Red Dead Redemption 2

[VXR]

It wouldn't have been so bad if they just kept adding the DLC vehicles to single player mode. So many cool cars since, but they didn't include them after the switch to next-gen (when those DLC cars were also added to traffic).

Definitely want this sequel, however. Loved the first so much as it also got me into the western genre of film and OSTs.

 

[Dave A]

Granted it's only 1 video, but it looks like single player will indeed be a fully fleshed out mode.

One thing that does kind of concern me is the camp stuff. In the first RDR I spent quite a bit of time just roaming around hunting and doing random crap not related to the storyline. I'd rather not have to interrupt stuff like that because the camp can't manage to kill a deer without me.

There a developer interview on IGN that adressed this, IIRC they confirmed that the camp will survive without you, but how involved with the camp and gang members you are will influence how the treat and respect you.

 

[PocketZeven]

There a developer interview on IGN that adressed this, IIRC they confirmed that the camp will survive without you, but how involved with the camp and gang members you are will influence how the treat and respect you.

I am really hoping for a westworld experience. (without the AI uprising and debauchery)

 

[TenEightyOne]

I am really hoping for a westworld experience

Faulty robots in a holiday camp? Huh?

 

[Whitestar]

God I hope this comes to PC.

 

[Corsa]

God I hope this comes to PC.

Your not alone.

 

[flooderqb19]

I'm still hoping the original Red Dead Redemption comes to PC.
With the work they did for it with xbone x, one would think they could have gotten a pc port done as well.

 

[Imari]

God I hope this comes to PC.

I don't really get why any big game doesn't come to PC these days. Sure, with smaller stuff there's the argument that they wouldn't sell enough to cover the costs of porting it over, but if you've already dropped tens of millions on developing a AAA game it seems like spending a bit more to get another few hundred thousand or million sales on PC would always be a winning proposition financially.

But nobody ever accused game publishers of being rational.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Edit: Screenshot because link no worky.

 

[_ApexPredator]

I don't really get why any big game doesn't come to PC these days. Sure, with smaller stuff there's the argument that they wouldn't sell enough to cover the costs of porting it over, but if you've already dropped tens of millions on developing a AAA game it seems like spending a bit more to get another few hundred thousand or million sales on PC would always be a winning proposition financially.

But nobody ever accused game publishers of being rational.

There's nothing irrational about wanting to release your product on systems where it's far less likely to be hacked, torrented and illegally distributed on launch.
If someone like Rockstar released a big game on pc at the same time as console they would lose considerable sales.

 

[MMX]

Edit: Screenshot because link no worky.

View attachment 767055

Sounds like they are going to treat this game the same as GTA V. Focus on online updates, and probably leave the offline story mode to rot.

 

[Imari]

There's nothing irrational about wanting to release your product on systems where it's far less likely to be hacked, torrented and illegally distributed on launch.
If someone like Rockstar released a big game on pc at the same time as console they would lose considerable sales.

Right. Cos PC sales would only be cannibalising console sales, it's not like it's an whole other market of customers to market to.

Let's take a recent example of a big name game that was also released on PC, Monster Hunter World. I believe Monster Hunter World is still averaging over 100k players a day on Steam. It has not been hacked to my knowledge, yet it's been out on PC for some time. It sold, according to Capcom, extremely well.

https://www.pcgamer.com/monster-hunter-world-pc-sales-have-exceeded-expectations/

It released some time after the console version, but had it released simultaneously none of your dire predictions would have come true. It hasn't been hacked, torrented, or illegally distributed, so it couldn't have lost them sales.

Piracy really isn't as big a deal as some would have you believe. The Witcher 3 was released on PC without any piracy protection at all, because CDPR doesn't believe in it. It was resoundingly successful. Why? Because most people are happy to pay for a product that they like. Those that can't afford it were never your target market anyway.

I don't think you can make the blanket statement that Rockstar would absolutely lose sales with a straight face. They might, they might not (although with any knowledge of the current PC gaming scene it seems unlikely). It depends on how strong the PC sales are, whether they choose to protect the game and whether that protection is quickly cracked. And honestly, probably a bit on the reputation of the company. I think someone CDPR gets a lot of people to buy because people want to support their anti-DRM/pro-consumer stance. I think someone like 2k Games and 2K18 get a lot of people refusing to buy simply on principle because of their shady cash grabs.

