Talk:Grand Theft Auto Online/Archive 1

Archive 1

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto Online}} czar ♔ 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why a sub-article?

Is a sub-article for this really needed? Everything fit nicely in Grand Theft Auto V. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It passes the GNG on its own and has plenty of secondary coverage that doesn't belong in V's article, especially as it currently sits at 38k (after trimming). Breaking out summary style is perfectly normal czar ♔ 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

National ties

A quick comment on strong national ties to a topic, since it was on my to do list: I contest whether GTAO has strong national ties, a policy that was meant for making sure the American Civil War used American English. Furthermore, if it did, I would think the national ties are stronger with the actual source material (set in L.A., etc.) than with the developer's nationality. (Does it even offer British English subtitles?) I understand the desire for consistency, but I also see it to be a really easy way to railroad a local consensus. So when the article was written in American English with MDY and reverted in a pinch, I would think there should be more dialogue or a rationale for why the precedent exists than a complete format shift. czar ♔ 22:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Heist Update

Who else is sick of Rockstar delaying heists? Maybe if there's a section in the article on the debate, they'll be motivated to release it sooner. Even if it doesn't work, I think it's still a good idea to have that in since it's become such a big controversy in the GTA community. GTAVmaster (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP is not an advocacy platform. We cover whatever the reliable sources choose to cover. czar ♔ 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I never said that the section needs to argue about why Rockstar should release heists, I just thought that since many GTA Online players have been complaining to Rockstar about it and how it's affecting Rockstar Games, it would be a good idea to mention it somewhere. People have been threatening to file lawsuits against Rockstar for lying about heists being released in spring, and the issue will probably get worse later on. If you look on YouTube and check out different GTA Online news channels, about half of their videos are on heists and what they think about the issue. The matter is becoming too big to ignore and I think it should be mentioned somewhere in this article. GTAVmaster (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Do you have a reliable, secondary source for that info? (some examples) czar ♔ 03:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty of sources. This one is an article by IGN that talks about heists being delayed. This is the list of updates that were supposed to be released last spring and it was made by Rockstar. That list even mentions that fans have been excited for the release of heists. This is a YouTube video made by a well known user in the GTA V community who mentions how much everybody has been wanting heists. If you look in the comments, lots of the comments are made by fans of GTA V who want heists to come out. I hope that's enough sources and if it's not, I could find countless other sources. GTAVmaster (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The delays can be mentioned with due weight—they don't need more than a sentence unless the sources go more in depth. See WP:VG/RS for the video game sites with vetted editorial policies. IGN is okay, Rockstar is a self-published source, and that YouTuber is not a reliable source. czar ♔ 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Just looking back at this. I'm glad the section was added, but I definitely could have worded my first comment better. It did sound like advocacy. Thanks for letting it stay up and sorry for the confusion--GTAVmaster (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It having been mentioned constantly as in development by Rockstar with the update being pushed back constantly, the time frame given becoming increasingly vague as time goes on, and the large profit margins from cash cards have all resulted in Heists as being a sore point for fans and players in the game. It has been over one year, four hundred and one days as of writing, since the game was released. I think it deserves mentioning given the constant delays and community reception. http://aretheheiststhereyet.com/ 108.36.144.102 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reception section needs more balance

The reception section doesn't reflect the actual reception of the game. While it's rated 80-83% in aggreggate by review sites, the section is 95% negative. Everyone gets that there were/are technical issues at launch, but clearly that's not all there is to it. We don't need 40% of this article devoted to reception of launch issues.108.180.59.252 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions on Making This Article Better

There are some grammar errors that do bother me in the article. This one section within the article, like missing punctuation. Also, I like the function of how we can take "selfies" on GTAV online. Maybe adding screenshots from online game play could make this article prettier. I'd also like to know more about is the reviews. What kind of reviews were said, and by who, that made online have a good reputation? Kimehameha (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ill-Gotten Gains

