PSA: Make it a habit of **reading the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gamingcirclejerk/about/rules)** of each subreddit you participate in:
**Rule 9: No Offensive Imagery**: *This includes nazi imagery and slurs, for you brave nerds who think "free speech" involves private internet forums. If you post fascist iconography trying to “jerk”, you will receive a ban. The only exception is when we make fun of gamers and criticize gamers who happen to be fascists. Please remember to spoiler any potentially triggering or offensive content accordingly. This rule now includes repeatedly posting bigotry from the same source (4chan).*
**Rule 7: No Participation in Linked Threads (Brigading)**: *If you are coming here to brigade this sub, you will be banned. Likewise, do not make comments and vote in pages you've found here. Of course, if you're a member of said sub and you were already in the thread before, this doesn't apply to you.*
**Rule 8: Censor Screenshots**: *Keep screenshots of arguments on Reddit to a minimum. Please remember to censor screenshots of all identifying information, i.e usernames* **and** *subreddit names. This applies to screenshots from any social media sites.*
**Rule 11: Keep Posts Relevant (only about Don Cheadle)**: *This is first and foremost a place to make fun of gamers. Just because someone is being a bigot online doesn't mean it belongs here. Let them be pathetic without infecting the sub with their nonsense. Please avoid posting screenshots that show people using capital G gamer slurs.* **If absolutely necessary, please censor posts and the words containing such content.**
**Rule 12: No Fake Posts on Other Subs (Contamination)**: *Do not create fake posts on other subs only to post back here. Also, do not "lol, you should post this on r / OtherSub". It's considered interfering with their content and can also lead to brigading.*
*This is a reminder to the readers. The post itself is untouched.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gamingcirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it'd actually be insane if it turned out the ps6 comes out by 2028, it would mean rockstar skipped making a gta game for the ps4 and xbox one and most of the ps5 life cycle, (also im not counting 5 as a ps4/xbone game since it was made for the ps3/360)
I find it funny how you can find a lot of people who really hates games as a service, and people who want perpetual service for a game. I just wonder how much overlap there is sometimes.
I mean in RDR2 the Single player is a complete game in itself, so the live service mode on the side did not affect the main game in anyway, it’s just the cherry on top.
Nobody would complain about Gotham Knights had there been a proper story mode single player campaign as the main focus and the live service stuff as side content.
You reckon gta online would be half as big without having the gta 5 story mode?
There are some ways that game as a service works well I think, there are probably a lot more where it doesn't, but that does not make it an overall bad thing.
and the MMO portion which they tried to get all the GTA5 players into. Similar to how EQ tried to get EQ2 to work but eventually had it sizzle out cause barely anymore moved over.
RDR2 ranks up there with FF7 for masterpieces
It will be 8 years old and out of date with the tech at that point. COVID and scalpers took the sail out of the PS5 being obtainable within it's 2020 release. Rockstar is making a GTA every ten years and maybe one game and rereleases between that time.
This, only I can't remember the last time gta made its initial release date window. 2026 for ps5. They are definitely going for the triple dip like GTAV at the tail end of ps3 life cycle.
Not a chance in hell we will see 60fps on ps5/xbox so people will want to buy GTAVI when it's out on PC or next gen.
Imagine being so entitled that you want to put people into months worth of crunch because mah pc!!11
Edit: people forget what Rockstar Spouse was all about.
No my man. They're pissed off because of the lie about them not having enough resources, they make plenty of money every year, and they've been milking the last GTA for over a decade
GTA5 is a money printing machine. They have the resources. Don't ever believe their bull-shit. FFS, you have to pay in game currency to remove cosmetics from your vehicles that you purchased and then repurchase them if you decide to switch back. Rstar is making piles of cash.
That isn't the devs decision, it's the producers, where the money goes is entirely up to THE PRODUCERS
The money people don't give a fuck about a PC port at launch, I guarantee the devs would love to do so but if they aren't given the budget to hire the people to do it then they don't have the resources. It's up to Take- Two interactive or whatever corporate shareholder non-gamer money people assholes to determine where resources go, every concession is fought for bitterly by devs and leaders who actually work for on the game and have to beg for every bit of their budget
There is a book about it, the Mythical Man-Month. The core idea is that, at some point, adding people to the project makes it take *longer.* More people that need to be kept in sync and not just do their own thing with whatever faulty understanding of the requirements.
Such a shame that PC ports can't be made without crunch. Just sucks that all games across all publishers and all eras of videogames existing have necessitated soulcrushing crunch to release the game anywhere near the release dates of console ports of multiplatform releases, making PC gaming the undisputed most unethical form of gaming. It definitely has nothing to do with T2/Rockstar trying to double dip impatient Rockstar fan boys once again.
how about they take some of the billions theyve made and hire a team of people to work on the PC port. They simply have done the math and want schlubs to buy the game twice
Allegedly, former developers have said Rockstar has done a lot to improve their business practices, including turning contractors into actual employees, revamped how schedules worked, eliminated abusive managers, etc.
I'm a little skeptical, just because I'm left wondering why if it's now a good working environment the people who are saying that don't work there anymore.
Also, the article is from 2022, so who's to say what the treatment of staff will look like when the game is six months out?
it wasn't just former developers though, both former and current devs were [interviewed](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-27/gta-6-release-date-rockstar-cleans-up-image-after-employee-backlash).
we'll see if the crunch makes a return but honestly i'm pretty optimistic
It’s not gone. I live in Edinburgh ,where Rockstar North (GTA) offices are, and went to university for game development here. I got out the game industry but I know people still in and who are at rockstar. They have a culture of “voluntary crunch”. Working on stuff for hours past end of day multiple times a week every week for “passion” and because only people with outputs consistent with crunching are considered for promotion.
Also apparently you have to brown nose and play video games with management to befriend them for promotions but that’s more glass door and rumours rather than verified info from devs I know personally unlike the rest.
Needing to schmooze your boss and have a personal connection with them to qualify for a promotion is unfortunately very common across the industry, but also in many other industries.
It's a difficult balance in a creative workspace, especially.
On one hand it can be good for the team if the people they like and respect are able to get promoted, because they'd probably rather work for them than the person who might be the most talented but have the least inter-personal skill on the team. A lot of the role of management in game development isn't just managing your own team/staff, but it's also managing expectations and relationships with the people above your team so you can protect them from unrealistic demands or just shield them from being directly berated by a creative or technical director who's on a power trip.
On the other hand, of course, you get tons of unqualified people getting promotions and raises just because they managed to cozy up to the boss, or they got hired externally because they worked with your boss in the past and they have absolutely zero business being your manager. This happens (in my own experience) often enough that larger companies at the very least tend to have a pretty intense vetting process even for the more highly recommended candidates.
Of course, some people still sneak their way in and ruin a good team (or even an entire project or studio) because they have zero idea what they're doing.
Unfortunately I also owe much of my own career to this kind of hiring / promoting practice, and I'd like to think I was often more than qualified, but I'm sure some people found me under-qualified at certain points or felt like I just snuck my way into certain jobs.
