Grand Theft Auto V Earns $800 Million in a Day(variety.com)
variety.com
Grand Theft Auto V Earns $800 Million in a Day
http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/grand-theft-auto-v-earns-800-million-in-a-day-more-than-worldwide-haul-of-man-of-steel-1200616706/
177 comments
I played this yesterday (I don't own a console) at a friends house and what they've been able to achieve on these consoles is impressive considering these consoles aren't next gen and are resource limited.
It seems like that happens at every end of every console's life. Last of Us, BioShock Infinite, and GTA V are three fantastic games to close out the PS3.
It seems like that happens at every end of every console's life. Last of Us, BioShock Infinite, and GTA V are three fantastic games to close out the PS3.
I wonder if the developers get a real handle on the platform and squeezing the most out of it by the time it gets to EOL.
I was just reading about this yesterday actually. Wiki mentions the tricks learnt from GTAIV were exploited to their full extent to make the best use of the hardware for GTAV.
> While both games were developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, the team were able to render the world of Grand Theft Auto V with greater detail than in Grand Theft Auto IV because they had become familiar with the hardware over time. Art director Aaron Garbut opined that while the aging hardware of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 were tiring to work with, "I think one of the most amazing features is the way we handle lighting in the game to maintain a consistent look despite the constraints on realistic lighting and shadows on current hardware", he explained.[28] Vice president Dan Houser agreed with this sentiment, explaining that working on Grand Theft Auto IV with relatively new hardware was difficult, but "now we know what the hardware's capable of, so it's become a lot easier to move things along and a lot more fun, too".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gta5#Development
> While both games were developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, the team were able to render the world of Grand Theft Auto V with greater detail than in Grand Theft Auto IV because they had become familiar with the hardware over time. Art director Aaron Garbut opined that while the aging hardware of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 were tiring to work with, "I think one of the most amazing features is the way we handle lighting in the game to maintain a consistent look despite the constraints on realistic lighting and shadows on current hardware", he explained.[28] Vice president Dan Houser agreed with this sentiment, explaining that working on Grand Theft Auto IV with relatively new hardware was difficult, but "now we know what the hardware's capable of, so it's become a lot easier to move things along and a lot more fun, too".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gta5#Development
Don't forget the experience they also gained with Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3.
They must no doubt, given the specs on those systems.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_specificatio...
A whopping 512mb of RAM to run GTA 5
I picked up my 360 in the launch month, and it's still running eight years later. Have to give them credit for that as I've put a lot of miles on the system.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_specificatio...
A whopping 512mb of RAM to run GTA 5
I picked up my 360 in the launch month, and it's still running eight years later. Have to give them credit for that as I've put a lot of miles on the system.
>I picked up my 360 in the launch month, and it's still running eight years later.
Wow, I have had like 4 consoles, 2 original, elite and finally the slim. All but the slim RROD, to still have your launch edition is mighty impressive!
Wow, I have had like 4 consoles, 2 original, elite and finally the slim. All but the slim RROD, to still have your launch edition is mighty impressive!
The earlier years of the 360 were plagued by RROD problems. I bought a second (original) console a few years in and had no problems.
My experience was that the RROD issues were sorted out well before the elite and slim 360s (worked in GameStop), so it's surprising you had problems with those versions.
My experience was that the RROD issues were sorted out well before the elite and slim 360s (worked in GameStop), so it's surprising you had problems with those versions.
I can confirm that the elite can RROD. I had two originals RROD and finally got a slim, my roommate had one elite and had to get a slim after his RROD'd.
Only problem I had was in 2007, I got the red ring of death, which Microsoft fixed. I picked up a 360 for my brother at the same time, and his is also still running perfectly (he managed to avoid the ring of death). I've never done anything particularly special for the care of the system, I keep it elevated off the floor, and it has always rested flat (for better or worse).
Bingo. Andy Gavin's blog about developing Crash Bandicoot covers some of the issues of developing for consoles.
Except Gran Turismo 6 (with completely rebuilt graphics and physics) is coming out this year. Metal Gear Solid V & Ground Zeroes are currently in development for the PS3, among other systems. Also we will still be getting multi-platform stuff for some time (Battlefield 4).
So it's too early to "close out the PS3" IMHO.
So it's too early to "close out the PS3" IMHO.
Assuming every PC copy sold is digital at $60 a pop the 70% publisher cut would be $42. To generate an extra $300,000,000 in revenue on PC it'd have to sell 7 million copies. No game in the history of ever has sold that many copies on day one on PC. And they especially haven't done that when the game is releasing on consoles at the same time.
It will however eventually release on PC and generate a nice chunk of change over a few years at various price points.
It will however eventually release on PC and generate a nice chunk of change over a few years at various price points.
Why are you comparing gross revenue to profit? It would only take 3.3 million pre-sales to make up the $200 million to get to $1 billion/day. Diablo 3 reached that many sales on day 1, for example. Moreover, we're not talking about any random game, we're talking about this very specific game, GTA V, which has smashed existing sales records.
No game in the history of ever has sold that many copies on day one on PC.
No game in the history of ever has sold as many copies on Xbox 360 or PS3 as GTA V just has either, no? ;-)
That said, I think I agree with the inferred point that simultaneous PC release wouldn't have had a huge impact on revenue.
No game in the history of ever has sold as many copies on Xbox 360 or PS3 as GTA V just has either, no? ;-)
That said, I think I agree with the inferred point that simultaneous PC release wouldn't have had a huge impact on revenue.
> No game in the history of ever has sold as many copies on Xbox 360 or PS3 as GTA V just has either, no? ;-)
Several blockbusters, such as Call of Duty, have sold more on consoles than GTA V currently has, just not on day 1.
Several blockbusters, such as Call of Duty, have sold more on consoles than GTA V currently has, just not on day 1.
Well, according to wikipedia, it took 5 days for COD:BO2 to earn $800M. Game grossed $500M on the first day.
You can only imagine what that game could look like if it were designed for PC and not decade old consoles with hardware that was mid-range when the consoles came out.
It sucks that every major game lately is just made for the lowest common denominator and then if we are lucky, we get a half assed PC port. Dear god what a mess GTA IV was and how many patches it took to actually get it to a workable state.
I still wait on a studio that actually takes enough pride in their work to develop something that really pushes the envelope of PC gaming. You could take that then and show even the "Next Gen" consoles what actually is possible nowadays if you don't go for the bargain basement.
It sucks that every major game lately is just made for the lowest common denominator and then if we are lucky, we get a half assed PC port. Dear god what a mess GTA IV was and how many patches it took to actually get it to a workable state.
I still wait on a studio that actually takes enough pride in their work to develop something that really pushes the envelope of PC gaming. You could take that then and show even the "Next Gen" consoles what actually is possible nowadays if you don't go for the bargain basement.
You could if you target really high end PCs but a lot of the PC market is now laptops or people who don't want to upgrade every 6 months to a year.
