Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 6

release date?
i work at a video game store in australia and today we recieved the release date sheets and on there it said that gta iv was set to be released in australia on march 15. Can anyone else tell me if there is any truth to this?
 * There are loads of release dates floating around at the moment. Various different on-line games stores have dates ranging from Jan 08 to June 08. A number of the editors have decided that the only date that matters is a release date stated by either Rockstar or Take-Two. So far the only valid date we have is that Take Two stated that it would be released in their financial second quarter of 2008 which gives us a window of Feb to Apr. This is the most exact, reliable and (most importantly) trustworthy information that we have so far. - X201 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and March 15 is equally away from the start of January and the end of April (So they wouldn't be too far away from the real release date).padddy5 19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That February-April release is a fake. on that page is written "Coming October 2007". And the press release was August 2. It's been almost a month and it ain't updated. Yoosq 07:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost all other other evidence suggests somewhere in that February-April range. We shouldn't change it just for one source, which probably has been forgotten or won't be updated until the final date is known. John Hayestalk 08:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. So now ROCKSTAR THEMSELVES state that it will be released in spring http://n4g.com/News-71922.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interpol007 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Its official the release date for the ps3 is back at october. Says the official uk magazine. http://uk.playstation.com/games-media/release-calendar/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interpol007 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 October 2007
 * No that means nothing, they just haven't updated. John Hayestalk 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

amozon say that it is coming out april 25 for the uk. - chris 16 october 07

Best Buy and GameStop both have the release date as March 3, 2008. - joel 17 december 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.175.5 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Source that. ? Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ? 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across this today: I wonder if we can use this source to reduce the timeframe for release. It seems relatively reliable to me. Though I wouldn't mind another source to back it up. John Hayestalk 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still financial Q2 according to Take Two press conference yesterday - X201 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Though I assume the conference call refered to in the article I linked to is . As I can't be bothered listening to 54 minutes of it I can't confirm what it says. So I can't be sure if they went into more detail and actually said Feb - March, or if the guy who wrote the article assumed that. Oh well. John Hayestalk 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The release date is 1st of april according to xbox.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumboner (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

According to www.gtagaming.com it is april 22, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did they get it from? ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 03:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still not confirmed, here's the quote they based that from:

''"Games industry publication MCV has the scoop today on Grand Theft Auto IV's release date, claiming that the title will go on sale in the final week of April 2008. Citing sources "close to the game's publisher" they say that the game will go on sale in the United Kingdom on April 25th.

''This appears to follow recent trends for Grand Theft Auto release dates, which have almost always been pushed back to be in the final week of Take 2 Interactive's fiscal quarters. Yesterday, the company said that the game would go on sale some time in its second fiscal quarter of 2008, which ends on April 30th.''

''A UK release date of April 25th would indicate that the game would release just prior to this in North America, with Tuesday April 22nd most likely. As usual though, Rockstar Games said that it does not comment on "rumours and speculation".'' 203.211.126.222 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

According to xbox.com the release date is 1st of april 08.and they are pretty damm official since this is the only date theyve said since the october date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumboner (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are loads of websites that have only had one date. It's a long standing consensus of this article that we are only going to change the date when we find a press release or public announcement by Rockstar or Take Two that the date is X - X201 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to sound a little more official from MCV, would be nice with a rockstar source though... John Hayestalk 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or I could just look at the article before posting here ;) At least this long saga is over. John Hayestalk 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow april 29th can't wait, this is going to be SWEET. Its gonna be a big party that friday Vive la paris (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the proven date. Rockstar hasn't released the date yet. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They sent a bulk email out today stating that as the date. I'm not exactly sure what more you need than that Klptysm.


 * Fair enought. That brings me to my next point, then: Wikipedia isn't a forum. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And as far as I can tell, nobody has used it as such until you did just now (at least not in this topic). I invite somebody of authority to delete this message as well as the previous message by Klptyzm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.229.98.194 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No I didn't. And yes, someone did used it as a forum in this very topic: there wasn't a reason to say that there's "gonna be a big party friday." Because I'm not on any mailing list from Rockstar or whatever I was totally unaware of the e-mail at the time. My "fair enough" statement was made merely to acknowledge this fact. I'd advise not jumping on the "hate on Klptyzm" bandwagon. And this particular statement may be the only time other than my very first edit that I ahve used a talkpage as a forum and I'm only doing this to make a point. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing Klyptyzm did broke the rules and guidelines for talk pages. John Hayestalk 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The release date is still missing in the right hand box. Euter (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Euter

PC version
The has been no references or announcements saying that there will be a PC version! Msman (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We know. that's why it isn't in the article. - X201 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That actually seems noteworthy to me. It's a divergence from the norm for the series. Malefic 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malefic (talk • contribs)
 * Not really. Since the new generation of Grand Theft Auto (GTA3 onwards) the PC version has only been announced after the Playstation version has been released, and the last two Grand Theft Auto (Liberty City Stories, Vice City Stories) saw no PC release at all. 88.109.31.235 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in knowing whether they are going to make a PC version or not, and I think it would be worth mentioning the status of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.178.114 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberty City Stories and VCS, were both going to be Portable only versions of GTA, but they released them on PS2 aswell. Seing as they were just cut down versions of the main GTA3 trilogy games, there was no reason to release them on pc, or Xbox for that same reason. --User:Kai81123 09:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well is it even OFFICIAL that it will be coming to PC, or just implied? If anyone has a link to this, it should absolutely be added to the article Dogma5 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC) .. but GTA not only got its start on PC, but GTA3, VC, and SA all appeared on PC a year later.

Jeux Expo says, that GTA IV PC version will be released in Europe at least in October 2008.-88.192.82.185 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I believe that GTA IV will eventually be released on PC, unfortunately the source you have provided is based purely on speculation. We can only accept a confirmation from Rockstar. Sillygostly (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

At least R* hasn't denied a PC release, I belive that one will come. The PC version of San Andreas was not announced when the PS2 version was released.

