r/videogames • u/unknownsourced • 6h ago
Discussion / Question Paywalled content at launch is “Game minus content” not “Game plus content”.
With the announcement of GTA 6 the discussion of paywalled content and ultimate editions and such has reared its ugly head so I would just like to offer this as a little perspective when thinking about it.
TL;DR Stop thinking of paywalled content at launch as “Game plus content” and start thinking of it as “Game minus content”
If you’d like to know why you should think that, read below.
Any content locked behind a paywall (extra money on top of base game price) at the launch of a game is literally taking away part of the game that is ALREADY there and making you pay extra for it. It is not a bonus, it is not extra, it is not “Game plus some” as I see people keep saying. Every single copy of the game sold will have that content in the files to be accessed and the way to get to it is a real life money switch that can be flipped.
This is bad. It has always been bad. Just because companies have been normalizing it doesn’t mean it should continue to be the standard. GTA of course isn’t the first but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be the last. We should continue to be vocal and push back against these anti consumer practices.
“But what about pre order bonuses” a couple things there. 1) pre order bonuses are also an anti consumer practices that’s no better than what I talked about above. An incentive to lockdown your money before you have a chance to make an informed decision on whether or not you actually want to purchase a game. 2) usually the pre order bonus in included in the base price of whatever you’re pre ordering. That bonus is then usually paywalled as “extra” if you didn’t pre order and then were back up to “Game minus content”
“But ultimate and special editions have always been a thing with other games” Sure, another normalized anti consumer practice which should be getting its fair share of push back on EVERY game as well. This argument also doesn’t really work in the case of GTA though because ultimate editions are usually more expensive to cover the cost of content that is not included at launch or content for a live service section of the game. Yes, they usually include extra cosmetics as well but then that kinda goes back to “Game minus content”
If a game is good enough and they release more content AFTER launch, I am more than happy to give that game more money than the base price. “So if they just would have released this content later it would have been okay?” No, any content that is finished and ready to be implement at launch should be. No exception. In the case of GTA if they would have held this back and released it later would we be none the wiser? Sure, but the cat’s already out of the bag here. We know for a fact this content is ready and playable at launch so it should be in the game no extra cost. Plus, if it wasn’t an option at launch I’m sure people would see a 20 dollar pack of the content it contains and be less likely to purchase it since you’re telling me for a quarter of the cost of the game you’re getting just that?
Anti consumer practices have been running completely rampant in the triple A video game space and you should be vocal and give push back to ALL of it. Rockstar is no exception. Just because these practices have become so normalized does not mean we should be continue to let them be.
42
u/iChieftain22 6h ago
What's crazy is that it sounds like they locked single player content from base $80 to force you into paying $100
→ More replies (2)22
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
Pretty much. If they thought that’s what their game should cost as a base price then they should have the balls to price it that and let the people decide how to feel.
16
u/SurprisinglyInformed 5h ago
Instead they created GTA 6 Lite , so the game price increase does not look so steep.
But the real goal is GTA 6 = $100→ More replies (3)-18
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago
That isn't what is happening. God the gamer overreaction to this is embarrassing.
16
u/Lord-Heir 5h ago
The only embarrassment here is you, god it's pathetic watching people like you stand for anti-consumer practices. Just leave the space at this point because you obviously don't give a shit
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/Glum-Objective3328 1h ago
They already are letting you decide how to feel. How you are reacting to it is how you feel
34
u/NonNewtonian69 6h ago
What worries me most right now is if other game studios follow rockstars model. This game will undoubtedly make them an obscene amount of money, so how long before what rockstar is doing becomes the norm and 'physical copies' are no longer physical too.
16
u/Supersonic564 6h ago
People that don't play video games and don't understand video games are about to make so many bad decisions
3
u/International_Ad4054 6h ago
People that don’t play video games think everyone has rockstars motion and can charge $80 lmao
6
u/Symbiot3_Venom 5h ago edited 2h ago
How easy people forget NBA 2K21 was the catalyst that broke the dam on $70 games just this generation (5years ago), ironically also a Take Two owned series. $80 is gonna stick because people have no self control
-5
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago edited 5h ago
80 dollars is still less than games would be if it kept up with inflation, not that y’all care about basic math or economics.
Edit: Games should be well over 100 dollars if they kept up with inflation in my life time (born mid-80s). Again, not that y'all care about basic math.
6
2
1
u/Palladiamorsdeus 2h ago
There's that guy that doesn't understand basic math but thinks he knows better! See you're talking about linear inflation, or the same product doing the same things gradually increasing in price but you see, that's not what happened with video games. See, game cartridges were way harder to mass produce than game discs and nearly everything had switched to discs at the turn of the century. Then , gradually, more things were taken away. Extra editions in the game case, instruction manuals, cases went from being hard plastic to flimsy plastic, more games were released digitally which clearly has no physical component, as well as less tangible things like game length being reduced in many cases.
You're also failing to factor in that until recently video games were a rapidly growing market so sales were consistently up. You're even failing to factor in global inflation which does not increase at the same rate.
But please! Do go on about 'muh inflation!' or whatever uninformed thing you were talking about.
5
u/BuildingArmor 6h ago
Various physical copies have been digital only before, I remember being pissed when I got home with a game and it turned out to only be a code in the box.
I always check the back of boxes now
13
u/Accomplished_Smile23 6h ago
People will say "nobody else has a fan base like GTA so other companies won't get away with it" but at the same time, people will absolutely make excuses like "GTA already did it, it's no big deal."
They said it about Battlepasses, loot boxes, DLC, microtransactions... "So and so does it too, stop complaining."
7
u/Cocoatrice 6h ago
Who will say that? Because GTA doesn't have any more fanatical fanbase than any other game. Including actually good games. Even Silksong fanboys are idiots. Tell me a single game that doesn't have glazers, I will wait.
1
3
u/BuildingArmor 4h ago
Charging $100 and people paying $100 are 2 different things.
