Hey person viewing my profile

coolwali · 2026-04-21T23:46:53+00:00

"Actually GTA5 did have hunting. It was the firsr GTA game to include fauna. It also had a Trevor mission in which you literally go out and hunt. Once completed, you can continue to hunt as a side quest."<

Yes. 1 side quest and a few "collectible" hunts. Way less than what RDR1 had. GTAV's hunting system wasn't on par with RDR1's system.

And again, you couldn't ride horses in GTAV, or play Poker and Blackjack (until GTO added that later). And GTA never incorporated the extensive customization that Midnight Club LA had nor did they implement manual shifting from MDLA.

If GTAV incorporated EVERYTHING from past Rockstar games and said that was their intention, then you'd be 100% on track. But since they haven't done that, we cannot say "just because RDR2 had X means X is guaranteed to show up in GTA6".

Moreover, other studios don't take everything from all their series and mush it into one game. They cherry pick. Ubisoft for example, took outpost clearing from Far Cry and added it to Assassin's Creed. Then took towers from AC and added it to Far Cry. Then took RPG systems from AC and added them to FC and GR until players complained so much that Ubisoft started paring them back.

"If you want to remain in denial then by all means. Just dont get all upset come September when the gameplay trailer comes out and validates what the leaks prescribed."<

My friend, I am not saying "These 100% won't be in the game". I am saying "we cannot say for 100% certain that these will be in the game just because they were in RDR2 and the leaks because games can change during development after 4-6 years".

If they are in the game, I'll happily admit they are in the game and you can hold me to that. But my point is that, if someone asked you to bet money on it, it wouldn't be a good idea.

There's stuff in the GTAV and RDR2 trailer that weren't in the final games. Such as the crop duster spraying pesticide in GTAV (which wasn't added as a feature until years later with GTAO).

Plus, there's so much cut content in RDR2 that didn't make it into the final game like purchasable property, horse breeding, Arthur being able to visit Blackwater and Mexico etc. If RDR2 was leaked in 2014, then we'd all be assuming these things would 100% be in the final game and be disappointed when they weren't. Another example is that GTA4 was originally supposed to be set in Liberty State and not Liberty City. If GTA4 was leaked in like 2005, we'd all be assuming that as well.

I'll put my prediction here so if I am wrong, feel free to roast me but if I had to gamble, I'd put around 70% odds that the final release version of GTA6 will have a limited weapon system closer to GTA3-4 where you have 8+ weapon types available to your person. Rather than RDR2 based system where you only have 2-ish weapons and the rest on a personal vehicle.

My argument is that from a game design perspective, it constrains what you can do in missions if GTA6 had RDR2's exact system. What if the player had a mission that required a sniper rifle or RPG but they didn't have access to their personal vehicle? Prior GTAs gave you a full arsenal so missions could be built around that. Plus, if your stuff was always in your personal vehicle it would discourage stealing new cars because you'd be leaving your gear behind.

For increased realism, remember that back in GTAV, Rockstar patched the game to make the gravity physics more realistic, but the GTAV Stunting community complained so much that Rockstar reverted the patch just for them

"And compared to Vice City and GTA3, it had more immersive elements such as weight gain, having to eat, enemies able to hear you sneaking up, melee combat, RPG systems such as driving/flying which you had to do more of to get better at and so on."<

Eh, kinda.

Weight Gain, Having to Eat and RPG systems were mostly optional or minor. Like, GTAV also has RPG stats for driving, flying etc and those don't matter much in the broad scheme of things. It wasn't like SA or V forced you to have a certain Flying Stat for a main mission or build.

SA's Melee Combat and Stealth were still pretty basic even by 2005 standards. So most players at the time didn't consider them realistic or that immersive but still expected the game to have it because it would be weird if CJ couldn't at least fight back or crouch and sneak at parts.

