Liberty City and Vice City Possibly Coming as DLC!? (Article Inclu

[jptawok]

As awesome as it would be, it's highly unlikely. Main reason as mentioned above, is that GTAO is hardly taking off or doing well. The second reason is that's a lot of work for DLC. Liberty City is likely, since the assets are already available. I forsee the Vice City thing being more of a "GTA 6 is in Vice City, ergo GTAO now has VC!". It'll expand over time, but that executive statement about it being the future is a little over ambitious. GTA will crash and burn without a solid single player entry every 2-5 years.

[kj2022]

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the first big DLC we get was purely singleplayer, the story is just left wide open, yeah they did the biggest heist ever, but you've got the North Yankton stuff to explain, how Trevor and Michael met (which is briefly touched upon in the story), what happened with Trevor in the 10 years when he thought Michael was dead? there's a tonne of things wide open for rockstar to expand on. Who knows, we may see Liberty City in parts of it, or Vice, or even Carter City since it's mentioned that Michael started there. Anything map wise we get for multiplayer, will be included into the single player somehow.

[Wikiderr]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/11/grand-theft-auto-online-details-revealed

 

Ign interview with Les Benzie about the plans for GTA online, new cities are mentioned along with liberty city..

 

Cant wait to see the game work, nevermind other cities yet.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

If this were to come it better come to Online. Rockstar hasn't turned into that "we care more about Online" developers now have they? If so, then I can only see GTA dying.

[Journey_95]

If this were to come it better come to Online. Rockstar hasn't turned into that "we care more about Online" developers now have they? If so, then I can only see GTA dying.

you are right dude damm I hope they will realise that they have to focus on SP because that's GTA and not some f*cking MMO

[Osho]

Honestly, it makes me nervous whether Rockstar hinting that they are out of ideas to bring any new concept to GTA gaming ( excluding technical leaps ) or fear to make any big changes itself?

I am not reading any thing about the game without GTAO being mentioned since last couple of years!

They are trying a bold new task of making all previous GTA available under one roof of online community of players and thats really remarkable achievement in progress.

But the good old 100 missions lot of odd jobs following little attractions like playing pool, customizable elements in game, character development, huge activities part of the map to be able for exploring feature rich standalone experience are not even given a second thought in future plans by Rockstar.

It could be a surprise waiting in near future but chances are thin for any bold steps regarding 'GTA minus GTAO' experience.

If GTA 6 follows the path as Mafia 2 it will most certainly be the biggest mistake by Rockstar.

[Josh410]

I think we already knew that, it is just of a matter of time of when they are releasing it. I expect it to be around Christmas or early 2014 for the first map DLC. I think it will be north Yankton and surrounding areas

[Official General]

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

I would guess they'll add it to the game with the arrival of GTA VI (in Vice City) and that they'd add Liberty City sometime in between.

 

 

@ DeafMetal

 

I was thinking this myself after a little brainstorming. I sincerely hope that is exactly what they do, if Rockstar eventually decide to go forward with this approach to DLC.

 

Anything other than this may spell the beginning of the end of me being a dedicated GTA gamer.

[JonnJonnz]

I doubt this article is legit, looks like the guy is just speculating... However the fact that R* dumbed down SP in favor of online is disturbing. I am enjoying gta online but it doesn't even come close to the single player experience

[biggsull]

WHY are they mostly focusing on multiplayer?! Why?! V's story was so great it'd be a waste not to continue it as a DLC or something like that. I'll be very disappointed if there won't be any DLCs. GTA Online is one thing, GTA V is another. What's up man?

 

 

As long as they do all the money charging on the single player stuff I can ignore, then thats fair. Free online content is the only way to go or you are bait and switching.

[HoleInTheSky]

World is moving fast.Won't surprise me if this is legit. Rockstar are having to ditch singleplayer to keep up with today's industry; the shallow, instant-gratification culture that Rockstar have themselves pissed on over the years. Shame they are now realising that in order to keep afloat, they will have to give up what made them stand out, and simply conform like the rest of the mindless companies out there (EA, Activision and the likes of).

