GTA V reportedly coming to PC Q1 2014

#1 Edited by Krullban (1062 posts) -
#2 Posted by Pr1mus (3946 posts) -

As expected.

#3 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

Good for the PC guys. Hopefully this wont be filled with snarky douches going "superior version muw" or whatever. But good for them, its a great game.

#4 Posted by Stonyman65 (2871 posts) -

I don't care anymore. I guess I'll buy it on PC with all the DLC for $12 at a Steam sale in a year or two just like I did with GTAIV.

#5 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

Yay!

Good for the PC guys. Hopefully this wont be filled with snarky douches going "superior version muw" or whatever. But good for them, its a great game.

When you spend a few thousand on a dedicated gaming powerhouse, you could be forgiven for wanting to utilise it as such. There are some snarky elitists out there, but i'm thinking there are just as many snarky console users with inferiority complexes kicking things off as soon as anyone mentions they are looking forward to a more graphically capable version they can get the most out of with their investments in hardware.

#6 Edited by Korwin (3029 posts) -

Was only matter of time. Rockstar didn't put all that effort into upgrading all of their tools to make proper use of the PC with Max Payne 3 only to dump all the work immediately after.

#7 Posted by afabs515 (1326 posts) -

*puts on surprised-but-not-really-surprised face*

#8 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Everything going according to plan then.

@rowr said:

Yay!

@clonedzero said:

Good for the PC guys. Hopefully this wont be filled with snarky douches going "superior version muw" or whatever. But good for them, its a great game.

When you spend a few thousand on a dedicated gaming powerhouse, you could be forgiven for wanting to utilise it as such. There are some snarky elitists out there, but i'm thinking there are just as many snarky console users with inferiority complexes kicking things off as soon as anyone mentions they are looking forward to a more graphically capable version they can get the most out of with their investments in hardware.

Man, I wonder how many people said that when GTA IV was announced for the PC and came out? clearly, the superior version, especially for those first 6 months ohwaitnoitwasnt.

#9 Edited by spraynardtatum (3686 posts) -

Can't wait for the Steam sale down the road.

Online
#10 Edited by Animasta (14723 posts) -

still gonna by the console versions because I don't trust rockstar's ports anymore.

hell, the VC and SA ports weren't good either but still

#11 Posted by Kidavenger (3628 posts) -

Can't wait for the Steam sale down the road.

Exactly what I'm thinking, make me wait; then I'm just going to keep on waiting until it goes on sale...

#12 Posted by Korwin (3029 posts) -

@animasta said:

still gonna by the console versions because I don't trust rockstar's ports anymore.

hell, the VC and SA ports weren't good either but still

What was wrong with Max Payne 3? Seemed more than functional to me and came with support for DX11 features (advanced AO, Tessellation etc.). GTA4 may have been a bit rubbish but they've really tuned up the PC Rage tools from what I can tell.

#13 Posted by Andorski (5366 posts) -

Eurogamer is not disclosing their sources. While I think it's almost certain that a PC port (and a next-gen port) will be released, I wouldn't take Gamespot or Eurogamer's articles as any type of supportive evidence.

#14 Posted by MonetaryDread (2176 posts) -

Everything going according to plan then.

@rowr said:

Yay!

@clonedzero said:

Good for the PC guys. Hopefully this wont be filled with snarky douches going "superior version muw" or whatever. But good for them, its a great game.

When you spend a few thousand on a dedicated gaming powerhouse, you could be forgiven for wanting to utilise it as such. There are some snarky elitists out there, but i'm thinking there are just as many snarky console users with inferiority complexes kicking things off as soon as anyone mentions they are looking forward to a more graphically capable version they can get the most out of with their investments in hardware.

Man, I wonder how many people said that when GTA IV was announced for the PC and came out? clearly, the superior version, especially for those first 6 months ohwaitnoitwasnt.

