GTA 6 Speculation & Discussion [Part 5.69]

[Fail_At_GTA]

On 7/21/2021 at 12:38 PM, Orthur said:

And people were starting to miss Zee 

I havent heard about Zee in years.  Every time anything happened I remember Zee would be there, think he got banned lol.

[DeltaV20]

On 7/21/2021 at 2:34 AM, _MK_ said:

It's an Audi A5 2010-2012. Weird though why did they use a real life car in that art.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Probably the beta version of Obey Tailgater , since it was mainly created for Michael's character R* realized michael's family won't fit in it they made it a 4-door sedan asap   

[BAGS00]

On 7/21/2021 at 2:00 PM, Len Lfc said:

but when you start getting past 6 or 7 years...

"How about a decade my dude?"

-Rockstar

[Jezus Holy Christ]

On 7/21/2021 at 10:28 PM, The Shakermaker said:

Sorry to derail the thread slightly here but what's the issue with eFootball? I havnt looked into fully but I thought the feedback was positive or has that changed a little now?

 

Quick rundown is: No offline game modes, no edit mode, 9 clubs (compared to last year's 500+), 2012 graphics, free-to-play (pay-to-win).

[Len Lfc]

On 7/21/2021 at 8:14 PM, BAGS00 said:

"How about a decade my dude?"

-Rockstar

"How about 15 years?"

-BGS, Elder Scrolls.

[CynicalMexican]

On 7/21/2021 at 12:00 PM, Len Lfc said:

That may be the worst part. But what is equally as depressing is that it takes 5 - 7 years to make a single game these days. We got the Entire Mass Effect trilogy in 4 years and 4 months. The Batman Arkham trilogy in 5 years and 11 months. Yet it's taking Rocksteady 6+ years to release their next game, which is scheduled for 2022, and is likely going to be delayed further. 

 

With all due respect, I'm patient and can wait for games, but when you start getting past 6 or 7 years... that's asking a lot. And that's regardless if you release other games in different series in between. It's perfectly understandable why it takes so long nowadays. But doesn't mean I have to sit their like the dog in the burning house saying "This is fine". Nah, it aint fine. Sorry, but I can respect the truth and still not be very happy with the reality of it.

Let's keep it real, if GTAO failed and all this stupid pay to win crap collapsed, we probably would have another new R* game or two. Not every game will require the same development demands as GTA/RDR

[Len Lfc]

On 7/21/2021 at 9:06 PM, CynicalMexican said:

Let's keep it real, if GTAO failed and all this stupid pay to win crap collapsed, we probably would have another new R* game or two. Not every game will require the same development demands as GTA/RDR

I'm not sure that's true. High quality games taking longer to make is industry wide. Unless you're Ubisoft and can get Assassin's Creed games out every year, or a Far Cry game out every other year. Most big, high quality games take at least 4 or 5 years, these days. If they're open world, maybe even longer.

[Zello]

On 7/21/2021 at 4:10 PM, Len Lfc said:

I'm not sure that's true. High quality games taking longer to make is industry wide. Unless you're Ubisoft and can get Assassin's Creed games out every year, or a Far Cry game out every other year. Most big, high quality games take at least 4 or 5 years, these days. If they're open world, maybe even longer.

Eh the Mafia 1 remake only took 1-2 years.

[ChengizVlad09]

@Kris194 @Len Lfc

 

Talking about the decadence inside the video gaming industry, which I've been literally yapping about for years here to no avail, or proper response whatsoever, lol, and now I'm somewhat glad, that finally, someone speaks the same language. All this talk wasn't some random, general trashing. It was directly pointed at R*/T2 and their games, specifically, the way they are making them. I am of a firm belief, that making movies instead of f'cking video games is one of the trails behind that same decadence, amongs many. Why are games taking so long to be finnished? Imho, it has least to do with complexity of the task at hand. It's a complex, hype making investor's game, that has almost nothing creative to do with video games. Just take Cyberpunk for example. Sure, investors f'cked everything up, but for crying out loud, with all bugs aside, why in the world did they invest so much time in to narrative part? I was watching some YT video and for 20 goddamned minutes or so, they were just talking.. I bet my a$$, if they invested the exact same amount of time in to gameplay part, instead of narrative, that game would still rock with all bugs and negatives. Why do video games have to have such a strong movie alike appearance? Why there have to be so many things and going ons that need to be so heavily narrated? Cutscene, after cutscene. Let me play that f'king thing. I don't want to sit, listen and watch for god's sake, no matter how good it may be. 

