Although Social Club has seen the introduction of several games over the years and multiple updates to GTA Online, it just feels like the website itself has been forgotten in time. In this article I will just focus on features I would like to see in the future to improve SC integration with GTAO.

Property Management

Why not become a landlord, you’re already a criminal. Buy properties, rent them out and let other players pay for it! While properties in GTAO can be quite expensive if you are new, high level players will often have a couple of apartments just gathering dust. Renting those out at a cheaper price would be beneficial for both parties.

When was the last time you actually used your Yacht? Rent it to the other players so they can party on it (party accessories could come as an extra too!). Rent your warehouses to players so they can complete their own missions from it. A player wants to buy another car but has no space to store it? Rent a space from one of your many garages.

Vehicle Management

How good would it be if you could just order new vehicles from SC? While we are at it, let us move vehicles between garages, order tuning parts from Los Santos Customs and resell our cars, to other players even.

Economy

The in-game bank site is okay, but it would be a lot better managing our money through SC. We could be sending and receiving money from players and even creating more bank accounts so we can better organize our fortune, or lack thereof.

Player Controlled Markets

Everything has a price, some people just lack the money. Introduce a limit to how many of a certain item can exist in the world, make it common or make it rare. You have a vehicle with a rare set of rims? Put it on auction on the Social Club Market. The car is not that rare? Strip it for parts and sell them individually so other players can re-sell them or use the parts for their cars. There are so many things that could be sold in a market controlled by the community: houses, vehicles, services such as recruiting hired guns to complete missions with you instead of spending hours waiting in a lobby just to regret the selection of players that was offered to you.

Crews

What good is being the crew leader if your members don’t give you any money? Let them chip in and share GTA$ and RP from missions they complete, helping to upgrade crew features, and well, your pockets too. The hierarchy section could display some useful and quick information about your crew: what is their current level, how much money are they bringing in a week, are any of them a good pilot? Who won the most races?

Leaderboards

GTA Online databases must be packed with random but interesting data us nerds would want to look at. A public leaderboard with all kinds of filters would make us extremely happy. I want to be able to see who has the most money or who has made the most money, yesterday. I want to be able to see who owns the most cars, or who owns the most of the same car, in pink. What is more popular, male or female characters? What is the most played mission or race? Oh, and definitely fix/re-introduce world records in races and while we are it, can we get a similar thing for missions?

API

An official API for Social Club would be more than welcome, especially for places like us at GTANet/GTAForums. Being able to allow the forum users to display different kinds of stats from their characters directly on their profiles could work quite well.

Account Linking

Social Club already offers a good range of different platforms to link into, but a couple more would be nice to see there. A lot of players end up looking for potential heist/mission partners in our forums, so an option to link your GTAForums account or something else like your preferred Reddit sub could prove quite helpful.

Discuss this topic with our community at GTAForums

Thumbnail credits: An-D-Man333

The post Social Club Needs An Update appeared first on GTANet.com.

Now by ‘loose ends’, I don’t mean a few trivial changes, I’m more so thinking of things that the community has been discussing for some time; significant updates that could really improve the landscape for Rockstar with features that players have been regularly asking for, often vehemently, with “when?” rather than “if”. As such, this wishlist contains some of the most hoped for or ideal announcements, and to me, it’s made up of the kind of things that you’d want to ‘get out of the way’ sooner rather than later; things that would truly close the chapter on two games that first arrived on older generations and will soon make way for what is likely to be one of the biggest launches ever with GTA VI.

Of course, we must always take a second to acknowledge the time and resources these kinds of updates can take. Anything we as players ask for is never going to be easy to just throw together and implement, nor are they decided on at a whim. Regardless, I’ve only included updates here that are as realistic or as logical as possible so it doesn’t sound like we’re asking for the world. To some, they might not be important, and to others they might be the bare minimum we should be expecting, but this article isn’t going to be the first or the last place you’ll read suggestions along this vein any time soon; they’re all pretty obvious, to be honest, but I just wanted to use my little corner of GTANet to truly solidify some hopes for the future and the reasons behind them.

**this article was drafted before the announcement of GTA+ or the Max Payne remakes from Remedy, so you’ll find no reference to anything related to them here as I didn’t have such things on my mind at the time!**

In random order:

Fidelity & Performance modes for RDR2

Something that the re-release of GTAV has brought to centre stage is the potential of “unlocking” RDR2 for new-generation consoles as well. An update that allows the game to take full advantage of the latest hardware and SSDs could be a gamechanger for an open world that already pushes older consoles to their limits. Preferably this would be in the form of a (free?) patch that allows players to download a new-gen-only version, much like Cyberpunk 2077 for example, with togglable menu settings that allow you to switch between high resolution graphics with native 4K or optimised performance for 60FPS.

Now it’s worth acknowledging that releasing enhanced versions of older games isn’t actually the norm for Rockstar, especially when it comes to the biggest names in their catalogue. We’ve had mobile ports yes, and a remaster of LA Noire in recent years, but beyond that resources seem reserved only for special occasions. The Trilogy remasters were in celebration of the 20 year anniversary but were still outsourced, and the GTAV re-release has arrived following the “unprecedented” longevity of GTA Online. GTA IV and Max Payne 3 not releasing beyond older generations and RDR1 never making it to PC are prime examples. RDR2 released a full 2 years before the current consoles arrived on the market, and the game itself turns 4 this year, so it’s quite possible that this kind of thing would never be on the table to begin with. Regardless, an update like this would be truly anticipated amongst the community and wider audience of RDR2 fans and I can only begin to imagine how beautiful the already-stunning open world could look with a natural facelift on current consoles.

The Rockstar Editor for RDR2

Something that continues to surprise is the absence of the Rockstar Editor in RDR2/RDO. A tool that has taken the machinima and virtual photography communities to new depths since it arrived with GTAV, and it is sorely missed out on the frontier. I would go as far as saying that the Rockstar Editor has probably inspired other companies in the industry to lay the foundations of more in-depth photo and video editing tools in their own games to allow the creatives in community to thrive in ways that were usually limited to the PC platform, so it’s omittance from RDR2 is still an odd one. Of course, RDR2 single-player does have its own photo mode which is treasured amongst enthusiasts; perhaps it’s possible it was developed with the intention to replace the Rockstar Editor, as the orbiting camera allows for free movement around the game area in order to take the ideal shot. The only issue is that there is no recording or clip editing capabilities, limiting players to get fancy with their own console record button, or by using mods on PC. Additionally, the photo mode isn’t available at all in Red Dead Online; the two types of purchasable cameras you can carry are only really fun for filters or basic shots as the camera movement is quite restricted around your character. The Rockstar Editor, or an expanded photo mode, would truly be an asset to both single and online play.

