GTA VI Online Speculation, Wishlist & Discussion

[The-Ghost]

4 hours ago, Platface said:

Servers

1-Server menu which it gives a server list that features, player count, ping etc etc.

2-They should be featurable like IV multiplayer. You can enable/disable cops, friendly fire (let's say friend mode), NPCs and traffic.

3-Servers with better cheat protections. Not money tbf, i'm speaking about those cheats which it ruins your experience. That's why streamers play FiveM instead of Online. Because their experiences only getting messed by streamsnipers.

4-Filtering our choices. When I want to PvP, I want to click n' join to that server which it has friend mode disabled. 

5-Joining to an event in midgame.

 

None of these will happen with th next game, Rockstar had a chance to change their multiplayer style with RDO but they didn't, they kept it overall the same, so they don't find issues with it.

 

The only one they will probably improve and be better prepared for is the cheating situation, I think it might not be as bad as it is right now.

[Platface]

7 hours ago, MaddenedGhost said:

None of these will happen with th next game, Rockstar had a chance to change their multiplayer style with RDO but they didn't, they kept it overall the same, so they don't find issues with it.

 

The only one they will probably improve and be better prepared for is the cheating situation, I think it might not be as bad as it is right now.

Well that will suck then.  But time is gonna answer...

Edited May 23, 2023 by Platface

[TheBigX]

4 hours ago, ArmanM7503 said:

HOLD on... is that adding a membership to enter GTA Online?

Wtf? Gotta be fake?

[Sword_of_Dusk]

It's just a promotion for GTA+. I just got an email about it from Rockstar. 

[REVENGE777]

If gta+ was 99c a month I’d be more inclined to get it. But 5.99???? They’d have to throw me more than a couple sunglasses and 20% off of a baseball bat for me to cough up that much  

[TheBigX]

so basically a battle pass eh?

[Jason]

1 minute ago, TheBigX said:

so basically a battle pass eh?

 

GTA+ is an optional subscription that every months gives you various in-game stuff like cars, businesses and cash, plus some other stuff AFAIK.

 

Not a battle pass.

[Paper Mario]

GTA+ ain't even worth 99 cents a month to me, but they will get plenty of people to cough up for their subscriptions.

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

GTA+ ain't even worth 99 cents a month to me, but they will get plenty of people to cough up for their subscriptions.

 

If you're a very casual player I've seen worse value optional subs. If you're a veteran or someone who plays daily it's just not good value at all.

 

It's why I think we might see a monetisation switch with GTAO2 cause the current GTAO model is only really attractive to casual players.

[Paper Mario]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

If you're a very casual player I've seen worse value optional subs. If you're a veteran or someone who plays daily it's just not good value at all.

 

It's why I think we might see a monetisation switch with GTAO2 cause the current GTAO model is only really attractive to casual players.

I may not be a very casual player, but probably just normal casual. But when games introduce these type of subscriptions, I just feel it's solely done to earn money (dah doih, I understand that obviously). You can argue that it's to help new players by giving them more stuff, but why not just do that within the game itself? Let players earn more money with missions, or make vehicles/properties not cost millions of dollars. Everything is an annoying grind nowadays.. And didn't they also reduce the replayability of the island heist (forgot name) that gave the most money? That's just them making sure people don't exploit that and target those with less patience to just cough up cash.

 

It's lame imo, and it sucks we will see this in GTA VI as well. I wonder how that will be balanced in the beginning. I am not going to waste extra money on a subscription after already purchasing the game itself.

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

I may not be a very casual player, but probably just normal casual. But when games introduce these type of subscriptions, I just feel it's solely done to earn money (dah doih, I understand that obviously). You can argue that it's to help new players by giving them more stuff, but why not just do that within the game itself? Let players earn more money with missions, or make vehicles/properties not cost millions of dollars. Everything is an annoying grind nowadays.. And didn't they also reduce the replayability of the island heist (forgot name) that gave the most money? That's just them making sure people don't exploit that and target those with less patience to just cough up cash.

 

It's lame imo, and it sucks we will see this in GTA VI as well. I wonder how that will be balanced in the beginning. I am not going to waste extra money on a subscription after already purchasing the game itself.

