No properties...COME ON ROCKSTAR

[omer19992010]

When the Game Informer preview first came out, I admit I was a little disappointed when reading this. However, as we've had plenty of time to dwell on it, the statement was kind of too vague to take as an instant disappointment, in that they told us something that won't be in the game rather than something that will.

 

The theme of money is being thrown at us left right and centre, even down to the logo itself. This, surely, cannot just be limited to weapons, vehicles and clothes. I have all hope in R* to provide something more that we can spend it on, and perhaps that will result in something that can work similar to properties in that respect. You also never know, that the feedback on those press reviews could have result in certain things being added at the last moment just to satisfy fans; those previews were like 5-6 months ago after all.

Well I think property's is going to be replaced with renting a hotel suite since we've seen hotels in a lot of the screenshots.

[Capricornus]

Man I just LOVE how people get in here and say that properties were/are useless. Some of you tools are probably only saying that because R* confirmed that properties will not be in GTA V. I guarantee you, if R* had said that purchasable properties was a feature in GTA V, no one would be talking about "how useless it is" or "why include something so pointless?", even with Michael's nice mansion. I also bet people didn't say properties were useless in SA.

 

I was one that thought Buy-able Properties was going to be in GTA V. Its been confirmed that its not and I have long been over it since then and am more than fine with it. Its not too hard to get over it.

[DarkDayz]

Man I just LOVE how people get in here and say that properties were/are useless. Some of you tools are probably only saying that because R* confirmed that properties will not be in GTA V. I guarantee you, if R* had said that purchasable properties was a feature in GTA V, no one would be talking about "how useless it is" or "why include something so pointless?", even with Michael's nice mansion. I also bet people didn't say properties were useless in SA.

 

I was one that thought Buy-able Properties was going to be in GTA V. Its been confirmed that its not and I have long been over it since then and am more than fine with it. Its not too hard to get over it.

Not really mate. Prior to V we had one character, whom built his way up the ladder economically, so spending money on property or earning it was important. With three characters from different economical categories, the properties are already there and with the ability to buy more, would get confusing, nobody buys more than one house in the same area. Hotel's will be available though, I can guess so through the screenshots.

[djdiond]

Rockstar have chosen not to buy properties this time because there is 3 protagonists.

Below are the reasons why.

 

1. As each protagonist has their own equipment, that would mean they would have to implement their own sets of properties you can buy. They did not want to do this and I can see why.

 

2. Rockstar said nothing about mission acquired properties.

 

3. The screenshots show a few Hotels/Motels, it is possible they could use this as save points. That way we can store our favorite cars all over the map and not be tied to any individual protagonist.

Edited April 18, 2013 by djdiond

[Official General]

2. Rockstar said nothing about mission acquired properties (same as GTA IV and no one had a problem with that).

 

 

I beg to differ on that, you're kinda wrong.

 

From my experience and what I can see, many people did have a problem with this in GTA IV. Many people wanted to be able to buy properties of their choice in IV rather than acquire them. That was probably one of the top 3 main complaints about IV.

[djdiond]

 

2. Rockstar said nothing about mission acquired properties (same as GTA IV and no one had a problem with that).

 

 

I beg to differ on that, you're kinda wrong.

 

From my experience and what I can see, many people did have a problem with this in GTA IV. Many people wanted to be able to buy properties of their choice in IV rather than acquire them. That was probably one of the top 3 main complaints about IV.

Maybe I should have rephrased that. Not as many people had a problem with that as they do with GTA V though.

 

I edited my original post.

[Official General]

2. Rockstar said nothing about mission acquired properties (same as GTA IV and no one had a problem with that).

 

 

I beg to differ on that, you're kinda wrong.

 

From my experience and what I can see, many people did have a problem with this in GTA IV. Many people wanted to be able to buy properties of their choice in IV rather than acquire them. That was probably one of the top 3 main complaints about IV.

Maybe I should have rephrased that. Not as many people had a problem with that as they do with GTA V though.

