I'm gonna rant about GTA online for a bit, forgive me.

 You probably wasn't even born!

So it's been a while since I've talked about GTA Online, and even longer since I've played it. And that's because I've well and crossed that inevitable point where a game just evolves so much that it isn't the same one you remember. Heck, back when I used to play the game the key grind spot mission of the whole game was still Rooftop Rumble. And I remember it back before the nerf, now I hear that the game was removed from the mission rotation for 'tweaks' only to never return! How the heck am I supposed to return to a game where I can't blow up a garage full of nobodies in 5 seconds flat and then quickly snipe the escape car that spawns with that same flick of the thumb I'd rehearsed a million times previously? (It's practically not even the same game at this point!)

But like my very own quipu, my time with the game hangs around my neck and the knots in it's strings are testaments to the days I must have killed grinding it's shores for the next released supercar. (Never realising at the time the sheer astronomical buy-in prices each subsequent expansion would release with, to the point where that approach would eventually become untenable.) But even though that is a past long behind in a game I now actively wish for the demise of (because that's the only way we're getting GTA VI and we all know it) I still find myself keeping an eye on the old grounds there, just to keep up with the good old days. (Every past day is great when you actively choose to forget the bad.) That's how I knew about the casino update, that's how I've second-hand experienced the eye-roll worthy Cayo Perico heist, and that's how I've heard of this new update coming our way.

Yet I feel it's important first that I introduce GTA Online to you, as a story. I know, I know, you're thinking "What story? It's just online mishaps loosely tied together my missions and updates" And whilst that is largely true, there's actually something of an origin narrative many forget about. You see, GTA Online tells the story of a low level thug who gets thrown into Los Santos before the events of Grand Theft Auto V and finds themselves quickly (and somewhat unnaturally) swallowed up by the criminal underworld. (Seriously, how the hell does Lamar personally know every criminal in Los Santos? That's straight uncanny!) This is important as a set-up, because it gives players a sense that everything they are experiencing is separate from the main game world, not just in character but in time too. Setting it before the story is important to, because with how much of a starring role GTA cities always have in the narrative, the world after the story is invariably one shaped and owned by that game's protagonist. So it has to be set before in order to give online criminals a chance to make their mark.

And how do we know for certain that this online mode is set before the events of GTA V? I mean, aside from Rockstar remarks made at the time of release indicating such, we actually have verifiable evidence from the sorts of missions that you take from certain people. (Spoilers for GTA V, one of the most played games in the world, ahoy) For one, we take on Martin Madrazo as a client for some of our missions, and he's supposed to be in hiding after the events of GTA V for fear of Trevor cutting him up into little pieces and eating him. Then there's the fact that the player character of GTA Online is referenced by Lester in GTA V, when he claims that he knows someone who might be helpful for a heist set-up but then dismisses that idea as they are "Too unpredictable". And then there's the bunch of base Online-game run-ins you have with character's from the single player game which wouldn't be possible after the events of the story. Trevor, for one, given the fact that the multiple endings of GTA allows you to pick who lives and who dies, so if this Trevor was from after the events of the main game then that would sully the illusion of that ending choice. (For which, if we're being honest, Ending A makes the most sense and is probably the most poetic way for the narrative to close out. B makes no logical sense whatsoever and C is too fan-fictiony.)

So why is any of this important? Well, it becomes relevant with the brand new GTA content drop which is finally returning a character to the franchise that the stories have felt naked without: Doctor Dre. (I just don't know how anyone can justify playing GTA without 'Ain't Nuthin' But A G Thang' in the background.) No, actually it's Franklin Clinton, the middle child of the GTA V main characters and the only person who canonically survives the events of the game no matter which ending you choose. And this isn't prequel Franklin, oh no; he is explicitly portrayed as a successful retired criminal for several years that is looking for a little more excitement. This is clearly a return to the character, indicating that all the time since GTA V has passed in the game world and the next expansion is set in current year. (huh, I missed the Covid update.)

In fact, the implication that things were going this way was first bought up to me with that Casino update I talked about earlier, which introduced a whole new skyscraper to the Los Santos skyline as though that's something no one would have noticed in the main game. And then there was the heist from that very update wherein a careless piece of dialogue with a side character from the main game reveals not only that this story had jumped several years beyond the events of the main game at some undetermined point, but that she was 'nearly killed' during an action scene that only occurs in Ending C. A double confirmation to side up with the Smuggler's Run update, during which Trevor is referred to as being alive (Only in Ending C) and the update before that had someone directly state the year as being 2017, which is four years after when the GTA main story is canonically set.

So does this mean there's some sort of clever narrative manipulation behind the scenes that is deftly being wielded by ingenious world builders? It doesn't really feel that way, does it? A slip-up bit of dating here, a misplaced character there, directly stating which ending is canon thus robbing emphasis out of your main story somewhere along the line. It all comes across as a little... accidental. One might even go so far as to say 'incompetent'. Which would match the quality of effort put into keeping the GTA Online ecosystem going, at least when it comes to all of those polishing details that make every new Rockstar game near perfect masterpieces. If you'd never played a Rockstar game outside of GTA Online you would seriously struggle to understand why this company is considered one of the best in the industry today. And that's not just because of the rampant tech errors or the server issues or the cheating menu problems. It's just the presentation. The gameplay is fun, go figure considering it's largely just recycling the building blocks that the main development team left over, but the story writing, world development and characters verge from average to mediocre caricatures of lobotomised lab mice.

