A serious discussion about episodic expansions

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

It's been discussed over and over again on these forums in no real depth what-so-ever other than "oh i wantz zombies" or "I don't want episodic DLC", etc.

 

Now as 99% of us know, it was stated by Dan Houser that there would be no more episodic DLCs for R*, but I'm pretty sure that was during the time span between Red Dead Redemption and Undead Nightmare (correct me if I'm wrong). Now look at the facts:

 

- Rockstar churned out Undead Nightmare, and it turned out to be a HUGE success due to the fact it was so vastly different to the vanilla game (unlike TLAD and TBOGT were to IV)

- They release 7 new cases for L.A Noire. Now considering the game originally was 21 cases, that's about an aditional 1/3 of the original game. So despite the fact they were all released as seperate DLC, it almost practically constitutes as episodic.

- Max Payne 3 utterly tanked, and turned into a hole in both Rockstar's and Take Two's pockets. But what did they go do? Made an additional 7 or so multiplayer packs, for an online community that they knew was almost practically dead.

- It's been expressed time and time against by fans that they much prefer to buy episodic DLC, instead of forking out $$$ for minor extras such as new guns, cars, etc

 

So taken all these facts into conclusion I'm going out and saying there's a good chance that Rockstar are going to go back on their word from years ago and release an episodic expansion or two for GTA V (their biggest IP afterall). I mean for it to succeed it can't be a rehash of the original game like TLAD and TBOGT were, instead it has to reinvent the game much like Undead Nightmare. I would see an LCPDFR style episode happening in the works here since it would be unlike the original game, yet still hold that GTA feel.

 

What do you think?

[bfett21]

It's been discussed over and over again on these forums in no real depth what-so-ever other than "oh i wantz zombies" or "I don't want episodic DLC", etc.

 

Now as 99% of us know, it was stated by Dan Houser that there would be no more episodic DLCs for R*, but I'm pretty sure that was during the time span between Red Dead Redemption and Undead Nightmare (correct me if I'm wrong). Now look at the facts:

 

- Rockstar churned out Undead Nightmare, and it turned out to be a HUGE success due to the fact it was so vastly different to the vanilla game (unlike TLAD and TBOGT were to IV)

- They release 7 new cases for L.A Noire. Now considering the game originally was 21 cases, that's about an aditional 1/3 of the original game. So despite the fact they were all released as seperate DLC, it almost practically constitutes as episodic.

- Max Payne 3 utterly tanked, and turned into a hole in both Rockstar's and Take Two's pockets. But what did they go do? Made an additional 7 or so multiplayer packs, for an online community that they knew was almost practically dead.

- It's been expressed time and time against by fans that they much prefer to buy episodic DLC, instead of forking out $$$ for minor extras such as new guns, cars, etc

 

So taken all these facts into conclusion I'm going out and saying there's a good chance that Rockstar are going to go back on their word from years ago and release an episodic expansion or two for GTA V (their biggest IP afterall). I mean for it to succeed it can't be a rehash of the original game like TLAD and TBOGT were, instead it has to reinvent the game much like Undead Nightmare. I would see an LCPDFR style episode happening in the works here since it would be unlike the original game, yet still hold that GTA feel.

 

What do you think?

Do we have a source or a citation on the No episodic DLC? I don't remember hearing that, also remember that LA Noire came out after RDR, so wouldn't they have gone back on their word at that juncture? Based on GTA IV, I am sure there will be episodic content.

[blakeney]

 

It's been discussed over and over again on these forums in no real depth what-so-ever other than "oh i wantz zombies" or "I don't want episodic DLC", etc.

 

Now as 99% of us know, it was stated by Dan Houser that there would be no more episodic DLCs for R*, but I'm pretty sure that was during the time span between Red Dead Redemption and Undead Nightmare (correct me if I'm wrong). Now look at the facts:

 

-  Rockstar churned out Undead Nightmare, and it turned out to be a HUGE success due to the fact it was so vastly different to the vanilla game (unlike TLAD and TBOGT were to IV)

-  They release 7 new cases for L.A Noire. Now considering the game originally was 21 cases, that's about an aditional 1/3 of the original game. So despite the fact they were all released as seperate DLC, it almost practically constitutes as episodic.

-  Max Payne 3 utterly tanked, and turned into a hole in both Rockstar's and Take Two's pockets. But what did they go do? Made an additional 7 or so multiplayer packs, for an online community that they knew was almost practically dead.