Acknowledge Red Dead Online

“Saving” Red Dead Online has been a hot topic of conversation for quite a while, and it’s an endeavour that would require a whole list of its own for a game that has been without a content update since last July. Though we’ve named a performance upgrade and a Rockstar Editor addition separately in this list, there’s all sorts of missions, heists, roles, properties, and quality of life changes desperately needed in Red Dead Online, so there’s not really one individual feature that could “save” it for some. Long-standing players have campaigned and protested, and some have even abandoned the game in regret due to the lack of new content, but beyond speculation, we’re still without official word from Rockstar about the status of Red Dead Online right now and if there are any plans at all for the future. It makes sense that things were put on hold in the lead up to launching GTAV on new-generation consoles, but GTA Online doesn’t appear to be slowing down and development on the next GTA is full steam ahead, so where does this leave Red Dead Online?

As a company, “saving” it might be difficult for them to prioritise when the next major project is upon us; if your entire workforce is primarily focused on a new mainline title in the final years of development, then resources are going to be pretty limited in spite of their size and wealth, but acknowledging Red Dead Online and its community would be priceless to fans. I’m sure they have seen the outcry for communication, but even if they don’t have anything to reveal right now because things are truly in limbo regarding the direction of the game, it doesn’t mean no one is listening, it doesn’t mean no one would be grateful to hear that Rockstar has valued fans’ patience and dedication to the game in its short life. It was quite a kick in the teeth when Red Dead Online was omitted from their annual “thank you to the community” New Year update a few months back, and whether intentional or not, the message was loud and clear that their focus is entirely elsewhere at the moment. Of course, I wouldn’t expect recognition of the hashtag campaigns or anything of the sort, that just isn’t their style and ultimately will never be something they will back down on in my view, but I know they’re capable of acknowledging fans and the future in their own way – they just have to choose to do it.

Continued Fixes & Quality of Life improvements for the GTA Trilogy Definitive Editions

Love or hate them, the Definitive Editions of the classic GTA Trilogy are here to stay, and that means they should continue to receive the attention they deserve. According to the figures, they sold well and have probably been enjoyed by a number of new and returning players to the series, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the road to get there has been successful – there’s still many bugs and glaring art issues and in-continuities that remain unsolved, so it’s anyone’s guess how many patches it could take fix them all. There’s also some small quality of life improvements that would be useful; for example the ability to hide the HUD for screenshots.

It’s not known how long Rockstar plans to continue support for the games, or even if they have taken over in any capacity since the “apology” post-launch. Either way, if we assume that Grove Street Games are still leading the project, they only have a small team of around 20-30 employees so in respect of their work-life balance they do need to be afforded whatever time they require, and the mobile versions that are still unreleased are likely being developed concurrently to any fixes for the other platforms as well. It’s therefore likely going to take a number of months yet to chip away at all the problems, which brings to question why the games were released when they were, but these are issues we’ve discussed at length before elsewhere. For the time being, it seems reasonable to expect additional patches will be confirmed once news about the mobile versions is announced/released, and I can only hope these continue until the games reach their optimum condition.

New-generation GTAV on PC

Last but not least, we have a PC community that would very much like an enhanced version of GTAV of their own. At the very first announcement two years ago, Rockstar did indicate that the new-gen exclusive content would also be arriving on PC. Since then however, the platform has been routinely omitted in every other announcement, so we’re none the wiser regarding specifics. The speculation surrounding this is that a PC version was likely always due to arrive a little later than its console counterparts as it usually takes longer to test and optimise, especially as employees are working from home. The hope is now that an update will arrive in the form of a patch early in the summer, possibly with a new GTA Online update and the patch that is currently in the works to address invite spam.

You might be wondering “but new-gen GTAV already looks like PC!” – well yes, that’s fair in general, but there *are* a few small changes and improvements that are actually performing better on console right now, as shown by Digital Foundry. There’s also other updates PC players should be able to advantage of, such as the UI and lobby access menu changes, the content such as Hao’s Special Works, and any opportunities for increased anti-cheat protections as well.

Until next time, folks…

The post Top 5 things we’d like to see before GTA 6 appeared first on GTANet.com.

Fair warning, this article isn’t for the faint-hearted and turned out to be quite a lengthy read. After checking out all the pros and cons the community has discussed over the last week, this is where we’re at with our initial impressions. We’ve got four broad questions with three different perspectives, and none of them are guaranteed to match your own. For transparency, we each game on different platforms, and only one of us has subscribed to GTA+.

The financial cost of GTA+

uNi: No idea how R* decides items/discounts, but as a introduction for this new service I feel the selection of offers could have been better. Although I did end up receiving GTA$1M instead of the GTA$500k advertised initially so I am curious to see if that is something R* decided to change based on community feedback or if it is just a first month bonus kind of deal. As for the price, it’s not that steep as far subscriptions go, but keeping players will heavily depend of what they choose to offer on the future I suppose.

Spider-Vice: In essence, GTA+ isn’t very different from other game subs out there, including subs for games that are already paid themselves – see Fallout 1st for example: the game is $39.99 on Steam with a $12.99 subscription on top with these mostly static benefits – but that I’ve heard many players like, despite it having been EXTREMELY controversial at launch, even more than GTA+!
Fortnite is free to play but also has the Fortnite Crew subscription model which is $11.99 with monthly changing benefits not too different from GTA+ model, but both these games give you a premium cosmetics-only currency to spend in a cosmetics store.
Final Fantasy XIV is already subscription based itself, $14.99/mo (and the amount of time you subscribe for actually changes how many characters you can have), but also has paid DLC which can go for prices such as $39.99 on top of that subscription – though this is barely new for MMO’s such as this, and even less so for PC players who have been seeing subscription models as far back as World of Warcraft.

As far as subscriptions go, this is far, far from the worst example out there financially. If you’re interested in early access content, free cash deposits (there are reports of players getting GTA$1M instead of GTA$500K, new member bonus?) and other bonuses along with “accelerators” for each weekly event, whether you’re a veteran player with not much time on your hands to play and grind for the latest content, or a newbie who wants a shortcut with some special benefits, then sure, this proposition doesn’t sound that bad.

