Will Properties Be An Option In SP?

[BretMaverick777]

In the epilogue, you probably noticed that several stick-built prefab houses have gone up, Beechers Hope style.  Since Online is set in 1898, and these prefabs don't appear until 1907, what does that mean, in terms of buying houses and properties, for both MP and SP? 

[LeonVegaSuarez]

I'm almost 100% sure that it won't be an option for SP.

[RolfStarGames]

And another 100% 

R* is ignoring us, single players...

[Guest Guest176525326]

SP is already dead, done and dusted, this ain’t 2008, it’s the year 2018. 

 

It’s 100% MP content from now on

[BretMaverick777]

29 minutes ago, O.Z said:

SP is already dead, done and dusted, this ain’t 2008, it’s the year 2018. 

 

It’s 100% MP content from now on

Not that I disagree at all, but I've got to wonder why they'd bother to put prefab houses like Shepherd's Rise in the 1907 Epilogue if they had no intention of offering them for sale.  I mean, who are these houses for?  If they're strictly MP, will we have to wait 9 in-game years for them to appear?   Just doesn't make sense.

[jje1000]

I think the houses were probably tossed in as an experiment, there's absolutely no need to own property given that John already owns Beecher's Hope, and Arthur could never imagine owning property given the nature of the campaign.

RDO might do yet another time jump like GTAO, IMO

were

[Gtaman_92]

Having one is pointless in SP since John already owns one with his family in Beechers Hope and Arthur is in no position to buy one Especially after Chapter 4.

[BretMaverick777]

1 hour ago, jje1000 said:

I think the houses were probably tossed in as an experiment, there's absolutely no need to own property given that John already owns Beecher's Hope, and Arthur could never imagine owning property given the nature of the campaign.

RDO might do yet another time jump like GTAO, IMO

were

I agree...John clearly wasn't a real estate tycoon in 1911.  But putting those houses in 1907, and then launching RDO in 1898 makes Online's timeline seem off the mark.

 

Maybe the intent is, as you say, a time jump....set the beta in 1898, pre-RDR2, but jump to 1907 at official launch, post-RDR2. 

[jje1000]

It could be that the first set of missions is set in 1898, and later missions occurring in 1907.

 

Wasn't there a prison-break achievement? Don't remember if it applies to the first escape from the wagon, but maybe your character gets sent back to Sisika and only released again later on, which could explain the time jump.

[Non Funkable Token]

20 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Maybe the intent is, as you say, a time jump....set the beta in 1898, pre-RDR2, but jump to 1907 at official launch, post-RDR2. 

 

They've done that in GTAO, unintendedly I think, but they did. And it didn't work bad, so I can see the same pattern in RDO. 

 

Set online before the SP campaign so the player tastes the world before the SP events, and has the possibility to meet characters who'll die during SP. Then make the years pass as they release more updates through the real life years. The map gets some minor visual updates too (bunkers-facilities in GTAO, houses-farms-oil fields-mines-etc in RDO). 

 

I think it's the better plan for a game that'll receive updates on regular basis.  

[RedDadRedemption]

Maybe we can choose a new house for jack marston and his possible family in the future if dlc comes out

[RolfStarGames]

More houses would be very helpful to acces your wardrobe (outfits), to rest  and shave your beard.

 

[oCrapaCreeper]

Properties don't make much sense in SP. There is never really any reason for the main character to buy anything other than a hotel room for the night. Gameplay wise, we can already save anywhere, it's not like in San Andreas where you always wanted properties so you can save your game quickly.

Edited December 16, 2018 by oCrapaCreeper

[Non Funkable Token]

As for properties in SP, don't fit the theme at all, and John will get his own. And I don't think they'll add more (free) important content to SP.

 

In online? Sure. We're already craving for a solid spawn point in sessions..... The camp system is a mess on purpose.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Fluffy Sock

[HellPriest]

They should have houses to buy for either character. Im planning on staying on chapter 4 and I hate how I rent a hotel room or sleep at the camp and then when I load Im just in town somewhere. It even says you can save progress in the hotel but clearly not. I should be loading where I saved. Its ashame Rockstar sold out their fans. 