Edited October 20, 2013 by HoleInTheSky

[ToxicBerserker]

This was more or less confirmed a long time ago, prior to the launch of GTA V. I think Les The Benz said it.

 

The first new area will probably be North Yankton. That's my guess, anyway.

That does sound more probable since it has already been shown in the story.

[riksterinto]

As awesome as it would be, it's highly unlikely. Main reason as mentioned above, is that GTAO is hardly taking off or doing well.

Funny that you say this but I think that is just a perception you have from reading this forum.

Despite the issues, It's the most played game on Xbox Live right now. It's the first game to knock Black Ops 2 down to 2nd in the past year.

[The Jungz]

World is moving fast.Won't surprise me if this is legit. Rockstar are having to ditch singleplayer to keep up with today's industry; the shallow, instant-gratification culture that Rockstar have themselves pissed on over the years. Shame they are now realising that in order to keep afloat, they will have to give up what made them stand out, and simply conform like the rest of the mindless companies out there (EA, Activision and the likes of).

Well, quite ironically, comforming to those mindless companies to keep afloat would mean a certain death to Rockstar. Probably not, because mindless companies come with their nice little army of mindless consumers that will just keep taking spoons and spoons of their online bullsh*t until they f*ckin blow up. However, they will have lost their original fanbase, the people that made them who they are today. I was only 6 years old when I first played GTA III back in 2001, but, just because of that, I spoke about this amazing masterpiece to so many people.. At least 50 of them still play Rockstar Games Products to this day. Of course Rockstar will keep making money, but it'll be dirty money. And I will prefer to say I backed down and stopped buying their games instead of just giving no f*cks and keeping on consuming.

 

A few weeks ago, I was still defending Rockstar and praising them as one of the gaming industry's finest developpers, but I am starting to lose faith. It feels weird to realize that, even though they might do wrong decisions in the next few years, some that will force me to get away from them, I will still play GTA IV and V, RDR, and very soon, i'll buy III, VC and SA on PSN. They made the best games I have ever played in my life and Im heartbroken to see they are going down a dark path.

Edited October 21, 2013 by ThroatSlasher2

[Zendorphin]

Random thought: When LC is available, will we not be able to enter fast food places in that city too? Or do you think Rockstar will reenable this aspect and at least give us Burger Shot and Cluckin Bell? It would be nice if they did that even if there were only a few different interiors (preferably with transparent windows).

 

But I am hoping at least the next game does. Bean Machine needs to be a thing too - would love to go on coffee shop shooting sprees. Those hipsters won't stand a chance

[Uhwoahnohuh]

I Would love to play DLC In a different city. I just hope it isnt LC, because we have had too much of it, and LS just the right amount

[DoubleOGJohnson]

 

 

 

Rockstar Games is confident that

Grand Theft Auto Online is the key

to the future of the Grand Theft

Auto franchise

That's not good to read.

What about standalone single player experience Rockstar?

Not cool!

 

 

Well if this is their approach:

 

I am confident that my money will be spent elsewhere.

 

I can see a revamped Liberty City, because the map has already been created in HD & as you know, the map is the the most labour & time intensive part of Rockstar's open world games. Yes Vice City's looks & atmosphere could be very similar to certain parts of V's locations. It even has wetlands that are similar to Florida's Everglades. However, Rockstar don't just re-use buildings (almost every building in V seems handcrafted, so no two look the same), so the work needed is comparable to creating a whole new game.

 

If these maps are created solely for Online multiplayer, I would never forgive Rockstar. That would be the turning point for me & the day I realize that the Rockstar who created III, VC, SA, IV & V, have becomes 'suits' & not artists. Just like the movie world, it's the bean counters who now dictate creative control, with test groups & aiming for the lowest common denominator with the most disposable income.

 

 

It shouldn't take that long to make maps because they keep using the same cities over and over again. How much research do they have to do on a place that has already been done? They used Los Angeles in San Andreas, Midnight Club, LA Noire, and now GTA V in a span of 10 years. How much research did they really have to do for LA? I bet very little. The map for GTA V hardly took the 5 years to make, I don't believe that. They are milking the series and making it a 4 year game. It doesn't take THAT long. The last game they seemed to REALLY go all out researching locations for was San Andreas and that game came out SOON after Vice City. And ironically, that was the last game that added a new location since Los Santos and Venturas weren't in the original GTA 1.

