Support NeoGAF

[dave is ok]

Can't imagine how the money system would have worked anyway.
If you need to put your money in an ATM, why not just camp and steal money from those depositing it?

A.) When you buy money it goes directly into your bank account - you don't need to deposit it.

B.) When you get money in game from missions, there are a million ATMs to choose from - including ones indoors where people can't kill you with impunity

 

[Un4]

Yeah, from what I understand its a persistent world in the sense that all your progress is saved from game to game. So your reputation, money, stats, property, weapons, cars, ect will carry over from game to game.

Hmm, but what happens when two players have bought the same property in different games?

 

[The Albatross]

Page 1 is so full of stupid in this thread:

You can shoot people and steal money only if they have it as cash in the game, and you can only have money as cash after a score, in which you have to get to an ATM and deposit that money into your in-game ATM. Money deposited cannot be stolen from you.

Use your brain people, if Rockstar is selling in-game-cash as DLC (which isn't even confirmed) there is not a chance that you're going to be vulnerable of having that in-game-money stolen from you.

Hmm, but what happens when two players have bought the same property in different games?

The buyable properties in the online world will probably not be unique properties. It's likely handled by a condo unit of "infinite rooms." IE, you enter the condo unit, take an elevator to your apartment, and when you exit the elevator you are in your own apartment... But if someone else enters that same elevator in a different world, or even in your server, they are brought to their apartment (unless they choose to go to your's and you let them in).

 

[BigDug13]

Page 1 is so full of stupid in this thread:

You can shoot people and steal money only if they have it as cash in the game, and you can only have money as cash after a score, in which you have to get to an ATM and deposit that money into your in-game ATM. Money deposited cannot be stolen from you.

Use your brain people, if Rockstar is selling in-game-cash as DLC (which isn't even confirmed) there is not a chance that you're going to be vulnerable of having that in-game-money stolen from you.

People aren't talking about stealing their cash as much as killing them after they've made high dollar purchases. Blowing up their expensive tank or fighter jet and shit.

 

[The Albatross]

People aren't talking about stealing their cash as much as killing them after they've made high dollar purchases. Blowing up their expensive tank or fighter jet and shit.

Few posts on page 1 assuming that you can be shot and people can steal your money that you've purchased.

That being said, even then, we already know how vehicle ownership is supposed to work online... When you buy something, even if you destroy it, you still own it and it's in your garage. I think the repair fee offline is $250, which is an amount of money you always have. This is also how it's "supposed" to work, we could get the vehicle owner glitch we're seeing in offline, but I doubt it... Your player account is all stored on the Social Club servers, so I'm not expecting that to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer money cards not be in the game, but they don't bother me that much as long as you can still make money in the game to buy things. I don't have any tolerance of grinding for 4 hours just to make a measly amount of moneyt hat I could also just buy for 5 real life American dollars.

 

[RiotPelaaja]

I like most people with a full time job have no problem with this.

Agreed, glad to see I can get some game cash with real money, as long as it's reasonably priced.

 

[firehawk12]

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer money cards not be in the game, but they don't bother me that much as long as you can still make money in the game to buy things. I don't have any tolerance of grinding for 4 hours just to make a measly amount of moneyt hat I could also just buy for 5 real life American dollars.

But this is how all these games work. The point is to make the gains so minuscule that you choose to pay them to skip ahead.

 

[The Albatross]

But this is how all these games work. The point is to make the gains so minuscule that you choose to pay them to skip ahead.

This is how most free to play games work, but also because most free to play games are by shit developers who want to cash in as much as possible.

Hoping Rockstar takes a Team Fortress/Valve like approach and sells small items at small purchases... or auxilary stuff. Really frustrates me when simply dropping an additional $20 on a game gives you a huge leg up on everybody else... I dont even like the option to exist. Case in point, NHL '09 online team mode was a great mode and you could improve your skater by playign more and more, or you could spend $20 and max him out pretty much immediately. Made it so that every legit team just had people who spent the extra $20.

 

[brickarts295]

"1 billion in 3 days"
Rockstar: IT'S NOT ENOUGH!

