Just three days later, it became the fastest videogame to gross $1bn.

Those figures justified sums that, at the time, were considered astronomical for development and marketing – for which it also earned a record. It took that title in 2013 after Rockstar Games, GTA’s developer and publisher, spent a dizzying development and marketing budget of $276m.

It set many more records besides, but the picture is clear. Clear enough to explain why GTA VI is expected to surpass the previous instalment in the series by some distance.

Due out on 19 November this year, GTA VI has been in development for 12 years if one includes planning and concept work, or eight years if one counts only active development, from limited work to full production. By the narrower measure, GTA VI has therefore taken almost three times as long as GTA V, which required roughly three years of full production.

According to the broader view, the current project has taken over twice as long, spanning a stretch from 2014 to 2026 (12 years), compared to the former’s five-year cycle covering 2008–2013.

What is remarkable about that timeline, whichever view is taken, is that Rockstar Games has devoted to GTA VI the time that another studio would devote to two or three games of what are known as AAA standard. The classification denotes videogames, usually produced by larger studios, that have received a high level of investment, typically, although not always, resulting in higher quality and greater commercial appeal.

That is where the headline’s claim that GTA VI may well break gaming as modern audiences know it comes in. Unorthodox productions, it has become clear, are creating unorthodox expectations.

The Devil is in the Details

In the wake of another Rockstar title, Red Dead Redemption II, gamers online began to note a curious emerging trend that could be termed detail fetishization. This involves the elevation of minute details, which could only have been implemented in the game by a team of developers as large as Rockstar’s, to something of an industry standard against which other games are judged.

https://twitter.com/NikTek/status/2069835418351349890

Examples of this include subtle changes in the protagonist’s appearance depending on how much food he eats in-game, a whirlpool animation in bodies of water if the player character runs in a circle for long enough and highly detailed non-playable character (NPC) tasks, such as nails being hammered into a surface.

But for all of the reasons mentioned above, it is impossible for any other studio to implement the same degree of detail. They have neither the resources nor the staff nor, likely, the project management capacity to execute something of this scale.

The expectation of GTA-level quality in terms of animations, NPC programming, environmental design and polish cannot be met by publishers unable to devote roughly a decade of time, thousands of developers and at least $1bn – as is the current industry estimate – to production.

For this reason, Rockstar productions could really do with a classification of their own to ensure that the distinction is understood between what that publisher is doing – and is capable of doing – and what other publishers are doing and are capable of doing.

As it stands, the question for the booming videogame industry is not whether companies can match what Rockstar is doing with its GTA series. The question is whether they should. If games like GTA become the standard by which AAA games are judged, the result is unlikely to be better games, for all of the logistical reasons considered above and more. Instead, the result is likely to be unmanageable expectations that poison the well for the rest of the industry.