I think that this upcoming update is the literal first time that Rockstar have just come out and confirmed that GTA Online is now set in modern day, although by featuring Franklin it almost seems like they're trying to maintain some illusion of 'the multiple endings are still real'. Why bother? Just call up Steven Ogg and Ned Luke already for one of your silly unrewarding Online heist missions, bring the gang back together. (Although, after stealing several hundred million out of the Union Depository, one might wonder why they'd get together to do a much more dangerous heist in exchange for two or three million at most.) Still, at the end of the day we may mock the sometimes amateurish job that the Online team does of handling GTA Online, but when they do a job right they do it right, and finally bringing back everyone's favourite GTA character, Chop the dog, is definitely a job done right. So good, maybe job, perhaps team.

Crime pays- except when it doesn't

Dame da ne, Dame yo , Dame na no yo...

Back in the days of nearly a decade ago I used to be an avid and regular player of Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto V. For the time I think you could easily attest to it being the most played title in my entire library, with probably thousands of hours invested into it yet somehow not a dime beyond the base asking price of the game. This is astounding, when you consider that most of that time was spent lounging in Rockstar's incredibly lucrative online side-hustle; Grand Theft Auto Online; a product built and funded under the assumption that it could outpace simple folk like me and force me to spend money to keep up with the trend. (I guess that's when the industry learnt that people could grind quicker than their developers could develop, who'd a thunk) In-game currency, though entierly earnable ingame, is the premium currency that has shot Rockstar to one of the best earning entertainment brands in the world consistently, and the extent to which players are willing to go in order to earn these shadow upon real currency have often pushed past the boundaries of fair play and even legality. (But who reads those EULA agreements anyway, right?) What we have today is one such story of low down means to achieve the highlife, only with consequences. (And a whole lot of salty responses.)

When I played I remember a friend of the time telling me a theory about the sorts of players who indulge in Grand Theft Auto online, and the way that their methods and personality mirrored that of the game's protagonists. It went something like this: Those who are willing to play the game by it's own rules, struggle for every single milestone and grind themselves ragged, they were Franklins. Those that jumped at the chance to uses glitches or buy their way into the latest expansions and fast cars, well clearly they were Micheals. And those that acquired money not to indulge in the activities of the game but to fund their single man crusades against everyone else's good time, (see: Everyone who ever purchased a tank) there's your Trevors. I, being the sucker that I am, was always a Franklin, but I knew my fair share of the other two and so I'm familiar with the cycle of money making glitches that forever plagued the GTA Online community. (Or graced it, depending on which side of the fence you were on)

In my day it was the car cheat which, and forgive my hazy memory of almost 8 years ago, I think used the garage and so hot-switching to clone expensive cars that could then be sold off for considerable amounts of money. This was how a lot of people I knew made their fortunes off the game, all the while whilst I was grinding that one decently consistently paying mission over-and-over. What was that called again... That's right- Coveted. Oh, Coveted. This was the mission that everyone played in order to make the big bucks. I'm told that Rockstar have changed the mission reward structure since my time in order to discourage... legitimate play? (Seriously, you were getting the retention time Rockstar; what was the problem?) Rockstar were actually responsible for a lot of micro-transgression like this which kept punishing those that had found decent ways to make money in the efforts of pushing them towards newer content; which usually paid like ass thus demoralising people. What I'm saying is, Rockstar's Online didn't exactly incur the best relationship among the players in the community as everyone feared the patch boogey-man everyday.

Of course, since I was there for so long and saw so many of the cheats which swept the community, I also saw the repercussions when they landed as Rockstar (who had jokingly become known as the IRS) swept across servers rolling back funds of those who had sold a few too many identical cars for their own good. my friend, however, did manage to keep his garage full of identical supercars even after losing his wealth, so the team still weren't the best at honing in on culprits. (Pretty crappy IRS that doesn't even bother to check assets) I even heard some stories of legitimately earning folk who got caught in the wave of punishments, simply for the act of generating ingame income a little too quickly. (Not sure if that was actually truthful or just the guilt spinning a web, but the accusation is there.) But that was the cycle of the GTA Online world. A glitch would come out, a chunk of the community would exploit it, and Rockstar would crack down with wrist-slaps galore. I'm sure things are significantly newer and different these 2020 days!

Well recently the economy of the Grand Theft Auto Online world has been rocked by a glitch which has allowed folk to illegitimately make ludicrous amounts of money with very little effort on their part. All it took was buying some apartments, messing with the active game memory through application suspensions and overwriting those apartments with other apartments which forced a refund- or something; I'm not clear on the specifics. But, wait a minute... isn't this eerily familiar to the car glitch? And countless others from over the years? How in the world is Rockstar still falling for the same old tricks in 2020? Unless- No. That's too ridiculous. This must be a legitimate bug which popped up out of nowhere and unfortunately ended up in the hands of Redditors; the single most dangerous hands for any even remotely sensitive information to end up.