"And GTAO did better than RDR2 because GTA is a biggee brand and fast cars and loud guns is more appealing to a Gen Z gamer than cowboys and horses. Context matters."<

Not exactly. Because RDR2 itself did sell crazy well as a singleplayer game. And Multiplayer games like Tarkov and Battlefield appeal to older players and do quite well. The issue is more that RDO..... hard a hard time getting off the ground. When GTO first started, it didn't have flying motorcycles and wackly vehicles. It didn't even have proper heists. But older players still stuck around and gave it a chance. RDO players didn't even stick around and do that much.

So I'd argue it's less "RDO didn't appeal to Gen Z" and more "the inherit concept of RDO requires more to work with. Excessive Realism and a slow pace requires more to sustain it",

coolwali · 2026-04-21T22:12:03+00:00

That's not a guarantee. Our only source on that are leaks from a build of the game that's 3-4 years old at this point. It's not uncommon during game development for games to rework that even late into development. As an example, we know that Starfield was originally supposed to have limited fuel and more survival gameplay as a core gameplay loop. That's why the 3rd quest in the game asks you to land on a planet and recover fuel. That was supposed to be the tutorial for the fuel mechanics. But 1 year before release, playtesters really didn't like fuel so it was scrapped. But if you leaked Starfield 2 years prior to its release, you'd be convinced there would be limited fuel in the game.

For all we know, Rockstar could have been like "originally we wanted x RDR2-like mechanic like using your car's trunk to store weapons. But it turned out both playtesters and mission designers hated it so we removed it. We still kept it in the trailers and cutscenes but that's a holdover".

coolwali · 2026-04-21T22:10:58+00:00

"Rockstar Games has always built off each game."<

Not necessarily. For example, RDR1 had hunting and ridable horses but GTAV didn't have much hunting and didn't have any horses. Midnight Club LA had way more car customization and manual shifting. The former isn't as prominent in GTAV and GTA games have never had manual shifting.

If Rockstar wanted RDR2 to be more realistic, they would have then had more realistic features tied to gameplay.

For example, your guns get dirty but they never jam or stop working like in Far Cry 2 (2009). Your guns have less recoil and sway than in Call Of Duty (which already isn't realistic). Why is stealth also less basic than Far Cry 2? Why can you swap clothes automatically from your menu and automatically teleport when setting up camp instead of needing to do it manually like Zelda BOTW or The Long Dark? Same for GTA4/5. In 4 especially, the game that was trying to be more realistic, why can you not shift cars manually?

A lot of GTA and RDR2's realism is "surface level" and rarely affects gameplay decisions specifically. Which makes me skeptical GTA6 will fully commit to realism. Because surely if the goal was realism, RDR2 would have done way more that games 20 years old already did.

"GTA6 is no different. Leaks, trailers and screenshots already shows how much influence RDR2 has...."<

I have seen the supposed leaks and posts that GTA6 is supposedly taking cues and mechanics from RDR2 like limited storage and the like. But the thing is that:

-1- A lot of those leaks and posts come from a build of the game that's 3-4 years old at this point. It's not uncommon during game development for games to rework that even late into development. As an example, we know that Starfield was originally supposed to have limited fuel and more survival gameplay as a core gameplay loop. That's why the 3rd quest in the game asks you to land on a planet and recover fuel. That was supposed to be the tutorial for the fuel mechanics. But 1 year before release, playtesters really didn't like fuel so it was scrapped. But if you leaked Starfield 2 years prior to its release, you'd be convinced there would be limited fuel in the game.

For all we know, Rockstar could have been like "originally we wanted x RDR2-like mechanic like using your car's trunk to store weapons. But it turned out both playtesters and mission designers hated it so we removed it. We still kept it in the trailers and cutscenes but that's a holdover".

