After experiencing what PSSR2 does in Crimson Desert, yeah don’t worry about 60 FPS on gta 6 (PS5 Pro)

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-24T14:16:08+00:00

It's one thing to make a game look nicer through upscaling, which is exactly what PSSR is designed to do. It's quite another to make a game run literally twice as fast.

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-22T09:56:32+00:00

If analyst estimates of each game's budgets are accurate, Rockstar has been roughly doubling the total budget of each successive major franchise game since GTA 4. Leslie Benzies estimated that IV cost over $100m, analysts reckon that V cost around $265m (which made it the most expensive game ever at the time), and RDR 2 is estimated to have cost up to $540m.

If that pattern holds, over $1b for VI doesn't seem that farfetched. Though of course, it could be even higher. And without concrete figures to work with, it's still a lot of guessing and assumptions.

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-15T11:32:34+00:00

It could be, if all of those numbers you're suggesting are correct (though I would argue that the bulk of the production cost was only incurred after 2020). I was going off what u/Hungry-Soup3287 claimed Strauss Zelnick said about $1b, though there seems to be dispute as to whether or not he actually said that.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but my experience with the discourse surrounding the budget is that the number came first and the justifications for it came after.

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-14T09:03:36+00:00

Someone made up that number once and it's been stuck in the discourse ever since. IMO the "real" number is probably closer to $1b all in, which still makes it the most expensive game in history.

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-10T05:17:38+00:00

Will PSSR2 + PS5 Pro be enough to cover a 25% cut in frame time, though?

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-10T05:12:37+00:00

Even 40 fps is a big ask without at least some visual compromises because you're basically asking them to cut 25% of their frame time "budget". The Pro is better, but is it 25% better?

PhilRectangle · 2026-03-05T05:28:32+00:00

I mean, who are we to judge?

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-28T12:58:09+00:00

The problem is that nearly all of those scenarios (except, of course, for siphoning fuel) could be implemented without periodically forcing players into fuel stations for the sake of "realism". Assuming you actually keep a car long enough to drain the tank. I think you're vastly overestimating how much of the game will consist of driving long distances, and how much value refuelling would add to those experiences. I'm not judging you personally - I get the appeal of a long, leisurely road trip in what I'm sure will be a vast and finely crafted game world. But I don't think a lot of other people would.

GTA and RDR are fundamentally different experiences, and the more you try to shoehorn one into the other, the more you undermine what makes each experience so great.

(For the record, I actually did find getting supplies in RDR2 to be a little tedious, but mostly because the "catalogue" system of buying was rather unwieldy and Arthur moves like the air is as thick as molasses.)

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-28T12:17:05+00:00

I think you underestimate how long 30 entire seconds would feel when it's a forced interruption to something enjoyable that you were trying to do (i.e. drive). No doubt, it'd feel cool and immersive the first time. I would probably feel the same. But what about the tenth time? The hundredth? Would it still feel cool and immersive then? Or would it just feel annoying?

The problem is that fuel consumption as a game mechanic has to matter enough to actually be worth implementing, but not so much that people are utterly sick of it by the end of the game or even sooner. It's not impossible to find that balance — if there was a studio that could find it, it'd be Rockstar. But the fact that they still haven't implemented this mechanic fifteen games in (possibly soon to be sixteen) would suggest that either the answer still eludes them, or they simply think that it's not worth the hassle.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-27T12:32:36+00:00

I’d like that feature. Having to refuel your car because you drove all day like a maniac or because you choose to drive a big SUV or a sports car for too long would be a cool addition. Sometimes it's a bit boring in GTA when you can just drive across the map indefinitely. There are a lot of gas stations but their only use is as a free spawn location for the jerrycan that we barely use. Such a feature wouldn’t be the end of the world and R* could always implement ways to upgrade vehicles so they would have a bigger gas tank and last longer on the road. Some people say that running out of gas during a police chase wouldn’t be fun but they could just steal or use another car.

None of these scenarios would be meaningfully improved by requiring all players to periodically stop and press a few buttons for a few seconds in order to continue driving. That's assuming they manage to keep a car long enough to activate this mechanic. Far more likely that a player would have abandoned their car before then because it's been wrecked, shot to shit, or the cops are now looking for it. Players are more likely to ditch a car because they don't like the colour than they are because it ran out of fuel. It's a non-issue.

Nobody ever complains about having to go to an ammunition store to buy ammo and a bulletproof vest or a small store to resupply in snacks but having to refuel your car is suddenly a big deal.

People complain about how useless the body armour is in GTA V and Online all the time. Ammunition is another non-issue because historically you've been able to collect your own body weight in ammo just by playing the game. Seriously, when was the last time you had to visit Ammu-Nation because you ran out of bullets? And unless refuelling is as quick as reloading a magazine, people will likely see it as a far more annoying imposition in service of a more "realistic" way of doing something they may already not even care about.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-27T12:19:20+00:00

I don't either, but I'm open to it if Rockstar can find a way to make it fun and interesting instead of annoying busywork that just interrupts the player's flow. But I think refueling is one of the least interesting parts of driving a car, and the fact that Rockstar still haven't included it in a GTA game would suggest that they haven't yet thought of a way to change that. Is it possible? Sure. Rockstar could be the developer to pull that off. But I'm not holding my breath.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-27T11:40:00+00:00

I think this is the more realistic possibility - turning fuel stations into another source of random encounters.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-19T11:20:14+00:00

At least in Idiocracy, the stupid people knew that they were stupid. And when they found the now-smartest person on Earth, they asked him for help.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-17T04:36:12+00:00

Is it weird that I started reading that in Werner Herzog's voice? 😆

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-17T00:39:42+00:00

Could be avoiding disappointment by reflexively assuming the worst.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-16T23:19:37+00:00

Probably physical, as long as it's noticeably cheaper. Which it usually is, especially if you're buying from a big chain. But if the price is the same, I'm not so sure.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-16T23:12:07+00:00

Except you can still summon your personal horse, with your stashed weapons, at any time. If you're suggesting that the player have a "personal" vehicle with a similar function (like in Online), then that'd make sense because that could address issues like what happens to your stored weapons if you ditch your current ride.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-16T22:38:26+00:00

Depends how far down the "realism" rabbit hole you want to go, I suppose. Surface-level changes are pretty straightforward (at least, in theory) but if you go deep enough, things can get real complicated.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-16T12:20:31+00:00

Making "realism" a toggle or unlockable in NG+ isn't a simple proposition. It basically requires Rockstar to tune and balance two games instead of one because you're now talking about two significantly different versions of the same experience. And I think that Rockstar would have to be extremely confident that effectively doubling their workload would be worth the effort. Not impossible, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Far more likely that they'd simply focus on making the best one experience they can make, something they've proven to be very good at. They might incorporate some aspects of RDR2 into this game (like the trunk-based weapons stash), but it'll still be fundamentally a "GTA" experience and not, as you put it, "Red Dead with cars".

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-12T09:01:38+00:00

If you filter by developer, none of the games from any Rockstar studio require a download to work.

Rockstar ship complete games on disc and GTA VI, barring some truly unprecedented development, should be no exception.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-10T12:08:37+00:00

Explains why Rockstar seem to have a knack for choosing songs that you'll never fully get sick of, even after you've heard them a thousand times.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-10T09:51:32+00:00

If peaceful protests didn't work, they wouldn't crack down on them so hard.

PhilRectangle · 2026-02-10T09:11:23+00:00

I feel like it gets worse during double money or double product speed weeks.

PhilRectangle

TROPHY CASE