There was a time when gaming PCs had to be upgraded regularly, but that hasn't been the case for years, now. My gaming rig was built about three years ago, and it should be able to go another one to two years before it will need an upgrade. And even then, the only upgrade it should need is a new video card (the GTX 460 that I have is sufficient, but it will eventually be a performance bottleneck).
I wonder how much consoles are to blame for that. Big studios that have the power to drive PC upgrades produce mainly for decade-old hardware, which is just peanuts by the standards of today's PCs.
The PS3 is nearly 7 years old and runs GTA V. Modern PCs could run GTA V just fine. In fact, it'd probably run better on the PC because they could just install the entire game to the hard drive (load times are a bit lengthy on the PS3 because of disc seek times).
>Dear god what a mess GTA IV was and how many patches it took to actually get it to a workable state.
Could be the reason they don't, but I expect piracy is the main reason it's not on the PC yet.
You do often see tech demos of engines that show of what can be done, but you develop for the market, which is the same for most technology (cough Internet Explorer cough)
Could be the reason they don't, but I expect piracy is the main reason it's not on the PC yet.
You do often see tech demos of engines that show of what can be done, but you develop for the market, which is the same for most technology (cough Internet Explorer cough)
Xbox one may actually live up to this...we'll see
News flash , AAA companies don't like to do PC releases because of all the piracy.
Hell Let me be honest , every GTA games i had played till San Andreas on the PC was a cracked version.
It wasn't that i wanted to get a crack , but the thing was that there was no other option available where i live.
> It wasn't that i wanted to get a crack , but the thing was that there was no other option available where i live.
Which brings us back to: Piracy is a market failure, not a cultural failure.
Which brings us back to: Piracy is a market failure, not a cultural failure.
Theft is a market failure, not a cultural failure.
That is probably true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that theft happens, by and large, due to poor access to drugs. If the drug market was more efficient, it is possible a lot of those theft crimes would go away.
Of course, theft and copyright infringement are not directly comparable, being quite different concepts.
Of course, theft and copyright infringement are not directly comparable, being quite different concepts.
Repeat after me: piracy is not theft.
To be precise, "piracy" isn't even piracy. After all, it's not murder, kidnapping, and plunder on the high seas.
Thank you - you're quite right. I should have written, "copying isn't theft".
It shouldn't be a surprise to you that words can have more than one meaning.
This one is by design.
'Piracy' was defined as copyright violation by the copyright holders, not by general usage.
Therefore, we should fight that usage, just to compensate the balance.
'Piracy' was defined as copyright violation by the copyright holders, not by general usage.
Therefore, we should fight that usage, just to compensate the balance.
I follow but disagree. The world's largest and most successful torrent site calls itself The Pirate Bay. There are political "Pirate Parties" in Canada and Sweden. It may have been a pejorative label initially, but file sharers have "owned" the name and made it their own.
That's exactly how language is defined; by popular usage, not by design.
That's exactly how language is defined; by popular usage, not by design.
Unfortunately your attempted reductio ad absurdum doesn't quite get to the absurdum point.
Well if you think about it , the markets here could easily import the games ( they do import the PS3 games ) but they choose not to import PC games because they know it will be cracked in time.
So basically it was in fact cultural failure which lead to market failure .
You do realise this argument is null and void? GTA V for XBOX 360 leaked onto torrent websites days before the game was even officially released. If this is the argument companies are using for delaying the release of PC games or not releasing them at all, I think that's weak.
Look at Watch Dogs. Another open world hacker-esque game and it's coming out on consoles and PC on the same date. Rockstar are a much bigger company with more resources and bigger budgets to develop for multi-platforms. They are a console oriented company, but I remember when GTA was much bigger on PC than any console back in the 1,2 and 3 days especially.
Well, put it this way. If there are plans for next gen, we'll definitely get a PC person as they are effectively the same in many ways.
Look at Watch Dogs. Another open world hacker-esque game and it's coming out on consoles and PC on the same date. Rockstar are a much bigger company with more resources and bigger budgets to develop for multi-platforms. They are a console oriented company, but I remember when GTA was much bigger on PC than any console back in the 1,2 and 3 days especially.
Well, put it this way. If there are plans for next gen, we'll definitely get a PC person as they are effectively the same in many ways.
I'm failing to understand your point. Almost every version of GTA has been released on the PC. How was there no option where you lived? Are you meaning you couldn't purchase it at your local stores before mail-order was available?
Not only PC, but I wonder if some people are waiting to see if this hits next gen consoles also.
My guess is their business plan was -- get it out for the tail end of the current gen consoles, then rake in cash a second time on a remastered edition when the next gen consoles are out in significant numbers.
I played it on PS3, the only downside is the FPS drop that occurs when driving at fast speeds... which is a fair payoff for the impressive visuals they have managed to achieve.
This is odd, as I haven't found this on the xbox 360 at all, and I was under the impression that the ps3 was more powerful.
The question of which is more powerful is a difficult one if you get down to the nitty-gritty... but I'd have to say the best snap answer is that in general, the XBox 360 actually has a narrow advantage in most ways. The PS3 has a particular advantage in a certain type of computation, but if you can't make maximal use of that for some reason, the XBox 360 wins.
The idea that the PS3 has some sort of huge advantage is mostly Sony propaganda, and people who don't get that "Cell" doesn't mean something magic that makes everything faster, it means something more like "overoptimized for a particular use case" that only makes certain very narrow tasks faster.
Now I can finally justify this point I've made before with this: There is a reason the PS4 is fleeing the Cell architecture just as fast as its metaphorical feet can take it. If companies, like politicians, weren't obligated to put on a public facade that says they never make mistakes, they would admit that it was an error and never really panned out the way they hoped (to say nothing of what they claimed!). As it is, if you read in between the lines a bit in this presentation, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHXrBnipHyA , the PS4 lead came about as close as he politically could to admitting it. (Props to him. The PS4 is looking really solid to me, and I think that is essentially 100% because of this guy.)
The idea that the PS3 has some sort of huge advantage is mostly Sony propaganda, and people who don't get that "Cell" doesn't mean something magic that makes everything faster, it means something more like "overoptimized for a particular use case" that only makes certain very narrow tasks faster.
Now I can finally justify this point I've made before with this: There is a reason the PS4 is fleeing the Cell architecture just as fast as its metaphorical feet can take it. If companies, like politicians, weren't obligated to put on a public facade that says they never make mistakes, they would admit that it was an error and never really panned out the way they hoped (to say nothing of what they claimed!). As it is, if you read in between the lines a bit in this presentation, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHXrBnipHyA , the PS4 lead came about as close as he politically could to admitting it. (Props to him. The PS4 is looking really solid to me, and I think that is essentially 100% because of this guy.)