 

[BigWeather]

If the amount of content rolled out over time for GTAO is significant then I can understand the desire to have a revenue stream attached to it. I'm hoping we see new contacts, missions, modes, and eventually even maps.

 

[synchronicity]

The main issue is that the progression might be designed to be very tedious and annoyingly slow, that you'd rather pay money to not play the game and get to the fun stuff faster.

Don't misunderstand, I completely understand why the circumstances aren't palatable to some, myself included. My position is that we gamers (by and large) whine and complain, but rarely do much of anything that might positively impact the situation. If we don't want to see developers adopt such practices, to see a particular model become the norm, then it is our duty to, at the very least, boycott the practices by not participating in them.

I'm quite certain that the opposite happens regularly, however. Those who dislike, in this case the F2P model, will nevertheless contribute to its perpetuation by spending their dollars on the very thing they say they don't want gaming to be about. Gamers can't have it both ways. Money is the only thing that matters to any industry, in the end.

 

[Ferrio]

Don't misunderstand, I completely understand why the circumstances aren't palatable to some. My position is that we gamers (by and large) whine and complain, but rarely do much of anything that might positively impact the situation. If we don't want to see developers adopt such practices, to see a particular model become the norm, then it is our duty to, at the very least, boycott the practices by not participating in them.

I'm quite certain that the opposite happens regularly, however. Those who dislike, in this case the F2P model, will nevertheless contribute to its perpetuation by spending their dollars on the very thing they say they don't want gaming to be about. Gamers can't have it both ways. Money is the only thing that matters to any industry, in the end.

Trouble is the age groups that gaming is targetted toward. Good luck trying to get unified boycotts. Hell in lots of cases it isn't even their money they're spending... why would they care?

 

[synchronicity]

Trouble is the age groups that gaming is targetted toward. Good luck trying to get unified boycotts. Hell in lots of cases it isn't even their money they're spending... why would they care?

But I'm not speaking of unified boycotts. What I am saying is that it's foolish to complain about a thing and then participate in the thing you are against. It's a matter of principle. It makes no difference what everyone else does. Just because a climate exists that makes it more convenient for you to support something you are against doesn't mean you should. It's a matter of personal integrity imo.

However, I can't speak for situations in which money is being spent by those who don't actually own the funds. (Kids spending parents money, etc.)

 

[Ferrio]

But I'm not speaking of unified boycotts. What I am saying is that it's foolish to complain about a thing and then participate in the thing you are against. It's a matter of principle. It makes no difference what everyone else does. Just because a climate exists that makes it more convenient for you to support something you are against doesn't mean you should. It's a matter of personal integrity imo.

However, I can't speak for situations in which money is being spent by those who don't actually own the funds. (Kids spending parents money, etc.)

Right people can on their own, but realistically they don't give a shit. Drop in the bucket.

 

[cdkee]

People are already going nuts without even knowing game mechanics.

It could be that guns unlock by level, not money. So you have to unlock the minigun, then buy it, at which point both a guy who bought money and a guy who didn't would be able to afford it. I think this is really only going to affect apartments or cars, which isn't game breaking. This is Rockstar. Please let's see the damn game first.

 

[Estocolmo]

To make even more money!

You do realize that Rockstar makes games for profit? Right?

Of course. I was thinkng of the chance for brand damage (i think its called like that?). If they really wanted to make money they could just make the whole game microtransaction. But they dont because you make a lot of money with the right balance of value.

 

[synchronicity]

Right people can on their own, but realistically they don't give a shit. Drop in the bucket.

No argument, although if everyone who was against a particular practice actually did hold true to their principles, it may make a noticeable impact.

But what I really want to know about is real-time lotion physics.

 

[.nimrod]

Don't misunderstand, I completely understand why the circumstances aren't palatable to some, myself included. My position is that we gamers (by and large) whine and complain, but rarely do much of anything that might positively impact the situation. If we don't want to see developers adopt such practices, to see a particular model become the norm, then it is our duty to, at the very least, boycott the practices by not participating in them.

I'm quite certain that the opposite happens regularly, however. Those who dislike, in this case the F2P model, will nevertheless contribute to its perpetuation by spending their dollars on the very thing they say they don't want gaming to be about. Gamers can't have it both ways. Money is the only thing that matters to any industry, in the end.