I think someone like Rockstar would probably be pretty firmly to the CDPR end of the scale; I hear a lot about how abusive the microtransactions are in GTA Online, but honestly GTA V was and is an incredible bargain of a game without any online at all. I think people want to give Rockstar money for the great games they make, which is why there's such anticipation for RDR2.

I think with Steam you have a whole extra market of gamers who aren't necessarily console owners. I think, based on my observation of the success of other multi-platform games, that it's pretty universally a net win for a company to release on PC unless they're a really tiny company and can't afford the dev costs.

That's why the vast majority of AAA games these days also release on PC. They wouldn't if you were correct, and launching on PC cost them sales. The only real reason for AAA games not to release on PC is console exclusivity, and that's just trading money from PC sales for money from the console manufacturer.

So yes, unless Rockstar somehow have an exclusivity deal with both consoles that bars them from releasing on PC, I'm sticking with it being an irrational choice. They're literally avoiding money that they could otherwise make. That's irrational.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Right. Cos PC sales would only be cannibalising console sales, it's not like it's an whole other market of customers to market to.

Let's take a recent example of a big name game that was also released on PC, Monster Hunter World. I believe Monster Hunter World is still averaging over 100k players a day on Steam. It has not been hacked to my knowledge, yet it's been out on PC for some time. It sold, according to Capcom, extremely well.

https://www.pcgamer.com/monster-hunter-world-pc-sales-have-exceeded-expectations/

It released some time after the console version, but had it released simultaneously none of your dire predictions would have come true. It hasn't been hacked, torrented, or illegally distributed, so it couldn't have lost them sales.

Piracy really isn't as big a deal as some would have you believe. The Witcher 3 was released on PC without any piracy protection at all, because CDPR doesn't believe in it. It was resoundingly successful. Why? Because most people are happy to pay for a product that they like. Those that can't afford it were never your target market anyway.

I don't think you can make the blanket statement that Rockstar would absolutely lose sales with a straight face. They might, they might not (although with any knowledge of the current PC gaming scene it seems unlikely). It depends on how strong the PC sales are, whether they choose to protect the game and whether that protection is quickly cracked. And honestly, probably a bit on the reputation of the company. I think someone CDPR gets a lot of people to buy because people want to support their anti-DRM/pro-consumer stance. I think someone like 2k Games and 2K18 get a lot of people refusing to buy simply on principle because of their shady cash grabs.

I think someone like Rockstar would probably be pretty firmly to the CDPR end of the scale; I hear a lot about how abusive the microtransactions are in GTA Online, but honestly GTA V was and is an incredible bargain of a game without any online at all. I think people want to give Rockstar money for the great games they make, which is why there's such anticipation for RDR2.

I think with Steam you have a whole extra market of gamers who aren't necessarily console owners. I think, based on my observation of the success of other multi-platform games, that it's pretty universally a net win for a company to release on PC unless they're a really tiny company and can't afford the dev costs.

That's why the vast majority of AAA games these days also release on PC. They wouldn't if you were correct, and launching on PC cost them sales. The only real reason for AAA games not to release on PC is console exclusivity, and that's just trading money from PC sales for money from the console manufacturer.

So yes, unless Rockstar somehow have an exclusivity deal with both consoles that bars them from releasing on PC, I'm sticking with it being an irrational choice. They're literally avoiding money that they could otherwise make. That's irrational.

I've said it isn't irrational for a large AAA company such as Rockstar to want to stagger their launches, I haven't said anything about them never releasing on pc - you're right that would be irrational.

You cite Monster Hunter selling well on Steam and claim therefore that were Rockstar to launch a pc version alongside their console versions you don't think it would be pirated and affect sales; fair enough, that's your opinion. It didn't play out like that when Max Payne 3 was released, and that may or may not have impacted future launch schedules.

 

[DVNTST8]

GTAO had a location/town named Strawberry, down by where Franklin originally lived.

RDO has a town named Strawberry.

interesting homage.

 

[TenEightyOne]

GTAO had a location/town named Strawberry, down by where Franklin originally lived.

It's a location in LS by Mirror Park. It might not just be an homage but a(nother) reimagining of that physical part of the GTA universe, which would make sense.

 

[Imari]

I've said it isn't irrational for a large AAA company such as Rockstar to want to stagger their launches, I haven't said anything about them never releasing on pc - you're right that would be irrational.

Red Dead Redemption 1. Unfortunately, we've seen this before.