 

I edited my original post.

Well that's because quite a number of people eventually just got used to the idea of not buying property in GTA IV, so on hearing it would be the same in GTA V, the level of disappointment was not as high.

 

But don't be mistaken, at the same time people on here were not happy about Rockstar revealing for the first time that there would be no property buying in V. There were a few threads on the subject earlier and many people expressed disappointment and moaned about this.

[walkingsickness]

Properties were probably one of the best features in gta and something I can waste my money on.Why doesn't rockstar bring it back.They did it on vc,vcs and sa.What's the problem with adding one simple feature.Oh well,I hope they come up features that involve spending LOTS of money.

I feel ya man/girl, I hate the fact that they don't have alot of properties

that we can buy. I would also like to pay rent so the money system is

just not a glorified point system. But I hope R* has something that is

even more innovated then what they had in SA

[JStarr31]

Problem solved: SA had 36 safehouses (8 where obtained through story). V should have more than enough space to scatter 36 safehouses in V.

 

36 / 3= 12 safehouse for each protag.

 

Each protag already has a property so that's 11 safehouses for each.

 

11 is good but 10 is better suited, so let's go with 10, here's why

 

10 safehouses for each protag individually across the map (basically 2 properties in 5 sections of the map; character specific**)

 

10*3= 30

 

The remaining 6 (as in heists ) are acquired through story and are SHARED by each protag as a sort of HQ/hide-outs across the map after the big score

 

**character specific as in: With Trevor's 5 places, Rockford Hills obviously isn't one of them but East Los Santos might

[Hotband]

Like Coral_City said, their useless.

[Gazabaza21]

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

It's nice to be able to walk around a huge mansion and think 'this is mine', I know we already have a mansion in V but we wont have worked for it.

I like what the scareface game did with money, you could spend it on items in your mansion for decorationg and you could even renovate the whole place, i think there was 3 different stages of renovation with different price tags and also the ability to launder your illegal funds in the bent banks for a cut so you wouldnt lose it.

[Dobleh]

maybe Rockstar save "properties" for their next GTA game, when the theme of the game fits it.

[Dick Valor]

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say purchasable properties are useless. They certainly were useless in RDR, considering you could camp anywhere, never had to worry about losing your mount, and only had three save slots anyway. But in IV they would have been nice since they would have provided additional space to save cars. (Personally, I always wanted a property in Dukes and/or Broker.)

 

However, the R* fanboy apologist in me isn't too stessed that purchasable properties won't be featured in V, for a few reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread:

 

1. Inherited properties are still likely. Sure, you couldn't purchase properties in IV, but if you played your cards right, you ended up with four safehouses scattered a bit disproportionately along the north side of the map. In V, it's still possible that the three protags will inherit safehouses and even assets as we progress through the story. Who knows, by the end we may have an airstrip, a used car lot, and a dock space at the marina, along with safehouses scattered across the map (hopefully more spread out than in IV).

 

2. Motels are better. I always thought permanent properties were unnecessary and unrealistic in RDR... why would Marston own a hotel room? Why not just make them all rentable? If you didn't have any money, you could camp anyway. In SA, it was fun, but silly, that CJ could end up owning so many properties around the map... as if it was necessary to own 5+ properties in LS and another 5 in LV. With three protagonists, it would seem that purchasing a particular safehouse would have to be completed with a particular character, excluding ownership to the other two. With motels, any of the three protags can save there at any time. Also, it would be cool if, similar to campsites in RDR, you could sleep/save in your car when out in the middle of no where. I'd rather have a variety of saving options, than a bunch of safehouses that are inherently limited to one protag anyway.

