Another Heist Thread

[k33g]

Something that bothers me about this thread is the article it's discussing mentions heists only once at the very end; as sort of an after-thought. The article is focused on the fact online wasn't launched the same time the game was released. Two entirely different issues, yeah?

[Gay Tony]

 

 

Show me on the back of GTA 5 where it says online heists.

 

It's doesn't, specifically.

 

The GTA V packaging itself doesn't state it has "immediate" access to single player portion.

 

It's how its advertised. Going by the plot summary off the packaging alone, it could have been made into a completely different game from behind the scenes from what was advertised literally everywhere else.

 

What's your point?

 

 

You're apparently new to the world of advertising...*sigh*

 

Honestly, it's not my forte.

 

Again, this thread isn't about whether Online is an added bonus. Just about this particular argument the Judge used to throw out the case that bothers me.

 

Based on the logic by this judge, nothing has a guarantee of immediate access after you purchase it. Which doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with being impatient. I don't even want heists, it's the concept behind heists not being released at launch that bothers me.

 

You seem like you have some insight into this and I'd wish you'd say more than these vague single sentences.

[Static]

 

Yeah. When players request something and the company responds with "hey, these players want us to add something, we could give it to them in a free DLC, or a small paid DLC...Nah, let's just make them buy the damn game again." That just reeks of greed and a "we don't give a sh*t about you, only your money" attitude.

 

lest anyone forget the original GTA online trailer......notice what a good portion of it is showing off? multiple players robbing a bank......a um, heist?

 

I'm sure a lot of people bought GTA V for GTA online because face it, lots of people play multiplayer games and don't even attempt the single player. That wasn't the case for me as i was a day 1 buyer, but i never played the Battlefield 3 campaign, and i only played the goldeneye 007 campaign several months after i bought the game for multiplayer.

 

 

 

 

Firstly, R* is a BUSINESS, not your friend, not your parent, not your cousin(!), so this whole idea of them being a greedy,evil corporation is just ridiculous. Of course, they're gonna squeeze as much profit out of GTA as possible, and majority of people are still gonna buy their products. Best way to inform a company how you feel? DONT BUY THEIR PRODUCT! not that hard a concept to grasp.

 

Secondly, maybe that's a main problem with the gamin culture nowadays, if your only gonna worry about the MP of a game, why would any company even bother tryin yo make it decent as long as you can still connect to other players? The Industry reflects consumer interest.

 

Thridly,

 

and i only played the goldeneye 007 campaign several months after i bought the game for multiplayer.

 

*sigh*

[AceThaCreator]

 

 

 

 

At this point i don't know who to side with. I've defended this company at times while also b*tching about alot of things but at this point, what they did was false advertisement and was flat out wrong. The fact that it was promised TOO MANY times and delayed OVER & OVER and that they are now completely ignoring it in favor of the current gen consoles now getting GTA V is enough to piss most off. Now me personally, i don't care that much with heists to begin with but it doesn't mean that the majority don't and everyone has every right to be pissed at this point and even going as far as taking action because Rockstar sure as hell ain't doing anything about it.

yeah i used to be a huge fan of this game and online. Hell i have over 63 days in GTA:O, but R*'s money grabbing tactics, lack of heists, and the way they went about next gen and what it means for people on current gen really rubbed me the wrong way.

Oh don't worry your not alone. It's just sad how many people are blind to cooperate greed

 

 

Yeah. When players request something and the company responds with "hey, these players want us to add something, we could give it to them in a free DLC, or a small paid DLC...Nah, let's just make them buy the damn game again." That just reeks of greed and a "we don't give a sh*t about you, only your money" attitude.

 

lest anyone forget the original GTA online trailer......notice what a good portion of it is showing off? multiple players robbing a bank......a um, heist?

 

I'm sure a lot of people bought GTA V for GTA online because face it, lots of people play multiplayer games and don't even attempt the single player. That wasn't the case for me as i was a day 1 buyer, but i never played the Battlefield 3 campaign, and i only played the goldeneye 007 campaign several months after i bought the game for multiplayer.

 

 

Yea bought the game as well on the launch which i've never done with any game because i like most seen the trailers and was hooked. I made sure i finished the story before any attempting online and yea its true that most don't give a sh*t about story mode and pretty sure alot of people are bandwagoners who never played other GTA games and didn't see how R* used to be before they became greedy. Now its deja vu all over again and the trailers to me this time don't mean sh*t.

 

I want to see actual CONTENT, not how pretty the ocean and the grass looks or that there are animals and other stuff like that. It was more than likely their gameplan all along with having to purchase the game not once but twice because you know that they are gonna make ALOT of exclusive stuff for the current gen and give one big F*CK you to the old one.

