CNBC ponders a Grand Theft Auto slowdown
by Justin McElroy 
{ May 4th 2009 at 8:15PM } 
We're not sure we're on board with CNBC's theory just yet, though. The market for GTA IV's DLC was already split because of its 360 exclusivity and Chinatown Wars is a hardcore game on what's largely thought of as a casual system. What do you think?
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 8:17PM
That's because Chinatown wars sucked didnt it?
ben @ May 4th 2009 8:18PM
no
tmacairjordan87 @ May 4th 2009 8:20PM
No, it's cause it was on the DS
BUGz @ May 4th 2009 8:22PM
it didn't suck, it was just not good!
PR0F3TA @ May 4th 2009 8:25PM
CTW was pretty good actually... but as for the DLC it was garbage. People will tell you that its better then the actual GTA4 storyline, which could be true because the GTA4 storyline is pretty dumb... CTW was better then that so its not saying much to say DLC was better.
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 8:26PM
really? most people id talked to said it sucked. Well either way, they also didnt take into count that not every xbox 360 player has Live, or at least Gold
Chilly P @ May 4th 2009 8:48PM
I don't know, but GTA IV was horrendous. Absolutely terrible excuse for a game. It controlled like crap, the side stuff was stupid (bowling? darts? seriously?), and the characters were all annoying. I just can't describe in this small space just how awful that game was and anyone who liked it is either fooling themselves or ignorant.
Saints Row 2 is everything GTA IV should've been. Go play that instead.
Foetoid @ May 4th 2009 8:51PM
Agreed Chilly. Then again, i've never enjoyed any 3D GTA game, but i thought Saints Row 1 and 2 were both awesome.
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 8:59PM
I enjoyed both of them, I appreciate Saints Row 2 for it's crazy over the top fun action, but there's just something about GTA IV i cant put my finger on. For one thing it just feels so much more real, idk how they did it or how im comparing it to SR2 but the scale feels so much more real, i feel like im in a real NYC, the buildings really feel massive and the streets feel cramped, I guess in SR2 they must have used a different scale or something. I also really appreciated the bowling and darts stuff, but I do wish they had more accesible buildings and customization options.
Marrvia @ May 4th 2009 9:04PM
Chilly is right! You are stupid and ignorant if you like anything that he doesn't like. Never mind that 10x as many people bought GTA4 as Saints Row 2 and it is the one of the most highly reviewed games of all time. If Chilly doesn't like it, it is garbage.
WiredKnight @ May 4th 2009 9:10PM
Chinatown Wars was what GTA III would have been if they kept the 2.5D top-down perspective. It made a great transition onto the DS, and they weren't afraid to change things that needed to be changed to make it more portable.
CTW has been one of my favorite DS games so far, and believe me, I've played a lot.
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 9:11PM
while I do agree with you for the most part marrvia, I think most people on joystiq, certainly mr mcelroy would agree that reviews have become outdated, ineffective and mostly irrelevant
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ May 4th 2009 9:16PM
Excuse me but I for one thought the story was great.In fact I think its the strongest part of the game.
A bittersweet ending but it was very compeling.
Rosssas @ May 4th 2009 9:17PM
im sorry but Saints row 2 was an absolute piss take of a game. Now dont get me wrong i enjoyed the first. But the second was not only a bad game it endagered the chances of the games industry ever getting to be taken seriously by non gaming institutions.
GTA4 was everything that Rockstar needed it to be. The plot was well done and original going for the whole immigrant scene, instead of the whole whole "Gangsta" thing that is cool if you have just found your first pube. The graphics were well done with their own style, SR2 had nothing but shinny shinny colours and plastic. Far better Physics engine. Amazingly done controls for the new cover system. The music of GTA4 was superb, and well researched into a mix of classics and more underground new york bands i was impressed by Radio broker. SR2 just felt like they threw money at the latest chart music, i mean why the hell were "Does it offend you,? yeah!" in there? they are NME whores from Reading in south England. how the hell do they fit in American gang culture?
GTA4 only really, from what i've seen, appeals more to the over 20's, which is to be honest only a good thing for a game with a 18+ certificate.
JDHexen @ May 4th 2009 9:20PM
Well Chilly I enjoyed both GTAIV and SR2 is that okay with you.I never liked the 2d GTA and to date GTA III well, my point is SR is a clone maybe a fun clone but a rip off none the less.
