Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Grand Theft Auto Released For Free 443

Snover writes "It's already incredibly difficult to actually get to the site due to its extreme popularity, and can only get worse after the inevitable slashdotting, but Rockstar Games has updated their original hit, Grand Theft Auto, to run on 'modern' computers and released it for free to the public. It'd be nice if more gaming companies did this! Unfortunately, it (of course) is Windows-only and utilises the propietary DirectX API, but hey, free game for anyone that's paid the Microsoft tax! (The download speed, once you actually manage to connect to the site, is quite excellent -- it's maxing out my 2Mbps connection.)" Ah, what a classic game.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grand Theft Auto Released For Free

Comments Filter:
  • BRAVO! BRAVO! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Omikr0n ( 656115 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @11:54AM (#5467045)
    It's really great to see software companies finally respecting their loyal customers enough to "reward" them with a free game.

    I've seen the opposite happen, where games are first freeware, then changed to a shareware or other license because they realized all the oodles of cash they could make off of it. I don't think that is a good practice and if more companies follow Rockstar's exmaple, they will have many more happy gamers that will gladly support their other products by purchasing them legitimately.

    Ahh...the memories.

  • Put it on Kazaa! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:01PM (#5467078) Journal

    Since nobody around here really gives a crap about what the various companies think anywho, would someone please put this up on Kazaa or one of the other P2P networks? If we can make a habit of doing this when binaries are available then future /.ings might be somewhat abated.

  • by theNote ( 319197 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:02PM (#5467088)
    How does a summary of a story about a free game become a microsoft bashing opportunity?

    This is just about the most childish story post I have ever seen Hemos.

  • Anyone else think these kinds of games are partly the reason why we're going to invade Iraq, North Korea, and various African countries once we're done there?

    Nope. We were fighting wars long before video game came about; they just make us good at using the drones.

    Violence breed violence and encourages hate. Why do we love to hate?

    Because hate encourages violence, they hate us, and thus they visit violence upon us and we visit violence upon them.

    This is why "love thy enemy" is such an important part of our culture. We bomb Afghanistan out of the stone age, and then hold their hand as they struggle to sort out all the damage their ex-ruler did. We did the same thing with Japan and Germany, and we'll do the same thing with Iraq.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:08PM (#5467115)
    but people are playing the exact same games everywhere else in the world (the guys who did GTA are Scottish, BTW). Yet for some reason you don't see Scotland bombing every little country they can get away with, do you? Violent video games are not the reason.
    Or do you think Saddam Hussein started making WMD's after too many rounds of Command & Conquer..?
  • by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:09PM (#5467120) Homepage Journal
    What these guys have finally realized is that a game's value to its creator is first (obviously) as a revenue generator, but after newer versions have obsoleted the old product, it's more useful in terms of marketing as a giveaway. I for one, haven't ever purchased any of these games, but I'll give this a try, and who knows, they might just pick up a new customer. Enlightened self-interest works again!
  • "Microsoft Tax." (Score:0, Insightful)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:15PM (#5467157) Homepage Journal
    I hate this term. Goddamn do I hate this term. I paid $200 retail for my copy of windows 2000 and I have not had it crash on me or throttle my data with a stick. All I've done to it is install patches. In the same time, my friend's dumped about 500 hours into his linux box, with an additional 1-10 hours every time he wants to install something new, checking contingencies, updating each library one at a time, and all from a prompt.

    Look, I'm a developer. I've written software for everything from a pocket pc to an as/400 adn that's included some work in linux. It's a nice unix. But it doesn't bridge the essential gap into the home market: it doesn't let me do what I want to do (like, say, play GTA) without forcing me to learn a whole bunch of things I shouldn't need to learn. A home user shouldn't have to learn how to "compile" everything. My toaster doesn't expect me to heat the coils myself!

    So I paid $200 for remarkably less hassle. I wish all taxes were so painless.

    I do think it sucks that you have to pay for windows even if you're not going to use it. But look at it this way: you probably spent less than I did at CompUSA. And everybody loves a bargain.
  • by diakka ( 2281 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:27PM (#5467199)
    This sounds like a nice thing... altho I think what Carmack did was much cooler.. GPL the engine and still charge for the data file. If Rockstar games did this, they might even find plenty of volunteers ready to port this thing to OpenGL.
  • by peeping_Thomist ( 66678 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:29PM (#5467207)
    Violence breed violence and encourages hate. Why do we love to hate?