I've had it on the xbox. To be fair, it's not a huge drop and you won't notice it often. But if you start to focus on certain buildings or the like you can see the stutter
I wonder if they will/could just port to PS4 and up the textures, framerate, draw distance etc.
It could be that there is so much PS3 specific tricks in there it just wouldn't work.
It could be that there is so much PS3 specific tricks in there it just wouldn't work.
Release it on PC and keep your finger crossed while a cracker team cracks the drm and releases it on a torrent site.
yeah and thats exactly the reason we all migrated to consoles, pc gaming age is over just b'cas of those crackers, the all industry is useless without online network mode games - so that games would not be cracked.
That official gameplay video is really impressive if you haven't looked at the state of the art in video games lately. It looks like a wish list of gaming features put together by hardcore fans with no limits on budget or creativity.
If I didn't know the game was released and well received, I'd say there's no way in hell it would be possible to put it all together on time, on budget, and without major flaws. Damn impressive.
If I didn't know the game was released and well received, I'd say there's no way in hell it would be possible to put it all together on time, on budget, and without major flaws. Damn impressive.
I don't know about Rockstar, but from what I've heard from game developers from big studios, they're driven like slaves. Crunch time, unpaid overtime, wages that are not paid on time, etc etc.
It's easier to be on time and on budget if you break rules like 8 hour days and proper remuneration of the workforce.
It's easier to be on time and on budget if you break rules like 8 hour days and proper remuneration of the workforce.
If you don't know about Rockstar then don't comment. This is a great game and it really appears that the developers have put their everything in building it. Sometimes people want to work hard to make sure their output is a success. It is not always about 40hrs work week. A great company is one which creates a culture to build impressive products and where employees feel motivated to be a part of it. I am not saying that Rockstar employees worked more than 40hrs/week (I have no idea) but if I were a Rockstar employee I would be damn proud of the output.
For Red Dead Redemption, wives of the developers has written several open letters to show the world the horrible condition their husbands were facing.
You can easily find this story, like on Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RockstarSpouse/20100107/4032/...
You can easily find this story, like on Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RockstarSpouse/20100107/4032/...
FWIW, GTA is developed by Rockstar North, rather than San Diego (which produced RDR), meaning they at least benefit from the additional employment protections offered in Europe (vs the US: things like 5+ weeks of paid holiday, etc).
I can only speak to anecdotal evidence, but I've hired several engineers who previously worked at Rockstar in the UK and haven't heard anything outside of the ordinary.
I can only speak to anecdotal evidence, but I've hired several engineers who previously worked at Rockstar in the UK and haven't heard anything outside of the ordinary.
I would gladly do overtime for a game like that, it would be completely worth it.
EA's sports game studios, or Korean/Chinese outsourcing/free2play sweatshops are places where it really sucks.
EA's sports game studios, or Korean/Chinese outsourcing/free2play sweatshops are places where it really sucks.
They way they chose to compose that open letter meant I could not take it seriously at all. (And my partner is in employment law so I have an above casual interest in these kind of things in all industries.)
[deleted]
So Rockstar San Diego is 100% male then?
Have you entirely missed the point?
It is signed "Determined Devoted Wives of Rockstar San Diego employees."
So either it is 100% male OR the female staff are either unmarried or do not have the same complaints.
So either it is 100% male OR the female staff are either unmarried or do not have the same complaints.
The fact that they're not represented in this letter doesn't mean they don't have these complains. They may not have voiced them, or voiced them privately or elsewhere.
If I write a blog post about how I feel I'm being exploited by my employer, that doesn't necessarily mean my colleagues don't feel the same.
If I write a blog post about how I feel I'm being exploited by my employer, that doesn't necessarily mean my colleagues don't feel the same.
It is possible, but this looks like it was written on behalf of a large group of people and it seems strange to sign it in such a gender specific way.
It's not strange if you consider there were no female programmers on the team. Demographics is a different point all together.
It also isnt strange if it is literally the wives of people who did it, those who are waifuless did not have a wife participate in the document.
Perhaps the husbands were not involved? This just seems like such a weird as hell point to pick up on. Why does it matter?
Man, you have swallowed every last drop of the koolaid they're selling you.
Consider this situation: You've spent most of your life training yourself as a game developer, only to find out that every company you'd like to work for will drive you like a slave. 50+ hours per week is not merely an option, but a necessity if you want to remain competitive. And since everyone wants to be a game developer, that means your salary is less than in other types of compsci jobs.
So, that culture stuff you're speaking of? It's bullshit. Ultimately it's a method of getting you to do the bidding of others. It's not about you at all. No one is looking out for you, and while you may feel like you're part of a team, that team has no loyalty to you. If you stop performing at peak level for even a couple months then your prospects will be severely harmed.
Employees get to feel proud they've literally sacrificed part of their life to help someone else succeed. And you're supporting pervasive lawbreaking in the name of "that's just what it takes"!
If game companies are finding it hard to recruit talent, well, that's probably because people are finally wise to their ways. You won't find anyone who was more in love with the idea of being a game developer than I was, but the reality of the industry is abhorrent. The shared culture has utterly decimated any hope of work-life balance in the gamedev industry in the US. My options were to work elsewhere or to move overseas. And by working elsewhere I get more cash, get to work on problems that are more interesting, and I learn more.
European developers seem to have figured out how to develop next-gen games without any of the bullshit methods of control you've described. Maybe US companies should start caring how.
Consider this situation: You've spent most of your life training yourself as a game developer, only to find out that every company you'd like to work for will drive you like a slave. 50+ hours per week is not merely an option, but a necessity if you want to remain competitive. And since everyone wants to be a game developer, that means your salary is less than in other types of compsci jobs.
So, that culture stuff you're speaking of? It's bullshit. Ultimately it's a method of getting you to do the bidding of others. It's not about you at all. No one is looking out for you, and while you may feel like you're part of a team, that team has no loyalty to you. If you stop performing at peak level for even a couple months then your prospects will be severely harmed.
Employees get to feel proud they've literally sacrificed part of their life to help someone else succeed. And you're supporting pervasive lawbreaking in the name of "that's just what it takes"!
If game companies are finding it hard to recruit talent, well, that's probably because people are finally wise to their ways. You won't find anyone who was more in love with the idea of being a game developer than I was, but the reality of the industry is abhorrent. The shared culture has utterly decimated any hope of work-life balance in the gamedev industry in the US. My options were to work elsewhere or to move overseas. And by working elsewhere I get more cash, get to work on problems that are more interesting, and I learn more.
European developers seem to have figured out how to develop next-gen games without any of the bullshit methods of control you've described. Maybe US companies should start caring how.
> So, that culture stuff you're speaking of? It's bullshit. Ultimately it's a method of getting you to do the bidding of others. It's not about you at all. No one is looking out for you, and while you may feel like you're part of a team, that team has no loyalty to you. If you stop performing at peak level for even a couple months then your prospects will be severely harmed.