-  It's been expressed time and time against by fans that they much prefer to buy episodic DLC, instead of forking out $$$ for minor extras such as new guns, cars, etc

 

So taken all these facts into conclusion I'm going out and saying there's a good chance that Rockstar are going to go back on their word from years ago and release an episodic expansion or two for GTA V (their biggest IP afterall). I mean for it to succeed it can't be a rehash of the original game like TLAD and TBOGT were, instead it has to reinvent the game much like Undead Nightmare. I would see an LCPDFR style episode happening in the works here since it would be unlike the original game, yet still hold that GTA feel.

 

What do you think?

They actually said it within the last year or 2 directly regarding V too... but imo the way it was worded, could mean that there wont be Episodic content with an intertwining story like IV.

 

Also, in the same interview he said that property, clothes etc wont be making a return... so....make of that what you will i guess

 

I personally would love to see some episodic content, i wouldn't mind if it was completely unrelated to the main story, as long as they have a strong theme. They could really contrast the whole "Money" theme from the main game. Maybe exploring a minor character from each of the 3 main game protags?

 

Zombies imo are a passing fad, that i have not brought into, so i don't care if they make one or not.. i wont be buying it that's for sure

 

Clothes/Car "packs" i really wouldn't like to see... and here's why. I certainly wouldn't be buying a pixelated car or jumper for real £££, so i shouldn't care if they are on offer for anyone stupid enough... but i will care, because it will be a sign of the times for R*, and not a very good one!

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

It's been discussed over and over again on these forums in no real depth what-so-ever other than "oh i wantz zombies" or "I don't want episodic DLC", etc.

 

Now as 99% of us know, it was stated by Dan Houser that there would be no more episodic DLCs for R*, but I'm pretty sure that was during the time span between Red Dead Redemption and Undead Nightmare (correct me if I'm wrong). Now look at the facts:

 

-  Rockstar churned out Undead Nightmare, and it turned out to be a HUGE success due to the fact it was so vastly different to the vanilla game (unlike TLAD and TBOGT were to IV)

-  They release 7 new cases for L.A Noire. Now considering the game originally was 21 cases, that's about an aditional 1/3 of the original game. So despite the fact they were all released as seperate DLC, it almost practically constitutes as episodic.

-  Max Payne 3 utterly tanked, and turned into a hole in both Rockstar's and Take Two's pockets. But what did they go do? Made an additional 7 or so multiplayer packs, for an online community that they knew was almost practically dead.

-  It's been expressed time and time against by fans that they much prefer to buy episodic DLC, instead of forking out $$$ for minor extras such as new guns, cars, etc

 

So taken all these facts into conclusion I'm going out and saying there's a good chance that Rockstar are going to go back on their word from years ago and release an episodic expansion or two for GTA V (their biggest IP afterall). I mean for it to succeed it can't be a rehash of the original game like TLAD and TBOGT were, instead it has to reinvent the game much like Undead Nightmare. I would see an LCPDFR style episode happening in the works here since it would be unlike the original game, yet still hold that GTA feel.

 

What do you think?

They actually said it within the last year or 2 directly regarding V too... but imo the way it was worded, could mean that there wont be Episodic content with an intertwining story like IV.

 

Also, in the same interview he said that property, clothes etc wont be making a return... so....make of that what you will i guess

 

I personally would love to see some episodic content, i wouldn't mind if it was completely unrelated to the main story, as long as they have a strong theme. They could really contrast the whole "Money" theme from the main game. Maybe exploring a minor character from each of the 3 main game protags?

 

Zombies imo are a passing fad, that i have not brought into, so i don't care if they make one or not.. i wont be buying it that's for sure

 

Clothes/Car "packs" i really wouldn't like to see... and here's why. I certainly wouldn't be buying a pixelated car or jumper for real £££, so i shouldn't care if they are on offer for anyone stupid enough... but i will care, because it will be a sign of the times for R*, and not a very good one!

Can you link me to where Dan Houser said this? Because as much as I've heard talk of it around the forums, I haven't actually read the interview.

[LegitSpades]

Playing as LSPD for episodic content would be godlike!

[PutAQuarterIn]

Can you link me to where Dan Houser said this? Because as much as I've heard talk of it around the forums, I haven't actually read the interview.

I think this is the one.

[Leafy Hollow]

I like the idea of the consumer paying for what he feels is deserving for the product, .01 or 1mil.

