No GTA 6 for PC Gamers at Launch, Rockstar Confirms

[Vayra86]

So sad, there will be no DLSS™ and RTX™ at launch.
This game will be very ugly...

Borderline unplayable! I'm glad the PC doesn't get it, because it doesn't have DLSS and RTX. I hear some devs are on strike at Rockstar because there will be no RTX in it. They had a much greater vision, one with RT in it, half performance and the same image. Chasing that 15 FPS bar for the cinematic effect.

I also hear Rockstar is considering a PC release, but they'll only do it if we allow Nvidia DLSS ads until 2025 on TPU's news section.

The only reason to do this is greed, fear of piracy or both.

Nah its just greed and stupid consumers eating that for granted, because its GTA. Rockstar gets away with it, so they do it. I don't know why this is so complicated to understand. Input = output. We feed our own monsters.

Fear of piracy was fixed ages ago, with DRM and online requirement.

 

[natr0n]

Game designed on a pc for consoles that are pc based. No worries

 

[Naito]

With seemingly so long in development, I don't see why RS still needs to delay the PC version as done in the past - especially now that consoles are as close to PC architecture they perhaps have ever been.

Looks like I'll just have to pick it up for Series X...

 

[BIGMicro]

They don't want to hear complaints about why the PC version of GTA VI looks much better graphically and the number of passersby is twice as large? And if people... started makes GTA mods and added their own stuff, it would soon turn out that the PC version is like GTA VII on consoles

But seriously - nothing new. The game not going to be released anytime soon - wiating 10 years who care ? But will we have to wait even longer for the PC version? Waste of time. 10 years for the next part - people have bigger worries. And Rockstar has probably developed a successful Online model of withdrawing money from kids for next...10 years ?

 

[evernessince]

I think its the perfect analogy. Because the long and short of it is *CATERING*. And there is a lot more to do for the PC market then console market where developers can optimise for a set cookie cutter template rather than have to dance around issues with the billions of hardware combinations and which setups might have the most issues with running the game.

Again devs aren't optimizing for billions of different configs. They are optimizing for maybe five tiers of performance, same as every other game out there. It's a bad analogy for that reason and the reasons I stated before.

As for AAA PC games being optimised. I dont recall any good AAA game in the last decade that have been released 'Just fine' optimised state for PC. Many titles were released in a half-finished mess when its clear that it needed more time in the oven but that is how AAA publishers do. Release it half baked to sell a few million copies then a year or two down the line have the game be a complete game and experience, all tweaked and fully optimised. There might be the odd one or two games who are the outliers but those are so few and far between. Games like Baldur's Gate 3. The Uncharted series...

So I dont know how you come to the opinion that AAA PC games have been released in a great state. Even the Witcher games needed a little work after they were released.

Most AAA games haven't released in an amazing state, regardless of console or PC. GTA V still ran like trash on PCs even despite the 2 year gap between console and PC launch and it wasn't until a modder fixed the loading times did rockstar do anything significant in regard to optimization, which is frankly embarrassing. The Witcher 3 wasn't amazing at launch but it did launch on all platforms and it was in a far better state than GTA V's PC version was despite the two extra years. Stop trying to make excuses for Rockstar, optimization in not this massive hurdle you are making it out to be. Rockstar is just uniquely bad and / or lazy in this regard.

 

[Vya Domus]

The Witcher 3 wasn't amazing at launch but it did launch on all platforms and it was in a far better state than GTA V's PC

Witcher 3 ran notoriously bad on release, especially on consoles.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Stop trying to make excuses for Rockstar, optimization in not this massive hurdle you are making it out to be. Rockstar is just uniquely bad and / or lazy in this regard.

I could care less about rockstar. Ive never played one of their games let alone be interested in any of them but I do think you are downplaying the situation.

Regardless of how many tiers they have to optimise for. its still a headache and a lot of work compared to getting the game running on consoles. Hence why the original Cyberpunk trailer was footage taken from the console game and not PC and we all found out how problematic the PC version was when it was released with some players coming across bugs that other people with similar setups didnt.

Also - Contradict your own argument much???

Thousands of other AAA PC games released to date have all been optimized on PC just fine.

Most AAA games haven't released in an amazing state, regardless of console or PC.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Pass.

Not that bothered about another crappy console port.

 

[LabRat 891]

Oh good.
My disinterest was not without reason.

Pretty sure they're gonna milk this one kinda like they did with V:
Release at tail-end of one console generation, re-release for "next generation" (and PC).

 

[FoulOnWhite]

As if it matters to Rockstar. PC users made up only 2% of GTA V sales.
View attachment 324276

Probably because a lot of of PC users had a non conformist copy, and only played SP.