It doesn’t sound that bad from the point that it gives you a lot of content that is cheaper IRL than one singular Megalodon (GTA$8M) shark card and is worth (in-game) more than those GTA$8M (see the math). Besides, GTA+ is doing what some other games with optional subscriptions do as well – matching the cost of the subscription with that of currency you can also buy. For $5.99 you can get a singular GTA$500K shark card, or you can get GTA+ for the exact same price, you get the same in-game money, and a bunch of other benefits on top, but monthly.

Kirsty: If we’re going to judge GTA+ on the cost alone, then I’d say price is “alright”. Everything is a subscription when it comes to gaming/music/TV/film/shopping these days, so it’s not a new formula, but it does make you groan that there’s another one you could potentially be adding to your balance sheet.

The first month offers bonuses with a worth or saving of around GTA$10million in-game for $5.99. If you needed to buy a Shark Card to cover the exact same purchases, you’d be spending $100 for a Megalodon worth GTA$8million, and you’d still be short by GTA$2million. An important note here is that subscribing doesn’t guarantee you actually need the bonuses on offer. For example, I don’t own a Yacht, so the free Aquarius upgrade bonus this month would be worthless and unused for me as I’d have to fork out GTA$6million to purchase the basic Orion first.

Something else that doesn’t get GTA+ quite off the hook when it comes to pricing is the fact that GTA Online isn’t free to play like many other games that are filling their boots with loot these days. The 3 month sale on new-gen is reasonable, but is it fair to add a subscription service to an almost-nine year old game that at its most expensive costs $40 to buy and requires a PS+/XBL live service subscription to access as well? It’s the type of commercialism that’s a bit meh, for lack of a better description.

There are obviously a lot of moral ambiguities when it comes to microtransactions and their presence in gaming in the first place, but players are going to buy them no matter our position, so in my opinion it’s an important obligation of ours to assess their value factually as well as emotionally so people can make an informed decision and not waste their money if they don’t want or need to.

Essentially, I would be comfortable saying GTA+ is worth the price but only if you are a frequent Shark Card buyer, or you personally find value/worth in the items/bonuses/collectables that are offered. I can’t conclude that it’s worth it financially if neither of those latter statements are true for you or your playstyle as that would mean you’re kinda buying something for nothing. For this reason I’d recommend making a decision on a month by month basis given the benefits update and expire in rotation.

Casuals vs. Community: The target audience

uNi: This is obviously not targeted at everyone and never was marketed as such. Crying about it like it was is just nonsense.

Spider-Vice: As I mentioned before, especially on the PC side, a lot of massively multiplayer online games out there now have subscription services like this, focused on cosmetics, bonuses and freebies, money deposits (although this is usually a different cosmetic-only currency), etc. and they do appease to both the “casuals” and the frequent players (but not all frequent players subscribe anyway, as it usually doesn’t affect non-sub gameplay).

I see this almost as a replacement of Shark Cards for some types of players (see the bit about this in the “financial cost” part above), in the sense you get content, bonuses and money each month, not just money. Literally none of this is mandatory, and as the bonuses stand this month at least, can be completely ignorable if you’re a veteran. You already have it all and you’re not interested in the rest? Ok, good, then it’s not for you and that’s okay, it doesn’t have to be. If you don’t like it or want to “boycott” it, don’t buy it, your wallet votes.
Just as quoted at the end of this article by the amazing Ask A Game Dev:
“If you ever look at DLC or microtransactions and think “I would never pay for that”, it just means it isn’t for you.”

If you’re a collector who is interested in exclusive clothing or someone who, regardless of tenure, wants to enjoy early access to things like vehicles and/or their speed mods, you might see more value in it. Same applies to people who may be regulars but don’t want to do the common “grind” and still want to enjoy the game’s content by either having it made cheaper for them or even given to them via the subscription, along with all other benefits and bonuses that will change monthly.

I expect this to be extremely fluid each month as benefits and early access content change – some players might see more value some months than others, some might cancel some months and others might subscribe other months, etc. etc. Rockstar do have a very lenient cancellation policy (cancel any time, keep everything including bonuses for the month), so it will all depend on which months are attractive to you or not, if you’re even interested.
For both casuals and the “community”/veterans, the worth is ultimately completely dependent on you, but from personal experience and anecdotes from others, this kind of thing can end up attracting veteran players as well.

If what Tez2 speculated about on our forums is true, we could even see subscribers voting on what content will feature on the subscription each month, so this could also help with making it more enticing than having R* choose from a list themselves that players may not always like.

This stuff will, is and has always been forever divisive. No way to make everyone happy with this, regardless of whether we’re talking about GTA, Fortnite, Fallout or any other game with a subscription – it will always have different pros and cons depending on who you ask and clearly, given community backlash, is not something that will satisfy everyone and is obviously being exacerbated by the fact that it was so introduced so late into the game’s lifecycle, which is also what is making me think this is going to go into GTA VI’s Online mode.

I think a good proper FAQ post-backlash would help temper some worries from other players who might not understand that this may not have as many consequences as they think it will. Questions about what content is planned to be made truly exclusive, how will early access work and for what content, etc. etc.

Kirsty: It can be a hard pill to swallow for some, but Shark Cards are the biggest driving force behind DLC and content being free in GTA Online over the years. The massive amount of income they generate for the company is the incentive to keep production value high while moving across generations like they have. Until now, microtransactions from Rockstar have been pretty “friendly” and irrelevant to think all that much about when it comes to the topic of accessing content at a premium. Behind the scenes, casuals pay and grinders play, and everyone just got on with it.

Is Shark Cards’ success a good reason to introduce more monetisation right now? I wouldn’t be confident saying yes, but if they are here to stay, then we have to make peace with the idea that there will be players who will seek out GTA+ for their own reasons. This is where community disappointment speaks loudest, because there are many frustrated voices trying to say there is no value, and the program has already been dubbed a “scam” or “cash grab” with pleas from content creators not to buy into it at all. The longevity of GTAV has grown tiring for many players, so it’s pretty much a double-edged sword of cause and effect. The “game forever milked” they call it, a cow that should be going to pasture as we’re more than ready for the next GTA. It would be naive not to acknowledge Shark Cards’ role in the creation of GTA+ as well as all that free DLC, though, and this is why it’s also important to understand and accept when something isn’t aimed at the audience you’re part of, especially when it is optional.