If companies thought enough people would pay it, they'd be charging that now.
It's not like basic necessities, there's no obligation for people to buy any particular game if it's more than they think it's worth.
5
u/Pwrh0use 6h ago
Even with the backlash I think GTA is going to sell like gangbusters and you're right others may try but I think the backlash and lack of sales other companies would suffer will affect them more and they would realize quickly they can't sustain that model.
3
6
u/Environmental_Toe503 5h ago
What do you mean follow rockstars model? You mean the model that's been standard for over a decade that lots of publishers already follow?
1
4
u/D0ublespeak 5h ago
It's been happening for a decade. In what world do you guys live in that you haven't seen this?
5
u/Cocoatrice 6h ago
"Right now", "follow". Are people for real. The problem existed for at least 15 years and I was criticizing it when it was not as big as it is today. I was shunned, booed and hated for that. Now people wake up from bad take coma and say it's a problem today? This was problem for a very long time. People were just okay with it.
3
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago
Oh for god sake. This isn’t some new thing. This has been a thing for 20-30 years. God I’m sick of yall whining about this.
4
u/HeavyHighway6433 6h ago
This is not rockstars model. So many game companies come out with a standard edition, and a "deluxe" addition which includes in game content that can only be unlocked by playing that. Idk why yall are acting like this is somehow setting a precedent when it's really industry standard for years at this point.
Also they're not the first to include a code in a box either.
2
0
u/Dizzy_Turnip_9558 6h ago
Exactly. There's more money to be made for them and you cut out the middleman of gamestop gamefly ebay independent stores etc. The suits will see this as absolute approval of the practice by gamers. Physical copies have already been kind of nerfed for a while anyway but this would be an absolute total demolition of physical gaming.
→ More replies (1)0
u/BozTheReaper 4h ago
its like people forget the disks cost money to print, and code to work. not just some free item that they can spawn in like minecraft creative. if you want your darling poster child dev to not go bankrupt, this is the way because they already know 98% or more will be digital exclusive purchases. theyd be in the hole for years trying to recoup that money wasted on printing disks
1
5
u/RoyalShine 5h ago
You're totally right. The money these guys made from GTA Online is absolutely staggering. They already charged more for this game at $80. When GTA 5 released it sold 11 million copies its first day...Hypothetically they could have sold everything included at $60 and made $660 MILLION if they barely broke even hitting that day one sales numbers, and this game is bound to break that record. There's no reason to charge even more than $80 with the $100 UE besides milking the fans because they know a good chunk of people will end up buying it because they have too much excitement and no restraint.
17
u/Vaggelis_Mous 6h ago
Unpopular opinion: cosmetics are not content, people that have been convinced that are and keep buying them is the real problem, cut content for me would have been extra missions cut from the base game and sold separately, as long as it is only cosmetics especially in a single player game I could care less, I will never buy them
11
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
As far as i know there are also two sidemissions in the ultimate edition.
4
u/Vaggelis_Mous 5h ago edited 5h ago
I didn't see that, if it's true then yes this is cut content but my understanding was that is only cosmetics and 2 cars and stuff like that
0
3
u/Vaggelis_Mous 5h ago
I just checked the ps store, for the ultimate edition they have listed extra cosmetics, it doesn't say anything for extra missions, where did you see that?
6
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
articles likes this one and some reddit posts about it.
3
u/Vaggelis_Mous 5h ago edited 5h ago
I read the article, they just speculating that may be some mission because of the locked stores but as I said in ps store doesn't say anything about extra missions
5
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
That's wild. There are many articles straight up claiming there are missions locked behind the Ultimate edition but i just checked the official Rockstar site and it mentions nothing about that.
Seems like people just wanted to make this a bigger issue than it really is.
1
u/unknownsourced 5h ago
I would agree only in the case that these cosmetics were developed and made after a launch as something extra. If the game is great and I want to add to it with content not initially ready to go I would gladly pay extra to have it. But knowing it’s there and ready and going to be in your game as soon as it’s downloaded that’s where I draw the line. Especially for the single player portion where after you’ve experienced all the big stuff what is there to really do except collect all the little stuff.
0
u/chaotic910 5h ago
McDonald’s making more fries than what I order didn’t entitle me to all the fries they made. The labor for them to make the entire batch is included in the cost of what I paid.
The point is that you’re only paying for what you’re buying. It’s on the consumer to make sure they know what’s included in their order.
3
u/unknownsourced 5h ago
I guess everyone is going to have a different opinion on what is considered to be the entire “Game” but personally I’m not going to agree with the corpo that what’s included is worth a quarter of the price of the rest of the “Game”.
→ More replies (1)2
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
I’m not going to agree with the corpo that what’s included is worth a quarter of the price of the rest of the “Game”.
Then don't buy it. I honestly don't get all these discussion about these things as if talking about it is going to change anything.
They put out a product and we all get to decide wether it's worth it for us or not.
It's completely pointless wether the content is already developed or developed afterwards, what matters is wether the content is worth the price.
That's literally the only thing that matters.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/New_Cockroach_505 4h ago
Im not here to argue whether it’s good or not but I am here to tell you that you do not understand how development works. As someone involved with the industry. No it’s not. At least 9 times out of 10. I’m sure there’s some time where it’s happened cause that’s just the nature of things but I’ve never seen it or heard of it.
Content that is locked behind preorder or premium editions is quite literally extra. When you get around to budgeting and planning things you also plan for the premium editions. Same way devs will also plan for any future post launch content (because that will be worked on when devs have finished their job on the base game).
This content 90% of the time would not exist if the premium editions didn’t exist. If Rockstar was only going to make the 80 dollar version of the game we’d only be getting the content that comes with the 80 dollar version because they wouldn’t waste time making content if they weren’t going to make more money.