You cite Monster Hunter selling well on Steam and claim therefore that were Rockstar to launch a pc version alongside their console versions you don't think it would be pirated and affect sales; fair enough, that's your opinion. It didn't play out like that when Max Payne 3 was released, and that may or may not have impacted future launch schedules.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/max-payne-3-ships-3-million-xcom-delayed/1100-6378114/

3 million units in the first week. What's your evidence for sales being affected to the point that it was a losing proposition? That's crazy good numbers considering Max Payne 2 didn't actually sell that well.

Still, a lot has changed in six years in the cracking community. I'd suggest you might want to look a little closer to the present to judge. In 2012, you could run backups on your PS3 and Xbox 360, so consoles weren't really any safer than a PC. But now, PS4 and X1 are still secure, and PC is still fairly well protected by Denuvo. Switch is the only modern system that's broken, and that's only with a specific hardware set that's no longer being produced.

The vast majority of big publishers simultaneously release on PC. If as you say, this is a losing proposition for them due to piracy and cannibalism of console sales, why do they do it? Are Capcom, Sega, Konami, EA, Activision, Codemasters, Squeenix and all the rest of the big names that simultaneously release on PC just too dumb to figure out that they're losing money?

I find it a far simpler explanation that one developer is dumb rather than a whole armada of them are consistently getting it wrong to the extent that they're actually losing money on the deal.

 

[_ApexPredator]

The vast majority of big publishers simultaneously release on PC. If as you say, this is a losing proposition for them due to piracy and cannibalism of console sales, why do they do it? Are Capcom, Sega, Konami, EA, Activision, Codemasters, Squeenix and all the rest of the big names that simultaneously release on PC just too dumb to figure out that they're losing money?

I couldn't tell you. I don't have any experience working for those publishers.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Read Dead online?



I guess this means the offline players will be getting ignored again post launch, great. Lookin' forward to Tron horses though... not.

Think I'm going to try and pick this up pre-owned, so I don't have to give Rockstar my money.

 

[Imari]

I couldn't tell you. I don't have any experience working for those publishers.

I'm guessing you don't have any experience working for Rockstar either, but that doesn't stop you from making assumptions about the reasoning for their behaviour.

It's perfectly reasonable to make an informed guess about someone's behaviour based on observation. You did it for Rockstar, but now you're backing off because your hypothesis doesn't readily explain this other large group of successful publishers. Maybe your hypothesis doesn't make that much sense when you consider the whole situation? After all, if it would be a good idea for Rockstar it would be just as valid for any other publisher, unless there's some sort of extenuating circumstance that makes Rockstar unique.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm guessing you don't have any experience working for Rockstar either, but that doesn't stop you from making assumptions about the reasoning for their behaviour.

It's perfectly reasonable to make an informed guess about someone's behaviour based on observation. You did it for Rockstar, but now you're backing off because your hypothesis doesn't readily explain this other large group of successful publishers. Maybe your hypothesis doesn't make that much sense when you consider the whole situation? After all, if it would be a good idea for Rockstar it would be just as valid for any other publisher, unless there's some sort of extenuating circumstance that makes Rockstar unique.

One of the reasons a PC version is late, is because PC's all have different configurations (CPU and GPU). It is way easier to develop for a system or 2 that all have the same configurations (save for OneX and Pro). Remember that they didnt just port GTA5 to PC, but made it better and graphically superior for high end PC's. Ps4 and Xbox also still account for the majority of the market. There is no reason for them to rush an unfinished PC version.

 

[baldgye]

Read Dead online?



I guess this means the offline players will be getting ignored again post launch, great. Lookin' forward to Tron horses though... not.

Think I'm going to try and pick this up pre-owned, so I don't have to give Rockstar my money.

?????

You want to play this game because it will probably be something you enjoy, but don't want to give the people who made it your money??

 

[MatskiMonk]

?????

You want to play this game because it will probably be something you enjoy, but don't want to give the people who made it your money??

Yep, that's about the size of it.

There's no other way in which I can vote with my wallet, which is the only effective means by which my issue with the lack of offline support can be represented.

It also enables me to separately demonstrate my happiness should they then announce offline updates, by purchasing a new copy of the game.

Buying or not buying is the only protest action I can take, it doesn't mean I have to completely miss out, that's a luxury I have.... Rockstars luxury is in not having to give a **** because they'll make literal truck loads of money anyway.