Even with the divided audience of GTA+, one still generally thinks they speak for the other. The community is the “public facing” audience here and they represent the games online. The players that use their platforms to give feedback and take part in debates, build reputation out of producing content such as guides or mods, market and advertise the games through news or virtual photography; they’re the people who the gaming media looks to during these announcements. And when a chunk of these people are unhappy for one reason or another? The reaction ends up making announcements appear badly timed or tone-deaf, which only serves to burden the ever-crumbling bridge between the community and community management. Some people take the importance of criticism in the gaming space a little too literally, so in times of discord, getting your facts straight and thinking outside the box to be constructive is far more helpful. I believe that even though GTA+ has an obvious audience, a bit of well-placed understanding through player-friendly messaging with less corporate language would have smoothed over this introduction a little bit.

The short-term impact on GTA Online

uNi: I can’t foresee a big impact short-term, you may need to wait a couple days for a new car or GTA+ players get a slightly bigger bonus but that is it. If any major changes are to occur it will be in the next iteration of GTAO. I expect to see a bigger emphasis on monetisation there. It is how it works all over the industry and R* will need to follow suit if it wants GTAO to keep relevant and profitable. I don’t see the majority of the community regularly spending money on GTAO2 as long what they get in return is good enough.

Spider-Vice: If GTA+ is kept as is, like most other games with optional subscriptions? None whatsoever in my view.

Many people thought Shark Cards and those being advertised more aggressively again a few years back was “the beginning of the end”, with massive nerfs and what not incoming and that never really happened. In fact, R* even with Shark Cards has released content packs like the Cayo Perico Heist and The Contract which are both very good money makers (thus potentially negating Shark Card sales), and Cayo Perico has not been nerfed thus far like many people thought it would – “no way these payouts will be kept!” – so far, they are. Emphasis on “so far”.
R* also willingly gave people a bunch of money by multiplying the Dre storyline earnings in The Contract by x1.5 and x2 respectively in two different weeks, along with that same content pack’s Payphone Hits getting the same treatment. These were pretty much weeks of joy for grinders and regular players alike – I’ve never been richer in GTA Online and it was because of those two weeks.

Let’s also not forget they buffed the Nightclub safe for current-gen and the Career Builder already gives you access to some property (even if on a budget) and some sort of proper starting point even if you’re not a subscriber, so even if they were already planning GTA+ for a while, to me it doesn’t really feel like they want to shove it in everyone’s face that much.

A lot of people in the community have expressed concerns over regular non-subscriber weekly event bonuses being nerfed because there are GTA$ and RP “accelerators” that seem to apply to those same event weeks, but I personally think what’s going to happen is that subscribers are going to get buffed and not non-subscribers getting nerfed (i.e. x2 as usual on an adversary mode would be x3 for subscribers, instead of regular players getting nerfed down to x1.5 so GTA+ can get x2).
As I type this, in fact, R* have released their first event week since the release of GTA+ and there have been absolutely no nerfs whatsoever, instead GTA+ gets a x4 buff in Street Races.
I have seen a few community members on GTAF be relieved that nothing was nerfed or made exclusive or anything this week which kind of calmed their worries about GTA+, so I’m honestly not really worried about that stuff until/if it happens.

I personally think we’d have seen major nerfs by now to things like the Cayo Perico Heist and none of these discounts if they wanted to “forcefully” push GTA+ and its bonuses, especially considering it may have been in development for quite a while.

Again, for me, short term impact on GTA Online if everything is kept as is? None. If GTA+ doesn’t interest you and you see no value in it… you can play the game as normal and get 95% of the things in it normally, except the cosmetics. There are some adjustments to things like PvP incoming, and perhaps there might be some economy adjustments, but it remains to be seen and again I currently have no reason to think we’re seeing nerfs, as I said earlier. I will eat my words if it happens, but as it stands… Nope, not worried at all.

Kirsty: Rockstar have already announced plans for re-balancing of certain PvP related stuff, so there have been some worries about them nerfing money-earning as well now with GTA+, such as Cayo Perico Heist returns. I think if this were to come to fruition, we would see a lot of animosity from the fanbase on a scale we probably haven’t seen before! There’s always a chance that features veteran players or hardcore grinders really take advantage of can get nerfed, just look at the Red Dead Online streaks and daily challenges, but I don’t necessarily agree that GTA+ increases those odds right now. Doing this wouldn’t encourage those players to subscribe in the long run, it might even turn them off playing completely, so what would it achieve?

At this point I just don’t see it, but I am happy to eat my words in light of it happening. It’s easier than ever for anyone to make money in the game, new or old, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they are assessing the kind of payouts that make this possible. There have been some recent adjustments to increase passive income lately, such as from the Nightclub, and the introduction of the Career Builder on new-gen consoles means new players get a good start as well.

Another short term issue heavily discussed is regarding clothing/liveries that appear to be completely exclusive. The initial offerings aren’t actually entirely new, they’ve appeared in the files before but have been left unused/inaccessible unless glitched in on PC. They’re non-essential cosmetics, but this could be a way to entice the collector community towards the subscription as I understand it’s quite a hobby for some players.

Concerns for the future and how things could change

uNi: The only thing that is surprising about a GTA Online subscription model is that it did not happen years ago already. If you look at other games under the T2 portfolio this happens everywhere. If anything, the fact that GTAO has been left alone so long (apart from Shark Cards) is promising for future iterations of Online and SP games coming from R*.

Spider-Vice: I’m actually surprised this didn’t happen much earlier, people in the community had been speculating about a potential GTA Online subscription for years now. Stuff like targeted discounts and bonuses for shark card buyers advertised on the loading screens, speculation about handling flag changes being related to potential paid vehicle speed upgrades, and so on.

Looking at other games’ subscription models, where in some cases private lobbies and private features are offered, along with subscription locked non-cosmetic content, all-in-all I don’t see any reason to worry about GTA+ doing that just yet, if at all. From what I can understand from the official info, GTA+ seems to be mostly based on early access, rewards, bonuses and exclusive cosmetics (which I personally don’t mind, but others will), which I think is a fair deal if you’re paying out of your pocket IRL, at least to have some sort of incentive to keep your subscription.

I’m not going to worry about something that’s not happening and I see no sign, personally, that any of these things are going to happen just yet. Looking at other games’ models and how (despite everything, let’s be honest) friendly T2 seems to be with their R* microtransactions vs. even others within the T2 portfolio, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Something else I’ve personally noticed is that the wording for the vehicle and property benefits is very different from the one used in the cosmetic benefits in the GTA+ website. Property and vehicle-related benefits mention discounts or them being free, if there’s discounts then this means they’ll be available for all players, just at a discounted price or even free.