Edited July 21, 2021 by ChengizVlad09

[Kris194]

Sorry but we don't speak the same language. Long development cycles are FACT, publishers milking their games is also a FACT but what games you may or may not like is just your opinion. I don't want to go back to it but Cyberpunk is a joke, pre-alpha version released as retail version... I think, that you should stick mostly to old or multiplayer games.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Kris194

[Zapper]

On 7/22/2021 at 1:36 AM, CynicalMexican said:

Let's keep it real, if GTAO failed and all this stupid pay to win crap collapsed, we probably would have another new R* game or two. Not every game will require the same development demands as GTA/RDR

Each Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty takes 3 years to make (different studios working in rotation) with 1000s of devs working on each game. Even TLoU2, which is pretty linear in scope takes 4 years to make with 2000s people working on it. To make something like  RDR2 any company to have spend 6-7 years of easily with 2000s working on it. I'm pretty sure we'd get at best maybe 1 more shorter game between GTAV and RDR2 or some DLC (or RDR2 could've come out 1 year earlier with some cut content). Part of it has to do with current expectations from AAA productions where everything tech related has to be top of the line which takes both time and money. They can't just churn out games like PS2/PS3 days. Rockstar also started working on RDR2 with all of it's studios even back in 2013 so it's very unlikely we'd get another game in the meantime.

On 7/22/2021 at 2:06 AM, ChengizVlad09 said:

why in the world did they invest so much time in to narrative part? I was watching some YT video and for 20 goddamned minutes or so, they were just talking.. I bet my a$$, if they invested the exact same amount of time in to gameplay part, instead of narrative, that game would still rock with all bugs and negatives. Why do video games have to have such a strong movie alike appearance? Why there have to be so many things and going ons that need to be so heavily narrated? Cutscene, after cutscene. Let me play that f'king thing. I don't want to sit, listen and watch for god's sake, no matter how good it may be. . 

Why are you playing a bloody narrative driven RPG then if you don't want the narrative part? It's like playing Planescape Torment and complaining why I have to read all these lines for.

For Cyberpunk or any narrative RPG dialogue and characters and choices are an extremely important part of the world building. Now Cyberpunk didn't do the role playing and choice part very well but that sure as hell one it's damnfocus. Gameplay is much much more than just combat or driving. If you want only that part you've got plenty of other games to play.

[Zapper]

On 7/22/2021 at 2:01 AM, Zello said:

Eh the Mafia 1 remake only took 1-2 years.

Mafia 1 was a remake as you said and it's not a long game by any means with very less side content and the script was already in their hands. The city is a set dressing with little to no interactivity and the map is pretty small by current standards. A game like that would not be well received just like Mafia 2 wasn't for the same reasons even back in 2010. 

[Jason]

Yea Ubisoft is the example of why the "if GTAO never existed we'd have more Rockstar games" argument is difficult to defiantly stand behind. Dev times went up across the board once we moved into the PS4/XB1 era, and are slowly continuing to go up with the new-gen consoles as 4k assets now need to be standard across the board. Couple this with rising demand and expectations from us, the players, and games are taking longer.

 

Ubisoft, as mentioned above, have mammoth teams that number in the thousands with several (I think even 10+ now) studios working on a single title across the world, and they take on average 3-4 years to develop a game despite relying heavily on pre-established formulas and working with an engine they are familar with. It should also be said that while their games are considered to be games as a service, Assassin's Creed Valhalla is a strictly single player experience, Watch Dogs 3 multiplayer was added post-launch I believe, and Far Cry 6 with it's 12 development teams is single player / co-op at launch. So no tacked on multiplayer modes and they still take 3-4 years with giant teams working of an established formula.

 

RDR2 took something like 5 or 6 years of actual development with a team size in the thousands I believe and the game we got at launch was basically 99% single player and 1% RDO - RDO was basically a handful of reused single player mechanics and assets with a character creator. Elder Scrolls VI is in a similar state, they wanted to do Fallout 4 and Starfield before it, both giant games that required years of development.