Thus the cycle did as cycles do; it repeated itself. People flocked like wildfire to get the money they felt they deserved after 8 years of hard grind, only to find themselves out of pocket when Rockstar swung around their might hammer of repercussions. (Oh Noe, who could have ever foreseen this?) Only, things are distincly- harsher than what I remembered. (Or maybe my memories just crap, that's wholly possible.) Because alongside the resets that have rocked the community, apparently Rockstar have rolled around issuing complete account resets. As in- having your character and all 8 years of your experience with them rolled back into nothing. (Scary stuff indeed) That would mean all the quest progresses, levels, cars, probably purchased money packs, all that has been flushed down the drain in a hard slash back from Rockstar mods. (Way to go nuclear)

And, it's safe to say, people aren't happy about this at all. I've seen a considerable number of tweets and images over the past few days of people absolutely melting down over this grave injustice upon their person. Some bemoaned the years of history they lost, others argued that they'd only bought cars with the money so therefore shouldn't have been punished as harshly (not following the thread of the argument there, but okay) and even some people have taken to wantonly flashing how they didn't get caught in the wave and that they still have their illegitimate funds. (What are those people, masochists?) One fellow even showed off a picture of his Xbox-One disc-copy of Grand Theft Auto snapped in three; symbolic of the way that he probably has the game on digital like everyone else. (Real powerful message there, buddy.) Most curious of all, however, is the people who declare their retirement from the GTA Online world, most commonly matched with a variation upon the phrase 'you messed up, Rockstar'. Yes, I'm sure the single most profitable gaming mode in the world is missing their, clearly non-paying, contribution to the infrastructure. How tragic of a break-up story.

But as I said, this sort of stuff happens every year so why, then, am I so interested about it today? There were stories like this last year, what's changed? Well the account wide bans got me thinking. Thinking about the regularity of these glitch waves, how they'd always rise in the Spring and be quelled by Autumn, how I always heard about them despite not being involved in the GTA world in the slightest. And how these glitches seem so similar to the ones from 8 years back. Like, seriously Rockstar- learn from your mistakes. And I've come up with a theory. That this is manufactured for regular publicity stunts. Now I'm not saying that the glitch isn't real, nor those who exploited and got caught; I just think the glitch was created to be found, in order to justify a ban wave and make the news. Think about it; why else would GTA Online be in the gaming news if not for deleting 8 year old progression. How could Rockstar miss so many folk if not just to embolden them for the next time GTA pulls this stunt? And why is it always revolving around the purchasing system? It may be conspiratorial for me to say, but we live in a bold world of marketing nowadays and it makes total sense to me. If it's true, then let me be the first to congratulate Rockstar for another job well done, you worm your way into the news cycle like no other. Your reward was this blog, hope you liked it.

Cyberpunk Multiplayer

This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!

I think that it's fair to say that CD Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077 is the most anticipated game of the past few years. Everybody has said their two piece in this matter. "The game looks revolutionary", "Like Deus Ex gone free roam", "CDPR's done it again!" All this positive coverage has blossomed and thrived despite the game not having released yet. Don't get me wrong, I have the fullest of faith in the CDPR team to pull of a spectacular game, afterall they've done it before, however I find it odd that we're still 6 months out from release and the conversation has already shifted to the follow-up game. With that in mind, let's look at Cyberpunk's prospective online mode.

For those unfamiliar with this project's history, fans became aware of a potential for online capabilities all the way back during the first presentation regarding the game. (I am choosing not to consider the original CG trailer as a 'presentation'.) In the slides, we saw many prospective features that were all we had to go on for figuring out what this mysterious game would hold for us. Many of these bullet points would end up getting scrapped in the following years of tumultuous development, but one which survived the editor's scalpel, apparently, was the line hinting at "seamless online functionality".

We wouldn't hear anymore until legal documents were filed in Poland detailing a framework for these kind of systems. At the time, you must remember, it had been several years since we'd last heard peep about Cyberpunk, and so everyone's imagination ran absolutely wild with speculation. From what I read at the time, I believe that the general consensus was that the online would be something similar to what we were promised for Watch_Dogs' online mode. (As opposed to the annoying system that we got.) We were expecting the type of game wherein other players could drop into our world without our knowledge and mess around with things or help us out to their discretion. Perhaps you could work together to pull of missions or subvert someone else's mission to your own profit. (This was the wild west of ideas.) A lot of people were excited about the possibilities of a seamless online component, whilst others, such as myself, were more worried that such a system would ruin the entire CD Projekt open world experience that we had come to love from the Witcher. Remember, we had played Watch_Dogs, we knew how seamless online could be incredibly disruptive if handled poorly. (So glad Ubisoft bought it back for Watch Dogs 2...)

However, as the years went by and people started to doubt if we'd ever get Cyberpunk at all, conservative estimates were assuming that such a feature would surely be cut. When Cyberpunk had a resurgence at E3 2018, this seemed to be all but confirmed. At this point we'd already seen Jason Schrier's exploratory report into the strife fueled development of this game. If there was ever a better example of "Building on wet concrete", (To use a quote coined in 'Getting over it with Bennet Foddy') I can't think of it. Every year the vision for the game seemed to shift dramatically with themes and features being torn out or put back in at random. Originally the game was penned at being a third/first person experience, similar to Bethesda titles, however that proved unfeasible with the scope of what they had planned, so they scrapped it. Wouldn't it make sense for the same to happen to an online mode that we hadn't heard anything about for years and which didn't even get a mention during the reveal trailer? Apparently not.

