Pacific Standard Kuruma method patched?

[JuniorChubb]

I love how people just keep repeating "not working as intended" as if they were on the programming team and they know.

I know dude, I was in a thread about Pegassi cars the other day and people kept mentioning something called a Vacca.

Funny how the content of a thread reflects the title and what is being discussed (I can play sarcasm too )

 

Anyway sarcasm aside...

 

Up to a certain point in the thread this "not working as intended" was up for discussion. Some people claimed the game was designed to let you use PV's in the PSJ finale where as others claimed the opposite, the game was not designed to let you use PV's in the PSJ finale but due to an oversight you could.

 

Without being on the R* programming design team we could only really express an opinion what was intended.

 

Then during the course of the thread two posts arrived that confirmed one view to be correct and the other to be a fallacy.

 

One confirmed using a PV in the PSJ finale escape was an 'issue that needs addressing'.

 

From Rockstar Support website -

 

Glitch, the pacific standard final: https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/204646617-Glitch-the-pacific-standard-final?page=1#comments

 

Official comment - 'We are aware of this issue. We will make a KB article about it when the issue is resolved.'

 

The other (posted by b00yaka) confirms using a PV in the PSJ finale escape was not 'part of the game design'.

 

 

R* reply - 'Players will not be able to use personal vehicles anymore such as the Kuruma in the Pacific Standard Mission as per the game design'.

 

These are both solid examples that using a PV in the PSJ finale was a feature of the game that was not what R* had intended.

 

The phrase keeps getting re-used as despite evidence to the contrary people keep coming back and claiming the opposite, every time that happens the 'phrase that pays' will make an appearance.

 

IIRC correctly you actually put two decent questions up regarding the use of PV's in this thread, what happened to that guy?

[CarnageRacing00]

Darth, all you have to do is use a litttle deductive reasoning. We may never get an official answer from Rockstar, (other than the two R* responses that people seem to argue the exact meaning of) but we can use what we already know to come up with a pretty likely answer:

 

The Kuruma loophole was not intended by Rockstar.

 

Why would they make their "penultimate" GTA Online Heist mission so incredibly easy? It just doesn't make sense. Kuruma removes nearly all of the challenge from the mission.

 

Some people argue that the SWAT van does too- i disagree. You still have to steal the SWAT van, it doesn't have bulletproof tires, and it's super slow.

 

On top of that, "request personal vehicle" is disabled. Why disable it if you were meant to have access to your personal vehicles?

 

Don't forgot that it was not solely the Kuruma that was accessible - it was the GARAGE, which could contain any of your cars.

 

Like I said, vehicles like the Armored Kuruma, Insurgent Pickup, and Technical clearly were meant to be special vehicles before Rockstar had the sense to tie special vehicles to their own system. It's pretty clear that they understood how those special vehicles made the game too easy, and that's why they put all of the new Special Vehicles into their own category and restricted them from everything but freemode.

 

So again, not likely we'll ever get a definite answer, but all signs point to the idea that you were never meant to use the Kuruma. There is a lot more evidence supporting that idea than there is to support the idea that it was intentional.

Edited February 2, 2017 by CarnageRacing00

[x_TestsubjecT_x]

First time poster longtime lurker....

Please do tell us the details of the heli method Testsubject.... would love to know.

Always interested in a new way to do this heist.

Thanks in advance.

x_TestsubjecT_x x_TestsubjecT_x

 

 

Well the chopper spawns at the Vespucci police station. This is the only one we have been able to find it.

 

If you go straight from the bank the chopper won't be there. I've never been a big fan of using the suicide option but it does work to bring everyone to the bikes. Still destroy the bikes. Its at this point the chopper will spawn at the police station.

 

Once that is done keep the money carrier at the bottom of the stairs for cover and two players defend the area from the cops and if possible keep them at a bit of a distance. You want to keep the area as clear as possible for the chopper to land on the rd.

 

The fourth player needs to get a car, usually a cop car will be the first to show. Now off the the chopper. We have tried bringing everyone to the chopper but find its smoother if everyone stays with the money while 1 player goes for the chopper. Using 1 player also helps with reliable spawning of the chopper.

 

There is a few cops kicking around the station but not too many. Once you are on top of the station knock down the cop heli so you can leave in your own chopper without any fuss.

 

Pick everyone up and fly directly to the boat..

 

It is hairy which is definitely part of the excitement but I'm sure you will get it down quickly. I'm not saying its the best way or anything like that but its a blast and we just have it working well.

 

If you haven't climbed the Vespucci station before, do it before you go on the heist. There is a stairway inside the compound that takes you up the first lvl. There is a handrail you can jump onto another section of the roof that will give you access to ladders to get the rest of the way. Cops on the ground are not a problem at this point.