 

3. The sense of achievement is still there. Besides the garage space, most property advocates argue that they give us something to spend our money on and enhance your sense of achievement in the game. I'll never forget how I felt when I finally bought the Malibu in VC and unlocked its related asset missions. While we may not be running though property icons in V, this sense of achievement will be back. It was already confirmed that the player will need to purchase certain "expensive toys" and amass a certain amount of funds before you can attempt certain missions/heists. Is this not, in spirit, what assets in VC were all about? Functionally speaking, we still have special purchases to work toward and achieve... even if it isn't safehouses/assets per se.

 

/essay

Edited April 18, 2013 by Dick Valor

[Dick Justice]

 

1. Inherited properties are still likely.  Sure, you couldn't purchase properties in IV, but if you played your cards right, you ended up with four safehouses scattered a bit disproportionately along the north side of the map.  In V, it's still possible that the three protags will inherit safehouses and even assets as we progress through the story.  Who knows, by the end we may have an airstrip, a used car lot, and a dock space at the marina, along with safehouses scattered across the map (hopefully more spread out than in IV).

I agree.

 

If you look back at San Andreas, most of the businesses you could buy were inherited anyway. The airstrip, Casino, Madd Doggs Mansion, San Fierro garage and Wang Cars all became yours through the story (Zero's shop was optional). The only properties that you didn't get through the story were new safehouses, which were generally all very similar (maybe 5 different interiors all up).

 

In V's second trailer, we already see two properties our characters will come into. Trevor gets an old petrol station and Franklin gets a nicer home. I'm assuming there will be a lot more of this as well. In a way, it's not that different to San Andreas, we just won't have to walk over an icon to buy properties this time.

[br00tal_j]

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

It's nice to be able to walk around a huge mansion and think 'this is mine', I know we already have a mansion in V but we wont have worked for it.

lol

[NONative]

Well if any of you bums actually read the Game informer issue on GTA V you would know that the reason there are no properties this time round is because .........wait for it......wait for it.........just a lillly bit more......NOW look down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like to suck on big tits......ignore that, look below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It would look weird if Trevor bought a house in Beverley Hills" aka Rockford Hills. Well there you have it folks its Trevor's fault apparently, must've been too hard for R* to just not allow Trevor the ability to buy a house in Rockford Hills but dont worry I'm sure he can pop by to do some yoga with Mike.

That's why I brought up inherited property. Threw certain main or side missions you would inherit a new safehouse, but if each one would be upgradable so there would be more use for them.

You spelt through completely wrong so I'm assuming you are a genuine American, anyway whats that load of blah blah blah you said got to do with sucking on big tits ?

Oh I misspelled a word the world is going to end.

 

I guess your some euro f*cker that thinks he better than an American?

 

I'm also sure you suck on big ones, but they aren't tits.

Somehow you managed to get the word "through" mixed up with "threw", how you did this I don't know but i decided to correct it for you for future reference, if you don't like it go read the dictionary.

 

 

I am a f*cker and I am better than you NONative who just so happens to be an American, and I'm from England which is a part of the EU so there's your answer to that.

 

I do suck on big ones a and they are tits, I'm not really into feet like that.

 

Have a nice day son. Or you can come back and try again, but I wouldn't advise that.

Nah, you are just another piss ant trying to be big on the internet.

 

But on to people and topics that matter...

 

 

[djdiond]

ITS NOT FUN UNLESS I CAN BUY 187 HOUSES

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

What did properties do?

 

1. Gave you incentive to make money fast

 

2. Unique missions

 

3. It's a business (defined as a going concern): Earn money to spend on property to generate more cash to spend on property...

(see where I'm going?)

 

4. Save points, that I used often (not everyone is like you)

 

5. Store your vehicles

 

6. A place to change clothes

 

What properties could do?

 

1. You could spend money for the interiors

 

2. You could spend money for modifications

 

3. You could spend money for personnel

 

5. You could make money illegally: before purchase you could influence the prices on an are by making the area feel less comfortable, and then after purhcase the opposite.

 

So, they are not a waste, even if they don't generate things like weapons and guards.

[Red Hat]

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

This

[Pegerino]

You can save cars in your RV Trailer

[jamieleng]

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

This.

