It's comment threads like this that just show how absolutely clueless G*mers are.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
140 points (94.3% liked)
Games
33948 readers
588 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We'll get 60 and above on pc a while later anyway. Also the sold separately thing is probably just like they did with RDR2 where you could get everything or just the multiplayer part of the game, which I personally think is fine.
say it with me
EN SHITTI FICATION
idc as long as it's not coming to PC. Don't need GTA online anyway.
I don't do modern consoles, do people consider 30fps acceptable?
From what i have seen, 60fps is acceptable for High Settings, 30fps is acceptable when Ray tracing is turned on
No, 40 and 50 look good enough though, idk why people like 30 as a standard
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, 30fps is fine, and expected even if you're also expecting ultra realistic graphics. This expectation that people have of games being 60 fps and being stupid realistic is nonsense. You want realistic graphics and reflections when a game is first released, your gonna get 30 fps. And honestly, you can hardly tell the difference anyway.
Edit: Always expect the downvotes when I say this. The people in gaming subs, almost never understand how games are developed. Just demand without understanding the limitations of hardware and software.
Some games go to 120fps and are actually realistic.
GTA was never about realism, it just had a huge open world with tons of things to do.
None that I've ever seen. It takes a lot of work to get good graphics even for 60 fps, a lot of optimization, that depending on the type of game, might be very expensive and time consuming to do.
load more comments
(14 replies)
Hey, maybe this time the script kiddies won't be able to sabotage people's SINGLEPLAYER GAMES!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Only way I buy this:
- It is priced at 60 to 70 dollars (fuck that still hurts)
- It has a solid OFFLINE story mode.
If they try pull 100 dollar bullshit or fill it with micro transactions then I am out. Also I will not pre order this game (I didn't with 5) I will wait until its out and I hear good things from the players.
Just like I did with 5. Had coworker who was bragging about the game every day. Finally and picked up a copy at Vintage Stock. This is the original PS3 version only one I have.
I'm tempted to hold out on the FOMO and wait for the inevitable PC release
I think it will be 80 dollars, with bigger editions available, eg. including online mode. For me, the 30fps is the most annoying, I was never a performance fanatic, but I’m used to 60 now.
What why they lower it? That make no sense with the new hardware of PS5 and Xbox Sx or whatever it's called.
Genuine question, why is $100 too much for a quality game? Completely agreed on the micro transactions though
If the biggest game of the decade charges $100, every triple A game will charge the same, and other games will probably be more expensive as well, and in most cases it'll be more money for the same steadily decreasing quality, at least in the triple A market.
What makes you think other games will be able to get away with $100 when plenty of them are having a tough time getting away with $70?
load more comments
(4 replies)
The only full price game I recall ever buying was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (back when £35 was the standard "full price" price point). Now that one was worth it, but no other AAA game that I can think of has justified the cost to me. Once we're talking about that amount of money there's a lot of other things I would get more enjoyment from.
I think I paid about £10 for GTA V. I'd maybe go to £15 or £20 these days, but beyond that I simply have other things I could play.
Meh I'd drop 100 plus on standard night out. I dont buy many games but buying God of War Ragnarok for 30 and getting 100 hours of entertainment was well worth it, to the point I regret not buying it full price day one.
There are many things I'd spend more on, but gaming is something that I can spend a lot of hours on without necessarily enjoying. As in, the experiences are often weirdly compulsive and before I know it I've tanked eighty hours without really enjoying it all that much.
I collected all the submarine collectibles in GTA V - do I think that was more fun than a party with friends? Absolutely not. Did it take more time? Most definitely.
I was looking at it more in terms of using free time, not a one to one comparison
Exactly. $100 is a lot of money, however games are cheaper than ever these days (adjusted for inflation) and $100 for no micro transactions sounds fair.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy it at that price either. I‘d wait for a sale…
load more comments
(4 replies)
Point 2 is the biggest for me. I haven’t played more than 30 minutes of gta5 online. Single player story is where it’s at. Wish we got more DLC.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)