 

More often than not we don't lose money. I hope you give it a try and it works well for you to. Another poster suggested this may be too much with randoms and they are probably right.

[0cta]

Anyone already mentioned that even Lester heavily implies not to use the Kuruma?

 

In Fleeca, he mentions 2 things:

- Using an armored car is a sign of paranoia, so there aren't many around

- We can't simply purchase it for ourself because of a paper trail which would lead directly to us.

 

 

Sure, avoid any traces for a small bank joint job, but use your own car while robbing the 2nd largest bank in LS.

 

BTW there aren't that many set ups which would get our PVs in direct contact with law enforcement.

[Rashkovskys Shiv]

There is no such thing as "play it the way Rockstar intended",

For one thing

How is it that when you blow up the bikes, the text changes from get on the bikes to head to the Canyon?

Which means use whatever means to get there.

Also there is the option to drive straight to the dingy.

Or you can drive up the Canyon past the bridge and drive down without parachuting.

In 2 years of grinding this heist, I probably on parachutes with bikes less than 5 times.

Not to mention the setups which are I man jobs except for Hack and Bikes.

Its still amazing when I play and other players that are high level just don't know about alternative ways to complete these heists which are just like contact missions with story.

[kenmy13999]

Is it better to park your car outside the bank before you rob it than getting your car a few blocks away from the bank after the robbery?

[SaltyGTAFMember]

There is no such thing as "play it the way Rockstar intended",

For one thing

How is it that when you blow up the bikes, the text changes from get on the bikes to head to the Canyon?

Which means use whatever means to get there.

Also there is the option to drive straight to the dingy.

Or you can drive up the Canyon past the bridge and drive down without parachuting.

In 2 years of grinding this heist, I probably on parachutes with bikes less than 5 times.

Not to mention the setups which are I man jobs except for Hack and Bikes.

Its still amazing when I play and other players that are high level just don't know about alternative ways to complete these heists which are just like contact missions with story.

 

That made no sense as you have to drive it off the cliff and it will be destroyed.

They also made it so other cars spawned on the street, they allowed you to steal those.

 

Rockstar didn't chain you to the bikes and say you have to use these bikes after you hit the checkpoint.

 

Just like you was not suppose to go in your garage and cheat a armored car out.

That is not a loophole but a glitch, a loophole would of been the helicopter that spawns in the mission which got removed.

Edited February 2, 2017 by DoucheBagForum

[Duamephisto]

Btw the close app final repeat still works, just the timing has changed.

 

I did not have time yet to try but can you explain the change in timing?

[OfficialTwiggz]

Please don't go into a thread on a forum, complain that people are discussing (how very dare they), then tell someone to "f*ck off".

 

You don't think a thread is necessary, report it, and move on.

Sir, if I may...

 

Nobody is discussing anything any more. There's absolutely nothing to be discussed. It's a dead horse and people are still beating it after days of it rotting.

 

How you let this thread continue is crazy.

 

It's back and forth bickering from two sides:

 

One side being - That's not how Rockstar intended the heist to be played.

The other being - I can play it how I want to play it.

 

Rockstar support already said they stopped people from using their personal vehicles. I mean what else is there to discuss?

[elfoam]

 

Btw the close app final repeat still works, just the timing has changed.

I did not have time yet to try but can you explain the change in timing?

 

You close it after the bridge apparently. I'm not into hiest glitching myself, I enjoy the cars.

[kenmy13999]

I don't think getting in your garage can be called a glitch, for it to be a glitch you have to do something to make the game behave in a way it wasn't supposed to do and walking over to the blue circle to get in is IMO not a glitch.

People can argue the fact that you weren't supposed to get in your garage in the heist, but since you can get in your garage in contact missions, it's a game design and therefore not a glitch but rather an option and r* took away that option

 

Here is something I copied from Wikipedia about glitches, it's not related to gtao but GTA Iv:

There are also physics glitches, such as the glitch with the swingset in Grand Theft Auto: IV, where if the player climbs on top of the swingset, the shaking of its chains will cause the physics to oversell the impact and send the player flying a great distance away.

 

If you had to do something like this (this is just an example, but most people here will understand what I mean) to get in your garage it would have been a glitch IMO

If we take from the last sentence and change a bit of the ending: send the player flying in to his garage

 

English is not my first language and I'm not very good at explaining and this is just my opinion about if it was a glitch or not

[Rockstar_Fanboy]

 

 

 

 

 

After looping this off and on for years, and banking big bucks, the patching of this really won't effect me. It's ironic, but my group was just saying last night, let's do this with the bikes, it's become too boring with the Kuruma.