And the highest number on that chart played GTA V on a crappy PS3, bet that was an enjoyable experience.

 

[evernessince]

Also - Contradict your own argument much???

There's nothing contradictory in the statements you quoted. A game can release in a buggy state and be optimized over time. That's side stepping the point of the 2nd statement you quoted though by quoting it out of context, to point out the fact that often the console release is no more optimized than the PC release. Optimization is hard on both PC and console.

Regardless of how many tiers they have to optimise for. its still a headache and a lot of work compared to getting the game running on consoles.

I'd say the number of tiers is important with you claiming the need to optimize for billions of different configs vs the few tiers devs actually do optimize to for PC.

You are talking two tiers across two to three consoles vs 4-6 tiers for PC. Not billions. Optimization is more difficult on PC but with let's not grossly exaggerate the difference between console and PC.

Hence why the original Cyberpunk trailer was footage taken from the console game and not PC and we all found out how problematic the PC version was when it was released with some players coming across bugs that other people with similar setups didnt.

Don't think you are remembering things correctly, the console launch was just as buggy if not more so. Both Sony and Microsoft had to issue refunds. There are videos demonstrating just how bad distant objects looked on console. The PC version was buggy as heck but the console was beyond buggy and had a heap of console specific issues on top of that. I plaed CP2077 on PC at launch and I though the bugs were terrible until I saw console gameplay.

Witcher 3 ran notoriously bad on release, especially on consoles.

I played TW3 at launch, it was decent. Lots of small bugs (none that I personally ran into but other people had). It wasn't on the level as any Bethesda title I can tell you that, which is really the level I expect when people say notoriously bad. The Witcher 3 base game is some 120 hours worth of content, it's inherently going to have some bugs. Performance was poor to decent (if you turned off hairworks whether you had an Nvidia GPU or not).

 

[FreedomEclipse]

There's nothing contradictory in the statements you quoted. A game can release in a buggy state and be optimized over time. That's side stepping the point of the 2nd statement you quoted though by quoting it out of context, to point out the fact that often the console release is no more optimized than the PC release. Optimization is hard on both PC and console

Well I was talking about the game or games being optimised when launched. I dont know how you came about me referring to the game being optimised later. A games launch is always more important then what happens later. Many people got refunds for Battlefield 2042, cyberpunk and other games that came out in a really bad state. The "I'll-fix-it-later" approach by publishers is a cancer on the industry and it shouldnt be happening at all.

Why are you talking about what happens later when im talking about launch?

I'd say the number of tiers is important with you claiming the need to optimize for billions of different configs vs the few tiers devs actually do optimize to for PC.

You are talking two tiers across two to three consoles vs 4-6 tiers for PC. Not billions. Optimization is more difficult on PC but with let's not grossly exaggerate the difference between console and PC.

Its not but I watched an old youtube video where a developer was talking about having to optimise their game for different platforms and a problem he stated was The PC was always giving them trouble because everyone has different configurations and it takes much more effort to optimise to make sure their games can run well on them.

Don't think you are remembering things correctly, the console launch was just as buggy if not more so. Both Sony and Microsoft had to issue refunds. There are videos demonstrating just how bad distant objects looked on console. The PC version was buggy as heck but the console was beyond buggy and had a heap of console specific issues on top of that. I plaed CP2077 on PC at launch and I though the bugs were terrible until I saw console gameplay.

Both were buggy. but there was no footage from the PC version of the game till it was officially released because CDPR wanted to hide how bad it was.

 

[Vya Domus]

Its not but I watched an old youtube video where a developer was talking about having to optimise their game for different platforms and a problem he stated was The PC was always giving them trouble because everyone has different configurations and it takes much more effort to optimise to make sure their games can run well on them.

He's wrong, or just didn't know what he was talking about. Xbox for example runs DirectX, everything that you optimize for that console can be applied to the PC port straight away, it's actually hilarious that people even refer to PC as being "ports", hardly anything is being ported when a lot of the code would just be nearly identical. And even if that wasn't true most optimizations are algorithmic and not platform specific, if something can be made to run faster on a console it can be made to run faster on PC as well.

If he meant QA testing I agree, PC versions can be more bothersome, that has nothing to do with performance optimizations. I worked in QA, you know what's one the least tested aspects of a game ? Performance, on any platform, it's basically the lowest on the priority list and even when they investigate performance issues it's fairly superficial and hardly ever anything is done about it.

 

[RogueSix]

Honestly it's better to get an actual polished PC port...