 

I would hazard a guess that the reason VI's taking so long is mainly because they wanted to do RDR2 first. GTA Online has likely given them a level of comfort not to have to rush VI out but eh, as much as I understand the "GTA Online is the reason for all bad things Rockstar" mentality, I wouldn't put all the blame on it.

[GTAxYushix]

On 7/22/2021 at 12:27 AM, Jason said:

Yea Ubisoft is the example of why the "if GTAO never existed we'd have more Rockstar games" argument is difficult to defiantly stand behind. Dev times went up across the board once we moved into the PS4/XB1 era, and are slowly continuing to go up with the new-gen consoles as 4k assets now need to be standard across the board. Couple this with rising demand and expectations from us, the players, and games are taking longer.

 

Ubisoft, as mentioned above, have mammoth teams that number in the thousands with several (I think even 10+ now) studios working on a single title across the world, and they take on average 3-4 years to develop a game despite relying heavily on pre-established formulas and working with an engine they are familar with. It should also be said that while their games are considered to be games as a service, Assassin's Creed Valhalla is a strictly single player experience, Watch Dogs 3 multiplayer was added post-launch I believe, and Far Cry 6 with it's 12 development teams is single player / co-op at launch. So no tacked on multiplayer modes and they still take 3-4 years with giant teams working of an established formula.

 

RDR2 took something like 5 or 6 years of actual development with a team size in the thousands I believe and the game we got at launch was basically 99% single player and 1% RDO - RDO was basically a handful of reused single player mechanics and assets with a character creator. Elder Scrolls VI is in a similar state, they wanted to do Fallout 4 and Starfield before it, both giant games that required years of development.

 

I would hazard a guess that the reason VI's taking so long is mainly because they wanted to do RDR2 first. GTA Online has likely given them a level of comfort not to have to rush VI out but eh, as much as I understand the "GTA Online is the reason for all bad things Rockstar" mentality, I wouldn't put all the blame on it.

 

Let me shed some light into this, coming from a fulltime interaction developer...

 

Every new console release takes a huge chunk out of our company, most teams are put in full time learning curve for that system and testing their limits, once this is done its time to start porting the hardest part over; the engine. A sh*tton of code gets rewritten while alot stays intact, this is where the most time is spent, making sure everything under the hood works efficiently with the hardwarde, every addition is a new stresstest and a very complex one because not only are you adding it to 1 element of the game (npc for example)... this npc gets loaded x times with that level of interaction, this is something the console/computer has to calculate on the fly, you push sh*tty code, your whole game is broken, fix 1, break 3... our art/texture teams have expanded so much due to 4k assets and detail. Everything takes longer, every game takes longer. Not only that, there is always a portion of the company setting up for the next project or even already doing engine upgrades. Always! I am sure Rockstar does this aswell but they are just very secretive and thats annoying.

 

[Jason]

On 7/21/2021 at 11:57 PM, GTAxYushix said:

 

Let me shed some light into this, coming from a fulltime interaction developer...

 

Every new console release takes a huge chunk out of our company, most teams are put in full time learning curve for that system and testing their limits, once this is done its time to start porting the hardest part over; the engine. A sh*tton of code gets rewritten while alot stays intact, this is where the most time is spent, making sure everything under the hood works efficiently with the hardwarde, every addition is a new stresstest and a very complex one because not only are you adding it to 1 element of the game (npc for example)... this npc gets loaded x times with that level of interaction, this is something the console/computer has to calculate on the fly, you push sh*tty code, your whole game is broken, fix 1, break 3... our art/texture teams have expanded so much due to 4k assets and detail. Everything takes longer, every game takes longer. Not only that, there is always a portion of the company setting up for the next project or even already doing engine upgrades. Always! I am sure Rockstar does this aswell but they are just very secretive and thats annoying.

 

 

I distinctly remember Giantbomb interviewing Phil Spencer of Xbox at an E3 one year and they asked him what they thought the future of hardware/gaming is in regards to technology and he rolled his eyes at the thought of the ever increasing resolution size to 8k, 12k, etc due to the sheer ballache asset creation would/will become. 

