>>1719880 >>1720185 >>1720197 How to spot shills.

>>1720197 It doesn't even have to be that. For instance, I have to do my work on the company provided laptop, but I also need to connect to a virtual machine from that laptop to do my actual work. In order to connect, I have to use a third party authentication app, in this case SecureID from RSA. They don't provide a desktop version, only Android or IOS, so I need it installed on a smartphone. You might say that I could use a virtual machine, well first of all, they most likely won't allow me to install a virtual machine on the company laptop(they are very anal about what you are allowed to install), and second of all, even if I were to put it on my personal computer, that only works when I work from home, but what do I do when I go to the office? Bring my Tower PC along with me? Even if the company were to give me a smartphone just for this app, that still means I need a smartphone for my job.

>>1720224 lad, any job that requires driving around from one point or another is gonna make a smartphone essential, if not a full requirement.

>>1695588 I've need a smartphone because of the group chats or a certain app that's needed for the job.

>>1695122 This is awful news because, just days later, a court ruling came out where Google was given a slap on the wrist over antitrust. >2019, the judge who would preside over the general antitrust case rules that Trump's accounting firm has to provide records of his accounts before his presidency to the House Oversight Committee to follow through with its subpoena >2019, the judge who would preside over the general antitrust case blocks a Trump rule that requires pharma companies to include prices in their ads, stating that it could only be done by the Department of Health and Human Services by Congressional mandate >2020, the Biden administration and eleven states launch an antitrust case against Google >2020, Texas and nine other states file an antitrust lawsuit against Google for ad monopoly >2021, the judge over the general antitrust case becomes a judge on the US Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Court at the behest of Roberts >2022, the judge over the general antitrust case rejects Trump's efforts to dismiss lawsuits against him over January 6 >2023, the DoJ and 17 states file an antitrust case against Google over its monopoly on advertisement >August 2024, the judge over the general antitrust case rules that Google was using unfair, anti-competitive monopoly powers to actively maintain a level of dominance which breaks US law, specifically its position as the default search engine for not only products it owns, like Android and Chrome, but even competitors like Apple >October 2024, Biden DoJ suggests Google, which has at least 90% of search engine market share, should be broken up >November 2024, Trump is reelected >November 25, 2024, the closing arguments on the ad trust case are delivered >April 17, 2025, the judge presiding over the ad trust case says that Google does have an illegal monopoly, and Google appeals this >August 26, 2025, Google says it will no longer allow unverified sideloaded apps >September 2, 2025, the judge presiding over the general antitrust case completely flips his plans because breaking up Google would destabilize the market in the face of rising AI powers like OpenAI (and, unsubtly, China) >the judge is a FUCKING INDIAN, by the way >his name is Amit Priyavadan Mehta >Google gets to keep paying Apple to use Google and Chrome and put them on their app stores >Google gets to keep its search engine as the default for Chome >Google gets to keep Android, a FOSS system, because it "wouldn't work properly" without them >Google is just ordered to share search data with competitors and can't enter exclusive distribution contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini, though they'll still be included by default because Google owns Android I fucking hate Indians. I fucking hate Trump. Google gets to live forever because an Indian dragged his feet then went turncoat because Google is owned and operated by Indians, and Anthropic and OpenAI aren't, at least, not at the top, and the Trump administration supports Indians. The only saving grace is that, years from now, you might not have to see Google ads anymore, maybe, but every other company on planet Earth, including the USG and Palantir, get to see your search data, and Google gets to keep paying off everybody so they keep using their engine, browser, cookies, video hosting service, AI, mapping program, etc, and there's nothing you can do about it unless you buy overpriced grifter devices or trade Google for China. Even FOSS alternatives still have to phone home to Google. One of the only good things the Biden administration could have done was break up Google, but instead, we have Indians forever.

