to access the story mode but can't afford the upgrade price too. That's when they could slide in GTA+, and offer Game Pass-like access. They'll net extra profits from players who keep subscribing instead of saving for the upgrade. Another win-win for T2.

 

The win for us is if the online standalone is priced as low as it can be and factored into the total cost, the game could be sold at the standard $70 instead of a higher price.

Tez is a better analyst than an actual analyst.

[met.]

16 hours ago, Retro_Causality said:

seen some people trying to say its Lucia and Jason in the ATV on the left. Jason wearing a skull mask on the back? what do yall think

Woman = Lucia for every scene from the trailer according to people
But Jason is not everywhere because "that could be anyone"
Ahhh the gaming community

[Zapper]

8 hours ago, Retro_Causality said:

GTA V sold 11 million copies day 1

 

do you think VI will surpass that day 1?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they surpass that mark with pre-orders alone.

[ValidTrack]

8 hours ago, Xilurm said:

And I also don't get these  people that defend stuff like this by saying something like "AAA game costs are too expensive." 

 

I don't care.

 

If you can't manage AAA resources and budget then stop making such games instead of f*cking over your customers. 100$ price for a video game is extremely anti-consumer. It's not worth it.

Lol, welcome to the real world where inflation hits you also. 

 

+ games are getting novadays harder-longer to make cause of details and overall the quality. I would be fine with 100$ tag in this game, cause I will spend thousands of hours in it. 

[Atliens]

7 hours ago, Retro_Causality said:

 

 

lets just say hypotheically trailer 2 was coming out in May.. would it already be finished at this point?

This is just me speculating as a game dev and someone who has edited trailers for games (not GTA level of course):

They 99% have a script for the trailer ready and rough edit by now. First trailers are always tricky because for that game needs to have "pretty corners" as I call them, so the scenes in the trailer are as close as possible to the final version of the game. For second and so on trailers, if the game releases this year, they have stuff done, art lockdown might not be yet but certainly big edits on the map prob are not in question anymore, something that COULD limit them selecting the footage is possibly audio work, but usually then the scenes needed are then handled outside the normal pipeline as special cases.  And this being a game of the magnitude it is, every cut, sun angle and possible post processing will be iterated til it is perfect. this is not a weeks job, prob months. However there are tricks you can pull there to use temp clips with exact same camera angles / movement and then record it again when everything is ready. But yeah, for the game scope of this, they easily can have the trailer in the can already or have had it for a while.

Oh and all this is the case just with proper in game footage of course, but thats how Rockstar does it anyways.

Edited January 20 by Atliens

[Trafficante]

4 hours ago, Ser_Salty said:

Eh, nah, that kills all momentum that the game would have. The key for live service games is getting as many people through the door as possible. It's worth it bundling GTAO with the SP for "free", as that massively lowers the inhibition on spending money on MTX. After all, you already got your 70 bucks worth from the SP, Online is a free bonus! Having Online be attached to a semi-forced subscription is just bad for business in this day and age. It's a recipe for controversy, bad press, and frustrated players. Eventually, that turns into the game bleeding players.

 

Also why GTAO standalone is unlikely to go above like $30, and that's really the maximum, I'd expect it to cost $20, maybe $25. You just want to get people in there and lower their guard.

 

If you're looking for high player counts in the long term, you need to keep that entry barrier low and keep lowering it as time goes on. Most successful live service games are F2P, and the others still have low entry barriers. For current GTAO, for example, the game is often on sale, was even given away for free at one point, and comes with that massive single player campaign. You get the game for 15-20 bucks, suddenly you feel like you got such a great deal that it doesn't hurt to put a tenner down for shark cards.

 

And you gotta remember, we might be fanatics, for the average maf*cker, GTAO2 would still be competing with GTAO1.

I agree, that makes more sense from a momentum or quarterly perspective. And they will most likely go down that road, since this is probably Zelnick’s last GTA and he’s no spring chicken anymore. (Also assuming his bonus might/will be tied to MTX again.)

 

I was aiming at the fact that if they decide to attach GTAO to GTA+, that would multiply that $7.99 a lot more times than both of our price tags of standalone GTAO.

 

This of course includes the GTA VI + Online default version, and what Tez2 referred to when he said there will be both VI single player & Online component sold separately.

 

I get what you’re saying & your approach is better if we’re talking maximum profit right now, but after 2-5 years down the road, they’ve still only sold a copy of GTAO for 20-30 bucks. Whereas people can dip & out of subscriptions, if it’s $7.99 or thereabouts. They wouldn’t notice the loss, and Take Two would generate their daily bread.

 

Though if they would really wanna fleece the Online players, $7.99 would go a long way over the decade. We’re talking what, $96 (8x12) a year for just GTAO, not even including MTX.

 

Then again, this could be a battle pass of sorts if they go down your approach (which they prolly will).

 

—

 

Hope it makes sense, in a taxi now & mind is a little hazy - case of the Mondays

Edited January 20 by Trafficante
Typos

[Paper Mario]

10 hours ago, Nyfyr said:

If you’re talking Online? F*ck it, have at it

 

Not in mah single player tho

alright, sure, but let's keep it from introducing things such as the flying bike with rockets.. forgot its name

 

i mean, don't get me wrong. i have used this bike a lot too, mostly for quick and easy exploration. but overall, it was tedious getting attacked by it from other players.. if something like that were to come back, it should be extremely hard to obtain. like a very special reward. not able to be bought simply by spending real money on GTA$..