Grand Theft Auto VI could end up being one of the best games ever made. It could also be one of the worst things to happen to modern gaming — not because GTA 6 itself will be bad, but because of the standards, expectations and business practices its success could normalize.
Let me make something clear from the beginning: I want GTA 6 to be incredible.
I will play it. I have been waiting for it like everyone else, and considering Rockstar’s track record, I fully expect it to be one of the most technically impressive games of this generation.
My problem isn’t GTA 6 as a game.
My concern is what Rockstar has become, what players are willing to accept from Rockstar, and what the rest of the industry could learn from GTA 6 if it becomes the enormous commercial success everyone expects.
Because I increasingly feel like Rockstar is playing by a completely different set of rules.
And somehow, we are allowing it.
GTA Online Changed More Than GTA
Grand Theft Auto V originally launched in 2013.
GTA 6 arrives on November 19, 2026. That’s more than 13 years between numbered entries.
Of course, Rockstar also developed Red Dead Redemption 2 during that period, and nobody outside Rockstar can simply claim GTA Online is the reason GTA 6 took this long.
But we also cannot ignore what happened during those years.
GTA Online became enormously successful and gave Rockstar a way to keep monetizing the same game and the same enormous player base for years.
And from a business perspective, why wouldn’t they?
If millions of people continue playing, spending money and returning to your existing product, there is far less urgency to move on from it.
The unfortunate part for me as someone who loves single-player games is what we didn’t get.
Look back at Grand Theft Auto IV. We received The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony — substantial single-player expansions that gave us new characters and stories.
GTA V never received an equivalent single-player expansion.
Instead, GTA Online became the long-term focus.
I’m not arguing that GTA Online shouldn’t exist. Millions of people clearly love it.
I’m asking whether one of the lessons of its extraordinary success has been that continuously monetizing an online audience is ultimately more valuable than giving single-player players more content.
And if GTA 6 is going to be another game we play for the next ten years, I don’t want history simply to repeat itself.
If We Waited 13 Years, Give Players Choice
This is probably my biggest issue with Rockstar’s approach to GTA 6 so far.
Rockstar knows how loyal this audience is.
People have waited more than a decade for this game. Some players have literally grown from children into adults between GTA V and GTA 6.
So why not celebrate those players?
If somebody wants GTA 6 digitally, give them a digital copy.
If somebody wants a physical copy, give them an actual physical copy.
If manufacturing and distributing a disc means that version needs to cost slightly more, I’m personally fine with that. Give me the choice and let me decide whether physical ownership is worth paying extra for.
Instead, Rockstar officially describes GTA 6 as being available in a “physical version,” but that box contains a download code. There is no game disc inside.
To me, that’s not what physical ownership should mean.
A disc can be collected. It can be lent to somebody. It can potentially be resold. Retailers can compete on its price. Years later, it can still represent an actual physical copy of something you bought.
A download code inside a plastic box doesn’t offer the same thing.
And GTA 6 didn’t create the industry’s move toward digital distribution. That transition started long before GTA 6.
But when potentially the biggest game of the generation decides that a box with a code is enough to qualify as its physical release, it helps normalize that direction.
That’s what concerns me.
I Don’t Have a Problem Paying More — If I’m Getting More
I’m also not someone who believes every game must cost exactly the same amount.
Rockstar currently lists the Standard Edition of GTA 6 at $79.99, with an Ultimate Edition offering additional content and an upgrade available separately.
If GTA 6 delivers an enormous, exceptionally polished experience that I play for hundreds of hours, I’m capable of deciding that it’s worth more money to me.
That’s not the problem.
The problem starts when higher prices and premium editions become the new standard simply because GTA proved people will pay them.
There’s another uncomfortable double standard here too.
When Ubisoft or another major publisher creates multiple editions and locks weapons, cosmetics, missions or other content behind the expensive version, gamers are often furious.
We call it greedy.
We complain that content was removed from the standard edition.
We ask why someone paying full price isn’t getting everything.
But put the Rockstar logo on the box and suddenly many of those same practices become much easier to defend.
Why?
If something is anti-consumer when another publisher does it, it doesn’t magically become consumer-friendly because Rockstar made the game.
Rockstar Gets Context. Other Developers Get Memes.
This is where my biggest problem with modern gaming culture comes in.
Red Dead Redemption 2 released in 2018.
Yet I can open Instagram, X, TikTok or YouTube today and still find new games being compared to it.
Usually it’s a short clip.
Water physics.
Mud.
Snow.
NPC reactions.
Horse animations.
Environmental details.
And then comes the inevitable:
“RDR2 DID THIS IN 2018 💀”
Millions of views.
And apparently we’ve proven that the newer game is bad.
Except we haven’t proven anything.
We’ve compared one carefully selected technical detail from one of the largest productions in gaming history with another game that may have been created by a fraction of the developers, with a fraction of the budget and completely different priorities.