 

But this is my fairness problem with it: Rock Star prices the in game stuff at a certain price. Decisions to buy or not buy something include many variables, one of which is the usefulness of an item. Me, I personally purchased a number of Kurumas (in case one gets blown up it's nice to have a back up) and that apartment BECAUSE this was permitted (and for all the people saying, this wasn't what Rock Star intended, you are supposed to ride the bikes, you are missing the point. Rock Star allowed you to do it. By closing off access to the garages now, Rock Star is proving they could have done this when the Heists launched. They chose not to). So the unfairness comes in charging you X amount of dollars for items based on what you believed you could use them for--after spending said money, they alter the use of those items.

 

I guess Rock Star will offer us a full refund for the Kuruma and that apartment building. If someone could kindly point in the direction to claim this full refund, I would appreciate it.

C'mon man. You almost certainly made that money back many times over, if you've played the heist enough to get bored with the method. That apartment is dirt cheap and the Kuruma doesn't cost that much either. And if you bought "a number" of them, that's just you pissing away money, which isn't Rockstar's fault. You only ever needed to remember to call Mors Mutual. Worst case scenario, you buy two (one as a backup) and leave it at that. But even if you filled that entire garage with six Kurumas, I'm guessing your easy profits and perfect takes made up the difference. You're gonna be fine. The car itself is still immensely useful in other heists and setup missions, almost all contact missions, and even free roam (unless you come near me - then your ass is going to explode, but that's another story).

 

Let me give you another example to underscore my point (sort of based on real life events with your response worked in there): Let's say you bought a PS3 because one of the biggest selling features is that it was backwards compatible with the PS2. You play the sh*t out of PS2 games for about 3 years. Soon we find out that the PS3 is having some overheating issues, and Sony tells you that one of the problems is that it is overheating because of the backwards compatibility issue (this is what they eventually told me). They start making new machines that are no longer backwards compatible. When my machine breaks, I send it back in, and they send me a new machine that isn't backwards compatible. I complain, telling them that I bought this is large part because it was backwards compatible, playing those games a ton. Their response is, "comon man, you got your moneys worth." Make you feel better? Sound like a good response to you?

This is where you are wrong.

 

*You bought said system. System overheats.

*They say it's because of backwards compatibily.

*They replace your system (for free I presume)

*With non backwards compatible system.

 

You're too dense to realize that they're not going to keep on giving you a system that is backwards compatible, because every other week or month, you're going to run into the same issue over and over again. They pay for postage (I presume again), and you pay nothing.

 

Buy a cheap PS2 and play your games on that, or upgrade.

I bought a PS2 and 11 games for $35 a few months ago.

 

ANYWAY, we're getting off topic.

 

Nobody forced you to pay for the apartment. Nobody forced you to buy one, let alone six kurumas. That was your doing. You are not owed anything in return. This method is patched (for the time being) because it is not how Rockstar intended you to complete the heist. Point blank.

 

What would have been funny is if you got all the way to the jump point near the military base with the kuruma and it told you to collect the bikes with two minutes left.

 

You are calling people names and you don't have all the facts. It was a $100 to get the "new system." My research revealed that Sony went cheap on the fan to save money, because, well, systems are typically sold as a loss with money made up on the games. This is one of the many reasons you don't want to start with name calling.

 

Whether forced to buy these things or not (of course I wasn't), is another red herring. Based on usability information, I bought a Kuruma. After taking my full money, they alter said usability because it benefits them. It is materially unfair to alter the use of an item after the consumer has purchased said item. I am struggling to understand why you are having such a hard time following along.

 

You ALSO have no idea why it was patched (since I assume you are not a Rock Star employee or at their meetings). It is equally plausible that Rock Star left it in there thinking it would never be used to such an extent that it would cut into their profits. They then altered it to increase Shark Card sales. I am NOT saying this is why, just that if we are going with speculation, then I will suggest this possibility.

 

You wouldn't want mid=-term grades for your post, but here they are anyway....F.

The big problem with your point is it's based off your personal assumption of what said items could do. R* didn't change anything about the car or the apartment so your argument is mute.

 

Your issue with the PlayStation is in no way relatable because you are comparing an advertised feature of the PlayStation 2 with your assumption of the value of a virtual item.

 

 

I don't think you know what the word "mute" means, which is a shame, really.

@ Rockstar_fanboy... Embarrassing, just embarrassing!... Are you .Vooodu in disguise? A deliberately antagonistic prick now! Completely deluded.

 

@ Giantsgiants... Oh yes it is, no, wait, your right... To have to go back to use an exploit to cheat an easy win is even lower. No excuses for that kind of weakness i'm afraid...