The legend of GTA4's performance problems is overblown. I cannot speak for everyone, but my old system (Core 2 Duo, 4gig of DDR2, 8800GT) was able to run the game at 720p, 30fps at launch. That is significantly better than what the consoles offered (620p and less than 30fps most of the time). People were more mad at the fact that the game is more CPU bound than GPU bound. So everyone who thought they could skimp on CPU by purchasing an under-$200 AMD cpu, realized that their products are not as powerful as what Intel has to offer (I even read complaints about it not working on their single-core Pentium 4, lol). I guess the games biggest fault lies in the fact that the minimum requirements listed on the box were not conservative enough (even though the minimum requirements mean "the absolute minimum amount of hardware power necessary to even boot the .exe" not "the minimum hardware power needed to play the game comfortably.")

#15 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@zeforgotten said:

Everything going according to plan then.

@rowr said:

Yay!

@clonedzero said:

Good for the PC guys. Hopefully this wont be filled with snarky douches going "superior version muw" or whatever. But good for them, its a great game.

When you spend a few thousand on a dedicated gaming powerhouse, you could be forgiven for wanting to utilise it as such. There are some snarky elitists out there, but i'm thinking there are just as many snarky console users with inferiority complexes kicking things off as soon as anyone mentions they are looking forward to a more graphically capable version they can get the most out of with their investments in hardware.

Man, I wonder how many people said that when GTA IV was announced for the PC and came out? clearly, the superior version, especially for those first 6 months ohwaitnoitwasnt.

The legend of GTA4's performance problems is overblown. I cannot speak for everyone, but my old system (Core 2 Duo, 4gig of DDR2, 8800GT) was able to run the game at 720p, 30fps at launch. That is significantly better than what the consoles offered (620p and less than 30fps most of the time). People were more mad at the fact that the game is more CPU bound than GPU bound. So everyone who thought they could skimp on CPU by purchasing an under-$200 AMD cpu, realized that their products are not as powerful as what Intel has to offer (I even read complaints about it not working on their single-core Pentium 4, lol). I guess the games biggest fault lies in the fact that the minimum requirements listed on the box were not conservative enough (even though the minimum requirements mean "the absolute minimum amount of hardware power necessary to even boot the .exe" not "the minimum hardware power needed to play the game comfortably.")

I wouldn't call it "overblown" since a lot of people had issues and not because of their systems.
Rockstar even admitted the poor port job as well and would be doing "everything in their power" to optimize it better. But that wasn't really my point.

My point was the idiots who use the whole "OMG! BEST VERSION EVER NOW BECAUSE IT'S PC!"-"argument".
How do they feel when they've just been proven wrong in the most litteral sense even by the developers basically saying "hah, no, it's pretty terrible", do they even realize that they're complete morons at that point or does it not register with them at all is what I'm wondering.

#16 Edited by me3639 (1849 posts) -

It took me less than 5 minutes into the game when i was telling myself i knew i should have waited.

#17 Posted by YOU_DIED (703 posts) -

Red Dead?

#18 Posted by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

@monetarydread: the 1.0.7.0 patch which comes installed on the steam version introduced a memory leak that causes massive loss in performance and also breaks a lot of mod compatibility. I can run this game fairly well at 80 fps unlocked but it drips to constant 30 fps 20 minutes later, after an hour my fps is at 22-25. This is unacceptable performance for a game and makes it unplayable for extended periods of time.

If I can play Sleeping Dogs at the highest settings with a constant 60 fps then I expect a game from rockstar in 2008 to run just as well if not better. They get no pardon for that but I am optimistic because Max Payne 3 ran very well for me. I'll probably pick up GTA V when it's $15 with all the dlc if it's a good port.

#19 Posted by TreeTrunk (135 posts) -

GTA 5 looks like open-world Max Payne 3, and MP3 runs very well on my Comp! This is pleasant news!

#20 Posted by benpicko (2005 posts) -

Thank god, the PS3 version is horrible

#21 Edited by MonetaryDread (2176 posts) -

@roarimadinosaur:

Well that sucks. I bought the boxed copy of GTA 4 because it didn't use Steam, and I have not played it in the last few years. Looking into things, it is easy to downgrade your patch to 1.0.4.0 (no memory leak or mod incompatibility). Plus, apparently the fix to the memory leak is to run the game in borderless windowed mode (a simple command line entry).