So, the latest update (Ill-Gotten Gains Part 1) was recently released, with Part 2 due next week, and with it comes a wide range of changes to the game. However, as far as I can tell, most of these changes seem fairly minor, and only a few need mentioning on the article. On the other hand, KahnJohn27 seems to think otherwise, insisting that an entire section (with four paragraphs) exists within the article, describing the changes affected by the update. I wanted to know what other users think about it. Personally, I'm quite happy with simply listing a few of the changes within the "Additional content" section, but this is a collaborative effort, so my opinion isn't everything. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: Ill-Gotten Gains Part 1 was released last month not recently. As I already said if you cared to read the section as well as the sources you would know that I only add significant changes. The sources list a lot of more changes. I only added the significant ones for example a gameplay feature being changed, addition of a feature into gameplay that wasn't there before, addition of PC-only gameplay features into consoles. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Three weeks ago is still recent.

Thank you for clarifying, but I actually did read through both the the section on the article and the sources attached to it, and the changes still don't seem very significant to me. Just because they're the most significant changes of the update does not automatically mean that they are notable. For example, "clothes and tattoo shop menus were re-organized" seems like a very minor change to me, as does "the number of [topless strip] dancers was increased to match their number in Story Mode" and "a new sort system was introduced for clip management in the Rockstar Editor". I don't really see how these changes will help readers, nor do they make a huge difference to the game itself.

Sure, they're great additions to the game, and I'm certainly happy about some of them, but I honestly don't think that they meet the notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: The section actually says "Topless strip dancers were added" not "increased". Topless strip dancers didn't exist in GTA Online earlier. The update added them for the first time. You are confusing it with the other additional statement in the same sentence "number of dancers were increased to match the number in Story Mode". That statement isn't referring to topless strip dancers, it is referring to normal clothed dancers. Besides the gameplay changes of re-desgined menus and features and new additions to them aren't insignificant. That's actually what you do call significiant changes. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But these are such minor things that really don't belong on Wikipedia (not to mention that it's not "redesigned menus", it's "slightly reorganised menus"). By all means, add it to the GTA Wiki, but I don't think it improves the Wikipedia article in any way. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: It would be "slightly reorganised menu" if there were no new additions and features. However as already said there have been new additions to menus. Also the car purchase menu was actually "redesigned". By all means it can't be called insignificant changes. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The redesign of menus seems very petty to me. I don't even think the menus are notable enough to mention in the first place. I think we need a third opinion on this, or else we'll never reach a consensus (pinging CR4ZE, czar). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 22:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is a matter of undue weight. It's a relatively minor update, as important as the previous small, incremental updates, and should be about the same length in prose. So the laundry list of updates is more for Wikia than here. Look at the sources that reported on the update and see what all of them found important—that's what the section should contain.  – czar 00:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: I can't believe you're saying this. Earlier you said the menu changes were not significant because they were just slightly reorganised and not "redesigned". But when I said they are actually 'redesigned menus" now you're saying redesigned menus are different. If it were only slight changes I would agree they were not worth adding. But they are significant and big changes, hence I think they are worth adding. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: if the menus were redesigned, I don't think this would even be notable. That's just my opinion. However, the difference here is that the menus were not redesigned; according to a source on the article, "menus have been re-organized" by adding more options and placing the newest items at the top of each category. This seems like a very insignificant change to me (certainly not significant enough to warrant an entire section on the updates). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: The source actually clearly states that some of the menus were "re-designed" not "re-organised". Also addition of newer options isn't "re-organisation" in any way. Hence since that there are actual additions to menus and there are redesgined menus, not simply re-organised menus, the changes are significant and should be mentioned here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in the source provided on the article, it doesn't mention redesigned menus at all. It does, however, state that the "vehicle websites have been re-designed", which is probably notable enough for a brief mention on the article. That's certainly not enough for an separate section designated to these updates, though. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: The source actually also clearly says new options have been added to menus hence it is not just a mere re-organisation. Also I see you have removed my edits. You arr not the master of this article who can remove what ge wants. Let there be a consensus first. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The "new options" that were added to the menus still don't seem very notable to me, but if you can justify their notability, then I'd be happy for them to have a mention in the article.
Furthermore, I never claimed to be the "master of this article" (in fact, my edits to this article have been pretty insignificant, particularly in contrast to yours); after an administrator responded to the discussion, I waited a short amount of time, and then removed the content. I apologise if this offended or annoyed you in any way, but, to be fair, you haven't provided a counter-argument for the return of the section to the article. As far as I'm concerned, you're trying to justify the mention of the menu changes in the article (which I am okay with, provided that it's only a brief mention). Thanks. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And now what you said before could now apply to your recent edit. This discussion now regards the addition of the content back to the article, not the removal of it. The majority of the additions from the updates are certainly not "important", as you have claimed. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999: If additions and removals from multiplayer, re-designed menus, addition of newer options do not feel important and significant to you then please mind telling me what is. The only thing changes listed here are of the usual new cars, weapons and clothes. That's actually what insignificant changes are. Besides just because an administrator commrnted here doesn't mean you can automatically remove it. The changes are significant and they should stay. Let there be a consensus first. If majority wants to remove the content then remove it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, KahnJohn27, I apologise for removing the content from the article; I should have waited until a consensus was reached here.

