Fair point, but I consider them different from the mainline games as they were made for portable.So? By that logic the PS4 has 0 GTAs. It has 2, SA and V (I'm not counting III or VC because they're emulation not native). By that same logic PS2 has 5 GTAs that all run natively, ports of PSP games or not.
Edit: Also it's still a bit different because LCS and VCS came to PS2 very shortly after their portable releases, only a few months, whereas GTA 5 came to PS4 a fair bit later...and PS5 7 YEARS later.
I think one of the brothers are, the writer that is. Although I'm not too sure.Housers are out of Rockstar now right? Keep milking that cow Take2.
I'm 100% on board. GTA IV took it's sweet time getting to the meat, but that's sort of how GTA is supposed to be, in a way. GTA has always just been a city sandbox with an AR. You were never really meant to jump in and complete and story and walk away.I might buy this though. Depending on how it looks.
Yep, that was total crap. I just burst out laughing at that.I still think it’s hilarious that Sony led off one of their PS5 events with a gta 5 trailer. I don’t think I ever felt as deflated watching an event. I was sure it was an announcement for GTA 6 when it started, then when reality set in I was in shock, GTA 5 a PS3 game is your lead in that speaks well of what is in the pipeline.
it was frankly one of the worst starts I could have imagined, especially for a company that “believes in generations” tm.
But if you want to play it online you have to have ps plus anyway.Well, it depends how long you keep PS Plus for. If you have PS Plus for 3 years, then you’re paying well over £100 to rent this game, and then you’d still need to buy it afterwards if you actually want to own it.
It's reactions to stuff like this that always reminds me how out of touch the hardcore gaming community is with reality. They created a huge single player experience with GTAV. They also created (and continually update years later for free) an awesome online component to the game and overall GTAV is one of the most complete gaming experiences around really. Hundreds of hours of content, awesome bang for your buck. Yet people will still complain. Hear thst Rockstar? Be successful but not TOO successful.
Its plainly obvious the public wants this game and Rockstar is giving the people what they want, but leave it up to the "gamers" to whine about it. Do you really think Rockstar is going to say "We have a shitton of people who love this game but....a bunch of nerds on gaming forums are mad cause we keep updating the game. Time to end this ride boys."
Yup they're certainly good at making ultra reflective wet roads!Unless Rockstar truly gives us a "next gen" looking GTA V, I won't be buying it.
I mean, you have a modding community that is *killing it* with updated visuals like the one below.
Surely Rockstar can put some work into their port like this?
Also, to put it into perspective:
The GTA Online addition was a bullseye for R*, I'm really curious to see how much longer it can still hold up, but if they'll keep supporting it and make a remaster on top of that, I can see the game still being alive when PS6/Nextbox show up.
You do know DMA IS Rockstar North right? After GTA3 they just renamed the studio to Rockstar North.DMA made GTA3, not Rockstar as they simply published. So during the PS2 days, Rockstar North did both GTAVC and GTASA
Rockstar North did Grand Theft Auto IV, the two DLC episodes (The Lost & Damned/The Ballad of Gay Tony) which were packaged together as Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City. They then helped out on Red Dead Redemption (though San Diego was the lead studio) and provided support for Max Payne 3 whilst also working on Grand Theft Auto V.During the PS3 days they did GTAIV and GTAV (Rockstar San Diego did Red Dead)
You do know DMA IS Rockstar North right?
- Red Dead Redemption II (Rockstar San Diego)*
they wanted an excuse to keep GTA Online rolling
them being forced to work
instead of handling multiple projects over a number of years
??? Who fucking stated they are a "small studio"?Don't make excuses for them and pretend they're just some small studio who need time.
The majority of the team that worked on GTA3 went on to work on Vice City shortly after, it's even famous that the game was knocked out in nine months. Where the hell are you getting that "most" went to Realtime Worlds???They purchased them, but the majority of that team became Realtime Worlds studios. Its why I stated DMA did GTA3 and Rockstar North did VC. The team that did GTA3 as a majority went to Realtime Worlds.
It was started at San Diego and was in development there for the first few years until GTAV was complete, then it became a "Rockstar Studios" worldwide project. Again, where are you getting your info from? This is wildly inaccurate.Red Dead Redemption 2 was done by Rockstar North with help of their other studios. aka "Rockstar Studios" The FIRST Red Dead was done by Rockstar San Diego
Red Dead Redemption 2 was already planned and in pre-production BEFORE Grand Theft Auto V went gold. It's the last project to have any input from major studio leader Leslie Benzies despite it coming out nearly four years after he was fired. GTA Online becoming a huge hit is what lead to cancellation of the planned Single Player DLC for GTAV.I'm not sure why NOT releasing another game would magically make more money roll in, using your logic why even make Red Dead Redemption 2, it also has an online component so that goes against such a theory. GTA Online is rolling because people like playing it, they need not of an excuse to play it...
Read up on what happened at Rockstar North in 2014/5. Changes in management and structure lead to a lot of long time veterans leaving the studio, most have gone on to join Leslie Benzies at his new studio "Build A Rocket Boy", the leftovers at Rockstar North were just tasked with working on GTA Online.If you have evidence of slavery at the studio I'd love to hear it. They worked for Rockstar before, they still WORK FOR Rockstar now. Those are not independent studios you are talking about.
Excuses, when the main outlined projects for the foreseeable is just Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead titles and maintaining their Online servers then that isn't maintaining quality, that's getting rid of creative side projects and stopping risks which lead to unique games like Bully, Manhunt, Midnight Club, etc, and hell, even the first original Red Dead game. They just want to focus on what will make money now (yeah yeah, hit me with that corporate dick sucking excuse "well achtually ALL businesses want to make money")They also don't want shit quality and to have their IPs abused. The way they are doing things now isn't hurting them even remotely considering they have one of the best selling games in history and Red Dead 2 breaking many records of its own. If this way works for Rockstar, I see no issue with it. This isn't 20 years ago....