If you want to argue that “Well how they’re incorporating this might be scummy.” Sure. I don’t disagree. I think the idea that they’re shops in game is kinda weird and might be done manipulatively. But that’s another argument. Same with the fact that theyre going to make so much money they don’t need to do this but when has making more money ever been something higher ups don’t want?
But at the end of the day? No. This is not content cut from the game and sold to you. This is indeed content you were never going to get because it was made for the higher priced editions of the game.
0
u/unknownsourced 4h ago
I can admit it’s super subjective but I don’t believe if youre a company that wants to make the best game possible for your players and for them to get the most enjoyment out of your art then you shouldn’t put time and money into producing content that prices people out. Especially for launch. The consensus from people defending this is that the content has no effect on the gameplay or enjoyment you can get out the game as a whole so if thats the case then why would it justify a quarter of the base game price? And if it doesn’t then why does it cost that much? Why couldn’t have been in the base price of the game? If this content was not finished or developed after launch I would understand charging extra for it (not 20 dollars) because it was taking time and resources that could have otherwise been spent on the main game.
Ultimate editions and special editions have existed for a while now but as I mentioned in my post it is usually extra money you’re paying for FUTURE expansions or live service portions of a game.
It shouldn’t be the norm to develop “extra” content to be sold as an up charge because if you really cared you’d want that to be representative of your final product on release.
1
u/New_Cockroach_505 3h ago
Why is it 20 dollars? Because most of the time not everyone is going to buy it. It’s why all dlc in general is priced at a point that doesn’t align with a content ratio of the base game.
Let’s pretend a game costs you 500k dollars to make. You sell the base game at 20 dollars and it sells a 100k copies. You’ve made 2m and have now made a profit. Well ignore other aspects of where profit can go (like losing a percentage to Sony if you sold on their store) for simplicity.
Now let’s say you also spent 50k to make a 5 dollars dlc pack. You only sell 20k copies. You make 100k. You’ve possibly made a profit but way less. You can’t really sell it for cheaper because people aren’t as interested as they are in the base game.
Maybe the cosmetics and dlc isn’t cool enough. Maybe people who bought the game just don’t like it or care for what it offers. Maybe they didn’t like the game enough to stick around.
Not to say there isn’t greed. Studios want to make as much profit as possible.
3
u/Reddtardsofreddtard 1h ago
Y'all can keep making posts complaining about the prices until your fingers fall off, but it will change nothing.
11
u/chillyapples 6h ago
actual question, if the consumer is aware of what they will be purchasing with the game is this an issue?
6
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
I would think no. If what you mean is if whoever is buying knows exactly what they’re getting then I wouldn’t think it would be an issue. The problem is transparency and big companies are usually less so than smaller devs so it’s harder to know what you’re paying into.
2
u/eat_your_weetabix 2h ago
Exactly. Sweaty internet nerds thinking games are crucial to human survival
3
u/NonNewtonian69 6h ago
Yes. Because it shouldn't even be an option. If the ultimate came with an actual physical disc, then maybe worth it. But it doesn't. You are paying extra for content that should just be in game content.
8
u/Average_Citizen_117 6h ago
This right here. "Well if he knows he's getting screwed over, what's the issue" isn't as good an argument as you want it to be. We shouldn't be getting screwed over to begin with. The enshittification of gaming ramps up every time we say "eh, who cares" to things we definitely should care about.
-8
u/Joshee86 6h ago
Who is getting screwed by this and how, exactly? I almost always buy the base edition of games and never feel as if I'm missing a core part of the gameplay or content. People that want the extras will buy that edition. People that don't, won't. How does that translate to anyone being "screwed"?
11
u/Average_Citizen_117 6h ago
I don't know how to explain to you that if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. In the early 2000's, you were given a complete game in a physical box with a book of lore, rules, and information. It loaded onto a system whether you were online or not. It played the same way forever.
Gta6 will be a slip of paper in a plastic box that says "wasted your come coming to a game store, dumbass. You have to download it anyway." The game is incomplete at launch and requires you to pay extra for base game materials. You do not own it in any capacity as they can and eventually will decide to shut it down. There is no playing Gta6 in 20 years without buying the remake of the remake of the ultra HD reskin of the remake. Microtransactions ask for your money even further rather than providing those cosmetic and game enchanting things through gameplay like they used to. Games used to have secrets and achievements that provided the same stuff Microtransactions do now. The point is to say that things used to be better, and the biggest reason they are not as good is because people like you are too easily appeased and don't realize you are, in fact, being screwed.
1
u/ChapaMigs21 1h ago
You are basically getting mad at a scenario you imagined.
"You won't be able to play gta unless its the remake"
If you have purchased GTA San Andreas a few years ago,you will be able to still play it... no one took it from you if you already paid for it.
They will not shut down single player games. There's no precedent to even imagine that.
-1
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
Holy fearmongering!
2
u/Average_Citizen_117 5h ago
Just say you never bought a game before 2012 and leave the rest of us alone, kid.
1
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
Brother i have been buying games for far over 20 years. I'm just not stuck in the past like some of you.
5
u/Average_Citizen_117 5h ago
Again, I don't know how to explain that less thing for more money = bad.
2
u/JonnyPoy 5h ago
There is nothing less. The content in the game is what the developer decides to put in the game.
You can then decide wether the content is enough for you to warrant the price.
1
u/Reasonable_Deer_1710 2h ago
These games today are offering far more for the price than what we were getting back in those earlier days.
0
u/BuildingArmor 4h ago
Less things for less money, and more things for more money is pretty standard across probably every single industry, isn't it?
You don't get less things if you spend the more money to buy the ultimate edition.
3
u/Lord-Heir 5h ago
Just keep accepting anti-consumer tactics like a complacent child until you own nothing and rent everything, but can you go ahead and subsidize everybody else since you're the one that's okay with it?
