Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned

Price
What is the price of this game? Y2J RKO 16:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2J RKO (talk • contribs)
 * We do not know yet, such information hasn't been released. Any pricing would be pure speculation up until it's release.--80.216.48.180 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most speculation has subsided since Rockstar now have pricing information on their website for the expansion. --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.20.231 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, then can we get the price posted in the article? I'd add it but I'm at work and pretty sure I can't get on Rockstar's website from this machine. NathanJ1979 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, had my wife (at home) check. 1600MSP=$20USD.  Not sure how to source it, probably Rockstar's site, but I can't get at the URL so I'll leave that to someone with uncensored Internet. NathanJ1979 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch again. There's a note on the main article saying not to post the price.  I believe that it's wrong and that WP:NOPRICES Section 4 does not adequately cover static-priced DLC, and moreover it's clearly stated what Rock Band DLC (songs) cost in that article, but I'm not going to engage in an edit war and will leave interpretation of Wikipedia policy to more experienced Wikipedians.  No one's said not to post it in the talk page and it's here, so all someone's got to do, as I have, is click on over to the discussion.  And sorry about the three posts in a row.  Signing off. NathanJ1979 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
Could we have GTA IV: The Lost and the Damned redirected to this article? Seems obvious enough. 92.11.216.82 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - X201 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mid-Mission Checkpoints
This article seems a little biased to me (perhaps written by a PS3 player who can't play this expansion pack?)... anyone who has played this will tell you the idea that "mid-mission checkpoints" as the biggest new feature is ridiculous... it really makes it sound like the best part of this expansion pack is to fix an existing problem in the first game... And that's just stupid because there are tons of other new things that a player is going to notice long before they notice a mid-mission checkpoint. So maybe this is worth mentioning, but it's hardly the biggest new feature... I mean there is an entirely new storyline and campaign, new weapons, new vehicles, improved bike handling, and a lot of other things that are worth mentioning before something insignificant as a mid-mission checkpoint.

Anyway, this article obviously needs a lot of improvement and will likely get it soon since the game was just finally released... but this first paragraph just seems pretty biased, and using the word "Perhaps" in front hardly takes away the fact that it's 100% opinion about what is the biggest feature, but safe to say most people who played this will notice the mid-mission checkpoints long after they've noticed all the other cool new stuff. There is a much better review at the link below for anyone that wishes to improve the article or find some better info.

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/954/954427p1.html

Robk6364 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't actually a new feature either. It was included in the orignal GTA 4 storyline as well. It isn't new to lost and the damned. Want proof? among many levels that have it the last level has it. Actually san andreas also had the same feature. it isnt new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Its in the Gameplay section of the article. The Gameplay section is purely about the mechanics of the game and not the story or missions. - X201 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph
Does anyone else find the first paragraph a bit odd at the end? Wouldn't it be more proper to say "It was released..." as opposed to "The First.." since we are talking about it at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.207.114 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sales
Is says the sales figures for the game are poor, but how much has it actually sold so far? Be nice if somebody could find that somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comics46007 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Kotaku, sales are at 1 million units. http://kotaku.com/5165818/analyst-lost-and-damned-sales-at-1-million-all+new-gta-in-2010 162.83.135.65 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section
Someone removed the 'Controversy' section claiming "undue weight" - given that this article is hardly in a completed state I do not see how that can be justified. The reception section without it only contains a table of the review scores - once this is expanded upon to include a summary of the reviews, information on sales and downloads etc... the controversy part will be proportionate. Plus, the issue being discussed, the full frontal nudity, is very relevant to the reception of the game given that it is the first mainstream game to feature it, and it has been reported in many tabloids and magazines, thus causing a stir.

-- Kinda funny though about the fact the boring 'ThINK ABOUT tHE CHILDREn!' groups are more worried about some nudity then the fact that at heart, the hero is, well, a raging serial killer lol. GTA rocks. 121.44.230.100 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a full game
In the first paragraph it states that The Lost and Damned is "the twelfth game overall." There is a difference between a game and an add-on. It adds to the game but it is not a game itself and shouldn't be mistaken as one. 75.71.54.246 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will reword it.12.199.45.110 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rockstar refers to it as a "complete game", so yeah, it is. --70.188.30.4 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar's not really a reliable source. Of course they want to call it a complete game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.52.154 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PC version coming
Today Rockstar released new patch for PC (version 1.0.0.5) which added The Lost and Damned achivements to Games for Windows Live. Not so exclusive as Rockstar told at the first place. Liars. Link - http://www.gta4.net/news/4371/the-lost-and-damned-for-gta-iv-pc/ There is also new option available for pc users: -uninstallcontent: Uninstall GFWL GTA in-game content. 84.52.7.83 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not on PS3?
Is there a reason given why its not on the PS3? If there is I would expect that reason to be in the article.  AJUK  Talk!! 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It already is "Microsoft was paying a total of $50 million for the first two episodes". - X201 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather there was a reason why it's not on the PC. MrTrent9484 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be coming to PlayStation 3, it is only exclusive to Microsoft via download. So in other words, PS3 owners will not get it on DLC, but they will get it on blu-ray disc. -- YellowJello620 (talk)
 * Except not. It's on the PSN and Steam. --70.188.30.4 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

USK are showing 2 ratings for a Lost and Damned trailer for PC
If you do a search for Lost and Damned on the USK site it comes up with two ratings for trailers that according to the title are ment to be shown at Games Convention. It clearly says PC. Should it be mentioned in the article? Mclarenaustralia (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only entries that I can find say "System: Microsoft XBOX 360" - X201 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The "IV" Portion of the Title
I've noticed the game's title has recently been changed to "Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost & Damned" to just "Grand Theft Auto: The Lost & Damned". Shouldn't this reflect on the page title? --70.188.30.4 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Rockstar website for the game they still use both forms. There's no clear indication as to which one is correct. Either way we can just create a redirect from the other form. No real need to move the article seeing as both names are in wide use. - X201 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever works best. It isn't too hard to contact Rockstar themselves and just ask them, for "citation purposes." --70.188.30.4 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why the Rockstar website still uses the "IV" from is because they'd have to change the artwork, which seems to be really hard work (sigh... -_-). If you look on the GTA: Episodes from Liberty City, you can see that they removed the "IV" from the logo. I think Rockstar changed their mind afterwards about the "IV" thing. Since the title without the "IV" has been the latest form, I think that would be the official title. -- Master Sima Yi (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Lost and Damned Characters
Could we perhaps have a sub-article designed to provide a list of the Characters (Main, Supporting, Minor, Random & Antagonists), for this article? I think it weird there is no such thing for this game connected to GTA IV. I mean, while it involves characters in that game, there are unique ones for this game as well. Anyone agree? GUtt01 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor can provide information that meets notability guidelines from multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources, then I see no reason that we can't have an article about the characters. I personally don't think there's enough coverage on the topic, but I'd love to be proven wrong. – Rhain  ☔ 06:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Theft Auto: The Lost and Damned. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930191621/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6158823.html?sid=6158823 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6158823.html?sid=6158823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213202300/http://kotaku.com/354716/rockstar-experimenting-with-episodic-content to http://kotaku.com/354716/rockstar-experimenting-with-episodic-content

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)