 

For those not tech savvy, in terms of pure pixel count 4k is four times bigger than 1080p. I'm no art expert so I don't know if that translates to 4x the work, but it sure as hell is gonna take longer to create those assets lol.

 

It's very likely devs will start to use AI to create many of the textures and assets in the future I'm guessing.

[Jezus Holy Christ]

On 7/22/2021 at 2:57 AM, Jason said:

Yea Ubisoft is the example of why the "if GTAO never existed we'd have more Rockstar games" argument is difficult to defiantly stand behind. Dev times went up across the board once we moved into the PS4/XB1 era, and are slowly continuing to go up with the new-gen consoles as 4k assets now need to be standard across the board. Couple this with rising demand and expectations from us, the players, and games are taking longer.

 

Ubisoft, as mentioned above, have mammoth teams that number in the thousands with several (I think even 10+ now) studios working on a single title across the world, and they take on average 3-4 years to develop a game despite relying heavily on pre-established formulas and working with an engine they are familar with. It should also be said that while their games are considered to be games as a service, Assassin's Creed Valhalla is a strictly single player experience, Watch Dogs 3 multiplayer was added post-launch I believe, and Far Cry 6 with it's 12 development teams is single player / co-op at launch. So no tacked on multiplayer modes and they still take 3-4 years with giant teams working of an established formula.

 

RDR2 took something like 5 or 6 years of actual development with a team size in the thousands I believe and the game we got at launch was basically 99% single player and 1% RDO - RDO was basically a handful of reused single player mechanics and assets with a character creator. Elder Scrolls VI is in a similar state, they wanted to do Fallout 4 and Starfield before it, both giant games that required years of development.

 

I would hazard a guess that the reason VI's taking so long is mainly because they wanted to do RDR2 first. GTA Online has likely given them a level of comfort not to have to rush VI out but eh, as much as I understand the "GTA Online is the reason for all bad things Rockstar" mentality, I wouldn't put all the blame on it.

 

It goes both ways. The microtransaction gold rush is a big part of why we're seeing less and less decent or better single player games, but the fact that games take longer to make and getting paid once every five years isn't sustainable for these big companies (or interesting enough for their investors) makes them want to come up with ways to lure the kids in.

 

But this is exactly going how they had planned and "if Online didn't succeed they'd just go work on VI" is wishful thinking (even tho I used to believe that). If it didn't succeed, they'd try harder and make it succeed. Don't forget V's SP mode. If you don't count every heist as 10 missions (most of which were single tasks, like stealing a car, getting guns, etc.), it was a really short f*cking campaign.

 

Arcade gaming is making a digital comeback imo and GTA is not the only game that has turned into a 4K mix of Degenatron and  the Gloryhole Theme Park. Every former 18+ game that hasn't faded away, now has a huge online mode and you know what age range fills their servers and pockets: exactly who their dumbed-down colorful ads target. I don't like what's happening, but I can understand why every publisher, company, and studio is rushing down that path. They can't just ignore this opportunity, that's why I don't put all the blame on GTA:O but I think it had a huge role.

 

In 00's/early 10's we had a shift towards more complicated, sometimes cinematic single player experiences because every kid or young adult had a console or personal computer and games had to try and not only capture their attention, but convince them (to a degree) that they're worth the time needed to complete the game. Now that the internet is more reliable and available to more people, and coincidentally games have a gazillion more polygons and details and technological leaps happen more often, and this needs more resources and skills to make, we're back to simple repetitive mechanics, highscores, and slot machines.

 

TL;DR: I get it, but it doesn't stop me from hating it

Edited July 21, 2021 by Jezus Holy Christ

[Jason]

On 7/22/2021 at 12:30 AM, Jezus Holy Christ said:

The microtransaction gold rush is a big part of why we're seeing less and less decent or better single player games,

 

Not gonna lie, I'm surprised to see this said in 2021. I thought we were past this being parroted around lol.

 

Single player games are thriving and have been for many years now, the most critically acclaimed games every year are single player, Sony, Nintendo and now even Microsoft are building a huge line up of 1st party single player titles. EA is investing further into single player titles, far more than in previous years, Ubi's main IP's are mainly single player, and the list goes on. Single player titles are thriving, and if you don't believe me, a leaked Sony document literally said as much. They built their last-gen dominance on it.

