Red Dead Redemption 2

jayo26

Beefy78 wrote: »

Online is definitely the way Rockstar is going. GTA Online is a technological wonder and Rockstar are pouring so much into it in terms of updates. They make a fortune from those who want to pay and yet I'm sure that most of us have never paid a penny since the purchase of the game.

It was the natural evolution of the online versions they brought in in GTA IV and then almost perfected in RDR. RDR's online was fantastic and the Wild West setting fitted the open lobby in a way that GTA doesn't.

That said they know that single player is their bread and butter. I trust Rockstar not to turn their games into Call of Duty or the like. There's a huge market still for the single player games and if any developer can keep both sides happy I trust Rockstar to do it.

Beefy78 wrote: »

Online is definitely the way Rockstar is going. GTA Online is a technological wonder and Rockstar are pouring so much into it in terms of updates. They make a fortune from those who want to pay and yet I'm sure that most of us have never paid a penny since the purchase of the game.

It was the natural evolution of the online versions they brought in in GTA IV and then almost perfected in RDR. RDR's online was fantastic and the Wild West setting fitted the open lobby in a way that GTA doesn't.

That said they know that single player is their bread and butter. I trust Rockstar not to turn their games into Call of Duty or the like. There's a huge market still for the single player games and if any developer can keep both sides happy I trust Rockstar to do it.

You should of numbered your posts I'm not sure which one was a prequel or a sequel.

Zero-Cool

Can...not....wait for this. RDR Online has huge potential. GTA Online became too much of a grief fest with jets, tanks etc that hopefully can't exist in RDR. I really enjoyed the Redemption multiplayer especially in the posse mode which I'm sure now will make great use of the R* Crew system.

I see people already freaking out on other forums about the lack of female lead characters...

Trailer on Thursday should be epic.

Venom

Pre order page up

https://www.rockstarwarehouse.com/store/tk2rstar/en_IE/pd/productID.5078231900

PC not listed.

J Mysterio

Lukker-

super_furry wrote: »

This from SuperDataResearch.com's twitter account might give an insight as to why PC isn't important for Rockstar. GTA Online has taken on a life of it's own on console and they'll be looking for more of the same with RDR2.

Isn't that slightly augmented by the fact that they are graphing 4 systems against 1?

It doesn't surprise me that there are less micro-transactions on PC, but that is surely offset from the fact 75% of sales for PC were digital, resulting in much bigger chunk going to the devs/publishers. Steam only take 30% from a game sold on it's market, when you compare that to a sale of a console game ina bricks in mortar shop the eventual cut for the studio can be as low as 1.5%.

On top of that digitally Rockstar have their own download service which enables them to retain 100% of sales.

gizmo

Lukker- wrote: »

Isn't that slightly augmented by the fact that they are graphing 4 systems against 1?

It doesn't surprise me that there are less micro-transactions on PC, but that is surely offset from the fact 75% of sales for PC were digital, resulting in much bigger chunk going to the devs/publishers. Steam only take 30% from a game sold on it's market, when you compare that to a sale of a console game ina bricks in mortar shop the eventual cut for the studio can be as low as 1.5%.

On top of that digitally Rockstar have their own download service which enables them to retain 100% of sales.

Yet by the time the PC version of the game sold an estimated 2m copies, console sales sat at approximately 45m. Steamspy now figures the number of PC owners to be at the 5m mark but total copies sold for the game now sits at over 65m. While digital PC sales will indeed allow for larger profit margins over brick and mortar stores, nevermind on console where the platform holders have to get their 20% too, the raw sales are still incomparable.

As for that 1.5% figure, external studios will rarely get a cut of the profits from games sold from launch. If any kind of deal was to be done based on sales, it'd be more likely that they would receive royalty payments once a game has hit a certain sales figure. Publishers, on the other hand, will get their cut from the get go and that will be far higher than 1.5%.

