Red Dead Redemption 2

[Gerg04]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

I think it's a legit worry. But, cash rules. And GTAO is STILL a cash cow. It sucks we didn't get any single player DLC for V, but R* capitalized on what was selling...and is still selling three years later. We really almost can't blame them, as badly as we wanted it.

But I also think R* also knows how important SP is, especially in the GTA and RdR series. I have no doubt RdR 2 will have a great, fully engrossing story, and that will be their main focus. Sure, we'll still get MP, but they've already stated they have no expectations of RdR 2 online surpassing or equaling GTAO. If they truly believe that, I don't see them putting too many eggs in the multiplayer basket. Hopefully single player is still the main focus and from the info we've gotten so far, it seems like the case.

The fear of no SP DLC is real, though. And again I don't see them starting any type of trend we haven't already started down the path of. We're going to get more and more multiplayer games, it's just a sign of the times, but I don't think it means the end of a good story. I'd still expect subsequent GTA and RdR games to have and focus on great single player story.



Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Gagnon39]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

I disagree that Rockstar finds single player important. We'll see in GTA VI how important it is. And we'll see in Red Dead Redemption 2 if we don't get any single player DLC.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Gerg04]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

I disagree that Rockstar finds single player important. We'll see in GTA VI how important it is. And we'll see in Red Dead Redemption 2 if we don't get any single player DLC.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Curious how you disagree? Or what is it you disagree with?

Both GTA V and Red Dead Redemption had great single player experiences. Of course it's subjective, but they're both at the tops of my list in terms of story's.

GTAO took a life of its own. I don't think even Rockstar could've projected or predicted what it has become.

Again, I agree it sucks we didn't see single player DLC, but I don't think that equals R* not seeing the importance in single player, since they delivered a great single player experience. If there was no story or a bad story, I'd agree with but that's just not the case.

Let's face it, DLC for games that are single player focused is just as much about additional revenue as it is about bringing more content. Couple in the fact that we KNOW dev's nowadays hold content back in order to be sold as DLC. Keyword - sold. I don't blame R* for running with GTAO. Who in their right mind would abandon something so lucrative?

Still, they delivered a great single player story, again my opinion I guess, but I don't recall a ton of negative views on it. I just don't know why now all the sudden we'd get a bad storyline from R* games, I just don't see it.





Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Blzer]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

Yeah, Gagnon39's post gets a "soft like" from me.

I agree that SP will not be the focus post-release, but I don't think they'll short-change us on the development of SP pre-release (though the closer we get to release, you can bet they will give us a lot of the marketing skinny on MP). They know better than to alienate their fanbases prior to getting this game out and in our hands.

By the way, zombie DLC does not intrigue me one bit should they decide to go that route again for any reason.

All this being said, if they decided to drop GTA V SP DLC today, I would still purchase it in a heartbeat.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

I think the days of the single player DLC ala GTA IV are over, but I still have faith that R* gives us a robust single player experience at release.

[Gagnon39]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

I don't think they'll short-change us on the development of SP pre-release (though the closer we get to release, you can bet they will give us a lot of the marketing skinny on MP). They know better than to alienate their fanbases prior to getting this game out and in our hands.

They won't on Red Dead Redemption 2 because I'm sure they had already developed a good part of it before GTA Online became so popular. But I'll be surprised if they create any single player DLC. Unless their online mode is a bust.

The real test will be GTA VI. And they will alienate the single player crowd in favor of the masses that want online modes. They're never going to come out and actually say, "we spent far less time on the single player campaign." But it will become obvious if the hours to complete the single player mode is cut.

I've just never seen a big Triple-A developer say they're going to release significant single player DLC, and then say, "meh, screw it." It's a frightening reality for people like me who love story driven games.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

R* likes money, though. There is still a significant amount of people who are only interested in R*'s open-world narrative in the single player experience. That is their legacy. To dismantle that would be to lose out on money.