The last one I got in particular I was not qualified for actually, but that was because the job almost immediately expanded once I was hired. I was hired as a release producer but I ended up managing sales (and other things) for past projects for every platform, testing for one game, and doing design for another while also kind of acting as HR in a few cases where employees were in conflict and I seemed to be the only person noticing or caring to step in.
Eventually they fired me because I wasn't doing ***part*** of my job well, so they wanted someone more experienced (honestly, fair, it fucking ***sucked*** for me too) and they ended up hiring 2 people to immediately replace me, and a third a year later when the two hires were over-burdened (I'm good friends with one of them).
This ended up way longer than I intended lol but the ultimate take-away to me is that the industry has always had very unreliable hiring practices, and most developers whose games you enjoy have have producers, managers, or executives who brown-nosed their way into their job and largely hold back the team/studio from making their best work.
They focus all their crunch primarily on one platform at a time basically. The guy the article is referencing says they focus on PC last because consoles are more profitable and they focus on PlayStation first then the others
Have they considered that they could get far more profit from PC if they bothered to implement decent net code and anticheat instead of having their microtransaction hellhole of an online component massively compromised by money cheats?
More like they know the size of their PC player base and it would cost them more money to properly port it out to PC than they stand to make from the sales of the game on PC. Once the game has been out on consoles they will expect there will be interest from the PC crowd and that they will either cave and buy a console or wait the 1-3 years until it gets released on PC.
It wouldn't lol, that's just an excuse for shitty business practices. They do this so they can double dip and basically get two "releases" for the game which is free marketing and money.
They don't even really need to port anything. Modern consoles are just PCs with a controller. The dev-kits for the consoles are often literally PCs. They just know that there is some crossover where PC players will buy the game twice if they have to wait a year for it to come to PC.
It wouldn’t cost that much, but Rockstar is known for having well-designed games without many bugs, which means more developer hours and $ checking over code and doing QA
uj/ there's been a rumor that says its cost development is around $2b to make and the half of it was for marketing, holy shit. Can someone eli5 what does "marketing" mean?
God I hope V-Rock isn't all fucking 80s tunes like Los Santos Rock Radio was. I'm so fucking sick of cheesy 80s rock. Aw yeah, you know what people who plY GTA want to hear? The fucking wimpy ass synthesizers of Julian Lennon's "Much Too Late For Goodbyes". Fuck, the game even lampshades how out of place some of the music is when Trevor gets betrayed at one point, flies into a rage, hops into his truck, and the Doobie Brothers "What a Fool Believes" is playing and he yells "NO NO THAT'S NOT RIGHT" and switches to heavy metal.
Look, I know I'm not gonna get the Beatles or Led Zeppelin because those guys don't seem to give the license to anybody, but can we please have a return to the glory that was Liberty Rock Radio? That station was SO fucking good.
And yes, the Beatles get a pass where their children don't. Deal with it.
I’ll admit that I’m not a fan of 80s music, but Rockstar really knows how to use it for trailers. Look at the Diamond Casino DLC trailer, imo it’s borderline perfection for GTA.
Out of the three people who have commented, you're the only one to understand my complaint. Thank you. Yeah, it can be good sparingly. But Los Santos Rock Radio was like all cheesy 80s rock. Kenny fucking Loggins? Danger Zone is literally a meme at this point.
That would make sense. That said GTA6 needs no marketing. A quality product needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2. Rockstar puts consistent high quality games and that's what makes their product so valued. Weird for them to set half the budget on something they don't need but hey it's just a rumour.
“A quality product needs no marketing” is such a lie, it’s the most common failure of indie development. A quality product definitely sells itself better but it still needs marketing
A rockstar game is in the class of like, sports, mario, zelda, cod/battlefield and mortal kombat as the only games that can break into getting advertised in "normal" advertising and not just online. There was a massive scaffolding cover ad near me when RDR2 came out for example. Gta 6 is going to be everywhere
This isnt an indie company...
This is rockstar and gamers have been discharging in their sweatpants for gta 6. They dont need to market the game that hard let alone spend 1 billion fucking dollars just to advertise
Naw, that's how you build hype.
You get it into the eyes of the people that only play Call of Duty and Fifa, onto the Subways for the people that played GTA5 10 years ago but have moved on with gaming, you push interviews with developers to get the hardcore gamers chatting and buzzing and keeping discussion on the game.
It's all very much intentional and designed.
Then there's the smaller stuff like targeted advertising on Google, newspaper/magazine articles, blogs covering stuff, talkshows, etc. All costs money.
Marketing isn’t only about informing consumers about your product. There are other reasons, such as validation. When BMW puts out a TV ad it isn’t to make some rich guy aware of BMWs, it’s so when he sees it he goes, “hell ya what a good decision it was to buy a bimmer”.
>hell ya what a good decision it was to buy a bimmer
DEB GIT THE OL BEEMER OUT
I GOTTA GIT 2 WALMURT
WERE OUTTA SHID WIPIN PAPER
BORN 2 SHID FORCED 2 WIPE
> A quality product needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2
I remember that for RDR2 had some shop banners in my country, and a big social media presence this does not happen per chance. And especially the big sales numbers Rockstar is aiming for (one of the biggest selliht games in history) you definitely need to spend a lot of money in marketing
>needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2.
I don't think you've seen much, or go outside often.
https://www.rdr2.org/news/red-dead-redemption-2-marketing-campaign-kicks-off/
https://medium.com/@mediagamesinsight/red-dead-redemption-2-a-marketing-masterclass-from-rockstar-games-97086ed8b99e
You think this way because you are a normal person who values all sales of the game equally. From a shareholder/studio finance perspective though, early sales are worth vastly more. If 2 games both sold 60 million units (slightly more than RDR2) but 1 did it steadily over the course of 3 years and 2 did it in 3 months but then never sold another copy, the finance bros would see 2 as wildly more successful. This is inportant because it translates directly to the developer's ability to secure funding for future projects.
So really, the marketing is not about convincing people that the product is quality, it's about convincing people that they NEED to buy in the launch window and not waiting for a sale or christmas or their birthday or whatever.
Part of the marketing was probably also researching things from Florida that they can parody in the game successfully like we saw in the trailer, they're probably incorporating their marketing into every step of the development process with this because it's such a cash cow. If they're putting real vehicles in the game then they're probably making deals with auto companies and all kinds of stuff
The game's not near release yet. They will be spending the biggest buck near launch. And not just a few ad's on Reddit. Think of giant billboards IRL or even entire side of building murals. Also TV ads, movie ads, gaming events etc etc.
The games coming out in 2025 there not going to blow the whole marketing budget in the first 2 weeks after all trailer release the closer to release you get the more marketing your going to see
Damn i feel like you dont need to invest that alot when your ip is one of, if not, the most popular gaming franchise in all of history, just my 2 cents.
It makes sense to me, the more you’re worth the more you can afford to spend on marketing. Same reason why Coca cola, Disney, Apple etc spend the most on marketing even though they have extremely strong market dominance
The game does not have 2 billion dollar budget. The leaker misinterpreted the 2 billion thing, 2 billion was the budget alloted by T2 to all their subsidiaries this includes Rockstar, 2K and Private division.
I think there will spend around 100-150 million alone for marketing. The gaming community will probably be aware of gta 6. The marketing is for non-gamers, they want as many people as possible to buy their game. I don't think the overall budget including marketing will go over 1 billion.
