New GTA every two years would degrade series value

[Andreas]

 

How much time was between III and Vice? How much time till SA? We all bought those...

GTA III was released in October 2001 and Vice City was initially a DLC for GTA III but Rockstar felt that III's engine was too limited so they decided to make a new game and it ended up in being GTA Vice City which was released in October 2002. GTA San Andreas was released in October 2004 after two years of development. However, you can not compare the development of HD-era games from this console generation with the development of 3D-era games of the last generation. It took around four years to develope GTA IV and Rockstar at least started to think about a city and the characters in GTA V in late 2009. Another examples would be that Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3 were each for five years in development.

[SmoothGetaway]

Isn't this kind of stuff glaringly obvious to most people?

As you can see in the article, they still get some questions so it's probably not that obvious for a lot of people. I don't think that the COO was talking about the fans but rather about the stockholders.

I can see how shareholders might need this explained to them.

 

Once.

 

I'm speaking of the gamers, mostly because this question seems to come up a lot and anyone who has ever bought or sold anything in their life should have some kind of clue as to why this is the way it is.

 

It's the same reason why more and more and more water is not always good for your plants, even though plants love(and need) water.

 

[Supernutz40]

How much time was between III and Vice? How much time till SA? We all bought those...

GTA III was released in October 2001 and Vice City was initially a DLC for GTA III but Rockstar felt that III's engine was too limited so they decided to make a new game and it ended up in being GTA Vice City which was released in October 2002. GTA San Andreas was released in October 2004 after two years of development. However, you can not compare the development of HD-era games from this console generation with the development of 3D-era games of the last generation. It took around four years to develope GTA IV and Rockstar at least started to think about a city and the characters in GTA V in late 2009. Another examples would be that Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3 were each for five years in development.

Perhaps so, although some might dispute that. Just because the games have better graphics doesn't necessarily equate to more dev time. Sure the graphics are better, but so is the hardware and software they are using now to create those games. My point was that a quality game every 2 years would NOT make the franchise to down hill (IMO). You can talk about dev times and what not, but the fact remains we all bought VC and SA and LOVED them. I am curious how the (planned) DLC for III would have worked on a PS2... LA Noir? Ya, I'm really glad they spent 5 years on a point and click adventure, but the game was lame. As far as Max Payne goes, I hope we've seen the last of him and the attitude R* had/has towards making it fun. The glitches still run wild in the game. I really doubt MP3 was in "development" for 5 years. If that's really true then I shutter to think of what's going to happen with V. Lets hope they care more about V than MP3.

[GTAfan786]

They are 100% right. The more longer a game takes as well as LOTS of focus and attention, the more long lasting the game is as well as it being beautiful and replayable. 4-5 Years for a game like GTA is PERFECT. No wonder it is successful.

[epicluca]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

[Wenis IV]

Yeah right. I bet Take2 would love to release a new GTA every 2 years, as they did it back with III/VC/SA, not to mention all the portable games. Problem is nowadays it simply takes too long to make a GTA game to do that, and they know that if 1) they scale back the GTA games they would piss off a bunch of people who would notice how the game is lacking and 2) if they had another studio making another GTA game at the same time as R* North was making theirs, then there would be a noticible difference in quality compared to R* North's version. In other words he is saying releasing every 2 years would degrade the value, but in reality they'd love to release every 2 years but they simply can't

[GTAfan786]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

[Darrel]

Gta is always something new and refreshing. Assassins creed for instance always feels the same. They can go up to AC 20 if they want to, but it will always feels the same! Same vibe and just way too simialr to any other assassins creed game. And the IV one is on its way already? Really? Gta cant be touched as long as the keep up this devlopment strategy.

 

Gta will blow any open world and any game actually out the f...ing water. Yes i still stand by that it was very unprofessional of them to delay it again after what happend with Gta IV, but i guess you could say they are infact true professionals that care about quality like no other company.

[epicluca]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

[GTA5isntAMYTH]

if you want a good game usually takes 5 or 6 years i think rockstargames should do this. dont bring out a game every two yer. would be lamea

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

Isn't this kind of stuff glaringly obvious to most people?

As you can see in the article, they still get some questions so it's probably not that obvious for a lot of people. I don't think that the COO was talking about the fans but rather about the stockholders.

I can see how shareholders might need this explained to them.

 

Once.

 

If Stockholder's can't figure that out themselves, they are probably too stupid to own stock/ shouldn't own any because they will stuff themselves ove.r

 

 

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

 

 

Pretty much, they take big breaks after the game is released, Sam Or Dan Houser mentioned in an interview a few years ago.