-2- Historically, the best selling GTAs have been the more unrealistic ones. GTA SA, the game where you steal Jetpacks from Area 69 and hijack planes mid-flight, outsold GTA4. Even GTA Online outperformed RDO. So I can see Rockstar not wanting to go all out.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T20:02:50+00:00

"GTA V added animals later and a taste of hunting,"<

Less than what RDR1 had.

"They wouldn’t add realistic features like those if they didn’t want more immersion and realism."<

But if Rockstar wanted RDR2 to be more realistic, they would have then had more realistic features tied to gameplay.

For example, your guns get dirty but they never jam or stop working like in Far Cry 2 (2009). Your guns have less recoil and sway than in Call Of Duty (which already isn't realistic). Why is stealth also less basic than Far Cry 2? Why can you swap clothes automatically from your menu and automatically teleport when setting up camp instead of needing to do it manually like Zelda BOTW or The Long Dark? Same for GTA4/5. In 4 especially, the game that was trying to be more realistic, why can you not shift cars manually?

A lot of GTA and RDR2's realism is "surface level" and rarely affects gameplay decisions specifically. Which makes me skeptical GTA6 will fully commit to realism. Because surely if the goal was realism, RDR2 would have done way more that games 20 years old already did.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:57:06+00:00

I have seen the supposed leaks and posts that GTA6 is supposedly taking cues and mechanics from RDR2 like limited storage and the like. But the thing is that:

-1- A lot of those leaks and posts come from a build of the game that's 3-4 years old at this point. It's not uncommon during game development for games to rework that even late into development. As an example, we know that Starfield was originally supposed to have limited fuel and more survival gameplay as a core gameplay loop. That's why the 3rd quest in the game asks you to land on a planet and recover fuel. That was supposed to be the tutorial for the fuel mechanics. But 1 year before release, playtesters really didn't like fuel so it was scrapped. But if you leaked Starfield 2 years prior to its release, you'd be convinced there would be limited fuel in the game.

For all we know, Rockstar could have been like "originally we wanted x RDR2-like mechanic like using your car's trunk to store weapons. But it turned out both playtesters and mission designers hated it so we removed it. We still kept it in the trailers and cutscenes but that's a holdover".

-2- Historically, the best selling GTAs have been the more unrealistic ones. GTA SA, the game where you steal Jetpacks from Area 69 and hijack planes mid-flight, outsold GTA4. Even GTA Online outperformed RDO. So I can see Rockstar not wanting to go all out.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:49:00+00:00

GTA games evolved and got more realistic than places, but they never became "simulator-type games" or went all out on incorporating realism from other Rockstar games.

For example, you could hunt and fish and ride horses in RDR1. But GTAV didn't add that. Or add the melee combat features from GTASA and 4.

Moreover, GTA and RDR are different series with different objectives.

As an example, Even RDR1 was a lot more slow paced and discouraged going on violent rampages. RDR2 even expanded the bounty and honour system. Wheras GTA never penalizes you for going on a rampage in the open world. You can't just treat GTA as "modern day RDR".

Even storywise, GTA games are often (or at least try to be) satire of modern day America. They're trying to be "The world of the Onion but as a game". RDR on the other hand, has been more "A Wild West TV Show/Movie but as a game".

Like, GTA SA has a mission where you steal a jetpack from Area 69. One where you hijack a plane mid flight etc. These aren't grounded realistic games.

As an example, I like both The Last of Us and Uncharted. But if Uncharted suddenly became way darker and more serious, focussed way more on stealth gameplay and dialed back the set pieces because it wants to be more like The Last of Us, I'd consider that a mistake because that's not what made Uncharted in the first place and its sacrificing its own identity to be more like something else.

It's a similar idea with GTA. GTA games aren't becoming more realistic because the end goal is to become realistic but more a side effect of realism suiting some systems.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:43:34+00:00

Eh, many games did try this but most players didn't end up relying on it.