Gronf (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody seen this, http://www.ezygames.com.au/product/index.html?id=4843 (Msman (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I dont think that GTA IV will be on PC,that is because the game graphics and physics are extremely high for the PC.It might take 100 GB of the PC memory to play the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.98.52 (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. No food left - X201 (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong. The PS3 and X-Box 360 both have only 512mb of RAM.  Your typical gaming computer will have anywhere from 2GB to 4GB of ram.  A PC can run GTA4 with little trouble Alyeska (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Box Art
Correct me if i am wrong, but aren't things like cover art supposed to be in low res? Right now the logo is pretty big... Perhaps it needs changing? ? Algonquin  12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That usually happens only when someone points it out and tags the image.. silly bureaucracy. -- nlitement [talk]  15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's still right though. John Hayestalk 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I know that the vandalism doesn't seem to have been very heavy, at least not what I've seen but on a game this big we're bound to have idiots coming through here on a regular basis screwing it up. Especially as we get closer to a release date. Should this page not be protected from unregistered users?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We already do have idiots coming through as any trawl through the history will show. One of the rules of protection is that it can't be used as a pre-emptive move. So it's a case of grin & revert it until we get a constant volume and then apply for protection. - X201 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You an never be too careful when it comes to protection. `` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the fuck were my edits reverted????!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!! Pippy Bongstockings (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it was poorly written, purely opinionated and featured a person's name which could almost be interpreted as a personal attack. If you want your contribution to remain then perhaps look at this and this. .:Alex:. 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pippy, could you please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Ranting and swearing at other editors gets you nowhere. mattbuck (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Pippy, you're going to get no where by swearing, take your mistake and know what you done wrong, making sure you don't mess up again.Liquinn (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Age rating?
The age rating would probably be a 18+, however there's no sources, shall we wait for the game to come out, and then add the information on the age rank to buy the game to the article? Liquinn (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We should wait for sources, whenever they come out and however they come out. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Its gonna be rated M ... obviously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.112.197 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously how? do you have a source for "obviously"? John Hayestalk 11:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no source, but simple deductive reasoning and extrapolation will tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that the game will be rated M (17+) by the ESRB. All games in the Grand Theft Auto have been rated M, and almost all retailers in the United States and Canada refuse to carry products rated AO (18+).  Rockstar couldn't and wouldn't allow the game to achieve an AO rating (it would be corporate suicide to produce an undistributable game), and dropping the rating to T (13+) would be insulting to the Grand Theft Auto' loyal adult fans. --Jtgibson (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No source = not in article John Hayestalk 09:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - X201 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Never suggested otherwise. I'm just saying that it will be M (17+). ;-) --Jtgibson (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some previews have said that IV is less violent than the other games in the series. And from the trailers it looks to be like that, so maybe it will recieve a 15 rating. But I highly doubt it, knowing Rockstar. --User:Kai81123 09:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't really deduce anything from the trailers. They wouldn't show the most violent (or anything that will make it a 'M') bits anyway because it would restrict when and how they can show the trailers. ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AGE RATING CONFIRMED!!!IT IS RATED "M" IN AUSTRAILIA! USA=? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.201.151 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where's the source? ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, GTA IV has been classified MA15+ in Australia for "Strong violence, Strong coarse language, Drug and sexual references". A source has been provided in the article. It will most likely be rated M by the ESRB, and 18 by the BBFC if previous games in the series are any indication. Of course ratings should not be published in the article until they have been confirmed. Sillygostly (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. That's cool. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 14:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

King Ring = King of the Ring
This may sound pedantic, but could somebody registered change Seryoga's song's translation for Король ринга from 'King Ring' to 'King of the ring' please? Ринга is the Accusative form of ринг and not nominative, so whilst translation between Russian-English will never be one hundred percent, 'King of the Ring' is a lot closer and less silly sounding then 'King Ring'. I'd do it myself, but I'm not a registered user, and don't intend to become one. Thanks if someone could do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.125.99 (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you may very well be correct, but the only source on that statement says it is called 'King Ring'. If you can provide a source for 'King of the ring' then it can be considered. John Hayestalk 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, if it was "king ring" to begin with, it would be "ринг королей". -- nlitement [talk]  14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It could of course be that it was released in English language countries with a slightly different title. Either way we need a source to change it. John Hayestalk 13:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with John here for the most part. So far everything I've seen with the English name has called it King Ring, including Rockstar in an interview with IGN. OptimumPx (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt suppose to change it into 'King of the ring', it's right. Seryoga owns a label called KingRing, it maybe refers to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.171.92.131 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From the original poster: Yeah I'm a little crummy with this setup, so I don't know if this is the correct way to go about replying to... myself. Quite simply, Король Ринга would (by all means it at least 'should') mean King of the Ring, so I don't think it refers to his label as such. I had a look at Seryoga's lyrics, he uses two English words... King Ring :D. I have a feeling all this confusion stems from Seryoga's own mistranslation. Unless he just thought King Ring sounded so cool :P. I have a feeling his label King Ring as you describe is the same mistranslation... pfft, even the gals in T.A.T.u can speak some English :D. No, you are correct to leave it, I suggested the change based on the language itself, not a Slavic-Eminem's version of things :) Aw well, at least some of you learnt a bit of Russian from it all.  By the way, I should have said 'Genitive case' before, not 'accusative case'... if anyone cares :P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.145.201 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to correct you on the case, so, yes: somebody cared 193.190.253.146 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Trailer Confirmed
A spokesperson for Rockstar Games has confirmed to German gaming site Cynamite that a fourth Grand Theft Auto IV trailer will be released prior to the game appearing on store shelves. According to the unnamed employee, the trailer retains the style of the previous three in that it is movie-like and contains no direct gameplay footage.

The site makes no specific mention of any release date for the trailer.