> Employees get to feel proud they've literally sacrificed part of their life to help someone else succeed.
Your tone suggests outrage but you're just describing the nature of competition. You are agreeing to trade your time and skills for money. "Getting you to do the bidding of others" is a cynical way to put it, but if a certain type of team building yields good results why would a company not go down that path? Of course you're going to be replaced if the you aren't producing the results you were hired for, this is the nature of competition. There is no fair or unfair. Employees are not sacrificing part of their life for someone else, they're trading their time to someone else. No one is forcing anyone to be a game developer.
> Employees get to feel proud they've literally sacrificed part of their life to help someone else succeed.
Your tone suggests outrage but you're just describing the nature of competition. You are agreeing to trade your time and skills for money. "Getting you to do the bidding of others" is a cynical way to put it, but if a certain type of team building yields good results why would a company not go down that path? Of course you're going to be replaced if the you aren't producing the results you were hired for, this is the nature of competition. There is no fair or unfair. Employees are not sacrificing part of their life for someone else, they're trading their time to someone else. No one is forcing anyone to be a game developer.
No one is forcing anyone to be a game developer.
That's a fine-sounding statement but in reality if you want to be a game developer in the US then you'd better be willing to live a life where you wake up, go to work, get home sometime later than 8pm, spend ~2 hours unwinding and maybe visiting with your SO, and then go to bed. Repeat forever. A lot of times even on weekends. The studios I worked for all made it regular habit to make pizza available in the evening and then refuse to allow devs to leave. Crunch time became a way of life. Anyone who dared not to like it risked ostracism. Those who were fired for it severely harmed their career prospects, precisely because every other employer has the exact same culture of insanity.
Put that way, it's more than a little bleak. If I sound outraged, it's because it's outrageous that it somehow became the norm in the US and that nobody bats an eye because "that's just the way it is."
It's not about fair or unfair. I'm not saying anyone should force the companies to change. I'm saying the companies had better change themselves before the nice little train of momentum they've built up from legions of starry-eyed young developers finally runs out when those developers realize they could be going off and starting their own companies rather than playing by your rules.
That's a fine-sounding statement but in reality if you want to be a game developer in the US then you'd better be willing to live a life where you wake up, go to work, get home sometime later than 8pm, spend ~2 hours unwinding and maybe visiting with your SO, and then go to bed. Repeat forever. A lot of times even on weekends. The studios I worked for all made it regular habit to make pizza available in the evening and then refuse to allow devs to leave. Crunch time became a way of life. Anyone who dared not to like it risked ostracism. Those who were fired for it severely harmed their career prospects, precisely because every other employer has the exact same culture of insanity.
Put that way, it's more than a little bleak. If I sound outraged, it's because it's outrageous that it somehow became the norm in the US and that nobody bats an eye because "that's just the way it is."
It's not about fair or unfair. I'm not saying anyone should force the companies to change. I'm saying the companies had better change themselves before the nice little train of momentum they've built up from legions of starry-eyed young developers finally runs out when those developers realize they could be going off and starting their own companies rather than playing by your rules.
"It's not about fair or unfair. I'm not saying anyone should force the companies to change."
Why not?
What if game developers were to unionize? Or we were to strengthen the 8-hour work day laws? Or boycott the most egregious companies?
What's wrong with those or other ways of forcing the companies to change?
Why not?
What if game developers were to unionize? Or we were to strengthen the 8-hour work day laws? Or boycott the most egregious companies?
What's wrong with those or other ways of forcing the companies to change?
It's a social problem: those who don't want to work 50+ hour weeks are made to feel as if they're a bad employee. Those who don't need to work 50+ hour weeks are steadily assigned an increased workload until they are. It's a nuanced situation that I doubt a legal system could address without introducing horrific unintended consequences of the new laws, as new laws so often do.
Unionizing is only effective in situations where employees can band together into a shared social framework. During the industrial revolution this was facilitated by the massive size of workplaces. But at each studio there are usually less than 30 devs.
I think ultimately the solution is to start our own companies imprinted with a culture of employee well-being and work-life balance. If it's a success, and it's located in a gamedev hotspot, then all of the top talent will want to work there. This synergizes well with free market aims, because competitors who don't get top talent soon go out of business.
Unionizing is only effective in situations where employees can band together into a shared social framework. During the industrial revolution this was facilitated by the massive size of workplaces. But at each studio there are usually less than 30 devs.
I think ultimately the solution is to start our own companies imprinted with a culture of employee well-being and work-life balance. If it's a success, and it's located in a gamedev hotspot, then all of the top talent will want to work there. This synergizes well with free market aims, because competitors who don't get top talent soon go out of business.
8-hour workday laws are not new laws. Why do you think they are? And your view is basically that there should be no new laws, isn't it?
The relevant California law is that computer professionals are exempt from overtime law if they "mainly perform intellectual or creative work that requires independent judgment in the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of systems, programs, software or hardware. In 2012, they were required to earn $38.89 or more an hour ($81,026.25 or more annually, or $6752.19 or more monthly)."
My modification to that law would be to raise that to $75 or more per hour. What might be reasonable "horrific unintended consequences" of reclassifying programmers thusly?
"But at each studio there are usually less than 30 devs"
You don't know much about the history of unionization, do you. That's okay, neither do I. But I do know a bit more than you do.
The early unionizations include unions that came out of the guild system, not the factory system. For example, Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842), which settled that unions were legal in the US, dealt with the journeyman shoeworker Jeremiah Horne, who charged less than what the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker’s Society required.
It was legal for him to charge less, but then the Society would have called for a walkout. The master of the shop "would not wish to lose five or six good workmen for the sake of one", so fired Horne instead.
So we have a union which is effective even against a shop of 10 "boot developers", as it were.
Why do you think that unions are only effective in large factories? Do you mean to disregard the history of craft unionism, or are you speaking mostly out of a lack of knowledge?
The relevant California law is that computer professionals are exempt from overtime law if they "mainly perform intellectual or creative work that requires independent judgment in the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of systems, programs, software or hardware. In 2012, they were required to earn $38.89 or more an hour ($81,026.25 or more annually, or $6752.19 or more monthly)."
My modification to that law would be to raise that to $75 or more per hour. What might be reasonable "horrific unintended consequences" of reclassifying programmers thusly?
"But at each studio there are usually less than 30 devs"
You don't know much about the history of unionization, do you. That's okay, neither do I. But I do know a bit more than you do.
The early unionizations include unions that came out of the guild system, not the factory system. For example, Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842), which settled that unions were legal in the US, dealt with the journeyman shoeworker Jeremiah Horne, who charged less than what the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker’s Society required.
It was legal for him to charge less, but then the Society would have called for a walkout. The master of the shop "would not wish to lose five or six good workmen for the sake of one", so fired Horne instead.
So we have a union which is effective even against a shop of 10 "boot developers", as it were.