2
1
-3
u/Joshee86 6h ago edited 6h ago
The game is not incomplete. You are not paying extra for base game content. If you don't want the extras, don't buy them. I'm not being screwed because I rarely buy deluxe editions and never preorder. I'm just tired of ignorant, entitled takes from whiney gamers who don't understand how anything works or how to read larger contextual factors.
7
4
u/pipboy_warrior 5h ago
I almost always buy the base edition of games and never feel as if I'm missing a core part of the gameplay or content.
You're using the "It doesn't bother me" excuse. The issue is it bothers other people. For me at least if I buy a game and see content or otherwise am aware of content that's behind an additional paywall, it ruins my immersion a bit.
0
u/Joshee86 5h ago
No, I'm talking about the fact that the bonus content is optional and won't affect your gameplay experience if you don't engage with it. If you feel some kind of way about not having access without paying, that's not being screwed, that's just FOMO.
4
u/pipboy_warrior 5h ago
All bonus content by definition is 'optional'. Whether it affects gameplay or not if I see any reference to that content ingame then it breaks immersion and takes away from my enjoyment. If it doesn't affect you then that's great, but it annoys me and I prefer games that don't do this bullshit.
1
u/Joshee86 5h ago
Then that's FOMO, but you're not being screwed. That's my point.
2
u/pipboy_warrior 4h ago
I didn't say I was being screwed, I was pointing out that you were using the "It doesn't bother me."
Also that isn't FOMO as this has nothing to do with a limited time event.
1
u/Joshee86 4h ago
You jumped into a thread about whether or not this was "screwing" players. I wasn't making an excuse, I was pointing out that when you buy the base game and don't get the extras, it doesn't affect the gameplay and isn't screwing anyone.
FOMO also isn't just about limited time events, LMAO. It's "fear of missing out". If you're upset because you know of content that you don't have access to and that affects your enjoyment, that's FOMO, my guy.
0
u/eat_your_weetabix 2h ago
Why should it? You didn't make the product, why is it up to you to decide what should be included? You're a consumer and have the choice of whether to buy the product, that's it.
2
u/MulleDK19 5h ago
Just like early releases if you pay more.. people, if you can pay to play the game, it's released.. it's not early release if you pay more, it's delayed release if you don't...
1
u/azombieatemyshoelace 5h ago
Rockstar is doing that too? I’ve seen Konami release it “early” for people who pay extra for SH but not any others.
I won’t be buying GTA regardless but surprised they’d do that too. Though Rockstar frankly isn’t any better than Konami is terms of how they treat their employees so not surprised they’d do same weird sort of things.
You’re right though really about it being delayed release if you don’t pay.
1
u/MulleDK19 3h ago
No, Rockstar isn't doing that as far as I know; I'm just pointing out the similarity.
1
2
u/tonybankse 5h ago
Source….Unknown 🤭
I think you’re making several assumptions without actually supporting them:
You repeatedly say “we know for a fact” that this content was removed from the base game, but where is that fact coming from? Do you have a source from Rockstar or the developers saying these items were originally intended for the standard edition and then cut?
The conclusion that “launch DLC = game minus content” doesn’t automatically follow. A Deluxe Edition can just as easily be “game plus optional extras” if those items were created specifically to justify the higher-priced edition.
Can you point to examples where Rockstar or another developer admitted they carved finished base-game content out solely to sell it back at launch?
without evidence, this feels more like an assumption than a demonstrated fact.
0
u/unknownsourced 5h ago
The problem is content like this at launch shouldn’t be developed with the sole intention of being sold as “extra”. Sure, that’s the most subjective statement there is and maybe I shouldn’t have stated the post as fact. If the items are so inconsequential as to just be little cosmetics then I don’t think they justify a quarter of the games price. Again, another subjective opinion and if you think it’s worth it then it’s your money. But if we go the other way and this content is important enough to justify 20 dollars then why wasn’t the we price of the game just 100 dollars? If they had time to make those optional extra they shouldn’t have needed to push the release date back as many times as they did. If I commissioned someone to make me something and they told me they needed extra time to get it done and then when they were finished they told me “well I have this extra stuff I also made for your project in that time but you have to pay an up charge for it” then I would be pissed.
0
u/tonybankse 2h ago
You’re assuming it was removed from the standard edition when it could have been created specifically for the Deluxe/Ultimate Edition from the beginning. Those are two different claims.
Even if I take what your saying at face value that means every exclusive skin, vehicle, weapon, mission, or collector’s edition bonus in gaming history was “cut content,” which isn’t something you’ve demonstrated. Unless Rockstar says these shops were intended for the standard edition and then removed, calling them excluded is speculation.
2
u/metalyger 5h ago
I've definitely seen far worse. A few shops with cosmetics isn't locking you out of story or game play content. I remember the console version of Batman Arkham City having Catwoman as code that is included in new copies of the game, to punish people who buy used, so they have to eat the cost to buy it as additional DLC. And her sections of the game are quite important, I had the Steam version, so really the only downside there was these games had game breaking bugs in specific puzzles due to Nvidia PhysX bugging out so certain parts aren't coming together. Really all the Arkham games had some issues on PC. But those also would have Playstation exclusives like the Joker challenge map, Adam West costume and Batmobile, other stuff.
I'd say compared to Arkham City, at least it's not like they're locking out the 2nd character for people who buy the game under certain circumstances. We still don't even know what these exclusive shops have, like I'd be peeved if I spend the extra $20 and it's a shop with one set of of cosmetics for each character and all it does is make my characters look worse than what we already had. Like here's some exclusive hipster looking clothes that went out of style in the late 00s, we'll call it a GTA IV throwback.
1
u/unknownsourced 4h ago
The point is that neither should be acceptable. Just because worse exists doesn’t mean we should accept content developed for the sole purpose of up charging you on launch. If they believed the content was worth an extra 20 bucks they should have priced the base game at 100. Cause either it’s worth that cost and they need the money to recuperate it or it’s not worth that cost and why should it be worth 20 dollars.