[Nutduster]

2 hours ago, HellPriest said:

Its ashame Rockstar sold out their fans. 

 

What are you talking about...? Single player is massive and incredibly detailed. They make one choice you don't like regarding loading from a save, and that's selling out their fans? Get a grip. There are so many more important things actually worth complaining about - keep an eye on RDRO if you want to see them.
 

 

And as far as owning properties goes... the story of the game is about outlaws on the run, not setting yourself up with a nice, cozy house.  It's supposed to be a big deal when John finally does get a somewhat stable life at the end, and the specific house he gets is supposed to be both a lot of hard work for him to build and own, and a nice dose of nostalgia for anyone who knows that house from the first game.  You would rather they take a steaming dump on any kind of narrative logic so you can own a couple houses wherever you want? 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Nutduster

[HellPriest]

2 hours ago, Nutduster said:

 

What are you talking about...? Single player is massive and incredibly detailed. They make one choice you don't like regarding loading from a save, and that's selling out their fans? Get a grip. There are so many more important things actually worth complaining about - keep an eye on RDRO if you want to see them.
 

 

And as far as owning properties goes... the story of the game is about outlaws on the run, not setting yourself up with a nice, cozy house.  It's supposed to be a big deal when John finally does get a somewhat stable life at the end, and the specific house he gets is supposed to be both a lot of hard work for him to build and own, and a nice dose of nostalgia for anyone who knows that house from the first game.  You would rather they take a steaming dump on any kind of narrative logic so you can own a couple houses wherever you want? 

 

I mean that Rockstar sold out by taking single player games online. GTA V is a massive failure too me. The single player for GTA was never completed and all the things from online should also be in single player. GTAV single player is about 30% of the game. Basically still in beta. RDR2 has some problems but it is pretty fun, but if they just keep doing online only, then the game will be the same as GTA V, a incomplete game by a company who sold out to make money and advertise to a newer generation. 

[Nutduster]

32 minutes ago, HellPriest said:

 

I mean that Rockstar sold out by taking single player games online. GTA V is a massive failure too me. The single player for GTA was never completed and all the things from online should also be in single player. GTAV single player is about 30% of the game. Basically still in beta. RDR2 has some problems but it is pretty fun, but if they just keep doing online only, then the game will be the same as GTA V, a incomplete game by a company who sold out to make money and advertise to a newer generation. 

 

Look, I'm as mad about GTA Online as anybody, for multiple reasons (microtransactions, excessive grindplay to feed those microtransactions, lack of pure PvE content or at least friendly lobbies, etc.).  I can rant all day about it.  And I don't like that they promised and then abandoned DLC for GTA V, either. 

 

However, you are overstating the case here.  GTA V by itself is a pretty full GTA experience.  If it had shipped without GTA Online (and Online never existed), and even if they still never released DLC, I don't think people would be that unhappy about it.  All that stuff they added that was Online-only... yeah, it would have been nice to patch it into single player as well, but let's be honest, it only existed because of shark card revenue.  Without that money stream flowing in, 90% of the content they developed for Online never would have existed at all.  They sure as sh*t weren't making all of that stuff otherwise.  I agree that it's annoying they created this thing and that it took over all the DLC completely, but the game WAS finished, and doesn't need Franklin to have an Oppressor Mk II in order to feel complete.  It's better to think of all the Online content as an annoying reminder of how the company shifted their priorities - but don't let it detract from your opinion of GTA V, which is still a fine game IMO.

 

As far as RDR2 goes, I feel the same way only more so.  It's an absolutely massive single player - I've put more hours into it already than any previous Rockstar single player and am still just at 95% completion.  It's full of crazy minor details and features, and even the stuff that bothers some people feels like they made a conscious choice to do that (in most cases, anyway) rather than being forced because they had to start developing Online instead.  For me, if they never add a single scrap of content to RDR2, it won't diminish my opinion of it (which is glowing) one bit.  The game is great, a slightly-flawed masterpiece.  It doesn't need more of itself to be great; it's already great. No amount of content they make and put only into Online can change that for me. 