I say this because, almost a full year later, we now have confirmation that a Cyberpunk 2077 online game is on the slate due to an open casting call that CD Projekt Red made through their Twitter. The thing most certainly exists and CDPR are serious enough about it that they art willing to announce it on a public forum. (You could argue that they kind of did that years ago with their presentation and that amounted to nothing; but with the main game finally just around the corner, I'm more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt now.) Although, it's hard to say whether this will be an inbuilt game mode, similar to how things work with Rockstar's online games, or a standalone title altogether. (As a survivor of the 'FF15: Comrades' debacle, I pray for the latter.)

It's hard, nigh on impossible, to predict how this kind of multiplayer will play out considering that the main game hasn't even landed, but let's throw accuracy and caution to the wind and make some speculation. Firstly, we know that the game plan with Cyberpunk is for CDPR to release the game, load it with single player DLCs (some of which will be free) and then move onto the multiplayer release. (Which would seem to imply that the Multiplayer will be an integrated component of the Cyberpunk main game, but considering they only started openly hiring as soon back as September I think it's safe to say that things are still at the conceptual stage.) Taking all this into account, I think it'll probably make sense for Cyberpunk's Online to be a free roaming experience.

Recently we have had few ostensibly online games that have treated their cooperative/competitive content as a hybrid experience. Take "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" for instance; in that game the core game is entirely single player, from there one can choose to take their avatar and move them online in an attempt to make the whole package feel cohesive. In contrast, Red Dead Online and GTA Online have entirely separate modes that present an entirely separate online space in which players can interact without it effecting their single player game. I feel CDPR will lean towards the latter model for their implementation, for no other reason then the fact that RDO and GTA O make more money than Ubisoft's games do. Sure, Ubi have built a model that makes it easier to hook players with recurrenecy and foster a live-service environment, but Rockstar have still run circles around them in terms of units sold and microtransaction sales. (Although one could attribute that less to the strength of their model and more to the brand recognition of Rockstar as a Developer.) 

I feel that separating these two modes in such a manner would allow CD a lot more freedom in what they can achieve through the singleplayer and multiplayer. Let me explain. In any Ubisoft game that features a Live service model, I know that the main character will survive the events of the story. How do I know this? Because that avatar needs to be the vehicle for several years worth of live-service hawking from the Ubisoft monetisation team. Nomad is going to overcome his 'Breakpoint', because he has to handle those raids that are dropping next January. the Space Pirates will elude the government of 'Beyond Good and Evil 2' because they have to tackle those 'universe shifting events' that the Devs have been teasing. No, I'm not saying that the threat of death is the only thing that can establish tension in storytelling, but it establishes an aura of sameness when you know that the character will exit their adventure in the same manner that they entered it. No character shifting situations will occur and no action will have any significant consequence. It's part of the reason why I believe that Ubisoft's model of game design is stifling to creativity.

Rockstar don't have to deal with that due to the shape of their online. They can, and have, deliver a heartfelt tale with their lead; Arthur, which takes players through a genuine journey which transforms that character in a manner that is influenced by his actions. Red Dead Redemption 2's narrative is an absolute powerhouse rollercoaster and any form of tacked on Ubisoftian 'Seamless Universe' would have hurt that story's potential. CD Projekt Red strike me as the kind of storytellers who would want V's story to be a high-tier ambitious affair with real stakes that they wouldn't want to sacrifice in order to meet some monetisation quota. Maybe I'm giving them a little too much slack, but I think they've earnt it in droves with their last two games.

Then again, maybe the lore of Cyberpunk is rife for an integrated live-service angle. By that I mean specifically the immutable fact that their protagonist, V, is a mercenary. No matter what background you choose, no matter your specializations, goals, or state of wealth, your V will be a mercenary. Such a position could serve as a ripe narrative vehicle for expanded content and I have no doubt that CDPR will use this as a springboard for their planned DLC. Could the same be said for the online experience? Right now it's hard to say. We do know, thanks to CD's recent Q&A, that the game will feature contract givers who will offer the player side missions should V choose to seek them out. Could they double as daily quest merchants down the line? It sounds cynical to say, but I think it could be a possibility. Afterall, we've not had another online game from these Devs before, who's to say that they won't go the 'daily quest' route? Although it would make me physically sick if another game tried to rope me in with a goddamn daily objective incentive. (I only just broke free of Red Dead Redemption 2's one.)

As for what content we can expect from an Online mode, this is where I get a little excited. Obviously, Cyberpunk boasts a lot of high octane first person shooter action with oodles of futuristic tech abilities, however, there is also a significant amount of gameplay choice in the world. We have comprehensive stealth mechanics and even an extensive collection of future cars with some of the best conceptual designs that I've ever seen dedicated towards fictional vehicles. Does this mean we'll get a variety of activities like the Rockstar's Online games offer? In those games you can participate in death matches, team shoot 'em ups, racing minigames and even simulated gambling. (Or actual gambling in GTA Online.) Maybe CDPR will choose to go this route, however my hope is that they take a leaf out of someone else's book.