In terms of the far future, whilst reading the GTA+ topic on GTAForums, one of the mods made a very interesting prediction based on their experience with other subscription-based games that I’m willing to agree with and am starting to think is what’s going to happen, especially given Red Dead Online already experimented with this.
What if Rockstar are introducing a secondary currency for the next iteration of GTA Online? What if Red Dead Online was already a test for the next iteration of GTAO based on what other games are already doing?
In RDO the Gold Bars were mostly for cosmetic content, except unlike other subscription-based games with premium currencies, you could earn them in-game as well – most other games with subscriptions and premium currency reserve that currency for subscribers only.

This new currency would be for subscribers, with drops every month much like regular money, and you could use it on cosmetics – some games even have a premium currency shop for subscriber-exclusive stuff. Most games that do this centre it all around cosmetic items, and R* themselves in a deleted part of the official GTA+ page referred to “items” from the next GTA Online Update. This is another one of the reasons why I don’t think they are going to ever lock actual vehicles and progression-related content behind the subscription – other than cosmetics, but as much as this might sour parts of the player base, especially collectors… it can actually be what makes it sell in other games for both newbies and veterans alike.

If this is what’s happening, this doesn’t change the gameplay and progression loop at all other than offering extra perks and bonuses to players who wish to pay, and I personally don’t have many concerns, if any at all, for the future of GTA Online and much less Rockstar.
I play Rockstar’s new games mostly for the single player (and only then the Online, I took a while to get into RDO) and I don’t think that’s going anywhere or decreasing in quality whatsoever over something as simple as this, that most certainly isn’t going to take any development time away more than any other GTA Online DLC. Rockstar-quality Story Modes aren’t going anywhere.

To me, what we’re seeing is R*/T2 adapting to current times just like they did with the original GTA Online, in fact, I’d even argue they’ve been waiting for this for a long time while observing what other companies were doing. In 2013 we had Shark Cards when other companies started putting similar microtransactions in games (EA was already being mocked for years), nowadays subscriptions can be more profitable and more “worth it” in terms of bonuses and content versus just buying a bunch of money (recall the math), and is the new reality in a lot of parts of gaming. I have no reason to worry about anything. But we’ll see what the next few months bring.

Now excuse me while I go and listen to Moodymann and Sessanta in the Auto Shop, call Franklin for a payphone hit and go and spin the Diamond Casino & Resort Lucky Wheel. Maybe I should replay the Dre story for a million, been a while…

Oh also, let me plug Ask A Game Dev again, as there’s another interesting article about microtransactions that is a good read. Please, please, do some reading before engaging in blind social media outrage, and if you want to be outraged, at least aim it at the companies and not at individuals!

Kirsty: Prices and morals about monetisation aside, something I’m mostly cautious about is the precedent this move will set for new games and how far exactly the monetisation will go in GTA VI’s iteration of GTA Online. There’s been a lot of talk about the possibility of completely exclusive items, content, or DLC heading to GTA Online that’s only available for GTA+ subscribers. I’m not going to get too upset about something that doesn’t exist yet, Rockstar haven’t implied that this will be the case whatsoever, but it’s food for thought as we get closer to the next GTA. Introducing it so late in the lifecycle of the game indicates to me that it’s a way to transition players into a broader purchasing scheme that will be established in the future, or a way to evaluate what kind of content players are willing to part money for in order to introduce premium items later down the line. In other words, if players get used to GTA+ now, then it’ll be easier to accept or buy into at GTA VI launch.

This impression could be completely wrong and misjudged of course, it’s only the first month! I would speculate that tables would even start turning if they ever offered a premium shop of sorts, as I bet a lot of players would actually eat that right up (see Fortnite and the success they have with celebrity/character skins), but I think it’s an understandable and genuine concern to have without further insight. People are going to spend their money however they want to, but it’s also OK to be upset at the extent of “money making” moves in a franchise you treasure.

To tap into the mentality and market of gamers who are happy to spend, it seems to me that they wanted to innovate their own streams of revenue to ensure continued success into the future. It then makes sense to assume that they looked at what other popular and high-earning games offer their own fanbases, and yep, it’s subscriptions. The reason I express caution about the possibility of long-standing changes is the way it could fracture the fanbase, such as a more obvious divide between those who pay to win and play to earn, limiting progression or overall access; it would just feel unnecessary for a game that is already hugely successful.

Optional and background monetisation is easy to ignore, but pushing premium content might feel insincere, like players are are no longer valued unless they produce profit despite their activity being what keeps games alive and relevant amongst competitors. To be fair I guess the former is kinda true for any business, we’re here to “consume”, but we’re also here to have fun. I did note, however, that there was no mention of GTA+ on the latest Newswire about the weekly bonuses; the GTA+ website was updated and there are indicators in-game, but I think it was a worthy decision to avoid giving it too much platform as this way it remains the player’s choice whether they seek it out or not, exactly like Shark Cards. I don’t know if this will be consistent of course, but credit where credit is due for putting regular players first for now. I’ll reiterate as well though that perhaps the void wouldn’t be filling up with all this unfounded speculation about the future if there wasn’t such a limited community management presence in the space to begin with.

And there you have it!

If your own views don’t fall in line with any or only parts of ours, that’s perfectly valid, as right now there’s a lot more where all this came from! Why not join in with the GTA+ discussions and debates with us on GTAForums?

GTA+ Announcement Topic
GTA+ Bitch & Moan Topic
GTA+ Subscribers Topic

The post Sound Off: The Lowdown on GTA+ appeared first on GTANet.com.

In this piece I’d like to focus on something a little different. Be aware that this is merely personal opinion and does not represent the thoughts of everyone at GTANet. It is also conjecture, and none of the information in this article is based on any real knowledge of the events that transpired the release, I’m merely an enthusiast, observer and a long-time Rockstar Games fan, so none of what I am saying is based on experience. I am also not going to get into too much detail with my opinion of the remasters themselves, this is merely an opinion article about the release and an overview of past events.

This will cover a few specific subjects that I’d like to make an overview of and give a couple of opinions about, even despite liking these games a lot more (apparently) than some of the community: an overview on who Grove Street Games are, what was the San Andreas mobile port that made the community become sceptic about the developer, the process of the community finding out that Grove Street Games were behind the release, and my view on the management of its release, along with some discussion on what could’ve been better.