 

And for all the doomsaying about RDR2 before it came out - which I was part of, due to my aforementioned big problems with GTA Online - I'm just happy they put so much effort into a single player game again, when it would seem like they don't really have to.  They could have just released RDR Online and probably still sold millions of copies at full price, so I feel fortunate to have gotten this terrific single player game despite that fact.  I'll only really cry foul if they stop making these games entirely.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Nutduster

[Algonquin Assassin]

I have to agree with others it really wouldn't fit. Actually to be honest it felt weird in Red Dead Redemption that John could buy random property when he had his own ranch. Arthur strikes me as the type of person to live on the road so to speak. That's just me though.

[UncleTacitus]

Dan Houser (or someone else at R*) said in an interview that they cut about 5 hrs of SP story pretty close to the release. Now while I agree that we likely won't see a DLC for the story mode, I'm still holding on to hope that they'll work their way to put this deleted part out in some form. And if you'll allow me to take this fantasy just a bit further, maybe they'll give us a few properties to go for, too.

 

Yeah, I know, I know. Not gonna happen. But I'll keep waiting for it, just like I kept waiting on that GTA V SP DLC...

[SM00V 0PERAT0R]

Honestly, I know it wouldn't tie in very well, but I was really hoping to have to option of choosing what to build. At least a shack for Uncle, or a separate washroom because the one inside the house is useless.

[Cutter De Blanc]

Oddly enough this doesn't bother me. Arthur carries his home around on his saddle.

[FreeMaxB585]

On 12/15/2018 at 1:31 PM, RolfStarGames said:

And another 100% 

R* is ignoring us, single players...

 

lol seriously? not at all. they put their soul into one of the best SP games ever. a game someone can easily get 150 hours out of if not more. They busted their ass making a near perfect game

 

Its only right to put their full attention to the online aspect now. Finish the beta and make it the best it can be. Not much more can really be done to the SP. best to just let it stay as is

On 12/20/2018 at 1:35 PM, HellPriest said:

 

I mean that Rockstar sold out by taking single player games online. GTA V is a massive failure too me. The single player for GTA was never completed and all the things from online should also be in single player. GTAV single player is about 30% of the game. Basically still in beta. RDR2 has some problems but it is pretty fun, but if they just keep doing online only, then the game will be the same as GTA V, a incomplete game by a company who sold out to make money and advertise to a newer generation. 

 

wtf none of this makes sense. the SP still offers so many hours of gang play. The online is just extra gravy more things to do with friends. Would you rather have a game like god of war 4 where you play the single player (that game is only like 30 hours) but then never touch the game again? Majority of other games people play the SP beat it and dont really play it ever again. The online isnt selling out at all. its them offering even more things to do, more ways to share the amazing game with friends whether its missions, death matches, or the story missions together. Not selling out at all.

 

It would be one thing if the SP was only like 20-30 hours long and then they made the online out. Buts its long as hell with tons of things to do. So I guess you think they should just have no online at all? LOL...so opposite of selling out

 

Companies want to keep people playing their games. Single player only games people will beat and rarely touch again. Most people dont care about going back to collect things. Like the most recent wolfenstein, people played for the 12-14 hours never touched it again. God of War 4 people played the 25 or so hours never touched it again. Doing what they did is the best way to keep people playing by offering them tons of things to do online

 

You saying that the rdr2 SP is a little incomplete is hilarious to me but also puzzling. Not sure how much more you could want? There is even about 4 diff endings can get, but in general can go back and choose the diff options than the first time around, do all the side story missions etc. 99.9% of other games that are SP are only about half the content that this games story has, It has about 5x more than every other good SP game thats been released in many years, not all that much more that could be added. Even if choose to only play once and not go back and make diff choices you will easily get about 65 hours out of it and thats if do story missions only

Edited December 25, 2018 by FreeMaxB585

[Haha365]

While typically I'm all for this,  I'm not it makes much sense in the context of the story. If the epilogue was different,  or DLC provides opportunity,  I could see this being a thing.  The way it stands now,  I'm not sure it fits the concept of the story.