 

There's no perfect model really. GTAO's shark card model results in an artificially increased grind as they need to balance earn rates to make shark cards attractive. Premium cosmetic store locks a lot of cosmetics behind a store instead of ingame achievements/progression. Subscription is a fixed fee every month. Etc etc.

 

It's a big reason why I think battlepasses become so popular because they were a happy solution to all the problems of the above models but the issue with battle passes is that they became so common that they just ended being very repetitive, boring, chore like experiences.

 

 

[Paper Mario]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

There's no perfect model really. GTAO's shark card model results in an artificially increased grind as they need to balance earn rates to make shark cards attractive. Premium cosmetic store locks a lot of cosmetics behind a store instead of ingame achievements/progression. Subscription is a fixed fee every month. Etc etc.

 

It's a big reason why I think battlepasses become so popular because they were a happy solution to all the problems of the above models but the issue with battle passes is that they became so common that they just ended being very repetitive, boring, chore like experiences.

 

 

Indeed. There is no perfect model because it's all aimed to do one thing, which is sucking people dry off of their money. That is the main goal behind those things and nothing about it is to actually improve the gaming experience and make things more fun. I hate that it exists, including the shark cards. And yes, battle passes are indeed extremely similar and boring all around. At least it seems to be focusing mostly on cosmetics though? I can deal with that. I just don't want people to gain an upper hand simply by paying, aka pay to win.

 

I am curious to see how they will tackle this with VI, but if it ends up sucking, I might just avoid the online aspect and only play single player and online exclusively with friends. 

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

Indeed. There is no perfect model because it's all aimed to do one thing, which is sucking people dry off of their money.

 

To some degree, yes. Though I've played a lot of online games to know what we have in R* games is extremely tame to what is out there.

 

Generally speaking continued development for games post-launch needs some sort of revenue stream though. Now admittedly GTA's in murky waters here cause GTA's box sales are so high but yea, idk what the best solution is monetisation wise for GTAO2 beyond the never gonna happen "just remove all monetisation lol".

[DesotoCountyDoe]

NGL, while I‘m not a fan of GTA+ in current days‘ GTAO (mainly because I‘m not the biggest fan of it, with the exception of new updates I rarely / flat out don’t play), I will have that sh*t locked 'n loaded for the first few months of VI Online, just to have that extra b00st 

[Paper Mario]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

To some degree, yes. Though I've played a lot of online games to know what we have in R* games is extremely tame to what is out there.

 

Generally speaking continued development for games post-launch needs some sort of revenue stream though. Now admittedly GTA's in murky waters here cause GTA's box sales are so high but yea, idk what the best solution is monetisation wise for GTAO2 beyond the never gonna happen "just remove all monetisation lol".

Perhaps it is tame right now, but I sincerely hope it doesn't get worse, lol

 

Besides post-launch revenue streams being just subscriptions, how about actual DLC that expands the initial game? Like Ballad of Gay Tony did for IV? Or is a 1 time purchase not going to cut it anymore for Rockstar? I just don't care for a subscription that only gives you either free or discounts on items that you can just get yourself already in the base game by just grinding a bit more. It's annoying, but I prefer that over forking over money for a subscription.

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

Perhaps it is tame right now, but I sincerely hope it doesn't get worse, lol

 

Besides post-launch revenue streams being just subscriptions, how about actual DLC that expands the initial game? Like Ballad of Gay Tony did for IV? Or is a 1 time purchase not going to cut it anymore for Rockstar? I just don't care for a subscription that only gives you either free or discounts on items that you can just get yourself already in the base game by just grinding a bit more. It's annoying, but I prefer that over forking over money for a subscription.

 

SP expansions generally speaking are bad from a business point of view. They can sell well but usually don't.

 

Premium online expansions carves the community up and causes all sorts of issues in a modern online game that lasts years. Take one look at the spaghetti that is Destiny's structure due to it's years of expansions and yea you'll probably not want premium online DLC for GTAO lol.