    I'm all in favor of trying to root out the causes of hate, but it's annoying when you ask a question like "why do we love to hate?" as though you yourself were a pixie floating free above the human condition who had never actually hated anyone or anything. The roots of hatred go a lot deeper than video games.

  • Re:Sucker (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:30PM (#5467211)
    Unless you didn't like the game, I don't see why you feel bad about having payed for the game. I remember buying the original Quake a long time ago. Now, it's basically free. That's fine by me. It was fun while it lasted back in the day.
  • Should Microsoft.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:33PM (#5467222)
    ..continue updating Windows 3.11 for all eternity? RedHat, their 1.0 release?

    Hell, should Ford continue to produce parts for the Model T?

    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and as such, programmers working for you need to be paid.

    Any company that pays their programmers to work on free software, when the company's only source of revenue is selling software, will be visited by the Stockholder Inquisition. And rightfully so.

    Once in awhile, you could probably get away with diverting a few programmers to work on something like this. It could be a useful PR ploy. (In this case, I can't see that happening. The latest GTAs have been selling like hotcakes, and if they make another, that will sell just as well from the looks of it.)

    Now, what companies should consider doing is releasing the source itself, and washing their hands of the entire thing (save, perhaps, for a 'no profit for you!' license.)..

    This gives them a PR boost (yay), saves money by not wasting the time of their programmers (yay!), and ultimately, stocks the industry with new talent. There's plenty of people out there who'd like to get into working on games. Buying a license to an engine usually isn't a good idea for them - they're usually too expensive and will be overwhelming.

    If they had something to tinker on, for free, that'd be great. After all, in gaming, like any other programming discipline, the basics are the basics.
  • by op51n ( 544058 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:33PM (#5467223)
    I get the feeling this may be just something that comes from Rockstar being a relatively cool company. Their UK offices are just round from my brother's in Leith, and from their thankyou note to the pond in VC (the pub down the road from the office, and best pub I've ever been to) they do seem fairly cool guys.
    Now, if more companies were like this, and less corporately minded then maybe we'd see more of this kind of thing.
  • by TheShadow ( 76709 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:41PM (#5467261)
    Judging by the fact that he has written software for "everything from a pocket pc to an as/400"... I'd say he's not afraid to learn. In fact, he says he's used Linux... so I'm sure he has learned it. But what he is saying is... he's not interested in jumping through hoops to run a single piece of software that someone already wrote.

    And I tend to agree with him. I'm a developer and I like to spend my time doing things that no one else has done before.
  • by lpontiac ( 173839 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:42PM (#5467262)
    Hmm, but you'd run a higher risk of downloading a trojaned/virus ridden binary. Some checksums of the authentic article would be nice..
  • by default luser ( 529332 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:42PM (#5467264) Journal
    I seem to recall my freshman year of college, those with faster Pentium-based computers played Quake with cracked copies.

    Those with slower machines opted for multiplayer GTA, which was also not paid for. Unlike Quake, I was led to believe that this was the norm for GTA, and that compared to the sales, the number of GTA "users" was staggering. But this might have something to do with the fact that stores refused to carry the product.

    Anyway, this is hardly amazing news, as there were already patches for GTA back in the day that allowed for Glide accelerated graphics ( for all that fixed overhead angle texture-scaling ). Moving it to Direct3D is simply a small step in the same direction.

    But, then again, there are dozens of classic software titles that could receive a similar treatment. But the companies don't want to let go of anything remotely valuable, and even make up excuses about having to support a free product. I would not be surprised if the GTA community takes up most of the support slack on this one, so maybe that will blow one of the most common developer's excuses right out of the water.
  • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:43PM (#5467270)
    I hate this term. Goddamn do I hate this term. I paid $200 retail for my copy of windows 2000 and..... [snip]

    The relative quality of your experiences does not change the fact that for the vast majority of the population, it is perceived that one has no option but to pay for Windows. Therefore, it's a tax. The term describes the current status quo quite well really.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:45PM (#5467283)

    How does a summary of a story about a free game become a microsoft bashing opportunity?

    Huh? The ms-specific things stated mean that a lot of us can't play the game. It's not ms bashing - it's avoiding wasting our time.

  • by $rtbl_this ( 584653 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:46PM (#5467286)

    Can you please give me the URL for your slashdot? I think I may like it. The one I visit seems to have become overrun with astroturfers. :)

  • by bumby ( 589283 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:48PM (#5467296)
    _considering_ NWN runs better in wine then it does in windows (at least for me), I wouldn't say wine is crap.
  • by The Mgt ( 221650 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:50PM (#5467307)
    If you paid retail for your copy then you haven't paid the tax, you coughed up of your own choice.

