jamieleng Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 On the one hand customers are incredibly demanding these days & when it comes to gamers, very vocal about it. On the other hand, they seem more willing than ever to be bent over their console of choice & get the rogering of their life. Are these two completely separate consumer groups, or are we just incredibly contradictory nowadays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Official General Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) @ jamieleng Lool, that's funny mate. I think the second group involving 'rogering' applies to consumers/gamers like Fuzzknuckles. I would say they are two separate groups, but there are some who can find a reasonable balance in between. @ Fuzz Bro, I quoted YOUR exact words, and came to a clear and reasonable conclusion that what you wrote was contradictory bullsh*t. Sorry, that's my verdict. Edited October 21, 2013 by Official General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay_ Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) I just want some new missions for SP! I dont care much about other cities right now and probably wont for a year or so. Also read that theyre including the new cities only on online, if so then **** R* Edited October 21, 2013 by Jay_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 You're entitled to believe that. My point is that we can't expect a company to bow down to the consumer. That happened with Mass Effect 3, and it just made gamers look like entitled little pricks. You have to understand that if they want to put out a specific product, they will, whether you like it or not. And that's their right. Understanding and accepting that is not dick-riding. It's just being resigned to the fact that someone made a decision you don't like and can't change. Raging on the internet won't change it. I would NOT be happy if they decided to exclude the single player. But I would accept it if they weren't planning to create a single player game. Like I would have accepted them not releasing RDR on PC if I were a PC gamer. We can't change that. That's the decision that's been made. I'd go as far as to say I'd consider playing online for it, though. There's concessions to be made on both sides here. Not just at their end. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Official General Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) You're entitled to believe that. My point is that we can't expect a company to bow down to the consumer. That happened with Mass Effect 3, and it just made gamers look like entitled little pricks. You have to understand that if they want to put out a specific product, they will, whether you like it or not. And that's their right. I am not asking for Rockstar to bow down to my every demand, no not at all. But when they clearly disregard and disrespect their own main customer base, which happens to be the SP gamers - which I am a part of, something has to be said. Rockstar clearly showed that they had favored the online MP development more than the SP, which is it's main strength - even then, most of us SP gamers would have been happy and contented if the SP had most of the features it was expected and advertised to have contained. Rockstar could not even do that. And raging on the internet in an official Rockstar complaint may indeed have an effect, who knows. Anyway, I am not accepting anything like what you suggested. Like I said if Rockstar wanna be ungrateful and inconsiderate to the customer requirements and wishes of their main audience (SP), then I will simply stop buying GTA. Or at the very least I will not take a great interest in it. If they chose this online-only approach for the future, then consider my GTA days over. I don't have accept sh*t, I just call it a day. Edited October 21, 2013 by Official General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDayz Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Bullsh*t. But if it's true I am not happy. I want a full single player Vice City. They won't bring a new Vice City map without a single player game. Don't fear that. There is no way on earth. I only see Liberty City as a possibility because it only needs a few boosted textures and V's lightning engine. Other than that the city build is done and in full HD. If they will bring anything without a single player game it would maybe be Las Venturas and San Fierro, as they are in the world of San Andreas and not currently in GTA V. I can't see how they can justify being able to fly to Vice City, it being next to Los Santos/San Andreas without other San Andreas districts being there. Edited October 21, 2013 by darkdayz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woggleman Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I think companies should listen to the consumer but when the consumer doesn't even seem to know what they want why not just make what you want and people like it or they don't. I was in a relationship once with somebody who didn't know what she wanted and eventually I realized trying to please her would be futile. That is the position developers seem to be in today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 One of the points I've tried to make here is that I doubt they would ever abandon SP completely. Like with V, it may not be the primary focus of the game, but it would still be there. Part of the problem is that people enjoyed the IV online so much that R* decided to take a new approach. We got 2 games for our money this time around. We should probably think ourselves lucky for that. Even if we only play one of them. --- Offish: I respect you as a poster on here and I don't really want to get into petty arguments with people that I generally think are worth listening to. Let's hug it out. I promise not to grope your arse. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Official General Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 One of the points I've tried to make here is that I doubt they would ever abandon SP completely. Like with V, it may not be the primary focus of the game, but it would still be there. Part of the problem is that people enjoyed the IV online so much that R* decided to take a new approach. We got 2 games for our money this time around. We should probably think ourselves lucky for that. Even if we only play one of them. --- Offish: I respect you as a poster on here and I don't really want to get into petty arguments with people that I generally think are worth listening to. Let's hug it out. I promise not to grope your arse. Ok thats cool, just leave out the arse part bro, you did not need to state that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woggleman Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 If they make another VC I seriously doubt it would be online only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 One of the points I've tried to make here is that I doubt they would ever abandon SP completely. Like with V, it may not be the primary focus of the game, but it would still be there. Part of the problem is that people enjoyed the IV online so much that R* decided to take a new approach. We got 2 games for our money this time around. We should probably think ourselves lucky for that. Even if we only play one of them. --- Offish: I respect you as a poster on here and I don't really want to get into petty arguments with people that I generally think are worth listening to. Let's hug it out. I promise not to grope your arse. Ok thats cool, just leave out the arse part bro, you did not need to state that. I totally did. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranklinDeRoosevelt Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 ^ Single player IS the main focus of the game. What the hell are you talking about? Just because online is more versatile and improved, doesn't mean it's the main part of the game. The single player is the main part of the game, nuff said. And it has a lot of flaws, even in MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay_ Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 ^ Single player IS the main focus of the game. What the hell are you talking about? Just because online is more versatile and improved, doesn't mean it's the main part of the game. The single player is the main part of the game, nuff said. And it has a lot of flaws, even in MP. SP is the main part, but it seems that R* are slowly focusing more on adding a bunch of extras strictly for MP only, theyve talked about adding a lot of stuff to online with a bunch of future DLCs including missions, cities, clothes, cars...Yet they have not mentioned a single DLC idea for single player, not even a little "we're thinking about adding some more stuff to SP" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranklinDeRoosevelt Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 ^ I agree. But we need to wait until they actually announce something. They will always surprise you with something like how they did with the Episodes. SP isn't going to get ANYTHING like Episodes or big DLC's similar to that, but I hope they bring interesting one's like more interiors like the casino, bank interiors, and so on. Maybe even the North Yankton DLC would be f*cking amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 You have to remember though that Online is a free addition. It's not a game that people have paid for and it's there as a result of a lot of people wanting an online game. So really, the players are just as responsible. If they hadn't asked for it, it probably wouldn't be there. And as it was FREE, it seems to me that it's OK to offer stuff to people that are actually taking the time to play the FREE thing they've developed. People will have to pay for those things, though I'm sure there'll be more FREE stuff for the FREE game. There will always be an SP element of GTA. It's their money-spinner. To turn their backs on that would be as foolish as the decision to make APB was. It was basically GTA Online, but it failed because people didn't want to play it. If no one played GTAO, it would go away. But it won't, so it will be catered for. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowWolve Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 i wouldn't really put hopes up for it unless there is a verified article.There still fixing and improvements for GTA Online(Stock Market and Features) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carbine23 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 If it was true i'd rather visit Liberty City through single player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now