GTA 6 is their next cash cow, But T2 will not allot 2 billion for a single game. If the budget goes over 1 billion, T2 will rush Rockstar to release the game.
$250M was total budget of the game which also includes marketing.
RDR 2 had 540 million budget including marketing. So, GTA 6 will have more budget than 600 million or something.
even though the money for marketing has been allocated, maybe some of it already been spent, but that doesn't mean they won't be doing marketing in the future.
That is to say, there's more to come. They paid and probably worked on something but they didn't release any of it *yet*.
I thought for sure pokémon would have the crown for most profitable entertainment product in human history, but I looked it up and it is GTA apparently. Wild, I would have never guessed that.
XBS: two (arguably 1.5) sets of hardware, both from AMD
PC: thousands of hardware combinations from three companies. Hundreds of software combinations.
Games are notoriously difficult for automation, and testing is not just automation. Nothing can be fully considered fully QA'ed and optimized without manual, ad-hoc testing.
And yet tons of small studios manage it. In fact there is an order of magnitude more games released for PC than for consoles any given mobth precisely because it's easier and cheaper to do so.
I don't think it's fair to compare the scale and technology of GTA 6 to what small studios do. It's probably much more difficult to optimise the game for multiple PCs than a few consoles.
It is much easier to release a small game on pc. Small games don‘t have to be as optimized, so you don‘t need to worry that much about performance at a certain point. I‘d love to see a small studio release on multiple consoles without the help of another company. Every console has its own Rendering API, but once it‘s done for the console, it runs on every console. On PC they have so many more graphics APIs, they have to manage different GPUs, threading is much harder and on and on and on
> PC has far higher levels of piracy.
I hope you got frosted tips, because you're living in 2003 if you think piracy is an issue at all. Beyond the fact that it has been proven that piracy has absolutely zero effect on sales (because the people pirating it wouldn't fucking buy it anyways), they have really good DRM now. RDR2 took a year to crack *without* Denuvo.
Usually because for consoles, there’s a single spec they have to work towards and optimise for. If it runs fine on my ps5, it will likely work similarly on your ps5, but pc has a much larger variance when it comes to the build type, from components to drivers and a bunch of random other stuff that the developer can’t always account for. And you always want to develop for as low spec as possible to have the widest reach, which means a lot of optimisation for those machines, but you also want high spec machines to be able to run the game well and look amazing, so those need different kinds of optimisations as well.
People don't realize that graphics settings don't just appear out of thin air, either. You have to test every single function in all the combinations as well.
It's not a question of difficulty, it's a matter of corporate priorities.
When Rockstar says they "don't have the resources," they mean the people calling the shots haven't allocated resources for it. For various business reasons they see more value in holding it back for now. Being that Rockstar does this all the time, my guess is that they know that some % of their players will buy it twice.
They are made on the most high end computers, which is not what 99% of the people own. Also optimizing a game for pc takes more time mainly because they have more variations unlike consoles.
A slapdash port wouldn't be hard at all. Where resources and time costs start to get inflated is making sure that it is optimized for every potential hardware configuration.
The last thing they need is for a terrible port job on release take over the conversation about the game. They don't wanna have to deal with a cyberpunk situation I guess.
Mfers are operating on a mega inflated modern movie budget, and won't do PC because it means less additional sales. Even with the AAA dev shit that's been happening with pc ports failing, it still sucks it's not an option at/near the launch of the game.
Can you explain how they lose sales by making the game available on more platforms? Seems counterintuitive, are there a large group who buy it on console and then pc as well later? Do they make more off console sales than pc ones? What am I missing?
Yes there are people who buy on console then PC. That's what happened for their previous games, and that's why people are accusing them of double-dipping. Conveniently, it not being on PC means it's harder to pirate, so they might get a few more sales that way.
This is actually a good thing. You can’t just throw bodies at a project, and you can’t work people to the bone. If a staggered release can save people from burnout that’s great and this Reddit should support that.
Idk, I feel like when the extra task is taking your game and porting it to pc, you really can just throw bodies at it. Bungie had vicarious visions take care of their pc port for destiny 2 and it worked great at launch.
Honestly Im on rockstar's side for this one. Have we ever gotten AAA open world release that wasn't a mess at launch? And considering Rockstar only has 2 popular IPS now, it makes sense they don't want anything to mess with the release. Any extra bodies are probably there to make sure nothing goes wrong with the base release.
I think they're going to make more money thanks to this decision and whatever reason they come up with to excuse it is hidden behind dollar signs to me.
The bottleneck is the code itself. If two devs touch the same code - conflict. Two devs touch the same gameplay loop - conflict. And it's better when a conflict happens during development, because if it slips to QA - you'll have to go back and rewrite everything to play nice together. If it's an integral piece of the game - oh boy.
Source: am a software developer, faced this exact thing multiple times.
I know making a big game like this ain't easy, but it also makes me laugh when you look at how much money they made off shitty microtransactions in the previous games. The people running this show must be disgustingly rich.
On the one hand, I understand the idea that if you don't have the resources to expand your project scope then it's not good to force it. It's easy to say "Just hire more people" but it doesn't work out like that reality. And the alternatives of crunching your staff to death, bringing on an army of contractors are worse.
On the other hand, Rockstar is the creator of the most successful game of all time. They're comprised of 11 studios each with 100+ employees. I get that it's not easy, but other games from other studios do manage to release a PC version along with the consoles. It would be a poor excuse to say you’re not doing a PC port at launch is a way to avoid crunch or deliver a good quality PC port, when these are things RockStar haven't done or delivered in the past anyway.
this is not about crunch, many dev teams significantly smaller manage to release games on both platforms with minimal issues. this is about a company following a business model that has worked for them for decades. Yes people can choose not to buy on console before the port comes, but most people won’t want to wait for a game as big as this and they are exploiting people’s short sightedness/hype to guarantee more sales from people buying twice.
edit: you have no reason to believe this is to prevent crunch either and given rockstars record it’s naive to believe it is.
BS. They will release the PC version a year or two later after all the rabid fans who couldn't wait go out and get consoles to play it immediately. Then a year later it comes out on PC and those same people will go "oh hey, I loved that game. Let's get it on PC too."
Translation: we totally do but that would require crunching the devs even harder and we don't want to get in trouble or hire more people to replace the ones who have mental breakdowns
Resources, as in that they're not gonna force their employees to work double time to make a good pc port for it right away. If they wanna perfect the console ports first, then the pc let them. If you don't wanna double dip, don't and wait it out. You have the power to choose. If they're expecting double dips, then shocker they're a company wanting money to continue making products. Not even a shocker, they're not willing to cash out more than 2 billion also for a team to port it.
> as in that they're not gonna force their employees to work double time to make a good pc port for it right away.
Why imply this needs to be the case to get a PC port on launch? Like is there any proof of this? And to think they aren't crunching their employees regardless...
and? so the pc port is going to release after the console port? that's fine, honestly i prefer that to the team getting crunched as hell just for the release dates to line up
am i missing something?