Thanks for the laugh. Polished PC ports is something that R* certainly is not famous for. GTA IV was a complete shitshow when it came to PC and GTA V and RDR2 might have been better from a technical point of view but the PC KB/M controls were still a lazy minimum effort at best. Some of the mini games in GTA V were all but unplayable with KB/M like the lame-ass Yoga game.

Honestly, Rockstar's PC ports are like a MVP. It's more than obvious that they want people to buy the console versions and that PC customers are lower class peasants in their view. This isn't too surprising though if you look at the revenue numbers. Take2 only makes 10% of their total revenue on the PC+other platform (47% mobile/43% consoles). They don't give a crap about the PC.

 

[Arkz]

The level of butthurt in these comments is astounding. Reminds me of why I don't often comment here. It's as toxic as a youtube comment section.

 

[evernessince]

Well I was talking about the game or games being optimised when launched. I dont know how you came about me referring to the game being optimised later. A games launch is always more important then what happens later. Many people got refunds for Battlefield 2042, cyberpunk and other games that came out in a really bad state. The "I'll-fix-it-later" approach by publishers is a cancer on the industry and it shouldnt be happening at all.

Why are you talking about what happens later when im talking about launch?

The "optimized at launch" delineation was made in your 2nd comment, which was after my comment you quoted was already posted.

Its not but I watched an old youtube video where a developer was talking about having to optimise their game for different platforms and a problem he stated was The PC was always giving them trouble because everyone has different configurations and it takes much more effort to optimise to make sure their games can run well on them.

That's indeed an old video. That was true back when computer graphics were moving at a fast clip so you'd have to ensure your game could run on quite different architectures with different feature sets with a limited set of development tools. APIs weren't nearly as mature either. That was a PITA given how immature the ecosystem was. The core rasterization feature set and design has greatly solidified and matured since then, which allows developers to make games that just run across the board on modern graphics cards. As a result of that set feature base, optimization today is more targeted at getting certain levels of performance out of select tiers of graphics cards (low-end, mid, and high end for example) instead of targeting specific cards / architectures. A lot of architectual improvements in newer graphics cards are centered around improving that core performance. For example, game devs didn't need to optimize their games for Ampere, the doubling of FP32 was done because Nvidia looked at it's performance data and realized that games could immediately utilize the additional FP32 performance. Nvidia does include some additional features each generation like shader execution reordering but that won't interfere with prior gen's ability to perform. The base rasterization feature set is still there and has been for awhile.

 

[Keullo-e]

Personally I don't even care. GTA V was already a "meh" game with no love given to the single player campaign.

 

[kaos043]

So PC version 3-4 years away. Buy used PS5 with disc copy of GTA6 beat it to death for 12-24 months until PC version comes. Sell PS5 with GTA6 disc. If you are lucky there are rumors of FromSoftware PS5 game coming as well.

 

[mahirzukic2]

So realistically it will be three years before we get this Florida simulator.... I'll cope

Florida simulator, the best description of the game so far.

 

[lexluthermiester]

However, the game will remain exclusive for gaming consoles at launch.

What a shocker...

 

[Kadath]

Does anybody care about another GTA release that isn't a 14 year-old boy?

I'm in my 40s, married, and with kids.
I care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ZoneDymo]

I dont really understand the reactions this fosters, weird bunch of frustration being outed.

 

[RayneYoruka]

Come on, we both know that's cope.

GTA 5 was a mind numbingly effective money machine, Rockstar made literal billions in profit, they could 100% make a PC port that's polished enough on release, they specifically choose not to on purpose in order to maximize profits. That's a well known strategy that they use.

FACTS

 

[TheEndIsNear]

I lost interest games ago. The best most addictive I've played was chinatown wars for the nintendo ds that was a great game. I started playing one and you had to work out or eat right. Yeah i get enough of that in real life. Saints Row is superior in every way but good luck getting another one of those.

 

[FeelinFroggy]

There are 1.1 billion PC gamers vs 611 million console gamers. Technically speaking the PC is worth far more than any single console.

This is not an apples to apples comparison. You really should trust the people at Rockstar when they market games. They really do know how to sale games.

While there may be 1.1 Billion PC gamers (dont know where that info comes from) they are very different gamers than consoles. My wife plays solitaire on her PC, does that mean she is a PC gamer? Can her PC even run GTA?

The fact are that consoles DRIVE GAME DEVELOPMENT. Maybe there are more PC gamers, but Rockstar will have higher sales for console versions than PC. This is why games often get released on consoles and not so much PCs.

There are very few PC only games that do no require a mouse and keyboard. If PC gamers drove gaming development, every game would be released on PC.