The way you were phrasing things was like Rockstar are hard at work focusing on "maintaining quality" when the fact is, currently, they are badly managed, you know what the main guy was up to the past few years? Partying in Ibiza and visiting clubs and DJ's around the world, which what a coincidence, happens to be the focus of GTA Online these days:??? Who fucking stated they are a "small studio"?
What's stopping R* from building GTA 6 on the same engine as GTA V? How is that even a point?Yeah lets just quickly forget that Gta 3,VC,SA are all built on the same engine. It took a long time for IV to come out and then they built on that engine.
Not to mention most R* studios went on to assist with RDR2, one of the biggest and most ambitious games R* ever created.
Now they are using RDR2 tech to make GTA 6. Yes Online has given them a lot of leeway, there is perhaps less incentive to move on from the ever popular GTA V but that doesnt mean they arent already making GTA 6.
Yall se crybabies, Id rather have them take their sweet time. We already lost Benzies, Lazlow and one of the housers. Chances are it wont be as good as V anyway.
Where the hell are you getting that "most" went to Realtime Worlds???
It was started at San Diego
- Red Dead Redemption II (Rockstar San Diego)
And? Thats not being debated. If GTAV Online was sooooooooooo much of a money maker that they don't' want to make new games, that goes for continuing any development. I mean for fuck sakes, your original comment even states thisRed Dead Redemption 2 was already planned and in pre-production BEFORE Grand Theft Auto V went gold.
Many projects were shelved
Read up on what happened at Rockstar North
Excuses, when the main outlined projects for the foreseeable is just Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead titles
The way you were phrasing things was like Rockstar are hard at work focusing on "maintaining quality" when the fact is, currently, they are badly managed,
What's stopping R* from building GTA 6 on the same engine as GTA V? How is that even a point?
I mean they could have released it 2 or 3 years ago. They obviously didn't have any problems with the engine that prevented them from dedicate dedicating the online component for the entirety of last gen. They could have released a new game long before now.Only thing stopping them is not wanting that dated quality to get in the way. They want to push boundaries and likely don't want to be held back. So because we got a new engine with GTAIV, they likely want a new generation GTA on a new engine.
Put it this way, if Ubisoft was running GTA, you'd get several running on a copy and paste type thing lol
Not saying it can't happen, simply that Rockstar likely doesn't want that. We don't even know much about the new GTA, for all we know it does a lot of new things that simply can't be done on the older engine.
I mean they could have released it 2 or 3 years ago. They obviously didn't have any problems with the engine that prevented them from dedicate dedicating the online component for the entirety of last gen. They could have released a new game long before now.
The behavior of the company suggests they're more than willing to keep skinning it for new hardware to keep that revenue pipeline flowing as long as possible. It's not the tech that has held up a new game.
I know the history friend, look up the names of the people who worked on Vice City and then how many of them stayed on for Manhunt.You can easily look up the story of how that studio was made.
Because Red Dead Redemption 2 was already far beyond multiple other projects and was already in full production when GTA Online was still in its early days.And? Thats not being debated. If GTAV Online was sooooooooooo much of a money maker that they don't' want to make new games, that goes for continuing any development. I mean for fuck sakes, your original comment even states this
How come Red Dead 2 wasn't one of those projects if they hate new games soooooo much? smh.
So you don't actually want to read up on the evidence but then ask me to provide evidence??nah bud,
I did explain multiple times, you're just being a kiss ass apologist for a billion dollar company. Go ahead and suck up to them and defend them though, I'm sure you'll get a new game some point before 2030.Ignoring going forward as you seem to want to run with this narrative that we must all hate Rockstar cause you are triggered at them or something. You argue their focus is on JUST making money, yet can't explain the existance of a new game like Red Dead 2..... just stop bud, get help.
On GTAV’s upcoming next-gen console version, Zelnick said he was confident the remaster would deliver a strong experience for players.
“We’ve done great with the Mafia series, for example, and Grand Theft Auto [V] is now heading into its third generation which is incredible, he said.
“It was a standard-bearer when it was launched, it continued to be the standard-bearer in the second generation, we’ll see how Grand Theft Auto does in the next generation. Obviously, I’m confident that Rockstar is going to deliver just a great experience, but you can’t do that if you’re just doing a simple port.”
“I’m not sure there’ll be a bigger part of the strategy,” he responded. “Remastering has always been a part of the strategy. We’ve done differently than the competition – we don’t just port titles over, we actually take the time to do the very best job we can making the title different for the new release, for the new technology that we’re launching it on.
They most certainly were not fully working on RDR2. They never stopped releasing content and updates for GTA online the whole time RDR2 was in development. A company with the resources of Rockstar can and has done more than one game at one time. They simply prioritized GTA Online over GTA 6.? They were fully working on Red Dead Redemption 2.
?? Yet....again, Red Dead Redemption 2, a new game exist by them so......... yea. I don't see any evidence of "will to keep skinning" when they just put out a game. Doesn't really fit that narrative. Shit, why even make Red Dead 2 if their goal is to make nothing and "keep skinning"?
So I simply don't see enough to argue their goal is to not do something, to keep something else making money as if they can even stop people from playing GTAV, i think even after GTAVI comes out, you'll still get loads of people still playing GTAV. They didn't just stop when Red Dead 2 came out so..... I don't see how that is an either or.
They most certainly were not fully working on RDR2. They never stopped releasing content and updates for GTA online the whole time RDR2 was in development. A company with the resources of Rockstar can and has done more than one game at one time. They simply prioritized GTA Online over GTA 6.