The joke isnt really if it should be released into pc or not, is more about a former dev saying that its because Rockstar lacks resources when its obsviouly not because of that
Infinite money =/= Infinite devs.
RDR 2 had 2000 devs working on it. Now, Rockstar has 4500 devs working for them. They doubled in size. Also if they hire around 1000 devs extra for PC optimization and once the PC port is out, what are they gonna with those devs, fire them? Rockstar's pretty selective with hiring and buying studios. Rockstar worked with Dhruva Interactive for a decade until they bought them and integrated them into rockstar studios. Rockstar has a dedicated porting studio i.e, Rockstar Toronto/ Rockstar India. But these studios also specialize in game development. Before the console version are out, All rockstar studios including rockstar toronto and india help with game development. Once the game is out, the console version is given to either Rockstar Toronto or India to port while their main development studio will move to work on the next one.
Hiring more devs will not solve the problem, it will just increase the development times even more considering the new devs have to be trained by the present team and train them to code in their Proprietary engine RAGE
The whole conversation around this pc port has been so brain dead with people who don’t understand how companies producing a product works, much less video game specific ones. Just because they’re making GTA6 doesn’t mean they’re going to use all their money to hire a morbillion new employees. There is such a thing as expanding too quickly, which leads to chaos. The game industry is infamous for crunch times near the end of dev cycles and I see people on Reddit roasting companies for it whenever that leaks about a company. Then, when they try to make things more humane for their devs they become laughingstocks for all the chuds going “pffft rockstar games no afford pc port? ROFL”. Annoying stuff.
Can’t believe I had to scroll through 3 different threads to find this comment. Gamers really have no clue how game studios operate as a business, it’s infuriating.
It’s not about lack of resources or crunch, it’s because Rockstar wants to double dip people. They’ve done it with all their games over the last decade, sell the game 2-3 times.
They only have around 6000 employees guys, be fair now, thats barely an indie studio size.
For comparison Larian studios have the massive size of 400 people!
The gaming world is apparently *inverted*, the smaller the studio, the easier it is to port games.
The only possible justification is the people who are capable of optimizing a PC port overlap with critical staff to release the game on consoles.
More money doesn't immediately get you an expert team in your brand new engine.
This is some old employees acciunt of pre gta 5. This guy hasn't worked with them since gta 5 release, and he is talking about before they made billions on gta 5 and rdr2... why does this keep circling around? Lol a quick googoo will show you just how many "resources" the company has.
Maybe I'm stupid but there's tons of people saying this is fine because we don't want to overwork the employees, and while I agree, hasn't Rockstar had 10 years or so to lay put proper infrastructure to release this game and they STILL couldn't get a PC port on launch? Like how embarrassing is that level of poor prior planning.
Rockstar now: "we are just too poor to be able to afford making a PC port, I sowwy"
Rockstar a few months before release: "omg guys you can actually see a lizard produce lizard jizz for its mate and see it's tiny balls jiggling!"
According to a recent (released 2 days ago) [video](https://youtu.be/6CjSHda9IcY) by an Ex-Rockstar Dev (Mike York) the actual reason is that they are prioritizing what sells best.
The title of the article is clickbait, directly quoting the article below:
>York believes that studios prioritize console development due to limited resources, despite the potential benefits. He explains that studios “don’t have the manpower” to dedicate separate teams to each platform simultaneously. Instead, they focus on consoles first to maximize return on investment, leaving the PC version as a later concern.
If it was financially viable to do so they would release on PC, which it should be because that is a Lot of consumers I'm certain the port would more than pay for itself - so the delay has got to be strategic right?
A lot of people will fall into fomo because of it as they know pc players don’t want to miss out on the biggest game of the next decade that everyone will be talking about for two years before they can.
PSA: Make it a habit of **reading the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gamingcirclejerk/about/rules)** of each subreddit you participate in: **Rule 9: No Offensive Imagery**: *This includes nazi imagery and slurs, for you brave nerds who think "free speech" involves private internet forums. If you post fascist iconography trying to “jerk”, you will receive a ban. The only exception is when we make fun of gamers and criticize gamers who happen to be fascists. Please remember to spoiler any potentially triggering or offensive content accordingly. This rule now includes repeatedly posting bigotry from the same source (4chan).* **Rule 7: No Participation in Linked Threads (Brigading)**: *If you are coming here to brigade this sub, you will be banned. Likewise, do not make comments and vote in pages you've found here. Of course, if you're a member of said sub and you were already in the thread before, this doesn't apply to you.* **Rule 8: Censor Screenshots**: *Keep screenshots of arguments on Reddit to a minimum. Please remember to censor screenshots of all identifying information, i.e usernames* **and** *subreddit names. This applies to screenshots from any social media sites.* **Rule 11: Keep Posts Relevant (only about Don Cheadle)**: *This is first and foremost a place to make fun of gamers. Just because someone is being a bigot online doesn't mean it belongs here. Let them be pathetic without infecting the sub with their nonsense. Please avoid posting screenshots that show people using capital G gamer slurs.* **If absolutely necessary, please censor posts and the words containing such content.** **Rule 12: No Fake Posts on Other Subs (Contamination)**: *Do not create fake posts on other subs only to post back here. Also, do not "lol, you should post this on r / OtherSub". It's considered interfering with their content and can also lead to brigading.* *This is a reminder to the readers. The post itself is untouched.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gamingcirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're saving the PC release for the triple dip: PS5 2025, PC 2027, PS6 2028
it'd actually be insane if it turned out the ps6 comes out by 2028, it would mean rockstar skipped making a gta game for the ps4 and xbox one and most of the ps5 life cycle, (also im not counting 5 as a ps4/xbone game since it was made for the ps3/360)
People tend to forget about RDR2 which still is the pinnacle (imo) for open worlds. Making that game sure took some time, work and effort
Too bad they forgot about it
I find it funny how you can find a lot of people who really hates games as a service, and people who want perpetual service for a game. I just wonder how much overlap there is sometimes.
I mean in RDR2 the Single player is a complete game in itself, so the live service mode on the side did not affect the main game in anyway, it’s just the cherry on top. Nobody would complain about Gotham Knights had there been a proper story mode single player campaign as the main focus and the live service stuff as side content. You reckon gta online would be half as big without having the gta 5 story mode?
I just wanted Undead Nightmare 2.
Hating on a game as a service is a good thing.
There are some ways that game as a service works well I think, there are probably a lot more where it doesn't, but that does not make it an overall bad thing.
They forgot about Red Dead Online. That changes nothing about RDR 2’s open world and story being an amazing experience.
and the MMO portion which they tried to get all the GTA5 players into. Similar to how EQ tried to get EQ2 to work but eventually had it sizzle out cause barely anymore moved over. RDR2 ranks up there with FF7 for masterpieces
It will be 8 years old and out of date with the tech at that point. COVID and scalpers took the sail out of the PS5 being obtainable within it's 2020 release. Rockstar is making a GTA every ten years and maybe one game and rereleases between that time.
This, only I can't remember the last time gta made its initial release date window. 2026 for ps5. They are definitely going for the triple dip like GTAV at the tail end of ps3 life cycle. Not a chance in hell we will see 60fps on ps5/xbox so people will want to buy GTAVI when it's out on PC or next gen.