As for the content on the article: in the "Additional content" section, the text currently follows the pattern of "[title of update], released on [date], added [most significant part of the update]". That is only one sentence that outlines the entire update (bar Heists, which was a much larger update). However, the "Ill-Gotten Gains" section seems to go far too in-depth about the update; I think a few sentences outlining the most significant changes would be good (which is what I did here). – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

PS3/Xbox 360 update

• The end of PS3/Xbox 360 updates is a notable milestone, and it is controversial because some reviewers say it as Rockstar forcing them to pay twice for the game as well as PS3/Xbox 360 possible making up a large base, as the PS4/Xbox One version up to that time added little new content. Maybe it isn't critical reception, could be part of history instead.
• The content updates have been put in chronological order, so we don't have 2016 updates and then the Heists (which was March 2015).
• Launch problems (i.e. the $500,000 in game bonus) do not belong in the reception, neither does Rockstar's report of online revenue, it is rather part of the game's history.JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@JoshDonaldson20: I agree that the end of the updates is fairly notable, but it certainly cannot be deemed "controversial" if only one journalist complained about it—a brief mention would be more appropriate. The updates should not be split into separate sections by year; it looks like ugly proseline, and placing them in larger paragraphs is more suitable. Let me know if you have any further issues with my edit. – Rhain ☔ 02:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest giving some notability to the DLC packs which provides significant gameplay changes, such as Flight School, Last Team Standing, Heists (especially as it used to have its own heading), and Lowriders. The ugly about larger paragraphs is that the gameplay changes are mixed in with the content packs, which is why I implemented the year-by-year headings to make them cleaner. For the end of PS3 updates we should definitely have Rockstar's technical explanation and then Forbes criticism as it is, although I'm fine if "controversial" is removed. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the notable gameplay changes; I think something like this would be more appropriate in the Gameplay section. As for the end of PS3/360 updates, I added a brief clarification of Rockstar's explanation, and I think the Forbes quote is sufficient—the quote previously used was very long, and was beginning to drivel into a complaint to Rockstar as a whole instead of focusing on the end of PS3/360 updates. – Rhain ☔ 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Seperate additional content section with sub-sections for each year

The additional content sub-section in Development is too big and besides its post-release so I doubt we should group it in Development. I suggest giving the additional content a separate section. I also suggest to make sub-sections for each year's add-on content. For example all additional content of 2015 goes in 2015 sub-section of the additional content. 117.207.147.196 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Theft Auto Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6UIT91nLm?url=http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/gta_5_review_ps4.html to http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/gta_5_review_ps4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)