Why do you think that unions are only effective in large factories? Do you mean to disregard the history of craft unionism, or are you speaking mostly out of a lack of knowledge?
I have never worked in game development but I know people who have. The impression that I have got was that processes were often not well thought out and people were sent down pointless rabbit holes on a whim since employee time was not considered a scarce resource and could be squandered.
They have no real incentive to optimise their workflows to be more productive in less time because they could simply crunch their staff until they burned out and then bring in a fresh batch of recent graduates.
It is true that people work voluntarily but on the flipside it is still important to highlight these things so that potential game developers can make informed decisions before deciding to invest heavily in this career path.
They have no real incentive to optimise their workflows to be more productive in less time because they could simply crunch their staff until they burned out and then bring in a fresh batch of recent graduates.
It is true that people work voluntarily but on the flipside it is still important to highlight these things so that potential game developers can make informed decisions before deciding to invest heavily in this career path.
GTA V was developed in Dundee, Scotland. In Europe.
The original was developed in Dundee. Rockstar North, who developed GTA V, are based in Edinburgh.
Thankfully, there are still a handful of game developers in Dundee. One of the original designers on GTA now runs Tag Games in Dundee, which does some quality mobile games.
Thankfully, there are still a handful of game developers in Dundee. One of the original designers on GTA now runs Tag Games in Dundee, which does some quality mobile games.
Do you really have data about the actual Rockstar developers?
That's what we are interested in knowing. Everything else you are writing is speculation and propaganda.
That's what we are interested in knowing. Everything else you are writing is speculation and propaganda.
given that rockstar is a UK company then I think we can safely say that it was developed by European developers who have decent working conditions and hours.
The UK allows employees to opt-out of the working time directive. My experience was that you signed the opt-out by default when signing your contract. You could always opt back in again, but the cultural pressure to do overtime was huge, and you could kiss good bye to any bonuses if you don't crunch. Without bonuses the pay was crap.
[edit] I'm not talking specifically about Rockstar or games companies - this is standard practice in many sectors.
[edit] I'm not talking specifically about Rockstar or games companies - this is standard practice in many sectors.
I work a steady 40 hour week and only do additional hours if it's my fault.
And I don't even live in a first-world country.
And I don't even live in a first-world country.
50 hours/week is nothing, especially for people that want to produce. I'm working around 70 now as a founder, and would love to trade that for 50.
Well, you're a founder. You're working for your own aims, not someone else's. Under those circumstances, I'll see your 70 hours and raise you 10.
In the Edinburgh office wages are much lower than in equivalent positions outside games, and everyone is waiting for a bonus to compensate for the crunch they had to put in to finish the game.
I hope they do get a big bonus, my friend is basically living to work, not the other way around.
Slaves is probably not the right word, though working conditions in the game industry are on average pretty brutal. However, a big reason why they are is because there is such a huge pool of 20-something devs out there who are eagerly lined up to jump into gamedev. And it usually takes several years of living in that meat grinder for the scales to fall away from peoples' eyes, but even then as they leave there are plenty more lined up to take their place. From the perspective of management there's no problem at all, even though such working conditions actually cause a lot of fundamental issues in being able to successfully execute and continually losing the most senior and experienced devs as they get older and less tolerant of bullshit is kind of a big deal.
See also: silicon valley startup culture.
See also: silicon valley startup culture.
I don't know if this is actual industry lingo, but Penny Arcade has stories of "the trenches" to accompany its sister comic: http://trenchescomic.com/
Suffice to say that after reading those stories I'm never touching a QA/tester game industry job with a 10-foot pole.
Suffice to say that after reading those stories I'm never touching a QA/tester game industry job with a 10-foot pole.
Yes, but much harder to create such a strong brand that people are actually willing to be "ripped off" of time and wages.
I cannot comment on quality of work for Rockstar tho.
I cannot comment on quality of work for Rockstar tho.
I agree, but many programmers start programming to make games. If that's still what you want to do by the time you graduate, that's possibly a dream you've been working on for 10+ years.
If you're offered a bottom-level job at a great studio, these are often presented as a stepping stone to said dream, so many people end up there and stay until they're drained.
Again, I can't testify that this is the case for Rockstar, but I know it's the case with some other major studio's.
If you're offered a bottom-level job at a great studio, these are often presented as a stepping stone to said dream, so many people end up there and stay until they're drained.
Again, I can't testify that this is the case for Rockstar, but I know it's the case with some other major studio's.
Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xHcvug3WI
Anyone else notice the nod to Vangelis' Blade Runner theme in the first part?
Anyone else notice the nod to Vangelis' Blade Runner theme in the first part?
Kind of surprised that marketing cost them more than development ($115m vs $150m).
> Kind of surprised that marketing cost them more than development ($115m vs $150m).
Kinda depressing, considering how game developers are typically underpaid and overworked... But as long as people are willing to put up with it, it's going to continue.
Kinda depressing, considering how game developers are typically underpaid and overworked... But as long as people are willing to put up with it, it's going to continue.
> game developers are typically underpaid and overworked
And marketing people aren't?
I'm a game developer, and it depresses me how much undeserved hatred and contempt "suits" get form us "technical" guys. We work hard to make something, and they work hard to get it to the people. If you don't like the idea that games like GTAV should be advertised in order to get the money they deserve (and I think no one here disagrees that GTAV deserves it), you should be disappointed with the audience who wouldn't notice it if not for a marketing budget.
And marketing people aren't?
I'm a game developer, and it depresses me how much undeserved hatred and contempt "suits" get form us "technical" guys. We work hard to make something, and they work hard to get it to the people. If you don't like the idea that games like GTAV should be advertised in order to get the money they deserve (and I think no one here disagrees that GTAV deserves it), you should be disappointed with the audience who wouldn't notice it if not for a marketing budget.
I totally agree,but aren't already gamers psyched about GTA franchise (I am!!)? Yes GTA deserves it.
Ok let's just ignore the argument of whether marketing people or developers work harder (which, personally, having worked in both sides, I don't think is even a question.) And let's also ignore the argument of whether marketing departments contribute positively to society as compared to development departments.
Let's just look at it logically; the budget dedicated to development determines the quality and quantity of what can be created. If you have a finite pool and < 50% is going to development and > 50% is going to marketing then logically you're going to get a lesser product than if you put say, 75% in development and 25% in marketing.
So yeah, that's sad. You don't even need to get into who works harder, etc.
Let's just look at it logically; the budget dedicated to development determines the quality and quantity of what can be created. If you have a finite pool and < 50% is going to development and > 50% is going to marketing then logically you're going to get a lesser product than if you put say, 75% in development and 25% in marketing.
So yeah, that's sad. You don't even need to get into who works harder, etc.
That assumes more money can produce better results. Imagine if the $115m figure came from legitimate, generous estimates by the development team. They wanted for nothing, had sufficient staff, sufficient resources, etc.