Nazar Spider Speaks!

Who are Grove Street Games? How do they relate to Rockstar?

Grove Street Games (GSG) were formed in 2007, originally named War Drum Studios, and were the authors of games like the History Channel licenced Great Battles: Medieval for mobile and Gen 7 (Xbox 360/PS3) consoles, the mobile port of Ark: Survival Evolved (which they still maintain), and more importantly, most Rockstar Games mobile ports – Max Payne 1, GTA 3, GTA Vice City, Chinatown Wars, Bully… Among those, there was also the infamous (we’ll get there…) port of GTA San Andreas.

For the 10th anniversary of GTA III in 2011, they were contracted (as War Drum) to port the original game to mobile – with new controls, some mobile-friendly design changes, and more. Later in 2012, Vice City got the same treatment. Those ports weren’t too badly received, with just some reviewers pointing out that the controls weren’t great and some bits like combat were even more frustrating, but otherwise, they were solid GTA’s-on-the-go.

San Andreas mobile port – community relations sour

2013 was the year that War Drum Studios/Grove Street Games saw themselves between the sword and the wall. GTA San Andreas had been ported to mobile devices… except it was nothing like the previous two ports. Many liberties had been taken to try and make it look different on the same renderer, many things were changed in minigame and mission design, and the ports were riddled with glitches and other design decisions that the community deemed questionable. Later, these same mobile versions were ported to the then-current generation consoles – Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and even more issues were introduced.

Modding and datamining community member Vadim M. made a few aggressively worded (but detailed) videos about the mobile versions (named by the community “remasters” although only one Rockstar Newswire article mentioned they’d be “remastered” graphics for mobile, the release isn’t named this – which should’ve tempered people’s expectations), which point out many of the mistakes and bugs included in those releases, and how it got even worse on consoles. The ports attempted to make things better, and in some situations succeeded, but not without making other parts of the game look (and sound) jarring in comparison to the classics.

I don’t think I need to describe the commotion around these releases too much after linking Vadim’s videos. Starting from here, the community viewed War Drum Studios/GSG very differently, with scrutiny that they never really recovered from, due to how people considered the port “objectively bad” and “unplayable”.

Community opinions, especially the modding community’s, towards mobile releases soured even further, as Rockstar replaced War Drum Studios with Lucid Games for GTA Liberty City Stories’ mobile port. Despite the fact that it was a much better and stable mobile port, hawk-eyed modders instantly discovered that Lucid Games had used modders’ textures for their mobile port, without permission or credit. This, among some other (admittedly personally minor in comparison to San Andreas) mistakes found in the port made the community become even more cynical towards Rockstar mobile releases.

As I write this, Lucid Games doesn’t even list GTA LCS in their official list of projects, so take from that what you will.

War Drum Studios is rebranded to Grove Street Games

A good while back, a few years after those mobile ports, the community discovered a developer named Grove Street Games, teasing a secret project on their website. Shortly after, it was discovered that it was just a rebrand of War Drum Studios. The community questioned themselves whether this was a jab at Rockstar after the mobile port fiasco (that maybe they didn’t take seriously), or a conscious decision due to working on new projects with them. Reality was that they named themselves Grove Street Games, after the neighbourhood in Gainesville, Florida of the same name, which is where they are located.

This still made some of the community’s ears perk up and I must admit I found it a pretty interesting naming choice too, as at first I also believed it was a jab at Rockstar.

Definitively Grove Street Games Edition

A few days before the official announcement, after previous leaks of game art and game synopsis that had been uploaded early to prepare for the impending announcement and pre-order, the PC system requirements were leaked from Rockstar Games Launcher metadata.
Why is this relevant, you ask? This same file contained a very important piece of information, that would shape the community’s perspective of these Definitive Editions permanently, even before we got all the details – “adapted by Grove Street Games“.

This was only discovered the day the Definitive Editions were officially listed on the Rockstar Games Store, and the community started melting down, when they realised these were the same developers behind the San Andreas mobile ports. When footage was released, and the community considered some of the art (such as character models) in the reveal screenshots looked subpar or inconsistent, things took an even worse turn, especially among those who were already sceptical.
As all of their portfolio was mobile games, I initially believed they would only be behind the mobile ports of the Definitive Editions, despite thinking it was rather odd for them to be listed in the PC store. Credits in the games industry are a huge point of debate, with pretty nonsensical restrictions and requirements, so I thought Rockstar were still naming them for the sake of recognition (as all developers who work on a game, working on any position, should).

The reveal of who really was behind the ports and the community’s reaction brings me to the next section.

Publisher-developer relations – a view

Skipping past the even further exacerbated community meltdown over character models and some of the game’s visuals, including inconsistent art in screenshots (which even mainline Rockstar games have because they are taken at different points in development, it’s just how it works in the industry many times), I would like to get into something a bit deeper – after summarising the scepticism behind Grove Street Games’ name: who is who in this situation?

Despite the fact that Rockstar did publish and help produce this project, and were the ones who (again) contracted this specific company to work on the games, ultimately, in my view, Grove Street Games were the lead developers behind the project. Grove Street Games were (I assume, mostly) the ones who had access to the game’s code, grabbed most of Rockstar’s formats, converted them all (almost, except animations, gameplay/economy data and scripts for example) to Unreal Engine 4, worked on the character models, remade some of the buildings and other art, recompiled the scripts, managed their own repositories which included original game tools, code, etc.

What this means is, that judgement on the quality of the remasters doesn’t only sit on one side of the fence, or both equally. To me, it is mostly on the developer, and then the rest is on the publisher who should monitor the development process and ensure everything is up to standards, but also does not have to handhold the developer every step of the way. The reason why Rockstar trusted Grove Street Games again to port some of their most beloved and nostalgic games to a new engine, and remaster them after the controversial GTA San Andreas mobile port has been a big point of debate in the community, but again, Grove Street Games did seem to do most of the work, with Rockstar helping out with the publishing aspect (and some other minor aspects) and giving them access to certain assets (whose liberal use ended up causing some weird anachronisms – websites in ads in 1986, NOOSE in Vice City…). In a sense, this also means R* publishing should have been a lot more hands-on with the project, ensuring it’s up to standards and expectations. More on that later.