I apologize for bringing up Ghost Recon yet again, but I feel it relevant to explain my reasoning here. You see, Ghost Recon has recently embraced the online world with it's own gamemode called Ghost War, which pits players in a various stealth based competitive scenarios that highlight the best of the series' gameplay features; stealth and tactical planning. Now, if Cyberpunk can do something similar in their neon futuristic urban environments, then we'll be in for something really special. Perhaps some sort of hacking-based deathmatch with all players playing a deadly game of cat and mouse, turning the seemingly harmless locale into a death trap whilst sneaking around it themselves. That's my kind of game.

Of course, there is also the potential for some cooperative action too. Seeing as how CD Projekt Red went to the effort to design, code and voice all of these NPC factions with the unique gaits and ability to scream blue murder after their heads have been exploded, why wouldn't they want to port some of that work into their online mode. Piggybacking off of that mercenary contract idea that I mentioned earlier, perhaps CDPR could have players taking particularly difficult assignments that require the cooperation of several differently spec-ed individuals to pull off. They could create a strike-esque gameplay sequence that ends in a boss with teamwork encouraging mechanics, like Borderlands 2's raid bosses. (Okay at this point by speculation is running rampant, I might as well wrap this up.) 

Even now, half a year away from launch, we have no idea what to expect regarding huge chunks of Cyberpunk 2077, and that's honestly one of my favourite things about this game. CDPR have played this all very close to their chests and I expect that to continue until that final trailer before launch. (Maybe in that one they'll actually mention the immortality inducing chip that we already know is the story's Mcguffin.) From a fan's perspective, this can seem a little annoying, but it does allow us the freedom to have fun in taking wild guesses about how things will end up. I'll admit, I'm more confident in CDPR's ability to deliver Cyberpunk 2077 than Cyberpunk Online, but won't stop me from hoping for the best from both products. Let's all hope that CDPR don't let us, or themselves, down.

Grand Dead Online

There is never enough time.

First of all, yes, I fully intend to review Red Dead Redemption 2 at some point but seriously, it's Red Dead Redemption 2... it deserves for me to take so time. Or at least for me to do a fully exhaustive playthrough. (Plus the game is only coming up to a year old. Knowing how late I like to do things, it might be more 'on-brand' for me to wait a few years.) However, yesterday I did briefly bring up an element of that game I think is interesting; the Online component. Although I believe it is only starting to reach it's full form, as Grand Theft Auto Online did long ago, I think I've experienced enough to sum up my thoughts on the affair. But before I get there, it would make sense to start at the beginning.

The year is 2013 and September has just rolled around. Rockstar have finally released the long anticipated Grand Theft Auto V after delaying the game by six months, which definitely wasn't because they purposefully announced the game early to build on hype (>wink<).  Fans flocked to the game- (Okay, that's not entirely true.) Everyone and their mother flocked to the game, making it a undeniable success in it's launch week. Although it is difficult for me to say how much they made in that first week, (No one has boasted about it strangely.) I can confirm what you likely already know; the first day of sales amounted to 11.21 million copies sold (about $800 million) with that number climbing up to 16 million within three days (breaking the $1 billion mark.) For perspective, that means that GTA V broke six world records (as observed by Guinness) before 2014; Best Selling Action/adventure videogame in 24 Hours, Best selling video game in 24 hours, fastest entertainment property to gross $1 Billion, Highest grossing videogame in 24 hours and Highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours. It was a bit of a success then.

Yet, somehow, impossibly, fans were still upset when they got the game. "Why?" I hear you ask, because the online portion; which, for the record, had only been announced and detailed in August of 2013, after the original release date, (But I'm sure the delay wasn't a marketing ploy >wink<) didn't release with the rest of the game. People had to wait an additional 18 days to get their hands on the exciting multiplayer mayhem that the trailer promised. (18 days!? but that's an eternity!) As you can imagine, mass riots broke out across the world as people took to the streets to voice their displeasure; resulting in several broken bones, casualties, and the overthrowing of the Kaznian government. Okay, maybe that last sentence was entirely false, but seeing the reaction of people online, you'd have thought that rioting was just around the corner.

When GTA Online did finally drop, it wasn't exactly what everyone was expecting. Although, to be fair, no one knew what they were expecting. GTA Online was essentially a sandbox environment for people to murder each other perpetually, broken up by a string of fun missions that led into nowhere. There was also a few unimaginative game modes, a horde mode which I played to actual death and a meta that revolved around grinding as much money as humanly possible in order to buy the most mundane things in the game. (I don't even want to think about how much effort I had to put in to buy my garage of classic/super cars.) Thus was born the foundations of the Grand Theft Auto experience for the next six years.

There was one huge omission that did draw considerable ire from the public, however. You see the premise of the main game followed a washed-up forty five year old seeking some excitement in his life by falling back into a world of crime (most importantly bank robbery.) The game focused around 3 huge spectacle robberies (and 1 James bond-esque robbery) and Rockstar promised that there would be even more in the online portion. People would have a greater amount of control over them and it would essentially be the highlight of every online experience to rob a bank. Reality set in, however, when the online mode launched without any heists whatsoever. Although an official reason was never given, I believe that this was a balancing concern. Rockstar had no idea how profitable their new online service would be and didn't want to upset that balance by adding a way for players to pocket truckloads of money off-the-bat.

