The Ballad of Gay Tony: first images

Commented on 2009-08-30 13:43:40

Now I passed on the last DLC cause my interest in GTA was very low the month it came out, but I'm all over this one. Looks more fun, too.

In reply to

nostradamus

Commented on 2009-08-30 13:46:35

yep, I hope they go all out in the crazy scenes... make wild shit to play, we already had our little gang motorbike story.

Make it Fabulous.

In reply to

Jato

Commented on 2009-08-30 15:48:39

To this day I'm still very impressed with the graphics, very nice!

I passed up on TLAD, but I might get this. Just need to see what the reviews will tell us...

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2009-08-30 15:48:52

not offering me anything i cant already do. We'll see what multiplayer has to offer.

I invested in Lost and the damned.. and it was worth it..offering a new well scripted/acted story, new songs, new buildings, new comedy acts, new multiplayer modes, and tweaks to the engine..leaving it looking sharper and at a more steady framerate.

I have no doubt rockstar will offer just as much to this new package... i just wish they had taken it from a different angle.. as i would think something like playing a bent cop would tie in all the storys much better...plus offer something slighty new away from the gangster side

In reply to

Pablopictures

Commented on 2009-08-30 15:59:37

October will be a great month: Forza 3, Magna Carta 2, Risen and GTA ^_^

In reply to

rustykaks

Commented on 2009-08-30 16:18:36

cant wait for the episode

In reply to

aphex187

Commented on 2009-08-30 21:18:11

Looks cool just wish MS wouldn't take all the DLC because they have no games out atm.

In reply to

dirttbagg

Commented on 2009-08-30 21:56:40

i actually picked up saints row 2 like 3 days ago.. it reminds me of a souped up version of san andreas lol

and after all my hours in GTA4 im pretty sick of the cities... i have like every corner memorized by now...
maybe theyll add in some crazy stuff that i havent already done 500 times in multiplayer. TLAD was pretty cool tho, everything was sharpened up and looked less... cartoonyish.

ooh one thing i REALLY hope they have is like a hookshot thing so u can be like spiderman haha thatd be AWESOME!.... anyway ill just wait and see. if that one single thing is in there im sooooooo buying it :P

In reply to

Baleur

Commented on 2009-08-31 00:29:03 In reply to aphex187

Posted by aphex187

Looks cool just wish MS wouldn't take all the DLC because they have no games out atm.

No lets hope MS stops accepting DLC. Less game content for all! That'd be fun? ;)

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2009-08-31 00:32:52

yep...rather than investing 50mill in dlc, start investing money in studio's... maybe then they'd actually have more than 2 exclusives to offer us this year

In reply to

Doom_Bringer

Commented on 2009-08-31 00:42:36

I thought GTA4 was a great game (on PC) but I still love Vice City more due to the awesome settings and music.

Wish this dlc came to PC as well though! Why does Microsoft hate PC gaming?

In reply to

sporadik

Commented on 2009-08-31 05:11:54 In reply to Doom_Bringer

Posted by Doom_Bringer

I thought GTA4 was a great game (on PC) but I still love Vice City more due to the awesome settings and music.

Wish this dlc came to PC as well though! Why does Microsoft hate PC gaming?

They don't but the PC is an inconsistent platform (1000000s of different hardware variations) and its only getting more inconsistent. If you remember back to when DLC for this game was announced they said 360 EXCLUSIVE

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2009-08-31 05:25:10

Actually, they do. Microsoft has all but stopped publishing games for Windows. They published one game for Windows last year -- Zoo Tycoon or some stupid shit. One might wonder why Activision, EA, Ubisoft, and even Capcom make more PC games than Microsoft... but Microsoft is just trying to protect their precious Xbox profits.

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2009-08-31 11:33:36 In reply to sporadik

Posted by sporadik

They don't but the PC is an inconsistent platform (1000000s of different hardware variations) and its only getting more inconsistent. If you remember back to when DLC for this game was announced they said 360 EXCLUSIVE

the PC versions definatley the one thats inconsistent in its performance.. its well documented that theres ALOT of issues there with framerate and such..in over well over the recommended specs.

But that wont be the reason why this dlc wont hit it..which it actually still might with the Game of the year edition. The most likely reason for it not would simply be money..weither it would be worth the effert.

It being labelled as 360 exclusive is meaningless... there are hardly any true exclusives on the 360..MS instead opting for the "console exclusive" cop-out. Had they actually produced more actual exclusive AAA titles then maybe PC owners would find investing in one more attractive.