[rharri02]

That class-action lawsuit was not about the inclusion of online heists but rather the immediate inclusion of GTA Online at the original release of the game. Now, to be clear, if you check the back of your game disc box, you will clearly see that it states: FEATURING GRAND THEFT AUTO ONLINE. (As close to the print as I feel like imitating.) It is printed inside a white bar in black bold letters right above the system requirements and game inclusions. Another curious piece of print in the game inclusions states: Network Players 2-16 co-op - 2-16 competitive. Now there is no mentioning that these features are not included with the game upon initial release on the game disc box. That was what those guys were getting at with their lawsuit. In my opinion, they should have won under printed technicalities. However, the judge saw fit that it doesn't actually state immediate inclusion of the online portion. If that's the case, then why is it clearly stated on the back of the box like it is included immediately? Her thinking could be used for either side of the argument, but I think she was incorrect in her sentencing. The box never says "Featuring Soon/Coming Soon" but says "Featuring." That means that the online portion should be immediately included with the original release of the game. That's not even mentioning that the game inclusions state clearly that it is a network accessible game, from the get-go, with 2-16 players. I just think the judge didn't want any bad rep to go her way is all. I mean, the gaming sector is a titan in the entertainment industry and has a lot of power and money...

[Khelandros]

 

 

 

 

Show me on the back of GTA 5 where it says online heists.

 

It's doesn't, specifically.

 

The GTA V packaging itself doesn't state it has "immediate" access to single player portion.

 

It's how its advertised. Going by the plot summary off the packaging alone, it could have been made into a completely different game from behind the scenes from what was advertised literally everywhere else.

 

What's your point?

 

 

You're apparently new to the world of advertising...*sigh*

 

Honestly, it's not my forte.

 

Again, this thread isn't about whether Online is an added bonus. Just about this particular argument the Judge used to throw out the case that bothers me.

 

Based on the logic by this judge, nothing has a guarantee of immediate access after you purchase it. Which doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with being impatient. I don't even want heists, it's the concept behind heists not being released at launch that bothers me.

 

You seem like you have some insight into this and I'd wish you'd say more than these vague single sentences.

 

 

 

First and foremost, Online and GTAV are two complete separate games. You can play one, without playing the other, as evidenced by about have the game population.

 

Two, Rockstar said that online was coming out later.

 

Three, the reason the case was tossed was because they argued that GTAV didn't have things in it that were promised. Please refer to number one for the reason behind this.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Khelandros

[jackjoejim]

End of october was round about the time they started adding content/dlc. Yeah its a FACT that heists was finished ages ago & delayed to get 1 year of shark card sales. For old gen.

 

Now add what they said about 1.17 being a big update. Add the fact that Next gen will reap the money that R* feels they can no longer make from cash card sales on ps3/360. Heists will be the trump card on October - watch this space.

 

What i have to say about the court case?? Com'on man! Some old white/ black old ass judge doesn't care about a video game case, specially one such as this.

 

Yeah R* was sly for that, they're fa**ots anyway. Video game cases dont get taken seriously unless someone makes a Klu Klux Klan game, and even then im not sure...

[Angerbox]

Lol ya okay guys. As if any of you here were to go buy a car expecting certain features only to find out you were ripped off, would not try to sue if you didn't get what you paid for.

[Static]

Honestly, it's not my forte.

 

Again, this thread isn't about whether Online is an added bonus. Just about this particular argument the Judge used to throw out the case that bothers me.

 

Based on the logic by this judge, nothing has a guarantee of immediate access after you purchase it. Which doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with being impatient. I don't even want heists, it's the concept behind heists not being released at launch that bothers me.

 

You seem like you have some insight into this and I'd wish you'd say more than these vague single sentences.

 

 

I have common sense and know that any and every company will do just about anything to make their product more appealing to more people. Plenty of game devs have done similar, sometimes even worst, things, yet people act like R* are the first. I'm not referring to whether "online was an added bonus" or not, more so that a "promise" from any company doesn't mean anything. Do you recall, say for an example, Peter Molynuex's statements before each release of the original Fables? How you could chop a tree down and it would grow back later and everything else along those lines? That was advertising. Also, you technically don't own any games that you think you do, you're merely renting them. You cant copy the game and sell it, you cant alter the game how you see fit and distribute it, etc. Learn to read EULAs if you want to fully understand your consumer rights.

Lol ya okay guys. As if any of you here were to go buy a car expecting certain features only to find out you were ripped off, would not try to sue if you didn't get what you paid for.

 

Cars =/= video games. Horrible comparison, try again.

Edited September 15, 2014 by StaticLW

[k33g]

Some of the replies in this topic are baffling me. You cannot compare a 5k+ vehicle to a 60$ video game

[Angerbox]

Horrible comparison? How so? It's an item you paid for.

 

Just because one costs more money doesn't mean the situation is any different.