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ May 4th 2009 9:27PM
I'm talking about GTAIV story.I liked that game but a lot fo people prefer GTA San Andreas to GTA IV,I'm not one fo them actually I liked more GTA IV serious face than San Andreas or Saints Row even when Saints Row is crazy fun like Crackdown.
I heard Chinatowns was good but to be honest the old GTA games weren't my thing.Like Carmageddon there is a time for everything and I'm too old.
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 9:41PM
i dont think it's fair to comapre music, that's really more about individual taste rather than an actual reflection on the game, both of them had a lot of different genres and that's good enough. I also dont think it's fair to compare physcis engines. For the most part GTA was going for physics as real as possible, with the exception of absolutely shitty cars, while Saints Row 2s physics were as over the top as the rest of the game. I will admit that that SR2s graphics were pretty bad, but GTA IV had some problems too, pedestrians faces lacked a lot of detail and buildings and floors and stuff all looked like they were watercolor paints. I also am getting sick of people complaining about the Gangsta thing. GTA IV was just another kind of crude, instead of being ridiculous gang banger stereotypes it instead just stuck to classic Italian and Russian mafia, black and hispanic and biker gangs and other stereotypes, and was no stranger to crude humor. "This guy takes pictures of guys in the showers and jacks off to the pictures on his wifes face!"-Francis McReary
Vidikron @ May 4th 2009 10:57PM
Well, I'll just throw my two cents in... I personally enjoyed SR2 more than GTAIV, but I bought GTAIV, largely on the hype, while I only rented SR2. And I did not buy the DLC because of my disappointment with the game. I think there are quite a few people with similar situations to mine.
BUGz @ May 4th 2009 11:22PM
How can someone possibly compare Saints Row with GTA? Saints Row was a cheap remake of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.
jpfeeney285 @ May 5th 2009 3:53AM
GTA would never sell on a system where more then half the owners have at least one pokemon game for it. That said, I hope R* learns this lesson about playsko... I mean nintendo and stop developing for kid orientated devices.
As far as the game goes, GTA IV was a lowpoint in the series. With the exception of the graphics and environmental details, the game was a flop that only sold because it was the latest GTA. The game was like a step backwards in the series and most people probably finished playing IV alot faster then San Andreas. That said, I hope R* steps away from catering to graphic nitpickers and put more meat into a game that felt so empty the first time around. I just hope they get it right the second time like they did with Vice City.
Latin_Trident @ May 5th 2009 12:11PM
BUY BUY BUY!!!
SELL SELL SELL!!!
Jon Acheson @ May 5th 2009 12:25PM
I'm with Chilly on this one.
GTA IV was a huge disappointment for me, I kept playing it for a month trying to see if it would get better, but it never did. I had more fun wandering aimlessly than I did actually playing the game. And the lighting and camera were shockingly bad in places.
SR2 isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot more fun than GTA IV, and you can actually see where you are going without fighting the game.
I'll be buying Saints Row 3, I probably won't buy GTA V.
Chilly P @ May 5th 2009 12:27PM
Yay, a moderator made my comment less visible!
Okay, first, I liked the music better in SR2 b/c I thought it had a very nice selection of 80s and current rap that I recognized, but soundtrack preference comes down to music taste, so I won't argue that.
I thought GTA IV's story was completely incoherent, and while I enjoyed SR2's better, I admit it was generic. I also won't go there.
I will also admit that the get-hit-by-a-car physics were impressive, although a bit discomforting.
The graphics were good, not great. While the inanimate objects looked nice, the people looked like frightening animatronic puppets. The way their eyes moved around was just wrong. Their eyes would move around and the rest of the face would stay unnaturally still. It just looked terrible.
All that being said, I would like to apologize for the following diatribe. Also, I'm right.
What I will dispute is the comment that GTA IV had good controls. GTA IV had awful controls. Mario 64 felt more natural. I have never played another game where I so often felt like I was fighting the controller and dying not because I failed, but because the game failed to accurately reflect my inputs (This is where someone says that I suck at video games. I don't, I assure you, and let's at least assume I'm competent for the sake of argument). The on-foot controls were very sluggish, and I know of no other game where the time between pressing the jump button and seeing my character jump is so long. I don't care about having some animation where the character take a step and then makes a realistic looking jump. Ever since Super Mario Bros. it's been established that the character goes up right when I hit the jump button. It;s not about looking natural, it's about feeling natural.