Plus, the game might not have the same detailed textures as Sleeping Dogs, but every animation is procedurally generated using the games physics engine. Sleeping Dogs does not do that, so even though the game looks better, it is still less taxing on your system than GTA. There is a reason why the next gen systems are using hexa-core CPU's instead of quad cores, or why turning on PHYSX on your GPU halves your frame-rate. Physics is a beast on compute power.

#22 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

@monetarydread said:

@zeforgotten said:

Everything going according to plan then.

@rowr said:

Yay!

@clonedzero said:

Good for the PC guys. Hopefully this wont be filled with snarky douches going "superior version muw" or whatever. But good for them, its a great game.

When you spend a few thousand on a dedicated gaming powerhouse, you could be forgiven for wanting to utilise it as such. There are some snarky elitists out there, but i'm thinking there are just as many snarky console users with inferiority complexes kicking things off as soon as anyone mentions they are looking forward to a more graphically capable version they can get the most out of with their investments in hardware.

Man, I wonder how many people said that when GTA IV was announced for the PC and came out? clearly, the superior version, especially for those first 6 months ohwaitnoitwasnt.

The legend of GTA4's performance problems is overblown. I cannot speak for everyone, but my old system (Core 2 Duo, 4gig of DDR2, 8800GT) was able to run the game at 720p, 30fps at launch. That is significantly better than what the consoles offered (620p and less than 30fps most of the time). People were more mad at the fact that the game is more CPU bound than GPU bound. So everyone who thought they could skimp on CPU by purchasing an under-$200 AMD cpu, realized that their products are not as powerful as what Intel has to offer (I even read complaints about it not working on their single-core Pentium 4, lol). I guess the games biggest fault lies in the fact that the minimum requirements listed on the box were not conservative enough (even though the minimum requirements mean "the absolute minimum amount of hardware power necessary to even boot the .exe" not "the minimum hardware power needed to play the game comfortably.")

I wouldn't call it "overblown" since a lot of people had issues and not because of their systems.

Rockstar even admitted the poor port job as well and would be doing "everything in their power" to optimize it better. But that wasn't really my point.

My point was the idiots who use the whole "OMG! BEST VERSION EVER NOW BECAUSE IT'S PC!"-"argument".

How do they feel when they've just been proven wrong in the most litteral sense even by the developers basically saying "hah, no, it's pretty terrible", do they even realize that they're complete morons at that point or does it not register with them at all is what I'm wondering.

It's an obvious assumption that a pc version will allow at the very least offer better resolution and AA and look better in general, even if it doesn't come that way out of the box there are enough people out there dedicated to workaround and fixes that it won't take long. GTA 4 with the enb shaders etc look amazing and have for quite some time. Take a look at the shoddy dark souls port that was fixed by modders in less than 24 hours.

We are talking about comparing latest pc hardware to the capabilities of a 7 year old system in this case. No one goes in with an assumption that any developer releases a game to be a complete trainwreck. GTA 4's port was indeed a joke, I doubt Rockstar were laughing about it. There is no case where a new game can be released side by side with the current consoles and new PC's and not be expected to be superior graphically.

See where i said this.

"but i'm thinking there are just as many snarky console users with inferiority complexes kicking things off as soon as anyone mentions they are looking forward to a more graphically capable version they can get the most out of with their investments in hardware."

That's you. Congratulations your an ass.

#23 Edited by Krullban (1062 posts) -

Now a GTA V profile was found in the latest AMD drivers.

<application Title="Grand Theft Auto V" File="GTA5.exe">	<use Area="PXDynamic">HighPerfGPUAffinity</use> </application>
#24 Edited by TheHT (11786 posts) -

GTA 5 looks like open-world Max Payne 3, and MP3 runs very well on my Comp! This is pleasant news!

It would be kinda silly, but when I heard that Michael's special is to slow time I was hoping he would also be able to shootdodge. If only!

#25 Posted by thatdutchguy (1283 posts) -

I would rather play something else when this finally comes to pc.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.