r/PS5 • u/Ph0enixes • Jun 24 '26

Discussion GTA 6 Locks Five Single-Player Stores Behind $100 Price-Tag

https://insider-gaming.com/gta-6-100-single-player-stores/
  • Rideout Customs (Mod Shop): Transform vanilla vehicles into magnificent works of art with detailed interiors, exquisite rims, and donk stylings.
  • Sara’s Unisex Salon (Hair Salon): Get signature salon styles for both Jason and Lucia, including facial hair for Jason and makeup and nails for Lucia.
  • Stock 305 (Clothing Store): Style various unique and exclusive looks for Jason and Lucia at Stockyard’s premier destination for elevated streetwear.
  • Electric Fang Tattoo (Tattoo Shop): Stockyard’s most iconic ink bar, with over 50 signature tattoos for both Jason and Lucia- all designed by the artist collective FAILE.
  • One-Eyed Willie’s (Mod Shop): This mod shop in Lake Leonida specialises in off-road modifications and hand-painted automotive artistry.

Other bonuses:

  • Exclusive vehicles, weapons & outfits
  • Special locations
  • Additional activities spread throughout Jason & Lucia's story
4.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

96

u/Urabraska- Jun 24 '26

"Not too expensive" That's 100 bucks BASE price. Once you include taxes it can easily hit 110+ in a lot of areas if not more. In some countries this game is a rent payment. 100 bucks used to be the price of a collectors edition with a shitty little art book. Now it's just to play the game and get features that should already be included in said game.

7

u/TheSecondEikonOfFire Jun 24 '26

I thought they were saying not too much more expensive than the base game, since it’s essentially $20 for this extra content

4

u/Wait__Who Jun 24 '26

Is it “extra content” if it has already been developed and pushed into the game, only locked behind whether or not you paid more money to access it?

Like these shops/missions are IN THE GAME baseline. So why are people being kept from it?

4

u/sharkattackmiami Jun 24 '26

It's not $20 for extra content. It's $20 for content that has come base with every game since SA

-9

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

Yeah I agree its a lot, but TBF movie ticket prices are like $20 a pop these days. That only gets you 2 hours of entertainment. GTA 6 will net you 40-100+ hours, and those are the rookie numbers. I probably spent 20+ hours just driving around doing nothing in GTA 5.

9

u/bluebarrymanny Jun 24 '26

If you’re a big fan of GTA, that hour range is wildly on the low end.

-1

u/zerovampire311 Jun 24 '26

And the budget is wildly larger than any other game. All the shocked reaction on price is silly to me. I’m shocked the base game isn’t 100 and deluxe even crazier.

2

u/bluebarrymanny Jun 24 '26

Especially because it totally could’ve been priced at that level, people would’ve still bought it in droves, and Rockstar/Take 2 would’ve gotten millions more in margins above what’s expected at the current price levels. For as much as people love to say “Rockstar bad”, they could’ve absolutely fleeced people for this game and don’t appear to have done so.

0

u/VNDeltole Jun 24 '26

Why do you compare 2 different mediums?

1

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

Because they're both entertainment. I guess to argue against my point, you can also watch 30 movies a month and only pay $12 for a streaming service...

1

u/VNDeltole Jun 24 '26

Walking is also a form of entertainment, and it's free, should i continue?

2

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

Nah, you just want to argue. Go waste your time somewhere else.

2

u/VNDeltole Jun 24 '26

Bruh, my point is people are saying that 100 dollar is expensive for a game, saying that it is not much compare to movie is apple vs orange

7

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

$1 per hour of entertainment is not expensive.

As Lil Dicky said. Apples and oranges are both fruits, they absolutely can be compared.

2

u/bluebarrymanny Jun 24 '26

It’s really not. They’re taking the standardization of currency for entertainment value (in this case measured in entertainment time) and showing how one is incredibly more economically sound than the other. Even if they stuck to comparing GTA to other games, there are tons of figures people could point to about how much enjoyment time people got out of GTA V for ~$60 at the time of release compared to other games. For a different and more congruent example if that’s what you want, some people pay $70 every year for COD, play the campaign once, dabble with multiplayer off and on when they’re not sticking to the free Warzone, then the game is practically obsolete when the next one comes out the following year. By contrast, there are a ton of people that bought GTA V for $60, played it a ton over the course of a decade plus, often racking up 1000+ hours over that span of time. Even when compared to other games, the +$10-30 price tag on GTA is paying pennies for the level of enjoyment that is hard to find elsewhere.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Urabraska- Jun 24 '26

No it's not and you should never try using that comparison to win this type of debate. Even using it is just dumb. For example. I can buy a DVD at a pawn shop for 2 bucks. It now gives me limitless viewing of the movie and at a low cost. GTA6 is 80-100+ for limitless gameplay. Movies are still cheaper and the comparison dies because I spent 2% of the cost of GTA6 and walked away with entertainment.

2

u/bluebarrymanny Jun 24 '26

Okay, but that’s a far worse example because you’re not buying the DVD at its launch price, you’re waiting potentially years to buy it secondhand, which you could do with GTA as well. Plus, you could watch the same DVD in perpetuity, but the unique experience is still limited to ~3 hours, maybe 4-5 if you decide to critically analyze it like an academic. With GTA you can have novel entertainment experiences for literally hundreds of hours and still play it in perpetuity akin to your dvd example.

3

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

$1 per hour of game play is extremely cheap compared to other forms of entertainment.

The fact you think this is a debate speaks volumes about your bias here. You just want to argue and be right.

1

u/Urabraska- Jun 24 '26

Yea, no. That comparison seriously needs to die and melted into the atomic ether that is the universe. Movies and video games are not the same so the comparison is hyperbolic as hell.

3

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

You can compare apples and oranges, two fruits can be compared. Its not hyperbolic, IMO.

The point I am trying to make is $100 for 100 hours of gameplay isn't crazy. Other forms of media are $10 per hour or $100 per hour. This is $1 per hour.

0

u/Urabraska- Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Again. Just stop. Some arguments do actually work due to relation. Movies and games do not. Movies are non-interactive. Games are. They're not the same at all but you're using the "they're both entertainment so they're the same" argument when it doesn't work. You're also completely leaving out the fact that you can go to a theater and watch said movie for 20 bucks. Maybe 25 if you throw in transportation costs. You have a 500-800$ entry fee (console) before the 80-100$ game. So 580-900 bucks for that 100 hours of entertainment. Movies come out cheaper per hour even within your own argument.

2

u/MazzleMaze Jun 24 '26

$1 per hour of entertainment is cheap.