Then there's the atrocious aiming system, the cover system which completely failed to copy the intuitiveness of Gears of War, and the inexcusable running controls. Why did I walk insanely slowly when I moved and have to hold A to do a light jog and tap A to sprint? Joysticks are analog. All I need is a "hold A to sprint option," and then if I want to walk slowly I just have to tilt the stick less.
Then there was uber-frustrating lack of checkpoints during missions. Why would they make me drive halfway across that giant map following somebody and then have me go try to kill 40 guys in a warehouse? It was really difficult to accomplish this because of the terrible controls, and every time I failed it I got to slowly follow another car while listening to the same 5 or 6 lines of dialog (At one point I had both variations of dialog for the car ride before the bank heist completely memorized).
Oh, and the car physics were just the worst. In every other GTA game I could use the e-brake to perfectly drift around corners, in GTA IV, the e-brake sends me flying into the nearest building. It may be more realistic (I don't know, I don't pull the e-brake in my car going 40mph), but it sure as hell wasn't fun. Neither was flying out the windshield. Put a damn seatbelt on!
Then there were the ludicrously mundane side activities. Where SR2 had the side activity of getting unlimited rocket launcher ammo and destroying as much property as possible in a certain amount of time, in GTA IV I got to do a half-assed bowling mini-game.
So, the point here, is that the DLC sold so poorly because people didn't want to go back and play that game again and put up with the piss-poor controls.I know that a lot of people enjoyed the game and that a lot of people bought it (the vast majority of sales came via hype and not word-of-mouth, I can guarantee you), but the people who liked it are fooling themselves or ignorant. Either they don't play enough good games to know when they see a bad one, or they were so hyped for the game and so impressed by the massive scale and obviously mammoth amount of effort that went into making it, that they failed to see how poor the core mechanics were.
At every point in the design process of SR2, the developers asked themselves, "what would be really fun to do here?" GTA IV tried so hard for realism that they made a game devoid of fun. Where were the huge ramps? The giant explosions? The TANKS!? They took out everything I loved about Vice City and made GTA IV feel like a chore to play.
So, to everyone who read this and for some reason convinced themselves that they enjoyed GTA IV: somewhere in the back of your head there's a part of you that knows I'm right.
cp @ May 4th 2009 8:21PM
CNBC should shut up about everything.
giantenemycrab @ May 4th 2009 9:19PM
Seriously. CNBC has started to resemble that bum on the street that starts talking about random stuff that he obviously doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. CNBC did the same thing with cars. They slammed American cars for not having an "iPod jack in every car." Actually, they do have an aux jack in every car, just like Toyota.
CNBC seems to have lost it's head over the past year, they should really keep their uninformed mouths shut because they obviously don't have a clue. That, or they should actually -gasp!- research the topic before running their mouths.
HitNRun @ May 4th 2009 10:58PM
This now in-vogue tarring and feathering of CNBC would probably be more interesting if any of the people who now hate CNBC had ever watched it anyway.
tmacairjordan87 @ May 4th 2009 8:21PM
Joystiq's reasons are exactly right, and the fact that most people who wanted CW probably pirated it. Then again this is why most people don't go to cnbc for video game information.
Meh @ May 5th 2009 6:50AM
It's over 600k downloads now, on 4 sites.
SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread - XBL: SoCoolCurt) @ May 5th 2009 9:54AM
those where the reasons i had come up with when i first read the title. there are plenty of reasons you could come up with to figure out why the DLC and CTW didn't sell all that well (1 million is bad now?) but i dont think people loosing interest in the series is one of them. as long as people are able to freely run around a reek havoc on the unsuspecting community, expect GTA and games like it to continue to sell very well.
Matt @ May 4th 2009 8:25PM
I think Joystiq is correct in their assessment of why the sales were poor. CNBC doesn't know the intricacies of gaming sales and any "pondering" from them that the series is dead shouldn't be taken seriously.