More layoffs at Fireaxis, how many this year now? 15K? There's been at least 20 AAA games cancelled since 2023 as well. https://archive.is/tDVof Loving this trend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932025_video_game_industry_layoffs

>>1723588 Apologies, didn't mean to directly link to wikipedo https://archive.is/v4wgg

>>1723588 Not a surprise. Civ 7 both has bad fundemental design choices and was outrageously buggy making it sell like shit. Civ games are historically "evergreen" titles that sell many millions over their lifetime while having a relatively low budget. Fucking that up on the biggest budget yet should get heads rolling. I want to see GTA6 "just" break even (not too hard, and very likely if its buggy and post month 1 sales drop off, just meeting GTA5's sales on a console with lower install base will do it). The fallout at T2 would be glorious

>>1723588 I know those aren't the developers, but any place that hires numales like those instantly goes to my permanent blacklist.

>>1723670 It's going to sell, anybody saying otherwise is retarded. Normalfags will lap it up despite GTA4 and 5 being ass, the good will is still there unlike other AAA shovelware.

If it is shit even by normalfag measures, then that would be a good test to see if the supposed bulk of sales at the start of a game's life really does matter.

>>1724132 Didn't say it wouldn't, but they could match GTA5's sales first year sales with every copy being an 80 dollar digital game (-30% cut from MS or Sony's cut) and not have doubled their money (which is pre-Bidenflation money, so they need to make 125% what they spent just to beat inflation). Waterworld made a net positive amount of money and sold lots of tickets/VHS, but it's still notorious as a flop because it took so long to make back such a large pile of money.

>>1724240 It won't match GTAV sales, that was at the tail end of 7th Gen which was like 2 times biggers than the console audience of today. Not only were said consoles cheap unlike today, but mobileshit wasn't dominant as well. But honestly, they don't need to match the sales and Take2 knows this, all they need is to up the price of the game, which everyone else already did, and push Shark Cards even harder. It won't be a disappointment in terms of sales unfortunately, normalniggers are retarded and as I said before R* hasn't burned their goodwill yet. Same with Cyberpoz >>1724186 Shut the fuck up huezilla

I don't think GTA6 will sell even if they add online mode, most people would just stay to GTA 5 servers.

It doesn't need to sell as much as GTA V, just with GTA IV numbers they can make a profit. Furthermore, the real money doesn't come from game sells, but from Sharkcards sales, which they will get, a lot of. I like to think that this game will crash the industry, and it might do it, but not in the way some anons hope for. I doubt this game will be a massive flop that will crash the industry, but rather will embolden other studios to raise their prices to 80 and 90 and those studios will go bankrupt and get eaten by Microsoft or Tencent.