[Chukkles]

Zombies aren't a fad, they are great in the right games and movies.

It's just devs want to shoehorn them into their games because other games have success with them, effectively making zombies lame to the user of that bad game that you should walk away from.

 

State of Decay is apparently the best selling XBLA title ever, it's survival in a zombie outbreak.

It's doing really well. Fad???

 

Zombies should never be put in GTA though, RDR it was great, R* have done the zombie thing now and don't need to do it again.

[mbunleashed09]

Yea , playing as LSPD would be fun. A dirty cop with chase down and crackdown minigames. Most likely if we do get a DLC it will likely be on the 3 protags because of the multi protag system. Maybe a few heists or so.

 

[Chukkles]

Story wise, I prefer IVs episodes linking with the story and adding to it, rather than RDRs non canological story.

[Grand Theft Savage]

I do think Rockstar will do a episodic DLC expansion again, but not for GTA V. I just don't see it.

[Chukkles]

They've already made a start with the DLCs released with SE CE.

Extra cars guns and clothes. I think this is all we'll get, more cars guns and clothes.

[Matty]

I reckon that episodic content featuring a non-cannon storyline that involves all three of GTA V's protagonists in some way (similar to the main storyline) is a pretty big possibility. Take-Two's CEO strongly hinted recently that zombies are a possibility for GTA V. Most likely not for the main game storyline - but more likely than not for episodic content similar to Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare.

 

As for new playable characters - I can not see there being additional playable characters added along with any episodic content as was the case with Episodes From Liberty City (as there is already going to be three playable characters in GTA V). But episodic content featuring a new storyline based around the three protagonists I definitely can see happening.

[Fisha695]

Zombies aren't a fad, they are great in the right games and movies.

It's just devs want to shoehorn them into their games because other games have success with them, effectively making zombies lame to the user of that bad game that you should walk away from.

 

State of Decay is apparently the best selling XBLA title ever, it's survival in a zombie outbreak.

It's doing really well. Fad???

 

Zombies should never be put in GTA though, RDR it was great, R* have done the zombie thing now and don't need to do it again.

Zombies are a fad & before they were a fad it was Vampires & Werewolves and before that it was Ninjas and before that it was Clowns and before that it was "Tricky Dick Nixon" masks, etc... l0l

 

Also Zombies were introduced into the GTA series in IV via an online character/mode.

[Chukkles]

 

Zombies aren't a fad, they are great in the right games and movies.

It's just devs want to shoehorn them into their games because other games have success with them, effectively making zombies lame to the user of that bad game that you should walk away from.

 

State of Decay is apparently the best selling XBLA title ever, it's survival in a zombie outbreak.

It's doing really well. Fad???

 

Zombies should never be put in GTA though, RDR it was great, R* have done the zombie thing now and don't need to do it again.

Zombies are a fad & before they were a fad it was Vampires & Werewolves and before that it was Ninjas and before that it was Clowns and before that it was "Tricky Dick Nixon" masks, etc... l0l

 

Also Zombies were introduced into the GTA series in IV via an online character/mode.

Well zombies have been going strong since the 70s.

Zombie represent the general populace, it's a satire and always has been.

People acting like zombies has never been more apparent than now, all drooling over iPhones and sh*t.

 

Vamps and werewolves aren't really a fad either, they've been gayed by the twilight bullsh*t.

 

How can these be fads if they've been played on and written about since 17 18 century?

 

 

I think some don't understand what a fad is.

So a zombie movie has been made, oh my god it is epic, so everyone jumps on the bandwagon and makes zombie movies, none as good as that epic one.

So now everyone says zombies are outplayed and a fad, when all that happened is many people made sh*t films because they wanted to copy.

That first oh my god epic one is still epic and not a fad, because it was a good movie.

 

Understand?

Edited June 9, 2013 by Chukkles

[RedDragonsBOOM]

Its unfortunate Max Payne 3 tanked, I just got it the other day and love the multiplayer. However back on topic, I was seriously thinking about this earlier today. I see them going down a similar road like Red Dead Redemption. Character packs for MP, vehicle packs, maybe a total conversion of GTA to a zombie world(would be kinda unoriginal and predictable). But they will be content packs and worth the money. Red Dead Redemption I bought almost all the MP packs because they all included something new and fresh like Poker, single player outfits, guns, MP characters(I played the mp a ton). I cant remember every detail of every pack but I can remember being satisfied looking forward to every new pack.