In reply to

Jato

Commented on 2009-08-31 14:00:06

I agree with the notion that MS needs to invest in some new exclusive ip's. It's really ridiculous they're instead investing in DLC. I mean, DLC is nice if done right, but if MS thinks DLC is enough to set the 360 apart from the PS3...they'd better think again.

I mean, look at all the so called exclusives they've had so far, the majority are to be found on PC as well and many aren't even console exclusive, but timed exclusive (Bioshock, NG, a bunch of JRPG's, etc). They really need to step it up a notch, because Sony are definitely ahead in that department (even though, so far,I personally don't care for most of the PS3's exclusives)...

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2009-08-31 14:45:23 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Posted by bleachedsmiles

the PC versions definatley the one thats inconsistent in its performance.. its well documented that theres ALOT of issues there with framerate and such..in over well over the recommended specs.

But that wont be the reason why this dlc wont hit it..which it actually still might with the Game of the year edition. The most likely reason for it not would simply be money..weither it would be worth the effert.

It being labelled as 360 exclusive is meaningless... there are hardly any true exclusives on the 360..MS instead opting for the "console exclusive" cop-out. Had they actually produced more actual exclusive AAA titles then maybe PC owners would find investing in one more attractive.

Worth the effort? It would probably be excessively cheap and easy to release on the PC version, especially with support for the Live For Windows marketplace. It's exclusivity wasn't meaningless to Microsoft, or they wouldn't have paid fifty million dollars for it.. and Microsoft is almost exclusively interested in Xbox 360 material, that includes Windows PC's. It's the same reason that the future of Alan Wake is up in the air. With the development pipeline so simular, and so much of the groundwork done.. there's no way either would not be profitable ventures.

We got Fallout DLC, and ya know why? Because Microsoft had no hand in it.

That's all fairly critical but I do understand their motive. The Xbox is extremely important to them. It's just a little confusing as a PC gamer, because when a software publisher the size of Microsoft doesn't support their own platform, what impression is that supposed to give other big software houses?

On the other hand, they've helped secure the future of Direct-X with the Xbox 360. That alone may be enough to keep EA and Activision interested, and even influencing pubs like Ubi.

In reply to

[quote=bleachedsmiles]
the PC versions definatley the one thats inconsistent in its performance.. its well documented that theres ALOT of issues there with framerate and such..in over well over the recommended specs.

But that wont be the reason why this dlc wont hit it..which it actually still might with the Game of the year edition. The most likely reason for it not would simply be money..weither it would be worth the effert.

It being labelled as 360 exclusive is meaningless... there are hardly any true exclusives on the 360..MS instead opting for the "console exclusive" cop-out. Had they actually produced more actual exclusive AAA titles then maybe PC owners would find investing in one more attractive.[/quote]

Worth the effort? It would probably be excessively cheap and easy to release on the PC version, especially with support for the Live For Windows marketplace. It's exclusivity wasn't meaningless to Microsoft, or they wouldn't have paid fifty million dollars for it.. and Microsoft is almost exclusively interested in Xbox 360 material, that includes Windows PC's. It's the same reason that the future of Alan Wake is up in the air. With the development pipeline so simular, and so much of the groundwork done.. there's no way either would not be profitable ventures.

We got Fallout DLC, and ya know why? Because Microsoft had no hand in it.

That's all fairly critical but I do understand their motive. The Xbox is extremely important to them. It's just a little confusing as a PC gamer, because when a software publisher the size of Microsoft doesn't support [i]their own platform[/i], what impression is that supposed to give other big software houses?

On the other hand, they've helped secure the future of Direct-X with the Xbox 360. That alone may be enough to keep EA and Activision interested, and even influencing pubs like Ubi.

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2009-08-31 22:33:39

Worth the effert - i dont just mean in porting to the PC...as like you said the groundworks already done as the architecture between the 360 and pc is pretty much the same..which is why they often share titles. But theres less and less reason to bring games to PC.. the added expensive of marketing, reproducing, and importantly supporting..is simply not worth the effert to some developers when piracy is so ripe with PC software. This is nothing new.. developers have been complaining about this for years..and its one of the reasons you see less and less pc exclusives. Its also why Epic have no interest in bringing Gears 2 to the PC for example.. and why what were once pc brands are now console exclusive.. because theres no denieing where the big money is..and its not in pc games.
So no.. its likely not worth the effert for Rockstar, a primarily console orinated company, to release dlc as standalone for GTA4.. its more likely to issue a game of the year edition on the pc if they think its worth the effert.