 

Even since SA, they've only reused a location and those games have taken 4/5 years to release. Something isn't adding up. San Andreas was the last time they put max effort into the location and took a couple years. And San Andreas had the biggest GTA map until GTA V and it took them just 2 years to do that map after VC. So I don't think the maps take long, there was 4 years between SA and GTA 4 and GTA 4 had a SMALLER map with less variety. GTA's used to come out in quick succession, They are milking the series, ever since the series went to Rage Engine and became more fixated on graphics it became milked, it really don't take 4/5 years for this sh*t.

Edited October 21, 2013 by DoubleOGJohnson

[quechus13]

Seeing as how people played since GTA IV or VC or even III they seem to forget that R* planned GTA Online since GTA 1 or GTA 2.

[Fuzzknuckles]

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

[King Kapone]

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

I don't think its such an unreasonable complaint, Fuzz. If they were to release new areas only to the online crowd that would be downright reprehensible, in my humblest of opinions. What if a player wants no part of online? Does the single player crowd deserve to be pushed to the side? More people bought this game to play the campaign, not to go online and that's true for most video games in general. It's not like GTA V has become a COD-type franchise over night. There will never be tournaments held at some convention center for GTA Online as there are for Black Ops 2 & other COD titles. So to say the team should cater exclusively to its online component is crazy talk and I would hope Rockstar wouldn't be so ignorant as to release a new area for GTA V that's only accessible online.

 

That said, any hopes of Vice City or Liberty City online are likely next, next gen possibilities, unless Rockstar pulls a Destiny project out of their ass.

Edited October 21, 2013 by King Kapone

[DoubleOGJohnson]

 

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

I don't think its such an unreasonable complaint, Fuzz. If they were to release new areas only to the online crowd that would be downright reprehensible, in my humblest of opinions. What if a player wants no part of online? Does the single player crowd deserve to be pushed to the side? More people bought this game to play the campaign, not to go online and that's true for most video games in general. It's not like GTA V has become a COD-type franchise over night. There will never be tournaments held at some convention center for GTA Online as there are for Black Ops 2 & other COD titles. So to say the team should cater exclusively to its online component is crazy talk and I would hope Rockstar wouldn't be so ignorant as to release a new area for GTA V that's only accessible online.

 

That said, any hopes of Vice City or Liberty City online are likely next, next gen possibilities, unless Rockstar pulls a Destiny project out of their ass.

 

 

Fuzz ALWAYS agrees with everything Rockstar does. If Rockstar released VC in single player only without adding it to GTA Online, he'd flip flop and then say "that's a great idea!!!". These wishy washy guys are ALWAYS behind the ball and never progressive, purely reactionary. They wait till Rockstar does something to love it, but hate whatever fans suggest independently of Rockstar. Whatever Rockstar does is unquestioned. Some fans have a pimp-prostitute relationship with Rockstar call em Rockslaves, I prefer a more professional customer-merchant relationship with Rockstar where all Im doing is buying a service from them without having to pretend to have some deep personal connection or friendship with them. I don't need to be friends with Rockstar, nor do I want to be. This is business and I want their product, nothing more nothing less. It's not personal it's business. Video game consumers need to treat this sh*t like the business it is, instead of being fanboy supporters of these developers always cosigning everything they do.

Edited October 21, 2013 by DoubleOGJohnson

[King Kapone]

Hold up, I acknoledged Fuzz's post because he's a friend here and I felt I could address his point. Let's not go on some fanboy flame rant on my accord. Keep me out of that one.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

I don't think its such an unreasonable complaint, Fuzz. If they were to release new areas only to the online crowd that would be downright reprehensible, in my humblest of opinions. What if a player wants no part of online? Does the single player crowd deserve to be pushed to the side? More people bought this game to play the campaign, not to go online and that's true for most video games in general. It's not like GTA V has become a COD-type franchise over night. There will never be tournaments held at some convention center for GTA Online as there are for Black Ops 2 & other COD titles. So to say the team should cater exclusively to its online component is crazy talk and I would hope Rockstar wouldn't be so ignorant as to release a new area for GTA V that's only accessible online.