[Short Dawg]

57 minutes ago, REVENGE777 said:

If gta+ was 99c a month I’d be more inclined to get it. But 5.99???? They’d have to throw me more than a couple sunglasses and 20% off of a baseball bat for me to cough up that much  

A carton of eggs in 2023 ironically costs more than GTA+ in some parts of the world    But I had to get that Vice City Mambas livery for that one month lol

[Paper Mario]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

SP expansions generally speaking are bad from a business point of view. They can sell well but usually don't.

 

Premium online expansions carves the community up and causes all sorts of issues in a modern online game that lasts years. Take one look at the spaghetti that is Destiny's structure due to it's years of expansions and yea you'll probably not want premium online DLC for GTAO lol.

Oh yeah, dang you're right.. I always hated that aspect of it splitting up the community. Halo also had this issue with map packs. I don't know anything about Destiny though, but that sounds about right..

 

As long as they can kinda balance stuff properly, then they can keep in their subscriptions. I just won't pay for it, but if other people will, then so be it. I just don't want it to cause huge balance issues.

[sanjay3207]

10 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

Perhaps it is tame right now, but I sincerely hope it doesn't get worse, lol

 

Besides post-launch revenue streams being just subscriptions, how about actual DLC that expands the initial game? Like Ballad of Gay Tony did for IV? Or is a 1 time purchase not going to cut it anymore for Rockstar? I just don't care for a subscription that only gives you either free or discounts on items that you can just get yourself already in the base game by just grinding a bit more. It's annoying, but I prefer that over forking over money for a subscription.

 

When the DLC's for both GTA 4 and RDR 1 dropped, both of them were critical success which expanded on the character and open world. But both were commercial failure. The traction for these DLC's got bigger only after the release of GTA 5. Many people started liking gta 4 compared to gta 5, which resulted in the  DLC's becoming popular. Simultaneously, GTAO got bigger and earned around 500 milion dollars in 2015. Rockstar moved on from GTA 5 and RDR 2 entered full-production and they pulled the plug on the promised DLC's for GTA 5.

 

They will probably do the same for GTA 6. They will make a solid SP campaign and move on from GTA 6 to their next big title and allocate some resources to GTA 6 online. 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

Oh yeah, dang you're right.. I always hated that aspect of it splitting up the community. Halo also had this issue with map packs. I don't know anything about Destiny though, but that sounds about right..

 

As long as they can kinda balance stuff properly, then they can keep in their subscriptions. I just won't pay for it, but if other people will, then so be it. I just don't want it to cause huge balance issues.

 

Destiny is one of the worst examples in the industry admittedly. They've straight up removed content people have paid money for lol. It's disgusting and a big reason why I'd never touch that game my self.

 

But the community being carved is still a big issue yea, map packs are a classic example with the requirement of DLC playlists and stuff in Halo and CoD back in the day. MMO's with expansions get around it by placing the expansions in entirely new zones and areas but imagine GTAO2 with premium DLC? People with content you don't have access to zooming around your game world. Not ideal really, so I don't think that model can ever work for GTAO even though I'm really not a fan of pay to skip monetisation like shark cards.

[Paper Mario]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Destiny is one of the worst examples in the industry admittedly. They've straight up removed content people have paid money for lol. It's disgusting and a big reason why I'd never touch that game my self.

 

But the community being carved is still a big issue yea, map packs are a classic example with the requirement of DLC playlists and stuff in Halo and CoD back in the day. MMO's with expansions get around it by placing the expansions in entirely new zones and areas but imagine GTAO2 with premium DLC? People with content you don't have access to zooming around your game world. Not ideal really, so I don't think that model can ever work for GTAO even though I'm really not a fan of pay to skip monetisation like shark cards.

wow, they removed content after people paid for it? That is really scummy, haha!

 

And yea, I realize now that those type of DLCs wouldn't quite work for games such as GTA anymore. Creating a divide within the community is not a good thing. Shark cards will most definitely stay as well. They still earn crazy well with that, right? I am not sure.. I just hope that it doesn't all become a mission for them to only focus on making as much money as possible by doing literally nothing good for the actual players.