Source: Cynamite.de (Via Forums) www.gtagaming.com/ www.planetgrandtheftauto.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really call it confirmed until Rockstar comes out and announces that there will be a 3rd trailer. Just because one site claims that Rockstar told them something doesn't make it so. OptimumPx (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And the "unnamed employee" thing makes it suspect enough. These aren't national secrets, so why would the employee hide his name? ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1080p resolution?
The article states that the trailers were done on an XBox360 in 720p resolution, but I have seen rumours (e.g. this one) in some forums that the PS3 version will be in "true" 1080p resolution. Is there a verifiable source confirming what resolution / frame rate the final game will be (both 360 and PS3)? Cheers, Onesecondglance (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That I've seen....no. The only resolution that's been confirmed at this point is the 720p they used for the trailers. OptimumPx (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

wrong price for uk special edition
uk special edition is priced at 59.99 it is 69.99 even the source linked to it says that it is wrong can some one please change it. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.186.184 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go as far as mentioning it on a discussion page, why don't you CHANGE IT yourself? -- nlitement [talk]  15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is semi protected so anon IPs can't edit it. ●Bill (talk 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the prices. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions." I've also removed "limited" from the start of the sentence as there was no citation to support it.- X201 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hate to point it out butone all this needed was for someone to change the price and 2 the guy that responded first really needs to work on his attidue her you have someone who is trying to make a contribution to wikipedia being lectured about something. all it needed was a meantion to get about about being semi editable and you give the person a going over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobol (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My removal of the info wasn't aimed at the original poster in any way, shape or form. - X201 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Snow Weather in Liberty City (Rumors)
Here is a video of the GTA III Snow mod for the PC:

Rumors from GTA fans that R* should feature a new snow weather for both the PS3 and the 360. This weather could affect vehicles and bike's handlings and thus sliding it out. This is'nt the forums. Those are rumors. Professional Gamer (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, if they are just rumors, we can't add anything about them. Did you bring it up because it's in the article and it needs to be removed or were you just pointing it out for future reference? ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, soemoen else posted that reply didn't they? It's confusing when the SineBot doesn't come by. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need to add them yet, until R* has confirmed new heavy weather conditions. Until then, it's up to R* where or not to add severe weather conditions, such as snow, hailstorms, hurricanes, etc. Professional Gamer (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There will be no snow. R* said it themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary3weldon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you post up a link and see if it's true? Professional Gamer (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vehicles in GTA4
Can anyone please create an article List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto IV in Grand Theft Wiki or merge it into List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldaz (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is asking a question like that even allowed on Wikipedia, let alone a talk page? I'm seriously asking. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is'nt a game guide material. That can only make the fans easier for them to find Professional Gamer (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those articles were created last week. And speedy deleted shortly afterwards. - X201 (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kikizo, GamesRadar, IGN, VideoGamer, and ComputerAndVideoGames preview
Kikizo, GamesRadar, IGN, VideoGamer, and ComputerAndVideoGames have just unveiled their latest previews of Grand Theft Auto 4, the first major collection of online GTA IV previews since July of last year. The previews are based on a 90 minute preview session granted to them by Rockstar Games last week.

Yes, I copied and pasted this. The page containing all the info can be found here. I don't have the skill to add this onto the article and I guess that this could be very useful. Gronf (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a release date.. http://games.kikizo.com/news/200801/037_p8.asp "There's not long to go. Tune in again in about a month for our eagerly awaited hands-on impressions of the game, before our final review close to the game's release in April." Should we add it? It's definitely credible, but it's not directly from Rockstar (indirectly, though). -- nlitement [talk]  00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, else where in the article it says they've only been told that it will be out "before the end of april" which is pretty vague and is covered in the Wikipedia article by the official press release saying Q2. I think considering the delay and amount of speculation from stores and the media that an official announcement on the release date is essential. ●Bill (talk 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad someone agrees with me on this. I didn't reply because I honestly we should wait for a more official source but the prospect of actual previews sort of threw me off. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Until Rockstar releases a date, there is no date. It could slip or something and RS have said they will not commit to a date until its guaranteed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Natural Motion
Anyone want to add anythign on natural motion? I know nothing about it, but it seems to be a big deal.


 * Um...with all due respect, what are you talking about? ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he/she's talking about the new character animation technology mentioned in the Features section. Not sure if they're on about the company or the technology though? I think what's already in the article is enough really, and the company has it's own article which is linked to. ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Figured it was about a game mechanic. I haven't been keeping up enough with it to understand what they were saying. Yeah, I feel what's in the article is enough. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

no flags in infoboxes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Release_dates

Within the infobox, release dates should be provided using the

template. Even if this format is not used, 'do not use flag icons in the infobox', instead, state the region/country by name or by their 2 or 3-letter country codes. Xenocidic (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since a "worldwide" country code doesn't exist, I think we should continue to use the "worldwide" symbol, should a game receive a simulataneous worldwide release. "Worldwide" in plain lettering looks silly in the infobox. Sillygostly (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sillygostly (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rating
Can we give game a ESRB rating of RP (rating pending) due to I see it everywhere where they are promoting GTAIV. Patrolman89 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RP is not a rating. It's used by advertisers to tell audiences that the game is yet to be classified. The OFLC in Australia has a similar rating logo which says something along the lines of... "This film/game is yet to be classified. Check the classification closer to the release date". The very message may also air prior to trailers and such. Once the ESRB rates the game, simply post it in the article as I don't see the necessity of including superfluous "TBA" notices throughout the article. Sillygostly (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So when are we going to expect a list of the bands that will be in the game's radiosations?
You know, all the hip hop artists, rock bands, country artists, and all of that. Radiohumor (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't know yet. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At the rate it's been going it looks like indie bands, although this may change. I hope they stay with indie bands, since nobody will dispute that the majority of the mainstream **** that is out today is absolute garbage. Radiohumor (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that's speculation and somewhat unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a forum and especially not a place to express your distastes of music. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 05:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Special Edition
A new special edition image has been released and should probably replace the old one (as it contains the updated boxart); http://img.hardgame2.net/noticias/HardGame2/gta-iv_ps3_clean_resize.jpg