The Beast is unleashed… and leaked

On November 10th, the game released early in Oceania and eastern Asia because PlayStation didn’t want to honour Rockstar’s official release time. This is not unheard of, and Sony has released games early before for many other developers. Rockstar had announced in a support article that the games were releasing worldwide at 3 PM Eastern (New York) time, but Sony obviously had other ideas.

Where the smoke sparks a fire is with the PC release. At 3 PM Eastern, the PC version is released along with all others, as programmed. That is until three hours later the Rockstar Games Launcher is completely taken down and so are Trilogy downloads, along with all other Rockstar PC games because they needed Launcher authentication.

By that time, modders and dataminers had found out that Grove Street Games left not only original Rockstar-created tools to compile localisation files from text sources and script compilers, but also the source to those same script files, something they already had done with the previous games’ mobile ports, which personally raises a gigantic question mark about their actual source control pipeline and how they handle private information – I have a big post on GTAForums about this, and ultimately I do point more of my fingers at GSG for this than at Rockstar. Because source code and private tools are, well, private (and leaks are bad) and under very strict NDA’s in the industry, Rockstar rushed to shut it all down and remove everything over the weekend – the PC game was back by Sunday night without the private files.

Obviously, Rockstar, as the publisher, knowing about the state of these releases and seeing online “feedback” (yes, with quotations, because most wasn’t constructive), issued an apology and mentioned that more patches would be coming in the future, which is something that didn’t surprise me whatsoever, despite some of the community’s scepticism about Rockstar publishing even caring about their own games (come on…) – it was just bound to happen and the amount of scrutiny and criticism wouldn’t let them just ignore the games. It really isn’t up to their normal standards.

Why Grove Street Games? What could have been better on both sides?

This is where I once again started looking at Grove Street Games as a developer, especially given their previous San Andreas mobile adventure and its reception. I don’t do the whole Internet outrage language of “lazy devs” or whatever other spiel, there is no such thing – these games, despite their faults, had a lot more work put into them, especially on the programming side, than it seems – but more and more I think that they not only weren’t fit for the task, but they also were not completely able to handle a bigger project like this.
It doesn’t help that the aforementioned source code leaks had comments from GSG that, to the community and most laypeople, seem to have put on blast their willingness to work on these even further, with them sounding upset that Rockstar testers were requesting fixes so things would look and play better, and you wouldn’t see enemies despawning, among other things and tweaks. Testing is extremely underappreciated in the industry, and for a company like Rockstar, who work on much more complex and nuanced games in-house, it’s normal that their testers will help to try and make things as close to perfect as possible, but it’s up to the other teams to actually consider and fix.

In an environment with all kinds of different roles (testers, systems/world/tech designers, project leads, producers, coordinators, programmers and artists with separate specialisations, etc. etc.) and a big communication network when it comes to decision-making and transferring issues around, it’s normal for some of these departments to take jabs at each other – maybe because they think a certain bug reported by QA is far too nit-picky, or a lead or some department isn’t willing to change something that another department or individual requested, and that frustration is let out in the code for others to laugh at or acknowledge – just regular large-scale teamwork “problems”, not everyone will agree with everything and most projects will ship with choices not everyone agrees with.
The thing is, in this circumstance, based on what the community already thinks about Grove Street Games as a developer and how “careless” they seem to have been in the past, these comments found in the leaked script source code don’t put them in a great light in the community’s eyes, especially after they seemingly have repeated the exact same mistakes from the past, and the amount of love put into the project by them seems questionable, almost as if they were thinking R* was being too demanding. Tweets and forum posts have been posted questioning their willingness to even listen to Rockstar’s instructions when given, as the owners of the original Trilogy property, among other critical feedback.
This circles back to the heading question in this section (which is fully on Rockstar publishing in this case): Why Grove Street Games again?

The same mistakes from the mobile port era were made and some of the same odd decisions were made – they even reused the (almost) exact script source code from the mobile releases with a few specific changes for the Definitive Editions instead of using the full original scripts as a base. This meant some of the previous questionable changes, such as completely changing the original gym minigame for example, are all present. Things that were optimised for mobile devices, which don’t make as much sense on consoles and PC’s, are all almost unchanged in the Definitive Editions. Some changes, such as the checkpoint system and miscellaneous mission difficulty adjustments are very welcome, but other things don’t fit and it looks like they just mostly copied and pasted their previous work instead of re-adapting it even further for a proper Definitive Edition.
Personally, I think they could have gone through discussion threads on the Internet, videos, etc. to see what things actually needed to be changed or fixed in that same source code (see mods like SilentPatch) instead of just reusing most of it and making only a few fixes here and there (granted, they did make some fundamental changes to stuff like timings, to fix high frame rate issues, but even that is incomplete – in GTA VC and III Definitive Edition, vehicles still explode too fast at frame rates above 30 FPS, even if most other things are indeed fixed).

All of this said, I don’t think GSG are unredeemable whatsoever, far from it. They can learn (even if forced to do so…) with these mistakes and the feedback, but unfortunately it kind of looks like the community’s scepticism about seeing their name may have been justified.

This is also where I think R*’s publishing people could have overseen the development of the games a lot more and perhaps been more careful with the release of such a passion project (perhaps a delay could have worked?), but once again I don’t think the publisher needs to be a shadow over the developer all the time, and the developer also has to be self-aware of their own abilities and work pipelines. AI upscaling (which is totally fine as long as it’s done well – see Mass Effect and this video on upscaling by the excellent AI and Games) a cutscene character to the point their shirt says “Rinimos” instead of Rimmers (a double-entendre for a sports team from all GTA universes including GTA V), or an octagonal nut being turned into a smooth circle due to model smoothing isn’t only a publisher thing. It doesn’t help that while there’s badly upscaled textures and models, there are also well-done and remade assets for some shops and advertisements around the worlds – the aforementioned inconsistencies.
However, I do think these things would have been instantly spotted in a full playthrough demonstration, and I feel that is indeed also on Rockstar’s publishing part – perhaps more scrutiny was necessary? Especially when these games are called Definitive Edition and Rockstar wanted them to be the new versions people play for years to come?
Where perhaps R* could’ve done better as well was by researching what really needed to be done to these games themselves before settling on a Grove Street Games (or anyone else) contract, looking at fan mods or suggestions, looking at their own source code, development documentation and design documents and see what they originally wanted to improve, and making sure there weren’t anachronisms for example, which doesn’t match the level of fine detail that R* games are usually known for. Then again, GSG could also have done this themselves in pre-production, in my opinion, but I don’t claim to know how any of that went down, of course.