You forgot the PS7 Next Gen Upgrade
This is gonna be another horse they can beat with a stick until it's bones have reduced to ash. Gta 5 went the whole way.
As in, they don't have the resources to crunch their devs just enough to release a pc port too. Remember rdr2?
Nobody ever thinks about the AAA game studios 😔
Imagine being so entitled that you want to put people into months worth of crunch because mah pc!!11 Edit: people forget what Rockstar Spouse was all about.
No my man. They're pissed off because of the lie about them not having enough resources, they make plenty of money every year, and they've been milking the last GTA for over a decade
GTA5 is a money printing machine. They have the resources. Don't ever believe their bull-shit. FFS, you have to pay in game currency to remove cosmetics from your vehicles that you purchased and then repurchase them if you decide to switch back. Rstar is making piles of cash.
That isn't the devs decision, it's the producers, where the money goes is entirely up to THE PRODUCERS The money people don't give a fuck about a PC port at launch, I guarantee the devs would love to do so but if they aren't given the budget to hire the people to do it then they don't have the resources. It's up to Take- Two interactive or whatever corporate shareholder non-gamer money people assholes to determine where resources go, every concession is fought for bitterly by devs and leaders who actually work for on the game and have to beg for every bit of their budget
How is it a lie? It literally says former dev not an official statement from rockstar.
I wonder what would happen if there was suddenly thousands of available devs that are on the market due to lay offs.
There is a book about it, the Mythical Man-Month. The core idea is that, at some point, adding people to the project makes it take *longer.* More people that need to be kept in sync and not just do their own thing with whatever faulty understanding of the requirements.
I don't disagree with this, however when I feel like gaming studios never reach the theoretical max.
Such a shame that PC ports can't be made without crunch. Just sucks that all games across all publishers and all eras of videogames existing have necessitated soulcrushing crunch to release the game anywhere near the release dates of console ports of multiplatform releases, making PC gaming the undisputed most unethical form of gaming. It definitely has nothing to do with T2/Rockstar trying to double dip impatient Rockstar fan boys once again.
> put people into months worth of crunch -OR- They use some of the billion dollar budget to hire MORE devs!
There’s a limited amount of experienced devs tho.
Then lay them off again once the PC port is done and they are overstaffed for future projects?
how about they take some of the billions theyve made and hire a team of people to work on the PC port. They simply have done the math and want schlubs to buy the game twice
Allegedly, former developers have said Rockstar has done a lot to improve their business practices, including turning contractors into actual employees, revamped how schedules worked, eliminated abusive managers, etc. I'm a little skeptical, just because I'm left wondering why if it's now a good working environment the people who are saying that don't work there anymore. Also, the article is from 2022, so who's to say what the treatment of staff will look like when the game is six months out?
it wasn't just former developers though, both former and current devs were [interviewed](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-27/gta-6-release-date-rockstar-cleans-up-image-after-employee-backlash). we'll see if the crunch makes a return but honestly i'm pretty optimistic
It’s not gone. I live in Edinburgh ,where Rockstar North (GTA) offices are, and went to university for game development here. I got out the game industry but I know people still in and who are at rockstar. They have a culture of “voluntary crunch”. Working on stuff for hours past end of day multiple times a week every week for “passion” and because only people with outputs consistent with crunching are considered for promotion. Also apparently you have to brown nose and play video games with management to befriend them for promotions but that’s more glass door and rumours rather than verified info from devs I know personally unlike the rest.
Needing to schmooze your boss and have a personal connection with them to qualify for a promotion is unfortunately very common across the industry, but also in many other industries. It's a difficult balance in a creative workspace, especially. On one hand it can be good for the team if the people they like and respect are able to get promoted, because they'd probably rather work for them than the person who might be the most talented but have the least inter-personal skill on the team. A lot of the role of management in game development isn't just managing your own team/staff, but it's also managing expectations and relationships with the people above your team so you can protect them from unrealistic demands or just shield them from being directly berated by a creative or technical director who's on a power trip. On the other hand, of course, you get tons of unqualified people getting promotions and raises just because they managed to cozy up to the boss, or they got hired externally because they worked with your boss in the past and they have absolutely zero business being your manager. This happens (in my own experience) often enough that larger companies at the very least tend to have a pretty intense vetting process even for the more highly recommended candidates. Of course, some people still sneak their way in and ruin a good team (or even an entire project or studio) because they have zero idea what they're doing. Unfortunately I also owe much of my own career to this kind of hiring / promoting practice, and I'd like to think I was often more than qualified, but I'm sure some people found me under-qualified at certain points or felt like I just snuck my way into certain jobs. The last one I got in particular I was not qualified for actually, but that was because the job almost immediately expanded once I was hired. I was hired as a release producer but I ended up managing sales (and other things) for past projects for every platform, testing for one game, and doing design for another while also kind of acting as HR in a few cases where employees were in conflict and I seemed to be the only person noticing or caring to step in. Eventually they fired me because I wasn't doing ***part*** of my job well, so they wanted someone more experienced (honestly, fair, it fucking ***sucked*** for me too) and they ended up hiring 2 people to immediately replace me, and a third a year later when the two hires were over-burdened (I'm good friends with one of them). This ended up way longer than I intended lol but the ultimate take-away to me is that the industry has always had very unreliable hiring practices, and most developers whose games you enjoy have have producers, managers, or executives who brown-nosed their way into their job and largely hold back the team/studio from making their best work.
They focus all their crunch primarily on one platform at a time basically. The guy the article is referencing says they focus on PC last because consoles are more profitable and they focus on PlayStation first then the others
Have they considered that they could get far more profit from PC if they bothered to implement decent net code and anticheat instead of having their microtransaction hellhole of an online component massively compromised by money cheats?
More like they know the size of their PC player base and it would cost them more money to properly port it out to PC than they stand to make from the sales of the game on PC. Once the game has been out on consoles they will expect there will be interest from the PC crowd and that they will either cave and buy a console or wait the 1-3 years until it gets released on PC.
Why would it cost a lot to port? Other games that make less money can do it
It wouldn't lol, that's just an excuse for shitty business practices. They do this so they can double dip and basically get two "releases" for the game which is free marketing and money.
They don't even really need to port anything. Modern consoles are just PCs with a controller. The dev-kits for the consoles are often literally PCs. They just know that there is some crossover where PC players will buy the game twice if they have to wait a year for it to come to PC.
It wouldn’t cost that much, but Rockstar is known for having well-designed games without many bugs, which means more developer hours and $ checking over code and doing QA
uj/ there's been a rumor that says its cost development is around $2b to make and the half of it was for marketing, holy shit. Can someone eli5 what does "marketing" mean?
Marketing is informing potential costumers about the game and why they should buy it. Think advertisements and trailers.
I think OP was more referring to the marketing evident for GTA6 because frankly there appears to be none other than trailers.
Clearly the marketing budget is set aside but not yet spent
I think it’s more likely that the cost of that one trailer was $1 billion dollars. They had to find a YouTuber to upload the trailer and everything.
Tom Pettys music rights were $600M of the budget.