A perfect recent example for me is The Blood of Dawnwalker.
Reportedly, Dawnwalker was produced with a budget of around $40 million.
I played it extensively.
Does it have Rockstar’s level of environmental physics? No.
Does every part of its world react like Red Dead Redemption 2?
Of course not.
And I don’t care.
I wasn’t playing Dawnwalker to see whether its water reacted as realistically as Rockstar’s water.
I played it because of its RPG systems, characters, choices, story and its unusual 30-day time mechanic.
Those are the things that define that game.
If a game made for around $40 million doesn’t match every technical detail of a Rockstar production, why exactly should that be embarrassing for the smaller game?
If anything, shouldn’t our expectations work in the opposite direction?
If you give a developer dramatically fewer resources and they still produce an excellent RPG, that’s impressive.
Give that same studio Rockstar’s manpower, development time and resources.
Then let’s make the comparison.
“2018 vs 2026” Is Not an Argument
Technology improves over time, but release year alone tells us almost nothing about the circumstances under which a game was created.
A game releasing in 2026 isn’t automatically supposed to outperform Red Dead Redemption 2 in every individual technical category simply because RDR2 says 2018 on the box.
Release year isn’t a budget.
Release year isn’t development time.
Release year isn’t team size.
Release year isn’t the purpose of the game.
Yet social media has reduced game comparisons to exactly that.
2018 GAME 😎
2026 GAME 💀
That’s not criticism. That’s engagement bait.
And GTA 6 could make this dramatically worse.
Imagine what happens if Rockstar once again delivers an enormous technical leap.
For years afterward, every open-world game will have to survive GTA 6 comparison videos.
A smaller RPG releases in 2027?
“GTA 6 has better water.”
An open-world action game releases in 2028?
“GTA 6 NPCs react better.”
Some studio with a dramatically smaller budget releases something ambitious in 2029?
“GTA 6 did this three years ago.”
At some point we have to ask whether we’re actually judging games based on what they’re trying to accomplish, or judging every developer on how closely they can reproduce Rockstar.
A €400 Collector’s Edition Without the Game Is Insane
And then we get to something that, for me, perfectly represents how powerful the GTA brand has become.
A collector’s package costing around €400 without including the actual game.
I’m sorry, but that’s insane.
I understand collector’s editions. I’m exactly the type of player they are made for. If I’ve waited 13 years for a new GTA and you give me a genuinely special edition with the game, a high-quality statue or another meaningful centerpiece, physical collectibles and something that celebrates the history of the franchise, I can understand paying a premium for it.
But around €400 and I still have to buy GTA 6 separately?
At that point, we’re not talking about the additional manufacturing cost of a disc. We’re testing how much the most dedicated fans are willing to spend simply because the GTA logo is attached to something.
And again, imagine another publisher doing this.
Imagine Ubisoft announcing a €400 Assassin’s Creed collector’s package without the game. Imagine EA doing it. Imagine almost any other major publisher asking players for that amount of money and then saying, “By the way, the game itself is sold separately.”
The reaction would be brutal.
There would be videos about corporate greed everywhere. People would immediately ask how a “collector’s edition” of a video game can cost hundreds of euros without even containing the video game.
But with GTA, there is always a danger that the conversation becomes different.
“It’s GTA.”
“It’s for collectors.”
“You don’t have to buy it.”
And yes, nobody has to buy it. That’s not the point.
Companies are obviously free to sell optional merchandise, and players are free to decide whether it’s worth the money. My concern is what a product like this tells the industry if it sells extremely well.
Because €400 doesn’t become dangerous when nobody buys it.
It becomes interesting when people do.
If one of the biggest entertainment brands in the world proves that its most dedicated audience will pay hundreds of euros for a premium package and then still purchase the game separately, other publishers will notice.
And this goes back to my biggest concern with GTA 6: I don’t want the rest of the industry copying Rockstar’s ability to charge more without also copying the extraordinary investment that makes Rockstar games what they are.
After more than 13 years of waiting, I would have preferred Rockstar to use a collector’s edition as a celebration of its biggest fans.
Make it expensive if the contents justify it.
Give me an incredible collectible. Give me exclusive physical items. Give me the actual game. Make opening that box feel like I’m finally holding the GTA game I’ve waited more than a decade to play.
For around €400, I shouldn’t be opening the box and still needing to ask:
“Okay… so where’s GTA 6?”
That’s not the kind of standard I want the biggest game in the industry to normalize.
And Then There’s the 30 FPS Double Standard
This is another fascinating example of how differently Rockstar is treated.
When a smaller studio announces a technically ambitious console game targeting 30 FPS, you already know what the comments will look like.
“No 60 FPS, no buy.”
“It’s 2026.”
“Cancelled my preorder.”
People are allowed to want 60 FPS. I prefer 60 FPS too.
But look at how quickly the conversation changes when the developer is Rockstar.
