Isn’t that generally the case, though? Sure, not rootable on day zero, but usually it is only later models that get some hardware patch, leaving the earliest models with the vulnerability.
I don’t plan to buy one because proprietary, locked down hardware isn’t a great investment compared to PC hardware that can serve a lot of different purposes, but am eagerly awaiting the news of Nintendo’s well-earned pwnage.
It is priced at 60 to 70 dollars (fuck that still hurts)
It has a solid OFFLINE story mode.
If they try pull 100 dollar bullshit or fill it with micro transactions then I am out. Also I will not pre order this game (I didn’t with 5) I will wait until its out and I hear good things from the players.
Just like I did with 5. Had coworker who was bragging about the game every day. Finally and picked up a copy at Vintage Stock. This is the original PS3 version only one I have.
I only recently started playing again specifically because I found out that all the missions in online mode that required you to be in a public lobby are now able to be ran in a private lobby. Playing in a solo lobby is basically like getting more SP story (there are story missions in GTAO; it’s not all races and DM). Don’t have to deal with cheaters or asshats.
Exactly. $100 is a lot of money, however games are cheaper than ever these days (adjusted for inflation) and $100 for no micro transactions sounds fair.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy it at that price either. I‘d wait for a sale…
To respond to yours though, I’d say it depends on how much content there is! If a game can easily take 1000 hours with no degradation of enjoyment, I would pay $100 for it
Edit to add: I realize this didnt exactly address your question, but I’m not sure what percentage since it heavily depends on the quality and quantity of content
For me personally, I find it really easy to add “hours” to a game’s runtime, and I’d sooner pay more for a higher quality experience and a shorter runtime. I’ve spent about a fifth of that 1000 mark in both Baldur’s Gate 3 and Elden Ring, and they’d have been worth $100 to me. Indiana Jones was worth every bit of the $70 I paid, and it took me under 20 hours.
The only full price game I recall ever buying was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (back when £35 was the standard "full price" price point). Now that one was worth it, but no other AAA game that I can think of has justified the cost to me. Once we're talking about that amount of money there's a lot of other things I would get more enjoyment from.
I think I paid about £10 for GTA V. I'd maybe go to £15 or £20 these days, but beyond that I simply have other things I could play.
Meh I’d drop 100 plus on standard night out. I dont buy many games but buying God of War Ragnarok for 30 and getting 100 hours of entertainment was well worth it, to the point I regret not buying it full price day one.
There are many things I'd spend more on, but gaming is something that I can spend a lot of hours on without necessarily enjoying. As in, the experiences are often weirdly compulsive and before I know it I've tanked eighty hours without really enjoying it all that much.
I collected all the submarine collectibles in GTA V - do I think that was more fun than a party with friends? Absolutely not. Did it take more time? Most definitely.
If the biggest game of the decade charges $100, every triple A game will charge the same, and other games will probably be more expensive as well, and in most cases it’ll be more money for the same steadily decreasing quality, at least in the triple A market.
Because Rockstar is going to do it and sell a gorillion copies, so it’s basically a guarantee that everyone else will jump on the opportunity. And once every game is $100, what are people going to do, stop buying video games? I find that unlikely anymore. They’ll bitch and complain about it and sales might drop a little on average but studios will survive. And now we have a new price floor set forever.
I think yes, people will stop buying video games (at that price). There are very few games that carry the demand that GTA does, and customers have shown with the likes of Suicide Squad that they won’t just buy anything that marketing tells them to. Meanwhile, customers are very aware of the options available to them for free.
You’ve got more faith in the purchasing public than I do, then. I’ve been watching them buy a new copy of the same COD slop every year for a fresh $60 basically since I’ve been old enough to buy my own video games.
People like what they like, and the core of CoD hasn’t changed enough to dissuade people, in general, yet it still has bad years where it doesn’t do as well as it did this year.
I think it will be 80 dollars, with bigger editions available, eg. including online mode. For me, the 30fps is the most annoying, I was never a performance fanatic, but I’m used to 60 now.
I feel like im the only person in the world who isnt excited for this game. I dont care for GTA, they just feel super clunky and sloppy to play. (I know, no one asked.)
I played GTA IV mostly because the mechanics were fucking awesome. The driving was incredible for an open world game like that. Euphoria was dope.
The first seconds of the GTA V gameplay trailers hinted that they neutered the driving. Then they announced the driving was ported from a Midnight Club game and that was the last nail in the coffin for me.
Tried the game once at a friend’s house and the gameplay feel was so shit I never played it again. I knew I’d always be distracted by it.