And ofcourse MS will support the 360 with games over the PC.. the PC isnt their gaming platform, and again games for windows doesnt bring the big money in like the 360 does. MS dont need to rely on games for the pc.. every pc already holds their software..thats not going to change.

And you got fallout dlc because Bethesda, like valve, have a big pc following. Rockstar do not.

In reply to

Worth the effert - i dont just mean in porting to the PC...as like you said the groundworks already done as the architecture between the 360 and pc is pretty much the same..which is why they often share titles. But theres less and less reason to bring games to PC.. the added expensive of marketing, reproducing, and importantly supporting..is simply not worth the effert to some developers when piracy is so ripe with PC software. This is nothing new.. developers have been complaining about this for years..and its one of the reasons you see less and less pc exclusives. Its also why Epic have no interest in bringing Gears 2 to the PC for example.. and why what were once pc brands are now console exclusive.. because theres no denieing where the big money is..and its not in pc games.
So no.. its likely not worth the effert for Rockstar, a primarily console orinated company, to release dlc as standalone for GTA4.. its more likely to issue a game of the year edition on the pc if they think its worth the effert.

And ofcourse MS will support the 360 with games over the PC.. the PC isnt their gaming platform, and again games for windows doesnt bring the big money in like the 360 does. MS dont need to rely on games for the pc.. every pc already holds their software..thats not going to change.

And you got fallout dlc because Bethesda, like valve, have a big pc following. Rockstar do not.

whatscrackin

Commented on 2009-08-31 22:42:46 In reply to Jato

Posted by Jato

I agree with the notion that MS needs to invest in some new exclusive ip's. It's really ridiculous they're instead investing in DLC.

Ya that $50mil DLC is not looking so great now. They should have been releasing stuff at the same rate as FO3 DLC. MS needs to invest in some first party studios like Sony. They might get by this gen but it really shows their lack of commitment for next gen.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2009-09-01 13:28:39 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Posted by bleachedsmiles

Worth the effert - i dont just mean in porting to the PC...as like you said the groundworks already done as the architecture between the 360 and pc is pretty much the same..which is why they often share titles. But theres less and less reason to bring games to PC.. the added expensive of marketing, reproducing, and importantly supporting..is simply not worth the effert to some developers when piracy is so ripe with PC software. This is nothing new.. developers have been complaining about this for years..and its one of the reasons you see less and less pc exclusives. Its also why Epic have no interest in bringing Gears 2 to the PC for example.. and why what were once pc brands are now console exclusive.. because theres no denieing where the big money is..and its not in pc games.
So no.. its likely not worth the effert for Rockstar, a primarily console orinated company, to release dlc as standalone for GTA4.. its more likely to issue a game of the year edition on the pc if they think its worth the effert.

And ofcourse MS will support the 360 with games over the PC.. the PC isnt their gaming platform, and again games for windows doesnt bring the big money in like the 360 does. MS dont need to rely on games for the pc.. every pc already holds their software..thats not going to change.

And you got fallout dlc because Bethesda, like valve, have a big pc following. Rockstar do not.

The Xbox exclusivity of this content is important to Microsoft -- and they paid for it.Just sayin', I very much disagree with your evaluation of why this content wouldn't end up on the PC. If it never happens, you can bet Microsoft did not want it to.

Where's the loss from piracy when the game itself is already there -- it would cost very little to port -- and it would almost certainly carry some profits. It's win/win. Microsoft has also continued to update and upgrade live for windows to allow for downloadable content and to protect against its piracy. Rockstar is not completely unfamiliar to PC gamers. They have a bigger PC audience than you might think.. this is where GTA started after all. This isn't a theory or anything, it's a fact: Xbox exclusives are important to Microsoft -- and they paid big time for this one.

Saying it's not important (to them) is just plain wrong. Not that you said that directly. Again, just sayin: It may not actually matter if this is exclusive content (which is debatable), what matters is that Microsoft thought it would be.. and they're not about to give up on that bet before R* is done providing that content.

Windows is by nature a Microsoft platform. It's been their gaming platform since before the (direct)Xbox. Their support level is currently very discouraging.. and this just started in 2008. Or at least that's the first point from which we can really measure the damage. The result? No more multiplatform Microsoft Game Studios titles, and a reduction of PC exclusives down to one in the last year.

