Remember, they released GTAV with 30FPS first to PS5 , then they sold an upgraded PS5 version @60FPS for an additional $10 (which is free on most games).
Not really. There’s a reason the PS5 $10 upgrade isn’t compatible with the older versions in terms of online play. They updated a lot of graphics and models plus the 60fps. There are a lot of comparison videos on YouTube if you’re interested in even looking. The most noticable are like, damage models in cars is better, smoke looks more realistic and was redone, fire looks and acts better. Lighting is much better. Etc.
This is false information. GTA V was backwards compatible from the ps4 version which ran at 30fps. Then they released an upgraded ps5 version that ran at 60fps. It wasnt a bad deal either.
Yeah but they still charged for the “upgrade”. A lot of gaming companies give you the PS5 version of a game for free if you already own the PS4 version.
That is only if the game released on both consoles simultaneously, the ps4 version of gtav came out years ago, they deserved to charge for the upgrade…
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.
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.
This might be interesting… if Obsidian had done something like this. However seeing as how this is 76, a game that to this day runs like dog shit and is still the Bethesda game with the most bugs; I don’t think I’ll be enjoying this experience.
Starfield is good. It’s not the next Skyrim, it’s not the greatest RPG ever made, but it does more than enough things right to be worthwhile. It’s fine to not like a good game, by the way - but this doesn’t make it terrible.
Glad to see this is still going, I played it a ton at launch and had a lot of (buggy) fun. This is a neat update, I’m imagining groups of constantly ghouls roaming around nuked areas gathering all the resources.
In before the “People still play?” Yeah. 12,000 people on average. The game was released 6 years ago. There’s been a hell of a lot of free updates since then.
We get it. You hate FO76/Bethesda/Todd Howard. Go touch grass.
Unfortunately that’s the best part of FO76. Building your base/shelter, getting stuff for your base/shelter, etc. The story is okay. But at some point, everything revolves around you improving your base.
I don’t hate it, I just got bored. I felt similarly after Fallout 3. I think that universe just isn’t for me (also, the weight limits are ass for free players). I played the Metro series before Fallout, and I think it kinda set the bar too high.
I’m not surprised people still play, though. It’s pretty fun, and people are generally nice. There’s lots to do, and the quests are decent.
Yeah, and it’s not that I think Fallout is bad, it’s just…I think it feels too cartoonish? Like, people are supposed to be struggling, but despite the post-apocalyptic setting, each faction has their own little kingdom and seems to be doing alright. Medicine and stim packs abound, and nobody is really living on the knife’s edge.
And while that’s at least partly by design (supposed to be satirical sometimes), it doesn’t feel completely satirical, like Saints Row, or completely serious, like the Metro series. It’s caught somewhere in the middle, and I think that’s what doesn’t appeal to me; I want it to be silly or not silly, and it rides that line in a way I don’t like.
I felt similarly after Fallout 3. I think that universe just isn’t for me
Out of curiosity, have you played any of the non-Bethesda Fallout games? Because the Fallout-nees of FO3 (haven’t played 76 or 4) is a paper-thin veneer composed of random elements from previous games jumbled together in ways that make no sense.
I’m planning on waiting a few days to check the reviews and make sure it can run on my PC, but it’s pretty promising to see such a glowing review coming in early from the Kremlin.
This article misses the point. The logic behind the likely regulation is that: a couple of GSC devs joined UAF (one KIA) and GSC donated to ukrainian funds -> you spend money on their products -> you have financially supported UAF. GSC wasn’t proclaimed a terrorist org (lmao) but laws here can be applied backwards if they’d need so.
Tzar doesn’t need anything to land one’s ass in jail, but it’d still be followed by traditional beaurocratic procedures just like in RE\USSR and that’s the likely way it’d follow through.
And, also, having Stalker on your acc or purchasing it via russian resellers may serve as a trigger that can make agencies or just your russian teammate tell on you for lulz if your profile wasn’t set to private.
wccftech.com
Gorące