I like how aAanah Pearce put it. (Summarized) GTA online makes obscene amounts of money, like crazy amounts. Personally I'm not someone who wants to spend money on online, but others do. When you think about it, rockstar is able to build things like red dead redemption 2 thanks to the online players. Games do cost money to build, and it's directly thanks to online players that they've had enough money to build these games for us.
I like this take. Is GTA Online slimy? Probably, and it can even lean on greedy. But people still pay for it, and thanks to them rdr2 and now gta6 were funded. The fact that GTA 6 has a single player experience proves they're still committed together single player narratives, but at the end of the day they need to fund them. So thanks online players for funding our single player experiences.
I understand the logic behind this, but the $80 price tag for a game that is forecast to sell incredibly well kind of undermines that thought. If they are using the absolutely absurd amounts of money they have made from GTA online to fund the game there would be no justification for the higher cost for this game in relation to other AAA titles. So this is purely driven by greed, and Rockstar is happy to increase profits and enrich their executives through predatory behavior.
We should not be making excuses for corporations that will happily embrace profit with no regard for morality or ethics.
I give them so much credit for RDR2 but also have so much hate for them for abandoning it and not creating any extra story DLC or really finishing any of the online aspect.
No issues with this. I'm increasingly tired of the online multiplayer money machines. If you like them, you probably have no issues buying that version. I think Rockstar is reading their market correctly here.
I just hope this, plus the existence of GTA+, isn’t a prelude to online play being a fully subscription based model.
The overwhelming prevalence of subscription models, their success with shark cards, and consistent revenue stream for GTA+, would incentivize Rockstar to do something like that, even though I do not think the community would support it—not in the numbers we are used to.
The ultimate question is—what makes the most money? And fewer—but PAYING—players could potentially drive that. I hope not.
yes but if you initially charge for it then you can make MORE money.
Honestly they could go the MMO route of old and charge you for the game, then charge you a monthly sub, then charge you via an ingame shop and people would gladly pay it. I mean hell just look at WoW, that thing is still raking in money 20+ years after initial release and it does all of the above.
I wish there were more games that were fully complete single player offline games with online multiplayer being an afterthought. I miss a good story and experience that isn't grind for years or pay to continue.
[object Object]
in reply to along_the_road • • •like this
KaRunChiy, massive_bereavement, Hexanimo and dandi8 like this.
greyscale
in reply to [object Object] • • •I mean they might be about to fuck the whole industry about in the funniest way dropping GTA6 single player for $29.99.
It'd be hilarious watching the ghouls in the industry promptly shit their britches.
like this
KaRunChiy likes this.
Gamma
in reply to greyscale • • •The $80 price tag has always been for single player though, gta5 online released later than the singleplayer too (but it was free)
I’m wondering if they release online in Jan-Feb next year to screw over all the publishers that pushed their game because of gta6
like this
KaRunChiy and Hexanimo like this.
greyscale
in reply to Gamma • • •The $80 price tag hasn't been for anything, ever though.
Its an unacceptably high price for what it is.
zanyllama52
in reply to greyscale • • •greyscale
in reply to zanyllama52 • • •Whats your point, that we should go back to the 80s pricing?
get outta here with that shit.
Scrubbles
in reply to along_the_road • • •I like how aAanah Pearce put it. (Summarized) GTA online makes obscene amounts of money, like crazy amounts. Personally I'm not someone who wants to spend money on online, but others do. When you think about it, rockstar is able to build things like red dead redemption 2 thanks to the online players. Games do cost money to build, and it's directly thanks to online players that they've had enough money to build these games for us.
I like this take. Is GTA Online slimy? Probably, and it can even lean on greedy. But people still pay for it, and thanks to them rdr2 and now gta6 were funded. The fact that GTA 6 has a single player experience proves they're still committed together single player narratives, but at the end of the day they need to fund them. So thanks online players for funding our single player experiences.
MrSoup
in reply to Scrubbles • • •yuri
in reply to MrSoup • • •just2look
in reply to Scrubbles • • •I understand the logic behind this, but the $80 price tag for a game that is forecast to sell incredibly well kind of undermines that thought. If they are using the absolutely absurd amounts of money they have made from GTA online to fund the game there would be no justification for the higher cost for this game in relation to other AAA titles. So this is purely driven by greed, and Rockstar is happy to increase profits and enrich their executives through predatory behavior.
We should not be making excuses for corporations that will happily embrace profit with no regard for morality or ethics.
kobra
in reply to Scrubbles • • •bigbangdangler
in reply to along_the_road • • •like this
massive_bereavement and dandi8 like this.
artyom
in reply to bigbangdangler • • •like this
dandi8 likes this.
Swedneck
in reply to bigbangdangler • • •dandi8 likes this.
Hux
in reply to along_the_road • • •I just hope this, plus the existence of GTA+, isn’t a prelude to online play being a fully subscription based model.
The overwhelming prevalence of subscription models, their success with shark cards, and consistent revenue stream for GTA+, would incentivize Rockstar to do something like that, even though I do not think the community would support it—not in the numbers we are used to.
The ultimate question is—what makes the most money? And fewer—but PAYING—players could potentially drive that. I hope not.
like this
Hexanimo likes this.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
in reply to along_the_road • • •like this
Hexanimo likes this.
rozodru
in reply to 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 • • •yes but if you initially charge for it then you can make MORE money.
Honestly they could go the MMO route of old and charge you for the game, then charge you a monthly sub, then charge you via an ingame shop and people would gladly pay it. I mean hell just look at WoW, that thing is still raking in money 20+ years after initial release and it does all of the above.
ɔiƚoxɘup
in reply to along_the_road • • •Jul (they/she)
in reply to along_the_road • • •like this
dandi8 likes this.
Anchorxiety
in reply to along_the_road • • •