 

That said, any hopes of Vice City or Liberty City online are likely next, next gen possibilities, unless Rockstar pulls a Destiny project out of their ass.

 

 

Fuzz ALWAYS agrees with everything Rockstar does. If Rockstar released VC in single player only without adding it to GTA Online, he'd flip flop and then say "that's a great idea!!!". These wishy washy guys are ALWAYS behind the ball and never progressive, purely reactionary. They wait till Rockstar does something to love it, but hate whatever fans suggest independently of Rockstar. Whatever Rockstar does is unquestioned. Some fans have a pimp-prostitute relationship with Rockstar call em Rockslaves, I prefer a more professional customer-merchant relationship with Rockstar where all Im doing is buying a service from them without having to pretend to have some deep personal connection or friendship with them. I don't need to be friends with Rockstar, nor do I want to be. This is business and I want their product, nothing more nothing less. It's not personal it's business. Video game consumers need to treat this sh*t like the business it is, instead of being fanboy supporters of these developers always cosigning everything they do.

 

Hmm, well, that's not entirely true. And having worked several years in the game industry, I understand the business just fine, thanks.

 

I don't wholesale agree with everything they do. But I am supportive of them.

 

But to get back on topic, rather than you just bashing me and people that actually have respect for Rockstar...

 

I honestly don't think they will turn their back entirely on the single player crowd. The way I see it, VC would be the next obvious location for VI. So there would be a single player game, and the Online VC would plug into LS - you'd travel via the airport, for example. There would still be a way to access it for everyone, whether they choose to play on or offline.

 

Now, to be clear - I don't play online. I've logged in a few times, but I won't be spending a lot of my time on it. I am an SP kindaguy, hands down. I probably spent a total of 2 hours in the online mode of IV. So I would want there to be a single player city as much as anyone else, if not more than most, as I wouldn't get much out of online.

 

However... I would be happy for people to get another city that I didn't get. If they're paying for it, and that's the decision that R* make, I'd have to just suck it up and either buy and play online, or be content and not be concerned. I just don't see it panning out that way, though. They'd be absolute fools to cut off such a HUGE part of their audience, and considering they're already going to pander to the PC market, and probably to the next gen market, I'd says it's a fairly safe bet that ALL of their audience will have something, eventually.

 

So, to summarise, f*ck you DoubleOGJohnson. f*cking busters, coming up in here like they're the big chief. I oughta slap you right across your soul.

[Official General]

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

Seriously, you need to hop off Rockstar's d*ck. It is totally reasonable to not want a Vice City game to be online only. Why should people like us who prefer single player be forced to play a game we like online only, when it is generally an SP game ? I don't give a f**k if it's a whole city online DLC, a whole city like Vice City should be in a separate, FULL game. It's online bandwagon, sheep gamers like you that just make games developers think online gaming is the be all and end all and ultimate cash cow, and normally brilliant franchises like GTA get ruined because all the developers care about is money, which is what's happening now. I don't play GTA for repetitive deathmatches with other gamers and chaotic battles with buddies, I don't care for all that stuff that much, as fun as it may sound. I play GTA for the SP, that really the only reason why I play it and love it.

 

If this is Rockstar's future pathway for GTA, then it means I'm never going to happy, and so be it. I will just stop playing GTA, that's all it is and it will be a shame.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Official General

[jamieleng]

World is moving fast.Won't surprise me if this is legit. Rockstar are having to ditch singleplayer to keep up with today's industry; the shallow, instant-gratification culture that Rockstar have themselves pissed on over the years. Shame they are now realising that in order to keep afloat, they will have to give up what made them stand out, and simply conform like the rest of the mindless companies out there (EA, Activision and the likes of).

And when the next gaming crash comes (and it will, as all things in life & business are cyclical), Rockstar will sink alongside the rest of the people who caused it. They may not sink as far, but by that time, most of the talent would've jumped ship & all you'll be left with is a bunch of whipping boys.