I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how. 84.202.85.167 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange how this image isn't on any other website or Google image search. - X201 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * D1. -- nlitement [talk]  22:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * has anyone else noticed how the box in the picture has an 18+ rating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will the special edition be released at the same time as the standard edition? -- Colt M4  Reload 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Year

 * Has there been any news on which time (year) is this game going to be based on? And please don't come out with bullshit comments like "wikipedia isn't a forum" because what I'm saying is relating to the article. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Today." -- nlitement [talk]  21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually I don't know if that has been confirmed by a source. John Hayestalk 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember but it seems to be pretty well acceptedx that the game takes place in modern time, originally 2007 but could be 2008 now to compensate for the altered date. Regardless, without a source it can't be added to the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So it's going to be based on present day, just like III? --Flesh-n-Bone 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No sources = we can't say. ♣  Bishop Tutu   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Link
Can someone place this link in GTA IV, links?

http://en.wikigta.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueYoshi97 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No fansites, sorry. -- nlitement [talk]  21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

New Image
I added a new image of GTA4 in stores. Gao gier  Talk! 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are they dummy cases? If so, I think that should be specified under the image. Sillygostly (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

aeroplanes vs. airplanes
to stop the edit wars why not just say "planes" ? Xenocidic (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. "plane" may have multiple meaning but when used in conjunction with the word "fly"? "fly planes"? give me a break. (this is in response to the edit summary for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&curid=2300721&diff=188089447&oldid=188072951 )Xenocidic (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because its been UK English for months now and its well posted that it should be so. Compromising with people who refuse to read isn't really a good way to handle things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very true. If we do that, why don't we just "neutralize" all vernacularly-biased vocabulary then? ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be "neutralise" Klptyzm ;) John Hayestalk 08:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So nobody else besides me thinks that this is just a bunch of pedantic bullshit meant to grow somebody's Wikipenis by following some arbitrary rule despite the multitude of times the article's language has been attempted to change? And instead of properly responding to the demand for American English by just changing all BrE words to AmE, we have to still insist on BrE EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY THE SOURCES are American English (which I believe is the real policy when deciding over BrE/AmE). I suggest all fellow editors to stop pissing everybody off and just change the article to AmE, once and for all. -- nlitement [talk]  13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rules is rules. If you don't like the rules debate to change them. I'm not saying I like them (it does seem a touch silly in this case), but while they are the way they are I will follow them. John Hayestalk 13:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way if you want to debate: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. John Hayestalk 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nlitement, there's many reasons to use either form of English; It's set in America and has an American publisher, but it's a product made in Britain by a British company. As there's conflicting reasons to use either form of the language, that's why we use WP:ENGVAR. Terms like pedantic bullshit and Wikipenis aren't very civil and I suggest you relax and have a cookie. ●Bill (talk 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As BillPP said, its a United Kingdon product (Scottish specifically I think) but not American and the fact its largely set in a fictional american styled city does not give Americans ownership of it. The BRE standard has worked fine and its only a few that are having issues with something which should not be an issue. I don't like spelling Colour as Color but I do it on american BBS for the sake of it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of sources is American.. -- nlitement  <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And the game isn't. It can't be helped that most major game entities are American, it can be helped the game isn't.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the fact that in game it will likely be spelled "airplane" ?Xenocidic (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't use 'fact' and 'likely' in the same sentence. Its still beyond the point and reaching for an excuse to make it American English.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the grammar lesson. For the record I could care less about this American vs. British pissing contest, I was the one who suggested we just say "planes" to be neutral. Xenocidic (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So I understand it this way: there are those who want British English are Brits who don't cry over anything but want to bother others by coming up with their own rules, and then there are those who want American English simply because it's more convenient to editors, is more common here, is used in the game, is used in almost ALL SOURCES ARE AMERICAN ENGLISH, etc. simply said there are people who WANT American English and there are people who blindly follow a rule I doubt even exists even though they don't "want" BrE if you know what I mean. -- nlitement <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Find a source that uses the word "airplane" and replace the citation. to invoke a britishism i "can't be arsed" to do that, but be my guest =) Xenocidic (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) ENGVAR doesn't work by where the citation comes from. 2) The actual example in WP:ENGVAR is the airplane/aeroplane one and suggests Fixed wing aircraft as the compromise. Which is good because now we can both revert it when it gets changed away from Fixed wing aircraft to Airplane/aeroplane. - X201 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I misunderstood the note added to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&diff=187800467&oldid=187799920, i thought he was referring to the cited article and not the present (wiki) article. Thank you for the clarification. xenocidic (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its source is AMERICAN, so what's going on, huh? Clearly, none of you have ANY valid argument for ANYHTING here. THE SOURCE IS IN AmE, so what's going on? And I don't think that there are any other things in this article besides "aeroplane". So yeah, the source is in AmE, therefore changing it to airplane will change the whole article to AmE, because it's the only thing we've been arguing over since "installment" was removed and it's the only thing that makes this article BrE. Btw., Xenocidic, I'll give you another grammar lesson: "I could care less" = "there's a chance for me to care less" = this is NOT "I couldn't care less". :( This is why we can't have nice things. And also, Take 2 is the company "responsible" for the game, it's only developed in Scotland, they're the ones whose stocks you buy and the ones you sue or inquire for support, etc. if you have a problem with this game, and they're American. -- nlitement <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nlitement, the origin of the source has nothing to do with if an article is American/Australia/British English. The type of English is governed by whether the subject of the article has strong national ties. James Bond is indisputably British, the Sydney Opera House is indisputably Australian, The White House is indisputably American the strong ties of these subjects is what governs the version of English that is used. GTA IV is in a bit of a grey area: The original idea is British, the coding is British, the publishers are American and the game's story is set in America. So its an article where we need a bit of give and take, along with compromise on all sides. Except the Aussies ;) - X201 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it more convenient to editors? THe article has functioned well for many months. THe only people complaining are those who can't comprehend the word aeroplane. As if its some alien device and they're struggling to make it operate.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft works for me. Xenocidic (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, consistency. Why is GTA San Andreas in AmE? And why are all other GTA articles too? Perhaps because they don't use arbitrary reasons to justify anything other than AmE, so yeah. Just like the AACS code thingy butthurt debate on Wikipedia, I took the better side (keeping it in the article) and it turned out that I won, because eventually things turn out right. And so will this article inevitably become AmE with the influx of new editors and the fact that the game has AmE in it. -- nlitement <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