Some people also ask why this wasn’t done in-house at Rockstar.
I suppose, and I can fully understand, that R* didn’t want to take resources away from current and future projects such as GTA VI or anything else that might be in the works, leaving the main teams to those mainline games, and leaving the “sideline” stuff for the outsource studio. Nothing shocking, but obviously as a fan it would have been optimal for this to have been a pure R* production in my opinion, and I would bet at least some current developers wouldn’t have minded working on remastering some of these older games (which are most likely also dear to many of them), for them to be fully playable and truly definitive for 2021 and beyond. Even if that meant having to open the crypt of the SCM scripting language and bring back some memories to veteran developers…

What does this mean for future projects? Et tu, communication?

Nothing. As much as some of the fanbase may be sceptical after this, these weren’t mainline Rockstar projects and weren’t made by the exact same Rockstar teams that make the typical games filled with detail and new engaging gameplay and stories. This seems to be more a case of an overall badly organised outsource remaster project (and subsequent release) than anything else, this means absolutely nothing for main R* games and the quality of these remasters doesn’t dictate the quality of any other main R* projects or Online game DLC’s. I’m not phased at all, mostly disappointed at how this specific project was handled. My (mostly positive) opinion on R* has not changed and I’m still excited for future games and even GTA/Red Dead Online DLC, their developers are as skilled as ever and this doesn’t change that fact, even because a large percentage of them probably didn’t even see the Trilogy before it released or worked on it. One thing doesn’t connect to the other whatsoever.

If there is one big thing to criticise in this sense, is that if R* decide to start outsourcing remasters or smaller projects, perhaps they should be more controlling of those projects and ensure that developers have not only what they need (assets, code, time, resources), but also ensure that they respect the original vision of these projects to a T. Especially if these are supposed to be true passion projects to preserve/remaster old classics.

What it does change on their end however, because most people aren’t aware of all of these technicalities and just look at these games having the Rockstar logo on them, along with loud online feedback and online press reviews, is the way they’re perceived to the outside for letting this release the way it did, and their subpar communication once again putting their PR on blast, which in my opinion is something that needs to be remedied sooner rather than later. Yes, communicating with gamers is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t job, but I think it would be even more Rockstar of them to actually let one or another thing out more often, if not even just to soften PR blows on their side instead of having people get even angrier over silence. If R* had a much more active community and PR presence overall, even for GTA Online and Red Dead Online (bring back roasts to known community members!), I have a feeling the backlash would be at the very least a bit less severe, because many outsiders wouldn’t just think the company is hiding.

EA/DICE have opened an account on Twitter dedicated specifically to semi-real time updates from dev teams about the goings on of Battlefield 2042 (another badly received release), but I also fully understand that Battlefield is a real-time fully online game that is currently still getting real-time maintenance and downtime, and that it can be very difficult to get all of the info flowing in real time from dev teams to PR and so on.

Still, I think this release is another sign that things may have to change on the communication side. Even understanding that it’s extremely hard to set specific deadlines and dates for things, I think this would be a great opportunity to talk about more specific plans for the Trilogy and potential (add a million asterisks) ETA’s, or a roadmap.

Where do I stand on these remasters?

Despite everything, I would like to mention that I am mostly enjoying them. Environment art, lighting and graphics/rendering can be exceptionally well done many times (and other times also kind of odd), gameplay is as engaging as it used to be and in my PC experience there haven’t been any completely game breaking bugs in either of the 3 games. It however cuts a lot of corners, and has major inconsistencies that just shouldn’t exist, such as between different character models, specific textures and the way they were handled, PC flying controls, San Andreas not even having any height or distance fog/smog, major collision and mapping issues in areas, strange feature design decisions due to code ported from GSG’s original mobile versions.
Indeed this is a remaster and not a remake, and people shouldn’t have expected completely remade/re-coded features or assets, but if more research had been done to mod projects like SilentPatch, or Vice City: The Leftovers Fix, GTA SA Xbox Map Features, GTA III Xbox Version HD and similar, this would simply be fixing mistakes that were in the original games, and that would most definitely fit in a remaster named Definitive Edition.

That said, I don’t think the remasters’ mistakes are unfixable whatsoever either, with R* planning to release more patches for them. I think they can fix them up nicely at least in the bugs department and some of the more obvious visual inconsistencies, especially if they did allocate more teams from the main R* studios to help out. But it’s certainly going to be a process, and everyone will need to be patient, because making game patches isn’t simply committing a fix and pushing it out the next day – there will be meetings to determine what to fix, making inventories of fixes from online feedback, the actual testing and confirmation process, trying to fix it, confirming the fix, potentially more meetings about stuff along the way, console manufacturer certification processes, etc. etc.

A lot of the community is disappointed, especially because these are named Definitive Edition (although I do think the Mafia remake set too high of a public expectation for that marketing name) and are games that are supposed to be legendary and stay legendary, but what’s done is done, and we will need to maintain civility and be patient while R* works on all of this stuff. Not much else we can do. It also doesn’t help that a lot of people on the Internet are still, to this day, recycling memes based on bugs from pre-release versions from the Australia leaks, that have already been fixed, thus condemning the games even more than they, in my opinion, should.

If you enjoy it even minimally, keep playing it, as I am (and so are many others in the community, some who have already 100% them!), if you don’t, then indeed don’t, or wait for patches, or a price drop. It’s all fair game at this point. Just please maintain civility, don’t use people as scapegoats for anger, and keep anger (moderately…) and criticisms to the games themselves and how GSG/R* handled the situation, not specific people. What I do condemn is the actual hate that’s going rampant around the Internet, and despite criticisms and a few disappointing bits in these games, I will continue doing my own thing and enjoy playing them, even with their issues, and see them (hopefully) evolve with patching.
I am getting enjoyment out of replaying them, what is more disappointing to me is how the release was handled and the state it released in, there is a lot of good in these games amongst the bad too, and to me this does not condemn R* or the games in any way, shape or form. But they will now have to prove this even further on the PR side as this Definitive Edition mishap, plus the previous GTA V E&E event has made some people become a bit sour about R*. Hopefully something nice can help solve people’s worries sooner rather than later.

Thanks for coming to my talk, and thanks for making it this far and reading this mess of an essay! Now excuse me while I go and yell at Lance Vance (Dance) for dying again because he can’t defend himself for sh*t.

The post Spider Speaks: Untangling the Definitive Edition appeared first on GTANet.com.