Then imagine marketing submitted their budget independently. Their proposal included some high cost, unique advertising campaigns and totaled $150m.
Both got approved.
In most circumstances, budget is a finite resource that people fight for, and one person getting more means someone else getting less. But for a very successful company releasing pretty much the world's most successful game, maybe they just gave everyone what they wanted/needed and marketing's costs somehow were legitimately higher.
I agree it seems weird to have the split like that, but not all development efforts are cash deprived, and if it isn't then more money won't help much.
Then imagine marketing submitted their budget independently. Their proposal included some high cost, unique advertising campaigns and totaled $150m.
Both got approved.
In most circumstances, budget is a finite resource that people fight for, and one person getting more means someone else getting less. But for a very successful company releasing pretty much the world's most successful game, maybe they just gave everyone what they wanted/needed and marketing's costs somehow were legitimately higher.
I agree it seems weird to have the split like that, but not all development efforts are cash deprived, and if it isn't then more money won't help much.
Even if more money can't produce "better" content, it can produce MORE of it. There's no question if they changed the split to 75% dedicated to development they could have hired MORE artists and MORE level designers and ended up with even more content in the world. That's simple logic.
I'm not singling out Rockstar here, ALL huge companies have this kind of ridiculous split between development and marketing in today's world. It's just the sad reality of how business is done.
I'm not singling out Rockstar here, ALL huge companies have this kind of ridiculous split between development and marketing in today's world. It's just the sad reality of how business is done.
I agree with your argument completely. The point of my comment was that the audience, and not marketing people, are to blame for that.
Depressing? What would have been more depressing is that they might not have received a bonus had there been no marketing and the game didn't meet budget.
Often missed is the massive amount of motion-captured acting and voice acting in that game. How many voice actors just for random peds, hundreds?
Another big-ticket budget item is clearly music licensing and celebrity involvement for major-character voice acting (like GTA:SA had Samuel L. Jackson in a major role for example and some old-school rap celebs for "radio moderator" talking).
Another big-ticket budget item is clearly music licensing and celebrity involvement for major-character voice acting (like GTA:SA had Samuel L. Jackson in a major role for example and some old-school rap celebs for "radio moderator" talking).
Not only celebs, Soulwax a belgian music group created their own Radio Station on GTA V...
Marketing has been a larger cost than development for quite some time now in the world of AAA video games.
Exactly. I remember a greater inbalance in the Call of Duty series, where marketing dwarfed development. I can't seem to find the source though.
$115 million? Wow. How many developers/artists/QA/management folks (or man-hours) does that buy you?
That money bought them things like this: http://static.trustedreviews.com/94/000028992/826f/GTA-5-mur...
(That is a massive painting on the side of a building, incase that isn't clear)
(That is a massive painting on the side of a building, incase that isn't clear)
I'd like to know what are the ROIs for an advertisement like that. I can't really imagine that the people who will buy the game will buy it due to this advertisement. At the same time though, Rockstar probably knows what they are doing.
It's extremely hard to measure, but stunts like that seem to definitely add to "hype". I mean, it's being posted organically here on HN, isn't it!
"Hype" definitely gets sales. It leads to people checking out the game/movie, paying attention when they otherwise might not have - it's a form of social proof.
$800m in sales, first day. How much of that was due to marketing? Who knows. But it looks pretty positive to me, and stunts like this are part of it. Almost certainly positive, IMO.
"Hype" definitely gets sales. It leads to people checking out the game/movie, paying attention when they otherwise might not have - it's a form of social proof.
$800m in sales, first day. How much of that was due to marketing? Who knows. But it looks pretty positive to me, and stunts like this are part of it. Almost certainly positive, IMO.
The overwhelming majority of revenue comes in the first weeks of a game launch. For a major franchise like this, you safely know what minimum dollar amount you'll make. Invest in market for hopes of a big hit.
Sure, ROI is tough. But think about the wrong decision to not market and sales flops in the first 2-3 weeks. You can't make up that lost revenue from launch.
Sure, ROI is tough. But think about the wrong decision to not market and sales flops in the first 2-3 weeks. You can't make up that lost revenue from launch.
Exactly -- and from a GTA franchise standpoint, their biggest success is just hyping the release as much as possible. They have tons and tons of fanboys who all rushed to buy copies on opening night. There was no doubt this would be a success --
But to build awareness and convince more people to go out and buy it during the opening weeks, that's where a poster like this comes into play. Constant visible reminders of the release date turn a 500m release into an 800m release
But to build awareness and convince more people to go out and buy it during the opening weeks, that's where a poster like this comes into play. Constant visible reminders of the release date turn a 500m release into an 800m release
The parent comment was referring to the development budget, not the marketing one.
Amusingly, that same building (which is in LA) has a counterpart in the game, advertising one of the game world's spoof brands.
"The game spent four years in full development, by a team of an estimated 250 people. Media analyst Arvind Bhatia estimated the development budget for the game exceeded US$137 million, and The Scotsman reporter Marty McLaughlin estimated that the combined budget of the development and marketing efforts exceeded £170 million (US$265 million), which would make Grand Theft Auto V the most expensive video game ever made."
Roughly 1000 person years at 115k/person/year?
The average salary in the game industry is 84k.
The quoted average salary is not the cost of employing someone though, there are always significant on costs.
Rockstar north is based in Scotland, so it's not going to be that high ;)
Pensions, Employers National Insurance Contributions, office space in the middle of Edinburgh (not cheap) - it's not _that_ cheap here.
I was only joking, Edinburgh costs a fortune!
I've noticed that people in the game industry make significantly less than other software engineers. Why do you think that is? The few software engineers that I know who work the hours that are the norm in the game industry make even more. I wonder what market forces are at work here.
I see comments like this a lot on HN, and I think the difference is exaggerated. Yes, engineers make more outside of the game industry, but if you look at average salaries for engineers it's not that much lower. That $84K number includes, artists, designers, QA and producers. The average salary in the US for game industry software engineers was $91K in 2013 (http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=10567).
According to sources that come up in Google (bureau of labor, indeed, glassdoor, salary.com) the average nation wide software engineer salary is close to that plus or minus $5K.
On HN it feels like nation wide game industry numbers are being compared to the salaries of the best engineers at the most successful Silicon Valley\SF tech companies. When you compare against top tier companies we're looking at a $20K+ jump. But if you start comparing against top tier game developers like Valve, Riot or Naughty Dog you get comparable results.
I know that salary surveys are understandably taken with a grain of salt on HN, but I feel like it's a better yardstick than the "common wisdom" that gets thrown around.
According to sources that come up in Google (bureau of labor, indeed, glassdoor, salary.com) the average nation wide software engineer salary is close to that plus or minus $5K.