 

Why is it, the more money a company earns, the more money they crave? Shareholders. I'm not saying Rockstar should become 3D Realms & Houser's/The Benz become the next George Broussard, but they are going too far the other way. Pretty soon Rockstar will lose their autonomy & in the process, that anarchic creativity & Rockstar wit. They have already started contradicting themselves with their in-game parodies 'The Cloud - Now you can blame the internet when you lose everything' or 'Righteous Slaughter 7 & overpriced, worthless dlc'. Sure, they are a way off yet, but Rome wasn't destroyed in a day either.

Edited October 21, 2013 by jamieleng

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

Seriously, you need to hop off Rockstar's d*ck. It is totally reasonable to not want a Vice City game to be online only. Why should people like us who prefer single player be forced to play a game we like online only, when it is generally an SP game ? I don't give a f**k if it's a whole city online DLC, a whole city like Vice City should be in a separate, FULL game. It's online bandwagon, sheep gamers like you that just make games developers think online gaming is the be all and end all, and normally brilliant franchises like GTA get ruined, which is what's happening now. I don't play GTA for repetitive deathmatches with other gamers and chaotic battles with buddies, I don't care for all that stuff that much, as fun as it may sound. I play GTA for the SP, that really the only reason why I play it and love it.

 

If this is Rockstar's future pathway for GTA, then it means I'm never going to happy, and so be it. I will just stop playing GTA, that's all it is and it will be a shame.

 

Seems you missed my follow up post. Go back and read it.

 

---

 

I'll save you some effort:

 

 

 

I honestly don't think they will turn their back entirely on the single player crowd. The way I see it, VC would be the next obvious location for VI. So there would be a single player game, and the Online VC would plug into LS - you'd travel via the airport, for example. There would still be a way to access it for everyone, whether they choose to play on or offline.

Now, to be clear - I don't play online. I've logged in a few times, but I won't be spending a lot of my time on it. I am an SP kindaguy, hands down. I probably spent a total of 2 hours in the online mode of IV. So I would want there to be a single player city as much as anyone else, if not more than most, as I wouldn't get much out of online.

However... I would be happy for people to get another city that I didn't get. If they're paying for it, and that's the decision that R* make, I'd have to just suck it up and either buy and play online, or be content and not be concerned. I just don't see it panning out that way, though. They'd be absolute fools to cut off such a HUGE part of their audience, and considering they're already going to pander to the PC market, and probably to the next gen market, I'd says it's a fairly safe bet that ALL of their audience will have something, eventually.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Fuzzknuckles

[Official General]

 

 

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

Seriously, you need to hop off Rockstar's d*ck. It is totally reasonable to not want a Vice City game to be online only. Why should people like us who prefer single player be forced to play a game we like online only, when it is generally an SP game ? I don't give a f**k if it's a whole city online DLC, a whole city like Vice City should be in a separate, FULL game. It's online bandwagon, sheep gamers like you that just make games developers think online gaming is the be all and end all, and normally brilliant franchises like GTA get ruined, which is what's happening now. I don't play GTA for repetitive deathmatches with other gamers and chaotic battles with buddies, I don't care for all that stuff that much, as fun as it may sound. I play GTA for the SP, that really the only reason why I play it and love it.

 

If this is Rockstar's future pathway for GTA, then it means I'm never going to happy, and so be it. I will just stop playing GTA, that's all it is and it will be a shame.

 

Seems you missed my follow up post. Go back and read it.

 

---

 

I'll save you some effort:

 

 

 

I honestly don't think they will turn their back entirely on the single player crowd. The way I see it, VC would be the next obvious location for VI. So there would be a single player game, and the Online VC would plug into LS - you'd travel via the airport, for example. There would still be a way to access it for everyone, whether they choose to play on or offline.

Now, to be clear - I don't play online. I've logged in a few times, but I won't be spending a lot of my time on it. I am an SP kindaguy, hands down. I probably spent a total of 2 hours in the online mode of IV. So I would want there to be a single player city as much as anyone else, if not more than most, as I wouldn't get much out of online.