[r0eladn]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

They will probably take some time to jerk each other off and then slowly start thinking about GTA VI.

[Supernutz40]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

Totally. I wish I had a job that gave me 2-5 months off after a few years of working there. Lol.

 

Honestly what I think is going on at R* is the same thing that happened to all of us in school. Remember that 8th grade science project the teacher told you about 6 months in advance? Remember how you waited until the last minute to work on it? Then you still didn't finish it and had to turn it in late? Yeah, that's R*. They said, "well sh!t, looks like we got 4 years to put this out, let's take it easy." Now the end of the school year approaches and its not ready and they are hustling and oops, we need more time. When Saints 3 dropped they were like "oh sh!t! We better do something here, quick splice together a video..." THEN, (a year later) they thought they were close enough they said "we will try and get this to you sometime between march and June". Enter Crunch time... Oh, what do you know, a problem... Lets ask for more time....

 

 

 

Oh well, such is life. I'm sure this will be the best baking soda volcano ever seen!

 

 

 

[BlackNoise]

 

Perhaps so, although some might dispute that. Just because the games have better graphics doesn't necessarily equate to more dev time. Sure the graphics are better, but so is the hardware and software they are using now to create those games. My point was that a quality game every 2 years would NOT make the franchise to down hill (IMO). You can talk about dev times and what not, but the fact remains we all bought VC and SA and LOVED them. I am curious how the (planned) DLC for III would have worked on a PS2... LA Noir? Ya, I'm really glad they spent 5 years on a point and click adventure, but the game was lame. As far as Max Payne goes, I hope we've seen the last of him and the attitude R* had/has towards making it fun. The glitches still run wild in the game. I really doubt MP3 was in "development" for 5 years. If that's really true then I shutter to think of what's going to happen with V. Lets hope they care more about V than MP3.

How do you really know since we aren't getting one every two years? Every series that is releasing on a yearly/bi-yearly schedule starts to wear on fans at some point.

 

This doesn't happen right away, so the III era games wouldn't even apply. The series was still very new to most gamers and each game(until SA) was missing aspects of what we consider to be GTA at this point. GTA III had no real flyable vehicles, no bikes, and no swimming. GTA VC got bikes and aircraft, but still no swimming. GTA SA finally had everything we now expect in a quality GTA, and that's why many consider it the best.

 

Once the series has everything, that's when fans start to get bored. Two years isn't enough time to innovate, so developers just rehash the same game in a different location, and they throw in a few new things, but nothing very innovative.

 

And you're definitely entitled to you're own opinion when it comes to LA Noire and Max Payne 3, but a lot of people really enjoyed those games. I get why some people didn't, because I had my problems with them, but I still thought they were high quality games. I never encountered a single glitch with MP3.

 

 

Chief operating officer(Take-Two Interactive) Karl Slatoff revealed the news during a Wedbush Transformational Technologies Conference this week...

 

"...And we also have an extensive pipeline of unannounced titles in development which you are going to hear about in the future months," he added.

 

Slatoff did not share any further information regarding these games, though he did call out the Red Dead, Mafia, Borderlands, L.A. Noire, and Max Payne franchises as being important to the company."

[Supernutz40]

Perhaps so, although some might dispute that. Just because the games have better graphics doesn't necessarily equate to more dev time. Sure the graphics are better, but so is the hardware and software they are using now to create those games. My point was that a quality game every 2 years would NOT make the franchise to down hill (IMO). You can talk about dev times and what not, but the fact remains we all bought VC and SA and LOVED them. I am curious how the (planned) DLC for III would have worked on a PS2... LA Noir? Ya, I'm really glad they spent 5 years on a point and click adventure, but the game was lame. As far as Max Payne goes, I hope we've seen the last of him and the attitude R* had/has towards making it fun. The glitches still run wild in the game. I really doubt MP3 was in "development" for 5 years. If that's really true then I shutter to think of what's going to happen with V. Lets hope they care more about V than MP3.

How do you really know since we aren't getting one every two years? Every series that is releasing on a yearly/bi-yearly schedule starts to wear on fans at some point.

 

This doesn't happen right away, so the III era games wouldn't even apply. The series was still very new to most gamers and each game(until SA) was missing aspects of what we consider to be GTA at this point. GTA III had no real flyable vehicles, no bikes, and no swimming. GTA VC got bikes and aircraft, but still no swimming. GTA SA finally had everything we now expect in a quality GTA, and that's why many consider it the best.

 

Once the series has everything, that's when fans start to get bored. Two years isn't enough time to innovate, so developers just rehash the same game in a different location, and they throw in a few new things, but nothing very innovative.