 

[baldgye]

Yep, that's about the size of it.

There's no other way in which I can vote with my wallet, which is the only effective means by which my issue with the lack of offline support can be represented.

It also enables me to separately demonstrate my happiness should they then announce offline updates, by purchasing a new copy of the game.

Buying or not buying is the only protest action I can take, it doesn't mean I have to completely miss out, that's a luxury I have.... Rockstars luxury is in not having to give a **** because they'll make literal truck loads of money anyway.

Wait, voting with your money is not paying for the online bonuses and new content packs...

Protesting would be not buying or playing it, what your doing is, telling all your mates your protesting, and then still going into work...

 

[flamingchariot]

Well, the GTA games are set within a few decades or so of one another. Red Dead Revolver was set in the 1880's, RD Redemption in 1911. There's no story progression from one to the other. This next instalment could easily be set sometime in the middle. Or before. Or after.

Even though i loved the game, i generally hate 'westerns'. So my knowledge of the period and when landmark events occurred is very limited.

Maybe you missed the point ...ha ha its not a western in the typical sense my friends and I just called it grand theft horse. Yes there are barfights and shootouts. You can also tie people to the train tracks or hogtie them and drag them behind your horse through town but it has a lot more going for it than that its more than just your average sandbox game its like GTA with all the fat trimmed off. Sometimes skill helps until you find yourself some mightier firepower. Well worth the wait.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yep, that's about the size of it.

There's no other way in which I can vote with my wallet, which is the only effective means by which my issue with the lack of offline support can be represented.

It also enables me to separately demonstrate my happiness should they then announce offline updates, by purchasing a new copy of the game.

Buying or not buying is the only protest action I can take, it doesn't mean I have to completely miss out, that's a luxury I have.... Rockstars luxury is in not having to give a **** because they'll make literal truck loads of money anyway.

How can you complain when the developer gives you a game with hundereds of hours of content, while charging you the same as some developers that deliver 20-40 hours and perhaps 10-20 DLC?!?!?! There is a good reason why Rockstar have these long development times. You get way more for the price then games you pay full price for and charge you for additional content/season pass!

 

[MatskiMonk]

Wait, voting with your money is not paying for the online bonuses and new content packs...

... which isn't an option since those things are presented for free - of course buying the ingame content is geared around costing real money, but me opting out of such things doesn't cost Rockstar anything. If my beef was the opposite - i.e. Rockstar charging £20 for additional offline content for the same game, you'd be correct - but it isn't, I've previously bought every bolt on or spin off they've done for GTA or RDR.

This article covers some of the points well, both positive and negative, as well as highlights the companies growing 'greed' https://kotaku.com/the-good-and-bad-of-gta-online-four-years-later-1819080293

Protesting would be not buying or playing it, what your doing is, telling all your mates your protesting, and then still going into work...

... if I was doing one of those martyr style cutting off my nose to spite my face protests, maybe... but as it stands, not playing the game achieves nothing. My point is made (as effectively as it can be) by not paying for it.

How can you complain when the developer gives you a game with hundereds of hours of content, while charging you the same as some developers that deliver 20-40 hours and perhaps 10-20 DLC?!?!?! There is a good reason why Rockstar have these long development times. You get way more for the price then games you pay full price for and charge you for additional content/season pass!

I also tend not to buy games that would only deliver 20-40 hours of playtime. I own 3 PS4 games, 1 of which came with the console, 1 I only bought for a single purpose (i.e. lapping the IOM on an S1000RR), and the other is GTS, which I have 100's of hours on.

To re-iterate the point I made earlier, by problem isn't cost, it isn't value for money, it's the direction that Rockstar are taking their franchises creatively and ethically. They are only pushing online to keep players invested in it so they can make money from MT's. Give me offline/standalone spin-off content and I will buy it, no issues - but R* have clearly decided they're not going to bother, and take the easy route by virtually charging for ingame assets.

Like I say, if they demonstrate an ongoing commitment to the more traditional fan base, they'll continue to get my money.

 

[PocketZeven]

... which isn't an option since those things are presented for free - of course buying the ingame content is geared around costing real money, but me opting out of such things doesn't cost Rockstar anything. If my beef was the opposite - i.e. Rockstar charging £20 for additional offline content for the same game, you'd be correct - but it isn't, I've previously bought every bolt on or spin off they've done for GTA or RDR.