 

I like properties, but when you really think about it, they're useless. They make no sense in a crime game about heists anyways. People need to learn how to get over things. Why dwell on the stuff R* chose to leave out? They add in things that fit and leave out things that don't.

 

They're not trying to make your perfect game. Just let them make the game they wanna make, because that's why we became fans in the first place.

It's like falling in love with with someone & then trying to change everything about them.

 

I won't miss buying properties, just like I didn't miss it in IV. Hell, you couldn't even buy properties in SRTT & fans of that franchise always harp on about it doing everything that GTA doesn't. As long as the safehouses we do acquire actually have more to them than a save point & parking spot, then I'll be happy.

[Boss7dm]

I think R* will put enterable hotels .

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

It's like falling in love with with someone & then trying to change everything about them.

Actually, it's more like reminding that someone you fell in love with the things that you liked about the person @the time when you fell in love with that person.

[jamieleng]

It's like falling in love with with someone & then trying to change everything about them.

Actually, it's more like reminding that someone you fell in love with the things that you liked about the person @the time when you fell in love with that person.

Yeah I'll concede that my analogy wasn't all that great.

 

As long as there are a multitude of other things to spend my ill gotten gains, then I won't miss buying properties.

[Official General]

 

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say purchasable properties are useless. But in IV they would have been nice since they would have provided additional space to save cars.  (Personally, I always wanted a property in Dukes and/or Broker.)

 

 

That is very good point, and I share the same view.

 

I would very much preferred a good bit choice as to where I could buy a property/safehouse in GTA IV, because just like you I badly wanted to own a property in Broker, and owning one in Dukes would have been cool too. It's a bit annoying going to my favorite borough in Liberty City and having to go back home to Algonquin, I wished I could just stay in Broker. The fact that the properties was scripted for us in the game meant we had no choice, and I did not like that.

 

However I will admit that it did fit in with the story because the Russian Mafia were hunting after Niko to kill him as a marked man, so Niko buying a property in Broker would have been very unsafe. Niko buying a property in Dukes would been a bit more unsafe too, since Dukes is nearby Broker.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Official General

[ALeSsAnDrO]

From the moment a feature has been in the franchise, there's really no good reason for it to not be present in future titles. It's just the way Rockstar handle their IP.

If they feel it's not adding much to the game, they just cut it, regardless of demand for it.

They'll just do with their games whatever they please. Sometimes it works out well (Red Dead titles), sometimes it doesnt (Max Payne 3)

 

I'm all for having the feature, even if i don't care much for it.

[gsbadreligion]

properties are useful for saving, vehicles, computer, being near a certain area instead of driving all the way there everytime, and it just makes you feel like you've made it.

[SkylineGTRFreak]

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

Don't tell me you have never missed more parking slots for your cars in IV.

[Kill Frenzy!]

 

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

Clothes are also useless. Whats your point.

 

I think you are using properties from SA as a reference, when obviously if property purchases were present in V it would be more useful.

 

Having places to store vehicles and save your game throughout the map is very usefull and gives you a reason to spend money. Just because you dont feel its necessary doesnt make the rest of us "dummies"

Not to interrupt you but in SA there were too many properties you could buy... It is nice to spent money on properties, I also had fun with that feature, can't lie about that but SA was too exaggerated but sure, they have could put that feature in it, one property each protagonist + 2 more to buy for each protagonist only if the player wants them to buy, not like in IV when Roman gives you an apartment and later Ray Boccino gives you also an apartment, that was not fair.

[jamieleng]

 

Properties were useless. You and every other dummy who liked them need to realize that.

 

What did properties do?

1. Earn you more money to spend nothing on

2. Have save points you never saved in

 

They're a waste unless they can generate useful things like weapons, guards, etc.

Don't tell me you have never missed more parking slots for your cars in IV.

Yeah but not being able to save every vehicle you want (a la Saints Row), makes them feel more precious & special.