 

And you're definitely entitled to you're own opinion when it comes to LA Noire and Max Payne 3, but a lot of people really enjoyed those games. I get why some people didn't, because I had my problems with them, but I still thought they were high quality games. I never encountered a single glitch with MP3.

 

 

Chief operating officer(Take-Two Interactive) Karl Slatoff revealed the news during a Wedbush Transformational Technologies Conference this week...

 

"...And we also have an extensive pipeline of unannounced titles in development which you are going to hear about in the future months," he added.

 

Slatoff did not share any further information regarding these games, though he did call out the Red Dead, Mafia, Borderlands, L.A. Noire, and Max Payne franchises as being important to the company."

SA was def the most inovative. All they did with IV was give us better graphics and multiplayer while taking away a bunch of what made SA so inovative to start with.

 

You sir OBVIOUSLY, never played Max Payne 3 online. Ask Meta, Papanesta, Icarus, Kyle17, and anyone else from our crew here at the forums. Lol. Lol. Lol. MP3 is literally riddled with glitches. "Host migration failed", "black listed", "you have been removed due to network issues", invisible people, invincible people, no grenade indicators, stats reseting, freezing, losing feuds for no apparent reason, and soooo many more. Max Paynes multiplayer is pretty bad. That said we all still play it...

 

 

http://socialclub.rockstargames.com/crew/gtaforums

 

You'll find me at rank 5.

 

[GTAfan786]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

Well yeah. Do you honestly think they get the story for the next game on the same day when their latest game releases? While they are on their break, the story producers/script writes obviously need to think of a story and script. How can they just start their next game straight away without going through the first step?

[Supernutz40]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

Well yeah. Do you honestly think they get the story for the next game on the same day when their latest game releases? While they are on their break, the story producers/script writes obviously need to think of a story and script. How can they just start their next game straight away without going through the first step?

The guys who wrote the story were done writing it before the game finished. Therefore, time to work on the next story while the tech guys "polish" the current one.

[GTAfan786]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

Well yeah. Do you honestly think they get the story for the next game on the same day when their latest game releases? While they are on their break, the story producers/script writes obviously need to think of a story and script. How can they just start their next game straight away without going through the first step?

The guys who wrote the story were done writing it before the game finished. Therefore, time to work on the next story while the tech guys "polish" the current one.

I think you're talking about V. I'm talking about VI, which is obviously going to turn up for next gen, so the story has to be started after V releases while some workers are on break. Then once the story and script are close to finishing or is finished, the workers can come start the project.

[tinman187]

Less is More!

[Supernutz40]

 

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

Well yeah. Do you honestly think they get the story for the next game on the same day when their latest game releases? While they are on their break, the story producers/script writes obviously need to think of a story and script. How can they just start their next game straight away without going through the first step?

The guys who wrote the story were done writing it before the game finished. Therefore, time to work on the next story while the tech guys "polish" the current one.

I think you're talking about V. I'm talking about VI, which is obviously going to turn up for next gen, so the story has to be started after V releases while some workers are on break. Then once the story and script are close to finishing or is finished, the workers can come start the project.

Umm ok. I didnt think it was needed, but I will go ahead and clarify. One would assume that V's "story" is done, right? Yeah. So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI. I guess I could be wrong, but if they are still working on the story for V... Fuk, I dunno what to say to that other than another delay is in our future. -which I am sure it is, just not for THAT reason.

 

 

Edit: I guess it's possible that they are not working on the next story until "after" V, but if I was their employer I wouldn't want to pay them for nothing... Lol, as soon as I typed that I had "flashes" of R* delays. So ya, I suppose it's likely that R* would approach it that way. Why not take as much time as humanly possible to make a game. Seems to be their style.

 

 

That's one thing I never understood about R*. Why waste so much time and money on games that most GTA fans will never play. You can't tell me that LA Noir was a success when it went on sale for $30 a month after its release. Same for Max Payne. There's are less people playing that than IV online. So why even bother "developing" these games for 5 years when they must know its going to sell 10% of what a GTA or COD will sell. Seems pretty stupid from a business standpoint. Why work for the same amount of time to make $1 mill when you could make 10 or 20? R* logic. And don't say it's for the fans, don't you dare. All of us Max Payne fans got completely sh!t on when Max Payne came out, and still to this day.

Edited March 8, 2013 by JesseHope40

[GTAfan786]

Yeah but in all fairness they could bring out a new game each year but still have 6 years development time. They started V in 2008 and its coming out 2013, they could have started VI in 2009 to come out in 2014, VII in 2010 to come out in 2015, you know what I mean?