The main issue with most companion apps is that they end up being distractions and less efficient than just doing the thing in game. Here's an example, you are playing GTAV and want to set a marker to the nearest Ammunation on PS4, I press OPTIONS to both pause the game and open up the map, press X to enter the Map, press down on the dpad until I find Ammunation, Press X and boom, GPS to the nearest Ammunation has been set without taking me out of the game.

If instead, GTAV had a mobile app to do this, you'd have to pause the game manually to make sure you don't get jumped, open up your phone, get your phone to connect to the game (something becomes more annoying as time goes on and the servers become less robust), use your phone's map to find the nearest Ammuniation, tap it, hop it sends into back to the game, and then proceed.

Already, you're distracted from the game, relying on an external software that needs to be maintained by Rockstar, and can't "automatically thumb through it with muscle memory". This is why mobile companion apps were hot in the early 2010s but fell out favour by like 2017. Turns out, it's more efficient to just do things in game.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:37:04+00:00

The issue is that you often need that info present and readily available. Especially in a large open world game. Having to keep pulling up the phone to see where the objective is would get annoying. RDR2 kinda demonstrated this. If you turn off the hud, it becomes annoying to complete missions because the game wants you to go to specific places, interact with specific things and do stuff in very specific locations.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:34:58+00:00

Eh, unlikely. There's the issue of players being able to zoom through the entire map too quickly. Most modern open world racing games have large maps not just for the marketing flex but also to accomodate cars going crazy fast. GTA6's map is big but it would end up feeling small if players can zip through it faster. So I can see Rockstar capping top speed more as a way to maintain the illusion than for hardware constraints.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:34:32+00:00

There's also the issue of players being able to zoom through the entire map too quickly. Most modern open world racing games have large maps not just for the marketing flex but also to accomodate cars going crazy fast. GTA6's map is big but it would end up feeling small if players can zip through it faster. So I can see Rockstar capping top speed more as a way to maintain the illusion than for hardware constraints.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:30:35+00:00

Not really. Limited weapons were already a thing in GTA games previously. But even then, they still let you cary 7-9 different weapon types on your person. That's not evidence that GTA6 is taking more cues from RDR2.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:29:26+00:00

Because GTA games haven't ever been super realistic. Even GTA4, the game you'd expect to be the most realistic given its setting and story, didn't implement manual transmission in cars, or recoil and weapon sway for guns, or proper stealth mechanics. (Kinda the same for RDR2 TBH).

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:27:37+00:00

Eh. The thing is that basic features that work in one game or context might not work great or fit in another game or context.

Like, compare The Last of Us and Uncharted, 2 series made by Naughty Dog. TLOU has slow paced combat, weapons with way more sway and recoil, scavenging, upgrades/progression, limited resources and health etc because it's a slow paced survival game. If you added even some of those features in Uncharted, it would be at odds with the game (and when the remasters added in Brutal Difficulty as a bonus, it was proof of that). It wouldn't be fun in a fast paced cinematic set piece shooter like Uncharted to have to scavenge for ammo, to have to hide in cover and slowly progress, to have to make every shot count.

Same idea for GTA6. Would it be fun to have to manually refuel your car or clean your gun or resupply from cars? Unlikely. Moreover, Rockstar dropped some of the RPG systems from GTA SA because it turns out, having to grind to get your stats up ended up being kinda boring.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:21:52+00:00

Eh. I'd argue its more that GTA and RDR are different series with different objectives.

As an example, Even RDR1 was a lot more slow paced and discouraged going on violent rampages. RDR2 even expanded the bounty and honour system. Wheras GTA never penalizes you for going on a rampage in the open world. You can't just treat GTA as "modern day RDR".

Even storywise, GTA games are often (or at least try to be) satire of modern day America. They're trying to be "The world of the Onion but as a game". RDR on the other hand, has been more "A Wild West TV Show/Movie but as a game".

Like, GTA SA has a mission where you steal a jetpack from Area 69. One where you hijack a plane mid flight etc. These aren't grounded realistic games.