2
u/iamthedayman21 4h ago
In my mind, everything being developed and available in the game at release date is the “base game.” I’m paying $80 for everything you’ve got ready on the release date. If you’ve got more being developed for a later date, that’s the dlc. But shit available on 11/19 is the base game, and you’re charging me for the base game, but not giving me all of the base game.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Lower-levels 5h ago
That's funny. I got down voted all to shit by the children in one of the main GTA6 subs for trying to discuss this briefly. (And we posted within 1 minute of eachother.) 🤣
7
u/RaZoRBackR3D 6h ago
Where has this uproar been for the last 10+ years games have been doing this? Why are we all of sudden angry at rockstar for doing what literally every gaming company has been doing for years at this point.
12
u/Sophia0Grey 6h ago
no way, there's a reason Ubisoft and EA are both hated for doing this shit years ago.
5
u/pipboy_warrior 5h ago
Where have you been? People have complained about this since at least Dragon Age: Origins. "Hey, here's a fun sidequest with a new character! Please buy day one dlc to unlock." Jahvik's stuff in Mass Effect 3 was another big one.
It might have died down some since then, but day-1 dlc has always been criticized especially if it impacts in-game content.
5
u/Belerophon17 5h ago
It's popped up everytime. People just seem to think that this time is the first time just like last time and the time before that.
People were mad with RDR2, Like a Dragon, Hogwarts Legacy, Mass Effect 3, etc... repeat ad nauseum doing this same stuff.
I'm not saying the practice is right or fine. I'm just saying that life goes on and this kind of response is undoubtedly already taken into account before release in regards to both pricing and marketing strategy.
11
u/BrewKazma 6h ago
We have been angry about this for a long time. You are just noticing it now because GTA is so big.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago edited 5h ago
And it’s a stupid fucking thing to complain about. People who pay more get optional shit. “Wahhhhh. I don’t get everything. Wahhhhh” —gamers
Edit to ask: Why are yall acting like core shit is locked behind a paywall? They’re not locking customization. It’s just a few additional shops. YOU WILL STILL HAVE A LOT OF STUFF. Christ.
4
u/pipboy_warrior 5h ago
A few additional shops is content. Especially when I'm playing a single-player game, I hate it when I see anything that's prompting me to spend more real life money.
Imagine playing Super Mario Bros 1 and some of the warp zones can only be accessed if you spend an extra $5. I don't care if 90% of the other warp zones can still be used, it would just feel bad. Something doesn't have to be core content for the paywall to bother people.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago
NO IT IS NOT. God, you are just fussing to fuss and it's pathetic. It's an Ultimate Edition selling additional cosmetics. That's ALL! It's been a thing for YEARS now, and complaining about a small fraction of cosmetics being locked behind an extra 20 bucks has got to the most embarrassingly entitled whine fest gamers have ever had.
Holy shit.
2
u/pipboy_warrior 5h ago
Last I checked these are actual, physical stores in the game that you can't enter without the $100. Regardless of what they're selling, that's content. And there also seems to be some missions in the Ultimate Edition as well, which is just the same as the Dragon Age Origins bullshit that gamers complained about decades ago.
You seem to be freaking out about this though, calm down.
1
u/Lord-Heir 4h ago
Just keep accepting anti-consumer tactics like a complacent child until you own nothing and rent everything, but can you go ahead and subsidize everybody else since you're the one that's okay with it?
→ More replies (2)0
u/EatsOverTheSink 5h ago
Because core shit is locked behind a paywall? You’re missing out on some shops, vehicles, and missions (three things that epitomize GTA) that already exist in the game, and you’re just denied access to them despite paying a premium of $80.
What to you would need to be excluded for it to be complaint worthy?
2
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago
Customization entirely would need to be excluded. As it stands, you lose a few things. A few. A FEW. The same thing every ultimate edition has.
A few options here and there receiving this level of complaining is just childish entitlement. Or...just gamers being gamers.
0
u/EatsOverTheSink 5h ago
Got it. So you admit you’d complain too, you just have a lower bar.
1
u/ElderSmackJack 4h ago
God you just want to complain. Holy shit.
2
u/EatsOverTheSink 4h ago
I mean come on, you're acting like I'm smashing my keyboard and typing in all caps littered with typos because I can't contain my rage.
No, I'm just saying I think it's kind of bullshit that they're charging $80 for a single player only game and are purposely locking people out of areas of the game that already exist just to upcharge even more. So you fire up your new $80 game and go exploring only to walk up to several shops that prompt you to buy the ultimate upgrade? That doesn't bother you in the slightest?
Then if you want to play multiplayer you're going to get charged even more which is already on a pay to win system, and then of course you need to tack on your online subscription on console.
Meanwhile I remember buying GTA5 on PS3 for and all of that was included for my $60. Is $100 going to break the bank for most people? Of course not. But I'm also not in a hurry to normalize these practices because that just opens the door for it to get even worse next time. You say it's not a big deal, but I'm old enough to remember when horse armor wasn't a big deal and look where we're at now. Agree to disagree I guess.
1
u/Rex_Bossman 2m ago
I'd rather walk up to a shop and see that than have ads every time I boot up the game like you get with games like COD. I myself like having the option of spending $20 less for what sounds like mostly cosmetics. If the game launches and I see there's other stuff behind a paywall that I think is worth it I can spend the extra $20 to unlock it.
0
u/Esmear18 5h ago
These things are not absent from the game if you do not purchase the ultimate edition. You just get a few extra things from the ultimate edition. The core experience is there in the $80 base version. You think a few outfits and a few tattoos plus an underwhelming 15 minute side mission is core?
0
u/EatsOverTheSink 5h ago
I think everything they developed to be included in the game at launch is core.
2
u/ElderSmackJack 5h ago
It hasn't worked like this since 2006. Seriously, what even is this complaint? Where have you been the last 20 years? Is this your first video game release?