- ::Nlitement, the game has been developed in England and Scotland in one form or another for all of the games in the series. Your only point seems to be that so many Americans have changed the article to their own means that compromises have been made to ensure they don't keep doing it and now so many compromises have been made that you're arguing the entire article should be American English. Thats not compromising, thats idiots who can't read comments winning out. It started as BRe, its a UK developed and CREATED game and the article, should remain so. Get over it.

EDIT: As for those articles, they either started in AMe or just got overriden over time because no editor has that little a life to keep fighting for things that just inevitable will be changed again by people who can't read.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already pointed out that R* North is in NO way representative of the video game. Of course I know they're Scottish! But the PUBLISHER is Take 2. They're the ones you sue if you have a problem with GTA IV, contact for support if you've got a problem with IV, buy stocks from if you want to profit from GTA IV, etc. They can change their developer any time they want. IV might as well be developed by EA if they choose to decide so, because they're the ones who own the names and trademarks. It's been Take 2's game ever since R* took over DMA Deisng, Rockstar North just does the labor. -- nlitement <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, its developed in the UK, written by UK staff, designed by UK staff, etc, etc. You sue Take 2 because they approve the sale of the product, R* only create, CREATE, the game, Take 2 are the ones who decide what has been made is acceptable for public release and take the brunt if they don't check for things like Hot Coffee. The entire series is also one big parody of America from an outside perspective. It's not set in America, its set in a parody take of everything American. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really care whether the article's in BrE or AmE, I think as long as the information is there and it's understandable it doesn't really matter. But I do agree with Darkwarriorblake that it's not really set in america, but it's a characture of america. I think it's a very British series: a lot of the the comedy is definitely very British and it makes fun of America, which is a popular British past time ;) . ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nlitement, you need to relax a bit. You've made some very uncivil comments directly at editors and their contributions. In the cases of articles that have grown originally using a certain variant, the article is generally kept in that variant unless there's a reason to (such as American specific or Commonwealth specific). As this topic could go either way, that's when ENGVAR kicks in. San Andreas is written in AmE because that's how it grew originally then. ●Bill (talk 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. British English has overridden American English. And for the record, I'm not English, so it isn't just British people supporting Brit English. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (I am British). As Bill says there is no strong reason for using either language, and WP:ENGVAR is quite clear that in that case the original variant should be used. If that variant was US English I would be supporting that, but it's not. It's British. John Hayestalk 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, is such an arguement necessary? BrE and AmE are just two forms of the same language. Both are generally mutually understood, and in this case, both aeroplane and airplane are understood. If your beloved rules are not working in this particular example, why not just leave it alone? Both are understood and it is irrelevent whether the article is in AmE or BrE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.147.238 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep asking this question?? This whole discussion started because people keep altering BrE and AmE words to the other. Many have already stated that WP:ENGVAR needs to be considered...and it really does, along with good ol' fashion common sense because it appears that some people aren't using it, seeing as some wish to consult their own morals and ethics rather than actually following rules. This discussion persists because of that mere fact: people won't listen to rules. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind common sense, it seems most aren't exercising maturity. Rules don't work all the time, AmE, BrE, it doesn't make a difference, the rules are unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.123.143 (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Boroughs
Does anyone know if they'll have places like marcy projects in brooklyn or other places like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.233.162 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

wanted posters?
the wanted posters are official just check out gtaiv.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.65.232 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why did you bring it up? ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial Wanted Posters are now Official
Shouldn't that article be changed now that the wanted posters are officially official? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did you hear that? If there's a reliable source then yes, it should be changed.


 * The posters originally released in Belgium were stated by Rockstar to have been unintentionally released as per this article, but now almost identical posters have been seen in New York City which have been officially released. I suppose the sections title "Unofficial wanted posters" should be changed to just "Wanted posters" and the content of the section itself would explain that originally they were considered unofficial but now official ones are out... or something to that effect. There's a link to a fan site article about it here:


 * http://www.gta4.net/news/3970/gta-iv-marketing-hype-begins--wanted-posters-liberty-city-police/


 * I don't know if a fansite news post like this is suitable for a source but this is probably not something a bigger site would report as it's just advertising on the street. So I don't know if a better source would be available.203.211.120.122 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