    'Microsoft Tax' refers to the fact that it can be difficult to avoid paying for a copy of Windows with a new PC even if you don't actually intend to use it. It's a complaint about Microsoft's business practices, not the fact that Windows isn't free.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:54PM (#5467319)
    Funnily enough, they wouldn't be running the story if it hadn't been made to use DirectX, because otherwise it wouldn't run on modern Windows boxes and the story would amount to a copany giving away an old DOS game... whoopee...

    In any case, when I hit the GTA executable, I really don't give a toss what OS it's running on.
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:54PM (#5467322)
    Exactly. I've never understood why more game companies don't do this. Giving away an old game is certainly cheaper than conventional advertising. Hell, it's cheaper than a bloody Print Shopped flyer, even taking into account server and bandwidth expenses.

    Yet the rewards for promoting your current product are potentially staggering.

    Don't these guys ever go to the supermarket and eat the free cheese? They aren't giving that stuff away to feed the homeless or something.

    I think every game marketer should be required to spend a few years at Proctor & Gamble first. Now those guys really know how to, ummmmm, play the game.

    KFG
  • by Politburo ( 640618 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:58PM (#5467333)
    for the vast majority of the population, it is perceived that one has no option but to pay for Windows

    except with a big BUT.

    BUT, the general public does not see Windows as the scourge that most Linux users do. In fact, if you plopped down Linux in front of most users, in five minutes you would hear "I want Windows back".
  • by huhmz ( 216967 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:59PM (#5467342)
    Im sitting here desperatly trying to get settlers (the first in the series) to run under dosemu (great project btw) and it occurred to me. Why doesn't Bluebyte release this under the GPL or something like that? It's not like they are selling huge quantities of this game.

    It's almosed impossible to properly run this game with sound and everything on a modern PC unless your modern PC happends to have a legacy sb16 awe ISA card.

    If they released old titles perhaps small communities would pop up not to mention the good will the company would get.
    just my $.02
  • by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @12:59PM (#5467343) Homepage Journal
    From an earlier story:
    World of Ends Public Draft
    Posted by Hemos on 08:39 AM -- Saturday March 08 2003>
    from the and-i-feel-fine dept.

    Doc Searls sent me the link over to the newest work that he and fellow Cluetrain person David Weinberger haveput together. It's called "World of Ends"[,] although I like the subtitle "What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else" better - but that's just me. In any case, some interesting reading, particular if you like/d The Cluetrain Manifesto.

    First off, "person"? I suppose that works, but it reads strangely. We'd hardly expect a "David Weinberger" to be something else. Maybe "worker" or "contributor" or "author" or something, but "person" doesn't read well.

    Next we have "haveput" - oops. Then we need a comma to keep the next sentance from being a runon or something. Particular should be particularly, and "like/d" is obviously a typo.

    I don't think he's had his coffee yet... despite his belonging to the "and-i-feel-fine" department.

    Update: 03/08 14:42 GMT by CN: Yeah, this is a dupe of yesterday's story. Everyone point at Hemos and laugh.

    So as you can see, Hemos is evidently having a bad day. After being laughed at, he must have felt the need to take it out on Microsoft.

    Actually, if you look closer at the italics, all he posted on this story was "Ah, what a classic game." -- presumably, that means that Snover is being childish, and not Hemos. And I should know - this entire post is, well, childish.

  • by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @01:05PM (#5467370) Journal
    He's talking sales. He's wrong though. The most popular computer game in the world is Solitaire, or maybe Minesweeper. I can't prove it, but it makes sense.

    All you proved is that the most popular online game is Counter-Strike, but I bet there are more than 120k players in Everquest... something like 400k players last time I checked, though I doubt they are all playing at once.
  • by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @01:07PM (#5467382) Journal
    Why so touchy on the subject of 'Microsoft Bashing'? The ability to thumb our noses at monopolies and bad government is an american pass-time (there is plenty of prior art if you look in the history books).

    Could it be you own large amounts of Microsoft stock? Do you work at the company? Or, are you just ignorant of the findings in the antitrust case?

    Feel free to bash the open source community, Apple Computing, Sun, HP, IBM, or anyone else you find loathsome. Don't tell me how to regulate my expression (only CowboyNeal and the gang can do that here).