[Gagnon39]

Red Dead Redemption 2

Curious how you disagree? Or what is it you disagree with?.


Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

If they cared about single player DLC, they wouldn't have said they were releasing, "significant," single player DLC and continuing the story of Michael, Franklin, and Trevor, and then just never releasing it.

I think some are missing part of the equation here. Rockstar gave us one of the best stories in a video game I've ever played, but that was before the online mode became so popular. Same with Red Dead Redemption 2. I'm sure it will have a killer story, but probably no single player DLC.

Now that GTA Online is an absolute monster, generating millions of dollars, we'll see what they really care about. My guess is the single player story in GTA VI is significantly less involved, shorter, and less interesting than GTA V or Red Dead Redemption 2.

And again, I hope I'm wrong. And I think these doomsday scenarios will take years to develop. Could be 10 years but I think by 2030 we may not see games like The Witcher, Elder Scrolls, etc., the same way we have been before. They'll probably adopt the GTA Online model, where most of the emphasis is on online modes with millions in micro transactions.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

Haven't people been saying this for awhile? There will always be a market for single player games.

[Gagnon39]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

R* likes money, though. There is still a significant amount of people who are only interested in R*'s open-world narrative in the single player experience. That is their legacy. To dismantle that would be to lose out on money.

GTA V suggests otherwise. They care about money, not legacy. And it doesn't matter if there is a significant amount of people interested in Rockstar's single player experience if there are 100 times more people interested in the online experience.

Look at the Call of Duty series and other first-person shooters. They used to have huge single player campaigns. Now it's not uncommon for a FPS to be shipped with no single player campaign whatsoever. Sure, you have small pockets calling for one, and sometimes it's enough to get at least something. Take Star Wars Battlefront. First one had no single player. People have asked for it and now it's in Battlefront II. Victory, right? Doubtful as I bet it's 10 hours or so and only somewhat developed. And I'd bet money there's no single player DLC on that one either.

It seems silly at first, because we all are kind of in the same boat of, "I'd still buy GTA V single player DLC if it came out today." Seems like easy money for Rockstar. Well, it is to some degree. But not even remotely as easy compared to something like the Gun Runners add-on. And that's free... oh wait... Shark Cards... and millions and millions for Rockstar.

Think about this. GTA V came out in 2013 and 2018 is projected to be the Online modes biggest year yet, its crazy how popular it remains. Chalk it up to whatever you want but the fact remains that online and microtransactions is king for them and single player is becoming the afterthought in the game the way the online component used to be.

It's frustrating to me, someone who truly enjoys a good story and unique and interesting characters. But that's dissipating due to a largely young, immature (not most of us here on OS but jump on a random server in GTA Online) audience that craves running around aimlessly in free roam shooting grenade launchers everywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

Despite GTA Online's success and multiplayer portions being included in a lot games I still am not ascribing to this sky is falling theory. Apart from GTA IV - how many other GTA have had robust single player DLCs? Not including spin-offs like Vice City Stories that were stand alone games. GTA Online is sustaining R* during their development cycles and is a new market for them. It makes sense for them to pursue that. I'm not arguing that they won't look to expand that market in the future, but I don't see them severing their tried and true market that knows R* first and foremost as a AAA quality single player experience.

How long were FPS before Modern Warfare? Even then I don't remember them being overly lengthy considering they could be run through in half a day. Nothing has changed as dramatically as you say. You mentioned Battlefront not having a single player experience, but the only other FPS that I can think of that also didn't was TitanFall 1. Similarly to BF2 TF2 featured a single player campaign in order to draw more people in and satisfy their target markets.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

Idk how anyone can play the single player story on GTAV and think it is/was an after though. If you wanna call the post launch support an after thought, I can regard that. I think it's pretty insulting to R* to call their single player an after thought when there are so many little details into their single player modes. Arguments like these make no sense to me. I think R* does a great job of giving us an awesome online experience and also feeding into the online side of the business. They can do both and they have.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Gagnon39]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

Despite GTA Online's success and multiplayer portions being included in a lot games I still am not ascribing to this sky is falling theory. Apart from GTA IV - how many other GTA have had robust single player DLCs? Not including spin-offs like Vice City Stories that were stand alone games. GTA Online is sustaining R* during their development cycles and is a new market for them. It makes sense for them to pursue that. I'm not arguing that they won't look to expand that market in the future, but I don't see them severing their tried and true market that knows R* first and foremost as a AAA quality single player experience.