You’re not the only one, friend. The only thing I care about is what sort of pricing hijinks they get up to, which could have industry-wide consequences.
It makes a lot of sense to at least ask the question if you should split this game into two parts when each part has a very different pool of customers. I don’t think they’ll do it, because they want people in the online component to be present for multiplayer in the first place, but it makes sense to ask the question.
If this game is going to have issues running at 60 FPS on the PS5, I don’t think 30 FPS is for the benefit of the Switch 2. Even if it was, Switch 2 is a platform that people will want to play GTA on. The tech that Rockstar is trying to push forward comes at the cost of frame rate. That’s not making it shittier; it’s making different trade-offs.
GTA IV had a superficial story? I certainly did not feel that way about that game. Niko is the best protagonist they’ve ever had; a great protagonist in general.
I grew up breaking games to make them run under minimum settings. Subnautica has (or at least had) a Dev menu or some shit that you could make the game look like utter arse.
Got me like 18fps at 480p, worth it #playable for younger me.
If I get under 100fps at 4k now I’m unhappy. How times change.
Lol, same, I’ve played some games at such abysmal resolution it became a testament of how good the art direction was, making it possible to recognize things amidst that jumble of pixels.
Funny how we grow accustomed with what we have. I was hyper-aware of my disk usage when I had a tiny HDD, nowadays I’m like “Why am I low on storage???”, then I go check and find 200GB of junk I no longer need on my downloads folder. Whoops.
Yeah I have, for a looong while. I understand a stable framerate is much better than a “high” one, but like, were not talking about a “Low-end” PC here, we’re talking about the current, still marketed generation here.
How come 30’s still the target when all the marketing is talking about how powerful it is and how amazing the upscaling is? And it’s a fixed target on top of all that, like common man
I have to assume they’re targeting 30fps because that would be using all the bells and whistles like raytracing and running at 4k on the consoles; which are unlikely to be able to achieve 60fps or higher with all that shit on.
And, as they have done with literally every single GTA since 3: It likely won’t release on PC at the same time. It will come 1-2 full years later and when it does, will have more features and run at a higher frame rate.
The majority of people playing don’t know the difference. I am shocked there won’t be a 60fps mode, i can’t remember the last time I’ve been forced to play at 30fps outside of playing older games locked to it.
Yeah, i know, for myself I didn’t really get to experience it until 2016 when I built myself a PC with mid range specs and then when I got the ps4 pro in like 2018. I say it’s one of those things where once you get to have it, you never wanna go back.
Yeah. I have a PS5 and I heard gta 6 won’t launch on PC right away, but then I heard it is coming to PC lol. So idk. I’m almost hitting 40 and playing on my couch and tv has been more fun lately. But sometimes I just know a game will run much better on my PC.
What I should do is put my current build into a super small box with an external PSU and just install steam os and hook it up to my tv
It’s not shocking, when you consider the level of graphical fidelity they’ll be pushing on screen.
The more detail you add, the lower the framerate, on any given hardware. They will be balancing “oh my God!” level graphics, with playable frame rates. The fact they’re shooting for such a relatively low frame rate, shows how hard they’re pushing the hardware.
For most people the further they sit away from a screen the less they are going to notice it. And console gamers play on a tv from the couch. Of course if you show them a 60fps version after they played in 30fps they will notice but most people don’t understand why that is and thus not care. Like how many people watch movies with motion smoothing on since they don’t see that it looks smoother than the movies in the cinema.
Rockstar can get away with this since the vast majority of GTA player will be mainstream casual gamers that only have fifa/madden and CoD in their gaming collection.
Yes, 30fps is fine, and expected even if you’re also expecting ultra realistic graphics. This expectation that people have of games being 60 fps and being stupid realistic is nonsense. You want realistic graphics and reflections when a game is first released, your gonna get 30 fps. And honestly, you can hardly tell the difference anyway.
Edit: Always expect the downvotes when I say this. The people in gaming subs, almost never understand how games are developed. Just demand without understanding the limitations of hardware and software.
None that I’ve ever seen. It takes a lot of work to get good graphics even for 60 fps, a lot of optimization, that depending on the type of game, might be very expensive and time consuming to do.
It’s a number that divides easily into 120, which mattered more for old TVs, and it’s far enough over the threshold to trick our minds into seeing a bunch of still frames as a moving thing.
We’ll get 60 and above on pc a while later anyway. Also the sold separately thing is probably just like they did with RDR2 where you could get everything or just the multiplayer part of the game, which I personally think is fine.
wccftech.com
Aktywne