 

Beyond that though I do agree with much of what you said. There's a whole lot of games adding more and more "shiny" stuff to attract attention but I don't necessarily think this is cause of kids, I know a sh*t ton of adults are suckers for this stuff (ever looked at the sneaker market?) and whales, which many of these games rely on, are adults.

 

I do think part of the reason why they add flashier and flashier cosmetics and updates is also because of market saturation as well. The video game industry is gigantic nowadays and gamers have so many choices of what to play. Ten years ago if you wanted a multiplayer shooter on console your option was Call of Duty, or Halo if you owned an Xbox. Now? Call of Duty, Call of Duty BR, Battlefield, Overwatch, Rainbow Six, Destiny, Fortnite, Apex Legends and more I'm no doubt forgetting and those are just the multi plats. Everyone's trying to get noticed.

[Americana]

3D Grand Theft Auto games are not worth any remakes.

[BAGS00]

On 7/21/2021 at 7:14 PM, Americana said:

3D Grand Theft Auto games are not worth any remakes.

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ʖಠ 

ಠ︵ಠ 

ಠ ೧ ಠ 

ಠಗಠ 

ಠ,_｣ಠ 

ʕಠ_ಠʔ 

ಠ ل͟ ಠ 

Spoiler

〜(꒪꒳꒪)〜

 

[GTAhare]

GTA Online certainly isn’t helping GTA 6 release any faster but the idea that if it wasn’t for GTA Online we’d have GTA 6 earlier plus other games is a simplification. AAA games take much more manpower to make now than in the Xbox 360 days. Rockstar is far from the only developer that’s taking much longer to release titles. Back in the Xbox 360 days you’d have entire trilogies such as Mass Effect released within several years, now many franchises get only 1 game a generation. It’s sad but that’s just how it is now. The same applies to GTA and Rockstar. Games require higher quality assets and thus take much longer to make now, it is more complex than just “Online bad.” I actually speculate that in 10-20 years when AI technology matures you’ll see AAA developers use AI to assist the development process to either make releases take quicker or have even bigger games.

 

I’m sure GTA 6 will a great game, as were GTA 5 and RDR2. However it’ll take a while because that’s just the nature of modern AAA development

[big_man]

reading the lawsuit on activision, holy sh*t there’s some weirdos in game development 

[Len Lfc]

On 7/21/2021 at 9:36 PM, ChengizVlad09 said:

@Kris194 @Len Lfc

 

Talking about the decadence inside the video gaming industry, which I've been literally yapping about for years here to no avail, or proper response whatsoever, lol, and now I'm somewhat glad, that finally, someone speaks the same language. All this talk wasn't some random, general trashing. It was directly pointed at R*/T2 and their games, specifically, the way they are making them. I am of a firm belief, that making movies instead of f'cking video games is one of the trails behind that same decadence, amongs many. Why are games taking so long to be finnished? Imho, it has least to do with complexity of the task at hand. It's a complex, hype making investor's game, that has almost nothing creative to do with video games. Just take Cyberpunk for example. Sure, investors f'cked everything up, but for crying out loud, with all bugs aside, why in the world did they invest so much time in to narrative part? I was watching some YT video and for 20 goddamned minutes or so, they were just talking.. I bet my a$$, if they invested the exact same amount of time in to gameplay part, instead of narrative, that game would still rock with all bugs and negatives. Why do video games have to have such a strong movie alike appearance? Why there have to be so many things and going ons that need to be so heavily narrated? Cutscene, after cutscene. Let me play that f'king thing. I don't want to sit, listen and watch for god's sake, no matter how good it may be. 

I don't think it's anything to do with how they make their games. Likes movies or whatever. It's literally just about how long it takes them. The time it takes to make one game nowadays, you could have made 2 or 3 10 years ago. That is my point. Cyberpunk was always going to be heavily narrative, that's kinda' the point. It's an RPG set in the Cyberpunk universe. That games problems wasn't because of the narrative. It just needed more time and shouldn't have released on PS4 & X1. Again, like people who think Rockstar have been working on GTA VI for 8 years, it's also not true that Cyberpunk was in development for 8 years. It was only announced in 2012 because that's when the deal with Mike Pondsmith was sorted. Everything up until 2016 was pre-production.