 

Another who can't respond to my position so he resorts to name calling...Next.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Rockstar_Fanboy

[Rockstar_Fanboy]

 

I love how people just keep repeating "not working as intended" as if they were on the programming team and they know.

I know dude, I was in a thread about Pegassi cars the other day and people kept mentioning something called a Vacca.

Funny how the content of a thread reflects the title and what is being discussed (I can play sarcasm too )

 

Anyway sarcasm aside...

 

Up to a certain point in the thread this "not working as intended" was up for discussion. Some people claimed the game was designed to let you use PV's in the PSJ finale where as others claimed the opposite, the game was not designed to let you use PV's in the PSJ finale but due to an oversight you could.

 

Without being on the R* programming design team we could only really express an opinion what was intended.

 

Then during the course of the thread two posts arrived that confirmed one view to be correct and the other to be a fallacy.

 

One confirmed using a PV in the PSJ finale escape was an 'issue that needs addressing'.

 

From Rockstar Support website -

 

Glitch, the pacific standard final: https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/204646617-Glitch-the-pacific-standard-final?page=1#comments

 

Official comment - 'We are aware of this issue. We will make a KB article about it when the issue is resolved.'

 

The other (posted by b00yaka) confirms using a PV in the PSJ finale escape was not 'part of the game design'.

 

 

R* reply - 'Players will not be able to use personal vehicles anymore such as the Kuruma in the Pacific Standard Mission as per the game design'.

 

These are both solid examples that using a PV in the PSJ finale was a feature of the game that was not what R* had intended.

 

The phrase keeps getting re-used as despite evidence to the contrary people keep coming back and claiming the opposite, every time that happens the 'phrase that pays' will make an appearance.

 

IIRC correctly you actually put two decent questions up regarding the use of PV's in this thread, what happened to that guy?

 

 

And here is the problem we have in these discussions--people don't ascribe the ordinary meaning to words that appear before them. Where does this piece ever talk about RS original intention? Read it again carefully. It doesn't. It just says you "no longer will be able to use personal vehicles anymore as per game design". Why? They don't say the reason they changed their mind. Here is what people do:

 

I believe it was never meant for you to use personal vehicles in the finale.

Rockstar confirms that you can no longer use them.

This confirms my belief.

 

The truth is, NONE OF US know if Rock Star originally intended for us to use them, or it was an oversight. We can try to draw logical inferences from stuff in the game, but nothing will tell us intent. It's logical to assume that changing it might mean it was never intended. It is also logical to look at all the other set-ups and finales that allow you to use PV's and conclude that RS changed this for some other reason (like people were making too much money off of it, doing it too much at the expense of others, etc). Again, read the words that appear before you and give them their ordinary meaning-don't read something into the actual words. That response from RS never tells you why it was changed. True story bro...

Edited February 2, 2017 by Rockstar_Fanboy

[JuniorChubb]

 

The big problem with your point is it's based off your personal assumption of what said items could do. R* didn't change anything about the car or the apartment so your argument is mute.

I don't think you know what the word "mute" means, which is a shame, really.

 

I would guess he meant moot.

[We Are Ninja]

There is no such thing as "play it the way Rockstar intended",

For one thing

How is it that when you blow up the bikes, the text changes from get on the bikes to head to the Canyon?

Which means use whatever means to get there.

Also there is the option to drive straight to the dingy.

Or you can drive up the Canyon past the bridge and drive down without parachuting...

I'd imagine it's because they knew that not everyone would be able to make it to the boats with the bikes. It was common sense that someone would inadvertently destroy a bike, toss a bike into the lake, lose sight of their own bike and grab he nearest vehicle with intact tires, etc. Options were necessary. As far as alternate routes, Lester literally tells you to follow the route or go a different way... "Just get to the dinghy."

Edited February 2, 2017 by We Are Ninja

[JuniorChubb]

And here is the problem we have in these discussions--people don't ascribe the ordinary meaning to words that appear before them. Where does this piece ever talk about RS original intention? Read it again carefully. It doesn't. It just says you "no longer will be able to use personal vehicles anymore as per game design". Why? They don't say the reason they changed their mind. Here is what people do:

 

I believe it was never meant for you to use personal vehicles in the finale.

Rockstar confirms that you can no longer use them.

This confirms my belief.

 

The truth is, NONE OF US know if Rock Star originally intended for us to use them, or it was an oversight. We can try to draw logical inferences from stuff in the game, but nothing will tell us intent. It's logical to assume that changing it might mean it was never intended. It is also logical to look at all the other set-ups and finales that allow you to use PV's and conclude that RS changed this for some other reason (like people were making too much money off of it, doing it too much at the expense of others, etc). Again, read the words that appear before you and give them their ordinary meaning-don't read something into the actual words. That response from RS never tells you why it was changed. True story bro...