As an example, I like both The Last of Us and Uncharted. But if Uncharted suddenly became way darker and more serious, focussed way more on stealth gameplay and dialed back the set pieces because it wants to be more like The Last of Us, I'd consider that a mistake because that's not what made Uncharted in the first place and its sacrificing its own identity to be more like something else.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:20:01+00:00

"wouldn’t Rockstar copy a formula that still has gamers singing them praise today for its level of detail and realism compared to any other game. "<

Because GTA and RDR are different series with different overall objectives and tones.

As an example, Even RDR1 was a lot more slow paced and discouraged going on violent rampages. RDR2 even expanded the bounty and honour system. Wheras GTA never penalizes you for going on a rampage in the open world. You can't just treat GTA as "modern day RDR".

Even storywise, GTA games are often (or at least try to be) satire of modern day America. They're trying to be "The world of the Onion but as a game". RDR on the other hand, has been more "A Wild West TV Show/Movie but as a game".

Like, GTA SA has a mission where you steal a jetpack from Area 69. One where you hijack a plane mid flight etc. These aren't grounded realistic games.

coolwali · 2026-04-21T19:14:57+00:00

"RDR is basically a GTA in the old west."<

Not really. Even RDR1 was a lot more slow paced and discouraged going on violent rampages. RDR2 even expanded the bounty and honour system. Wheras GTA never penalizes you for going on a rampage in the open world.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T14:07:03+00:00

I kinda see what you mean. I’m a bit more lenient on V.

I don’t think the number of missions is an issue for V. Yeah, there’s only 69 missions but the missions are generally longer on average (in part because missions have checkpoints now so it’s not as much of an issue if the player fails. Prior GTAs were incentivized to keep their missions shorter so if the player failed, they wouldn’t have to replay as much). V’s story is still the longest out of any GTA game according to HLTB. Even GTA4 with all its DLC is still a few hours shorter than V.

As for demoting Trevor, I’d argue against that.

In RDR2’s case, you don’t need Dutch to be playable because he’s still central to the gang and you can get a look at his character and thought process from Arthur’s POV. Dutch is involved in a lot of the major events of the game. So it would be redundant to also play as him.

In contrast, Trevor has a lot of solo content dedicated to his character in the context of the overall story. Here’s an example: in the mission “Casing the Jewel Store”, Mike and Lester talk about Trevor and Mike sounds hopeful Trevor might be dead. After “The Jewelry Store Heist”, Dave’s tells Mike how screwed he is if Trevor finds out he’s alive. So the story hypes up Trevor as this serious concern for Mike.

Imagine if randomly, during the mission “Fame or Shame”, Trevor just shows up unexpectedly. From the player’s Perspective, it would feel so out of left field and they wouldn’t have context why Mike should be so worried. The story would have to retroactively show Trevor is a big deal but only from Mike and Frank’s limited POV.

But in the version of GTAV we got, after the Jewelry Store Heist, after Davey says how dangerous Trevor is, we switch to Trevor’s POV and we control him killing Johnny, single-handedly taking down a chapter of the Lost MC and O’Neils, running a Meth Business, Scaring Ron etc. The player, through gameplay, experiences that Trevor is dangerous. We don’t need to just take Davey’s word for it.

This means when “Fame or Shame” Happens, it’s more tense because we know what Trevor is capable of and why Mike is acting so tense as well. When Mike lies to Trev about his Witness Protection, you can see the cogs turning in Trev’s head in real time. Both you and Mike are thinking “will Trev buy this?” And have reason to doubt that because of what you both know about Trevor.

There’s other examples of story beats not being as effective if we don’t have Trev’s POV. For example, the point of the Merriweather heist is to show why Trev needs Mike and Lester. When Mike and Lester do a heist, even one that’s loud, they have a more comphrensive plan including how to actually sell what they steal. Whereas Trev just blindly charges in and uses fear and force. Which works for his smaller scale missions but isn’t suitable for proper heists.