its it the 1st time...
that the main character appeared on the front cover --Foylepher (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly true, but do you have a source for this? John Hayestalk 11:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it really need a source? Anyone can tell just by looking at the front covers. ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is not everyone has access to the covers. If they look up the covers on the internet they might find fan made ones or other fakes. Also, they might not know what the main characters look like to verify they're not on the cover. To fans and people who know the series well it's pretty obvious when just looking at the cover, but it would be a lot of research for the reader to do just to verify that it is true. ●Bill (talk 11:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So what sort of site would have to be used as a source? A single page with all of the covers on [EDIT:] and a picture of a lead charater from each game? (Sorry, I'm still learning :) ) ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was from a reliable source then that would be a very good way of verifying it, but even just a statement confirming that it is true would be acceptable as long as the source is reliable. ●Bill (talk 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You do know that you can just cite all the covers? Because unless you're new to Wikipedia, Wikipedia has very often made statements using sources that aren't directly mentioned in the source. -- nlitement <sup style="color:#000000;">[talk]  18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing all the covers isn't good enough either, as that assumes that the reader knows who the main character is in the other games. John Hayestalk 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes nlitement, primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, but the amount of research involved for the person who doesn't know the series makes this fact a bit obscure. You can't just look at the covers and get a clear answer on whether this fact is true or not. Verifiability, not truth is the major factor for inclusion in Wikipedia. ●Bill (talk 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, that's not Niko on the front page? (Top-middle). Or is that not the game front cover? Gronf (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's him, but the point that is trying to be made is that non-fans may see this page too. Non-fans haven't played all of the games and seen the other covers to realize that this is the first time a protagonist has been on the cover. A source needs to be placed here for the non fans. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this should receive a mention. It's just unnecessary trivia, really. Sillygostly (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I realize that. But if people are really adamant about adding it, then they should get a source. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New info!
Here's more info (not released by Rockstar, this is from a German newspaper, not translated by me)

From GTAforums.com


 * If Niko is on the motorcycle, he wears a helmet obediently.
 * The bullets of the enemies leave visible impacts.
 * Elizabeta is one of the most successful drug dealers in Liberty City.
 * After Niko was seriously wounded, and landed in the hospital, all his weapons away and the next morning he leaves the hospital again.
 * Niko came to the US on the Platypus.
 * When shooting the pallets on the construction site, they turn to dust (i.e. destructable).
 * When the SWAT car blows up (with a rocket from Nico) the cop on the bike gets blown off. (I didn't get this one)
 * General: The article praises the beautiful lighting effects (on water, when sun sets, realistic fire etc.).
 * The last page tells about the Euphoria engine and how Nico takes a cab to the hospital (possibly connected with hospital-mission?). Also about the lack of planes, but plenty other vehicles.
 * After you spend a lot of bowling nights with Brucie a Helicopter-taxi will unlock (you can call it from your cellphone). Looks like the weapons dealer's car (which you also can call).
 * Quote: 'A sympathetic main character, nice and intelligent humor, paired with stunning graphics and brilliant physics will make GTA IV the best GTA game ever'.

From gtanet.com


 * Pedestrian reactions are more true-to-life than in previous games.
 * The WASTED! system is still intact. If you die, you end up at the nearest hospital (minus your weapons) the next morning.
 * One button press will get you into a car. A second button press is required to start up the car's engine. (Huge thing, if you ask me.)
 * Niko wears a helmet while riding motorcycles.
 * Surroundings are more interactive (bullet holes from gunfire, environment reacting to explosions, etc).
 * You can find "useful things" in cars that you hijack.
 * The game is set in 2008.

Gronf (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's not from Rockstar themselves, we can't used it. This is more than likely speculation on some fan sites behalf. Did they get it from a source? ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There was some additional info saying "They are indeed the first journalists who actually played the game by themselves. ", so they're kinda the source themselves. Also, I will provide a link to a website which translated the german newspaper. The english is poor, it was directly translated using Google Translator.

Direct translation (requires login)

Here is the link to GTAnet, there's much more information there.

Gronf (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't use the that without the original german source. If you can find that we can cite it as long as we quote all the german text (and as long as there isn't a english source that is as good). John Hayestalk 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, you Wikipedians sure are butthurt. Learn to: read the magazine's name, Google info on it, check what the page number is, and then cite it, just like it has been done for every cited magazine in the article so far. If you think someone might've taken the risk to mistranslate, then learn German. Or are you going so far with your Nazi policies that you say we should doubt a major magazine's authenticity, that it completely made all that up? Get a life. Btw. it seems that some of you are actually GTA fans. Well, if you actually were fans, you'd know that GTA4.net is cautious with bullshit, namely they never report rumors on the frontpage, and if they do, they mention that it's a rumor, and usually the news on rumors is something to debunk rumors. FFS GTA4.net is not a "fan site", it's one of the many HIGH STANDARD INFOMRATION WEBSITES ON GTA THAT ROCKSTAR ENDORSES. It's not some obscure site, it's the biggest web site there is. Perhaps you should've read OP and gone to his link, gta4.net, where it clearly says what magazine the info is from and includes scans. And apparently you never even visit a GTA 4 fansite so you're against everything and always bitching over everything. WIkipedia.. sometimes you let me down. --88.192.83.28 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I speak German, and I am quite happy to use the magazine, no-one has called that into question, but we can't use random translations without the original to back it up. John Hayestalk 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Magazine scans.

Page 1, first half

Page 1, second half

Page 2, first half

Page 2, second half

Page 3?

Now we must patiently await digital versions.

Gronf (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

english web source
Here's a websource for the info. ( http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/02/07/new-gtaiv-info-scans-found-in-the-wild/ ) xenocidic (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Even more information a nda new site

 * Characters in the game speak absolutely in sync


 * There will be no localised versions other than with translated subtitles


 * There is a "Most Wanted" menu point in the police car computer - possibly modified vigilante?