 

The biggest issue is studios who have more than one series or IP. If it takes you 7 years to develop a single AAA open world game, and you are Rockstar who have GTA & RDR or BGS and have Fallout, Elder Scroll and now Starfield... then that's a significant period of time between series entries. And guess what? They keep those series alive with Online modes in between: GTA Online, Red Dead Online, Elder Scrolls Online, Fallout 76. Weather you like them or not, after 8 years it gets tiring and you just want something new.

 

That's why I feel the hate towards GTA Online preventing a new GTA is ultimately flawed. If anything, the success funds them to make bigger and better games. The flip side is that games now take longer.

 

And there's one other aspect to it, which is very dangerous to talk about. Because it can be misinterpreted very easily... which is making employees working conditions better, removing crunch culture, etc. It's absolutely a good thing. But it does lead to games either talking longer or being shorter. The reason that is difficult to bring up is because you're likely to be met with "So you don't care about people's lives and just want your games because you're selfish".

 

Ultimately, it all combined is a recipe for games taking a hell of a lot longer. And while it's completely understandable and makes total sense. My ultimate point is, you can understand it and accept it, but you can still not like parts of it. If you release a game every 15 years, is that game even really a current series anymore? I used to love playing new GTA games growing up, in my teen years. Now, going forward? It's something I'll do every decade or two. It's just no longer regular and that'#s really disappointing. 

 

"Just play GTA Online then" 

No.

 

Spoiler

Old man rant over. "They don't make 'em like that anymore"

 

[CASH_BONE]

This is the thing i hate most about GTAO. yeah i have no problem with non-narritive mulitplayer games like fortnite, Apex, COD, etc. but I think games that have a heavy story focus like God of War, The Last of Us, The Witcher, Dark Souls and such are much, much better and Rockstar were the absolue masters at the latter type and it seems like they are going to abandon that to follow what is quite frankly a garbage game model just because it makes money. Obviously we don't know what GTA VI is going to be yet and RDR2 helps me cling to hope but i'm getting very cynical about his whole thing lately

[Orthur]

On 7/22/2021 at 1:02 PM, Len Lfc said:

 

"Just play GTA Online then" 

No.

Perfection. 

[GTAhare]

On 7/22/2021 at 3:32 AM, Len Lfc said:

I don't think it's anything to do with how they make their games. Likes movies or whatever. It's literally just about how long it takes them. The time it takes to make one game nowadays, you could have made 2 or 3 10 years ago. That is my point. Cyberpunk was always going to be heavily narrative, that's kinda' the point. It's an RPG set in the Cyberpunk universe. That games problems wasn't because of the narrative. It just needed more time and shouldn't have released on PS4 & X1. Again, like people who think Rockstar have been working on GTA VI for 8 years, it's also not true that Cyberpunk was in development for 8 years. It was only announced in 2012 because that's when the deal with Mike Pondsmith was sorted. Everything up until 2016 was pre-production.

 

The biggest issue is studios who have more than one series or IP. If it takes you 7 years to develop a single AAA open world game, and you are Rockstar who have GTA & RDR or BGS and have Fallout, Elder Scroll and now Starfield... then that's a significant period of time between series entries. And guess what? They keep those series alive with Online modes in between: GTA Online, Red Dead Online, Elder Scrolls Online, Fallout 76. Weather you like them or not, after 8 years it gets tiring and you just want something new.

 

That's why I feel the hate towards GTA Online preventing a new GTA is ultimately flawed. If anything, the success funds them to make bigger and better games. The flip side is that games now take longer.

 

And there's one other aspect to it, which is very dangerous to talk about. Because it can be misinterpreted very easily... which is making employees working conditions better, removing crunch culture, etc. It's absolutely a good thing. But it does lead to games either talking longer or being shorter. The reason that is difficult to bring up is because you're likely to be met with "So you don't care about people's lives and just want your games because you're selfish".

 

Ultimately, it all combined is a recipe for games taking a hell of a lot longer. And while it's completely understandable and makes total sense. My ultimate point is, you can understand it and accept it, but you can still not like parts of it. If you release a game every 15 years, is that game even really a current series anymore? I used to love playing new GTA games growing up, in my teen years. Now, going forward? It's something I'll do every decade or two. It's just no longer regular and that'#s really disappointing. 