>>1724486 >just with GTA IV numbers they can make a profit That's not how it works. The "budget" you often see companies throw out there for a film or a game only comprises the development costs. It doesn't in any way account for things like marketing and licensing, which is on average almost equal to the budget (Making the total $4 billion in this case). But for media that is a "cultural milestone", that M&L budget is actually more in line with anywhere from 2-4 times the game's development budget (Meaning, $6-10 billion). However let's go with the conservative number and assume that R* and T2 only spent the $4 billion. 25 million people buying the game isn't going to cut it, not even for $2 billion. First of all, you have to account for things like retail costs of shipping the retail version of the game and putting in people's hands, which eat anywhere from 25%-50% of the actual MSRP. In addition to that, even if you "cut out the middle man" and release the game digitally, R* is still only going to be seeing 20%-30% of that money already taken right off the top to pay Sony and M$' fees for using their store. Meaning that at the end of the day, the "actual" money R* and T2 will be seeing, if they launch the game at $100, would be closer to $50-$75. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're making a $75 profit on every copy of the game sold. Just to cover the game's development budget, they would need to sell at least 27 million copies. For reference, it took GTA5 six weeks to sell that much. "Easy", you may think but remember that GTA6 would need to sell TWICE that amount. By the time GTA5 sold 45 million a year later, two more consoles had become available (Which comprised an addition 10 million just for the "Next gen" editions). And it didn't pass the 54 million mark until almost two years after launch, with the addition of the PC version. That extra 130 million (Now 160 million, as was announced back in March) you see in that picture was then the result of GTA5 being practically the ONLY crime sandbox game during the entire eighth and even ninth console generation (With the sole exception of probably Yakuza), and the game literally being given away for free on numerous occasions and people's Corona-chan binging from having literally nothing else to do for a year. Let's go back to GTA4 for a moment as I want to hit something home. GTA4 had much stiffer competition as it came out during the time when GTASA was still well within people's minds, as well as dealing with similar series like Saints Row, Driver, The Godfather, Mafia, and The Getaway; singular games like Wheelman and Sleeping Dogs; "other" sandbox games with everything from NFS to Crackdown; and all on top of having to compete with their very own company who was releasing Midnight Club, L.A. Noire, and Red Dead Redemption. And then GTA5 came out and was riding on the expectations built up by all those games. Meanwhile, what GTA6 does to compete with? You "could" point to games like Cyberpunk and the upcoming Neverness To Everness but that's really it. Meaning that R* and T2 are releasing GTA6 in market with zero competition. And when you don't have anyone to compete with, what do you think the quality of the game will be? Don't misunderstand me. I have no doubt in my mind about the very fact that GTA6 will sell anywhere from 20-30 million copies within a few months. But that being said, that won't be enough. They need this game to sell 50 million overnight, and that's never going to happen. And even if you bring up how GTAO2 will be another source of revenue R* and T2 (Which I will admit that I haven't discussed until now), you're not accounting for the costs related to all of that. Live service games are fucking expensive, just ask companies like SE who recently announced the end of two decade old live service games because they became to expensive and complicate to maintain. Despite current GTAO bringing an estimated $500 million annually, how much of that money is being spent JUST on maintaining the damn game? Not even getting into costs to constantly update it and add new content. GTAO2 is starting with practically a clean slate, meaning that both it and the main game that is GTA6 will have to hit the ground running and become the most successful video game the world has ever seen in the span of a few months. TL;DR, GTA6 is a game that too big to NOT fail.

>>1724639 GTA6 will probably sell 20m copies on launch day alone, you are genuinely delusional if you think it will be a bomb.

>>1724639 I know it's standard practice to just assume the marketing is as much as development, but at the same time, I can't imagine how they could possible spend 2 billion on marketing, especially for a game like GTA, and I think it's insane to just casually say that "oh yeah they will spend 2 billion on marketing". The closest thing I know to this is Monopoly GO that spent 1 billion on marketing, but that was just to keep people hooked to a gambling game even worse than a lot of gachas. I don't think GTA needs that amount of money to make people aware of it's existence. Even 500 million dollars on just advertising is insane, but I am more likely to believe that, than 2 billion. Also GTA IV was 60 dollars on launch, while this game is "rumored" to be 100 dollars, so if IV got 2 billion in revenue from 25 million units sold I guess there was also DLC in this, as otherwise it meant that the game was 80 dollars, then VI should get 3.3 billion, which should be enough to break even, that is assuming that there is no extra revenue from Sharkcards, same DLC cycle from IV and that it only sell as good as IV. Of course it will most likely sell more than IV, because first of, GTA is even more popular with casuals than it used to be, it was extremely popular even back then, and as you said, it has almost no competition in the market, maybe with the exception of that GTA chinese gacha with anime girls, as opposed to what IV had to fight against, plus Sharkcards. They will port the game on PC a year or two after release, and that will be even more money, but even without PC, PS5 has over 78 million units sold(10 million units less than PS3), and I am sure the game will be ported on PS6 and Nextbox, so there are plenty of console peasants ready to eat this shit up. >but people are poor, it's a recession, they can't afford 100 dollar games People, who are poor, are exactly the type of people to waste their money on GTA VI. Worse case scenario, they will buy it now and pay later.

>>1724833 That's assuming the buy now pay later crowd won't be living out of their cars within the next few years.

>>1724987 Maybe, but I think GTA VI will come before that.

>>1725007 So they get to play it then default on paying for it.

>>1724833 >and I am sure the game will be ported on PS6 and Nextbox And no one is going to by it as Yoshi-P outright stated that no one wants a new game console. Shit is fucking expensive. Hell, the NG5 and the SexBox just jacked up the price of their console by $50-$100.