They can't always do that. The damn employees will need a break, they just can't straight away move to another project a month or so after releasing the latest one. It's better if they get a break of 2-5 months after the release of the latest games and then start the new project.

So you're saying when R* finish GTA they won't do any work on anything for a few months? right...

Well yeah. Do you honestly think they get the story for the next game on the same day when their latest game releases? While they are on their break, the story producers/script writes obviously need to think of a story and script. How can they just start their next game straight away without going through the first step?

The guys who wrote the story were done writing it before the game finished. Therefore, time to work on the next story while the tech guys "polish" the current one.

I think you're talking about V. I'm talking about VI, which is obviously going to turn up for next gen, so the story has to be started after V releases while some workers are on break. Then once the story and script are close to finishing or is finished, the workers can come start the project.

Umm ok. I didnt think it was needed, but I will go ahead and clarify. One would assume that V's "story" is done, right? Yeah. So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI. I guess I could be wrong, but if they are still working on the story for V... Fuk, I dunno what to say to that other than another delay is in our future. -which I am sure it is, just not for THAT reason.

 

 

Edit: I guess it's possible that they are not working on the next story until "after" V, but if I was their employer I wouldn't want to pay them for nothing... Lol, as soon as I typed that I had "flashes" of R* delays. So ya, I suppose it's likely that R* would approach it that way. Why not take as much time as humanly possible to make a game. Seems to be their style.

"So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI."

 

 

That's where you are wrong, as you probably have guessed. They never start the next game straight away, therefore the story is started about 5 months after the game is released. IV came out in April 2008, and V's development actually started late 2008, so assuming by late, it obviously means september time.

[Supernutz40]

"So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI."

 

 

That's where you are wrong, as you probably have guessed. They never start the next game straight away, therefore the story is started about 5 months after the game is released. IV came out in April 2008, and V's development actually started late 2008, so assuming by late, it obviously means september time.

From a business stand point that seems rather odd to me. I'm not saying your wrong, it just seems stupid. Why would you not plan ahead? Why not start early? Why not keep your creative juices flowing? Oh... Wait. If they did that then they would not have to delay their games 1-3 times every time they put one out. I guess it's just the R* way. When putting out a new game every year or two was "easy" for them they did it. Now, it's become a marathon. So when will we see the next GTA? III to VC 1 year, VC to SA 2 years, SA to IV 4 years, IV to V 5 years, so if the current trend continues where does VI fall? On th PS5? 6 years, even 5 years from Sep(most likely Nov) don't you think we will see a new generation by then? So are they just going to skip PS4 and the next Xbox? Or will they release VI a month before PS5?

 

 

[Eliston]

 

"because Grand Theft Auto, every single time it comes out, is a brand new experience. You can't possibly do that in two years."

 

I call bullsh*t. You can and have many years ago.

[saintsrow]

 

That said I think releasing DLC like Lost and the Damned and Gay Tony every year there after would be a great way for them to keep us with new content.

Rockstar stated a longer time ago that they are not going to release DLCs in the scale of The Lost and Damned or The Ballad of Gay Tony again for a few reasons; the first add-on was around 8 months and the second add-ons was around 17 months after the original game released. Not only takes it more time to release such big add-ons, it can also have an impact on when the next big title of the series releases, it doesn't sell as well because it releases way after the release of the original game and the most important thing is that DLCs for $20 aren't as profitable as DLCs for $10. Episodes from Liberty City didn't sell that well for the reasons I have already stated and I'm certain that Take-Two would have published a document that states exactly this, a long time ago. Do not expect something big like this ever again from Rockstar Games.

It's too bad they won't consider producing "big DLC" like Episodes again, because we know that it takes about 4-5 years to create a complete, large and beautiful HD virtual world like GTA IV or GTA V. I don't want a large world full of rubber-stamped buildings and trees. The design takes a sh*tload of work. I want the richness and uniqueness and fluid, integrated world design, that only the GTA games can deliver.

 

I happily bought Episodes of LC so that I would have a reason to spend more time in that fantastic HD version of Liberty City. And I didn't even like the TLOD story; I knew I wouldn't. But I am still rampaging in LC as Luis lopez, to this day.

 

I think "big DLC" is a way to get the necessary 5 to 6 years of replay value out of a massive design like GTAV, considering it will take that long to produce GTA VI. All they have to do is write a new damn story

 

I want and expect to live in Los Santos and the surrounding countryside and beaches for 5 to 6 years until it is time for us to get strung along on the GTA VI marketing "campaign." I would like to have some new things to do during that long period until GTA VI provides a new benchmark in my life. Yeah, that's how I measure my progress in life, by which GTA game I was playing.