On HN it feels like nation wide game industry numbers are being compared to the salaries of the best engineers at the most successful Silicon Valley\SF tech companies. When you compare against top tier companies we're looking at a $20K+ jump. But if you start comparing against top tier game developers like Valve, Riot or Naughty Dog you get comparable results.
I know that salary surveys are understandably taken with a grain of salt on HN, but I feel like it's a better yardstick than the "common wisdom" that gets thrown around.
A lot of the engineers making games don't want to do anything else. They're willing to accept a lower rate of pay to stay in the industry. When they look for other opportunities, they're usually just moving from one games company to another. Since there a lot less games companies than there are companies that employee engineers in general, there is less competition and less pressure to pay the same rates as engineers may make at companies like Google or Apple.
I guess it's personal preference, but I've never found the appeal of working in the gaming industry. Seems so tedious.
/go back to moving bits from one column to another.
/go back to moving bits from one column to another.
It's "fun". Working for sports teams is the same way. I just had an NBA team looking for someone capable of doing very nontrivial development in areas that border on computer vision and machine learning for $40K a year. (They ended up hiring a--as in, one--fresh college grad for the position. I look forward to seeing what they can come up with.)
Magazine work is also very competitive.
There are probably about 50 profitable AAA game studios in the whole world. These pay quite well[1]. But there are just few hundred engineers working in all of them. The rest of the industry is either a new studio building up its team while working on low profit titles or an old studio circling the drain. These cannot pay well. People work there either to get experience and advance into one of AAA teams or are hoping their own studio will become a AAA itself.
[1]http://gamerant.com/activision-lawsuit-infinity-ward-salarie...
[1]http://gamerant.com/activision-lawsuit-infinity-ward-salarie...
Supply and demand. There's a lot of people who want to work in games, and are willing to work for less pay in order to do so, I imagine.
There are quite a few people who want to work on games, true. But I am not so sure the pool of talented engineers that are very good at the tasks game development poses is much larger than anywhere else in industry.
On the other hand, I don't think a very large portion of game development teams are engineers anymore. Not only are the tools much better, there is much more focus on other things like art, sound, marketing, design, etc...
On the other hand, I don't think a very large portion of game development teams are engineers anymore. Not only are the tools much better, there is much more focus on other things like art, sound, marketing, design, etc...
Two years ago I had a conversation with a recruiter who was working with a company trying to build out a games-testing shop in Portland. They were offering people with 7-10 years experience $35/hr, and seemed shocked when I told them how low that was compared to previous non-games testing jobs I had held previously.
It's a good point that the proportion of employees who are engineers is probably lower than in the past. I wonder how engineering vs art/music salaries compare.
It's a good point that the proportion of employees who are engineers is probably lower than in the past. I wonder how engineering vs art/music salaries compare.
Economics 101. When a job has a halo effect, people will crowd into it until they bid down salary and working conditions to the point where they would be better off working at McDonald's.
Coming from the games industry, people who work on games work on them for the love of making games, not the money.
It depends. Where I work, C#/Unity3d developer costs about 1,5-2 of a normal C# developer, although they do very similar things and have an equal technical level.
Which considering some people on the team are undoubtedly paid more, is not that surprising a number. (Although some are paid less too.)
From the wiki, 137 million to develop for four years with roughly 250 people (137000000/4/250) = 137k a year average per person
Question is, would it have made the game better? Or would it have been the same game with more content (so that you could hunt 1000 different animals instead of 50 (just throwing out number, I don't know the actuals)) but which nobody knew about?
My first internship was at a very successful (non-tech) company.
One the things I learned there is how R&D costs were 2% of revenue, while marketing... 50%.
And we're talking billions here.
I remember my first internship at a famous company.
The first thing they told us was R&D was 2% of revenue. Marketing 50%.
And we're talking billions here.
Kind of surprised...
Congratulations sir. You must not watch much TV. It's understandable if they have commercials on all the sports, but I don't even watch much sports and I feel like I've seen the GTA-V spot a hundred times.
Congratulations sir. You must not watch much TV. It's understandable if they have commercials on all the sports, but I don't even watch much sports and I feel like I've seen the GTA-V spot a hundred times.
To put that in perspective, here is a list of opening day top grossing movies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_openin..., and the previous video game record was $500 million, for Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.
I'm not sure that is a fair comparison, Movies have a very strict number of people who can see the movie the first weekend (seats in movie theaters and not opening around the world, though the highest movie in the list was harry potter which I think had "world premier"). Where games have no limit on how many can buy it the first day, which is especially true since digital download has become so popular.
It might not be fair but it's a comparison you'll have to get used to. What's not fair is the way that movie profits are reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
With lots of people with huge TVs, with a substantial portion of them capable of 3D, they could stream the movie via Netflix as well.
Digital download is the future. They have chosen to ignore it at their own peril.
Digital download is the future. They have chosen to ignore it at their own peril.
I wonder if COD:GHOSTS will beat this. From what I'm seeing, GTAV has a few advantages:
Non-yearly (or biyearly) release schedule for an extremely well-known franchise.
No outstanding publisher issues of note, especially gaffes related to gameplay "dumbing down"
A number of factors contributing to somewhat inflated review scores including normal reactions to AAA titles and the GTA series' tendency to hit the right buttons for reviews that doesn't necessarily reflect on gameplay
Non-yearly (or biyearly) release schedule for an extremely well-known franchise.
No outstanding publisher issues of note, especially gaffes related to gameplay "dumbing down"
A number of factors contributing to somewhat inflated review scores including normal reactions to AAA titles and the GTA series' tendency to hit the right buttons for reviews that doesn't necessarily reflect on gameplay
From my own observations, GTA is an entirely different market. Sure everybody knows about CoD but in reality, not a lot of the people I know will buy the new one (and that can be backed up by looked at BO2 preorders vs Ghosts) but almost everyone I've spoken to either has GTA, is buying GTA or hasn't got the means to play it.
Really want to buy GTA V, but I am just put off that it's on old consoles! I have a PS3, but I'd much rather wait for a PC release and have it looking as good as it can, and silky smooth.
Or am I being prejudiced? Does it run OK on a PS3?
Or am I being prejudiced? Does it run OK on a PS3?
As it is a massive commercial product that is developed to run on PS3 and Xbox 360 I'm sure it runs "OK" on the PS3.
I generally find I'm perhaps more sensitive to lower frame rates than more casual gamers!
Are you insinuating that GTA V is targeted at casual gamers?
No... Just my observation that most people I know (and most people I know want to play GTA V if they haven't already) seem to have a higher tolerance for a lower frame rate than I do.
It is.
"They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games. They require no long-term time commitment or special skills to play, and there are comparatively low production and distribution costs for the producer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game
I had noticeable frame rate drops on PS3, but it's still an incredibly fun game to play. 8 hours in so far and a smile on my face the entire time,
I'm usually gaming on a 120hz monitor, and I'm actually having some problems playing GTA V due to the low frame rate. However, it's so much fun that I can't stop playing.