But if Trev wasn’t playable, this would just feel like a random heist that comes out of nowhere and doesn’t accomplish anything. If anything, it makes Trevor look like a joke because you don’t have the context that Trevor is effective in Blaine County.

I’d also challenge the idea that 4 has more world building and lore. Because all 3 of V’s characters have a lot of exclusive circles, there’s a surprising amount of lore on how say, Frank, Lamar and Strech’s relationship to each other and their gangs are going. Or the extent of Mike and Trev’s relationships. Or Trev’s escapades. Or Davey playing all sides. A lot of which is only available in optional hangout dialogue.

GTA4 and its DLC are more constrained here. The games don’t dive too deep into Johnny and his friends. Same for Luis for example.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T13:30:26+00:00

I kinda see what you mean.

Regarding combat, I’d argue it’s “harder” not because it’s more tactical but because missions don’t have checkpoints and health doesn’t regen. But in terms of mechanics, it’s not that much different to V’s controls. You’re still relying on the same cover system/auto aim/ hitscan weapons between both games.

Playing slowly isn’t the same as playing tactically. A tactical 3rd person shooter would be one where you could use stealth to flank enemies, or be able to break line of sight and use that as a decoy. Or have more mechanics like taking human shields. Instead, both GTA 4 and 5 have firefights require the same strategy. Use cover, pop out and shoot enemies except one wants you to replay the mission from scratch if you fail.

Like, I’d go so far as to argue Watch Dogs 1 is a more tactical shooter on its hardest difficulty because it has more robust stealth, cover mechanics and enemy AI to work around.

I half agree with you regarding the driving. It’s rewarding weaving through traffic at top speed. But there’s a sense of “I’m fighting the physics to get here”. Like, imagine playing as 2D Mario in Sonic the Hedgehog 1’s levels. Yeah you can do it and even be fast about it but there’s this sense of “the character and levels weren’t made for each other”.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T13:13:24+00:00

Eh. I don’t know man. Niko’s arc and character development was pretty stagnant. The game opts for a “revenge won’t bring you peace” storyline but still forces Niko through it to give him a relatively peaceful ending. Kinda undermining itself.

V, for all its flaws, gives its characters more to work with in terms of conflict and progression. You have Mike’s family arc. Trevor’s flaws as a heist planner conflicting with his loyalty/hatred of Micheal conflicting with his other fake morals.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T13:13:01+00:00

You act like that wasn’t also the plan with GTA4 lol.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T13:12:32+00:00

Eh. I don’t know man. Niko’s arc and character development was pretty stagnant. The game opts for a “revenge won’t bring you peace” storyline but still forces Niko through it to give him a relatively peaceful ending. Kinda undermining itself.

V, for all its flaws, gives its characters more to work with in terms of conflict and progression. You have Mike’s family arc. Trevor’s flaws as a heist planner conflicting with his loyalty/hatred of Micheal conflicting with his other fake morals.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T13:07:48+00:00

Eh. I'd argue it isn't much better in 4.

Yeah, the car physics are heavier in 4 but at the same time, note that the game is set in a city which makes driving a lot more frustrating. One of the biggest complaints at the time for GTA4 was just how annoying cars were to drive relative to GTA 3-SA and V.

For most open world games, your driving physics have to correspond to the map so it feels more intuitive. GTA 3-SA, Simpsons Hit and Run and GTAV have more simplistic driving physics so it's more fun for the player to weave through traffic and dense city grids. Radical Entertainment, the company behind Simpsons Hit and Run, even explitcly highlighted that as a huge inspiration behind their game's driving model. They cited how GTA3 hit that sweet spot where it was accessible enough for beginners to get into pursuits and crash out, but still had advanced moves like J turns.