How long were FPS before Modern Warfare? Even then I don't remember them being overly lengthy considering they could be run through in half a day. Nothing has changed as dramatically as you say. You mentioned Battlefront not having a single player experience, but the only other FPS that I can think of that also didn't was TitanFall 1. Similarly to BF2 TF2 featured a single player campaign in order to draw more people in and satisfy their target markets.

All other GTA titles prior to V are irrelevant in this equation. It's not at all just sustaining Rockstar. They've made over $500 million in microtransactions from online play and that number will likely exceed $1 billion before it's all said and done. And it's estimated that over half of their sales are due to the Online game. They have statistics on who plays what modes most often and it's not even remotely close, online wins. Hands down.

Ultimately, my point is that I think Rockstar's mentality has shifted and will continue to do so as long as people are supporting the online modes the way they are. This is uncharted territory for them and they're capitalizing on it. We all say, we can't blame them and we'd probably do the same. But either way it still sucks for people like us that want good single player experiences.

Again, look at what they did with GTA V. Let's not ignore the fact that they spent time, money and energy on the single player DLC. Rockstar even said (as I've stated) that they were going to release a "substantial amount," of single player DLC in 2014... it's 2017... nothing.

They have also said that they're using all of their resources and manpower to support GTA Online. That right there is evidence enough for me to say that they're not worried about people that want the single player experience. We are 1) the minority and 2) of those that do play the single player game only 10% even finish the mode (again, shown in some articles I've read).

Rockstar's owner (Take Two) is publicly traded, meaning they have stockholders who don't give two craps about, legacy, good stories in video games, etc. They care about money. And we keep saying that's understandable, and I guess it is. But is sucks for gamers. The same way that Diamond Dynasty sucks for people that want to play franchise on The Show.

Lastly, I don't mean to come across as argumentative here. And we'll likely have to agree to disagree and that's fine. But I just think by the mid 2020's we'll see very few great stories in single-player video games. And ultimately, I hope I'm wrong. But you have to at least see the possibility of what might happen here. And again, the test will be Rockstar's next game, past Red Dead Redemption 2. Will it have the same story as GTA V did? I'd put GTA V's story and characters near the top of my list in terms of great experiences and I've played video games since the mid-late 1980's.

I, like many on here, play video games to get immersed in another world. The last thing I really want to do is play with a bunch of screaming 12 year olds cursing constantly online. Its so obnoxious. And those are the players that could ultimately cause the demise of the games I hold so dear.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

Are those numbers REVENUE or PROFITS? There's a big difference. If its simply revenue then yes they are sustaining R* during development cycles.

Can you cite some of this stuff? Other than R* saying there would be single player DLC I haven't heard anything as far as development for it and subsequently canceling it.

[Gagnon39]

Re: Red Dead Redemption 2

The game cost $250 million to make. In 2015 the game had sold 52 million copies and turned in over $2 billion. I can't find the article I read but the most recent numbers that include the microtransactions revenue put the game at 80 million units sold and over $4 billion in revenue. Again, the game cost $250 million to make, so you do the math.

And again, most all of the players play the game (and bought it) for the online aspect, especially after 2013. Most players don't complete the single player campaign, and keep in mind that this community here at OS is almost always the minority.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gtav-story-dlc-coming-in-2014/1100-6416619/

http://fraghero.com/you-wont-believe-how-much-money-gta-online-has-made-in-microtransactions-alone/

http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/number-of-the-day/213801-gta-v-sold-52-million-copies