Fan's had to wait somewhere close to a year before heists finally landed, and by that point Rockstar had already cemented their formula for the future. For those who are unfamiliar (or who ignored my last blog) it works thus; every piece of developed expansion for the online mode comes attached with a price tag, like normal DLC. However, this price tag is made of in game dollars that can be earnt through game play. The price itself is so high, however, that unless you are as much of a cheapskate as I am, you'll likely just pay for the cash injections that they offer for a small real-world fee. In the end, heists were such a huge time commitment, and took so many people working in conjunction in order to setup, that they didn't butt into that carefully balanced ecostructure at all.

Yesterday I mentioned how much I enjoyed that model, and I stand by my words. I've always enjoyed the concept of "If you work hard, you'll get there in the end." maybe because I've experienced the exact opposite in real life so I find the concept quaint. That being said, I do understand that this system, and it's success, is the main reason why GTA never saw any substantial DLC or 'mix up' like Red Dead Redemption had with 'Undead Nightmare'. The biggest new asset that I've seen that team cook up in the past 6 years is that giant casino that they plopped in the middle of Los Santos. Which, by the way, actually breaks the lore of the game. (Allow me to get nerdy.)

You see, GTA Online officially takes place before the events of the main game, which  is indicated when Lester mentions knowing an operative but immediately scraps the idea by saying that they're too 'unpredictable'. Therefore, the Los Santos skyline shouldn't hold any significant changes to the one from the main game, however, here we are with a brand new Casino. Are you telling me that the entire building disappeared one night, the same way it appeared? What is this, a ghost casino?

Anyway, GTA Online ended up making all the money in the world and grossing something stupid like $6 billion, beating out Endgame and single handedly making gaming the most profitable entertainment medium in the world. It is also the reason why every soulless game's company out there is desperate to make their own hit 'live-service' despite the fact that they all lack the recognition, scope, and talent of Rockstar. (Looking at you; EA, Bethesda and Ubisoft.)

Anticipation swelled when Red Dead Redemption 2 was announced, as people guessed what that game would do to push forward the formula. Rockstar confused everyone, however, by refusing to release even so much as a trailer hinting at such. (despite promising one.) Then they turned around to their parent company, Take-Two, and assured them that Red Dead Online (the name that Rockstar filed their trademark under) wouldn't be a competitor to GTA Online. So what does that mean? Would Red Dead Online not be a live-service? Of course it would be, it would just be seeking a different demographic.

Personally, I see Red Dead Online as GTA Online 2.0. Much of the core concept itself is unchanged, there is a free-roam portion, a mission mode and a whole bunch of online competitive modes (However this game's competitive modes are almost all uniquely imaginative.) Plus, a lot of the game is built around the grind for money, the only significant difference I can see is that the price points have altered. Instead of saving up for millions in order to buy that new supercar, you end up saving just as long for that $600 horse. The biggest overhaul has been the inclusion of a brand new currency in gold.

I struggle to call this a 'premium currency'. As although you can, and are likely expected to, buy this outright; you can still earn this money in game and consistently. This separates this from other premium currencies like those found in Mobile games (that limit how much you can earn to make buying anything fun damn near prohibitive.) and other AAA games. (Like how Fallout 76 drip feeds Atoms through daily activities in order to hook concurrency.) Plus, a lot of the time, gold can be used as a substitute for in-game money, achieving... I'm not sure what, to be honest. (Likely just an incentive to spend real money on gold, honestly.)

The problem comes from the fact that there are some incredibly fun elements of the game that are locked behind gold and cannot be purchased with in-game money. This ranges from particularly cool pieces of equipment to entire portions of the gameplay loop that were added in the 'specialisations' update. Again, you can feasibly make up this Gold by just grinding away at the game, but not everyone is unemployed and talentless, some people out there have lives. I'm not blind to how manipulative this all is, but similarly, I'm not blind to how Rockstar will support this game mode substantially for years to come. It feels like such a betrayal to say that I am fine with this model, but I truly hope you can see my reasoning when I admit that I am. (Although that does not extended to GTA's Casinos. Literally, screw the GTA O team for that.)

One aspect of this game that has certainly improved over GTA Online is the way that they handle progression. Just like in every other live service, you'll find yourself being drip fed things you can buy,  like clothing and weapons, as you level up. Standard procedure. But when Rockstar added the 'specialisation' update, an interesting evolution was made to that system. Instead of just earning more clothing, or endless new pistols (GTA Online), you could unlock specialized pieces of gear or skills that could be used in the main game. For example, if you level up your bounty hunter skills, you'll eventually unlock a bolas, which can knock someone off their horse from a distance and tie them up. Keep working your way through to the upper levels and you'll even learn how to duck on your horse, dodging shots from players or NPCs and becoming an invaluable tool for multiplayer matches. It's important to note that neither of these two mechanics were present in the main game and both were realized exclusively for the online.