I'd be interested to see how many sales were made through Rockstar Warehouse alright but I'd wager it's a drop in the ocean compared to sales on Steam or other digital outlets.

Lukker-

gizmo wrote: »

Yet by the time the PC version of the game sold an estimated 2m copies, console sales sat at approximately 45m. Steamspy now figures the number of PC owners to be at the 5m mark but total copies sold for the game now sits at over 65m. While digital PC sales will indeed allow for larger profit margins over brick and mortar stores, nevermind on console where the platform holders have to get their 20% too, the raw sales are still incomparable.

As for that 1.5% figure, external studios will rarely get a cut of the profits from games sold from launch. If any kind of deal was to be done based on sales, it'd be more likely that they would receive royalty payments once a game has hit a certain sales figure. Publishers, on the other hand, will get their cut from the get go and that will be far higher than 1.5%.

I'd be interested to see how many sales were made through Rockstar Warehouse alright but I'd wager it's a drop in the ocean compared to sales on Steam or other digital outlets.

5.5M on Steam. I'd wager they probably shipped close to the same number from their own in house downloader considering it was much cheaper there than steam at launch.

Again you are diluting the figures against 4 other systems instead of the 1. It'd be much more comparable to compare PC sales to XB1 etc

Jordan 199

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, RDR had Fast Travel, so I can't see them going for switching characters as a way to traverse the map.

I'd have no objection to character switching, gameplay-wise I thought it worked well in GTAV (though it became somewhat of a cheat to switch to another character when you're low on health). But I'd rather RDR2 be more about one person's story than GTAV was.

I feel the same way too.

wotzgoingon

I liked the way there was 3 main characters in GTA V and I would have no problem with it in RDR2, but I doubt there will be 7 main characters.

HairySalmon

I'd hate for there to be more than one playable character. That worked fine for GTA but red dead is another beast and it's what made RDR so intimate in the first place

Riesen_Meal

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I liked the way there was 3 main characters in GTA V and I would have no problem with it in RDR2, but I doubt there will be 7 main characters.

I'd say technology was all that held them back with more characters in the GTA story - hopefully with the new consoles they could do something similar to that, or similar to BF1 story where it shows different soldiers, 7 does sound like a handful for cohesion but if anyone can do it, Rockstar can....

Lukker-

Fieldog wrote: »

I'd say technology was all that held them back with more characters in the GTA story - hopefully with the new consoles they could do something similar to that, or similar to BF1 story where it shows different soldiers, 7 does sound like a handful for cohesion but if anyone can do it, Rockstar can....

Technology didn't hold them back adding more characters. 3 was about as much as they would want for the sake of cohesion without it negatively affecting the narrative. (Having 3 main characters definitely negatively affected the narrative for me, none of them were developed, which may have been the point but it felt empty).

BF1 is different because it is less narrative based anyways because it's a first person shooter and it makes sense since the war was being waged over 4 continents. You need mutliple main characters to tell a cohesive outline of WW1.

I hope RDR2 has 1 or at most 2 playable characters, for the sake of the story.

Jerichoholic

I hope Red Dead 2 has one character, John Marston.

Although the way things are going, it will almost certainly be a black, gender neutral feminist.

Zero-Cool

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Although the way things are going, it will almost certainly be a black, gender neutral feminist.

I could get on board with that..

James74

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I hope Red Dead 2 has one character, John Marston.

Although the way things are going, it will almost certainly be a black, gender neutral feminist.

Cool, that would be a great, original concept in a wild west setting. Hope they make that game.

Riesen_Meal

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I hope Red Dead 2 has one character, John Marston.

Although the way things are going, it will almost certainly be a black, gender neutral feminist.

They should try get Paul Feig to direct the game, I'm sure the work has dried up for him since his Ghostbusters film during the summer... :P

Conas

Words can't describe the joy the first Red Dead Redemption gave me. I got it as a Christmas present in 2010, and spent countless hours playing it on Xbox Live.