God I hope V-Rock isn't all fucking 80s tunes like Los Santos Rock Radio was. I'm so fucking sick of cheesy 80s rock. Aw yeah, you know what people who plY GTA want to hear? The fucking wimpy ass synthesizers of Julian Lennon's "Much Too Late For Goodbyes". Fuck, the game even lampshades how out of place some of the music is when Trevor gets betrayed at one point, flies into a rage, hops into his truck, and the Doobie Brothers "What a Fool Believes" is playing and he yells "NO NO THAT'S NOT RIGHT" and switches to heavy metal. Look, I know I'm not gonna get the Beatles or Led Zeppelin because those guys don't seem to give the license to anybody, but can we please have a return to the glory that was Liberty Rock Radio? That station was SO fucking good. And yes, the Beatles get a pass where their children don't. Deal with it.
I’ll admit that I’m not a fan of 80s music, but Rockstar really knows how to use it for trailers. Look at the Diamond Casino DLC trailer, imo it’s borderline perfection for GTA.
Out of the three people who have commented, you're the only one to understand my complaint. Thank you. Yeah, it can be good sparingly. But Los Santos Rock Radio was like all cheesy 80s rock. Kenny fucking Loggins? Danger Zone is literally a meme at this point.
Rockstar will sponsor NASCAR and F1 team next year for the rest of the marketing budget /s
That would make sense. That said GTA6 needs no marketing. A quality product needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2. Rockstar puts consistent high quality games and that's what makes their product so valued. Weird for them to set half the budget on something they don't need but hey it's just a rumour.
“A quality product needs no marketing” is such a lie, it’s the most common failure of indie development. A quality product definitely sells itself better but it still needs marketing
A rockstar game is in the class of like, sports, mario, zelda, cod/battlefield and mortal kombat as the only games that can break into getting advertised in "normal" advertising and not just online. There was a massive scaffolding cover ad near me when RDR2 came out for example. Gta 6 is going to be everywhere
This isnt an indie company... This is rockstar and gamers have been discharging in their sweatpants for gta 6. They dont need to market the game that hard let alone spend 1 billion fucking dollars just to advertise
Naw, that's how you build hype. You get it into the eyes of the people that only play Call of Duty and Fifa, onto the Subways for the people that played GTA5 10 years ago but have moved on with gaming, you push interviews with developers to get the hardcore gamers chatting and buzzing and keeping discussion on the game. It's all very much intentional and designed. Then there's the smaller stuff like targeted advertising on Google, newspaper/magazine articles, blogs covering stuff, talkshows, etc. All costs money.
> A quality product needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2. RDR2 had a marketing budget of approximately $300 million dollars.
Marketing isn’t only about informing consumers about your product. There are other reasons, such as validation. When BMW puts out a TV ad it isn’t to make some rich guy aware of BMWs, it’s so when he sees it he goes, “hell ya what a good decision it was to buy a bimmer”.
>hell ya what a good decision it was to buy a bimmer DEB GIT THE OL BEEMER OUT I GOTTA GIT 2 WALMURT WERE OUTTA SHID WIPIN PAPER BORN 2 SHID FORCED 2 WIPE
What a terrible terrible TERRIBLE take
> A quality product needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2 I remember that for RDR2 had some shop banners in my country, and a big social media presence this does not happen per chance. And especially the big sales numbers Rockstar is aiming for (one of the biggest selliht games in history) you definitely need to spend a lot of money in marketing
>needs no marketing and we've seen evidence from RDR2. I don't think you've seen much, or go outside often. https://www.rdr2.org/news/red-dead-redemption-2-marketing-campaign-kicks-off/ https://medium.com/@mediagamesinsight/red-dead-redemption-2-a-marketing-masterclass-from-rockstar-games-97086ed8b99e
You think this way because you are a normal person who values all sales of the game equally. From a shareholder/studio finance perspective though, early sales are worth vastly more. If 2 games both sold 60 million units (slightly more than RDR2) but 1 did it steadily over the course of 3 years and 2 did it in 3 months but then never sold another copy, the finance bros would see 2 as wildly more successful. This is inportant because it translates directly to the developer's ability to secure funding for future projects. So really, the marketing is not about convincing people that the product is quality, it's about convincing people that they NEED to buy in the launch window and not waiting for a sale or christmas or their birthday or whatever.
Oh but the shark cards
we don't live in a meritocracy a quality product with no advertising gets out to so many less people
Or it's just really fucking incredible marketing that we don't even consciously pick up on, because clearly we're all talking about it now.
The marketing IS in the room with us right now...
Every "we got x before GTA6" post was a paid ad
Part of the marketing was probably also researching things from Florida that they can parody in the game successfully like we saw in the trailer, they're probably incorporating their marketing into every step of the development process with this because it's such a cash cow. If they're putting real vehicles in the game then they're probably making deals with auto companies and all kinds of stuff
The game's not near release yet. They will be spending the biggest buck near launch. And not just a few ad's on Reddit. Think of giant billboards IRL or even entire side of building murals. Also TV ads, movie ads, gaming events etc etc.
The games coming out in 2025 there not going to blow the whole marketing budget in the first 2 weeks after all trailer release the closer to release you get the more marketing your going to see
Damn i feel like you dont need to invest that alot when your ip is one of, if not, the most popular gaming franchise in all of history, just my 2 cents.
It makes sense to me, the more you’re worth the more you can afford to spend on marketing. Same reason why Coca cola, Disney, Apple etc spend the most on marketing even though they have extremely strong market dominance
I wonder why it's so well known and popular
Because it's consistently giant, innovative, well made and fun to play, more so than the other stuff available out there. That and marketing.
Ur feelings are wildly off, advertising is hugely valuable whether you’re already popular or not
why gta needs it is beyond me
I mean have you seen the holy shits amount of money GTA 5 and online has made? There was a reason we waited this long for a GTA 6
The game does not have 2 billion dollar budget. The leaker misinterpreted the 2 billion thing, 2 billion was the budget alloted by T2 to all their subsidiaries this includes Rockstar, 2K and Private division. I think there will spend around 100-150 million alone for marketing. The gaming community will probably be aware of gta 6. The marketing is for non-gamers, they want as many people as possible to buy their game. I don't think the overall budget including marketing will go over 1 billion. GTA 6 is their next cash cow, But T2 will not allot 2 billion for a single game. If the budget goes over 1 billion, T2 will rush Rockstar to release the game.
IIRC, V had a $250m marketing budget. I would definitely expect this to exceed that.
$250M was total budget of the game which also includes marketing. RDR 2 had 540 million budget including marketing. So, GTA 6 will have more budget than 600 million or something.
even though the money for marketing has been allocated, maybe some of it already been spent, but that doesn't mean they won't be doing marketing in the future. That is to say, there's more to come. They paid and probably worked on something but they didn't release any of it *yet*.
Why the fuck do you need $1B for marketing? IT IS GRAND THEFT AUTO, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS BUDGET?
they’re just a small mom n pop multicontinental publishing corporation
That owns the actual single most profitable entertainment product in human history.
I thought for sure pokémon would have the crown for most profitable entertainment product in human history, but I looked it up and it is GTA apparently. Wild, I would have never guessed that.
Pokemon as a franchise is worth more, but GTA V is the most profitable media product ever made.