[Grand Theft Savage]

Its unfortunate Max Payne 3 tanked, I just got it the other day and love the multiplayer. However back on topic, I was seriously thinking about this earlier today. I see them going down a similar road like Red Dead Redemption. Character packs for MP, vehicle packs, maybe a total conversion of GTA to a zombie world(would be kinda unoriginal and predictable). But they will be content packs and worth the money. Red Dead Redemption I bought almost all the MP packs because they all included something new and fresh like Poker, single player outfits, guns, MP characters(I played the mp a ton). I cant remember every detail of every pack but I can remember being satisfied looking forward to every new pack.

RDR's DLC was worth every cent. I still remember everything that came with every pack.

 

Legends & Killers Pack - Classic characters from Red Dead Revolver, as well as the Tomahawk weapons for singleplayer and multiplayer. Plus, new titles (I think) and brand new maps to play Free For All and Gang Matches. I don't remember how many maps, though.

 

Liars & Cheats Pack - Characters from the Red Dead Redemption storyline useable in multiplayer. Stronghold Mode, Multiplayer Poker, and Multiplayer Liars' Dice now available. And the brand new Explosive Rifle weapon for singleplayer and multiplayer. And I know for sure this one came with brand new titles.

 

Outlaws to The End Pack [Free DLC]- Co-op missions playable. These were so f*cking fun!!!!

 

Hunting & Trading Pack [Free DLC]- This came with two new outfits in singleplayer. Both outfits gave a special ability. The only one I remember was discounts at stores. Also a new animal, the Jackalope, can be found.

 

Deadly Assassin Outfit - A badass costume that gives a deadeye boost.

 

And then there were little things like the War Horse and the Golden Guns. I think the War Horse thing was free. I'm not 100% sure. I only bought some of the DLC, and then I ended up just buying the Game of The Year Edition.

 

Myths & Mavericks Pack [Fan Appreciation DLC] - A free DLC pack Rockstar made to show love to the hardcore players of RDR. It gave all new Stronghold maps and new characters. The only character I remember was Landon Ricketts. I remember seeing EVERYONE using him.

 

Undead Nightmare [The Best sh*t ever] - The world of Red Dead Redemption is cursed with a zombie apocalypse! All new storyline, all new outfits (there were 2 new outfits), all new multiplayer characters, all new multiplayer mode (Undead Overrun). Even a new weapon called the Blunderbuss, which could be used in Undead Overrun as well, but that sh*t was useless in Undead Overrun.

-----------------------------

 

I personally loved all of this. I was just playing RDR a few hours ago and saw that the community is still jumping with people. And a lot of them have the DLC, because it was actually worth it. Episodic DLC may be very good, but that doesn't mean packs like this aren't worth it either. If GTA V were to create DLC like this again, I would be more than satisfied.

[Chukkles]

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

[Grand Theft Savage]

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

I don't know about you, but RDR was a pretty damn good game without that sh*t. Adding all of that DLC just made it go from amazing to masterpiece. When RDR won Game of The Year, they didn't even factor in the Undead Nightmare DLC. I for one have no problem with DLC of this magnitude. I don't see how people can really sit dwn and complain about not having episodic DLC. It isn't really needed.

[RedDragonsBOOM]

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

I don't know about you, but RDR was a pretty damn good game without that sh*t. Adding all of that DLC just made it go from amazing to masterpiece. When RDR won Game of The Year, they didn't even factor in the Undead Nightmare DLC. I for one have no problem with DLC of this magnitude. I don't see how people can really sit dwn and complain about not having episodic DLC. It isn't really needed.

Its funny how over the years, people go from bitching about DLC existing to people bitching about not having enough DLC. V will be amazing out of the box, if you want to have more fun then pay for the new additions. Things arent free to make.

[Grand Theft Savage]

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

I don't know about you, but RDR was a pretty damn good game without that sh*t. Adding all of that DLC just made it go from amazing to masterpiece. When RDR won Game of The Year, they didn't even factor in the Undead Nightmare DLC. I for one have no problem with DLC of this magnitude. I don't see how people can really sit dwn and complain about not having episodic DLC. It isn't really needed.

Its funny how over the years, people go from bitching about DLC existing to people bitching about not having enough DLC. V will be amazing out of the box, if you want to have more fun then pay for the new additions. Things arent free to make.

Exactly. That's pretty much what I wanted to say.