It was a truly spectacular game.

ZeitgeistGlee

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Although the way things are going, it will almost certainly be a black, gender neutral feminist.

I know they make huge money of GTA Online and people love to play it and whatever...

But I really hope it doesn't mean some cut down single player. I couldn't give a **** about online really.

Icyseanfitz

and no pc version announced........

ffs, i love rockstar but their lack of love for pc is so damn annoying

Beefy78

Luis Wrong Visitor wrote: »

I know they make huge money of GTA Online and people love to play it and whatever...

But I really hope it doesn't mean some cut down single player. I couldn't give a **** about online really.

I'd suggest waiting to hear that that is their plans (which I'm sure it isn't) before getting stressed about it.

GTA Online does make them a lot of money and is phenomenally popular across all formats still today years after release. But their single player games are also extremely popular and make them huge money. GTA 5 was the biggest selling entertainment product in history before the Online servers were ever turned on.

It isn't like they break even on SP and therefore don't need to care about it. It is their bread and butter.

If it is online only or with an abbreviated SP campaign that would annoy me too. But I can't see it.

Flint Fredstone

Luis Wrong Visitor wrote: »

I know they make huge money of GTA Online and people love to play it and whatever...

But I really hope it doesn't mean some cut down single player. I couldn't give a **** about online really.

The single player on GTA V was excellent. The online was almost a completely separate game. It didn't even come out until a month after its release

kunst nugget

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I hope Red Dead 2 has one character, John Marston.

Although the way things are going, it will almost certainly be a black, gender neutral feminist.

The eyes rolled back in my head so much they ended up back in their normal place. It might look like I didn't react but I did… and now I'm gone blind.

gafak 'daldjfasg ljadfsa kjds wewad'k - that's me trying to express my exasperation now that I'm blind. That's your fault.

citytillidie

infacteh wrote: »

They just followed up with this.....

https://twitter.com/RockstarGames/status/788001608827281408

that reminds me of

Venom

Beefy78 wrote: »

I'd suggest waiting to hear that that is their plans (which I'm sure it isn't) before getting stressed about it.

GTA Online does make them a lot of money and is phenomenally popular across all formats still today years after release. But their single player games are also extremely popular and make them huge money. GTA 5 was the biggest selling entertainment product in history before the Online servers were ever turned on.

It isn't like they break even on SP and therefore don't need to care about it. It is their bread and butter.

If it is online only or with an abbreviated SP campaign that would annoy me too. But I can't see it.

This online part of RDR2 is going to be interesting as the setting will limit what they can add to the core game to keep it going. Where GTA can add new outfits, guns, cars, bikes, planes, tanks and a gazillion other modern inventions won't RDR online be kinda limited to outfits, guns and horses due to being set in the wild west?

EagererBeaver

Venom wrote: »

This online part of RDR2 is going to be interesting as the setting will limit what they can add to the core game to keep it going. Where GTA can add new outfits, guns, cars, bikes, planes, tanks and a gazillion other modern inventions won't RDR online be kinda limited to outfits, guns and horses due to being set in the wild west?

I think (hope) they might focus more on co-operative content related to the primary game than gimmick new things like a shiny gun holster. I'd love if Rockstar came out with updated Heists every few option in GTA.

Beefy78

True, I think it will 'limit' the free roam part (although I loved free roam in RDR's online). They'll need to focus on levels and missions. Again, that's another area that I think the last game's online really excelled at. The whole setting really suited things like death-matches because they felt in keeping with the surroundings in a way that a shoot-out at an airport or busy street in GTA doesn't.

Saipanne

I thought the online element of the last rdr was class. A more expanded version of that will do me.

14murphy

I jut bought RDR through the playstation app on my phone for a tenner. It told me to activate it on my PlayStation 3 ? Will I be able to use this on my Playstation 4 ?

maximoose

No, Red Dead Redemption is PS3 only