 

"Just play GTA Online then" 

No.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Old man rant over. "They don't make 'em like that anymore"

 

Spot on. AAA games these days simply take MUCH longer to make then they used to. Online is actually in many ways not even the main reason why GTA 6 is taking so long. Even before Online became a big focus around 2017 Rockstar already slowed down with the releases significantly. Heck, GTA 5 was ALWAYS planned to last for a long time. Certainly probably not as long as Online has continued to last but it appears the original plan was to release DLC for years before even starting work on GTA 6-however of course there was the Benzies falling out, the rise of Online, etc. that eventually lead to GTA Online becoming the focus. But still, it appears GTA 5 was again going to be supported for years before GTA 6 would even enter full production, even before the rise of Online GTA releases were planned to be slower. Heck, even during the Xbox 360 era we only got GTA 4 and GTA 5 where’s the PS2 got GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas, although Rockstar did release other titles in between. GTA 5 took what, four years to make right? The entire 3D trilogy released within the time it took to make GTA 5 alone. So again, Online isn’t even the main reason why GTA 6 is taking so long and why Rockstar is releasing less games. Online is certainly allowing them to take their time but the fact is AAA games in general take much longer. On the Xbox 360 we got Halo 3, Halo ODST, Halo Reach, and Halo 4. Now we get Halo 5 and Halo Infinite, half as many games, plus Halo Infinite is cross gen and launching after the release of next gen consoles, wheres Halo 4 was released late in the Xbox 360’s life span.

[Jezus Holy Christ]

On 7/22/2021 at 12:02 PM, Len Lfc said:

That's why I feel the hate towards GTA Online preventing a new GTA is ultimately flawed. If anything, the success funds them to make bigger and better games. The flip side is that games now take longer.

 

The flip side is that we still don't know if a bigger and better, or any new game at all, is in development. Now let's look at their confirmed, official next-gen projects*: GTA V E&E, and Standalone F2P GTA Online.
 

Spoiler

*Unless we're doing that thing where we ignore reality and go "VI EARLY DEVELOPMENT THERE WAS CAMERAS AND CREWS IN FLORIDA UBISOFT BAD CYBERPUNK BUGGY".

 

[Len Lfc]

On 7/22/2021 at 11:15 AM, Jezus Holy Christ said:

we still don't know if a bigger and better, or any new game at all, is in development.

We do. Besides common sense (of course they're working on the next game. Just because we haven't heard officially doesn't mean it doesn't exist) we've had multiple 'leaks' from developers accidentally referencing it on their CV's. And regardless of your opinion of Jason Schreier, he's already spoken to Rockstar employees and has already mentioned their next game is a GTA game. I get the cynicism, but there's no doubt it's in development. Their last game released 2 years and 9 months ago.

[CASH_BONE]

On 7/22/2021 at 11:30 AM, Len Lfc said:

We do. Besides common sense (of course they're working on the next game. Just because we haven't heard officially doesn't mean it doesn't exist) we've had multiple 'leaks' from developers accidentally referencing it on their CV's. And regardless of your opinion of Jason Schreier, he's already spoken to Rockstar employees and has already mentioned their next game is a GTA game. I get the cynicism, but there's no doubt it's in development. Their last game released 2 years and 9 months ago.

 

Yeah GTA VI is definitely coming up next, the question is are R* going to use the money from Online to fund a bigger and better game or are they going to make a game of similar size and scope to GTA V and put the majority of their focus into GTA Online 2.0

[Len Lfc]

On 7/22/2021 at 11:40 AM, CASH_BONE said:

 

Yeah GTA VI is definitely coming up next, the question is are R* going to use the money from Online to fund a bigger and better game or are they going to make a game of similar size and scope to GTA V and put the majority of their focus into GTA Online 2.0

Not to sound pessimistic, but given Schreier's quotes from speaking with employees, in their effort to reduce crunch, rewrites and delays, we know they're aiming for a smaller game but still big by their own standards. I'd expect something on par with GTA V.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Len Lfc

[Zello]

With the small scale stuff though is he talking about the singleplayer or just Online? Because if it's online it's definitely going to start off small.