[Chukkles]

 

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

I don't know about you, but RDR was a pretty damn good game without that sh*t. Adding all of that DLC just made it go from amazing to masterpiece. When RDR won Game of The Year, they didn't even factor in the Undead Nightmare DLC. I for one have no problem with DLC of this magnitude. I don't see how people can really sit dwn and complain about not having episodic DLC. It isn't really needed.

Its funny how over the years, people go from bitching about DLC existing to people bitching about not having enough DLC. V will be amazing out of the box, if you want to have more fun then pay for the new additions. Things arent free to make.

Exactly. That's pretty much what I wanted to say.

Things aren't free, i get that, but let's just look at that point on my post.

We paid for a boundary, infact many boundaries. By this I mean the areas to play DM in, already existing areas.

 

Now Say V goes this route, no more DM in the entire city, or even smaller areas like Broker/Dukes, Algonquin, Bohan and Alderney. No more citywide DM's.

Only these small areas that if you try to leave, it say's turn back to play area.

 

Then they sell us aload more boundaries.

[Grand Theft Savage]

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

I don't know about you, but RDR was a pretty damn good game without that sh*t. Adding all of that DLC just made it go from amazing to masterpiece. When RDR won Game of The Year, they didn't even factor in the Undead Nightmare DLC. I for one have no problem with DLC of this magnitude. I don't see how people can really sit dwn and complain about not having episodic DLC. It isn't really needed.

Its funny how over the years, people go from bitching about DLC existing to people bitching about not having enough DLC. V will be amazing out of the box, if you want to have more fun then pay for the new additions. Things arent free to make.

Exactly. That's pretty much what I wanted to say.

Things aren't free, i get that, but let's just look at that point on my post.

We paid for a boundary, infact many boundaries. By this I mean the areas to play DM in, already existing areas.

 

Now Say V goes this route, no more DM in the entire city, or even smaller areas like Broker/Dukes, Algonquin, Bohan and Alderney. No more citywide DM's.

Only these small areas that if you try to leave, it say's turn back to play area.

 

Then they sell us aload more boundaries.

That's just an opinion thing... Having the whole map unrestricted for a DM sucked in my opinion, and your opinion may differ. Having the entire city was just f*cking stupid. Smaller maps makes a sh*t load more sense. And since V is going to be a HUGE map, and assuming they go the smart way and break the whole map into smaller areas, just imagine the map selection. Having such a big variety is much better than having the whole map, which was tedious as all hell. You might disagree and say that the whole map is better, but that's an opinion.

 

I don't mind the a boundaries. And call me crazy, but I would gladly pay for more maps as DLC (for a reasonable price).

[Chukkles]

Liars and cheats pack was BS, it should have been in the game.

 

Then we have to pay to play on areas of the map, even worse, I wonder how much it cost to set a boundary on an existing map?

 

To be completely honest with ourselves, while GTA IV had great DLCs, R* have since turned to mugging us up like everyone else.

 

Don't be so fooled into thinking its all something you need, when it should have been the in the first place.

I don't know about you, but RDR was a pretty damn good game without that sh*t. Adding all of that DLC just made it go from amazing to masterpiece. When RDR won Game of The Year, they didn't even factor in the Undead Nightmare DLC. I for one have no problem with DLC of this magnitude. I don't see how people can really sit dwn and complain about not having episodic DLC. It isn't really needed.

Its funny how over the years, people go from bitching about DLC existing to people bitching about not having enough DLC. V will be amazing out of the box, if you want to have more fun then pay for the new additions. Things arent free to make.

Exactly. That's pretty much what I wanted to say.

Things aren't free, i get that, but let's just look at that point on my post.

We paid for a boundary, infact many boundaries. By this I mean the areas to play DM in, already existing areas.

 

Now Say V goes this route, no more DM in the entire city, or even smaller areas like Broker/Dukes, Algonquin, Bohan and Alderney. No more citywide DM's.

Only these small areas that if you try to leave, it say's turn back to play area.

 

Then they sell us aload more boundaries.

That's just an opinion thing... Having the whole map unrestricted for a DM sucked in my opinion, and your opinion may differ. Having the entire city was just f*cking stupid. Smaller maps makes a sh*t load more sense. And since V is going to be a HUGE map, and assuming they go the smart way and break the whole map into smaller areas, just imagine the map selection. Having such a big variety is much better than having the whole map, which was tedious as all hell. You might disagree and say that the whole map is better, but that's an opinion.