The free roam has been expanded upon too, learning from the mistakes of GTA Online. In that game, people were upset that missions took place in their own instanced space, meaning that players couldn't run into each other or interfere unless they grouped up in the mission lobby. Red Dead Online fixes this by not just having mission occur in the open world, but actively encouraging near by players to join in. (Usually aggressively.) This can make a standard wagon delivery mission turn into a deadly chase scene, which I may be alone in liking but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe I'm just a sucker for dynamic game play scenarios.

The controls and gameplay are fantastic for it's mastery of all things simple, but that is a topic that I think is best left for my review of the main game. (Whenever that will be.) and Rockstar even took the effort to make movement a lot easier, by allowing you to put your horse on 'auto mode'. Yup, if you go into cinematic mode whilst you have a destination on your map, your horse will take you there. Now, if only Rockstar could make sure that doing this didn't net you with the customary "You will be logged out in 13 minutes for inactivity" threat, then I could really enjoy myself by looking at the scenery.

Red Dead Online is a game that is hell bent on taking all of your free time, and that is a little bit a problem considering every modern video game wants the exact same thing. However, with the sheen of quality over every aspect, I don't feel as dirty donating my considerable free time to the West as much as do whenever I play Fallout 76 or... well, mostly just Fallout 76. I haven't even gone into the real deep end yet; like, did you know that RDO has a Battle pass? But I am enjoying what I have played on a surface level so far. I really do hope, however, that whatever success Red Dead Online garners does not end up putting a dampener on the chances for real Red Dead DLC, as I think the single player is ripe for some extended content.  Now, if you don't mind, I have to collect some bounties. 

Rockstar: mother of bad timing

Don't rock the boat, baby.

Back during my time in secondary school, one of the most commonly addressed topics among my group of friends was the impending state of the latest Grand Theft Auto Online updates. It's sobering to think that a game that was being actively updated all that time ago is still getting worked on, makes one feel their age, but I suppose that is what happens when you game mode is making so money that it propels your game to being the most profitable entertainment product ever. What's that? Avengers Endgame just made $2.8 billion becoming the worlds highest grossing movie? GTA V is looking at $6 billion. And that figure is from November last year. Yeah, the folks over at Rockstar aren't exactly going hungry.

Back when me and my friends would anxiously discuss every change log, eager for the long-delayed Heist update, we noticed a couple of trends from the speculative YouTube community who kept us all informed on the game. It became something of a running joke about how grasping some of them would get in order to make their content. 'I data-mined the code and I can make out a Z, next update must be zombies!' I'm not even exaggerating, these guys were literally that desperate for clickbait. Even then, One theme in particular was a commonality amongst all of these GTA Online channels, apart from zombies, one piece of content that they all agreed was definitely coming but just couldn't get the timeframe down. That would be the opening of the mythical casinos. After every update, they would assure fans that the next one would be casino-time, and when that didn't pan out, just like your atypical doomsday prepper, they would move the goalposts. Next update. No, next update. And on and on.

Looking back, it was a bit silly that we even pretended to entertain any of these wild predictions. Afterall, GTA Online is a game that features a virtual bank account which can be bolstered via transactions from your real one. These 'Shark Cards' as GTA calls them, ('Microtransactions' as they're know everywhere else.) allow players to inject themselves with a sudden influx of cash. This may be necessary for accessing some of the new content that Rockstar adds which, whilst being ostensibly free to all, always comes with a substantial in-game barrier-to-entry cost. It's genius when you think about it. Free DLC that you either have to pay for or grind towards like it's your day job. But there's comes a catch. When you equate real world value to virtual currency, suddenly adding a virtual fake casino doesn't feel so fake anymore. Who knows what kind of substantial community/interest group/government backlash adding a casino might incur? There's no way that even Rockstar would be brazen enough to stir up trouble like that.

On an entirely unrelated note, have you seen the new expansion that was just released for GTA Online? The Diamond Casino & Resort is the gambling-centric content that all those YouTubers predicted, finally coming to fruition. 4 years late, but better late then never right? In the Diamond Casino players can play all those classic casino games including One-Armed Bandits, Blackjack, Roulette, Horse racing and a wheel of fortune. And I know what you're thinking, "There's no way that this operates like an actual casino." And you would be right. Because you have no physical way of cashing out your winnings into real world money; but you can sure as heck cash in. Diamond Casino games are played through chips that are purchased through in-game money, the same in-game money that one can purchase with real-world money. Rockstar have essentially created a casino with no overheads beyond the cost of server maintenance. And people wonder why gaming is the most profitable entertainment medium in the world right now.

I do feel a little bad for criticizing Rockstar right now, because I just reached the epilogue portion of Red Dead Redemption 2 and am convinced that it is the greatest character-driven story that Rockstar have ever told. I Kinda feel like a hypocrite, praising with one hand and chastising with the other. But I choose to believe that the division that creates games is entirely separate to the division that maintains GTA online so that I feel better about calling this practise abhorrent. Now, I usually try to take a middle-ground stance when it comes to topics but I always get a little bit incensed when it is the AAA gaming industry trying to fleece us for yet more money. I know that video game prices haven't adjusted to account for inflation, but there is a pretty decent reason why. Games used to be vastly overpriced for a very long time. Now the gaming community is in a good place where gaming companies are making money hand-over-fist, Rockstar even made enough to trump the biggest movie ever, and yet they still walk around with the donation jar playing the starving artist.

