- 1 hour
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.
3 hoursI keep waiting for the cash-grab that breaks the market. Hopefully this is it.
GTA:O could easily be free to play and they’d still make money off it.
- 6 hours
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.
- 7 hours
Rockstar made so much fucking money off online you’d think they wouldn’t have the gall to charge extra for it… but greed always wins.
- greyscale@lemmy.grey.oooEnglish7 hours
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.
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
- 7 hours
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.
- 6 hours
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.
- 4 hours
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.
- 6 hours
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.