    (this almost begs a new discussion on how the supreme court views freedom of expression online - you probably wouldn't like what they have to say about it) [cdt.org]

  • by back@slash ( 176564 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @01:12PM (#5467412)
    Don't get me wrong, I commend Rockstar for distributing a great game like GTA free of charge, but why not give the source also while they are at it? Since the game engine is completely different than the one used in GTA3 and Vice City they really don't have to worry about competition arising from modifications to the source code of the original GTA.

    One great example of how releasing the source brings benefits to fans of a game is Descent Freespace 2. Early last year Volition released the source code to the game. I know personally I enjoyed hacking around with it a bit for fun (and playing make believe that I coded games for a living instead of backend java apps :P ). The FreeSpace Source Code Project [volitionwatch.com] was formed and has made many enhancements to the game. They recently released FS2 Open version 3.5 which adds OpenGL support, the ability to add custom movies to mission briefings, many new weapons, damage decals, and ship trails just to name a few things.

    Releasing the source to GTA would undoubtedly spawn similar projects to enhance what is still a great game, and who knows some of the ideas the community may come up with could help Rockstar out with new innovations for latest games in the series.
  • by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @01:16PM (#5467430)
    I am truly impressed. There are so many old games that I would LOVE to see released like this just because they're classics. (Maxis kind of did the same by creating a java applet of the Original Sim City that will run off their site.)

    Half of them are games once bought that no longer run on modern PCs. So I've already spent the money. Populous, Warcraft I, all the old sierra games, etc.

    It's really nice of them to release an updated copy but I'd appreciate just releasing the source even more.

    I don't mind supporting a company that does this one bit!

    Way to go guys!
  • by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Saturday March 08, 2003 @01:27PM (#5467479) Homepage
    How does a summary of a story about a free game become a microsoft bashing opportunity?
    You're new here, aren't you?
  • by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @02:08PM (#5467685)
    The general publics attitude is irrelavant in the case of person who just wants a bare box minus the cost of Windows. Anything unwanted you have to pay for is a scourge. The fact that you or the general public like it doesn't matter. The general public isn't using a Linux or BSD user's personal machine.

    For the medium term, bare boxes are a perfectly acceptable vendor alternative. They're still obligated to exchange defective hardware but most Linux users can support themselves. The "we can't support it." argument doesn't matter either. The vendor doesn't need to know what I'm running. Just fork over the box and I'll worry about the OS.
  • by DarkVein ( 5418 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @02:12PM (#5467701) Journal
    I think you misunderstand the term.

    I agree with your sentiment. Windows 2000 is the best OS Microsoft has ever put out. Absolute cream of the crop. Wonderful system. And, I would/have paid for it.

    I've also paid for nine other copies of Windows for my three working computers. I was taxed. I keep my manuals, and moved not too long ago. On a whim, I located all my former Windows licenses. Nine. I've never had more than three Windows computers at one time, and I have NINE Windows licenses. Seven of them are OEM, five of those are a variant of Windows 95, two Windows 98. The other two are from Windows 95 and 98 that I bought on release day.

    I was a loyal customer. Yet, without my cognizance, Microsoft managed to weasel seven useless, duplicate, licenses out of me. Pardon me if I want a refund.
  • by volve ( 592475 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @02:49PM (#5467885) Homepage
    And another one:

    http://files.volved.com/misc/GTAINSTALLER.ZIP [volved.com]

    -VolVE
  • by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @02:51PM (#5467891)
    "Could it be you own large amounts of Microsoft stock? Do you work at the company? Or, are you just ignorant of the findings in the antitrust case?"

    So why is it that when people are sick of the MS bashing, it has to be that they have some vested interest in MS? Why can't it be that they're just sick of it because it's repetitive, FUD filled, and a lot of it uncalled for? There hasn't even been any significant developments in that case for what a year now, maybe two?

    "Boo hoo, they use Direct X so we can't play it on Linux."

    That's like being upset that your PS2 can't play XBOX games. Who wants to listen to bitching about not having the right gaming setup? If you're not running Windows, but you want to play Windows games, that is your fault not Microsoft's.

    So no, we don't want to listen to that childish bullshit. You made your bed, now lay in it.

  • by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @03:06PM (#5467962)
    "How does a summary of a story about a free game become a microsoft bashing opportunity?"

    Probably because the Linux Zealots out there who use Linux solely for the purpose of flipping off Microsoft are realizing that Microsoft got the last laugh. Windows can do something that Linux can't do: attract game developers.

    Doh!
  • by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @03:16PM (#5468008) Journal
    Then we need a comma to keep the next sentance from being a runon

    Gotta be a troll.