 * It is not possible to save except at the mansion and auto-saves


 * Even after severe crashes, cars will not be wrecked completely


 * They have never witnessed such a believable and living metropoils in any other game... but with that came a harsh framerate drop


 * They have never experienced granade explosions as in GTA IV - they described the blast wave as 'almost feelable'

HOLY CRAPZOID! The new site has launched, and Liberty City "is not as shitty as the rest of the country"!! It features an interactive map, new extremley cool pictures, info/videos about characters, and much, much more! PRESS HERE!Gronf (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where have you gotten this info from? The new website hasn't launched yet at rockstargames.com/IV/. it's still the old basic site. I added the news to the main article, refernecing their news feed.ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I get the interactive map, but it's not working completely for me. I expect it's being loaded today and there'll be an announcement later or tomorrow about it to the press. Bill (talk 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an article on the website that could be used to expand the section. Bill (talk 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NEW VIDEOS - MINI TEASERS
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/2924.html#newest220.233.7.176 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Much thanks for the heads-up.  U z E E  02:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can get hi-resolution versions on the GTA IV Official Site. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Multi-player content exclusive etc
Before the reverts and discussions start. It's not true. Both versions will be multi-player. - X201 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Development cost
I was listening to the latest Gaming Steve podcast, where he mentions that Rockstar has so far spent over $100 million developing GTA IV. Is there a reliable source for this? Seems like it would be worth mentioning in the article. JACO PLANE  • 2008-02-16 20:19
 * Unless T2 or Rockstar make a public statement about it, I suspect the only place we'll ever find it is in their accounts when they publish them next year. - X201 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's about 32:30 into the podcast, usually Steve seems to know what he's talking about. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-02-16 20:31

I don't see it. It may be true but jeez, they'd have to sell like 14 million copies just to break even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's wrong. It's 1.4 million to "break even". San Andreas sold 12 million but I don't think Rockstar based their development cost on this projected figure. 100 million could be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padddy5 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The only other thing it could be, is that he's included the cost of the development of the game engine in his quote which would be a vast amount but not all of it would be attributable to just one game, other games would use the engine and recoup the cost outlay. - X201 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the only other thing I could think of and rationalised they'd make money by having fine tuned the engine and then just releashing the new Grand Theft Auto upon it, plus DLC. I guess considering they just got 50 mill for the DLC, 100 doesn't seem too elaborate but I still think its a high estimate.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked Gaming Steve about this quote and he mailed me back: Nobody you can quote directly, but I got it from my friends at Rockstar directly just a few days ago.

Something to keep in mind, the key guys at Rockstar who work on the GTA game are paid millions just stay and do GTA. A few guys getting paid millions over a few years ... it adds up.

That is large part of their expenses, top talent salaries. So a large amount of money is going to just a few people. So the longer the game is delayed, the longer they have to continue to be paid without any income coming in.

But $100 million for the next GTA IV game? It's not as bad as you think.

Hell, they made that back in just the pre-orders, they'll make it all back the second it goes on sale and break profit a second later. At these levels $100 million isn't really that much. This is GTA we're talking about here.

Stephen Glicker

So I guess It's true, but until we get a source in the mainstream media or something direct from Rockstar I guess we can't include the figure in the article. JACO PLANE  • 2008-02-19 14:51


 * Though that cannot be included in the article until it's mentioned in something more easily verified that can the cited, I think this piece of info is quite fascinating. Bill (talk 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodic content is 360 exclusive
It has been confirmed by a number of sources including Rockstar that the episodic content would be exclusive to Xbox 360. Not sure why there is resistance to having an accurate heading. I'll assume good faith. As it stands now, at a quick glance at the contents, it appears as if there will be episodic content across all platforms, and since only the 360 content is confirmed this is misleading. xenocidic (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is downloadable content for both, the 360 has more substantial content but that doesn't negate the fact. Labelling it for one only means that you will need to produce another section for PS3 and considering how long that section has stood without opposition or problem, I don't see why you are creating such resistance on your end.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Downloadable content =/= episodic content. xenocidic (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If episodic content ever does get released for the PS3, then the heading can be changed back. imo, attempting to making changes for clarity is not resistance; reverting them is. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-jigged it and separated the 360 and PS3 (always seemed odd to me when it said that the PS3 version was announced at an MS press conference). Have moved the PS3 to a line at the end saying nothing has been announced. - X201 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First Episodic pack is realeasing in August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Official Website section
I see that someone removed the official website and teaser section. I think that they were a part of the promotion campaign and are notable. If someone disagrees, then please first post here rather than just blanking the contents.  U z E E  12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether they are notable are not isn't important, you can have non-notable elements on a notable subject, but you have to ask yourself is it relevant to an article on Grand Theft Auto IV. I would say no. If it was notable then an article on the Promotion of Grand Theft Auto IV could be written. John Hayestalk 12:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the website section should stay. All promotion for Grand Theft Auto is notable simply because it's different to promotions strategies for most other games. The website is part of the overall promotion campaign and should therefore be included. Maybe some of the detail could be removed but basic information such as when it was launched and what is on it (minisites, etc) should stay. I also think the Teasers section could be removed but with a mention of them under the Website section.ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or we can just summarize the entire Promotion section in two paragraphs and make a new article Promotion of Grand Theft Auto IV to serve as the main article for that section. All the information in the section would be moved to the new article and would be expanded with other details. How would that turn out?  U z E E  12:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds okay to me. Anyone else have an opinion on this? ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the section is getting unwieldy, then the suggestion may have merit. However, to be in line with Halo 3, it should be called Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV. xenocidic (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I hacked it together. check it out - Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV xenocidic (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks great. Now we just have to keep on improving it. Adding more info would be helpful.  U z E E  14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yea, I'll definitely be working to flesh it out, but for now I just though we could resolve the edit disputes with respect to the present article. xenocidic (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's better. I know this article previously had a promotion section, but a sub-section about the darn website seemed a little bit extreme (considering it's really not much different from previous websites, and we don't write about those). It all fits much better in an article on the market aspect of GTA IV (especially the trailers when you think about it, but a lot of that info was added in the days when there wasn't much else to go into this article). I think we can all agree that this is Rockstar's most ambitious marketing campaign yet, so it does deserve it's own article.  .: Alex  :.  14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work. John Hayestalk 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more info
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/180675.html?playlist=featured

• According to the journalists, the first hands-on minutes were enough to solidify their feelings of how the game is going to kick ass.

• Liberty City has more streets than any other game in the genre.

• You cannot enter every building. However, you can interact with most of them. Rooftops, stairways, fire escapes, partial interiors, etc.

• Niko will not be able to manage property, gangs or trade.

• Bowling, dart games, drinking games, strip clubs and night clubs will be available.