Chris Are @ May 4th 2009 9:00PM
Haha, I don't think it has anything to do w/ now knowing the intricacies of gaming- they just want to report on what's dramatic. Just look at all their coverage of Swine Flu. And I don't mean to pick on CNBC on that- all the news stations do it. That's just American media. It's a "what if?" piece, and therefore anything goes.
Jose @ May 4th 2009 8:25PM
DLC is also hardcore territory while GTA's audience is more frat-boy casual.
mars @ May 4th 2009 8:27PM
Well I don't own a ds, because of the lack of mature games, but if I had one, that would be one of the few games I would buy. I am also one of the 13 million people that bought GTA IV, loved it, but only have 800 microsoft points. Should I try to buy another 800 points and get The Lost and Damned, or should I get Bionic Commando: Rearmed, or the Call of Duty 4 or 5 map packs?
Moptimus Slime (Ziggy played Guitar Hero, but not Smash Hits) @ May 4th 2009 8:40PM
"well I don't own a ds, because of the lack of mature games"
Failtality
Jrami1122 @ May 4th 2009 8:29PM
Honestly, I think GTA should stick to being a PS3 exclusive. It has more opportunity for growth on the PS3. They wouldn't have to hold back on amazing features because space wouldn't be an obstacle. They can, if they choose to, make mini series games for any other console. They should also stay away from DLC. Not many people go for the whole 100% on GTA games and they want to add more to the same game? I believe most GTA players and even fans complete the story mode, break a couple of speed and jump records, tour the city, and cause mayhem and finally decide it's time to play a new GTA. I've been avidly following the GTA series since GTA 3 LBC on PS2. I remember reading PSM and being hypnotized by their exlcusive GTA article. I started picturing the possibilities and never stopped talking about the game. I have bought every Sony GTA since then including the PSP series. I consider myself a true GTA fan along with many and I still wouldn't waste a second looking for a Pigeon to gun down.
Don't waste time on what's not important Rockstar, you have a great game without the DLC or Mulitplayer. Make the games bigger, badder, and better and yearly like you used to. Use the power of The Cell and Blu Ray, do not limit yourselves; maybe you wouldn't hit any slumps.
Cosmo @ May 4th 2009 8:33PM
Fuck the Cell and Blu-Ray, use the power of the PC and Nvidia GTX 295 in SLI bitches. : D
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 8:36PM
I dont remember hearing anything about the 360 being a limiting factor in GTA IV's development. I'm not so sure about the "amazing features" either, I'm currently playing through it right now and the driving, walking shooting and cover mechanics are all pretty basic. Also, at the end of 2008, the 360 version had sold about 2 million more than the PS3 version
offday @ May 4th 2009 8:36PM
Yeah. Do what this guy says, Rockstar. Don't limit yourself. Keep the GTA games on the PS3. That makes sense.
JDHexen @ May 4th 2009 8:37PM
@ C'mon why do you want to start something, Can't stand fanboy wars.
@Cosmo Doubt they'll risk a big title and lose more than half the sales to pirating.
offday @ May 4th 2009 8:38PM
"Also, at the end of 2008, the 360 version had sold about 2 million more than the PS3 version."
Wow. Good thing for Rockstar, that this guy isn't in charge. They'd be begging for a government bailout.
SoulBlade @ May 4th 2009 8:43PM
there's no reason to limit yourself to a particular console unless you're paid big bucks, and even then you have to think about it. why cut your potential user base if multiple consoles have similar capabilities (and don't even bother arguing that the PS3 is 2098342039 times more powerful than the 360 - both have their merits, but not worth going exclusive if you're a third party)
cknblade @ May 4th 2009 8:44PM
Let's be realistic. At this point in time, making a GTA PS3 exclusive would be just stupid. Making a GTA exclusive to any console would be an exceptionally poor choice, but the PS3 would be the worse of the two (xbox and ps3) by a good amount. As of December 31, 2008, there were about 21mil PS3s sold, compared to almost 28mil xboxes (this statistic taken about 3 weeks later, but the point is made). That is a 7 million console difference...I'll leave it at that.