Design: Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object (original intention).

 

That means before, not after. The Game Design is decided before the product hits the public, not afterwards. The game design can be changed, but if you want to continue to split hairs over it and over dissect it as you have, R* would have to use the word 'change' for them to mean after its release.

 

If you are suggesting the word Design means something different in this case, then you are not 'ascribing the normal meaning to the word'. It would be nice if you shared what 'design' means in this case seeing as for some reason it does not mean design.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JuniorChubb

[CarnageRacing00]

 

 

 

 

And here is the problem we have in these discussions--people don't ascribe the ordinary meaning to words that appear before them. Where does this piece ever talk about RS original intention? Read it again carefully. It doesn't. It just says you "no longer will be able to use personal vehicles anymore as per game design". Why? They don't say the reason they changed their mind. Here is what people do:

 

I believe it was never meant for you to use personal vehicles in the finale.

Rockstar confirms that you can no longer use them.

This confirms my belief.

 

The truth is, NONE OF US know if Rock Star originally intended for us to use them, or it was an oversight. We can try to draw logical inferences from stuff in the game, but nothing will tell us intent. It's logical to assume that changing it might mean it was never intended. It is also logical to look at all the other set-ups and finales that allow you to use PV's and conclude that RS changed this for some other reason (like people were making too much money off of it, doing it too much at the expense of others, etc). Again, read the words that appear before you and give them their ordinary meaning-don't read something into the actual words. That response from RS never tells you why it was changed. True story bro...

 

Here's the thing - this is a way bigger deal to us than it is to Rockstar. They have no reason to explain why the Kuruma method was ever possible. The simple fact is that it once was, and now it's not.

 

I don't think Rockstar is going to go out of their way to state "Yeah it was an oversight that we just dragged our feet on fixing because we had a lot of major content we were working on (CEO, MC, I/E)" even though that's MOST LIKELY the true reason.

 

But you're right, NONE OF US KNOW, we CAN try to draw logical conclusions and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

The PROBLEM is that we will likely never have a DEFINITE answer, so this is just a big circle jerk anymore. I tend to think that Rockstar's responses posted in this thread should be enough of an answer... but regardless, knowing the answer doesn't change anything, so ultimately there's just no point in arguing about it anymore.

 

The only reason there might be to continue debating this is trying to determine whether or not players have reason to feel cheated (they don't).

Edited February 2, 2017 by CarnageRacing00

[brose_sfr]

@Rockstar_fanboy

 

the fact that you cannot call your mechanic for a PV means the bikes were intended to be used in the finale.

 

yes there are vehicles on the street that you can steal.

 

why?

 

because sometimes you get knocked off your bike & can't get back to it without failing the heist.

 

it's seems like you're just trying to win a petty argument.

[JuniorChubb]

@Rockstar_fanboy

 

the fact that you cannot call your mechanic for a PV means the bikes were intended to be used in the finale.

 

yes there are vehicles on the street that you can steal.

 

why?

 

because sometimes you get knocked off your bike & can't get back to it without failing the heist.

 

it's seems like you're just trying to win a petty argument.

I would go with sustain a petty argument, there will be now winner here.

[Rockstar_Fanboy]

 

And here is the problem we have in these discussions--people don't ascribe the ordinary meaning to words that appear before them. Where does this piece ever talk about RS original intention? Read it again carefully. It doesn't. It just says you "no longer will be able to use personal vehicles anymore as per game design". Why? They don't say the reason they changed their mind. Here is what people do:

 

I believe it was never meant for you to use personal vehicles in the finale.

Rockstar confirms that you can no longer use them.

This confirms my belief.

 

The truth is, NONE OF US know if Rock Star originally intended for us to use them, or it was an oversight. We can try to draw logical inferences from stuff in the game, but nothing will tell us intent. It's logical to assume that changing it might mean it was never intended. It is also logical to look at all the other set-ups and finales that allow you to use PV's and conclude that RS changed this for some other reason (like people were making too much money off of it, doing it too much at the expense of others, etc). Again, read the words that appear before you and give them their ordinary meaning-don't read something into the actual words. That response from RS never tells you why it was changed. True story bro...

Design: Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object (original intention).

 

That means before, not after. The Game Design is decided before the product hits the public, not afterwards. The game design can be changed, but if you want to continue to split hairs over it and over dissect it as you have, R* would have to use the word 'change' for them to mean after its release.

 

If you are suggesting the word Design means something different in this case, then you are not 'ascribing the normal meaning to the word'. It would be nice if you shared what 'design' means in this case seeing as for some reason it does not mean design.

 

 

That would have been a fine argument if it said "per the game's original design." The way that is worded says you can't use PV's in PSJ per game design (which could simply mean the game design as it presently exists). You know, the design can change.