When the PC version comes I'll probably double dip.
When the PC version comes I'll probably double dip.
This game is just pure awesome. I think all this hype is largely due to the previous generation GTA games. I've played all the other ones. Favorites are Vice City and San Andreas. Previous versions definitely led the way for a great promotion and grand opening for this game. The game play is mind blowing.
I'm surprised the revenue surpassed Call Of Duty Black Ops 2 though that is one of the most popular games out now and sold out on just the pre-order.
I'm surprised the revenue surpassed Call Of Duty Black Ops 2 though that is one of the most popular games out now and sold out on just the pre-order.
I was underwhelmed by GTA 4, because of the sluggishness (on PS3), but that's reportedly gone. One of the cooler things I've heard about GTA 5 is that they're, when online game play goes online (later this month), going to create in-game television by piping in other player's gameplay framed with newcaster narration.
I'm a big fan of the series, but I decided to sit this one out until a PS4 / GTA V bundle comes out -- The game doesn't seem to look any better than GTA IV on PS3 and I don't want to feel like I'm playing yet another GTA IV expansion pack for the coming years. (I just recently finished all three GTA IV story lines. I'm not a huge player anymore)
Another thing of note about why GTA IV looks so much better than GTA 3 is that GTAIV uses what's now called Euphoria from Natural Motion: http://www.naturalmotion.com/middleware/euphoria/ Its synthesized animation looks way more natural than the stitching together of hand-made animation and I'm actually surprised that it didn't take the character animation world by storm by now.
Another thing of note about why GTA IV looks so much better than GTA 3 is that GTAIV uses what's now called Euphoria from Natural Motion: http://www.naturalmotion.com/middleware/euphoria/ Its synthesized animation looks way more natural than the stitching together of hand-made animation and I'm actually surprised that it didn't take the character animation world by storm by now.
Out of interest: Have you played it? I thought the same looking at the gameplay videos etc but after actually playing it I can conclude that it's nothing like a GTA IV expansion pack.
I played GTA IV for about a week prior to getting this game on the same console/TV. I used to play it on a 12 inch SD screen so I thought it looked great but it's the first time I have played it on a 32" HD display and it looks pretty bad. The depth of field makes blurred regions look like a bad painting. It looks horrible. After playing GTA V for a few hours, the graphics are miles apart even if it's not entirely apparent at first :)
I played GTA IV for about a week prior to getting this game on the same console/TV. I used to play it on a 12 inch SD screen so I thought it looked great but it's the first time I have played it on a 32" HD display and it looks pretty bad. The depth of field makes blurred regions look like a bad painting. It looks horrible. After playing GTA V for a few hours, the graphics are miles apart even if it's not entirely apparent at first :)
Has GTA V been announced for PS4/Xbox One?
I remember seeing on reddit yesterday a link with Rockstar saying they were not targeting the next-gen consoles with GTA V, and the speculation around that comment was that the game likely would not be released for those consoles.
I don't know if I see a reason they should spend the resources to ship it for PS4 and XB1. They've obviously sold a few copies of the game already. I just can't imagine the market of people who want to buy it again or are holding out is big enough to justify the costs.
Edit: I'm a dunce. See the comment by adventured.
Edit: I'm a dunce. See the comment by adventured.
They've recently said they are going to release a PS4 version later in 2014. They refused to comment on the XBox One, interestingly.
"The game doesn't seem to look any better than GTA IV on PS3 and I don't want to feel like I'm playing yet another GTA IV expansion pack for the coming years."
Your judgment of the value of a game is purely how it looks? That sounds very destructively reductionist.
GTA V shares literally nothing with GTA IV -- different character, location, dynamics, physics, storyline, music, voice actors, etc, but because it's people and cars that makes it an expansion pack?
Your judgment of the value of a game is purely how it looks? That sounds very destructively reductionist.
GTA V shares literally nothing with GTA IV -- different character, location, dynamics, physics, storyline, music, voice actors, etc, but because it's people and cars that makes it an expansion pack?
> GTA V shares literally nothing with GTA IV
So they threw GTA IV out and did everything from scratch? I very much doubt it.
That said, we're talking about GTA here, the game that outdid itself with every single iteration. Why should we expect any less this time? I want to see what they'll come up with now that they have the power of PS4 behind them.
Rockstar Games is famous for a reason.
So they threw GTA IV out and did everything from scratch? I very much doubt it.
That said, we're talking about GTA here, the game that outdid itself with every single iteration. Why should we expect any less this time? I want to see what they'll come up with now that they have the power of PS4 behind them.
Rockstar Games is famous for a reason.
glad to see main stream articles discussing the Rockstar's industry feat vs. content controversy
Can anyone tell me how much did Batman Arkham Asylum, Injustice:Gods among us and Batman Arkham City made?(individually) I am asking this because I feel that DC puts their best creative writers behind games (Paul Dini for instance) instead of movies (forget TDK trilogy, that's Noolan empire). I wonder How much more Man Of Steel would have made if the plot was more cohesive and deeper.
I clearly posted this 7 hours too early: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/take-two-first-day-gta-v-sa... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6407415
It is the highest rated game ever on MetaCritic http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v
FYI if any of you play it and like cheat codes, here they are http://www.gta5cheats.com/
FYI if any of you play it and like cheat codes, here they are http://www.gta5cheats.com/
There goes my productivity for the next month
If you're like some of my friends, your productivity has been shot for months leading into the release, endlessly looking at the latest screen shots, articles, teasers, pre-pre-reviews, ... They had a very effective marketing effort.
[deleted]
One wonders, pundits say mobile is the new hotness in gaming and console are slowly becoming obsolete. Does that mean games as immersive and expansive as GTA5 will cease to exist in a few years?
No way.
There is only so much you can do on a small screen.
The form factor is well suited for a certain type of game.
It also limits the social aspect of gaming.
Expansive, visually stunning games built to be played on a large screen with other people in the room or playing multiplayer will be around for a very long time.
Mobile games have their place, but they are competing for an orthogonal piece of consumer time.
There is only so much you can do on a small screen.
The form factor is well suited for a certain type of game.
It also limits the social aspect of gaming.
Expansive, visually stunning games built to be played on a large screen with other people in the room or playing multiplayer will be around for a very long time.
Mobile games have their place, but they are competing for an orthogonal piece of consumer time.
People don't say this, or if they do they make the same mistake as when they say PC gaming is irrelevant.
They lump the whole of 'gaming' as one thing, not realising that a new market segment emerging doesn't cannibalise the old one.
They lump the whole of 'gaming' as one thing, not realising that a new market segment emerging doesn't cannibalise the old one.
I hope they don't mess up the PC port on this one like they usually do.
And this game deserves it.
I played this yesterday (I don't own a console) at a friends house and what they've been able to achieve on these consoles is impressive considering these consoles aren't next gen and are resource limited.