>>1724833 Console makers get a 30% cut, while retailers for physical copies (e.g., Amazon) get their own cut. Even if all the 25 million are full price 100 USD digital that's only 1.750 billion. Just to break even after the recent inflation that occurred since the budget was allocated, you need to make 125% your initial budget (e.g., if just initial development and marketing is "only" 1 billion you need 1.25 billion), and that's before taxes, transaction fees, etc. are considered. Tying up a billion dollars and all your resources for 6+ years demands a much higher RoI

>>1724219 Don't forget to investigate if the sales are true, to begin with. Remember that Failguard and Assassin nigger were lauded as "successful" and proven to be flops a few weeks later.

Dorito pope's dad passed away last thursday.

>>1725438 He's hawking corn syrup and chips in heaven now.

>>1725438 Did he play videogames?

>>1725014 It would be hilarious if bad Buy Now Pay Later loans would lead to a game crash, but as it is right now, it's unlikely >>1725153 I see no reason, why there won't be a PS6 at some point in time, it's just that right now we are probably getting a similar console life spam as the 360/PS3 era, when they tried to extend the cycle with Kinect/Move shit. >>1725294 I am aware of that, I simply used the GTA IV numbers, that claims it got 2 billion from 25 million units sold. I lightly touched on it when I said that by those calculations GTA IV should have been 80 dollars, so I wasn't exactly sure how they got those numbers. Right now I tried an inflation calculator and 60 dollars in 2008 is 90 dollars in today's money, so you know what? 100 dollars isn't all that insane. I will concede on one point though, it needs a bit more than GTA IV numbers, but it certainly doesn't need GTA V numbers, and again there are Sharkcards, and less competition than when GTA IV got launched. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I'm going to aim for the middle ground and say GTA will make money just not enough to please investors and the next Rockstar budget will be significantly reduced.

>>1725586 >Rockstar budget will be significantly reduced. I can see that happening, especially if they do another Red Dead game, or maybe some smaller project like a Bully 2 or Manhunt 3 or some new IP. Assuming that the 2 billion figure is real, it's unrealistic to keep going even higher, and Rockstart probably knows this as well. It reminds me of when they were going to release RDR2 that they told the investors that it will make a profit, but nowhere near the levels of GTA V and they should be aware of it. So I could see that even Rockstar themselves might want their next game to have a lower budget. Of course this would be after milking VI for all it's worth with Sharkcards and content that works on a FOMO basis.

>>1725497 >I see no reason, why there won't be a PS6 at some point in time Anon, you're arguing something that wasn't said. A PS6 is on the horizon, but no one is going to buy it because no one sees a point to it. Devs have already expressed this sentiment well over a year ago: https://archive.ph/Mv5UA <PS5 Pro developer verdict: ‘I didn’t meet a single person that understood the point of it’ And they're noticing players are in the same camp: https://archive.ph/LLhW8 <"But when I look at things from a gamer’s perspective, I feel that there's no real need to make new hardware, because I think right now people are happy with the Xbox Series X, the PS5 or the Switch 2. And honestly, from a gamer’s perspective as well, hardware is just expensive to buy." >it's just that right now we are probably getting a similar console life spam as the 360/PS3 era No, it's not at all comparable because of the very simple fact that the hardware we have for game devices will not need to be replaced anytime within the next decade. There's zero demand for a new "upgraded" game console. In fact the people who already own the NG5 and the SexBox are frustrated with their purchases because they feel like neither system have really managed to "justify" their existence. Especially when they're largely playing the same games that they can already play on the PS4/Xbone/Switch, if not even their own fucking phones or even earlier devices.

>>1724260 >>1724802 GTA6 will flop and there is nothing that you can do about it. >delusional You are projecting.

>>1725667 It's a good point I remember one if the big selling points of the 360 and PS3 was the jump in graphical fidelity + the exclusive games, coupled with not needing to know anything about computers. Choosing either console mainly came down to what your friendgroup was using.

>>1725602 >maybe some smaller project like a Bully 2 or Manhunt 3 or some new IP. I don't think they'll ever touch Manhunt again.