 

Some people are so narrow-minded lmao

 

edit - so you guys are saying if a fully functioning brand new car off the lot costs $60, it shouldn't be treated as valuable merchandise because of its price...?

 

Edit 2 - what if all cars costs a maximum of $80 and they all came with problems. Would that be okay since there is poverty and famine on the world? I mean, there are more important issues than your $80 car and it's problems, right?

 

edit 3 - yes numbnuts -_- I have a car.

Edited September 15, 2014 by xLuCx

[jackjoejim]

Horrible comparison? How so? It's an item you paid for.

 

Just because one costs more money doesn't mean the situation is any different.

 

Some people are so narrow-minded lmao

 

edit - so you guys are saying if a fully functioning brand new car off the lot costs $60, it shouldn't be treated as valuable merchandise because of its price...?

Do you even have a car?

[Static]

Horrible comparison? How so? It's an item you paid for.

 

Just because one costs more money doesn't mean the situation is any different.

 

Some people are so narrow-minded lmao

 

edit - so you guys are saying if a fully functioning brand new car off the lot costs $60, it shouldn't be treated as valuable merchandise because of its price...?

 

Edit 2 - what if all cars costs a maximum of $80 and they all came with problems. Would that be okay since there is poverty and famine on the world? I mean, there are more important issues than your $80 car and it's problems, right?

 

SMH.

 

Someone is obviously not an adult. It has nothing to with the price. It has everything to do with the regulations involved in manufacturing and selling a vehicle, which the game industry doesn't have.

Edited September 15, 2014 by StaticLW

[Angerbox]

 

 

Horrible comparison? How so? It's an item you paid for.

 

Just because one costs more money doesn't mean the situation is any different.

 

Some people are so narrow-minded lmao

 

edit - so you guys are saying if a fully functioning brand new car off the lot costs $60, it shouldn't be treated as valuable merchandise because of its price...?

 

Edit 2 - what if all cars costs a maximum of $80 and they all came with problems. Would that be okay since there is poverty and famine on the world? I mean, there are more important issues than your $80 car and it's problems, right?

SMH.

 

Someone is obviously not an adult. It has nothing to with the price. It has everything to do with the regulations involved in manufacturing and selling a vehicle, which the game industry doesn't have.

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

[Static]

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

 

That's what you're talking about. And it's apparent that you're underage, if you think such regulations dont have an involvement in price and quality. Funny how you called everyone else "narrow-minded".

[k33g]

 

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

how are regulations in manufacturing irrelevent? because it's a valid argument against you? let me break it down for you

 

If you sell a vehicle promising airbags, and it ends up not having airbags when someone crashes and flies through the front windshield, you're responsible for that sh*t.

 

If you sell a video game promising heists but don't deliver, tough sh*t to the consumer. Didn't cause him any pain & suffering, just disappointment.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Keegeroo

[VolkXue]

"Please R* dont give us content that was at the least alluded to before the game released! We are only customers who support this company, we dont deserve it!! "



Thats what i take away every time i read one of these threads. If this generation was alive in the past we would be buying roadkill from butchers and thanking them for it still.

Edited September 15, 2014 by VolkXue

[Gay Tony]

 

 

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

how are regulations in manufacturing irrelevent? because it's a valid argument against you? let me break it down for you

 

If you sell a vehicle promising airbags, and it ends up not having airbags when someone crashes and flies through the front windshield, you're responsible for that sh*t.

 

If you sell a video game promising heists but don't deliver, tough sh*t to the consumer. Didn't cause him any pain & suffering, just disappointment.

 

I can see what you're saying.

 

It's logically the same though, the concept anyways.

 

From peanuts to multimillion dollar mansions.

 

Getting ripped off is getting ripped off.

Edited September 15, 2014 by mr toasterbutt

[jackjoejim]

edit 3 - yes numbnuts -_- I have a car.

 

Ignore this guy. Lucx take this bull of this thread. Because in your mind buying a car is like buying a car in GTA online, you do NOT have a car, and have never bought one.

 

You don't just "buy a car". And on top of that you're comparing a physical object to a some digital f*cking pixel media. Are you dumbasses for real?

[k33g]

 

 

I can see what you're saying.

 

It's logically the same though, the concept anyways.

 

From peanuts to multimillion dollar mansions.

 

Getting ripped off is getting ripped off.

 

No.

 

Cars & Mansions come with contracts on both ends of the transactions to prevent you from getting ripped off (well, they're supposed to. still, sh*t happens)

 

Peanuts & video games don't come with any real guarantees. Maybe next time, write up a document saying R* will implement heists by (arbitrary date here) or legal action will be taken, and get The Benz to sign it. Then maybe it will hold up in court.

[Static]

 

I can see what you're saying.

 

It's logically the same though, the concept anyways.

