u/No_Edge_341

I understand that practically every game in this franchise has settings which you can manipulate your in-game map, from turning off the GPS or waypoint to turning it off completely.

As far as that last item, though, I'm not so sure the game is "intended" or "designed" to be played that way. If you're in a mission and you jump in your car to go to a specific location, they won't have the passenger tell you which directions to go or your blinker won't turn on, or anything of the sort.

I'm curious if anybody else played GTA V or RDR2 with the interactive map off? Can you do it successfully, and does it improve your oneness with the world itself? Are there design choices by the developers for GTA VI by which one could successfully play in such a way? I don't play many games these days to know if anything else has found clever ways for you to keep your eyes on the road instead of the corner of the screen and not be too overt, but I'd welcome that option if so.

Sadly, the last map I truly memorized was GTA III, and that was due to taxi and ambulance missions. I still used the marker, but without route suggestions available at the time I definitely knew my way around well. I guess it's safe to say that I know RDR2 very well also, but that's a different kind of game. I really like how treasure hunts in that game had very little handholding in its clues, and required that you understood something by sightseeing.

This is based on what Ryan Cohen said in his most recent interview (starting at 47:37).

Here is an excerpt of that piece (note: I used AI to clean up the transcript portion on YT):

>And then the third thing is—and this is something that I have not spoken about before publicly—but eBay today is the leader in physical items, physical collectibles, as an example. And so I would extend that into digital collectibles.
>
>Essentially, if you look at all of these in-game items, AAA titles that people are accumulating—skins, weapons, all of these things—taking eBay and building a marketplace where you can provide liquidity for in-game digital items.
>
>Essentially, it's what NFTs could have, people thought they were, but ultimately they had no real utility. In-game items actually have real utility.
>
>And if you look at all of these collectibles, frankly, they're an ego play. You own art. Like, what is that?
>
>At the end of the day, it's an ego play.
>
>If you look at trading cards, I mean, it's a piece of cardboard in a piece of plastic, and they're very, very, very popular, but there's no real utility to them other than being able to tell people you've got a really unique trading card.
>
>But if you look at in-game digital items, there's no marketplace that is providing liquidity for them.
>
>And so I would use eBay to provide liquidity for in-game digital items.
>
>And I believe that addressable market is significantly larger than—or could be much larger than—eBay's marketplace on physical items.
>
>No one's doing it. And this should already exist. It's kind of crazy that it doesn't exist.

I have to front: I'm not so sure how much I understand the logistics behind digital assets bought from, say, the PlayStation Store, actually being transacted. If Cohen knows something I don't, then it's all for the better. If he knows less than he thinks he does though, this could be a classic case of over-promising and under-delivering.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it's possible. If GTA VI DLC includes buying some specialized vehicle, and a future form of eBay has some marketplace with which you could put that vehicle up for sale (so that it leaves your account and goes to somebody else's in exchange for some form of currency), then that could be a very prosperous business.

However, what makes a full digital game any different than a single item, like a skin or weapon? If GTA VI itself is available for purchase on the PlayStation Store, is it conceivable that the full game itself could be sold on the same marketplace?

With the way things are set up now, Rockstar and Take-Two have made it so that every purchase of this game will be tied to one single account, forever and always. No trade-ins, used copies, reselling, or sharing across different accounts. It's a bit of a scary precedence that they're setting, and in our minds there wouldn't be any way around it.

Unless there is? If enacted, could he unleash the marketplace of all marketplaces where digital games can be of value once you're finished with them? Or again, does he understand this less than what he envisions for the idea itself? Or am I missing something that someone else can clarify? Love to hear your thoughts!

Make sure to keep things in check.

As you well know, they won't start their heavy marketing on this game until this summer, which begins June 21st (my birthday, by the way). But keep two big things in mind:

1. June 21st is a Sunday. Outside of social media posts, don't be expecting anything big on the first day.

2. Summer is a three-month window. I think people sense there is some obligation to receive information once that window starts. Obviously the opportunity/potential is there, but there isn't anything that it says it can't start, say, September 15th. I'm not expecting that late, but I will take them literally at their word as reasoning for why each day in this season that passes by we may not get any info.

At least once June 22nd comes around, I'll finally understand the antsy behavior we'll see here if something doesn't arrive. But unless it's September 22nd and no info has come our way, I think taking their word literally will keep you most sane for the time being.

Enjoy some MLB, the movies, time with family, and conversing in the subreddit. I'll see you sometime between June 22nd and September 21st when we get something official again from Rockstar!