Jrami1122 @ May 4th 2009 8:59PM
I actually did read that the game was limited somewhere but I'm not looking for it because I don't really feel like it. Also, it doesn't have to be PS3 only, I own both but don't touch my 360. If it becomes MS only it may be better for them as well, I think the time has come for companies to pick and choose because both systems are so different that porting one game from one system to the other would take some work. A lot of times it results in the game being inferior on one system to another. I still feel that Blu Ray being 8 times as powerful as a DVD is clearly a bonus. Judging by how massive PS3 exclusives has shaped up to be i think if you want to make a big game with a big city with an extensive story and plenty of characters and detail...... make it on Blu Ray. Rather than making it on a DVD and having to take your money for DLC that could've been put on one disc to begin with.
I loved Gears of War (1 & 2) and Left 4 Dead, the best games I own for the 360, still couldn't live up to the power and feel of some PS3 exclusives and the best have yet to come. That doesn't change the fact that inferior games in power can still be fun. I just don't think there are enough fun exclusives on the 360 right now. Sorry guys but this is coming from a non-bias point of view. From a guy who would rather play Smash Bros. or Mario Kart than most 360 exclusives. I honestly feel that Microsoft hasn't revolutionized a thing with the 360, all they did was up the graphics. I actually was a Nintendo fan at one point, became multiplatform when PS1 hit, and I have bought EVERY system that has came out since then. Think I would waste my money if I wasn't a true GAMING fan? I'm giving an honest opinion. Don't shoot me.
Cosmo @ May 4th 2009 9:01PM
I was just joking, relax consolites. : D
Jrami1122 @ May 4th 2009 9:07PM
@Cosmo
No you're actually right. The PC is far superior as far as Power and space goes. Unfortunately I am not a PC gamer and have never invested on a Powerful Gaming PC so that would mean no GTA for me. Then I'd be pissed. Lol. I would probably still play GTA if it was MS exclusive, but I'd prefer they take advantage of the power at hand on the PS3
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 9:10PM
if you arent gonna find your proof how can I believe you? especially considering that taut the blu rays power again, completely ignoring the fact that putting TLATD on the disc in the first place wouldnt have netted them any extra cash like DLC would. As for the rest of your reply, it's the same thing sony and their fanboys have been saying for years "the best is yet to come" well Killzone 2 is out already, and most of the other PS3 exclusives havent been popular despite your claims. I'm curious as to what PS3 exclusives you are referring to that dont match the power of GoW 2, even curiouser is that you acknowledge games can be fun even without mind blowing graphics, but then say that graphics are more important anyway. As far as "revolutionizing" what has Sony done that Microsoft hasnt, aside from graphics as you say. The Cell and all that jazz really havent elevated any PS3 games leaps and bounds over any 360 games.
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 9:16PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PlayStation_3-only_games
that's a list of PS3 exclusives, and while some of them are great games, I dont see any that have really excelled or innovated leaps and bounds over the competition, or really even taken advantage of what the PS3 can do, if it can do anything as impressive as you think. The only game on there that might is MAG
Jrami1122 @ May 4th 2009 9:21PM
@DarkWayne
Can you name one X360 game that will play 60 player Skirmish games on large maps straight off the disc like Resistance 2? Wait, how about 256 players like MAG releasing this fall. How about a game with the graphical power of KZ2 and it's detail playing with 32 players, bots of all sorts flying all over the level, switching from one game mode to the next with NO lag. Please don't make me bash the 360 because I like the system, I am more about following the growth of the Video Game industry than actually playing the games. I suck at most games, I love to watch most games. But from what I have experienced and seen for myself, 360 hasn't grown much.
Cosmo @ May 4th 2009 9:22PM
Oh, I guess my comment was voted down because I was hinting that future GTA games should only be on the PC, oh hell no. I know how expensive a powerful gaming PC can be and am actually lamenting building one now, feeling I should have bought a PS3 instead. But I spent the money and so it'll be my only gaming platform for a while to get my money's worth.
All I'd like is for the PC to get console games and also their DLC. It sucks that the PC will not get Prince of Persia's epilouge DLC and GTA4's Lost and Damned DLC.
I'm happy to hear that Street Fighter 4, Resident Evil 5 and Bionic Commando on the PC will be the definitive versions.
The Dark Wayne @ May 4th 2009 9:28PM
then id suggest you focus on the industry more, because simply increasing player count per map and faster load times does not seem to me to be "growth". You also seem to be moving further and further away from your earlier claim that games can be fun without phenomenal graphics. In fact judging from your newest post it seems like all you care about is player count and graphics since you dont even play them