However... I would be happy for people to get another city that I didn't get. If they're paying for it, and that's the decision that R* make, I'd have to just suck it up and either buy and play online, or be content and not be concerned. I just don't see it panning out that way, though. They'd be absolute fools to cut off such a HUGE part of their audience, and considering they're already going to pander to the PC market, and probably to the next gen market, I'd says it's a fairly safe bet that ALL of their audience will have something, eventually.

 

 

I read your original post and that's what matters. I responded accordingly to exactly what you wrote in the post that caught my interest.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Official General

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

 

 

Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City.

 

Seriously? You'll be upset if you can only go to VC in Online?

 

This really is the pinnacle of 'never going to be happy' right here. A WHOLE NEW CITY and you're not pleased at all?

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

Seriously, you need to hop off Rockstar's d*ck. It is totally reasonable to not want a Vice City game to be online only. Why should people like us who prefer single player be forced to play a game we like online only, when it is generally an SP game ? I don't give a f**k if it's a whole city online DLC, a whole city like Vice City should be in a separate, FULL game. It's online bandwagon, sheep gamers like you that just make games developers think online gaming is the be all and end all, and normally brilliant franchises like GTA get ruined, which is what's happening now. I don't play GTA for repetitive deathmatches with other gamers and chaotic battles with buddies, I don't care for all that stuff that much, as fun as it may sound. I play GTA for the SP, that really the only reason why I play it and love it.

 

If this is Rockstar's future pathway for GTA, then it means I'm never going to happy, and so be it. I will just stop playing GTA, that's all it is and it will be a shame.

 

Seems you missed my follow up post. Go back and read it.

 

---

 

I'll save you some effort:

 

 

 

I honestly don't think they will turn their back entirely on the single player crowd. The way I see it, VC would be the next obvious location for VI. So there would be a single player game, and the Online VC would plug into LS - you'd travel via the airport, for example. There would still be a way to access it for everyone, whether they choose to play on or offline.

Now, to be clear - I don't play online. I've logged in a few times, but I won't be spending a lot of my time on it. I am an SP kindaguy, hands down. I probably spent a total of 2 hours in the online mode of IV. So I would want there to be a single player city as much as anyone else, if not more than most, as I wouldn't get much out of online.

However... I would be happy for people to get another city that I didn't get. If they're paying for it, and that's the decision that R* make, I'd have to just suck it up and either buy and play online, or be content and not be concerned. I just don't see it panning out that way, though. They'd be absolute fools to cut off such a HUGE part of their audience, and considering they're already going to pander to the PC market, and probably to the next gen market, I'd says it's a fairly safe bet that ALL of their audience will have something, eventually.

 

 

I read your original post and that's what matters. I responded accordingly to exactly what you wrote in the post that caught my interest.

 

So you're going to ignore the part where I say I want a single player city too, and that I don't play online and would rather we all got the same?

 

You need to get off your own dick, bro.

[Official General]

@ Fuzz

 

I read it, and you have just contradicted yourself.

 

You claim to be mostly a single player guy and that you are not really that much into online gaming :

 

Now, to be clear - I don't play online. I've logged in a few times, but I won't be spending a lot of my time on it. I am an SP kindaguy, hands down. I probably spent a total of 2 hours in the online mode of IV. So I would want there to be a single player city as much as anyone else, if not more than most, as I wouldn't get much out of online.

 

 

Okay, now that is out of the way, you then tell me even though you don't like the idea of Rockstar creating a whole new city DLC for online MP gamers only which would exclude SP-mostly players, you will still be happy to accept this, just because Rockstar made that decision ?? So basically you are saying that whatever decision Rockstar makes, you are fine and dandy with it because Rockstar are respected and talented developers that can do no wrong :

 

However... I would be happy for people to get another city that I didn't get. If they're paying for it, and that's the decision that R* make, I'd have to just suck it up and either buy and play online, or be content and not be concerned

 

 

Lol, you really have a warped sense of entitlement as a consumer/customer. If you are happy to getting the middle finger from Rockstar for your long-serving custom, that's fine. Not me bro, but since you obviously worship and bow down to Rockstar and praise them for everything they do, it's clear that there is no getting through to your thick skull and sheep mentality.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Official General

[Fuzzknuckles]

I think you've missed my point. But there's really no point arguing it as you'll just find a new way to misinterpret me.