 

As a funny aside, here is definition # 15 of design from wikipedia.com:

 

designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives:

 

Now I do believe that Rock Star did in fact have a "design" when they made this change.

[JuniorChubb]

That would have been a fine argument if it said "per the game's original design." The way that is worded says you can't use PV's in PSJ per game design (which could simply mean the game design as it presently exists). You know, the design can change.

I am so tempted to post a face palm pic here its unreal, I will resist the urge to do that and resist the urge to go further into the meaning of the word design.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree RFB.

 

Carnages last post made me think though, I have to ask. Do you feel cheated by R* over this whole thing?

 

 

As a funny aside, here is definition # 15 of design from wikipedia.com:

 

designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives:

 

Now I do believe that Rock Star did in fact have a "design" when they made this change.

Nice

Edited February 2, 2017 by JuniorChubb

[kenmy13999]

If R* first intended that we could use PV in the the heist, they wouldn't admit that this was intended after they changed their mind and took away that option. And for the answers: we are aware of the issue, can be as simple as they are aware of it because it was intended

The other answer: players can no longer use pv in the heist as per game design, they changed the game design so people no longer can access their garage per new game design

My point is those answers are kind of diffuse so they can be interpreted in several ways and they don't necessarily confirm anything

This is of course my opinion and nothing more

 

Edit: why did r* change that players only could enter pv inside garages if it were never intended to use pv?

 

And for the people saying you can't request pv in the heist, that is noe entirely true because I've had my pv delivered up the road from the dingy. My car drowned in the river and I called MMI and requested pv through interaction menu and it was delivered. Only tried this once so don't know if this was a one time thing

Edited February 2, 2017 by kenmy13999

[Rockstar_Fanboy]

 

 

 

 

 

And here is the problem we have in these discussions--people don't ascribe the ordinary meaning to words that appear before them. Where does this piece ever talk about RS original intention? Read it again carefully. It doesn't. It just says you "no longer will be able to use personal vehicles anymore as per game design". Why? They don't say the reason they changed their mind. Here is what people do:

 

I believe it was never meant for you to use personal vehicles in the finale.

Rockstar confirms that you can no longer use them.

This confirms my belief.

 

The truth is, NONE OF US know if Rock Star originally intended for us to use them, or it was an oversight. We can try to draw logical inferences from stuff in the game, but nothing will tell us intent. It's logical to assume that changing it might mean it was never intended. It is also logical to look at all the other set-ups and finales that allow you to use PV's and conclude that RS changed this for some other reason (like people were making too much money off of it, doing it too much at the expense of others, etc). Again, read the words that appear before you and give them their ordinary meaning-don't read something into the actual words. That response from RS never tells you why it was changed. True story bro...

 

Here's the thing - this is a way bigger deal to us than it is to Rockstar. They have no reason to explain why the Kuruma method was ever possible. The simple fact is that it once was, and now it's not.

 

I don't think Rockstar is going to go out of their way to state "Yeah it was an oversight that we just dragged our feet on fixing because we had a lot of major content we were working on (CEO, MC, I/E)" even though that's MOST LIKELY the true reason.

 

But you're right, NONE OF US KNOW, we CAN try to draw logical conclusions and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

The PROBLEM is that we will likely never have a DEFINITE answer, so this is just a big circle jerk anymore. I tend to think that Rockstar's responses posted in this thread should be enough of an answer... but regardless, knowing the answer doesn't change anything, so ultimately there's just no point in arguing about it anymore.

 

The only reason there might be to continue debating this is trying to determine whether or not players have reason to feel cheated (they don't).

 

 

This is probably the most sensible post on the topic so far, and all that I was really trying to say.

 

I do think letting people use real money to buy fake in game stuff when it was well known that you could use these items in that fashion without offering them a refund of in game money is a legit reason to feel cheated. I have also said that under the terms and agreements, RS has an absolute right to do this, so one is NOT entitled to such a refund, it is an appeal to fairness. I know others don't agree with this.

If R* first intended that we could use PV in the the heist, they wouldn't admit that this was intended after they changed their mind and took away that option. And for the answers: we are aware of the issue, can be as simple as they are aware of it because it was intended

The other answer: players can no longer use pv in the heist as per game design, they changed the game design so people no longer can access their garage per new game design

My point is those answers are kind of diffuse so they can be interpreted in several ways and they don't necessarily confirm anything

This is of course my opinion and nothing more

 

Kenny, I agree 100%. That response was intentionally written loosely because RS doesn't want us to know what their original intent was. It would have been completely different, for example, if the line read like this:

 

"Players will no longer be able to use personal vehicles such as the Kuruma consistent with our intentions in the original game design."