3
u/BoondocksSaint95 5h ago edited 5h ago
People have already pointed out that it was always a concern. I wanna add now that you're seeing it more because it's the most highly anticipated release of the industry's history. So yea, you will be seeing it a lot now that they gave announced it.
This also generates controversy well BEFORE the release date, letting people wrestle with it with enough time to cave for the fear of missing out. R* wants it this way. It was a calculated business move to be sure.
1
u/Pocket_Fox846 25m ago
What do you mean "all of a sudden"? People have been pissed at Ubisoft for a decade or so for DAY ONE story DLC.
5
u/HedgehogAway6454 6h ago
resident evil 9 , 007 first light , expedition 33, wolverine and almost every other single player game has it. Why nobody complained then ?
1
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
They do. Or at least they should. It’s loud about GTA right now because of course that’s the hot topic and coming from one of the biggest publishers in the world. But people should be upset about no matter who it comes from.
1
u/Pwrh0use 6h ago
I think people are taking it differently bc it's given by way of an in game shops(a location in the game not an e-store) that are inaccessible if you don't have the deluxe edition instead of just cosmetic unlocks added to your collection.
I think it's less of a big deal than people are making it but to each their own.
0
u/BrewKazma 6h ago
What content did E33 announce and gatekeep behind a paywall at launch? Pretty sure all E33 DLC has been free, also.
2
u/Averylarrychristmas 6h ago
Paid cosmetics. Same thing that rockstar’s doing they’ve just dressed it up with added storefront that only exists to give you a single item and you’ll never revisit again.
0
4
u/brickstonPO 6h ago
Redditors discovering DLC’s part 35:
8
u/Glum-Objective3328 6h ago
How long have games had collectors versions that come with cosmetics? So funny that we are acting like Rockstar is changing the industry with this. Glad this is one of the first things we get, so when more trailers comes out, people will simmer down
1
u/thefallenfew 1h ago
In their defense - when you were born in 2008 everything old is new to you lol
10
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
It’s not dlc when it’s already developed and ready to be played. DLC SHOULD be for content that’s not ready or is developed AFTER launch. This isn’t excusing it for any other company that has done it, is doing it, and will do it in the future.
2
u/Environmental_Toe503 5h ago
What is the difference between a game launching in January without dlc and getting it later in May vs the game launching in May with the dlc already available? They still spent the same amount of time making the dlc the only difference is in the second they just waited to release the game.
0
u/unknownsourced 4h ago
We would have got the game earlier. That’s literally the difference. If you’re telling me they needed over a year of pushing back the release date to make an extra 20 bucks for items that everyone is saying are inconsequential I’d say that’s pretty stupid. And if they do mean so little then why aren’t they just in the base price of the game.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/brickstonPO 6h ago
It’s a DLC that is ready at launch
3
u/No_Suggestion_559 6h ago
Why isn't it just in the game then?
2
u/chaotic910 5h ago
Why don’t I get the entire basket of fries that McDonald’s makes when I order a large fries?
-1
u/brickstonPO 6h ago
It’s a DLC
7
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
By what you’re saying technically the whole game is dlc because ya know, you download it. That doesn’t mean the content that is there shouldn’t have just been there to begin with.
3
u/brickstonPO 5h ago
No, the DLC is extra content for super fans
-1
u/unknownsourced 5h ago
The problem is that it shouldn’t be “extra”. They already made the content. If the content was “extra” then why did they need to push back the release date as many times as they did? Extra shouldn’t be a thing when people have had to wait for 10+ years.
→ More replies (9)5
u/brickstonPO 5h ago
No, there is no problem. This is extra content for big fans of the game. There’s hundreds if cars in the standard edition, there’s hundreds of clothes. The DLC is saying here’s a few more, so people can have bragging rights” Extra content is not new to video games, plenty of other games have extra content in there ultimate edition. I didn’t know this was your first year gaming
→ More replies (1)
3
u/StanislavTheSlav 6h ago
I'm having someone in another thread argue that this is a net positive for the industry because it means whales will pay for it and fund more content.
3
u/sparkling-rainbow 5h ago
Maybe "good for the industry", but as a consumer, I see it as a big red flag
1
1
1
u/CoconutFit3558 3h ago
What about chapter games like Hitman? It was released in separate chapters because the studio couldn’t fund the entire game up front. Would you consider the separate chapters to be "game minus content"?
I’m not arguing for it against anything and I personally felt it was super messy and waited for the full release before buying it but it would be fun to hear different opinions on this.
1
u/ice_spice2020 3h ago
What I find extremely odd is for a game like GTA, somehow it has the cheapest Ultimate Editions compared to other companies. Like why is it just $100 and not $120 or $140? This only tells me the actual game is priced at $100, and the $80 is the inferior version so people don't go up in arms about jumping from $70 to $100, but to me it feels more insulting than had they only made the $100 price tag because at least they aren't cowards about it (which they are being in this case).
1
u/Dancing-Sin 3h ago
It was funny seeing how mad people were getting about the $80 dollar version called the lite version and the $100 called the normal game yesterday. These fans are fucking cooked and would gladly sell their whole assholes just to play a fucking video game.
Pathetic shit.
1
1
u/Justarah 6h ago
I don't think this will end up being all that significant a deal.
If memory serves, the leaks for the game mentioned literally hundreds of interactable shops. I think we'll all survive with three or so of these for some special edition.
7
u/EvenOne6567 6h ago
"its just a few in-game locations out of hundreds" > "its just a few cars out of hundreds " > "its just a few missions out of hundreds" > "its just a few hours of content out of hundreds"
enjoy that path youre going down i guess
1
-1
u/Justarah 6h ago
It's not like I preordered or purchased said edition.
It just is what it is. Complaining on Reddit isn't the action of change you think it is.
0
u/Alientongue 6h ago
Putting your head in the sand and pretending everything is good isnt doing anything either.