• The core of GTA IV is all about the human relationship.

• Sometimes, your contacts may call you during a hard mission to ask you a service. In this instance, you can choose between the mission or whatever your contact is asking. If you ditch your mission to do things with your phone contact, you may see consequences. Whether or not you will be able to replay the mission that you went away from remains to be seen.

• The new impression of seeing a next generation living, breathing city is absolutely stunning.

• The pedestrian population density changes between the place/borough you are in.

• If you walk around the street with a gun in your hand, pedestrians who have a phone can call the police.

• In one instance when Niko tried to carjack someone, the scared innocent driver sped away so fast that he hit two cars.

• During the first mission that the journalists played, they tried to carjack someone without a gun. The driver beat up Niko. Niko got beat up so bad that he ended up at the hospital.

• Pedestrians react in a very realistic way. The journalists said that it is as if each person in the game leads his/her own life.

• It took 15 minutes to go through 2/3 of Manhattan with a boat. It took 10 minutes by car to go through Brooklyn and Central Park.

• The cars can be destroyed very realistically. Every part of the car can bend and fold.

• GTA IV has a wider variety of mission types. The missions are more difficult than in previous games.

• The game is done. Most clipping bugs are gone. The game is super smooth in terms of frame rate. (Note: The game is not 100% done. It is not "gold" yet.)

• If you press the jump button, Niko can climb everywhere. In other words, wall climbing from San Andreas has returned. You can strafe on walls, too.

• There is a swimming club.

• If you have five stars, it's very difficult to escape from the cops. They are everywhere and they don't joke with you. They are smarter than in previous incarnations of the series.

• While in a boat, the sound effects are awesome. You can hear the sound of the waves that beat the front of the boat.

• With powerful weapons, you can shoot through the walls.

• The weather that was seen during the four hours of gameplay included fog, rain, sun and clouds. A variety of colors can be seen depending on the time of day.

• When you die, you pay $100 but you get to keep your weapons.

• When you go to jail after getting busted, you pay more than $100 and you lose your weapons.

• While you are drunk, it's very difficult to control Niko. The drunk sensation is perfectly done.

• When stealing a car from a pedestrian, Niko didn't get into the car before the pedestrian sped up. Niko held onto the car as the pedestrian glided along the road. (Note: It may have been the pedestrian holding on to a car Niko was in. The translation is sketchy.)

• Choppers with search lights are in the game.

• Women will striptease in strip clubs when you pay.

• Depending on the borough you are in, pedestrians may speak different languages. Italian, Chinese and those in the Bronx are different when it comes to language.

• Health kits are available only in buildings.

• Grenade and molotov cocktail sound effects are stunning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.187.51 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV: Tenth game in Grand Theft Auto.
Just want to make clear GTA IV is the tenth game of the series. On wikipedia it says ninth.

Pls correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakkon (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you miscounted the London expansion pack as a game. Count the games in the Grand Theft Auto article. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is standard for video game articles on Wikipedia to not count expansion packs as being standalone games in their own right. By their nature of needing a another game to be playable, expansion packs cannot be a standalone game on it's own, otherwise we would have to count all of The Sims expansion packs as games and even the GTA4 DLC episodes as separate games. That's why we don't count the two expansion packs that were released for GTA 1. - X201 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there were two mission packs for GTA 1, so it would have to be eleventh, if you counted expansions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Downloadable" vs "Episodic" content
These terms seem to be interchanged throughout the "Episodic Content" section and I think some distinction needs to be made. I think it needs to be made clearer that the xBox's exclusivity pertains to downloadable, episodic content and other downloadable content. No reliable source (that I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong) has said that all episodic content will exclusive. I will post it when I find it again but I read a quote from a R* employee saying that they are looking into episodic (note, not "downloadable") content is being looked-into as the main channel for distributing future Grand Theft Auto. If "episodic" content was exclusive to xbox, this would mean that possibly ALL future Grand Theft Auto would be exclusive.

I know, I know. This sounds like another PS3 fanboy rant but please bear in mind that I own both consoles and don't really "support" either one of them. I would just like the article to be a little more neutral.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.208.240 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think here are the sources you were asking about:
 * GDC: GTA IV Episode 1 - August, 360 exclusive
 * Take-Two F2Q07 (Qtr End 4/30/07) Earnings Call Transcript


 * I hope this cleared up the confusion. But I would like to say that there is no report that R* would not develop other content that may be exclusive to the PlayStation 3, but we don't have any confirmations.  U z E E  14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

need source that $50 mil was just an advance
It has been reported that the $50 million USD Microsoft paid is only a guaranteed advance on revenue from sales of the episodic content. R* is not getting a $50 mil fee plus all royalties and such, making it a much less sweeter deal than is being stated here. I cannot check most game sites from work right now, but I was hoping someone else had it available to post. If they happen to earn less than $50 mil USD from royalties, they would keep the difference, but that probably isn't going to be an issue based on the past successes of the Grand Theft Auto. 157.174.221.167 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Size of DLC and exclusivity
http://www.thebitbag.com/2008/02/21/microsoft-blogger-breakfast-bullets/

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/22/gdc08-microsoft-blogger-breakfast-audio/ (GTA talk starts around 53 minuites in, 360 exclusive is mentioned but not the size)

Several sites have picked this up, two things relating to GTAIV
 * Only the 360 will have DLC
 * The DLC will be comparable to GTA3 to Vice City
 * Its up to Rockstar if they want to charge or not

Any other sources to back this up?Skeith (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

German and European Rating
USK: 18 und PEGI: 18+. --84.171.110.206 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to post a link to the source if you have it.203.211.123.178 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No mention of GTA IV on official PEGI site. - X201 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've added the USK rating to the article (however I've used a more reliable source than the one provided here). ESRB/PEGI are yet to provide a rating though. Sillygostly (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

GameSpy hands-on
More source material. JAF1970 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)