  • Re:BRAVO! BRAVO! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sfe_software ( 220870 ) on Saturday March 08, 2003 @05:02PM (#5468513) Homepage
    You're suggesting that gamers have brand loyalty.

    I do. I respect the hell out of ID software, releasing source to their older versions of Doom and Quake. Not to mention supporting Linux far more than many others. As a result, I have some bit of loyalty toward them. I'll be purchasing Doom III the minute it is released. Partly because it looks to be a really cool game, and partly because I trust ID software to where I don't even feel the need to snag the demo first. I know it will be first rate.

    If I can get to the server, I'll snag GTA. Perhaps it will prompt me to finally pick up a copy of GTA III, which I've been tempted to do... perhaps it wouldn't be "brand loyalty" per se, but I do have a bit of respect for them for having done this, and that will influence future purchasing decisions. If that's what they were going for, then great -- mission accomplished.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @05:37PM (#5468652)
    Quit whining, you penniless hippie. Just because Microsoft bashing is fashionable doesn't make it logically sound.

    Most Linux users are ashamed to admit it, but they typically have a dual boot set up that gives them the choice to either 1) enter the garish lair of Gnome hell and screw with their settings for hours on end until some obscure CPU feature starts working or 2) go into Windows and get work done. They only boot into Linux when their leetness levels start drying up and they feel the need to be haughty and condescending, just like you, my good man.
  • Re:BRAVO! BRAVO! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2003 @06:07PM (#5468760)
    >> FOR FREE an old game that for all intents and purposes has passed the end of its marketable life.

    They could port it to PDAs, GBA, GP32 etc (I believe it already exists for GBC). Or package it and its sequel into a 'greatest hits' disc for PS2 - it'd sell like hotcakes.

    Those 'arcades greatest hits' and atari collections sell well enough that they keep making them. It's not just nostalgia, my 10 year old likes playing some of the old stuff every bit as much as I do. Good games are relatively timeless.

    Just because something is a few years old doesnt mean its unmarketable.
  • Re:Old News (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DarkKnightRadick ( 268025 ) <the_spoon.geo@yahoo.com> on Saturday March 08, 2003 @06:07PM (#5468762) Homepage Journal
    I agree completely, although I've been modded up to 5 once or twice, it's extremely rare, even though the majority of my comments are on topic (I usually get modded down as a troll if I say something the mod's disagree with).
  • Re:BRAVO! BRAVO! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anon*127.0.0.1 ( 637224 ) <slashdot@baudkaM ... om minus painter> on Saturday March 08, 2003 @06:36PM (#5468891) Journal
    Hell yes gamers have brand loyalty. How many ATI/nVidia/AMD/Intel/Linux/Mac/Id/Blizzard/whateve r fanboys are out there? Hell, I think it's a pretty rare gamer who can just evaluate a game or product based solely on its merits, without letting preconcieved notions get in the way.

  • Re:BRAVO! BRAVO! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quecojones ( 108609 ) <quecojones@@@quecojones...net> on Saturday March 08, 2003 @07:04PM (#5469003) Homepage

    You're suggesting that gamers have brand loyalty.

    May I bring to your attention the fans of a game series that have switched consoles/platforms in order to continue enjoying their games? The game company is Squaresoft [squaresoft.com] and the game is Final Fantasy [squaresoft.com]

  • by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday March 09, 2003 @03:06AM (#5470478) Homepage
    I guess that would be a good idea if everyone who held a copyright was a big company that manages to skate on the rest of their taxes and could thus be assumed to have the ability to afford yet another tax on their income. Of course, they aren't.

    I, for one, would be quite resentful of a system that reduced the value of my creation(s) based on that kind of system and I think most individual copyright holders would feel the same. So, since corporations have legal rights very similar to private individuals, the law would have to apply equally and it would be just another penalty for individual creativity.

    Solving the "copyright problem" is very, very simple and we all know it: Limit copyright duration to a very reasonable 20 years and have done with it. Profiting from a creation for 20 years is more than adequate, and such a term would encourage creative output on the part of individuals AND corporations. That number may look short, but really any longer term primarily benefits behemoth corporations (see Disney) and encourages them to stagnate and get testy with consumers who don't want to pay for the same piece of work over and over again until they're dead.

    Of course, it certainly won't change like that in my lifetime given the power that "big business" (ouch) exerts over our national legislature but I can dare to dream (and support the right lobbying/public interest groups - i.e., these peoples). [eff.org]

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...