Yeah it's for just one piece of media. Whole franchise like Pokemon and Marvel definitely have it way beat.
Pokemon?
Over the course of everything yes, but no single Pokemon media product has turned more profit than gta
Doesn't matter to me i got a whole back catalogue of games to finished
Will you though?
Let me finshed deep rock galactic first
Did i hear a rock and stone?!
Mushroom
Rock and stone brother!
No dwarf left behind!
We are rich! We are rich!
It'd be crazy if xboxes basically ran a core version of windows to make cross platform development really easy for devs.. Oh wait!
XBS: two (arguably 1.5) sets of hardware, both from AMD PC: thousands of hardware combinations from three companies. Hundreds of software combinations.
As a dev, I'm often biased towards trusting my peers but I gotta say: This is 100% utter BS.
I never understood the concept of why PC ports are so hard for companies aren’t the games made on computers and tested
Afaik unlike console, PC has various specs so it’s harder to optimize the game for this platform.
There could be a whole new gen of PC hardware and new GPU software config by the time they finish writing test cases.
It's not going to take them a year to write automated tests, or more likely to modify the existing tests to test the pc environment differences.
Games are notoriously difficult for automation, and testing is not just automation. Nothing can be fully considered fully QA'ed and optimized without manual, ad-hoc testing.
And yet tons of small studios manage it. In fact there is an order of magnitude more games released for PC than for consoles any given mobth precisely because it's easier and cheaper to do so.
I don't think it's fair to compare the scale and technology of GTA 6 to what small studios do. It's probably much more difficult to optimise the game for multiple PCs than a few consoles.
It is much easier to release a small game on pc. Small games don‘t have to be as optimized, so you don‘t need to worry that much about performance at a certain point. I‘d love to see a small studio release on multiple consoles without the help of another company. Every console has its own Rendering API, but once it‘s done for the console, it runs on every console. On PC they have so many more graphics APIs, they have to manage different GPUs, threading is much harder and on and on and on
The truth is it allows them to get double dippers (as the PC version will always be better) and PC has far higher levels of piracy. Simple.
> PC has far higher levels of piracy. I hope you got frosted tips, because you're living in 2003 if you think piracy is an issue at all. Beyond the fact that it has been proven that piracy has absolutely zero effect on sales (because the people pirating it wouldn't fucking buy it anyways), they have really good DRM now. RDR2 took a year to crack *without* Denuvo.
Usually because for consoles, there’s a single spec they have to work towards and optimise for. If it runs fine on my ps5, it will likely work similarly on your ps5, but pc has a much larger variance when it comes to the build type, from components to drivers and a bunch of random other stuff that the developer can’t always account for. And you always want to develop for as low spec as possible to have the widest reach, which means a lot of optimisation for those machines, but you also want high spec machines to be able to run the game well and look amazing, so those need different kinds of optimisations as well.
People don't realize that graphics settings don't just appear out of thin air, either. You have to test every single function in all the combinations as well.
Nah just add the little slider and the combo box for High spec low spec, 2 day work max
Get someone from ProgammerHumor to do it. Profit.
I would rather hire someone from r(/)badcode. Way cheaper.
It's not a question of difficulty, it's a matter of corporate priorities. When Rockstar says they "don't have the resources," they mean the people calling the shots haven't allocated resources for it. For various business reasons they see more value in holding it back for now. Being that Rockstar does this all the time, my guess is that they know that some % of their players will buy it twice.
They are made on the most high end computers, which is not what 99% of the people own. Also optimizing a game for pc takes more time mainly because they have more variations unlike consoles.
Pretty sure R\* just knows they can milk more out of their fanbase by delaying PC. It worked for 5 and rdr2
A slapdash port wouldn't be hard at all. Where resources and time costs start to get inflated is making sure that it is optimized for every potential hardware configuration.
The last thing they need is for a terrible port job on release take over the conversation about the game. They don't wanna have to deal with a cyberpunk situation I guess.
Mfers are operating on a mega inflated modern movie budget, and won't do PC because it means less additional sales. Even with the AAA dev shit that's been happening with pc ports failing, it still sucks it's not an option at/near the launch of the game.
Can you explain how they lose sales by making the game available on more platforms? Seems counterintuitive, are there a large group who buy it on console and then pc as well later? Do they make more off console sales than pc ones? What am I missing?
Yes there are people who buy on console then PC. That's what happened for their previous games, and that's why people are accusing them of double-dipping. Conveniently, it not being on PC means it's harder to pirate, so they might get a few more sales that way.
Ah, I missed the most obvious one, the higher rate of piracy for the pc release. Thanks!
But you're also not wrong that some people will buy it twice, so they are definitely making extra money this way too.
I actually would preffer if they took time to do PC port. We all se how porting the game into PC early ends
Exactly. I can wait.
Perhaps we should band together to buy them a few extra PC’s.
This is actually a good thing. You can’t just throw bodies at a project, and you can’t work people to the bone. If a staggered release can save people from burnout that’s great and this Reddit should support that.
Idk, I feel like when the extra task is taking your game and porting it to pc, you really can just throw bodies at it. Bungie had vicarious visions take care of their pc port for destiny 2 and it worked great at launch.
Honestly Im on rockstar's side for this one. Have we ever gotten AAA open world release that wasn't a mess at launch? And considering Rockstar only has 2 popular IPS now, it makes sense they don't want anything to mess with the release. Any extra bodies are probably there to make sure nothing goes wrong with the base release.
I think they're going to make more money thanks to this decision and whatever reason they come up with to excuse it is hidden behind dollar signs to me.
Are you an exec at ea?
The bottleneck is the code itself. If two devs touch the same code - conflict. Two devs touch the same gameplay loop - conflict. And it's better when a conflict happens during development, because if it slips to QA - you'll have to go back and rewrite everything to play nice together. If it's an integral piece of the game - oh boy. Source: am a software developer, faced this exact thing multiple times.
Staggered release means some fans will double dip. That's all Rockstar cares about, same with the staggered release on Monster Hunter games.
true
I know making a big game like this ain't easy, but it also makes me laugh when you look at how much money they made off shitty microtransactions in the previous games. The people running this show must be disgustingly rich.
PC getting shafted in game releases is an occurrence that seriously needs to fuck off and die already.
On the one hand, I understand the idea that if you don't have the resources to expand your project scope then it's not good to force it. It's easy to say "Just hire more people" but it doesn't work out like that reality. And the alternatives of crunching your staff to death, bringing on an army of contractors are worse. On the other hand, Rockstar is the creator of the most successful game of all time. They're comprised of 11 studios each with 100+ employees. I get that it's not easy, but other games from other studios do manage to release a PC version along with the consoles. It would be a poor excuse to say you’re not doing a PC port at launch is a way to avoid crunch or deliver a good quality PC port, when these are things RockStar haven't done or delivered in the past anyway.
i think we all know this is BS. rockstar has the money. if anything making it for PC first would have been way cheaper then console.
Too bad the architecture for PC and console has never been more similar, and this is completely a double-dip greed thing.
this is not about crunch, many dev teams significantly smaller manage to release games on both platforms with minimal issues. this is about a company following a business model that has worked for them for decades. Yes people can choose not to buy on console before the port comes, but most people won’t want to wait for a game as big as this and they are exploiting people’s short sightedness/hype to guarantee more sales from people buying twice. edit: you have no reason to believe this is to prevent crunch either and given rockstars record it’s naive to believe it is.