I've already written a couple blogs about how the gaming world is in a spot of bother with law makers right now. Ever since EA overstepped their mark with monetisation, everyone has been bending over backwards in order to convince lawmakers that what they do cannot be equated to gambling. This is an issue that I am mostly agnostic towards, but I enjoy watching slimy corporate entities squirm in front of politicians. (Otherwise known as 'other slimy corporate entites'. Boom: Unfocused political joke!) What I don't like is the potential for widespread harm for the gaming world that could occur if governments decide to clamp down hard on us. As I've said before, first they'll stamp out microtransactions (Cool, whatever.) but then they'll move onto general censorship. It's just what these types of people do. I'm not endorsing the unscrupulous efforts of these companies by any means, I'm just bracing for the inevitable impact if they fail to self regulate. (Like they most assuredly will.) And in the midst of this minefield, with all the careful wording and kowtowing and attempts to soothe various governmental bodies; Rockstar kicks down the door, swinging their golden phallus around and slapping down a casino, damned be the consequences. It's a move that is just, and I don't use this term often, in incredibly bad taste.

This all comes days after the UK Parliament (That's us.) ruled that lootboxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling as it currently exists. Whether this is their way of letting lootboxes off the hook or telling AAA companies to prepare for a revision is unclear, but you can imagine that EA, King and Activison are breathing a sigh of relief either way. There is still the open case that is rattling around some US senators, but I hope I offend noone by predicting that the American legal department will prove so slow that gaming will have moved onto it's next big, greedy controversy before the lootbox case sees the light of a single courtroom. If the gaming bigwigs can manage to secure both the UK and US in their pro-lootbox camp, then the other big markets of the world are likely to follow suit. Afterall, most of the world either follows America's entertainment trends or tries to mimic them. (looking at you, China.) So even after Rockstar's upset, lootboxes are still likely safe. (For better or for worse.)

None of that makes it any easier for me to stomach Rockstar's audacity for envisioning and releasing this expansion as it is. It just seems so out-of-character for Grand Theft Auto. Rather than satirizing the more avaricious elements of our pro-capitalist society, like the GTA series used to do, Rockstar have instead just chosen to contribute to it. It's as though they've crossed 'The Sims'-Rubicon of losing their roots and becoming the very things that they used to mock. They are now the people they vowed to hate. Oh, just like Red Dead Redemption 2! Maybe this is all going according to plan. Some incredibly intricate plan to mimic the actions of the morally bankrupt so flawlessly so as to appear to be one of their number. I can imagine Rockstar now fiddling with their chin hairs, telling me to "Have some GODDAMN FAITH!".

All that being said, I've never been one to tell people how to live their life. People have been anticipating this casino update for years, I even used to be one of them. As long as no one ends up getting hopelessly hooked and sinking their entire life savings into virtual slot machines (I'm literally going to setup a google alert so I know the exact second when it inevitably happens.) then it's all fun and games, I suppose. Afterall, It's not as though people have the incentive of winning real money to tie them to the slots. (Otherwise this game would absolutely fit the legal definition of gambling and would be shut down before anyone could utter the word "satire".) Instead you just have the chance to win chips, money, unique clothing and Respect Points. (Talk about a kick in the nuts. They literally coded in the possibility for players to win the most useless currency in the game.) It doesn't take away from the fact that Rockstar readily employed the usual casino dopamine-stroking tactics in order to hook players, but it will almost definitely be enough to prevent this virtual casino being as harmful as a real one would be.

That hasn't stopped Rockstar from stepping on eggshells for The Diamond Casino's introduction. Someone at Rockstar seems to have been actually paying attention to recent gaming news, no one important enough to have the expansion delayed a few months, but someone important enough to convince the higher ups to take preemptive measures. Rockstar have blocked access to the new content in 57 countries that we know of. (With no forewarning by-the-by. Way to look out for the consumers, team.) It seems that they still have the presence of mind to try to circumvent backlash when it would hit them the hardest, still working on their empathy though.

You may have noticed that I have been a little bit critical of Rockstar's GTA Online department throughout the course of this blog. Eagle eyed readers may even have been able to pick up on the reason why. But just to be clear, I don't care about The Diamond Casino update. Well, I don't care enough to do anything productive about it, at least. I think it is incredibly tasteless and unbecoming of one of the most legendary studios in gaming, but I don't play GTA Online anymore so what do I care? My issue is the optics this shines, not just on Grand Theft Auto, but on the entire gaming world. This update has essentially flipped the cutis to government bodies who were already gearing to flex their legislative muscles on gaming, and dares them to try something. It is incredibly irresponsible. But then, this is just as much EA's fault for being just as avaricious in their own games. The whole thing is a huge complicated mess and I just can't help but shake the feeling that the consumer is going to get the brunt of the fallout, whatever occurs. So what can we, as concerned gamers, do? Absolutely diddly-squat. We can sit and pray for a miracle where everything works out in the end. But hey, if push comes to shove, we can just steal a boat and head to Tahiti.