 

Not only would that be clear, but they would be admitting that it was an oversight on their part, that they allowed it to exist for some reason for 2 years, and NOW they were changing it. The way the statement is written allows for the possibility that they knew all along this was possible, but it isn't NOW with the current game design.

 

Billion dollar companies like RS/TT carefully craft messages they send to their customers. The wording of this was NOT an accident.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Rockstar_Fanboy

[Rockstar_Fanboy]

 

That would have been a fine argument if it said "per the game's original design." The way that is worded says you can't use PV's in PSJ per game design (which could simply mean the game design as it presently exists). You know, the design can change.

I am so tempted to post a face palm pic here its unreal, I will resist the urge to do that and resist the urge to go further into the meaning of the word design.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree RFB.

 

Carnages last post made me think though, I have to ask. Do you feel cheated by R* over this whole thing?

 

As a funny aside, here is definition # 15 of design from wikipedia.com:

 

designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives:

 

Now I do believe that Rock Star did in fact have a "design" when they made this change.

Nice

 

 

I do think what they did stinks, but I guess I really don't because i wasn't planning on using the Kuruma to complete the heist anymore, I just got bored of it. I do think they did players who used real money to buy a Kuruma specifically for this purpose dirty, You know there are new players who signed up in December who did exactly this. So, my take really is about principle more than feeling personally screwed.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Rockstar_Fanboy

[CarnageRacing00]

 

 

 

 

 

I do think letting people use real money to buy fake in game stuff when it was well known that you could use these items in that fashion without offering them a refund of in game money is a legit reason to feel cheated. I have also said that under the terms and agreements, RS has an absolute right to do this, so one is NOT entitled to such a refund, it is an appeal to fairness. I know others don't agree with this.

I can agree on principal - but at the same time, it's up to the consumer to make those decisions. I personally don't like the idea of paying money for an online game which, at some point, can be shut down and you will no longer be able to play it. I have too many games on my shelf or in my Steam account that are, for all intents and purposes, useless, because the servers are gone and there were no provisions in place to allow private servers to run the games.

 

Knowing that the amount of time I've put into GTA Online can just be erased with nothing to show for it one day DOES bother me, but to be fair, that bothers me about every game that is designed this way.

 

BUT... I make the choice to play it. There IS a single player counterpart, and while it does lack the amazing content being released for GTAO, there is at least some version of the game that I CAN play for the theoretical eternity.

 

My hope is that when the current version of GTA O gets shut down so the next iteration can launch, Rockstar will release all applicable content from GTAO to single player - cars, planes, special vehicles, race creator mode, etc, so that we can access this content as long as we have a copy of the game.

 

Realistically, I expect the next incarnation of GTAO to include the majority of existing content (maybe excluding the less popular vehicles and game modes), and that GTAO will be a mainstay for a long as people continue to play it. Maybe not in its current form, but you can expect Rockstar will keep it alive.

[kenmy13999]

 

Please don't go into a thread on a forum, complain that people are discussing (how very dare they), then tell someone to "f*ck off".

 

You don't think a thread is necessary, report it, and move on.

Sir, if I may...

 

Nobody is discussing anything any more. There's absolutely nothing to be discussed. It's a dead horse and people are still beating it after days of it rotting.

 

How you let this thread continue is crazy.

 

It's back and forth bickering from two sides:

 

One side being - That's not how Rockstar intended the heist to be played.

The other being - I can play it how I want to play it.

 

Rockstar support already said they stopped people from using their personal vehicles. I mean what else is there to discuss?

You know you can just ignore the thread and don't come in here?

[OfficialTwiggz]

 

 

Please don't go into a thread on a forum, complain that people are discussing (how very dare they), then tell someone to "f*ck off".

 

You don't think a thread is necessary, report it, and move on.

Sir, if I may...

 

Nobody is discussing anything any more. There's absolutely nothing to be discussed. It's a dead horse and people are still beating it after days of it rotting.

 

How you let this thread continue is crazy.

 

It's back and forth bickering from two sides:

 

One side being - That's not how Rockstar intended the heist to be played.

The other being - I can play it how I want to play it.

 

Rockstar support already said they stopped people from using their personal vehicles. I mean what else is there to discuss?

You know you can just ignore the thread and don't come in here?

Holy sh*t, that's an opinion?

 

Seriously, I know. But when mods allow other threads to get locked because "they're going nowhere", yet let threads like this continue, it's a little unbiased.

 

I mean, please explain how this thread could continue? We aren't going to get a straight answer from Rockstar, I can tell you that. Unless it's a question in a Q&A later in the year.

 

Every single possibility has been said, including Rockstar being greedy.