[BrianH1970]

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Destiny is one of the worst examples in the industry admittedly. They've straight up removed content people have paid money for lol. It's disgusting and a big reason why I'd never touch that game my self.

I went through the seven stages over that decision. Everything from "well, I wasn't playing it as much as I used to" to "I still got my money's worth" and eventually settled on "This sucks! f*ck you, Bungie!"

 

I used to play Destiny most days. Nowadays I go around a year without playing it. At some point I'll excitedly download it again to get some of that old Destiny feeling, play for about half an hour or so, and then delete and forget about it for a while more.

Edited May 25, 2023 by BrianH1970

[Johnny Albuquerque]

8 minutes ago, sanjay3207 said:

 

When the DLC's for both GTA 4 and RDR 1 dropped, both of them were critical success which expanded on the character and open world. But both were commercial failure. The traction for these DLC's got bigger only after the release of GTA 5. Many people started liking gta 4 compared to gta 5, which resulted in the  DLC's becoming popular. Simultaneously, GTAO got bigger and earned around 500 milion dollars in 2015. Rockstar moved on from GTA 5 and RDR 2 entered full-production and they pulled the plug on the promised DLC's for GTA 5.

 

They will probably do the same for GTA 6. They will make a solid SP campaign and move on from GTA 6 to their next big title and allocate some resources to GTA 6 online. 

  I agree! They've been having a similar approach for 15 years. And honestly, it does work and I expect it to continue. 

 

  Although... I think they could aim and outdo themselves with GTA 6's SP. The genre is making a strong comeback and 10 years of an Online only support could only do so much to a community. Also, and please don't get me wrong, I think GTA 5 and RDR2's storyline's weren't their best work. (Not trying to be disrespectful to RDR2, please, what a masterpiece).

 

  In RDR2's case, I think it wasn't the storyline that was compelling, but certain aspects of certain missions, the lore, the easter eggs and the world itself that made that game so much better than everything else in the market! 

 

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Spoiler

For example, when I saw Sean get killed so surprisingly in the middle of Rhodes, I had to pause my game! I hadn't seen a single spoiler or hint that that was going to happen. It was mindbreaking, surprising and truly an hats off to the writers of the scene!

 

Also, I think Dutch's descent into madness and loss of trust and "Micah's the rat" have some issues that could've been avoided with better writing. 

 

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

hark cards will most definitely stay as well. They still earn crazy well with that, right? I am not sure.. I just hope that it doesn't all become a mission for them to only focus on making as much money as possible by doing literally nothing good for the actual players.

 

I speculate they may change shark cards to something else cause to veterans shark cards are just pointless, no vets buy them - same with GTA+. Compare this to other popular online games where there's a monetisation model where veterans spend just as much as anyone.

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Shark card model hasn't exactly been a failure for them so perhaps they won't rock the boat. I thought RDO might be them trying a new model(s) in prep for GTAO2 but that game died for other reasons so we never really got a good idea on where their heads were at with it.

[FRIENDLY_FIRE]

57 minutes ago, Paper Mario said:

Indeed. There is no perfect model because it's all aimed to do one thing, which is sucking people dry off of their money. That is the main goal behind those things and nothing about it is to actually improve the gaming experience and make things more fun. I hate that it exists, including the shark cards. And yes, battle passes are indeed extremely similar and boring all around. At least it seems to be focusing mostly on cosmetics though? I can deal with that. I just don't want people to gain an upper hand simply by paying, aka pay to win.

 

I am curious to see how they will tackle this with VI, but if it ends up sucking, I might just avoid the online aspect and only play single player and online exclusively with friends. 

Played Vice City doing fire truck missions for 30 mins and made like 100K.. that money will last forever in VC.  Played GTAO for like 3 1/2 hours doing the casino heist from scratch to make like 700K which is like 1/2 of the price of the car I want ...    ...

 

I know many disagree, and it’s a very unpopular opinion, but certainly I believe GTA IV multiplayer was more fun than GTAO.  They had it right, stealing cars, finding weapons around the city, etc.. it was more fun & less grind.  Sorry not sorry.