Oh, in that case I totally agree.

I'll do my part by only playing as long as I'm having fun, without ever buying any additional items or ingame currency.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

I like how blindly people support this. You guys keep it up, look at the last 5 years and keep on sending these companies the message that they can do anything to you and you will buy it.

No wonder it's harder to get money in this game.

 

[Un4]

The buyable properties in the online world will probably not be unique properties. It's likely handled by a condo unit of "infinite rooms." IE, you enter the condo unit, take an elevator to your apartment, and when you exit the elevator you are in your own apartment... But if someone else enters that same elevator in a different world, or even in your server, they are brought to their apartment (unless they choose to go to your's and you let them in).

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[Slackbladder]

I can't see this working on PC. Someone will have a Trainer or use a memory editor to get unlimited money. Looks like console owners are very much cash cows for developers/publishers. I actually wonder if there'll even be a PC version!

 

[duckroll]

I can't see this working on PC. Someone will have a Trainer or use a memory editor to get unlimited money. Looks like console owners are very much cash cows for developers/publishers. I actually wonder if there'll even be a PC version!

Erm. GTA Online isn't saved locally. It's server side, like a MMO.

 

[D4Danger]

I like how blindly people support this. You guys keep it up, look at the last 5 years and keep on sending these companies the message that they can do anything to you and you will buy it.

No wonder it's harder to get money in this game.

this has nothing to do with the money you earn in the single player though

 

[Psychoward]

So I can happily enjoy GTAO while others with more income and less time can fund the game? Sounds good to me. The online portion simply wouldn't exist on this scale if they weren't going to have some way of making money off of it outside of the initial $60. 500 missions, consistent updates, from the sound of it dedicated servers, and plans to expand to more cities? You think Rockstar are going to just give that shit away? Let's be realistic here. This mode actually works in your favor because they aren't charging a subscription, they aren't charging for mission content, and they aren't charging for modes. They're charging for currency, something you can get yourself if you feel like it.

And just go ahead and stop with the "pay to win" gripes. If you're jumping on GTAO to play "competitively", you're going to be sorely disappointed when you realize that over half the community is using auto-aim, not by the fact that someone can buy a better gun in slightly less time than you. The best aspects of GTAIV and RDR's online had nothing to do with the competitive side of things, and Max Payne 3's community was absolutely gutted by people using auto-aim. If someone wants to drop $10 to buy a virtual apartment then by all means, let them fund GTAO so that I don't have to.

The first paragraph here is such bullshit, they literally haven't announced a single extra mission, modes or anything of that sort. And if they did, they sure as fuck never said it would be free.

And it's not just the pay to win thing, it's going against the entire FUNDAMENTAL THEME of the multiplayer, join up with other people to take on heists and robberies and advance in the criminal world. If you can just pay 10 bucks to skip the entire process, what's the point? And it also ruins it for everyone else doing it the legitimate way because you have no way knowing if they worked for the rewards or not. Also as far as the hard lock/free aim debate goes, both Max Payne 3 and RDR had server wide toggles for it, not sure why GTAO wouldn't either.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

Kinder shifty this news comes out after release proberlly knew people would hate it

 

[GrayGrey]

And it's not just the pay to win thing, it's going against the entire FUNDAMENTAL THEME of the multiplayer, join up with other people to take on heists and robberies and advance in the criminal world. If you can just pay 10 bucks to skip the entire process, what's the point? And it also ruins it for everyone else doing it the legitimate way because you have no way knowing if they worked for the rewards or not. Also as far as the hard lock/free aim debate goes, both Max Payne 3 and RDR had server wide toggles for it, not sure why GTAO wouldn't either.

Well said.

 

[Data West]

this has nothing to do with the money you earn in the single player though

Oh I'm beginning to have my doubts about that.

 

[Norns]

Oh I'm beginning to have my doubts about that.

Based on what?

All characters have separate money. It's pretty much a given that your online character would have it's own stash too. Also, it's going to be stored on Rockstars servers...

So yeah, based on nothing.