 

I don't mind the a boundaries. And call me crazy, but I would gladly pay for more maps as DLC (for a reasonable price).

You'd have more variety over the whole map?? It's all the same areas.

 

Anyway I did prefer to play in say Bohan or Algonquin as an entire open area, not the whole city as it is a bit much, but the option is there.

 

You say it makes more sense for smaller areas, we have cars that need large areas.

 

You don't mind paying to play in an area that exists in the game, you can play on it anytime you want without paying, yet you pay to play on it anyway??? That makes no sense to me.

 

Accept R* have become that developer over the past couple of years.

[shadyslady]

As for now, I can't see how Rockstar puts out EFLS for GTA V.

I mean, we already have our trinity of protagonists in the game. And I can't see how we AGAIN meet some other dudes in game and will play their side of the story. Because we already do.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like EFLC and I like the idea of getting more content to GTA V. But I assume the game itself will already be packed with so much sh*t to do, dlcs like a potential EFLS wouldn't make sense.

And as much as I liked EFLC, they didn't live up to their expectations. They were too short. Johnny's story starts off strong, but ends so quickly and leaves a bitter taste. Everything feels rushed. Same with TBOGT. Which, at least, appears to be a bit bigger than TLAD.

Still, both titles would have deserved much more content. However, this is done and considering GTA V:

 

No, I don't expect any Episodes From Los Santos. Though I can imagine Rockstar putting out plenty of customizable sh*t in the PSN. Cars, clothes, weapons, etc.

 

I also must say it's a relief having all three protagonists in one big game, different stats, different stories, lots of sh*t to do. GTA V will be the quintessential GTA.

[Grand Theft Savage]

@Chukkles

 

1) Yes, I would. Having the whole map was f*cking trash. They should fire whoever came up with that.

 

2) Exactly. The thing about having the whole map is that people can go to one side of that sh*t and you'd be stranded with no one to kill. Sure, get in a vehicle and go after them, but that takes away the competitive feel of having an actual shootout. It then becomes a chase. I don't know if you've ever played Max Payne 3, but that feel of those matches was much better than GTA IV's. It's all a matter of preference to be honest.

 

3) Yes, but having the whole map is just stupid. You might as well play Free Roam. That is the only map in which the whole map should be available in my opinion.

 

4) You're probably assuming the map selection will be anything like GTA IV's. I want it to be more like Max Payne 3. You could play inside of factories, on top of buildings, offices, a bar, clubs, the favela, on a yacht... A whole lot of sh*t. In a major city like Los Santos, just imagine the maps it could broken into. Vinewood Hills, a mall, the streets, Sandy Shores, the desert, the mountains, landmarks around the city... That's much better than having the entire map accessible in a match. Having the whole thing just felt boring and took away replay-ability. In GTA IV after one match, I would feel like I've played through the whole thing.

 

5) I know that Rockstar has taken the money train. They cut content and reselling, and I would be a jackass to say that's cool. But my point is that the game is good without DLC. If someone has a problem with it, they aren't forced to buy it. GTA V will be a good game regardless. If the DLC is worth the money, I'll buy it. I seriously don't mind paying for extra maps in a game like this. Free Roam has the entire map. To play other modes on it, they had to put development time into making it possible. I'll pay if it's worth it.

[tenpennyisplainevil]

All I hope is that IF there is DLC, it's mainly for singleplayer.

[JOSEPH X]

I don't think episodic gave R* the returns for the effort they put into it. They've also said they're not going to do it like that again.

 

I think bundling SP content with MP content in each pack would appeal to most players, then some MP only content for a higher return on the investment.

 

We (and R*) can only guess how Free Mode, PvP and crews will pan out, and how many people will be SP only, so the additional content they make will still not be finalised yet.

[simonp92]

@OP L.A Noire only had 2 dlc cases, 5 if you count pre-order DLC which should have been in the game to start with.

Edited June 9, 2013 by simonp92

[Prometheus]

I don't think episodic gave R* the returns for the effort they put into it. They've also said they're not going to do it like that again.

 

I think bundling SP content with MP content in each pack would appeal to most players, then some MP only content for a higher return on the investment.

 

We (and R*) can only guess how Free Mode, PvP and crews will pan out, and how many people will be SP only, so the additional content they make will still not be finalised yet.

Agreed. I always preferred the episodic DLC to the smaller "packages", the change in the format is somewhat disappointing - but there's no doubt these DLCs will definitely be worth the money.