[Paper Mario]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I speculate they may change shark cards to something else cause to veterans shark cards are just pointless, no vets buy them - same with GTA+. Compare this to other popular online games where there's a monetisation model where veterans spend just as much as anyone.

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Shark card model hasn't exactly been a failure for them so perhaps they won't rock the boat. I thought RDO might be them trying a new model(s) in prep for GTAO2 but that game died for other reasons so we never really got a good idea on where their heads were at with it.

It's all a mystery until the actual release 

[Zapper]

3 minutes ago, Midnight Dutch said:

I know many disagree, and it’s a very unpopular opinion, but certainly I believe GTA IV multiplayer was more fun than GTAO.  They had it right, stealing cars, finding weapons around the city, etc.. it was more fun & less grind.  Sorry not sorry.

 

There's no reason to compare those two. One is a tacked-on multiplayer mode, and the other is kind of an MMO-lite; two fundamentally different types of experiences. The thing is, tacked-on multiplayer modes like IV's MP are a thing of the past.

 

Without a steady stream of content post-launch, the playerbase will just vanish. And unless they're earning money from the game, you wouldn't see that content coming. That's why something like IV's MP makes complete zero sense in today's industry. It might be more fun for you, but the data tells them otherwise.

[Paper Mario]

10 minutes ago, Midnight Dutch said:

Played Vice City doing fire truck missions for 30 mins and made like 100K.. that money will last forever in VC.  Played GTAO for like 3 1/2 hours doing the casino heist from scratch to make like 700K which is like 1/2 of the price of the car I want ...    ...

 

I know many disagree, and it’s a very unpopular opinion, but certainly I believe GTA IV multiplayer was more fun than GTAO.  They had it right, stealing cars, finding weapons around the city, etc.. it was more fun & less grind.  Sorry not sorry.

I kinda agree on the latter. As I remember, when you died, you respawned with just your fists, right? And weapons were scattered around the map to collect. It did kinda suck that some spots ultimately ended up being camped badly, but it's not a system I think is completely horrendous. But it's also nice to not lose every weapon you have when you die in V. It sometimes irritated me that after collecting a bunch of good weapons in IV, I got killed and lost it all, lmao

 

But yeah, the grind sucks. Not every dang vehicle should be costing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars...

[sanjay3207]

31 minutes ago, Jason said:

I speculate they may change shark cards to something else cause to veterans shark cards are just pointless, no vets buy them - same with GTA+. Compare this to other popular online games where there's a monetisation model where veterans spend just as much as anyone.

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Shark card model hasn't exactly been a failure for them so perhaps they won't rock the boat. I thought RDO might be them trying a new model(s) in prep for GTAO2 but that game died for other reasons so we never really got a good idea on where their heads were at with it.

I think, they will stick with shark cards. Shark is a credit card company in grand theft auto universe. So shark cards are probably credit cards in the universe. Rockstar named the microtransactions based on that. Zero chance they change the branding around their well known micro transactions.

[REVENGE777]

31 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I speculate they may change shark cards to something else cause to veterans shark cards are just pointless, no vets buy them - same with GTA+. Compare this to other popular online games where there's a monetisation model where veterans spend just as much as anyone.

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Shark card model hasn't exactly been a failure for them so perhaps they won't rock the boat. I thought RDO might be them trying a new model(s) in prep for GTAO2 but that game died for other reasons so we never really got a good idea on where their heads were at with it.

I know they’ve recently adjusted the prices of shark cards, but if they’re coming back for gta 6 (but I’m sure they are) they should atleast have some semblance of ACTUAL value. Like what is it, 9 million for $100???? that’s absolutely ludicrous.

4 minutes ago, Zapper said:

 

There's no reason to compare those two. One is a tacked-on multiplayer mode, and the other is kind of an MMO-lite; two fundamentally different types of experiences. The thing is, tacked-on multiplayer modes like IV's MP are a thing of the past.

 

Without a steady stream of content post-launch, the playerbase will just vanish. And unless they're earning money from the game, you wouldn't see that content coming. That's why something like IV's MP makes complete zero sense in today's industry. It might be more fun for you, but the data tells them otherwise.

you can have both tho. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.