[The__Phoenix]

 

Yeah, that's how I measure my progress in life, by which GTA game I was playing.

saintsrow, Posted on Saturday, Mar 9 2013, 07:32.

 

Brilliant post btw

Edited March 9, 2013 by bud23

[Eks]

Yeah, people'd be like "Oh, ANOTHER GTA? Pffft. No point since it's the same thing with a different story."

[HaythamKenway]

Umm ok. I didnt think it was needed, but I will go ahead and clarify. One would assume that V's "story" is done, right? Yeah. So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI. I guess I could be wrong, but if they are still working on the story for V... Fuk, I dunno what to say to that other than another delay is in our future. -which I am sure it is, just not for THAT reason.

 

 

Edit: I guess it's possible that they are not working on the next story until "after" V, but if I was their employer I wouldn't want to pay them for nothing... Lol, as soon as I typed that I had "flashes" of R* delays. So ya, I suppose it's likely that R* would approach it that way. Why not take as much time as humanly possible to make a game. Seems to be their style.

 

 

That's one thing I never understood about R*. Why waste so much time and money on games that most GTA fans will never play. You can't tell me that LA Noir was a success when it went on sale for $30 a month after its release. Same for Max Payne. There's are less people playing that than IV online. So why even bother "developing" these games for 5 years when they must know its going to sell 10% of what a GTA or COD will sell. Seems pretty stupid from a business standpoint. Why work for the same amount of time to make $1 mill when you could make 10 or 20? R* logic. And don't say it's for the fans, don't you dare. All of us Max Payne fans got completely sh!t on when Max Payne came out, and still to this day.

Creativity. Studios don't want to get shackled by making sequels to one franchise over and over again. It's true that different studios make different games (North makes GTAs, San Diego made RDR, Team Bondi made L.A.Noire), but games at Rockstar are more or less collaborative projects anyway. Even if North were hard at work at V since 2009, they still contributed to other R* games.

 

And, by making these other games, they manage to pull off yearly releases while keeping GTA at its ridiciously long lifespan. It's true that people would burn out on GTAs quickly if they released them every year. Just ask some Assassin's Creed fans. And it's hard to predict how successful the game will be beforehand. RDR had troubled development and cost a sh*tload of money to make, but they went along with it and it turned out to be huge success. L.A.Noire and MP3 had it harder. They are both quite "niche" games (at least in context of R*'s games). Both were linear games and most people automatically assume that R* = sandbox, LAN had little focus on action for a mainstream game and MP3 had a heavy competition from all other shooter games on the market.

[Strength]

WTF Rockstar?

 

Are you kidding me? You released every GTA game so far every one or two years and did fans lose the interest in the series? I would say no. Five years is too f*cking long. I am starting to lose interest now and my hype level is below zero at the moment. Released one trailer. No news for a year. Finally after no news at all a few screens and second trailer were posted and after that the game got delayed. Way to bring the hype down.

 

Max Payne 3 is a great game. One of the finest Rockstar products. Marketing was great but the problem is, you released the new sequel after almost ten years and you got burn. Bad sales and complete flop. New generation of gamers never even heard of the first two games and that's a damn shame and bad strategy.

 

I know this won't happen to GTA V, but five years is damn too long to wait. I am hoping to experience something really, really special in this game to justify the lack of new GTA for five years.

[jamieleng]

 

SA was def the most inovative. All they did with IV was give us better graphics and multiplayer while taking away a bunch of what made SA so inovative to start with.

Are you serious? All they did was give us better graphics & multiplayer. What about the R.A.G.E(ngine), Euphoria animation, Bullet physics, incredible attention to detail, realistic npc interaction. None of that counts does it?

 

When I'm playing some other open world games, it still feels like last generation. Hell, even some linear games don't feel much different from last gen. Max Payne 3 is a glimpse of what we can expect from PS4/Xbox Django(sic) & that's why it took so long to make.

 

I think people need to reign in their expectations for what we can expect on next gen's consoles. Development costs are spiralling out of control & that's why the indie scene has flourished recently. I'd rather wait 3/4/5 years between games, than have horrible business practices (day one dlc, micro transactions, multiplayer passes etc). The problem with shareholders is, the more money a company makes the more they expect them to make next year. It's like a balloon, if you don't let a little air out every know & again, it's just going to burst. Maybe the games industry does need to burst, so we can start over again.

Edited March 9, 2013 by jamieleng

[K20]

what they following now is good.

 

if its every two years it would become too repetitive, not many new things will be out. nothing to really look forward to. 6 year gaps are good, plenty to look forward to and lots of next stuff.