View attachment 767257

This article covers some of the points well, both positive and negative, as well as highlights the companies growing 'greed' https://kotaku.com/the-good-and-bad-of-gta-online-four-years-later-1819080293



... if I was doing one of those martyr style cutting off my nose to spite my face protests, maybe... but as it stands, not playing the game achieves nothing. My point is made (as effectively as it can be) by not paying for it.



I also tend not to buy games that would only deliver 20-40 hours of playtime. I own 3 PS4 games, 1 of which came with the console, 1 I only bought for a single purpose (i.e. lapping the IOM on an S1000RR), and the other is GTS, which I have 100's of hours on.

To re-iterate the point I made earlier, by problem isn't cost, it isn't value for money, it's the direction that Rockstar are taking their franchises creatively and ethically. They are only pushing online to keep players invested in it so they can make money from MT's. Give me offline/standalone spin-off content and I will buy it, no issues - but R* have clearly decided they're not going to bother, and take the easy route by virtually charging for ingame assets.

Like I say, if they demonstrate an ongoing commitment to the more traditional fan base, they'll continue to get my money.

I actually prefer narrative based games that give me less then 20 hours, because I have a busy life and any other game will stretch out over several months of gameplay and might loose interest. If you only own 3 games, you are missing out lot!

Thanks for clarifying your views. But still I highly recommend to play the game first and then decide it is worth it. They are pushing online for additional income... they are a business that is normal But i am pretty sure they will fully satisfy the single player people as well. In my opinion you should always review or rate a game on the game you purchased and not additional future content.

edit: Already read some previews and they are describing the single player story like being in the hatefull eight or Django and the first impression being very singleplayer focused

 

[MatskiMonk]

I actually prefer narrative based games that give me less then 20 hours, because I have a busy life and any other game will stretch out over several months of gameplay and might loose interest. If you only own 3 games, you are missing out lot!

My perfect scenario would be around 200 hours from a story based game, I know that's a big number but that would include stuff like hunting for all the collectibles and side missions along the way, which can easily flesh out the play time - especially on the grand scale maps modern games are capable of. I like to get immersed in a game, and I'm happy if that gets dragged out over a year to be honest. R* have been so good at building worlds, characters and stories even the more grindy style stuff is fairly enjoyable.

I also tend to get deep into specific franchises, rather than play lots of different games within a genre. As I'm sure I've said before, I'd be happy paying more for games if they delivered a longer or deeper experience - but conversely, I don't like the idea of spending a lot of money buying a lot of games. The game that came with my PS4 was Star Wars Battlefront 2, I'm a Star Wars fan, so that was okay, but I could not be less interested in online shooters, and the story mode, though worthwhile, was over in 3-4 evenings of play, the Arcade mode is alright but feels 'small', so.. it's a good game but it wouldn't have been great value for me personally.

RDR2 could well be truly epic. If it ends up feeling like it was just a tutorial for the cashgrab that will be RDRO, I'll be disappointed... and I always had that slight feeling that's what GTAV was. I will be happy if I am wrong.

 

[TheCracker]

I played GTAV online for perhaps a couple of hours total, the same with RDR - but i probably put a couple of hundred hours into each games offline/story mode stretched over a four, five or so month period. As long as the offline experience follows in a similar way, i'll be happy with that. As long as i'm feeling i'm getting my money's worth of enjoyment out of the original game, i couldn't care less about any additional DLC being biased towards the online side.

 

[_ApexPredator]

I'm guessing you don't have any experience working for Rockstar either, but that doesn't stop you from making assumptions about the reasoning for their behaviour.

Seems like there's only one of us making assumptions; you know my CV better than I do do you?

It's perfectly reasonable to make an informed guess about someone's behaviour based on observation. You did it for Rockstar, but now you're backing off because your hypothesis doesn't readily explain this other large group of successful publishers. Maybe your hypothesis doesn't make that much sense when you consider the whole situation? After all, if it would be a good idea for Rockstar it would be just as valid for any other publisher, unless there's some sort of extenuating circumstance that makes Rockstar unique.

Are you reading these comments? From one page of one forum...
-

Buying or not buying is the only protest action I can take, it doesn't mean I have to completely miss out, that's a luxury I have

-

but as it stands, not playing the game achieves nothing. My point is made (as effectively as it can be) by not paying for it.

-

... which isn't an option since those things are presented for free - of course buying the ingame content is geared around costing real money, but me opting out of such things doesn't cost Rockstar anything