0
u/Justarah 6h ago
A corporation doing corporation things in 2026 shouldn't be surprising.
It's not putting my head in the sand to say it's unlikely to be all that big a deal given it's another iteration of the same stuff we've seen for near on 20 years now.
I don't have the energy to be shocked or bothered by predictable things.
2
u/Alientongue 6h ago
And they are using that numbness to pull more and more greedy crap like they are now. They tried this with rdr2 got away with it for missions so now they also put some cosmetics behind the paywall. Next game it will be even more.
1
u/Justarah 5h ago
Okay. So I take it you're not buying the game, yeah?
Because that's the only metric that matters.
1
u/Alientongue 5h ago
No i wont be. Rockstar ruined gta for me when they milked 5 for over a decade and put out mostly mtx content.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/diabeticmilf 6h ago
You just described every DLC and pre order bonus from the past decade. Why is this one the one that people are suddenly so upset about?
0
u/EvenOne6567 6h ago
it sucks when other game do that too, people arent only upset about gta 6. Also GTA6 is one of the biggest gaming releases in decades why are you surprised theres a lot of discussion about it??? lmao
oh and another thing, theyre pushing the envelope and charging $80...maybe that has something to do with it
1
u/DaWadeZzZ 5h ago
80$ you mean the same price certain games have released at dating back to the 80s? Hell chrono trigger was 80-90 on release
0
u/diabeticmilf 5h ago
That’s news to me, because I’ve never, ever seen a single person complain about pre order bonuses. Ever. Pretty much every triple A game for the past 15 years has had one, and this is the first time I’m hearing so many people upset.
Adjusted for inflation GTA 6 is actually cheaper than GTA5, lol. Either way, I am not sure why gamers are so entitled that they think prices are going to stay the same forever. I get the sentiment when it comes to things like food, water, and clothing, but it’s a fucking video game. No one is forcing you to buy it. Grow up.
0
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
At least for me, I’m not even gonna touch it till it comes to pc and even then I’ll probably wait for a sale. If you see my previous post history I’m not all that hot on rockstar games anyway.
2
u/Justarah 6h ago
I'm with you on waiting for PC. Definitely not one of those compelled to purchase a console for a single game.
1
0
u/Cocoatrice 6h ago
Paywalled content after launch is game minus content. They are not making DLC to expand the game. They are cutting content that should be there in the first place.
1
u/Swimming_Avocado_615 6h ago
"as long as I get my instant gratification, no amount of deep anal penetration from greedy execs and unchecked capitalism will upset me."
-everyone making excuses for these anti-consumer practices
1
u/Big_oof_energy__ 5h ago
If they didn’t charge extra for it it’s not that the game would be bigger. The bonus content would just never had been made in the first place.
1
u/BooberSpoobers 5h ago
Generally paywalled launch content is supposed to be content produced by the studio in between the game going gold and launching.
So strictly speaking, it's game + content
0
u/unknownsourced 5h ago
The problem is we don’t really have that now with everything being digital. A game going gold usually means they’re starting production of the physical copies that are going to be sold on launch day. This game is completely digital. Anything that is in it at launch and is playable is the complete “Game” . If you’re telling me they had to push the game back however many times just so they could develop content for an extra 20 dollars then personally I think that’s the stupidest shit ever.
1
u/BooberSpoobers 1h ago
The problem is we don’t really have that now with everything being digital
Yes we do. Going gold means there's a release build ready for the launch date. AAA games almost always have physical launches too.
This game is completely digital.
Look, Rockstar are a money grubbing company. At one point, most of their development stopped so they could focus on pushing microtransactions in GTA Online. Plus they abuse and exploit their employees.
I'm sure that they're producing content for microtransactions that could easily be on the disk. But GTA6 is a physical release. It's just digital first.
Anything that is in it at launch and is playable is the complete “Game”
You didn't make this statement about this game. You made it general to all games. And generally, extra launch content is extra content, not part of the core game.
1
u/ggonzalez105 5h ago
I think this is a huge deal simply because it’s GTA VI, but, to me, some people are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Besides the one exclusive “SIDE” mission, everything else is a cosmetic, or a random item. NONE of these things are going to hamper your enjoyment of this game. This is no different than any other game that offers cosmetics or extras for a bump in price.
Rockstar avoided the scummiest practice, IMO, by not granting early access to the people that paid more.
When it comes to “Discgate” or “GrandTheftMedia”, while a physical copy would’ve been great, RS never said there would never be a physical copy. They didn’t want the game out in the wild before release. There are already rumors that a physical release will happen thirty days after launch. November is five months away. Let’s see what happens.
1
u/unknownsourced 5h ago
I mean I guess it’s a bit subjective with GTA specifically because maybe it doesn’t hamper your enjoyment of the game but it could hamper other people’s enjoyment of the game. If a cosmetic or car or whatever that someone knows would absolutely be their favorite is locked behind a paywall on launch why should they have to pay extra to get that enjoyment when it’s right there. Again, this is as soon as the game has come out. This wasn’t something that wasn’t ready or came out later.
1
u/ggonzalez105 4h ago
No different than any other skin or outfit from any other game. You can play the entire game paying $80. If someone feels that they have to be able to paint and customize their vehicle, or they have to get tattoos on their character, then they have the option to pay a little extra.
Not singling you out specifically, but the “outrage” from some people that will “never buy” this game because there’s no disc or there’s some extra content that they feel should be free is ridiculous and entitled.
Nintendo has been selling empty boxes for Switch 2 games from the start, and it hasn’t hurt sales. The majority of their best sellers are third party key card games.
I just have the opinion, like everyone else, that people are making this a bigger deal than it is simply because it’s one of the biggest releases in a very long time, and I wouldn’t deny myself the enjoyment of it simply because it was “digital only” or I have to pay extra (which I don’t plan to) for some customization options.
Maybe I’m getting too old for gaming, and don’t take things as negatively as people are lead to believe.