 

From peanuts to multimillion dollar mansions.

 

Getting ripped off is getting ripped off.

 

 

Yet you dont have a legal reason to sue in every area that you can be ripped off in. I could sell you a lemon of a car and as long as it's sold "as is", you wouldnt be able to do a thing about it. Hence why knowing the law and regulations are important when buying anything.

Edited September 15, 2014 by StaticLW

[Angerbox]

 

 

 

 

 

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

how are regulations in manufacturing irrelevent? because it's a valid argument against you? let me break it down for you

 

If you sell a vehicle promising airbags, and it ends up not having airbags when someone crashes and flies through the front windshield, you're responsible for that sh*t.

 

If you sell a video game promising heists but don't deliver, tough sh*t to the consumer. Didn't cause him any pain & suffering, just disappointment.

I can see what you're saying.

 

It's logically the same though, the concept anyways.

 

From peanuts to multimillion dollar mansions.

 

Getting ripped off is getting ripped off.

this guy gets it. Hats off to you sir. The white knights around here have rock stars cock so far up their ass it's jabbing at their brain. They can't think straight. All they can think of is rock stars cock.

 

It's because of retards like these that game developers get away with so much bullsh*t nowadays. The future of gaming guys.

[k33g]

Was waiting for someone to call me a R* dickrider

 

I'm not defending rockstar in any way, their business practices are a little shady. The point I'm trying to make is

 

get used to it. bitching isn't going to change a damn thing.

[Static]

this guy gets it. Hats off to you sir. The white knights around here have rock stars cock so far up their ass it's jabbing at their brain. They can't think straight. All they can think of is rock stars cock.

It's because of retards like these that game developers get away with so much bullsh*t nowadays. The future of gaming guys.

 

 

*sigh* Immaturity confirmed. And if anyone is ridin dick here, it'd be you ridin OPs. It's retards like you that are dropping the global IQ level. Congrats on your lack of comprehension skills. I really hope you dont plan on procreating, and before you have to goolge that, it means reproducing, but you'll still probably have to look that up.

Edited September 15, 2014 by StaticLW

[brose_sfr]

I saw a trailer for this movie...

 

in the trailer I saw Tom Lennon (RENO911).

 

i took my wife see this movie because Tom Lennon was shown in the trailer. $60 & 112 minutes later the movie ended & no Tom Lennon. (his scene was cut out of the final edit)

 

should I sue?

 

should I run to a form & complain?

 

no. I should accept that some things happen & some things don't.

 

MAYBE Rockstar can't get Heist to work properly. MAYBE they bit off more than they could chew.

MAYBE they Heist were a f*cking myth to distract from the lack of the Stock Market.

 

if Heist are every released, they will be the equivalent of doing 3 missions in a row. they will be a shell of what they were in SP & IMO, the Heist missions wernt that great. they were slighty challenging compared to the regular missions.

 

meh.

 

complaining disgust me.

 

[actions>words]

[Khelandros]

 

 

 

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

Hey there young person. Hate to break it to you but you paid for GTAV. Which was a complete game, as advertised. Online was added later as a FREE element. So yes, you got what you paid for, and you are bitching about free stuff.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Khelandros

[VolkXue]

 

 

 

 

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

Hey there young person. Hate to break it to you but you paid for GTAV. Which was a complete game, as advertised. Online was added later as a FREE element. So yes, you got what you paid for, and you are bitching about free stuff.

 

Wow, online wasnt advertised along with heists before release as a long term plan for this game and R*? I must have dreamed that whole 5 minute online pre-release trailer..

[Darth_Rob]

If a company constantly puts false promises on a game package and doesn't deliver, people will stop buying their product. I don't think there's a need for a lawsuit. The market will handle it.

[k33g]

If a company constantly puts false promises on a game package and doesn't deliver, people will stop buying their product. I don't think there's a need for a lawsuit. The market will handle it.

EXACTLY. Our society is so damn sue-happy, it's not the solution for every little problem.

[rharri02]

 

 

 

 

LMAO don't give me that bullsh*t. Regulations in manufacturing are irrelevant. We're talking about the price of an item and getting what you paid for.

 

Hey there young person. Hate to break it to you but you paid for GTAV. Which was a complete game, as advertised. Online was added later as a FREE element. So yes, you got what you paid for, and you are bitching about free stuff.

 

Hate to break it to you, but Online is PART of GTA V. That's why the game box states "Featuring" (as in that it is included). Online is part of the complete gaming experience with GTA V. That's why the stories somewhat intertwine... That's why it has a lot of the same story characters... That's why it's in the same in-game region. They are two parts of one whole game. Online is not simply a "FREE element." Can you play Online without the game disc/game purchase? Nope. That means Online is part of GTA V. If they were two separate game entities then this would be a different story.