Buying DLC

[Demoz]

Only for SP DLC, as for MP updates, probably not. Probably would have paid for heists though

[Dest45]

I might have but then regretted it later and then not buy any more.

[luisniko]

Yea as long as they give compatibility so I can play with buyers and non buyers.

[dorcy]

i wouldn't pay $100 of real money for an unarmed golden jet and i won't be paying GTA$10mil of pretend money to get it either.

 

GTA$ 60,000 for a f*cking coat! a coat!

 

i've not been ridden this hard since jimmy saville visited my primary school.

[JohnnyVendetta]

They do charge for lazy people. It's called Shark Cards.

[Phyxsius-]

I bought it on 2 platforms - that is 60 + 60. Those money alone should account for at least 4 DLC`s.... MEATY DLC`s, not 2 cars and 2 guns. A DLC like a new map, or 10 Heists, or some amount of real work, not a weekend project.

 

I MIGHT decide to pay for the addition of a full town, but no way in hell I`ll pay for a new parking lot.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Phyxsius-

[CrazyRay]

Why do people even reply to these tired-ass repeat threads?

[P.T.]

One of the few things that Rockstar does that most video game developers don't is that they make their DLCs free for everyone.

 

For example, in GTA, all you have to do is download the new update and the new content is available for you free of charge. Meanwhile, at Call of Duty, you download the new update and you have to pay $15 if you want to play the new maps or zombies.

 

 

So, what if Rockstar followed the "Call of Duty Method" by making you pay for DLCs? Would you pay that fee just for you to get a Zentorno or play heists?

Nope, if they started charging for what they have been giving us for free, id stop buying theirs games. It one of the things that really makes me like them alot. Although , personally i think this new update just plain sucks. I def wouldnt pay anything for it. Its not even that interesting really.

[triplem]

No. And it wont happen either. If someone adds a car someone else has, it would f*ck up online. Unless it was strictly a single player offline DLC.

[xXepicjasaXx]

If Rockstar did bring out DLC that you have to pay for, what would you choose?

[Dumb guy]

What options man

[el carlitos]

A story DLC, like The Lost or TboGT, including a big update for online. For adding a new city like Las Venturas, Liberty City or what ever in the same game (I guess that it´s not going to happen in GTA V) I would pay even the full price of a new game. I guess in GTA 6 we will have more than one City.

[Str33tJustus]

I'd pay real money for Yachts, Mansions, Casino and map extensions.

[Demoz]

Story expansions = Yes. MP updates = No

[TreFacTor]

This has already been asked a dozen times in the last two years....the answer will be map expansions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Close thread

Edited July 9, 2015 by TreFacTor

[b0ssVenom]

Most of the DLC vehicles have their own engine sounds. I chose option 3, because we need a map extension DLC.

[AllanSK8]

If you have a 'real' job then paying 'real' money is no problem so If I really really need some GTA cash then yeah Ill pay 'real' money for some DLC who cares

[Tossin Salad]

I've always had a feeling rockstars ideas is to bring in the rest of the cities

[Coleco]

So far the results seem pretty unanimous... a trip to Liberty City would be more than welcome right about now

 

I wouldn't pay for anything less to be honest - R* have already released cars, missions and clothes for free, so if they started to charge for them it'd be a huge middle finger up at their player base.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Coleco

[lessthan3]

Those options are not very good.

 

If I feel like the value I'll get is worth the price they're asking, then I'll pay it. If not, then I won't. Simple as that.

[kietotheworld]

Would depend what my mates did. I've no objection to paying for DLC in principle - additional stuff costs money to produce - but the main reason I play on GTA is the social aspect. If I can go to Liberty City or play new missions or have stupidly overpowered weapons and my mates can't I'd have little interest in it and I think the vast majority wouldn't pay it.

[Quarthon]

Every year I purchase the new EA NHL hockey games. Every year they release the "new" NHL game and it usually only has a few minor tweaks, kinda like the free tweaks we get in GTAO. Nothing big but enough to want to play with the new content. So in the 2 years that I've been playing GTAO, I've spent exactly zero dollars for new tweaks and content to the game. Sure they arent big upgrades but its free and there isnt many free things these days, especially in video games. On the other hand, I've spent $120 in the same 2 years on NHL games and will spend an additional $60 in September and every September after that.

 

Would I pay for GTAO DLC? I likely would but not at $60 a pop. If it were a $9.99 purchase, yea I likely would. Considering the amount of money I've shelled out for games that sit and collect dust after a year or less, sure I would buy DLC. But considering we dont have to pay for GTAO DLC, I would say we are getting one hell of a deal. It amazes me the amount of spoiled brats that bitch about FREE content while companies like EA make millions releasing a new sports game every year and making us pay full price.

 

oh and OP, Im not insinuating you're complaining about content, I was referring to the crybabies that bitch about the new free content.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Quarthon

[evGTA]

The only thing I'd pay for is a map extension, it would be very cool to visit other areas/cities.

[CrissRiot]

I would pay $9.99 for a large Story Mode dlc pack (You know, the actual expensive to R* side of things.) that integrates with Online (aka Casinos, Arena events).

Otherwise, nope. With the cash card system in-place, it is absolutely unnecessary for me to pay anything for online features and so-far, I've stuck to that.

Edited July 8, 2015 by CrissRiot