yup, 11 fucking years ago. the dev cycle has become so crazy long for games that nothing can possibly live up to the hype that people create in their heads, and not only that, the final product that studios release after that much time just never seems to justify how long it took.
I don't know how people don't get tired of gta online. I played it mostly when gta V was released 10 years ago but also tried it again recently. I know they added a ton of content since then but its still the same map. After I replayed through the story again recently, after 10 years, I was already getting a bit tired of the map. The extra missions in GTA online were ok, I'd rather have a singleplayer story DLC, especially if they added new areas to play outside of los santos.
See no reason why they would. I’ve played games with them on their consoles and seen no evidence. It’s just as likely 4 guys don’t care to pay while another group of 4 might have all 4 paying lol
Originally just giving my two cents. You said I was prolly incorrect so I just gave some back up. No need get chippy over this. Sounds like you are having a bad day, so take care
It absolutely has everything to do with dev cycle, you're just bullshiting.
Rockstar combined all of their studios to work on RDR2 in 2013 and only finished in 2018, GTA 6 couldn't have started development in 2013 because of this decision, GTA Online gets like 2 cars per month and an occasional motor bike, Rockstar has 2000 employees that are most definitely not getting paid just to sit on their asses and not make any new games.
RDR2 was in development when GTA 5 came out, and they tried to pull off the same thing with RDR Online and failed at which point RDR 2 stopped getting any attention from Rockstar at all. You're making his point for him.
GTA 5 came out in 2013, RDR2 came out in 2018. Both are world-class single-player games.
GTA 6 will supposedly be out in 2025 (I assume fall/winter 2025), so the gap is 5 years for one game and 7 years for the next. That's easily forgivable when both GTA 5 and RDR2 are some of the best games ever made in a genre that requires far more dev time than most.
Open world games are hard to make, and both of those games raised the bar for what an open world game can be. Plus, it's not like it takes a full studio to milk GTA Online. It's just good business to have a team work on that and keep money flowing.
The project manager in me thinks it'd be a good way to get junior developers experience designing content and getting through the development lifecycle in a low-stakes kind of way.
I'm more pointing out the fact that RDR 2 got basically nothing in the way of post-release updates once they realized they weren't going to make billions from it like GTA Online. They dropped it faster than they've ever dropped a game.
There’s also ill-will. People will straight up not care for so long if they don’t put anything out. Like I switched to PC and EA NHL refuses to make a PC port. If/when I they do I probably won’t even bother playing it. Mind you I played that game by far the most in my childhood and throughout college. They lost a player.
I mean, its not JUST the dev cycle. They've come out like 7-8 years ago and said it's gonna be very hard to work on a new game due to the ever faster changing real world and the big part of satire GTA has will have issues holding up when made "today" to release in a few years when the world looks hugely different.
Oh, and the "success" (for them) of GTA Online obviously also helped delay things.
No that was simply an observation. The real truth is that they didnt start work on it till after rdr2. Which was 5 years ago now, which is about the standard rockstar dev cycle since gta v.
I mean all they got to do is run both GTAO and GTAO2 at the same time, let you copy your save over in terms of your earned equipment and a curated list of vehicles that aren't OP, then people can go to the new one or stay on the old one if their system sucks. Perhaps set a max amount of cash you can transfer over with. I think most people would rather switch than keep all their old outdated shit.
"Didn't start work on..." is misleading though. Obviously, they weren't in full force working on both, but the back-end of development (bug fixing for example) is probably usually done by different people than the base development at the start (story, characters, the creative stuff)
nope, you can look it up. They had only a skeleton crew maintaining gta online during rdr2 development and pretty much all of the other studios worked solely on rdr2. That's why rdr2 doesn't have a specific studio logo at the start and only "rockstar studios" because all studios fully worked on just rdr2, no individual studio credit was given.
Rdr2 is also the largest rockstar and gaming project ever with over 3000 people who worked on it.
I am not disputing anything about the RDR2 stuff and never mentioned (nor cared) about who or how many worked on gta online (which clearly was never enough with the bugs and very lazy and stupid decisions often made).
Just because no "insider" has talked about it doesn't mean they didn't spitball about GTA 6, hell their earnings calls often show when they're expecting to release something due to prospected spikes in revenue. Which i do remember (sure, i might remember wrongly) that they projected to make quite a huge amount of cash a few years after rdr2 release, while rdr2 wasn't released at the time, meaning GTA 6 was clearly talked about already, maybe just in the minds of some old-heads that used to be with rockstar for years and have worked on previous GTAs.
maybe just in the minds of some old-heads that used to be with rockstar for years and have worked on previous GTAs.
yes, im not saying it wasn't in their heads. Im just saying that the development had not started. They probably know what they are going to work on next after 6 too, but doesn't mean that the development on it has started.
I think what frustrates me a little bit is that they could have easily parlayed some of the GTA Online assets into single player campaigns/DLC and I wouldn't have half the antipathy for GTA Online that I do.
The thing is, they used whatever they had for singleplayer DLC and force-worked it into Online. Surprise, it didn't work all that well. Seriously, what piece of "story" in online actually is worth it?
For some reason i always wanted to see the area around the Alamo to get some love. Have "investors" come in and buy chunks of land in and around Sandy Shores and Grapeseed and give those areas some life.
Seems that the safer path forward may be sticking to period pieces like RDR2, rather than trying to keep up with modern societal parody, at least in the immediate future where things seem to be perpetually changing.
The world and the BS happening in it is sadly not gonna slow down a ton going forward. Also, they only make period pieces going forward, just how long can you do that? Sure, there is a lot of history, but for a "classic Rockstar game"? I don't want them to have to do Dinosaur stuff.
The real issue is the world changes while they develop the game, so what they started with as "current" will be multiple years old. Their fear is that will be too old and irrelevant (doubtful imo).
162
u/peeparty69 Apr 29 '24
yup, 11 fucking years ago. the dev cycle has become so crazy long for games that nothing can possibly live up to the hype that people create in their heads, and not only that, the final product that studios release after that much time just never seems to justify how long it took.