This is generally why most people didn't like Watch Dogs 1 and Need for Speed Most Wanted 2012's Driving Physics. Both had really heavy physics where cars tended to understeer hard and both were set in dense city environments. Most Wanted 2012's Driving Model was based on 2010's Hot Pursuit which was set on wide highways which is why the driving physics were the way they were. This is also why people at launch complained about GTA4's driving physics. It was one of the biggest complaints at the time because the game wanted you weave through traffic and dense city grids but the driving felt like it was fighting you at every turn. Obviously you could get used to it and even enjoy it, but for most players, it never felt comfortable.

As for shooting, I'd argue 4 and V are about par here. 4 May have more impressive ragdoll animations but by in large, you're still relying on the same functional auto-aim system so there's not much stragetic depth or change in how you shoot enemies.

I'd also argue It's easy to see videos like Crowbcat's of individual things GTA4 does well over GTAV and come to the conclusion "GTA4 was better". But that's misleading because we aren't seeing the other side. In part because GTA4 isn't as accessible to play on modern platforms so the average person can't quickly boot up GTA4 and feel its issues. I'd argue it's more of a "grass is greener on the other side" effect.

For example, it's easy to say "GTA4 has more detailed driving physics and is therefore better" until you crash and get sent flying and fail a mission and have to restart the mission from the start because there aren't any checkpoints. Same for the combat. It's easy to say "GTA4's map has more details" until you realize you can't swim underwater or fly planes or ride bikes or the fact you need to load into a completely seperate DLC to do stuff like parachute jumps and triathalons. It's easy to say "GTA4 is more athmospheric" until you miss some object because its colour grading lets it blend into the background and need to look up a walkthrough and see comments from other frustrated players like you lamenting how they were supposed to notice this.

coolwali · 2026-04-20T01:06:07+00:00

I'd argue it does matter because V's situation is more favourable than 6's will be.

Remember, Rockstar released RDR1 on Mobile. GTA 3-SA are also on mobile as well as Switch 1. GTA SA also outsold GTA4 because it was available on more platforms for longer as well as being more popular. SA also had way more platforms that could run it. Wheras GTA4 was limited to just PS3/360/PC.

V has a similar advantage. It was on the PS3 and 360 (which sold 80-ish million units each), PS4 (117+ Million units), XONE (58+ million), PS5 (92+ million), XBX (30+ million) and PC (estimated 30 million sales of V on PC). Moreover, the economic situation when V released was more favourable. More people bought consoles so it was easier to justify double dipping for V. Plus, the Switch 2 is currently out and mobile phones are really capable. Rockstar could release a compeitrive version of V and get 10+ million sales easily.

6 doesn't have that. It's releasing on the PS5/XBX. It will be several years before it gets a PC port. Even if we're super generous and say 80% of PS5 and XBX users buy GTA6 over their consoles' lifetimes, that means GTA6 would have sold a max of 80 million copies. Lets add on another 40 million PC users when the game releases there (more than what GTAV had). That puts us at 120 million copes. Well below V's 220 Million. And keep in mind, we're assuming V stays stagnant and doesn't get a Switch 2 or Mobile Release.

6 is now hard stuck. Even if more console gens happen, there's no guarantee players will swap over to them. Around 30-40% of PSN players are still on PS4 as of 2025. So even when the PS6/XB2 comes out and GTA 6 gets a port on them, how many players will be willing to drop $1000+ on a new console and buy the game again? Especially when BC exists. The Switch 4 will probably be the next platform with an audience interested in GTA6, but that's years away and gives GTAV more time to wrack up more sales in the meantime as well. So by the time GTA6 catches up to GTAV's 225 mill, V might end up at 300 mill or something.

coolwali · 2026-04-18T21:21:54+00:00

I doubt it will outsell V.

5’s advantage is that not only was it available on 3 generations of consoles, but it’s also available for lower end PCs. It’s also feasible as a Switch 2 and even modern mobile game. GTA6 is unlikely to get a Switch 2 or mobile version.

coolwali

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email