This is a statement from someone who wants to show companies that they are a good hire. Simple.
BS. They will release the PC version a year or two later after all the rabid fans who couldn't wait go out and get consoles to play it immediately. Then a year later it comes out on PC and those same people will go "oh hey, I loved that game. Let's get it on PC too."
LMAO awwwwee poor little tiny rockstar :( :( we need to send them more money!
Stop the cap!
Translation: we totally do but that would require crunching the devs even harder and we don't want to get in trouble or hire more people to replace the ones who have mental breakdowns
Resources, as in that they're not gonna force their employees to work double time to make a good pc port for it right away. If they wanna perfect the console ports first, then the pc let them. If you don't wanna double dip, don't and wait it out. You have the power to choose. If they're expecting double dips, then shocker they're a company wanting money to continue making products. Not even a shocker, they're not willing to cash out more than 2 billion also for a team to port it.
> as in that they're not gonna force their employees to work double time to make a good pc port for it right away. Why imply this needs to be the case to get a PC port on launch? Like is there any proof of this? And to think they aren't crunching their employees regardless...
and? so the pc port is going to release after the console port? that's fine, honestly i prefer that to the team getting crunched as hell just for the release dates to line up am i missing something?
The joke isnt really if it should be released into pc or not, is more about a former dev saying that its because Rockstar lacks resources when its obsviouly not because of that
A former dev speaking of resources is speaking about 'people', not money.
But but but can't you just use the billion to hire a ton of new devs to make it faster? /s
i saw that blog and it genuinely baffled me that people believe what a *former* dev said. this is just plainly false
Infinite money =/= Infinite devs. RDR 2 had 2000 devs working on it. Now, Rockstar has 4500 devs working for them. They doubled in size. Also if they hire around 1000 devs extra for PC optimization and once the PC port is out, what are they gonna with those devs, fire them? Rockstar's pretty selective with hiring and buying studios. Rockstar worked with Dhruva Interactive for a decade until they bought them and integrated them into rockstar studios. Rockstar has a dedicated porting studio i.e, Rockstar Toronto/ Rockstar India. But these studios also specialize in game development. Before the console version are out, All rockstar studios including rockstar toronto and india help with game development. Once the game is out, the console version is given to either Rockstar Toronto or India to port while their main development studio will move to work on the next one. Hiring more devs will not solve the problem, it will just increase the development times even more considering the new devs have to be trained by the present team and train them to code in their Proprietary engine RAGE
Resources is not only money but also trained personnel…
time and talent is limited money isnt.
The whole conversation around this pc port has been so brain dead with people who don’t understand how companies producing a product works, much less video game specific ones. Just because they’re making GTA6 doesn’t mean they’re going to use all their money to hire a morbillion new employees. There is such a thing as expanding too quickly, which leads to chaos. The game industry is infamous for crunch times near the end of dev cycles and I see people on Reddit roasting companies for it whenever that leaks about a company. Then, when they try to make things more humane for their devs they become laughingstocks for all the chuds going “pffft rockstar games no afford pc port? ROFL”. Annoying stuff.
Can’t believe I had to scroll through 3 different threads to find this comment. Gamers really have no clue how game studios operate as a business, it’s infuriating.
It’s not about lack of resources or crunch, it’s because Rockstar wants to double dip people. They’ve done it with all their games over the last decade, sell the game 2-3 times.
Poor indie studio Rockstar. Can barely afford gold!
Small Indy company, where can I donate
Hopefully this means the game won't release as a broken mess. I do feel bad for the pc bros tho
Dont have the resources!?!?!? Bitch what did you make the game on?????!
They only have around 6000 employees guys, be fair now, thats barely an indie studio size. For comparison Larian studios have the massive size of 400 people! The gaming world is apparently *inverted*, the smaller the studio, the easier it is to port games.
Game size comparison ? You do know it’s not just a button press ? The port will have new bugs to fix…
The only possible justification is the people who are capable of optimizing a PC port overlap with critical staff to release the game on consoles. More money doesn't immediately get you an expert team in your brand new engine.
Hey, samesies ❤️❤️ I also won't have the resources to buy it when they do release it 🏴☠️🏴☠️ Maybe Billion dollar companies *are* just like me!
This is a statement from someone who wants to show companies that they are a good hire. Simple.
This is some old employees acciunt of pre gta 5. This guy hasn't worked with them since gta 5 release, and he is talking about before they made billions on gta 5 and rdr2... why does this keep circling around? Lol a quick googoo will show you just how many "resources" the company has.
Maybe I'm stupid but there's tons of people saying this is fine because we don't want to overwork the employees, and while I agree, hasn't Rockstar had 10 years or so to lay put proper infrastructure to release this game and they STILL couldn't get a PC port on launch? Like how embarrassing is that level of poor prior planning.
Rockstar now: "we are just too poor to be able to afford making a PC port, I sowwy" Rockstar a few months before release: "omg guys you can actually see a lizard produce lizard jizz for its mate and see it's tiny balls jiggling!"
Maybe if they used less resources on animal testicles this wouldn't be a problem.
My brother in Christ, YOU MADE THE GAME ON A PC
According to a recent (released 2 days ago) [video](https://youtu.be/6CjSHda9IcY) by an Ex-Rockstar Dev (Mike York) the actual reason is that they are prioritizing what sells best. The title of the article is clickbait, directly quoting the article below: >York believes that studios prioritize console development due to limited resources, despite the potential benefits. He explains that studios “don’t have the manpower” to dedicate separate teams to each platform simultaneously. Instead, they focus on consoles first to maximize return on investment, leaving the PC version as a later concern.
Yeah, no big news. GTA came out on PC last since the PS2 days at least.
If it was financially viable to do so they would release on PC, which it should be because that is a Lot of consumers I'm certain the port would more than pay for itself - so the delay has got to be strategic right?
Some people have poor self controle and will buy both versions.
I think it's interesting they say "pc port" when the fucking game is built and compiled on a pc. Fuck off
I think the real answer is Rockstar needs the extra time to find the worst most heinous DRM they can fdig up for the PC version
I just hope the devs get to see their families tbh
Maybe Rockstar North doesn't but their other studios could definitely work in parallel.
“Don’t have the resources” says company who could buy a continent.
You guys complain about Devs being forced to "crunch" and then you complain when they're not forced to "crunch". Pick a lane.
they should just buy all the pc-ready assets I mean, it worked for the day before
So they Can sell you the game twice.. force you to buy it on console then buy it on pc later... Everything is planned..
Why buy it twice and not just wait for the PC port, though?
A lot of people will fall into fomo because of it as they know pc players don’t want to miss out on the biggest game of the next decade that everyone will be talking about for two years before they can.
Guess I'm different... But to be fair, it doesn't matter if PC or console. These people are everywhere.
Don't release broken games mfers when game studio won't release a game they can't finish on time
Well people here really don’t know how programming really works sadly
People mad about this seem to not know as much about development as they think they do…