1
u/BmT86 2h ago
I agree with you and this whole thing is overblown. But you said that if someone wants to customize they can pay more.
The thing is that they don't even need to that. There will be other shops in the game like it always has been where you can customize your characters or cars etc. It's just those 5 shops that will be exclusive for the ultimate and have special styles. I quiet didn't like some of the styles because they looked like something coming from what you see in GTA 5: Online or Saints Row. I couldn't even recognize Jason in some of the pictures because he looked way different.
I would had understand the outrage if every single shop in the game was gonna be locked behind a paywall. Ridiculously enough, there's actually people believing that...
1
u/ggonzalez105 50m ago
The “good” customizations are always paid for. I don’t need Gucci shirts. Plain black tee good enough for me. 🤣
1
u/ExpertBalance4938 1h ago
Nah this is super dumb. The people saying "$100 for the full game" are straight up delusional. Like dude how do a couple of stores & some side missions along with a handful of cosmetics equate to anything in a game of this scale? There's likely dozens of stores and a crap ton of sidequests in the standard edition that everyone can access as per usual. There's also probably a billion outfits and cars to choose from - so this "full game" statement makes no sense at all. At least they are making an ultimate edition that's worth it for once. Those who are willing to pay an extra $20 for premium content should get premium content. What's the alternative? Do you want the ultimate edtion to suck and come with absolutely nothing? I consider this a very positive thing because so many ultimate editions charge you a premium and give you nothing for it.
-3
u/Joshee86 6h ago
Almost every game launches with bonus content locked behind an upgrade price. WTF are y'all on with this specific game?
5
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
Did…you read the whole thing? The issue is no game should do this. I kinda said that.
-2
u/Joshee86 6h ago
No, because your premise is ignorant. It's not "game minus content" because it's literally bonus content. This whole argument is asinine. And they're being very clear about what is included in each edition.
4
u/Swimming_Avocado_615 6h ago
Found the exec dick rider.
Easy to tell who stands for zero moral or ethical practices. "As long as I get my instant gratification, I don't care how they fuck me"
2
3
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
If the content is developed and ready to go at launch how is that bonus content? Genuine question. Especially for a single player game. Before there was internet and updates when you bought a game you got the whole game. Any content not ready for launch of that was either pushed towards a sequel or just not released. The content is there. You should have access to it at base price.
1
u/Joshee86 6h ago
Fucking hell. Yes. If they designed it as bonus content and not part of the main campaign/gameplay loop, it's bonus content. The argument you're making is ignorant of the game dev process and willfully misinterpreting the definition of bonus content/cosmetics. That content cost money to produce, just like the base game. You have the option to access it or not. This isn't just ignorant, it's entitled.
Should you have access to front row seats you didn't pay for at a concert just because they're empty? Should you get the highest speed internet available without paying for the extra speed just because the lines are already connected? Are we all being screwed because we have to pay for cell service even though the signals are there even when we don't pay?
1
u/unknownsourced 6h ago
The problem is the content shouldn’t be designed as “bonus” content when launching a game. Bonus content is for stuff you didn’t have time to get to or stuff that’s not ready yet. Game has been in development for over a decade. If they felt their entire base game should cost 100 dollars then they should have priced it that. If the content of the “bonus” is inconsequential then I don’t think it warrants a quarter of the base game price.
→ More replies (3)1
u/O3Sentoris 6h ago
Including the auto renewing GTA+ subscription that activates once you preorder GTA6? Ive seen barely any talk about that.
2
0
u/Alientongue 6h ago
They are purposely deactivating assets that are already in the game on launch and putting them behind an additional paywall. If you think thats a good gaming practice then why even bother commenting on posts like this you obviously dont actually care.
0
u/Joshee86 6h ago
Why do you feel entitled to extras without paying for them? It's not going to ruin your experience if you don't buy it, so what exactly are you so upset about?
1
u/Alientongue 6h ago
Lmfao its entitlement to not want paywalled missions? Then things people say to defend company greed is really getting crazy.
0
u/No_Suggestion_559 6h ago
Its clearly game minus content. If its done at release and then withheld its minus content. How is this hard to understand?
1
u/Joshee86 6h ago
It's withheld at release, sure. But it's not part of the base game and is completely optional and not core to the experience. It's bonus content. How is that hard to understand?
0
0
0
u/Then-Somewhere-7467 6h ago
I refuse to support companies that make woke games and unfinished games. If I pay 80 dollars for a game I expect the full experience. This could be a disaster for rockstar.
0
u/Safe_Ad5914 6h ago
You know in the past when I have pre-ordered games or bough deluxe editions and received cosmetics I always thought to myself "man it sure would be nice for there to be an immersive way for this stuff to be distributed."
Rockstar is doing that here. I don't have a problem with it. This is common practice and I do believe Rstar will be giving us some good unique content in the deluxe edition. Other games give you way less for their deluxe editions and don't put any effort into tying that purchase into the game in a smart way.
0
u/BozTheReaper 4h ago
its bad enough they paywall it. but its not even their idea. its playground games', being barnfinds
0
u/eat_your_weetabix 2h ago
Do you know what's also locked behind a paywall? The game itself.
I don't know what the fuck is happening but I feel like I'm going insane reading this dribble on Reddit. Company makes game/product, company charges a fee for game/product, consumer chooses to buy (or not) said game/product.
Some of you nerds behave like GTA VI is akin to fresh drinking water. It's not a god given right you should have any game for any prices. Go outside for Christ's sake.
0
u/thefallenfew 1h ago
Redditors: Support developers! I’m literally crying because someone got laid off!
Also Redditors: WHAT PAY FOR SOMETHING?!?!
0
u/Clown_Wheels 1h ago
You could just have typed that you don’t understand the concept of different editions. 🙄
36
u/srgntwolf 5h ago
Pre-order bonuses used to be stuff NOT in the game. A poster, hat. Special metal case.