GTA 6 has been widely discussed as targeting 30 FPS on current consoles, although Rockstar has not published a final first-party specification confirming the launch frame-rate options.
Suddenly we hear explanations.
Look at the density of the world.
Look at the NPCs.
Look at the physics.
Look at everything the CPU has to process.
And you know what?
Those might all be perfectly reasonable explanations.
But then give other developers the same courtesy.
We can’t understand Rockstar’s technical limitations because its game is ambitious and then laugh at a smaller developer because its own ambitious game has technical compromises.
Either context matters or it doesn’t.
It can’t matter only when Rockstar needs it.
Rockstar Isn’t Responsible for Every Bad Comparison
I also want to be fair here.
Rockstar didn’t tell people to make stupid comparison videos.
Rockstar isn’t responsible for someone taking a 15-second water physics clip and using it to declare another game garbage.
And I don’t want Rockstar to intentionally make GTA 6 less impressive just so other developers don’t look bad next to it.
That would be ridiculous.
Rockstar should make the best game it possibly can.
The problem is us.
We’ve turned Rockstar’s extraordinary production values into a universal minimum standard rather than recognizing them as the result of extraordinary circumstances.
There is a huge difference.
Rockstar’s Silence Works Because GTA Is GTA
There’s another privilege Rockstar has earned that almost no other developer enjoys.
It can say almost nothing.
Rockstar can disappear for months and the hype doesn’t decrease. It increases.
A screenshot becomes news.
A trailer becomes an event.
A small detail gets analyzed for weeks.
From a marketing perspective, it’s brilliant.
But as a player who has waited this long, I would personally prefer more communication.
Development takes time. Delays happen. Ambition creates problems. I understand all of that.
Tell us.
You don’t need to reveal the entire game. You don’t need a trailer every month.
But after asking your audience to wait more than 13 years between numbered GTA games, I don’t think occasional communication about what players should expect is unreasonable.
Rockstar doesn’t need traditional marketing anymore.
The GTA name does the marketing for them.
That is an incredible position to have earned.
But I don’t think that position should mean the audience simply has to accept everything because “it’s Rockstar.”
The Biggest Risk Isn’t Other Games Copying GTA
I actually don’t have a problem with developers being inspired by GTA or Red Dead Redemption.
Games inspire other games. That’s how creative industries work.
My bigger concern is publishers copying the wrong things.
Imagine a publisher looking at GTA 6 and learning this:
Players accepted a higher price.
Players accepted premium content.
Players accepted digital ownership.
Players accepted a “physical” box without a disc.
Players accepted years of online monetization.
Players waited more than a decade.
And enormous hype survived through all of it.
What I don’t want is publishers chasing GTA-level monetization without providing GTA-level investment.
That’s the dangerous lesson.
Because another publisher might not have Rockstar’s talent, resources, development time or attention to detail.
But they’ll certainly notice what customers were willing to pay for.
What I Actually Want From GTA 6
My ideal GTA 6 isn’t cheap.
It isn’t smaller.
And I don’t expect Rockstar to operate like an indie developer.
I simply want Rockstar to remember who made this franchise as powerful as it is.
The players.
Give us choice.
If someone wants digital, let them buy digital.
If someone wants an actual physical game, sell them a disc — even if producing that version costs slightly more.
If you’re making something for collectors, make it genuinely special. Give the people who waited 13 years something they’ll actually want to put on a shelf and remember.
If you’re charging more for a premium edition, make the additional value clear rather than relying on fear of missing content.
And if GTA 6 becomes another ten-year platform, don’t forget the people who came for Grand Theft Auto as a single-player experience while the online side generates money.
Most importantly, don’t assume that because players love GTA, they’ll accept absolutely anything carrying the GTA logo.
GTA 6 Could Be Incredible — And Still Be Bad for Gaming
That’s ultimately why I’m worried about GTA 6.
Not because I expect it to fail.
Almost the exact opposite.
I’m worried because it could be extraordinarily successful.
It could become the game every open world is compared against, regardless of budget.
It could reinforce the idea that physical ownership no longer requires physical media.
It could demonstrate how much premium content players are willing to accept.
It could continue a model where a single game is monetized for another decade while traditional single-player expansions become secondary.
And it could strengthen one of the strangest double standards in gaming:
We demand that every developer compete with Rockstar, while rarely demanding that Rockstar play by the same rules as everyone else.
I want GTA 6 to be incredible.
I want Rockstar to push this generation of hardware until we wonder how the game is even running.
But when the next €40 million RPG arrives without GTA 6’s water physics, I’m not going to laugh at it.
I’m going to ask what that developer managed to accomplish with €40 million.
And considering the resources available to Rockstar, maybe our expectations should be pointed in the other direction.
The smaller developer shouldn’t have to be embarrassed because it couldn’t reproduce GTA.
GTA should have to prove why nobody else can reproduce GTA.