 

It was never intended for you to use your personal vehicle. It's coded into the dialogue and into the game that you ride the bikes to the canyon. That's it. No kuruma. "BUT WAIT YOU CAN USE THE SWAT VAN"

 

Okay, then use that. Or a random car off the street. "BUT WAIT IF ROCKSTAR ALLOWS THAT THEN HOW COME NOT THE KURUMA?"

 

Because the kuruma method doesn't really allow you to lose money. "SO ROCKSTAR IS GREEDY????"

 

Yeah. Close thread lol

[kenmy13999]

 

 

 

Please don't go into a thread on a forum, complain that people are discussing (how very dare they), then tell someone to "f*ck off".

 

You don't think a thread is necessary, report it, and move on.

Sir, if I may...

 

Nobody is discussing anything any more. There's absolutely nothing to be discussed. It's a dead horse and people are still beating it after days of it rotting.

 

How you let this thread continue is crazy.

 

It's back and forth bickering from two sides:

 

One side being - That's not how Rockstar intended the heist to be played.

The other being - I can play it how I want to play it.

 

Rockstar support already said they stopped people from using their personal vehicles. I mean what else is there to discuss?

You know you can just ignore the thread and don't come in here?Holy sh*t, that's an opinion?

 

Seriously, I know. But when mods allow other threads to get locked because "they're going nowhere", yet let threads like this continue, it's a little unbiased.

 

I mean, please explain how this thread could continue? We aren't going to get a straight answer from Rockstar, I can tell you that. Unless it's a question in a Q&A later in the year.

 

Every single possibility has been said, including Rockstar being greedy.

 

It was never intended for you to use your personal vehicle. It's coded into the dialogue and into the game that you ride the bikes to the canyon. That's it. No kuruma. "BUT WAIT YOU CAN USE THE SWAT VAN"

 

Okay, then use that. Or a random car off the street. "BUT WAIT IF ROCKSTAR ALLOWS THAT THEN HOW COME NOT THE KURUMA?"

 

Because the kuruma method doesn't really allow you to lose money. "SO ROCKSTAR IS GREEDY????"

 

Yeah. Close thread lol

Yeah, well the mods allows it for now and they make the decision so not much you can do about it except ignore it

Edit: and threads going nowhere are often way off topic, this is pretty much still on topic (IMO)

Edited February 2, 2017 by kenmy13999

[FlacidJack]

 

 

 

 

Please don't go into a thread on a forum, complain that people are discussing (how very dare they), then tell someone to "f*ck off".

You don't think a thread is necessary, report it, and move on.

Sir, if I may...

Nobody is discussing anything any more. There's absolutely nothing to be discussed. It's a dead horse and people are still beating it after days of it rotting.

How you let this thread continue is crazy.

It's back and forth bickering from two sides:

One side being - That's not how Rockstar intended the heist to be played.

The other being - I can play it how I want to play it.

Rockstar support already said they stopped people from using their personal vehicles. I mean what else is there to discuss?

You know you can just ignore the thread and don't come in here?

 

 

Holy sh*t, that's an opinion?

Seriously, I know. But when mods allow other threads to get locked because "they're going nowhere", yet let threads like this continue, it's a little unbiased.

I mean, please explain how this thread could continue? We aren't going to get a straight answer from Rockstar, I can tell you that. Unless it's a question in a Q&A later in the year.

Every single possibility has been said, including Rockstar being greedy.

It was never intended for you to use your personal vehicle. It's coded into the dialogue and into the game that you ride the bikes to the canyon. That's it. No kuruma. "BUT WAIT YOU CAN USE THE SWAT VAN"

Okay, then use that. Or a random car off the street. "BUT WAIT IF ROCKSTAR ALLOWS THAT THEN HOW COME NOT THE KURUMA?"

Because the kuruma method doesn't really allow you to lose money. "SO ROCKSTAR IS GREEDY????"

Yeah. Close thread lol

wow, you must need to attempt to win every debate eh. Must lose a lot though.... just leave, go pretend your the moderator of your fridge or something. Edited February 2, 2017 by FlacidJack

[pptz84]

Although I miss the easy money from the PACS grinding, I think it's a good thing they fixed the kuruma/apartment glitch.

Since December a lot of new players started playing GTA Online.

And to be honest... PACS is a lot more fun on bikes. So actually it's a pity when new players only get to know the heist with a kuruma...

 

Had quite some fun with it last couple of days. Before the fix, no-one even had the chance to step on a bike, since someone would get his Kuruma.

Now, most people step on the bikes, or try to steal a police car or something. A lot of f*ck ups, but also a lot of fun on the way.

 

For grinding with friends, you still can get an armoured van to get the job done without losing much money...