It's a little strange, really, because on one hand the Xbox has been detrimental to PC gaming because it's courted so many developers away from focusing on the PC's strengths; but on the other hand the fact that it's so simular to PC development has probably yielded a net gain from other publishers. Guys like Ubisoft are porting in the opposite direction frequently -- and Capcom is releasing quality ports for the first time ever.

And Activision and EA are as active as ever.

PS. I'm not arguing that consoles aren't more profitable for most developers, but that doesn't remove Windows as a viable platform for profit. To put it so bluntly isn't considering all of the factors involved. If R* was being motivated by piracy why would they have released (and supported -- most of those problems that you've mentioned have been ironed out by patches) GTA4 at all? That was obviously a far bigger investment than porting some DLC.

In reply to

[quote=bleachedsmiles]Worth the effert - i dont just mean in porting to the PC...as like you said the groundworks already done as the architecture between the 360 and pc is pretty much the same..which is why they often share titles. But theres less and less reason to bring games to PC.. the added expensive of marketing, reproducing, and importantly supporting..is simply not worth the effert to some developers when piracy is so ripe with PC software. This is nothing new.. developers have been complaining about this for years..and its one of the reasons you see less and less pc exclusives. Its also why Epic have no interest in bringing Gears 2 to the PC for example.. and why what were once pc brands are now console exclusive.. because theres no denieing where the big money is..and its not in pc games.
So no.. its likely not worth the effert for Rockstar, a primarily console orinated company, to release dlc as standalone for GTA4.. its more likely to issue a game of the year edition on the pc if they think its worth the effert.

And ofcourse MS will support the 360 with games over the PC.. the PC isnt their gaming platform, and again games for windows doesnt bring the big money in like the 360 does. MS dont need to rely on games for the pc.. every pc already holds their software..thats not going to change.

And you got fallout dlc because Bethesda, like valve, have a big pc following. Rockstar do not.[/quote]

The Xbox exclusivity of this content [i]is[/i] important to Microsoft -- [i]and they paid for it.[/i]Just sayin', I very much disagree with your evaluation of why this content wouldn't end up on the PC. If it never happens, you can bet Microsoft did not want it to.

Where's the loss from piracy when the game itself is already there -- it would cost very little to port -- and it would almost certainly carry some profits. It's win/win. Microsoft has also continued to update and upgrade live for windows to allow for downloadable content and to protect against its piracy. Rockstar is not completely unfamiliar to PC gamers. They have a bigger PC audience than you might think.. this is where GTA started after all. This isn't a theory or anything, it's a fact: Xbox exclusives are important to Microsoft -- and they paid big time for this one.

Saying it's not important (to them) is just plain wrong. Not that you said that directly. Again, just sayin: It may not actually matter if this is exclusive content (which is debatable), what matters is that Microsoft thought it would be.. and they're not about to give up on that bet before R* is done providing that content.

Windows is by nature a Microsoft platform. It's been their gaming platform since before the (direct)Xbox. Their support level is currently very discouraging.. and this just started in 2008. Or at least that's the first point from which we can really measure the damage. The result? No more multiplatform Microsoft Game Studios titles, and a reduction of PC exclusives down to [i]one[/i] in the last year.

It's a little strange, really, because on one hand the Xbox has been detrimental to PC gaming because it's courted so many developers away from focusing on the PC's strengths; but on the other hand the fact that it's so simular to PC development has probably yielded a net gain from other publishers. Guys like Ubisoft are porting in the opposite direction frequently -- and Capcom is releasing quality ports for the first time ever.

And Activision and EA are as active as ever.

PS. I'm not arguing that consoles aren't more profitable for most developers, but that doesn't remove Windows as a viable platform for profit. To put it so bluntly isn't considering all of the factors involved. If R* was being motivated by piracy why would they have released (and supported -- most of those problems that you've mentioned have been ironed out by patches) GTA4 at all? That was obviously a far bigger investment than porting some DLC.

REDX

Commented on 2009-09-01 18:26:30 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Posted by bleachedsmiles

It being labelled as 360 exclusive is meaningless... there are hardly any true exclusives on the 360..MS instead opting for the "console exclusive" cop-out. Had they actually produced more actual exclusive AAA titles then maybe PC owners would find investing in one more attractive.

Your "logic" is impressive. Seeing as how games for Windows is a Microsoft platform there for isn't in competition with the 360. You sound like one of those retarded Sony fankids. Besides do people really care that much if a game they like is also on the PC? Does this somehow take away from the fun they have with the game? I'm just trying to understand why it is gamers of today seem to care more about the bullshit politics of gaming more than the games themselves.

In reply to